User talk:ErinS47

Welcome!
  Hello, !  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 13:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Book of Mormon, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. ''You cannot use an LDS book as a source about DNA, you need peer reviewed papers making the links between populations. No DNA scientist has made such claims.'' Doug Weller  talk 13:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok I think I understand. Yes this was my very first time trying to add something to Wikipedia, and I'm not a professional researcher or writer. It just didn't make sense to me for the paragraph to say "[there is no DNA evidence]" when I had read about some and listened to a video about some, so I did what I could to try to provide that information. There seems to be a possible link between the two areas (places where Native Americans were/are in the North East of the U.S. and Siberia) if you follow the link called "DNA evidence" and read the very bottom of that page. But yet that isn't mentioned on the first page for some reason. Thanks ErinS47 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find this a bit confusing. This is about Haplogroup X (mtDNA) and we are talking about migrations long, long before the BOM dates, so I'm not sure how they could be relevant. In any case, if you read that article, you'll see ""X2a has not been found anywhere in Eurasia, and phylogeography gives us no compelling reason to think it is more likely to come from Europe than from Siberia. Furthermore, analysis of the complete genome of Kennewick Man, who belongs to the most basal lineage of X2a yet identified, gives no indication of recent European ancestry and moves the location of the deepest branch of X2a to the West Coast, consistent with X2a belonging to the same ancestral population as the other founder mitochondrial haplogroups. Nor have any high-resolution studies of genome-wide data from Native American populations yielded any evidence of Pleistocene European ancestry or trans-Atlantic gene flow." I hope that clarifies this issue. Doug Weller  talk 10:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I also reverted this:
"Recent discovery is that North America was occupied as early as 30,000 years ago, which debunks the Bering Strait ice Bridge theory. The foot prints in White Sands New Mexico were dated to be around 30,000 years ago. http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/stone-tools-chiquihuite-cave-mexico-08667.html"

First, the article is about genetics so it doesn't belong there at all. Secondly, Beringia was a land bridge, not an ice bridge, so you don't seem to understand the science. Third, it existed at different times and is still considered a viable hypothesis, read the article. Thirdly, you have no source saying it is debunked. Finally, the WP:LEAD, or introduction, is meant to be a summary of the main points of the article, which as it is about genetics obviously doesn't discuss it. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh- I didn't add those two sentences or the reference. So no, I hadn't read the article because that wasn't my edit. Those two sentences were there when I read the article. I just put the "," after the word "ago" I believe, and added the word theory. But I guess you've removed those two sentences, so it's a mute point now. ErinS47 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ...I meant it's a moot point :) ErinS47 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that was added by an IP in December, I got myself confused. Sorry. Again, this was long before the BOM chronology. Doug Weller  talk 10:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)