Talk:Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia

Question

Can someone please answer my question. Are there any non-IE ethnic groups with sizeable percentages of R1a? --37.144.246.117 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Simply google it, or even YouTube.HJJHolm (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mondal 2016 study

Please note that Mondal et al 2016 study was disapproved by Skoglund et al 2018 study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433599 "No evidence for unknown archaic ancestry in South Asia". This harvard study was response to Mondal study. It should also be noted that Narasimhan et al 2019 study also did not find anything as such.117.198.112.77 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why R1b not mentioned???

Why are the R1b not mentioned, found at least by Ebenesersdottir et al. Science2018, HarneyNat Commun2019?? HJJHolm (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HJJHolm:, do you have the links to these papers and if, please provide where this information is mentioned. In my fast search I could not find that information. Thanks.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just googled it and immediately got a dozen results ...2A02:8108:9640:1A68:6CBA:FF08:B1F3:E6ED (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede too long and other redundancies

The lede currently contains two summaries, a very brief one in paragraph three, and a longer one in the fourth paragraph. Then is there is the section "Overview" which has more detail, and finally "Reconstructing South Asian population history" where many of the details in "Overview" are repeated.

This is too much redundancy. Usually, we summarize a detailed section once in the lede. A mid-level summary may appear in a dedicated "Overview" section, which should just cover key points that are further elaborated in specialized sections. I am aware that much of this has grown organically, but time has come for us to take an effort to trim this massive overgrowth. My Bolo is ready, but maybe we want to establish first what is essential for a brief summary in the lede and what isn't. Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: If I remember correctly, the 'Overview' section was made (bloated) into a second "Autosomal DNA variation" section by IP socks of WorldCreaterFighter sometime in August-October 2021. Before that it was like this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, not really much better back then 😂 –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: and @Fylindfotberserk: Maybe we shorten the summaries in the lead into just one paragraph (as opposed to two); reduce the overview section to only inform about relevant events: eg. compact information on peopling and migration events, as well as short info about the respective ancestral components (name, relationship, etc.); and move the more detailed informations and study views into the "Reconstructing South Asian population history" (kind of rewritting it). Maybe we try to "dechronologify" the "Autosomal DNA variation" section a bit too. - I have just prepared a possible version here:[1]. It would be nice if you can review it, if we may use that one. Thanks. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead looks kinda OK (small changes can be discussed). The overview seems too short, as big as the lead, to the point that we can merge both (this one for example doesn't have an 'overview' section). If we are not merging them, the overview section can be a bit bigger, 50% of the original?, plus with info on the haplogroups restored. Skimming through the 'autosomal' section, I believe the Yang 2022 part needs to be trimmed and merged, especially since the paper is largely a summary of what Narasimhan, Shinde and Yelmen discovered as far as AASI is concerned (Do we need large chunks of quotes from the papers?). For a proposed lineage, the article already seems to have more coverage of that particular component (AASI), need to balance those. Let's see what Austronesier has to say. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's a good start. But it still needs more "dechronologifying", after all, we don't want to present a history of research, but rather the present consensus of our knowledge about the topic. Some old sources might have been important building blocks to reach this consensus, but we have to break "the A said this, then B said that, then C said this etc."-pattern. Narasimhan et al. (2018) and Narasimhan et al. (2019) have separate citations, that's also a relic of the original version. This is why anyone wanting to add preprints in Wikipedia should get their balls wired and receive an electric shock when the peer-review version comes out so they remember to update the citation ;)

Personally, I think the "short" summary was good enough for the lede, while current draft summary makes a good "Overview" section (if needed at all; personally, I think it's a nice thing to have). Can't say more at the moment, because I'm enthusiastically worknig on a somewhat related project in my sandbox. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will try to "dechronologify" as much as possible. Also trying to find a smoother solution for the lead/overview. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiuser1314: This version's structuring is better than the current one you are trying in your sandbox IMO. The lead is succinct. After that many versions over the years, an overview section seems important, needs a little more in my opinion and would be better if kept separate from the lede. This image should be avoided, since terms like AAI (AAA) and ATB, etc are not mainstream unlike ANI, ASI, and AASI. The former only show up papers by the Basu and those group of scientists. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Ok, thanks for your input, than I will use the previous version.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit[2]: I can see that the statement "closest to Southern Indian tribal groups" as such is wrong, but shouldn't we at least mention somewhere that the highest levels of AASI-ancestry are found among Southern Indian tribal groups? –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in the "autosomal" section. Now that you mention, I see that the WP:OR part - "Paniya and Irula as better proxies for indigenous South Asian (AASI)" - is present in both the "overview" and the "autosomal" section. Needs to be corrected. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Loads of other things need to be corrected too. I've just exemplarily changed a passage based on Shinde et al. (2019). Actually, they note that the same set of qpAdm-sources has also been used for the Indus Periphery Cline in Narasimhan et al. (2019). I also don't like the statement "but others (Yelmen et al. 2019) note that both [= AHG and AASI] are deeply diverged from each other"; "but" insinuates that others haven't been aware of this before, which gives a wrong picture since Narasimhan et al. literally say the same thing ("even though the two populations [= AHG and AASI] are deeply diverged from one another in time..."). Narasimhan et al. describe a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and Papuans, with a minimal shared branch length of 3 for AHG and Papuans; Yelmen et al. 2019 also split out their "S" component first in a near-trifucation of AASI, AHG and East Asians (no shared branch length given for the latter; maybe its buried somewhere in the Supplementary Information?).

@Austronesier: Yes [3]. This line - "The Andamanese people are among the relatively most closely related modern populations to the AASI component and henceforth used as an (imperfect) proxy for it" is problematic especially when Reich 2009 is used as one of the sources. AASI wasn't coined then. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A relevant book

Someone should summarize this book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Genomic_Diversity_in_People_of_India.html?id=UbI2EAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y here. It seems to be a relevant book. @Wikiuser1314 @Austronesier Ionian9876 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ionian9876:, the book is focused "on mtDNA and Y-Chromosome polymorphism", as such I would not consider it that relevant. It may be relevant for haplogroup diversity, but we all know now that haplogroups are very affected by founder effects and bottlenecks, and may tell us nothing about the genetic makeup of individuals/ethnic groups. Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Male Yamnaya component not attested in prehistoric India.

" the incoming mostly male-mediated Yamnaya-Steppe component to form the Ancestral North Indians (ANI)," I wonder whence the writer got this intelligence? Core Yamnaya had no R1a, <nd it remains a riddle how the R1a-Z93-94 reached India and where and for when it has been attested there.2A02:8108:9640:1A68:6CBA:FF08:B1F3:E6ED (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)