Talk:Polynesia

Table

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)

Maritime Development

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)

Map of polynesia

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 Peter_Craig@nps.gov, Editor

[4] from National Park of American Samoa Peter_Craig@nps.gov, 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)

Sexual intiation of children

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)

The basis for the removed material seems to have been Margaret Mead's landmark work, Coming of Age in Samoa. Her methodology and findings remain controversial, ninety years after the book appeared. Certainly, Mead's observation of a limited number of Samoan adolescents in the 1920s cannot be used to generalize societal norms across the many cultural groups of Polynesia. 2600:2B00:9214:4800:248D:F65:7219:B6A5 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Indonesia and Austronesia

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

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)

It was pretty bad, but that's not your fault if as you say the book was out of date. The information in the articles that I have added links to is good, and has references to recent sources. Might be better to let those articles grow rather than have it being added in several places - if you have accurate information why not add it to one of those articles Kahuroa 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The links do not have much info, nor are they daughter articles. I disagree that there should not be detailed information in this article, at least until there is a daughter article. Are you sure they did not navigate by following the great circle? Nor a version of a pelorus (instrument)? The book was older and I can believe some info was off; espcially some of "why's" but I would think the "how's" would be rather accurate. Since it was a navigation book rather than a history book. The book was really detailed, I just summarized in this article. So I have trouble believing that all of that should be deleted. Can you show me the current reasearch that says this is wrong? I did not see citations on the links you added. And two of them are to modern things rather than historical navigation. I cannot find the book again in short order, but I will keep looking. I guess I just feel it best not to remove verified info wholesale, unless you are replacing it with something more updated. Then you should even acknowledge the historical ideas mentioning they were refuted by the updated info. Otherwise somenoe might just come along and add the same info you found to be incorrect. Also it is discouraging to see the information about the flyways just removed. You left in the article the summary of them using that technique? Why did you remove all the details?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The book was definitely 'off' if it says the Polynesians came from India. Have a look at the Finney books and perhaps also Lewis. Talk about the traditional navigation path from Polynesia to NZ is highly dubious - there are only a couple of vague mentions of it in the NZ trads, and they contradict each other. The traditional Polynesian methods of navigation were all entirely LOST so no one can really say FOR SURE how they did it. The methods used recently were reconstructed using the methods of, and instruction from, a Micronesian navigator, Mau Pialug. They MAY have used a 'pelorus' or whatever - one can only speculate, guess, reconstruct, say what is likely. If you want to restore some of your stuff, feel free, but it needs to be hedged with words like 'may' 'it is possible' etc. See Finney Kahuroa 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific than saying Finney and Lewis and please add those references to the article? I need to find the book again so I can give more specific citations; I hadn't learned to do that yet back then. Seriously though when you disagree with really detailed information, and a source is listed, try hedging it yourself rather deleting it wholesale. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort here. Alot of effort goes into finding all that and linking it poperly to the correct WP articles--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I hear you. My bad - I was hasty. I have restored the cut material with hedges. I removed some parts which were impossible, such as the references to Arabs and to India. I took out the 'they have no words for absolute distance' since of course, we do have such words in our languages. The references I mentioned are listed at the bottom of Polynesian Voyaging Society. Kahuroa 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to keep looking for that book so I am can add proper ciations (with page numbers and all) to what is there--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 11:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. One of the best books to read is G. Irwin, The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) 1992. Kahuroa 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the pelorus reference again. I can't find anything in the literature - It is an instrument, even if basic, implies literacy, and the Polynesians didn't use instruments, and it involves the use of 'bearings' which don't think applies in Pacific navigation systems - a foreign concept and not the way they thought. Kahuroa 11:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Limnhall

Hello - I like the changes you made to the headings within the Polynesian Navigation section. Thanks! Kahuroa 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Circle

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)

I really need to come back to this and look at the at newer sources myself. However just to clear up any confusion, Great Circle is not technique. I was trying to say that the method of star navigation used by the Polynesion follows a Great Circle plot as a opposeed to the plot made by using compass navigation. The great-circle distance is the shortest distance between any two points on the surface of a sphere measured along a path on the surface of the sphere (as opposed to going through the sphere's interior). Basically it is the most effienct path of navigation on par with what long-distance airflights use today. If you still think it is inacaurate remove. I just wanted to be sure you understand what I was trying to explain.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think anything written in 1958 isnt going to cut it. I'm not sure that the Polynesians actually tried to go the shortest, most efficient path. Its really a different mindset to the 'western' way of navigating. They also had to think about keeping the options open to returning home if they missed the target. You shouldn't assume that they even thought of the world as a sphere or that they visualised 'measuring along the surface of a sphere'. As I said, its a different mindset, but it was one that worked even tho it didnt bother with a lot of concepts that are taken for granted in western navigation. It kind of steps right outside that way of thinking Kahuroa 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you understand what I was trying to get across. It is not that they were trying to make the Great Circle plot or even that they knew what a Great Circle was. But that their methods of navigation effectively plotted a great circle distance whether they knew it or not. And that this was more effective than compass navigation. If you still do not understand me or just disagree, do not woryy. I cannot really discuss this in a solid way till I read some of your references, which I have no time for at the moment. We can come back to it later.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great circle seems way too definite and sure to me - remember they had no way of reckoning longitude, and latitude reckoning was approximate at best. Not that they thought of it in those terms Kahuroa 19:50, 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)

