Talk:Sri Lankan Moors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article needs a complete rewriting with appropriate sources[edit]

Most of this article has been considerably changed to remove all of the Arab-origin content and are being replaced by a few colourful commentary related to tamil origin. This is being conducted by a select few individuals to slowly CLAIM the sri lankan moor population as part of the larger tamil population. I have lived in Sri Lanka for many years and Sri Lankan Moors are culturally and ethnically not the same as the Tamils. The article has been modified through bias by pro-tamil writers and should be written in a balanced way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Inline citations[edit]

This article is seriously lacking WP:RS sources that can support line by line important facts. As the primary editor is a WP:newbie I wouod like him to read the five pillars and figure out how to write a encylopedic article that is substantiated by reliable sources to begin with. I have only reviewd the first few sections, please take this as an effort to improve wikipedia. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moors or Muslims?[edit]

User Aadhilwiki has modified this article and some others, changing the term "Moors" with "Muslims". I think this is not correct, it creates confusion: the Moors are an ethnicity. I suggest strongly to undo his changes. Paryeshakaya (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The user Aadhilwiki seems to be rather confused and has taken a confused approach to this article. I also agree with undoing his changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

India or Arabia ?[edit]

Well well guys ,South Indians Especially Malwari Muslims from kerela state are those from direct arabic descendence and converted way before Islam reached other parts of India via invaders.Marackar is surely a Malwari Mappila Musliman surname. read Kerala Muslims. (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Indian Muslims say they are local converts ( ie: not came from Arabia ). A Sri Lankan Muslim mentioned to me that most of Sri Lankan Muslims are either local converts or came from India. Anyway, that is what I heard. If they came from Arabia then home come they only speak Tamil (including those who live in majority Singhalese area). That probably points to South Indian ancestry. Comments on this article should be checked and edited. -Iross1000 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Sri Lankan Muslims belong to several ethnic groups. Some come from India while others came from Pakistan and South East Asia. However, in most cases Islam to Sri Lanka did not come from India. Sri Lanka was an important trade route for Arab sailors and many settled into the island in large numbers and married Local women, thereby integrating themselves with the local population and adopting some local customs. The reason why Tamil is spoken is because the Muslims adapted the language of trade from the area , which was Tamil. To add to that, Muslims of Sri Lanka have not maintained a consistent language throughout history (they shifted gradually from language to language) Anyways, if you do actually do the research the form of Tamil spoken by Sri Lankan Moors is not the same as that of ethnic Tamils. The Muslims (Moors) are considered to be a separate ethnic group because their culture does not adhere to that of either the Sinhalese or Tamil ethnic groups in Sri Lanka. In India, the Muslims have very similar customs to that of Tamils, while in most parts of Sri lanka this is not the case.

I really dispute the neutrality of this article. It just reads like a press briefing without factual accuracies and historical citations. I am a Muslim from Southern India and speak 'Arwi' at home as well. But I dont deny the Tamil influence in my culture and language. I speak a similar dialect as the Sri Lankan moors do and must admit that the strong Tamil influence cannot be denied. This article is delusional and grossly inaccurate. Yes, there is Arab ancestry. But the Indian connection cannot be ruled out. It cannot be a meer co-incidence that the Muslims of Tamil Nadu in India and Sri Lanka share the same lingua franca,cuisine and more cultural habits. The only logical conclusion is that the first few Muslims in Sri Lanka indeed must have landed from Tamil Nadu for which we do have records as any Tamil Muslim family from Kayalpatnam-kilakarai belt would be able to testify. For ages, our ancestors have been trading along the coast of Sri Lanka right across the Batticaloa regions. I am surprised at the factual inaccuracies going unreported in this article and this needs to be tagged as biased and un-neutral. We need to view history with an objective mindset and not with a political agenda. History tells us that the whole region of the Coromandel coast in southern india and the east and northen coastlines of Sri Lanka was indeed visited by Arabs. But history also tells us that this beautiful region produced a syncretic language like Arbu-Tamil(Arwi). This whole Indo-Lankan identity and Arab ancestry claims is very recent. We cannot deny the Tamil blood running in the veins . Period . -----Al Brittanee

--this article does state that the Arabs did marry local woman so it's not denying the mixture of cultures. If you knew better, you would know that the Sri Lankan Moors are quite different from the South Indian Tamil Muslims who seem to claim this often. The cultures are somewhat different and so are the dialects. The Muslims in Tamil Nadu rely heavily on the Tamil Culture, while the ones in Sri Lanka (who mostly live amongst the Sinhalese in the South) have differentiations. The article does state the cultural differences between the Moors in the Eastern/Northern Provinces and ones in the central/western Sri Lanka. The Moor dialect is also different between the Northern Areas of Sri Lanka and the southern areas. No one is denying the Indian connection, but you have to understand that it is not the ONLY connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

/* Facts de-linking Tamil and Muslims */[edit]

The Muslim populace in Sri Lanka is established in large parts primarily across the North and east and is scattered in small pockets across the rest of SL.

There is undeniable evidence that the Arabic immigration into the state declined from the 12th century onwards when Muslims both Tamil and Sinhala speakers were not even 5 % of the population.So the growth of the population is only attributed to settlements from Muslims of Mainland South India and conversions of the Tamil populace.

Moreover the term Sri Lankan Moors is biased to assimilate all the Muslims of the country as an separate and disintegrated entity disregarding the affinity with the Hindu and Catholic Tamils.There are also needs to be a revision and removal of uncited comments on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxiboy277 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Major trimming[edit]

I've just cut out big chunks of this article. First of all, almost all of the history section was directly copied (or very slightly paraphrased) from [1]. Of course, that is a copyright violation, and had to be rectified immediately. In addition, that's not a reliable source; nor was this one, which I've also removed.

Much of the rest of the article has been tagged as needing citations. If information is not cited in the near future that should be removed from the article. WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it says that information must be verified to appear in articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Full of inaccuracies[edit]

This article is full of inaccuracies and appears to reflect a segment of the Sri Lankan Muslims' who are insecure with their predominantly Indian (mainly Tamil) ancestry.

"The Moors trace their ancestry to Arab traders (Moors) who settled in Sri Lanka some time between the 8th and 15th centuries"

This is only true for the earliest history of the Muslims. Also the Arab traders did not bring their wives with them, and married local Tamil and Sinhala women, making the community mixed from the very beginning.

After the 15th century when the Portuguese dominated the Indian ocean, Arab migration to the island was brought to a stop, and for the next few centuries it was the South Indian Muslims who dominated the Muslim influx. In the words of Ameer Ali, Sri Lankan Muslim academic from Batticaloa:

"After the 15th century, when the influx of the Arab and Persian Muslims virtually ceased with the naval dominance of the Portuguese over the Indian Ocean, the Muslim population of Sri Lanka came to be strengthened by a new wave of their co-religionists from the Indian coast. The Muslim traders from South India who were mostly Tamil speaking and ethnically Dravidian dominated this new wave. Some brought with them their Tamil speaking wives while many, like their Arab predecessors chose their partners from local women.

In actual fact, the Muslims of Sri Lanka are a mixture of Arab, Persian, Dravidian and Malay blood of which the Dravidian element, because of centuries of heavy Indian injection has remained the dominant one. "

The below quote from this page is laughable:

"is meant that mistakenly Tamils concluded that the Moors were from their race. The features of Sri Lankan Moors are also very different, they commonly have lighter skin tone and hair color."

Are the dark, south Indian looking Muslims not Moors then? Is the late Rizana Nafeek a Tamil and not a Moor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

- The Recent changes made to the Article by obvious Tamil individuals clearly shows a bias towards Tamils.I agree that the article should be refined, however there are Tamil individuals citing biased sources and removing pertinent information - particularly the ethnic linkages between Sri Lankan Moors and the Sinhalese. Sri Lankan Moors are culturally and ethnically separate from Tamils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


The newly referenced source by Varsundra is highly biased towards a Tamil Nationalist view. There have been many changes made to this article by using ONLY this Source to substantiate the Tamil Nationalist Claim that All Sri Lankan Moors are of Tamil Origin. This argument is old and invalid. It is obvious that most, if not all, Sri Lankan Moors don't identify themselves as are they seen as Tamils by others. The person doing the biased changes to this article needs to stop diminishing the quality of this article even more by making this an opinion piece to appease their own personal needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How today's Sri Lankan Moors identify themselves and their ancestry are two different things. There is no doubt they consider themselves to be a separate ethnic group from Tamils. Does that mean they are not descended from Tamils? No. To find out who they are descended from you need unbiased historians and anthropologists. There aren't any in Sri Lanka.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, any editor who inserts the entirely unsupported phrase "This is mainly to substantiate the political aspect of Tamil Nationalism by attempting to increase the Tamil population in Sri Lanka." is not in a position to complain about "biased changes".
The article currently states "While some sources describe them .... other sources trace their ancestry ..." i.e. it sets out, with a source for the first, but not for the second, that there are differing views. Removing the first, sourced, view, because you don't like it is no solution - you need to a) accept there are differing views, and b) cite reliable sources to support your position. Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I see you have simply repeated your deletion of sourced material and insertion of PoV phrases, without offering any sources. As explained above - you should not remove sourced material, and must include sources for material you add. Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
User:, I have made a partial revision to your edits, where you apparently made some malicious changes to sourced content with what seems like one unscholarly source supporting your view, based on which you are tweaking the neutrality of the article. Please understand that just by citing sources supporting your view, you cannot modify/remove any amount of content that doesn't augur with your opinion.--Diamondmen (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Paisley[edit]

There are attempts by certain groups of Pro-Tamil users to de-link the connection between Moors and Sinhalese. Particularly the removal of the Sinhala term of "Moors" and the facts stating the marriage of Arab Men to Sinhalese Women. I think this initial sentence provides a more balanced view for this article: "ost sources trace their ancestry to Arab traders (Moors) who settled in Sri Lanka some time between the 8th and 15th centuries and married local Sinhalese and Tamil women that converted to Islam" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley52 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is problematic because it is being biased towards a tamil view. There are users removing the Sinhala term මරක්කල "Moors" and removing the facts stating the marriage of Arab Men to Sinhalese Women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley52 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply There is no genealogical research or evidence that amounts to saying all Muslims in Sri Lanka are descendants of these Arab migrants like how the Jews are classified. Moreover even if it was the case, there exist some scholars and sources that state otherwise(i.e they are Tamil converts to Islam). So by simply blanking the latter, and stating that "most sources" support your views, does not amount to validating your claims. And as most of the citations imply all too easy that Tamil is almost the exclusive native language of the Sri Lankan Moors, there is no proper reason behind including Arabic or Sinhalese terms into the article. Regards.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply There is no genealogical evidence which states that all or even most Moors in Sri Lanka are Tamil converts to Islam. Moors are a heavily mixed group of people. The recent article is nothing more than an opinion piece. Most of the articles supporting this page make reference to the marriage of Arab traders to both Sinhalese AND Tamil women however recent changes being made by certain individuals in this page are consciously omitting this fact to show a bias towards Tamils. There is also an article or book from 1987 by Varsundra being used heavily in this page to support this exclusive Tamil view. I question the heavy use of that article. Historically, the vast majority of Moors in Sri Lanka lived (and continue) to live in the Southern and central part of Sri Lanka amongst the Sinhalese therefore it is more than apparent that they would have mixed with the Sinhalese people as much as the Tamils. The northern province of Sri Lanka historically never had a large Moor population to begin with. Also, in the southern and central parts of Sri Lanka, many Moors speak exclusively Sinhalese therefore Sinhalese should not be removed as a native language from this article. There are several Pro Tamil Eelam users engaging in a dubious edits of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley52 (talkcontribs) 15:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you concur with the fact that there is no substantial evidence to prove either of the claims, the article is best left the way it is. Once again, its not quantity but quality my friend that is the basis for WP:RS and apart from the Sundaytimes a pro-Lankan newsletter. Please furnish with more reliable sources denying the Moor-Tamil ethnic linkage(backed by citations) and you may then replace the lead with your wordings, Please refer to Policy Guidelines WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, before you edit further. And please understand this is a discussion and not a banter, sentences such as like Pro Tamil users "engaging in dubious editing" amounts to WP:PA and you maybe blocked from editing. Thanks--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence, which was formulated just weeks ago claims ONLY Tamil ancestry which is obviously contrary to most sources on here and on the internet. I am not only speaking about the Sunday Times reference which you claim to be a "Pro-Lankan" newspaper. Similarly, the only source in this entire page which claims ONLY Tamil ancestry is by a Pro-Tamil source by Varsundra which is lacking in quality. I would like to retain the previous opening for the article which provides a more wholesome and unbiased view to this article: "Most sources trace their ancestry to Arab traders (Moors) who settled in Sri Lanka some time between the 8th and 15th centuries and married local Sinhalese and Tamil women that converted to Islam". This statement is quite true in the sense that MOST sources do state this. There is no denying that the Moors in Sri Lanka, in fact have BOTH Sinhalese and Tamil ancestry.


Please look into this revision of yours, it seems you have done more than what you are making it seem here. Why have you removed Line 2 which states with sources that they are native speakers of Tamil language? Did you add a source saying they don't? And along with Vasundhara Menon who is a respected scholar in Asian ethno-political affairs, you have also removed several other sources including:

  • Colombo Telegraph
  • DB McGilvray
  • Akbar Zemzem
  • BBC News
  • Torsten Tschacher among others

and then replacing it with a version that suits your whims. Quoting your reply: "I would like to retain the previous opening for the article...."? Wikipedia is not a site for blogging, and again I repeat, please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Please clarify with respect to the above points I have raised and any more disruptive editing without doing so, and this matter would be taken to the WP:ANI. Regards.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply User:Paisley's notion that both Sinhalese and Tamil are native languages of the Muslims is laughable. And before that he seems unaware of what constitutes ethnicity. (See here: This source, I observe, with factual internal references mentions of the following:
Tamil is the mother tongue of over 99% of the Sri Lankan Muslims....Massive tomes consisting of fake geneology and spurious theories have published to support the Arab origins.....The Islamic sermons are overwhelmingly delivered in Tamil even in the Sinhalese majority districts of Kandy, Matara and Galle....Islamic Tamil literature has a thousand year heritage.
Native language of an ethnic group is what is spoken by the majority of the ethnic group. And if the Sri Lankan Moors had 2 native languages, then they should not be listed here as a distinct ethnic group as claimed by the Sri Lankan Government's statistics and must be divided into Tamil-speaking Moors, Sinhalese-speaking Moors and Arab-speaking Moors respectively. Maybe in that case, User:Paisley is right regarding his views. It would be wise if User:Paisley answers to this too, along with what User:Copperchloride has raised. Also worth noting in that revision he has deliberately replaced "Throughout history, the Tamils of Sri Lanka have tried to classify the Sri Lankan Moors as belonging to the Tamil ethnic group.[1]" with "With the arrival of Arab traders in the 7th century CE, Islam began to flourish in Sri Lanka. The first people to profess the Islamic faith were Arab merchants and their native wives, whom they married after converting to Islam. By the 8th century CE, Arab traders had controlled much of the trade on the Indian Ocean, including that of Sri Lanka. Many of them settled down on the island in large numbers, encouraging the spread of Islam. However, when the Portuguese arrived during the 16th century, many of their descendants now called the Sri Lankan Moors - were persecuted.The Sinhalese ruler King Senarat of Kandy gave refuge to some of the Muslims in the central highlands and Eastern Province, Sri Lanka." having no sources. Clear case of POV pushing similar to that of User: The way both of them comment in the talk page too appears similar.--Diamondmen (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Diamondmen and Copperchloride, you are making assumptions about the concept of ethnicity vs language. The Sri Lankan Moors, as explicitly stated in most of the academic books and articles referenced on this page, are the progeny of Arab traders with BOTH Sinhalese and Tamil converts to Islam. However, the opening sentence which has been formulated only in the recent months seems to ignore the fact that these Arab traders intermarried with Sinhalese women - particularly in the southern and central regions of Sri Lanka where ethnic Tamils existed only is significantly smaller numbers. Speaking a certain language does not automatically predetermine the ethnic origins of an entire group of people. For illustrative purposes lets use an example: Most people of Indian origin in countries like Guyana speak only English and have virtually lost contact with the languages of their Indian ancestors. Does this mean automatically mean that these people belong to the same ethnic group as native English speakers from Great Britain?". The opening sentence, particularly the part that reads " While some sources describe them as a subset of the Tamil people who had adopted Islam as their religion" states a very debated topic about the origins of the Sri Lankan Moors as a fact. The only peer reviewed article which supports this sentence is by Mohan Varsundra. All of the other academic references make a more wholesome description of the origins of Sri Lankan Moors, which according to the vast majority of the supporting sources describe them as a mixed-race community of Arabs with both Sinhalese and Tamil connections. This article has been changed extensively to claim bias towards an exclusively Tamil origin, which is not supported by the vast majority of the reputable academic sources on Sri Lankan Moors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley52 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am not sure what your point is, but I'll correct you anyway. First of all stop fibbing that most of the sources state that....etc. Clearly this is the only source was added by you when you inserted that Arab-Sinhalese intermarriage into the lead. So what you've simply been doing all this while was, removing other sources and inserting your own biased opinions with a bunch of lies like "Muslims intermarried with the Sinhalese in South and Central Sri Lanka where Tamils lived in smaller numbers". Also you are yet to give an explanation regarding this particular revert of yours where you have deliberately wiped off the fact that the Moors are native speakers of Tamil language.

And as for ethnicity and language, the article clearly draws a distinction between the two, before you came about with your WP:OR and "most sources" bluff. In your example, there is established genealogical evidence that the ancestors of the Indo-Guyanese living in Guyana today did migrate from India. But here in this case, there was no such thing documented for any ethnic group in general, and therefore only the lead states: "While some sources describe them as a subset of the Tamil people who had adopted Islam as their religion and spoke Tamil as their mother tongue, which they continue to do so, other sources trace their ancestry to Arab traders (Moors) who settled in Sri Lanka some time between the 8th and 15th centuries." As far as language is concerned, there is no evidence regarding Sinhalese or Arabic being the native language of the Moors while the fact that over 90(even 99)% of the Moors are native speakers of Tamil have been covered by the sources which you deliberately kept erasing. This obviously constitutes not just WP:DE but also WP:TE and WP:Sock, against which someone has to take the appropriate steps if this persists.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 12:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuous removal of Sinhalese terms and anything related[edit]

This article is continuously being vandalized to remove all Sinhala terms. Particularly the Sinhalese term for Moors which is evidenced in the articles used as citations. User Copporchloride is continuously changing this article in to falsely increase the population for Sri Lankan Tamils. For example, referring to the Sri Lankan Moors as "Tamil Muslims" which is never used as a term in Sri Lanka. This article is being changed by pro tamil users to systematically remove the history of Sri Lankan Moors from wikipedia. Furthermore, the obvious demographic information provided by the Sri Lankan census, which has identified Sri Lankan moors as a separate ethnic group for centuries is being ignored.

The article by Varsundra is also being used heavily to support the unfounded information on this page. This needs to be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolbelts (talkcontribs) 20:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply All your statements have been extensively discussed in the section above. Sinhala terms are not relevant, since Sinhala is not the native language of the Moors. There are reliable sources supporting the claims that point at the Moors being Sri Lankan Tamils/Tamil Muslims, does not matter whether they are accepted by you or a few of those in Sri Lanka. Thank you.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 17:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply This article is heavily sourced on one article by Varsundra. Since this is a topic for Sri Lankan interest, the Sinhala terms need to be included. The Sinhala terms have been cited accordingly but they keep being removed by you. Wikipedia isnt a place to start skewing information. The demographic information conducted by the Sri Lankan census (which is the most reliable source), specifically categorizes Sri Lankan Moors as a separate cultural and ethnic group, yet this article has been changed substantially to ultimately support the increase of the Tamil population on other wikipedia pages (Specifically the Sri Lankan Tamils page. The Sinhala terms are crucial to this article and are absolutely relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolbelts (talkcontribs) 02:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply You can discuss why Sinhala must be included here, but It is ridiculously obvious from this revision what you have done. You have removed a whole section of referenced content and replaced cited content with unqualified information in the previous section. And last of all, what on earth did you intend to do, tampering with citation tags and removing citations from the article's content. --CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply This is an article of Sri Lankan interest. Sinhala being the MAJORITY language, it should be included here -particularly the Sinhala terms for Sri Lankan Moors which is found all over Sri Lanka. Countless sources also city Sinhala as a language of the Sri Lankan Moors (most of whom live in Sinhala dominated areas as opposed to Tamil areas of Sri Lanka- The Eastern Province of Sri Lanka is overwhelmingly Moor and not Tamil). If you cant read Sinhala, I suggest you find a translating service to verify. The referenced content you speak of is nothing but an OPINION piece from a newspaper and should not be taken as anything other than that. It is not a reliable enough source to base an entire subsection on. Secondly, as mentioned previously this article has been tampered with and references the Varsundra article which is still not founded fully (the article text does not fully exist online). Where are you getting this information from? The main issue with this article is that it is being tampered and used to support to give the impression in the Tamil People article that Tamils make up 24% of the population in Sri Lanka when the demographic data CLEARLY states otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolbelts (talkcontribs) 14:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply None of your points hold water nor are supported by sources, (WP:original Research). There is no Tamil script in the article relating to Sinhala people, and similarly no Sinhalese script in the Sri Lankan Tamils article. Whether or not Sinhala is the majority language, it means nothing in this particular article where overwhelming number of sources(repeatedly vandalized by you for no concrete reason) point at Tamil being the native language for almost all the Moor populace. Your pathetic hypocrisy is exposed when you remove the existing references for being a mere news article while your revision has included nothing but from a government published newspaper. Statistics from the official Sri Lankan census(which conveniently conjured a new ethnic group named 'Indian Tamils' to bring down/manipulate the real number of Tamils) have been incorporated as against your claims but cannot override the genealogical evidence that say Moors are Tamils. Unless you can provide SOURCES that contradict the existing ones, DO NOT REMOVE/REPLACE/TAMPER with the article. Thank you.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 12:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply Government Statistics are more accurate than any of the your original research which you've mustered up using disparate opinion pieces from the majority Tamil Authors . You have been desperately changing this article to falsely support an increase in the Sri Lankan Tamil population within other Wikipedia Articles - Im speaking of the Tamil People page which misrepresents the number of Tamils in Sri Lanka as being 24% when it is ACTUALLY 15%. EVERY other source on the web, countless books and academic works cite the Tamil population as being 15%. It is YOUR opinion to question the Sri Lankan Government's statistics, but until proven to be false, you have no backbone to stand on in the matter. The Tamil population in Sri Lanka does NOT include the Sri Lankan Moors and never will - it is a simple fact. The Sri Lankan Moors are a self determined people with their own cultural and ethnic heritage in Sri Lanka. Apart from a common language they are culturally dissimilar to the Tamils - particularly in the Southern Sinhala dominated parts of the country where the vast majority of Moors Reside. All of the geneological studies actually do not exclusively point to Tamil converts as the ONLY source within the Sri Lankan Moor population. The Moor Population is a progeny of both Sinhalese and Tamil people with Arab traders which has a long and documented history in Sri Lanka. There is strong evidence of cross cultural connections between the Moor Population and the Sinhalese, Tamils and in particular the Sri Lankan Malays.



What is the native and primary language of moors? Add reference from reliable source. --AntanO 08:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Already, there is a reference. Anyone disagree? --AntanO 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Origins of Moors[edit]

Floating philosopher (talk · contribs) created array of socks to support him while himself blocked. They have been indefinitely blocked per this SPI and his original block extended. No need of keeping this open. Saner disscussion with real editors can be started again, if there is need –Ammarpad (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of Moors should re-write. Here are some reference:

--AntanO 08:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

// A study on genetic variation indicates, a genetic relationship between Arabs and the Moors.// But, there is nothing about this in the reference. Did arab bring woman with them or married local woman in Sri Lanka? If they married in Sri Lanka, definitely they will have genetic relationship with native Sri Lankans. Or, does the study limited to male/female linage? --AntanO 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

// To keep it simple and non technical I have added a direct citation to Dr. Illaperuma.Floating Philosopher

To summarize the edits I intend to make, I will re write this article citing genetic studies of Dr. Illaperuma and the official history found at which is accepted by the Sri Lankan Moors them selves. The existing content cites foreign authors, Tamil authours who base their conclusions SOLELY on linguistic and cultural practices of some Moors which is a weak if not incorrect indication of origin, so I shall summarize that content and point out that genetic studies discredits it. Agreed? Floating Philosopher

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floating philosopher (talkcontribs) 13:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC) 
We don't care whether Muslim or non-Muslim accept. We need reliable source. You can't simply reject by saying "foreign authors" which is not a practice in Wikipedia. I have given above links from non-Tamil as well as academic personalities. BTW, I have seen many Muslim, especially in Eastern Sri Lanka, they have body and facial feature like Tamils or Sinhalese. Are you going to say no? --AntanO 16:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Floating Philosopher seems to be having the right edits here. FP is citing official government sources and genetic studies. AntoniO is citing works that have no basis in genetics here. Instead they call Moors Tamil only because of language. Ethnicity is ethnicity no matter what language they speak. It doesn't matter here what bodily features AntonO has seen, genetics is genetics here.

If we are to go by bodily features here Chinese and Japanese are the same ethnicity, and we are here all English men. Anton you here are talking rubbish. I second Floating Philosopher s edits. Ibnserendib (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

AntanO Are you not capable of reading a complete sentence? Floating Philosopher is not simply rejecting because the authors are foreign, he is rejecting it because there text calls Moors Tamils, sorry based on the fact that they speak Tamil and have some Tamil customs. We in Algeria speak French so does that mean we are ethnically French? Algerians and Morroccon's look alike to outsiders, so does that mean they are of the same ethnicity? You really need to pay attention.

Most of the sources reference someone called Ponnambalam Ramanathan, and his wiki page states he was a university drop out due to "youthful excesses". How credible are these academics.

Floating Philosopher seems to cite an official government source, which is more credible. Sweefat (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This AntanO is clearly unable to read. He has just put a not in citation tag for an article that clearly states "There is considerable evidence that early Arabian settlers of the country intermarried with the daughters of the land" and also the article states "The mtDNA tree indicates a clustering of Sinhalese and Moors, suggesting a close affinity when compared to the Veddahas and Sri Lanka Tamils." This does indicate a genetic relation between Arabs Sinhalese and Moors.

I am going to undo his edit. AntanO please respond? Sweefat (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Anthropos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).