Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia/Archive 2

R1a1 and Nirjhara's edits
I've now reverted these twice. The first time they used two articles to back up a claim about R1a1a, then Nirjhara said R1a1, but I cannot find statements in either article backing up the claim that "Modern studies on Haplogroup R1a1a suggests its origin to be in south asia with coalescence time of 16000 ybp and highest diversity also". I do find the statement that "Haplogroup R1a1 (delineated by mutation M198) is believed to have originated in present day Ukraine13 following the LGM, and is thought to mark the expansion of the Kurgan horse culture." which seems to contradict Nirjhara's edit. I've asked Nirjhara for quotations but have not been given any. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * yes doug u r right there is no sentence regarding R1a1 and its origins to be in South asia! But If you had the kind odesity to check this papers "complexity patterns of R1a1" then u would have realised that the mutation date of south asian R1a1 is slightly older than the central asian one and oldest in the world also! which supports the statement made by sharma et al. here  by noticing  the highest frequency(up to 72.22% in bengali brahmins) and diversity compared to  other places like Steppe and central asia by wells et al. and others. The fact is underhill et al. And mirabal et al. Did not say anything but showed on R1a1 or R1a1*. Satyameva jayate.Nirjhara (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We went through similar discussions on the R1a article. Actually all the major and recent studies propose that R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) originated in South Asia. Since those studies came out, none are arguing the case for the steppes anymore. The only sources which argue this are weaker ones like the ISOGG website. The ISOGG is a great source for phylogenies, but not for summarizing research. I understand from them that they do not sweat much over the "commentary" underneath each phylogeny, and so they sometimes include comments from very old articles. Controversially, I argued that Klyosov's proposal of an origin close to China, published in the JOGG, should be mentioned as an outlier theory, but I guess it will be dropped one day unless new evidence backs it up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

yep and i am also waiting mate but 4 now R1a1 is surley bharatian.Nirjhara (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your wording is much stronger than articles like Underhill et al, who basically are saying they do not know where it originated, but that if they had to guess now they'd say somewhere near India. So please do not try to put such strong wording into Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is a large part of the problem I have with Nirjhara. Please, Nirjhara, don't make claims not explicitly backed by your sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, but authors need to b much brave to go against the "true" academics and to change it for truths sake! and stepanov et al. Is a roar from from the true lie.Nirjhara (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that is fine, but that is for another type of internet site, not this one. On this one we are making a tertiary source, not debating or reviewing. Both types of writing serve a positive purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

on ANI presence in subcontinent
Ancestral north indians are present here for 40,000ybp. Link: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes Nirjhara (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Suggested New Revisions of the Article in Question
I'll kickstart this discussion off by highlighting some of the offending passages of this article:

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. That is a lot of red. If you use a colour to make some parts more easy to notice you might want to avoid making everything red? Anyway, I also adjusted your table so that we can all see the two texts next to each other. Hope you do not mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * General suggestion: maybe there should be a new paragraph explaining this concept of ancestral populations a bit. It just suddenly appears right now, and is not explained. It is a concept which can be easily misunderstood. These are basically proposed reconstructions of populations, not populations which are known of in any other way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a bit too much red, so I cleaned it up. As for the ancestral populations, I'm thinking of combining those passages under the heading "Reconstructing Indian Population History". But more on this later. I'll also revise those passages which need revision.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to revise this article, taking your criticisms into consideration:

You might have to reformat this. My formatting is horrible. Anyway, here are the revisions. I added an additional section, "Ethno-racial composition of the modern Indian population" after "A Central Asian origin for South Asian Y-chromosomal lineages?" and combined the last passages into a single passage, "Reconstructing Indian Population History".

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, tables can be tricky. Try using the show preview button before you finally press save. On the other hand, you do not really need to use them. I only used them above because you were looking at very big blocks of text with changes scattered throughout, but a more conventional approach is to discuss section by section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe using tables is a much speedier method, no matter how inconvenient, rather than a more tedious section by section approach. BTW You never even commented on my proposed revisions of the text, nor suggested any room for improvement. So, I take it you agree with my second and final revision of the passages in question? Should we go ahead with the changes?

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I commented on the proposed revisions in the first table. See the third column. Concerning your new table, I would need to re-assemble it for you in order to even follow it, and I really have not had time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I also revised the passages, incorporating as much of your criticism as possible, if not all of it. In the new version, the first column is the original article and the second column contains the my second revision. There appears to be a third column for the final passage, but this is not the case. In this case, my formatting just sucks. But when you do re-organize the tables, be sure to edit out those parts you find cumbersome and/or objectionable. We'll go through the final version together.

