Talk:Jōmon period

message: The dating in this is confusing and inconsistent. The periods listed in the lede do not match the dates given in the summary of periods which do not match the dates given in the headers for the periods.
Lede:   
         traditionally dated between c. 14,000–300 BCE, recently refined to about 1000 BCE
Summary: 
         The very long, approximately 14,000 years, Jōmon period is conventionally divided into a number of phases: Incipient (16,500-10,000 years ago), Initial (10,000–7,000), Early (7,000–5,450), Middle (5,450–4,420), Late (4,420–3,220) and Final (3,220–2,350), with the phases getting progressively shorter.
Headers: 
         Incipient and Initial Jōmon (14,000–4000 BCE)
         Early Jōmon (4000–2500 BCE)
         Middle Jōmon (2500–1500 BCE)
         Late and Final Jōmon (1500–900/300 BCE)
I can see some of the dates are in BCE and some are in "years ago" which explains some of the inconsistency (eg 1500 BCE vs 4420 years ago) but even then there is a lot of inconsistency (14000 BCE vs 16500 years ago vs 1000 BCE in the lede, or 7000 years ago vs 4000 BCE). I know there has been some serious contention here from the talk, but can someone who knows something about the topic at least make the dates consistent (also using a consistent format, either BCE or "years ago" to reduce confusion)? For someone seeking information without a foundation in the topic, the confusion of dates and date formats makes this article somewhat useless. 2601:140:C000:A593:2022:1D38:B1F1:C0B3 (talk) (June 2019)
Plans in the works for updating all dates as well as adding more info Miketsushimi (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: The questionable sentence: "However, according to 2011 study all major mtDNA lineages, with the D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally during the Jōmon Period (14–2.3 kya), specifically, in the incipient Jōmon Period (8–5 YBP) i.e. thousands of years before intensive agriculture and that the growth of population and depletion of food resources was the reason for population expansion and not agriculture. " There are multiple problems with this statement.
* The dates given for incipient Jomon (8–5 YBP) contradicts sourced information stated here on Wikipedia Jōmon_period#Chronology, which gives a date of "Incipient (16,500-10,000 years ago)".
*"D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally" also contradicts information stated DIRECTLY in the source! The source says that "showed that except for JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya". How does that equate to "unequivocally expanded before 7000 BP"?
The statement made above, and currently re-inserted multiple times into the article by Miki Filigranski, is full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
*The 2011 source cites different reliable sources (Hammer 2006; Crawford 2008). This is a separate issue because it indicates there exist a disagreement among scholars consideration on both period and within-period dates.
::Nope. This is clearly a mistake. We both have the Hammer article - it never mentions dates for incipient Jomon. Crawford doesn't either. This is clearly a mistake by the author, and indicative that the statement made by the author is UNRELIABLE. Do you really believe that an incipient Jomon date of 8-5,000 kya is accurate? That's so wrong that it's unsupportable, and that's part of why it makes the entire statement unreliable.Fraenir (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hammer 2006 does not mention the date, however, the author(s) had own reason to cite that source. It is just your personal opinion to "clearly be a mistake" - find a scientific review in which these statements are criticized. On other hand, Crawford 2008 on pg. 446 estimates incipient Jomon 14,000-8,000 BC, hence (including Pearson 2006) if checked Perri 2016 (which states "The Jomon culture of Japan (c. 12 500–2350 BP; Table 1)" and then list Jomon phases from "Incipient c. 16 140–10 000 BP", missing 4 000 years or not providing any previous source as reference for these numbers) proves there is some disagreement between scholars about Jomon phase dating and as such it is a separate issue.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Incipient Jomon refers to the earliest/oldest phase of the Jomon Period. There is not a single reliable source out there that comes close to using 8–5 YBP. This dating for Incipient Jomon is clearly a mistake. It's unbelievable that anyone would defend this as a serious date for Incipient Jomon - this "reliable source" that Miki Filigranski is depending on is the only place in the world that uses such an absurd date for Incipient Jomon, the earliest phase of the Jomon Period. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not defend that date, yet again you did not cite a scientific review in which the date is criticized/corrected.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I already listed the source cited at the beginning of the lead in this article. This is ridiculous. It's clearly wrong and not defensible. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: The author contradicts himself in his own paper! He states that: JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya and then he states that JPT expanded later at ∼7kya!!! So which date is accurate? This is completely unreliable, not to mention the fact that he makes a clear mistake on incipient Jomon dates, a date which is not supported by Hammer 2005 or Crawford 2008. There's 2 major errors/contradictions in the sentence that you're using as the source - it's clearly unreliable.Fraenir (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, it is your personal opinion to be a contradiction: First is their estimate of the "Age estimations" from "Table 2" about haplogroups clusters; Second is their estimate of the "size trend of (Japanese) populations" from "Figure 2". Two separate things. I will re-word the paragraph on the reasoning of possible public misunderstanding.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the erroneous, plagiarized bit about Incipient Jomon does not change the fact that the statement used by Miki Filigranski here with the D4b2b1 and M7a1a latest, expanded before 7000 YBP unequivocally, is still based directly on a sourced statement containing at least 2 errors and contradictions. The source itself stated separately elsewhere that JPT-specific clusters (D4b2b1 and M7a1a) expanding ∼6 kya. There is nothing unequivocal about "expanded before 7000 YBP", even in the authors' own paper. There is no way to defend the use of this error-filled statement as a source - it's an unreliable source, especially the entire sentence from which the originally inserted text by Miki Filigranski was plagiarized/directly sourced from. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're falsely accusing fellow editor for plagiarization. Your opinion about the source being unreliable is still invalid.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - if you look at the original sentence as copied from the source, it's clearly plagiarized, right down to the Incipient Jomon nonsense. It's still an unreliable source, and you haven't provided a single reasonable justification to explain the two massive errors and contradictions that the sourced sentence contains. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to add.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliably sourced information

