Talk:List of Scheduled Tribes in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2012.

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)


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 .

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.

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


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)


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)

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)

kashmir missing[edit]

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

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

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)


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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)