Talk:Sinhalese people

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

"The very existence of the article Indo-Aryan peoples implies that Indo-Aryans are an actual phenomenon"

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))

"Yes, they are real because they all speak languages from the same language family."

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)

80.250.56.174 (talk · contribs) Are you the same user as Karinka025 (talk · contribs)? 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.

" I'm not implying that "Indo-Aryan" is not a race, I'm directly stating that "Indo-Aryan" is not a race."

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)

Please read my comment carefully. I've written that you imply "indo-aryan" is a race.

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".

All your reasoning about ANI and ASI is baseless, because none argues that sinhalese is a race

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.

Yes, I am the same user. This was obvious.

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))

So why should it say "Sinhalese people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group" when "Indo-Aryan" has absolutely no relation to genetics or ethnicity?

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))

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?

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)

It is not "Sinhalese people are the indo-aryan ethnic group"

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))