Talk:British Asians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lakshmi Mittal[edit]

Lakshmi Mittal is in the main picture on this page and on the page for British Indian, surely hes one or the other? And if not, shouldn't there be some changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.238.247 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Muslim Asian to differentiate from british hindu/sikh asian[edit]

i dont think any muslim wants to be included in the same group as hindus/sikhs. i suggest we have british muslim asian to differentiate from british hindu/sikh asian. since hindus and sikhs are the same religion and belong in the same group, they can have their page. muslims can have their page as well.


Reply to the above:

1. I don't think any Sikh or Hindu would want to be included in the same group as a Muslim

2. Sikh and Hindu are not "the same religion"

3. The word Asian should be scrapped

4. British Sikh, British Hindu, British Muslim , British Chinese etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.167.22 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]




I echo the above comments, as i see the term asian as highly derogatory term to define the people of india. Term asian has no value what so ever & therefore should be scrapped immediately from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.60.109 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Indian/Sikh/Hindu instead of British Asian?[edit]

By far the most recognisable names on the list had roots from India as opposed to Bangladesh or Pakistan. Plus the current higher academic aswell as many other hugely successful areas Indians are succeeding in compared to their south asian counterparts makes this right to divide the category into British Indian, this would show recognition for their outstanding hard work. In the State Indians already are classed as Indian Americans why not the same in Britain? Also the fact of toleration too is very important, the riots of 2001 in Bradford and other Northern cities were carried out by muslim/pakistanis and not Indian/sikhs/Hindus. Apart from NF demonstrations in the 70's no predominantly Indian/Sikh/Hindu city or area has undergone rioting or social unrest take for example Southall and Leicester.

Did if ever occur to you that the people responsible for this page had NO intention ever to mention any Pakistani or Bangladeshi? There are plenty of successful people in each community, the fact you people ignore them proves your insecurity and ignorance. There are over 1.05 million people of Indian origin in the United Kingdom (hard to believe, more like 2 million now), compared to only 800,000 Pakistanis and 200,000 Bangladeshis. What success are you talking about? PROFESSIONALS from india have to LEAVE india to find work! Most indians coming to the UK or any other nation for that matter are always professionals. Why are you so proud of the fact YOUR professionals are leaving india and coming abroad to serve another nation? Wheras the majority of all Pakistanis and Bangladeshis abroad are mainly economic migrants, with some or little education. Almost 30 million indians have abandoned india, and your proud of that? By all means change the name to British Indian/Sikh/Hindu, I've already started a article on British Pakistanis. BK2006 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


your indian parliament has admitted that it was all an internet HOAX!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/India-rising-in-US-Govt-falls-victim-to-net-hoax/articleshow/2856295.cms

Problems[edit]

why is the picture representing british asians of a guy smoking?


I have to say that I have a number of problems with this article: Firstly, I have always objected to the use of the word "Asian" in such a narrow sense, just as Americans and Australians, use it to refer to Orientals, but not Indians etc. This complete nonsense involves form filling where you get the option of "Asian" OR "Chinese". This is completely inaccurate and ungeographical.

Secondly, I am not completely convinced about the "unity" of "British Asians" (sic) for a couple of reasons: a) Scottish Asians (I don't know about Wales) identify as Scottish rather than "British" or more so, and b) there are clear dividing lines between Muslim-Hindu(-Sikh), which sometimes turn very nasty. Pakistani and Indians, and their descendants in the UK, often have certain religious and historical disagreements with each other, which are still evident. Since partition, India and Pakistan have had a series of military encounters, and both have nuclear capabilities. This has resonance in the UK.

Thirdly, again "South Asian" is better than just "Asian", but at the same time, technically speaking, Malaysians/Indonesians/Iranians... and some Arabs fall under "South Asian" too.

The problem you have then, is not just with this article, but British English in general - it's a matter of course that the word "Asian" is nearly always used to refer to Britons who originate from the Indian subcontinent, not Asia in general, and this is reflected culturally and institutionally (e.g. census forms, the BBC Asian Network, etc.). As a Briton of Chinese descent, I would probably cause a deal of puzzlement if I started referring to myself as "Asian", even though that would be geographically accurate, the word has altered meaning in the popular mind.
The article rightly could do with expansion on the differences between British Asians, both between different parts of the UK, and between different ethnic groups and religions - there is no such thing as a homogeneous British Asian community; nevertheless the term is in popular use, both as an umbrella term and as an identity, far more so than the more accurate "South Asian". Qwghlm 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"The first British Asian to gain wide popularity in the UK was the late Freddie Mercury, who led the rock band Queen." - what about Cliff Richard? Guettarda 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Cliff Richard was not a full South Asian. He was a British colonial in India with some Indian origins as well as British origins. The term British Asian refers to people who are of full South Asian descent and Freddie Mercury was of full Parsi descent (Parsis are South Asian Zoroastrians of Persian origins, South Asian Persians, like Afghan Persians, Tajik Persians Iranian Persians..) -User: Afghan Historian

