Talk:Australo-Melanesian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:50, 16 December 2005 edit68.107.174.166 (talk) →Dravidians ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:05, 5 November 2024 edit undoAustronesier (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,098 edits →Dolichocephaly and similar pseudo-science
(556 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	=="Black"==
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	Is there any particular reason to refer to "Australoids" as being "black", seeing as how the article already references them as generally posessing dark skin? It's an ambiguous term which can have very different meanings depending on region. ] 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
			{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Anthropology\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Ethnic groups\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject South Asia\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Asia\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Southeast Asia\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Oceania\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Linguistics\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Culture}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archive = Talk:Australo-Melanesian/Archive %(counter)d
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|counter = 1
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			}}

			{{old move\|date=25 August 2022\|destination=Australo-papuan\|result=not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1106839975#Requested move 25 August 2022}}
	==Dravidians==
	How about Dravidians of the Indian subcontinent. They also belong to the Australoid race, don't they? ] 28 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)

			==POV maps==
	:I believe so, or at least Australoid-Caucasoid mixture. --] 29 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)
			] ]
			{{Ping\|Joshua Jonathan}} & {{Ping\|Doug Weller}} - This on wikicommons (does not seem to have wikipedia account?) has been adding unreliable/unsourced maps like these on several pages. Claiming Oceanians are Africans and not East Eurasians.

			He guesstimates "Negrito" (onge) ancestry in South Asians and also associates it with Sub Shaharan African ancestry. Here is link to talk page and talk page. I have pointed how () models East Asians as roughly 75% Onge (Andamanese)-related and 25% Tianyuan-related (fig.3) where Onge is capturing deep proxy ancestry. Similarly, Onge is also capturing deep proxy for hypothesized AASI ancestry which is poor fit for AASI as several studies have pointed out.
	Dravidian is a language family, not a racial type. Both Indian Veddoids and South Indians (who are primarily Caucasoid) speak Dravidian languages.

			I cited various peer-reviewed studies from reich and haravrd groups, pointed out Negrito and Australians descend from East Eurasian clad along with East Asians, however he won't seem to get it.
	:Yes we know that. But often there is a correlation between these two. ] 07:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

			:''"New Guinea and Australia fit well as sister groups, with their majority ancestry component forming a clade with East Asians (with respect to western Eurasians). Onge fit as a near-trifurcation with the Australasian and East Asian lineages"'' -
	The Veddoid peoples of Sri Lanka are of Australoid stock. The Dravidian-speaking peoples are mostly of Caucasoid descent-from the Mediterranean branch, to be specific. There is some Australoid admixture among people like the Tamils due to intermarriage with local tribals but ultimatley, the Dravidians are mostly Caucasoid.
	-posted by a Dravidian-speaker, of course.

			:''"Deep ancestry of the indigenous hunter-gather population of India represents an anciently divergent branch of Asian human variation that split off around the same time that East Asian, Onge and Australian aboriginal ancestors separated from each other."'' He also notes that East Eurasian clad spread ''"From a single eastward spread, which gave rise in a short span of time to the lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Onge, and Australians"'' -
	'''A response: Dravidians/Tamils are black peoples'''

			:''"If one of these population ﬁts (for AASI), it does not mean it is the true source; instead, it means that it and the true source population are consistent with descending without mixture from the same homogeneous ancestral population that potentially lived thousands of years before. The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time)"''
	Southern Indians are ''not'' Caucasians. Dravidians and Tamils are the same people. Dravidians are most certainly ''not'' Caucasoid. (You're ''kidding'' -- right?) They are Veddoid-Australoid/Negroid peoples. Many politically progressive Tamil/Dravidian peoples have come to know their true history and consider themselves part of the global African community. This "Caucasian" business is ridiculous -- and just another example of wannabe-ism in India's disgusting racist, pigmentocracy. Google it, if you don't believe me. Here are examples of just a few entries., ,, , , , , . When geneticist Spencer Wells went looking for the migratory links between Africa and the rest of the world, his Y-chromosomnal DNA testing took him from the San Bushmen ''directly'' to Tamil Province, where he found the next link in a Tamil man. That wave of migration followed up the coastline across ancient land bridges at low sea levels to Australia. It has long been recognized by many scholars that the ancient Dravidians were black African peoples -- as black as any other Australoid peoples, and that includes Australian aboriginies and aboriginal New Guineans.

			While he cites Non-peer reviewed study, which has not been peer-reviewed for months. Which came out last year claiming Oceanians are mix of European/Indian and African/Archic ancestry, and not Asians. It claims that modern humans originated in hunan province of China, and that they found Chinese ancestry in Africans (recent Shum Lake paper didn't mention this part lol). There was discussion about this on Anthorogenica explains why & . It is telling why the study was not peer-reviewed.
	All this is not to say that the Australoids of Asia are not (like much of humanity) mixed with other ethnic/"racial" strains. However, "Australoids" commonly have alveolar and often maxillary prognathisms and dolichocephalic skulls -- both hallmarks of Negroid/Africoid peoples. Combined with presumed patterns of migration and DNA studies, when it comes to "racial" classification, they clearly are Negroid/Africoid, rather than Caucasoid.

			Reliable peer-reviewed ancient DNA study suggests otherwise, this from () based on ancient DNA will help understand East Eurasian clad and it's branching, along with this study.
	I've edited the text, which for some reason starts out defining Australoids as essentially Australian Aborigines -- which is completely incorrect. The term is somewhat misleading in that it
	''never'' referred strictly to Australians, but to a broad group of humanity considered essentially "Negroid" in phenotype, but with no clear/obvious (at the time) connection to the African continent. And that is why the term is commonly paired with "Negroid," as in "Australoid-Negroid." "Australoid" was used a general geographic qualifier, distinct from simply "Negroid."

			Those two maps is pretty misleading, one of them is on several pages. He is guesstimating "negrito" ancestry based on Onge proxy ancestry found in mainland Asians and also associating it with Saharan/African ancestry, when in reality Negritos branched from East Eurasian clad and share deep ancestry with all East Eurasians. ] (]) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
	In the 1960s, a family of children from Ceylon, as it was called back then, enrolled in my school. I was struck by the fact that they looked just like me and my family -- darker-skinned than some of us, even. I started reading and came upon text after text that referred to Mohenjo Daro as a black civilization. The link between the Dravidians and AFrica is all throughout the scholarly literature -- and not just in so-called "Afrocentrist" works. It's amazing that people are ''still'' so far behind the learning curve on matters such as this! I find it sad that so many peoples rush to deny their African heritage in the face of racism and color-based bias. ] 07:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
			I have removed them for now.] (]) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

			See my answer at ] ] (]) 18:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Current conventional wisdom (]) is that all modern humans are of relatively recent African origin, including Europeans. None of the genetic results I've seen show that Europeans are any more distant from modern Africans than Indians, native Australians, Melanesians etc. are.

			==Map from the Horniman museum is correct==
	:Phenotypically, some non-Africans, especially Melanesians and Negritos, look more African, but the genes responsible for these features are only a small part of the genome. Europeans and Asians may have evolved lighter skin color and other features in response to enviromental conditions, but this does not mean they are otherwise especially distant from Africans.

			Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated?
	:Political identification as Black does not guarantee a particular genetic relation. It is a response to similar social conditions in recent history. Even Northern Irish Catholics have identified with African-Americans.
			The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--] (]) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
			:The issue (for me) is not whether those groups exist. For other reasons, I don't believe the map is entirely correct. For instance: It seems to show/color code New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) as "Australoid", when as Polynesians they would be classified as (mostly) "Mongoloid". Also, it shows/codes the Indian subcontinent as entirely "Caucasoid", when in fact the people of that region are, to varying degrees, a mixture of "Caucasoid"/Western Eurasian and a non-Caucasoid/non-Western Eurasian population (labelled by recent genetic studies as "ASI" or more recently as "AASI") that is distantly related to "Australoids" and to the Andamanese. In adition, people from the Horn of Africa are generally mixed as well ("Caucasian" and sub-Saharan African) and not fully Caucasian as the map incorrectly indicates. It seems to me ] was correct to remove it. ] (]) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
			::Please see my reply at ] ] (]) 18:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

			== The article is about a historical race concept ==
	:Some of the links you list above use worthless evidence like resemblance of selected words in modern languages, or even the use of hoes and manure! Dolichocephaly was also considered a defining feature of the ]. At least one of the sites seems to be motivated by white racism, arguing that Indians are blacker in order to distinguish Pakistanis as whiter.

