Talk:Sinhalese people/Archive 2

Protected
I've full protected this for 2 weeks. Work it out or go to WP:DR. I've also asked the SLR Project to add this to their project.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * editprotected
 * Please add


 * (or something like it) to the top of the page to inform editors that the page is protected. Thanks.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&mdash;C45207 | Talk 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetic relationship section blanking by 76.111.25.195
I have undid the revision by 76.111.25.195 on the genetic relationships section. 76.111.25.195 constantly keeps deleting the previous edit, claiming it to contain outdated information. But the user has still failed to show how any of the information in the previous previous revision is outdated. Instead the user has just deleted it all. The revision the user replaced it with doesn't make sense in it's current state because it's been copy and pasted and the references are messed up. None of it contradicts with the previous revision or reveals anything new. It also contains plenty of verbose about Non-Sinhalese people which shouldn't be in this article.

Below is a critique on the user's copied entry:

Contrary to popular opinion, in part instilled by British colonial policy of 'divide and rule', 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. In fact, most Sinhalese, like most Indian populations show a high degree of genetic similarity that stems from a population that formed on the island roughly 12,000 years ago and has been little changed through invasions by Indo-Aryans and other groups.

The previous revision also supports the fact that the sinhalese are mainly Indo-Aryan. The previous revision also mentioned a study which found little genetic flow from other neighbouring asian population groups. There is nothing new in this entry and it is not referenced.

A 2003 Stanford study analyzing the origins of various South Asian populations (including 40 Sinhalese and over 90 Tamils from Sri Lanka) found that most of the population of the island and India in general:

This sentence makes no sense. It is incomplete.

Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. [5] These findings are corroborated by numerous other studies including a 2004 Biomedical Central Study:

This is an article on the Sinhalese people, not Indians.

Gene flow from West Eurasia-Broadly, the average proportion of mtDNAs from West Eurasia among Indian caste populations is 17% (Table 2). In the western States of India and in Pakistan their share is greater, reaching over 30% in Kashmir and Gujarat, nearly 40% in Indian Punjab, and peaking, expectedly, at approximately 50% in Pakistan (Table 11, see Additional file 6, Figure 11, panel A). These frequencies demonstrate a general decline (SAA p < 0.05 Figure 4) towards the south (23%, 11% and 15% in Maharashtra, Kerala and Sri Lanka, respectively) and even more so towards the east of India (13% in Uttar Pradesh and around 7% in West Bengal and Bangladesh). The low (<3%) frequency of the western Eurasian mtDNAs in Rajasthan may be in part a statistical artifact due to the limited sample size of 35 Rajputs. [6] Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka and adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders:

Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan. [7] 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... [8] These findings all include sample groups from Sinhalese populations in Sri Lanka who were thus compared to other South Asian and other Eurasian groups. From an anthropological perspective, the modern Sinhalese represent a fusion of a wide variety that nonetheless is overwhelmingly indigenous to the island of Sri Lanka and the genetic variations (based on Y-chromosomes and MtDNA only) between the Sinhalese and their Tamil and Veddah neighbors appears to be largely marginal and may be restricted to a small degree of sporadic differences rather than anything universal although some genetic drift has taken place that corresponds to language barriers.

All this information on Pakistanis, Indians, Punjabis etc. should not be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinpg (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article that talks about the genetic ancestry of Sinhalese and all the major ethnic groups in the whole subcontinent is more valid and a more comphresensive study that was done in 2003. Stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar (talk • contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your entry contains extraneous information that isn't relevant to the sinhalese article. How is it more valid? What's wrong with the methodology in the previous studies mentioned?. The information in this enty doesn't contradict the information in the previous entry. So I don't know why you keep changing it. It is also not "more comprehensive". The previous entry provides MUCH MORE information on genetic ancestry of the sinhalese as it uses information from multiple studies. It also doesn't contain the extraneous, irrelavant information that this entry has. The previous entry is better written, more relevant and more informative. Wikinpg (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This was the most comphresensive study done on all south asian ethnic groups. Not just based on alleles. It includes 4 sources that I have listed at the bottom of the and it provides context and history on the genetic history than any other source does not. So STOP removing it and replacing it a study that was it not as detailed and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This study provides context into where the Sinhalese fit in genetically with the rest of the sub continent ethnic groups. And it never claims that the Sinhalese are an Indo-Aryan race. Because there is no such thing as an Indo-Aryan race.


 * Quote "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"


 * Indo-Aryan is a lingusitic group that the Sinhalese people belong too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't keep removing the 2003 stanford study.
It is the most complete study done on this subject to date. The study used mtDNA Analyses, Y-Chromosome Analyses, MX1 Locus, Sequencing and Data Analysis to come to the results. No other study on south asian genetics has carried out all those methods before or since then.

The metioning of other ethnic groups of the subcontinent provides valuable context. If you think they should not be any other ethnic groups mentioned, then your source also mentions names of other ethnic groups more than the Sinhalese. 76.111.25.195 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have included the relevant information in the 2003 study. Please do not revert the entry. It contains all the relevant information from both our entries. Thank you. Genetic relationships is a more specific title than Genetic Studies. So I think that should stay.


 * This is what I have added from your entry:

Contrary to popular opinion, in part instilled by British colonial policy of 'divide and rule', 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. In fact, most Sinhalese, like most Indian populations show a high degree of genetic similarity that stems from a population that formed on the island and has been little changed through invasions by Indo-Aryans and other groups.

From an anthropological perspective, the modern Sinhalese represent a fusion of a wide variety that nonetheless is overwhelmingly indigenous to the island of Sri Lanka and the genetic variations (based on Y-chromosomes and MtDNA only) between the Sinhalese and their Tamil and Veddah neighbors appears to be largely marginal and may be restricted to a small degree of sporadic differences rather than anything universal although some genetic drift has taken place that corresponds to language barriers.[9]|undefined

As the sinhalese originate from India they, like other Indian tribal and caste populations, derive largely from the same genetic heritage of a southern asians and western asians in the Pleistocene. They are likely to have have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. [10]|undefined

A 2004 biomedical central study found the frequency of the average proportion of mtDNA gene flow from West Eurasia in the Sri-Lankan population to be 15%[16]|undefined. This proportion is similar to South Indian (23%, 11% and 15% in Maharashtra, Kerala and Sri Lanka, respectively) and East Indian groups (13% in Uttar Pradesh and around 7% in West Bengal and Bangladesh).
 * Wikinpg (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-entered a part of the 2003 study that was cut off, it is important because it is one of the main paragraphs that talks about the conclusions of the genetic study. Edwards Scholar (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted this part:


 * Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan. 
 * Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan. 


 * Even though this entry mentions sinhalese donors. It is specifically talking about Indians. Sri Lanka does not recieve waves of migrants from Africa and West Asia. This article should only give information on the Indians that migrated to Sri Lanka and became sinhalese. Information on the ancestry of Indians in general, should be on another page. Please use indentations when replying, instead of starting a new topic.
 * Please do not delete this section because this section talks about tests done on Sinhalese as well. Thats what this article is about, if the paragraph did not mention the Sinhalese then I could make a case for deleting it. The section should be titled "Genetic Studies" because that was what the main aim of the studies(1995, 2003/2004 and 2007) was, not relationships. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever keeps deleting the section
 * ''Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka and adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders:


 * Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.


