| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adivasi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Daily page views
|
Any objection to moving this page to Adivasi?QuartierLatin1968 01:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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 (toParsi) 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)[reply]
I am sure that Parsi community do not belong to the category of adivasis and the scheduled tribes/ scheduled castes. --Bhadani 13:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does the word adivasi come from the Sanskrit language? 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
These articles are duplicative and need to be combined.OfficeGirl 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[Deleted copyright material]..Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersorder (talk • contribs) 08:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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":
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)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)[reply]
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) R.E.D.[reply]
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:
{{dead link}} tag to http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.anthropology.paleo/2006-06/msg00409.pdf{{dead link}} tag to http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100224/812/tnl-tribals-appeal-for-separate-religion.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone take a look at Adivasi?User:Dev0745 is making extensive edits there, but I've the impression that parts of it may be rambling. For example:
Tribal are heterogeneous ethnic groups can be divided in five ethnolinguistic groups such as Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan and Andamanse. Indo-Aryan tribal have same origin as their negibour caste population. Dravidian tribal have also same origin as Dravidian caste population.
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Dev0745: thanks for providing the links. Your intention seems to be good, and the information you provided seems to correct to a certain level - but not completely. It takes time for other editors to check such edits; sigh... Anyway, if you want to try again, be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal can be categorised into five linguistic grouping i.e. Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan and Andamanse.[1][2][3]
References
When come to think of different dialects prevalent in India, we can easily divide them into five major language families starting from the first civilization of Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman, Andamanese, and Austro-Asiatic. However, for a better understanding of the tribal region segregation, it is best to have a look at the regions where tribal population inhabits.
Their presence in India pre-dates the Dravidians, the Aryans and everyone else.It further says:
they can be broadly classified into three groupings. The first consists of populations who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations, and are termed by many anthropologists as the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people. The Central Indian adivasis belong to this grouping. The other two groupings are the Caucasoid and Sino-Tibetan or Mongoloid tribal people of the Himalayan and North Eastern regions who migrated in later periods.
Adivasi can be categorised into three grouping, namely the Australoid people speaking Austro-Asiatic languages, who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations; Caucasoid tribes; and Sino-Tibetan.[1] Tribal languagescan be categorised into five linguistic groupings, namely Andamanse; Austro-Asiatic; Dravidian; Indo-Aryan; and Sino-Tibetan.[2]
References
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)[reply]
Tribal are heterogeneous ethnic groups can be divided in five ethnolinguistic groups such as Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan and Andamanse. According to genetic study of 2004 in south india, south indian tribal have independent origin with carrying more indigenous haplogroups.[1] Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic were migrants from East and South East Asia respectively and mixed extensively with local Indian populations.[2][3]
References
... Our coalescence analysis suggests that the expansion of Tibeto-Burman speakers to northeast India most likely took place within the past 4,200 years ...
On a quick note:
Tribal are heterogeneous ethnic groups can be divided in five ethnolinguistic groups such as Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan and Andamanse.
should be
Tribal are heterogeneous ethnic groups, which can be divided in five ethnolinguistic groups: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan and Andamanse.
Still, it's not clear what "heterogeneous ethnic groups" means.
Further, 2004 is far outdated. Recent relevant studies are:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Adivasi is the collective term for the indigenous peoplesofIndia.
... Adivasis are the aborigines of India ...- inaccessible via Google; 'aborigines' prior to who, or what time?
The Adivasis are the original inhabitants of India. That is what Adivasi means: the original inhabitant. They were the people who were there before the Dravidians. The tribals are the Gonds, the Bhils, the Murias, the Nagas and a hundred more.- ah, before the Dravidians.
... The Adivasis are the original inhabitants ...- 'original' prior to who or what?
In India, the term Adivasi is used to refer to Scheduled Tribes, although the term indigenous and tribe have different meanings. Indigenous means descent from populations who inhabited the country or region at the time of conquest or colonization, and tribe means a group who are distinguished by their social, cultural and economic conditions from other sections of the community.
The word Adivasi means the first inhabitants or the Indigenous People, a phrase recognised by the Supreme Court of India.
adivāsi carries the specific meaning of being the original and autochthonous inhabitants of a given region. It is a modern Sanskrit word specifically coined for that purpose in the 1930s,
The Concept of the Adivāsi: According to the political activists who coined the word in the 1930s, the 'adivāsis' are the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent ...
from ādi 'beginning, origin' and vāsin 'dweller' (itself from vas 'to dwell'), thus literally meaning ‘original inhabitant’.
This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Adivasi, (Hindi: “Original Inhabitants”)official name (in India) Scheduled Tribes, any of various ethnic groups considered to be the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. The term is used primarily in India and Bangladesh. In the constitution of India, promulgated in 1950, most of these groups were listed—or scheduled—as targets for social and economic development. Since that time the Adivasi of India have been known officially as Scheduled Tribes.
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)[reply]
I think defination of "Encyclopedia Britannica" is more appropriate. Also the claim that tribal were prior to Dravidian and Indo-Aryan seems incorrect as native language of tribal is also dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages. Tribals have also same haplogroups as Caste population although they carry more ASI genetic. according to recent genetic studies, Austroasiatic tribal arrived in Indian subcontinent around 4000-3500 year ago, which is not before the Dravidian and during same time as stepe pastoralists. So claim that tribal were before Dravidian and Indo-Aryan seems incorrect. (Dev0745 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC));[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are Adiwasis Hindu? RishabhMeemroth (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Srimank123, Sparklehorse23.
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
