This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is supported by WikiProject Maldives, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Maldives on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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. SaimdusanTalk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 2008 (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)
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." SaimdusanTalk|Contribs 00:03, 6 August 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. SaimdusanTalk|Contribs 00:14, 6 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, microsatellite DNA, and mitochondrial DNA  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.
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. SaimdusanTalk|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. SaimdusanTalk|Contribs 06:37, 17 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)
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. SaimdusanTalk|Contribs 08:09, 10 March 2009 (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)
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)
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)