Talk:Kalash people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of academic references from article

Anupam, you have made significant changes, including links to articles. The source I provided was coming from the Kalash themselves. I have not removed references to ancient vedic folklore just modified them. Which areas are your issues? Please be careful of blanking out many important edits because of one dispute.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:NadirAli, if you noticed my edit, I only undid your changes with respect to the "Religion" section of the article. Your edits are contentious because, contrary to your aforementioned claim, you intentionally deleted reliable and verifiable scholarly sources, including one published by academic press ABC-CLIO; this text, titled Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia, applies the term "a form of ancient Hinduism" to the former religion of the Nuristani peoples and that of the Kalash currently. The Wikipedia article also retained this terminology until you inappropriately deleted it, replacing the academic reference with a personal website, which fails WP:RS because it is self-published source. Another source titled Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, published by Infobase Publishing, another academic press, corroborates the material provided in first one, delineating the religion practiced by the Kaslash as "a form of Hinduism that recognizes many gods and spirits". I should also note that your capricious addition of an {{accuracy}} template was unwarranted in light of this fact--the article, as it stood before your edits, uses the exact same wording as the scholarly text to describe the religious views of the Kalash people; therefore the allegation that the article is inaccurate is null and utterly void. I've therefore removed the misplaced tag. Although I generally assume good faith, in light of your previous editing history on Wikipedia (and extensive block log), it is most probably that your reason for censoring this information seems to be agenda-driven. I should remind you that you were recently warned by User:GoldenRing not to edit war after being reported by User:Capitals00, with respect to WP:ARBPAK. This kind of behaviour, in which academic references are rashly removed is intolerable and if the edit warring continues, I will not hesitate to open a new entry in WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. I would recommend that you drop the WP:STICK and cease making these kind of edits. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 19:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Anupam, that is not all you deleted. You removed two links to Proto-Indo-European religion as well as Proto-Indo-Iranian religion (from where the Kalash religion originates from) without explanation. Secondly, your "source" is too vague. "Hinduism" is too vague of a topic to be used as a religious label. I added that source to confirm what the Kalash describe their faith as and WP:PRIMARY sources allows them to be used in certain situations, but in addition to that there are plenty of third party scholarly sources that clearly distinguish the Kalash religion from what are today known as "Hinduism" [1][2][3]. I also have access to the book Indo-European Language and Culture by scholar Benjamin Fortson which will hopefully be of help. Your own "source" only states "a form of" without specifying or providing proper testimonials. I myself added ancient vedic folklore and religion links in the article. Your addition of WikiProject Hinduism (as well as previous additions of unwarranted scripts in previous articles) appears to be agenda based as this is an article on an ethnic group, not a religion at all, not to mention "Hinduism" is not a religion but a group of distinct religions and cults labelled as "One" by the British,[4][5][6] much like "Native Americanism" or "Subsahrran Africanism". User:Fowler&fowler as well as User:Dbachmann are somewhat familiar with the subject and their input would be useful here. I would also like to point out, that it is not just you trying to mislabel the Kalash religion, this has been attempted by Greek and Macedonian nationalists as well, who are determined to label it as a part of the Ancient Greek Religion or Slavic Mythology. As for the disputed tag, I am going to be firm that it stays until the dispute is resolved, unless you are open to me restoring reliably sourced edits and links. You can threaten me with ANI all you like, but it will not stop your requirement to adhere to WP policy here, including respect for sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

