Talk:Anglo-Indian people

Graph

I have struck thru the immediately following contrib, for its offensively worded 1st 'graph, and its either racist or unspeakably clumsy 2nd 'graph; IMO it is so clewlessly irrelevant that its complete deprecation via removal could do no harm. --Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Anglo Indian history

I added a great deal to the history section, which seemed to be quite empty.

I made two small edits:

The "Portuguese" in British India were described as European immigrants (or European Indians), whereas, in reality, "Portuguese" was an officially sanctioned name for any Anglo-Indian with Hispanic blood.

Also they were described as just having British fathers. This was not always so. The most famous Anglo-Indian poet, Henry Derozio, had an English mother.

Regards:

TB

langstieh@yahoo.com

Left out?

If "British Indians" are "citizens of the United Kingdom (UK) whose ancestral roots lie in India", and "Anglo-Indians" are " those with mixed Indian and British (specifically English) ancestry and people of British/English descent born or living in India", then where are the American Indians who are or were citizens of the United Kingdom? (e.g., John Wareagle)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• An Anglo-Indian gathering.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Indian as reference to people of general European descent

There needs to be prominent discussion here of the term “Anglo Indian” being used to describe Indians of European descent as well (which is what I believe the Indian Constitution describes them as).

A lot of the people implicitly referred to in this article (e.g. mention of Anglo Indian Cardinals) would only classify as Anglo Indian under this more expansive definition, as they are technically Luso-Indian. In general, there is a high level of identification among Indians with Portuguese surnames to the Anglo-Indian label. Editorrandom2124 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Population figures – apparent contradictions

The BBC source was recently removed with another source used (in which I couldn't find the new numbers cited). I have reverted this, but it does appear there are different population estimates. A 2011 census recorded only 296 individuals in India, for example.

To what extent does this mismatch have to do with the legal definition versus the broader definition? Legal definition seems to be Anglo/European father and Indian mother, whereas the broader definition includes those with Indian fathers and European mothers too. Do we need to note both figures or distinguish between them somehow? This may help us find consensus.

I'm making this thread to continue the conversation after some edits that have disputed the numbers, but I am hoping people with more expertise than me can weigh in and help resolve this.

@User:Jaguarsonmoon @Rancid Boar Lewisguile (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As an example, the BBC article doesn't specify the father must be European, so is likely talking about the larger population group. That means it isn't inaccurate, per se, but may be talking about a slightly larger group than other estimates. Maybe this could be noted and we could put an explainer via footnote in the template at the top? Lewisguile (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The majority of primary literature states 125,000 to 150,000. These are from The International Journal of Anglo-Indian studies, what more expertise do you need? If you are so reliant on BBC news articles, another BBC article "Anglo-Indians: Is their culture dying out?" state 150,000 in modern India. There are no primary studies that can verify the 300,000 population today. That is not a small number or deviance. More proof is needed to corroborate that claim. Rancid Boar (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The source you used didn't seem to contain that number. Can you point me to where the journal states those numbers, please? Your reversion and associated comments don't appear to be in good faith. I'm not intentionally being disruptive, and I would ask you to consider WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR in regards to your own edits, too. I have made only a few edits here recently, so can hardly been called a gatekeeper. I merely want to ensure we have the best information in the article and aren't removing things just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Lewisguile (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I can find the following in Volume 9, Issue 7(7), July 2020, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, p. 131:

"There are an estimated 500,000 Anglo-Indians throughout the world – including in Britain, Canada, Australia and Pakistan – but in India itself their population has dipped to an estimated 150,000."

An earlier paper cites 300,000 as an unofficial estimate. Elsewhere, others seem to put that as a top estimate. See Bonnerjee, J. (2013). "Invisible Belonging: Anglo-Indian Identity in Multicultural Toronto". Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(4), 431–442 (434). https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2013.821215

Older sources also suggest 300,000, but that's before emigration in the 1970s:

"Anglo-Indians [have not] ... been enumerated in India’s national ten-yearly census [of] Anglo-Indians in India. An indication of the uncertainty in population numbers is the fact that Frank Anthony (Anglo-Indian member of parliament and leader of the AIAIA) puts forward different figures for the population at the time of independence: he says that officially it was about 140,000 (1969:203), but he also uses the figure of “about 300,000 souls” (1969, viii), and says he believes the real figure to be between 250,000 and 300,000 (1969, 9)." Andrews, R. (2018). "Anglo-Indians: Buying into Nationhood?". In: Pardo, I., Prato, G. (eds). The Palgrave Handbook of Urban Ethnography. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp.429–443 (443). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64289-5_24.

Another source says, "In 1947, there were perhaps 500,000 Anglo-Indians in South Asia, and current assessments suggest an ongoing presence of 250,000–300,000 amid a total Indian population of one billion. Perhaps another 300,000 Anglo-Indians have resettled in the West since India obtained Independence." Mills, M. S. (2001). "A most remarkable community: Anglo-Indian contributions to sport in India". Contemporary South Asia, 10(2), 223–236 (223). https://doi.org/10.1080/09584930120083828

In the IJAIS, which you cite, this 1996 paper says the figure is a minimum of 300,000 and a maximum of 400,000: "Anglo-Indian Schools and Anglo-Indian Educational Disadvantage, Part 2", International Journal of Anglo-Indian Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2 (1996): General Issue. Obviously, this is an older source, but it shows even the IJAIS has had different opinions about the numbers.

This 2022 article in the IJAIS backs this up, and cites numbers of both 125,000–150,000 and 200,000 from a civil rights group and politician, respectively: Deshmukh, Vishwajeet and Mistry, Ketayun. IJAIS, Vol. 22 No. 1 (2022): General Issue. "Anglo-Indian Representation in the Indian Parliament". pp. 12–13.

The following cites an estimated 150,000: Lumb, L., & Van Veldhuizen, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Way We Are: An Anglo-Indian Mosaic. Calcutta Tiljallah Relief Inc. p. 103

That suggests to me that there is some guesswork going on. If RSes disagree, or agree that the figures are likely estimates, then it may be necessary to add a note to state as much. WP policy is to note disagreement or alternative viewpoints, where they represent a significant plurality or minority, so long as we stick to giving each argument due WP:WEIGHT. We probably also shouldn't rely on only a single source when multiple are available.

Also, please note that the current draft of the article already contradicts itself, since it uses the 300,000 figure later on, anyway. I'm not the one who introduced this contention; I merely reverted your reversion, since the prior edits seemed well sourced. Lewisguile (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The confusion regarding current population figures of Anglo-Indians is due to

- large numbers of Anglo-Indians have integrated into the broader Christian community in India, and no longer indentify as Anglo-Indian

- a very high rate of emigration Jaguarsonmoon (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It does seem so. Given that this is the case, then, what do you think we need to do in order to highlight those inconsistencies? Would you prefer a footnote or shall we address it in the body of the article? As the RSes above show, the numbers are not as simple or as clear as the article currently suggests, and I do believe this justifies some acknowledgement. Lewisguile (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how the Wikipedia format works, but perhaps both the 1996 and 2022 IJAIS population figures can used under the "Regions with significant populations" for India?

Something like this:

300,000-400,000 (1996)

125,000-150,000 (2022) Jaguarsonmoon (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Something like that might work. Thanks for your input. Lewisguile (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Although a descent proposal, it ignores the purpose of the infobox which shows the current population. It is nonsensical to include the supposed population shift in one nation while ignoring the others. The population of a nation decades or centuries ago isn't used today. That could be listed in a separate demographics section. Any large nations demographic and it's bound to change within decades. Look at major cities as an example, even a larger demographic shift. Historical data shouldn't be in modern Infobox since that reflects current demographics. Why this is getting so much pushback may seem to be a agenda disassociated from reality. Rancid Boar (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)