Template talk:Ethnic groups in Sri Lanka

Indigenous?
What do you define as indigenous? Last time I checked, the ONLY true indigenous population of Sri Lanka are the Veddas.

The Sinhala and Tamils came to the island from India! If you consider these groups as being indigenous to Sri Lanka, by that extension, the Moors, Malays, Burghers and Kaffirs should also be considered indigenous (on the account that they have assimilated themselves in some way with others in the island).

The only true indigenous population in Sri Lanka are the Veddas. This template needs revision.--68.232.77.151 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Expatriates
Is there really a need for this section? There isn't a single link for it. Wikinpg (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Ethnic groups in Sri Lanka template is about all the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka therefore includes expatriates from other countries and is not just the ones we here most often like Burghers, moors, Sinhalese or Tamils. There are no links to it because there are not many sources with information on expatriates is Sri Lanka and that Wikipedia's coverage of Sri Lanka and its articles are very poor.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need of the Expatriates column. It clearly says Ethinic groups in Sri Lanka. Memons, Malayali, Telugus, gujaratis, Jews can be put under other Ethnic group categories. Please remove the Expatriate column. If u need check with similiar ethnic templates of the other countires u may get calrification. --Arunantamil (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is there no need to have a expatriates row, it does clearly say Ethinic groups in Sri Lanka and there are other ethnic groups in Sri Lanka, other than just the well known ones, like British people living/working in Sri Lanka. That is what the template is offering. Here are some examples of some other templates:--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one of those templates has an expatriate column and it has 4 relevant, working links. All the templates have less than 5 red links. This template has 20! There's no coverage on these sri-lankan expatriates, so there's no point of including these links. Expatriates column should be cut down.Wikinpg (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not have to have an expatriate column for there to be a list of expatriates. For example the Romanian, Australian, Kosovan, Peruvian and Mexican templates are practically all expatriates. It is true that the template has a lot of red links but they should all at least be represented on the template to show that there are expatriates from that country.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with talk, it is not necessary to add all those expatriate columns because substantial numbers of those groups do not exist in Sri Lanka ( other than Indian and Pakistani Expatriates). It makes sense in countries like Australia where there are so many new immigrants. In the case of Sri Lanka, large numbers of people do not necessarily work in the country and therefore it does not make sense to add this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.151 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The expatriate list needs to be renamed and reorganized!!!! According to the wikipedia listing "An expatriate is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence." Most of the ethnic groups listed currently under the "expatriate" column do not fit under this column!!!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.151 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackknight12, firstly the consensus is that these links shouldn't be included (3 users: Wikinpg (talk),68.232.77.151 (talk) & Arunantamil (talk)). Therefore, this provides some merit for the text to not be included, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. Secondly, notability determines what should be included in wikipedia. These communities in sri-lanka are not notable. There's no significant coverage of these ethnic groups in sri-lanka. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Therefore, I am undoing the change made to this article. I hope you understand.Wikinpg (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sinhala and Tamils are too indigeneous
Sinhala and Tamils though come from India and settled in the Island. They can be consider Indigenous because, Historians concluded that Sinhala and Sri Lankan Tamils are mixed with veddha population. Genetic study concluded that Veddha contributed many genetic affinity towards Sinhala and Sri Lankan Tamil. In Tamils Indian Tamils and Moors cannot be indigenous. Also historian Indrapala states Sinhala and Sri Lankan Tamils are people who occupied Sri Lanka from Early iron age. So Only veddhas cannot be indigenous, Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhala also can be native of Sri Lanka. --Arunantamil (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Get some Sources to back up your points.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how long the Sinhala and Tamils have been in Sri Lanka, they are still not the true indigenous populations of the country. Period. There is evidence of Sinhalese and Tamils migrating to Sri Lanka from India ( just like the Moors migrating to Sri Lanka from the Middle East, the Malays from South East Asia and Burgers from Europe).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.151 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your making funny of this column. Australia, Britain, Canada, are really you meant people of these country lives in Sri Lanka, or Sri Lankan people live in those countries. Expatriate community quite confusing man. Change accordingly man. --Arunantamil (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding changes
I have made the following changes. Removed the word majorities, because the definition of majorities is: "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total. And sri-lankan tamils do not make up more than half of the population. There is also no significant coverage on British and Dutch Burghers to differentiate between the two and the sri-lankan census does not classify Burghers along these lines. So I doubt there is much of a distinction between the two. Burgher in sri lanka make up 0.2% of the population. So I think they appropriately belong in the minorities section. There is also not siginificant coverage of Indians in Sri Lanka to warrant a link. In addition Sri lankan moors do not identify themselves as arab, Kaffirs do not identify themselves as Sri lankan Africans and malays do not call themselves Sri lankan Indonesians. Therefore, I think the appropraite names used by these people, should be used as the name of their ethnic group. Please discuess before reverting these changes. It would be good to get other peoples opinions too. Wikinpg (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)