As I understand it Cliff Richard has denied having any Indian ancestry and his Grandparents were all born in England into English families, as such he is not only not British Asian but technically does not count as Anglo-Indian either. Certainly the term British Asian or even Scottish Asian, English Asian, Welsh Asian etc.... are rejected by many and the term Desi which is non-geographical is more commonly used for people from ethnic groups from the Indian Sub-continent, presenter Nikki Bedi who had an Indian Parsis father and an English mother actually describes herself as being Indo-Anglian, ultimately though there has never been a situation in history for any group in which everyone accepts a particular term and indeed many people are from multiple groups--Lord of the Isles 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i tihnk famous iranians should be givin a mention. omid djalili is great and tracy emin is half iranian...

British Asian as a term though was used to describe those in the UK who were of ancestry from the Indian Sub-continent, as a term it actually doesn't make much sense but that is the historical usuage of it like it or not, in fact Tracey Emin actually is of Turkish Cypriot ancestry and English ancestry as I understand it, I've never come across any mention of Iranian ancestry.--Lord of the Isles 12:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another note regarding South Asian, I think South Asian is a better term and in fact this is the term used by the United Nations to define the area from the North West Frontier (The Khyber Pass marking an edge) across to East Bengal and north to the Chinese Border; Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, The Caucases, Arabia and the Levant to the Suez Canal are classified as South West Asia; Korea, Thailand, Singapore, China etc... are classified as South East Asia; Tadjikistan, Kazakstan, Khrygikistan, Uzbeckistan, Mongolia and southern parts of Asian Russia get classified as Central Asia and the rest of Russian Asia would be what would be Northern Asia notably Siberia of course.--Lord of the Isles 12:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Problems[edit]

In the History of South Asians in Great Britain section it says workers from Punjab region migrated to the UK. Partly true but not all Punjabis were workers previously. My Grandad was not a worker in Punjab & the demographics were different for each individual.

On the religion divide, it makes me laugh as an asian. We live in a white country that tolerates our beliefs/ cultures but we cannot tolerate each others? No wonder we are immigrants!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.224.80 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not the definition of "immigrant" - but I understand where you are coming from in. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

It would be nice to have sources for sweeping statements such as: British Pakistanis originate largely from one region, Azad Kashmir (roughly two thirds). Another 20%, approximately, have links with the Punjab region. zzuuzz (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subheading - Influence, please provide a relevant source for the claim about representation of British Asians in the media, if there's a breakdown covering types of media/programming, that would be even better. --WillJ (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Azad Kashmir is Objectionable[edit]

The use of word Azad Kashmir is objectionable for an Indian. Azad in Hindi and Urdu means free, which the Pakistan Administered Kashmir is no more than Indian Kashmir. So the phrase must be deleted.

Nope. The phrase 'Azad Kashmir' is politically correct since the region under the control of Pakistan is legally referred to as 'Azad Kashmir', its not for wikipedia to take a poltical stance on such issues, Azad Kashmir might be Pakistan occupied Kashmir to Indians, and Indian held Kashmir might be Indian occupied Kashmiri to Kashmiris and Pakistanis.

It stays.

"Legally referred" to by whom, the Pakistanis? That hardly makes your case for calling it "Azad Kashmir". No other country other than Pakistan refers to Pakistani-controlled Kashmir in that way.

Another thing that annoys me is that Kashmir belongs to niether Pakistan or India. I am not Kashmiri but they should pick there own future. So since sub continent has many races, it means that every region has its own right to pick its own future.