One more thing. Islam is not a relevant thing to add here. That only applies to Kalash who have assimilated into other cultures and ethnic groups and thus cannot be considered Kalash, at least from a cultural sense. I have seen a documentary on this and will link it here if necessary. Kalash who convert to Islam are automatically disowned by their communities and banned from the Kalash valley. They assimilate into other ethnic groups, so Islam cannot be considered a religion of their people.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose additions based on sources meeting WP:RS here but you will not remove information and sources from the article. You can list your suggestions here and we can work together to figure out a way to include them in the article. By the way, I've restored your wikilink to "Indo-Iranian people" here but do not think that your template addition was necessary, especially when we have a specific article for the religion practiced by the Kalash people. Now, I'm going to address the links you provided. The source that you provided titled Celebrating Life Customs around the World: From Baby Showers to Funerals states "Some Kalash are Muslim", contradicting your claim above. The other source you shared, states "The deity's name is obviously derived from the Indian and pan-Himalayan Mahadev or great god, commonly associated in these regions with Siva", further corroborating the scholarly sources I provided. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 00:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm...didn't I just do that? Aren't you reading any of my replies? --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No User:Nadirali, you did not provide a sentence here that you wish to add to the article. Please propose such an addition here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting the sources I provided and ignoring ones like these as well as the other scholarly sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding anything but have examined the links you provided closely. You know that the source that you claimed I'm ignoring is a novel about travelling, right? Anupam^Talk 01:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No I did not know it's a "novel about traveling" it's a non-fiction documentation of the region. The first "source" you cited here doesn't even claim it to be "Hindu" (a term itself made up in the religious sense) but states "closely aligned" *Big difference*.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well now you know now. And no, the source stated exactly what I said it did. Please re-read it. Once again, please propose a sentence you would like to add to this article. I will let you know my feedback and we can work on wording, etc. Anupam^Talk 01:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no I still don't know, because it's a documentation of the regions history written by a traveler. Your claims to these people religion is as believable as Greeks and Macedonians claiming their religion. Your first "source" does not claim it as so-called "Hinduism" (itself a dubious topic altogether).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The source Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, published by Infobase Publishing, an academic press declares "During the mid-20th century a few Kalasha villages in Pakistan were forcibly converted to this dominant religion, but the people fought the conversion and once official pressure was removed the vast majority continued to practice their own religion. Their religion is a form of Hinduism that recognizes many gods and spirits ... given their Indo-Aryan language ... the religion of the Kalasha is much more closely aligned to the Hinduism of their Indian neighbors that to the religion of Alexander the Great and his armies." Likewise, the text Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia, published by the academic publisher ABC-CLIO, also refers to the religion as "form of ancient Hinduism". In light of these facts, as well as the fact that the references I provided adhere to WP:RS, the article will continue to retain this direct quote from the references. I'm not going to entertain the idea of Hinduism being a dubious concept as you claim--Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of fringe views. If you wish to add anything to the article, you are welcome to propose those additions here and we can discuss them. If you no longer wish to add anything to the article, let me know and we can close this discussion. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Nadir Ali did modified article to a large extent, [7] and I would say that many people don't look restoring minor changes when article has had significant changes. Capitals00 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems User:NadirAli has WP:COMPETENCE issues. The peddling of fringe views on Wikipedia using alt-right websites such as "raceandhistory.com" is unacceptable. What I see is User:Anupam trying to explain to User:NadirAli why their sources are unreliable but they just are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. There is no reason to justify User:NadirAli's wholesale removal of content that reads exactly the way scholars have written it. Is it time to consider proposing a topic ban at AN/I for this guy, User:Capitals00? Knox490 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You actually believe I cited some work of 'fiction'..?? I can post countless sources here and majority of them refer to the Kalash religion as Animism, derived from the earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian religion (that part is less discussed, so we don't need to necessarily put it in the infobox), but because the current sources I've posted have yet to be debunked and mostly ignored/evaded, I will wait until they are.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only do I have dozens of books sources for animism, but also scholarly articles and publications that support animism. But I would prefer each and every source I currently posted be verified.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:NadirAli, why not propose a sentence that you wish to add to the article so we can discuss it? Let's develop a compromise where the material you wish to insert can also be included in the article. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 05:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Let's calm down. The article, for quite a long time, stated that the Kalash practiced a religion "similar to Hinduism". The current version (over which the dispute appears to be) reads "a form of ancient Hinduism." Note that these are two contradictory claims; similarities to Hinduism (e.g. polytheism) does not necessarily imply Hindu roots. It is only reasonable if exceptional sources are used to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. A good amount of reliable sources for instance state that the Kalash beliefs are best described as animistic or having pagan influences, which is a completely different belief system. Oddly enough, this article has not covered that. The Kalash are of course very well known for their distinct beliefs and customs. Given there is a good amount of literature and research conducted on this group, it should not be difficult to do further reading of the Hindu vs. animism claims. Mar4d (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If some scholars characterize the Kalash as practicing animism, I have no objection in including this statement as well, User:Mar4d. I thank you for finding reliable sources that support that claim. In the spirit of compromise, I think it would be fair to rewrite the sentence as follows:

