Talk:Genetic studies on Sinhalese

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sinhalese people was copied or moved into Genetic studies on Sinhalese with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Expert opinion needed

Historical myths are linked with this Genetic related article, misleading the real facts.182.161.18.137 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Study of GK Kshatriya

@Sinha071: Hi can you please explain your deletion of this peer reviewed source and what you mean by outdated? There are prominent studies in this article from the same time period. Thanks

@Sinha071: Hello there are many sources here being cited, some from the 1970s. The argument of this study being 'outdated' does not hold water. The Sinhalese population like all populations is genetically heterogeneous. There are many cases of south indians being assimilated into the Sinhalese identity throughout history. This study accurately represents that historical occurrence. Please discuss. Thank you Metta79 (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalana Stefan: As above, can you please explain your deletion of this peer reviewed source and what you mean by outdated? There are prominent studies in this article from the same time period. There are many sources here being cited, some from the 1970s. The argument of this study being 'outdated' does not hold water. The Sinhalese population like all populations is genetically heterogeneous. There are many cases of south indians being assimilated into the Sinhalese identity throughout history. This study accurately represents that historical occurrence. Please discuss.Metta79 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ IP Address 112.134.104.8 As mentioned before this 1995 Kshatriya study is in the same time period as the major Mastana study being cited (1996). There are many other much older studies referred to in this article. So to call this Kshatriya study outdated and not the other cited studies outdated is not neutral.

"Also Sinhalese having only a minor 5% Veddah influence while having a major 70% South Indian Tamil influence is highly unlikely"

The anonymous editor at this IP address has also inserted his own opinion above into the text which is not from a neutral POV or befitting of an encyclopaedia. I request anonymous to discuss on the talk page before making further edits. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@anonymous editor, who I suspect is one of the previous named editors I have already directly addressed. Please discuss before making questionable edits. Neutral 3rd party input may be needed to reach consensus. Thank you.Metta79 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"parenteral population"

"parenteral population" seems wrong.

Do you mean "parent population"?

"parenteral" is a medical term, and is not related to "parent" or "parental".

J77h (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed to claim low-country Sinhalese have South Indian genetic background and upcountry Sinhalese have North Indian Brahmin genetic background. The studies generally appear to show Bengali and South Indian genetic admixture for all Sinhalese as discussed in this article.174.140.115.206 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the Sinhalese are not one race, one people, descendent of Vijaya! Truth will emerge one day! 70.51.137.168 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinga and Sri Lanka connections

Kalinga is also an important part of the legendary history of Sri Lanka, as described in the Mahavamsa. It was the birthplace of the legendary King Vijaya of Sri Lanka. To this important part in the history of not only India but also Sri Lanka, let's move on. So, in 321 BC. Agnishikha Nayak (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Eurasian PCA.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship Indian Tamils

@Metta79. Research suggests a close genetic relationship Sri Lankan Tamils, not Indian Tamils. The cited research mentions,

"In our present analysis based on 27 loci, the Sinhalese show a close affinity with the local Tamils, but when our data of the Sinhalese are analyzed against 11 different populations from southern, western, and eastern states of India, the Sinhalese show close affinity with the Bengali population". Amrithsvar (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does not say anything of the sort of "relationships fading" with regards to Kshatriya's data. Papiha was referring to his dataset only, not Kshatriya's.

In fact, the cited reference you have used says that both Indian and Sri Lankan Tamils are regarded as a homogeneous group genetically, and it does not differentiate between the two:

"For this genetic study the Tamils (both Indian and Sri Lankan) can be considered a homogenous group" page 709

So local Tamils refers to both of Sri Lankan and Indian descent.

The concluding paragraph says:

"Recently, Kshatriya (1995) studied the genetic affinity of the Sinhalese using published data from various sources on 15 loci and using genetic distance and admixture analyses. Kshatriya not only showed a close affinity between the Sinhalese and the Tamils but also indicated that 75% of the Sinhalese genes originated from Tamil admixture. In this respect Kshatriya's findings support the findings of Saha (1988), who suggested that the Sinhalese originated in South India.

In our present analysis based on 27 loci, the Sinhalese show a close affinity with the local Tamils (see Figure 3), but when our data of the Sinhalese are analyzed against 11 different populations from southern, western, and eastern states of India, the Sinhalese show close affinity with the Bengali population (Papiha et al., unpublished data, 1995). To solve the controversy of the origin of the Sinhalese, we are continuing to analyze the admixture and genetic affinity of the Sinhalese based on our data."

It is already established that the existing Sri Lankan genetic studies are contradictory and controversial as concluded by Papiha, hence why there are separate sections in this page showing the different results. You should not mix different datasets together and make your own conclusions from them, that would fall under WP:NOR original research. Metta79 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate paper based on miscalculation and inaccurate figures

I have removed the following source as it has a clear miscalculation in its figures:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-313X.2007.00698.x

This paper cites another paper (Mehra 2001) quoting a figure of 6.7% for the frequency of HLA-A*0211 among North Indians.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11556980/

However, this figure is no where to be found in the paper, instead a value of 33.8% is given.

If you add up the percentages of the A*02 subgroup (N=78) from Fig.2 of the Mehra paper it equals 35% not 100%.

(1.33% + 0.88% + 5.3% + 2.6% + 11.5% + 0.88% + 0.88% + 12% = 35.37%).

Allowing for rounding up this is equal to the 34.9% value of the A*02 segment in the large pie chart (N=225).

The 12% figure for A*211 therefore clearly refers to the entire cohort of 225 people (not just 78 people).Metta79 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 study by Singh et al - original research

\\A greater West-Eurasian genetic component among Sinhalese compared to South Indians as observed in this study may point towards a more North-Indian genetic contribution given that West-Eurasian genetic components are found in greater frequency in North-Indian states. The total Sinhalese sample size used was 9 individuals. Usage of samples from Sinhalese coastal groups with known and recorded recent Dravidian origin from 13th-Century such as Durava, Karava and Salagama would result in a greater overall Tamil contribution.\\

This added passage is original research and breaks wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. There is no mention of caste in the citation. Likewise, it is misleading to say that the higher % of West Eurasian maternal haplotypes means the Sinhalese have "more north indian contribution". The study clearly says the south indian contribution is predominant with a trace of North Indian affiliation (minority North Indian ancestry). It should be stated that there is "more north Indian contribution in Sinhalese compared to South Indians, although the predominant ancestry is from the south". This has already been mentioned in the preexisting paragraph. So the current misleading paragraph which is contradictory and contains original research needs to be removed.Metta79 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

I've removed loads of WP:OR and personal analysis based on papers dealing with playgroups. Not only the relationship of Sinhalese to West Bengalis, Jats or Telugu are never mentioned in these papers, I also see possible POV to align with a set narrative, which isn't supported by the sources. For example, when comparing West Bengalis and Telugus with Sinhalese, R2 percentage is used, but the Sinhalese have double the amount as compared to West Bengalis and Telugus. Similarly, West Bengalis have three times the R1a (39%) of that of Sinhalese (13%), while Jats have twice the value of L as compared to Sinhalese. That being said, it is a moot point now, since removed per policies. I've also corrected per Roy Choudhary which mentions Sinhalese and mainland Indians are closer to the Afghans and Iranians then the E/SEA populations. While the work of Bhasin, based on craniometry isn't actually genetics, hence removed. A lot of these things are added by sock farms of User:WorldCreaterFighter and others I presume. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there are many nationalist editors who want to set this article along a particular narrative. I've reverted one just now. It was full of original research. Metta79 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]