 * Don't do it, other you will be cited for vandalism because you keep deleting a perfectly legit source with citations.
 * Whoever keeps editing my articles, please don't cut out parts without discussing it or you might get into trouble for Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhuge Liangs Mind (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't "own" these articles, there not yours. And the texts you type are often irrelevant and often wrong interpretations of the references. In fact most of it is just your own opinion. The word sri lanka or sinhalese barely turns up in either article. I will remove your biased interpretations because they are uncited. If you want to keep them, find proper sources. --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed Zhuge Liangs Mind's revision. It is incorrect and in violation of NOV Wikinpg (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The latest study done in 2007 supports the claim of North Indian origin for the Sinhalese."


 * The date of the study is not relevant. The studies in this article are looking at different things. It is not anymore more or any less valid than any of the other studies mentioned in this article. It also doesn't support the claim of North Indian origin. This is NOV. It supports possible North Indian contribution/ancestry, but not origin.


 * "The study used over 100 Sinhalese subjects, which is more than what any other previos genetic studies used."


 * This is irrelevant. The sample size doesn't affect the validity of any other the studies (Unless they were also looking at HLA-A frequency). The other studies were looking at different things. Please do not add your commentary to the studies and make unsubstantiated claims on validity. Lets just present what the studies found. You do not know every genetic study performed on Sinhalese people. So you cannot make the statement above. You cannot speculate on the validity of the studies. This is also NOV. Only an expert in genetics who has looked at the metholdology of the studies and published criticism can have their claims on the validity of these studies, published on wikipedia.Wikinpg (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support Icemansatriani decision in removing irrelevant study, which is clearly talking about Indians, as India recieves significant migration from Africa and West Asia. Not Sri Lanka. Having sinhalese samples doesn't make this study anymore relevant to this article.Wikinpg (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed entries because they were not supported by any references. See Veriability. Wikinpg (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the information that I included are backed up by the proper sources. The source Stanford study of 2003/2004 alone is 20 pages long. It is the most comprehensive study done of this department. Don't remove it. The conclusions of the articles listed on this page are summarised and they are backed up if you look at the source, we can't use entired passages of the stanford study as it is too long. Edwards Scholar (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipg, There is no such thing as an "Indo-Aryan race" or a "Dravidian race". They are linguistic groups and the Sinhalese fall into the former because their language is an indo aryan one, not because the British spread a rumor claiming that the Sinhalese are Indo Aryan.Edwards Scholar (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the original study, We cannot verify any of your controversial claims. I'm not inclined to believe anything those claims anyway as they are controversial and opinionated, and posting unverifiable information is contrary to wikipedia policy. If you continue to re-add this information, I will report you. --Icemansatriani (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have listed all my sources. The conclusions of the articles listed on this page are summarised and they are backed up if you look at the source, we can't use entired passages of the stanford or the natvet studies as it is too long. If I remember correctly weren't you Icemansatriani charged with vandalism by an editor. Because removing properly cited sources is against wikipedia rules.Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed a study that is outdated and suspect. Jim Jones Silver (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 1 of the 4 studies in that passage is 15 years old. The rest are from 2005. The study is only outdated, if a more reliable study has found a conclusion to the contrary. These studies fit in with Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Your speculation on the validity of this studies is NOV.Wikinpg (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Stanford study is valid and the conclusion in the article:


 * Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene.


 * also applies to the Sinhalese because the study also included 40 Sinhalese subjects.


 * The conclusion from sciencemag.org source is also valid because it too has used Sinhalese subjects in their tests to see how much foreign influence South Asians(including Sinhalese) have :


 * ''Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.'Edwards Scholar (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph was included in the entry. The 2nd should not be, because it clearly talking about Indians. This is an article about Sinhalese people. Just because the study had sinhalese donors, it doesn't make it anymore relevant. Why won't you listen to the criticism, instead of repeating the mantra of how comprehensive and valid the study is. The study is clearly making a conclusion about Indians and not Sinhalese people, because it talks about "migration from Africa and West Asia due to geographic location". India fufills this criteria, not Sri Lanka. The article only mentions sinhalese once, and that's just to mention the donors. This entry is irrelevant to the subject of this article. I don't think you understand the conclusion of the study because you just copy and paste it. Could you write in your own words what you think is the useful, relevant conclusion of this study? Thanks Wikinpg (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out something to you, Edwards Scholars, to help make things clearer on why the disputed information should not be there. You've said:


 * "The Stanford study is valid and the conclusion in the article. It also applies to the Sinhalese because the study also included 40 Sinhalese subjects."


 * The study didn't mention any of the claims you put in. But you're assuming that the findings apply to Sinhalese people, because Sinhalese subjects were involved. This is original thought. You cannot add your assumptions to wikipedia. Only published facts can be added to wikipedia. If the study actually made specific claims on the Sinhalese. Then it could be used in the Sinhalese article. Please give this a good read.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR


 * I hope we can work this out.
 * Wikinpg (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A new montage with more popular and well-known Sinhalese people.
editprotected

Hi I would to request a new image of examples of Sinhalese people. The one I have uploaded contains Sinhalese that are more well-known by the general public, such as models/sportspeople, and I have added more visible pictures. It still contains pictures of the people from the montage currently in place. It has been reordered simply for purposes of easy recognition by the general public.

Please replace the one currently in place with this one because some of the pictures on the current image are inaccurate and are simply statues and drawn images of people from past history rather than photos. The current image also has no women in it. My one is much more modern.

The new people I have added are: "Rosy" Senanayake (Top row, 5th), Jacqueline Fernandez (2nd row, 1st) and Lasith Malinga (Bottom Row, 4th). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalnine (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pretty good. You should take out Mahinda Rajapakse as well though. HumanFrailty (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinhalese_People_-_Montage.jpg


 * It is a nice image, but i'm not sure about all the copyrights. where were these new images taken from ? You need to attribute all the copyright holders (probably the reason the old image was using so many old images). So ❌. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The original image has similar sourcing issues. It is tagged now for that. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are good photos but you need to have people from all fields of life plus include the most influential and important people to the Sinhalese society, including women. People such as Gongalegoda Banda and Parākramabāhu I should defiantly be included because they are significant figures in the history of Sri Lanka, try to keep the amount of politicians down. Note that you can always make the montage bigger by adding more pics.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Genetic Studies" section include the following content
Should the "genetic studies" section have the following entry:

The 2003 genetic study done by the University of Stanford which used methods such as MX1 Locus, mtDNA analyses, Y-chromosome analyses, sequencing and data analysis to carry out the study of all the major South Asian ethnic groups. The study found that Contrary to popular opinion, in part instilled by British colonial policy of 'divide and rule', 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. In fact, most Sinhalese, like almost all populations from the subcontinent show a high degree of genetic similarity that stems from a population that formed on the island and subcontinent and has been little changed through invasions by Indo-Aryans and other groups. http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf

Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka who have adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese like most other ethnic groups of the subcontinent stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders outside of the subcontinent:

''Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.''http://natvet.sh.se/jna/Human_evolution_a.pdf Wikinpg (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exclude
 * The Stanford Study does not make any claims on whether the sinhalese are indigenous, whether they have a high degree of similarity to the population formed on the Island and whether they have been changed by invasion of other groups. The study only mentions the word "Sinhalese" twice, and that's only to say there were sinhalese subjects. The article also only mentions the the word "Sri Lanka" three times, and this is only to say there are subjects from Sri Lanka. It is absurd to to say the source makes all these claims on the Sinhalese people and the population of sri lanka without even mentioning these words. This is a false interpretation of the source.