--- im of kashmiri background, mirpur to be exact, and we identify our selfs as british-pakistani, full stop. kashmir alot more azad alot then the indian adminstrated kashmir, that is under constant military strong hold. i can say that there is not one MP (mirpuri) that i have seen that does deny this fact. the indians should stop try claiming us as a part of india, because were not. god bless PAKISTANI KASHMIR! and the save return of our lost J&Kashmir. Indians try so had to spread the propanganda to cause divisions between our nation, but they shall not succeed, as we have been united since birth, PAKISTAN= Punjabi, Afgania, Kashmir, and Bolochistan!


the indians dont even care about the kashmir they have, with a 70-80% muslim population it should be apart of pakistan also, according the agreements made pre1947. hindu gorrillas kill muslims, discriminate them on a regular basis. 5000 muslims were killed in 5 weeks in the gujarat riots, and they want kashmir, laughable. and the rich indian muslims are a disgrace (5%), as they have done nothing for the 95% of the working class, and poor india, discrination still continues in indian, eventhough they all themselfs 'secular', which is so much nonsense.


and the day an pakistani azad kashmiri identifies himself as an indian, that pakistan is destroyed. that shall not happen, as my ancestors have given there lives for us to be apart of pakistan, the punjabis, kashimirs, pathans, afrgania, and bolachitani, will still die for one another, eventhough we have a few tensions these days. to all the indian haters, PAKISTAN ZINDABAD 86.132.108.14 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright lads and ladies. Calm down, have a cup of tea and a spliff and exercise those smile muscles. I'm a British-Bangladeshi-atheist and couldn't give a rat's wotsits as to who 'owns' Kashmir, so long as the Kashmiris can lead some sort of decent, civilised existence. And all you Indians and Pakistanis are welcome to come round my place any day for hot chocolate and jaffa cakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.53.161 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AZAD kashmir is the correct term please low esteemed indians stop vandalising or ill vandalise indian articles. PAKISTAN AND AZAD KASHMIR ZINDABAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.238.214 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion proposal[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#British_.22ethnic.22_categories_again

I disagree strongly with this effort that's being made to wipe out a valid category. If you have opinions on the matter, please make your voice heard. --Peripatetic 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't it be Asian British instead of British Asian?[edit]

As the adjective is normally the ethnicity/origin and the substantive the nationality. Like: Asian American and African American culture. Sijo Ripa 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the term has been used though, the term desi is probably a far better term but British Asian is one that has come into common usuage, people talk about English Romani or Scottish Romani or Welsh Romani not Romani English, Romani Welsh or Romani Scottish; although the term Black British does get used to refer as an umbrella term to people of African ancestry in Britain - there are slight differences between American English and Oxford English (which is what is described as being Standard English).--Lord of the Isles 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a similar question about this at Talk:British Chinese, where I have argued in favour of keeping the current name on the grounds that it is the most common usage, and it's the term the group would use themselves. However British Asian is not as clear-cut. The term Desi would be inappropriate as not only is it not commonly used, but it can be offensive (and incorrect) if used by non-Asians. I would suggest that British Asian is traditionally a more common term than Asian British, however the UK census (hence most of the ethnic statistics industry) uses Asian British as the preferred term. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weaselling[edit]

This article's wording seems to carefully dance around to avoid dealing with one of the most prominent current issues, which is that a significant number of non-Muslims of subcontinental origin don't really want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims anymore -- see UK Hindus unhappy with 'Asians' tag etc. AnonMoos 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Like Muslims want to be lumped with you! make your seperate tag. So when the Indian Actress was racially abused, why was it called Asian racism. Can you call that racism against Hindus as Muslims are a seperate tag. On another factor most Muslims are physically different to Hindus & White people are aware of this. The only community that can claim this are The Sikhs as they do resemble Muslims.

well if it isnt 'indian hindus' getting offending for being called asian, because they dont want to be associated with Asian Muslims, which apprantly accordding to that article are all terrorists. The police had a 'mistaken identity problem' according to the article after 7/7, because its only the MUSLIMS that should be stopped and searched. WHy dont we make the British Muslims wear arm bands, and segregate them, like the Nazi Germany, then maybe the Hindus wouldnt get "offended". Obviously the 1 million British Muslim popultion should be treated as 3rd class citizens in there own country accordinf to these 'well-educated Hindus' accoriding to this article! Well what about the Muslim Indians? What should they be called? There not British Pakistani there not British Arabs/Persians, and obviously the Hindus dont want them to be called British Indians, hmmmmm, wasnt this the same problem that lead to Jinnah making Pakistan, for protecting the Indian Muslims! And should the British Pakistani Hindus not be called British asians, becuase they are also Hindu but not just British Hindus. Double standards, hypocrisy, typical arrogant points of VIEW. QWERT

We don't take into consideration what the Hindus or Muslims identify themselves as. They are Asian. If the Hindus or Muslims don't like to be "lumped together" then why do they share the same ancestry? It's double standard racism. If Hindus find themselves not to be Asian then that is their idenity crisis. We go by the book not by the word of mouth. Those Hindus are racist in that article of yours, it's complete nonsense. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Leonowens[edit]

Deleted the convoluted paragraph about Anna Leonowens and her great-nephew Boris Karloff. Neither of these celebrities identified themselves as Asian, so they shouldn't be included as examples of British Asian celebrities.199.111.194.169 14:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Fm2.jpg[edit]

Image:Fm2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

put a picture of amir khan on!