Also keep in mind that I excluded those revisions you approved of, contained in the first table, from the second table. But in any re-organization of the tables, they should be included as well.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not try WP:BOLD and put it in. If someone reverts it no problem, as per WP:BRD. We will at least have something concrete to discuss and also the diff will make the changes easier to see.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're an administrator, right? You're going to have to unprotect the article so I can go in and edit it. Apparently, somebody named "Dreadstar" fully protected the article before going on vacation. Besides, the article is wildly inaccurate as is, it desperately needs to be fixed.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, I am not an admin. I had not realized about the locked status. Eventually someone will need to get this article un-locked, but I guess that doing it for a "bold" edit might not be the right way. Any chance you can get that table above easier to read so I and other editors can comment more easily on the proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Another shot
Yes, I'll give it another shot:

OK, I reformatted the article containing all of the proposed changes. It should be much easier to read now (hopefully). Also, is there anyway you can find an admin to unprotect the article in the meantime so we can go ahead with the changes? Feel free to further edit the passages in question, at your discretion of course.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is definitely an improvement, but you the very large section still contains too much debating commentary which would be more appropriate in a secondary style of publication whereas we are doing a tertiary encyclopedic account. You can also take it as given that if you put that in the article, reverts will restart. For example:-

I would remove those, and I don't think it would really hurt it? Concerning Y DNA, my own impulse is to suggest a table, listing some articles along one axis, and Y haplogroups along the other axis, and then in each cell placing a word representing the geographical origin of that Y haplogroup according to that article. That would quickly give readers a feeling for the spectrum of thought on this matter. I am not sure Y DNA deserves much more than this plus a bit of commentary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, it should be noted that Sengupta's main findings were based on the controversial and much criticised "Zhivotovsky method".
 * From a methodological point of view, one problem with the Sahoo study is that none of the STRs examined were typed, whether using either the evolutionary or genealogical method of microsatellite dating. This means that, based on Sahoo's data, whatever possible inferences can be made as to the actual time depth of these lineages are limited at best.
 * Hence, those who would deny that ethno-racial differences exist between Indo-Europeans and Dravidians do so for political reasons.

I removed the offending passages. That should make the article as neutral-sounding as possible. Also, are you suggesting that the section on Y-DNA lineages be shortened to a few sentences, such as: "The South Asian Y-chromosomal gene pool is characterized by five major lineages: R1a, R2, H, L and J2. R1a is of South Asian or Central Eurasian origin, R2 is of Central Asian origin, H and L are of South Asian origin and J2 is of Middle Eastern origin"? Then for each geographical location, maybe place a number of footnotes referring to representative articles in the bibliography. That might be more convenient, as there aren't many haplogroups, so to speak. But a table sounds good as well. I could do a 5 x 3 table, like this:

For the second column, maybe list researcher names, followed by footnotes. What do you think?


 * I was thinking more like this:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I imagine something along these lines should be good enough, preceded by the statement:"The South Asian Y-chromosomal gene pool is characterized by five major lineages: R1a, R2, H, L and J2".

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess we're ready to go and do some editing.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any other editors of this article who want to comment about the proposals? If not, I guess you'll need go find the blocking admin or someone to unblock it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

DEFINITE
To editors, there is no definite origin locus of R1a1 but likely or possible and Farmana DNA will solve it well.Nirjhara (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

thangaraj
Bodhidharma, please see the request of Nirjhara on my talkpage. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Give Thangarajs quote the justice
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes K.Thangaraj was a leading co-author of Reich et al. Study but his valuable comment is unfortunately not shown On G.A.S.A s Reich study section, so i request the editors to add his quoted comments which was published in The Times of India article i have linked.Nirjhara (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a newspaper article. Newspaper articles are not peer-reviewed scientific evidence and therefore have no place in that entry.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Newspaper articles about scientists are sometimes used to help explain a scientist's personal position, if it is notable. But the way to make sure this not mistaken for peer reviewed research is simply to say something like "in a newspaper interview Mr X said...". (Attribution.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper articles aren't considered good sources of information because they are known for twisting science, often in the name of selling more copies and sensationalism. Often, a newspaper will wildly exaggerate the claims of a study. That's why I don't think it belongs. We need hard evidence, not unsubstantiated opinion form tertiary sources.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Interviews with researchers by reasonable media are not tertiary sources are they? I agree that they are not "hard evidence" but it is also our aim to try to explain the implications of "hard evidence" and indeed one big complaint in Wikipedia about DNA articles is that they rely too much on primary sources (i.e. hard evidence). When we have secondary sources to explain what various interpretations and disagreements are around, we should use them as long as they are notable enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again its thangarajs remarks we are talking here not where its published if people think the thangaraj quotes were lie and got up then talk to the man himself and verify it, I think andrews suggestion on secondary sources is clinicall and should be performed.Nirjhara (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC) BTW 1.Is the approvation given to add Thangarajs quotes? 2. I urge any of the 2 of you to put it with a harmonic manner cause that will be karmic or else i will put it? Good times.Nirjhara (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

An obscure Third World publication like the Times of India is a reasonable media outlet? You do realize that the editorial board of the Times of India has been linked to pro-Hindu fundamentalist radicals in the past and quite possibly even now? And that they have repeatedly published fabricated news stories as recently as 2011? No, Andrew, the Times of India is not a legitimate source of information. I will not consent to having that cheap Third World gossip rag used as a source of evidence. If you're going to use a newspaper, at least find a better one.

If it is a source for anything, it's for lies and gross distortions of the truth. Go look it up for yourself.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only truth is you are afraid and not giving a scientists comment the place just because it does not hang with the baseless(sorry) academic theory which have nothing to do with texts,archaeology or genetics as there is no yes no... Direct reliable source which can be called scientific!.
 * But yes there are theories and stories and ideas which unfortunately have the support and recent researches to cover them intentionally but tell me is there any true evidence? If there give me and i will verify it for you bodhi, but please do not use offense such as third world, rag, cheap etc.

You are only afraid but give the scientists comment a place for truths sake.Nirjhara (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You still do not understand how Wikipedia works. We are not interested in your verifying anything, see WP:NOR, and this article should include what reliable sources say whether or not you agree with them (see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Having said that, you are right about Bodhidharma7's comments. If he dislikes the source he needs to take it to WP:RSN now as other editors disagree with him. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some remarks:-
 * Bodhidharma's remarks about India are very unhelpful in style.
 * Agree with Doug that if there is a serious proposal that the information in the Times of India is fraudulent, maybe we should go to NOR for discussion with a bigger group.
 * The opinions of Thangaraj are potentially relevant, because he is an expert, but they do not need to be cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article must be included, I would agree that it should not be cited in the main body of the text. It should probably be included as a link or left as an additional resource in the bibliography. I'd need to see the proposals for such a link first, preferably by Andrew. Otherwise, the Times of India is a potentially biased and controversial source of information. It's journalistic integrity has been seriously questioned in the past.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Nirjara should try writing a proposal here on the talkpage. It was not my idea, and until now I have tried to talk in terms of the principles involved. So we need to see a concrete proposal that has been carefully thought through to avoid looking like an attempt to push one side of an argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's see what he has to say first. Maybe we should mention something about the credibility of the Times of India in our proposed footnote?

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning your second sentence, if you have a good reliable source about the Times of India, that could be useful for our article on that subject, but not this article. See WP:SYNTH. Concerning this article we either consider it a reliable source or we do not, and we can go to WP:RSN if we need to check people's thinking about that. The obvious way we can be flexible is that we can decide to use attribution if we think a source is reliable but not very strong.
 * Also, as mentioned before, there is no need to include a proposed source just because it is from an RS. It should also be notable. (But as I have explained, the opinions of population geneticists can be handy, because they are commentary, i.e. WP:SECONDARY. But they can also be difficult to use in a balanced way I must say, because there are so few to use, and using one implies we should find a counter-balancing one?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a proposal first. The source isn't very strong and should definitely be relegated to a footnote or a link. As to finding another news article which counterbalances that one, the best I could find was this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090923143333.htm

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

neutrality
Dear fellow editors, in the tail end of the article it is said: "Furthermore, Reich observes: "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke 'Proto-Indo-European', which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture." Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3,500-1,200 years ago, which roughly corresponds with the proposed Indo-European expansion into the Indian subcontinent, emanating from the Kurgan cultures of the West Eurasian steppe." Now for more depth and neutral prospect the admixture paper of moorjani et al. clearly says "the admixture time is still unknown" so i say that to be included and it can be like this: "Furthermore, Reich observes: "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke 'Proto-Indo-European', which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture." Though the admixture time is still unknown a recent research have indicated a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3,500-1,200 years ago, which roughly corresponds with the proposed Indo-European expansions time frame into the Indian subcontinent, emanating from the Kurgan cultures of the West Eurasian steppe." what do you think? Nirjhara (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal makes no sense. The paper clearly means that, up until the moment of its publication, admixture time was unknown. However, this problem was solved by the study itself, which indicates that: Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) sense! Lets see. 1. The article tells about MAJOR ACCELERATION TIME of the ANI ASI mixture not the ORIGINAL!. As it says "however, the date of mixture still remains unknown" "remains" not "remained"!!! The word that would justify your saying pal. 2. The abstract also confirms " although our results do not rule other,older ANI-ASI admixture events"!!! Which again proves the exact mixture date is much old and they couldn't rule it but the acceleration yes ! Ok then? Nirjhara (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The date of mixture was unknown until the publication of the study. They then go on to provide a date of 1,200-3,500 years ago. The study clearly indicates that the majority of the admixture between ANI-ASI populations took place during "this formative period of Indian history" i.e. Aryan expansion into the subcontinent.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Wow! Thats great! But. 1. It is not the exact mixture time they talked they talked about the majority of admixture and that is totally different with the "older" and "other" coalescent time which they did not or couldnt "rule". 2. YES IT IS A FORMATIVE PERIOD OF HISTORY but for the making of current admixed population and the aryan migration theory has only 1 relation with it that is that its "speculated" time "overlapps" with the massive but not the first admixure event! Which as said at start "remains unknown". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirjhara (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, ANI-ASI admixture time is not unknown as the study provides a time frame for admixture occurrence. So what if there were previous admixture events prior to this? The study identifies a major admixture event that dates from 1,200-3,500 years ago, which corresponds with Aryan expansion into India. Now stop wasting my time.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bodhidharma, given the concerns on this point is there any chance are article is expressing more certainty about the accuracy of the dating estimates than the original article being cited? Just checking what you think. Remember that genetics is not ideal for Wikipedia because we rely quite often on giving our own summaries of individual articles. (There is very little specialized and up-to-date secondary literature.) And so we should always be careful about writing "strong" conclusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the dating estimate is just a rough time frame. However, I haven't really summarized anything. I've let the articles speak for themselves and taken together, they provide strong support for Aryan expansion. Therefore, it's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion reached by the study authors (as provided by direct quotations from the sources). Besides, it's hard to figure out what N. here wants anyway. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last sentence, but I am being a bit pro-active about being uncontroversial on points that can obviously cause controversy. Just saying something is a direct quote is not always the end of a discussion because as editors we have to make decisions on what, if anything to quote. Some article contain "extreme" sentences as well as more detailed discussions which show that the authors have doubts. So in such cases it is never a good idea to use the strongest sentences. That is indeed why WP prefers that we use secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I'm really at a loss for words as to what is needed here. The Reich study is a major, ground-breaking study which uses hundreds of thousands of autosomal markers in its population analysis. It surely must be included, even if some people find its conclusions to be uncomfortable, even embarrassing. And besides, I believe that most autosomal research is leaning in the direction of Aryan expansion anyway, which is significant, especially if one considers the fact that autosomal polymorphisms represent the average population history of the genome, as opposed to uniparental markers, which do not. Besides, are you suggesting that I use population genetic textbooks instead?  --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, speaking of secondary sources, you might find this interesting, Andrew. I found this recent review of the literature on Indian population genetics, which was published in 2010. It discusses the Reich study of 2009 (referenced as footnote [33]) and comes to the conclusion that the paper (in terms of its overall findings) does indeed present evidence in support of Aryan expansion into the subcontinent:

Central Asian populations are supposed to have been major contributors to the Indian gene pool, particularly to the northern Indian gene pool, and the migrants had supposedly moved into India through what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using mitochondrial DNA variation data collated from various studies, we have shown [17] that populations of Central Asia and Pakistan show the lowest coefficient of genetic differentiation with the north Indian populations (FST = 0.017), a higher differentiation (FST = 0.042) with the south Indian populations, and the highest (FST = 0.047) with the northeast Indian populations. Northern Indian populations are genetically closer to Central Asians than populations of other geographical regions of India [17] and [23]. '''Consistent with the above findings, a recent study [33] using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers has found a north to south gradient of genetic proximity of Indian populations to western Eurasians. This feature is likely related to the proportions of ancestry derived from the western Eurasian gene pool, which, as this study has shown, is greater in populations inhabiting northern India than those inhabiting southern India.''' In general, the Central Asian populations are genetically closer to the higher-ranking caste populations than to the middle- or lower-ranking caste populations [17] and [23]. Among the higher-ranking caste populations, those of northern India are, however, genetically much closer (FST = 0.016) than those of southern India (FST = 0.031). Phylogenetic analysis of Y-chromosomal data collated from various sources yielded a similar picture [17]. '''Higher-ranking caste populations have been the torch-bearers of the Hindu caste system that was formalized by the Indo-European immigrants. It is likely, therefore, that there was a greater proportion of admixture between higher-ranking caste populations and Indo-Europeans. The fact that high-ranked caste populations inhabiting southern India do not exhibit as much affinity with central Asian populations as those of northern India may be explained by the recent finding [33] that the south Indian, Dravidian speaking, populations may have admixed with north Indian populations bearing ancestral signatures of the western Eurasian gene pool more recently.'''

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209020685#bbib33http: The Human Genetic History of South Asia by Partha P. Majumder

So, in light of the aforementioned evidence, I'm not really sure what the problem is. Even in the secondary literature, the Reich paper is taken as evidence of the Aryan migration into India. It has nothing to do with "extreme" statements or vacillating, ponderous discussion, just the main findings of the study, nothing more, nothing less. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not saying we should use genetics textbooks and not use Reich. I am saying the opposite. Please look again. My only point is that because we are forced to use primary articles like Reich we should be careful not to choose the most extreme and eye catching sentences, if, as is often the case, these sentences are not perfectly consistent with everything in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your concerns are duly noted. However, I must point out - for the second time, I might add - that this should not be a problem for the Reich paper, which provides a significant amount of evidence in favor of the Aryan expansion into India. In fact, evidence frequently used in support of IE migration is mentioned in the abstract: By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. This finding is again emphatically restated toward the end of the paper: We also find significantly more ANI ancestry in traditionally upper than lower or middle caste groups (P = 0.0025) and find that traditional caste level is significantly correlated to ANI ancestry even after controlling for language (P = 0.0048), suggesting a relationship between the history of caste formation in India and ANI-ASI mixture. How is any of this inconsistent with Reich's cautious endorsement of Aryan expansion into the subcontinent? Also, the final statement previously quoted is especially significant, as the vast majority of anthropologists and linguists date the origins of the caste system in India to some time after 3,500 BC, with the arrival of Aryan migrants from eastern Europe to the subcontinent. Again, these are not "extreme" statements, as the entire paper leans in favor of Aryan expansion, albeit tentatively. Furthermore, and ironically enough, you expressed a preference for secondary sources. I demonstrated, by citing Majumder's 2010 meta-analysis of Indian population genetic data, that these sources interpret the Reich paper as evidence supporting the Aryan colonization of India.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

neutrality II
B said "So what if there were previous admixture events prior to this? The study identifies a major admixture event that dates from 1,200-3,500 years ago, which corresponds with Aryan expansion into India. Now stop wasting my time." thanks for confessing there were ANI ASI mixtures before the time of 1500 b.c. And thats where the words of the study in present tense here:          "However, the date of mixture still remains unknown" is vital!!! As Indo-aryan migration have no actual base but a speculated time frame! But again as we see from the paper and at last B the time frame of 3500-1200 ybp. Is the major admixture time and IT CAN HAPPEN EASILY STAYING AT A COMMON LOCUS! and it has nothing to do with the "OLDER" and COALESCENT one which is more likely to reflect any "migration" so ANDREW i ask can the sentence of the paper " the date of mixture ((still)) remains unknown" be used or not!! Nirjhara (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I can't believe you started a new section so you can waste my time and Andrew's by mindlessly repeating yourself over and over again. If you can't understand that the admixture date was unknown until the publication of the study, then you really are a lost cause. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am asking andrew not you.Nirjhara (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and as a fellow Wikipedian, you're also asking me and I'm telling you to stop repeating yourself. It's annoying. Stop doing it.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Bodhidharma about the style issue, and indeed this is something you can read at WP:TALK. Please:-
 * Do not "shout" by using capitals.
 * Do not keep starting new sections which break up what is essentially one conversation. (And in general please make discussion easier if you can. Try to put your points in a simple and short statement, which "boring" standard talkpage formatting.)
 * Do not tell fellow Wikipedians that their opinion is not welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

so you are saying what is said for the paper is accurate? Look i am not a person of my own opinion but i trust to give the most baseful thought on a matter, so if somone is trying to prove some thing i first judge the base of his proposal and if i find that its used by "one eyed" interpretations then its bound to have problems with me, look i am saying it clearly as a wikipedian i try to give the exact fact not facts made of theories which are baseless! I am not a man of Out of india theory, Indo-aryan migration theory but facts sorrounded by them that should be the highest point of making a scientific article, yes there are rules but if rules hind facts to be given then its unjustice. P.s. There are clear indications in the moorjani et al. Paper that should be mentioned for facts stake. Thank you.Nirjhara (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Andrew please just say whether the use of the paper is accurate with neutrality or "one eyed".Nirjhara (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not our purpose here to decide if these articles are right or wrong. They certainly aren't so bad that we can ignore them. Trying to convince people to work differently is just going to keep going in circles. Please just make short clear practical suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks that you replied, to be practical as you said now I am making an edit and I want ONLY YOU to judge whether that goes to the paper or not or to be deleted.Nirjhara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Stop inserting your opinions into the article without reaching a consensus. Nobody cares about your personal opinions, this is about what the evidence says. The next edit you make will be reverted immediately. BTW, any request made to Andrew is a request made to me, so just stop it. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did it for Andrew to judge it and "'andrew haven't said yet whose edit is right"' and i am also a wikipedian so if you please let him do it, cause his vote will go with majority and none of our opinion will matter.Nirjhara (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nirjhara, I have been happy to try to help you guys develop compromises, and I am that you both think it can helpful, but the aim is surely that you then work together and not that I work continuously as a judge. I do not have time, and that is also not a sustainable model of how to work here. Wikipedia works by volunteers finding compromises and looking at the sources together. If you are refusing to do this, then my moderation can't work anyway. My understanding of a lot of these discussions is that you both know enough about the subject matter and how Wikipedia works that you can find the right wording without me if you want to? The papers in this field really are not all that controversial. Just report what they say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Truthful aspect on autosomal "evidence"
1. AUTOSOMES CAN ONLY SHOW AFFINITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT POPULATIONS BUT NOT THE COALESCENT TIME. 2. JUST BECAUSE NORTH INDIAN CASTES HAVE CLOSEST AFFINITY TO CENTRAL ASIAN AND OTHER EURASIAN POPULATIONS IT PROVES NO MIGRATION BUT RELATION WHICH CAN BE ARCHAIC AND ITS INTERPRETATION CAN HEAVILY RELY ON AUTHOR OR VIEWERS EXPLAINATION TO THE RELATION. 3. SOUTH INDIAN POPULATIONS SHOW LESS AFFINITY TO N.I. AND OTHERS WHICH IS OBVIOUS AS THEIR TERRITORY IS ALWAYS THE SOUTH AND THEY MERELY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO IN THE NORTH SECTOR. FOR INFORMATIONS CONCERN KENNETH KENNEDY( correct spelling can vary) HAVE SHOWN IVC SKELETONS TO BE CAUCASIAN RATHER THAN LIKELY MONGOLOID OR NEGROID! A FACT WHICH AGAIN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY THEORITICAL MIGRATION. Thank you. Nirjhara (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is how the expert sources interpret the data. Wikipedians are editors who collect the information about what published sources say. We should not spend too much time debating our own opinions, and we should not be trying to get Wikipedia to agree with our opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right but we should be having the credibility to jude the "interpretations" and there "bases" for a spot-on mentioning for the article and its readers sake and above all the most evident truth, i think if we are editing an article then we must have the right and logic to do so. Nirjhara (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is what Wikipedia is for. No-one is saying you should stop having opinions, arguing, etc. But it is not what you should be doing while working on Wikipedia. Also please do consider the repeated requests to stop making new sections about the same points. If you make clear practical suggestions, as you have already seen before, then these can be discussed rather quickly and will often lead to good compromises.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok let straight be to the point. 1.You are mistaking,The article is not "wrong" but its "use". 2. The article mentions first/original ANI ASI admixture to be prior to the major 3500-1200 ybp one an i just want that to be clearly mentioned so i give the proposal below.Nirjhara (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A request 3
So what is the judgement?Nirjhara (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you even paying attention? You keep doing the same thing over and over again i.e. starting new sections, ignoring evidence, repeating the same request ad nauseam, asking for Andrew's opinion to the exclusion of everyone else etc. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well pal i am just putting the matter via a chart as it is scientific and quick. BTW1. which evidence i am ignoring? 2. I dont see any other putting view on the papers use than three of us. 3. Did you created the paper or there is no mention of prior (i.e. First) admixture between ANI ASI Which i want to be mentioned as a fact and a truthful approach??Nirjhara (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I am happy to see a clear question. Please either of you advise what is the "recent research" being mentioned in both versions. Anyone reading this last sentence in both versions is going to be wondering what it is supposed to really reflect in the literature. It looks like WP:SYNTH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

yeah! it is the moorjani et al. Paper which also mentions existence of Prior or first ANI ASI mixtures which bodhi is ignoring cause it will hurt his beloved theory, so the fact is remaining hindered.Nirjhara (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Moorjani paper discussed in another part of the article? Of course we can talk about the Moorjani article, but by mixing in this sentence under the discussion about Reich it looks like Reich et al said this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No Andrew, the article was also co-authored by Reich, so it fits perfectly. This is just more of N.'s obfuscation, as usual.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

again if this section exceeds 5000 words then i have to create a nother section as my device cant take more. Andrew i cant believe you werent able to find it that its just a part of the whole section! Bodhi be polite (if you can). And some one please tell me how is this helping on the proposal i made to mention a fact on a certain admixture??Nirjhara (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bodhidharma, I am not saying the two articles are inconsistent with one another but they are currently being discussed separately, bceause they deal with different types of evidence. The current wording is blurring the line between them in order to sythesize an impression which goes a little beyond what the article under discussion really says. To say the very least it is definitely not on to just say "research indicates" and not say which recent research.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the ref given is just a link to a conference website. Not good enough. In general I reckon bother editors who are interested in this subject could easily improve their own quality of not only the article, but also talkpage discussion, in one very uncontroversial way: tidy up the references according to Wikipedia standards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, both articles definitely complement each other, as the first article leaned in the direction of Aryan migration to the subcontinent, but posited some uncertainty because of lack of admixture time, whereas the second article does provide an admixture time which corresponds with the usual date proposed for the Aryan colonization of India. There's no synthesis going on here, Andrew, of that you can rest assured, just verbatim reportage of the facts. Also, I agree that the authors of the second paper should be mentioned by name, along the lines of Moorjani et al. (2011) with Reich as a co-author.

Here's a direct link to the abstract, which is certainly much better than the previous reference provided: http://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/showdetail.pl?absno=20758

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So I strongly suggest that we start by at least separating out this sentence and mentioning who the authors were etc, not blurring it together with comments about a different study.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of: In a recent follow-up study co-authored by Reich (2011), a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations some 3,500-1,200 years ago was detected, which roughly corresponds with the proposed Indo-European expansion into the Indian subcontinent, emanating from the Kurgan cultures of the West Eurasian steppe.

This sentence should maybe form its own paragraph.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have broken this out into a new paragraph, but it is still not clear (it almost looks deliberately unclear) which article is being referred to as a "follow up" of Reich et al. There is an article now linked to in a footnote, but that is only to an abstract for a presentation, so it is not yet a published article? Please confirm if this presentation has gone beyond this stage yet. And anyway it is not obviously a "follow up" and I do not think that describing it that way is neutral? Does it describe itself as a follow up? I think this paragraph should stand on its own and treat a seperate report as a seperate report. The next concern is the possible synthesis whereby you are linking the age estimation to a timing concerning languages. Such a link goes beyond what is obvious, so is that link made explicitly in the source or not? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I struck the last concern. I see it in the abstract. I have simplified the sentence in the article now, which also removes my first concern. I still do not think it is ideal that we are citing an abstract of a session. I hope it will be published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you wanted the study authors mentioned? At any rate, I considered the study a follow-up because the first study wanted to connect the ANI with the Proto-Indo-Europeans but was uncertain because they didn't have an admixture estimate, whereas the second soon-to-be published study does provide an ANI-ASI admixture estimate, which corroborates IE expansion into the subcontinent. It is obvious that both studies are intimately connected; as well, both studies were co-authored by Reich.

As for the abstract, it does exist in PDF form (on P2-77), courtesy of the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution (SMBE):

http://smbe2011.com/abstracts/SMBE_Poster-Abstracts_July28.pdf

Anyway, the changes are satisfactory for now, such as they are.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but it would be better if this paper gets fully published. Keep an eye out? I wonder what Nirjhara thinks?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for this one. However, it seems the general consensus that the Reich study does support a recent IE colonization of the subcontinent. You might find this interesting, although I merely glanced at the paper, from Ghirotto et al. (2011):

It is generally believed that the first Indo-European speakers from West Eurasia entered India in a recent wave of migration from the Northwest and spread in the subcontinent, mixing with indigenous Dravidian speaking people. They established the hierarchical Hindu caste system and supposedly placed themselves in castes of higher rank (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Studying a non-tribal population from Andrha Pradesh, in Southern India, Bamshad et al. (2001) found that indeed the genetic affinity between Europeans and Indians is proportional to the caste rank. Individual belonging to upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Moreover, a large-scale study of Y-SNPs (from 508 tribal samples and 901 caste samples) showed that lower castes are more similar to the tribal group than to the upper caste populations (Thanseem et al. 2006). For these reasons, we selected from the populations typed by Reich et al. (2009) and Xing et al. (2009) only populations who are considered to be the descendants of the earliest settlers of the continent, excluding Indo-European speakers and the upper castes (Bamshad et al. 2001).

http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1538-file_it-Ghirotto%20HB.pdf

Another alternative would be to combine this with the 2008 Watkins study of Indian autosomal SNPs, which also confirms the findings of the Reich study, in addition to providing an IE expansion date of around 3,500 BC.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of "combining" what we say about papers, maybe just summarize what each paper found, case by case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, the article is good enough as it stands. We should just make alterations to it now and then when new information is uncovered.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A request 3: chapter 2
Oh my god are we going to discuss about putting exact approach on the Admixture or talk about why some one didnt mentioned the papers of the sentences? . This sentences are the main issue. 1.  However, the date of mixture still remains unknown. 2. Although our results do not rule other,older ANI ASI admixture events. See them yourself http://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/showdetail.pl?absno=20758 and Just say my proposal is valid or not and i am not protesting a theory but just trying to put some facts. Gd tms. Nirjhara (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension issue, not a sensible proposal.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Dear bodhi, just give a scope to mention that the 3500-1200 b.p admixture was not the first one but the major which surely goes with the theory's time and that is the fact isn't it mate?.gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Come back with a sensible proposal and stop wasting my time.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if i am "wasting" the time but just asking to mention. 1. 3500-1200 ybp mixture is not the first admixture as said on the paper not by me. 2. Add links to other related wikis as i have proposed on the first part of this section. so have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Only one admixture event is mentioned here, the Aryan conquest of India. This is becoming tedious. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh absolutely:-) and this sentence:Although our results do not rule other,older ANI ASI admixture events is a page error right? Gd tms mate.Nirjhara (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's just idle speculation which may or may not be true. It has nothing to do with the fact that only one major admixture event has been identified with any degree of certainty, that associated with the Aryan colonization of India. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"That's just idle speculation which may or may not be true" 1. Are you to decide that or the scientists as they have clearly mentioned it? 2. "Invasion" "Aryan colonization" where from this 100ybp racial words are coming? Not the references i imagine. Please be neutral we are not here to quarrel.Nirjhara (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nirjhara, what do you think of the current version in the article which is now dominated by a direct quote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking truth i am very happy with the current truthful and neutral status of the article and the newest AJHG paper have proven what other papers just "indicated" and they did it so weakly that the indications almost had no gravity at all! which also made my proposals about ANI's presence in the subcontinent difficult to succeed but at the last i can say "all is well when it ends well". Everyone have a great 366 days of 2012. Nirjhara (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Another addition to the reconstructing Indian population section
Andrew, I was thinking about including the 2008 Watkins study, as it is a major autosomal study the results of which are confirmed by Reich. Maybe something along the lines of:

These recent findings by Reich (2009, 2011) confirm previous research based on autosomal polymorphisms conducted by Watkins et al. (2008):"The historical record documents an influx of Vedic Indo-European-speaking immigrants into northwest India starting at least 3500 years ago. These immigrants spread southward and eastward into an existing agrarian society dominated by Dravidian speakers. With time, a more highly-structured patriarchal caste system developed. India is now broadly characterized by Indo-European (e.g. Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi) speaking populations found in the central and northern regions and by Dravidian (e.g. Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada) speaking populations in the southern and southeastern regions. ... Although other interpretations may be possible, our data are consistent with a model in which nomadic populations from northwest and central Eurasia intercalated over millennia into an already complex, genetically diverse set of subcontinental populations. As these populations grew, mixed, and expanded, a system of social stratification likely developed in situ, spreading to the Indo-Gangetic plain, and then southward over the Deccan plateau. A strong patrilineal social structure, accompanied by a developing practice of caste endogamy, may have contributed to an asymmetric apportioning of Y-chromosome, autosomal, and to a lesser extent, mtDNA lineages."

Genetic variation in South Indian castes: evidence from Y-chromosome, mitochondrial, and autosomal polymorphisms

I think this addition would round out the section rather quite nicely, as both are recent autosomal studies. Tell me what you think.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding more information from good sources should be fine. My main concern, and I am playing the role requested of me here of trying to say what Wikipedia editors in general expect, is that we should avoid synthesis. So instead of saying "findings from article X confirm findings from article Y" if you that might be controversial, try saying "Similarly, article Y states...". Do you see the subtle difference? By the way as it is a subtle difference feel free to ask more opinions. I am not sure if Doug is still watching this page as I think he was taking a well deserved break.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to add this passage, incorporating your suggestion of course. Although, I do think both studies reach similar conclusions, which does go to show that there is some consensus on the interpretation of South Asian autosomal DNA. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think we should conclude with this recent 2010 quote from Majumder who argues that concerning IE expansion, the Reich study is in remarkable agreement with mtDNA and Y-DNA. Maybe something like this, perhaps:

Furthermore, it should be noted that the geneticist PP Majumder (2010) has recently argued that the findings of Reich et al. (2009) concerning Indo-Aryan expansion into the Indian subcontinent are in remarkable concordance with previous research using mtDNA and Y-DNA:

Within India, consistent with social history, extant populations inhabiting northern regions show closer affinities with Indo-European speaking populations of central Asia that those inhabiting southern regions. Extant southern Indian populations may have been derived from early colonizers arriving from Africa along the southern exit route. The higher-ranked caste populations, who were the torch-bearers of Hindu rituals, show closer affinities with central Asian, Indo-European speaking, populations. ...

Central Asian populations are supposed to have been major contributors to the Indian gene pool, particularly to the northern Indian gene pool, and the migrants had supposedly moved into India through what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Using mitochondrial DNA variation data collated from various studies, we have shown that populations of Central Asia and Pakistan show the lowest coefficient of genetic differentiation with the north Indian populations (FST = 0.017), a higher differentiation (FST = 0.042) with the south Indian populations, and the highest (FST = 0.047) with the northeast Indian populations. Northern Indian populations are genetically closer to Central Asians than populations of other geographical regions of India... . Consistent with the above findings, a recent study using over 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers has found a north to south gradient of genetic proximity of Indian populations to western Eurasians. This feature is likely related to the proportions of ancestry derived from the western Eurasian gene pool, which, as this study has shown, is greater in populations inhabiting northern India than those inhabiting southern India. In general, the Central Asian populations are genetically closer to the higher-ranking caste populations than to the middle- or lower-ranking caste populations... . Among the higher-ranking caste populations, those of northern India are, however, genetically much closer (FST = 0.016) than those of southern India (FST = 0.031). Phylogenetic analysis of Y-chromosomal data collated from various sources yielded a similar picture. Higher-ranking caste populations have been the torch-bearers of the Hindu caste system that was formalized by the Indo-European immigrants. It is likely, therefore, that there was a greater proportion of admixture between higher-ranking caste populations and Indo-Europeans. The fact that high-ranked caste populations inhabiting southern India do not exhibit as much affinity with central Asian populations as those of northern India may be explained by the recent finding that the south Indian, Dravidian speaking, populations may have admixed with north Indian populations bearing ancestral signatures of the western Eurasian gene pool more recently.

The Human Genetic History of South Asia

I'm going to add it anyway, because I know you don't mind the addition of material from good sources. You can revise it to your liking when you get back. I also fine-tuned the section a little bit as well.--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)