Rotuma - not Polynesian

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)

Picture

Someone really needs to put a picture of a polynesian native on here. Fat Lui 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Fat Lui

Or failing that, maybe just a picture of a Polynesian Kahuroa 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is plate of photographs from a 1914 Encyclopedia which could be cropped up into portraits at s:The New Student's Reference Work/1-0178. Of course the captions may be using out-of date names for different islands/tribal groups. Listed are Assachoreter of Taling; Tonga Girl of New Caledonia; Man of Utuan; Man of New Britain along with others that I know not to be Polynesian. If any of these describes a Polynesian then there is a corrseponding public domain portrait available. Also some modern pictures of Polynesia with people in them rather than just beautiful beaches would be great as well, I just happen to know about this old plate from the project on Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Birgitte, None of the people in the plate you mention are Polynesian. My comment above was a tiny protest against the use of the word native. Also as a Polynesian myself I hope we are not getting into the hula girls and tourist pictures idea here. Kahuroa 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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™}

I think your changes are good - tho you have a tendency to add too many links - like 1840 for instance. Links should be relevant Kahuroa 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean linking dates? -- Szvest 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dates, painting, random things like that. Kahuroa 11:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?

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)

I don't think there's anything wrong with having Polynesia and Polynesians on the same page, after all, the New Zealand page has big sections on government, history etc so there is a precedent for covering the people and the place together. Leaving the people out would kind of give the impression that Polynesia is uninhabited. Polynesian navigation should probably have its own page though, as there is a lot on it. --Helenalex 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, we probably should have a page devoted to Polynesian peoples- they are the first inhabitants in that area and were the first to adapt and survive. They have their own distinct culturem separate from the neighbouring populations and their own languages --Maurice45 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (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)

I concur with the above...

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?!

Why would anyone think they were Taiwanese? I think it is only you that is coming to misleading ethnocentric conclusions based on linguistics. Having said that, if you do want to get into racial typography, the Malagasy, Malay, Filipinos, Micronesians, Polynesians, etc. do all look quite similar to Taiwanese aboriginals. It's not really that surprising or shocking. --86.137.156.17 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

"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)

Genetic origins

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.

)--Thecurran (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thor Heyerdahl

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)

It doesn't really belong here at all. I've deleted it. dougweller (talk) 13:06, 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)

Yes, but not here - except briefly (a couple of sentences, or a paragraph at most). While his efforts are notable in their own right, his theory is very much outdated. It doesn't belong here except to alert the reader to where such ideas came from, if they happen to come across them, and perhaps to show them how far our understanding has come. That can be amply covered by one paragraph; it doesn't need ten. -- Avenue (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Split off article about Polynesian people

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)

Why is there so much detail devoted to an outdated and wrong theory of Polynesian origins? (Thor Heyerdahl)

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)

• I agree with the above comment - it has been at least 20 years since the scientific community began disproving Heyerdahl's theory of 'Polynesian origins in South America' - dna, linguistics, archeology evidence point towards south-east asia (although the Samoans continue to believe they have always been in Samoa), and Lapita evidence is still not conclusive. This makes the information really outdated.Teine Savaii (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DNA versus language

Looks like some conflicts appearing here which could usefully be incorporated in this article. See:

• http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/gibbons.htm "...We have trashed this idea for a Taiwanese homeland completely," says Li Jin...
• http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=144542

Snori (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maps at the Beginning

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)

New Zealand Maori subsection of Polynesian history

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)

On second thoughts I have removed the subsection - it just contained too many gross errors to be worth the effort in trying to save it. Kahuroa (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no. The section is needed-clean it up if you see errors, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:M 3 089 001 Lapita pottery no known copyright ca 1972-1976 Auckland University.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia / Australien

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)

"Coral files reveal time of first Polynesian settlements"

"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."

• http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/archaeology.php :
  • http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/plos-cfr110512.php ( Burley D, Weisler MI, Zhao J-x (2012) High Precision U/Th Dating of First Polynesian Settlement. PLoS ONE 7(11): e48769. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0048769 )

See also: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/sfu-sid111512.php --Wiklol (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Frédérique Valentin & al. : Early Lapita skeletons from Vanuatu show Polynesian craniofacial shape: Implications for Remote Oceanic settlement and Lapita origins

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)

numbered list in "Main Polynesia" section

Is there any significance to the numbers in this table? --2.219.112.131 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is, as the list seems to be alphabetical. I removed the numbering for now. Gap9551 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Nature: Genomic insights into the peopling of the Southwest Pacific

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19844.html80.109.222.221 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

United States Minor Outlying Islands

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)

New origins information to be incorporated

"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)

Ep

MCTARAAAN 120.28.222.234 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)