https://www.everipedia.com/about/
Anyone can create an Everipedia page and anyone with an account can make edits but from what I understand there is even less editorial oversight than with Wikipedia. Note that Everipeida calls themselves the “a thugged-out Wikipedia” It does not require any source foot notes to substantiate claims and is highly “fluid”.
Here for instance is the Everipedia page for Donald Trump. Yea, that’s objective. / s
https://www.everipedia.com/donaldtrump/
There is no indication that Mainak Sarkar set up that Everipedia page and since it listed his date of death, it was obviously created afterwards. In addition to originally listing as Religion = Muslim, the Everipedia page also listed his ethnicity as “Bengali or Indian” – another clear tip off that this was not something Sarkar created himself as he would know what his ethnicity was.
And more importantly, Twitter profiles do not list info such as religion nor does it look anything like as the link provided (again that’s an Everipedia page, not a Twitter profile). I opened a Twitter account years ago but have rarely used. I just logged in to see what my profile looked like and what I could add or edit on my Twitter profile and it looks nothing like that.
The UCLA student editor (Pardes Seleh) is an idiot if she can’t tell the difference between an Everipedia page and a verified Twitter account profile. (Stupid blogger tag inserted here - )
I’ve seen no credible evidence proving that Sarkar was a Muslim or a Muslim convert. Crazy and vindictive? Yes. While it is said that Islam like liberalism, is a mental disorder, Muslims don’t hold all exclusive rights to that.
As to the “race” of Subcontinental” Indians, that is complicated.
The researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage — which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations — was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal.
The researchers also found that Indian populations were much more highly subdivided than European populations. But whereas European ancestry is mostly carved up by geography, Indian segregation was driven largely by caste. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes," says Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090922/full/news.2009.935.html
From what I understand, high caste, educated, lighter skinned and Hindi speaking Indians are more likely to identify themselves racially as Caucasians (or even as Aryans – Indo Europeans of Iranian and Northern Indian heritage – yes - the actual Aryans were not blue eyed blond Nordics) although in my HR experience, employees of Indian descent are likely to put down their race as “Asian”, perhaps because that is what the Brits historically refer to as the race of anyone from the subcontinent and from the middle east – i.e. “Middle Asian”. There was also a lot of racial mixing during the time when the British ruled India. Not all but especially a number of higher caste Indians have some British ancestors in their ancestry, while those from lower casts are typically much darker skinned.
And in the past some even tried to pass themselves off as having no Indian heritage at all, “passing for “”white””. An example of this is the actress Merle Oberon. She hid her Indian heritage, concocting a false biography as to her place of birth and even went so far as to keep her dark skinned Indian mother under wraps because back in those days, she wouldn’t have been able to have a career in Hollywood such as what she had.