Kurds?[edit]

Do Kurds count as "British Asian"? I expect that this will be a bigger issue at the next census than it was in 2001. I was just looking at the list of options for ethnicity, and thinking what on Earth a Kurd would come under. British Asian seems to be the closest. Epa101 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about putting in some words about how the Kurdish population has grown a lot in recent years. However, the census figures were all from 2001, and most of the Kurds have come over since then. The sources that I can find about the growth of the Kurdish population are usually talking about tensions with other groups in Dewsbury, or in Finsbury Park in London, and I would rather not use such sources on their own, as it might seem to be a bit defamatory towards Kurds. Does anyone have any figures or any more appropriate articles on the Kurdish community in Britain? Epa101 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds wouldn't be classed as Asians since that arabs aren't classed as asians and this article clearly explains what the term asian means in the british english language. They are more likely to be in the "others" category or maybe "other white" but defenitly not asian.

Kurds are not white they are Middle eastern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletpoet (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sport[edit]

There should be a section that lists british asian sport personalities, i.e monty, owais shah, amir khan, ravi bopara, etc etc

I think it is worth mentioning that British Asians make up a third of cricket players at grassroot level in the UK. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/13/england-cricket-problem-non-white-asian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.175.189 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

indians better then bangladeshi and pakistani[edit]

why has this article been turned into how the statistics show how british indians are more better then pakistanis and bangladeshis., its a cheap attack and no need for ir hear. if you are going to start talking about stats also show that the british indian generation is alot more older then then pakistani and bangladeshi, and that the british indian pop come from more priviliged backgrounds. if the amount of differences between pakistani/banglalis and indians are put why dont you also write how indians have statistically smaller penis's http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_men_dont_measure_up/articleshow/738607.cms

absoulte non-sense of an article

Woah there...easy tiger! I'm British Bangladeshi and I'M not offended by that particular part of the article. No need to start getting personal against the Indians.

POPULATION[edit]

This article indicates the Asian population has doubled to close to 5 Million! Please show references to prove this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.213.21 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On population, in the box at the top right-hand corner the figures simply do not add up - the total number of south asians is given as c.700K more than the total of the individual figures. If a figure included in the total has been omitted could someone rectify this? Otherwise the total ought to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.107.2 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll check out the refs and add some to see if they do add up or don't. Anyway what's wrong with 5 million? LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

I see no one has mentioned the problems in places like leeds etc. or the lack of integration in certain areas of the uk. 157.190.228.23 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Usage of the Ethnic slur `Paki' in Britain[edit]

I notice that the racist slur 'Paki' is used to identify all South Asians from Peshawar to Pondicherry. Not just used for Pakistanis but also Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lakans and possibly Afghan Pashtuns. South Asians are very racially ambiguous so that means that Kashmiri Omar Abdullah pictured here:http://www.the-south-asian.com/Nov2001/omar-abdullah1.jpg and Tamil M.I.A. pictured here:http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/blog/images/mia.jpg would both be classed as 'Pakis' due to being of South Asian origin. British Indians make up the largest ethnic minority in Britain so why isn't the term "Indi" used as the universal ethnic slur? Would I be right to assume that Princess Lalla Salma pictured here: http://www.gala.fr/var/gal/storage/images/le_gotha/leurs_bio/du_maroc_lalla_salma/images/lalla_salma_du_maroc/257639-1-fre-FR/lalla_salma_du_maroc_reference.jpg would be called a "N***er" in Britain because she is Moroccan and Morocco is a part of Africa?

Oldham Riots[edit]

Does anybody else think it looks a bit ropey having links to pages on the Bradford and Oldham riots right at the top of the "see also" section? I don't wish to state that their inclusion is the work of racists, though I am quite heavily implying it. Anyhow, I will remove. Jamrifis (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on "legacy of British rule"[edit]

I don't think it is accurate to describe the British Asian population as "legacy of British rule." There was high immigration after the independence of India and Pakistan. And in general, immigration to UK was akin to USA or Canada wasn'it it, unlike the importing of indentured labor to South Africa, the West Indies, East Africa and Fiji, which can be attributed to colonial rule? Indians emigrated to the UK pre-1947 for mostly economic or educational reasons, like most other immigrants.Vishnava (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASIAN BRITISH[edit]