			A clearly defined "Australo-Melanesian" or "Australoid" race or population doesn't exist in modern science (biology or genetics). So I changed the lede and some parts of the article in order to clarify that we are dealing with a ]. --] (]) 06:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
	:Putting all dark-skinned peoples or even most non-Europeans in one bucket is not necessarily progressive; it's a classic white racist position, and many of the older sources that take this attitude reflect this. A less Eurocentric view would be that Europe is just a small part of the diversity on the planet.
			:{{Ping\|Rsk6400}} I agree that it's not a "clearly defined race". However, reliable sources still make reference to an "Australo-Melanesian" genetic grouping (e.g. from this 2015 article: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.349.6246.354 and this 2021 article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03823-6). I suggest that we make the distinction between the historical race concept and the contemporary genetic grouping. --] (]) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
	--] 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
			::A source that just proves that some scientist has used the term in some paper is a primary source for the usage of the term, see ]. At least in the nature source ({{tq\|Morphological characters indicate that this Toalean forager was a 17–18-year-old female with a broadly Australo-Melanesian affinity}}), I see no indication that it is a "genetic grouping". It may just mean "looks like somebody from Australia or Melanesia". --] (]) 10:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::{{Ping\|Rsk6400}} Okay on both points (PSTS and phenotype rather than genotype). Here are a couple of secondary sources that use the term "Australo-Melanesian" to refer to a genetic grouping (based on the 2015 ''Science'' article): https://www.courthousenews.com/early-north-americans-likely-more-diverse-than-previously-thought/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/studies-find-genetic-signature-of-native-australians-in-the-americas/ --] (]) 10:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

			{{Ping\|Degeneration1}} Please don't mark potentially controversial edits as "minor", see ]. You might also want to read ]. The ] is a respected international body of scientists, so their declarations not opinions, but science. --] (]) 05:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
	Yes, Nordics certainly are dolichocephalic whites, but they are an exception to the rule when it comes to Caucasoid classification. Further, their geographic origin places them firmly within the Caucasoid classification. Negroid/Africoid peoples have more biodiversity among them than any other "racial" classification -- which itself is a curious construct. But the "Dravidian" poster claimed, as did others in this venue, that Dravidians are classified as "Caucasian." And that simply is ''not'' the case. They very clearly are Australoid-Negroids/Africoids, by virtue of their geographic/migratory origins, cultural connections and close conformity with the Africoid phenotype. There are, indeed, some Pakistanis who are more Caucasoid than Australoid-Negroid/Africoid, as there are some Indians who are more Caucasoid/Asian than Australoid-Africoid. Still, that does not change the fact that Dravidians/Tamils are Australoid-Africoid by any reasonable standard. ] 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

			No, this not a genetic grouping, but a cover term for the ancestral component of the diverse indigenous populations of SE Asia and Oceania. The genomes of many of these peoples still overwhelmingly comprise this ancestry component, but many also to various degrees display multiple geneflow from later East Asian migrations, so there ''no'' support from genetics that there is a clearcut "genetic grouping" of "Australo-Melanesians". What I support is to mention that the term "Australo-Melanesian" is used in genetics for this complex ancestral component, but a detailed discussion belongs in articles that discuss the peopling and genetic history of SE Asia and Oceania. A ''real'' secondary source (and not just a pop-sci news report quoting a primary source) for the current use in genetics is e.g. this one by Skoglund & Mathieson (2018). –] (]) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
	Futher, you are correct about genetic similarities among the "races" of humankind -- and certainly this is true when it comes to Africans and Asians. DNA testing has shown that certain Australoid populations, like some of the Negrito aboriginals of Southeast Asia and some of the indigenous blacks of New Guinea, are closer genetically to their Asian cousins than to black Africans -- likely owing to the fact that certain populations later developed in isolation with Afro-Asian/Asian populations -- although phenotypically, they may appear clearly Africoid/Negroid. The earliest Asians were, in fact, aboriginal blacks, which is why, when black GIs went to Vietnam in the 1960s, they encountered people they said looked black -- and why Cambodian women frequently were referred to as "soul sisters." It is also why early buddhas in, say, Thailand, for example, look strikingly Africoid and why the earliest renderings of the Buddha show him with tightly coiled, nappy hair; he was, in fact, an Africoid Asiatic. It is no coincidence that the earliest Buddhist artifacts have been found in southeastern India -- just up the coast from -- where? Tamil Province, the land of Dravidian blacks. ] 12:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
			:Thanks. I found a few additional sources for the current use of the term "Australo-Melanesians" in genetics: Buckley and Oxenham (2015), Bulbeck et al. (2017), and Carson (2018). ] (]) 15:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			::Yes, but still we need to strictly separate between obsolete pseudoscience (i.e. the racial category "Australo-Melanesian") and hard science (i.e. the books and papers you bring up here about the loose cover term for that can mean different things in different contexts). Blurring the line between these two by covering both in one article is not helpful for our readers. –] (]) 15:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			::I suggest to add a brief section "Other uses of the term" or similar, where we can add scholarly sources from archaeology, genetics etc. And FWIW {{ping\|Rsk6400}} unlike all the "-oid" terms, "Australo-Melanesian" doesn't have the reek of pseudoscience. E.g. for ] and colleagues, the term has been a useful cover term for the hunter-gatherer groups that inhabited (and still inhabit in remnant areas) SE Asia before the Austronesian, Austrasiatic and Tai expansions. –] (]) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::Yes, ] I support this suggestion —] (]) 15:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::No problem with that. Only, it should be based on good secondary sources, and those sources should say explicitly something like "We use the term Australo-Melanesian to describe ..." or similar. --] (]) 16:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			::::Sure, attestation alone is not sufficient for verification. I'll see what I can dig up. –] (]) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			:::This recent source claims that "Australo-Papuan" is a better term —] (]) 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
			::::''''Australo-Papuan'''' is the valid modern term used in most genetics studies on these peoples as of 2022. ''''Oceanian'''' is also increasingly used. ''''Australo-Melanesian'''', however, is also still used in some studies This article should reflect this, and refer to these which are in widespread academic use, as well as mention the other now outdated terms as already in place in the article. 'Australo-Papuan' is a valid and clearly defined 'racial' or biological category (subpopulation, ], biogeographic ancestry or ] all overlap with one another) of diverse, yet related, human groups indigenous to New Guinea, Australia and nearby islands. But it is a genetic category that is clearly distinguished from the highly diverse ] subgroups of mainland southeast Asia and the Philippines. The content about the discussion over the use of the term 'race' here is also irrelevant to the article. That is covered in other articles. This article is specifically about a valid subcategory of human biogeographic ancestry common to the ] and nearby islands, ] and other ]. ] (]) 09:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC) ''' ''' ] (]) 09:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			:::::The terms ecotype, subpopulation, subspecies are not applicable to humans. See any reliable source published in this millenium, see any discussion on relevant talk pages. The next time you revert, I'll take the case to ]. ] (]) 09:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			::::::What are you talking about? All of those are applicable and used in modern humans. Clearly you have not read any reliable source published in this millennium from the expert on the topic. All three are used by experts. Most use subpopulation. Alan Templeton uses subpopulation, but also makes not that subspecies can even be used depending on context. Others, like ], use ecotypes. uses all of them (read: ), and clearly defines how any can be applied to modern humans and to biological race. It's an ongoing discussion among experts. The genetic distances (Fst) between human subpopulations are greater than those between subpopulations and subspecies of ]. Talk pages on Wiki are not expert sources, but they never hae resolved it either. ] (]) 09:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::Feel free to seek dispute resolution. ] (]) 09:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::I will seek dispute resolution. This article is falsely claiming that terms like 'Australo-Papuan' and 'Australo-Melanesian' are not used in modern scientific studies to refer to a valid biological category or subpopulation of humans, ''when clearly they are''. ''Practically every genetics study on them as of 2022 uses one of these terms.'' The current format of the article is misinformation. I just gave you 8 studies from 2020 to 2022 after one quick search on Google using the terms to refer to a genetic cluster and biological category. There are differences within it, just as there is within ], ], ], ], ], ], ] or ], ], ], ],as well as ], ] or other ] ancestry exclusive to certain modern human groups. ] (]) 10:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::No-one refers to these ancestral lineages and the present-day populations which predominantly display these ancestries in their genome as races. We have known for a long time that you are convinced that modern genetics research corroborates obsolete racial classifications. It doesn't, read the sources, period. –] (]) 10:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::::There is a case for renaming this article as "Australo-Papuan" or "Oceanian" (to refer to the human sub-population). The article can then make reference to the obsolete racial classifications (noting that the issues with the term 'race'). ] (]) 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Is there any secondary (sic !), recent, scientific ] about an Australo-Papuan or Oceanian human sub-population ? ] (]) 16:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Yes, see Bellwood (2017) ''First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia'': "The term "Australo-Papuan" is often rendered "Australo-Melanesian" in other publications, but I hesitate to use this term since the islands of Melanesia ... have witnessed lots of population admixture"−] (]) 20:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::The quote doesn't answer my question. Also: In this very thread, there are some very good remarks by Austronesier. And: I saw your revert of yesterday as disruptive. ] (]) 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::The answer to your question is, 'Yes.' Bellwood (2017) is a recent, scientific reliable source about an 'Australo-Papuan' human sub-population. Isn't that precisely your question? ] (]) 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

			===Australo-Melanesian, Australo-Papuan and Australasian in modern secondary sources about genetic research===
	] agrees with what I've read before, that anthropomorphic Buddha art started in ] (ancient Kashmir) in the extreme north and was based on local or Greek models (Greco-Roman sculptures don't have straight hair either!), while the south resisted human representations for longer. South India is mentioned as a transmitter of Buddhist texts to Southeast Asia, but the article doesn't mention or show any South Indian Buddha imagery. Southeast Asian Buddhas' appearance probably reflects the local population, not South India.
			The terms "Australo-Papuan" and "Australasian" are often used in studies about the history of uniparental genetic markers and the full genome ("Australo-Melanesian" only rarely). The claim is that this research corroborates (or at least partially relates to) obsolete racial classifications as covered in this article. While modern geneticists simply to do not talk about "race" in their output (which actually should already be sufficient to put rac(ial)ist pipe dreams to rest), the claim circles around the notion of "sub-populations" in a ] which some people wilfully read into genetic research articles.

			So let's have a look what the few relevant secondary review/overview articles have to say about "Australo-Melanesian" etc.:
	India has significant genetic contributions from all of: local or Australoid peoples and Caucasoid and Mongoloid immigrants, with some variation by region, and there is no "pure race". I hope everyone can agree on that. I don't think we can get agreement on any more than that.

			There are two studies with a global scope:
	I still do not see why lumping all dark people as "Africoid" or other term is desirable, progressive or Afrocentric, instead of white-racist as it usually has been. If the genetic and other diversity is there, why not acknowledge it in the terminology. Saying the primary split is between Caucasians and all darker people is Eurocentric by definition.--] 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
			*Skoglund & Mathieson (2018), , ''Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics'' '''19''':381–404.
			*Liu et al. (2021), , ''Science'' '''373''':1479–1484.

			And one more specifically about Asia and Oceania:
	:Dravidians are different ethnically from the broader Indian population. Persian incursions didn't reach in the deep south of India -- indeed, that is where blacks retreated to escape them. As a result, they remain far less miscegenated than, say the average Hindu-speaking, northern Indians, who are mixed with Asian and Middle Eastern ("Caucasoid") peoples. "Eurocentric by definition"? No, I don't think so. I didn't introduce "Caucasian" into the discussion on the talk page; someone else did. And they got it wrong. I'm merely setting the record straight. In using terms of "racial" categorization, such as "Caucasian"/"Caucasoid", one accepts certain assumptions and enters the realm of formal racial classification. Upon doing so, one immediately must deal with the other, corresponding terms, "Negroid" and "Mongoloid." And "racially" speaking, Dravidians are Negroid peoples. That is how they're quite properly classified when one considers the standard phenotypical critera, as well as -- again -- their geographic origin and cultural characteristics. Funny how people don't balk at ''all'' about being called "Caucasoid," but when it comes to being called the "N-word," it's all of a sudden somehow improper; they freak. :p
			*Yang (2022), , ''Human Population Genetics and Genomics'' '''2'''(1):0001.

			Here are the relevant passages:
	:Further, with regard to old buddhas being modeled on Greek statuary, I'm afraid someone's been yankin' your chain. The Africoid features of the old buddhas of which I write are undeniable. They didn't get ''that'' from Greece -- though, admittedly, there was certainly a black, African presence there. (A couple of quick links), And I'm talking tightly coiled hair; nappy, knotty hair here -- not curly little ringlets, not the curls of, say, something akin to Michelangelo's "David" -- in old Laotian and Thai buddhas, particularly.] 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

			1) Skoglund & Mathieson (2018). There is a passing mention of "Australo-Melanesians" on pp. 391–392: {{tq\|However, a genetic afﬁnity between Amazonian and Australo-Melanesian populations suggests
	:One more thing. "I still do not see why lumping all dark people as 'Africoid' or other term is desirable, progressive or Afrocentric, instead of white-racist as it usually has been." When one considers phenotypical similarities (upon which the concept of "race" is loosely based), the darker-skinned peoples of the world, such as those discussed in the article and on this discussion page, are certainly at ''least'' as similar to one another as, say, Nordics and Turks, who are both classified as Caucasoid -- and some would argue even ''more'' so. ] 08:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
			that we still do not have the full picture of the ancestry of the ﬁrst Americans (102, 129). This suggests that the expansion into the Americas was substructured, with some subpopulations retaining greater afﬁnity to an unknown northeastern Asian population related to present-day Australo-Melanesians}}. The authors to not define "Australo-Melanesians" in their article, but from the quote and the context it should be clear that they are not talking about sharply well-delineated taxonomic entities, but rather geographical clusters of various present-day populations which predominantly display a specific ancestry.

			2) Liu et al. (2021). No mention of "Australo-Papuan" etc. at all. They open the relevant section "Oceania" with the following sentence: {{tq\|Archeological evidence suggests that human
	:: I'll answer with a quote from Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes (abridged paperback edition) p. 71: ''Accordingly, at the time the first genetic trees were produced, we also constructed a tree from anthropometric characters, including measurements of the whole body and skin color (Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards, 1964). This tree (fig. 2.2.3) showed marked differences from that obtained with genes; for instance, Australian Aborigines and Africans were closely associated, whereas with genes these populations are the farthest apart. It seemed clear to us that the sensitivity of many anthropometric characters to climate was likely to bias the reconstruction of phylogenetic history. It has been well known since Darwin that adaptive traits are frequently not satisfactory for reconstructing phylogeny, because they express similarities of environments more easily than those of phylogenetic history. We concluded that the lack of agreement between the two types of trees was no cause of alarm, and that genes were more likely to reflect phylogenetic history. In fact, Africans, Australian aborigines, and New Guineans have been exposed to tropical climates for a very long time and are presumably highly adapted to them. The characters available for this first anthropometric investigation were essentially connected with body surface, in particular skin color and size measurements, which are known to be correlated with climate.''
			populations from Southeast Asia have initially settled in Sahul (present-day Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea) before ~50 ka}}. They continue to discuss Aborignal Australians and Papuans individually.
	:: The ] article should be about the traditional or accepted scientific definitions of the word, flawed as it is. ] and ] are much less used terms (it could be argued that ] is a neologism, but I won't) and significant discussion of them should go in their own articles which can be linked from ] and others. Google:
	*about 20,100 for Australoid
	*about 461 for Australoid-Negroid
	*about 552 for Africoid
	*about 220,000 for Negroid
	::If there's a difference between genetic and anthropomorphic results, let's discuss both.
	:: And if you are going to throw in cultural and historical resemblance, that is going beyond the scope of the -oid terms which properly refer to physical characteristics. Lengthy discussion of that belongs in ] and other articles that include cultural and historic scope, which can be linked to.--] 18:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

