Talk:Sinhalese people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Updating the info box image

Hey all, I'm rather new to Wikipedia and would like to know your opinion on a change that I think is necessary. The picture in the info box of a Sinhalese man in Bombay seems rather old and not very clearly depicting of the current generation of Sinhalese people. Can we edit the picture to a more modern depiction of a Sinhalese person? If not, what are the reasons not to do so. Thank you. ඩිජිටල්0සෝමේ (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The old version of the article used images of notable people of Sinhalese descent (see here, but it was decided by the community that articles on ethnic groups should not include such images because in some article some editors got into disputes over who should be included, so now no article on any ethnic group has such images of notable people (I personally think this is a wrong decision, but that is what they decided). Also some people are concerned about using images of recognisable living people and whether they have given permission for their images to be used on Wikipedia article, so images of random individuals who are not famous people should be used with care, particularly in a prominent position in the article. A historical image may therefore sidestep such concerns. Hzh (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hzh Thank you for your response. I didn’t mean that we should change it to an image of someone famous like you’ve provided. More like this, to a picture of a modern Sinhalese person. Could that work? Thanks! ඩිජිටල්0සෝමේ (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case it may be the issue of using images of someone who may not have given permission for its use. There is another issue whether the person is representatvie; in the example you gave of the Uyghurs, most Uyghurs don't look like him, who could be from a neighbouring ethnic group. The image was removed or changed for many years e.g. [1][2], someone only recently re-added it back. Hzh (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Copyright and permissions are an issue. But in that case wouldn’t removing the image from the infobox be better? Maybe even move the image out of the infobox on to somewhere else in the article, like here? Thanks! --ඩිජිටල්0සෝමේ (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on removing the image, although I think it might have been removed in the past and someone put it back. You can always try it and see if anyone objects, and maybe discuss the issue further if someone else re-adds it. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Diaspora number irregularities

“Sinhalese” is not recorded by the UK census specifically, the figure for Sri Lankans includes groups like Tamils, Moors etc

The previous source was a letter from a Sri Lankan high commissioner criticising a person for visiting what he considered a separatist event, and points to their “far higher” contribution to British society and is extremely biased.

I have found only one paper so far on the Sinhalese community (“ The exact number of the Sri Lankan diaspora living in the United Kingdom is not known, as they have not been included in any form of census.”) - http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/11772/1/2019nandasinghephd.pdf

Please update if you have any proper sources

New Zealand’s original source listed : https://teara.govt.nz/en/sri-lankans/3%7Ctitle=3

Refers to Sri Lankans as a whole, as its census data, far fewer choose to identify as “Sinhala/Tamil etc.” so impossible to ascertain how many of each exist

Would appreciate any clear sources

Due to the conflation with other Sri Lankans the diaspora numbers can be very skewed caution is advised

Australia’s number quoted : https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/mca/files/2016-cis-sri-lanka.PDF

This only referred to the number who said they were born on the island of Sri Lanka, and this is again census data

Proper citations are needed for nearly all countries listed so its usefulness to the page is questionable.

Let me know what you think about the numbers

AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eurasian PCA.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Lion of Sinhala. Creation of the Sinhala Nation.The purity of the Sinhala nation

• Many Asian and African tribes are said to be descended from four-limbed animals. Some say it is descended from a bird like the vulture. Myths have also been created that it is sometimes descended from trees. There is a reason for that. Because that race or ethnic group is different from other nations and shows its identity here.
• The fact that the Sinhala nation was born to a lion means that it has **no connection with any other ethnic group**. *Who is the grandfather of Sinhabahu and Sinhasivali? Who is his father? Who is the father of that father? This goes on and on and on and on. *That is why the origin of the Sinhala nation started from an animal. **It shows that the Sinhala nation has no connection with any other ethnic group.**
• Sinhabahu living with his sister, Sinha Seevali is a bad thing for anyone to say. That it is not good to look at it with Western medicine too. However ,once again **it means that there is no connection with any other ethnic group.** This is a fabricated story about the identity of **Sinhala Nation.**--RsEkanayake 17:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

mahavamsa origin myth

Mr @JohnWiki159:, Mahavamsa says that Vijaya and his entourage married nobles women from the pandya kingdom. Southern Madura refers to madurai, and pandu refers to the pandya kingdom. The chapter also refers to thousands of settlers migrating from the Pandya kingdom (of the 18 guilds). See the notes in the Mahavamsa chapter at the end. In the Gananath Obeysekera article he clearly states that Vijaya married a pandya princess:

"Subsequently, in a formal ceremonial, he married a princess from South Madurapura (in the Tamil country, distinguished from North Madurapura, the land of Krsna). There were no heirs from this marriage, and Vijaya's brother's son was brought from Sinhapura to take over the kingship.(5) This is the foundational myth for Sri Lankan history and it is an inescapable part of the historical consciousness of the Sinhalas. Modern scholars have scarcely noted the fact that it is a myth of ethnic separation and integration. The land is consecrated and cleansed of evil spirits by the Buddha for Vijaya to land; the hunters are descended from Vijaya but by an illegitimate union, and hence outside the pale of legitimate kingship and Buddhist history and civilization. The Tamils are affines; they do not inherit the dynasty; it goes back to Pandu Vasudeva, whose name resonates with that of the protagonists of the Mahabharata. Yet, unlike the Vaddas, the Tamils are not only kinfolk but also co- founders of the nation. This aspect of the myth has been almost completely forgotten or ignored in recent times. The rest of the Vijaya myth appears everywhere and is so powerful that virtually everyone treats it as an empirically "true" beginning of Sri Lankan history."

