Talk:Khonds

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Odisha Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Odisha (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Inconsistency

Other pages indicate that Orissa is not part of Andhara Pradesh! Please resolve this inconsistency. 8.8.38.2 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for rituals

The rituals of the Khonds are described in detail in James George Frazers The Golden Bough, e.g. in The Golden Bough. Abridged Edition in 1 volume (1922). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0000ff (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khonds. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107225208/http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf to http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/ST%20Lists.pdf

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with citations

There was a large expansion by an anon in 2016. They said they were a researcher at JNU, which might explain the rather better-than-normal phrasing found in this type of article. However, either they didn't understand how we cite things here or much of the information was in fact unsourced. The standard of phrasing could also be due to copy/pasting from the sources, which is common in India-related articles.

I'm unsure what to do about this because I cannot see the sources that are cited without incurring quite significant expense and thus cannot check anything. Can anyone else see them? - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sitush, just prowling and noted the above. this appears to be

the complete book that the I.P seems to be citing in the diff you give as an example. Haven't had time to skim it yet so can't see any direct copy and paste vios. Will check a bit more. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the source then we need to remove the material. We not consider sources from the British Raj era and earlier to be reliable for caste-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have become familiar with that policy while observing your endless work in the Caste-related articles on WP. It looks like the source being deployed though, and its from 1852..It does not appear in the article in it's present form though. Irondome (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused. Are you saying that it is being used but not cited? Does this mean that the other sources used in that expansion are being misrepresented? Or what? This is my difficulty: I can't see them, although the 1852 one will probably be at archive.org. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only information that seems okay to me, a priori, is the stuff cited to Hardenburg: even that may be questionable, because I know that publisher publishes PhD theses. The material on languages is also okay, but that seems to be older. The M.K. Jena source may be okay, but I'm doubtful. Everything else seems to be Raj sources or OR. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sitush. I should clarify. It does not look like the wording that is in the diff provided is in the article anymore. The source is no longer cited in the article source list. However, I defer to Vanamonde93's opinion on this. The article needs completely re-sourcing it would appear. Irondome (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confusing myself, it seems. I removed a lot of it pending the outcome of this discussion. I'm still dubious about much of what remains, as per Vanamonde above and my comments in the section immediately below this one. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say to making a start by removing everything that does not have a citation? Then leave it a few days and see if the article attracts some attention? Thereafter, we can look into the sources that are used, per Vanamonde93's comment above. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start by removing the "Rebellion" prose. It's sole source is a book published in 1911 and it is very badly written. Being bold here. Any issues, please revert. Irondome (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article still deserve the tag of needing more citations?The tag was added in 2017 and seems like a lot of citations have been added after that Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and misrepresentation?

This merge introduces major problems. For example, if we look at an early version of the article that was merged into this one, we see that it references this paper from 2004 or earlier. The presentation of that paper is odd in itself (different coloured text, numerous spelling errors) but, and this is worse, our then article misrepresented it. An example of the misrepresentation is our article said The Dongria family is often nuclear, although extended families are not unexceptional, whereas the paper said he Dongria family is normally simple nuclear family consisting of father, mother and their unmarried children. Extended families are rare .... And our article says that the women are an equal asset but the paper says The woman is more diligent and hard working in comparison to their male counterparts and that Due to this reason girl child is preferred over boy child.

The version of the original article also says things like aesthetic romanticism and proto-Australoid racial stock, which may or may not have come from this web page - difficult to tell because the Wayback machine may not show the earliest version of the government website or that website may have plagiarised our article.

I think the paper itself is a reliable source but I am wary of the website transcription of it and also the government website. Regardless, we were misrepresenting the paper and I think we're going to have to start this article pretty much from scratch, using high-quality sources and insisting on full citations (see previous section). - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellions

I don't think anyone denies that the Khonds have rebelled on several occasions, eg: 1835, 1836, 1882 and 1893. The reason why I recently removed a large chunk of information from this article related to the 1836 event was because (a) much of it appeared to be unsourced; (b) the sources that were used were of poor quality; (c) the tone and formatting etc was all wrong.

I've no objection to us mentioning the events, obviously, but there are policies and guidelines that we should follow. This is an issue that was discussed only a month ago but someone has again reinstated the material. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hdpradhan: Do you happen to have a copy of Enc Brit 1911? Anybody? If so, could put into wikisource. Batternut (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is in EB1911 then Wikisource is the place for it, not this article. EB1911 isn't reliable any more. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with another article

Are the Dongria Khonds a local tribe in one area of SW Odisha as stated in the Dangaria Kandha article, or are they spread over seven Indian states as stated here? Some form of merger is needed by someone who understands the wider ethnic picture: Noyster (talk), 11:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: I have just reverted the article. This edit was a unilateral re-purposing of the thing back in October by someone who was aware of the thread in the section immediately preceding this one. That usurpation may be a part of the confusion to which you refer. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note also some previous points raised by me above regarding earlier merges. The entire thing has become a mess due to POV pushing etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]