 * The 2nd paragraph has no reference and is thus in violation of WP:V and is OR


 * The 3rd paragraph is clearly talking about Indians as India recieved waves of migration from Africa and West Asia due to it's geographic location, not Sri Lanka. If you don't believe me, look at a map. In fact the study on Human evolution, only mentions the word "Sinhalese" once, and that's just to to say there were sinhalese donors and doesn't even use the word "sri lanka". So it is quite clearly talking about Indians and thus is irrelevant to this article. This is an artice about the sinhalese people, not Indians. Wikinpg (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exclude
 * I agree with everything you've pointed out Wikinpg. --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exclude
 * An interesting reference, especially about the widespread poor congruence of linguistic and DNA data, and the suggested wording may well be a reasonable speculation, but it is not what the source says. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikinpg, In short what are you trying to say ? Yes, sinhalese people are of mainly south indian stock, migration from southern India to Sri Lanka has been happening for thousands of years, even including today, over time they all have become sinhalese. In short, I 100% agree with "Genetic Studies" section, it should be left there. I have seen some real examples in places like Colombo & Negombo. Former Sri lankan leaders like Junius Richard Jayewardene & S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike etc had recent Tamil Nadu origin.-Iross1000 (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC).



Wikinpg, Also referring Sinhalese people have Indo-Aryan origin doesn't make any sense as DNA test doesn''t prove it. Also, Sinhalese people are not majority indigenous, they do have higer proportion of South Indian, 2nd highest proportion of Bengal/Orissa origin. My comments are as per your request to comment on it. -Iross1000 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Okay, I get it, "and other groups. " in first paragraph can be excluded. Whole of 2nd & 3rd paragraphs can be excluded. -Iross1000 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Edwards Scholar is not argiung for the inclusion of this anymore. Let it go; close this rfc. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image
edit protected This is currently still tagged as a speedy, could this be fixed please ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Image still does not list proper sources, unless all the components really are public domain... --- RockMFR 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources had been provided within the seven day limit, so I deleted the image. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Population in Saudi Arabia
This article erroneously states that there are 400,000 Sinhalese in Saudi Arabia. The actual source does not specify the ethnicity of these Sri Lankans in Saudi Arabia. This statistic is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.151 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm removing this statistic.Wikinpg (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.151 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Sinhalese in the Middle East and Southeast asian countries and some western countries do not live in thoes countries, they are there to work or study, for short periods of time. So it is misleading to write live.
 * The numbers given in the infobox do not tally either. Norway is listed with 12,000. There are less than 200 Sinhalese in Norway. Refering to the Joshua Project is a bad idea. Look at what they have on the Tamil people there. Everything is wrong. Anyway anybody having numbers from official sources should list them in the infobox. I have listed for USA and Australia.
 * The govt does not keep statistics about the number of people who work in the middle east according to ethnicity. So anybody who want to list thoes numbers should consult the authorities of thoes countries and cite them.
 * Statistics according to other sources - is not acceptable. Bearing in mind that this is an encylopedia, relevant statistics should be from the relevant authorities or reliable sources. SriSuren (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary + explanation on usage of words
A good 5-6% of the Sinhalese are Christians. Like all other colonies where Chritianity was introduced, the way the religion is practiced differs greatly from christian teachings and faith, eg South America and also Africa. It is the case with Buddhism too. These are things you should know if you are contributing to Wikipedia on these subjects. As for sri lanka, the picture is very colourfull and diverse.

Christians too believe to some extent in these native and ancient spirit culture/religion with a lot of different godlings, devas, devils, beasts, holman etc. So, mentioning only the Buddhists does not give the true picture of the Sinhalese. Since this is an article about the Sinhalese, the Christians should also be included. One of the references the article already had, refers to this, and the words used are also, ancient, indeginous and native. Anyway do you know of another place which has, Ririyaka, Mahasona, Mahayaka, Kaluyaka, Suniam etc and has all the other devils and beasts and practices bali and thovil etc, and spiritism and exorcism as in Sri Lanka? '''Would like to hear what sources you are using. Please give references. ''' Ample examples and references to the description and usage of words "native, indeginous" etc are found in litterature and studies done on this subject. Please read some real books instead of or in addition to just web pages and personal blogs especially from dubious Tamil authors, on the internet. Anyway, if Mahasona is not native to Sri Lanka and is at least as ancient as the Sinhalese civilisation, then I don't know what is ancient and native LOL ......

Some links to books and websites:

Book 1

book 2

book 3

book 4

Book 5- Catholism in SL

Buddhism transformed

Weblink: Mahasona

Whether you like it or not the Sinhalese Buddhist culture is ancient and native to Sri Lanka and it is very difficult to write anything about this subject which does not reflect and reveal this feature. However much you all try to conceal this and use words like "very old " etc, what you are describing is their ancient civilisation. Anyway "very old" means ancient. LOL.

The Tamils delete everything which reflects the ancient native nature of the Sinhalese civilisation, and we end up with an article which has only a few sentences, like the present version. As said, it is impossible to write anything about the Sinhalese in an honest and informative manner, without revealing the ancient and indeginous nature of the Sinhalese civilisation. Maybe we should just delete the whole article, and avoid upsetting the Tamils?

The section about religion and the whole article needs to be thoroughly edited. Maybe you can help, without deleting even the little information which the other Tamil editors have left alone? As said, if this aricle bothers you and upsets you, maybe you should keep away from it or get it deleted ?? But please don't try to distort information.

In short your undoing has been undone, because: 1) Very old = ancient, whether you like it or not. 2) Christians also practice at least some of these religious rituals, and have concepts of it built into their religious practices.

But the section has to be written in a better way, to reflect whole the complicated scenario of the various religous practices. But in no manner should the description of christians be excluded, since the article is about the Sinhalese, not about only Sinhalese Buddhists. SriSuren (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Holidays
Hey,

I don't think it makes sense to have a "Major Holidays" section that includes Hindu, Muslim and Christian holidays which mostly do not have anything to do with traditional Sinhala culture, but are applicable to modern Sri Lanka and its multi-ethnic population as a whole.

Cheers and Ayubovan, Krankman (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. These are the holidays celebrated in Sri Lanka by many different ethnic groups. Not just the Sinhalese. No other Sri Lankan ethnic group page has a major holiday section. I don't see why it is necessary here.Wikinpg (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Holidays, prehistory and empty sections
I deleted the following pre-history entry:

Legendary accounts recorded in the Indian epic saga, the Sanskritic Ramayana, discuss mythic tales of deities battling over the fate of the ancient island of Lanka (presumably modern Sri Lanka), including that of the legendary King Raavana. The name of the island and its various peoples are often traced to the people and places named in the saga, or their supposed analogues.

This entry doesn't describe the pre-history of the sinhalese people. It just talks about the Ramayana. This isn't an article on Sri Lankan mythology. In fact the Sinhalese identity didn't even existed during the iron and bronze age. So there can't be a prehistory section on the Sinhalese.

I removed the holidays section. Out of the 19 wikipedia articles on specific ethnic groups in India. Only one mentions holidays. And that page just gives a list of Hindu celebrations. This is an article about the sinhalese people. There is no such thing as a sinhalese specific holiday. A Sinhalese person can be muslim, christian, buddhist etc. Sri lankan holidays are not the same as sinhalese holidays, as people of all different ethnicities can celebrate them. Buddhist holidays are not Sinhalese holidays, as not all Sinhalese are buddhist.

I deleted the empty sections. They have been empty for more than a year. The architecture, Medieval history, Sport section etc. have all definitely been empty for more than a year. As I've checked. There's no point adding titles if no one is going to contribute to them. Wikinpg (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations are needed for this article
Sections without citations:
 * Origin of name
 * Diaspora

Sections without sufficient citations:
 * Ancient History
 * Modern History
 * Culture
 * Literature
 * Dress

There are also claims in every sections which require citations. Wikinpg (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Headings that need to be included

 * History
 * Prehistory
 * Middle ages
 * Medieval history
 * Colonial era


 * Culture
 * Media and music
 * Architecture
 * Arts
 * Dance
 * Sports
 * Martial arts
 * Cuisine
 * Names


 * Institutions and politics--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sinhalese identity didn't exist in prehistoric times. So there shouldn't be a header on that. I'm not sure there is a sport and martial art specific to the Sinhalese either. Middles ages is the same as Medieval history. A section on Sinhalese Insitutions might just end up being a long, unnecessary list. I agree with all the other headers though. You should only add these headers if you have information to back it. Whenever, you've added these headers without information. They have remained empty for more than a year. I'll try and write something up for one of these headers, if I have the time.Wikinpg (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Including Mahinda and Sirimavo as representatives of Sinhala people
..is like including Kim Jong-Il and Mao Zedong for Koreans and the Chinese respectively. UpendraS (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Overseas Population Figure
The overseas population figure here is way too high and I think these figures are added mistakenly as they represent the Sri Lankan population of a certain country not Sinhalese. Majority of overseas Sri Lankans are Tamil not Sinhalese. For example according to this Sinhalese speaking population is 29055 but the Sri Lankan born population is 62255 2.102.3.141 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't include politicians with bad reputations as representative of the Sinhala people
This is not done for any other ethnic group. 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpendraSamaranayake (talk • contribs)

30 Sinhalese People
A special thanks to MediaJet for creating the image of 30 representative Sinhalese people. That had always been on my to do list but I had never got around to doing it. However there are some things I would suggest improving:


 * Keep the overall shape of the image rectangular and landscape, not square, as seen in English people and others.
 * Keep each portrait of each person at a vertical rectangle, preferablly a ratio of the Golden rectangle, as seen in Japanese and Spanish People.
 * Leave a slight white space between each portrait, as seen in Japanese and Spanish People.
 * A maximum of 4 rows and 8 columns as any more seems too much, as seen in British and Russian people.
 * I think ordering each person from date of birth would be best.
 * There should be equal number of Men and Women, though I am aware there may be less women, but try and keep it equal.
 * There should be Sinhalese people from each era of Sri Lankan history.
 * There needs to be an equal number of people from the most influential professions in Sri Lanka as well as including the most influential Sinhalese people in history.
 * Currently there are too many monks displayed, only a couple would do for each profession.
 * See if there are any Sinhalese people in the diaspora who deserves to be on this list.

I'll give a list of people I'd consider changing from the list later on but I would like to know what you think. Good work--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"sinhala people" in sinhala
i just re-added the "sinhala people" bit below the infobox title in sinhala. this is the second time im doing this since 11th december '12, when it was reverted without explanation by User:MediaJet. Stop changing stuff willy-nilly. most other pages for ethnic groups have the name of said group in their native/local language/s (see Sri Lankan Tamil people, where all three languages of Sri Lanka is used in the infobox title).

Also, if there's a tamil of lankan origin willing to input the "sinhala people" bit in tamil in the infobox title, we'd all be grateful.

Again, STOP changing things that are actually useful.

-Walkalia (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Sinhala text is already there in the beginning of the article,Unnecessary to add it again on the info box,This is En Wiki not Si Wiki,therefore its not needed at all. :)   Cheers   MediaJet     talk   16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
Why the change showing the etymology as being derived from siw (four) Hela (Pristine) ? At the very least, why not mention the more traditional "lion-blood" theory? The article cited seems very POV-heavy --81.106.93.114 (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Religion
Hi, may you please explain this? I don't see a reason to include it. Do you want something to be written about before one introduce a link to the main article in the religion section about Islam? Thanks! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Arrive
Who arrived first? sinhales or tamils? Sinhales arrived from Bengalia or Maharashtra?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Seyler
We have the genetics of all the preachers of the world i.e. SeyTha. Ra sign being Shah and Ma sign being Thai. Aryans and ABa(Sey, Shah) being our for-fathers. Our parent country was known as MaHa SeyMa (Maha Rashtra). Our country was known as Maha SeyLer.

Hingalayas constituted of The Malachi (Hambayas or Malaysians of Hambaya Thota) and Neanderthal Portuguese and mixed Vadigars, Neanderthal Dutch mixed Radalers, Various African Neanderthal mixed people from India and pure Neanderthal Nadas from India. They are the Human race of this country who gave in everything to the British SeyValers and took over power.

We belong to the Ma race and constitute only 25% of the populace. We have been meticulously thrown out of the government, legal system, armed forces, Police force and recently from all government offices. We were never given job opportunities in the private sector controlled by the Hingalayas. The only heads of state to oppose this was Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranayaka and Mr. D.B. Wijetunga.

We are the most down-trodden community in the world as was the Incas (AinShas) of Americas and Aborigines of Australia, who also share the same genetics with us.

Everything belonging to us have been robbed including Sri Dalada.