Mahavamsa says:

"When the messengers were quickly come by ship to the city of Madhura they laid the gifts and letter before the king. The king took counsel with his ministers, and since he was minded to send his daughter (to Lanka) he, having first received also daughters of others for the ministers (of VIJAYA), nigh upon a hundred maidens, proclaimed with beat of drum: `Those men here who are willing to let a daughter depart for Lanka shall provide their daughters with a double store of clothing and place them at the doors of their houses. By this sign shall we (know that we may) take them to ourselves.’ When he had thus obtained many maidens and had given compensation to their families, he sent his daughter, bedecked with all her ornaments, and all that was needful for the journey,17 and all the maidens whom he had fitted out, according to their rank, elephants withal and horses and waggons, worthy of a king, and craftsmen and a thousand families of the eighteen guilds, entrusted with a letter to the conqueror VIJAYA. All this multitude of men disembarked at Mahatittha; for that very reason is that landing-place known as Mahatittha."

There is no mention in Mahavamsa of Sinhalese being descendants of Nagas. Vijaya and his men married women from the Pandya country (Note 16- Now Madura, in the south of the Madras Presidency.). Metta79 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No point mahawansa has said that the people from Madurai got absorbed to the Sinhalese identity neither them settling anywhere in sl and they were brought to help vijaya maintain the kingdom and vijaya died and they more likely left sl after his death because more people came to sl from north Ultra8K (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the first passage quoted above from the cited reliable source by Gananath Obeyesekere. It is a scholarly secondary source which is the highest form of reliable source on wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some types of sources

He clearly points to the myth suggesting that the Pandya women were "kinfolk and cofounders" of the Sinhala nation, along with the 'Vijaya' men. Metta79 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all these scholars get their sources from mahawansa itself, If mahawanasa dosent talk about it how can they come with conclusions like this and what he said is a theory on what happened to those people there are multiple theories provided by a lot of historians and we can't add every single one of them and if you want to add this into the article use it as what might have happened to them according to that specific historian and give the other theories also cause Wikipedia is about being neutral not something based on one persons viewpoint Ultra8K (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Mahavamsa mentions both mixture with yakkhas and pandya settlers, you cant selectively pick and choose what you want from Mahavamsa. Also it is very rude to ask to take it to the talk page and then make such biased edits, without discussion. Seriously you say Sinhalese are descended from yakkhas based on the kuveni story, whose descendants are described as the pulindas/veddahs. But then you ignore the thousands of settlers Mahavamsa mentions from the pandya kingdom, including the wives of Vijaya and his men. Metta79 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dakkhina Madura (southern Madura) of the Pandu kingdom as identified by scholars as Madurai of the Pandya kingdom. Pandu is the word used to describe the Pandya dynasty throughout the Pali chronicles of Mahavamsa and Culavamsa. Metta79 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo history and modern day folk etymology - siv hela has no place in an encyclopedia of repute

Siv hela and ravana 'theory' is well known pseudo history that has no place in an encyclopedia. Not one trained historian or linguist will agree with this fringe theory. I've already shown how it does not keep in with WP:PARITY. None of the sources you have used satisfy WP:SCHOLARSHIP and are poets, novelists etc. Not trained scholars in the field. Metta79 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@JohnWiki159:, the ancient Sinhala Prakrit word for 4 is catara, which is closer to Sanskrit/Prakrit catur (compare to modern Sinhala hatara, Sinhala often has c>h or s>h change from Prakrit/Sanskrit). This word 'Siv' is not even attested in the ancient period, let alone the fake term Sivhela. It is impossible for this fake term 'Siv-hela' to have existed in the prehistoric period. There is no evidence of this term existing anywhere in the ancient inscriptions or literature!!!

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/about/vilaveva-inscription-a-short-notarial-deed-on-stone/

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/ancient-sinhala-numerals/

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/about/a-table-of-numerals/

https://www.inscriptions.lk/

Metta79 (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Siv hela and ravana 'theory' is well known pseudo history that has no place in an encyclopedia". This is your Point of View. Also the theory "Sive Hela" is not a fringe theory. I have provided multiple sources which talk about this theory. They have researched about the area. Also, I don't think you are a trained scholar to completely disregard their hard work. You are just putting forward your Point of Views. And you can't say with so much confidence "It is impossible for this fake term 'Siv-hela' to have existed in the prehistoric period". This "Siv hela" is a theory and should be mentioned under the etymology section. Also, I will give a link to a research done on this regard. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/59020919/De_Koning_The_Many_15_12_2021_incl_kaft.pdf JohnWiki159 (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Also, I don't think you are a trained scholar to completely disregard their hard work." You do not know my background, I actually do have formal university training in this field (History, Sanskrit, Linguistics). But that is besides the point.

Regarding the book you have linked, the author is clear that Ravana is MYTHOHISTORY:

"it shows that the identification of Lanka (from the Ramayana) with Sri Lanka and Ravana as the king of Lanka have been part of (alternative) mythistorical imaginations of the Sinhalese." Page 12.

Please at least read what you are linking. Just because some amateur nationalists believe in clearly made up mythohistorical imaginations (which only emerged in the post independence period mind you), does not give it the right to be put in a serious encyclopedia. Otherwise, we would have all sorts of myths and nonsense polluting a serious scholarly website, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be.Metta79 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Read page 131 onwards. The author analyzes "siv hela" concept and gives her ideas. This is a theory and anyone can agree or disagree on just like how some historians disagree with Mahavamsa. Then according to your logic, Mahavamsa should also be removed from the etymology section.

