Talk:Ryukyuan people

"She"?

The first sentence of the second paragraph states, "The Ryukyuan islands were unified by the Ryukyuan Kingdom in the 12th century. She paid tribute to the Ming Dynasty…" Who is this 'she' being referred to? I'd find out, but I'm lazy. >_> <_< DTM 04:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to "She"?

I think that "she refers to the Ryukyu kingdom. It commonly is used to refer to countries, ships etc. Leon Trotsky 10:05 25 November 2005

Origins of the Ryukyuans

Where did the Ryukyuans come from before they came to Japan? Leon Trotsky 10:06 25 November 2005

Probably Taiwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.152.206 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-12T18:05:45

The Ryukyuans came in separate waves into the Ryukyuan islands. The first major wave was from Kyushu by people who were either related to the Jomons or were the Jomons themselves. Later as the Yayoi began immigrating into the Japanese islands, more Jomon began to flee southward. Evidence of Jomon style pottery found in Okinawa exist. Later during the shell trading period, more migrants from Kyushu, who could possibly be more related to the Yayoi, emigrated to the Ryukyu Islands.

To sum it up, the Okinawans are descended from both the Jomon and the Yayoi. The latter existing in mainland Japan for tends of thousands of centuries, and the latter migrating from Mainland Asia more recently in comparison.

However, archaeological advances have led towards the discovery of the "Minatogawa Man" in southern Okinawa. Considered to be one of the oldest and one of the most complete fossils found in Asia. The skull of the Minatogawa Man is more similar to skulls found in Java than those in Japan. However due to the long time gap between these fossils, and the next oldest fossils discovered in Okinawa, there is not enough evidence to conclude any kind of relation between the Minatogawa man and modern Ryukyuans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatShiisaa (talk • contribs) 2008-08-10T04:40:15

Independence movement

I removed the reference to an "independence movement" due to lack of evidence for its existence. If someone can produce a citation, it would be appreciated! Turly-burly 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user re-added the "Independence Movement" section but added no content. I am removing it b/c an empty section is clutter. Turly-burly 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what people think justifies a gesture in this article to the existence of a "Ryukyuan independence movement". If such a movement exists, why not create an article about it, and THEN link to it in this article's "See Also"? I know *I* would be interested to read such an article. Turly-burly 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyuan Appearance

Do Ryukyuans appear different than Japanese people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.242.64 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-16T10:53:04

They do have a distinct appearance, but I don't know of any skeletal structure or facial features studies of the kind that would make this information worthy of inclusion in the article. They also believe they're hairier than mainland people; I don't know how this stands up against evidence, either. Turly-burly 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The appearance of most Ryukyuans is basically the same as that of most Japanese. The main difference is that Ryukyuans less frequently display certain "Korean-like" or "Chinese-like" features that can often be found among Japanese of the main islands. So, one could say that Ryukyuans look even more "Japanese" than Japanese people do; that is to say, Ryukyuans tend to resemble the "uniquely Japanese" aspect of Japanese people's appearance more often than Japanese people of the main islands do. Ebizur 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyuans are typically attributed as having somewhat darker skin and having harder features, but this may be due to Japanese stereotype or the belief that Okinawa's ancestors were various cast-aways from many different countries.AnkhAnanku (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't look all that much different from Japanese people. Though they do seem to be darker a lot of the time, propably due to the climate rather than anything else. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Like any ethnicity thats closely related, there's a "range" of features that includes some "overlap". Just like how some Koreans may pass as Japanese and vice versa and some that definitely don't, the same applies to the Japanese and the Ryukyuans. There are some who look no different than other Japanese, and there are some that are definitely distinct. There is a tendency for male Okinawans to have a wider chin, bushier eyebrows, larger eyes and stockier structure, etc. But there are also plenty who are slender and thin as well. Darker skin is not genetic, but due to the brighter climate of Okinawa and the large number of people employed in non office environments. Many Okinawan females are rather fair skin as many carry umbrellas to block the sun. FatShiisaa (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the wider chin, bushier eyebrows, and larger eyes describes me perfectly. Though I am just a sample of 50% of one. I would say that the darker skin is more due to climate and working outdoors over anything genetic. The "purer" members of my family can get pretty pale. It would be better to have some sourced scientific studies to refer to rather than some original research and personal anecdotes, however. (BTW, if you ever need to indent a response, you can use colons at the beginning of a line to do so (: for one tab, :: for two, etc.) --健次(derumi)^talk 06:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, Okinawans/Uchinaanchus have bigger eyes naturally. Some Okinawans/Uchinaanchus have extremely distant, historical Taiwanese roots which may be why there are Okinawans/Uchinaanchus who carry traits resembling Taiwanese aborigines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.166.53 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Corrected" Origins?

Any citations available to justify removing the information about coming from China later than Austronesians? There are some other things that were added to this section that I'm not sure about as well. I'll check it out this weekend. Turly-burly 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyuans do not come from China at all; they come from Japan (specifically, southern Kyushu). Please take a look at any report by a reputable geneticist. It will show you that the Ryukyuans are very closely related to the Japanese in general, although they have received a comparatively larger genetic contribution from the populations that have been resident in the area of the Japanese Archipelago since the Paleolithic era, of which the most "pure-blooded" modern representatives are the Ainu people of Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and the Kuriles. The Japanese of northern Kyushu, Honshu, and Shikoku are generally about half-Jomon and half-Korean, but their genetic histories vary quite greatly depending on the individual's family history; in general, Japanese from rural areas show a greater genetic resemblance to Ryukyuans and Ainu, while Japanese from urban areas show a greater genetic resemblance to Koreans. Ebizur 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the origins section. There is not one single credible journal that points towards any Austronesian origin, or any Sino-Tibetan origin. However there are a plethora of genetic evidence linking the Ryukyuans to the Jomon, and thus, linking them to the Japanese and the Ainu. That is not to say that there were no Chinese contributions at all as some Chinese migrated to the Ryukyu Kingdom and there once was a Chinatown in Naha. However the impact the genetic imprint of the average Okinawan is minimal at best. FatShiisaa (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed

I've renamed this article from Ryukyuans to Ryūkyūans in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 12:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Ryukyuans would beg to differ that this is indeed not a Japanese topic ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Node ue (talk • contribs) 2007-02-18T13:28:01

!