			3) Yang (2022). This is a great source since the author defines the term "Australasian": {{tq\|Australasian (AA) lineage—this lineage refers to the ancestral population that primarily contributed to human populations in Australasia, or the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Represented primarily by present-day Australasians, e.g. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians}} (p. 8). NB that this an ancestry component that emerges in the modeling in the genetic history of modern-day populations, and is found among them to ''various'' degrees. But there is no taxonomic "Australasian" group, sub-population etc. of present-day populations! When applied to modern people, "Australasians" simply refers to the inhabitants of Australasia {{tq\|(the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring South Pacific islands)}} (p. 4).
	This discussion is about ''Dravidians'' -- not genetics. And since ''when'' did genetics have anything to do with race? Racial categories were developed long before genetics became a discipline. Race is unscientific; genetics is scientific. The two really have very little to do with one another. Dravidians have been classified historically as Negroids/Australoids. That isn't open to debate. It's simple fact. In my readings about Dravidians, the term "Australoid-Negroid" appears constantly, and that is the context in which the term here is used -- again, in a discussion on ''Dravidians.'' And, no. Africoid is most certainly ''not'' a neologism. Further, with regard to online searches, "Australoid Dravidian" turned up 456 results. "Negroid Dravidian" turned up 836. Booya! :p ] 21:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

			Clearly, there is no link between obsolete classificatory "races" and the modern concept of ancestries. There is some crude overlap since the human genome also determines the phenotypical characteristics that were exploited by earlier racial classification. But to combine these two completely different paradigms is like mixing up the ] with ]. We can talk about "Australasian" ancestry in an article about the ], but not here.
	:Yup, and "caucasoid dravidian" returns 560. "australoid-negroid dravidian" got even less, 275. All very small numbers, and if you are going to judge "Australoid Dravidian" as insignificant on the basis of this comparison, then why are we discussing Dravidians in the ] article at all? If anywhere, it would seem to go in ]. By the way, mentions "Negroid" only to say that the idea of Dravidians being Negroid is European white racism.
	:Race in the social and historical sense is certainly not hard science, which is why it's discussed in articles like ], ], ], ] etc. instead of articles on physical anthropological terms like oid. Take a look at the scope-limiting section at the beginning of ], which should go in the other oid articles too.
	:If race is unscientific, anthropometry is scientific, and genetics is scientific, it would seem the latter two should be togeher, not the first two.--] 22:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

			A final word on Bellwood's book (even if he is an archaeologist and his book mostly a primary source for his model about the demic spread of the Neolithic from East Asia into Southeast Asia and Oceania): Bellwood primarily uses the term "Australo-Papuan" (actually "Australo-Melanesians" during most of his career) for the diverse inhabitants of Southeast Asia and Oceania prior to the expansion of people from East Asia into that area that began ~4kya. He also goes into saying things like {{tq\|The modern Australo‐Papuan populations of Island Southeast Asia still form a coherent biological subdivision in terms of their DNA and phenotypic features.}} This is however simply at odds with modern genetic research, and also with a statement by Bellwood himself in the same paragraph: {{tq\|However, many of the peoples of eastern Indonesia, especially in eastern Nusa Tenggara and of course in Papua itself, are today predominately Australo‐Papuan in genetic heritage.}} Australasian ancestry forms a cline in Wallacea (=eastern Indonesia), and there is no sensible cut-off point. This is of course true for most regions in the world, and the primary reason why modern geneticists consider the idea of races meritless. –] (]) 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
	''Another response''

			–] (]) 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
	Take a look at the photos in the following links. ''Then'' tell me the poeple of south India are "Caucasian." The very notion is absurd!

			== Requested move 25 August 2022 ==
	*
	*

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	Claims of "Caucasian" identity are simply wannabe-ism -- in a nation with a history of brutal violence and oppression along race/color lines. India is rife with internalized values of white supremacy and self-loathing -- in short, wannabe-ism. No one who is aware of the true history of the Indian subcontinent would dispute the fact that the indigenous populations of India are black/Africans.
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

			The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 03:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	*
			----
	*

			] → {{no redirect\|Australo-papuan}} – Recent publications (summarised by Bellwood (2017)<ref>{{cite web \|last1=Bellwood \|title=2017 \|url=https://academic.oup.com/migration/article-abstract/10/2/316/5055425?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false}}</ref> use this term in preference over "Australo-Melanesian". ] (]) 22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
	*

			:Example of recent, reliable secondary source using the term "Australo-papuan": https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Philippines/JmCpDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=australo-papuan+people&pg=PA15&printsec=frontcover ] (]) 23:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
	*
			* '''comment'''- Please could the nom. provide some rationale for this move. I note the talk section where one source is found with the alternative designation, but that doesn't fit with the article content as it stands, and is hardly a consensus of sources demanding a change. I am not sure what I am missing here, but before I make my !vote I would like to understand why the new name would apparently be better. ] (]) 07:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			*:In the review by Bellwood (2017), the term Australo-papuan is used (43 times) in preference of the term Australo-melanesian (5 times). The author comments that: "The term "Australo-Papuan" is often rendered "Australo-Melanesian" in other publications, but I hesitate to use this term since the islands of Melanesia ... have witnessed lots of population admixture." ] (]) 08:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			*::When you say “review” and usage counts, I assume you mean a systematic review of the literature, but Bellwood is actually a text book. Are these numbers just the author’s preference? Or has he conducted a systematic review? I don’t see any evidence for the latter but I don’t have the book, so please let me know if he does discuss that.
			*::As for the reason for his hesitation - if your quote is accurate, I find that slightly disturbing considering what this page is currently about. The suggestion that the group should be defined by a genetic purity makes it look like the intent is to argue contrary to this articles first line in the lead which says: {{tq\|Australo-Melanesians …. is an outdated historical grouping of various people indigenous to Melanesia and Australia.}} If you change the name you have to change the article. Now I note ]’s comments about there being two conflated concepts here, but I do not understand your rationale of how ''this'' solution will help with that. Is your intention to then create a new article under this name? How would this article need to be rewritten under the new name? This all seems very nebulous to me, sorry. ] (]) 08:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			* '''comment''' Do you really want to move to "Australo-papuan" or is it "Australo-Papuan" ? ] (]) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			* '''oppose''' the page move. Per discussion above, I do not think the nom. has provided a good rationale for page move, and any such move would require rewriting the article. Essentially it proposes a move to make the page about something else completely. That is not a move, that is a back door deletion. I am also concerned about the proposed direction the new content would take. ] (]) 11:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' This is comparing apples with oranges. "Australo-Papuan" in modern genetic research ≠ "Australo-Melanesian" as an obsolete racial category. I have gone into this in some detail in the preceding section ]. –] (]) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' It is the traditional name for the "racial" (obsolete) category. Albeit obsolete (regarding the term "race"), the name ''Australo-Melanesian'' traditionally covers a group of dark-skinned indigenous peoples from Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania (Melanesia), covering Aboriginal Australians, Papuans and MELANESIANS. ] (]) 18:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' For the reasons already given above, especially Austronesier's clarification in the preceding section. ] (]) 18:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

			{{reflist-talk}}
	*

			== Dolichocephaly and similar pseudo-science ==
	*

			{{Ping\|Ekdalian\|AngelusVastator3456}} The IP was right in removing the newly added stuff about dolichocephalic people. While in the times of Huxley, the cephalic index could be regarded as scientific, in 2019 any attempts to draw conclusions about human ancestries without genome analysis are futile at best, probably pseudo-scientific. Anyway, a study is a primary source, we cannot gauge its relevance without secondary sources. ] (]) 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
	*] 14:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
			:Just to bring some badly needed nuance into this discussion. Craniometrics is not pseudo-science. Sure, multiple studies have shown that populations which are genomically close can develop diverse cranial and skeletal types due to enviromental and nutritional factors, which casts legitimate doubts on the reliablity of craniometrics. Thus, in the absence of genomic data, it has become downgraded to a not fully reliable "second-best" way to draw conclusions about ancestral relations between ancient and modern populations. But in a climatic area were ancient genomic data is extremely hard to retrieve (as of now, we only have three(!) ancient pre-Neolithic genomes for the entire area of SE Asia + Oceania), cranial and skeletal measurements can still provide some preliminary and helpful insights.

			:Matsumura is a leading expert in this field, and several of the co-authors of this widely-cited study are respectable archeaologists (Hung, Higham, Simandjuntak) who clearly do not engage in the pseudo-science of taxonimizing ancient and modern humans into "races", but rather use craniometric data as one piece of evidence to understand the dynamics of the peopling of eastern Eurasia. And that's the very reason why this paper does not belong as a source in this article, which is about an obsolete pseudo-scientific classification. –] (]) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	:] and ] discuss the Hindu nationalist viewpoint that both claims of Caucasian and African identity are wannabe-ism or 19th century racist wishful thinking. On this question, Afrocentrism is agreeing with Eurocentrism against India-centrism.
	:Nobody here asserted Dravidians are Caucasian. Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian, and White is not identical with either. Same for Negroid or Africoid, Negro or African, and Black. It's plausible to view some Indians as both Black and Caucasoid.--] 20:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	"Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian...." WTF? I'd like to see you prove ''that''. Talk about double-speak. That's just flat out nonsense! LMAO And then: "It's plausible to view some Indians as both Black and Caucasoid." Yessiree, Bob. It is -- and therein lies the fallacy of the Caucasoid racial classification of south Indians. There's no rhyme or reason for it. There, white folks get tripped up in their own "logic." Again, what sets the Sudroid/Veddoid/Dasya blacks of India apart from Caucasians is not only their skin color, but their facio-cranial characteristics, which place them firmly within the Negroid range. They are no less black than the blacks of Nubia or other Nilotics, some of whom have relatively narrow nasal indices and somewhat straight hair. And then there are those, such as the Tamils/Dravidians/Dalits/Jawara and other Adamantese peoples, many of whom have classic Australoid features and are virtually indistinguishable physically from Australian Aborigines. They are no less black than the other Australoids of Asia. They are clearly Negroid peoples. The "Caucasoid" classification is sheer nonsense. Again, the direct DNA link established by Spencer Wells from Africa to southern India/Tamil province (and then on to Australia), as found in the blood specimen of a contemporary Tamil/Dravidian man is incontrovertible. And, again, throughout the literature, Dravidian blacks are classifed as Australoid/Negroid peoples. ] 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Caucasoid vs. Caucasian: If they're identical, why are there two separate words? Here's a dictionary definition distinguishing them (and also noting they are not synonymous with white or European):
	:Australoid-Negroid: I've never seen the term in modern references, or anywhere for that matter before the Googled websites (which after scanning the first 10-20 seem to be an unholy alliance of Western white racists, Pakistani white racists, and Afrocentrists). I'm guessing it had some currency in the scientific racism era pre-WWII, but not in later science.
	*Bartleby's does not connect the two words, and gives geographic ranges that intersect only in Melanesia (neither of them contain India at all).
	*Cavalli-Sforza's book does not connect the two terms, and explicitly covers the question (p. 355-6) of whether Negritos, Veddoids, "pre-Dravidians" are intermediate between Africans and Australians, and finds they are not, but instead genetically close to their S and SE Asian neighbors. Also, on map Fig. 2.11.1 on p. 135, the strongest tendency (1st principal component) in Cavalli-Sforza's genetic data shows Europeans as most similar to Africans, and Asians and Americans as less similar to Africans, with Australians as least similar. The following weaker principal components show different but weaker splits of the world.
	*Spencer Wells suggests Australians split 60k years ago and South Indians 45k years ago. This is similar to the time depth for the development of Europeans from Africans, so doesn't show Australians and South Indians are any more closely related to Europeans than Africans are. In Wells says a first exodus at 60-50ky led to Australians, while a second exodus at 45ky led to Eurasians and Americans. This would mean Europeans and Indians are equally related to modern Africans, while Australian Aborigines are less related. In Wells is quoted as listing a first migration from Africa east as far as Australia sometime after 60ky, giving rise to all non-Africans, with migration from India to Central Asia contributing to northern peoples. Again, all non-Africans are approximately equally related to Africans. --] 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	You've obviously misunderstood the definition. I don't have to read the link to know that "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid" when applied to people are synonymous terms. To say, as you have, that "Caucasoid is not the same as Caucasian" is patently ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. And, duh. I never ''said'' "Caucasian" meant "white" -- merely that, applied to the blacks of India, it is a misnomer. They are clearly Negroid peoples by virtue of the ''same'' phenotypical criteria used to classify other peoples as Negroid. ] 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	Further, I'm not constructing a family tree. Again, according to the phenotypical metrics established to discern one "race" from another, Australoids are clearly Negroid. And they ''commonly'' have been considered such. And Dravidians/Tamils are Australoid-Negroids. They are ethnically and "racially" distinct from the wider Hindu population farther north and long ago rejected the racist, color-based caste system of broader Indian society. ] 08:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
	:Cavalli-Sforza actually does show a tree based on anthropomorphics, and also one just based on skull shape. (p. 71-2) They do show Australians and New Guineans joining Africans for the first split, but then parting ways at the second split. Indians are not shown.
	:Tamil Nadu and the other southern states certainly do have a caste system about as strong as North India's. It also has had a strong backlash anti-caste movement, of which the African-identified section is only a small part. More commonly, opposition to the caste structure is expressed as socialism, or as demands for affirmative action, or by conversion from Hinduism to a less caste-based religion like Christianity, Buddhism or Islam. Finally, Southern Brahmin groups are as dark as the Southern population in general, so it is not a color issue unless you project color issues onto remote prehistory with the ].
	:Neither are the southern states oppressed within India. They are more prosperous than India in general and have very successfully achieved autonomy within the Indian federal system and preserved the four major Dravidian languages as official state languages.--] 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	I am well aware that the southern states of India are actually more generally among the more prosperous of the nation. It is also clear that the Aryan invasion is more than a "theory." The Brahmin caste tries to deny it ever happened, but the history is clear -- archaeologically and insofar as the Vedic texts, which (as the references I've provided clearly document) provide graphic accounts of the horrors of the Aryan onslaught which forced Dravidians/Tamils south. With regard to Cavalli Sforza, Australoids are Australoids. They are classified together as a group for a reason. The Tamils/Dravidians are ''quite'' Australoid in appearance. The Veddoid blacks of India, commonly called "Caucasoid" because of their relatively narrow nasal index and relatively straight hair (despite their dark skin) are absolutely no different from Nubians, Ethiopians and other Cushitic/Nilotic peoples of the Nile Valley, who '' clearly'' are classified as Negroid -- for the very same reasons. And, no matter ''how'' you try to parse the language, '''"Caucasoid" and "Caucasian" are the same thing'''. One is simply an adjective, the other a noun. And to state that they are not is simply absurd. ] 09:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Caucasoid and Caucasian are both nouns and adjectives. The suffix -oid means "resembling" or "has a form like". When applied to a noun it usually means a broader or looser category than the original noun. For example, ] is broader than ] and contains spheres as a subset, but not all spheroids are spheres.

	:: ''These terms refer to a broad group of peoples indigenous to Europe, western Asia, northern Africa, and much of the Indian subcontinent. Caucasian and Caucasoid are in some ways the most problematic of the traditional racial terms, not so much for any offensive character as for their widespread misuse as a synonym for “white” or “European.” Many of the peoples traditionally included in this category, such as the Berbers of North Africa and the various Hindu and Muslim peoples of northern India, have skin color noticeably darker than most Europeans and as such are not usually considered to be white. Obviously they are not European either.''

	:It is clear that there have been movements of lighter skinned people from the northwest into India at various periods in history, and that Indo-European languages entered India this way, but interpreting the Vedas as white-black conflict is problematic; see ], ], and ]. The ] themselves are also suspected to have entered India from the northwest at an earlier date.

	::Yes. I'm aware of another theory, which is echoed in some Afrocentrist thought, that the Dravidians are the result of a north-down migration, of blacks who left the Nile Valley, who are referrred to in the old literature as Elamites. I recall reading several texts and at least one by a Dravidian who made such claims, and they are also credible. Regardless of the point of entry into India (it is certainly likely India was populated by blacks from both the north and the south), the ties with/affinities with black Africa are there, and the people are -- again -- no different from the Negroid Australoids of New Guinea and Southeast Asia and no different from the Negroid Nilotics, Cushite and Oromo peoples of North Africa. ] 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
	:::The Elamo-Dravidian connection is based on the relation between the languages, though recently .
	:::] was in what is now southwestern Iran and I haven't encountered statements that the Elamites were black or had been traced to origins somewhere else.
	:::Everyone now agrees Africans migrated to India and the rest of the world; the question is just the time scale. Speculation based on genetics suggests an initial migration 60k or so years ago, while some Afrocentric theories seem to postulate considerably later migrations in historic or legendary time.
	:::On the other hand, with respect to non-African migrations to Africa or to other lands thought to have been African-populated, Afrocentric theories prefer very late dates after civilizations in these places were already flourishing, while genetically based speculation is more likely to talk about a reflux migration from the Middle East to Africa much earlier (I haven't seen dates but I'm guessing they're thinking 20k-30k years ago) providing some non-African genetic input to Eastern and Southern Africans, and/or migration 10k years ago or later associated with the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages.--] 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Anyway, back to discussion of the ] page itself.

	:Certainly the term Australoid refers to a resemblance between some South Asians and native Australians. This is the raison d'etre of the term. But it should be mentioned that a special relation between the two groups is debatable or limited in scope, for example they have been found to be not genetically close. A more conservative statement in the light of current knowledge would be that there are South Asians with physical traits that overlap with those of various races.

	:I am not sure why Pakistanis are specially mentioned. They probably have less Australoid traits than other South Asians.

	:I have no idea where the statement about Australoids in the Americas comes from. I have only seen statements that early American skulls show various traits that have some similarity to some modern races. I don't know of whole peoples who are known to be Australoid.

	:Negrito and Australoid are defined as contrasting physical types. While some sources go on to hypothesize a relationship between the two, to simply state that Negritos are a subset of Australoids is misleading. This should be presented as one POV on racial development, rather than a consensus statement about modern groups. Negritos of course physically resemble some Africans much more than they resemble Australian Aborigines.

	:Australoid-Negroid is not found in most modern references. It should be mentioned as a term that formerly had more currency, or that is still current among certain groups, and is based on resemblances in certain traits but not others.--] 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

	::I think when he talked about Austrailoids in the Americas, he might also have been referring to certain tribes in Baja California (that were wiped out from smallpox) and the Tiera del Fuego-ians.

	::I only ever see the australoid-negroid construction among Afrocentrists. Australoids may have retained more African characteristics by keeping closer to the equator, but having left sub-Saharan Africa before Caucasians and being quite genetically distinct, it makes no sense to call them the same race as Sub-Saharan Africans.

	It is inaccurate to claim that Dravidians, as an ethnolinguistic/cultural group are "negroid/australoid", because this ignores the fact that intermixing in India for centuries (at least) has brought about Indo-Aryans who are indeed quite "negroid" and Dravidians who are quite white, like Aishwarya Rai ; and I also have known Dravidians, I went to school with one, and I met his family, and none of them were black (just for the sake of an independent example like yours, deeceevoice). However, it appears that historically, Dravidians have been fairly close to black East Africans phenotypically in some ways , although Arrian and Strabo claim that they are like the "Western Aethiopians" in color (the Dravidians were actually called "Aethiopian" by these travellers), but like the other Indians in features and hair (bringing up the sensitive topic of mixed Ethiopians and Somalians), and also don't support the "black Egyptian" fantasy by drawing parallels in appearance between North Indians and Egyptians (neither of whom are or ever were black), and distinguishing North Indians/Egyptians from the Ethiopians/"Western Aethiopians and Dravidians/"Eastern Aethiopians". This site also supports the notion that Brahmins throughout India have Aryan genes, giving credence not only to admixture in India, but also of an Aryan aristocracy based on lineage, originating with migrants from the Iranian plateau. Also, Siddhartha Gautama was not black/negroid/australoid/whatever, and the first portrayal of him ''did'' depict an Aryan in the Greco-Buddist artistic tradition, in contadiction to some of the sites you linked to above, deeceevoice. Siddartha was a high-caste Hindu, probably Kshatriya, from what is now Nepal, and the physical description of him in the Digha Nikaya is not that of a black person , claiming that he had a "long and prominent" nose, blue eyes even, and a "bright, golden" complection (this testament is also from his wife, supposedly), and these verses also claim that he was Aryan (which would explain this description), which would make sense since he was from the north, and a kshatriya or brahmin. There were buddhas (enlightened sages) after Siddartha, though, following in his footsteps, and some may have been negroid, which would explain these negroid busts of "buddhas". The Elamite/Dravidian connection is tedious as has been argued above, and it's safe to argue that the Elamites weren't black, as evidenced not only by their geographical location, but also by these:







	But even if the Elamites/Dravidians are/were connected (although language doesn't account for common genetic origin for different people of itself), this says something about the Dravidians, especially in light of Arrian's and Strabo's comments, and that perhaps the negroid element came from somewhere else, like Africa or Australia, rather than the north, where the Elamites would have come from. --jugbo

Latest revision as of 10:05, 5 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australo-Melanesian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oceania Mid‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 25 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Australo-papuan. The result of the discussion was not moved.

POV maps

File:Negrito ancestry distribution.png

File:Sub Saharan African related (Negroid) ancestry.png

@Joshua Jonathan: & @Doug Weller: - This User:LenguaMapa on wikicommons (does not seem to have wikipedia account?) has been adding unreliable/unsourced maps like these on several pages. Claiming Oceanians are Africans and not East Eurasians.

He guesstimates "Negrito" (onge) ancestry in South Asians and also associates it with Sub Shaharan African ancestry. Here is link to Negrito map talk page and Sub Sahaharan related map talk page. I have pointed how (McColl et al. 2018) models East Asians as roughly 75% Onge (Andamanese)-related and 25% Tianyuan-related (fig.3) where Onge is capturing deep proxy ancestry. Similarly, Onge is also capturing deep proxy for hypothesized AASI ancestry which is poor fit for AASI as several studies have pointed out.

I cited various peer-reviewed studies from reich and haravrd groups, pointed out Negrito and Australians descend from East Eurasian clad along with East Asians, however he won't seem to get it.

"New Guinea and Australia fit well as sister groups, with their majority ancestry component forming a clade with East Asians (with respect to western Eurasians). Onge fit as a near-trifurcation with the Australasian and East Asian lineages" - Lipson et al. 2017

"Deep ancestry of the indigenous hunter-gather population of India represents an anciently divergent branch of Asian human variation that split off around the same time that East Asian, Onge and Australian aboriginal ancestors separated from each other." He also notes that East Eurasian clad spread "From a single eastward spread, which gave rise in a short span of time to the lineages leading to AASI, East Asians, Onge, and Australians" - Narashimhan et al. 2018

"If one of these population ﬁts (for AASI), it does not mean it is the true source; instead, it means that it and the true source population are consistent with descending without mixture from the same homogeneous ancestral population that potentially lived thousands of years before. The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (the fact that the latter two populations both fit reflects that they have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related component likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time)" Shinde et al. 2019

While he cites Non-peer reviewed Yuan et al. 2019 study, which has not been peer-reviewed for months. Which came out last year claiming Oceanians are mix of European/Indian and African/Archic ancestry, and not Asians. It claims that modern humans originated in hunan province of China, and that they found Chinese ancestry in Africans (recent Shum Lake paper didn't mention this part lol). There was discussion about this on Anthorogenica post 1 explains why & post 2. It is telling why the study was not peer-reviewed.

Reliable peer-reviewed ancient DNA study suggests otherwise, this Figure 4 from (McColl et al. 2018) based on ancient DNA will help understand East Eurasian clad and it's branching, along with this Lipson et al 2018 study.

Those two maps is pretty misleading, one of them is on several pages. He is guesstimating "negrito" ancestry based on Onge proxy ancestry found in mainland Asians and also associating it with Saharan/African ancestry, when in reality Negritos branched from East Eurasian clad and share deep ancestry with all East Eurasians. Ilber8000 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) I have removed them for now.Ilber8000 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

See my answer at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct Rsk6400 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Map from the Horniman museum is correct

Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--Liltender (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue (for me) is not whether those groups exist. For other reasons, I don't believe the map is entirely correct. For instance: It seems to show/color code New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) as "Australoid", when as Polynesians they would be classified as (mostly) "Mongoloid". Also, it shows/codes the Indian subcontinent as entirely "Caucasoid", when in fact the people of that region are, to varying degrees, a mixture of "Caucasoid"/Western Eurasian and a non-Caucasoid/non-Western Eurasian population (labelled by recent genetic studies as "ASI" or more recently as "AASI") that is distantly related to "Australoids" and to the Andamanese. In adition, people from the Horn of Africa are generally mixed as well ("Caucasian" and sub-Saharan African) and not fully Caucasian as the map incorrectly indicates. It seems to me User:Rsk6400 was correct to remove it. Skllagyook (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is about a historical race concept

A clearly defined "Australo-Melanesian" or "Australoid" race or population doesn't exist in modern science (biology or genetics). So I changed the lede and some parts of the article in order to clarify that we are dealing with a historical race concept. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I agree that it's not a "clearly defined race". However, reliable sources still make reference to an "Australo-Melanesian" genetic grouping (e.g. from this 2015 article: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.349.6246.354 and this 2021 article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03823-6). I suggest that we make the distinction between the historical race concept and the contemporary genetic grouping. --Pakbelang (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A source that just proves that some scientist has used the term in some paper is a primary source for the usage of the term, see WP:PSTS. At least in the nature source (Morphological characters indicate that this Toalean forager was a 17–18-year-old female with a broadly Australo-Melanesian affinity), I see no indication that it is a "genetic grouping". It may just mean "looks like somebody from Australia or Melanesia". --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Okay on both points (PSTS and phenotype rather than genotype). Here are a couple of secondary sources that use the term "Australo-Melanesian" to refer to a genetic grouping (based on the 2015 Science article): https://www.courthousenews.com/early-north-americans-likely-more-diverse-than-previously-thought/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/studies-find-genetic-signature-of-native-australians-in-the-americas/ --Pakbelang (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Degeneration1: Please don't mark potentially controversial edits as "minor", see WP:ME. You might also want to read WP:BRD. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists is a respected international body of scientists, so their declarations not opinions, but science. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No, this not a genetic grouping, but a cover term for the ancestral component of the diverse indigenous populations of SE Asia and Oceania. The genomes of many of these peoples still overwhelmingly comprise this ancestry component, but many also to various degrees display multiple geneflow from later East Asian migrations, so there no support from genetics that there is a clearcut "genetic grouping" of "Australo-Melanesians". What I support is to mention that the term "Australo-Melanesian" is used in genetics for this complex ancestral component, but a detailed discussion belongs in articles that discuss the peopling and genetic history of SE Asia and Oceania. A real secondary source (and not just a pop-sci news report quoting a primary source) for the current use in genetics is e.g. this one by Skoglund & Mathieson (2018). –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a few additional sources for the current use of the term "Australo-Melanesians" in genetics: Buckley and Oxenham (2015), Bulbeck et al. (2017), and Carson (2018). Pakbelang (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but still we need to strictly separate between obsolete pseudoscience (i.e. the racial category "Australo-Melanesian") and hard science (i.e. the books and papers you bring up here about the loose cover term for that can mean different things in different contexts). Blurring the line between these two by covering both in one article is not helpful for our readers. –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to add a brief section "Other uses of the term" or similar, where we can add scholarly sources from archaeology, genetics etc. And FWIW @Rsk6400: unlike all the "-oid" terms, "Australo-Melanesian" doesn't have the reek of pseudoscience. E.g. for Peter Bellwood and colleagues, the term has been a useful cover term for the hunter-gatherer groups that inhabited (and still inhabit in remnant areas) SE Asia before the Austronesian, Austrasiatic and Tai expansions. –Austronesier (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Austronesier I support this suggestion —Pakbelang (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem with that. Only, it should be based on good secondary sources, and those sources should say explicitly something like "We use the term Australo-Melanesian to describe ..." or similar. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, attestation alone is not sufficient for verification. I'll see what I can dig up. –Austronesier (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This recent source claims that "Australo-Papuan" is a better term —Pakbelang (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

'Australo-Papuan' is the valid modern term used in most genetics studies on these peoples as of 2022. 'Oceanian' is also increasingly used. 'Australo-Melanesian', however, is also still used in some studies This article should reflect this, and refer to these which are in widespread academic use, as well as mention the other now outdated terms as already in place in the article. 'Australo-Papuan' is a valid and clearly defined 'racial' or biological category (subpopulation, ecotype, biogeographic ancestry or subspecies all overlap with one another) of diverse, yet related, human groups indigenous to New Guinea, Australia and nearby islands. But it is a genetic category that is clearly distinguished from the highly diverse Negrito subgroups of mainland southeast Asia and the Philippines. The content about the discussion over the use of the term 'race' here is also irrelevant to the article. That is covered in other articles. This article is specifically about a valid subcategory of human biogeographic ancestry common to the indigenous peoples of New Guinea and nearby islands, Australian Aborigines and other Melanesians. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 69.156.38.113 (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The terms ecotype, subpopulation, subspecies are not applicable to humans. See any reliable source published in this millenium, see any discussion on relevant talk pages. The next time you revert, I'll take the case to WP:ANI/3RR. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All of those are applicable and used in modern humans. Clearly you have not read any reliable source published in this millennium from the expert on the topic. All three are used by experts. Most use subpopulation. Alan Templeton uses subpopulation, but also makes not that subspecies can even be used depending on context. Others, like David Reich, use ecotypes. Michel Tibayrenc uses all of them (read: ), and clearly defines how any can be applied to modern humans and to biological race. It's an ongoing discussion among experts. The genetic distances (Fst) between human subpopulations are greater than those between subpopulations and subspecies of tigers. Talk pages on Wiki are not expert sources, but they never hae resolved it either. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I will seek dispute resolution. This article is falsely claiming that terms like 'Australo-Papuan' and 'Australo-Melanesian' are not used in modern scientific studies to refer to a valid biological category or subpopulation of humans, when clearly they are. Practically every genetics study on them as of 2022 uses one of these terms. The current format of the article is misinformation. I just gave you 8 studies from 2020 to 2022 after one quick search on Google using the terms to refer to a genetic cluster and biological category. There are differences within it, just as there is within Early European Farmer, Western Hunter-Gatherer, Western Steppe Herder, Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer, Aeta, Negrito, Onge or Ancient North Eurasian, Ancient Beringian, Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer,as well as Denisovan, Neanderthal or other archaic hominin ancestry exclusive to certain modern human groups. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No-one refers to these ancestral lineages and the present-day populations which predominantly display these ancestries in their genome as races. We have known for a long time that you are convinced that modern genetics research corroborates obsolete racial classifications. It doesn't, read the sources, period. –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a case for renaming this article as "Australo-Papuan" or "Oceanian" (to refer to the human sub-population). The article can then make reference to the obsolete racial classifications (noting that the issues with the term 'race'). Pakbelang (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any secondary (sic !), recent, scientific WP:RS about an Australo-Papuan or Oceanian human sub-population ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see Bellwood (2017) First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia: "The term "Australo-Papuan" is often rendered "Australo-Melanesian" in other publications, but I hesitate to use this term since the islands of Melanesia ... have witnessed lots of population admixture"−Pakbelang (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The quote doesn't answer my question. Also: In this very thread, there are some very good remarks by Austronesier. And: I saw your revert of yesterday as disruptive. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your question is, 'Yes.' Bellwood (2017) is a recent, scientific reliable source about an 'Australo-Papuan' human sub-population. Isn't that precisely your question? Pakbelang (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Australo-Melanesian, Australo-Papuan and Australasian in modern secondary sources about genetic research

The terms "Australo-Papuan" and "Australasian" are often used in studies about the history of uniparental genetic markers and the full genome ("Australo-Melanesian" only rarely). The claim is that this research corroborates (or at least partially relates to) obsolete racial classifications as covered in this article. While modern geneticists simply to do not talk about "race" in their output (which actually should already be sufficient to put rac(ial)ist pipe dreams to rest), the claim circles around the notion of "sub-populations" in a taxonomic sense which some people wilfully read into genetic research articles.

