Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ANI, ASI, AASI

I see several problems with the additions made by IP 212.95.7.228.

Newer researches show that the Onge are not related to the ASI but to the AASI (ancient ancestral south indians).

References

• When using the term AASI], it should be introduced properly. The ANI-ASI model was expanded in 2018 to include the AASI; this should be explained as such.
• Kulatilake's paper is a presentation from 2012; it does not refer to the Onge, nor to AASI. Naturally, since the term was coined in 2018.

According to Reich et al. (2009), “the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being without any ANI or ASI ancestry."

References

• Well, the quote is correct, but the source is lacking; this is copied from somewhere else at Wikipedia, probbaly Peopling of India, without attribution. It is added at an odd place, without the proper context.

Both ANI and ASI are classified by anthropology and genetic studies to be of the Caucasoid race.

References

• "The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach" does not refer to ANI or ASI. Not surprising, for a book from 1865.
• Caspari (2003) is a critique od the race-concept, and doesn't refer to ANI and ASI either, of course.

Modern researchers suggest that there was another group of hunter gatherers called AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indians).

References

• That's an awkward formulation of Narasimhan et al. (2018). The was not "another" group of hunter-gatherers; there was an AASI-population of hunter-gatherers, part of which mixed with Iranian farmers to form the IVC-people. Part of this population mixed with AASI, forming ASI; another part mixed with the Indo-Aryans, forming ANI.

These AASI element is found in small amounts in today southern Indians and tribal groups.

References

• Kashyap et al. (2006) is from 2006; definitely won't refer to AASI.
• Moorjani et al. (2013) is from 2013; also won't refer to AASI.

The AASI admixture in India is a minor adribution to the Indian people and only found at few hunter gatherer tribes. These tribes are mostly a mix of ASI and AASI.

References

• Kulatilake (2012) does not refer to AASI. WP:OR.
• AASI is the basic component of all contemporary Indians. Faulty WP:OR.

It is also suggests that the Vedda people in Sri Lanka are a mix of ASI and AASI.

References

• WP:OR.

So, sloppy copying, mipresentation of relevant new research, and faukty WP:OR. Please don't do this again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's even worse: at Peopling of India you changed

According to Reich et al. (2009), "the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry."

into

According to Reich et al. (2009), “the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being without any ANI or ASI ancestry."

References

That's not even WP:OR, it's worse: you deliberately falsified information. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping

@Vanamonde93, Doug Weller, and Bishonen: this fellow, IP 212.95.7.228, is deliberately falsyfying information, using various IP-adresses. Could one of you take care of the IP-hopping? Is this editor using even more IP's? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:213.225.38.79 also seems to be involved, diff; and User:213.162.68.226 diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not another user. I am a one person, but my IP constantly change and i do not know why. The range is the same but my phone constantly renew the adress. I am sorry for this but i do not know how to stop it. 213.162.68.226 (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Create an account. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

yes, I will do so. I am new, so i have maybe done mistakes.213.162.68.226 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• 213.162.68.226, topics related to genetics, race, and ethnicity, and topics related to India and Pakistan are very controversial areas on Wikipedia. You need to be careful not to misrepresent sources anywhere (see WP:NOR) but you need to be especially careful on pages such as this one. Please ensure that anything you write is an accurate reflection of the source you are citing. Also, I too would strongly recommend creating an account. Vanamonde (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Y-DNA L among Sinhalese and Kivisild2003b

@Doug Weller: Sir, this percentage, 18% (7/39) is from Kivisild 2003b study. The "ref tag" is using Template:Sfn in the article body but the "References" section doesn't have the corresponding entry which is creating the problem. It probably got deleted sometime between 2011 and 2018 because before that when I used to edit this article, the ref was there. If you give me time, I'd correct it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: my problem is that I don't see it in your source or here. What am I missing? Doug Weller talk 12:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:This source is "Kivisild 2003a" and what I'm referring to is "Kivisild 2003b". You can see the L percentage of Sinhalese (7/39 = 18%) in this image of Kivisild 2003b.

Kivisild 2003b is the more well-known of the two. Somebody has messed with the article and linked most Kivisild2003 refs to the obscurer Kivisild 2003a which were initially linked to Kivisild 2003b creating a lot of WP:OR. This Kivisild 2003b also much more refines, mentions Haplogroups alphabetically and gives much more info about the downstream haplogroups. Kivisild 2003a only mentions top tier Haplogroups not downstream e,p. it mentions 12f2 which is Hap-J, but my source, Kivisild 2003b mentions downstream ie J2*, J2e and J2f apart from undetermined J*. Regards - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: and the source the other editor User:Monitor37 said has a larger sample (which puzzled me as they replaced the same article with a different url)?

@Doug Weller: He added a separate ref link which is from another study by Toomas Kivisild done in 2003 which is typically mentioned as "Kivisild 2003a". The popular one is "Kivisild 2003b". The confusion is because originally the "ref name" used the name "kivisild 2003" to refer to the latter one since the other one was not well known then. Probably in 2010-2017/18 some guys have changed the urls with the former less known study and deleted the reference for "" which was referring the former Kivisild2003b causing all the confusion.

Since these are 2 different studies, we can keep content from both the studies. And if you give me sometime, I'd fix this problem. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: over to you, but reluctantly. My view is that we should only use major finding from such papers, not mine the data. Sadly I'm too used to seeing references mucked about so they no longer relate to their original text. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks. You'll find Haplogroup percentages being similarly referenced in probably all of these DNA articles. Whether it be Haplogroup L-M20, Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) or Haplogroup R1b. I'll do the needful changes as early as possible. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

R1a-Z93.

