Talk:Sinhalese people

Modern Genetic testing of 2023 confirms Greater north Indian and North-West Indian Gene flow in Sinhalese Sri Lankans than South Indians (as opposed to previous lesser quality research indicated in the past)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2)

The most extensive genetic study done on the srilankan ethnicities point out that Sinhalese have a higher gene flow from the bengalis than any other race but the person name Metta79 keep on removing that info from Wikipedia when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis than the others and I hope it will be changed soon to the updated one Ultra8K (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Metta79 61.245.171.75 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"The most extensive genetic study done"

Do you have a WP:RS supporting this claim?

"when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis"

Can you provide a WP:RS pointing to 'government studies'? The 2023 study cited in the introduction that you are trying to remove was led in part by Sri Lankan professors from University of Colombo (if anything that is closer to an official government institution affiliated study):

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/study-reveals-insightsinto-genetic-historyof-sinhalese-tamils/articleshow/103299516.cms

It uses more higher resolution markers than previous studies for greater accuracy.

And also can you please point me to the evidence suggesting that "most of the genetic studies" indicate a higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Source: Peoples and lauguages of srilanka by Asiff Hussein, I find it funny how it says that the Sinhalese and srilankan Tamils are genetically close it never says that the Sinhalese have a higher flow of tamil than North Indians and I think you are forgetting that the srilankan tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil so yeah the srilankan tamils will be close to the Sinhalese but it dosent mean that the Sinhalese have huge flow of tamil genes it means that the srilankan Tamils have a higher flow of Sinhalese genes this changes the topic so basically you are confused or you are purposely doing this Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

please link to the source which indicates that "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from bengalis.

Please read the actual 2023 study not just the news articles on it. It states that the highest dna shared (identity by descent - IBD) with the Sinhalese is with the Piramalai Kallar of Tamil Nadu (amongst the Indian populations). So it's not just Sri Lankan Tamils. Metta79 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a book not a cheap website and the link provided talks about the Sinhalese and the sl Tamils having similar gene pool nothing about the Piramalai Kallar people and you didn't answer my question and claiming I haven't read the website, the person here who haven't read the article is not me it's you

If you are unable to read and understand what the article has said or other countless books probably you need to get some serious help rather than spreading propaganda here Ultra8K (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)01874-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223018746%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Here is the link to the 2023 study which used higher resolution markers than previous studies. It found that there was higher gene flow from South India (statistically significant) to the Sinhalese than from North India, with the Sinhalese sharing the highest Identity by descent with Piramalai Kallar (Indian Tamil caste) compared to the other Indian populations studied. The study also found heightened sharing with the Maratha of north western India which was lacking in Tamil and other South Indian populations, consistent with a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population. Metta79 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar it is because the srilankan Tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil it is not because the Sinhalese got tamil genes put it inside your thick brain

If you are not broke even the books published on the genetic studies on Sinhalese says that they are closest to the bengalis there's no point ever a mention about Indian Tamils

You are here confusing readers and spreading propaganda on a neutral site which is used to educate people with info

No point in your own two articles a mention about the Sinhalese having a higher gene flow from the Indian Tamils which proves that your point is false Ultra8K (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, refrain from personal attacks WP:PA ("thick brain"). Wikipedia is built on consensus and polite conversations.

You said:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

But the article actually says this:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations

That was statistically not significant. It was referring to the Maratha link if you read the tables in the supplementary data.

The statistically significant gene flow is this:

We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations.

You say:

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar.

This is false. I quote verbatim from the article itself:

"We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU, while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."

And you can see confirmation of this in the graph on figure 6 itself:

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/44397dfd-d203-4b00-b17a-0df7aa7e82c8/gr6.jpg Metta79 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is also wikipedia policy for an editor to support his statements with evidence from the book that he citing from (even if it not accessible online). So you need to provide the quote from the source that you claim supports your edits. So please provide the quote which says that "government studies" and "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

the Sinhalese showed that 70 % of the gene pool

originated from the Bengali. When the analysis included Gujarati as the third parental population,

the proportion of the Bengali genes in the Sinhalese increased to 72 %. VNTR data were

available on Bengali, Panjabi and Gujarati and when these three populations were considered as

parental populations, the VNTR results indicated that 82 % of the Sinhalese genes originated

From Bengali admixture confirming that the present-day gene pool of the Sinhalese seems to have

Originated largely via migration from the northeastern region ot India.

Sample of 121 Sinhalese collected trom Colombo were

analysed and the overall pattern of genetic relationships pointed towards a substantial Bengali

contribution. A number of genetie admixture calculations using Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati and

Panjabi as parental populations showed that when the parental populations were used, the Bengali

Contribution remained strong (50-66 %), followed by Northwestern (20-23 %) and the rest

Contributed by Tamils

Some of the facts given by the book Ultra8K (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm this is from 'ZEYLANICA - A Study of the Peoples and Languages of Sri Lanka' by Asiff Hussein? It does not say neither "government studies" or "most extensive genetic study", those are words you have created yourself. Metta79 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have bought the book you can check his sources he used and most of his sources are either from universities or governmental researchers and in the cover page you can find that it says most comprehensive study of the subject to the date and the info that I provided earlier was from these researchers not from what assif has conducted to begin with he never conducted what he does in his book is bring all the actual sources and come to a conclusion at the end you shouldn't jump into conclusions without thinking .

The source you used neither has any backing from any historian or the government so it cannot be used as a actual source

Dosent have access to significant number of Sinhalese like the government neither used a government research or any other research as a reference

You keep ignoring the fact that there's Tamils out there who forgot there original roots and claims that they are Sinhalese when they are actually not if the research was conducted on some fake ones like that of course the study will show something stupid like what you use as a source

For example there are blacks in srilanka that was brought by Portuguese that now claim that they are Sinhalese and have forgot there original roots if a research was conducted on them it shows a relationship to the Africans are you gonna claim that Sinhalese are related to the Africans cause these blacks now identify as Sinhalese? Ultra8K (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to make claim here what's in the book. Here is the book - [1], which gives the source as [2]. They are not government scientists, nor is that a government publication. This study is also quite old (more recent publication is generally preferable), and is not a well-cited paper (meaning that it is mostly ignored by the scientific community), and the Cell publication given by Metta79 is far more prestigious. Also need to consider that a single publication does not make it a fact, since the result can varied depending on what is being looked at, and a review article that can assess the overall view is generally preferable for science articles. Hzh (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all if you have read the book, he have used both independent and governmental research's and second no point I have claimed he have published it through a government publication

Old dosent mean inaccurate and this is a well cited book and this is the only book historians recommend and the only book about genetic studies that is being sold in a government museum so this book is definitely no where close to being ignored

If cell is so prestigious can you tell me why dosent any historian or a independent writer use it as a source in any book

Another fact we can't forget is that there are Tamils who forgot there original roots and now call themselves as Sinhalese if one of those fake ones were part of the research of course the research would itself be a fail for a example there are blacks who was brought by the Portuguese and now has forgotten their roots and claims that they are Sinhalese if one of them were in the research then the research will show Africa as the closet people to the Sinhalese

This is why the book claims itself as the most comprehensive study on srilankan races and has been recommended by historians itself.

I hope you do a check on several other genetic studies and let me know your thoughts on it

Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no "government research" cited in that book so stop making this false claim.

Old can certainly mean inaccurate, because the field of genetic testing has rapidly expanded over the last 2 decades. The 2023 study uses more accurate techniques such as higher resolution markers.

Which historians have cited the genetics discussion in this book? There are none.

Being sold in a government museum means nothing. It is not independent scholarly peer review. Governments themselves are known to distort historical evidence for nationalistic causes. Metta79 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So now paranavitana not an a government researcher now is he a private historian Lol

R.L Kirk research on genetic markers in blood proteins of the Sinhalese found that they were closer to the bengalis than other populations which there was a recent study confirming this

No point that the genetic studies change when the technology changes it just makes it faster and shows more clearly for example if the old genetic studies show Italians as the closest same thing will be shown with the new technology, so it wouldn't go from Bengali to the Tamils for Sinhalese

The only genetic study book that is recommended by historians in the Colombo museum and there are historians who recommend

So your point is that government museums can sell books unrelated to history lol and you realize that there are non governmental sources also done on the genetic studies of Sinhalese that also says that Sinhalese are closely related to the bengalis

Ultra8K (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"R.L Kirk research on genetic markers in blood proteins of the Sinhalese found that they were closer to the bengalis than other populations which there was a recent study confirming this"

That study was from 1976! That is not recent. In fact, you will not be able to find any recent study showing a predominant Bengali origin.

Even in recent consumer DNA testing, every Sinhala sample on the public domain shows a predominant southern ancestry:

https://sldna.blogspot.com/2020/03/sinhala-dna-results-2019-update.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/16wc4qp/sri_lankan_sinhalese_with_intriguing_trace/

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/ivwzte/here_are_my_results_im_a_sinhalese_sri_lankan/

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/cno1x4/my_told_me_to_not_waste_money_on_things_i_already/

Every future study from now on using up to date methods will likely show the same conclusion. There is great reluctance for nationalists to accept this because of their aversion to the Tamil other. Metta79 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Not my problem you can't read properly I said that there was a another recent study confirming what R.l Kirk said you have ignored most of questions and nationalist? Aren't you one of them whose dreaming so hard looking at your activity wiki should ban people like you from distorting history

Again I'm gonna ask you to read all my messages before replying Ultra8K (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

it's 2023. There are no 'recent studies' (specifically autosomal DNA studies which look at overall ancestry) confirming a predominant Bengal ancestry. Please provide the study and the year it was released. Metta79 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

based on genetic markers in blood proteins by R.L.Kirk . found the Sinhalese

to be genetically closer to the upper caste groups of Bengal than to other populations , which was further corroborated by the studies of

J. Tay and N.Saha 220.

More recent studies employing hypervariable molecular

genetic markers 221 and Alu polymorphisms

222 have also confirmed the affinity

of the Sinhalese to Bengalis. This is a recent one and again I'm saying you to answer my questions without ignoring Ultra8K (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What question have you asked me? I see no question? Repeat your question. Questions have question marks.

Those studies you quoted above are not recent. The Saha one for example is from 1988. Whereas the other one is not even a full autosomal study! Far less reliable than an autosomal DNA study which analyses the overall DNA. Metta79 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you know that there's Tamils who call themselves as Sinhalese and that it would distort the genetic study?

For example there are blacks who identify as Sinhalese and they have forgotten their original roots regardless if a genetic study conducted on them will show a African descent now are you gonna say that Sinhalese are closely related to the Africans

Karava, Durava and salgama these people came from south India and claims they are original Sinhalese and hides the fact that they are tamil Now tell me what would the genetic studies show if these fake Sinhalese were taken into the study?

Ultra8K (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Govigama sample who also has predominant southern ancestry, read the comments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/16wc4qp/sri_lankan_sinhalese_with_intriguing_trace/

Govigama are around 50% of the population. The Karava, Salagama and Durawa castes are a small minority of the overall Sinhala population (~15%). It is ridiculous to claim that all the Sinhala samples in this study will only be from this minority of post 15th century South Indian migrant descendants. There is no indication that the Sinhalese participants were selected on the basis of caste, let alone selected in a manner to overrepresent these minority castes. Metta79 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Ultra8K - Old dosent mean inaccurate - Age do matter, and that is the Wikipedia guideline - see WP:AGE MATTERS. Newer research is generally preferred. this is a well cited book - Only two sources that cited it given there, so as far as the scientific community goes, that genetic study is largely ignored. It's irrelevant if other non-scientific sources cite the book, citation by historians are ignored by scientists (you also didn't provide proof that it's recommended by historians). I would suggest you use newer sources for Bengalis is you want to make the claim. I see also that the book contains very old research that is no longer used by modern scientists. Just checked that the journal from Metta79 is iScience, not Cell itself, but one of the journals by Cell Press, in any case, you can't expect other people to cite it when it has just been published. Both yours and Metta79's can be given in Genetic studies on Sinhalese where you can have a fuller discussion. You need sources about Blacks and Tamils who forgot their roots. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

So how many sources do I have to provide cause I'm not so sure about wiki guidelines

How can genetic study be ignored when we are talking about genetic studies and the sources that's used in the book is based on the genetic studies of Sinhalese and how can I show proof that historians recommended it to me when it's something they have said not something that's been written on if you visit the Colombo museum you can ask them itself

based on genetic markers in blood proteins by R.L.Kirk . found the Sinhalese

to be genetically closer to the upper caste groups of Bengal than to other populations , which was further corroborated by the studies of

J. Tay and N.Saha 220.

More recent studies employing hypervariable molecular

genetic markers 221 and Alu polymorphisms

222 have also confirmed the affinity

of the Sinhalese to Bengalis. This is a much newer a source

It's a recording one of the black community claiming as Sinhalese and I got sources for the Tamils now claiming to be Sinhalese also

This is the reason why the genetic studies shows anomalous result from other genetic study shown Ultra8K (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You can use Google Scholar to look at how many people cite the book, but so far the book doesn't appear to be well-cited -[3]. The authors of the genetic study appear to have works with reasonable level of citations - [4][5] (not all the works listed are by the same authors, and you'd need to check if the articles are actually relate to Sinhalese genetics).

But, if I may intercede in the question of how the genetics section is written, neither sources used by you or Metta79 are particularly good sources. What would be a good source would be a recent review article on the genetics of the Sinhalese population by a geneticist or at least a scientist, and Asiff Hussein does not appear to be one. The article by Metta79 is too new, and it is a single point of view (it is not a review article which is useful for establishing scientific consensus WP:RS/AC). Without a suitable review article, I would have preferred it being written from multiple viewpoints (therefore multiple sources.) Hzh (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

These genetic studies provided by the book isn't conducted by Asiff it is provided to Asiff by notable geneticist I can send you sources with the names now and I can provide multiple genetic studies Ultra8K (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that scientific consensus doesn't come from a single study, you can get contradictory results from different studies, since each study may only look at a subject in a certain way which may not reflect the true situation. Results can be skewed by the way you conduct your study, so more studies are necessary to establish a consensus. Hzh (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What I provided is scientific studies I can provide both genetic and anthropology studies and I have no problem I can provide scientific studies should I send some now Ultra8K (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it funny how everything you say gets proven wrong in genetic study books and you keep using a source which is not recommended by historians also neither taken into study by any book and it dosent have access to significant populations of Sinhalese like most of the genetic studies that is either funded or done by the government, theres no proof that backs up them so it can't be used as a authentic source.

