Talk:Austronesian peoples

message: This section provides no citations or any reliable resources so I think that section needs to be removed.
As stated here: 
"This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) " PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prehistory and history 

message: Hey y'all, Your intro section leaves out Taiwan, which is not in Oceania or SE Asia.. it's in NE Asia.. and I'm not so sure the Filipinos are Formosan. I'll check. Later --Ling.Nut 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Info from the 1911 Encyc. Brit.? OK, now I see the prob. This article is new... and it needs more than a little work. Everything needs to be cited; I have doubts about many of the facts as presented. Are we sure that the subcategories given are valid & reflect a consensus among scholars? Are we sure we have other facts straight? I'll try to help, whenever I can. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: needs work

message: Just trying to be helpful, but its kind of a red flag that this article refers to itself as Austronesian peoples, there is no such thing as Austronesian people. Austronesian is a language family, it isn't an ethnic group, I attempted to fix the intro to reflect that, but it's just a rough edit at the moment, and could definitely use more work.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latticus97 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Austronesian Peoples

message: When making new sections, I'd like to follow the template here, albeit disincluding some sections. For example, I would be very hesitant about putting an "appearance" section.(In fact, I removed that section). --Ling.Nut 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps changing the name of that section from "Appearance" to "Characteristic Features" in line with the caucasian page. I was actually trying to figure out a better name last night and figured somebody would come along and change it. I still feel it should be included because the austronesians are factually distcintive looking compared to the east asians, causcasians and the africans. I would assume a workable npov entry about it would work. --Chicbicyclist 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  follow the WikiProject Ethnic Groups [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template|template]] 

message: Thanks 23pootie. 380,000,000 sounds more plausible than either 350,000,000 or 400,000,000.--Chicbicyclist 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, welcome.:) 23prootie 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population estimate 

message: I doubt that headhunting or cannibalism are common in either Southeast Asia or Oceania, though these practices have been reported. The article should emphasize the past nature of the practices mentioned and/or cite references for a recent event. Makerowner 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  culture section 

message: I was reading about the demographics of the various countries listed and mentioned in this article and many of them still says the predominant(old and wrong?) version that states that their people came from Mainland southeast Asia, or that they originated from present day Malaysia. They contradict what is being said in this article, basically. 
I would edit them to at least mention a competing theory but I don't want an edit war to ensue so I'll probably wait for an expert to touch this article and add more references. Speaking of references, how sure are we about the origins of the Austronesian people as south China-Taiwan-Philippines-the rest of Southeast Asia as opposed to Mainland Asia-Malay archipelago-Malay archipelago? We probably need better citations but what is the credibility of the current ones?--Chicbicyclist 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I think your note on Hinduism being practised by Austronesians in Fiji is rather incorrect. Hinduism is mainly practised by the large Indian community in Fiji rather than the indigenous Austronesian population. Please correct this accordingly.
FRM SYD 04:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austronesian Hinduism in Fiji?

message: i notice the population of Austronesians were marked as the actual estimated countries populations. For example in Malaysia the population of Austronesians would only be around 16-18 million, as there are many Chinese Malaysians and Indian Malaysians. Philippines is the same but to a much lesser extent, they also have many Chinese Filipinos, and Indonesia aswel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jandela (talk • contribs).
:I agree. I'm about to add New Zealand to the list, using the total census population for the following groups: Maori, Pacific Peoples, Filipino, Indonesian, and Malay. I'll excluded groups such as Malaysian Chinese (because they're clearly out of scope), and also Vietnamese and Cambodian (because I'm not sure how many of them should count). I'll correct the Fijian number too. -- Avenue 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  New zealand should be added, but only if it says the maoris specificly Australian Jezza 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's room in the infobox to split out all the different groups. We could split the NZ total into Maori (565,000) and Other (290,000) if you like. This has reminded me about the original post. I'll try to fix the Malaysia problem now. -- Avenue 04:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I entirely agree with that definition. In a New Zealand context, for instance, does someone with a European heritage who speaks Maori count as Austronesian? -- Avenue 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not suggesting we should count all New Zealanders (4.2 million), just the ones whose ethnicity is Austronesian. This includes not just Maori (565,000), but also people from other Polynesian cultures (about 265,000 people) and other Austronesian cultures (another 25,000 or so). Counting only Maori would be misleading. -- Avenue 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Populations Wrong

message: They are not Austronesians.
Yes they are... please also sign after you commentAustralian Jezza 04:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! -- Ngio 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Solomon Islands, and Fiji