So let's have a look what the few relevant secondary review/overview articles have to say about "Australo-Melanesian" etc.:

There are two studies with a global scope:

Skoglund & Mathieson (2018), "Ancient Genomics of Modern Humans: The First Decade", Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19:381–404.
Liu et al. (2021), "Insights into human history from the first decade of ancient human genomics", Science 373:1479–1484.

And one more specifically about Asia and Oceania:

Yang (2022), "A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia", Human Population Genetics and Genomics 2(1):0001.

Here are the relevant passages:

1) Skoglund & Mathieson (2018). There is a passing mention of "Australo-Melanesians" on pp. 391–392: However, a genetic afﬁnity between Amazonian and Australo-Melanesian populations suggests that we still do not have the full picture of the ancestry of the ﬁrst Americans (102, 129). This suggests that the expansion into the Americas was substructured, with some subpopulations retaining greater afﬁnity to an unknown northeastern Asian population related to present-day Australo-Melanesians. The authors to not define "Australo-Melanesians" in their article, but from the quote and the context it should be clear that they are not talking about sharply well-delineated taxonomic entities, but rather geographical clusters of various present-day populations which predominantly display a specific ancestry.

2) Liu et al. (2021). No mention of "Australo-Papuan" etc. at all. They open the relevant section "Oceania" with the following sentence: Archeological evidence suggests that human populations from Southeast Asia have initially settled in Sahul (present-day Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea) before ~50 ka. They continue to discuss Aborignal Australians and Papuans individually.

3) Yang (2022). This is a great source since the author defines the term "Australasian": Australasian (AA) lineage—this lineage refers to the ancestral population that primarily contributed to human populations in Australasia, or the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands in the South Pacific Ocean. Represented primarily by present-day Australasians, e.g. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians (p. 8). NB that this an ancestry component that emerges in the modeling in the genetic history of modern-day populations, and is found among them to various degrees. But there is no taxonomic "Australasian" group, sub-population etc. of present-day populations! When applied to modern people, "Australasians" simply refers to the inhabitants of Australasia (the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring South Pacific islands) (p. 4).

Clearly, there is no link between obsolete classificatory "races" and the modern concept of ancestries. There is some crude overlap since the human genome also determines the phenotypical characteristics that were exploited by earlier racial classification. But to combine these two completely different paradigms is like mixing up the Aether theory with Quantum electrodynamics. We can talk about "Australasian" ancestry in an article about the Peopling of Oceania, but not here.

A final word on Bellwood's book (even if he is an archaeologist and his book mostly a primary source for his model about the demic spread of the Neolithic from East Asia into Southeast Asia and Oceania): Bellwood primarily uses the term "Australo-Papuan" (actually "Australo-Melanesians" during most of his career) for the diverse inhabitants of Southeast Asia and Oceania prior to the expansion of people from East Asia into that area that began ~4kya. He also goes into saying things like The modern Australo‐Papuan populations of Island Southeast Asia still form a coherent biological subdivision in terms of their DNA and phenotypic features. This is however simply at odds with modern genetic research, and also with a statement by Bellwood himself in the same paragraph: However, many of the peoples of eastern Indonesia, especially in eastern Nusa Tenggara and of course in Papua itself, are today predominately Australo‐Papuan in genetic heritage. Australasian ancestry forms a cline in Wallacea (=eastern Indonesia), and there is no sensible cut-off point. This is of course true for most regions in the world, and the primary reason why modern geneticists consider the idea of races meritless. –Austronesier (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

–Austronesier (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Australo-Melanesian → Australo-papuan – Recent publications (summarised by Bellwood (2017) use this term in preference over "Australo-Melanesian". Pakbelang (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Example of recent, reliable secondary source using the term "Australo-papuan": https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Philippines/JmCpDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=australo-papuan+people&pg=PA15&printsec=frontcover Pakbelang (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

comment- Please could the nom. provide some rationale for this move. I note the talk section where one source is found with the alternative designation, but that doesn't fit with the article content as it stands, and is hardly a consensus of sources demanding a change. I am not sure what I am missing here, but before I make my !vote I would like to understand why the new name would apparently be better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
In the review by Bellwood (2017), the term Australo-papuan is used (43 times) in preference of the term Australo-melanesian (5 times). The author comments that: "The term "Australo-Papuan" is often rendered "Australo-Melanesian" in other publications, but I hesitate to use this term since the islands of Melanesia ... have witnessed lots of population admixture." Pakbelang (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
When you say “review” and usage counts, I assume you mean a systematic review of the literature, but Bellwood is actually a text book. Are these numbers just the author’s preference? Or has he conducted a systematic review? I don’t see any evidence for the latter but I don’t have the book, so please let me know if he does discuss that.

As for the reason for his hesitation - if your quote is accurate, I find that slightly disturbing considering what this page is currently about. The suggestion that the group should be defined by a genetic purity makes it look like the intent is to argue contrary to this articles first line in the lead which says: Australo-Melanesians …. is an outdated historical grouping of various people indigenous to Melanesia and Australia. If you change the name you have to change the article. Now I note User:Austronesier’s comments about there being two conflated concepts here, but I do not understand your rationale of how this solution will help with that. Is your intention to then create a new article under this name? How would this article need to be rewritten under the new name? This all seems very nebulous to me, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
comment Do you really want to move to "Australo-papuan" or is it "Australo-Papuan" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
oppose the page move. Per discussion above, I do not think the nom. has provided a good rationale for page move, and any such move would require rewriting the article. Essentially it proposes a move to make the page about something else completely. That is not a move, that is a back door deletion. I am also concerned about the proposed direction the new content would take. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is comparing apples with oranges. "Australo-Papuan" in modern genetic research ≠ "Australo-Melanesian" as an obsolete racial category. I have gone into this in some detail in the preceding section above. –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It is the traditional name for the "racial" (obsolete) category. Albeit obsolete (regarding the term "race"), the name Australo-Melanesian traditionally covers a group of dark-skinned indigenous peoples from Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania (Melanesia), covering Aboriginal Australians, Papuans and MELANESIANS. Scheridon (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose For the reasons already given above, especially Austronesier's clarification in the preceding section. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Bellwood. "2017".

Dolichocephaly and similar pseudo-science

@Ekdalian and AngelusVastator3456: The IP was right in removing the newly added stuff about dolichocephalic people. While in the times of Huxley, the cephalic index could be regarded as scientific, in 2019 any attempts to draw conclusions about human ancestries without genome analysis are futile at best, probably pseudo-scientific. Anyway, a study is a primary source, we cannot gauge its relevance without secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to bring some badly needed nuance into this discussion. Craniometrics is not pseudo-science. Sure, multiple studies have shown that populations which are genomically close can develop diverse cranial and skeletal types due to enviromental and nutritional factors, which casts legitimate doubts on the reliablity of craniometrics. Thus, in the absence of genomic data, it has become downgraded to a not fully reliable "second-best" way to draw conclusions about ancestral relations between ancient and modern populations. But in a climatic area were ancient genomic data is extremely hard to retrieve (as of now, we only have three(!) ancient pre-Neolithic genomes for the entire area of SE Asia + Oceania), cranial and skeletal measurements can still provide some preliminary and helpful insights.

Matsumura is a leading expert in this field, and several of the co-authors of this widely-cited study are respectable archeaologists (Hung, Higham, Simandjuntak) who clearly do not engage in the pseudo-science of taxonimizing ancient and modern humans into "races", but rather use craniometric data as one piece of evidence to understand the dynamics of the peopling of eastern Eurasia. And that's the very reason why this paper does not belong as a source in this article, which is about an obsolete pseudo-scientific classification. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: