Talk:Ethnic groups in South Asia

message: "Hindi-speaking" people -- what sort of ethnicity is this ??. I am going to change it. Many people including Bengalis, Pathans/Afghans etc. speak Hindi. And native speakers are in reality the Sanskrit speakers, from which most of Indian language were derived. There is no such thing as ethnic native Hindi-speakers. - alif.
:I agree. Hindi-speakers are not an ethnic group, and shouldn't be seen as one. There are many different Hindi-speaking ethnic groups. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindi-Speaking People is the name of an ethnic group???

message: Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but what does that have to do with this article? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources for the term [[dharmic religions]]?

message: Trips, your partisan edit-wars are beginning to get annoying. If you must push your patriotism or whatever it is on Wikipedia, be prepared explain yourself on talkpages. Or, also feel free to simply respect Wikipedia policy and stop your various Indo-Aryan campaigns now. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sick of explaining myself to the same editor, thats why. How can patriotism be pushed onto a page like this?. Indo-Iranian is misleading in an ethnic sense simply because a Nuristani and an Uttar Pradeshi have almost nothing in common apart from a language root, and suggesting they all belong to a distinct ethnic group in south Asia is misleading. The earlier version states the Indo-Iranian language group anyway.Trips (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the point is that if you want to state there are two major groups, these are going to be Indo-Iranian and Dravidian. If you insist on separating Iranian and Indo-Aryan, we are looking at three large groups. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Iranian people arent a large group in south Asia. 37 million people at most (mostly Balochi and Pashtun in Pakistan), compared to 250 million Dravidian and 900 million Indo-Aryans. There are probably as many or more Tibeto-Burman peoples in south Asia then Iranian. Trips (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, ok, but the Indo-Iranian group is still by necessity larger than the Indo-Aryan one. Your approach is like insisting on saying, there are two large groups, Dravidian and Hindi, because the Hindi belt  clearly includes the largest Indo-Aryan group. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we have both? How about "Most ethnic groups of South Asia are associated with either a Dravidian or Indo-Iranian language. The Indo-Aryan languages are the largest subgroup of the Indo-Iranian languages spoken in the subcontinent, but Iranian, Dardic (variously defined as either Indo-Aryan or a unique Indo-Iranian branch) and Nuristani also have large numbers of speakers." Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indo-Iranian vs. Indo-Aryan

message: 1. Gurkhas are not the only Paharis (see Garwhali and Kumaoni), and also not the only Nepali Paharis.
2. Lhotshampas can be Kirat, Gurung or Sherpa as well, they don't have to be Indo-Aryan speakers. Its a generally term for Bhutanese with origins in Nepal.
3. It is quite possible that the Dardic languages are an Indo-Aryan subgroup, however in the interest of being neutral, it should be noted that the Dardic languages are sometimes considered to be a separate Indo-Iranian branch. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paharis, Lhotshampas and Dards

message: According to the Assamese people article itself, they are a multi-ethnic regional identity (that includes the Bodos and other groups). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I have found sources claiming that Assamese are an ethnic group. Re-added. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assamese people are not an ethnic group

message: This article is completely contradicted by the section "Historical definitions of races in India". Since the references there are more current and credible, I suggest deleting this whole article. To quote:
Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,[3] microsatellite DNA,[4] and mitochondrial DNA [5] in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia according to genetic analysis are the Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Pathan and Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in Pakistan[6].
::The article proposed for deletion is NOT about "race", which is a long discarded concept, nor about DNA population genetics but about ethnicities, where language and culture play the decisive role. No need to delete, just to improve it. Sindhutvavadin 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a list of articles about ethnic groups in South Asia not about genetics or race. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated article 

message: Ok. I am fine with keeping the article. Would be nice to have some structure though - linguistic groups (Indo-Aryan and Dravidian at the top level, with subdivisions), cultural groups (this will be a mish-mash), religious groups (Jains, Parsis, Jews, Sikhs etc), caste-based groups etc. The current list seems odd - Jats and Marwaris are standalone ethnicities?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jains are never defined as an ethnic group, Jews largely are, Parsis always are and Sikhs sometimes are. I think castes should have a different article to ethnic groups. Where is your source that Jats and Marwaris are not standalone ethnicities? Perhaps Jats are Punjabis and Marwaris are Rajasthanis. It sounds believable, but we need a source (and I would suggest you put this non"standalone" ethnicity information on the Marwaris and Jats pages first. This article's main use is as a list to get to other articles. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "ethnic" group seems arbitrary 

