Talk:Indian Americans

Misleading use of "Indian" term in data

So far as I can tell, the US Census bureau uses the term "Asian Indian" for anyone of South Asian ancestry, but this page implies this is data for people of Indian ancestry. This also discredits the article's claim NYC has "by far" the biggest Indian-American population of any city in North America, because that would make it Toronto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#City_of_Toronto).

Three brothers marrying into Native American Tribes

The source for this claim under the history section does not back it up. There is no mention of the three brothers in either the source for their existence or the Nasnemond people tracing their lineage back to their intermarriage. Jrhooman (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Claim (including a direct quote) has been in the article unchanged since it was added in 2023. but the sources do not support this. Interesting that supposed sources are listed as having been accessed years before they were added. Removed. Meters (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible unreviewed AI use

Hi -- I have tagged this article as potentially AI generated, specifically edits by user Synthetic.Cognizance. They display many tells of AI writing, and a sockpuppet investigation seems to be further evidence. Needs review, fact-checking, tone check, etc.; they seem to involve facts in captions in this case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Explain reversion of my edit

Most of the article has absolutely no citation to back it up, and the citation that was provided is absolutely the most stupidest thing I've ever read. Rc2barrington (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

(re revert at )

1. It doesn't matter whether or not other content has cites. This content is sourced.
2. It's cited as coming through the "New York University Press", presumably a reliable source.
3. You can't just impeach the source by saying it's the stupidest thing you've ever read.
4. I read the source, and... oh, boy, it is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Concisely argued. Touche. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

so you agree it is the stupidest thing you've ever read? The new section that just contains about cricket makes more sense and we can keep it like that. Rc2barrington (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)