"Just because some amateur nationalists believe in clearly made up mythohistorical imaginations". The so called "amateur nationalists" have done research and presented their ideas. JohnWiki159 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems you have problems understanding her words. She clearly says on those pages that this siv hela theory is 'creative' meaning made up by modern day people like the poet Arisen. She does not say anywhere that it's historical. The difference between Mahavamsa and this nonsense, is that Mahavamsa is an ancient chronicle with a lot of historical value and truth corroborated by ancient inscriptions, it's the most important source of ancient Sri Lankan history. It has been historically analysed by historians. It's not some modern made up myth created out of thin air like Siv Hela. Metta79 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it as an outsider, I'd say that it is entirely permissible to add etymology that is commonly used but may be incorrect, or folk etymology, but it must be clearly stated as to what they are. This is because it helps people who have read about such etymology to understand what they have read may be inaccurate or entirely false, and how they are false. The sources used however should be academic sources to show that it is something that has been discussed in academic circles. Hzh (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes this would be fine, but the problem with the passage suggested by JohnWiki159 is that it does not make it clear that it is a clearly incorrect folk etymology created in the 20th century. The sources he is using are all by authors not considered scholarly in the field, including the original promoter of the term Arisen.Metta79 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The person who wrote the article linked, Deborah de Koning, appears to be a young academic whose work has been published. She quoted other academics like Nira Wickramasinghe, so perhaps there might be some discussion about this elsewhere. The would require more reading of other publications, and more time may be necessary to write something acceptable. Whether anyone wants to do that I don't know. It seems to be a popular theory amongst certain people, and because of that I expect that it would be constantly added and so needed to be dealt with. But, it should not be added without academic sources. Hzh (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nira's book that Deborah references does not mention anything about 'sivhela', i've just checked.

This is what Deborah says on page 131:

"In the 1980s and 1990s, Mirando Obeyesekere and

Arisen Ahubudu provided creative etymological explanations of Sinhala/Sinhalese as

derived from Siv Hela, with siv meaning four"

Both of these people are not scholars in the relevant field. In fact the term Siv Hela appears only to have existed since the 80s! Metta79 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I read that part, but I was hoping for a bit more definitive statements about how the siv hela concept (that presumably arose from the hela movement) was created, and how it is false. The "creative" part indicates it may be a newly invented and unreliable theory (therefore likely considered "fringe" in academic circles), but a bit more information would be useful. Fringe theories are not forbidden in Wikipedia articles as such, there are a number of relevant guidelines like WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:EVALFRINGE, and if a fringe idea is popular, then there are more reasons to include it if only to explain why it is not an accepted concept. But, I suppose the article might hold off adding the "siv hela" idea until there are more discussions in academic sources to give a more rounded description of the idea. Hzh (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hzh Hi, thank you very much for providing your opinion on this. I included this theory under the etymology section by citing reliable sources. The "Siv Hela" theory I included in the etymology section is as follows.

Another theory is that there were four major clans of "hela" in ancient Sri Lanka even before the arrival of Prince Vijaya, and that Sri Lanka was called as "Siv hela" (siv=four in the Sinhala language) and later it was changed into "Sinhala".

I have given multiple sources but @Metta79 keeps dismissing them by calling them fringe theories. Also Arisen Ahubudu is a scholar who has done research on this. I believe this should be included in the etymology section. Can you provide your opinion regarding this? I have cited multiple sources as well. JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The people involved are mentioned in the Deborah de Koning article, so they are not new information. From what we can gather, the siv hela theory does appear to be a recent creation, and as such, it needs independent assessment by academics to evaluate its validity. The one cited (de Koning) does not appear to consider the derivation as having firm foundation (as indicated by the use of the word "creative"), therefore may be considered "fringe" in academic circles, however, we really need more independent academic sources discussing the idea to have a better idea how the theory is regarded. Per WP:PROFRINGE the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The sources you gave are primarily "proclamations of its adherents". As already mentioned, I don't have any problem with adding any theory even if it is considered fringe, particularly if the theory is popular, but it needs to be carefully written to reflect independent academic opinion so that it is not an WP:UNDUE promotion of a fringe idea. If you can find more assessment by independent academics, try again with something that's carefully-worded, and if your edits get continually disputed, then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to gather opinions from the wider community on whether it can be included in the article. Hzh (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for proving your valuable opinion regarding this. JohnWiki159 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Sinhalese people with the Nilame dress.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Entire South India is not Tamil

1. Entire Southern India is not Tamil. There are many other non-Tamil speaking populations in Southern India.

2. Dravida in ancient terms meant geographic region bounded on 3 sides by sea = Indian peninsula starting from the mid part of India (south Vindhya mountains)

3. No where Dravida meant Tamil. Tamil had their own unique name Thamizh and were specifically confined to Tamil Nadu state of India

4. Sinhalese language is not spoken anywhere in India. It uniquely developed in Sri Lanka, thus Sinhalese culture and language indigenous to Sri Lanka.

5. Gene flow into Sinhalese population has come from various sources, with Maratha people sharing common ancestry with Sinhalese, as opposed to Bengal as per Singh et al research. There is a strong west Eurasian gene flow into Sri Lanka.

4.South Indian gene flows did happen, but despite this, the Sir Lankan population is considered homogenous with Sri Lankan tamils of U.K (STU) not ST (sri lanka tamils as a whole) being genetically related to Sinhalese, than rest of India.

all Sinhalese and all Tamils (including Tamil Nadu) are NOT genetically related and all of Sinhalese ancestry 'DID NOT' came from Tamil Nadu of South India.

Sri Lankan Tamils particularly the Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K (STU) mostly of upper caste Tamils who who migrated long ago as proffessions mostly from wealthy families are closely related to the Sinhalese as compared to OTHER indian populations including Indian tamil Nadu tamils. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

META79 Please don't vandalize the article further and misquote studies

The new edit today made

"A 2023 genetics study by Singh et al confirmed North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population and deeply rooted common genetic ancestry with the Maratha.. The research study clearly shows a higher West Eurasian gene flow to Sinhalese, than South India.The research also indicates some genetic relationship with South India as well, which may be probably true for the Karava castes among coastal Sinhalese based on Sinhalese historical description of Karava immigration from south India and adoption into Buddhism. Research has also indicated a link between Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K (STU) and Sinhalese castes."

---

This is in balanced summary of the research studies taken.

Not all Tamils are related to Sinhalese, except Sri Lankan Tamils of u.k (stu) It is not Sinhalese who share entire genetics with Tamils as metta79 falsely keeps stating, it is STU that shares links to the Sinhalese, as compared to rest of South Asian populations Mentioned about the Karava castes already mentioned in the wikipeda article later on, in light of the research findings of some Indian gene flow. Karavas emigrated from south India, but nowhere it is proven they were Tamils. Their ancestor probably may have come from Kerala or Andhra pradesh or Karnataka or whatever.

