Talk:Indian Americans

Rewrite required

The Economics section needs a rewrite. The wording in the following paragraph is off and the highlighted sentence is either superfluous or incomplete.

Indian Americans own 50% of all economy lodges and 35% of all hotels in the United States, which have a combined market value of almost $40 billion. (Source: Little India Magazine). A University of California, Berkeley, study reported that one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley are of Indian descent, while 7% of valley high-tech firms are led by Indian CEOs. (Source: Silicon India Readership Survey) According to Technology Review 35, the technical journal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2002, there were over 223,000 Asian Indian-owned firms in the U.S., employing more than 610,000 workers, and generating more than $88 billion in revenue.[7]

States & Cities

The lists of states and cities where Indians reside keeps on changing and is becoming more meaningless. States such as North Carolina, Georgia, etc are coming up on the lists even though the last census statistics show that these states do not have significant amount of Indian Americans. Similarly cities like Charlotte are appearing on this list. Lets uniformly decide to only have a certain number of states or cities on these lists based on the highest population (indian embassy statistics) to about 5-7.

Millionaires

The article says: Merrill Lynch recently revealed that there are nearly 200,000 Indian American millionaires. One in every nine Indians in the United States is a millionaire It also says there are 2,319,000 Indian Americans. That doesn't equate 1 in 9. I realize the study was in 2003. Is there a more recent study? Akubhai 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Picture Politics

Theres been some disagreement on whose pics to show for the politics section. Religion seems to be the dividing line. Religion shouldn't come into play as no one religion defines the Indian American identity. The highest ranking indian right now in politics is Bobby Jindal. Due to him being a christian, especially one who has voluntarily become a christian, not being born as such, there has been opposition and attempts to remove his picture (very childish). On the other hand there is support for a pretty much unknown politician's picture Upendra Chivukula(an Assemblyman from New Jersey?) to be put up for the only thing I can see is that somehow is more identifiably Hindu. Anyway someone removed his pic, which is also very childish, but I have another solution. Why don't we just put up the pics of the highest ranking, most identifiable indian politicians, one of which is Bobby Jindal. I've also added a pic of Kumar P. Barve (a Hindu) who is the Head Legislator of the Maryland House which I feel is the next highest. Plus I think he has the distinction being the first state legislator of Indian origin. I've put the pics on a equal level on the left and right so no one thinks ones being favored. When religion is relevant it should be discussed or cited, but in this case its ridiculous.--Kathanar 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No picture is better.--D-Boy 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whichever picture is used in the end it is a fairly minor issue. I would prefer one and don't really care as long as they are Indian American and notable. If there is a politician that stands out more than the rest, I suggest adding a photo that person. Religion should have nothing to do with who's chosen. After all, the article is called Indian American, not Hindu American or Indian Christian American. I hope that when each section has a pic, it would reflect the wide range of religions present in India. It is a shame that there aren't as many images floating around for notable people in areas other than politics. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a muslim indian in the poltics sections but someone removed it.--D-Boy 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Dalip Singh Saund, Nikki Haley or Zach Zacharias?Bakaman 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with it.--D-Boy 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalip seems to be the most notable because he was the first Indian to be elected onto the U.S. Congress. Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, I have no problem with that. It was childish to remove Jindal's pic, a more than legitimate pic for that section, and replace it with some minor almost unknown politician Upendra Chivukula who is only a Assemblyman for his state. It was obvious from some of the statements made, it was Jindal's religion that seemed to cause these actions. I am re-adding Jindal's pic, but will leave Kumar Barve's pic to be fair, until someone can replace both with a decent pic of Dalip Saund. Until the replacement do not remove Jindal's pic, you can remove Barve's if you really only want one pic. Thanks--Kathanar 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but where do you go off stating it was religion that had to do with the removal of bobby's picture. I didn't state that. you did. Dalip is the most notable since he's the first. Dalip shall be the only be pic there. From there, we should have a concensus on which should be there.--D-Boy 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of lists - listing of famous personalities, media, etc.

I would like to suggest that we move lists of famous personalities (in different fields) to some place like List of famous Indian Americans. Also lists in the "Media" section would soon grow large, and it seems like moving that to a different page and linking it from the media portrayal sub-section (in current social issues) would be more relevant. What say? ImmortallyTranquil 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

go for it.--D-Boy 07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I moved some of the lists (politicians, media references, and sports personalities) over to other pages and linked them here. Hope it helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImmortallyTranquil (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

shouldn't there be something about the scripps howard national spelling bee, considering a large group of the contestants, winners, and finalists are indians? just a suggestion.

Discrepancy with population figures in South Asian American

There is an issue I would like to raise in regard to the population figures. In this article, it says there are some ~2.4 million "Indian Americans". However, the South Asian American article says there are some ~1.9 million South Asian Americans. This does not make sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the term "South Asian American" include ALL Indian Americans? If so, then one of the two population figures would have to be wrong, no? Thanks for the help! JeffreyN 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Median Household Income for 2004

Why are there two figures for median household income in 2004? Can someone please resolve this? 89.243.78.232 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is the picture of Kalpana Chawla really necessary? I don't think this article really needs a picture, at least not of a person. Insertclevernamehere 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

me too.--D-Boy 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no pics would be best, especially if there are always disagreements about them--Kathanar 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a picture could be helpful. What if someone didn't know what an Indian American looked like (I doubt that would be the case, but isn't that the point of an encyclopedia)? Akubhai 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hotels

Here is an article from USA Today if anyone thinks the article needs any more hotel stuff in it. [1]Akubhai 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination

The article says: "On April 5, 2006, the Hindu Mandir of Minnesota was vandalised on the basis of religious discrimination"

But the sources cited with it say:

"Maple Grove police said there were no suspects and the vandalism, which occurred last Wednesday and caused several thousand dollars' damage, does not appear to be a hate crime."

and

"Police Capt. Tracy Stille said the vandalism was not classified as a hate crime because police and temple officials agreed it appeared to be random."

