Talk:Adivasi

message: Any objection to moving this page to Adivasi? QuartierLatin1968 01:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I have removed the statement that Parsis have tribal status from both Parsi and Adivasi entries since I can't verify this (either way). 
Although I originally added the statement (to Parsi) that Parsis gained tribal status in 2004, I am now of the opinion that this was incorrect. Parsiana (the Parsi community monthly), had absolutely nothing on the subject in 2004, and given how vocal Parsis can become on the subject of receiving (or not) special privileges, I'm sure that the subject would have been covered in depth if it were true.
Fullstop 12:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsi tribal status followup 

message: In Nepal there are many indigenous peoples such as Tharu, Magar and Kham, Gurung, Tamang, Rai and Limbu who are called Adivasi (or Adibasi) and Janjati.  Their situation is the same as India's Adivasis, except there might be small differences in government policy toward them.  I propose that they be added to this article. LADave (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adivasi/Janjati in Nepal 

message: Adivasi is more correct,they are aboriginal communities,having religion Aadim dharma..with Mahadeva/Lord Shiva as Supreme God.This article is clearly a work in progress, and several issues above relate to whether the term is general or specific.  At the moment we use 'adivasi' in the early 'Connotations ..' section, and later often capitalise 'Adivasi' especially when referring to ST classification. 
In keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), lower case should be used unless there is a definitive case (sic) for capitalising.
In any case (doh, there we go again) this article should move rapidly towards using one or the other consistently, or else explicitly explain that there are two uses of the term, one general and one specific, captialised accordingly. Earthlyreason (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is against Wikipedia policy (and is illegal) to lift copyrighted material at this scale - so I am deleting it. You could simply have brought in a couple of lines and a set of links rather than do this. Also, you didn't acknowledge the actual authors of this material, which isn't okay in any respect. You stole (basically) material from http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/Vol-III/issue_4/story09.html, http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Dalit-tribal/2003/adivasi.htm and other sources. You are also in violation of Wikipedia talk guidelines (WP:SOAP). Please don't do this. Many of these exact issues inform the article, except that the article is actually richer and covers them in even more detail. --Hunnjazal (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: adivasi or Adivasi

message: Several paragraphs have been copied verbatim, unattributed, from "James Heitzman and Robert L. Worden, editors. India: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995", url: http://countrystudies.us/india/70.htm.
Per  WP:PD use is allowed.
Per  WP:PLAG it must be properly attributed, which it is not currently.  JanetteDoe (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Adivasi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "biomedcentral.com":
From Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia: 
From Gujarati people: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Adivasi]] 

message: Please provide a source citing who coined the term Adivasi and what the reasoning was at the time. I've heard it was A.V. Thakkar... 95.224.3.198 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who coined the term? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Adivasi. 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:
*Added  tag to http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.anthropology.paleo/2006-06/msg00409.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129141833/http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/august-2007/engpdf/Page1-11.pdf to http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/august-2007/engpdf/Page1-11.pdf
*Added  tag to http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100224/812/tnl-tribals-appeal-for-separate-religion.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssa.nic.in/research-studies-docs/education_tribal_children.pdf/view
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102233739/http://www.divinelifesociety.org/graphics/ebooks/swami_sivanandaji/downnload/all_about_hinduism.html to http://www.divinelifesociety.org/graphics/ebooks/swami_sivanandaji/downnload/all_about_hinduism.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504053609/http://www.srivaishnavan.com/tomcat/thiruppa2.htm to http://www.srivaishnavan.com/tomcat/thiruppa2.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20080502212703/http://www.thetribaltribune.com/V1I2/Birsa.htm to http://www.thetribaltribune.com/V1I2/Birsa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Tha article is saying that "Adivasi can be categorised into three grouping i.e. Austro-Asiatic, Caucasoid and Sino-Tibetan", but what's the point of mixing hypothetical language families with races? Also, where are the Australoids who are possibly the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent? Barbar03 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adivasi categories 

message: *  - says:
:
:The article then states what language is spoken by various groups in each region. Check: Baigani is an Indo-Aryan language. In that case, the text should state "Tribal languages can be categorised into  five linguistic groupings". 
*  - no mention of language affiliation.
*  - subheader:  It further says:
:
:So, Scroll.in does not support the statement. Correct, following those spources, would be the following:
:
Still, is there a more exact definition of Adivasi? And what's "Caucasoid" in this respect? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic grouping

