Template talk:Ethnic groups in Nepal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Nepal (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. WikiProject icon
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Discussion[edit]

Please note the following fact:

  • Dhimals and Thamis are Kirat Nation who do not speak any Kirati language.
  • Tibeto-Burman is no longer a widely-accepted scientific classification. Sino-Tibetan or Trans-Himalayan should be used instead.
  • The substrata in Tharu and Danuwar has not been deeply studied and it's not clear whether it's Trans-Himalayan or something else. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I took this from the Sino-Tibetan languages page:

"Several low-level groupings are well established, but the higher-level structure of the family remains unclear. Although the family is often presented as divided into Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated, and is rejected by an increasing number of researchers. A minority of researchers call the whole family "Tibeto-Burman", and the name "Trans-Himalayan" has also been proposed."

As for Newars, this template discusses ethnicity not language and thus should not be there. (137.147.16.237 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

  • That's exactly the reason why ambiguous term Tibeto-Burman shouldn't be used here.
  • The Upper list is an ethno-linguistic list. Ethnicities are classified by language family. If Newars must be grouped with Tharus, I would remove all classifiers such as "Indo-Aryan", "Tibeto-Burman" and put all ethnicities in one list. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that this template is divided by language family. Then I think Tharu should be added to Indo-Aryan languages and I'm not sure where Danuwar will go. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
As for Indo-Aryan-Mongoloid, sorry I did not mean that, I was suppose to write Indo-Aryan-Tibeto-Burman, but since we are basing it on languages I guess that can be removed. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
This category is distinct as those people have non-Indo-Aryan origin. They are yet to be researched, and their linguistic substratum, which point to their origins, is not well-studied. So I suppose to use Indo-Aryan (with a substratum). --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think since Danuwar is already listed in the other basis section under geography and since there is no dedicated page to them I think the section that says "Indo-Aryan-Tibeto-Burman"should be removed, what do you think? (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My idea is that for each of the classification, the classification should be complete. For example, it's a bad style and unfair to put some people in the classification by caste and other people in the classification by geographic. If an ethnic can be removed by such reason, all Sino-Tibetan (TH) can be removed under janajati and all Aryans can be removed under those castes. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So do you want to divide it up so all ethnicities, caste groups etc. are put under one of the language families? (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To put them together, all caste groups and "janajati" should be removed as they are not ethnic classification. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah ok, but I think we should still keep the current design of the Nepali ethnic group template, just divided into language families instead. What do you think? (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree. The bottom part of this template can be split into a separate templates. However, there is some problem you must consider: although Khas is an ethological concept, it has also become a pejorative among some Indians and consequently some Nepali do not want to be called that. Instead, those Nepalis use their caste as their ethnic group although caste are not ethnic groups. Here comes the problem, Eastern Pahari editors may list those caste into this template in the future. If the caste part if removed, they may put those caste directly into the Indo-Aryan section, which will bring big problem as certain Sino-Tibetan-speaking peoples, such as the Newars, share the same caste.

  • So I don't suggest you to removed them now. As mentioned, Nepalese society is subject to intense change in the future decades. Don't do something too bold, and see how the native do it. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay @146.96.147.126:, yeah I have noticed that as well, it almost seems like these castes are ethnic groups. Yes I understand it will make it seem like that certain caste only speaks Indo-Aryan languages when in fact some of them speak Sino-Tibetan languages because it's only a caste made up of different ethnicities who speak different languages. Yes I think the bottom should be removed, however I think the template as of right now is good, it was good working with you on this template, the bottom can be fixed later on I guess. Face-smile.svg (120.144.130.238 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
Thanks for understanding. Could you please check the scope of "Madheshi Janajati": does it cover Tharus, Danuwar and Munda, and can it replace the two categories "Indo-Aryan (with distinct origin)" and Austroasiatic? --146.96.147.126 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I can, but I can't do it right now, I will however do it later today. =D (120.144.130.238 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
Check the usage of the term first. :) I suspect if there's any difference between these two concepts. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I will when I come back online. Face-smile.svg (120.144.130.238 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
Hello, I couldn't find much except for this source [1]. It doesn't say anything about Munda people, because they are a Austroasiatic speaking people and thus are distinct. I'm not sure what should be done but I think you should have a look at the link I posted above, it might give some insight into what should be done. (121.220.84.119 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't have access to this book via Google but I've requested it to my library. --146.96.147.38 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Okay it's readable now. This material doesn't seem helpful enough. --146.96.147.38 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think right now the table is in pretty good shape, oh and the addition of the immigrants was good! =D (121.219.39.8 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

