Talk:South Asian ethnic groups

Hindi-Speaking People is the name of an ethnic group???

"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)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

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)

I agree, but what does that have to do with this article? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian vs. Indo-Aryan

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Paharis, Lhotshampas and Dards

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)

Assamese people are not an ethnic group

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)

Nevermind, I have found sources claiming that Assamese are an ethnic group. Re-added. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated article

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)sindhutvavadin

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)

Definition of "ethnic" group seems arbitrary

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)

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)

Collective term

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)

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)

Merge with Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia

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)

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)

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)

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)

Including castes is to messy, better to stick with ethno-linguistic groups

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)

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)

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)

Mixed races?

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)

Parsi and Hazara

@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: 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)

Afghan ethnic groups

@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":

• South Asian Americans
• South Asian Canadians
• British Asians
• Sources on South Asian ETHNIC GROUPS will not show Afghanistan: Ethnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific:
• Ethnicity and Nation-building in South Asia

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)

The lead sentence "...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.

Analyzing your sources: This one mentions mentions "India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka", but also contradicts it by saying that a Bangladeshi and a Pakistani would not identify as a south Asian, not to mention other countries are not mentioned.

In this source, "Bangladeshi, Bengali, East Indian, Goan, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Pakistani, Punjabi, Nepali, Sinhalese, Sri Lankan, Tamil, or South Asian" are included. As you can see, the grouping is unclear. It includes ethnic groups, countries and sub-regional groups and at the same times leaves a lot of other groups. What are the chances that Afghans groups are also not included this way?

This Minahan book on South Asians has a chapter dedicated to "Pashtuns". Coming to your Wikpedia source, this article has a template at teh bottom which includes Afghans within South Asians.

All these sources are either reliable to specific context (identifying groups in a specific country) or are rather dubious. They wouldn't help support the sentence you are proposing to add. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: To your Question: Why a country that is considered South Asian, its population is not regarded as South Asian? Ask the American, British and Canadians Authorities/Censuses (Fact is a Fact) and Because Afghanistan has two definitions of Location: Central Asia and South Asia. like Germany, Afghanistan is within 2 regions. Example Sources: The Afghan government:

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs I quote "Afghanistan is a 652,864 sq. km. (249,935 sq. mi.) landlocked country situated at the hub of South Asia and Central Asia" [1]
• President Ashraf Ghani I quote: "Afghanistan is itself a Central Asian country" [2]
• I can go on with the list but you can too. Afghanistan is in both definitions depending on who you ask or which source you use. Maybe @Uanfala: can help us. He is protecting Afghanistan's location consensus on the main page of Afghanistan because of the many edits wars on this matter. Maybe he has an opinion on this too?

Yes, in this book This Minahan they include Pashtuns in South Asia too because Pakistan is in South Asia but Im talking about Afghanistan in General.

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.

You want a source that exactly mentions that Afghanistan is sometimes included in South Asia but its population is not considered South Asian here is one:Asian American Society: I Quote: South Asia compromises nations.......... Although Afghanistan, Burma and Tibet are also sometimes included...... For South Asian communities they use the core 7 countries"". So I can place this source if you want? Casperti (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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."

Pinging @Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Utcursch: for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would phrase it as "Afghans are generally not included among South Asian ethnic groups". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Since this source talks about the American citizens only, will it be OK to write that "Afghans are generally not included among South Asian". Aren't we making an WP:OR here? I mean something about the American citizenship needs to be mentioned/added IMO. @Doug Weller:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to say it if we don't want. The WP:ONUS is on inclusion, not exclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 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))

Sorry, I just re-read it and it makes sense. Ignore the previous message (Sapah3 (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

References

Afghans have many ethnic groups. Some of them are central Asian. Some of them are Persian/Middle Eastern. Some of them are South Asian.175.103.25.138 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Afghans are South Asian.

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)

Social studies

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

Tajiks in Afghanistan are not south Asian.

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)