Deep rooted common genetic ancestry with Marathas

I did not say Sinhalese came from Marathas, except both are sharing a common ancestry as per the research findings. Stating a west-Indian flow to Sri Lanka rather than Bengali flow to Sri Lanka as previous research (using lesser reliable technology) has stated.

That being said, Sinhalese are genetically diverse. So it is not correct to state that Sinhalese are all related to all Tamils. Some Tamils (STU) are related to Sinhalese. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You have added you a lot of original research which does not fit the reference at all. It is not a balanced summary at all. No mention of caste for the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils in this study. So you cannot mention all these things. You can only mention what's in the reference. Metta79 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit seem to falsely indicate that SINHALESE are related to the tamil, rather than SL tamil (minority) related to the ethnic majority Sinhalee. Sri Lanka's ethnic majority population are Sinhalese.

2. You have REMOVED West Eurasian gene flow into Sinhalese population

3. You have FALSELY put that South Indian gene flow is HIGHER among Snhalese, than north India.

Read the highlights of the research, no where it is stating as the prime highlight of the research. Tamil supremacists like yourself need to stop changing history of Sinhalese people. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Modern Genetic testing of 2023 confirms Greater north Indian and North-West Indian Gene flow in Sinhalese Sri Lankans than South Indians (as opposed to previous lesser quality research indicated in the past)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2)

The most extensive genetic study done on the srilankan ethnicities point out that Sinhalese have a higher gene flow from the bengalis than any other race but the person name Metta79 keep on removing that info from Wikipedia when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis than the others and I hope it will be changed soon to the updated one Ultra8K (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Metta79 61.245.171.75 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"The most extensive genetic study done"

Do you have a WP:RS supporting this claim?

"when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis"

Can you provide a WP:RS pointing to 'government studies'? The 2023 study cited in the introduction that you are trying to remove was led in part by Sri Lankan professors from University of Colombo (if anything that is closer to an official government institution affiliated study):

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/study-reveals-insightsinto-genetic-historyof-sinhalese-tamils/articleshow/103299516.cms

It uses more higher resolution markers than previous studies for greater accuracy.

And also can you please point me to the evidence suggesting that "most of the genetic studies" indicate a higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Source: Peoples and lauguages of srilanka by Asiff Hussein, I find it funny how it says that the Sinhalese and srilankan Tamils are genetically close it never says that the Sinhalese have a higher flow of tamil than North Indians and I think you are forgetting that the srilankan tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil so yeah the srilankan tamils will be close to the Sinhalese but it dosent mean that the Sinhalese have huge flow of tamil genes it means that the srilankan Tamils have a higher flow of Sinhalese genes this changes the topic so basically you are confused or you are purposely doing this Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

please link to the source which indicates that "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from bengalis.

Please read the actual 2023 study not just the news articles on it. It states that the highest dna shared (identity by descent - IBD) with the Sinhalese is with the Piramalai Kallar of Tamil Nadu (amongst the Indian populations). So it's not just Sri Lankan Tamils. Metta79 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a book not a cheap website and the link provided talks about the Sinhalese and the sl Tamils having similar gene pool nothing about the Piramalai Kallar people and you didn't answer my question and claiming I haven't read the website, the person here who haven't read the article is not me it's you

If you are unable to read and understand what the article has said or other countless books probably you need to get some serious help rather than spreading propaganda here Ultra8K (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)01874-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223018746%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Here is the link to the 2023 study which used higher resolution markers than previous studies. It found that there was higher gene flow from South India (statistically significant) to the Sinhalese than from North India, with the Sinhalese sharing the highest Identity by descent with Piramalai Kallar (Indian Tamil caste) compared to the other Indian populations studied. The study also found heightened sharing with the Maratha of north western India which was lacking in Tamil and other South Indian populations, consistent with a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population. Metta79 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar it is because the srilankan Tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil it is not because the Sinhalese got tamil genes put it inside your thick brain

If you are not broke even the books published on the genetic studies on Sinhalese says that they are closest to the bengalis there's no point ever a mention about Indian Tamils

You are here confusing readers and spreading propaganda on a neutral site which is used to educate people with info

No point in your own two articles a mention about the Sinhalese having a higher gene flow from the Indian Tamils which proves that your point is false Ultra8K (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, refrain from personal attacks WP:PA ("thick brain"). Wikipedia is built on consensus and polite conversations.

You said:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

But the article actually says this:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations

That was statistically not significant. It was referring to the Maratha link if you read the tables in the supplementary data.

The statistically significant gene flow is this:

We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations.

You say:

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar.

This is false. I quote verbatim from the article itself:

"We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU, while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."

And you can see confirmation of this in the graph on figure 6 itself:

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/44397dfd-d203-4b00-b17a-0df7aa7e82c8/gr6.jpg Metta79 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is also wikipedia policy for an editor to support his statements with evidence from the book that he citing from (even if it not accessible online). So you need to provide the quote from the source that you claim supports your edits. So please provide the quote which says that "government studies" and "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

the Sinhalese showed that 70 % of the gene pool

originated from the Bengali. When the analysis included Gujarati as the third parental population,

the proportion of the Bengali genes in the Sinhalese increased to 72 %. VNTR data were

available on Bengali, Panjabi and Gujarati and when these three populations were considered as

parental populations, the VNTR results indicated that 82 % of the Sinhalese genes originated

From Bengali admixture confirming that the present-day gene pool of the Sinhalese seems to have

Originated largely via migration from the northeastern region ot India.

