Talk:Irula people

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

India: Tamil Nadu 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 Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).

Dravidian civilizations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian civilizationsWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsDravidian civilizations articles

Negritos

I checked out some pics of the Irulas in Google images, they don't look like the Negritos, they look like any other people from South India and Sri Lanka. 80.230.162.49 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Snake and rat catching, surely this sounds more of stereotyping. What value are cephalic and nasal indexes, which are somewhat outdated typographies. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population Figures

The population estimate of 1000 to 2000 in the Thiruvallur district directly contradicts the cited source, which places the population at closer to 25000. Jimmychalk (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these citations is a deadlink now and the second one says 25,000 - but is it a reliable source? YuviPanda (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it to 25 000 according to source, we must work with available data and everything indicates that their population can't possibly be that low.--2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:117C:707E:7456:10C9 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irula people. 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/20070929230456/http://keystone-foundation.net/web/nbr/ to http://keystone-foundation.net/web/nbr/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kerala.gov.in/docs/publication/2014/kc/march/34.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) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Hi, It seemed that someone linked an outdated report https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20180910-rakhigarhi-dna-study-findings-indus-valley-civilisation-1327247-2018-08-31 claiming that the irulas are the closest to the rakhigarhi sample , however,the research paper with the first ever genome from IVC area was published one year after the the above India today report. On top of that, the report claimed that the then upcoming paper was supposed to present genetic data of a male individual , sample name 'I4411' whereas the published paper https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf showed results of a female individual, sample name I6113. The model presented in the paper showed that genome of the rakhigarhi female sample can be modelled as being a mixture of 73% Zagrosian Iranian herder related ancestry and 27 % AHG(Andamanese Hunter gatherer i.e., the Onge people )related. Models shown here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/bin/NIHMS1053677-supplement-Table_S1-S5.xlsx for Irula model them as 39% IVC periphery Related + 57.1% AHG related. Put simple, it means that Irula have 57% excess AHG ancestry on top what was found in IVC periphery cluster. Also, a look at the table presented above shows that population like Kalash, Panta Kapu, Coorgi, Khatri etc. get much more ancestry from IVC periphery compared to Irulas. In the light of above evidence, the claim of Irulas being closest to the genome of the rakhigarhi female sample based on an outdated(and even wrong since the sample presented is completely different) report, cannot be true Thanks --Piyushkumar911 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]