This article focuses on Okinawans, by which I mean people from the Okinawan archpelago, not the prefecture. Other island areas in the Ryukyus have distinct cultures (although they do have many similarities), which are very interesting to note how especially the southwesternmost cultures have many similarities to Austronesian cultures (decoration patterns of boats, for example). They can also be said to have distinctive appearances in some cases. --Node 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence of any genetic relationship or interaction between any Ryukyuan population and any Austronesian population. The sea between Yonaguni and the east coast of Taiwan forms one of the sharpest genetic boundaries found within the human species anywhere in the world. Ebizur 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article it says that Okinawan language cannot be understood at all by the mainland Japanese. My Fiance is Okinawan and she tells me that she can speak Okinawan (not the formal Japanese usually used when talking to a mainland person) and although the person may have some difficulty understanding, they still can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.47.98 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-26T17:52:10

My great great grandmother said different, but that would be original research on my part. --健次(derumi)^talk 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Many articles on ethnic groups follow the titular format "X people". There are a few notable exceptions, like Han Chinese, but French people, Japanese people, Mon people, Ainu people do follow this format, and I like having consistency and standards. What do people think? LordAmeth 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when X has a plural form, that form is used instead of "X people". See discussions at Talk:Koreans#Requested_move and Talk:Greeks#Requested_move. --Kusunose 12:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Those didn't come up in my (very small sample) of a random choice of ethnicities to test for a standard. Makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out. LordAmeth 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either format, though I think one style should be used for all such articles in order to maintain consistency and make it easier to find the articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read a little more about the different naming formats for this type of article (there are a lot) and why there isn't a standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Anyway, I'm going to weakly oppose this change based on the general feeling here that "Ryukyuans" as an acceptable plural form and the fact that they are roughly equal in Google hits; don't need to move for moving's sake. If the titles are going to be standardized, it can be done through a guideline, and otherwise it's fairly clear per discussions like the ones Kusunose mentioned that such efforts won't be widely effective. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

aa versus ā

I'm thinking maybe Uchinaanchu would be a better romanisation of 沖縄人 than Uchinānchu since it's really two syllables (na-a) as opposed to one long syllable (nā). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily1104 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Daisho in the living room?

Seriously, y'all? Everybody in Ryukyu was supposed to keep weapons whose possession was restricted to the nobility on the mainland in their living rooms? This paean to Ryukyu needs some serious fact-checking, and soon. 221.93.14.196 (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

errouneous categories

Indigenous peoples of "East" Asia| History of "Northeast" Asia

this people is southeastean asiatic and not northeastian..

east asia = northern east asia and southern east asia..southern japan is eastern-southeastian asia..or northern southeastian with southern china..south "hans"..

southern east asia =/= northern east asia and southern northeast asia =/= northern southeast asia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.39.114 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic group

Do they consider themselves to be a completely different ethnic group from other Japanese? AcidSnow (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: Yes, they consider themselves a seperate ethnic group, although they are a seperate ethnic group. Also, see Ethnic issues in Japan#Ryukyuan people. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The last paragraph discusses cultural ties (not sourced at all by the way) and states that the Japanese consider them to be "Japanese". Is this true? Anyways, should the paragraph be removed since it's not sourced? AcidSnow (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: This is a rather complex and frustrating issue. The majority of Japanese believe that there is no ethnic diversity in Japan, and any non-Japanese in Japan is a foreigner (like Koreans or Chinese). Because Okinawa still belongs to Japan (and since Japanification was successful there), Japanese often extend this belief to Okinawa, although they are mistaken. Okinawans are Japanese citizens, but not Japanese people. And you can leave it; I can easily find sources for it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the claim that Japan's inhabitance, speficly the indigenous are all "Japanese" since they are all "Japonic". That is, if you ignored the Ainu people (as you most likely know they have nothing to do with any of them). However, ignoring the foreign citizens such as the Koreans and the Chinese is quite bold. Most improtantly the ignorance of the Ainu people is quite arrogant in my opinion. Anyways, you know a lot and I thank you for your help. I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you Japanese? AcidSnow (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: No, the only Asian in me is 1/8 Lebanese. I lived in Okinawa for three years and I study East Asian history. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry for the late responce, I have been bussy these past few days. I just realized something ironic about their Emperors title, he is called an "Emperor". An "Emperor" denotes someone that rules over and "empire" which includes people of diffrent ethnicities. AcidSnow (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: Good point there. You should read Okinawa: History of an Island People by George Kerr, it's a great source for Ryūkyūan history, although it ends right after the Battle of Okinawa. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

@FreeTaiwan: please learn how WP:BRD function. I reverted your edit because the source "Long Journey to Prehistorical Japan" has a broken link, while the TJT source is too old because the genetics is relatively recent scientific method, and are cited better sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support the reversion. The kahaku.co.jp link is broken. The trussel.com link is self-published, and therefore not a reliable source; it is also over sold, in that the source does not match the content which was added. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryukyuan Jomon admixture estimates

We should clarify the Jomon admixture. The percentage of 50-60% and 28% it just a estimate and they don't claim it to be accurate either this is due to various reasons

1) genetic differences between Jomons (for example )

http://www.saitou-naruya-laboratory.org/assets/files/Kanzawa_AS13.pdf

Tohoku Jomon was genetically closer to the Hokkaido Jomon and Udegey people, than to the Kanto Jomon or mainland modern Japanese.

