Talk:Ryukyuan people

message: 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)
thread_title:  "She"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Independence movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ryukyuan Appearance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Corrected" Origins? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ! 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''aa'' versus ''ā'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Daisho in the living room? 

message: 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)
thread_title: errouneous categories

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I reverted an edit (specifically ) 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please review WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article text for which this source was referenced was . 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)
thread_title:  Jomon migration 

message: 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 (...)"source
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the matter with this article?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ryukyuan Subgroups? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Amami Numbers

message: 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)
replies: text: - Thanks for the heads up; I've added an archived url for that reference now.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ( me!) 12:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 404 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ryukyuans everywhere in JUMBAC countries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1.8 million people in Okinawa?