The article as it is now is a joke. R1a in India is Aryan, arriving from the Sredny Stog inside the last 5000 years. https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/ --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Munda and Tibeto-Burman

@Fylindfotberserk: The source does not say that "The East and Southeast Asian ancestry components detected in South Asia is mainly restricted to Munda and the Tibeto-Burmese speakers" so why do you continue to revert to your version of the page? We need to follow what the source says, which is what you're doing for all the other edits except for this. Why? (Sapah3 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

I've added a source about East Asian admixture in Bengalis and also fixed the information about Munda and Tibeto-Burman speakers to explicitly represent what the source says. (Sapah3 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

@Sapah3:

The specific words are "whilest the East/Southeast Asian components are present in nearby Munda and Tibeto-Burman speakers" [1]. Note that the original sentence in the lead was properly sourced [2] which was removed citing predatory sources. The exact sentence in this article and the source was The East Asian ancestry component detected in South Asia is mainly restricted to specific populations in the Himalayan foothills and northeastern part of India

Do not add specific ethnic group names when only one type of samples "Bengalis from Bangladesh" in Dhaka are used. We do not have data for West Bengalis. This is not leadworthy. I'm removing it. Plus populations like Burusho, Pathan and Kalash also have substantial amount. We have removed mention of specific ethnicities for that reason in the past. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Now I understand that the source you have linked supports this statement (mainly restricted to specific populations in the Himalayan foothills and northeastern part of India) but the sentence says "East and Southeast Asian ancestry components in South Asia". The whole of South Asia does not constitute India so it is categorically incorrect to state "the East Asian ancestry component detected in South Asia is mainly restricted to specific populations in the Himalayan foothills and northeastern part of India". I believe it's best just to remove that sentence from the article lead and place it elsewhere in the article (I notice that you have already included it in the article body), it's way too limited and does not take into account the rest of South Asia. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

I also noticed you deleted my additions to the page despite it being properly sourced and removed it under the guise of "restoring sourced content". Why? I am extremely confused by your edits. I have reinstated the deleted information. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

No reason to remove it from the leadsince it comes from a reputable scientist and is in context. Note that the original ANI-ASI of theory of 2009/2010 was restricted to Indian populations only. Yes South Asia should be changed to India, since it is as per the source. I'm doing it.

And sorry for removing that content. I restored the whole section, forgetting that new additions were done by you and tweaked by me today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous data

In this edit, and I think some others, a graph was added, claiming a reference from nature.com. As has been discussed during a deletion discussion for that graph, the image in Commons is in some details different from that in the nature.com ref. Others can decide whether or not the modification was deliberately deceptive, but in any case the traceability to the claimed reliable source seems doubtful. There appears to be something of an edit war going on, and interested editors may wish to keep an eye on the outcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

To the IP: re your recent changes

To the IP: You recently left the following edit summary:

"Reverting to previous edit. AASI has been shown to be completely different from Onge and Andamanese. Onge and Andamanese are more closely related to Oceanic groups and then SE Asians and East Asians. They share a common ancestor with East Asians, SE Asians and AASI. They split off at the same time from a common shared ancestor. Also, SE Asians and East Asians share a close relationship and the Onge have been modeled as 45% Han. Han Chinese are a better proxy for AASI than Onge as well."

It is true that Onge are closer to Oceanians than to AASI. That is mentioned in the relevant section. It is nonetheless also true that Onge/Andamanese are one of the closest living populations to AASI. Your statement that the Han are a better proxy for AASI is not explicit in the sources. Several studies agree that AASI are related to Onge (that does not mean that they are the Onge's closest relative). And Narasimhan also found that AASI split (and were distantly related to) three groups: Onge/Andamanese, East Asians, and Aboriginal Australians, and thus all split from a common ancestral population. Your emphasizing the Han Chinese over other distantly related groups is not supported by the sources. They do not seem to agree that the Han are a better proxy. Adding material based on your own reasoning or synthesis of more than one source is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOR and WP:Synthesis. It does not matter what makes sense to you personally or what you believe the sources imply. It must be explicitly stated in reliable sources (WP:RS).

You also wrote: "Adding missing group with high AASI levels in NW South Asia. AASI is a fully East Eurasian component devoid of any Onge or Australasian ancestry. There are also many different strains of AASI within South Asia, and they all look different from each other despite equally high AASI levels"

Firstly, you need to show that the source states that that group has a high (or one of the highest) levels of AASI ancestry if you wish to add that. Secondly, nowhere does it, nor did I, or the old edit, say that AASI had Onge of Australian ancestry. The sources (such as Narasimhan) say that the AASI share a common root with the Onge and Native Australians (as well as with East Asians). All four populations split from a common group and are distantly related (and are closer to each other than they ar to West Eurasians for example). The claim "There are also many different strains of AASI within South Asia, and they all look different from each other despite equally high AASI levels" is also unsourced and seems to be personal opinion/commentary, which is again, against Wikipedia policy. Skllagyook (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comprehensive picture

Figure 5 in this paper is a pretty comprehensive picture. Is there any copyright issue related to uploading this? Or recreating it (which should be easy). Pinging Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I don't think it would be problem if we attribute this to the authors and the source. Can be added in this section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate references necessary?

The lead has multiple duplicate references cited just in the next section Overview. As far as I know, it is not necessary to cite such amount of references in the lead. Is a shortening useful?103.171.181.133 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)