Sample of 121 Sinhalese collected trom Colombo were

analysed and the overall pattern of genetic relationships pointed towards a substantial Bengali

contribution. A number of genetie admixture calculations using Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati and

Panjabi as parental populations showed that when the parental populations were used, the Bengali

Contribution remained strong (50-66 %), followed by Northwestern (20-23 %) and the rest

Contributed by Tamils

Some of the facts given by the book Ultra8K (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm this is from 'ZEYLANICA - A Study of the Peoples and Languages of Sri Lanka' by Asiff Hussein? It does not say neither "government studies" or "most extensive genetic study", those are words you have created yourself. Metta79 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have bought the book you can check his sources he used and most of his sources are either from universities or governmental researchers and in the cover page you can find that it says most comprehensive study of the subject to the date and the info that I provided earlier was from these researchers not from what assif has conducted to begin with he never conducted what he does in his book is bring all the actual sources and come to a conclusion at the end you shouldn't jump into conclusions without thinking .

The source you used neither has any backing from any historian or the government so it cannot be used as a actual source

Dosent have access to significant number of Sinhalese like the government neither used a government research or any other research as a reference

You keep ignoring the fact that there's Tamils out there who forgot there original roots and claims that they are Sinhalese when they are actually not if the research was conducted on some fake ones like that of course the study will show something stupid like what you use as a source

For example there are blacks in srilanka that was brought by Portuguese that now claim that they are Sinhalese and have forgot there original roots if a research was conducted on them it shows a relationship to the Africans are you gonna claim that Sinhalese are related to the Africans cause these blacks now identify as Sinhalese? Ultra8K (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to make claim here what's in the book. Here is the book - [3], which gives the source as [4]. They are not government scientists, nor is that a government publication. This study is also quite old (more recent publication is generally preferable), and is not a well-cited paper (meaning that it is mostly ignored by the scientific community), and the Cell publication given by Metta79 is far more prestigious. Also need to consider that a single publication does not make it a fact, since the result can varied depending on what is being looked at, and a review article that can assess the overall view is generally preferable for science articles. Hzh (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all if you have read the book, he have used both independent and governmental research's and second no point I have claimed he have published it through a government publication

Old dosent mean inaccurate and this is a well cited book and this is the only book historians recommend and the only book about genetic studies that is being sold in a government museum so this book is definitely no where close to being ignored

If cell is so prestigious can you tell me why dosent any historian or a independent writer use it as a source in any book

Another fact we can't forget is that there are Tamils who forgot there original roots and now call themselves as Sinhalese if one of those fake ones were part of the research of course the research would itself be a fail for a example there are blacks who was brought by the Portuguese and now has forgotten their roots and claims that they are Sinhalese if one of them were in the research then the research will show Africa as the closet people to the Sinhalese

This is why the book claims itself as the most comprehensive study on srilankan races and has been recommended by historians itself.

I hope you do a check on several other genetic studies and let me know your thoughts on it

Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no "government research" cited in that book so stop making this false claim.

Old can certainly mean inaccurate, because the field of genetic testing has rapidly expanded over the last 2 decades. The 2023 study uses more accurate techniques such as higher resolution markers.

Which historians have cited the genetics discussion in this book? There are none.

Being sold in a government museum means nothing. It is not independent scholarly peer review. Governments themselves are known to distort historical evidence for nationalistic causes. Metta79 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So now paranavitana not an a government researcher now is he a private historian Lol

R.L Kirk research on genetic markers in blood proteins of the Sinhalese found that they were closer to the bengalis than other populations which there was a recent study confirming this

No point that the genetic studies change when the technology changes it just makes it faster and shows more clearly for example if the old genetic studies show Italians as the closest same thing will be shown with the new technology, so it wouldn't go from Bengali to the Tamils for Sinhalese

The only genetic study book that is recommended by historians in the Colombo museum and there are historians who recommend

So your point is that government museums can sell books unrelated to history lol and you realize that there are non governmental sources also done on the genetic studies of Sinhalese that also says that Sinhalese are closely related to the bengalis

Ultra8K (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"R.L Kirk research on genetic markers in blood proteins of the Sinhalese found that they were closer to the bengalis than other populations which there was a recent study confirming this"

That study was from 1976! That is not recent. In fact, you will not be able to find any recent study showing a predominant Bengali origin.

Even in recent consumer DNA testing, every Sinhala sample on the public domain shows a predominant southern ancestry:

https://sldna.blogspot.com/2020/03/sinhala-dna-results-2019-update.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/16wc4qp/sri_lankan_sinhalese_with_intriguing_trace/

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/ivwzte/here_are_my_results_im_a_sinhalese_sri_lankan/

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/cno1x4/my_told_me_to_not_waste_money_on_things_i_already/

Every future study from now on using up to date methods will likely show the same conclusion. There is great reluctance for nationalists to accept this because of their aversion to the Tamil other. Metta79 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Not my problem you can't read properly I said that there was a another recent study confirming what R.l Kirk said you have ignored most of questions and nationalist? Aren't you one of them whose dreaming so hard looking at your activity wiki should ban people like you from distorting history

Again I'm gonna ask you to read all my messages before replying Ultra8K (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

it's 2023. There are no 'recent studies' (specifically autosomal DNA studies which look at overall ancestry) confirming a predominant Bengal ancestry. Please provide the study and the year it was released. Metta79 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

based on genetic markers in blood proteins by R.L.Kirk . found the Sinhalese

to be genetically closer to the upper caste groups of Bengal than to other populations , which was further corroborated by the studies of

J. Tay and N.Saha 220.

More recent studies employing hypervariable molecular

genetic markers 221 and Alu polymorphisms

222 have also confirmed the affinity

of the Sinhalese to Bengalis. This is a recent one and again I'm saying you to answer my questions without ignoring Ultra8K (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What question have you asked me? I see no question? Repeat your question. Questions have question marks.

Those studies you quoted above are not recent. The Saha one for example is from 1988. Whereas the other one is not even a full autosomal study! Far less reliable than an autosomal DNA study which analyses the overall DNA. Metta79 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you know that there's Tamils who call themselves as Sinhalese and that it would distort the genetic study?

