Talk:Peninsular Japonic

message: The "Difference from some Old Manchu languages" section is not well supported by its references.  The statement "According to some ancient Chinese records, Buyeo languages looked different from ancient Manchu languages like Mohe language." is supported by the following two quotes:
三國志卷三十-魏書十-烏丸鮮卑東夷傳第三十挹婁傳 "其人形似夫餘,言語不與夫餘句麗同"
"Records of the Three Kingdoms, Scroll 30, History of Wei 10, Commentaries on the Wuwan, Xianbei and Dongyi Number 30: 'The people of [that place] are physically like the Buyeo, their languages are not like Buyeo or Goryeo'".
The problem with this supporting argument is that the passage is not talking about Mohe, but Yilou.  In order for the quote to support the claim, you have to assume that Yilou were the same as the Mohe, which is not substantiated.  The other supporting quote (from section 82 of the Northern History) is:
北史勿吉傳, "勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異"
"History of the North, Commentary on Wuji, 'The Wuji country is to the north of Goryeo, it is also called Mohe...the language is solitary and different.'"
The problem with this is that it is talking about Wuji, not about Buyeo.  Lastly, where it says "And some say Buyeo languages were similar to Xianbei language", the supporting reference does not mention a source, but merely says:
另一說是扶餘人的語言與鮮卑相似
"In other words, the language of the Buyeo people is similar to Xianbei".
--68.49.1.69 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with references to Chinese sources 

message: The entire section "Problems and Contradictions of Japanese-Koguryoic hypothesis" has zero sources and also has quite bad grammar and unprofessional sounding sentences.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennznl (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is either WP:OR, or an essay based on a not further specified piece of research by A. Vovin. I will therefore delete it. If somebody knows the source and can check whether its content is properly rendered, this material can be restored according to WP standards. —Austronesier (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources 

message: To User:Kwamikagami：
When moving, isn't it necessary to make a proposal in Wikipedia: Requested moves in advance?--ABCEdit (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement to Japanese–Koguryoic languages 

message: It's inappropriate to keep pushing downplaying language like "some linguists" or "proposed" when the cited source says this is the consensus position. The scholarly consensus is what Wikipedia articles should reflect. Kanguole 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but I don't read it that way, tbh. We don't know enough to say whether the Peninsular languages formed a genuine subgroup within wider Japonic, or actually were para-phyletic (what we would expect for "stay-at-home" languages). But of course, we can circumvent the issue by not talking about a "subgroup" at all. –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed avoiding "subgroup" solves this. There doesn't seem to be much discussion of grouping in the literature to base it on anyway. Kanguole 13:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good! –Austronesier (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulation of the opening paragraph