Kalash people are divided equally between the adherents of Islam and those that practice what some scholars characterize as a form of ancient Hinduism, and others, as animism.

Such a sentence would meet WP:NPOV, given that it incorporates both views, which are based on reliable sources. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have reproduced some sources below. In my opinion, the lead sentence should summarize their animistic faith as that is well emphasized in the majority of sources, as to what their present belief systems align closest to. The sentences that follow could shed light on how some of them converted to Islam, and touch upon the link to Hinduism if that is backed within the sources. That would be the most appropriate and accurate rewrite, and avoid lending any WP:UNDUE weight. Mar4d (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen those sources. I support a rewrite, with emphasis on their faith as being described as animism by some, and ancient Hindusim by others. This is well grounded in the reliable sources that I have provided too. As a compromise, I would be happy to place the mention of animism before ancient Hinduism. How does that sound? I look forward to your reply. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, and in line with what I proposed above. I'll wait for Nadir's two cents, and then we could come up with a reasonable re-write. One that reflects the sources of course. Mar4d (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bravo User:Anupam and User:Mar4d - I like the new revision you wrote in the article because it incorporates what all reliable sources say - that the religion the Kalash practice has been characterized as both animism and a form of ancient Hinduism. I'm glad we have consensus now.Knox490 (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed there is no reason to leave out these particular religions. I think that we need to change the era of this article from BC to BCE. Capitals00 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The above proposals should do for the time being at least. Although I must point out that the majority of sources cite their religion as Animism, not to mention the Kalash themselves [8] [9] [10] [11][12][13][14][15]. Those are just few of possibly many more as opposed to the few commentaries Anupam provided (if they can be considered WP:RS) and the two scholars don't seem to be familiar with the subject as seen in their vague commentaries "a form of Hinduism". But that stated, I will, however make a few significant tweak edits, which I feel fall under the current compromise. I am just a little disappointed that the previous sources I posted were not addressed, but intend to include only the reliable ones, but in a manner which will not erase the vague commentaries Anupam added. I also think my concerns in the previous above thread should be looked at while I make these edits. And my nod of respect to user:Mar4d for his assistance in helping clear this mess (though I think we have quite some long way to go). And although I might not be successful, I would like to consult some unaffiliated neutral editors to review my upcoming changes.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as the facts are concerned, the majority of sources, as presented by me and user:Mar4d describe their fate as animism, so putting "some" to make it appear as though they are equal with the recent "Hindu" claim is misleading.[16] [17] [18] [19][20][21][22][23]. There was no such "consensus" supporting an equal claim to scholars, just to include a fair number of citations. Big difference.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:NadirAli, I did not list every single source I could find, but just a few that met WP:RS in order to demonstrate the validity of the fact that the Kalash people adhere to a form of ancient Hinduism. As others have concurred, I included both animism and ancient Hinduism and even included the former term first as a compromise. That alone should satisfy your query. I hope this helps, Anupam^Talk 04:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Reference 6 the Radio Free Europe article by Frud Bezhan should be removed. The sentence before it says "academicians" regard the religion as ancient Hinduism. Bezhan is a journalist, not an academic. The inclusion of his citation inappropriately suggests that he is an academic, lending undo weight to this claim, since an academics work is generally given more weight than a journalist who is not reporting a newsworthy incident.

And the sources list above generally agree that the Kailash practice a form of syncretic beliefs: animism or animism mixed with Hinduism. The article just states a "form of Ancient Hinduism" which is rather vague and may mislead readers into thinking they practice a form of pure Vedic religion, which is not the case according to several citations listed above. It should instead say something like "while other academics regard their religion as a syncretic form of ancient Hinduism and animism"

Also, hey! We're both desi Christian doctors who aren't from South India. Not a terribly common demographic! Willard84 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Ancient Hinduism" (Rigvedic or proto-Rigvedic religion) is indeed animism. So it doesn't make sense to say "syncretic form of ancient Hinduism and animism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Willard84, what a coincidence! We both also happen to specifically have Anglican patrimony! I appreciate your comments and have moved the reference out of the lede per your suggestion (as Frud Bezhan isn't an academician but a journalist) to the specific section discussing Religion. Thank you! User:Kautilya3, I agree that ancient Hinduism is a form of animism and therefore concur that the proposed revision might be inadequate (although the suggestion was thoughtful and welcomed). I am grateful for your comments here as well and hope that you will continue to participate! With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

From what I see here, consensus has been established, and edit like this should not be done in the future. I will admit that this topic is not one that I am an expert in, but it seems quite clear that numerous reliable sources exist for both terms. This is not a contest. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that "Ancient Hinduism" is not Hinduism, rather it is the predecessor of Hinduism. More properly, it should be called the "Vedic religion". After reading through the Michael Witzel source cited by Anupam, it is pretty clear that the Kalash religion is close to the Vedic religion. There are no temples. There is fire sacrifice, though its elaborate nature is lost in mists of time. Indra, the uniquely Indo-Aryan god, occurs, though not prominently. What is more, Witzel shows that even the Nuristanis, who don't speak an Indo-Aryan language, have adopted him. This shows some cross-influences. The most prominent god is apparently Imro (Yama Raja). He is consider the creator god, though he doesn't have such a role in the Vedic religion. In fact, the old Vedic religion didn't have a creator god. The creation hymn (Nasadiya Sukta) occurs in the 10th book of Rigveda, which is believed to have been composed after the Indo-Aryans arrived in India (eastern Punjab, on the banks of the Ghaggar river). So, the Kalasha/Nuristani people either imported the concept of a creator god from elsewhere or thought of it themselves in later times.

On the other hand, the claim of "animism" is very weak. Most of the sources provided by NadirAli or Mar4d are pretty uneducated non-specialists. No details of animism have been provided by any of them. They have passing mentions, without any study. They are probably just repeating what they heard from some other equally uneducated source. There is no need to take them seriously. I am going to clean up the article based on this understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the Infobox

Looking through the history of the article over almost a decade, I notice that the religion field had oscillated between 'Kalash religion' and 'Hinduism'. On balance, I think writing 'Kalash religion' is neutral and more accurate. If the Kalash had followed Rigvedic religion, it would be fine to write 'ancient Hinduism'. But they don't. It is closely related to the Vedic religion, but it is not exactly. Calling it 'ancient Hinduism' also ignores all the evolution their religion might have undergone over the millennia, completely outside the Hindu sphere. Most of all, I suspect the Kalasha themselves don't believe their religion is Hinduism in any form. So it would be offensive to call it Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments User:Kautilya. From what I have read, the Kalash became isolated from the rest of Vedic sphere when Buddhism became popular in and spread throughout South-Central Asia. Buddhism, however, did not penetrate the mountainous Kalasha Desh (in addition to certain parts of Afghanistan). I am comfortable with inserting the words "form of" before the location "Vedic religion" or "ancient Hinduism" as this is how University of Rochester social anthropologist and professor Barbara A. West presents their faith. Adding these two terms also emphasizes the uniqueness of their faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a strong element of "self identification" needed to attribute religions to people. So, unless it is the case that the Kalash people self-identify as adhering to Hinduism (even "ancient Hinduism"), it would be inappropriate to label it as such.

What the scholars say can be used to describe their religion (in the prose), but cannot be used as a WP:LABEL. Note that Michael Witzel, an authority on the subject, describes it as pre-Vedic. It is doubtful if the pre-Vedic relition can be called "Hinduism" in any form. It is "related". That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts and would have no objection to your insertion of "Kalash religion" in the infobox. I suggest that you keep "ancient Hinduism" (and "Animism" if you wish) as a parenthetical since this explains what the Kalash religion is. However, if you think this is unnecessary, that is fine too. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes Anupam is correct that people under the Vedic religion category comes under Hinduism population, thus Ancient Hinduism would be better, there's nothing like "Kalash religion" though. If this is becoming a bit disputed you can just write down a section where their religion is being described and religion on infobox can be linked with "see below", linking the section. Capitals00 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Kalash religion" is the title of Michael Witzel's extract, cited in the article. It is probably a section title in the original article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Article Sections need to be rearranged

I believe sections of this article need to be rearranged in a who,where,when and how sequence.That means location should precede origin.Culture should follow origin.Also festival should be a sub-section of religion.Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I uploaded and added a thumbnailed image to the article showing the colorful costume. AFAIK, the image is not copyrighted. --Jinniya 1 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Here are simple people whose ethnicity and culture is being hijacked and they are being brainwashed. They are plain Dardic Central Asian Aryans, nothing to do with Greeks, Macedonians, Albanians, etc. Slowly for several generations they are being made to believe by brainwashing they are Greeks! The truth is Alexander was never in this area. Alexander was in Pakistani Punjab where majority (not all clans) are short and dark like most Greeks. The language of these people in Dardic (Aryan-Indo-European) so are their Gods of Avesta-Rigveda. Proper history must be taught on these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.72.218 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Kalash Origins Not Helpful

Based on the information contained in this article, especially the DNA analysis, there does not appear to be any reason to reach any conclusion about the origins of the Kalash. It appears they they are closely related to each other but not so much to other populations, though they have the most affinity with populations in Western Asia and Eastern Europe. All of this is consistent with most thinking about Indo-European origins and could support any of the hypotheses for Kalash origins which have been proposed. That means, it does not disprove any hypothesis. It is possible that they are an isolated remnant of an indigenous network of Indo-European populations which at one time probably extended from the Hindu Kush to what some Indo-Europeanists have termed the Pontic-Caspian interaction zone (encompassing the areas of the Black and Caspian Seas). It is also possible that the ancestors of the Kalash migrated from somewhere else. Since their language is not Greek, their DNA is not Greek, and their deity names appear to be Indo-Iranian rather than Greek, it is unlikely that they were Greeks. However, they could be descendant from an Indo-Iranian contigent of Alexander's army. The fact that there is limited information does not mean that people should argue based on emotion. It means that people should accept what objective information there is and admit that it is not enough for reaching a definitive conclusion. -- Bob Bob99 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A truly fascinating group. Looking at the results of the genetic studies coupled with the geographic isolation of the Kalash, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to conclude that they are one of the best preserved descendants of the prehistoric Indo-European nations thought to have originated in these regions. Koalorka (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

there are no ties or evidence linked to conclude they are Indo-European.216.252.17.164 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The language is Indo-European. The term "Indo-European" is a linguistic term that refers to a broad language family that include the Sanskrit-descended language of South Asia (hence "Indo-"), the languages of the Iranian plateau, and most of the language groups of Europe, including, but not limited to, the Slavic, Italic and Germanic language families (which are the largest European language families). It does not mean European and, in fact, the current consensus is that the geographic origin of this group was either in Central Asia or in Anatolia at some point approximately 7,000-9,000 years ago. This is based on comparisons of language, beginning with an observation approximately 250 years ago of the similarities between Sanskrit and Latin. Beginning with this observation, relationships involving various language groups were defined by the works of generations of scholars, with the modern consensus being that the parent language had to have existed 7,000-9,000 years ago to account for the observed differences. But languages may be more closely related than the people who speak them, and it is a significant error to believe that language necessarily equals ethnicity. The fact that language does not equal ethnicity can be seen from history, since we can see from written records that language changes over centuries and millenia, not only through internal, organic change but also through political change. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

their origin are Indian subcontinent, you think this is the only tribe, NO, their a lot more similar tribes like these all over Asia with these culture...etc, Nepal and India has a lot more but due to the population difference of Pakistan compared to its neighbors they have a lot more time and money to discover tribes like these lurking in the mountains, they are just one. Also keep in mind region does not matter for Indian Subcontinent, its about your clan, the kalash are among the last of the natives of that whole region, a lot of shifting happened during the partition (Native of Pakistan (so were all their neighbors, except Afghanistan)was Zoroastrianism and fled east before records and borders (where there was money and cities), many people from what is now Bangladesh and central India were bribed to come to Pakistan for money and land and came in tens to hundred millions and they were the ones that help get rid of the natives, also wars like 1984..etc forced northerners to come downward, and much more, theirs more European history in south India then any other place and thats where Anglos first appeared, near the ports, but you would never have thought that. Kalash are fascinating because they are last of the natives left but majority of their people fled eastern countries long ago. 216.252.17.164 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

Sceaf (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2019 (GMT) The whole section on genetic origins is outdated now. Focusing on haplogroups is interesting but since 2010 ancient autosomal DNA testing has developed to give much more insightful data on migrations into South Asia in history - we also have better data about the ethnic composition of Kalash people. While it remains true they have no Greek admixture, it is nonsense to say they have no European ancestry. I have twice updated the section with relevant papers as sources and it keeps getting undone and reverted. Many of the papers are already cited on the Yamnaya page including Haak et al 2015. Mathieson et al 2015 and specifically Lazaridis et al. (2016), pp. 123. which shows Kalash people have about 50% Yamnaya DNA - the other two papers show that Yamnaya are from the Ukraine and Russia and are therefore European and that they are descended mainly from European hunter gatherers. More recently in 2018 there were two papers which I tried to cite on this page on the genetics of South Asia, Narasimhan et al. (2018) and Damgaard et al. (2018), which show that the Yamnaya DNA in ancient south asia did not come directly from Yamnaya but via a later steppe population that had already picked up European Neolithic farmer DNA also. The European steppe DNA added to India created a new genetic group that scientists call ANI and Razib Khan stated in 2018 on his podcast that the Kalash are genetically exemplary of what ANI were like. I sourced all this and it was undone. I do not want to keep going to the trouble of adding the papers and sources only for it to be removed so can someone please sort this out so this page is up to date with all these latest papers.

---

@Sceaf:

Neither Narasimhan et al. nor Damgaard et al mentions Yamanayas as Europeans but as "Eurasian Steppe" people so that would be an original search.

• Abstract from Damgaard et. al

  The Yamnaya expansions from the western steppe into Europe and Asia during the Early Bronze Age (~3000 BCE) are believed to have brought with them Indo-European languages and possibly horse husbandry.

  Secondly for South Asians, it says

  Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after, but not at the time of, Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.

• Narasimhan et al similarly called Yamnayans Steppe pastoralists associated with the spread of Indo-European languages and terms the component 'Steppe EMBA', but says that South Asians possess 'Steppe MLBA' See

  It is striking that the great majority of Indo-European speakers today living in both Europe and South Asia harbor large fractions of ancestry related to Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists (corresponding genetically to the Steppe_EMBA cluster), suggesting that “Late Proto-Indo-European”—the language ancestral to all modern Indo-European languages—was the language of the Yamnaya (46). While ancient DNA studies have documented westward movements of peoples from the Steppe to Europe, there has not been ancient DNA evidence of the chain of transmission to South Asia. Our documentation of a large-scale genetic pressure from Steppe_MLBA groups in the 2nd millennium BCE provides a prime candidate, a finding that is consistent with archaeological evidence of connections between material culture in the Kazakh middle-to-late Bronze Age Steppe and early Vedic culture in India (46).

• The European ancestry section in the article is for the hypothetical Greek admixture not Indo-European admixture which is present in all modern Indo-Europeans.
• Calling Steppe/Yamnayan ancestry as 'European' ancestry will be misleading. Modern Europeans themselves are only partly related to Yamnayans - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, modern Europeans are part Yamnaya (British for eg about 45%) but the Yamnaya are themselves European, being 80% descended from Eastern European hunter gatherers. Yamnaya homeland is in the Western part of the Eurasian steppe which is inside Europe, but geography aside, they are genetically classed as a European type.

If the section on European ancestry is only about dispelling the myth of Greek ancestry among Kalash, then it should be renamed "Greek ancestry". The fact that Kalash people have European ancestry from the Bronze age is no longer disputed by geneticists but this wikipedia page currently does not reflect this fact.

James B. Minahan's Encyclopedia

This article has used Minahan's book which promotes pretty outlandish claims. He is an "independent researcher" but seems to have no qualifications in history, anthropology, religion etc which he talks about.

First of all the incorrect claims of Arabs invading Afghanistan in 700 which is false as Arabs are known to have invaded more than half a century earlier.

Than is the famous conspiracy theory, especially utilised in right-wing anti-Muslim circles, of them slaughtering or converting everyone there which is false given that the resistance of Afghan kingdoms of Hindus and others to Arabs is known much beyond that. Many outlasted the Arab caliphate even.

I can show proof for all the above.

Then of course are the other claims about Ghaznavid attacks on the Kalash/Kafir in 10th century which is false as it was Mahmud who attacked them in the 11th century.

Also the false claim of Sabuktigin attacking them in 1021-22. His own Wikipedia article and the Muslim histories which I read mention him dying long before.

I have noticed some of these mistakes in this book just related to this topic. God knows how many there are. I wonder why it's being used when there are so many other better sources that call their religion as "ancient Hinduism". Blamen1 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit to having my doubts about his Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations also, but I've been unable to find any critiques of his works and they do seem to get used by other authors. The suggestion that Arabs didn't invade Afghanisan until 700 does seem worrying. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Minahan is a problematic source. I suggest looking for other corroborations. The quotation included with the citation is also way too long in any case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Having majored in anthropology myself I doubt there will be. The criticism is rare unless the author received quite a repute. But he is not making a simple mistake. From the wrong facts about Arabs to Ghaznavids. Seems he never bothered to open a history book or a Web page. Just last month I read about Kabul Hindu kingdoms who outlasted the Arabs. How is this book here? Blamen1 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't be here rather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blamen1 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that I find the dates especially unreliable. Can't comment on other stuff though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The comments about Arab invasion are easily disproved by non-Muslim kingdoms like Kabul and Zunbils that along with some others outlasted Arabs, it's even described in their articles. There was likely forced conversion in some assaults, but clearly not an overall outright slaughter or complete conversion of Afghanistan due to which survivors fled to the mountains. But it's mostly unrelated to Kalash or their religion and Minahan's no historian. Blamen1 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The publication authored by James B. Minahan is published by ABC-CLIO, an academic press, and therefore meets WP:RS. The information that it is being used to buttress in this article is corroborated by author texts as well. I, therefore, do not think that it should be removed. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anupam: It's not an academic press. It publishes academic books and "Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's Guide". It also published The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him[24] as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. It's actually disappoint to see such a well known publisher misrepresent an author in this way, but a warning to all of us not to take publisher's statements at face value. Springer Publishing has published "The Geology of the Atlantic Ocean"[25] which reports seriously on claims of Pre-Columbian trips across the Atlantic, citing Charles Hapgood, Barry Fell, and the like. It's not enough to say it has a reputable pulisher. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I find Blamen1's edit to be wholly correct. None of those citations to Minahan are really needed. His anthropology is embarrassingly wrong. The Nuristanis are neither Indo-Aryan nor Iranian. They form a separate branch of Indo-Iranians. On the other hand, the Kalash are decidedly Indo-Aryan. I have no idea how Minahan can connect the two. Blamen1 was right to get rid of all the citations to Minahan here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of what Minahan says about the Nuristanis has been published by other authors in the past. Judging by his multiple wrong claims as already proved he doesn't seem to have mounted his own research. A publisher can't always guarantee an author's reliability and ABC-CLIO doesn't always publish bona-fide academics. Blamen1 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Anupam's quote is about Nuristanis and their old religion rather than the Kalash. Their religious beliefs are similar but not the same, nor the Kalash are said to be refugees by Minahan. Nor are they the same people. Certainly Afghanistan and the region near it also didn't have just one type of beliefs. It is not right to apply characterization of one group on another. Blamen1 (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, Sir can Blamen2 delete a complaint against Blamen1, here. Blamen2 got indeffed. Are they socks? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nsmutte created Blamen2 to imitate me and Bonadea, see Bonadea's comments at your complaint. Blamen1 (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is in favor of removing the Minahan source. I've removed it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Eurasian population adrift" makes no sense.