2) cranial facial of Jomon differs from regions to regions

"Regional differences in craniofacial diversity and the population history of Jomon Japan " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115359

3)

Abstract

The genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n2/full/jhg2016110a.html

" Various genetic data (classic markers, mitochondrial DNAs, Y chromosomes and genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) have confirmed the coexistence of three major human populations on the Japanese Archipelago: Ainu in Hokkaido, Ryukyuans in the Southern Islands and Mainland Japanese. We compared genome-wide SNP data of the Ainu, Ryukyuans and Mainland Japanese, and found the following results: (1) the Ainu are genetically different from Mainland Japanese living in Tohoku, the northern part of Honshu Island; (2) using Ainu as descendants of the Jomon people and continental Asians (Han Chinese, Koreans) as descendants of Yayoi people, the proportion of Jomon genetic component in Mainland Japanese was ~18% and ~28% in Ryukyuans; (3) "

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280121130_Unique_characteristics_of_the_Ainu_population_in_Northern_Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragoniteLeopard (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Stop edit warring. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for you Miki Filigranski. I myself and user "Fraenir" and " My very best wishes " have reported/complained on your edit warring. And looking at your talk page you have that kind of history, I don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Miki_Filigranski_reported_by_User:Fraenir_.28Result:_Warned_user.28s.29.29

You don't allow others to edit well sourced/reference materials but allow your own bias cherry-picked edits. The links which is posted on the Ryukuan pages includes " The genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified " and it also says "A plausible explanation may involve the following scenario: the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent who themselves may have already admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland ". I really can't find any other reason for you not include it on the wiki page other than you don't want others to know that the very same people who conducted the study themselves were unsure themselves, meaning the estimates of Jomon percentage for 50-60% and 28% is debatable. DragoniteLeopard (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• @DragoniteLeopard: some of the text you are including appears at even a cursory glance to be original research, and not supported by the source (e.g. A good explanation for the significantly lower Jomon ancestry in Ryukyuan this time is due to the fact that the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent ( who themselves may have already be admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland ) but the exact true degree of Jomon admixture is still unsure and may even be lower than the previous studies. The source offers this as an explanation for their estimated timing of admixture events, not the estimates on ancestry.) Some of the language is heavily editorialized. And the amount of detail being pulled from deep in the studies is undue. It needs discussion, not warring to include. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryk72 the source clearly says a "plausible explanation" on both the estimate time and ancestry. If you had actually read the whole study they are basically trying to explain why Jomon ancestry is so much lower than the 50-60% by explaining both the estimate timing and ancestry hence the reason for the 28% Jomon ancestry this time.

READ THIS PLEASE (from the exact same source it says ) " Our Jomon ancestry estimates were lower than what was reported previously, which ranged from 30 to 40% in the Mainland Japanese and 50–60% in the Ryukyuans. In this study, we used high density autosomal SNP data in the Ainu, whereas previous studies used only Y-chromosome polymorphisms, or 'using non-Ainu as the ancestral population. These differences in addition-to other methodological parameters may lead to the differences in the estimates "

Are you telling me it's not important to point out the reason of differences of Jomon estimates. They used ancestral Ainu and non-Ainu as the ancestral population to quantify Jomon admixture and also other studies also claimed Jomons were genetically and cranial-facially diverse from each other in all parts of Japan.

Also please read this "During the admixture process, it is important to note that the indigenous populations, the Jomon, who admixed with the Yayoi, were probably genetically differentiated from each other across the Japanese islands. How differentiated they were, some 2000 years ago, is difficult to say, but this pre-admixture differentiation should have some implication in the analyses, and their interpretation. " (http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n6/full/jhg200939a.html)

Also (e.g. " PC1 values of some Ainu individuals were similar to that of Sanganji Jomon, whereas PC2 separated the Ainu people from Sanganji Jomon (Figure 2b). It is probable that the ancestors of the Ainu people experienced admixture with other population(s) (for example, continental population(s) not used in the current study) after the Jomon period, and they are thus genetically differentiated from the Jomon people.51 The candidate population is the Okhotsk people, who inhabited the Northeastern costal area of the Hokkaido region, Japan, from the 5th to 13th century. They were morphologically close to modern southern Siberians such as the Nivkhi and Ulchi people,52, 53, 54, 55 who were not included in the current study. Recent studies suggest that the descendants of the Hokkaido Jomon people had admixed with the Okhotsk people and became ancestors of the modern Ainu.56, 57, 58, 59 Jinam et al.2 recently estimated the proportion of the Jomon ancestry in the mainland Japanese using the f4-ratio test35 under a specified phylogenetic scenario. The estimated proportion of Jomon ancestry differs depending on the compared populations and were within the range of 13–21%. Jinam et al.2 also used ADMIXTURE60 and found that the mainland Japanese was best explained by two ancestry components. One of them has very high proportions in many Ainu individuals, and is considered to be Jomon ancestry if we assume that the Ainu people are largely descendants of the Jomon. The average proportion of this Jomon component in the mainland Japanese was 17%, Although the Jomon admixture proportion is still debatable, we would like to conclude that the Jomon component in the mainland Japanese is probably lower than 20% ".

Ryk72, are you telling me it is not important to point out ( a high chance ) of the inaccuracy of the Jomon admixture in Rykyuans, mainland Japanese on the wikpedia page despite the fact they themselves clearly stated the genetic relationship between Jomon and it's modern population are not well clarified. Basically the Jomon admixture estimates are not completely accurate and may yield even further different results in the future. DragoniteLeopard (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

