Talk:Proto-Malay

Not enough information
This article needs more information, or it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.74.187 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Seconded. I'm hardly an expert in the field, but the gross, unscientific misinterpretation of the HuGO data (which deals with genetic drift in remote antiquity) as a ridiculous canard for a blatantly chauvanistic agenda is patent and unencyclopaedic. All these articles dealing with the Malay origins are muddled, irregular, and treading enthusiastically into NPOV waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.123.249 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I've removed the infobox (which can be seen in an earlier version) as all the information there was about a currently existing ethnic group, while the article is about the prehistoric group. Uanfala (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

About ainu/sources
Hello, here is one genetic research about origin of ainu/jomon: you need to click in the pdf and than you can read the full article.(https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/85/2/85_2_69/_article)

Here is the result: “Their findings indicate that the indigenous Japanese people, i.e., the Ainu, belong to the northern Mongoloid group, and are in good agreement with our results that the Ainu have the northern Mongoloid Gm genes at higher pro- portions than the present-day Japanese people. —> indigenous japanese/ainu/jomon. If ainu and ryukyuans have more northern dna and are more jomon, it is clear that jomon are of northern asian origin. They are paleo-mongoloid and not australoid”

Another research that shows that southern mongoloids have no or only very less australoid/negrito admixture. It is said the highest australoid/negrito admixture is is some small tribes in southern Philippines and indonesia with about 9% australoid/negrito blood.(not very much)

Here a new research that shows that mongoloid people was already present 159.000 years ago in southern china: (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250376782_Minatogawa_Man_the_Oldest_Type_of_Modern_Homo_sapiens_in_East_Asia) and (Rosenburg, Karen (2002). "A Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton from Liujiang, China Suggests Regional Population Variation in Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Pelvis". Variability and Evolution.)

Here a new research from 2018 that shows that mongoloid is mich older than thought and that modern humans(mongoloids) was in east asia and other parts of asia longer than 2 million years ago. Scientists call it the “out-of-asia” theory or the multi-origin theory of humans: (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/01/101410) Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

The negrito and australoid tribes lived only in small numbers in parts of southeast asia. They got displaced mostly, only some mixed. The negritos of southeast asia got displaced and today small numbers live on the malay peninsula. The negritos of indonesia mostly got displaced. Today are mostly non-existent. The negritos of the Philippines exists still as small tribes. Only on papua they are the majority.

It is beliced that when the mongoloid people came to indonesia and southeast asia, there were only 200.000 negrito people. Compared to more than 4 million mongoloid people traveling to indonesia.

I will search more sources if you want, maybe next week. I am currently on holiday. Greetings 212.95.8.241 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for sharing the info. I've realized that I might have cited older sources. Yes, I'm aware that the Ainu people are not related to the Australoid. If I'm getting it right (from the pdfs you gave), there is absolutely no mention of Australoid-Ainu mix. I'm wondering if the sources that have been cited in the article in regards to Australoid-Ainu types in the Philippines have anything to do with the Sundadont? Concerning the Zambale and Bataan people being classified as part of Australoid-Ainu, see (https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2058&context=humbiol) page 227. There are also other sources that gave the same terminology. I might not be well informed and lacked info on this or even below amateurish (haha), but it appears to me that when reading "Australoid-Ainu" it does not indicate that the Ainu = Australoid. -Jeblat (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this not just scientific racism?
Hint: yes it is. How this article is allowed to be up without a "criticism" section is beyond me. dyneowo? 08:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)