message: While Hindi-speakers in a broader term are of no single ethnicity, is there a collective term to describe all those ethnic groups whose first language is Hindi? This collective term could be similar to the term 'Assamese people' --Maurice45 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, I haven't really found many sources on ethnic groups in Hindi-speaking regions. I read some unsourced stuff on a distinction between 'Dili-wallas' and 'Punjabis' in Delhi, and also some information on various Hindi-speaking peoples in Uttar Pradesh from an online source of dubious authenticity, but I haven't found much else. In Pakistan the Hindustani-speakers are called Muhajirs, but I don't know of any term in India. If anyone could find more sources on ethnic groups in Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan that would be appreciated. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective term 

message: The Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia article consists entirely of lists which could easily be transferred to this article. There is no need for such a subset article to exist apart from this one; the amount of information presented does not justify it. These two articles should be merged. Neelix (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The articles deal with two different regions of Asia. While there a number of ethnic similarities, there are also a number of differences. For example, certain Sino-Tibetan peoples are found only in South Asia, while others in Southeast Asia. Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Iranians and other such ethnicities are found almost exclusively in South Asia, and there are a number of Mon-Khmer, Tai and Austro-Asiatic groups who are not found in South Asia at all. Merging the two articles will defeat the intended purpose - that is, listing ethnic groups by region --Maurice45 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree too. As pointed out by Maurice45, listing ethnic groups by region is more appropriate than merging the two articles. Ethnic Groups of South Asia is an article that I find very helpful. I would suggest that we try to improve the article rather than merge it with another. Udayb5 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We might as well merge this article, ethnic groups of the Middle East, ethnic groups of Southeast Asia and ethnic groups of Europe into a separate Eurasian ethnic groups articles. I agree with Udayb5, and Maurice45, we should work to improve this article rather than generalize different regions of Eurasia. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia]] 

message: It's to messy and it would be impractical to list the thousands of castes that reside within a particular region. It's better to just stick to groups like Punjabis, Sindhis, Bengalis etc.Damien2016 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because each region has hundreds of thousands of castes, we can't just list all of them. If we do then it will devolve into people just fighting over their caste being listed. Plus there are no reliable numbers for the populations of each caste. Damien2016 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I understand what you say, but the Indo-Aryan sections look too compact, while the other groups Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman etc have sub-branches. So for the purpose of balance, we either need to make those sections brief as well or we can add 3-4 important castes/sub ethnicity from each ethnicity or we can add the religious groups.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including castes is to messy, better to stick with ethno-linguistic groups 

message: I feel as if there should be a separate category for mixes races like hazaras or moghuls. Foxhound03 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed races? 

message: Probably you missed the fact that the section is named "List of ethnic groups on the basis of language". I have put Parsis under Indo-Aryan not Iranian as per their language and Hazaras under Iranian since they speak Persian. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, I thought you put Parsi under Iranian. My bad! I will revert my own edit. Thank you for your message. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsi and Hazara 

message: Afghanistan is geographically located mostly in South Asia, while a tiny bit in Central Asia. I wouldn’t consider Afghanistan a Central Asian country just like I wouldn’t consider Egypt a West Asian country or Turkey being a European country. Phenotypically, Afghans look South Asian (they do not look like their Central Asian counterparts, and plus majority of Afghanistan is in South Asia as is the population). And phenotypically Bhutanese people look more East/Southeast Asian than any other South Asian country. There’s so much hypocrisy here but it’s probably based on Islamophobia, the West’s criticism of the Middle East when Afghanistan is South Asian not West Asian, and inaccurate opinions. Geography is more important than geopoliticism guys!! Gatorbearratica (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan and Afghans are South Asian. 

message: What are the ethnic groups in south Asia 64.226.63.186 (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social studies  

message: Please discuss here before reverting my recent edits. I couldn’t find one credible source that states Tajiks natively live in South Asia. Northern/Western Afghanistan (Tajik’s homeland) are considered part of Central Asia. 2600:1700:158F:A900:3805:7AC5:444A:880B (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tajiks in Afghanistan are not south Asian.