Talk:List of Rigvedic tribes

Dasa
I have removed the sentence about the darker skinnded Dasa. It was written as if it was an undisputed fact, while not all scholars agree on the exact meaning of the text. (see Dasa) There is also a discussion of this at Dasa, so discussion of the meanings should be there. --Rayfield 01:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indo Aryan Tribes
There appear to be many errors which I hesitate to modify but some of them may be pointed out. 1. The term Gunguri along with Sinivali etc.occurs as goddess only once in RV 2.32.8. Griffith and Sayana both hold her as such. To cite Griffith "Her, Sinivali, her Gungu, herRaka, her Sarasvati, Indrani to myaid I call, and Varunani for my weal." This has been shown as the name of a tribe which is not valid. 2.Likewise panca Janah or panc krsti are not tribes but collective names for all the people. They should not be listed among tribes. 3. Like wise listing nahushas and Ayus are disputable even though both have been used in plural as well but commentators interpret them as 'human beings' and 'living beings'. 4. Once Matsya tribe was mentioned, Meena was not called for. The latter des not occur in RV and the former occurs only once in 7.18.6 besides once as the name of a seer Matsya Sammad. Semantically Meena tribe recalls the Vedic matsyas. That is all. 5. Ikshvaku does not occur in RV. 6. Drbhika is a personal name but even if stretched to mean a tribe, it is a hostile non-Vedic one whom Indra kills. Only one occurence in singular. 7. Differences in point of view which are more serious can wait. (GFDL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KUNELPURI (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific
1. Which Saraswatas are you referring to? The Punjabis or the migrants settled in the western part of india? The confusion arises here with your reference.

2.As per Sir Risley, the punjabi saraswats belong to Indo-Aryan tribe. on the other hand, the migrants from west coast India who claim to be saraswats, have Scytho-Dravidian or Indo-Scythian roots.

Would you please clarify? Nijgoykar (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It is proposed that the article Arya (tribe) be merged here. Arya is a self designation term, and it did not specify any particular tribe, but many tribes, as listed in this article. Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing the merge proposal, and instead supporting the deletion of Arya (tribe): Articles_for_deletion/Arya_(tribe). Chaipau (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge
I propose to merge Druhyus into this article because that is merely a small paragraph. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  01:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And this page is a list. It is not supposed to contain any paragraphs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge
Anybody against a merge to List of ancient Indo-Aryan peoples and tribes? Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Both pages are in a mess anyway and don't really impart any useful information. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is my aim, too - keep all the rubbish in a single place. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no opposition and progressing a step further, will merge Category:Rigvedic tribes (excluding Matsya Kingdom and Kuru Kingdom) as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Onto this.
 * Half the content is unsourced and the other half is sourced from colonial-era scholars or Hindutva revisionists: so there is no point in expending resources to merge. I will be redirecting all articles and then, flesh out the parent using Witzel. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This observation was not applicable for Yadu, Puru (Vedic tribe), and Turvashas; they were indeed merged.
 * That being said, ✅ TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Surasena was one of the 16 Mahajanapadas which ruled the parts of Ancient India. Merging the Surasena article with List of ancient Indo-Aryan peoples and tribes (which lists numerous tribes in single-line) seems totally unfair. Your claim about biased sources is false. Here are the list of neutral sources from modern historians denoting "Surasena": "Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300" by Romila Thapar (2004), "Ancient India" by Vidya Dhar Mahajan (2016) , "Historical Dictionary of Ancient India" by Kumkum Roy (2009) . SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to an individual page on Surasena. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Appears to object to this merge, based on the fact that they have twice reverted Surasena to the pre-merge state., please come here and explain your reasoning for thinking this merge is inappropriate. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had paid more attention, I would have seen that they already have. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)