Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia

Comment
This page contains misleading information. It is based on linguistic values of the Dravidian, Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, not the genetics. Genetics are not based on language. Tamilan101 | talk 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it "misleading"? To prove or (to disprove) that "genetics are not based on language", you'll have to actually do this kind of analysis.
 * By the way, if you have actually read the article, you might have noticed, it also includes other groupings, such as caste (e.g. "India's Lower Castes") and regions ("India (East)"). utcursch | talk 08:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming proposal
Interested/knowledgeable parties, please see Talk:Y-chromosome haplogroups by populations for a renaming proposal that would affect this article and 10 others. Please comment over there to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Y-DNA haplogroups in South Asian populations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130615030452/http://dna.xyvy.info to http://dna.xyvy.info

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Initial alphabetical sort
Fylindfotberserk: according to WP:Sort, Initial alphabetical sort is the preferred way of sorting. The other articles about Y-DNA haplogroups lists do the same. A145029 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC) --- Now coming to my points:- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Europe
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Near East
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Sub-Saharan Africa
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of East and Southeast Asia
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Oceania
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Central and North Asia
 * WP:SORT didn't say anything about any "preferred way". Tables can also be sorted with numeric and hidden keys. Check here how table has been sorted as per BC/AD Help:Sorting.
 * The other articles about Y-DNA haplogroups lists do the same - None of these articles are sorted alphabetically except for the first few rows in each. A gentle click to the "arrow" mark near the "Populations" would show you.
 * 1) Unlike other regions of the world, South Asians have much more complex social stratification. So while you have only "ethnolinguistic groups" in case of others, Papers on South Asians have listed various things like Castes, Tribes, Hindus, Muslims, Punjabi, Tamil, Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Regions, States, Districts, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and what not. How is it reasonable to sort alphabetically e.g. Bhumij(an AustroAsiatic tribe), West Bengal Brahmins(a caste), Sindh(a province), Punjabis(an ethnicity), India(West)(a loosely defined zone), Indo Aryan Low Caste, Pakistan(country) when all these groupings are uneven. We can build complex tables or multiple tables, but it would only make our work cumbersome and future edits difficult.
 * 2) It is extremely tedious to put "Populations" Manually Alphabetically into table down to the last alphabet especially if the "Referenced Scholarly Article" has high number of Sampled groups and most of the time, the papers don't arrange sampled groups alphabetically in their tables. It is much easier to put them as is and can also be cross verified with the source easily at a later time if somebody suspects a mistake.
 * 3) Sometimes there can be cases venturing into WP:OR as well. For example, if sorted alphabetically (ascending), the first one comes up as Andhra Pradesh Tribals. Point is, the article specifically mentions the group as "T-AP" in the table which means Tribals Andhra Pradesh. So if name be changed, it would go further down. Not to mention, the name itself is dubious. There is no ethnic tribe known as Andhra Pradesh Tribals/ Tribals of Andhra Pradesh. Another case is with West Bengalis. It is obvious that the population referred to is Bengalis from West Bengal, but for the sake of WP:NOR, I kept it as West Bengalis. If someone wants to see Bengalis and check for 'B' around the top, they'll only see the Bangladeshi ones not the West Bengal Bengalis.
 * 4) Manual sorting based on "research-month-year" of publication is easier to put new research data into(based on year), easier to put whole tables almost as it is from the published sources, easier to put missed data into as it is(based on research) and is easier for forum users and bloggers to refer to this article if it is based on month/year.
 * 5) The table is sortable, alphabetic sorting is just one click away. There is no need to make it permanent when it has all the problems I listed above.
 * You have made some interesting points. But as far as I can see, all the other articles have alphabetic sort from start to finish. In the article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group the Kosovo Albanians are mentioned at the start with other Albanians instead of being listed with other ethnicities starting with K. So the same could be done with West Bengalis in this article. That would be an advantage over clicking on Population to sort it alphabetically. A145029 (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't agree that editing with initial alphabetic sort is extremely hard. Furthermore, it is just as hard for editors and cross-verifying of the other articles. But initial alphabetic sort seems to be the standard that is followed everywhere else as it is beneficial to readers. A145029 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

- Not to sound too much insistent, but the populations are not sorted strictly in those other tables. E.g. in Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus if you click to sort, you can see in Rows numbering 4-12 the positions change quite a bit as per the bracketed"" word next to the population name. Similarly for Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Europe, check from Rows 3-17. Those were just from the top, there are many more down there. It just proves how complicated actually the task is. Secondly, I seriously doubt the credibility of these other tables to be taken as a standard for our article. There are many rows in those which don't add upto 100% frequency, unlike ours . There is no subsequent sorting done on individual entries after primary sorting is done for multiple entries of a "specific population". Last but not the least, if you sort Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group table by Population, you will get 7 entries of by the name Population.
 * Moving West Bengalis to the top or writing them as Bengalis (West Bengal) (India) or whether it is Andhra Pradesh Tribals or Tribals of Andhra Pradesh are just the tip of the iceberg. There are much bigger problems:


 * As I've already said, all the other tables have only one variable ie "Ethnoliguistic groups", but here we have Castes, Ethnicity, Regions, Countries, Provinces, Tribes, Linguistics and most of the time published articles are not specific about them. A Caste is a subset of an Ethnicity. Ethnicity is a subset of Linguistic groups, States and so on. When we talk about Punjabis, Bengalis, Maithilis, Kashmiris, etc, Countries get involved as well. Ethically, we are suppose to take all these things into consideration and make Complex Tables or Multiple articles(which will get requests to be merged in no time).
 * Secondly, there's a lot of ambiguity in some sources. E.g Maharashtra Brahmins, Andhra Tribals, Gujarat Brahmins are ambiguous groups. We don't know if the Maharashtra Brahmins in question are Konkonastha or Deshastha or something else or mix of all. Same in the case of Gujarati Brahmins who could be Nagar Brahmins, Modh Brahmins or something else. Andhra Tribals might be anything from AA speakers to Dravidian Chenchus.
 * So when there's so much complication and ambiguity, why not we make it "Less Hassling" and sort it as it is based on research month/year. The cons simply outweigh the pros if we sort alphabetically when it is a mere click away and anybody could do it.

We should not forget that in future many more entries would be made and not all of the users will be that meticulous and/or sympathetic to South Asian societal intricacies.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Europe, Middle East, Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa etc all have just as complex ethnic divisions as South Asia. When we talk about about Jews, Roma, etc. multiple countries get involved. Copts and South African Whites are more ambiguous than groups like Gujarati Brahmins. I don't get how South Asian ethnic divisions complexity supports your points, but it anyways is not any more complex than compared to the rest of the world, and still all those articles have initial alphabetic sort. A145029 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how it can be beneficial to a reader if it was sorted by article month/year. On the other hand, initial alphabetic sort makes it easier to navigate (i) if the reader doesn't know to sort manually (ii) even if the reader can sort manually, still groups like Bengalis would not appear together because some of them are labeled as West Bengalis, but in initial alphabetic sort they can be put together initially - the second point is a major benefit, because this article has such groups throughout the article, for example Indian Shia vs Iranian Shia vs Shia, Madhya Pradesh Gonds (India) vs Uttar Pradesh (South) Gonds (India), Gujarat Bhils, Sunni vs Indian Sunnis, and maybe all the Brahmins should also be put together. A145029 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no logic comparing South African Whites to Gujarati Brahmins. First one is a demonym of foreign people settling in Africa. White South Africans have developed nationhood ie they consider themselves to be an separate ethnicity. It is comparable to groups like African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Anglo-Indians. Gujarati Brahmins, Maharashtra Brahmins on the other hand are castes within ethnic groups. But the complexity in this context is with their sub-castes. E.g. in Kivisild et al and Sengupta et al, Konkonastha Brahmins, which is a Mararashtra Brahmin subcaste, is mentioned while in Sharma et al we have an ambiguous Maharashtra Brahmin. Likewise the Gujarati Brahmin, Andhra Pradesh Tribals and many more are ambiguous in nature. It is important because researches sometimes are revised and they sometimes refer to older papers. What if the name of sample population change in the new edition?

Don't want to be redundant. I've been explaining all these things again and again. Everybody knows that South Asians have a very stratified complex society which the other modern groups lack. It is one of the main reasons why geneticist worldwide are interested in this part of the world and if you've gone through various researches, you'll find many papers talking about this peculiarity among South Asians. All these non-South Asian Groups at most overlap between countries e.g Arabs, Jews. Reiterating again, South Asians have Castes, Religions, Tribes that come within an Ethno-linguistic group which in turn come under major linguistic groups. Either you do it Properly, i.e. sort according to country>>region>>ethnicity>>caste>>subcaste into Multiple smaller tables or a Large Complex Table similar to this:- or sort as per month/year of publication and add the data "as it is". Note that it would be tougher to enter data and sort a complex table. Doesn't look alphabetical sort to me. If we bring the ethnic/caste/religios group to the front and move 'region/state/country' to the back, it will be WP:OR and someone might point that in future and edit it. So it is better to sort, put data as per month/year which is the only thing explicit. I seriously don't understand why you would like to stick to alphabetic sort despite so much problems I've pointed. Just because the other articles are like that even though they are not strictly alphabetically sorted? Not to mention there is No-Rule on preferred way of sorting. There are many article in Wikipedia which are not sorted alphabetically : this for example or tables in this. These have other rows as sortable. If you wish we can add a Time of Publication as the first column, then sort. I've added a note saying that on the article.
 * On the other hand, initial alphabetic sort makes it easier to navigate (i) if the reader doesn't know to sort manually - What's Easier than clicking an arrow in a "Sortable Table"? I think you got confused. Manual sorting is the sorting we do by editing. Automatic sorting is what a reader would do by clicking on the arrows adjacent to various column heads. Do you think a reader who's looking for Y-DNAs will be "unintelligent" enough to not understand how to sort according to his/her needs?
 * the second point is a major benefit, because this article has such groups throughout the article, for example Indian Shia vs Iranian Shia vs Shia, Madhya Pradesh Gonds (India) vs Uttar Pradesh (South) Gonds (India), Gujarat Bhils, Sunni vs Indian Sunnis, - This is what a table based on your suggestion would look like if we club together groups. I've added Balochi and Hazaras as well.
 * maybe all the Brahmins should also be put together - Apart from obvious problems as above, it might start other things. Wikipedia is not exempt from SJW type people. Me and few others had added genetic data in some Brahmin pages and Indo-Aryan page in 2010s. There had been heated arguments on how the 'Brahmins are putting everybody down using genetics', all the way to Brahmin hegemony and groupism, etc. So not a good idea.
 * still all those articles have initial alphabetic sort - Check my previous post. I've given examples in bold that many rows are not sorted strictly in those articles.

Look, there are hundreds of research data on South Asians which would be far easier/ less time consuming to add into the table and cross-verified if we don't include unnecessary hassles like manual sort editing. That's future proofing.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we're unable to reach an agreement I'm taking this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. A145029 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Sort Order

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the initial sort order be alphabetical, or by date of publication of the study? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Please provide your !votes in the Survey. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Alphabetic - that seems the more common approach in general for Haplogroup lists, judging by the ISOGG and the Illinois.edu examples seen, and just a general preference for lists in Alphabetic order. The Notable people list was in no apparent ordering.  With MOS:TABLES a sortable table the order can be viewed in either way -- but I think alphabetic to start.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alphabetic seems most sensible to me. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alphabetic is a fine default condition for a sortable table; without prejudice to other sorting arrangements the table might offer for readers wanting to interface beyond the default state.--John Cline (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
, It seems people here are voting in favor of alphabetical sort without explaining much about the pros of it or the cons of the other sorting order proposed i.e. Time of Publication, the pros of which I've explained in the above section.

Anyway, I am not against Alphabetical Sort and if researches on South Asian populations had been based on ethnicity only like other geographical groups around the world, there wouldn't have been any dispute. But the researches in this case are based both on ethnicities and castes/clans(which are subsets of an ethnicity). My primary concern was that if we sort a single column called "Population", it will bring ethnicities and castes together which might confuse readers ignorant of South Asian societal norms. For example, "populations" like "Punjabis" and "Punjabi Brahmins" when together under a single column might look like two different populations when in reality the latter is a subset of the former ethnicity.

To address this issue, we need to build a table with few extra columns like Country, Linguistic group, Caste/Subgroup like this one. I have explained this on the WP:DRN as my middle ground and the filing editor A145029 has agreed on it here. Below is an example of a Table Alphabetically sorted with only the extra columns:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style='text-align: center;

! Country ! Ethnic group/Region ! Caste/Sub-group ! Afghanistan ! Afghanistan ! Bangladesh ! India ! India ! India ! Pakistan ! Pakistan ! Sri Lanka Since both users are in agreement with the "middle ground", will it be necessary for the RFC to go on? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Baloch
 * Pashtun
 * Bengali
 * Marathi
 * Marathi Brahmin
 * Tamil
 * Tamil Brahmin
 * Uttar Pradesh
 * Uttar Pradesh Kol
 * Punjabi
 * Sindhi
 * Sinhalese
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * User:Fylindfotberserk - What is the "middle ground"?
 * An RFC normally runs for 30 days. It appears that the original dispute was that you wanted the list sorted by publication date, and that for other regions the list is sorted by population.  It appears that consensus is going against you.  So the real question is whether you can agree to closing the RFC as withdrawn and accept the consensus or whether to let the RFC run.  What are you asking, anyway?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained what the "middle ground" is in my previous post. If you remember, I've explained that before in the WP:DRN as well when you asked "if there is a middle ground". I don't get it. Aren't the volunteers and voters in DRN and RfC suppose to have proper knowledge of the dispute iself before they try solving it? Reiterating again, the "middle ground" I suggested was to alphabetically sort the table based columns - 'Country, Ethnic group, Caste/Subgroup' instead of just one 'Population'  so as to take care of the issues I've mentioned before(in the talk page multiple times and in the DRN as well). And A145029(the filing editor) has also agreed to it here.
 * Since my stance was never rigid and that the filing editor(A145029) has agreed with the "middle ground" I suggested, I believe the RfC can close now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did agree with the table style suggested by Fylindfotberserk and I think it's a good idea but I'm not sure because none of the other articles on Y-DNA haplogroups use this kind of table. Should I now change the table of this article or should I wait till 30 days are over? Should I change it to initial alphabetic sort as it is in other articles and studies or should I change it to the table style suggested by Fylindfotberserk? A145029 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the RfC voting is only for a binary "Time of Publication or Alphabetical" type of a question. It is not about the middle-ground I suggested. The only reason, I talked about stopping the RfC voting prematurely was because of you agreeing to the middle-ground in the DRN. Now if you are in full agreement with the "middle-ground" then we can request them to stop RfC and we can start working sooner, otherwise I'd want this RfC to continue its full course and after that we would be discussing the "middle-ground" again which would likely end up in the DRN as well wasting more time.


 * The other Y-DNA tables are not written in stone so there is no reason to consider those as standard for this table. There are a lot of errors in them. I've explained time and again that genetic researches on South Asian populations are not similar to that of other world populations since a lot of them are based on sub-populations(castes/clans,etc) as well. So if to make things clear to the reader we split up the ambiguous single column into a few more columns, I don't think there's harm in it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not Indo-European
On this table it listed Uzbeks as Indo-European(IE) when Uzbek language is clearly described as a Turkic language. Although it does say the language experienced " External influences include Arabic, Persian and Russian ". - Arabic is Semitic, and Persian and Russian is Indo-European but in no way that makes Uzbek language a Indo-European language. Vamlos (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Y haplogroup R2
"R2 has high frequency among the speakers of the Dravidian languages of South India and it spread throughout the Indian subcontinent during the spread of agriculture associated with the Neolithic Revolution, before the spread of R1a1 in the region." For this text the reference given is for "Mahal DG, Matsoukas IG (23 January 2018)". I did not find anything that says like this or suggesting this text. Could you please kindly check and make appropriate changes. 109.176.100.245 (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)