This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Polynesia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Island | Political status |
---|---|
American Samoa | (overseas United States territory) |
Anuta | (in the Solomon Islands) |
Cook Islands | (self-governing former territory of New Zealand) |
Anyone support this format? We could include a third flag column, and reduce the overall size and place it as a side inset.
lots of issues | leave me a message 16:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I just added a bunch of info about Polynesian navigation. It my biggest contribution to Wikipedia to date but I am not sure how to to cite my source. I am going to lokk up the format for the biliography right now, but do I have to mark in the text to correspond. I don't have any direct quptes.--BirgitteSB 00:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
OK I added the reference at the bottom under books, but I am not sure if it's right. It is and un abrided reprint of Nature is Your Guide: How to Find Your Way on Land and Sea by Observing Nature, published in 1958 by E.P. Dutton & Co. I am not sure if I need to mention that or if what have in the article is fine.--BirgitteSB 01:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
This was the best I could find after searching [1] It looks like we will have to draw out our own map.
lots of issues | leave me a message 17:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Here are 3 pictures from .gov sites, they would all need slight adjustment. The last one would perfect if some one could wipe out the American Samoa text. I don't know that we can use these, but since it came from goverment work it is likely. May be some one more experienced knows.
[2] from NASA Global Tropospheric Experiment
[3] from National Park of American Samoa [email protected], Editor
[4] from National Park of American Samoa [email protected], Editor
--BirgitteSB 18:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The map of Polynesia I put will sonn be deleted on the Wikipedia page. I uploaded it to the commons at Polynesia.jpg but I can't figure out how to change the link on this page to thee commons file. Please change it for me if you know how.--BirgitteSB 02:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the paragraph on the subject by an anomynous user. I feel something as contiversial as that should not be included in the article without citing some sources--BirgitteSB 17:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
There isn't an initiation of children in poly cultures. there is Toa training. when boys learn to speak and know the languages by heart, he is taken to another island with other boys and girls to learn self defense. they come back 5 years later as Warriors or Toa. they dont tamper with the sexual stuff with the kids, they wait til they have tattoo's or are handsome and if they appeal to a girl then thats it. they are bf/gf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.36.172 ( talk) 10:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
How about the names Indonesia and Austronesia? By how were these names coined and when? Meursault2004 14:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The last two edits [5] [6] removed a large amount of information I had found back in July. One of the edit summaries said it was inaccurate. If we do have inaccurate info; can we replace it with correct info rather than simply deleting it. I am no expert on this but the information I had added was sourced. It is possible some of it was incorrect as it was from an older book. However is really all of it so completely wrong that must be deleted?-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I like the changes you made to the headings within the Polynesian Navigation section. Thanks! Kahuroa 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record removed these sentences from the Techniques section:
'The Polynesians, using such techniques, would have been able to follow the shortest route over thousands of miles without any further instrumentation or charts. In fact, if this was the method they employed, as they steered for such a star they would have been following the great circle to their destination. This method is in principle more perfect than navigation by compass'
I can't remember ever hearing 'great circle' as a technique used by Polynesians. I wonder whether the great circle technique doesn't depend on several concepts that the Polynesian techniques didn't use (or need), including concepts of longitude and latitude etc. I think the problem is the age of Gatty 1999, the source used by Birgitte, as she mentions above " It is and un abrided reprint of Nature is Your Guide: How to Find Your Way on Land and Sea by Observing Nature, published in 1958 by E.P. Dutton & Co. " - that means that the info dates back to 1958 and therefore predates the breakthru studies of Lewis, Finney et al, and therefore comes from a time when next to nothing was known about Polynesian navigation techniques. Kahuroa 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Polys didnt need to know mathmatics and science to know the Star Navigation and how to travel across the seas without any devices. it is possible they used similar ways as the Great Circle. you also forget to mention that the Polynesians are the best Seafarers in the universe. the best i would have to say were the Maori.-- Hare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.36.172 ( talk) 10:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again I have removed a reference to Rotuma as part of Polynesia. It ain't. It has been influenced by Polynesia in the past, and its language may have borrowed Polynesian words as a result, but Rotuma is not Polynesian in language or culture. The same goes for the rest of Fiji, despite what old or inaccurate sources may say. Kahuroa 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Rotuma is a Polynesian outlier. The people have straight hair - same as the people of Kioa - also in Fiji waters. Genetically they are both Polynesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.19.35 ( talk) 08:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone really needs to put a picture of a polynesian native on here. Fat Lui 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Fat Lui
Guys, i'm not sure about the edits (re pics and layout) i did. Any comments? Revert them? Enhace them? Are they ok? -- Szvest 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Is it: (1) Polynesia the area; or (2) Polynesian people of Austronesian-speaking-Asian racial descent; or (3) Polynesian people, as in residents of the Polynesian area, regardless of their racial descent; or (4) navigational accomplishments and techniques of "racially Polynesian" people, in the Polynesia area, excluding all cases where such people also used, or had as backup, modern technology and materials and clothing and food and drink and communication devices etc. etc.?
This question is offered as a tool for improving the article, and perhaps motivating a split of the present content into two or more separate articles. Agent X 23:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly there should be one page devoted to Polynesians and another devoted to Polynesia. I do not know any other example when an Wikipedia article covers BOTH a geographical object and an ethnic group. Olegwiki ( talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Please post archive photos of these people, where available (not artist conceptions); "...ranging from Madagascar to Easter Island. Hawaiian, Rapanui, and Malagasy (spoken on Madagascar) are the geographic outliers of the Austronesian family..." -along with photos of other island people in the described regions. I request this because someone might be mislead into believing these people are Taiwanese (the language link) when they clearly are not. It is also import because many of these indigenous people are disappearing and the truth should be preserved above ethnocentric anthropological accounts. For the love of god show the people, is this so difficult?!
"This means proto-Polynesians voyaged from East Asia to Alaska 6,000 years ago and then entered the Polynesian triangle via Hawai'i 2,000 years ago."
The fact that polynesian people share HLA genes with people of Alaska only prove they have a common ancestry, not that Polynesia was populated by the north, which is against a lot of evidence in archaelogy, parasitoly, linguistics, etc. their common ancestry have rather to be searched in the east coast of Asia
stephane.jourdan gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.59.49 ( talk) 20:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The genetic origins section is not referenced but seems to draw most of its inferences from [ [7]], a page with many pertinent facts as well as dubious claims. It comes up third on a Google search for HLA Bw48 . First is Polynesia and second is [ [8]] , which talks about HLA Bw48 being used as a clinical marker for response to interferon treatment in Japanese patients with renal cell carcinoma. Just reading the scientific findings that the users.on.net page bases its conclusions on, I still come up with the mainstream view, that is based on archaeology, anthropological observation, and linguistic analysis that was confirmed in the human genetic origins project done by National Geographic. Its causes were delineated in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
The links that were drawn in the users.on.net page were sometimes in the wrong direction and sometimes excluded important midpoints, like Japan. The blackwell-synergy.com page on its own implies there is an appreciable frequency of HLA Bw48 in Japan, negating the idea that the Tlingit alone share that characteristic with the Polynesians.
It still seems the Austronesian expansion started around Taiwan with a well-established branch that went SW as far as Madagascar, via the Philippines, the Malay archipelago, and coastal SE Asia, largely displacing populations between the Negritos and Melanesians (both offshoots on the path from Africa to Australia, via Southern India), that also forked E as far as Easter Island via Micronesia and the Polynesian Triangle, bypassing the Wallace Line and circumscribing the Eastern border of Melanesia. As with any large migration, successive waves of expansions came from intermediate points, displacing some linking populations, and some gene flow occurred when new inhabitants met existing populations.
The less established branch also started vaguely near Taiwan and went Northeast via the Sea of Japan and the Bering Strait to populate the Americas. Different waves include the Dorset, Na-Dene, and Aleut. The Ainu mostly preserved the traditional way of life in Japan, despite influence from the rice-growing cultures of China, relying on yams in places inhospitable to rice. There is evidence of pre-Columbian Caucasian presence in North America, but it certainly didn't maintain a constant link with Europe outside of Greenland.
I'm not just blowing steam here. I've studied Hawai'ian, lived in Hawai'i, studied Japanese, lived in Japan, studied the culture of my father's Algonquin and Iroquois ancestors and lived on their land, met Ainu and studied their culture, studied Indonesian, met many Malays, and I've even picked up a bit of Maori, Tetum, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian and various Pama-Nyungan languages off of my friends while living in Australia.
Although few people speak of it, the kun yomi of Japanese bears a marked resemblance to Austronesian languages, in terms of phonetics, word-doubling, and even some vocabulary. Its on yomi on the other hand has been clearly proven to have come from different Chinese and Korean borrowings. It's usually said that Japanese's postpositions are Mongolian in origin. I disagree with Japanese being called a language isolate but I don't have any widely accepted research to back me up. I believe it had an Austronesian base that has been largely supplanted by Sinitic and Mongolic due to their greater technology at first contact.
I apologize if I darkened your mood rather than brightening it. I know these subjects are dear to many hearts but in the end, we're all equal members of the same species and only luck in geographic distribution determined the fate of our forbears. Racialist explanations just don't stand up to the modern body of scientific research. I'm tired now.
Theres something that makes me un-easy. It states that every polynesian came from Euro whites and talks about Americas as the original Polynesians. When another Article claims that Polynesian genes had existed for over 60,000 years. 20,000 years older than White Euro Genes. Also, how could they have turned brown and grown new facial and construction bones from whites when the only skin changing disese is Acral lentiginous melanoma (From Dark to Light) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.58.47 ( talk) 04:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a separate section for this; the amount of attention given to an outdated theory is really undue weight. Viriditas ( talk) 12:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether Thor Heyerdahl's theory is true or not, it is notable and should be described. Olegwiki ( talk) 13:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently the new article about the ethnic group is a stub, any help would be appreciated. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 04:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
this is what i came here to discuss. but the thing is now there is no polynesian ethnic group page at all polynesians redirects to here. 76.244.155.36 ( talk) 17:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
No serious academic believes this. It is about as likely as "saying that America was discovered in the last days of the Roman Empire by King Henry the Eighth, who brought the Ford Falcon to the benighted aborigines" (Suggs 1960). This article should focus on the orthodox, accepted viewpoint of an ultimate origin in Taiwan as part of the Austronesian expansion, with genetic and cultural interaction in Near Oceania. Instead the current article gives undue weight to a fringe theory, and looks like a desperate attempt to bolster the evidence for this dubious proposition over what all the other genetic, linguistic, achaeological and anthropological evidence says. Heyerdahl's theories could be discussed elsewhere (on his page for example).
121.98.144.157 ( talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like some conflicts appearing here which could usefully be incorporated in this article. See:
Snori ( talk) 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the maps at the start of the article are user created, they are both from the book Polynesia in Early Historic Times by Douglas Oliver. It would be nice if this was cited, and if some of the information from that excellent work were included in this article. Thank you. 24.18.243.189 ( talk) 23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The section seems inaccurate and highly POV to me. I will bring it up at the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board to see if we can get a few more editors to take a look at it. Kahuroa ( talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:M 3 089 001 Lapita pottery no known copyright ca 1972-1976 Auckland University.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Are there one or more really conclusive explanations why the east coast of Australia - apart from the Torres Strait Islands - has not been colonised by Melanesians and Polynesians?
¿Hay una o más explicaciones realmente concluyentes porqúe la costa oriental de Australia - aparte de las Islas del Estrecho de Torres - no ha sido colonisada por melanesios o polinesios?
Gibt es eine oder mehrere wirklich schlüssige Erklärungen dafür, dass die Ostküste Australiens - abgesehen von den Torres-Strait-Inseln - nicht von Melanesiern bzw. Polynesiern besiedelt worden ist?
Wurzel Sepp ( talk) 12:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"The research, published November 7 in the open access journal PLOS ONE by David Burley and colleagues from Simon Fraser University, Canada, reveals that the first human settlers lived in a founder colony on the islands of Tonga between 2830 to 2846 years ago."
See also: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/sfu-sid111512.php -- Wiklol ( talk) 11:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/22/1516186113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.222.221 ( talk) 05:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there any significance to the numbers in this table? -- 2.219.112.131 ( talk) 23:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19844.html 80.109.222.221 ( talk) 19:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This article says the United States Minor Outlying Islands are in Polynesia. But Wake Island and Navassa Island are included in the United States Minor Outlying Islands, and they aren't in Polynesia. Wake Island is in Micronesia, and Navassa Island is in the Caribbean Sea. I'm not sure about the others, but either way, someone ought to clarify that. - 72.184.128.205 ( talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
"Native South Americans were early inhabitants of Polynesia"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01983-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.68.130 ( talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
MCTARAAAN 120.28.222.234 ( talk) 10:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)