Talk:Liangzhu culture

message: Is "Liangzhu jade culture" really the accepted term?  Why not just "Liangzhu culture"?  I've made that a redirect to here, but I suspect it should be the other way around.
Can someone add a link to Butterfly Lovers, lest someone is looking for that Liangzhu?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShokuMasterLord (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Balthazarduju, here's MOS:LEAD:
:The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.[1])
:The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
:The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
It says nothing about only needing to "summarize the confirmed part". Mentioning that Haplogroup O1 has been found makes absolutely no sense to the average reader. It's not the possible Austronesian/Tai-Kadai relationships that qualifies as "significant information", it's the mention of Haplogroup O1. The former is the study's conclusions, the latter is the result of the methodology. 
It is also simply not an adequate summary of the actual subsection it was supposed to condense. The study itself explicitly mentions the significance of the O1 occurrence in its own summary - the abstract. We summarize the entire subsection in the lead, not pick and choose only things you agree with. I've written enough articles to know that. No one is even saying it's proven that these were ancestors of the Austronesians and/or Tai peoples, so we're not exactly doing synthesis either.
Neither is it too long or being given undue weight. It's nine more words to a single sentence. So what exactly is it that you're arguing for here? Other than the obvious fact that you apparently need to revert something. Even if it's just a wikilink.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liangzhu culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214115924/http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/E/E3.pdf to http://www.humpopgenfudan.cn/p/E/E3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liangzhu culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701020443/http://www.bishopmuseum.org/exhibits/pastexhibits.html to http://www.bishopmuseum.org/exhibits/pastexhibits.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reverted two recent additions to the article:
# An addition to the end of the "Disappearance" section, suggesting a connection to Binuangan in the Philippines. The Hung et al references only say that Neolithic Philippines jades came from Taiwan. The rest is sourced to a self-published book, which is not a reliable source.
# A new section "The Liangzhu and Austronesians in Chinese records".  The cited sources, Sagart and Pulleyblank, say that the Zhou (not Shang) described a people called Yí 夷 living around Shandong and the lower Huai River in the 1st millennium BCE, i.e. further north and much later than Liangzhu. Although Sagart proposes to link the 夷 with Austronesians, neither author says "sea-faring" or "Liangzhu".  The claim of an ancient Yue word for "sea" is odd, since their language is unattested with the possible exception of a song transcribed in Chinese, which does not mention the term. The rest is cited to the same self-published book.
In short, these additions appear to be original research. Kanguole 09:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binuangan, Chinese records