Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryukyuan Japanese


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Japanese dialects. There is consensus that this topic shouldn't exist as a standalone article, but there is less strong consensus about what to do with the verifiable information that exists. For now, the solution with the most agreement is to merge. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ryukyuan Japanese

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another only-in-Wikipedia artifact by (aka ).

As of November 7, 2010, this article contains 5 external sources. They might fool you. But none of the 5 external sources contain the putative term "Ryukyuan Japanese." It is likely to be an invention by.

In this article, "Ryukyuan Japanese" is presented as an umbrella term for Okinawan Japanese (Okinawa-substrate Japanese) and Amami Japanese (Amami-substrate Japanese). However, the last two external sources make no mention of Amami. Okinawan things are often misrepresented as "Ryukyuan", with an implicit assumption that they hold true for Amami, which is almost always false. The third source is not relevant either. The word Amami appears twice, but substrate influence on Japanese is clearly out of the scope of the article. The same is true of the second source. To sum up, only the first source by Mark Anderson is relevant.

Mark Anderson provides no evidence that this alleged high-level group of languages is recognized by its speakers. It is not, of course. The remaining question is whether there exists a scholarly discussion, independently of the speakers' self-knowledge, to be covered by Wikipedia. The answer is no. Linguists have worked on and still work on individual languages with no serious attempt of generalization. In fact, Anderson mentions Amami only in passing. In short, we have no external content for this abstract entity. Nanshu (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Update: Added a link to the snapshot. 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Other books mention the concept of a Ryukyuan-substrated Japanese. It's just that the term itself isn't widely used. Why? Because a lot of books actually do mention the concept of it, but they often mislabel it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi". Here's an example of what I mean: in the book "Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Multilingualism", it mentions "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as a Japanese accent influenced by the six Ryukyuan languages (not just Okinawan and Kunigami). Also, in the book 'Japanese Language and Literature (Volume 41)", it mentions "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as a general mix between Japanese and Ryukyuan (again, not just Okinawan).


 * On the contrary, many other books say Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi is a Japanese variety only spoken in Okinawa and not the entirety of the Ryukyu chain. These are clearly two different concepts that contradict each other. They are just labeled under one term (Okinawan Japanese) due to the tendency to confuse Okinawa with Ryukyu. Therefore, it's better to distinguish them to avoid confusion. To sum up what I'm saying, there are sources claiming it's the Japanese accent of Ryukyu in general whereas others say it's only spoken in Okinawa. Wouldn't it be good to separate these two concepts, given your outspokenness over distinguishing Okinawa from Ryukyu (as seen in our previous discussion)? I can agree with a rename but definitely not a deletion. — Haimounten (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you apparently accept the fact that the article title is pretty weird.
 * Another important fact to be confirmed. The alleged superordinate concept has nothing to with actual speakers. It's only a matter of scholarly discussion, even if there is. Do you accept this?
 * Since you didn't object to my argument about the irrelevance of the sources cited, I deleted the irrelevant paragraph. I hope this clarifies the point.
 * Again, the remaining question is whether there is any substantial scholarly discussion outside of Wikipedia. That's what you need to prove, and you failed even though you supposedly have many books on this topic. You are actually reinforcing my argument. Narratives coming from Okinawa often contain wild speculations that statements that hold true for Okinawa apply to Amami. Such narratives can be covered by an article on Okinawa-substrate Japanese if you really need them. In reality, there is no serious attempt to substantiate the abstract, high-level grouping.
 * Just to be sure, I don't rule out the possibility that in the future, someone will compare Amami with Okinawa with respect to substrate influence on Japanese. Because they are two distinct groups, it's almost like comparing Japanese and Korean speakers' L2 English, which does not warrant an article covering both Japanese and Korean.
 * --Nanshu (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 2. Yes, it's a scholarly discussion.


 * 4. I made the article "Ryukyuan Japanese" because on the basis of emphasizing the difference between Okinawa and Ryukyu (which is what you do as well), I created a separate page for the concept of a Ryukyu-substrate Japanese. What I mean is that some books claim Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi is spoken just in Okinawa while others say it's spoken in the entire Ryukyu Islands (proof is the example books I provided). Why would the same term equate to two contradicting concepts? It would just confuse Wikipedia readers.


 * Additionally, Ryukyu-Japanese substrates can be traced to a common origin. They all arose in the post-Ryukyu era as a result of Japanese linguistic assimilation. They formed out of substrate mixing between Japanese and the Lewchewan languages. While different types of Ryukyu-substrate Japanese are divergent to an extent, the article explains a group of dialects with similar origins. I'd compare it to how Japanese Pidgin English covers three distinct pidgins on the common origin of mixing between English and Japanese. — Haimounten (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Japanese dialects. The topic in itself is notable, but there is not yet sufficient coverage in a wider array of sources. Furthermore, the presentation here as a "clade" or distinct dialect group is spurious. The main source for this article (Anderson 2019) does not treat Ryukyuan-influenced variants of Japanese as a single unit. I suggest to merge this information to Japanese dialects, in a section of its own that discusses Ryukyuan-influenced Japanese based on Anderson (2019). –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. But I don't see why you think the topic is notable. I'm afraid the word "topic" is taken in so broad a meaning that it can mislead the AfD discussion. Given that we already have Amami Japanese and Okinawan Japanese (the article titles are questionable but that's off-topic), the sole purpose of this article is to misrepresent the spurious superordinate category as an established one. That's not notable.
 * As you correctly pointed out, this is not a cladistically valid grouping because its two members are parallel developments. Anderson didn't propose such a bogus clade and no other did. This article will never have "a wider array of sources". This stub will never grow because we have no external sources that support the alleged grouping. We have nothing to rescue from this stub. Just deleting this article is a straightforward solution. --Nanshu (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At least the mention of Anderson (2019) should be salvaged into Japanese dialects. If Ryukyuan Japanese becomes a redirect to let's say Japanese dialect (the section does not exist yet), the currently misleading title will be understood as a broad topic, not a well-defined topic. Just like American German (which does not exist as a single entitiy) redirects to German language in the United States. –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You agree with me that this article cannot be kept as a separate article, and our focus has already shifted to future planning. Admins, allow us to continue the discussion.
 * I do oppose a new section titled "Variants of Japanese on the Ryukyu Islands". It's like saying "there are flying mammals." when you see bats. This statement is logically not false but pragmatically unacceptable. Take a look at the references section of Andersen (2019). It's clear that Andersen is an outlier. Linguists getting involved in the topic of substrate influence work on individual languages people recognize ("bats"), without the need for superordinate group identification ("flying mammals"). Why do we have to downplay these basic-level categories and to prefer an abstract entity that we don't really need. --Nanshu (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we do have Flying mammals as redirect and Aquatic mammal as a broad topic page. –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I see merge as an acceptable compromise. And I admit we are looking too far ahead. Currently, the article Japanese dialects does not even have a section on what Shinji Sanada refers to as neo-dialects, or dialects used by younger generations that exhibit strong influence from Standard Japanese. We should begin by creating the broadest topic of this kind.
 * That said, we will put Amami and Okinawa in the article Japanese dialect sometime in the future. How should we arrange them, in a flat structure or with an intermediate topic? That's the question, isn't it?
 * --Nanshu (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that a new section on "neo-dialects" (the third para in Japanese dialects already is an embryonic version of it) would encompass more than just neo-dialects on a Ryukyu substrate, and also that the latter to not form a distinct entity of neo-dialects except for the geographic marker. And the geographic marker alone does require a subsection of its own. –Austronesier (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you missed my previous reply but I can state it again. You keep claiming it's not notable because of the lack of scholarly coverage. That's actually not true. There are many books talking about a Ryukyu-substrate on Japanese. The problem is that they often mislabel it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi". I already gave you examples of books referring to Okinawan Japanese as a Japanese variety spoken throughout the Ryukyu Islands (which contradicts other books that say Okinawan Japanese is only spoken in Okinawa). These are two distinct concepts mislabeled as a single one, so I separated them on the basis of distinguishing Ryukyu from Okinawa. Furthermore, Ryukyuan Japanese varieties do have a common origin. They developed during the Meiji era as a result of linguistic assimilation. — Haimounten (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a pity you don't understand the situation. I deleted the invalid taxonomy, per the discussion above. To keep this article, you have an obligation to prove the existence of substantial contents outside of Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on you. Good luck. --Nanshu (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I added sources. Do note that they don't explicitly call it "Ryukyuan Japanese", but they do mention the concept of it. Many books often call a general Ryukyu-substrate as "Okinawan Japanese", even though others call it a substrate that only exists in mainland Okinawa. As I keep saying, on the basis of distinguishing these two distinct ideas, I created this article. Yet, you kind of just ignored by paragraph there. — Haimounten (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - call it original research or synthesis, it's not who we are. The references have nothing to do with the supposed dialect. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They actually do talk about the supposed dialect. It's just mislabeled under "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as if it's spoken across all of the Ryukyu Islands. This contrasts to some other books which claim it's only the variety spoken in Okinawa. These are two different concepts and I created a separate article to avoid confusion. Is Okinawan Japanese spoken throughout the Ryukyu Islands or just in Okinawa? That's the question people should be asking themselves. — Haimounten (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Japanese dialects as suggested by Austronesier, or move to Ryukyu-substrate Japanese. The subject AFAICT only exists as an umbrella term used by Anderson, "Ryukyu-substrate Japanese", as stated explicitly here, another chapter by Anderson in the same anthology which discusses the varieties more directly. The term "Ryukyuan Japanese" seems complete OR. With Anderson being the only descriptive source on the varieties themselves, I lean more towards merge than move. Nardog (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. I named the article "Ryukyuan Japanese" in parallel to "Okinawan Japanese" and "Amami Japanese", though it's not a used scholarly term, so I can agree with a move.
 * I added sources to the article that mention a general Ryukyu substrate, though they all call it "Okinawan Japanese". This contrasts with other books that say Okinawan Japanese is only spoken in Okinawa. I mainly made this article to distinguish the two concepts. — Haimounten (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

My new position on this is to simply move the article title to Ryukyu-substrate Japanese, as it's used in Mark Anderson's description of it. I agree that Ryukyuan Japanese is OR, though I initially did it in parallel with Amami Japanese and Okinawan Japanese. That is my fault. — Haimounten (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just another update, the 7th source in this Wikipedia article mentions the following: "As a consequence, today a continuum exists between basilectal and acrolectal Ryukyuan varieties of Japanese known as Uchina Yamatoguchi". This is a perfect example of what I mean. The concept of Ryukyuan Japanese is talked about, but they refer to it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" for some odd reason. Basically, the thing this article talks about actually exists, but the naming is confused. — Haimounten (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see a clear consensus that this article cannot be kept as an independent article. I admire Haimounten's tireless effort to twist arguments. The fact that he/she needs aggressive reinterpretation of external sources demonstrates that no one has seriously imagined this abstract entity. This stub will never grow because we don't have substantial contents outside of Wikipedia. --Nanshu (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then, can I ask you what “Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi” refers to? Is it a Japanese substrate language spoken in Okinawa or the entire Ryukyu Islands? Is there any real reason to put two distinct concepts under the same title? Don’t they seem to contradict each other? Your argument was based on the idea that this has no topic notability, yet I provided articles that explained the concept. It’s just the naming that’s divergent. — Haimounten (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.