You better show me a actual source Ultra8K (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a peer reviewed source in a reputed scientific journal which follows WP:RS, whereas your source is neither peer reviewed nor published in a reputed publishing house. In fact the author Asif Hussein is a journalist without a doctorate, hardly a reputed scholar. BA degree and diploma is a basic level of higher education. In other words, he is not a trained historian or geneticist. Metta79 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that he used research that is released by government and his book isn't something he conduct its something he got from other researchers who are specialized in genetic studies and etc and the source that I used was not something he said it's what other researchers came to conclusion and he have added it to his book Ultra8K (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you used is no where close to being reputed journal and I'm not surprised wiki lets those fake sources to be added on wiki when they let propaganda sources to be used as a source

The source I used is reputed and even recommended by historians and even is for sale in government museums and has used sources from government led research's referring the book as a invalid is source is the same as referring the government research's as invalid and have got permission to use the government research's in the book.

Ultra8K (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Asiff dosent need to be a geneticist when there are government and reliable geneticist who have done a research and provided it to Asiff, Asiff just has to use the reliable sources and come to a conclusion

The quotes that I provided from the book isn't even what Asiff has said it was the government research's conclusion, so now are you tryna say that the government geneticist also dosent have proper training lol and in the book Asiff always used sources and he never have written what his thoughts cause he haven't conducted his own research what he have done in his book was bringing all the reliable sources to one single book so attacking Asiff is a stupid thing to do

This whole argument is stupid when every reliable sources has said the Sinhalese and the bengalis are genetically most similar both by genetically and anthropometrical studies. Ultra8K (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on this talk page and the edit history of the article, it is clear that the user @Metta79 is pushing their personal agenda for their preferred viewpoint. When a single user decides which recent studies are not reliable based on arbitrary reasoning and refuses to include alternative findings and viewpoints in the article which do not line up with their preferred results, there is clearly a problem. In one of their previous edits they removed information they declared was statistically not significant but fail to note that the Singh study was conducted on a meager sample size of a mere 9 individuals. This is blatant bias in editing and obviously not in line with the concept of maintaining a neutral perspective for Wikipedia articles. KJaya13 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The age of that 2007 study has already been called into question by another user on this discussion, and is a perfectly valid reason for it not to be uncritically accepted as up to date with the current science, and certainly should not be showcased as the mainstream scientific view. See WP:AGE MATTERS

It is not arbitrary reasoning, the 2023 study uses far more accurate and up to date methods, with much higher resolution markers than previous studies. The field of population genetics has moved on dramatically since 2007, especially so in South Asia.

X linked DNA studies reflect more of the maternal ancestry (as the authors themselves admit), not the overall autosomal ancestry which reflects the overall ancestry of a population and overall descent (FYI on a side note, there is a reason why 'Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka' who are mainly descended from Dalit castes of AASI maternal lineages (Haplogroup M) are more distant from both Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils who have higher West Eurasian haplogroups, which are associated with upper caste populations e.g. Iranian farmer/steppe pastoralist lineages).

The Singh study is authored by some of the current leading players in Sri Lankan and Indian genetics, Prof. Kamani Tennekon & R. Ranasinghe (Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Colombo) and Niraj Rai (Ancient DNA Lab, Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences).

re: sample size, the authors themselves state:

Although the sample size is low for the intra-population and genomic selection type studies, they are sufficient for inter-population comparison and understanding the population history.

And this is true. 9 randomly selected DNA samples which all show the same conclusion of predominant southern ancestry is sufficient for interpopulation comparison. It is not the same as statistically insignificant results. Metta79 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Meta79 is a Tamil Supremacist who wants to "claim" every ethnic group in Sri Lanka and South India as Tamil. Bascically he is implying, Tamil Hindus are cheap, and didn't marry within their caste and language, and were ready to get into bed with anyone.

HE knows nothing about Tamil culture or Tamil Hindu history.

Most Tamils Hindus don't speak Sinhalese and let alone marry Sinhalese Buddhists. Most Tamil Hindus married within Tamil speaking Hindu same caste (the majority that is). Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Modern Genetic testing of 2023 confirms Greater north Indian and North-West Indian Gene flow in Sinhalese Sri Lankans than South Indians (as opposed to previous lesser quality research indicated in the past)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2) Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gabrielasirwatham: the study does not say that Sinhalese are genetically closest to Maratha. It says there is a trace of ancestry that is affiliated with them. But overall they cluster closest with both sets of Tamils. Please read the study again properly and have a close look at the graphs, tables and charts. Metta79 (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Gabrielasirwatham says that Sinhalese are genetically closest to Maratha. I can see a couple of issues with the original wording. The study look at Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils (it also makes a distinction between the Sri Lankan Tamils and the more recent Indian Tamil immigrants). It shows that the the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils are more closely related to each other than to other Indian groups. Both groups have major South Asian genetic components (note the paper doesn't say Tamil, just South Asian) with greater gene flow from South India, but they also found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations. A high level of West Eurasian ancestry is found in all the major Śrī Laṅkān groups except Indian Tamils. There is also a greater link between Maraṭha and Sinhalese compared to Sri Lankan Tamils. It doesn't say "Sinhalese being genetically closest to Tamils than any other Indian population", the wording in the paper is "the Sinhalese are more similar to Śrī Laṅkān Tamils than to the Indian populations". The meaning is different since Sri Lankan Tamils are different from Indian Tamils.