DragoniteLeopard, I really do not understand what content change you propose because you're not concise and specific. Also, yours or Fraenir's complaining is not in WP:GOODFAITH (debunked lies with intention to discredit and confuse me), so its not really something to argue about.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Right!
  Apropos the source clearly says a "plausible explanation" on both the estimate time and ancestry. It does not. Plausible explanation is included in one sentence, at the end of a paragraph which deals only with timing of admixture events. To consider it more broadly applicable is to take it out of context.[1] Additionally, thanks for If you had actually read the whole study ...; I had. As Spooner would have it: "assumption is the father of all muckups".
  Apropos Are you telling me it's not important to point out the reason of differences of Jomon estimates. Yes! It's important to note that there is variability in the estimates; based on variations in methods. Extensive detail on those methods is not important and is undue for inclusion in this article. If readers want that level of detail, they can read the sources.
  Apropos are you telling me it is not important to point out ( a high chance ) of the inaccuracy of the Jomon admixture in Rykyuans, mainland Japanese on the wikpedia page despite the fact they themselves clearly stated the genetic relationship between Jomon and it's modern population are not well clarified and Basically the Jomon admixture estimates are not completely accurate and may yield even further different results in the future. Yes! Not completely accurate and may yield even further different results in the future is what "estimates" means.
  To be specific, I am explicitly stating that as a general principle when referencing academic studies we should include content from the conclusions of the study, preferably as stated in the abstract. I am stating that it is improper, as a misrepresentation of the source, to cherrypick content from within the study and take it out of context; particularly so when we misuse that content to cast doubt on the results of the study.
  Now, looking at the actual text included:
  The genetic origins of the Jomon people including their genetic relationships with modern populations with the Yamato, Ainu, Ryukyuan is still not well clarified. - This is not a conclusion of the referenced study. The text However, the genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified is part of the preamble of the abstract; it is describing the state prior to the study. The study itself clearly demonstrates a link between the Jomon and present day peoples of Japan.
  Previously the Jomon ancestry was originally estimated at 50-60%. and A newer study estimated Jomon ancestry to be approximately only 28% in Ryukyuan. - There is editorializing here which implies that the later study provides a better estimate.
  The study compared genome-wide SNP data of the used of Ainu, Ryukuan and mainland Japanese by using Ainu as representatives since they the closest descendants of the Jomon people and it also used continental Asians (Han Chinese, Koreans) as descendants of Yayoi people, to measure the exact proportion of Jomon genetic components in mainland Japanese and Rykyuan - This is unnecessary, undue detail.
  A good explanation for the significantly lower Jomon ancestry in Ryukyuan this time is due to the fact that the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent ( who themselves may have already be admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland ) but the exact true degree of Jomon admixture is still unsure and may even be lower than the previous studies. - This is unnecessary detail; which is not supported by the source (as discussed above); with poor phrasing; and editorializing.
  Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I would value your thoughts on the above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The studies should be summarized in the most clear and concise way possible, since not everyone is a geneticist. Unless you can prove that one study is more accurate/superior/etc, the phrasing should be "one study in [year] claims [X], however another study in [year] claims [X]", basically. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay the reply look extremely messy and so have I to organized in my best way possible.

" It does not. Plausible explanation is included in one sentence, at the end of a paragraph which deals only with timing of admixture events. To consider it more broadly applicable is to take it out of context.[1] Additionally, thanks for

" Ancestry and timing are both together on the study, the point of that study is basically making a conclusion on why Jomon percentages is lower than previous study and it mentioned various reasons on both the timing and ancestry.

" Yes! It's important to note that there is variability in the estimates; based on variations in methods. Extensive detail on those methods is not important and is undue for inclusion in this article. If readers want that level of detail, they can read the sources.

" Chances are readers are going to believe everything edited on wikipedia and not bother to read the sources. We might aswell remove the percentages of 50-60% and 28% since neither of them could be true. The studies already said the exact Jomon proportions is still "debatable" and "un-clarified " so by having those percentages edited on the wikipedia without a explanation is misleading the wiki readers to believe those estimates do not have a single problem when in reality they do.

" Yes! Not completely accurate and may yield even further different results in the future is what "estimates" means. To be specific, I am explicitly stating that as a general principle when referencing academic studies we should include content from the conclusions of the study, preferably as stated in the abstract. I am stating that it is improper, as a misrepresentation of the source, to cherrypick content from within the study and take it out of context; particularly so when we misuse that content to cast doubt on the results of the study. "

It is far more misrepresenting and cherypicking by not mentioning the insurety of the Jomon ancestry to the wiki readers, to this seems even intentional. The studies itself says Jomon ancestry/proportions is " debatable " and "un-clarified" which makes the studies far more inaccurate than the genetic studies of other ethnic groups. Also the 50-60% Jomon ancestry itself seems incredible to me because how can such a extremely large percentage of Jomon ancestry exist for a ethnic group like Ryukyuans yet physically they don't look that different to the mainland Japanese and continental Asians and by that I mean I don't see Ainu like-traits in them at all where as ethnic groups like Uyghurs who are only 50% West Eurasian shows many individuals who exhibit caucasian phenotypes.

This is not a conclusion of the referenced study. The text However, the genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified is part of the preamble of the abstract; it is describing the state prior to the study. The study itself clearly demonstrates a link between the Jomon and present day peoples of Japan.

The study this say there's a common genetic link but they also said " debatable " and " properly " in the study themselves when they mention the percentages of Jomon ancestry/proportions/admixture. Not clarified is because the Jomons are still a mystery, previous study showed Jomons were craniofacial diverse and and Ainu themselves were more closer to Okhost than to Jomon. The Ainu were the physical descendants of Okhost rather than Jomon.

Regional differences in craniofacial diversity and the population history of Jomon Japan

Source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115359

Hokkaido Jomon people had admixed with the Okhotsk people and became ancestors of the modern Ainu

Source https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/112/2/112_2_161/_article

"Regarding these traits, the Ainu series are more similar to the Okhotsk than to the Jomon series. A broad comparison among pan-Pacific populations confirms the maintenance of distinctive morphologies in the remote regions of group ranges, as represented by the Jomon and to a lesser extent the recent Hokkaido Ainu. The Ainu occupies an intermediate position between Jomon and Northeast Asians on the one hand, and between Jomon and the Native Americans on the other. "

There is editorializing here which implies that the later study provides a better estimate.

That it's simply your opinion. The new study itself also said " our Jomon ancestry estimates were lower than what was reported previously " I mentioned newer study because it is in fact newer and the wiki viewers haves the right to know. Do you not want people to know that the study that estimated 28% is newer than ones that estimates 50-60% ?

" This is unnecessary, undue detail. "

Why is it unnecessarily when it helps explains the reason for the lower Jomon ancestry ?

" This is unnecessary detail; which is not supported by the source (as discussed above); with poor phrasing; and editorializing. "

You said not supported by the source ?

"Our Jomon ancestry estimates were lower than what was reported previously, which ranged from 30 to 40% in the Mainland Japanese and 50–60% in the Ryukyuans. In this study,we used high density autosomal SNP data in the Ainu, where as previous studies used only Y-chromosome polymorphisms, or using non-Ainu as the ancestral population. These differences in addition to other methodological parameters may lead to the differences in the estimates."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280121130_Unique_characteristics_of_the_Ainu_population_in_Northern_Japan

Although the Jomon admixture proportion is still debatable, we would like to conclude that the Jomon component in the mainland Japanese is probably lower than 20%

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n2/full/jhg2016110a.html

"Hope this helps "

It would help wiki readers by being more accurate and honest. I'm sure the majority of viewers who clicked on this page will not look at the sources - DragoniteLeopard (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• @DragoniteLeopard: I believe that I've already provided sufficient response to the points which you re-raise here. Your understanding of the sources is incorrect, and your use of them is not aligned with policy. I'm not going to argue against a personal incredulity fallacy or dignify an exhortation to be "honest" with a response. I think there's a fairly clear consensus against the text which you have included; and a fairly clear consensus for text similar to that suggested by Sturmgewehr88 above. Unless they, or Miki Filigranski, or another independent editor wish to object, I'm going to move forward with that. Suggest that if you wish to continue to oppose, then an WP:RfC or similar would be the best approach. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with what you say. It is better to remove the controversial Jomon estimate percentages in the wiki page when the studies itself said mentioned words like " debatable ", "properly", "un-clarified" on the Jomon admixture/ancestry/proportion. I also don't agree when you said that my edit of "newer studies" implies that the later study provides a better estimate. They are 2 different studies that uses both Ainu ancestral and non-Ainu ancestral separately to get the results for 50-60% and 28% Jomon ancestry in Ryukyuan. Also newer studies in general do better than old one so the chances for a accurate estimates will be the newer one. Also the way it was previously edited like " The Jomon ancestry is estimated at approximately 28%[33] or 50-60%,[34][35][36] depending to various studies <----------- this to me it's basically saying that there was no differences between the two study (the older and newer) and it may confuse people to deliberately think that the 50-60% was actually the newer/later study. - DragoniteLeopard (talk) 06:39 April 2017 (UTC)

An RfC should probably be opened to resolve this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I decided to revert DragoniteLeopard's edit. Because of lack of clarity at the moment I do not perceive there is a need for RfC. I could object content change of current revision if it is done without editor's consensus, concise and specific proposal, or if simply contradicts editing policy. Reading these vague personal opinions, with lack of understanding the material i.e. not scientifical reviews or criticism, really seems out of scope. When I read these comments, and then checked (think) all the sources, I could not but wonder from where to start my reply. Give me a day or two, until then will have a better opinion, as the section would not hurt from some checking/rewording or additional editing as some sources are not significantly cited. The current section seems to be a good or average synopsis of many studies without much or any controversy. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you completely ignoring the sources engage in edit warring again like you previously did before with other users. You already had the chance to reply me since April 16 to reply me but you had failed to replied on neither of them. Is already more than 5 days and now you want another a day or two to reply you forced the wiki page to be edited your way. You you were reported for edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Miki_Filigranski_reported_by_User:VQuakr_.28Result:_.29 . I will have no choice but to report you aswell if you're going to revert the page again. You simply don't want people to know that the controversial Jomon percentages are "debatable" and un-clarified" . The current section completely ignores the significant differences of the older and newer studies which you allowed. - DragoniteLeopard (talk) 07:39 April 22 2017 (UTC)

I advise you to be focused to comment on content change because you're not familiar with the report nor with the content change you proposed or edited, to not impulsively threat other editors with reports, and to not accuse other editors for something they do not wish or think.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Population

@Ryk72: I reverted an edit (specifically [2]) which listed population numbers for internal diaspora and other countries because seemingly it was not based on any source. I think you should work with @Sturmgewehr88: on the topic as he created Ryukyuan diaspora. It seems there exist two sources about Okinawan Diaspora (2002, 2012) and you should properly check and cite the information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski and Ryk72: Okinawan Diaspora (2002) claims there are 300,000 Ryukyuans living outside Japan and lists a number of countries; The Okinawan Diaspora in Japan (2012) claims there are 300,000 Ryukyuans living outside of Okinawa Prefecture and lists a number of other prefectures with population numbers. An IP added these other numbers without stating their source. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Miki Filigranski and Sturmgewehr88:, Sorry that I missed this the last couple of days. I support both the revert of the unsourced data, and StG88's inclusion of sourced data. The only point that I could add is minor, and relates to the footnoting in the Infobox, which I think could be cleaner; will try to do something with it if I get a spare couple of minutes. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing controversial claim of Ryukyuan

There is a problem with this edit:

" Recent genetic and anthropological studies indicate that the Ryukyuans are significantly related to the Ainu people and mostly share the ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jōmon period (pre 10,000–1,000 BCE) people, who arrived from Southeast Asia, compared to the Yamato people who are mostly an admixture of the Yayoi period (1,000 BCE–300 CE) migrants from Northeast Asia (specifically the Korean peninsula).[3][8][9][10] "

This should be wisely rephrased and should at least be on the "origin". It says "mostly share" ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jomon people " . " compared to the Yamato people " The newest study shows they have only 28% Jomon admixture which makes them only 72% Yayoi this means they are also closer to the Yamato people, so it is incorrect to make this this claim. - DragoniteLeopard (talk) 07:46 April 22 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, there will be some rephrasing. As for the "newest" study, which is different from other studies and does not out-weight them, the hypothetical Jomon admixture was not based on Jomon DNA but Ainu DNA, literally meaning they have 28% admixture which share with Ainu and 72% which share with Yamato Japanese.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This mean that I agree with your recent edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. It changes the meaning of our article text, which previously contrast Ainu/Ryukyuan with Yamato in terms of the degree of Jomon ancestry. There's neither change of nor discussion of the sources which are referenced for this content. I agree that the article text is currently not well phrased in this section, but we don't fix that by changing its meaning. The edit also did not actually address the phrasing issues. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but what gives you the right to decide completely? It doesn't changes the meaning because the old source was from 2012 but we now have a new study from 2015 October that gives the 28% Jomon ancestry this means you can no longer say Ryukyuan mostly share" ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jomon people. I also do not understand why you want people to avoid knowing the difference between a newer(28% estimate) and older study(50-60% estimate), it is absolutely not against the rule. My last 2 edits were different to my previous edits. Also judging by username you which says "Ryk" I have reason to be believe you're Ryukyuan. I do not have definite proof but I want to know if you're from Japan/Okinawa ? if you are from Okinawa I have good reason to believe there is bias control on the wiki edits. Keep in my I'n not accusing you, I'm suspecting based on what I'm seeing. The wikipedia interpretations is basically saying Ryukyuans are racially/genetically more like Jomon.