Newar[edit]

The case of Newar is somewhat different from the case of Tharu and Danuwar languages. It's well-established that Newar is a Sino-Tibetan language with intense Indo-Aryan influence, not an Aryan language with a Sino-Tibetan substratum. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Ok, I understand that, we should then call it "Sino-Tibetan" only instead of the "Trans-Himalayan" part. About the Newar part, how do plan on "putting all ethnicities in one list", what I mean is what would the name be? (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
    • Still Sino-Tibetan is the common term (that's the reason I put Trans-Himalayan in parentheses). One can only change it to Trans-Himalaya (Sino-Tibetan) when the main article is renamed, as for the second question, it would be something like this:

--146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think the template we have right now is good. I left a message for you above this section as well, so you can read that as well. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

Tharu[edit]

Why is Tharu removed from the category Indo-Aryan speakers with a non-Indo-Aryan origin? They clearly have a distinct origin and many linguists have pointed that out. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The template is divided along the lines of language family origins similar to this template Template:Ethnic groups in Vietnam. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
The thing is with that, the template includes many other things as well. Template:Bhutanese society. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
  • I didn't notice the change of that template. Maybe the Vietnamese one is a good example but please don't do that to Nepal because Nepalese ethnics are far from well-classified; in the future decades, the classification may be subject to intense change and nobody can predict what will happen. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it is good and no I won't do that, I think the current design is good for Nepal, I just think it should be divided along the lines of language family similar to the Vietnam template. (120.144.130.238 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC))
  • Today there are hundreds of tribe in Nepal. Tomorrow it might become 1000, or maybe 50. :) --146.96.147.126 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pahari[edit]

Please seek a good term for "Hill people". It's a pity that the term Pahadi is so ambiguous that it can also refer to Pahari-speakers or even Eastern-Pahari-speakers. --146.96.147.126 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Classification of Rajbongshi[edit]

Anyone who have information whether Rajbongshi-speaking Rajbansi people consider themselves a Madhesi nation or a general indigenous Terai group (like Tharu), please post it here. Thanks a lot! --146.96.147.38 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Damai[edit]

Most sources indicate that Damai are the Nepali-speaking tailor caste. No source gives any link to Damai in Kameng. I removed this ethnic group from the list until any source is presented. --146.96.147.38 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How to arrange the caste section[edit]

@Nepalichoro255: made a very effective classification on caste which is temporarily undid by me. Below is his list:

FYI, I have a supplement:

  • Magar - Thapa?
  • Magar - Pulami etc.
  • Newar Buddhist - Vajracharya Bare (I suggest to list Newar Buddhist castes separately)
  • Newar Buddhist - Shakya Bare
  • Newar Buddhist - Upasaka
    • Uray

Frankly this is a very good job but I have the following concern about this:

  1. Should such a detailed classification be included in a separate group called {{Ethno-caste groups in Nepal}}? The current template is already large enough and I am having a headache on how to simplify it. My idea is simply list major caste groups by population, and it's just designed for those who do not want to be listed under their ethnic group (mainly Khas people, plus some Madhesi). --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. If caste groups are classified with ethnic groups, cannot it be simply listed under each individual ethnic group? --146.96.147.126 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Walung people[edit]

I just had to update the article on Walung people. I am not sure how they fit in Nepalese ethnic groups. Could someone advice? --Voidvector (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)