For example there are blacks who identify as Sinhalese and they have forgotten their original roots regardless if a genetic study conducted on them will show a African descent now are you gonna say that Sinhalese are closely related to the Africans

Karava, Durava and salgama these people came from south India and claims they are original Sinhalese and hides the fact that they are tamil Now tell me what would the genetic studies show if these fake Sinhalese were taken into the study?

Ultra8K (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Govigama sample who also has predominant southern ancestry, read the comments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/16wc4qp/sri_lankan_sinhalese_with_intriguing_trace/

Govigama are around 50% of the population. The Karava, Salagama and Durawa castes are a small minority of the overall Sinhala population (~15%). It is ridiculous to claim that all the Sinhala samples in this study will only be from this minority of post 15th century South Indian migrant descendants. There is no indication that the Sinhalese participants were selected on the basis of caste, let alone selected in a manner to overrepresent these minority castes. Metta79 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Ultra8K - Old dosent mean inaccurate - Age do matter, and that is the Wikipedia guideline - see WP:AGE MATTERS. Newer research is generally preferred. this is a well cited book - Only two sources that cited it given there, so as far as the scientific community goes, that genetic study is largely ignored. It's irrelevant if other non-scientific sources cite the book, citation by historians are ignored by scientists (you also didn't provide proof that it's recommended by historians). I would suggest you use newer sources for Bengalis is you want to make the claim. I see also that the book contains very old research that is no longer used by modern scientists. Just checked that the journal from Metta79 is iScience, not Cell itself, but one of the journals by Cell Press, in any case, you can't expect other people to cite it when it has just been published. Both yours and Metta79's can be given in Genetic studies on Sinhalese where you can have a fuller discussion. You need sources about Blacks and Tamils who forgot their roots. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So how many sources do I have to provide cause I'm not so sure about wiki guidelines

How can genetic study be ignored when we are talking about genetic studies and the sources that's used in the book is based on the genetic studies of Sinhalese and how can I show proof that historians recommended it to me when it's something they have said not something that's been written on if you visit the Colombo museum you can ask them itself

based on genetic markers in blood proteins by R.L.Kirk . found the Sinhalese

to be genetically closer to the upper caste groups of Bengal than to other populations , which was further corroborated by the studies of

J. Tay and N.Saha 220.

More recent studies employing hypervariable molecular

genetic markers 221 and Alu polymorphisms

222 have also confirmed the affinity

of the Sinhalese to Bengalis. This is a much newer a source

It's a recording one of the black community claiming as Sinhalese and I got sources for the Tamils now claiming to be Sinhalese also

This is the reason why the genetic studies shows anomalous result from other genetic study shown Ultra8K (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You can use Google Scholar to look at how many people cite the book, but so far the book doesn't appear to be well-cited -[5]. The authors of the genetic study appear to have works with reasonable level of citations - [6][7] (not all the works listed are by the same authors, and you'd need to check if the articles are actually relate to Sinhalese genetics).

But, if I may intercede in the question of how the genetics section is written, neither sources used by you or Metta79 are particularly good sources. What would be a good source would be a recent review article on the genetics of the Sinhalese population by a geneticist or at least a scientist, and Asiff Hussein does not appear to be one. The article by Metta79 is too new, and it is a single point of view (it is not a review article which is useful for establishing scientific consensus WP:RS/AC). Without a suitable review article, I would have preferred it being written from multiple viewpoints (therefore multiple sources.) Hzh (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

These genetic studies provided by the book isn't conducted by Asiff it is provided to Asiff by notable geneticist I can send you sources with the names now and I can provide multiple genetic studies Ultra8K (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that scientific consensus doesn't come from a single study, you can get contradictory results from different studies, since each study may only look at a subject in a certain way which may not reflect the true situation. Results can be skewed by the way you conduct your study, so more studies are necessary to establish a consensus. Hzh (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What I provided is scientific studies I can provide both genetic and anthropology studies and I have no problem I can provide scientific studies should I send some now Ultra8K (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it funny how everything you say gets proven wrong in genetic study books and you keep using a source which is not recommended by historians also neither taken into study by any book and it dosent have access to significant populations of Sinhalese like most of the genetic studies that is either funded or done by the government, theres no proof that backs up them so it can't be used as a authentic source.

You better show me a actual source Ultra8K (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a peer reviewed source in a reputed scientific journal which follows WP:RS, whereas your source is neither peer reviewed nor published in a reputed publishing house. In fact the author Asif Hussein is a journalist without a doctorate, hardly a reputed scholar. BA degree and diploma is a basic level of higher education. In other words, he is not a trained historian or geneticist. Metta79 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that he used research that is released by government and his book isn't something he conduct its something he got from other researchers who are specialized in genetic studies and etc and the source that I used was not something he said it's what other researchers came to conclusion and he have added it to his book Ultra8K (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you used is no where close to being reputed journal and I'm not surprised wiki lets those fake sources to be added on wiki when they let propaganda sources to be used as a source

The source I used is reputed and even recommended by historians and even is for sale in government museums and has used sources from government led research's referring the book as a invalid is source is the same as referring the government research's as invalid and have got permission to use the government research's in the book.