The Yamnayans have been proven to not have white skin or blonde hair - this developed in their descendants in Europe in the Corded Ware culture. Thus far from being an "adrift Eurasian group" the Kalash along with the original Indo-Iranians as a whole were part of a series of migrations that originated directly out of Northern Europe, and that prior to admixture with the local races, many early Indo-Iranians would have physically resembled the Kalash and the Nuristanis a.k.a. they were White. The dismissive segment on a "European connection" is dishonest as it only addresses the speculation that they are lost Greeks, rather than a lost Nordic race. SleeperCelle (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed citation to Pakistan Statistical Year Book 2012

The text had the following:

The Kalash people are divided equally between the adherents of Islam,{{efn|<ref name="Pakistan Statistical Year Book 2012"/>}}<ref name="Pakistan Statistical Year Book 2012"/>

This caused a problem because the reference was undefined. I thought I would fix this, but the source does not seem to mention the information it is cited for. So I have removed the citation. There seems no reason to remove the text, because there is another citation at the end of the sentence.

• Pakistan Statistical Year Book 2012. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (Report).
• Pakistan Statistical Year Book 2012 – 16.16 Population Distribution by Religion, 1998 Census (PDF) (Report).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Festival of the Budulak

I have deleted the paragraph "Festival of the Budulak". There were some problems:

• It had been inserted part way through the many paragraphs describing Chaumos.
• It was uncited.
• Reliable sources such as Witzel do not mention it.

The alleged festival had extraordinary features - so the principles in WP:EXCEPTIONAL should apply.

• Witzel, Michael (2004), "Kalash Religion (extract from 'The Ṛgvedic Religious System and its Central Asian and Hindukush Antecedents')" (PDF), in A. Griffiths; J. E. M. Houben (eds.), The Vedas: Texts, Language and Ritual, Groningen: Forsten, pp. 581–636

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature

How is saying that they have links to the Vedic religion rather than 'Ancient Hinduism' supposed to be vandalism? The convention is the term Vedic beliefs. Or are you too adamant to claim them as Hindus to be so touchy about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtar10 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Murudeshwar Shiva.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Ancient Hindus"

Time for some attention to this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

c.f Kata people. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The 2006 genetics paper

I think we should not emphacise a 2006 genetics paper, when we have so much considerably more recent papers addressing the same subject. --SB (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)