All recent historical documents about us are written by Hingalayas and are complete falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinchi Gune (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sinhalese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090524060045/http://lankaemb-egypt.com:80/SriLanka/history.htm to http://www.lankaemb-egypt.com/SriLanka/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sinhalese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015093315/http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F11%2F11%2Fcentral%2F5069773&sec=central to http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F11%2F11%2Fcentral%2F5069773&sec=central
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113175023/http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-10.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.lk/abstract2010/chapters/Chap2/AB2-10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312234213/http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/09/01/spo20.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/09/01/spo20.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120210727/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/11/22/mag01.asp to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/11/22/mag01.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217161056/http://www.statistics.gov.lk/population/index.htm to http://www.statistics.gov.lk/population/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Section: History
The section doesn't discern between legendary and historical events. It starts with describing the landing of some legendary king 2500 years ago even though, if that's not obvious from the date, the king's article states that he is a legendary figure. This section however doesn't present that clearly. It should be completly rewritten to clearly separate between myths, legends and proven historical knowledge. Randomnickname567 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indo-aryan-speaking?
What is the reason for adding the "-speaking" part? The definition of indo-aryan is a diverse Indo-European-speaking ethnolinguistic group of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, but the definition of sinhalese in the article makes an impression that the ethnicity is not indo-aryan, but merely speaking an indo-aryan language. This "speaking" part was not there until someone added it without providing any sources. I've removed the fragment until the source for "-speaking" is provided. --Karinka025 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indo-Aryan is not a homogenous ethnic group, it's an ethnolinguistic group so "speaking" is factually accurate. (101.160.23.241 (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC))
 * The fact that Indo-Aryan is an ethnolinguistic group means that "speaking" is excessive, because every indo-aryan ethnicity is speaking an indo-aryan language. The language is the main criterion of an ethnicity being indo-aryan, whereas your definition is misleading for it implies that sinhalese are not indo-aryan culturally, but merely speaking an indo-aryan language. The group not being homogenous doesn't mean sinhalese don't belong to it. Odia people and bengali people are described as just indo-aryan. There are no more or less indo-aryan ethnicities to describe some of them as being merely indo-aryan-"speaking". --Karinka025 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying but I'm sorry, Indo-Aryan is not an ethnic group in the sense that Arabs are for example. The main thing that Indo-Aryan-speakers share with each is that their native languages are Indo-Aryan languages. Other than that, there are various genetic and ethnic differences between the different Indo-Aryan-speaking ethnic groups. It's called an Ethnolinguistic group for a reason. (120.144.140.36 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Your statements are contradictory. If indo-aryan is merely a linguistic group, what is the need to put this "speaking" part? An ethnic group is indo-aryan if it is speaking an indo-aryan language. Right? Your own arguments are the reason why I deleted the "speaking" part. Indo-aryan is a linguistic group. Nevertheless, you continue to put the "speaking" part, as if there are not linguistic, but also cultural or genetic indo-aryans, to which sinhalese don't belong. You contradict yourself. I repeat my arguments in your own words, because what you write supports my point. The main thing that Indo-Aryan-speakers share with each is that their native languages are Indo-Aryan languages. Other than that, there are various genetic and ethnic differences between the different Indo-Aryan-speaking ethnic groups. It's called an Ethnolinguistic group for a reason. And this is why the language of sinhalese is enough for them to be considered indo-aryan. If a group is linguistic, the use of "speaking" after it is tautology. --Karinka025 (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No an ethnic group is not "Indo-Aryan" just because they speak an Indo-Aryan language because the concept of an ethnic group that speaks Indo-Aryan languages does not exist, the only thing that these groups share in common is that they speak an Indo-Aryan language, the similarities end there. To state that they are an "Indo-Aryan" group suggests that "Indo-Aryan" is a broad ethnic group where people are ethnically and genetically the same, that's not the case. The ethnic groups that are part of the Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group share certain genetic or ethnic similarities depending on which group you're focusing on but they also have their differences and share ties to groups that don't speak Indo-Aryan languages. The reason why "-speaking" has been included at the end of "Indo-Aryan" is to show the reader that "Indo-Aryan" should not be considered as a unified ethnic group and to understand it as a ethnolinguistic group that speak Indo-Aryan languages only. If you really have a problem with the opening sentence then I suggest we re-write it in the style that these pages (Punjabis and Gujarati people) use. However, it would mean we would have to remove Indo-Aryan peoples from the opening sentence if we are going to apply the same style to this page. I'd prefer to keep "Indo-Aryan peoples" in the opening sentence so I'd like keep it as it currently is (meaning: Indo-Aryan-speaking). I also wouldn't mind if we changed the link to "Indo-Aryan-speaking", which will indicate that the ethnic group is part of the Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group who speak Indo-Aryan languages. In this case it will remove any ambiguity and if the reader were to click anywhere on the link, including the "-speaking" part" it will take them directly to Indo-Aryan peoples. As it currently stands, the "-speaking" part is not linked so I hope I make sense. However, if you disagree with both of these suggestions we can discuss it here if you want to. (120.144.140.36 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC))
 * There is no one single indo-aryan ethnic group, but this doesn't mean indo-aryan doesn't exist as a collective designation for speakers of indo-aryan languages. Sinhalese is one of many indo-aryan ethnic groups. The very existence of the article Indo-Aryan peoples implies that indo-aryans are an actual phenomenon. What they are is not that important in this regard since anyway sinhalese fall under the definition of an indo-aryan ethnic group. The same applies to germanic, romance, turkic and other ethno-linguistic categories. An ethno-linguistic group being broad and diverse doesn't mean it is not a real phenomenon. It exists as a category. In the articles Dutch people, French people, Uyghurs we have the described subjects being defined as belonging to their respective ethno-linguistic macro-groups. If it is not correct, we need to rewrite all the articles having similar definition, not just this. However, my point of view is that there is an indo-aryan ethno-linguistic macro-group, which consists of smaller ethnic groups speaking indo-aryan languages. This definition is what is used in the Indo-Aryan peoples article. And sinhalese are one of such indo-aryan ethnic grous.--Karinka025 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are real because they all speak languages from the same language family. However, they are not ethnically or genetically bound to each other because of the language that they speak. The opening sentence on that article's page reads, "Indo-Aryan peoples are a diverse Indo-European-speaking ethnolinguistic group of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages". There is no source on that page that actually supports the idea that Indo-Aryans are a unified ethnic group that are genetically and ethnically related to each other based on their language. The article clearly points out that distinction in its opening sentence. Dutch people, French people and Uyghurs are not South Asians and thus are not ethnically related to people who speak Indo-Aryan languages so those aren't good examples to bring up in this discussion. I don't think you actually understand the ethnic and genetic diversity of Indo-Aryan-speakers. "Language group" and "race" are not the same thing so keeping it as "Indo-Aryan-speaking" should not be a problem. South Asians as a whole are a mixture of two major ancestral components "Ancestral North Indian" and "Ancestral South Indian", some groups including some Indo-Aryan-speaking ethnic groups also have the "Ancestral Austro-Asiatic" component which originated in Southeast Asia. South Asians aren't divided ethnically or genetically by the languages that they speak. They share a common bond across the region, no matter what language one speaks, but also possess differences unique to their region or ethnic group. By changing it to "Indo Aryan ethnic group" is to imply that South Asians are divided racially, genetically or ethnically by the language that they speak which is not the case in reality. (121.214.2.229 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC))
 * That's it. Doesn't matter whether they are diverse or not. Indo-aryan is a linguistic category. And sinhalese belong to it. Very simple. What exactly indo-aryan stands for, is described in the relevant article, a link to which is provided from the definition of sinhalese. I've never argued that indo-aryans are a monolithic ethnic group. My point is that sinhalese are indo-aryan. You don't seem to object it. --Karinka025 (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indo-Aryans aren't an ethnic group with a common root that's why it has not been written simply as "an Indo-Aryan ethnic group". As I said two days ago, South Asians are a mix of two major components (Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian), some also possess the Ancestral Austro-Asiatic component. By changing it to "an Indo Aryan ethnic group" is to imply that South Asians are divided racially, genetically or ethnically by the language that they speak which is not the case in reality. (101.160.128.39 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC))
 * An Indo-aryan ethnic group means an ethnic group, which is indo-aryan. Indo-aryan is not a race, but a linguistic group. It is about language. You continue to imply that indo-aryan is a race, to which sinhalese don't belong and so shouldn't be characterized as such. I don't understand how the belonging to a linguistic group makes them belonging to something else. The definition of indo-aryan is very clear and sinhalese fall under it.--80.250.56.174 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you the same user as ? You geolocate to Latvia and you have an Eastern European name. You have the same writing style, same argument as Karinka025 and you used language that showed me that you basically replied to my reply as if I was talking to you. Pretending to be two different users is against the rules of Wikipedia and since this discussion is to get consensus on an issue, what has happened here, if it is proven to be true, will be something similar to canvassing. I'm going to post this again, South Asians are a mix of two major components (Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian), some also possess the Ancestral Austro-Asiatic component. By changing it to "an Indo Aryan ethnic group" is to imply that South Asians are divided racially, genetically or ethnically by the language that they speak which is not the case in reality. I'm not implying that "Indo-Aryan" is not a race, I'm directly stating that "Indo-Aryan" is not a race. It's not a race. What don't you understand about that? The way this discussion has suddenly changed course it's clear to me that something like canvassing and sockpuppetry has most likely taken place here. I don't think continuing with this discussion is appropriate and I'm not going to continue with this discussion unless I know it's completely transparent and has not been manipulated. I think we'll have to officially establish that you (IP user:80.250.56.174) are not the same user as (user:Karinka025) through an official sockpuppet investigation before we continue with this discussion. Then again, I'm not sure I'd even like to continue with it if it turns out to be true. (110.148.118.77 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Why do you change the subject? Yes, I am the same user. This was obvious. I've just forgot to log in. You have used different IPs throughout our discussion, should we switch to this topic now? It is just a trivial inadvertence. I'm not pretending to be someone else. Unfortunately, I don't know whether I may change my signature to the proper one.