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Why are all Melanesians counted as Austronesian on this page? While there are some who might be considered Melanesians who do speak Austronesian languages, many do not. --Krsont 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melanesians 

message: No source that Malay race was obsolete term of Austronesian people. Austronesian people is linguistic(now sometimes include genetics)-based classification comparing to Malay race idea that is now rejected. So it the two terms are different.
Ayrenz (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the terms are distinct. (Caniago (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Deleted association of cannibalism with Austronesians as this was a practice in Papuan, not Austronesian,culture. Based on carbon-dating, the Papuan-speaking peoples preceeded the arrival of the Austronesians by at least 30,000 years in Melanesia. Peer-reviewed genome data published by Jonathan Friedlaender, et al. of Temple University entitled "The Genetic Structure of Pacific Islanders" indicates little genetic relation between Austronesian/Polynesian and Papuan/Melanesian groups.
Ritualistic consumption of the human body as a rite of empowerment and passage is covered by anthropologist Gilbert Herdt in "Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (Studies in Melanesian Anthropology)"Anthroaustro (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Revision

message: “Austronesians” refers to groups of different peoples – they are not a singular group, but many. There is no such thing as *the* Austronesian ethnic group, rather there are numerous Austronesian ethnic groups. Hence the article’s name. Further, while “Austronesian peoples” is factually correct it is also grammatically fine. --Merbabu (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Austronesian peoples

message: I'm sorry, I just wanted to propose a way to restructure the article. How about we remove everything that is not Austronesian? Since the article is mainly concerned about the Austronesian peoples, why don't we remove paragraphs about outside influences like Indian and Western cultures and Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. So for example, we take out the writing subsection, because it's mostly a modification/descendent of the ancient Indian writing systems. On the other hand, the art of tattooing is a genuine product of the Austronesian peoples, so it should remain. And instead of having a paragraph on non-indigenous religions like Islam and Christianity, why not leave a simple sentence like for example, "Most Austronesians today have left traditional religions for Islam and Christianity" like the simple one sentence on Indian culture in the art subsection "Austronesian peoples living close to mainland Asia, are influenced by the native, Chinese, Indian, and Islamic art forms.", because if people wanted to know about the Indian and Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, they should look up the article 'Southeast Asia' and not 'Austronesian Peoples'. I know that the article would be much shorter than it is, but in my opinion as an article about Austronesian peoples, the article should overwhelmingly speak about indigenous arts, music and religions of the Austronesians and the similarities between them. I know that we can write so much about this, because this topic is huge ranging from Fijian traditional dances, traditional Taiwanese Aboriginal songs, to traditional Javanese games. Other things that are indigenous that we can write is for example, the way of life of the ancestor Austronesians with their bows and arrows, ship-building and navigating techniques, the roles of rice, pigs, dogs, chickens, coconuts, etc, their belief system, kinship, etc.
I would also think that recent history such as colonialism as not so important that we should go into details, considering that the whole world went through it. Colonialism is as unrelated to this article as the fact that many "Austronesian countries" joined the United Nations or that many Austronesians watch TV or that Austronesians are starting to go to supermarkets. If people wanted to read about it, they can find it in great detail in the articles 'History of Oceania', 'History of Southeast Asia', 'Colonialism', etc. Anyone else thinks this way?Senantiasa (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of what you say makes sense. Some text should be removed - but do you have reliable sources to add new material that is more relevant? --Merbabu (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about we remove everything that is not Austronesian? 

message: From what I can tell as an outside observer, the explanation presented is still a theory and has only been developed fairly recently.  Earlier or conflicting theories probably still deserve mention.  Here is one contrary source for example: Origins of the Filipinos and Their Languages by Wilhelm G. Solheim II Lambanog (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical nature of the topic. 