A genetic studies which showing Ryukyuan genetically cluster closer to Yamato and genetically distant from the Ainu.

https://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screen-shot-2012-11-08-at-5-47-49-pm.png

Don't know if you can read Japanese but it clearly shows Ryukyuans are closest living population to Ainu out of all ethnic group but are far more closer to Yamato ( mainland Japanese ) in the genetic clusters

http://news.mynavi.jp/news/2012/11/02/126/

http://news.mynavi.jp/photo/news/2012/11/02/126/images/003l.jpg

DragoniteLeopard (talk) 09:37 April 22 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the reasons for my revert in my previous comment on this Talk page. The issue is not with removing "mostly", but with the other changes made; those changes alter the meaning of sourced text. We can't do that without either showing why that source doesn't support the original text, or by demonstrating that there is a better source (including showing why it is better) and referencing that source. Please also read WP:FOC. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@DragoniteLeopard, I disagree with your second edit. @Ryk72:, I partially agree with DragoniteLeopard on the first edit because when I read all the sources it's really vague the factual estimation of the Jomon ancestry in modern Ryukyuans, and stating that the Ryukyuans "mostly share" could mean that they share in majority Jomon rather than Yayoi origin, beside as you stated, contrasting the degree of Jomon ancestry between populations in Japan. There's factual difference between studies about autosomal DNA or Y-DNA/mtDNA or mix of both, hence there's only hypothetical estimations, but DragoniteLeopard is still giving wrong weight to only one specific research or misrepresenting them. According to the most recent 2017 source about nuclear genome sequences of two Jomon samples from Sanganji shell mound in Tohoku region (with "note that it is possible that the frequency was underestimated if the Jomon people had some population substructure and the northern Jomon including the Sanganji Jomon only indirectly contributed to the modern Japanese" as per 2013 study there was mtDNA sub-haplogroups inter-regional heterogeneity within the Jomon people specifically between studied Kantō, Hokkaido and Tōhoku Jomon, meaning probably the same scenario with Okinawan Jomon, better to say, it is not empirical to base Jomon ancestry frequency in Okinawan population based on northern Tōhoku Jomon instead of southern Okinawa Jomon) mentioned that "The amount of genetic contribution from the Jomon people varied among the Japanese Archipelago populations (Figures 2b and 3a and Supplementary Figure S15). The Ainu and the Ryukyuan share more alleles with the Jomon than the mainland Japanese, suggesting smaller genetic contributions from continental populations in those two populations than for the mainland Japanese, in agreement with previous findings.1, 2, 4, 13, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 This supports the dual-structure model of Hanihara,3, 50 which is a widely accepted theory that explains the history of the three current populations that inhabit the Japanese Archipelago, and which predicts that the mainland Japanese are more admixed with agricultural continental people than the Ainu and the Ryukyuan, with major admixture occurring in and after the Yayoi period". According to this and other sources conclusion I propose changing the current lead sentence:

• [Recent genetic and anthropological studies indicate that the Ryukyuans are significantly related to the Ainu people and mostly share the ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jōmon period (pre 10,000–1,000 BCE) people, who arrived from Southeast Asia, compared to the Yamato people who are mostly an admixture of the Yayoi period (1,000 BCE–300 CE) migrants from Northeast Asia (specifically the Korean peninsula)]

to

• [Recent genetic and anthropological studies indicate that the Ryukyuans are related to the contemporary Ainu people with whom significantly share the ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jōmon period (pre 10,000–1,000 BCE) people, who arrived from Southeast Asia, compared to the Yamato people who are mostly an admixture of the Yayoi period (1,000 BCE–300 CE) migrants from Northeast Asia (specifically the Korean peninsula)].--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So what's taking so long now ? I don't see anyone removing the "mostly share" part which is extremely misleading and making people think Ryukyuans are closer to Jomon than they are to Japanese.DragoniteLeopard (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are the first to me replied me on this one, thank you. Yes the 28% is indeed based on the "Ainu" and 72% based to Yamato. But one cannot even say 72% is Yamato because most Ainu today have Yamato/Yayoi ancestry. Pure Ainu are only 300 or less this is proven fact. This is also proven by various pictures of modern Ainu showing extreme physical features of Northeast Asian descent https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7535/15465603384_960292329d_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7535/15465603384_960292329d_b.jpg

However to makes things more confusing is the fact that the Jomon themselves are more anthropologically/ cranial-facially more diverse than previously thought and were already infused with Yayoi in different level of degrees. cranial facial of Jomon differs from regions to regions. "Regional differences in craniofacial diversity and the population history of Jomon Japan " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115359

Also since Ryukyuan is sub-ethnicity of Yamato ( they basically belong to the same language family of Japonic ) that means their Yayoi ancestry would be those of Yamato but this so confusing in my opinion. The Ryukyan admixture happened the most earliest is it's unlikely the Jomon admixture they received were not a admixture group.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280121130_Unique_characteristics_of_the_Ainu_population_in_Northern_Japan

It says " Our estimated time since admixture of 1450 years ago may be treated as a lower bound, since roll off assumes only one admixture event and estimates the most recent event. This time estimate coincides with the period, during 5th–8th century, in which the Japanese government expanded their territory to the northern part(Tohoku) of the Honshu Island.28 Interestingly, the time since the admixture event that led to the formation of Ryukyuans was more recent compared with the Mainland Japanese. The estimated admix-ture time of approximately 1100 years ago corresponds to the Gusuku period of Okinawan archeological history.32 A plausible explanation may involve the following scenario: the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent who themselves may have already admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland this means Rykyuans Yayoi admixture came from the Yamato but I have no idea what types of Jomon admixture they recieved, it's confusing because even the Jomon mtDNA haplogroup are different. Hokkaido is predominated by N9b while Jomons of southern Japan are M7a. DragoniteLeopard (talk) 08:37 April 22 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@DragoniteLeopard, are you aware that you're discussing on the Wikipedia article talk page, like it is somekind of a forum or blog, and not an encyclopedia? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Accused of disrupting edits for being more accurate

I have been accused of disrupting edits for editing this way.

From changing the previous edit of "The Jomon ancestry is estimated at approximately 28%[35] or 50-60%,[36][37][38] depending to various studies. " to this edit ------------> " Jomon ancestry was previously estimated at approximately 50-60%,[35][36][37] A newer study gave Jomon ancestry at only 28%.[38] "

The reason I changed it so that can it be more accurate.

1) There is no "various" studies on Ryukyuan people. There is only two study and so it's misleading people to claim "various".

2) Estimated of Jomon ancestry 50-60% was a few year a more before the 28% Jomon ancestry estimated was released.

I absolutely don't see how I'm breaking the rules of wikipedia other than somebody don't want the edits to be more accurate.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 10:05, 5th August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH; and also review the previous Talk page discussions Ryukyuan Jomon admixture estimates and Removing controversial claim of Ryukyuan. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstable point out which rule I broke. You're telling me to read "WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH " but I don't see one single problem in my edit so kindly point that out.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 6:50, 5th August 2017 (UTC)

1) These studies are various, the one newer study is not an update of the older nor does out-weight them.

2) Will quote once again myself from above "the hypothetical Jomon admixture [in the newer study] was not based on Jomon DNA but Ainu DNA, literally meaning they have 28% admixture which share with Ainu and 72% which share with Yamato Japanese". The study itself is specifically about Ainu, not Ryukyuans, as well there existed a difference in DNA between local or regional Jomon population, hence the article, for now, should have a neutral tone in the representation of the percentage.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

1) There are only two studies. "Various" generally means several more. You can't claim various from only two studies, it is misleading.

2) Than you can easily claimed based on Ainu DNA, the fact that Jomon admixture was estimated as 50-60% and later dropped to a mere 28% should be stated aswell. The 50-60% result was from previous study (or better the very first study ) the 28% is a newer study. It doesn't matter if it's based on Ainu DNA because the DNA they claim that is based on Jomon is only a hypothical theory. Nobody even knows what a true Jomon admixture really is.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 05:15 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Apropos: 1) There are at least four studies referenced. 2) It is false to assert that the estimate was "later dropped to a mere 28%"; estimates in studies based on Y-chromosomes have neither changed nor been revised; the estimate based on SNP uses a different method. We should probably explicitly mention the methods used (in about the terms mentioned in this comment; wiki-linked).
On review, the whole Origins sections is a dog's breakfast; riddled with sentences lifted from various studies, but without being representative of those studies; and wholly opaque (and of limited value) to the uninitiated. It is my intention to clean it up; likely through removal of some of the more esoteric information. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ryk72, explicit mention of the methods will make the paragraph loose focus. As far I read about the topic and these studies last several months, it is representative and valid, with the very basic and focused information (which is related to sections in Jomon period and Japanese Paleolithic articles among others), and as such their removal would not be constructive. The information can be expanded, but there is no need at the moment. The argument that some people are uninitiated in the topic of DNA and because of that it should be edited is counterproductive. I would like to hear in a new section for e.g. "review-of-some kind" which parts you found let's say "limited". At the moment I don't see anything, but maybe I missed something.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Jomon migration

I included a newer research about jomon origin, where it is pointed out that most of the jomon genetics are of northern origin. I did not delet the other source that support a southern origin, but this source is not really about jomon at all but about kennwick men and anthropology. It got reverted by another user without explanation, i restored it. Would some one look at it or explain problems? Wikipedia should be up to date, so i think this is important. This are the two sources: http://www.pitt.edu/~annj/courses/notes/jomon_genes.html https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2016110 thank you212.95.8.170 (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

First source is outdated, the second is cited in Jōmon period#Genetics as well in this article, but a single paper on such a small sample cannot beat others WP:WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

its not outdated, but ok. Still both need to be mentioned, i will writte in neutral view: from southeast asia and northeast asia. I hope this is ok. I will search for another paper. Thank you212.95.8.170 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• The pitt.edu source is a self-published website; not reliable. The additional source, https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/85/2/85_2_69/_article included later does not support the article text. No sourcing was provided for the addition of the Kofun period. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

did you red the source? This is the conclusion: “Regarding the roots of the Japanese, Hanihara1) proposed the ‘‘dual structure model’’, which suggests that the Jomon (12,000-2300 years ago) and Yayoi (2300-1700 years ago) peoples originated from South Asia and North Asia, re- spectively. This model assumes that people of the South Mongoloid lineage settled Japan first, later followed by a considerable number of immigrants of

the North Mongoloid lineage and that the Mongol- oid of both lineages mixed with each other to form the present-day Japanese people. Furthermore, the Ainu are assumed to be Jomon people of the South Mongoloid lineage that had evolved with little or no mixture with other races. This model was based on the computer multivariate analysis of the results of osteometry, an outdated, uncertain method. It is known that such physical measurement values easily change with nutrition, environment, and culture in a short time, as is well understood from the physique of the present young generation. Instead of morphological studies, polymorphic markers harbored in macromolecules such as pro- teins and glycoconjugates including blood group systems have been widely applied during the last century to studies of genetic variation in human populations because of their simple Mendelian inheritance. Among them, Gm types are unique genetic markers that can define a Mongoloid population in terms of its origin by the combination pattern of the gene types and the ratios of them, even though Gm is a classical marker. In sharp contrast to the ‘‘dual structure model’’, our data on the geographical distribution of Gm gene types throughout the Asian and American Continents, and Pacific islands show that the Japanese popula- tion belong basically to the northern Mongoloid group; that the Ainu, as well as the Ryukyu islanders, are genetically closer to the northern Mongoloid group than to the general Japanese population; and that Taiwanese have a Gm gene composition characteristic of the southern Mongol- oid group. The extent to which Japanese were admixed with the southern group is estimated at as low as 7–8%, assuming the admixture with southern groups having the highest frequencies of the Gm afb1b3 gene. The results of a population study by Bannai et al.,22) who analyzed HLA polymorphisms, sug- gested that the Ainu might share the same ancestor in eastern Asia with native Americans (Tlingit and Amerindians). 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.” So the source do actually completely support the jomon origin in northern asia not south. Please fix this @Ryk72 thank you212.95.8.170 (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