Ultra8K (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Asiff dosent need to be a geneticist when there are government and reliable geneticist who have done a research and provided it to Asiff, Asiff just has to use the reliable sources and come to a conclusion

The quotes that I provided from the book isn't even what Asiff has said it was the government research's conclusion, so now are you tryna say that the government geneticist also dosent have proper training lol and in the book Asiff always used sources and he never have written what his thoughts cause he haven't conducted his own research what he have done in his book was bringing all the reliable sources to one single book so attacking Asiff is a stupid thing to do

This whole argument is stupid when every reliable sources has said the Sinhalese and the bengalis are genetically most similar both by genetically and anthropometrical studies. Ultra8K (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on this talk page and the edit history of the article, it is clear that the user @Metta79 is pushing their personal agenda for their preferred viewpoint. When a single user decides which recent studies are not reliable based on arbitrary reasoning and refuses to include alternative findings and viewpoints in the article which do not line up with their preferred results, there is clearly a problem. In one of their previous edits they removed information they declared was statistically not significant but fail to note that the Singh study was conducted on a meager sample size of a mere 9 individuals. This is blatant bias in editing and obviously not in line with the concept of maintaining a neutral perspective for Wikipedia articles. KJaya13 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The age of that 2007 study has already been called into question by another user on this discussion, and is a perfectly valid reason for it not to be uncritically accepted as up to date with the current science, and certainly should not be showcased as the mainstream scientific view. See WP:AGE MATTERS

It is not arbitrary reasoning, the 2023 study uses far more accurate and up to date methods, with much higher resolution markers than previous studies. The field of population genetics has moved on dramatically since 2007, especially so in South Asia.

X linked DNA studies reflect more of the maternal ancestry (as the authors themselves admit), not the overall autosomal ancestry which reflects the overall ancestry of a population and overall descent (FYI on a side note, there is a reason why 'Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka' who are mainly descended from Dalit castes of AASI maternal lineages (Haplogroup M) are more distant from both Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils who have higher West Eurasian haplogroups, which are associated with upper caste populations e.g. Iranian farmer/steppe pastoralist lineages).

The Singh study is authored by some of the current leading players in Sri Lankan and Indian genetics, Prof. Kamani Tennekon & R. Ranasinghe (Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Colombo) and Niraj Rai (Ancient DNA Lab, Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences).

re: sample size, the authors themselves state:

Although the sample size is low for the intra-population and genomic selection type studies, they are sufficient for inter-population comparison and understanding the population history.

And this is true. 9 randomly selected DNA samples which all show the same conclusion of predominant southern ancestry is sufficient for interpopulation comparison. It is not the same as statistically insignificant results. Metta79 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Meta79 is a Tamil Supremacist who wants to "claim" every ethnic group in Sri Lanka and South India as Tamil. Bascically he is implying, Tamil Hindus are cheap, and didn't marry within their caste and language, and were ready to get into bed with anyone.

HE knows nothing about Tamil culture or Tamil Hindu history.

Most Tamils Hindus don't speak Sinhalese and let alone marry Sinhalese Buddhists. Most Tamil Hindus married within Tamil speaking Hindu same caste (the majority that is). Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Modern Genetic testing of 2023 confirms Greater north Indian and North-West Indian Gene flow in Sinhalese Sri Lankans than South Indians (as opposed to previous lesser quality research indicated in the past)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2) Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gabrielasirwatham: the study does not say that Sinhalese are genetically closest to Maratha. It says there is a trace of ancestry that is affiliated with them. But overall they cluster closest with both sets of Tamils. Please read the study again properly and have a close look at the graphs, tables and charts. Metta79 (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Gabrielasirwatham says that Sinhalese are genetically closest to Maratha. I can see a couple of issues with the original wording. The study look at Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils (it also makes a distinction between the Sri Lankan Tamils and the more recent Indian Tamil immigrants). It shows that the the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils are more closely related to each other than to other Indian groups. Both groups have major South Asian genetic components (note the paper doesn't say Tamil, just South Asian) with greater gene flow from South India, but they also found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations. A high level of West Eurasian ancestry is found in all the major Śrī Laṅkān groups except Indian Tamils. There is also a greater link between Maraṭha and Sinhalese compared to Sri Lankan Tamils. It doesn't say "Sinhalese being genetically closest to Tamils than any other Indian population", the wording in the paper is "the Sinhalese are more similar to Śrī Laṅkān Tamils than to the Indian populations". The meaning is different since Sri Lankan Tamils are different from Indian Tamils.

The wording is therefore not quite accurate, and personally I think the genetic study should not be placed in the lede, rather moved down to the genetics section where it can be explained further. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The study states that the highest DNA shared (Identity by descent - IBD) with the Sinhalese amongst the Indian populations is with the Piramalai Kallar of Tamil Nadu (more DNA is also shared with the Pallar, another Indian Tamil population compared to the Maratha):

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/a23b59a8-6ab6-4e08-b2ba-3204ef750802/gr6.jpg

So it's not just Sri Lankan Tamils.

Gabriel incorrectly claims the following on his editing summary:

"It clearly states that the Sinhalese people's links are predomniantly with the Maratha people"

When in actual fact the study found heightened sharing with the Maratha of north western India which was lacking in Tamil and other South Indian populations, consistent with a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population. Metta79 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The disputed edit does not say what is said the edit summary, so that is irrelevant. The text in the paper doesn't explicitly state what you want to say, and it's not for us to infer what it meant to say because it'll be OR. For example, it says things like "we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations", but I'm not going to extrapolate from the data what the authors meant to say (e.g which groups they meant). It says a lot more about Sri Lankan Tamils, and that is ignore, why? Hzh (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The authors literally say this in the study:

"We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU [Sri Lankan Tamils], while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."

"It says a lot more about Sri Lankan Tamils, and that is ignored, why?"

'Tamils' in the intro refers to both Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils. Metta79 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's about the genetic history of Śrī Laṅkā, so the "Tamils" would refer to Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka. Within the text and data itself, it is also clear that the Sri Lankan Tamils are the main one studied apart from the Sinhalese, and it specifically exclude Indian Tamils when it says "this high level of West Eurasian ancestry is consistent across all the major Śrī Laṅkān groups except Indian Tamils". And this shows the problem with you trying to interpret what it says when it does not specifically say "Tamils" ("Piramalai Kallar" does not equal "Tamils"). Why it doesn't say Tamils is up the authors, maybe the conclusion is only valid for some Tamil subgroups, or the authors prefer "South Indian" because they may want to include other non-Tamil groups, it's simply not for us to extrapolate what the authors want to say. We can only give precisely what it says. Hzh (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Then that paragraph can be reworded to this to reflect the reference more precisely:

However, a 2023 genetics study by Singh et al found that there was higher gene flow from South India to the Sinhalese than from North India, with the Sinhalese being genetically closest to Sri Lankan Tamils than other Indian populations. The study also found a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population and deeply rooted common genetic ancestry with the Maratha.

