Talk:Sinhalese people/Archive 1

Genetic and anthropological assessments
I propose deleting this section from the article as it is hardly relevant to the article and to Sinhalese people. The section contains too much information on unrelated ethnic groups such as Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, and Sri Lankan Tamils. This section would be more appropriate in a more general article in a section of "Genetic and anthropological assessments" of general South Asian populations as opposed to an ethnic group as specific as the Sinhalese. Also, this section contained far too much overly technical scientific jargon and terminology that is of little meaning and use to the mainstream public that would read this and simply be left confused. Lastly, I reviewed, in detail, the references that are used to cite the material presented in this section: "Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, Biomedical Central, BMC Genetics 2004, 5:26" and "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:313–332, 2003." and found that only about 1/3 of the claims in this article can be directly supported from these cited sources and the remaining 2/3 are simply interpretations (I argue they are misinterpretations) of the author. If this section is going to be kept there should be appropriate and valid justification for it and a thorough discussion re: how this is relevant to the Sinhalese people and there should be more concrete references to verify the claims should be done. Anyone who disagrees with me and can provide a valid reason as to why this section should be kept should indicate their views in a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeOfTruth (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with the above argument. This section contains too much unrelated claims, some of them are very sensitive in nature and is not supported by any source. The claim that Punjabis contain 60% west eurasian gene and Bengali people from West Bengal, India contain 7% eurasian gene are not backed by valid sources. This information is surely made up and very racist in nature. To be unbiased, Wikipedia should delete this misinformation as soon as possible. User:Grommel

Aryan Ethnicity is Absolutely False
The Sinhalese "race" absolutely does not have Aryan ethnicity. There is no scientific or anthropological evidence for this. There is only evidence that the Sinhalese speak an "Indo-Aryan" language, which is undoubtedly true. Any such claims that their "ethnicity" is Aryan should be cited by a valid, reliable, and verifiable source and the article fails to do this and until it can, such false claims should be removed from an article of encyclopedic nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.33.42 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, no citations have been provided in the article to support this assertion yet it is still made multiple times. I have been doing some investigations into scholarly journals in population genetics, anthropology, human geography and even "less reliable" disciplines such as history and have found absolutely nothing that can validly back up the assertion that the Sinhalese have any form of "Aryan ethnicity" whatsoever. As such, I removed this deliberately misleading misinformation from the article only to see that it is restored shortly after. Making such false claims regarding racial origins is racism and should be considered a form of vandalism. Adolf Hitler made frequent allusions to the Aryans in his ideological Nazi speeches and it appears Sinhalese nationalists are trying to do the same here. I will continue to remove this bogus nonsense from the article until the editors and moderators finally wake up and realize how inappropriate these assertions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.33.43 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[No Title]
User:people who are dying from the terrorist LTTE Attacks.- Wikipedia why can't you weep at little chilrens deaths? Child Soldiers....You know all of them...But why? Sri Lankan's are innocent.Sinhala, Tamil everybody is innocent.This LTTE is so wicked though..... 213.17.74.xxx (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, being a web site, is technically unable to weep. This is a good thing, because encyclopedias should not be emotional, but rather factual and unbiased. --Joakim Ziegler


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It attempts to present information in an unbiased and neutral manner. It does not weep, or laugh, or experience any other emotion. If you want to present an emotional personal viewpoint on something, feel free to create a website of your own to do it on. --Bryan Derksen


 * ok...I will never interfere in yours...thanks..but plz understand the truth....plz cut out the external links on the SRI LANKA PAGE

[No Title]
I've edited this article as best I can. Thanks to the last editor how added lots of infor but it did sound very, very partisan and anachronistic. I've made it as neutral sounding as I can and cut out some of the more opinionated tracts. Perhaps he/she could include some of their information under 'History of Sri Lanka'? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.156.128.107 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC).

Origins section
They are generally considered to be a Caucasoid race, but display some traits of their Dravidian neighbors (Australoid with strong Caucasoid traits), possibly due to assimilation of Tamils.

--- i have seen in this site saying that, king vijaya came to sri lanka and found it to be inhabited by tamils. peahaps some one who wrote that, might think that rawana was a tamil too. but those things are not 100% proven. when king vijaya came he found kuweni, a tribal princess. some say that vaddas come form her people. but there is no proof of any tamil existence before king vijaya came to the island. if you reallly search information on book, they give a hint, leading to the oregins of aryans to the middle east over 1000s of years ago.i hope some one does more research about those and publish it, i saw this artical in a news paper saying that rawan was a powerful aryan king, who had a fleet of naval ships too. but untill this debate is fienalised or until some 1 proves that tamils existed here before king vijaya came, i hope no one will put that in the main page talking about sinhala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoghost (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a reference for this? While the Sinhalese language is Indo-Aryan in origin rather than Dravidian, I don't recall reading anything that represents the Sinhala and Tamils as having significantly different ethnic/racial characteristics. Language &ne; race; I know that a northern Indian/Indo-European origin for the Sinhalese people is an element of the beliefs of some Sinhalese nationalists, but I don't know what sort of a scientific basis that belief has. --Clay Collier 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Sinhalese trace their history back to the king Vijaya who colonized Sri Lanka from his fathers kingdom based primarily around Orissa in the north east of India. Anthropologically, in reference to both race and linguistics the Sinhala people are strikingly similar to the Aryans of Northern India. This is why it is popularly believed (by both anthropologists and Nationalists I might add) that the sinhalese are most certainly descended from Aryan races - a self evident scientifically proven fact &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.209.53 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:14, 9 November 2005.


 * There is no scientific basis to this. It's pure speculation based on mythology, and shows a certain degree of ignorance and lack of professionalism.  We should only keep the factual information on here.  Race is too vague to be classified into "caucasoid" "austroloid" etc. especially when referring to Sri Lankans.  And it's ludicrous to claim that Sinhalese are "Aryans" except when mixed with Austroloid-Aryan Tamils.  This is borderline racism.  Most Sinhalese and Tamils look alike, and the Mahavamsa (a Sinhalese text which first described Sinhalese origins) claims that the settlers from North India took Tamil brides and settled in Sri Lanka with them.  They later also mixed with the local Vedda tribal people.  Hence, one cannot claim any racial generalizations, and certainly the Sinhalese are more Dravidian than Aryan even going by that outdated classification system.  Any non-Dravidian traits can be attributed to mixing with Europeans/Portuguese/Dutch.  Thousands of whom settled there along with Arabs.  The modern observer would be hard pressed trying to find the difference between a Sinhalese or a Tamil outside of clothing, mannerisms and hairstyle.
 * -Kumar, November 2005. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.61.222 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2005.


 * Stating that Tamils and Sinhalese have similar appearances is akin to stating that a tiger and lion are alike in appearance - same family of cats maybe, but they certainly look different, behave different and have different traits. There is no resemblance whatsoever between the two peoples in appearance. Tamils are darker in complexion and have South Indian features. Sinhalese tend to be fairer in complexion and have features similar to North-eastern Indians. The most commonly accepted view is that Tamils are Dravidian (from South Indian origin - now "Tamil" Nadu) and the Sinhalese are descendants of Aryan origin; and recorded history is clear that the two races occupied the island south of India at times which varied - the Sinhalese first (Vijaya) and then the Tamils (invasion of the Chola Kings). Whilst there can be various disputed versions of the origin of the Sinhalese, there is no dispute whatsoever that the Tamils are Dravidian and came to the island from Tamil Nadu (the true "homeland" of the Tamils)
 * - Chandri, November 2005 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.154.116 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:18, 29 November 2005.


 * I agree with Chandri &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.86.125 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:32, 23 December 2005.

Vijeya came from somewhere and so the Sinhala ..so somewhere else is the " true homeland " of the Sinhala people. It is also true according to the same documented history the grandfather of Vijeya was a lion..who managed to abduct a Princess and fathered Sinhabahu and SinhaSeevali. So let us ask, what kind of history is that documentation ?. Too many wishful thinking...and largely imagination prorated from some point in history. Nevertheless many Tamils got assimilated over the centuries and speak Sinhalese in the present day, helping to swell the Sinhala population. Imagine all the English Speakers are considered English men and English women ?. Unfortunately the real English men and women are very fair skinned...and thus distinguishable from the rest of the English speakers. Fortuantely in Sri-Lanka the Sinhala speaking assimilated Tamil population and the tamil speakers are indistinguishable, thus helping to be identified as Sinhalese. I hope one day, a true history of Sri-Lanka, will be written by some one or by a committe of historians. It is important to get the facts right that doesn't defy even the simplest logic. ..Srimal Senathira. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.227.84 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:50, 3 January 2006.


 * People discussing here have confused coucasian traits as being white,which is wrong.Holy -- + -- Warrior 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

SInhalese being Caucasoid is a load of nonsense
THe average SInhalese is much darker than the average SOuth Indian, let alone North Indians. All you have to do is look at people in Chennai/ kerala/ Bangalore and look at the average person in Colombo


 * Ummm. No.  Dravidians/Tamils are much darker.  Not quite as dark as some Negroes, but darker than Sinhalese people.  Lengis 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No..may be a very few Sinhalese are anything like fair skinned...but there are as many fair skinned tamils too..but the fact is whether Sinhalese or tamils ..or Sri-lankan or Indian we do not have pure genes...we are all very mixed up. ...but it is true a vast majority of Sinhalese are at least as dark as the Tamils, if not darker. We are all dark people and we are not in a competition with the Europians or other fair skinned homogenious groups. So let us come out of this illusion that Sinhalese are a pure Ariyan people..in fact they are not even Ariyans at all... they are also our Dravidian brothers and sisters, yet speak a language that was derived from Sanskrit which is an Ariyan language. There is nothing wrong in this situation and let us celebrate our Tamil / Sinhala unity and stop looking for more differences to be exploited by the politicians. ..Srimal Senathira &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.227.84 (talk &bull; contribs) 04:00, 3 January 2006.


 * Yes, ofcourse you are correct. I was simply saying that typically Tamils are darker because they are inherently dravidian.  It's not a bad thing, on the contrary, it's a good thing considering the massive exposure to sunlight in that region.  Sinhalese people are typically lighter though because their ancestors came from north India.  I'm all for Tamil and Sinhala integration, and for ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka to cease.  Lengis 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude I have been to Srilanka and 90% of Sinhala population is dark.They of course speak an Aryan language and that doesnt make them to be an aryan(lighter skin).They look more like the aborigines of Australia not like the present day Dravidians.They are the descendents of the aboriginal people of srilanka which was colonized by the Aryan Vijaya.I have also been to south India(Tamil nadu) and there are equally light and dark skined people.50:50.They have mixed with the Aryans for more than 3000 to 4000 years.There is nothing wrong with being dark skin.Just be proud on what you have got.False claims wont make you better. Jane from Australia.

As an Indian whose been to Sri Lanka, let me assure you Sri Lankans look very different from North Indians. There is condsiderably more North Indian influnce in Southern India than there is in sri Lanka.

South India has had considerable interaction with the rest of the country from Vedic, Mauryan to Mughal and British times. Hindu suthern India (including Tamil Nadu) is much more close to North India than isolated Sri Lanka. In fact it became one of the bastions of Vedic and Hindu culture when the North faced several invasions after the collapse of the Mauryan and Guptan Empires.

Indian states such as Orissa and Bengal where SInhalese supposedly came from have a huge tribal and dravidian component in their culture and population. SO the supposedly caucasian origins of Sinhalese are extremely suspect


 * Shrugs. I'm Sinhalese, and I'm not that dark, nor is anyone in my family.  I've been described as yellowish brown, and I agree.  Not that it matters.  Who cares if Sinhalese are originally caucasian or not?  In case you haven't noticed, caucasians colonized India and Sri Lanka durring the 1800s, and early 1900s.  If anything else, we DON'T want to be like them. Lengis 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the genetic studies that are showin in this article can not be considered conclusive whatsoever. Population genetics is very early in development and these tests (as with tests on other populations around the world) only deal with the Y-Chromosome and paternal line of inheritance. Tests on the X-chromosomes that also come from the paternal line as well as tests on the maternal line have not been carried out. With this in mind, current findings about any population can only be considered specualtive at best. Even if one agrees with the findings and speculations of these tests, much of the area of southern India was shown to have less Eurasian input than the Sinhalese (15%) anyway. Again though, these findings currently don't mean much and reliance should largely be on historical, anthropolgical and archaeological information only. 69.157.109.6 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are sections of the population in Southern India that have more caucasoid characteristics and Indo Aryan heritage than any Sinhalese alive. I still stand by my statement. Talking about percentage is pointless when comparing a region with a population of 250 million+ with an island whose population is one tenth of that figure.


 * Again, the tests are only on the Y-chromosome and MtDNA only so the figures can't be considered reliable anyway. I dont understrand what the greater population of southern India has to do with the Sinhalese. The 15% figure is the Eurasian input in the Sinhalese and what exactly the percentages represent in terms of MtDNA I dont know (% of the population maybe ?). Many of these studies are inconclusive and have some sort of poltical agenda it seems. The whole basis of the article is trying to see how much Eurasian Y-Chrom./MtDNA "percentages" are in South Asia but no studies have taken place trying to distinguish between other sources or on X-chroms. Regardless of this study, it can not be said the Sinhalese are from the whole same Dravidian origins as Tamils and other south Indian groups as historical info. shows much of Sinhalese origins lie from another area (East India/Bangladesh) and from a different time period that pre-dates Tamil presence on the island. Small population size and island isolation actually increase genetic distinctiveness as has been shown with other genetic studies on other "island" or very exclusive groups. 69.157.121.76 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inferring that Sinhalese are the same as Tamils. I'm just saying that East Indians such as Bengalis and Oriyas are a mixture of Mon Khmer, Dravidian and Indo Aryan characteristics with the first two dominating. South Indians themselves are not pure anything (Aryan or Dravidian) given the migrations in the subcontinent. You can't claim to be more caucasoid when your parent populations in India themselves can't say the same

69.157.121.76 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * True they are not "pure", but the Dravidian peoples of South and East India are quite distinct in being largely descended from the pre-Caucasoid peoples who were largely of an Australoid type and this has even been demonstrated in the limited genetic studies performed which show their lack in Eurasian input. The source of Eurasian and other inputs in Southern India and on Sri Lanka hasn't been analyzed, however this input probably is not from the "Indo-Aryans" in many, if not most, cases. This is because the invaders of Dravidian culture, who are believed to have arrived before the Indo-Aryans, were themselves Mediterranean caucasoids, yet they still arrived much later than the numerous Veddic/Australoid peoples who had been long settled in India with their own ancient civilization for quite some time. Some of this can be seen here

mtDNA
I would just like to point out that mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA, and is passed to offspring through the egg only, and not the sperm; thus, any genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA represents genetic analysis of the maternal and matrilineal heritage.

God! Some of you are real morons.The 'Caucasoid' race has NOTHING to do with skin color. The only scientific system of race classification is anthropological and the divisions Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid is based on skeletal morphology. So stop arguing who is caucasoid and who is not based on skin color. On another note, I have to agree that Sinhalese are fairer in general than Sri Lankan Tamils/South Indians but are darker than North Indians. However, to every rule there are exceptions. On another note, I've read in an old issue of National Geographic that the Dravidic race are derived from migratory negroids who underwent genetic specialisation around the time of the last Ice Age - if anyone remembers this issue perhaps they can verify. Clearly they may have mixed with Caucasoid migrations from Central Asian countries like Iran and Afghanistan, and with mongoloids from China/Mongolia. Some geneticists and anthropologists regard India as being unique in terms of race, as it seems to be a transitory step between the far east, and the middle atlas/caucasus region. 90.219.238.197 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vijeya and Sinhala by Srimal Senathira:
It is mentioned that Vijeya came from Orissa or somewhere in the North of India. It is also claimed that he brought Sinhala and established the Sinhala Kingdom around 600 BC.

Let us look at this scenario. Vijeya was put on a boat with some 74 other bad guys by Vijeya's father,the King of that land, to drift in the bay of Bengal to their death. There were no women in that boat. For their good fortune, they landed on the shores of Sri-lanka or whatever it was known to be those days. So when the 75 men left their land, the bulk of the Sinhala speakers were left behind in Orissa. So what happened to that main group..while a bunch of convicts established a Sinhala Kingdom ?.

The Mahavamsa Stories were largely imaginations..composed during a very later time with the then known facts extrapolated backward with very little basis. Whatever the dialect that Vijeya spoke..he went to South Indian Kingdom and married a Tamil princess from the Chola dynasty. He brought many Tamils from the brides side to help him rule the country and establish economic life and a military to conquer and destroy the native people, just as the white invaders and convicts did in modern Australia ..and USA. Notwithstanding Vijeya's ethnic origins, he embraced a Tamil princess and his fellow convicts too married other Tamil women. So right from the beginning the invading group have become 50 percent Tamil. Yet we still do not know exactly from where Vijeya came. He might have come not very far from South India. If Vijeya knew there was a Tamil Kingdom and where he could get a bride, his knowledge of South India was pretty good. If Vijeya was capable of travelling to South India, what prevented the South Indians from travelling to Sri-Lanka ?. Because there was no king willing to excile a few bad guys?. Actually the Tamils didn't need any King to excile them, since the Island was in their backyard..and they have not only been travelling to Sri-Lanka, but also settling down in the Island. It was one of those Tamils advised Vijeya to go to the Chola Kingdom and request the King to give his daughter in marriage, thus establishing Vijeya as the Governor of Sri-lanka and not as the King. Rest was a lot of fictional extrapolation by whoever wrote Mahavamsa at a much later date.

Most Sinhalese are obviously have no features of an Aryan / Caucasian features. They are very dark and their features are very much dravidians. If there was any Vjeya genes, it is very diluted in the current Sinhala population. It doesn't matter what the origins and gentic make up, they are human beings just as Tamils and others in that subcontinent.

None of what I said above, take anything away from the current Sinhala population and their culture. It is admirable, Sinhala language and literature flourished during the Sinhala Kingdoms..and reached the current maturity.

Regarding the claim that Vijeya named the Island Tâmraparnî. Thamiraparani is a Thamil word ..and still is the name of a river ..here is an entry from Wikipedia ;

" It is located on the banks of the perennial Thamirabarani River, 75 km from Kanyakumari, the southernmost tip of India. The Thamirabarani contains traces of copper, hence its name (Thamiram means copper in Tamil). Tirunelveli can be easily reached from Madurai (3 hours) or Nagercoil (1 1/2 hours). It is one of the Ayyavazhi populated districts of Tamil Nadu."

It is obvious the word Tâmraparnî is a corruption of Thamiraparani...and the Tamil people who settled in the Island might have come from the region around the Thamiraparani River. In Tamil Thamiram means copper. In what language of Vijeya it also means copper ?. Perhaps in the language of Vijeya's Tamil wife it meant copper...and so it was known before Vijeya landed unexpectedly on the shores of the Thamiraparani Island.

Nevertheless, the facts has to be corrected. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.227.84 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:51, 3 January 2006.

<!- i am strongly not agree with statement in under "Sinhalese ethnic flag" "When Vijaya, the first King of the island of Sri Lanka, arrived in Sri Lanka in 486 BCE," this is not fair for people who were in the Siri Lanka atleast last 40,000 years. and everyone agreed with Kuweni was one of Queen in one specific Tribe. so please remove this false statement. 3 Sinhalese strict to Buddism after Load Budda visit the land so they never went fight with any migrants like other countries.thats what happend to Sinhalese history it was wiped out and cleaned.this is sad.Genetical DNA shows Sinhalese are aboroginal ethnic and not else where.they start from around Mahawali River and Samanala Mountain (like Nile History).

Eeriyaka (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC) -!>

As per Khoikhoi's request I added some things to the article including numerous references
I made some additions with regards to the Sinhalese including population statistics drawn from numerous sources, their history, and anthropological and genetic evidence regarding their origins. The Caucasoid debate is rather pointless as the Sri Lankans as a whole are generally considered a subtype of sorts of a larger Caucasoid 'type' sometimes termed proto-Caucasoid or Australoid, rather than the Caucasoid groups found in the Middle East and Europe. Sri Lankans are similar to their neighbors, the Indians for the most part and the Indo-Aryan element dated to around 500 BCE appears to have been minor except that their language and cultural remnants clearly impacted the region. Much of modern Sri Lankan thinking was shaped by European colonial rule including race theories that have little basis in science and a more nationalistic version of Buddhism (imbued with some Protestant ideas) that has also altered society there. If people have problems with my edits feel free to let me know why and provide some actual evidence please. Thanks. Tombseye 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

this belongs in the sri lanka article
"Sinhalese society is highly educated in comparison to many developing countries with roughly 95% of the population being literate. In addition, due to a policy of universal healthcare, life expectancy is quite high as well reaching an apogee of 72 years. Female emancipation has led to many changes including greater parity between the sexes and prominent female polticians including former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga. The Sinhalese also have a stable birth rate and a population that has been growing at a much slower pace in comparison to India and other Asian countries."

This applies to the whole island of sri lanka(including all other ethnic groups) and not just to the sinhalese ethnic group. please rewrite this - Suren &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.247.248.251 (talk &bull; contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2006.


 * The differential for the Sinhalese can't be that different since most indicators show that the Sinhalese dominate the island through sheer numbers. Since the political landscape is also dominated by the Sinhalese for the most part, the discussion on women is also a social issue regarding the Sinhalese. The statistics can be adjusted though as this is still relevant to the Sinhalese socially. Tombseye 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * universal education & healthcare is for all sri lankans (the way this article is written it implies that only sinhalese have access to universal education & healthcare i.e other races are uneducated & unhealthy),


 * Female emancipation bit implies that other females are downthrodden


 * do only the Sinhalese have lower birth rate??


 * This section should be rewritten to give information about modern sinhalese culture, language & social issues. - Suren


 * I would like an answer please - Suren


 * I already agreed that it can be rewritten. Until actual changes can be made one can still state that Sri Lankans in general bear these stats and since the Sinhalese are the majority they most likely correspond to most of them, but with the caveat that the Tamil figures may vary. Tombseye 06:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good
Sinhalese may be socially forward,but are not in good positions because the country is economically VERY backwards.

Sri Lankan people all are very decent and 96% of males and 92% of them are literate. However,English is not widely used in the country as it is suffering too much. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batzarro (talk &bull; contribs) 13:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Significant populations source
Can someone quote some sources for sinhalese populations outside Sri Lanka?? -Suren


 * The sources are listed next to the southeast Asian countries listed. If you have something else, then please add it. Tombseye 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sinhalese people
Well what I have to say is,. as many have noted in here Mahavamsa is not the colplete true history of the Sinhalese or Sri lanka. It was writed by Mahanama thero many years after even Vijaya arrived & mainly Mahavamsa is the "vansha kathawa" history of the "mahavihara segment". Mahavamsa contains many true facts which we can take into consideration when looking back our history,. But we should always remember that it was writen in the perceptions of Mahanama thero. Sri lanka has been populated far before Vijaya's arrival as well,.. there are archiological evidence from excavations that before 125000 years sri lanka was populated. And there were four major tribes called naaga, yaksha, deva & raksha inhabited the island. These people spoke a common language called "Hela" & they were commonly called "Hela". Thus when these four tribes got to gether - the four hela tribes were called siu - hela which combines to form siihela & later simhala.( siu is the sinhalese word for four ) Thus is the origin of the Sinhalese Not a biase explanation of Vijaya stating the Sinhalese. We can prove this as Vijaya Did not even have children. & there r historical evidences of these four simhala tribes occupying sri lanka. Ravana, Dasis Ravana, mahasammatha manu, Katharagama mahasen are a few to recall. Buddha came to sri lanka to solve the fights between choolodhara & Mahodara ( the naaga ) kings. Kuveni who was the first wife of Vijaya was of yaksha tribe. King Pandukabhaya was of yaksha origin,. It is even mentioned in the Mahavamsa & other chronicles. Queen viharamahadevi mother of Dutugamunu was of naaga origin his father of yaksha origin. The Indian epic Chronicles ramayan describes of raksha king Ravana. The vaddas of Sri lanka are of yaksha tribe still who have not been mixed with others. To give you further evidence,. the pahatharata, Udarata dances go far back Vijaya's entry. If Vijaya brought Sinhalese to Sri Lanka where are the Sinhalese In India where he came from, & where is that language, where is the great tank building techniques of Sinhalese in India. Where did pahatharata Udarata dances come from,.. Then concerning dialics such as "mee yakaata monawa welada" - cause we are yakshas,. then nadadeepaya ,. naa puraya, naapokunu, & in every where we built tanks there is a carving of a naagaya ( a serpant ) cause naaga tribes are beleived to be the lords of water. That is the reason nāga queen Viharamahadevi was sent to the sea when the sea came in to the land.

Vijaya is definitely not the starter of the Sinhalese,. there are ample of evidences & archeological proofs that Sinhalese were the four tribes of naaga, yaksha, deva & raksha inhabited the island far far before he came,.

amodha 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * did you know there are similar irrigation works in south india?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Anicut

Hmmm that article is interesting,. But it says that the dam built by chola was in the 1st or the 2nd century. And further says that “It is considered the oldest water-diversion structure in the world still in use” How can that be the oldest when  king Pandukabhaya build the “Abhaya wewa “ ( basawakkulama ) in the 4th century BC which is still in use. And the tanks built by kings even before that,.. Ravana, Mahasen, Bali, Taraka, Hiranya Kashyapa etc

Population figures questionable
First of all note that the numbers for the countries add up to more than the worldwide total.

Of the numbers, only that for Sri Lanka strikes me as credible. The 40,000 in Canada, in particular, is incredible to me as it is at least a quarter as large, possibly half again, as the Tamil population of 100-200,000. That cannot be right. Tyronen 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, way too high. But where to get official figures, or: Are there any at all?


 * And what is the importance of that figure? For other peoples there are no numbers of individuals living abroad given in the respective articles. It makes sense for Tamils, Sikhs, Jews, Tibetans etc. because they have a significant and important diaspora. But for the Sinhalese? Cheers, Krankman 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of citation
I've removed some statistics stating that "Sinhalese society is highly educated in comparison to many developing countries with roughly 95% of the population being literate.", as there is no evidence provided that Sinhalese society ALONE is has a literacy rate of 95%. As far as I know, it is the entire Sri Lankan population, Sinhalese, Tamils, Burghers and whoever that share a literacy rate of 95%. Applying statistics that apply to an entire nation to just a particular ethnic group is misleading and almost malicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.217.32.201 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Genetic and anthropological assessments
I'm concerned about this section. What is its aim?


 * "Contrary to popular opinion, in part instilled by British colonial policy of 'divide and rule'[citation needed], the Sinhalese are not a distinct group that is entirely or even mainly of 'Indo-Aryan' origin, which is itself a linguistic categorization and not a palpable 'racial' group."

The contributor then inserts three quotes that claim India as a whole exhibits little geneflow from outside, ignoring the fact that Indo-Aryan people, characterised by their use of Indo-Aryan languages come from India. Here is a map showing the geographical distribution of Indo-Aryan languages:

Dinlo juk 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the contributor has taken quotes out of context, misleading the reader...


 * "Thus, not surprisingly other studies done from different perspectives and goals substantiate these findings. In a 2003 American Journal of Human Genetics study entitled The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, the 'West Asian', presumably Indo-Aryan and other, genetic indicators show that,


 * Their frequency is the highest in Punjab, ∼20%, and diminishes threefold, to an average of 7%, in the rest of the caste groups in India... "

When looked at in its original context, it becomes clear that the original author was saying that 60% of Western Asian Mitochondrial haplogroups are uncommon in India...


 * "When compared with Indian caste populations, Chenchus and Koyas are characterized by the rarity of haplogroup and, like tribal groups from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, by the lack of western Eurasian lineage clusters HV, TJ, N1, and X. These four clades combined cover ~60% of the western Asian mtDNAs in India. Their frequency is the highest in Punjab, ~20%, and diminishes threefold, to an average of 7%, in the rest of the caste groups in India (table 2)."

The "Western Asians" mentioned in the article are explicitly named as people from Iran, Turkey and the Middle East, none of which have Indo-Aryan languages. Looking at the data, it is apparent that the western haplogroups mentioned are present at a frequency of 11% in Sri Lanka, whereas they are absent in the Tamil Nadu subjects used in the study.

I have therefore deleted this section as it is without academic merit. Dinlo juk 14:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree with that completely Dinlo juk, which is why I tagged the whole section as disputed. I'm not too good with such topics, so thanks for clearing things up. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-Aryans are not indigenous to India despite what nationaists there seem to claim. They are believed to be derived from Indo-Europeans and migrated through Iran and Central Asia (or originated in Central Asia) and thus are indicative of this "West Eurasian" geneflow. In addition, the mythology that is incorrect purports some vast differences between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers on a genetic and "racial" basis that is without merit. The variations are small and thus the purpose is to show that the differences are exaggerated and artificial rather than of any actual consequence. The point being that, as in most cases in the world, neighboring groups are related, in this case the Tamils and Sinhalese are very closely related and are not "races" and their differences are very small (as with haplogroups):

there is no significant difference between Dravidic and Indo-European speaking populations from the same geographic region in this study. Tombseye 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll go through this it detail when I have a little more free time, but for now, I'm wondering why you decided to quote only the last part of that sentence. In full,


 * Due to the increased frequency towards the southern part of India (Figure 1, panel M2, SAA p < 0.05 Figure 4), M2 is significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent among the Dravidic speakers than among the Indo-European speakers who are spread mostly in the northern regions of India (Table 2). It is more plausible that geography rather than linguistics is behind this pattern, because the frequency of M2 amongst the Indo-European speaking populations in southern India is significantly higher than that in the north, while there is no significant difference between Dravidic and Indo-European speaking populations from the same geographic region (Table 2).? --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 23:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And why quote from a paper that demonstrates that there is a significant difference in the R2; U7; W collection of haplogroups between Southern Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations?


 * Care must be taken when using frequencies of general haplogroups as evidence of similarity of two populations (unlike using them to demonstrate distinction). The M2 MtDNA haplogroup can be examined further as carried out by Kivisild et al (2003). The Sinhalese show three distinct M2 haplotypes, two of which group on a lineage of the M2b1 haplogroup with one from Gujurat. The other haplotype groups with Telugu, Lambadi and Chenchu people. Dinlo juk 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added where the link to the study so why did you want me to quote the entire section? In addition, it is clear from these studies that Indo-Aryans were simply absorbed into the local population of South Asia and again this shows that, as in most parts of Eurasia and Africa, autochthonous groups vastly outnumbered invaders and so people who speak Indo-Aryan languages are not quite that distinct, in most cases, from their Dravidian neighbors. In fact, obviously, West Eurasian geneflow increases the closer one gets towards Iran and Western Pakistan where it predominates. In addition, note the US Library of Congress view on the Sinhalese as well: The Sinhalese are the largest ethnic group in the country, officially comprising 11 million people or 74 percent of the population in 1981. They are distinguished primarily by their language, Sinhala, which is a member of the Indo-European linguistic group that includes Hindi and other north Indian tongues as well as most of the languages of Europe. It is likely that groups from north India introduced an early form of Sinhala when they migrated to the island around 500 B.C., bringing with them the agricultural economy that has remained dominant to the twentieth century. From early times, however, Sinhala has included a large number of loan words and constructs from Tamil, and modern speech includes many expressions from European languages, especially English. The Sinhalese claim to be descendants of Prince Vijaya and his band of immigrants from northern India, but it is probable that the original group of Sinhalese immigrants intermarried with indigenous inhabitants (see Ancient Legends and Chronicles, ch. 1). The Sinhalese gradually absorbed a wide variety of castes or tribal groups from the island and from southern India during the last 2,500 years. The article pretty much reflects this view and does not back the more mythological view of some vast differences between the groups found on the island. Tombseye 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to user Tombseye's post quoted within this post:


 * The Indo-Aryans are not indigenous to India despite what nationaists there seem to claim. They are believed to be derived from Indo-Europeans and migrated through Iran and Central Asia (or originated in Central Asia) and thus are indicative of this "West Eurasian" geneflow.


 * Again, this is misleading. The earliest language to be classified as Indo-Aryan is Vedic Sanskrit, dating from around 1,700 BCE in India. It developed from a Proto-Indo-Iranian language, which is not classified as Indo-Aryan. The theory that the Sinhalese have ancestry that is Indo-Aryan, specifically relates to India.


 * In addition, the mythology that is incorrect purports some vast differences between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers on a genetic and "racial" basis that is without merit. The variations are small and thus the purpose is to show that the differences are exaggerated and artificial rather than of any actual consequence. The point being that, as in most cases in the world, neighboring groups are related, in this case the Tamils and Sinhalese are very closely related and are not "races" and their differences are very small (as with haplogroups):


 * I have several issues with your argument.


 * 1. "Race" is a social construct that has no specific genetic criteria, but is usually used to describe a group of people who are distinct by ancestry, so we can expect to see some genetic distinction. We do, in fact, see this in the Sinhalese.


 * 2. Your use of mtDNA haplogroup frequency as an indicator of genetic similarity is inappropriate. It can only be used, at this level, to indicate distinction. For instance, the M2 lineage arose aroud 70,000 years ago, splitting into the M2a and M2b lineages around 50,000 years ago. It is possible to have the same frequency of M2, whilst having very distinct frequencies of M2 lineage haplotypes, which we certainly see in the Sinhalese, as shown in the Kivisild 2003 paper, which was actually quoted in the article to back up the assertion that the Sinhalese are not distinct!


 * 3. Mitochondrial DNA relates only to the matrilineal line and it provides incomplete evidence of ancestry. It is not uncommon for Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups to show more evidence of genetic distinction than mtDNA haplogroups. This would be expected in the situation where an invading force occupied a foreign land. I have no idea what the Sinhalese mythology states, were the Indo-Aryan ancestors an invading force? Dinlo juk 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In response:
 * Again, this is misleading. The earliest language to be classified as Indo-Aryan is Vedic Sanskrit, dating from around 1,700 BCE in India. It developed from a Proto-Indo-Iranian language, which is not classified as Indo-Aryan. The theory that the Sinhalese have ancestry that is Indo-Aryan, specifically relates to India.
 * Speaking a language is not an ethnic connector. Nor does it mean that all Indoaryan speakers are directly related, though a partial relationship is possible. The Roma and Hindkowans are for example more related to their neighbors than to people in India. It's like saying African Americans and Dutch Americans are the same because they speak the same language. Nor is there any strong evidence that there was a massive enough invasion that the Sinhalese predominantly derived from Northern Indians from Bengal anyway. Indo-aryans aren't that distinct of a group. And it is not known where the Indo-aryan languages first developed. They may have originated in Central Asia or Afghanistan for all we know.
 * The articles use both mtDNA and Y chromosome evidence so I don't know what you are trying to argue. You might want to take it up with the authors of the studies rather than me. The main point here is that there IS a mythology that the Sinhalese are completely distinct from their Tamil neighbors which reference books make clear is inaccurate. The genetic evidence is not meant to be the end all, far from it. But it is meant to lend credence to the accurate notion that neighboring peoples tend to be related to each other. Tombseye 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tombseye: Yes, the Kivisild paper does indeed show Y chromosome data, thanks for pointing that out. I got carried away with the mtDNA data. The Y chromosome data in that paper is extremely interesting in that it shows the Sinhalese are genetically less distinct from Northern, Indo-Aryan speaking populations than they are from the Dravidian speaking populations of Southern India.


 * Analysis of Y chromosome haplogroups (figure 4 in Kivisild et al) shows the Sinhalese grouping most closely with other Indo-Aryan groups. In terms of increasing distinctiveness from the Sinhalese (going from least distinct to most distinct), the other Indian groups score as follows:


 * It should be noted that Eastern European, Central Asian, Pakistani, Georgian, Southern European, and Middle Eastern groups were less distinct from the Sinhalese than the Lambadis and Koyas were. Eastern Europeans were about as distinct from the Sinhalese as the Chenchus were.


 * The evidence points to a migration of male ancestors from Northern India.


 * (As an aside, genetic studies of the Roma are in their infancy, but the early predictions that as much of 60% of their genes are European may not bear scrutiny. As a whole, Roma men have 47.3% of their Y chromosome haplogroups belonging to the distinctly Indian H-M82 lineage. The remainder does not reflect exclusively European haplogroups. Mitochondrial haplogroups show a greater degree of European influence.) Dinlo juk 12:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and to add something to the map, it is misleading also to list the Dards (such as Kohistanis) as Indoaryans as they are generally regarded as Indo-Iranian, meaning a distinct branch of said group. Tombseye 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters much to this discussion, there is a debate there. From the Dardic languages entry:
 * <I>Labelling the Dardic languages as a linguistic sub-family poses a few problems since these languages are not related to each other genetically besides being Indo-Iranian. The term Dardic is thus more of a geographical reference to a collection of more or less Indo-Iranian Language Isolates than an actual familial designation. Their relationship to the other subfamilies of the Indo-Iranian is not yet settled, though some linguistics texts tend to classify some of them as a sub-group of Indo-Aryan languages.</i> Dinlo juk 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe though that it is important to assess BOTH mtDNA and Y-Chromosome data and here is why. Since males do invade and intermarry with local women, imagine this process over generations to the point that the male contribution is relatively minor. That is how this data tends to be interpreted, BUT linkages to areas outside are not improbable at all. Taken as a whole, the Sinhalese are still mostly related to their neighbors, not surprisingly. I don't see why there is a need to emphasize one over the other necessarily.


 * Apologies for breaking up your post to address it section by section, but the discussion is in danger of becoming unpalatable. It is important to use both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data in these respects, but you're mistaken to emphasise the mitochondrial data over the the Y-chromosome. The Y chromosomal data is very distinct from that of the surrounding Dravidian peoples. The remainder of the genomic DNA will also be distinct. To suggest otherwise, as has been done in the section in question, is fundamentally dishonest.


 * The Roma do show a partial ancestry derived from males from South Asia (the Punjab specifically), BUT this again needs to be interpreted as not including the intermarriages that have diluted this significantly. I have met many Roma and they are generally indistinguishable from Europeans and many do not even speak Romany any more so their inclusion in the Indo-Aryan group is LINGUISTIC at any rate. The Dardic group I am aware of is sometimes grouped as a peripheral Indo-Aryan group, but this is not widely accepted as the group shows many qualities similar to the Iranic group.


 * I've also met one or two Roma. The gene flow between Roma and the surrounding population is surprisingly limited for two populations living in such close proximity, but the mistrust between Roma and non-Roma cannot be understated. There has been some degree of gene transfer with the surrounding populations, but this is surprisingly limited. In most groups, intermarriage with gadje is very looked down on, and the prejudice with which they are viewed by non-Roma is often extreme.


 * Actually, the Roma vary from place to place. In Spain they have intermarried quite a bit, while in Romania less so. In addition, the gene flow is still at least half, which is not insignificant. Upwardly mobile Roma have existed for centuries as well so these are generalizations rather than concrete assertions. Tombseye 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I encountered these problems when I wrote Iranian peoples and tried to emphasize the language connection and de-emphasize any ethnic affiliation. Neighbors are closer to each other than supposed ancestors from other areas is the paradigm that most analyses of populations conclude. Note the US Library of Congress which believes the Sinhalese to be related to their neighbors first and foremost. That is the important point here. Noting an ancestral link to other groups is not outside the realms of mention, but obviously one has to consider various factor such as distance, Sri Lanka is far and away removed from even Northern India let alone other regions further west. The migration is likely to have been males who established their language and culture and were absorbed into the local group as the US Library of Congress notes. The genetic studies are meant to simply supplement the issues and dispel the myths. Tombseye 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The US Library of Congress's belief is irrelevant. I am a geneticist and am interested in how the data has been presented here. To suggest that the Sinhalese show no significant difference from Dravidians is just not honest. You cannot pick and choose which data to use. Dinlo juk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, wait a second. their view is not irrelevant. their articles are written largely professors and experts. I think you are looking for differences rather than taking an impassive and neutral view of the population frankly. I am not suggesting that there aren't any differences, but it is doubtful that they are substantial given the simple fact that the two groups live side by side AND show no discernable phenotype variations. Some distant ancestry from paternal links to outsiders is possible, but you seem eager to embrace this as evidence of "significant" difference. If you don't prescribe to race then what are you pressing for differences that are not readily apparent? What exactly is your point? IF we discard the genetics sections, then the US library of congress is a viable alternative. Again, this is a nationalistic mythology, not only of the Sinhalese but others, that there are significant differences, which I don't think the genetic studies back. They merely show that the Sinhalese have SOME distant ancestors, in some cases, who come from outside the island, but this is hardly an indication of significant difference. Tombseye 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The studies show that there are significant differences in the male ancestry of the Sinhalese to that of Dravidian peoples, but not to that of Northern, Indo-Aryan peoples. If, as you have suggested, the Sinhalese adopted a language brought in by a few Indo-Aryan speaking invaders who were subsequently assimilated into a much larger gene pool, it would be the other way around. The data does not support your position.


 * I have no interest in emphasising race, unless it is to those who deny ethnic distinction to justify racism. In this case, my point is that several scientific papers are being used dishonestly and the article should be corrected to reflect this. Now, I support keeping the article, as an NPOV piece that reflects both postitions in discussion, but as it stands, it is deliberately misleading. Dinlo juk 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with mentioning some variation, but keep in mind that partial descent doesn't make the Sinhalese distinct from the Dravidians who have also mixed with northern Indians (Indo-Aryan being a language group rather than a race anyway). I think we agree more than you realize as I have no problem with mentioning both aspects of the genetic testing. Feel free to insert the information, but I think we should also make mention of the Library of Congress view that contradicts the British legacy of telling the Sinhalese that they are completely different from the Tamils, racially etc. Is that satisfactory? Tombseye 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

the genetics section is about genetics, not language. If geneticists find that the Sinhalese have primarily autochthonous ancestry, it merely follows that the Indo-Aryan language was adopted mainly via cultural diffusion, not demic diffusion. Keep discussion of genetics and of language cleanly separate. dab (𒁳) 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm okay with that. It seems that regardless the academic view is that the Sinhalese are mainly indigenous to the island, which is also the case of most Indians anyway. Tombseye 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Sinhalese have a stable birth rate and a population that has been growing at a relatively slow pace in comparison to India and other Asian countries."

Can the person who wrote this tell me from where he/she got this information.

Thank you.

Dinlo juk, I don't know if you're aware, but there was a recent article in the International Journal of Immunogenetics on Sinhalese ancestry. According to the article, HLA analysis predicted a North Indian origin for the Sinhalese. How well can HLA analysis determine ethnic ancestry? The article is available on Blackwell Synergy. It was published online on June 8, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.218.114 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the article on HLA analysis in Sinhalese people

72.72.218.114 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

genetic difference between the Sinhala and Tamil people living in Sri Lanka
With regards to the genetic difference between the Sinhala and Tamil people living in Sri Lanka, I do believe the differences are likely to be marginal. Nevertheless there are “typical” Tamil features and “typical” Sinhala features. If you were able to constitute an average Sinhala physique and constitute an “average” Tamil physique I believe you would see a marked difference. Furthermore the Tamil Communities in the North and the Sinhala communities in the South were likely exclusive through the last few thousand years with limited interaction. --193.220.217.44 08:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Chaminda Sep 22, 07

Yes you are right Sinhalese are of Aboriginal stock and Tamils are Dravidians.

False. Actually the Sinhalese are NOT of Aboriginal stock and are rather a blend of other races (which explains why there are no Sinhalese in India who aren't Sri Lankan immigrants, i.e no natives of India that are Sinhalese). Also, the assertion that Sinhalese are Aryan descendants is ludicrous, illogical and unwarranted. It is simply an unverifiable explanation as to why some believe that the Sinhalese have "light skin" (although most disagree with this hasty generalization). This is like saying Tamils have dark skin because they are descendants of Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 22:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'm assuming that "Sinhalese people" and "Hela (people)" refer to the same ethnic group, in which case the two articles should be merged (if the articles refer to different things, please remove the merger notices on both articles and leave a comment here). I'm not sure what to do with the Papua New Guinea information in "Hela (people)". I'll volunteer to merge the articles in a week or two if there are no serious objections. Please feel free to leave comments here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ <sup style="color:blue;"> walkie-talkie  |  tool box  07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The two articles have been merged here. Some of the information that has been brought over is unsourced, and may be removed at the discretion of a knowledgeable editor. "Hela (people)" now exists as a redirect; information about the Hela people of Papua New Guinea is available at Huli. Please post any concerns below. Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Genetic affinities of Sri Lankan populations
The Bengalis, the Tamils, and the Veddahs are considered parental populations for the Sinhalese. The Bengali contribution is 25.41%, the Tamil (India) contribution is 69.86%, and the Veddah contribution is only 4.73%. Thus the Sinhalese have a predominantly Tamil (India) contribution followed by the Bengalis and the Veddahs.

From:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199512/ai_n8732666/pg_4?tag=artBody;col1


 * bnet is BNET provides action-oriented intelligence for managerial professionals that’s smart, useful, and always right at your fingertips.. This does not meet the standard for sourcing linguistic/anthropological articles on WP. Please read WP:Verifiability Jasy jatere (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I find Sinhalese script is similar to Telugu script or Kannada script. Both genetics and language origins of Sinhalese point to South Indian origin hence Dravidian. Please compare scripts below. I can't see any North-Indian affiliations genetically or linguistically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_script

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannada_script

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhala_script


 * please read about wikipedia policy on original research. Also consider my reply on Sinhalese_alphabet Jasy jatere (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Only affiliation Sinhalese may have with North India ( or rather North-East India) is the 25.41% Bengali ancestry.Iross1000 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC).


 * linguistic, alphabetic and genetic relations need not necessarily coincide. Even if the Sri Lankan population is completely mixed, the language remains Indo-Aryan, and even if it the gene pool was completely Northern Indian, the script would remain an offshoot of Grantha. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetic and anthropological assessments
I deleted this section from the article as it is hardly relevant to the article and to Sinhalese people. The article contained too much information on unrelated ethnic groups such as Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, and Sri Lankan Tamils. This section would be more appropriate in a more general article in a section of "Genetic and anthropological assessments" of general South Asian populations as opposed to an ethnic group as specific as the Sinhalese. Also, this section contained far too much overly technical scientific jargon and terminology that is of little meaning or use to the mainstream public that would read this and simply be left confused. Lastly, I reviewed, in detail, the references that are used to cite the material presented in this section: "Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, Biomedical Central, BMC Genetics 2004, 5:26" and "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:313–332, 2003." and found that only about 1/3 of the claims in this article can be directly supported from the source and the remaining 2/3 are simply interpretations (I argue they are misinterpretations) of the author. If this section is going to be re-added again there should be a thorough discussion re: how this is relevant to the Sinhalese people and there should be more concrete references to verify the claims.
 * Just as a housekeeping measure, I moved this entry down to the bottom of the page. Please do the same for all new subject headings. I reverted your contribution because it was the removal of a large chunk of sourced text without comment or explanation. I suggest you discuss this proposed change here before making it again. Trusilver  04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "Muslim-Sinhalese" population is unfounded
There is no Muslim-Sinhalese population as these muslims are a entirely different racial group themselves. While there are additions to the group over time through proselytising activities, the original arab settlers called the 'moors' are an entirely different race and even recognized by the government as such. I'm sure someone could find references to this if they looked. But at any rate to label the race as Muslim-Sinhalese without a citation when no moorish Muslim in sri lanka regards themselves as a Sinhalese is extremely presumptuous. Arabs in sri lanka have a long history of migration from before and after Islam. Later arabs brought islam to the arabs. There were also persian mixes involved over time. The typical arab communities (e.g. in Akurana and Beruwela) are easily distinguishable from the arabs owing to their lighter skin, and obviously semitic features. Such conjecture is misplaced in an article about "Sinhalese" people, and unless you can post citations of genetic evidence proving that the race of 'sri lankan moors' is in fact entirely sinhalese, then this should be kept out of the article. Officially the Sri Lankan muslims are grouped into two categories: Malays (of south east asian origin. Malaysia/Indonesia), and 'Moors' (Arab origins including regions such as the Hejaz and Greater Syria). Furthermore they don't even speak the same language, instead preferring to use Tamil which is peppered with Arabic words. The use of Tamil stems from relations with Muslims in India. Previously the arabs held ties with the Islamic Empire in the Middle East and Europe, and later served as delegates to these regions - even in the employ of Sinhalese Kings. After the fall of the Islamic Empire and as later generations began to lose their ties with Arabia, they continued to maintain relations with muslim kingdoms and communities in India. Over the past several hundred years their language has evolved from pure Arabic into a mixture of Arabic and Tamil (including retention of Arabic script), to what is now Tamil with some Arabic words, Sinhalese, and English. 90.219.104.62 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "...instead preferring to use Tamil which is peppered with Arabic words" < The context in which you have written this sentence implies that "Tamil" is "peppered with Arabic words". Tamil not only vastly different and incomparable to Arabic but is far older (existed for centuries before Arabic came into being much like it existed for centuries before the "Sinhalese" language even came into being). Tamil is absolutely not peppered with any words from Arabic.

I was referring to the Tamil spoken by Moorish Muslims in Sri Lanka. They sometimes use a dialect of Tamil which has heavy Arabic influence. The Tamil spoken by actual Tamils is very different of course. Also the age of the language has nothing to do with this. I don't see the point of bringing it up. Tamil isn't much older than Arabic. And Ancient Arabic is thousands of years older (and in the case of Proto-semitic, tens of thousands of years older) than Tamil or any of the Dravidian languages. The influence of the language in this context has nothing to do with age, at any rate. The Sri Lankan Moors resumed ties with Muslim kingdoms in India after the decline of the Islamic Empire in Eurasia/Africa. They began to use hybrid languages with both tamil and arabic overtones. This eventually evolved into a purer form of Tamil but still retained an extensive Arabic vocabulary (and until very recently, the Arabic script). 90.219.104.62 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling this was was your intent, however, the incorrect context of your original sentence implied otherwise. Thank you for making it clear that you were referring to the Tamil spoken by the Moorish Muslims in Sri Lanka. You are correct in that the age of the language bears little relevance, however, the point I was making was that Arabic is not comparable to Tamil and used the age difference as an example of why this is true as languages that have existed in the same era and geographical region tend to have similarities but this is not the case with Tamil and Arabic. Tamil is indeed older than Arabic, however, the use of the word "much" preceding "older" was inappropriate and as far as "Ancient Arabic" (more correctly referred to as Proto-Arabic) goes, it's analogous form of Tamil which is derived from Sanskrit, is indeed "much" older (dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE). The comparison with the "Proto-Semitic" language is invalid as it is only a "hypothetical proto-language" whereas Sanskrit is not. Stating "Proto-Semitic" is "tens of thousands of years older" accomplishes nothing more than stating an inaccurate hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of age has nothing to do with this topic. But as you persist, I must point out that saying tamil is 4000 years old would still not make it nearly as old as Ancient Arabic which spoken by Abraham and around his time - this was during the birth of civilization in Summeria/Ur of the Chaldees. Furthermore, Wikipedia states that them most ancient form of Tamil known as "Old Tamil" dates from 3rd Century BC. This is rougly the same age as modern Arabic (aka Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic). Ancient Arabic is a far far older language, and semitic people have ancient written and oral traditions dating from the time of Abraham, and even from before his time. Similarly, the hebrews also have a written tradition which is now known as the Old Testament - note that the OT is written originally in both Hebrew and Ancient Chaldean (Arabic) as well as various other semitic dialects. The Book of Daniel for example is partly written in Chaldean. Daniel dates back to atleast 600BC easily being an example of arabic literature older than Tamil. Note that the book of Daniel is easily far far more recent than the equivalent arabic traditions of Abraham, as Abraham was the patriarch of both Jews and Arabs. The theoretical proto semitic is another matter entirely and is very very old indeed. This idea that Tamil or Sanskrit is older than arabic/chaldean or the semitic branch of languages is baseless and fanciful. These semitic languages existed in the middle east at a point when civilization began, and the semitic people have a long history of both oral and written tradition in the various dialects. Cities such as Syria for example are 12,000 years old, and the semitic languages (Ancient Arabic - i.e. chaldean - and its offshoots such as Syriac/Aramaic) developed in these regions for a far longer period than any known records in Sanskrit. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European language family, and while Tamil borrows from Sanskrit, it is essentially a Dravidic language. 90.219.238.197 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your most recent addition to this discussion is riddled with so many inaccuracies, fallacious arguments, ambiguities, tangents and irrelevancies that it is hardly worth responding to, as anyone who is well-read in this area and has a keen mind can easily spot the misinformation and flaws, but I will, however, respond for the sake of intellectual discussion. I will address each of your statements in a point-by-point fashion:

...saying tamil is 4000 years old would still not make it nearly as old as Ancient Arabic which spoken by Abraham and around his time - this was during the birth of civilization in Summeria/Ur of the Chaldees


 * First off, referencing the Bible and mentioning a religious and Biblical figure (Abraham) in a discussion of language is barely relevant and hardly valid. Part of the reason for this is because, much like most of the "information" presented in the Bible, the exact period in time in which Abraham lived is widely contested, challenged, and debated and there is absolutely no reasonable consensus that can be supported with irrefutable scientific evidence that can resolve this issue. For example, according to Jewish dating, he lived from 1812 BCE to 1637 BCE (which would make him an impossible 175 years old), an assertion that is absurd. Second, the language spoke in Sumer (and thereby Ur) of ancient Mesopotamia was absolutely not Arabic or even "Ancient Arabic" (again, more accurately known as Proto-Arabic). The language that the Sumerians spoke belongs to no known language family and attempting to connect this with Proto-Arabic simply on the basis of loose geographic affiliation is childish. Third, "Ur of the Chaldees" is another Biblical reference that is simply invalid in an academic context (a town that exists in the Hebrew Bible) although, some people believe that it actually refers to Ur in Sumer of Mesopotamia (which was actually a real city).

Furthermore, Wikipedia states that them most ancient form of Tamil known as "Old Tamil" dates from 3rd Century BC. This is rougly the same age as modern Arabic (aka Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic).


 * "Old Tamil" is a highly relative and arbitrary term. It is more of a descriptive term used by scholars and experts who study the language (a form of classification) rather than what people who actually speak the language would identify themselves with. In other words, if you ask any Tamil individual living in Tamil Nadu, India or the North and East of Sri Lanka they will more than likely tell you that there is no such language as "Old Tamil" but rather only "Tamil" and it's closely-related predecessors "Brahmi" and "Sanskrit", the latter of which predates anything "Proto-Arabic".

Ancient Arabic is a far far older language, and semitic people have ancient written and oral traditions dating from the time of Abraham, and even from before his time.


 * The earliest surviving texts of Proto-Arabic (also known as Ancient North Arabian and Hasaean) are dated to the 8th century BC. The earliest Sanskrit texts, however, are dated to mid-to-late second millenium BCE. One may foolishly argue that Sanskrit is a totally unique and distinct language from "Old Tamil", but such a baseless argument would lead to a dead-end as its Arabic counter-part (Proto-Arabic) does not contain a single character from the modern Arabic alphabet nor its (modern Arabic's) immediate predecessor: the Nabataean language. In other words, it can be argued that Sanskrit and Brahmi are far more related to "Old Tamil" than Proto-Arabic is to Arabic. Unless you have no concept of time and think that events that took place during the 8th century BC (2800 years) are older than those that took place during the 2nd millennium BC (4000 years), it is plainly obvious that Sanskrit (and thereby Tamil) is older than Proto-Arabic (and thereby Classical / modern Arabic). Referring to the "semitic people" is irrelevant as it is an extremely broad and ambiguous reference to any of the hundreds of civilizations that were present in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Referring to the "time of Abraham" is even more laughable because, as stated earlier, Abraham is simply a Biblical figure and his "time" and the time "before his time" are totally loose terms which no one can reasonably put a precise year on (as can be done with scientific events).

Similarly, the hebrews also have a written tradition which is now known as the Old Testament - note that the OT is written originally in both Hebrew and Ancient Chaldean (Arabic) as well as various other semitic dialects.


 * Firsly, the Hebrews have absolutely nothing to do with this subject, aside from the fact that their language originates in a similar geographical region to those previously discussed and as far as the Old Testament goes, it is simply another Biblical reference that isn't deserving of a serious response. Second, "Ancient Chaldean" is absolutely not Arabic and is rather a reference to the Urartian languages and the native language spoken by the people of Chaldea.

'''The Book of Daniel for example is partly written in Chaldean. Daniel dates back to atleast 600BC easily being an example of arabic literature older than Tamil. Note that the book of Daniel is easily far far more recent than the equivalent arabic traditions of Abraham, as Abraham was the patriarch of both Jews and Arabs.'''


 * The Book of Daniel is yet another Biblical reference which is even more irrelevant this time because Chaldean is not Arabic. I am well aware of who Abraham is. Stating he is the patriarch of both Jews and Arabs was unnecessary and not significant to the discussion of language.

'''he theoretical proto semitic is another matter entirely and is very very old indeed. This idea that Tamil or Sanskrit is older than arabic/chaldean or the semitic branch of languages is baseless and fanciful. These semitic languages existed in the middle east at a point when civilization began, and the semitic people have a long history of both oral and written tradition in the various dialects.'''


 * This may be one of the few (or perhaps the only) correct statement that was present in your most recent response. If indeed the hypothetical and theoretical "Proto-Semitic" language did exist, it would predate both Tamil, Brahmi, and Sanskrit being placed at approximately 2300 BC (4300 years old), which, even then, would only make it 300 years older than the earliest Sanskrit. But again, it is worth noting that Proto-Semitic is nothing more than a hypothetical and theoretical language. Provided my earlier arguments above and refutation of what you provided as facts, the only thing that would be "baseless" and "fanciful" is arguing that Arabic or Proto-Arabic is older than Tamil and Sanskrit, respectively. When we are specifically determining whether Arabic is older than Tamil or vice-versa, mentioning the "semitic branch of languages" is of little significance and value for 3 simple reasons: 1. the semitic branch of languages is such a broad and vast category of languages that referring to the specific age of individual languages within this family doesn't make sense and 2. the only semitic language that would be older than both Sanskrit and Tamil that actually can be verified through written records would be that used by the Akkadians and Amorites and that used by the people of Ebla in ancient Syria 3. the language used by the Akkadians and Amorites and the residents of Ebla has nothing to do with Arabic or Proto-Arabic.

Cities such as Syria for example are 12,000 years old, and the semitic languages (Ancient Arabic - i.e. chaldean - and its offshoots such as Syriac/Aramaic) developed in these regions for a far longer period than any known records in Sanskrit.


 * First of all Syria is not a "city". Syria was an ancient civilization, a province (when under Roman / Byzantine occupation from 64 BC to 636 AD), and now it is a sovereign country. Neither Arabic nor Proto-Arabic had even developed or were present when the Syrian civilization first rose up (rather the oldest language in the region was that spoken by the people of Ebla). As stated several times before and stated again, Chaldean is not Arabic nor Proto-Arabic. Syriac and Aramaic also are totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether Tamil is older than Arabic or vice versa. With this in mind, your assertion that "Syriac and Aramaic developed in these regions for a far longer period than any known records in Sanskrit" is completely invalid and laughable at best. Here's why: the oldest written records of Aramaic ("Old Aramaic") are dated back to 1100 BCE (3100 years ago) whereas the oldest written records of Syriac as a dialect are dated to the 5th century BC (1500 years ago). Again, as stated earlier Sanskrit's earliest written text was dated to 4000 years ago which is older than both of these languages (even though these languages are hardly relevant to Arabic and Proto-Arabic).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European language family, and while Tamil borrows from Sanskrit, it is essentially a Dravidic language.


 * The oldest forms of Tamil initially borrowed from Sanskrit, however, given the heavy "Sanskritization" (integration of Sanskrit) of Tamil it is as much an Indo-Aryan language as it is a Dravidian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have some completely misguided notion of how old sanskrit and tamil are. For one thing your last statement is nothing short of ridiculous. Tamil becoming 'Sanskritised' doesn't help your argument as all it proves is that Tamil is of an entirely different language family from Sanskrit and doesn't therefore represent a common ancestry, but instead shows that the former was influenced at a later date by the latter. So stop trying to inter-relate the true when Tamil/Malayam originated from a proto-dravidian language rather than an indo-european language.

For another, you keep pulling numbers out of your posterior:

Classical Sanskrit is the standard register as laid out in the grammar of Pāṇini, around the 4th century BCE. Its position in the cultures of South and Southeast Asia is akin to that of Latin and Greek in Europe and it has significantly influenced most modern languages of Nepal and India.[4] - /Sanskrit#cite_note-Staal-3

"The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back to as early as 1500 BCE,[5]" - /Sanskrit#CITEREFMacdonell2004

(I hope you can understand the difference between a common/shared ancestry and the term "influenced". The two are not the same, though you make them out to be.)

1500 BCE is recent when Hebrew/Arabic traditions go back to very ancient times. 1500 BCE would roughly place this at the time of Moses, when Hebrew was widely spoken and Hebrew is very closely related to modern Arabic. Abraham wasn't merely a biblical figure, he was a historical figure to both Jews and Arabs. Their 'traditions' (historical oral and written records) go back to Abraham and even Noah before him. And I was not talking about the value of the Bible as a religious text, but rather as a historical text. Similar to the jewish Talmudic writings the Arabs have their own system of Oral traditions that became written traditions later. Anyway, Chaldean spoken by Abraham = Arabic. It's an Ancient form of Arabic that is the direct ancestor of Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic. And yes, Ur of Chaldees is Ur of Sumer.

When I was talking about Syria I meant Damascus.

As for your tamil. It is only 3rd century BC. IF you can cite dravidic languages as being old, then that gives equal right to cite older semitic languages. Developed language was the defining characteristic of emerging civilizations. And no scholar would argue that Semitic civilization is far far older than any Indian civilization. Finally to end this discussion: "The earliest surviving texts in Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, are the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BC, written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the epigraphic South Arabian musnad. These are followed by 6th-century BC Lihyanite texts from southeastern Saudi Arabia and the Thamudic texts found throughout Arabia and the Sinai, and not actually connected with Thamud. Later come the Safaitic inscriptions beginning in the 1st century BC, and the many Arabic personal names attested in Nabataean inscriptions (which are, however, written in Aramaic). From about the 2nd century BC, a few inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw (near Sulayyil) reveal a dialect which is no longer considered "Proto-Arabic", but Pre-Classical Arabic. By the fourth century AD, the Arab kingdoms of the Lakhmids in southern Iraq, the Ghassanids in southern Syria the Kindite Kingdom emerged in Central Arabia. Their courts were responsible for some notable examples of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, and for some of the few surviving pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in the Arabic alphabet.[12]" - /Arabic_language#History

This places Arabic at an age comparable to oldest known Tamil records, thus entirely debunking your ridiculous crack-adled notions that "Tamil is MUCH older than Arabic". In fact, Ancient North Arabic (and I don't mean the old Chaldean language of Abraham), is atleast FIVE CENTURIES older, and Pre-classical Arabic is roughly the same age.

90.215.157.179 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * please continue this discussion on your talk pages, the relative age of Arabic and Tamil is of absolutely no importance for the article Sinhalese People. I will remove any further posts about this per WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. Thank you. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. I can't believe this irrelevant discussion has been going on for this long and occupies so much space on the talk page. Should this section be deleted altogether? Neither Tamil nor Arabic have nothing to do with Sinhalese people and I am not sure what the arguments are getting at or trying to prove or why.Markyboy333 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's wait a couple of weeks and then archive it. This is the least controversial method of cleaning the talk page. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up!
The numbers for the population of the Sinhalese people don't add up(As noted before)! A total of 14,900,000 is given; but quite obviously, upon adding the population totals of Sri Lanka (14,800,000), Australia (58,600), UAE (50,000) and Thailand (62,000) we get a total that is already materially different from 14,900,000. Thats not even mentioning the populations of other countries. Can Anyone source current comparable data for all these figures, else change the total to reflect the numbers expressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeeSpot (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure what the numbers are for Sinhalese living abroad, but I do know that the last census in SL was in 1981. There haven't been any since due to the ongoing tensions, and the political sensitivity of a census (i.e. numbers of Tamils and Sinhalese in particular areas are intertwined with claims to land rights, Eelam, and so forth). I'm working on a paper that has to be finished soon, so I don't have time to elaborate. I hope that explains at least a part of why population number are so tricky to ascertain in SL. I have no idea of where to get international numbers. Joechip123 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up this section by deleting all of the numbers that seem to be based on nothing more than someone's general idea which is likely in turn based on unwarranted assumptions and speculation. All of the numbers for countries which were not cited / referenced by a valid and credible source (or any source) were removed to maintain the quality and validity of this article. For example I find it enormously difficult to believe that one can know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there are "100" people of Sinhalese origin and/or descent in Switzerland and having such information here is just speculation not fact.Markyboy333 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Roma, Sinhalese and East India
For those who want to read and edit see here and read on the Genetics section. Sinhalese do have some East Indian ancestry and worth mentioning it in the article. -Iross1000 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC).


 * you would have to find the original scientific publication, rather than a website on a different group reporting the findings of the study .. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ethnic flag
As far as I remember, there is a Sinhalese ethnic flag, which is the old flag of the Kandyan kingdom. This flag was used as a base for the national flag of Sri Lanka, but due to protests, the bars on the left side were added. This flag can be seen here: http://www.lankalibrary.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1220 The Srilankan national flag is thus different from the older flag, which could be considered a Sinhalese flag. It can also be found in the list of Ethnic flags on wikipedia [] Jasy jatere (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The notion of an "ethnic flag" is absolutely racist regardless of the race or ethnicity to which it refers. Ethnic flags, however, do nonetheless exist, however, my dilemma is that a "Sinhalese ethnic flag" is definitely not one of them (that can be verified by a scholarly source and not a website that looks like it was slapped together in 20 minutes by a teenager). Also, referencing another page on wikipedia as you did above is hardly valid. The actual information in the article is also not referenced and the claims made are false. I will be deleting this section until people learn to respect WP:NPOV and WP:RS (especially WP:RS). The "Lanka Library Forum" is definitely not reliable or scholarly by any means and you would have to be joking if you even attempt to make the claim that it is. SSJGoku3 (talk)


 * I agree that the notion of ethnic flag is problematic. Actually, the notion of "Sinhalese People" itself is already problematic. The website I reference might not be the best source either. But it appears that the notion of "ethnic flag" exists, whether we like it or not. I am not too sure whether this has to be incorporated into the article; it might be divisive, where the last thing Sri Lanka needs is further division. I am pretty sure that in history books about 1948-1972 there will be a section on the matter of the flag and how it got its stripes. I will not research that, but someone else might want to do it. Also, why don't you calm down a bit. I did not claim that lankalibrary was RS, I just wanted to show an image of the flag (which does exist) Jasy jatere (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad we have reached a consensus that any "ethnic" flag is unquestionably problematic, however, I am also glad that we both acknowledge their existence although we both disagree with their purpose. I also heavily question the necessity of the ethnic flag in this article much like you do. Culture, sports, food, entertainment, clothing, tradition(s) etc. is fine because those are wonderful historical and cultural tid-bits that people are interested in and should be proud of, however, an ethnic flag makes me think of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party and think it takes away from the article and adds a dose of unnecessary racial chauvinism to the article. I am not angry and am perfectly calm. I am not angry at you or this article but am very frustrated with the number of people who don't respect or have an understanding of WP:RS these days. People often take advantage of the open-source and free-to-edit nature of Wikipedia and forget that it is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. The ethnic flag section of this article is just one example, but the amount of WP:RS violations is on the rise and is a disturbing trend that I think administrators have been far too lazy to address properly.SSJGoku3 (talk)

Copyright concerns
Material was placed into this article in this edit which duplicates previously published text from [http://www.everyculture. com/wc/Rwanda-to-Syria/Sinhalese.html this source]. that material archives to [http://web.archive.org/web/20070108214732/http://www.everyculture. com/wc/Rwanda-to-Syria/Sinhalese.html January 2007]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I applaud your clean-up efforts Moonriddengirl, I can not believe I missed this one (copyright violation). I have noticed from reviewing both the history for the article itself and the discussion pages that this entire topic and/or article is a highly controversial one and one that on the whole, is improperly supported and/or justified in many of the claims that are made. I looked at similar pages for other South Asian ethnic groups and noticed that they were far more thoroughly and comprehensively supported and with the article being far shorter and more concise and neutral.


 * Several users seem to have complained (multiple times over multiple different occasions and re: different situations) that this article (or aspects of it) violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and now WP:C as well (copyright infringement) - the last of which is very serious and the former 2 raise some red flags re: this article's credibility as a whole and whether it merits and independent article or if it should be clumped into another similar / related one. After reading the original article I completely agree that the whole thing violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:C (despite repeated calls for clean-up).


 * I hate to say it but it seems that it would be for the greater good that this entire article is permanently deleted as it has repeatedly failed to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and consistently makes sloppy and poor edits that are reflected by poor judgment. I also noticed this article is a target for vandalism and has received far more of this than anything constructive (which is very unfortunate).


 * I am going to recommend this article for speedy deletion but users are welcome to make a case against here.DavidIsaiah (talk)


 * article seems to meet WP:N, which should be enough for keeping.Jasy jatere (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletion is not necessary to clean the copyright problem, and this article does not seem to qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria. If the copyrighted text is not permitted or revised by the time the seven day listing period runs out, I will revert to an earlier version in history before it was introduced. (Given that the contributor who placed it is currently indefinitely blocked, I am also quite willing to go ahead and do that now, if the contributors to this article would prefer.) Other issues need to be dealt with through normal dispute resolution processes or through deletion debate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic relationships
I undid revision by 296286909 by Blackknight12.

Considering Sri Lanka's geographical position in the world and it's stratigically important seaways and trading routes, which have been established for over thousands of years, Sri Lanka has received a constant influx of people from all corners of the globe, mainly from the Middle East and Europe and obviously India. This influx of people have made the population of Sri Lanka into a more diverse and multi ethnic one, and over time these ethnicities have become similar, resulting in the Sinhalese having being able to trace back there genetic history to many places.

The study you linked does not say "Sri Lanka has recieved a constant influx of people from all corners of the globe, mainly middle east and Europe". The evidence shows the Sinhalese have the greatest genetic contribution from South Indian tamils, then begalis. Any immigration into a county will make it more diverse and multi ethnic. There is no need to mention that. "Ethnicities" don't become more similar. There gene pool would become more similar. Most people can trace their genetic history to many places, due to the likelihood of intermixing over hundreds of thousands of years of human history - This is also unnecessary.

It is generally accepted that the Sinhalese have their origins in North, North-East or North-west India around the present day Indian states of Orissa and West Bengal.

It is not generally accepted the Sinhalese are from North India and Orissa. This is only accepted by those who believe in the legend. Among the scientific community, it is generally accepted the Sinhalese are from South India and Bengal (See the article for the copious evidence). Which is what the previous revision said, with references and evidence. Everything in this revision was already mentioned in the previous revision, with the exception of the false/unsubstantiated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinpg (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)