Talk:Javanese contact with Australia

Comment on Sources

Verosaurus - On reading this new article I have concerns about the sources cited and whether this is largely original research. Specifically:

1. The Vallard atlas enlargement. Whose interpretation of the illustrations on the map is being cited? Is it a reliable source?

2. Under the sub heading Pre-1500, the article currently states "Black labor was imported (to Java) from Jenggi (Zanzibar), Pujut (Australia)..." Really? Surely this pretty controversial statement needs significant referencing – beyond the single reference cited, which the reader cannot access. An authority called Naerssen appears in the next sentence, a source for the comment "they (indigenous Australians) arrived in Java by trading (bought by merchants) or being taken prisoner during a war and then made slaves". Naerssen is...who? I certainly have never read an academic who makes such claims.

3. The article relies very heavily on Manuel Godinho de Erédia’s "Description of Malaca, Meridional India, and Cathay" as a source, but we know he did not embark on any voyage of discovery southwards, and the translation used states this in its intro, this point also to be found in the WP article on Erédia. So what reliable (and preferably contemporary) sources state Erédia or his servant saw/or was describing Australia?

Richard Henry Major was Map Librarian at the British library for over 25 years. For years he argued the Portuguese had sighted Australia before the Dutch, basing his view, in part, on a "Victory Map" produced by Erédia claiming discovery in 1601. When Major finally read this account he realized Erédia had planned but had never undertaken the voyage, and published a retraction in Archaeologia in 1873. The full sad story, and its impact on Major’s reputation, is given by Kenneth McIntyre (1977)"The Secret Discovery of Australia," Chapter 25.

So therefore... why a table juxtaposing Major’s 1873 retraction against "a response". And why is this response labelled as being from Mills (1930) when it also seems to be using material from others? Like Macknight (1976)?

4. Turning to Ludovico di Varthema, this article claims in part "The original transcription is 'The point where the shortest day would only last four hours would be 15° south of the southern point of Van Diemen's Land' ". No, that isn’t in the original transcription – how could it be? Van Diemen’s Land wasn’t used as a name until 1642. These words are in an interpretive footnote written by Mills in the 1863 edition.

5. The "1613" Map shown – serves what purpose? The sharp-eyed reader will surely be confused by its date and the visible label "Eendracht au cocordia" – named after Hartog’s 1616 ship.

While antiquarian theories are a fairly obscure area of Wikipedia, I’m also raising my concerns on the fringe theory noticeboard. Nickm57 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I also have a concern: there likely are more recent scholarly sources to use than old primary ones from 1613 and 1863, that appear to be the main citations... —PaleoNeonate – 11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

This half baked mess of misquoting and original research is an embarrassment. I propose this article be deleted and a redirect created to Makassan contact with Australia. I cannot see how it can be meaningfully improved and although I have a specialist interest and knowledge in this area, I decline to waste time on it. The original editor has now been blocked for copyright issues, but for some weeks before that, they refused to discuss improvements on this page or their own. Nickm57 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with reducing it to a redirect. I don't think this article is worth saving, and in any case it's not worth its own article. Masjawad99^💬 06:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nickm57 and Masjawad99: Given the history of plagiarism by the page creator, I could imagine that all this is copypasted from a more recent source. While I haven't found which one this it could be, I have come across a modern source about the topic which might help to salvage at least some of the content without leaning to heavily on primary or dated sources: N. H. Peters (2003), "EREDIA MAP 1602 Ouro and Luca.Antara Islands", Cartography, 32:2, 31-47, doi:10.1080/00690805.2003.9714251 (full access via Wikipedia Library). The best target for redirect would then be Manuel Godinho de Erédia, which could be expanded with the help Peters's paper, provided someone knowledgeable in the field can evaluate if this does not violate WP:WEIGHT. A very harsh negative review of Peters is found here:doi:10.1080/14498596.2004.9635026, more context for the whole complex of research is found in this paper. (I found all this stuff on Google Scholar). –Austronesier (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes a redirect to Manuel Godinho de Erédia would also be satisfactory. Nickm57 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So this entertaining piece of nonsense currently gets about 14 views per day if I read things correctly.Nickm57 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction in pre-1500?

This paragraph about pre-1500 contact (pasted below) seems contradictory. It talks about references to native Australian people and then mentions people from Zanzibar, Sarawak, and Papua, none of which are Australia. I was unable to find the source to verify what it's actually saying, nor could I find a translation of those inscriptions.2600:6C50:57F:EFD9:282C:B75:37B9:6472 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Reference to Australia and native Australian people has been recorded in 10th century AD Java. According to Waharu IV inscription (931 AD) and Garaman inscription (1053 AD), the Mataram Kingdom and Airlangga's era Kahuripan Kingdom (1000–1049 AD) of Java experienced a long prosperity so that it needed a lot of manpower, especially to bring crops, packings, and send them to ports. Black labor was imported from Jenggi (Zanzibar), Pujut (Sarawak), and Bondan (Papua). According to Naerssen, they arrived in Java by trading (bought by merchants) or being taken prisoner during a war and then made slaves." 2600:6C50:57F:EFD9:282C:B75:37B9:6472 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)