The wording is therefore not quite accurate, and personally I think the genetic study should not be placed in the lede, rather moved down to the genetics section where it can be explained further. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The study states that the highest DNA shared (Identity by descent - IBD) with the Sinhalese amongst the Indian populations is with the Piramalai Kallar of Tamil Nadu (more DNA is also shared with the Pallar, another Indian Tamil population compared to the Maratha):

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/a23b59a8-6ab6-4e08-b2ba-3204ef750802/gr6.jpg

So it's not just Sri Lankan Tamils.

Gabriel incorrectly claims the following on his editing summary:

"It clearly states that the Sinhalese people's links are predomniantly with the Maratha people"

When in actual fact the study found heightened sharing with the Maratha of north western India which was lacking in Tamil and other South Indian populations, consistent with a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population. Metta79 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The disputed edit does not say what is said the edit summary, so that is irrelevant. The text in the paper doesn't explicitly state what you want to say, and it's not for us to infer what it meant to say because it'll be OR. For example, it says things like "we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations", but I'm not going to extrapolate from the data what the authors meant to say (e.g which groups they meant). It says a lot more about Sri Lankan Tamils, and that is ignore, why? Hzh (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The authors literally say this in the study:

"We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU [Sri Lankan Tamils], while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."

"It says a lot more about Sri Lankan Tamils, and that is ignored, why?"

'Tamils' in the intro refers to both Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils. Metta79 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's about the genetic history of Śrī Laṅkā, so the "Tamils" would refer to Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka. Within the text and data itself, it is also clear that the Sri Lankan Tamils are the main one studied apart from the Sinhalese, and it specifically exclude Indian Tamils when it says "this high level of West Eurasian ancestry is consistent across all the major Śrī Laṅkān groups except Indian Tamils". And this shows the problem with you trying to interpret what it says when it does not specifically say "Tamils" ("Piramalai Kallar" does not equal "Tamils"). Why it doesn't say Tamils is up the authors, maybe the conclusion is only valid for some Tamil subgroups, or the authors prefer "South Indian" because they may want to include other non-Tamil groups, it's simply not for us to extrapolate what the authors want to say. We can only give precisely what it says. Hzh (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Then that paragraph can be reworded to this to reflect the reference more precisely:

However, a 2023 genetics study by Singh et al found that there was higher gene flow from South India to the Sinhalese than from North India, with the Sinhalese being genetically closest to Sri Lankan Tamils than other Indian populations. The study also found a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population and deeply rooted common genetic ancestry with the Maratha.

Metta79 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

btw the higher West Eurasian ancestry only refers to the higher frequency of West Eurasian mitochondrial DNA haplotypes, not overall autosomal ancestry. Gabriel has cherry picked and distorted the study with his last edits to give the impression that north Indian ancestry predominates amongst the Sinhalese (rather than a trace affiliation), when the study clearly points to predominant South Indian ancestry. Metta79 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of Metta79, I have highlighted additional points in the article

1. There has been some gene flow from Southern India, but entire Southern India is not Sinhalese. Southern parts of India starts all the way from the Vindhya mountains, above Maharashtra (technically). Metta79 keeps implying all of Southern India is tamil. That is not the case.

2. The research specifically talks about the links between STU (Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K) generally of upper castes who afforded to go abroad, rather than all Tamils and all Sri Lankan tamils(non STU ones). I have highlighted that specifically i the new edition

3. Although the genetic article by Singh et all does not mention Karavas, I have mentioned Karava castes (Coastal Sinhalese) have links to Southern India, as the wikipedia already mentions Karava castes came from South India. It does not say Karava castes came from Tamils. It states they came from south India. Which part of South India? This is probably what Singh Et Al Article is alluding to, when it states some gene flow has come in from Sri Lanka.

4. The article over all mentions the shared ancestry of both MArathas and Sinhalese. I no where mentioned Sinhalese are Maratha emigrations.

Please, ask Metta79 to stop implying falsely

(1) All Sinhalese came from south India and from Tamil people

That is Tamil nationalist propaganda to claim entire Sri Lanka as being purely Tamil ethnically. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry typing error, it should be Tamil not Sinhalese : - There has been some gene flow from Southern India, but entire Southern India is not Tamil" Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Correction - " This is probably what Singh Et Al Article is alluding to, when it states some gene flow has come TO Sri Lanka.''' Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations. However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2) Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again

The study states

STU (Sri Lankan tamils of united kingdom) usually upper caste Tamils share close links to Sinhalese.