South Mongoloid referred to Southeast Asia and Jomon, while the other on Yayoi. It also says that "However, neither hypothesis was supported from our analysis using direct Jomon nuclear genome sequences. Our results suggest that the Jomon people were descendants of an ancestral East Eurasian population prior to population diversifications recognizable today... Therefore, we can conclude that the modern Japanese Archipelago populations are the admixture of the Jomon people and other populations with genetic affinities with modern Northeast Asians. This result is consistent with the conclusion based on the genetic analyses of modern human populations.1 However, it is difficult to pin-point the geographic origins of the candidate populations because of lack of genetic data of relevant ancient populations".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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. Read carefully. If ainu and ryukyuans have more northern dna and are more jomon, it is clear that jomon are of northern asian origin. Thank you 212.95.8.170 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

where is this no original research? Hideo matsumoto made this research. It is the japanese academy for genetic research. Please explain. The source link open a page from jstage. There you open the full pdf and read the research.212.95.8.170 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The article text for which this source was referenced was Ryukyuans are significantly related to the Ainu people and share the ancestry with the indigenous prehistoric Jōmon period (pre 10,000–1,000 BCE) people, who arrived from Northeast Siberia and from Southeast Asia. The source text does not directly support that statement. WP:SYNTH does not permit us to take multiple sources, or multiple parts of a single source, and combine & interpret them to form a new statement; to do so is original research. There are, however, parts of the source which do look promising for article content on the origins of the Ryukyuan people; directly supported. I hope to have time to make some proposals over the next week. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the matter with this article?

I have been trying twice to get a sentence into the article of a study that has been cited before in this article, but with a point that HAS NOT been made before. This sentence got deleted instantly by the same person twice calling it redundant just because the same study was cited before BUT WITH DIFFERENT contents and I was accused of violating the terms of neutral point of view, but seriously, how not neutral is the following sentence that is just literally quoting what is written in the summary part of the cited study?

However, studies from 2014 found that Yayoi admixture "(...) appears not to have had a major genetic influence in outlying regions such as Okinawa (...)"

As it was the same person twice I wanted to ask what's their point on their talk page but that page is not even editable by me. For a reason? I'm seriously confused by this form of (non)exchange. Thanks. --Takah79 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited according to WP:NPOV & WP:WEIGHT & WP:BALASP. The paragraph has neutrality based on many reliable sources i.e. studies of which several have been published more recently than 2014, and it is redundant to have a double citation of the same reference per ref style. The concern, per WP:BRD, is discussed at the article's talk page, not at the editors talk page. There's another issue with the section - Ryukyuans cannot be considered to share more genetic data with the Jomon period people than with the Yayoi period people when the Jomon ancestry is estimated at only 28%. Text and numbers are contradicting and will check these days cited sources as well that newly published.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Ryukyuan Subgroups?

I initially made articles such as “Okinawan people” and “Miyakoan people” to go over the different subgroups of the Ryukyuan ethnic group. However, I eventually abandoned the idea. This is largely because I’m not sure if there are defined “subgroups” of the Ryukyuan people to begin with. The main reason why I made those articles in the first place is because the Ryukyuan people seem culturally diverse. For example, someone in Okinawa has cultural and linguistic differences from someone in Ishigaki or Yonaguni.

Do you guys think Wikipedia should have pages about the different subgroups of Ryukyu? Because while there’s no defined subgroups of the Ryukyuan ethnicity, Ryukyuans coming from different island chains seem to exhibit a lot of differences. - Coastaline (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We could have subheadings in this artivle, unless you feel like that would immediately make it way too chunky and deserving of breaking up. But I agree that the differing experiences of various subgroups of the Ryukyuan people need to be covered. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subgroups should be mentioned in the main article, unless someone has access to sources and content in order to make separate articles. If the new articles are going to be small, it's better to have the same content as subheadings in the 'Ryukyuan people' article. Fanasiro (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad to hear your responses. I do think it’s best to use a subheading to talk about the different Ryukyuan subgroups rather than create separate articles. Those articles I initially made were mostly stubs to begin with. I’m thinking of creating a heading called ‘Subgroups’ but I also think it makes sense to create it as a subheading under the already-existing ‘Culture’ heading. Coastaline (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Amami Numbers

I'm curious about the Amami Island numbers in the infobox because it seems to have taken the entire population of the island. I have doubts about this since not everyone in the islands can be Ryukyuan. There could be Japanese transplants from the mainland or foreigners living there. — Coastaline (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation 404

26. "The Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance" (PDF). The link leads to 404 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomitron (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yomitron: - Thanks for the heads up; I've added an archived url for that reference now.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ryukyuans everywhere in JUMBAC countries

Ryukyuan diasporas exist in JUMBAC countries, namely the United States, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile. As of 2022, there are about 580,000 of them in the United States, about 480,000 in Japan, about 260,000 in Brazil, about 90,000 in Argentina, about 70,000 in Mexico and about 60,000 in Chile. 2603:7000:CA01:E5A6:BD43:122F:FB11:3C7E (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

1.8 million people in Okinawa?

I think something is wrong with the statement that there are 1,800,000 Ryukyuans in Okinawa. The Wikipedia page for the Okinawa Prefecture states that there are 1,466,870 people living in the prefecture. Even if we assume all Okinawans to be Ryukyuan, there is still a very large number gap. Can anyone explain this? 2604:3D08:8B80:F00:65E5:2B96:895E:4E1 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. It must be a typo. The link in the citation just gives the total population of Okinawa, without a break down on ethnic group. MarcusGraly (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)