This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i tihnk famous iranians should be givin a mention. omid djalili is great and tracy emin is half iranian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
-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
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.9.19 ( talk) 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tna ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
--- 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)
Why was his Image deleted? He may be a Parsi but his parents were still Indian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.5.255 ( talk) 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Many Iranians Identify as `Asian' in the census! (fact according to the census!) BUT THEY ARE NOT CLASSED AS `ASIAN' IN SOCIETY!!! This article has 3 images of ` Iranis', and only one Indian and one Pakistani at the title!! Indians make up the majority of `Asians' in Britain. GIVE IMAGES OF 3 "INDO- ARYAN" PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.44.167 ( talk) 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
why is the picture representing british asians of a guy smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.72.191 ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Not a single Pakistani in the pictures, what a cheap/sad thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.224.80 ( talk) 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
put a picture of amir khan on! 86.132.108.14 13:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.161.60 ( talk) 00:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
There should be a section that lists british asian sport personalities, i.e monty, owais shah, amir khan, ravi bopara, etc etc 86.132.108.14 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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 86.132.108.14 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.198.131 ( talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since numerous Persians, Afghans, Turks and Iraqis have Identified themselves as "Other Asia". Their images should also be included on the image board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.171 ( talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.95.110 ( talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are now a lot of Koreans in the Uk especially in New Malden and it should probably be represented here? Bigbotnot2 ( talk) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i tihnk famous iranians should be givin a mention. omid djalili is great and tracy emin is half iranian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
-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
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.9.19 ( talk) 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tna ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
--- 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)
Why was his Image deleted? He may be a Parsi but his parents were still Indian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.5.255 ( talk) 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Many Iranians Identify as `Asian' in the census! (fact according to the census!) BUT THEY ARE NOT CLASSED AS `ASIAN' IN SOCIETY!!! This article has 3 images of ` Iranis', and only one Indian and one Pakistani at the title!! Indians make up the majority of `Asians' in Britain. GIVE IMAGES OF 3 "INDO- ARYAN" PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.44.167 ( talk) 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
why is the picture representing british asians of a guy smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.72.191 ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
Not a single Pakistani in the pictures, what a cheap/sad thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.224.80 ( talk) 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
put a picture of amir khan on! 86.132.108.14 13:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.161.60 ( talk) 00:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
There should be a section that lists british asian sport personalities, i.e monty, owais shah, amir khan, ravi bopara, etc etc 86.132.108.14 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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 86.132.108.14 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.198.131 ( talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since numerous Persians, Afghans, Turks and Iraqis have Identified themselves as "Other Asia". Their images should also be included on the image board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.171 ( talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.95.110 ( talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are now a lot of Koreans in the Uk especially in New Malden and it should probably be represented here? Bigbotnot2 ( talk) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)