![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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].
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's wrong with mentioning a few castes within the ethnic groups. It should be noted that some Indo-Aryan castes started as separate ethnic groups before being assimilated into the caste based hierarchy of the dominant group of the respective regions. Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Hazaras are Turko-Persian anyway right? Foxhound03 ( talk) 14:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: 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)
@ Fylindfotberserk: We might have a misunderstanding amongst each other As request by you Fylindfotberserk you want an explanation for my edits. To be clear I did not say that Afghanistan was not included in "South Asia". I only added sources that its ethnic groups are generally not included as "South Asian". I gave clear sources for that. As it is generally known Afghanistan is a transregional country that is considered mostly both Central Asia and South Asia depending on the sources. But let that sink. Just assume that Afghanistan itself is a state in South Asia:
but the Population of Afghanistan is generally not considered "South Asian":
So maybe to have something in between we can change it like this: "...Although Afghanistan is included in South Asia, It's Population is Generally not considered South Asian" (so we fade away the word "sometimes"). so we have a compromise. But you understood me wrong in there. I hope it is clear now what I meant. Casperti ( talk) 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
...including the nations of India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka." stays as it is, since Afghanistan being a part of South Asia is reliably sourced in the South Asia article. Now, I do not understand why a country's ethnic groups will be considered non-South Asian despite it being considered a South Asian country. I know of the trans-regional nature of Afghanistan. Also a sentence like "Although Afghanistan is included in South Asia, It's Population is Generally not considered South Asian", needs to be explicitly sourced as such. Extrapolating from Wiki articles and sources which do not include Afghanistan in their content wouldn't do. Since they do not necessarily mean that they are excluding Afghans from South Asia.
In his other book they include the Pashtuns in Central Asia because of Afghanistan: Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: But the fact is, I do not speak about Pashtuns or whatever, I am talking about Afghans in General.
This and this talks about the obvious, that is Afghanistan's multi-regional allegiance. It is not the point of discussion here since Afghanistan is included in the articles of both South Asia and Central Asia. We are discussing whether "Afghans are not considered South Asian" as you have put. In this context, this source that says that the South Asian American organizations "only occasionally include Afghan Americans..." can be of value, however it is more specific to the American citizenship, which we have to mention so that we do not violate WP:NOR. Secondly, it would be better IMO to use a source which says that this definition is used by the US government rather than some regional organization within the US.
My suggestion would be not to disturb the lead sentence and add a separate sentence specific to the context framing it as:
"Afghans are not always considered South Asians as in the case of Afghan Americans. [1]"
Pinging @ Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Utcursch: for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 07:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Afghans are generally not included among South Asian ethnic groups [1]". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk: Why has "Afghanistan" been included in the opening sentence? The second sentence explicitly states that Afghans are not South Asians so the inclusion of Afghanistan in the opening sentence does not make sense because the second sentence directly contradicts it. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC))
References
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)
What are the ethnic groups in south Asia 64.226.63.186 ( talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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].
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's wrong with mentioning a few castes within the ethnic groups. It should be noted that some Indo-Aryan castes started as separate ethnic groups before being assimilated into the caste based hierarchy of the dominant group of the respective regions. Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Hazaras are Turko-Persian anyway right? Foxhound03 ( talk) 14:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: 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)
@ Fylindfotberserk: We might have a misunderstanding amongst each other As request by you Fylindfotberserk you want an explanation for my edits. To be clear I did not say that Afghanistan was not included in "South Asia". I only added sources that its ethnic groups are generally not included as "South Asian". I gave clear sources for that. As it is generally known Afghanistan is a transregional country that is considered mostly both Central Asia and South Asia depending on the sources. But let that sink. Just assume that Afghanistan itself is a state in South Asia:
but the Population of Afghanistan is generally not considered "South Asian":
So maybe to have something in between we can change it like this: "...Although Afghanistan is included in South Asia, It's Population is Generally not considered South Asian" (so we fade away the word "sometimes"). so we have a compromise. But you understood me wrong in there. I hope it is clear now what I meant. Casperti ( talk) 18:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
...including the nations of India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka." stays as it is, since Afghanistan being a part of South Asia is reliably sourced in the South Asia article. Now, I do not understand why a country's ethnic groups will be considered non-South Asian despite it being considered a South Asian country. I know of the trans-regional nature of Afghanistan. Also a sentence like "Although Afghanistan is included in South Asia, It's Population is Generally not considered South Asian", needs to be explicitly sourced as such. Extrapolating from Wiki articles and sources which do not include Afghanistan in their content wouldn't do. Since they do not necessarily mean that they are excluding Afghans from South Asia.
In his other book they include the Pashtuns in Central Asia because of Afghanistan: Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: But the fact is, I do not speak about Pashtuns or whatever, I am talking about Afghans in General.
This and this talks about the obvious, that is Afghanistan's multi-regional allegiance. It is not the point of discussion here since Afghanistan is included in the articles of both South Asia and Central Asia. We are discussing whether "Afghans are not considered South Asian" as you have put. In this context, this source that says that the South Asian American organizations "only occasionally include Afghan Americans..." can be of value, however it is more specific to the American citizenship, which we have to mention so that we do not violate WP:NOR. Secondly, it would be better IMO to use a source which says that this definition is used by the US government rather than some regional organization within the US.
My suggestion would be not to disturb the lead sentence and add a separate sentence specific to the context framing it as:
"Afghans are not always considered South Asians as in the case of Afghan Americans. [1]"
Pinging @ Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Utcursch: for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 07:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Afghans are generally not included among South Asian ethnic groups [1]". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk: Why has "Afghanistan" been included in the opening sentence? The second sentence explicitly states that Afghans are not South Asians so the inclusion of Afghanistan in the opening sentence does not make sense because the second sentence directly contradicts it. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC))
References
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)
What are the ethnic groups in south Asia 64.226.63.186 ( talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
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)