Talk:Japanese Paleolithic

message: Removed the section that stated that the Ainu resembles Caucasoid. Not only do they in no way resemble Caucasoid (they do not resemble Caucasoids in skin tone, facial structure, etc) - but genetically, they are similar to proto-Australoids and Polynesians of South East Asia and Australia. 
Intranetusa (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't state this as current fact, it stated that it used to be believed, which is true and notable. OTOH, if you want to add resemblance to Australoids, you need to have a reference for this. --JWB (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Classification of Ainu

message: There was a major scandal some years ago involving an amateur archeologist by the name of Fujimura Shinichi. Article Japanese Paleolithic Hoax right on the Wiki site covers this. The relevant dates and assertions in this article are either seriously misdated or just simply not true. The section on tools saying that the earliest stone tools ever were made in Japan is completely wrong. The manufacture of stone tools is well over a million years old and human occupation of Japan is nowhere near that old. Miami University is typical of many websites that make note of this *. Another  is Australian ABC at * and the University of Southampton. *. Placing evidence of human habitation in Japan back 100k years needs real citations. These are serious credibility problems for Wikipedia. 
--Malangthon 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: serious gaps here

message: In the section that says
"..., the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper planted a camera at an archaeological site and captured video of Fujimura planting artifacts at the Kamitakamori site in 2000. 90% of Paleolithic work in Japan was attributed to Fujimura, and the discovery of the hoax thus put serious doubt on the chronology of ancient man in Japan[citation needed]..."
The 'citation needed' insert should be removed. The growing body of evidence in the field of archeology and in Japan is very clear, the entire time line is now in doubt and until this all settles, there are a lot of peole who are still recovering from the hoax. I have added a number of resources in the references section in the Fujimura article. If nothing else, many of them could be copied over here
 Malangthon 18:22 EPT 13 Oct., 2006
:From what I have read on the subject, at least the "90% of Paleolithic work in Japan is attributed to Fujimura" is both incredible and inexact. And as far as I know, Fujimura had been most active on pre-100.000 BCE findings, and this is precisely the chronological segment where previous claims have been put in doubt. Maybe the sentence could be more balanced, and these numerical facts checked and referenced should they be true. The whole segment seems a bit polemical and needlessly POV. Regards PHG 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citations

message: No citation has been given for the statement that Japanese tools are unique and are the first of the ground stone tools anywhere on the planet. If no one can substantiate this, it needs to be removed. I have written a number of archeologists over the past few months and am getting no confirmation on this statement.
Malangthon 13:54 EPT 13 Oct. 2006
:This statement is in "Prehistoric Japan, New perspectives on insular East Asia", Keiji Imamura, University of Hawai Press, Honolulu, . Regards PHG 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Fair enough. However, this is more of the same that brought about the Fujimura scandal and reeks of Nihonronism. It is arguably just one more instance wherein the entire thrust is to place the mythical Japanese race at a distance from the rest of humanity. Imamura Keiji has references to back this up, yes?  I press the point because this is convenient "truth" on the well tred path of Japanese psychomythology and needs to be correlated.
Malangthon 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground tools and polished tools

message: Hello all --
Elvenscout742 edited out the interwiki link to ja that I'd added to the Japanese rendering of the phrase "Japanese paleolithic age", i.e. 日本の旧石器時代, stating in their edit comment that "that's not the place for interWiki links."  Would someone be so kind as to explain then where is the correct place?  My thought in adding the link is that if someone wants to see the Japanese version of this article, they can click directly on the Japanese text right here from the en article.  Otherwise they'd have to copy and paste into the ja wiki's search box in a separate browser window, which is somewhat less than convenient.  
Does linking the Japanese text to the ja wiki violate some base Wikipedia policy?  Does it get in anyone's way?  Does it offend anyone?  If so, by all means please state your case -- my ears are open.  :)  In the meantime, I'm adding the link back, as I find it most helpful when comparing the en and ja content.  
Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure about policy, but it certainly seems to violate a commonly accepted convention. The inter-wiki links are on the left-had side of the page. People who want to see pages on other language Wikipedias use those. Generally, one should not add links to other language Wikipedias in the main text of the article. You would not get away with this on, say, Junichiro Koizumi. Also, there is a template for this now, anyway. elvenscout742 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for responding, Elvenscout.  Could you point me to the template?  Also, what of words in Japanese included in the main text of an article, but that are not the title of the article?  Is there also a kibbosh on interwiki linking using such words (say, for example, Japanese_language#Official_status)?  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the template in my recent edit here. I think it should probably be used on all those other Japanese history articles, too. I personally think that if a subject has a Japanese Wikipedia article, it should have an English one, too, so there should never be any need to link to Japanese Wikipedia in the body of an article. elvenscout742 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, thanks, Elvenscout.  I'll keep an eye open for any J-only articles in need of translation.  :)  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: I noticed that someone had tried to swap the dating style from BC/AD to BCE/CE - but I don't see that they tried to get consensus for it on the talk page. So I am putting it back the way it was, especially as the history template now uses BC/AD. John Smith's (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating style 

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=e75T03MIp3sC&pg=PA269&dq=Moro+japanese+knife&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O6vUUIu4Banr0QHqgoGwBQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Moro%20japanese%20knife&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=N0mzl3c6g6kC&pg=PA263&dq=Moro+japanese+knife&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O6vUUIu4Banr0QHqgoGwBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Moro%20japanese%20knife&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qEoAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA133&dq=Moro+japanese+knife&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O6vUUIu4Banr0QHqgoGwBQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Moro%20japanese%20knife&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese paleolithic tools 

message: Before I waste time, is anyone still watching this page? (2602:302:D13C:6BF0:A56C:B049:C529:64A6 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese Paleolithic. 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/20070827214726/http://www.jomon.or.jp/ebulletin11.html to http://www.jomon.or.jp/ebulletin11.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) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed some climate claims that I could not reconcile with other sources. The text I removed states: "[...] although the period is associated with a warmer climate worldwide (30,000–20,000 before present), and the islands may have particularly benefited from it." The citation provided on that line does not discuss the climate during this time. In fact, the statement appears to be completely untrue as the period stated is during the Last Glacial Maximum; the worldwide climate would have been colder, not warmer. If I have missed something, feel free to revert but please provide a citation. Iridescence talk • contrib 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced climate claims 

message: — Assignment last updated by RekishiKyoushi (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Hist401

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion