Talk:Negrito/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misleadingly putting Harappan civilization with Negrito and Andamanese

From what I've seen it doesn't say racially or phenotypically Negrito/Andamanese people In the Harappan civilization. We all know that South Indian ( Dravidians speakers ), India's Austrostiatic, North Indian, even Pakistani have heavy Andamanese Hunter gatherer related DNA but it doesn't say it's from Andamanese/Negrito racial or phenotype group mixing with Iranian farmers that created modern day South Asians and even today there are isolated groups that are 99-100% Andamanese hunter-gatherers but are clearly phenotically ( hair, facial features, head shape ) different from your Negrito

The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1

An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30967-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867419309675%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Edit: Let me make this clearly DNA Adamanese hunter-gatherer-related = Adamanese, other Negrito, other types Australian aboririgne types, Papuans, India's Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian type, Sri Lanka's Veddas, and partially in different degrees in South Asian ethnic groups. Negrito is only one type of Andamanese Hunger gatherer. So putting those information in the Negrito wikipedia is clearly misleading in every way.

Vamlos (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If these genetic studies do not explicitly subscribe to the concept of "Negrito", but only mentions the subset of Andamese populations, the inclusion here is quite a case of WP:COATRACK. This article should mention only things which are perceived as "common" to the various Negrito populations (and of course also studies which as a main topic discuss and reject the idea of "Negrito" as a useful anthropological category beyond a cover term for remnant populations). –Austronesier (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos:. You wrote: "today there are isolated groups that are 99-100% Andamanese hunter-gatherers but are clearly phenotically ( hair, facial features, head shape ) different from your Negrito"

I do not believe this is the case in mainland South Asia (in the sense of the Indian subcontinent). There are a few tribal groups in India, like the Paniya, who are about 75% AASI (indigenous South Asian hunter-gatherer) and also have about 25% of their ancestry from peoples related to those from Iran, but none are 99-100% (except for the Andamanese themselves (of the Andaman Islands). Skllagyook (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: From what I've seen Adamanese are not 100% AASI either. Now as for Indian tribes, I have not seen every study but many of them are super black as heck in skin color although their hair type and facial features are different. Adamanese look like pseudo-Africans from Sub-Sahara where as all the South Indian tribes like Paniya 83% AASI ( It says they are only 17% ANI in this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/ ). With groups like Dalits, also know as the the untouchable are possibly 100% AASI. Also the point is if it was 50%- 75% African Sub-Saharan mix with 25-50% Iranian farmers, they woul all certainly look like a typical african black people. Or the very least they would have those tightly curlyed afro hair would be seen in every South Asian population.

Also it's already been stated the Adamanese components found in South Asians are different type. EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY EXPLAINED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#Post-IVC:_ANI_and_ASI_ancestral_components_in_the_Indian_population

AASI

Narashimhan et al. (2018) introduced the term AASI for these oldest human inhabitants, "Ancient Ancestral South Indian,"[note 1] which were related to the common ancestors of Andaman Islanders (such as the Onge), East Asians, and Australian Aboriginals.[20][21][22][23] According to Narashimhan et al. (2019), "essentially all the ancestry of present-day eastern and southern Asians (prior to West Eurasian-related admixture in southern Asians) derives from a single eastward spread, which gave rise in a short span of time to the lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Onge, and Australians."[24]

:Relation to Andaman Islanders

Several genetic studies have found evidence of a distant common ancestry between native Andaman Islanders and the AASI/ASI ancestral component found in South Asians.[20] Modern South Asians have not been found to carry the paternal lineages common in the Andamanese, which has been suggested to indicate that certain paternal lineages may have become extinct in India, or that they may be very rare and have not yet been sampled.[25] Chaubey and Endicott (2013) further noted that "Overall, the Andamanese are more closely related to Southeast Asians than they are to present-day South Asians (as well as being closer to Southeast Asian Negritos and Melanesians)."[26][note 2]

Shinde et al. 2019 found either Andamanese or East Siberian hunter-gatherers fit as proxy for AASI "due to shared ancestry deeply in time."[27] According to Yelmen et al. (2019) the native South Asian genetic component (ASI) is distinct from the Andamanese and not closely related, and that the Andamanese are thus an imperfect and imprecise proxy for ASI. According to Yelmen et al, the Andamanese component (represented by the Andamanese Onge) was not detected in the northern Indian Gujarati, and thus it is suggested that the South Indian tribal Paniya people (who are believed to be of largely ASI ancestry) would serve as a better proxy than the Andamanese (Onge) for the "native South Asian" component in modern South Asians.[28] According to Narashimhan et al. (2019), the "AASI" component in South Asians shares a common root with the Andamanese (as exemplified by the Onge) and is distantly related to the Onge (Andamanese), East Asians, and Aboriginal Australians (with those groups and the AASI sharing a deep ancestral split around the same time).[23]

Relation to "Negritos"

The present-day Andamese are considered to be part of the "Negritos," several diverse ethnic groups who inhabit isolated parts of southeast Asia.[29] Based on their physical similarities, Negritos were once considered a single population of related people, but the appropriateness of using the label 'Negrito' to bundle together peoples of different ethnicity based on similarities in stature and complexion has been challenged.[30] Recent research suggests that the Negritos include several separate groups, as well as demonstrating that they are not closely related to the Pygmies of Africa.[31]

According to Vishwanathan et al. (2004), the typical "negrito" features could also have been developed by convergent evolution.[32] According to Gyaneshwer Chaubey and Endicott (2013), "At the current level of genetic resolution, however, there is no evidence of a single ancestral population for the different groups traditionally defined as 'negritos."[26] Basu et al. 2016 concluded that the Andamanese have a distinct ancestry and are not closely related to other South Asians, but are closer to Southeast Asian Negritos, indicating that South Asian peoples do not descend directly from "Negritos" as such.[33] Vamlos (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos: One minor correction: The Paniya may be roughly 83% ASI, but 75% AASI (the ASI were themselves 75% AASI and 25% Iranian-related - it's in Narasimhan 2018/2019 and Reich 2016). I know of no Dalit group that is 90-100% AASI (source?). And the Paniya (and similar groups in India) often can have features generally similar to those of Negtito groups (the various Negrito groups also don't allways have the same types of features)

You wrote

"Also the point is if it was 50%- 75% African Sub-Saharan mix with 25-50% Iranian farmers, they would all certainly look like a typical african black people. Or the very least they would have those tightly curlyed afro hair would be seen in every South Asian population."

That is not necessarily the case. People that are 50% sub-Saharan can look quite admixed/intermediate with a range of looks (in various traits), and have a range of hair types, only sometimes having "afro-hair" (hair texture, facial features and skin color are polygenic/additive traits, i.e. influenced by many genes). If they were 75% sub-Saharan African however, they would tend to look more African than not.

However, despite all that (my points above may be largely immaterial to the article), you (and USER:Austronesier) may likely have a valid point (your more general/larger point) that the AASI and Andamanese (and other Negritos) are only distantly related, and that thus the AASI may be only marginally relevant here in this article (if at all). I will look over the sources again and get back to you soon. Skllagyook (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: No Paniya peeople don't have similar facial features to Negrito or else otherwise they be classified as the same racial type. The only similarity is their dark skin ( Paniya is still way lighter ), wide nose is not a Negrito trait, is found common in all Southern population of the globe. Some dalit tribes are super black skinned, so they have to be pure and hence the reason they are also called untouchable. Every half black, half white I've seen look black, with exception of African American and Black African with various degrees of West Eurasian admixture can result in less black appearance but their hair still tighly curled. You don't see any tightly curled hair in the South Asians. Yes, the ASSI in the South Asians is different and so putting it in this page is misleading.Vamlos (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos: Maybe I should note that WP does not subscribe to obsolete pseudo-science such as racial classifications. These are not the rationale for Skllagyook to keep Narasimhan (2019) and Shinde (2019) here. The point is, although the term "Negrito" often has been used within that obsolete framework, some anthropologists still do believe that Negrito can be retained a meaningful coherent category to describe populations which diplay sufficient clustering of certain genetic features which may point at a single migration into Asia before the arrival of other populations from the north and west. However, the matter is far from settled (cf. complete issue of Human Biology 85(1/3)[1]), which is the main reason why I opt to be careful to place material here that does not cover Negritos in toto, as long as the validity of the concept is disputed. –Austronesier (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Can we remove it now ? I agree that it should be removed. The way that it was edited make it seem as if the Indus Valley Civilization were a part Negrito or mostly Negrito people. That's the false impression it gave me when I read the Narasimhan (2018) and Shinde (2019) Vamlos (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with Austronesier, I believe that contents explicitly related to the Negritos should only be kept in the article. The use of Onge in South Asian genotyping is restricted only as a proxy for the theoretical AASI ghost population, since no aDNA is available in South Asia that represents SAHG. The day we are able to extract something like that, the Onge will no longer be used. One should note that the populations like Germans, Hans, etc are routinely used in admixture models to capture excess of the representative populations, but we do not mention these research papers in German, Han articles. One can also use Onge in admixture models in lieu of the Hoabinhian hunter-gatherers for SE Asian pops for example, with worse fits, since the Onge shares deep ancestry with east Asian and Australian groups. Since Onges are kinda archaic, a hypothetical scenario would be a group distantly related to the Western Hunter Gatherers living in some remote inland in the Atlantic, remaining largely unchanged, and the geneticist using these people to capture the archaic hunter gatherer contribution in modern pops of Europe. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we now have concensus to remove those paragraphs ? Vamlos (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO yes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also fine with it being removed. Skllagyook (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Very well I should now remove it since we now have concensus. Vamlos (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are old primitive pictures used for the article instead of modern (less unflattering) pictures?

This article differs markedly from other articles about Polynesian peoples (including Melanesians, Samoans, New Zealand aboriginals and so on) in that while those articles display modern pictures of the people that are positive and flattering (showing beautiful cultural dresses, nice-looking young women and so on) and rarely show their older and more primitive pictures, for this article we are treated only to pictures that are more than a hundred years old, showing the people unclad and in primitive forms. There is no interest whatsoever by the makers of the article to show beautiful and admirable aspects of their contemporary cultures and of the people themselves. To make things even worse, one of the pictures shows an Asian-looking man dressed in western clothes standing in the midst of extremely unclad and primitive looking black women. Yet, i doubt that this is the sort of scenario that one would actually see if one goes to that land today.

The pictorial discretion employed by the creators of this article is typical of a behavioral trend that is quite common in the west; to portray black (or 'negroid') peoples in demeaning, unflattering and dehumanizing ways while portraying everyone else in ways that induce appreciation, interest and admiration. In sum, the selected photography of this article is a typical display of subtle anti-black racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealwago (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog to show beautiful costumes or pretty people. If you would like to contribute by adding recent photographs of Negritos, please do so, but make sure it is reliable. Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 22:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We are limited by what people upload and by intellectual property laws. Check out the Wikicommons category "negrito" here. User:Therealwago do you have better photos? Please, please, please upload them and add them to the page. I agree this article (and many others) need better photos. There is a link on the right side under "Tools" called "Upload file". By the way, the Wikimedia regularly holds international photo contests with substantial cash prizes. Getting good and free images is a problem. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I found a couple of more recent photos on Commons and used them to replace a couple of the ones that dated from over a century ago. I think the article has a more general problem in that it comes off as something in the style that would have been written by the kind of culturally chauvinistic European pseudo-scientist who went around measuring people's skulls with calipers in 1890.--2603:8000:8901:F00:8B1:39BE:318C:C000 (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Island of Negros

When mentioning the island of Negros, mention the origin of the name too! Jidanni (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Andamanese Onge, Tianyuan; Basal-East Asian

To mention it here as well, Andamanese Onge, Hoabinhians, and Tianyuan, (as well as the Jōmon samples) seen in the PCA of Carlhoff et al. 2021, represent "Basal-East Asian ancestry, of which northern and southern East Asians diverged off. Oceanians (aka Papuans and Aboriginal Australians) split earlier and form an outgroup to other Eurasians (such as Andamanese or East Asians). Quote:

Demographic models infer a population split between the ancestors of Oceanian and Eurasian groups approximately 58 kya, whereas Papuan and Aboriginal Australian groups separated around 37 kya5.

Here the results about the Leang_Panninge sample, which is in between East Asians/Andamanese Onge and Papuans:

We initiated our genomic investigation by principal component analyses (PCAs), comparing the Leang Panninge genome with present-day individuals from East Asia, southeast Asia and Near Oceania (comprising Indigenous Australia, Papua New Guinea and Bougainville) genotyped on the Human Origins SNP panel18,32,33,34. The newly generated genome and relevant published genomes from ancient individuals from eastern Eurasia were then projected on the PCA1,34,35,36,37,38. Leang Panninge falls into PCA space not occupied by any present-day or ancient individuals, but is broadly located between Indigenous Australian peoples and the Onge (Fig. 2a, Extended Data Fig. 6). F3-statistics33 of the form f3 (Mbuti; Leang Panninge, X), where X is replaced with present-day Asian-Pacific groups, indicated that the new genome shares most genetic drift with Near Oceanian individuals (Fig. 2b). We confirmed these results with f4-statistics33, suggesting similar affinity of Leang Panninge and Papuan individuals to present-day Asian individuals, despite Near Oceanian groups forming a clade to the exclusion of Leang Panninge (Extended Data Fig. 7a, b). All present-day groups from the region, with the exception of the Mamanwa and the Lebbo26, carry only a minor contribution of Papuan-related ancestry (Supplementary Fig. 4).

So not Hoabinhians, but Leang_Panninge shares drift with Papuans.213.162.73.203 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say that Negritos are closest to East Asians (let alone "closely related", and closer to them than to Papuans/Melanesians) or that they commonly derive from a "Basal East Asian" group? That does not seem to be in the quote. Thus your addition of this claim looks like WP:OR.

In the Larena et al. study, the term "Basal East Asian" is used for ancestors of groups like the Cordillerans, not Negritos (who instead are called "Basal Australian"). From study:

"We show that the Philippine Islands were populated by at least five waves of buman migration: initially by Northern and Southern Negritos (distantly related to Australian and Papuan groups), followed by Manobo, Sama, Papuan, and Cordilleran-related populations. The ancestors of Cordillerans diverged from indigenous peoples of Taiwan at least ∼8,000 y ago,"

And they also say:

"There is a clear dichotomy between Negritos and non-Negritos, indicating the deep divergence between Basal East Asian ancestry best represented by Cordillerans and Basal Australasian ancestry represented by Negrito-AustraloPapuans"

Yet you seem to have edited the article to say the opposite. Skllagyook (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I had copied some references from Peopling of Southeast Asia such as Larena et al., but here I am referring to Carlhoff et al. 2021. Regarding your first point: This is evident through that they are close to Andamanese Onge, which are Basal-East Asian, such as Tianyuan. The paper of Wang regarding the Longlin lineage has another good overview about the split times, in which Onge/Hoabinhian are under the tree of Tianyuan, not under Australasian. (See:https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867421006358-gr2.jpg) But the main concern is here, that they do not drift with Papuans, as you previously insisted, but they authors talked about the Leang_Panninge sample. I will include further quotes here which should help us improving it. Regarding the second point: Larena et al. does differentiate Negritos too, especially Andamanese ancestry, as own lineage.213.162.73.203 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, what you want to add must be e plicitly stated in a reliable source (not extrapolated or interpreted from one by you or I). (Does it explicitly say that Andamanese, Negritos, or Hoabhinians - which are not all the same thing - are closest to East Asians?) What study is the image you linked from, and where in that study can it be found? Also, Papuans/Melaneasians do not seem to be in the trees in the images you linked at all. So I do not see how they show that Andamanese (and/or Negritos) are closer to East Asians than them. Skllagyook (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole concept of "Negrito" as a well-defined groups is tenuous. So any study that peripherally discusses only a subset (or even just one) of the many Negrito groups is of little value here. One cannnot take e.g. the Onge as proxy for blanket statements about all "Negrito" populations. Also, many Negrito groups naturally have incoming gene flow from later migrating from continental East Asia (e.g. the Mamanwa). Any model that does not explicit take this into account can again lead to incorrect blanket statements if not read properly. AFAICS, the ancestral component of all Negrito groups that predates the influx of (Basal) East Asian populations in all studies clusters with Australian and Papuan groups. See e.g. McColl et al. (2018). –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be true, as different studies came to different results regarding Negrito subgroups. As example, Catherine Hill et al. and Chaubey et al. suggest that Negritos do not form a single homogeneous people. In this regard, it seems Negritos form a cline between Basal-East Asian (Andamanese) ancestry and Papuan-related ancestry, Negritos being in between this range. (As example see Gakuhari et al. 2020 and Carlhoff et al. 2021, already cited here.213.162.73.203 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another paper by co-authored by Larena:[2]. Although it mainly highlights the Denisovan ancestry component and only discusses Philippine Negrito groups, it contains very detailed insights about the layers of migration and admixture. –Austronesier (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The bottomline is, we cannot categorize populations into genetic categories and thus reintroduce races through the backdoor. All populations are "mixed", composed of ancestry components which themselves are not rigid categories but reference points for data modelling. Every good and honest model has lots of dotted lines. It is not very helpful to say that Negrito group A is basal East Asian or basal Australasian, but what we actually can extract from the research is e.g. a statement that this group displays partial ancestry of a population that entered into SEA and Oceania at a very early date. –Austronesier (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting study thank you for sharing! This makes really sense also looking at Carlhoff et al. Basal East Asian and Basal Australasian split already 58,000 years ago, while Andamanese split from East Asians "only" 40,000 to 27,000 years ago, explaining their high affinity towards Tianyuan and other East Asian-related groups. Here is another interesting study:. Yes, especially in the case of Negritos, and the many migrations into (and out of) Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia has probably one of the most complex population histories of all region, except maybe Africa.213.162.73.203 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Current edit dispute