This article really, really needs renaming to Asian British, it is the correct term used by the British Government and UK National Statistics (this really cannot be argued), plus a search on Google for Asian British produced around 10 times as more results than British Asian did. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree searching for "Asian British" = 146,000 hits, while "British Asian" = 149,000 Pahari Sahib 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asian British 38,600,000 Hits [1], British Asian 4,330,000 Hits [2], also most British Asian pages are about British rule in Asia (during the British Empire), fact cannot be denied
These Google searches are picking up all sorts of other hits, not just ones about this particular group. A more refined search or better evidence is needed if you want to change it. Cop 663 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right this is a simple logisitical problem. People who are born in Britain are British if they are Asian they are called British Asian. Because That's what they are first: Britons. Also search engine hits are rarely taken into account when renaming articles. Your argument is very weak. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should indeed be changed to Asian British. They are first and foremost British, but that does not mean that the word British must literally be placed at the front; it is incorrect, and even insulting, to do so. They are people of Asian descent who are British, so the correct name would be Asian British. To say British Asian implies that they are only British in a civic sense; that the bottom line is that they are Asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Race[edit]

Just want to know if somebody who was born British and had only ONE Indian parent would be classified as British Asian in this articles sense.--Judas james (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, the simple answer would be yes as many people mentioned and pictured in this article and it's sub categories have only a single Asian parent, an example from this article being Mark Ramprakash. However, 'British Asian' is an ethnicity indicator in the UK and this would would mean that such people fall into the 'Mixed - white and Asian' category or the British_Mixed-Race category for racial classification. Khokhar (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renanaming[edit]

I'm going to rename the article. and then add a redirect stating "Asian British and British Asian redirects here..."--23prootie (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you rename this article? "British Asian" is a commonly used term in the UK and people don't say "South Asians in the United Kingdom." It should be changed back. AyanP (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Ayan[reply]

"most of whom settled down and took local white British wives"[edit]

Shouldn't this be white people and United Kingdom? The article White British is about a census group, which did not exist when this was taking place. Also, 14/88.--Lightsin (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Images of Middle Easterners[edit]

Since numerous Persians, Afghans, Turks and Iraqis have Identified themselves as "Other Asia". Their images should also be included on the image board

This is false, since the majority of Persians and Afghans who are Caucasian identify as White or White Other, not Asian. Iranians are not Asian. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read referece number 5 moron! Most Iranians and Afghans identify as Other Asian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.248.247 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they identify as other asians does not make them asians. The media would never class them as asians and neither would the government.