message: On a quick note: 
should be
Still, it's not clear what "heterogeneous ethnic groups" means. 
Further, 2004 is far outdated. Recent relevant studies are:
:* Basu et al. (2016), Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure. See :Indo-Aryan migrations#Additional components
* Narasimhan et al. (2019), The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia, Science. Their scenario: ancient Indian hunter-gatherers; ahg + Iranian farmer related people = Indus Valley Civilisation; IVC + Aryans = north India (ANI); IVC + southern hunter-gatherers = Dravidians (ASI); ANI + ASI = all modern Indian peolple, including Adivasi.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Different tribal of Indian subcontinent have different genetic origin. According to several genetic studies North Indian and Upper Caste have more ANI ancestry whereas South Indian have low ANI ancestry. This can also be true for Tribals. North Indian tribal can have more ANI ancestry and South Indian have low ANI and more ASI ancestry. Sino-tibetan tribal carry ATB(Ancestor Tibeto Burman) ancestry and Austroasiatic tribal carry AAA(Ancestoral Austroasiatic) ancestry. Andamanese tribal are direct descendant from out of Africa migration. So Basically Tribals are not homogeneous groups but heterogeneous ethnic groups with different origin.  (Dev0745 (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic studies

message: The term "indigenous" seems to be obscured; it's not explicitly stated which population should be considered to be 'the first people' of India. From the article:
*  
:*  - inaccessible via Google; 'aborigines' prior to who, or what time?
:*  - ah, before the Dravidians.
:*  - 'original' prior to who or what?
* 
:</ref> - not specifically about Adivasi, but about "indigenous and tribal peoples." It certainly doesn't argues that the two terms have different meanings; it explains what the two components of the phrase "indigenous and tribal peoples" means, mentioning the adivasi as such a group. It does not say that the term "adivasi" refers to the scheduled tribes.
* . 
:* S. Faizi & Priya K. Nair, 2016. "Adivasis: The World’s Largest Population of Indigenous People," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 59(3), pages 350-353, December - inaccesible via Google.
* 
:* 
* 
:* "Adivasi, n. and adj." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2017. Web. 10 September 2017.
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
I have copy-edited the definitions according to a more critical reading of the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, all the sources above (bar the comment from ) make it clear Adivasi are considered indigenous. That's Britannica, the Lok Sabha definition, Gandhi, Barnes, Gray and Kingsbury, OUP, Faizi and Nair... ie numerous sources that would usually be considered reliable. To claim it as a fringe position requires sources stating that's the case. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "claim that tribal were before Dravidian and Indo-Aryan seems incorrect" makes it clear. The above quotations show that why this term is dubious and does not have a single meaning when it comes to usage. I called it a fringe position because I am aware of the researches which argue against the claimed indigenousness of the tribes. At best its an activist position and should be highlighted like that and no more weight should be given to this claim. >>> Extorc.talk 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:List of notable Adivasi people]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Are Adiwasis Hindu? RishabhMeemroth (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Some; some aren't. There's a "religion" section in the article. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Adiwasis Hindu? 

message: Shouldn't Adivasi and NE tribal groups be considered as separate ? Adivasi is used only for the aboriginal groups of Austroloid origin who today speaks a variety of languages including Indo-Aryan. NE tribals are ST but aren't considered as Adivasis. So there should be separate articles for "Adivasis" and "Tribals of Northeast India". Tizen03 (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adivasis vs NE tribal groups ? 

message: Ybtvx vkybf chal he cun H fir jb ap 2409:4060:100:8722:504A:8C24:68BE:FEB0 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History teacher said💬 he👦 said 

message: User:Dāsānudāsa, What is problem in including stand of Government of India which doesn't consider Adivasi as only Indigenous people. Government of India consider all citizens of India as indigenous. Whether right or wrong, It is stand of Government of India. Why should it not be added? Dev0745 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is WP:UNDUE for the lead. The current government of India has lots of fringe views, so we must take what they say with a pinch of salt. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also repetition: the article already says "the government of India does not officially recognise tribes as indigenous people." Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Stand of Government of India

message: — Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies