User talk:Emmohhaach

I've remove many of your genetic analysis claim as it is either not cited or not in citation given.

Please provide the specific page from source 72 for these 3 quotes

'The older acknowledgement of linguistic expansion of Sinitic (Han), which had theorized a pattern of north to south, from millet cultivating to the humid areas where irrigated rice was possible did not seem viable.'

'Analysis reveals that southernwestern rice growers transitioned to millet in the northwest when they could not find a suitable northernwestern ecology, where it was typically dry and cold, to sustain the generous yeilds capable in other areas such as along the eastern Chinese coast.'

' The original language of millet farmers in the northwest, relating to the Peiligang culture some 6500 years ago and prior, found little to no legacy in the eventual Sinitic speech '

I still do not see the quote for these.

'The older acknowledgement of linguistic expansion of Sinitic (Han), which had theorized a pattern of north to south, from millet cultivating to the humid areas where irrigated rice was possible did not seem viable.'

The original language of millet farmers in the northwest, relating to the Peiligang culture some 6500 years ago and prior, found little to no legacy in the eventual Sinitic speech that arose during the Shang dynasty "

'Analysis reveals that southernwestern rice growers transitioned to millet in the northwest when they could not find a suitable northernwestern ecology, where it was typically dry and cold, to sustain the generous yeilds capable in other areas such as along the eastern Chinese coast. page 137 [73]'

Only this quote does exist. "There is no obvious candidate for the ethnolinguistic identity of the millet-growers of Péilígǎng and it may be they have no linguistic descendants."

However,I still remove it because it is irrelevant to DNA analysis. The purpose of the quote 'Sinitic(Han) expansion would surely have been from north to south, from millet cultivating to the humid areas where irrigated rice was possible.' is to support the genetic data in which northern Han contribute to southern Han genetic even further.

Please continue the talk here in this talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also decided to remove the whole millet-rice talk and it's connection to Sinitic because it had nothing to do with DNA analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is citation or evidence, the changes you made are unnecessary as it does not impact on the general statement of the whole study. Here in wikipedia,we are not supposed to include every single thing from our sources into wikipedia entry. Wikipedia readers will know it themselves on all the references list. They will click the reference link,and read the rest of the published paper themselves. As long as our citation/references list are there,there's no need to include every single thing into wikipedia. Wikipedia readers will go read the original reference list themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommininent (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is ok. I acknowledge it.

'and centrally placed populations act as the conduit between the outlying populations.'

The other one no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommininent (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be okay because it is saying why the source has problems.

--emmohhaach

Do not remove the sentence 'Han Chinese trace their ancestry back to the Huaxia people, who lived along the Huang He or Yellow River in northern China.'

It is given with citation and for many years was there without any problem. The sentence and your edit are two different thing and not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustaido (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Emmohhaach. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shang Dynasty

Hi, Emmohhaach. Two of us have raised objections to your edit. You need to stop reverting it back in and discuss it on the talk page. Kanguole 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make it three.I also object Emmohhaach edit in Shang dynasty and it seems Emmohhaach have make unnecessary edit in Han Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcaws (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]