This is false. An Asian is an native inhabitant of Asia. If Middle Easterners were to identify themselves as "Other Asian" then they would be included in the census as the census is based on self-perception. Iranians and Afghans are not white and they would not be statistically classed as that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.179.135 (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. We have a rough and policy-based consensus. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Asian → South Asians in the United Kingdom – Less ambiguity/confusion. And the East Asian page is called East Asians in the United Kingdom Atotalstranger (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In the UK, "Asian" almost invariably means "South Asian" and the latter term is rarely used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The current title suggests many possibilities--Brits in Hong Kong? Koreans in Manchester? Mixed-race children of a Scotsman and a lady from Singapore in New Zealand? "British Asian" could be just about anything. The proposed title is excellent and specific. Red Slash 21:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're ignoring the fact that we use common name on Wikipedia. In Britain, "British Asian" is the common name, usually the only name, used for British people of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan descent, and nobody else. If one says "Asian" in Britain, when referring to a person or a culture, that is what is invariably meant and understood. The common name used for East Asian people in Britain is "oriental" (no, it isn't considered to be in any way derogatory in the UK - it's the common term used by the government, police and everybody else). Have we renamed African American? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • African Americans are people of African descent in America. British Asians are people of specifically South Asian descent living in the United Kingdom. I don't get your comparison. It would seem to me that a British Asian would be a person of British descent living in Asia. Red Slash 09:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that "African American" is the common term used in America to refer to an American person of African descent and "British Asian" is the common term used in Britain to refer to a British person of "South Asian" descent. You appear to accept one without demur but not the other. To me, as a Briton, "South Asian" is an Americanism. We do not generally refer to people from East Asia as "Asians". We know what we're talking about when we refer to "Asians", just as Americans do when they refer to "African Americans" (we would just say "black"). If I didn't know what an "African American" was, I would assume it was a person from Africa living in America or a person from America living in Africa, not a black person born in America (for a start, not all Africans are black by a long way, but you wouldn't use "African American" to refer to a person of North African Arab origin or white South African origin, so the term is just as inaccurate as you might imagine "British Asian" to be). But we keep the African American article at this title because it is the common term in the country in which it is used. Do you see what I mean? This is therefore a case of both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • An American-born person of Egyptian ancestry would absolutely be called African-American. And although it's complicated and some people disagree, I think it's logical to say a white South African is not of African descent, just as if a British couple goes to Sri Lanka and has a kid and then that kid moves to Ireland, that kid is not of Sri Lankan descent. And an Asian is someone from Asia. Just because there are very few people of Asian descent who are not from South Asia in Britain doesn't change the fact that Asian means "from Asia", not a specific part of Asia. As I see it, common name doesn't beat precision in this case. WP:PRECISE wins for me. Red Slash 05:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, they're Egyptian American! We even have an article about them. Show me where they're called African American. I didn't say white South Africans are of "African descent". I said they are Africans. Big difference. Are you saying white South Africans aren't Africans? I think that if I claimed that black and Asian British people weren't Europeans I might be courting controversy! Although they clearly aren't of "European descent". It's rather tantamount to claiming that white (and black and indeed anything other than Native American) Americans aren't actually Americans! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAMES, a title should not be "inaccurate", regardless of sources. The proposed name reflects the content about population of South Asian immigrations and their descendants in Britain. I must disagree with you, Necrothesp. We cannot ignore the don't-use-inaccurate-name rule just because "reliable" sources use the current title. George Ho (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name is only inaccurate according to a US "logic" that the host country comes after the migrant's origin. This practice does not necessarily apply in other countries, though. —  AjaxSmack  22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR as explained by User:Necrothesp above. —  AjaxSmack  22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as set out by User:Necrothesp. The term British Asian is the one you will find in general usage in Britain, whilst the term South Asian is to be found used most frequently in a subordinate way such as in a definition or explanation of the term 'British Asian'. For example in this leading UK organistaion compising; leaders, entrepreneurs, roles models etc from the British Asian community who have come together under the auspices of The Prince of Wales to create in 2007 The British Asian Trust. If there was a stronger of even equal feeling for credibility purposes both politically and in the eyes of the community about the term South Asian i suggest it would been adopted as the name for this newly established organisation. Tmol42 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. Just because it doesn't match US construction usage does not makke it inaccurate. "South Asian" is a term hardly ever used here. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Necrothesp and Timrollpickering. Neljack (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR - I think User:Necrothesp sums up the situation very well in the dialogue above.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images in info box[edit]

I reverted the latest change of two images in the info box. Over recent days I see most if not all the images have been swapped around or changed without explanation in the edit summary. So it would be helpful if there could be an explanation here why all these images have being changed. Like all edits unless minor there should be an explanation and if queried at least concensus.Tmol42 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tmol42. People would be wise to follow your suggestion. As I've pointed out recently at Talk:British Bangladeshi, it's a shame that some editors won't put as much effort into improving these articles as they will into edit warring over the selection of images for inclusion in the infobox! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of article title related discussion at Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom[edit]

There is currently a thread started at: Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#Pluralisation of ethnic group titles perhaps as "British people of <x origin> descent" as per Categories.

Contributions welcome. GregKaye 09:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Asian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Asian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box and languages[edit]

Under languages, Bengali,Hindi and Urdu are listed.Are there significant number of British asians who call these language their mother-tongue or ancestral language ? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on British Asian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim wealth/prison population statistics[edit]

I have removed material from the article which compared the average wealth of Muslims with other religious groups, and also material on the proportion of the prison population who are Muslims. Not all Muslims in the UK are Asian, and it was not clear why figures were being given for Muslims but not other groups. If anyone thinks that the article should report data on the prison population, the source makes it clear that the proportion of British Asians in the prison population is roughly the same as their share in the adult population. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think poverty is potentially relevant but would need balancing over all groups. I'm also wary of one time Its removing material which might in any way be considered pro-Muslim which is why I reverted its removal -----Snowded TALK 08:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is data on wealth by ethnic group in the source that was being used for the Muslim wealth figure, but it's quite old. There is also income data by ethnic group here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

What relevance does an image of Mahatma Gandhi has on a page on British asians? Yes, he studied in Britain but so did everybody else who attained fame and influence during the British raj. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the section it's in, perhaps we could replace the image with one of a group of early Asian migrants to Britain, if we can find one? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can also substitute the picture with that of a British asian MP from that era such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Mancherjee Bhownagree or Shapurji Saklatvala.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy Demographic figures?[edit]

The section at the top right of the page giving the numbers of British Asians in the UK seems a bit suspect. The numbers it quotes are extremely high. Just as an example, I know that according to the March 2011 census there were about 450,000 people of Bangladeshi descent recorded as living in the UK at that time. Yet the box in THIS article gives a figure of nearly 1.4 million British Bangladeshis as of 2018. That's one hell of an increase in just seven years! When I follow the reference link for the statistics for this article (a) all it does is take me to the 2011 census figures. Not these supposed statistics for "2018". So where have these latest, very high numbers come from?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.33.240 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were added with these edits. I'll revert to the 2011 figures now. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of secondary content[edit]

Hello, I have removed any mention of East Asia, West Asia and Southeast Asia from the lede and the opening paragraph of the "Terminology" section. Self identification among some individuals on non-South Asian Asian heritage doesn't automatically change the definition that is used in the UK. In the UK, "Asian" means South Asians only. This article also specifically speaks about South Asians in the UK because they have historically been the largest Asian group in the UK and thus the definition of "Asian" in a colloquial sense in the UK reflects that. This article needs to reflect this fact and should not be watered down. When someone says "Asian" in the UK they think of South Asians (e.g. Indians, Bangladeshis) and the cultures associated with these groups. Inclusivity became very big in the 2010s so there are some British East Asian, Southeast Asian and West Asian people who self identifiy as "British Asian" or have been included under the British Asian umbrella. However, just because some Asian people of non-South Asian origin self identify as "British Asian" does not mean the entire definition of this article must be changed. It is best to keep the self identification and inclusivity content to the sub-section it currently is located in. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:950F:DF2F:6FE7:6E53 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Articles aren't based on colloquial usage of terms, and this is a well-defined group used by the UK Census to refer to more than just South Asians. The colloquial usage is already reflected in the article; there's no need to remove information on usage that is not the traditional colloquial one. — MarkH21talk 05:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: There was a discussion above a few years ago that supports the IP's comment. There needs to be a proper discussion to support your edits just like there was one in 2013-14. There is already a page about East Asians in order to reflect the way the term is used in the UK. "Asian" means South Asian (specifically Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi) in colloquial UK English. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
There’s a discussion immediately below in the next section. Keep in mind as well that the IP’s edits were the bold ones removing existing content; I didn’t add it in. — MarkH21talk 16:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More general usage according to censuses[edit]

Perhaps this is a recurring question, but if the UK censuses since 2001 included East Asians under "Asian or Asian British" (2001) and "Asian/Asian British", then shouldn't this article scope be accordingly broadened to include the more general usage? This conflicts with the first sentence of the lead, which says British Asians are persons of South Asian descent who reside in the United Kingdom. It seems that while the specificity in the second sentence should remain in the article, the first sentence's absolute wording is incorrect on the government scale. — MarkH21talk 05:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this was the case before the IP edits mentioned in the above talk section. Since that was a bold edit, I'm restoring the lead sentence that mentioned the subtleties. — MarkH21talk 05:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the case for the census, but these groups are still considered distinct in most people's minds, as fas as I observe. I'm going to revert your bold edits and would suggest that you start a merge discussion if you want to combine the topics. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the section you created called "Development and self-identity in the 2010s" was based on original research. If you want to add material to the article about that aspect of the topic, it needs to be based on reliable secondary sources, not on a collection of examples of how newspapers and other media sources describe particular individuals. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: I didn't create that section, I reverted the IP's edits removing that section (although most of it does not seem to be OR, only making carefully quoted statements directly in the cited references). In fact, most of what you reverted was previously in the article and not my WP:BOLD edits.
My only additions were to move the statistics from Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom and East Asians in the United Kingdom over, and highlight the census facts (already in the body) in the lead. See the old revision before I edited this article here. — MarkH21talk 06:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - apologies. Can I suggest that we restore the lede and terminology section to how they were in this revision? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the same one that I just linked? I think it's reasonable to mention the Census designations as I had added to the lead. Other than that, it's basically the same as the last version before your revert (diff). — MarkH21talk 06:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the same revision. I just wanted to be clear what text I was proposing to restore. About the statistics you moved over, the problem is that whereas the statistics in the article are based on ethnic group data from the census, the ones from the other articles are mostly based on country of birth (so they're not comparable) and are from a mix of different sources (not just the census). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks for point that out. If you have no issue with the other intermediate changes (mentioning the census designation in the lead, changing the {{about}} tag to include the article Southeast Asians in the United Kingdom, the IP's removal of district names, etc.) then we could just undo your last revert and remove the infobox statistics that I had migrated over. — MarkH21talk 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with that. We'll need to address the problems with the "Development and self-identity in the 2010s" section at some point too, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great! I agree, that section is a bit too much like a bare "the media mentioned this person was British Asian and they're not of South Asian descent" list. — MarkH21talk 07:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: I respectfully disagree with your edits. I am in support of the "Development and self-identity in the 2010s" in the "Terminology" section but East Asians (and West Asians for that matter) are considered distinct groups in the UK. West Asians aren't even classified as "Asian" in the UK census so even if we were going to follow the UK census definition, West Asians shouldn't be included only South and East Asians would be included. Self identification doesn't automatically change the way a term is used and discussions on self identification should not be included in the lede. I think the lede needs to specifically talk about British people of South Asian origin and maybe one sentence about the official UK census definition that includes Chinese/East Asians that comes after it. Inclusion of West Asians, however, doesn't make sense. Colloquially and officially speaking, West Asians are seen as different in the UK. Discussions on how some West Asians see themselves should be left for the "Development and self-identity in the 2010s" section because it provides undue weight to people's ideas of the term when the term is used primarily very differently in the UK. "Asian" means South Asian in the UK and that needs to be pointed out. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Cordless Larry: There needs to be more discussion on this. I understand Mark's views but I believe the lede needs to specifically talk about British people of South Asian origin and maybe one sentence about the official UK census definition that includes Chinese/East Asians that comes after it. Inclusion of West Asians in the lede doesn't make any sense because they are not classified as "Asian" per the UK census and are not viewed as "Asian" colloquially either. I believe the article needs to reflect the UK usage of the term. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Sapah3: The lead is primarily about South Asians already, and the usage of the term for non-South Asians isn’t down to self-identification. Identification by the UK Census and RSes like The Guardian and BBC is sufficient to include the broader usage in the article and brief mentions in the lead, as is done now. As for West Asia, the Census groups Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Any other Asian background all under Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British (or its various forms). That clearly includes all of Asia.

If you add the ping after you already posted your comment, nobody gets a ping. You have to add it in a new line with a new signature. — MarkH21talk 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I typed out a reply to you but I noticed the update on the article page so there's no need for me to post it. I think the changes you made to the lede after I posted my comment are good. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Suggestion: Migration from Nepal[edit]

Just a suggestion for the page editors - the last significant Asian migration to GB is (now) the post-1997 ethnic Nepalese mostly comprised of serving and ex-Gurkha soldiers and their families. There was a 10-fold increase between 2001 and 2011 census. Many opt for British citizenship when eligible, and are notable because Nepal was never part of the British Empire, unlike most countries in south Asia. The area of Hampshire surrounding Aldershot and Farnham has seen the percentage of population of ethnic Nepalese rise to around 10% and there are also significant communities of Nepali origin around Woolwich, Greenwich, Wiltshire and Kent, mostly tied to the presence of British Army bases where serving or ex-Gurkhas reside.

Sources:

http://www.cnsuk.org.uk/details/a-glimpse-of-the-nepali-population-in-the-uk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_in_the_United_Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.250.167 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

social issues[edit]

Social issues section is a bit lightweight. Needs to include issues such as street grooming etc


https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/17353046.councillor-call-work-identify-disproportionately-high-number-grooming-suspects-pakistani-community/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MqrO6p2Woc

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/20/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-about-grooming-gangs/

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/revealed-disproportionately-high-numbers-pakistani-8439716

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/uk-court-jails-20-men-mostly-pakistanis-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girls. ROC7 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honour violence/killings[edit]

It's on the increase, so perhaps it should be mentioned in the social/political issues section?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/31/honour-based-offences-soared-by-81-in-last-five-years

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-14/honour-killings-day-of-memory-shafilea-ahmed-qandeel-baloch


Also, links to terrorism ?

https://www.efsas.org/publications/articles-by-efsas/london-bridge-attack-2019-three-out-of-four-terror-plots-in-the-uk-have-roots-in-pakistan/

https://www.dw.com/en/banishing-the-extremist-image-a-crucial-task-for-british-pakistanis/a-39129778ROC7 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the four claimed references, not a single one even includes the term "Asian" so I'm not sure why you're trying to associate the actions of subsets of Britsh Asians with the wider group. FDW777 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't categories "Music" and "Performing arts" be merged? All the people in performing arts are musicians.[edit]

All the people in performing arts are musicians. I was confused when Nitin Sawhney wasn't mentioned under "music". Brehonhelen (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated census figures[edit]

Why does this article use figures from the 2011 census when figures from the more recent census are now available? G-13114 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Asians&oldid=1206437794"