Talk:Yamato people

message: The mention about shinto 
Here is seriously wrong 
"Clan leaders also elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto.[16]'
This is about State shinto but not a shinto generally. Shinto itself has far older history than 19century. Clearly this description is kind of anti japan propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.106.95.33 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

message: Yamato people is history. If you want to discuss history ( facts and figures). Yamato people or race consist Korean and Ainu blood mixing thats Yamato people.
Before Koreans or Ainu arrival ( Yamato people) did not exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yamato people are an ethnic group, not a history 

message: Yamato people or Yamato nation??  
Yamato people: Koreans and Ainu ( mixed)
Yamato grammar: Korean language.
Yamato 80 percent writing characters: Chinese. ( unlike Koreans Japanese depends on Chinese characters for daily life usage).
Yamato historical birth: Korea and Kyushu/ Kansai plain.
Yamato blood line: Koreans. For example, Emperor lineage comes from Korean Kingdom " Paekje/ Kudara in Japanese.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yamato people or Yamato nation? 

message: But not the French people? For some reason it's racist to even speak of a French ethnicity. 184.96.201.159 (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do the Yamato people get to be considered an ethnicity? 

message: There should be clarification on whether the dates are in BC or AD. The Yamato started to kick out the Jomon in the 300s BC, and so when I'm seeing stuff about the Yomato Court in x century,  I don't know whether it's from AD or BC. A casual reader who came upong this page would have no idea either in all likelyhood. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Tevet 5774 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC or AD? 

message: The whole section lacks credible sources and needs to be redone. I specifically have a problem with the assertion that the Yamato and Ryukyuans being related is a discredited ideological claim. From a purely linguistic standpoint the Yamato and Ryukyuans share a linguistic heritage, meaning that they are indeed related groups. The debate is whether they are Yamato or not, not if the two groups are related.
Canodae (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded it a bit. It is now more neutral/correct.--AsadalEditor (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryukyuans Unrelated 

message: There seem to be a huge number of sources (14) given for the first sentence, "The Yamato people are an East Asian ethnic group and a nation which is indigenous to the Japanese archipelago." It could be worth trimming this down, as on WP:CITETRIM. I've noticed one pair of duplicates which I will address. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 Sources for the first sentence? 

message: About here " The Yamato clan set up Japan's first and only dynasty. Despite the existence of many other folk practices in Japan, the Yamato clan leaders successfully elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto."
The situation abd history of imperial shinto and Shinto itself is not like that illiberality. The Shinto is not limited in imperial shinto of yamato tribes. 
 For example even if imperial shinto was centerIng the culture of shinto, There is coexisted the Izumo shrine for izumo tribe, Azumi shrine for Azumi tribe, miwa shrine , kamosu shrine and so on for each of tribes and maintain each of  fork local traditions in each shrine.
 Do not mention about shinto like that way. It is clearly disrespectful for the culture and history of shinto.  I sense some amount of anti japan intentions from this article. 126.233.131.209 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention about Shinto in this page. 

message: About here
"The Yamato clan set up Japan's first and only dynasty. The clan became the ruling faction in the area, and incorporated native Japanese and Korean migrants.[2] The clan leaders also elevated their own belief system that featured ancestor worship into a national religion known as Shinto.[2]"
> incorporated native Japanese and Korean migrants.
Some of ancient migrants people was also Chinese such as Hata clan.  But most of the clan is basically wa Japonic people or Peninsular Japonics even if he is not yamato, such as izumo, azumi, kumaso, hayato, hyuuga, mononobe , abe, and so on. Why Korean only have to be emphasized while most of the clan is just nothing but a Wa Japonic and Penisular Japonic. 
 Korean means Koreanic language speaking people but most of the traijin who brought Chinese culture to japan was kan jin (chinese in who were in Korean kingdom) and Peninsular Japonics in Beakje and gaya.
 Also shinto is not only the ancestor worship but it is included various fork traditions of each of locals especially relate Hydroponic rice cultivation and worship for nature ,
Such as mountein ,sea and forest of kami. Also Sun warships and rituals related Hydroponic rice cultivation. 
 Do not write the article with your narrow imagines especially about Shinto. 
 If you do not know well, just delete and do not mention it.
Also one point is imperial family was not practiced only shinto but they practiced buddisim togather too. So not fullly shinto = yamato imperial family actually.  Reality is Not such simple as you think like the article you make here 126.254.164.96 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention about shinto in this page 2 

message: Most of immigrants at kofun era is Chinese not Korean.
""According to the 815 book, Shinsen Shōjiroku, 317 clans of 1,182 clans in the Kinai region of Honshū were considered to have foreign ancestry. 163 were from China, 104 from Baekje ("Paekche" in the older romanization), 41 from Goguryeo, 6 from Silla, and 3 from Gaya.[12] They may have immigrated to Japan between 356 and 645.""
It means most of clan in yamato era(kofun era) was mostly japanese themselfs and next more immigrants from china and lesser from Korean.
 So articles must mentions immigrants from china if it mentions about Koreans.
 Also , read this ""Juha Janhunen (2010) University Helsinki , suggested that Koreanic expanded from Silla, and replacing Japonic languages in the rest of the peninsula.[56] . "
Janhunen also suggests that early Baekje was still predominantly Japonic-speaking before they got replaced or assimilated into the new Korean society.[4]
So it means 6 clans from Silla in yamato era is surely related modern Korean language speaking people.  
 So influence from chinese(kan jin) on ancient kofun era of japan is much stronger than koreanic language speaking people (han jin).
Also read this as examples
　Whitman (2012), Cornell University ,suggests that the Yayoi are not closely related to the proto-Koreans but that they were present on the Korean peninsula during the Mumun pottery period. According to him, Japonic arrived in the Korean peninsula around 1500 BCE and was brought to the Japanese archipelago by the Yayoi at around 950 BCE. The language family associated with both Mumun and Yayoi culture is Japonic. Koreanic arrived later from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula 300 BCE"".
There were so many peninsula Japonics people in ancient Korea and they went to japan at kofun era.
  
Again 317 clans of 1,182 clans in the Kinai region of Honshū were considered to have foreign ancestry and from silla(modern Korean language speaking people)is only 6 clans. 133.106.73.173 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigrants at kofun period is not only Korean but more Chinese kan jin 

message: This has been published on the 17 April 2024 and changes somehow the view of genetic origin of Yamato people.
: Concerning ancestral origins of the Japanese population, we recommend that our data should be interpreted in the context of existing models, including the widely accepted “dual structure” model and the recently proposed tripartite origins model.
: In addition, it should be acknowledged that both dual structure and tripartite origins models represent simplifications, although the latter may offer several advantages (note S9). 
: Note S9: Perspective on "dual structure" and "tripartite origins" models
:: We would like to discuss differences and implications between the "dual structure" model and "tripartite origins" model, arguing that the latter might be a superior theoretical framework. First, although there is a consensus from both models that there had been multiple migration waves in Japan's prehistory, the "dual structure" model suggests/implies that the genetic differences in the Japanese population primarily stem from the extent of admixture between those continental people and Jomon. In comparison, the "tripartite origins" model emphasizes the significance of admixture between EA and NEA ancestry. Second, the term "Yayoi" in the "dual structure" model is ambiguous, as it can refer to heterogeneous groups of people. While defining Yayoi individuals as those with continental ancestry who migrated to Japan during the post-Jomon period may be historically or genetically valid, this definition lacks both specificity and resolution. Various waves of migration to Japan, from Yayoi period to post-Kofun era, could encompass individuals with EA, NEA, or a mixture of known or unknown continental ancestries. Although all these groups could technically be considered as having originated from Continental Asia, such a broad categorization fails to capture the nuanced differences among them. On the other hand, in the "tripartite origins" model, if we assume that the early-arriving people in Yayoi era and the later-arriving people in Kofun era may have different genetic or cultural/linguistic backgrounds—albeit the genetic differences may be challenging to distinguish due to the shallow divergence time between NEA and EA and scarcity of ancient genomes at the moment—this model may offer a better fit to the major cultural and societal shifts observed during the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Thirdly, the 'tripartite origins' offer a plausible explanation for the origin of the Japanese language by introducing NEA ancestry into the framework, as evidence suggests that the Proto-Japonic language can be traced back to Northeast Asian roots (42). While it should be acknowledged that both "dual structure" and "tripartite origins" models are themselves simplifications and that the actual population history might be more complex. Additionally, we suggest that future studies could investigate the potential link between Northeast Asia and the Izumo civilization. It has been shown that the phonology and tone system of dialect in present-day Northeast share similarities with those of Izumo, suggesting a potential migratory connection between the people of Northeast and Izumo (85). This potential link between Northeast/Emishi and Izumo is intriguing given the prominent position that the ancient Izumo occupies in Japanese prehistoric mythology and religion (113, 114).
--77.75.179.1 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New data that may make big changes to the article