Talk:List of Scheduled Tribes in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Propose article renaming[edit]

To avoid possible confusion and ambiguity, I would like to propose that this article be renamed to something like List of Scheduled Tribes in India. Are there any objections? If not, I'll do the rename/page move in about another week.--cjllw | TALK 08:00, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I have now moved the page to List of Scheduled Tribes in India, and fixed up the redirects.--cjllw | TALK 01:40, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Parsis[edit]

Sometime ago, I had read somewhere (most probably in Times of India -- not exactly sure) that Parsis have been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. But Google doesn't return anything like that. Does any body know about this? Was it just a proposal or something? I am sure I had read this somewhere. utcursch | talk 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Parsis are listed in the list of minorites like Jains , Muslims , Christian etc & not in the list of Scheduled tribes .[reply]

Also it is requested to make the latest list availble from gazzete Girish Maliwad


No. Parsi population are a separate religion. religion and tribal status are independent of each other.

However, the Sachar committee report stated that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are present in other religions as well. It identified SCs and STs among other religious communities too. Thus, it gives the SC and ST percentage among Muslims as 0.8 and 0.5; among Christians as 9 and 32.8; among Sikhs as 3.7 and 0.9; among Jains as nil and 2.6; among Buddhists as 89.5 and 7.4; among Zoroastrians as nil and 15.9. (Taken from Persistence of Caste by Anand Teltumbde)

--K N Unni (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LIST OF SCHEDULED TRIBES[edit]

There is no reference or the data on which the list is valid. As Government makes changes in the list occasionally both are important --K N Unni (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rongmei Tribe in Manipur, Assam and Nagaland Glkamei2k (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about arunachal pradesh please do ask me i will be pleased to help you Vishnu pegmir (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab[edit]

The Central List of Other Backward Classes website, dealing with backwards castes in India, refuses to load a page for Punjab. We here do not have a section on scheduled castes in Punjab. I have found no explanation for this at all, as I am assuming that the Sikhism statistics apply to Punjabis. Can thid be explained by anyone? --Maurice45 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kashmir missing[edit]

there is no section on scheduled tribes in kashmir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.19.78 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find nicobarese and shompen people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.204.223 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from article[edit]

2. Adv. Prof. Mrs. Mayawati Vithalrao Sose, ( M.A., B.Ed., LL.B., P.G.D.E.M., A.D.R.S. ) Maharashtra, has been researching on this subject and would be glad to share any information she has. She can be contacted on +919890791090.

--dab (𒁳) 07:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Could anyone make map?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linkifying lists of tribes[edit]

I've started to go through the list, to add links to the tribe names. It's not particularly difficult, but I probably won't go through the whole thing. If you have a text editor capable of Regular Expression editing (like EditPad Lite--free download) or if you have access to a RegEx engine, then you can make your life infinitely easier than adding the links one by one by hand.

The following RegEx pattern substitution will adjust the first term in every line that begins with '#' by turning it into a link:

  • pattern=#\s+([\w]+(?: \w+)*) replacement=# [[\1]]