Not Tamil in general.

STU only. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The highlights of the research DNA study is

•

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India

•

A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā

•

Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

Why are you pushing hard to insert Tamil into everything? This wikipedia article is not about Tamils. It is about Sinhalese. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Higher West Eurasian Gene flow than South India to Sinhalese population

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/

Please refer to the above latest genetic research link by Singh Et Al 2023

This is clearly what it states in the highlights of the study done on Sinhalese genes (3rd section below the graphical abstract and summary).

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India • A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā • Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

It also confirms that the upper caste Sri Lankan Tamils in the U.K have close genetic relationship with Sinhalese, confirming the historical narrative that some Sinhalese upper castes were force-assimilated into Tamil culture after the invasion of the northern part of the island by the Chola Empire.

Tamil nationalists keep vandalizing this page, to state greater gene inflow from south India by misquoting this study. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"It also confirms that the upper caste Sri Lankan Tamils in the U.K have close genetic relationship with Sinhalese, confirming the historical narrative that some Sinhalese upper castes were force-assimilated into Tamil culture after the invasion of the northern part of the island by the Chola Empire."

This is not supported by the reference. There is no mention of upper castes, forced assimilation or the Chola empire.

The article clearly points to greater gene flow from South India and it explicitly states the highest DNA shared (Identity by descent) is with south Indian castes. Metta79 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. the 3 main highlights of this research states in the 3rd section

•

Higher West Eurasian genetic component in Śrī Laṅkā than South India

•

A strong gene flow beyond the boundary of ethnicity and language in Śrī Laṅkā

•

Traces of common roots of Sinhala with Maratha

yes, there has been gene flow from South India to Karava and other coastal castes, but that does not mean it was Tamil. It could have been other dravidians such as Kannadigas, Telugus, Malayalees and other tribes. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This research is about Sinhalese.

Not Tamils Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have also put wrongly as Tamil. The link is between STU (Sri lankan tamil United kingdom) who are generally of upper castes, as compared to Sri Lankan tamils elsewhere.

Again this article is not about Sri Lankan tamils. You can enter your details in the section on Sri Lankan tamils. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop saying that UK Sri Lankan Tamils are upper castes, the source doesn't say it, it's your OR. I in fact know a few Sri Lankan Tamils in the UK, and they are not upper castes. The study also include Sri Lankan Tamils from Sri Lanka, and it explicitly stated that there are no significant deviations between the UK and Sri Lankan ones in their analyses. Hzh (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

West Eurasian genetic content is not from South India. IT comes from West Eurasia/Central Asia/Aryan migration.

Upper caste Govigama and other fair skinned Sinhalese have higher content of ANI genes unlike the Karava who have higher content of ASI genes.

ASI genes does not mean Tamil. It means ancient dnA in southern part of India, of which Tamils are one of the part. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All South asians are a mixture of ASI and ANI genes, and therefore have mix of that in each other in varying proportions. Please see this research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/

and

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/

naturally neibhouring countries like Sri Lanka will reflect those mixtures as well. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is too much OR here. You need to support every one of your statements with reliable sources, not your imagination.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with what I have said, I will quote from the study verbatim:

• "We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU [Sri Lankan Tamils], while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."
• This can also be seen clearly in the following chart: https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/a23b59a8-6ab6-4e08-b2ba-3204ef750802/gr6.jpg
• This is also supported by the authors obtaining statistically significant "results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations."
• "the Sinhalese are more similar to Śrī Laṅkān Tamils than to the Indian populations." [which includes North Indians].

Metta79 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No where it states "there has been higher South Indian gene flow than north indian"

Only states some IBD with Sinhala, possibly some piramalai kallar migrated out of Sinhalese population into Tamil Nadu.

Higher gene flow possibly indicating the Karava and Salagama who came from Kerala, not Tamil Nadu. No evidence they spoke Tamil.

You are falsifying Tamil history repeatedly and over-exagerating it. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Entire South India is not Tamil

1. Entire Southern India is not Tamil. There are many other non-Tamil speaking populations in Southern India.

2. Dravida in ancient terms meant geographic region bounded on 3 sides by sea = Indian peninsula starting from the mid part of India (south Vindhya mountains)

3. No where Dravida meant Tamil. Tamil had their own unique name Thamizh and were specifically confined to Tamil Nadu state of India

4. Sinhalese language is not spoken anywhere in India. It uniquely developed in Sri Lanka, thus Sinhalese culture and language indigenous to Sri Lanka.

5. Gene flow into Sinhalese population has come from various sources, with Maratha people sharing common ancestry with Sinhalese, as opposed to Bengal as per Singh et al research. There is a strong west Eurasian gene flow into Sri Lanka.

4.South Indian gene flows did happen, but despite this, the Sir Lankan population is considered homogenous with Sri Lankan tamils of U.K (STU) not ST (sri lanka tamils as a whole) being genetically related to Sinhalese, than rest of India.

all Sinhalese and all Tamils (including Tamil Nadu) are NOT genetically related and all of Sinhalese ancestry 'DID NOT' came from Tamil Nadu of South India.

Sri Lankan Tamils particularly the Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K (STU) mostly of upper caste Tamils who who migrated long ago as proffessions mostly from wealthy families are closely related to the Sinhalese as compared to OTHER indian populations including Indian tamil Nadu tamils. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

META79 Please don't vandalize the article further and misquote studies

The new edit today made

"A 2023 genetics study by Singh et al confirmed North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population and deeply rooted common genetic ancestry with the Maratha.. The research study clearly shows a higher West Eurasian gene flow to Sinhalese, than South India.The research also indicates some genetic relationship with South India as well, which may be probably true for the Karava castes among coastal Sinhalese based on Sinhalese historical description of Karava immigration from south India and adoption into Buddhism. Research has also indicated a link between Sri Lankan Tamils in U.K (STU) and Sinhalese castes."

---

This is in balanced summary of the research studies taken.

Not all Tamils are related to Sinhalese, except Sri Lankan Tamils of u.k (stu) It is not Sinhalese who share entire genetics with Tamils as metta79 falsely keeps stating, it is STU that shares links to the Sinhalese, as compared to rest of South Asian populations Mentioned about the Karava castes already mentioned in the wikipeda article later on, in light of the research findings of some Indian gene flow. Karavas emigrated from south India, but nowhere it is proven they were Tamils. Their ancestor probably may have come from Kerala or Andhra pradesh or Karnataka or whatever.

Deep rooted common genetic ancestry with Marathas

I did not say Sinhalese came from Marathas, except both are sharing a common ancestry as per the research findings. Stating a west-Indian flow to Sri Lanka rather than Bengali flow to Sri Lanka as previous research (using lesser reliable technology) has stated.

That being said, Sinhalese are genetically diverse. So it is not correct to state that Sinhalese are all related to all Tamils. Some Tamils (STU) are related to Sinhalese. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You have added you a lot of original research which does not fit the reference at all. It is not a balanced summary at all. No mention of caste for the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils in this study. So you cannot mention all these things. You can only mention what's in the reference. Metta79 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit seem to falsely indicate that SINHALESE are related to the tamil, rather than SL tamil (minority) related to the ethnic majority Sinhalee. Sri Lanka's ethnic majority population are Sinhalese.

2. You have REMOVED West Eurasian gene flow into Sinhalese population

3. You have FALSELY put that South Indian gene flow is HIGHER among Snhalese, than north India.

Read the highlights of the research, no where it is stating as the prime highlight of the research. Tamil supremacists like yourself need to stop changing history of Sinhalese people. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is Tamil a topic of discussion in this page?

This wikpedia article is about Sinhalese people, their culture, their language.

This is not about Tamils or Tamil genetics.

Singh et Al (2023) genetic research points out 3 facts about Sinhalese

1. There is a shared ancestry with Maratha people of Maharashtra, more than there is with Bengal 2. There has been considerable gene flow from West Eurasia 3. Some Sri Lankan Tamil subgroups (STU/Sri Lankan Tamil U.K) are related to Sinhalese.

The 3 highlights are clearly outlined.

The article should remain focused on sinhalese population and their history, not about Tamils.

Sri Lankan tamil has another wikipedia page entry Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is stupid. You can also argue that this is not about Maratha or Maratha genetics, so why are you concentrating on Maratha genetics? Hzh (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is to do with nationalism, there is a dislike for Tamils due to past historical conflicts, so nationalist editors want to erase and downplay those links. Metta79 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with dislike for Tamils

It is about highlighting the focus of the research article's primary links

You want to keep inserting Tamil into everything. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Tamils are less than 15% of the population and there is a language divide between the two people, together with a religious divide, Hindu Tamils generally marry their own caste and language. So this mass "mixing" of Tamils and Sinhalese is doubtful.

Secondly, all Dravidians were not Tamils nor Tamil speakers. Other coastal populations existed in the region. Some of them like Karava and Salagama were assimilated into the population of Sinhalese.

Why are some Tamil nationalists so obsessed in wanting to claim Sinhalese history? This is not about Tamils. This is about Sinhalese population and the research findings indicating their links with Marathi people, that confirms the linguistic link between those languages and Sinhalese, as opposed to Bengal that was previously thuoght as the origin point of the ancestors of Sinhalese. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the article states clearly Marathi genes as the primary findings in its highlights. Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOL'S ANALYSIS OF SINGH ET AL'S RESEARCH

Singh et al's article was downloaded as PDF from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

And uploaded to chatpdf.com for AI to analyse and interpret the research findings.

www.chatpdf.com is an AI Tool that can accurately scan the PDF document and highlight important points. This was its conclusion

"1. The study analyzed the genetic data of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, revealing a close genetic affinity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, irrespective of their linguistic differences. 2. Genetic analysis indicated a significant genetic homogeneity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, likely due to long-term geographic proximity facilitating substantial gene flow. 3. The research identified traces of common genetic ancestry between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population, suggesting shared roots through fine-grained genetic analysis. 4. Despite linguistic distinctions, the genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population adds a significant chapter to the genetic landscape of South Asia. 5. The study highlighted the presence of excess sharing of smaller genetic segments between the Sinhalese and the Maratha, indicating a deeply rooted common genetic ancestry. 6. While the D statistics test showed non-significant results, the genetic data supported a closer genetic relationship between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population. 7. The genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population provides valuable insights into the population history of Sri Lanka, showcasing a unique genetic heritage. 8. The study emphasized the need for more ancient DNA research and Y chromosomal sequencing to determine migration timelines and further understand the genetic history of the Sinhalese. 9. The genetic homogeneity observed among the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils challenges conventional notions of genetic differentiation based on linguistic affiliations in South Asia. 10. Overall, the research underscores the complex interplay of genetic, linguistic, and historical factors shaping the genetic landscape of the Sinhalese population in Sri Lanka.

The following question was also asked to the AI tool

Q. does this research indicate a higher gene flow to Sinhalese from northern India or southern India?

AI's answer : - The research indicates a higher genetic affinity of the Sinhalese population with North Indian populations rather than South Indian populations. Genetic analysis of the Sinhalese suggests a closer relationship with North Indian populations, supporting the hypothesis of a North Indian origin for the Sri Lankan Sinhalese .

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2)

Based on the findings stated by Singh Et al i 2023 research, META79 is incorrect stating higher South Indian gene flow to Sinhalese in the genetics section of Sinhalese people.

'THE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA ON SINHALESE STATING THERE WAS HIGHER GENE FLOW FROM SOUTH INDIA TO SINHALESE POPULATION IS INCORRECT. PLEASE CORRECT THE GENETICS SECTION AND THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION TO REFLECT HIGHER GENE FLOW FROM NORTH INDIA

Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you AI? Maybe you can start a discussion in one of the noticeboards or village pumps whether AI-mediated edits are considered acceptable and should be permitted. If it's something that has not been discussed yet, you'd be clearing up something interesting. (Although frankly, from the answers given here by AI, perhaps they are not the best tool to use.) Hzh (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hzh AI tools are less biased and more reliable than Wikipedia, where 'anyone' can edit and twist things out of context.

Clearly a lot of people here are not native speakers of the English language.

A paragraphs conclusion is found in the last sentence.

"Increased flow of genes from north India" was its conclusion. With a full stop. Casseykay (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

HIGHER NORTH INDIAN GENE FLOW THAN SOUTH INDIAN

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2) Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

When you choose to ignore the preceding sentence that says "higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations", you make yourself out to be someone who has no interest in presenting a true view of the paper, just cherry-picking sentences to make untrue statements. Hzh (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hzh Actually you are the one seriously mistaken. Singh et all was alluding to the previous findings that indicated Higher gene flow from south india, but his team has discovered that the greater flow came from north India. The paper is stating both the previous findings and the latest finding.

Either you don't understand English or you simply are biased.

it is the latest finding of the scientific team you should consider. Casseykay (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in arguing when you can't even read and understand what's written. It says "We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations". Hzh (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hzh he is quoting the previous research. Read the last sentence of his latest finding of increased flow from north india that Gabriel quoted verbatim. Maratha is not south indian. In English language there can't be contradictions in one paragraph. learn to rightly divide it. The conclusion of latest finding is in the last sentence on the greater flow from north India. Casseykay (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't understand the meaning of the word "we"? Hzh (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hzh we is referring to his current tea m who analysed past research and present new research of 2023. your focus should be on the conclusion presented in the last sentence. The conclusion of the latest research.

Consult with a native speaker of English if you cannot understand the paragraph in its full context. You can contact the research team.

Until then you can put the new edit to show gene flow from north India north west India and south India and west Eurasia. instead of higher or lower. Let the reader decide.

Also edit the genetic section as well.

giving so much power to one user named metta79 is questionable. Casseykay (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone can now see your issue in reading and comprehension, and there is nothing more to be discussed since it will be a meaningless exchange of insults when you don't understand the text under discussion. A basic level of competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and that you don't have. Hzh (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add an explanation if anyone is confused by the wordings of the authors - the study found higher gene flow from South Indian populations, but they also found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian populations. One does not contradict the others, the first one is a general statement about the broader group of South Indian population, the second one refers to certain subgroups of the North and Northwest Indian populations. Hzh (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

To further add, the higher gene flow from South Indian populations was found to be statistically significant, whilst the slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian populations was not statistically significant. Metta79 (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)