Talk:Hoabinhian

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Vietnam may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Vietnam may be able to help!

Time Chart--Overtaken by Events?

In the time chart at the head of the article, the Hoabinhian in classified as Mesolithic and given a date which differs from the date in the lead paragraph and from that given in the summary of the decisions of the most recent congress, which also ruled that Hoabinhian isn't Mesolithic. Can anyone reconcile these contradictions?

Terry J. Carter (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced POV=

@Chaipau: Where does Tagore et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8008685/ say Onge are 35% East Asian? Please provide source. Studies that came out this year also do not model Onge as mixed, but separate/very different group from Southeast/East Asians, Onge are also not closely related to Hoabianin. My problem is you claiming them as mixed when they are not, which is not even in source. 117.198.115.23 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@117.198.115.23: Tagore said nothing about 35/32%. The sentence says clearly "previous studies" found this 32/25%. I have tagged this as citation needed. Please read the full sentence carefully. Chaipau (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotypes ?

@AngelusVastator3456: One of the results of modern genetics is that phenotypes are not closely related with ancestry. So why should phenotypes be relevant for a section about genetic links ? Studies are primary sources, and as Wikipedians we cannot gauge the relevance of primary sources without secondary ones. That's why I removed the paragraph that you inserted. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]