Talk:Coastal migration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original research[edit]

there seems to be no academic use of the term "Great coastal migration" per google scholar. The article should be deleted or redirected to the appropriate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wapondaponda (talkcontribs) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we should probably migrate it to "Coastal migration theory," "Coastal migration model" or simply "Coastal migration" : see or"coastal+migration+theory" GCM shows up in discussions of haplogroups mtDNA M, YDNA C and YDNA D -,,, etc - but these are commercial genetic testers mostly, not scholarly articles. I created the article and just sort of stuck with the name. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: Dropped the word great and moved the article to "Coastal Migration" plus added 3 (out of dozens of possible) academic references. Also changed the word "theory" in opening line to "concept" since it the word theory doesn't work in the New World extension - where it is more of a hypothesis/postulate. I also dropped the OR tag. Let me know if you disagree with any of this Wapondaponda. Thanks. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the references, none of them has in the title the term "coastal migration". Wapondaponda (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
That's easy enough to get -,, - but where does it say that this needs to be in the title? Not in WP:OR. Clarify this or remove the tag. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "coastal migration" is used frequently. But it is a general phrase that means migrating along the coast. It does not have to be humans, it could be fish or other aquatic life. Most of the articles referencing "coastal migration" from google scholar are about fish. This is also a duplication of information from the single origin hypothesis and early human migration. The guidelines at WP:GNG state the sources should address the subject directly and no original research is required to extract the content. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Single origin hypothesis and early human migration are different topics (though related, so there should be some cross-referencing, which is good). Early human migration can refer to any early human migration rather than the coastal migrations involved in the first human spread. Similarly, single origin just means a single origin in Africa - it says nothing about the coastal migration theory. This is the exact and direct topic of many papers and a lot of research - and there are references aplenty, some of which are incorporated here. Easily complies with WP:GNG, which also doesn't say anything about titles, so you should clarify why you asked for that - even though that was also trivial to meet given the large focus on this in genetic and anthropological circles. There is zero original research here. This is a term that is used over and over again to mean a very specific thing - I don't control the academic community, so I can't help it if they're using this term. If it is also used for other things like fishes, all that means is create a disambiguation page, so I will ask you to {{sofixit}}. You should also do this for single origin hypothesis, since the origins of wildlife and various biological organs shows up more frequently at higher ranks than the human origin theory in Google scholar - Incidentally, this article should become the right home for all the varieties of coastal migration approaches proposed, and their critiques. There is a tonne of interesting research here, and it is not definitive whether or how many of these migrations happened. For instance, what exactly happened in Beringia, when transit occurred to areas south of it in the Americas, and how Australia was populated, whether a land-bridge to the Andamans was involved or not, etc on the Asian side. All of this is contested and needs to be presented keeping NPOV firmly in mind. It's a lot of work that needs to be put into this for things that are important and very notable - and would be completely out of place in those other two articles. --Hunnjazal (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)