Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/New romanisation debate rehash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


new romanisation system should be employed

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Note regarding closure of discussion: This issue has been brought up several times by several (possibly all the same) new editors, and each time the issue has been hashed and rehashed as people explain why this "new" system is not going to be adopted here anytime in the near (or likely even far) future. This has become a complete waste of time and so I'm ending the discussion as there is nothing else which can be said which hasn't already been said many, many times. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would put forth that Wikipedia should recognize the new romanisation system put forth by the Japanese government. It is based on Kunrei-shiki and Hepburn, to bring them together and have an international standard when doing trade and romanising. I rcommend that this be looked into and that Wikipedia move in this direction, as it reflects current popular Japanese transliteration, and is much closer to Japanese phonology than the revised Hepburn, currenlty recognized by Wikipedia as the romanisation method of choice.

Newshinjitsu 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu

I am violently opposed to this. The so-called "official" romanization system put forth by the Japanese government is not in common usage, even in Japan, and often not even by the Japanese government. Do we really want to see "Mount Huzi" instead of "Mount Fuji"? --MChew 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that system is imbecilic and deeply misguided, accomplishing none of the things a romanization system should. Doceirias 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also have to agree that in my experience revised Hepburn transliterates the best of the romanization techniques and is the one already in massive use in this encyclopedia.--十八 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am also violently opposed to the Kunreishiki-based romanization scheme. Revised Hepburn is, by far, the most commonly used romanization scheme for transliteration of Japanese. I see no merit in switching to such an ill-conceived system that is rarely used even in Japan. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, is there a new system? I would put forth that it should not be employed. I would also put forth that sentences constructed in the passive voice should be eschewed, and that sweeping suggestions by people who have made only contentious contributions to only one article should be viewed with skepticism. adamrice 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take my chances at looking dumb, but... What new system? I never heard of any new system, and I'm actively engaged in Japonology. I looked for a new romanization system on Google, and I found nothing of interest in the first few Google pages. I looked through wikipedia, and found out about a romanization I'd never heard about called JSL, but you can't possibly be referring to that. So... What new system are we talking about here? Does someone have a link to a presentation of it? TomorrowTime 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's clear there is no such new romanisation system. What's especially funny is that Newshinjitsu apparently wants the rest of Wikipedia to bend over backwards just to accommodate his peculiar notion that "matcha" should be spelled "maccha"--which doesn't conform with any romanisation system. adamrice 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion has me seized in paroxysms of nonviolence. I am, however, rather baffled to read of people being "violently opposed", picturing them throwing their "Gundam" models across the room. (Whoops, there goes the syôzi!) I'm wondering which romanization system "is imbecilic and deeply misguided, accomplishing none of the things a romanization system should" (my emphasis). -- Hoary 04:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I spewed my mugicha across the room—does that count? (^_-) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The one that leaves shoji looking more like Klingon. Doceirias 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I have been doing a lot of research into this area. Ever since I heard from my University Prof that the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) demanded Japan clean up its romanisation system for trade and ease of dictionary creation. You should check out a brief reference to this at http://wason.library.cornell.edu/e-course/japan/Open%20with%20MSWORD%20JAPANESE%20ROMANIZATION%20TABLE2004.htm

Mostly this is a move made in the late 90's. Yes, because I love maccha, (adamrice spells it matcha) I was intrigued by this situation. The new system works to improve on Kunrei-shiki by allowing Hepburn that makes sense. One is that the tc has been dropped and replaced by cc to make more sense when transliterating, but there are other cool changes in this standardization. Elongating vowels does not use the old bar system (not even IN Hepburn, yet widely used)like oishī; instead it is oishî, easier to do on most computers. Mount Fuji stays Mount Fuji.

There is just way too many variances, depending on signs, passports, linguist, etc, so the ISO needed something.

I propose Wikipedia embrace it because it is Internationally recognized, uses most popular Hepburn methods, and is official, rather than the craziness of the past.

Newshinjitsu 10:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu

You've linked to some page titled "About Japanese Romanization" that's "Prepared by Yayoi Koizumi, Japanese Searcher [sic], Wason Collection". Its only mention of ISO is in the context of Kunreisiki. This system is not new. It's old. Using it, まっちゃ is most certainly not spelled "maccha" (it's mattya). You don't seem to understand Hepburn, either: おいしい in Hepburn is not "oishī" but oishii.
If there is a new romanization system, I'd be interested to hear about it, because I happen to think that Nihonsiki/Kunreisiki and Hebonshiki both suck. So please provide a link to a well-informed discussion of it.
However, I think there's a non-negligible possibility that you are [searches for a polite expression] less than optimally informed on these issues. So first get up to speed on romanization systems that for better or worse are used in the real world. Until you have worked your way to the peak of this self-educational molehill, please don't attempt to have articles renamed; all you're likely to accomplish is to piss people off.
Happy editing! -- Hoary 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Newshinjitsu -- Is the article you are pointing to at wason.library.cornell.edu an example of the romanization system you think we should be using in Wikipedia? If you, please check out this line from it: "e.g. 坊ちゃん (ぼっちゃん) -> 'botchan', not 'bocchan'" adamrice 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's see. First off, I'm not sure whether the ISO can demand from Japan to "clean up its romanisation system", since technically it's not their system but ours (i.e. everybody who uses latin script). I could be wrong, of course.
Next, I'm not sure how exactly it is that Hepburn would hinder trade.
Three, dictionaries can be written in any romanization (even the clumsy JSL), as long as there is consistency.
Four, that link you provided doesn't really say anything.
Five, the late 90's? That's aproximately when I was learning Japanese and when my first visits to Japan took place. Funny I never heard of these efforts for a new and improved romanization then.
Six, Kunreishiki and Hepburn both make sense, in their own area - Kunreishiki follows the kana paradygm, and Hepburn follows pronounciation in the English language. Apples and oranges. Mixing them wouldn't bring about a better system, it would make a mess - the two areas covered by the to romanizations are too far apart.
Seven, there is more than one Hepburn system. There's traditional, revised, modified and simplified Hepburn. Some of these use macrons, some don't. Possibly that's what you had in mind by the old bar system (not even IN Hepburn, yet widely used).
Eight, what Hoary said. It's oishii, not oishī. For grammar reasons. The second i gets inflected.
Nine, I don't really see how î is supposed to be easier to type than ī. At least I don't have a keyboard with an î button.
Ten, the de iuro official romanization is Kunreishiki, as far as I know. The de facto official romanization is Hepburn. Kunreishiki is too hermetic for people who don't speak Japanese, is all.
I'm sorry to be harsh like this, but I have more than just an inkling of Japanese, and you'll have to do better than this to convince me. And I'm sure this goes for everybody else here, as well. TomorrowTime 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my opposition to this ridiculous campaign. Newshinjitsu is wrong on several counts. There is no "new" romanization system. Revised Hepburn is the most up-to-date system available, and the most widely used. Under the system, the correct romanization of 抹茶 is matcha, certainly not maccha. There's a good reason for this, namely that maccha would appear to be pronounced "makk ha." I'm not sure what that is, but it's certainly not powdered tea. Finally, even if it were true that the Japanese government is "putting forth" a "new" romanization system, that's certainly no good reason for us to use it here. I submit that the Japanese government, bless its little cotton tabi, has no business fooling around with romanization, given that it lacks the necessary English ability to develop an improvement to Revised Hepburn. Oh, and one more thing. Representing long vowels using a circumflex rather than a macron is old, not new. The macron is the currently preferred diacritic. Once and for all, it's cha, not tya; fuji, not huzi; and shinjuku, not sinzyuku. 以上で御座います。ご清聴ありがとう御座いました。 Exploding Boy 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Boy observes that maccha would appear to be pronounced "makk ha." I'm not sure what that is, but it's certainly not powdered tea. Isn't it a beloved if aging Liverpudlian? -- Hoary 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I side with the others - We should stick with US LOC Hepburn. WhisperToMe 05:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to believe me. Believe the ISO. Call them. Their contact info is http://www.iso.org/iso/en/xsite/contact/contact.html
Call the Japanese government and ask at +81-3-5253-4111 Ask for the Language Division.
I found out that it is not a new Hepburn, but Kunrei-shiki blending more with Hepburn. It does hinder trade to use multiple systems because of border checks and customs, packaging uniformity, etc. This version of Kunrei-shiki retains popular Hepburn spellings, and deletes arbitrary and unconvincing rules such as the tc rule. Fuji is still fine. Shinjuku is still fine.
I am not asking for your faith in me. I am a young and inexperienced university student. I did spend many years in Japan and am able to ask questions of the government. For those of you who are able to do the same, I implore you to do so.
I think that in the case of my pet project on Wikipedia, maccha, the fact that even cited additions that are rewritten to be more academic and professional are being deleted, is really disappointing. This encyclopedia can be a great forum if we let it.
Please contact these places yourself. Search engine results should not be the only marking post for which we judge popular usage. You should check out the ISO's mandate. The employ popular consensus to figure these things out. There is a reason tc was dropped. It just does not make sense.
I look forward to continuuing this discussion. Peace. Newshinjitsu 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu


NewShinjitsu, hasn't it occured to you that the only source you've cited contradicts your "maccha" idea? It's already been pointed out to you once. Brettr 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am short on internet sources. The source did not contradict. Read the small section on Kunrei-shiki. I was mistaken in calling it a new Hepburn. It was clarified to me that it is a new Kunrei-shiki, that embraces elements of Hepburn. Please consult the Encyclopedia of Japanese Language, any Japanese Monbusho curriculum text. Call the government and contact the ISO.

This system is the best of both worlds, and reduces unnecessary spelling conflicts. ISO is also popularly decided on, similar in idea to Wikipedia.

NewshinjitsuNewShinjitsu

Here is a really interesting article. Note the age of the article. Contact the government for the update on what happened. http://www.cic.sfu.ca/tqj/JapaneseStudy/romaji.html

Er, what's this "Encyclopedia of Japanese Language"? My copy of Tsujimura's Introduction is of the dated first edition, and the second edition is dismayingly expensive. So really, I'm interested. At least I could order a copy for "my" library, which has no book of this title.
Pardon my little digression into linguistics methodology, but most language issues are not best settled by phoning the government. This is not the right place to explain this matter, but your professors will fill you in. -- Hoary 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We know the ISO uses Kunrei-shiki - Too bad few people use it. WhisperToMe 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


So NewShinjutsu is advocating a new policy, can't back it up but expects everyone else to verify his claims for him??? I've got that right?
WhisperToMe, ever climbed Mout Whoji? It's the the tallest mountain in Japan and you can often see it from Sinzyuku. Brettr 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the rule that states that glottal stops in the "ch" line are preceded by a "t" rather than an extra "c" is not "arbitrary and unconvincing." There's a good reason for it, which I pointed out above, namely that every other syllable (in the k, m, n, s and t lines) can be doubled while maintaining the correct pronunciation: "gakkō," "nisshin" "anna" etc. Doubing a "c" in front of an "h" results in potential confusion: "maccha" = "makk ha"? "ecchi" = "ekk hi"? and so on. Romanizing the word 抹茶 as "maccha" creates the possibility of confusion with the word 真っ赤 (makka). I also submit that "matcha" does make more sense than "maccha." Try saying "cha"; now say "matcha": when you produce the necessary glottal stop, your tongue moves to the "t" position.

Second, the ISO is not the final word on such matters. They do what they want to do, while the rest of us deal with the real world. The Japanese government falls under the same category. In the real world -- that is, in practical usage, and in academia -- we use Hepburn, not some bizarre admixture of Hepburn and Kunreisiki.

Third, Newshinjutsu's claims about what's happening on the matcha page are somewhat out of whack. Long sections of original research concerning how "most Japanese would write [something] if asked" belong in no encyclopaedia article. Frankly, I think that even including the misspelling "maccha" at the top of the article is too much of a concession.

As for Newshinjutsu's claim that the source he provided backs up his perspective, here's the relevant excerpt, unedited:

Germinate consonants are represented by repeating the following consonant.
o e.g. 国会 (こっかい)-> “kokkai”
o 発達 (はったつ) -> “hattatsu”
o 'EXEPTION TO THIS RULE: When c” is the following consonant, insert “t” instead of repeating “c”.
o e.g. 坊ちゃん (ぼっちゃん) -> “botchan”, not “bocchan”
o 熱中(ねっちゅう) -> “netchu”, not “necchu”

Every so often someone appears on Japan-related pages and begins a misguided, misinformed campaign to change the way something is romanised. And they refuse to give up even though they're always opposed by every other user here. It's most peculiar. Those people are always very passionate, and always seem to be just beginning what will be (if they stick with it) a long, long, LONG journey learning Japanese. Why anyone thinks, after one or two undergraduate classes (or a trip to Japan, or having a Japanese girlfriend, or watching anime) that they know better than everyone else, I don't know, but contributors to Japan topics on Wikipedia ranger from novice to native speaker, and most of us have been at it for a long time.

Newshinjutsu's claims have been considered. They've been refuted using both the Google method and authoritative sources (eg: Hadamitsky and Spahn's The Kanji Dictionary). We've pointed out that this is the English Wikipedia, and so we use English spellings. His views have also been refuted using the test of academic use. They've also been refuted using the tests of common use and common sense. At this point we're just banging our collective heads against a wall. Exploding Boy 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we can spare our poor heads and declare the issue to be over in our favor :) WhisperToMe 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. The yellow page is so bad it's funny, what with "Germinate [sic] consonants" and the rest. And I'd still like to hear more about Newshinjitsu's "Encyclopedia of Japanese Language". But perhaps this talk page isn't the right place. -- Hoary 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Japanese Study article instead. http://www.cic.sfu.ca/tqj/JapaneseStudy/romaji.html The yellow page was used mearly for the description of Kunrei-shiki. It is funny upon full browsing. Apologies.

It is unfortunate to hear the comment that the ISO is irrelevant. I think this is really about who has jurisdiction over how Japanese words are spelled. Right now, it is a mess. Hepburn is a mess on its own. Kunrei-shiki in its new form improves things. Researching the ISO is always good. I think that they have a forum that is really unique. It includes popular opinion, government opinion, business opinion, linguistic opinion, etc.

I can't help thinking that the hue and cry to denounce this suggestion is a strong grip on current Wikipedia regulations. It is truly arguable to say which way is the best way. I think the ISO and the Japanese curriculum speak for both the international and Japanese community. This seems to be the way the world is moving. It would be great if Wikipedia was a part of it. Wikipedia is a great place to develop and share information, not a place to hold on to the past.

In all honesty, Wikipedia is also a mess of different romanisations. I understand Hepburn is the approved method. I understand it still is being used a lot. However, the most popular aspects of it are in Kunrei-shiki now. This is a strong recommendation to move to the current system used worldwide.

Newshinjitsu 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu

The book of interest to many is officially titled "An Encyclopaedia of the Japanese Language". Look for the most recent edition you can. It is published by Taishukan Publishing Company. All my Japanese language profs who are Japanese swear by it. You are looking under the section ローマ字

Newshinjitsu 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu

Just to add into this whole thing and it stemming from matcha/maccha. A brand new suer called User:Bathhouse, who has never edited before has stopped the redirect on Maccha and added their own original research article Maccha_or_Matcha_Spelling_Perspectives. I hate to say it but could be a sock of someone considering the arguments being used on the article.Ben W Bell talk 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I guess that is a more appropriate place for the information to be. Newshinjitsu 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)NewShinjitsu

I've deleted that so-called "article."
As for the "Japanese study" "article," sorry, but that's neither a reliable source nor particularly in support of your point of view. In fact, I disctinctly recall another user attempting to use the same article as justification for his own bizarre romanization campaign. (That user got over himself, calmed down, and became a good contributor).
We've been over and over and over this romanization debate, with you and with users before you (and no doubt we'll have to go over it again after you). We've explained why you're wrong on this. At this point it's all becoming redundant.
On an unrelated topic, Newshinjutsu, when you sign your posts you just need to type four tildes. You don't need to type your user name after that, the four tildes convert to your user name on the page. Also, you don't need to place your signature on a different line; just put it after the end of your last sentence. Exploding Boy 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Exploding Boy. I will sign off that way from now on. I have never been good at code. I readded the article you deleted. Try adding to it, rather than deleting it. It is a good thing to develop knowledge, rather than destroy it because you disagree.

I think that the argument I have made is quite strong for this proposal. ISO is a world forum and includes a LOT of perspectives. There is overall consensus before it moves forward. That is a far better representation of what is the correct way to romanise than google hits. Japanese curriculum, linguists, business, all seem to agree with the revised Kunrei-shiki. I am waiting to hear a solid aargument to rebut.

Newshinjitsu 09:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't go by Google hits; it goes by community consensus. The community consensus is for Wikipedia Hepburn romanization. Fg2 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Newshinjitsu, you say I readded the article you deleted. I have just deleted it. If you add it again, somebody (perhaps me) will delete it again. And eventually you (using whatever user name) will get yourself banned. There is a way to appeal a deletion, and you are as free as anyone to avail yourself of it. But I warn you that an appeal against this particular deletion is almost certainly doomed to failure.

I believe you've indicated that you're a university student whose first language is English. You will therefore have had little trouble in reading and understanding the preceding paragraph. But reread it anyway; doing so may help you.

You continue: Try adding to [the article], rather than deleting it. It is a good thing to develop knowledge, rather than destroy it because you disagree. No, Newshinjitsu, the article was a complete crock. For one thing, there is nothing special about まっちゃ: your argument, such as it is, could equally well be applied to the romanization of せっち, にっちゅう, and many others. I shan't waste space here by giving more reasons, but believe me, there are several. And they have little if anything to do with disagreement about the lucid parts of what you're saying. (As it happens, I think that Hepburn is ghastly.)

I don't think that anything else needs to be said. -- Hoary 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Newshinjutsu claims that "Japanese curriculum, linguists, business" all "support" Kunreisiki. This is blatantly untrue. Japanese kids learn Hepburn in school (some time ago I posted a photograph of pages from a Japanese text book for junior highschool kids featuring (surprise!!) instructions for using Hepburn. I don't know what's happened to it now). Hepburn is the standard in academia. And businesses in Japan use a jumble of different romanizations, many of them with no relationship to any actual romanization system.
And by the way, the ISO is a non-governmental organization; it has no special jurisdiction over or ability to dictate spelling.
To be blunt, we've all wasted enough of our time on this issue, and I think we can safely call it over. Here's a phrase that might help Newshinjutsu in his continuing Japanese studies: 出る釘は打たれる。Exploding Boy 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Cultural Affairs Agency website modern romanisation system: http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo/frame.asp?tm=20070621171031 Read it and get back to me. I am in a hurry, but I am sure you can all see that Hepburn has been revised to be included in Kunreishiki, at least more popular aspects of it. the "t" before the ch is obsolete. My University Professors agree, ISO agrees, Monbusho applies it, and Japanese people use it (The latter, everyone claims).

Hepburn is messy, but used frequently, therefore its more popular aspects have been included in "Version 2". Surf around the page and you will notice things such as the t before the ch not included.

Newshinjitsu 08:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. I am getting back to you:
Just choose between (a) and (b):
  • (a) Inform me:
    • I don't see "that Hepburn has been revised to be included in Kunreishiki, at least more popular aspects of it". The URL says nothing of the kind. Could one of us is nuts? If that one is me, do please explain. And
    • Name these university professors. And
    • Surf around the page": No, Newshinjitsu, we're busy. Give us the precise URL.
  • (b) Run along and play elsewhere. -- Hoary 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in flash, so you can't give a precise URL. Look at the URL as you surf. It doesn't change. The best thing to do is call the Cultural Affairs Agency, ask for the Language Division, and have them guide you through. If you are comfortable with your Japanese, then surf through it looking for romaji. Also, Hoary, I understand that you are frustrated, so amI. Please stop blocking me. We can work this out peaceably. This is really cool if you pause to think about it. There is Passport Hepburn with different rules, Train Station Hepburn, Revised Hepburn, Kunrei-shiki, Nippon-shiki, all used in different areas. Just the tip of the iceberg. This move by the Japanese government is needed if you ask me. I'm glad they did it. Wikipedia should have this kind of system recognized as the system of choice because it has so much backing.

Newshinjitsu 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The Revised Hepburn used here is the most common form, and until some other form becomes more common, that's what where going to be using. You can continue posting until you're blue in the face (or fingers, as the case may be) and it won't change anything. So, please stop as you are wasting your time as well as our time. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nihonjoe. Please stop now. Fg2 10:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to clarify that Hoary does not "keep blocking" Newshinjitsu. He blocked him once, in accordance with policy, for a 3RR violation. Note, however, that in accordance with policy, Newshinjitsu may find himself blocked again if he persists in his tendentious editing campaign regarding the spelling of the word matcha. Exploding Boy 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles/New_romanisation_debate_rehash&oldid=1137421762"