message: So, I noticed Miki Filigranski sneaked in another reference tag here , so I decided to check the factual accuracy of this statement. Sure enough, the originally cited source, Hideaki 2013, directed contradicted the claim that Miki Filigranski was pushing, and actually states that "In the modern Japanese, mtDNA haplogroups N9b and M7a2 ... are uncommon." and "In modern populations, haplogroup N9b is present in the Japanese archipelago at low frequencies (<10%), but at a high frequency (30.4%) in the Udegey from southern Siberia." In contrast, Miki Filigranki had repeatedly re-inserted the false claim, using the same source, that haplogroups N9b (most frequent in Ainu). Again, adding a bunch of tags to erroneous information does not validate false or misleading claims. The newly added 'source' also does not support this claim. Fraenir (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware about the statements and tone you make, it's clearly not in good faith. You edited information and source about Udege people in an article about Japanese archipelago populations, the source does not have a single word about Jomon, it is clearly out of scope. Do not cherry pick, the part about N9b haplogroup and Ainu was not primary cited by Hideaki2013. Will remove part "most frequent in X" due to possible issue.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in reference to N9b, which is commonly found in Jomon samples, so it's very valid to add that. You just don't like that information since it doesn't support the weird POV that you're trying to push. Besides, the comments I added above are directly from Hideaki 2013. You're now just being completely dishonest as well. Fraenir (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not valid by any criteria. It has nothing to do with my personal linking or push. Stop to personally attack others.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example of improper source tagging and false claims

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jōmon period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017164014/http://www.beret.co.jp/column/2011/10/1600.html to http://www.beret.co.jp/column/2011/10/1600.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727112153/http://www.jomon.or.jp/e3.html to http://www.jomon.or.jp/e3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a link at the bottom to Austronesian peoples, but there's nothing in this article that mentions Austronesian or Austro- anything. Are the Jomon any kind of Austronesian people? I haven't heard any genetic evidence about that. On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting the Jomon came from the northern Asian mainland.https://heritageofjapan.wordpress.com/just-what-was-so-amazing-about-jomon-japan/1-temp-from-africa-to-east-asia-the-tale-of-migration-and-origins-emerges-from-our-mitochondria-dna/origins-of-the-jomon-jomon-connections-with-the-continent-and-with-todays-japanese/
:Why not remove that link? 
:Kortoso  (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austronesian? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 'A common culture, known as "broadleafed every green forest culture", ranged from southwestern Japan through southern China towards Northeast India and southern Tibet,' -- should that be "broadleafed evergreen forest"? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: "More recent evidence indicates that domestication occurred as early as 6000 BC in Zhejiang Province of China. " as stated in the peach article. No confusvation anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.61.6 (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  peaches 

message: The text states, "The manufacture of pottery typically implies some form of sedentary life because pottery is heavy, bulky, and fragile and thus generally unusable for hunter-gatherers." This assertion is based on the assumption that hunter-gatherers are always nomadic and that ceramics are connected with agriculture, which is considered sedentary. In fact, however, the earliest pottery in many regions (e.g., Siberia, Alaska, eastern Fennoscandia) appears specifically in a hunter-gatherer context and the pots themselves can be quite large. Also, few hunter-gatherers are continuously on the move. Most historical hunter-gatherers have practiced some form of transhumance, spending long periods of time in seasonal camps connected with some important resource, while a few groups such as the North Alaskan coastal Inuit and the Northwest Coast tribes lived in permanent villages near a rich resource (whales and salmon, in these cases) that provided year-round sustenance in the form of stores collected during part of the year. The statement also ignores the fact that even nomadic hunter-gatherers can have "appliances", i.e., heavy or bulky implements that are not carried around but are stashed at some suitable location for use when the group camps there to utilize a local resource. Such "appliances" may include grinding stones, fishing weirs, hunting blinds and storage pits, but also pots used, e.g., for rendering seal fat. Neither archaeology nor ethnography substantiates the assertion that ancient hunter-gatherers could not have used pottery. Death Bredon (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceramics and hunter-gatherers 

message: The article contains descriptions and photographs of (ritualistic rather than everyday) pottery, human figures and jewellery that emphasize the uniqueness of Jomon, but no information whatsoever on actual tools (stone or metal) or their methods of production, which would tie the Jomon periods in with developments on the mainland. It would appear that the article was written by an art historian rather than an archaeologist. Death Bredon (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the tools?