Talk:Indo-Aryan migration

Do not brand honest scholars

"...writers linked to Hindu nationalism such as Elst (1999) and Kazanas (2001, 2002, 2009)." Elst as a Hindu nationalist can still be digested, but Kazanas is a real, honest and dedicated scholar. Do not defame him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.22.206 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added a citation needed tag. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Genetic section

Some users are again and again, tampering with the genetic section. The subject is under discussion at Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) page, please refer to it before further edition. NearThatTown (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether to remove statements that have citations in peer-reviewed sources is not under discussion there. These edits are not under discussion there. I do not care where R1a originated, but I do care about politically motivated removal of inconvenient information. I do care about taking a scholarly debate and presenting the minority position as the emerging consensus. I do care about the abuse of the WP:BRD cycle, pointing to discussions that do not discuss the edits in question, and about the abuse of WP:NPOV to expunge distasteful points of view. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

There is clearly considerable debate over whether there was an Indo-European migration and it which direction it occurred. Nobody here seems to notice that the vast majority of Europeans support Mueller's original idea of an West-East migration and that many Indian nationals either suspect a West-East migration or dispute the idea of a migration at all.

We all claim--in good faith--that we have what we feel to be scholarly and objective criteria for our beliefs but that is a total crock if we are immersed in one side or other of a debate. If we have been educated in a Christian Western paradigm we are in fact simply blind to the biases that we have and no amount of reasonable blah blah blah can change that.

It is neither necessary or appropriate for this article to tilt this particular debate towards one side or the other. The proper approach is to simply report the debate and perhaps the gist of the pros and cons carefully. This article does not. It attempts to appear neutral but there is a sly slant towards the traditional western view.

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Date

"Recent genetic research indicates that the Indian subcontinent was subjected to a series of massive Indo-European migrations about 3,500 BC"

This is taken from page 2287 of the given source: "When the ranked caste system was formed after the arrival of the IE speakers ∼3500 ybp, many indigenous people of India, who were possibly DR speakers,embraced (or were forced to embrace) the caste system,together with the IE language and admixture."

YBP is not BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.154.28 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right. 95.27.96.242 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Genetic Anthropology" section needs updating

A recent AJHG Paper is directly related to the section and its conclusions are needed to be mentioned. Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011 Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span.

Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP. Nirjhara (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) And ofcourse we dont have to put those large conclusion except the main gist after the 67th reference, like: A later 2011 study by Metspalu et al. On South Asian population have found both the ancestral components to be older and incompatible with the purported Indo-aryan invasion 3500 YBP."Nirjhara (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely this source can be fitted in to what is there already? Please by all means add more. I have tried to restructure some of the opening sentences in order to better fit the newest sources, and allow someone else to slot those in. But try to add mention of all theories. Remember to avoid trying to delete mention of published theories because that always gets controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew the gist i have shown is the main thing of the paper (with no other "indications" like the moorjan et al.) which can be added after the 67th reference, I have made it a more compatible, please make the gist added in the way you think, i can not cause of my device. Ps. The section has huge numbers of paper sentences which is extra by a lot except adding the main conclusions huge sentences of the papers are added. Have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)