Metta79 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

btw the higher West Eurasian ancestry only refers to the higher frequency of West Eurasian mitochondrial DNA haplotypes, not overall autosomal ancestry. Gabriel has cherry picked and distorted the study with his last edits to give the impression that north Indian ancestry predominates amongst the Sinhalese (rather than a trace affiliation), when the study clearly points to predominant South Indian ancestry. Metta79 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of Metta79, I have highlighted additional points in the article

1. There has been some gene flow from Southern India, but entire Southern India is not Sinhalese. Southern parts of India starts all the way from the Vindhya mountains, above Maharashtra (technically). Metta79 keeps implying all of Southern India is tamil. That is not the case.

2. The research specifically talks about the links between STU (Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K) generally of upper castes who afforded to go abroad, rather than all Tamils and all Sri Lankan tamils(non STU ones). I have highlighted that specifically i the new edition

3. Although the genetic article by Singh et all does not mention Karavas, I have mentioned Karava castes (Coastal Sinhalese) have links to Southern India, as the wikipedia already mentions Karava castes came from South India. It does not say Karava castes came from Tamils. It states they came from south India. Which part of South India? This is probably what Singh Et Al Article is alluding to, when it states some gene flow has come in from Sri Lanka.

4. The article over all mentions the shared ancestry of both MArathas and Sinhalese. I no where mentioned Sinhalese are Maratha emigrations.

Please, ask Metta79 to stop implying falsely

(1) All Sinhalese came from south India and from Tamil people

That is Tamil nationalist propaganda to claim entire Sri Lanka as being purely Tamil ethnically. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry typing error, it should be Tamil not Sinhalese : - There has been some gene flow from Southern India, but entire Southern India is not Tamil" Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction - " This is probably what Singh Et Al Article is alluding to, when it states some gene flow has come TO Sri Lanka.''' Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations. However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2) Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again

The study states

STU (Sri Lankan tamils of united kingdom) usually upper caste Tamils share close links to Sinhalese.

Not Tamil in general.

STU only. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The highlights of the research DNA study is

•

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India

•

A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā

•

Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

Why are you pushing hard to insert Tamil into everything? This wikipedia article is not about Tamils. It is about Sinhalese. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Higher West Eurasian Gene flow than South India to Sinhalese population

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/

Please refer to the above latest genetic research link by Singh Et Al 2023

This is clearly what it states in the highlights of the study done on Sinhalese genes (3rd section below the graphical abstract and summary).

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India • A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā • Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

It also confirms that the upper caste Sri Lankan Tamils in the U.K have close genetic relationship with Sinhalese, confirming the historical narrative that some Sinhalese upper castes were force-assimilated into Tamil culture after the invasion of the northern part of the island by the Chola Empire.

Tamil nationalists keep vandalizing this page, to state greater gene inflow from south India by misquoting this study. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"It also confirms that the upper caste Sri Lankan Tamils in the U.K have close genetic relationship with Sinhalese, confirming the historical narrative that some Sinhalese upper castes were force-assimilated into Tamil culture after the invasion of the northern part of the island by the Chola Empire."

This is not supported by the reference. There is no mention of upper castes, forced assimilation or the Chola empire.

The article clearly points to greater gene flow from South India and it explicitly states the highest DNA shared (Identity by descent) is with south Indian castes. Metta79 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. the 3 main highlights of this research states in the 3rd section

•

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India

•

A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā

•

Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

yes, there has been gene flow from South India to Karava and other coastal castes, but that does not mean it was Tamil. It could have been other dravidians such as Kannadigas, Telugus, Malayalees and other tribes. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This research is about Sinhalese.

Not Tamils Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have also put wrongly as Tamil. The link is between STU (Sri lankan tamil United kingdom) who are generally of upper castes, as compared to Sri Lankan tamils elsewhere.

Again this article is not about Sri Lankan tamils. You can enter your details in the section on Sri Lankan tamils. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop saying that UK Sri Lankan Tamils are upper castes, the source doesn't say it, it's your OR. I in fact know a few Sri Lankan Tamils in the UK, and they are not upper castes. The study also include Sri Lankan Tamils from Sri Lanka, and it explicitly stated that there are no significant deviations between the UK and Sri Lankan ones in their analyses. Hzh (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

West Eurasian genetic content is not from South India. IT comes from West Eurasia/Central Asia/Aryan migration.

Upper caste Govigama and other fair skinned Sinhalese have higher content of ANI genes unlike the Karava who have higher content of ASI genes.

ASI genes does not mean Tamil. It means ancient dnA in southern part of India, of which Tamils are one of the part. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All South asians are a mixture of ASI and ANI genes, and therefore have mix of that in each other in varying proportions. Please see this research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/

and

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/

naturally neibhouring countries like Sri Lanka will reflect those mixtures as well. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is too much OR here. You need to support every one of your statements with reliable sources, not your imagination.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with what I have said, I will quote from the study verbatim:

• "We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU [Sri Lankan Tamils], while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."
• This can also be seen clearly in the following chart: https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/a23b59a8-6ab6-4e08-b2ba-3204ef750802/gr6.jpg
• This is also supported by the authors obtaining statistically significant "results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations."
• "the Sinhalese are more similar to Śrī Laṅkān Tamils than to the Indian populations." [which includes North Indians].

Metta79 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No where it states "there has been higher South Indian gene flow than north indian"

Only states some IBD with Sinhala, possibly some piramalai kallar migrated out of Sinhalese population into Tamil Nadu.

Higher gene flow possibly indicating the Karava and Salagama who came from Kerala, not Tamil Nadu. No evidence they spoke Tamil.

You are falsifying Tamil history repeatedly and over-exagerating it. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)