Talk:Okinawan languages

Japan: Ryukyu Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:38, August 3, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This redirect is supported by the Ryukyu task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Reverts

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages#Amami and Kunigami

Hallo Ryulong! I am not too knowledgeable about the classification of Okinawan, but a revert without any argument seems unproductive. If the sources cited are a sectarian minority, so please go ahead and demonstrate that on the basis of majority sources. At least commend on what you are doing, and name your sources! Else, your reverts look unwarranted. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at WT:LANG that is discovering that Nanshu's changes are not supported and are heavily based on his personal research into the matters that divide the Okinoerabu and Yoron dialects of Kunigami as separate languages. Please do not restore his version of the article, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redirect it to Ryūkyūan languages? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the only thing these have in common with each other are their shared island.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the precise features, shortcomings in referencing and possible divergences from majority opinions in the article version that Nanshu proposes, using the word "personal research" in your revert seems unappropriate. The classificational post on the WPLANG talk page by Nanshu is, so far as I can see, referenced and thus NOT personal research. I do think that a discussion on classificational schemes, maybe on WPLANG or on Ryukyuan languages, is the appropriate way to go before changing the form of this article over and over again. But I think this is a discussion into which you will have to enter if you want to be taken serious in opposing the sources that Nanshu considers worth considering. In historical linguistics, even non-majority schemes can be of great interest and should be mentioned if they are based on appropriate methodology and not strictly refuted / discredited elsewhere. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanshu has ignored consensus because of his own personal view of it. The article is at the state before Nanshu's conglomeration of the Amami language and its dialects on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the consensus that formed (or is still forming) on the WPLANG talk page closer to Nanshu's than to your opinion? That Nanshu's contributions are to be integrated (and that, unless you demonstrate it, you cannot claim that they are worthless just in an out-of-hand manner)? I don't perceive you as acting accordingly. G Purevdorj (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanshu's vote was set up like the one in Crimea. To only have one true answer based on how he worded them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Krim vote was not ideal, but its outcome was the same as if it had been a different wording. The Krim population, given its state of overall information over what was going on in Kiew, made up its mind fairly freely. Most democratic decisions are made this way. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are based on arguments rather than headcounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is why I and the others at WPLANG would be happy if you started using any. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled WT:LANG full of arguments against Nanshu's proposal. Nanshu just keeps dismissing them by going "Should Ryulong be allowed to do [insert thing everyone's going to disagree with on sight]?" without actually addressing anything I've said outside of that because he assumes he is infalliable when it comes to this topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another typical Ryulong thread. It's getting so long, but is there any piece of text that helps improving the article? What can be found here is disruption, not discussion. Ryolong repeats debunked claims again and again. He continues this until no one is willing to waste his time. --Nanshu (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanshu: this thread stopped "getting so long" almost a year ago. Stop beating a dead horse. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]