As a Perl example, this would be: s/#\s+([\w]+(?: \w+)*)/# [[\1]]/g and would link every matching line in one operation. Then hit the Preview button, and it will likely show most of them as blue links, and some as red links. Fix up any disambig pages and red links as you can. Some articles about tribes on WP instead of being named "PQRSTUV" will be called "PQRSTUV people", those will show up in red in the Preview. Some other articles either have, or omit, a final 's'. So play around with the red links to see which ones you can fix up, use the Search feature in WP in case the article is spelled slightly differently. Also, mouse over all the blue links, to make sure they're not disambiguation pages and if they are, visit the page to choose the right destination article. Fix up what you can, then hit Save. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC) edited Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linked as far as Chhattisgarh. Think I'll give it a break and let someone else have a go. Next up is Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting you. You are wasting your time because there is massive ambiguity in these lists. This has been discussed again and again. Why else would it be that such a long-established list remains unlinked? - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give a few examples at random, which may or may not be Indian castes/tribes in this list, take a look at my comment in this thread regarding the potential relationship between Gurav and Gorava. Then consider Yadav and Yadava, Soomra and Soomro, Ahir and Aheer. Then consider the format of the actual primary sources used, which were discussed at various AfDs relating to lists such as this and, regrettably, attracted the usual bunch of clueless WP:ARS people. Even the primary sources cannot agree, and for example there have been over 1200 amendments to one of the central government lists since it was introduced (plus a four-fold increase in the number of recognised castes/tribes over the period of a century, mostly because of vanity rather than anthropology).
Are Saini all Saini, or are some Mali caste or Rajput Mali? Are all castes/tribes entirely of one umbrella group (Jat people or Rajput, for example) or are they sometimes found across more than one and, if so, are both umbrella groups similarly designated in the official lists? Do you understand the complex relationship between gotra, jāti, varna, caste, kootam etc? Hint: the British Raj loved to classify people and to make links; their administrators very often misunderstood those concepts and got it wrong: the legacy of their errors lives on today and by doing what you did, you are repeating their methodological error. Life is simple; caste is particularly not so.
I'd love it if more people took a long-term, serious interest in caste articles here. What we do not need are well-intentioned but very misguided contributions, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, thanks for your comments. I believe that your comments are valid, perhaps, for some of the terms listed that are, or purport to be, tribal names. In my view, your argument argues more for deleting the items themselves, if they are wrong, and not for deleting the links. You will notice, if you look at the links carefully, that I have verified in most cases at least that the geographical location that they point to makes sense within the context of the state, and sometimes the district involved. I will look again at your comments in more detail in the next few days, and do further examination of the situation. If the situation appears to reveal a split between the terms and what they link to, then you are quite right, and not only should your revert stand, but the terms themselves should be removed. If they do not (and it's a case-by-case situation, it need not be all-or-nothing) then I plan to restore some, or all, of the edits to their state before your revert, after I've had sufficient time to reexamine the situation. Note that I am only interested in the good of the article, and I would be more likely to be persuaded by your arguments if you (or someone) removed those tribal terms you find objectionable. However, if the terms are left standing, in my mind that signals approval, and if upon further examination, the links are appropriate to those terms, then I will likely restore them. Putting it another way: if we have so little confidence in the validity of a bunch of temrs in an article, that merely linking those terms causes them to be reverted quickly for fear of damaging the article, then we really have a problem with the terms in the article as it originally stood, and that needs urgent attention.
As a secondary issue: You not only reverted linkages to the terms, but you also removed a set of categories, and sometimes also a "main" article at the top of each section. You can find these under each subsection, using the {{See}} or {{Category see also}} templates. You made no argument here that there was any problem with these, so kindly restore them, or explain what other issue you found with them.
Happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the terms are valid. They are lifted straight out of the primary sources. The problem is that we are not qualified to interpret those sources. This was one of the major issues at the various AfDs that mined sources such as these, and is one reason why I would still like to see the entire article deleted. Unfortunately, WP:ARS go doo-lally, promising to improve something that cannot be improved. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Put more simply, if you don't understand the intricacies of caste etc (and it seems that you do not) then this list is best avoided. It isn't a playground and getting it wrong will unleash a whole load of trouble. This topic area is in any event notorious for trouble and for lack of understanding, which is why even admins tend to burn out when trying to deal with the crap that comes from India etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article should either be deleted or interlinks allowed. It is completely pointless to have the article (which would otherwise be of great value) if readers can't figure out who any of these groups are. If there is a specific term that is ambiguous, fix it. If there are others that are clear, interlinks should be allowed on them at the very least. And as far as I can tell, there's only one user who is policing this on their own initiative, Sitush. I would suggest Sitush take the time to help fix the issues (since s/he seems to have familiarity with the problems) or at the very least take the action to delete the page. Coinmanj (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue that has been discussed many times before. Like you, I have tended to favour deletion of the articles, which are simply a replication of primary sources, but that has never been accepted. That said, it has been accepted (in various AfD discussions etc) that they should not be linked because of the extent of ambiguity. There are, for example, numerous identical names used for wildly disparate communities in India and the primary sources are so vague, inconsistent and frequently changing that it is pure original research to make the link. Just a quick look at the mess that surrounds, say, Ahir, Abhira, Yadav and Yadava should give an inkling but there are far worse examples out there. And ambiguities cannot be fixed because we are using a primary source - basic stuff, surely?

Yes, some could be linked but then the other problem arises, which is that it becomes a honeypot for people to make the inappropriate links and thus a maintenance nightmare. There are a lot of vanity-obsessed caste warriors out there and very few people dealing with the subject matter who are actually familiar with Wikipedia policies etc. This, too, was taken into account in the past discussions. Time and again, people with little knowledge of castes etc have become involved and made a mess of things, sometimes later acknowledging the error of their ways and sometimes not. There is a reason why we have discretionary sanctions in this topic area. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm sorry, I said ... that has never been accepted above. Deletion has sometimes been accepted when an article is a replication of a primary source but, in my experience, only when the primary source is known to be unreliable, not merely ambiguous (eg: numerous articles that replicated data tables from the various Indian state censuses of 1891, 1901 and 1911. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my note of 19 April 2015 above, an example that I have just found in Bihar - the Bedia (caste) and Bedia (tribe). They're not in this particular list but we've no way of distinguishing them if they were mentioned because these primary sources are notoriously vague. This is what goes on. A lot. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on List of Scheduled Tribes in India. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018[edit]

14.139.51.121 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo Tribes should be in the list of Assam's Tribe, because Bodo Tribe is the single largest tribal group in Assam.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about the arunchal pradesh schedule tribe list[edit]

The arunchal pradesh schedule tribe list in the fourth number there maintioned that its dafla its actually a wrong information, its nyshi who ever gonna edit it please do correction about it.

I myself belong tho nyshi communtiy of arunachal pradesh, india thanks whoever gonna edit thanks tho him/her JAI HIND JAI BHARAT Vishnu pegmir (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyishi Changriang (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022[edit]

Please link Raba,Rava with Rabha as Rabha is commonly used by new generation and in all the caste certificate of Rabha caste people, certificate is being issued with the caste name Rabha, which was written as Rava by ancestor but in Assam and West Bengal they have written it correctly,by sub divisional officer. The reason behind requesting to link this is because I as a student have faced a problem in the admission process of JoSAA(Joint seat allocation authority)where a document verifying officers had raised a complaint regarding the issue of caste Rabha is not mentioned in the list of st in Meghalaya.And they asked me for proof or affidavit to upload and I did it and got selected in NIT uttrakhand,I am requesting this so that my cousin or other people belonging to caste Rabhawould not face any kind of issue. 2409:4066:8F:28CE:3036:4BE7:ECAC:43ED (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022[edit]

'Bold text'

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India&oldid=1201940390"