I tried to clean up and remove obvious WP:OR in my last edit, and mention that the Negrito are rather a diverse population cluster or cline, not a single population, as pointed out by multiple recent studies. Please see the difference: Please explain me, what you disagree, and please really take a look at the changes. The current version was full of OR and claimed that Negritos descended solely from Basal-East Asians, a claim you even criticized in the discussion above. Thank you for your cooperation.2001:4BC9:903:4E31:3092:9274:E84B:1D5 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this will ever improve. Carlhoff et al. (2021) is cited for a statement about the Onge even though the paper is principally about the about the Toalean individual from Wallacea, the diagram from Gakuhari et al. (2020) is reinserted even though the paper only includes Onge and Hoabinhian data, and so on. We actually only need one sentence here which says that SE Asian hunter-gatherer groups that were not fully absorbed by later inmigrating peoples from the north (which is the only sensible definition of "Negrito") share an ancestral component that primarily links them to the first people of Oceania. But elaborating about details only makes sense in articles about the broader population history of Asia and Oceania. –Austronesier (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I have tried to shorten it down to relevant information about the general "Negrito grouping". I think the PCA from Gakuhari et al., while only including Andamanese and Hoabinhian samples as well as East Asians, and Oceanians may be useful to show the distance of these, but I do not oppose the removal of it. The PCA from the second Larena et al. 2021 paper may be useful, as it shows Negrito samples. We may upload it, if it is usable according to Wikimedia copyright laws.2001:4BC9:903:4E31:3092:9274:E84B:1D5 (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit explanation: Trying to restoring useful additions/changes while correcting misrepresented parts. ~Nobuaki H.

The recent changes by "JihoHone" or "WCF" were mostly improving the article, so I was WP:Bold and partially restored the version, but removing contested content (see previous discussion between an alleged IP sock and another user above). I am referring to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BANREVERT. I am a frequent editor in the Japanese version, recent changes made me aware of this, as an editor referred to this article. By checking the references, I found some contradictions, which I will try to correct.

Another reason is that the current version has serious issues regarding original research and grammar mistakes/typos, as well as dublicate paragraphs in two different sections.

A reviewer has actually checked the version of "JihoHone" aka WCF, as such I refer to the accepted version and further removed contested parts. I take full responsibility, and another overviewer will take another check. I am correcting misrepresented parts.

The main goal is to improve the article, and remove original research and spelling/grammar mistakes, as well as dublicate content.

As such, I hope this is accepted by the reviewing editors, and or will motivate other editors to help improving the article. Yours sincerely, Nobuaki H.176.97.71.80 (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have also removed a duplicate reference (Afri, Vallini 2021). I suggest WP:Cleanup would further improve the article and references cited. ~Nobuaki H.176.97.71.80 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Applying Manual of Style/Words to watch. ~Nobuaki H.176.97.71.80 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey - I was the person who accepted WCF's edits; I was just going through normal pending changes reviewer stuff, the edits seemed fine, did not realize there was a sock involved. Anyway, I've also accepted these edits. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Skarmory: It's the same individual using a proxy. No worries, this is not something immediately obvious if you're not familiar with this specific LTA. I will revert and request an increase of the page protection level. –Austronesier (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Skarmory: I am not the same person. I have explained the reasons for the edits made. Why you are favoring a version with original research? The version I tried to make, is more neutral, stating that Negritos are a diverse population on a cline between East Asians and Papuans. Nothing controversial here. I doubt that you bothered to take a look at my changes. I will request another user to check the edits. There is obviously conflict of interest between you and another user not me. I request a respectful behavior towards me. I request another user to take care instead. And why you delete the Maintenance and Clean up tag? It is obviously necessary.~Nobuaki H.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hicksa15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moj9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)