Talk:Jōmon people

"Career-prospering"?
What does "career-prospering" mean? Looks like bad translations are rampant.
 * Kortoso (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out. Corrected the mistranslation.--ABCEditer (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits
AsadalEditor turns out to be a sockpuppet. Any and all of his edits can be reverted. Ping the two most recent major editors:  Doug Weller  talk 20:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet AsadalEditor
The blocked account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AsadalEditor who uses multiple sockpuppet accounts to troll, misinterpreting the text and editing.

He is currently sockpuppet accounts Gyatso1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gyatso1 His IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2407:7000:A13D:4E00:D1FA:F8FA:F35A:86F4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The user derekhistorian is a sock more likely. Check up his edits, they are identical to AsadalEditor and many other classified as socks. I included important information about the origin and theories. The recent studies I includes support a Australo-Melanesian (Papua-Melanesian) connection/relation. Racist user derekhistorian tries to hide this and deletes all completely. Wikipedia must not accept racism and must mention all theories. The Nature journal and other official citations get deleted by him and he promote Asian and white supremacy claims. Please have a look on the citations and please try to correct these articles. I can link all the important studies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35426-z

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765509/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/88

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/03/15/579177.full.pdf

Please see so the quotes in included to make it easy to check. Please help me.Gyatso1 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been editing somewhere since late 2016 or early 2017 not like you that have edited only since 7 August 2019.
 * None of your sources says Ainu have Australo-Melanesian connection/relation.  Why don't you copy and paste the text here if you are so sure of it. So far all I'm seeing is your own exaggerated interpretations.


 * For example your 1st,  3rd source does not even mention ' Ainu '.  Don't believe than type F3 on your keyboard and try to find the word Ainu. The rest of study also has no mention of Ainu showing Australo-Melanesian connection either. Why don't you show me the text that claims that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Both turn out to be sock puppets of WorldCreaterFighter -- Doug Weller talk 18:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

IP Edits
Certain IP edits (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:4bc9:a43:2aae:8051:53c:688:8b5a and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:4bc9:b42:6364:68bc:369:87e1:f185) in this and other pages exhibit a writing format and misinterpretation of text similar to other blocked users. I suggest that only accounted users should be permitted to edit this page and that these IPs should be investigated as possible sockpuppets. --Fanasiro (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 09:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Historical expanse of Ainu.png

Where is the average of 20% in the study?
PDF link of the cited study: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/129/1/129_201215/_pdf/-char/en

Their analysis showed that Jomon ancestry in the modern Japanese is around a lower bound of the previous estimates and does not overly exceed 10%.

In the paper: "In conclusion, our analysis showed that Jomon ancestry in the present-day Japanese is around a lower bound of the previous estimates and does not overly exceed 10%."

If there's anything I've missed, plz let me know.--Abooop (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the 10% instead of 20%, however they stated before that other studies came do different results: "Yang et al. (2020) suggested the present-day Japanese are best modeled as an admixture between the Paleolithic northern East Asian individuals (Boshan) and Jomon individuals (Ikawazu) with the Jomon ancestry ratio being 0.38. We tested the model using the same source populations (Boshan and Ikawazu) but obtained a much smaller Jomon ancestry fraction (0.103 ± 0.030). The reason for the discrepancy is not clear, but it is likely because we used a different set of right (outgroup) populations to those used in the analysis by Yang et al. (2020)", so this should not be deleted. Further, I included another reference which concluded ~13%.213.162.73.85 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the average of 13% in the study? Stop suggesting your original research. You need to suggest the accurate information from the cited study. And are you sure the 40%?
 * NAOKI et al. : "In conclusion, our analysis showed that Jomon ancestry in the present-day Japanese is around a lower bound of the previous estimates and does not overly exceed 10%"
 * NIALL P. COOKE et al. : "We also consistently infer gene flow from Jomon to the modern Japanese across all migration models tested, with genetic contributions ranging from 8.9 to 11.5% (fig. S7). This is consistent with the mean Jomon component of 9.31% in the present-day Japanese individuals estimated from our ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 2C). These results suggest a deep divergence of the Jomon and an ancestral link to present-day Japanese populations." --Abooop (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Huge pre-print addition
A probable LTA editor made this edit back in March 2021:

This large content addition is based on a biorxiv preprint. The study has never been published and has remained in the pre-print purgatory for years now.

Much of the content added by the LTA is dubious. For example, I will quote a slice of the IP editor's content:

This includes the East Asian specific mutations and derived alleles of the ABCC11 and EDAR genes. Hokkaido Jōmon samples were found to have 47.6% frequency of the East Asian specific ABCC11 gene and 68.9% frequency of the East Asian specific EDAR gene. The authors concluded that these results correspond with craniometric data, which shows that the majority of Jōmon people had an East Asian phenotype, but heterogeneity existed within the prehistoric Jōmon population of Japan.

This content is an over-reeaching misinterpretation of the earlier version of this preprint. On April, 15, 2022, the third revision of the pre-print, all mention of EDAR in Jomon was removed from the article. The most recent revision says nothing about EDAR.

This is the content that was removed from the pre-print, which the LTA content in question was based on:

In other words, the authors did not determine the frequency of EDAR in their Jomon sample. The 68% figure is for the rate of incisor shoveling from a 1994 study by Matsu using different samples. The authors vaguely stated that the previous studies were consistent with their results, yet I'm not seeing what their results were, and now this claim has been removed from the pre-print. IMO, the best course of action is to just de-fat the article. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The genetics section is a (or better: another) nightmare. Repetitive, bloated, full of undue weight, misinterpreted data etc. This is defintely on my TNT-to-do-list. There was a time when it served its purpose as a honeypot for sock hunting, but the attention of the two main actors has somewhat shifted to other areas. –Austronesier (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course, there is no way to justify the inclusion of an uncited (= impactless) preprint. Even discussing it here is a waste of time. Deleting all text based on it, however, is not a waste of time :) –Austronesier (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Jōmon Culture re: pottery
“ The Jōmon people also used stoneware and pottery, and generally lived in pit dwellings.”

the use of terms “stoneware” and “pottery” is misleading. Stoneware is a form of pottery. The intention may have been to write “stoneware and earthenware pottery”, which would make sense from a pottery perspective. However I highly doubt the Jōmonjin were making stoneware. Evidence needs to be cited. China wasn’t producing stoneware in quantity until the Han dynasty (202 BC - 200 AD). The Jōmon period ends in 300 BC. I opted to leave the article as is, because I don’t have the resources to confirm or debunk Jōmon stoneware, and hope that someone who does can look at this. StyrbjornUlfhamr (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)