Please read my comment carefully. I've written that you imply "indo-aryan" is a race. Yet nominally we both agree that indo-aryan is not a race but a linguistic group. Accordingly, the statement "Sinhalese is an indo-aryan ethnic group" means that sinhalese belong to a linguistic group, not a race, caste, football league or something else. All your reasoning about ANI and ASI is baseless, because none argues that sinhalese is a race. The definition of being indo-aryan also doesn't imply this. Let them be martians or whatever race, they are still indo-aryans. Because indo-aryan doesn't stand for a race. There is nothing difficult to understand. The definition of indo-aryan peoples is following (quote from the relevant article): "Indo-Aryan peoples are a diverse Indo-European-speaking ethnolinguistic group of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages." Now answer a question. Are sinhalese not an indo-aryan people (pay attention to the article)? --Karinka025 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understood your comment clearly. What I was trying to tell you was that I have never wanted to imply that Indo-Aryans aren't a a race. Why would I want to imply something if I'm trying to make an argument? I would be direct, wouldn't I? That's why I said, "I'm directly stating that "Indo-Aryan" is not a race".
 * So we both agree that "Indo-Aryan peoples are a diverse Indo-European-speaking ethnolinguistic group of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages". So why should it say "Sinhalese people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group" when "Indo-Aryan" has absolutely no relation to genetics or ethnicity? You're only strengthening my argument that it should not say "Indo-Aryan ethnic group".
 * Sinhalese people aren't a race, it's an ethnic group. All I'm trying to point out to you is that Sinhalese people and other South Asians aren't bounded by the language family that their native language belongs to because they have a mix of ANI, ASI and AAA. Speaking an Indo-Aryan language does not mean you are genetically or ethnically related to other ethnic groups that speak Indo-Aryan languages, that's why I told you about ANI, ASI and AAA.
 * No it wasn't. Do you expect me to know that you forgot to log on? If it was obvious, you would have told me that you're the same user but you didn't do that. So no, it wasn't obvious. Yes I have different IP addresses but that's out my control. I happen to have a dynamic IP address so it constantly changes every time I edit Wikipedia. You on the other have a static IP address and an account. Okay so let's say you did forget to log in, why not tell me that you're the same user? I have experienced many users overtime who have alternated between IP addresses and accounts just to further their point by making it seem like there are more people that agree or disagree with the issue being discussed. I could have been a new IP user who knew absolutely nothing about sockpuppetry and gone on to believe that another user also agrees with your statement only to find out that you're the same user but you didn't have the common courtesy to tell me. I'm not changing any topic and why should the discussion revolve around me when I have not been the one who has made such an error? (110.148.118.77 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
 * No it wasn't. Do you expect me to know that you forgot to log on? If it was obvious, you would have told me that you're the same user but you didn't do that. So no, it wasn't obvious. Yes I have different IP addresses but that's out my control. I happen to have a dynamic IP address so it constantly changes every time I edit Wikipedia. You on the other have a static IP address and an account. Okay so let's say you did forget to log in, why not tell me that you're the same user? I have experienced many users overtime who have alternated between IP addresses and accounts just to further their point by making it seem like there are more people that agree or disagree with the issue being discussed. I could have been a new IP user who knew absolutely nothing about sockpuppetry and gone on to believe that another user also agrees with your statement only to find out that you're the same user but you didn't have the common courtesy to tell me. I'm not changing any topic and why should the discussion revolve around me when I have not been the one who has made such an error? (110.148.118.77 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
 * No it wasn't. Do you expect me to know that you forgot to log on? If it was obvious, you would have told me that you're the same user but you didn't do that. So no, it wasn't obvious. Yes I have different IP addresses but that's out my control. I happen to have a dynamic IP address so it constantly changes every time I edit Wikipedia. You on the other have a static IP address and an account. Okay so let's say you did forget to log in, why not tell me that you're the same user? I have experienced many users overtime who have alternated between IP addresses and accounts just to further their point by making it seem like there are more people that agree or disagree with the issue being discussed. I could have been a new IP user who knew absolutely nothing about sockpuppetry and gone on to believe that another user also agrees with your statement only to find out that you're the same user but you didn't have the common courtesy to tell me. I'm not changing any topic and why should the discussion revolve around me when I have not been the one who has made such an error? (110.148.118.77 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC))


 * Why should be there something related to genetics? Is there something wrong with a definition based on linguistic affinity?--Karinka025 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should the opening sentence say, "Sinhalese people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group" when "Indo-Aryan" is not an ethnic group but a linguistic group? By reconstructing the opening sentence to read, "Sinhalese people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group" will incorrectly make the reader believe that "Indo-Aryans" are a broad ethnic group comprising genetically and ethnically related people. That's not the case so there's no reason to change it. (110.148.118.77 (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Maybe, because they belong to this linguistic group? Pay attention to the article. It is not "Sinhalese people are the indo-aryan ethnic group", it is "Sinhalese people are an indo-aryan ethnic group". The indefinite article implies that indo-aryan is not the single monolithic ethnic group, but a category consisting of many separate groups.--Karinka025 (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, with all due respect, that would never be published because that does not make grammatical sense. I understand what you're trying to convey to me but changing the article ("an" to "the") doesn't do anything. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to include "Indo-Aryan" when it's just a linguistic group. It's a linguistic group not a broad ethnic group. I'm going to post this again, by reconstructing the opening sentence to read, "Sinhalese people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group" will incorrectly make the reader believe that "Indo-Aryans" are a broad ethnic group comprising genetically and ethnically related people. That's not the case so there's no reason to change it. (110.148.137.13 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC))
 * The definition contains the link to the Indo-Aryan peoples if the reader wants to learn what indo-aryans are. Current definition makes even worse impression, because contains an implication that there is a group of people called indo-aryans and sinhalese are merely speaking the language of the group. This creates an impression that indo-aryans are a race in the Northern South Asia to which sinhalese don't belong. But anyway, you exaggerate the ethnic and genetic unrelateness of indo-aryans. Sinhalese make a contrast with the indigenous inhabitants of Sri Lanka. What is more important, they have an identity of indo-aryan immigrants from the North. The genetics of sinhalese also makes them more related to bengalis (Look: Genetic studies on Sinhalese). Thus, they are historically, linguistically and genetically related to other indo-aryan people. If someone will assume genetic connections, it will not be a mistake. But still, indo-aryan is a linguistic group. And sinhalese belong to it. --Karinka025 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand what you're saying here. I believe we must change it to the way the opening sentence is written on other pages like Punjabis. If you have a look at various genetic studies you will see that Sinhalese people are closely related to other Sri Lankans, including the Sri Lankan Tamils and Veddahs. No, the Sinhalese don't have an identity with "Indo-Aryan immigrants from the north". You clearly agreed with me when you said "Indo-Aryans" aren't a race so where do Indo-Aryan immigrants come from? Stop conflating colonial concoctions with facts. It's popularly believed that the Sinhalese have roots in eastern India but based on genetic studies no one says "Indo-Aryan immigrants" anymore.  Since when did all Bengalis represent all Indo-Aryan-speaking peoples? You agreed with me that Indo-Aryans aren't a unified group sharing common ethnicity and genetic heritage so why did you post this? Bengalis are genetically related to other groups as well, they share some connections to South Indians but are especially closely related to other groups in eastern India such as the Odias, Assamese and Mundas and also share a distant connection to Southeast Asians and East Asians. There are many Bengalis that have East Asian features. The Sinhalese are genetically related to Bengalis but like the Bengalis their connections stretch to other parts of Asia and it's only fitting that this is the case, considering that they are genetically related to a group like the Bengalis. The Sinhalese people are also closely related to people in South India such as the Tamils and Malayalis. They also share a connection with the Odia people of Odisha. The Sinhalese are closely related to the Sri Lankan Tamils based on genetic studies and like the Bengalis they also have a distant connection to East/Southeast Asians. Just have a look at the various genetic studies conducted on Sinhalese people and Bengalis for that matter you will see that they are diverse in their genetic connections. Like I said before, South Asians are a mix of ANI, ASI and AAA. The native language one ethnic group speaks does not indicate that they are all ethnically related. For the record, I'm of Sinhalese descent. South Asians, today don't believe language dictates who you're ethnically or genetically related to because these myths have been debunked by science. Language does not equal race or ethnicity. (110.148.137.13 (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC))
 * But it does. Language is one of the main criteria of ethnical relatedness. Anyway, they are linguistically related. This is enough to be classified as a part of a linguistic group. They don't need to share their genetics with other indo-aryans to be counted as indo-aryan. If someone doesn't understand that indo-aryan is a linguistic group, this is not a problem of the definition. The definition "Sinhalese are an indo-aryan ethnic group" is completely correct. It doesn't imply a common race, culture or anything but a language group. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you just want to avoid any allusions to India. --Karinka025 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that? Firstly, not all languages are part of a broad language family and secondly, many ethnic groups speak languages from language families to whom they share absolutely nothing in common with when compared to ethnic groups that also speak related languages. No one thinks that because Indo-Aryans aren't a monolithic ethnic group.  No it's not because this is about the Sinhalese people not the Sinhalese language.  No I have no problem with India, after all Sinhalese people are culturally related to Indians and are also genetically related to certain Indian ethnic groups. India and China were the two main civilizations and cultural centers of East, South and Southeast Asia and they had considerable influence across the region. As a result, the root of most, if not all, East, South and Southeast Asian cultures goes back to India and China. Buddhism for example is widespread across Asia and that originated in India and the traditional South Asian and Southeast Asian New Year has its roots in the ancient Hindu calendar of India. I am in no way trying to distance myself from India, I don't know why you would believe that because I have clearly pointed out how Sinhalese people are genetically related to other Indian ethnic groups in my previous comment. I have nothing but respect for Indian culture and Indian people. (110.148.137.13 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC))

Sinhalese people not Indo Aryan?
Are the Sinhalese people Indo Aryan people's or not,the page states that they are the descendants of the settlers from Bengal/ east India but unlike the other pages of South Asian ethnic groups it doesn't state whether they are Indo Aryan,Dravidian or Mongoloid, compare with pages like Malayali, Bengali or Punjabi where each one clearly states to which group they belong. Omega 9 (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The Sinhala language is classified as Indo-Aryan but Sinhalese people, like most people, are a mixture. It's pure myth to say that they are Indo-Aryan.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So shouldn't they be removed from list of Indo Aryan peoples, if they are as you claim. Obviously all peoples are related to one another but when compared to other ethnic groups tHey share more Indo-European ancestry hence why they have been classified as such. Likewise shouldn't tHe other Wikipedia pages about Indo-Aryan which claim to be Indo Aryan correct themselves. Similarly wouldn't this be the case for Dravidian and mongoloid ethnic groups as well (Wikipedia articles) Omega 9 (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply state them to be Indo-Aryan speakers, that should be enough. The argument has been going on for years, just leave it at that. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting beyond ridiculous. We either keep it as "Indo-Aryan-speaking" or we remove it altogether. is borderline edit warring at this point and it's getting ridiculous. This user is refusing to engage in discussion and insisting that "Indo-Aryan" is a racial category. Since when? Like I said before, we either keep it as "Indo-Aryan-speaking" or we remove it altogether. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:6939:6330:1A03:8DBD (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC))

I only insisted that the Sinhalese are Indo Aryan peoples because Wikipedia itself has a page called "Indo Aryan peoples" which is separate from "Indo Aryan languages" and clearly lists the Sinhalese people in contemporary list. If you don't believe here is the actual Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_peoples Omega 9 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If Indo Aryan is not a racial category, then why do all the other Wikipedia pages about "Indo Aryan" ethnicities (like Bengali or Gujarati) describe their ethnicity as "Indo Aryan". (Note I'm not referring to their language I'm talking about the page about their ethnic group which clearly describes them as "Indo Aryan", again I'm talking about both Gujarati/Bengali or any other south Asian "Indo Aryan" ethnic group). Omega 9 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As per human genetics, there is no such category known as "Indo-Aryan". Native language has no correlation with the race of an ethnic group. The Indo-Aryan Wikipedia page is a mess because I don't know how such a page came into existence when "Indo-Aryan" is merely just a language family. The page merely lists every group that speaks an Indo-Aryan language. The page also says, "the Indo-Aryan peoples are a diverse collection of ethnolinguistic groups speaking Indo-Aryan languages" highlighting the fact that these groups are all diverse and that the only thing they share in common with each other is that they speak Indo-Aryan languages. Nowhere on that page does it explicitly say that "Indo-Aryan is a race". Modern genetics proves that the vast majority of South Asian people are a mix of varying genetic components (the two main components being the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI). A fact that is also discussed on the Indo-Aryan" page) and if we focus on the Sinhalese people alone, we can easily see that there have been different genetic components that have merged together to create the Sinhalese population. Including the words, "Indo-Aryan ethnic group" imply that "Indo-Aryan" is a race or some unified genetic group when it's not. Indo-Aryan is a language family, that is all. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:6939:6330:1A03:8DBD (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC))


 * You should not rely on other article when arguing this, particularly when the reference to Sinhalese people is only in a list. You should argue according to sources, many sources, particularly older ones, say they are descended from Aryan settlers and are an Indo-Aryan people, other sources simply describe them as a group of people who speak an Indo-Aryan language, thereby side-stepping the issue of using Indo-Aryan as a racial category. Some argue, for example here, that they can be seen as a Dravidian people because of their similarity in kinship structure to people of South India, but also as an Aryan people because of the language they speak. I have no opinion on which is correct, but where there is dispute, stick to something that everyone can agree on, which is that they speak an Indo-Aryan language. The issue has been discussed before, but if you really want to change it, you can always start a Requests for comment inviting editors who may be knowledgeable in such issues to comment so that there can be a consensus on this issue. Read carefully on how to start the request discussion. Hzh (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Right I understand how my actions were controversial. Well I suggest we could change it to "Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group" rather than "ethnic group" as that's too vague or just "Indo Aryan" as you've mentioned it might be wrong. Omega 9 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group as it seems the best term to describe them, their identity is based on heritage and a common language (which is Indo Aryan hence why it's a "Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group" Omega 9 (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can always try and see if other people object. The concerns over racial grouping is relatively recent particularly in light of the recent conflicts. You can see that the Sinhalese were described as an Indo-Aryan people in Encyclopedia Britannica 1961 -, but now it doesn't .  You can however still find many sources describing them as such, although I would expect them to become fewer in the future. If you get reverted, then avoid getting involved in an edit war because this is a long-standing issue, the best thing to do is to request comments as mentioned above to get a consensus. Hzh (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean I don't see the problem with changing it to "Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group" because it's not wrong it's literally the same as what's already been written. I mean if it were wrong so would the last sentence of the first paragraph as well as citation [11] being wrong as well. However no one seems to have an issue with the last sentence or citation [11]. Similarly if it's a longstanding issue why not Try and solve it instead of letting people change it to what they want. Also Why would the citations get fewer in the future? Omega 9 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Using "ethnolinguistic group" won't make sense because it breaks the order present in other articles on different ethnic groups. Every single article about an ethnic group on Wikipedia uses the words, "ethnic group", not "ethnolinguistic group". In all honesty, the words "Indo-Aryan" really should not be present in the opening sentence of this article because it projects an incorrect idea that "Indo-Aryan" is a race when it isn't. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:6090:572:8D54:F5E9 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC))

Quit lying here's a Dravidian ethnic group that clearly states that it's a Dravidian ethnic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayali.

And here's a "Indo Aryan" ethnic group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalis. Similarly here's a Tibeto-Burman ethnic group. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamar_people. Clearly they all state the group to which they belong before the word ethnic group. Again you said that the word "ethnolinguistic group" would break the "order" of Wikipedia articles which it wouldn't because the word ethnolinguistic group is already in use on Wikipedia. Here's an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khas_people. Again the term "Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group" means an ethnic group which speak an Indo Aryan language, are you incapable of reading and understanding. Omega 9 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't use language like "quit lying" here on Wikipedia in discussions. Please learn how to be civil.
 * You know what? I've had enough of you. I have not once been rude to you but the fact that you're now literally making jarring statements about my reading comprehension skills because you're unhappy with what I'm saying is crossing the boundary. Firstly, my suggestion to you is to learn the rules of Wikipedia before you come here to make edits to this page and engage in discussions. Your most recent reply to this thread shows me you don't understand the basics of Wikipedia etiquette. Secondly, including the words "Indo-Aryan" in the introductory sentence to this article paints an incorrect image to anybody that is not fully aware of this type of content. The reason I say this is because "Indo-Aryan" is not a race. It doesn't matter if Indo-Aryan is an "ethnolinguistic group". Your suggestion gives off the impression that it is a racial or ethnic group, when it's not. Finally, bringing up other Wikipedia articles to support your beliefs isn't going to get you anywhere. Indo-Aryan, Dravidian etc. are nothing but language groups. Human genetics is completely different and including a link to a page called "Indo-Aryan peoples" paints an inaccurate image because there is no such race of people known as "Indo-Aryan people". Like I said before, "Indo-Aryan" is a language group, nothing else. From the looks of it, which I could be wrong, you're trying to turn this into something other than a language group and that's not how facts work. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:A8E5:56C2:B765:A9CF (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC))

How is "quit lying" rude. Further more you keep dismissing the articles which I have talked about which 1) use the term "Indo Aryan" before the word ethnic group 2)use of the term "ethnolinguistic or ethnoreligious group" (both of which exist On Wikipedia). On multiple occasions you've ignored the articles I've mentioned as well as change the topic to my use of grammar as well accusing me of trying to turn Indo Aryan from a language group into a racial which I have not. Which I've addimited I was wrong however I'm sure you'll use it against me in you're next comment as a result I'd like to paste one of my earlier comments here as proof I CLEARLY am aware that Indo Aryan is a language an NOT a racial "Right I understand how my actions were controversial. Well I suggest we could change it to "Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group" rather than "ethnic group" as that's too vague or just "Indo Aryan" as you've mentioned it might be wrong. Omega 9 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)" Omega 9 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave some new copies of the articles as it'll be easier to access. 1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayali (uses Dravidian before ethnic group) 2)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengalis(uses "Indo Aryan" before tHe term ethnic group) 3)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamar_people(uses Tibeto-Burman before the word ethnic group) 4)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khas_people(uses the term Indo Aryan ethnolinguistic group,which according to you would break the uniformity of Wikipedia articles about ethnic groups, yet here it 5)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews(this article uses the term ethnoreligious group instead of ethnic group) Omega 9 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)