Talk:Little India

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles

there is a hidden little india that is growing. please dont remove it. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.38.132 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-Americans are 5% of the Imperial county/valley population in southern CA, but there's no specific Little India anywhere in the region. Like Yuba City and San Joaquin county (Stockton), it is one of the US' oldest Indian communities going back a century ago (1915), their ancestors were Pakistani, Punjabi and esp. Sikh immigrants of many different ethnic groups and religions from Northern India in South Asia. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

There is a fallacy to say that Central Avenue is Little India when its not. It is COINCIDENCE that there are some Indian restaurants here and few Indian groceries there. Please don't post misleading information for the whole world to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.183.171 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto

In addition to the area mentioned, there is another major Punjabi neighborhood in Mississauga. Not sure of the exact location however. — goethean ॐ 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh?

Why is Bangladesh in the list? Their population are already mainly South Asians. kawaputra^tok2me 11:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Little Indias

I added the exact locations for the New York areas.

California's San Francisco Bay Area

I think some cities in California's Bay Area should be added. If 12.4% Indian is Indian enough (some place in NY) to be on the list, these places should be added. All of the data is per US Census 2005-2009 American Communtity Survey

Fremont, California 15.8% Asian Indian
Union City, California 13.2% Asian Indian
Cupertino, California 17.1% Asian Indian
Santa Clara, California 12.4% Asian Indian
Sunnyvale, California 13.8% Asian Indian

Also we need to include University Avenue in Berkeley, California. --Jmumman (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

An IP has attempted to move this page to Little India while cut-and-pasting that disambiguation page to Little India (disambiguation). I have reverted for now, this seems a better place for the time being, though there are issues:

Places that aren't known as "Little India" should probably be categorised separately.
Places that are known as such should be listed on the disambiguation page - currently three or four are.

If the overwhelming majority are not known as such, then this page should be renamed to something such as "Indian demographic exclaves". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Little India (location). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Little India (location). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Little India (location). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

This topic of this article is interesting, but it has multiple issues - potential original research, and lacking in citations to high-quality sources including books, newspapers, and magazines. I rewrote the lead using the only definition of "Little India" I could find in a high quality source. To clean up this article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, I propose each entry in this article meet at least one of these criteria:

Be consistent with the definition of "Little India" as stated in the lead. This should be backed up by at least one high-quality source, which must be cited.
Be referred to as a "Little India" in at least one high-quality source, which must be cited.
Be linked to its own article, e.g. Little India, Artesia
Have accompanying photographic evidence that it meets the "Little India" definition in the lead.

According to these criteria, a town that is verifiably 10% or 20% or 30% or X% South Asian would not automatically qualify for inclusion in this article unless it meets at least one of these requirements. I ask other editors, especially BrownHairedGirl and , to chime in. Thank you!

- Ram1751 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1751: thank you for the ping. However, my edits to this article have all been minor technical issues of referencing, not substantive contributions.

I have made no substantive contributions to the page, and I have no experience of the topic.

So the only comment I will make here is a general one on the principle that an article should be verifiably based on reliable, secondary sources. Editors should examine each case to determine to what extent a consensus of reliable secondary sources supports the use of the label. Where there is not a clear consensus, editors should follow WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Numerical criteria such as percentage of South Asian population should be applied only insofar as those criteria are explicitly supported by reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Castncoot (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks! Will proceed with cleanup per the consensus and principles outlined here. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, your efforts to improve this article are appreciated. However, none of the reliable sources used to construct the definition of "Little India" in the lead^[1]^[2]^[3] support the use of a numerical percentage of South Asian population to define it. That is why I deleted entries, starting with those in the U.S., that relied exclusively on percentage of Indian American population, including such entries under New Jersey. Per the consensus above between you, me, and BrownHairedGirl, can you (1) delete those entries or (2) provide a reliable source that supports the use of a numerical percentage of Indian American population to define "Little India"? Also, the image you added and its caption need a reliable source, as it appears to be original research. Thanks! -Ram1751 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! My impression of what I was agreeing to is exactly the opposite! That South Asian is too broad a definition for clear demographic sources (which is what I thought BrownHairedGirl was also saying). Where do you draw the line for “South Asian” demographically? This is specifically why the U.S. does not calculate that. So if anything, having an even stricter standard is a good thing, because the one fact that is indeed absolutely certain is that the South Asian population can never be smaller than the Indian population alone, and in fact, is always larger. If some countries like Canada calculate on a total South Asian demographic, I don’t believe we should necessarily remove those numbers either, because they also do indeed provide valuable information. And that’s the whole point here- to provide constructive information, and not to denigrate one method or another. Castncoot (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this topic, what I meant was that none of the reliable sources cited in this article say or imply: "If a municipality or area is verifiably 10% or 20% or 30% or X% Indian or South Asian, then it is a Little India." The article lead now provides a definition of Little India based on reliable, verifiable sources. Therefore, I proposed that every entry in this article must verifiably be consistent with the article lead's definition or meet one of the other three criteria I listed above. I believe BrownHairedGirl agreed with this proposal. Last year I had started to clean up this article, removing entries that only cited a percentage of Indian or South Asian population as the reason for its inclusion. Again, none of the reliable sources in this article support this criterion in their definitions of Little India. I will wait a little while for editor comments before continuing with cleanup. Thanks. -Ram1751 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large concentrations of Indian or South Asian-origin populations most definitely fit the criteria for a "Little India" -- as seen on various sources in the intro.
See this article as an example, especially the bolded in the following quote from the article: "reference to India is owed to the abundance of South Asians occupying the district... It was in the 1950s that South Asians began to migrate to this area, mostly for job opportunities..."
Another article cited in the intro also implies a concentration of Indians or South Asians can also fit in the criteria for a "Little India" with these quotes: "Soon enough, a new ethnic community began to develop in Queens and was primarily made up of immigrants arriving directly from India and who established their households in that borough." or "The population of the area has included Indians, Pakistanis, and Bengali, among other South Asian groups" or "A majority of South Asian immigrants are concentrated in Queens neighborhoods, constituting 8.2% of the borough’s population. The census only specified down to county-level within New York City, but it was evident that a large percentage of South Asians lived and thrived in Queens". Van00220 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what is a "large concentration" or "abundance of South Asians"? None of the reliable sources cited in this article define what these terms mean in terms of numbers. The first article you cite states Southall was 76.1% Asian (presumably South Asian) in 2011. So is 76% the cutoff? The second article you cite is no longer available. Many of the entries in this Wikipedia article cite only the percentage of Indian or South Asian population as justification for their inclusion, for instance, Cranbury Township, New Jersey – 10.5%. So is the cutoff 10%? 8%? If 8%, then the entire borough of Queens, New York qualifies as a Little India, which is clearly inaccurate and not supported by any reliable source.

BrownHairedGirl's statement above, "Numerical criteria such as percentage of South Asian population should be applied only insofar as those criteria are explicitly supported by reliable sources." reflects the correct application of WP:RS to this article. Again, none of the reliable sources cited in this article say or imply: "If a municipality or area is verifiably 10% or 20% or 30% or X% Indian or South Asian, then it is a Little India." Ram1751 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1751 summarises my view accurately.

The criteria applied appear to be WP:OR. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria regarding population concentration does appear fairly ambiguous however entries that are in line with the above cited sources that mention locales with large Indian/South Asian populations which can fit as a "Little India" should not be removed so long as they are sourced. Van00220 (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Will proceed with cleanup per consensus. Ram1751 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, entries that are in line with the cited sources that mention locales with large Indian/South Asian populations fit the criteria to be included as a "Little India" should not be removed so long as they are sourced with census data or any equivalent. Blanking entire sections is not the consensus here.Van00220 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how large is "large"? 10% of the population? 8%? If 8%, then the entire borough of Queens, New York qualifies as a Little India, which is clearly inaccurate and not supported by any reliable source. I again refer you to BrownHairedGirl's statement above, "Numerical criteria such as percentage of South Asian population should be applied only insofar as those criteria are explicitly supported by reliable sources." As she said, this criterion appears to be WP:OR. Therefore, citing the percentage of Indian or South Asian population (sourced or unsourced by census data) as justification for an entry's inclusion in this article violates Wikipedia guidelines. None of the reliable sources cited in this article say or imply: "If a municipality or area is verifiably 10% or 20% or 30% or X% Indian or South Asian, then it is a Little India." BrownHairedGirl, would appreciate your input here as well. Ram1751 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of reliable sources cited in this article also say or imply if Indian/South Asian businesses in municipality make up 10% or 20% or 30% or X%, then it is a Little India either. No concrete number exists. Regarding populations, a similar ambiguity issue exists; the sources above mention a high concentration of Indian/South Asians in a locale is part of the criterion in what constitutes a Little India, albeit no concrete figure is given as to what exactly constitutes a large concentration once again. The inclusion of sourced census data aids in solving this issue (somewhat), however applying both of these criterion to the letter would also result in the mass removal of other parts of this article which highlights areas with an ambiguously large concentration of Indian/South Asian businesses.Van00220 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1751 I think I have said all I can say. I agree that this is OR. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, your restoration is inconsistent with the consensus reached here. Therefore I am reverting it. Ram1751 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ram1751, if you've brought up a discussion, then please give the concerned parties a chance to respond before blanket reversion; speaking of which, blanket reversion, or throwing the baby out with the bath water, is never appropriate. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sought editorial input twice: On 14 January 2023 (UTC), I said (see above), "I will wait a little while for editor comments before continuing with cleanup. Thanks." and you did not respond. I sought input again on 16 May 2023 (UTC) and you did not respond. Ram1751 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife. p. 490.
^ Indian Americans. p. 62.
^ "Little India in the heart of Paris". Media India Group. 5 January 2017.

"Little Nepal" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Little Nepal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 13#Little Nepal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife. p. 490.

[ia-2] Indian Americans. p. 62.

[paris-3] "Little India in the heart of Paris". Media India Group. 5 January 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]