Talk:Maritime Southeast Asia

message: There is some merit in Hector's points. No one would seriously dispute that Singapore is "Maritime Southeast Asia" if that term connotes a purely geographical meaning. On the other hand, if the term is to be used to connote sea-faring, maritime based cultures, then it is apt to cover a wider geographical areas as well, arguably encompassing coastal Vietnam (which has a strong sea-faring tradition), to the southern edges of the South China Sea, like China's Hainan Island).
But regardless of which meaning we adopt, Singapore arguably fits both. I see no need to distinguish between an Austronesian-type cultural sphere, and Singapore's non-Austronesian Sinitic majority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.243.19 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed for Singapore as Maritime SEA

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 :Maritime Southeast Asia'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 "Simanjuntak2017":
From History of Southeast Asia: 
From Austronesian peoples: 
From Peopling of Southeast Asia: 
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⚡ 00:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Maritime Southeast Asia]] 

message: I have just found a second review of Shaffer (a source used in this article) which characterises this work with:"Unfortunately the book is plagued by problems and factual errors"The review has further, more general criticisms.
Given the review by Barbara Watson Andaya already identified on this talk page, which is also extremely critical of Shaffer's book, should we question whether Shaffer is an RS that is suitable for used on Wikipedia? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500 by Lynda Norene Shaffer 

message: Noting this edit, I agree we have the potential to disappear down a terminological rabbit hole. The history of all these lines is well described in "Too Many Lines", which takes a partisan position, as you can tell from the title. Unfortunately it suggests, as a conclusion, that we should use the Huxley Line and the Lyddekker Line. The original article content was based on Bellwood's First Islanders (pg 12). The Wallace Line and Wallacea (and none of the other lines) are used in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania, which despite its title goes into how humans crossed Wallacea in the chapter jointly written by Sue O'Connor. It avoids mentioning the Lyddekker line by talking about the "Sahul shelf". So that is two of the leading archaeologists of the area taking slightly different descriptive approaches. Both, however, have maps that show the Wallace Line in the same position, differentiating it from the Huxley Line, and in agreement with the map in "Too Many Lines".
For the article, the purpose of mentioning the Huxley line is if a discussion of the spread of pre-neolithic humans into the area is included. The purpose of this post is that future content may require the introduction of the concept of the Huxley line, but we might use Sue O'Connnor's strategy of not naming yet another line, but dealing with it in a descriptive manner. I am possibly thinking too far ahead in the editing process and acknowledge that my view may be tilted by having sat through lectures on the subject in (pretty much) the same era as the "Too Many Lines" paper mentioned above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huxley, Wallace and Wallacea