message: I know nothing about anthropology, archaeology nor history, but I think this article should mention Javanese/Java, particularly in the Geographic section. How could a region/ethic with more than 85 million people isn't mentioned here? aren't they also Austronesian? Guybrush1979 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Javanese are definitely Austronesian Simon (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are Javanese? 

message: Are Dravidian peoples Austronesian? If not what are they? 97.122.162.181 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not Austronesian - they're, well, Dravidian. Simon (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dravidians 

message: Text under picture of Taiwan aboriginal woman reads: "An Atayal tribal woman from southern Taiwan".
The Atayal tribe inhabits the northern part of Taiwan, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_aborigine. It is therefore unlikely this woman is from southern Taiwan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in picture text (Atayal) 

message: The number of Austronesians in Papua New Guinea is simply listed as its entire population. This is inaccurate, a large portion of the population is not ethnically Austronesian, nor do they speak an Austronesian language. With no objections I'll edit accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayday (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papua New Guinea 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Austronesian peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "coco":
From Hinduism: 
From Genomics of domestication: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute bot — LlywelynII 08:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Austronesian peoples]] 

message: io9 has an article on how flooding in Fujian may have prompted the development of seafaring enabling the settlement of Taiwan, whence possibly the Austronesians. If the primary sources check out, it may be something to include in the background section. — LlywelynII 08:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: io9 & Fujian

message: "Aside from European introgression found in Maritime Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Madagascar."
This is not a sentence but a subclause without a main clause. I'm not sure what is meant, so perhaps someone who does know what it should say can fix it? GeneCallahan (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a sentence 

message: His maternal great grandmother was Maori. Does that make him Austronesian?Wikirictor (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more than having a Japanese great-grandmother makes you Japanese when all your other ancestors do not descend from Japanese – at most it makes you an eighth Japanese. (Actually it was his mother's father's grandmother, which is even a generation more distant.) Nor does Russell Crowe's Welsh grandfather make him Welsh. He does not seem to identify as Maori, speak Maori, have any level of immersion in or connection with Maori culture beyond any other White New Zealander, and does not even look non-white, so it is ridiculous to even suggest this. You need to subscribe to some sort of one-drop rule to even seriously entertain an idea like this. It's worse: Philipp Rösler was born in Vietnam to Vietnamese parents, but even he is not called Vietnamese by us because he does not identify as Vietnamese, does not speak one word of Vietnamese, has no connection to Vietnam, grew up in Germany in a German adoptive family, and has only German citizenship. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Seriously. Take a long hard look at your thought processes. While I do not want to imply that you consciously subscribe to an odious ideology, it is worrying that you would even think along these lines – examine the origins of a thinking that would lead one to classify individual human beings according to remote, insignificant ancestry rather than cultural identity and self-perception. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Russel Crowe

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Austronesian peoples. 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/20070704025338/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/indicators.pdf to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/c2000/indicators.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104050222/http://www.hugo-international.org/blog/?p=123 to http://www.hugo-international.org/blog/?p=123
*Added  tag to http://www.cis.ndhu.edu.tw/zh/7_publish/%E5%AD%A3%E5%88%8A/2%5B1%5D.2--peterson.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223015224/http://www.stats.govt.nz:80/census/2006-census-data/national-highlights/2006-census-quickstats-national-highlights.htm?page=para025Master to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/national-highlights/2006-census-quickstats-national-highlights.htm?page=para025Master
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403140105/http://www.fiji.gov.fj:80/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf to http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214223039/http://hpgl.stanford.edu:80/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614013550/http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/austronesians.html to http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/austronesians.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Austronesian peoples. 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/20130207215244/http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/population-movement-pacific-perspective-future-prospects/05.asp to http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/population-movement-pacific-perspective-future-prospects/05.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403140105/http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf to http://www.fiji.gov.fj/uploads/FijiToday2005-06.pdf
*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
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.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) 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Austronesian peoples. 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/20160207232321/http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=13777&lang=en to https://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=13777&lang=en
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) 22:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: -	In the beginning introduction, 
o	I would like to see what other ethnic groups are relatable to them, and how they sprung up to be primarily speaking languages from the Austronesian family
-	Prehistory and history
o	What exactly is meant by the quote “evidence has been interrupted as supporting a ‘northern’ origin.” Like for example, to explain the term “northern” more broader and actually distinguish which parts of Southeast Asia is being differed from one another.
o	Has the assimilation of the family of Austronesian languages, also been used elsewhere?
o	More detail in the indigenous origin for the Austronesian languages in Melanesia and Southeast Asia.
o	Have people tried to carry over the family of Austronesian languages elsewhere, outside of its original territories?
o	The section that speaks about Taiwan and the role it played on having a strong impact on culture and language of the people is written very well, and concludes the paragraph quite well. 
-	Migration and Dispersion
o	How long has the pattern of the trading routes of Austronesian sailors lasted for, in order to get the coconuts from one region to the other, and possibly as far east all the way to the Americas?
o	Are there any other genetically distinct foods, plants, or etc. that have been traced from the Austronesians?
-	"Out of Taiwan" model
o	some characteristics of this section should be transferred to the prior section, Migration and Dispersion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsaeidian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments about the first few sections of the article 

message: Do you think we should add this page to the category "Ethnic groups in the Indian Ocean"? I thought it would be a good idea to ask before I or somebody else added it.Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Ocean ethnic group 

message: Hello, the part about distribution in the lead also exists word for word in the "geographic distribution" section. I think we can delete or shorten one of the two. Any suggestions?--AsadalEditor (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We should keep the info in the lead to a minimum (or delete it altogether), and leave the details in "Geographic distribution". –Austronesier (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.--AsadalEditor (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: The lead is too short at the moment, read the guideline on lead length per MOS:LEADLENGTH for an idea what an appropriate lead should be. The article is nearly 200,000 bytes, readable prose of just under 80,000 characters or 12,000 words, ideally it should have three or four paragraphs in the lead. At the moment it is too uninformative for the general reader who might not want to read the whole article, but would like a summary of its content in the lead. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead length 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the 2011census of India claimed that at Andaman and Nicobar islands were 326000+ tribal people living. They are all Australasian group brunch. Humfrey ozeil (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the connection between "Australasian people" and "Austronesian peoples"? –Austronesier (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australasian people :Andamanese tribe group 

message: Please protect this article because someone is persistently vandalizing it. Rantemario (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Such protection was declined. CMD (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last time, I had the IP blocked for disruptive editing, and they immediately started IP-hopping. Then I filed for RPP and mentioned the IP-hopping, which helped to get PP. –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mention the renewed disruption was due to the expiration of the previous pp. Oh well, I posted at AIV. CMD (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for your cooperation. Rantemario (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear admins 

message: Noting the paragaph: "Austronesian reached the Philippines, specifically Batanes Islands at around 2200 BCE. They were the first people to invent maritime sailing technology (most notably catamarans, outrigger boats, lashed-lug boat building, and the crab claw sail) which enabled their rapid dispersal into the islands of the Indo-Pacific".
Does this mean that the Austronesians were the first people to invent maritime technology that specifically enabled rapid dispersal into the islands of the Pacfic
OR
Does it mean that the Austronesians were the first people to invent maritime technology generally?
The former claim is possibly supportable. The latter claim is debatable, possibly provably false. Researchers have found depictions on pottery of sail-propelled sailing in the Persian Gulf about as far back as 6,000 to 5,500 Before the Common Era.  "Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during sixth and fifth millennia BC. March 2006Antiquity 80(307) DOI:10.1017/S0003598X0009325X https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30052546_Boat_remains_and_maritime_trade_in_the_Persian_Gulf_during_sixth_and_fifth_millennia_BC "
The Egyptians were at it by the early 3000s BCE "A Comeback ofWind Power in Shipping: An Economic and Operational Review on the Wind-Assisted Ship Propulsion Technology" https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041880  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.92.166 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the working to specifying "oceangoing" instead of "maritime"... this is consistent with several other WP pages (like Maritime history#Ancient Times and Ancient_maritime_history. I think this is a fairly widely held consensus so I'm reluctant to add a source into the lede when it's not really required, but here's one for your own perusal:  Tobus (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: claim to be first maritime tech users is debatable

message: There was a claim that the Austronesian peoples were the first to invent a variety of maritime technologies; I've edited that statement slightly to say that they used said technologies to travel over the Pacific. There is evidence, and academic research, that the peoples of what is now the Northern part of the Persian Gulf were the first to invent those technologies about 8,000 years ago and dispersal of technology took place from there. 
Researchers have found depictions on pottery of sail-propelled sailing in the Persian Gulf about as far back as 6,000 to 5,500 Before the Common Era. 
Incidentally, I note my previous edit to this effect was undone, as was the comment on the talk page, and no reasons or evidence were given. It would be courteous to leave a change note explaining why this material should be undone given there is solid physical evidence and academic research supporting it. 23/04/2021. 
"Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during sixth and fifth millennia BC". March 2006 Antiquity 80(307) DOI:10.1017/S0003598X0009325X https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30052546_Boat_remains_and_maritime_trade_in_the_Persian_Gulf_during_sixth_and_fifth_millennia_BC— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.92.166 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The text specifically says "oceangoing" - the Persian Gulf is not an ocean. There are boat remains going back at least 10,000 years and circumstantial evidence of water travel for up to 100,000 years - some people think boats must have existed even 900,000 year ago to get to Flores in Indonesia! Ocean travel however - days without seeing land - requires very different methods to coastal voyages and island hopping, and the list of technologies after the "invented" statement have not been seen anywhere previously. Tobus (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Maritime Technologies claim is not supported by evidence and research

message: Infoboxflag Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The statement "Early contact with Arab ships in the Indian Ocean during Austronesian voyages is also believed to have resulted in the development of the triangular Arabic lateen sail." is specifically contradicted by The Lateen Sail in World History I. C. Campbell (1995) . The cited sources in the article include 2 criticisms/questions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at another source, a better argument is that the Arabian lateen of the 14th century provided the technological inspiration for the Oceanic lateen. Evidence for this includes the linguistic analysis of the components of stayed masts. This is explained in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 480-481). Oxford University Press.  What is clear from Campbell's paper is that the author has a very limited understanding of how a sail actually works. (This is discussed in a paper by Nick Burningham, The Misunderstood Square Sail.) I have come to the conclusion that Campbell is not a reliable source in this case. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lateen sail originated in the Mediterranean. This is well explained in that sail's article. I have therefore deleted the text referred to, which, incidentally, had two failed verifications. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab lateen 

message: The ships and sailing section would benefit from being based on more recent sources. I suggest that SEAFARING IN REMOTE OCEANIA Traditionalism and Beyond in Maritime Technology and Migration in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) Oxford University Press, is an important source which balances the traditionalist arguments given in Vaka Moana, voyages of the ancestors (which is another recent secondary source that is ignored by this section of the article). 
The article seems to suffer from extensive use of a number of fairly old primary sources (in the form of research papers that set out ideas) when a better approach would be to make greater use of secondary sources (which should take into account any of these old primary sources if they are of any importance). 
The result would be that many facts currently stated in the article would need to be revised. At the very least, the article should make clear the complete lack of hard evidence for any of the early proposed forms of sailing technology. The whole article fails to mention the view put forward in the Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania that phases of migration happened when the prevailing winds changed due to a higher frequency of El Nino events in some periods of history.(p485-486) This fits with a model of largely downwind migration, which is at variance with Horridges' suggestion that the Austronesian expansion into the wider Pacific was carried out to windward. The phases of migration, however, fit well with these changes in prevailing winds due to El Nino. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships and sailing section 

message: The presumed nature of Austronesian farming is called into question by Tim Denham's essay in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. Some of the basic evidence used in the essay includes the late appearance of evidence of rice as a crop in Island South East Asia (circa 2000 BP). (There is even less evidence of millet being an integral part of the Austronesian expansion into ISEA.) Hence there is a substantial problem with the article saying:"Nevertheless, based on linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Austronesians are most strongly associated with the early farming cultures of the Yangtze River basin that domesticated rice from around 13,500 to 8,200 BP."Denham points to the evidence of Austronesians adopting the crops of the area into which they had moved.
Similarly there are complexities over the domesticated animals that are seen as a major part of the Austronesian expansion. The pig, dog and chicken do not appear consistently together in early archaeological sites in the Bismarcks (3470 to 325 BP). Early Lapita migrations varied in the makeup of these three domesticated species. Even the genetics of the pigs gives a complex picture, with the pigs that dispersed with Pacific settlement being descended from stock originating from mainland South East Asia, rather than Taiwan.
This is another area where the confident statement of "fact" by the article does not seem to reflect the levels of uncertainty that now exists with the ideas of just a few years ago.
At a minimum, the article's suggestion that Austronesians (after starting their expansion into ISEA) have a strong association with rice farming should be removed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Another with similar concerns about Bellwood's model of an agriculture-driven Austronesian expansion is Roger Blench - see  as an example of someone saying there are problems with the currently accepted model. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of Austronesian farming 

message: The article's suggestion (in the "pottery" section) that the Marianas was settled by voyaging from Luzon is systematically demolished by the paper:  Austronesian sailing to the northern Marianas, a comment on Hung et al. (2011) Olaf Winter1∗ , Geoffrey Clark1, Atholl Anderson1 & Anders Lindahl2 September 2012Antiquity 86(333):pp. 898-910 DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00047992 . This states:
"It is most unlikely, therefore, that the technology required for “a remarkable feat of ocean crossing” Hung et al. (2011: 910) existed at the very beginning of Austronesian dispersal to propel the longest passage against prevailing winds in all Remote Oceanic prehistory, only to disappear before the Lapita era and then reemerge millennia later. Longer passages occurred in East Polynesia after about 1200 BP as in Marquesas to Hawai‘i (3600km), and Rarotonga to New Zealand (2750km), but they were predominantly downwind in prevailing SE trade winds or subtropical easterlies."
The key point is that sailing direct from Luzon to the Marianas is extremely difficult even in a modern yacht. This is because of a strong opposing current and a contrary prevailing wind direction. The interpretation of Lapita pottery evidence is also examined in this paper, looking at the methods of manufacture. So the pottery evidence discussed in the article now has a later (and different) interpretation. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of first settlement of Marianas 

message: Afro-Asiatic 119.111.139.108 (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Araling panlipunan 

message: I have been taking a look at the extent to which the article text is supported by the cited references. It is a slow job, but I have found three instances where not only is article text unsupported by the cited references but at times, it is largely contradicted by them. The third example has three referencesall of which fail to support the article text.
I started with the first two paragraphs of the section headed "Paleolithic".
The first paragraph, first sentence, has two cited references: Jett, Ancient Ocean Crossings and Jinam et al, Discerning the Origins of the Negritos. The facts in that first sentence that you might expect to be confirmed by references are 
* the method by which modern humans spread out of Africa to ISEA ("coastal migration")
* the date that ISEA was settled by these first settlers ("70,000 BP")
Neither of these facts are confirmed by the two cited references. Jett mentions "eastern  Asia" being reached by 70,000 years ago - but he is not discussing ISEA there. Jinam et al open their paper with a date of at least 40,000 BP for human presence in Southeast Asia. Neither of these sources specifically discuss the coastal migration routes mentioned in the article. The nearest Jett comes to this is the coastal migration into North America, in a completely different part of his book. If these sources do not confirm anything in the preceding part of the paragraph, what are they doing there?
The second paragraph refers to "these early populations"which is rather a woolly term for a period of ). The suggestion is made that some crossings were accidental. Mention is made of the major barriers to migration (Wallace Line, etc.) and then the article says that settlement in what are now islands was "mostly through land migration". 
Jett, the cited source, gives a very much different account. First, it should be made clear that Jett does make a number of self-contradictory statements in his book. However, reading it as a whole, he is clear that the crossing of the Wallace Line would have involved watercraft:"The depauperate faunas to the east of Wallace’s Line argue against the efficacy of natural rafting, and neither were modern humans’ premodern predecessors rafted to the east of Flores as one would expect had natural rafting been a viable mechanism in the region."He mentions pelagic fishing 43,400 BP in East Timor. He also discusses the New Britain obsidian trade, 24,000 BP and involving water transport. There are a number of statements by Jett that present a picture of a population with effective maritime technology, for instance:"Again, watercraft would have been the only feasible means for colonizing these lands, and deep-sea fishing is evidenced in New Ireland at some 35,000 years ago. Most of these islands are intervisible, but to reach Buka from New Ireland required an 87-mile ocean voyage, one-third of which was out of sight of land." I cannot reasonably quote them all, but Jett makes other remarks along the same lines. I suggest that the reader of this part of the Wikipedia article would take away a very different picture [than ]from the source: mostly migration on land, with some by water, much of which was accidental.
Looking elsewhere in the article, the last paragraph in the section titled "Migration from Taiwan" starts with: "In the Indian Ocean, they sailed west from Maritime Southeast Asia; the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by ca. 50–500 CE." The key fact in the sentence is the date (the article has already mentioned Madagascar as having received Austronesian settlers). Three sources are cited to support this. None of them mention the date in the article as a date for Austronesian settlement in Madagascar, nor do they reach a conclusion of any date for this. 
The first reference is titled Genetic evidence and historical theories of the Asian and African origins of the present Malagasy population. The main emphasis is on the proportions of African, Austronesian and other components in the genetic makeup of the Malagasy people. It handles the date of the arrival of Austronesians only in passing, and with not much precision:"Dating based on linguistic borrowings suggest a recent split of a proto-Malagasy population from other Indonesian populations within the first millennium of the Christian era";"...it was possible to date their admixture with Austronesian-speaking population in the last two millennia".There is no way that this reference can support the date given in the article.
The second reference is The Culture History of Madagascar. The closest statement to dating Austronesian arrival in the island is "Dahl (1951) proposed A.D. 400 as an estimated date of departure of proto-Malagasy speakers from Indonesia, based on the limited number of Sanskrit loan words in Malagasy. Adelaar (1989) has argued in response that most of these Sanskrit loans were probably borrowed via Old Malay or Old Javanese, and not directly from an Indian language. He prefers to date the migration as seventh century or later." Otherwise the paper lists a number of archaeological finds in the first millenium AD, but makes no association between any of them and Austronesian settlers. The closest is mention of a site with pottery similar to that found in modern Vezo villages (dated A.D. 650 with a range of A.D. 440-780) but discusses the inability to confirm that with additional work as the site was lost in a cyclone. The paper's conclusion focuses on the further work that needs to be done to understand the overall subject.
The third reference is A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. At an early stage it says:"We do not even know for sure whether the earliest visitors to the island were Asians or Africans."Dates of evidence of settlement are discussed, but none have any suggestion of who the settlers might be.
I find it particularly disturbing that an initial look at the references which supposedly support the text has found so many discrepancies between sources and article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the Madagascar issue with a source by Alexander Adelaar, the expert on the linguistic history of Madagascar. The date 50–500 CE was indeed unsupported and also way too early. I will supplement this information later with sources from other disciplines (geneticists arrive at similar dates as Adelaar). –Austronesier (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of references 

message: This is just a note on the more complex inclusion of domesticated pigs, dogs and chickens in the "Austronesian package"more complex that the view one could get from reading the article. These species did not travel continuously, from the outset (in Taiwan), with the migration front of the Austronesian dispersal. See, for instance, The Origins and Arrival of the Earliest Domestic Animals in Mainland and Island Southeast Asia: A Developing Story of Complexity Philip J. Piper (2017) in New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory Edited by Philip J. Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura and David Bulbeck
Is this something that other editors in the subject have picked up on in other sources? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for domestic pigs, dogs and chickens as part of the "Austronesian package" 

message: It would seem obvious to me that a new sub-topic is needed: fauna and flora links. The genetics of the paper mulberry, for example, lead straight back to TAIWAN, Polynesian pig are genetically linked to Yunnan Province, China (' northern peninsular Southeast Asia', specifically southern China’s Yunnan Province.)  The 'kura' dog is linked to middle Indonesia via China, the Polynesian rat originated in Southeast Asia, the chicken is from the Philippines, etc. 2001:8003:1D9E:9400:F564:E8C3:BB2E:1716 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all here: Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, User:Obsidian Soul did an incredible job with it. The link to that page is somewhat hard to find in the hatnotes of §Evidence from agriculture. –Austronesier (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sub-topic needed.