Is there any proof it was vandalized based on "religious discrimination"? I've added a fact tag but if there is no proof, it needs to be removed from the article. Akubhai 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No merging

The merge proposal disturbs the convenience of browsing the articles in an encyclopaedic form. The content in the NRI-PIO site is brief and doesn't warrant a merger. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics

There is a section saying Indians tend to be more liberal that had a fact tag since April. I'm going to remove the lines from the page assuming there is no source for it. Someone recently added a line about "exit polls" with no source. How can you have an "exit" poll before an election? Akubhai 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Link

I noticed a link was removed by User:Satori Son. Please specify why this link did not meet WP:EL. I could be wrong and not have read it right but haven't seen anything that would prevent the link. Thank you--Kathanar 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this. I did remove a link to the mapsofworld.com website for several reasons. First of all, it was provided as an inline citation for a fact that already had two other references of better quality, so it was redundant and unnecessary.

As far as the WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided guideline, the link did not meet the following criteria for inclusion:

• No. 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
• No. 5: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

Also, this link has been added as part of a concerted linkspam campaign; see the reports at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Indian spam and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/59.144.165.88. Thus, is also violates WP:EL criteria No. 5, "Links mainly intended to promote a website", as well as the provisions of WP:Conflict of interest and WP:LINKSPAM.

I hope this addresses your concerns. -- Satori Son 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sartori, that clears it up for me, I appreciate you responding. Have a good day--Kathanar 15:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Cite-needed tags

As a suggestion: For uniformity, when placing citations, can people please use ref-tags like instead of [2] -- also, place citations and ((cite-needed)) after punctuations like this.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Thanks; alternate suggestions for consistency are welcomed. -- Thoreaulylazy 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well not all Indian Americans are Elite White Collar Workers.

As inspired by reading a talk dicussion from The Thai American Page, that to say as from expiernce and Smart logical thinking, that not all Indian Americans are like what the tile says so, As I had known a subtitue Teacher's aide Who's from India, and as I felt in the first place after I read in the economics section that the Indian Americans I had look around in my life are not wealthy upper class like people. So as as a result I think things had to be cleared out a bit so to be more accurate in a sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.237.146 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian American VS. American Indian

"American Indian has fallen out of favor and Native American is more commonly used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of North America". Since When? Most American Indians still call themself Indian. It is mostly just media that says "Native American". Many of us, when we want to differentiate refer to people from India as East Indian, and we will call ourselves American Indian. Thanks Iamanadam (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanjaya?!?!?!

I mean i'm not a hater, but is he really a notable indian-american?

I mean i don't see William Hung at the top of the Chinese American wiki

His picture/name could be replaced by many other potentials such as M. Night Shyamalan or Kal Penn or Sanjay Gupta etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.35.27 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, defnitely. There are more noticable Indian Americans and Sanjaya's mother is not Indian. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but there are many famous Indian American's who have parents that are both Indian. If you're going to put Sanjaya's picture, you might as well add Norah Jones too. 76.119.25.226 (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I listed the three major Indian languages amongst Indian-Americans as per the 2000 census. Various people keeping adding other major languages that are not listed amongst the most populous languages in America. I understand they are major Indian languages, but the census does not show them as major IA languages Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)''Italic text

The reference in question See page 4 does not say that Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati are the three most common languages spoken by Indian Americans in the US. It merely lists the 20 most frequently spoken native languages, listing (among languages spoken in India), Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati in that order. In fact, a large number of the Urdu native speakers are likely to identify themselves as Pakistani American.

I do agree that it is inappropriate to add in other languages until references can be found.

Arun (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Language information in the census is voluntary, so the communities most organized or politically aware have mobilized as such to record their languages, others just record English and other, its strange to assume that South Indian languages or Punjabi are not significant in Indian American Diaspora when in certain regions they form majority of Indian-Americans. There are no absolute numbers being cited here so citing the census is meaningless and omitting other languages doesnot make sense. If there are Tamil, Telugu and Punjabi associations in almost every state won't they speak the language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.76.44 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the info box with language information from the American Community Survey 2006, Indian immigrants in the US, which lists percentages of languages spoken by the Indian immigrants in America (as opposed to just languages listed on the census form, tabulated amongst Indian, and other South Asian communities in total), which lists Urdu as the 8th most popular language spoken by Indian immigrants in America (who make up 75% of the Indian American population).

Arun (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ChandraNobel.png

The image Image:ChandraNobel.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Malayalam is spoken by about 20 percent of the Indian American population which is a significant amount. This must be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.86 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thinkinkg of adding....

I am thinking of adding to this page some of the stereotypes that Asian Indian people face in America. Though it may seem trivial to some, I think that this is a significant part of anyone who fits this racial category (such as myself) live's. What do you guys think> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidmsuri (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern day people of India

I replaced the incorrect statement that the US Census classifies any of the inhabitants of "modern-day" India as racially Asian. The US Census repeats the phrase "origins in any of the original peoples" to indicate indigenous status. The US Census ancestry code listing says that write-ins of "Aryan" or "Parsi" gets you classified as part of the white race, because they originate from Iran. They are not included as the original people of the Indian Subcontinent even though many people in India are of Aryan descent and some are Parsi.----^DarkTea© 01:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)