Revision as of 07:12, 19 February 2014 editPC-XT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,401 edits →Request for a third opinion: more thoughts← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:13, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 29) (bot | ||
(905 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Shortcut|WT:MOSJAPAN}} | |||
{{WPBS|1= | {{WPBS|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Japan}} | {{WikiProject Japan}} | ||
Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 29 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | |||
{{Press | |||
| subject = page | |||
| author = James Griffiths | |||
| title = Japan wants you to say its leader's name correctly: Abe Shinzo | |||
| org = CNN | |||
| url = https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/asia/japan-name-abe-shinzo-intl/index.html | |||
| date = 2019-05-21 | |||
| quote = Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style page for Japanese names states that articles should "use the form personally or professionally used by the person, if available in the English/Latin alphabet." | |||
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20190524200005/https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/asia/japan-name-abe-shinzo-intl/index.html | |||
| archivedate = 2019-05-24 | |||
| accessdate = 2019-05-28 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archives}} | {{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archives}} | ||
== ] == | == ] == | ||
{{dablink|Archives of this discussion can be found at ] and ]}} | {{dablink|Archives of this discussion can be found at ] and ]}} | ||
Line 21: | Line 34: | ||
{{inbox|This discussion is now at ]}} | {{inbox|This discussion is now at ]}} | ||
== How to write the surname and first name in Japanese names == | |||
== No standards, only deliberate differentiation == | |||
I removed the following subsection because it is utter nonsense only supported by the original proposer {{User|Ryulong}}. | |||
:<nowiki>===Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems=== | |||
Several other languages, such as ] and ], use one or more of the Japanese writing systems (usually ]) to transcribe the language. When writing about subjects in these languages, use the accepted standard transliteration for the language if one exists. If no standard transliteration method exists, use a direct kana to rōmaji transcription (use the standard modified Hepburn romanization scheme except when it comes to {{nihongo3||オウ|ou}}, {{nihongo3||オオ|oo}}, and {{nihongo3||ウウ|uu}}, rather than {{nihongo3||オウ|ō}}, {{nihongo3||オオ|ō}}, and {{nihongo3||ウウ|ū}}) and doubling vowels extended by {{nihongo2|ー}} instead of using a macron over the vowel. | |||
;Examples | |||
*{{lang|ain|アィヌ・モシ<small>リ</small>}} is the name for the island of ] in Ainu. As described at ], a standard transliteration method exists, showing that the transliterated name should be ''Aynu Mosir'' and not ''Ainu Moshiri''. | |||
*{{lang|ryu|ウチナー}} is the name for ] in the Ryukyuan languages. No standard transliteration method exists for the Ryukyuan languages, so the name would be parsed as ''Uchinaa'' and not ''Uchinā''.</nowiki> | |||
One might ask two questions. Why doesn't this make sense? And why has such a nonsense survived for a long time? | |||
The answer to the first question is twofold: | |||
*The Ainu language has two separate (not mixed) writing systems: Katakana and the Latin alphabet. We should not ''transliterate'' Katakana into another romanization system. Perhaps, the sole exception would be an article that explains the Katakana writing system itself. This subsection was written by the guy who was incapable of understanding what transliteration was even though he was given a short lecture about it. | |||
*The second part reads: "Even though I admit there are no standards, I want to deliberately differentiate the Ryukyuan languages from Standard Japanese by enforcing a strange exception regarding long vowels." The amateurish-sounding ''direct kana to rōmaji transcription'' does not make sense. The original proposer does not justify the exception. So its sole purpose must be his personal desire. "Why the fuck should we use a Japanese romanization system to romanize it<nowiki></nowiki>?" | |||
The answer to the second question is, again, twofold: | |||
*This subsection has simply been ignored because the topics concerned rarely receive attention. | |||
*This section has been ] by one guy. No sound logic. No proper process of consensus building. He just ] (see also the ). Because this subsection sounds silly to anyone who has taken Linguistics 101, it has encountered clear opposition at least once. Take a look at the ] (]). You would be surprised at how unproductive the discussion was. Anyone possessing a minimum knowledge of linguistics would agree with Jpatokal. He has already pointed out why this subsection does not make sense. Also, he kindly explained what transliteration was. However, Ryulong repeated the same thing like a parrot and the nonsense remains the same today. Unfortunately this has proven to be an effective strategy here in Misplaced Pages. Although I am reluctant to repeat the old unconstructive discussion, I believe that for the future of English Misplaced Pages, we need to change the situation. | |||
--] (]) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== No standards outside Misplaced Pages, no standards in Misplaced Pages === | |||
Because the current subsection is utter nonsense that failed to gain consensus, it would be more productive to restart from scratch. To keep the discussion constructive, I would like to require participants to know what transliteration is. I'm sorry if you feel insulted. This sounds obvious as we are talking about romanization! But unfortunately, this is not the case here. | |||
For the Ainu language, the solution is trivial. Just follow the Latin orthography and put Katakana separately. Do not transliterate Katakana. Because this is obvious to anyone who know what transliteration is, I see no need in mentioning it in MoS. | |||
For the Ryukyuan language'''s''' (plural), my proposal is to leave things unstandardized. We need to get back to basics. If there are no standards outside Misplaced Pages, why should we force a standardization through MoS? It's getting more like ]. | |||
First of all, I would like to apologize for using machine translation as I am not good at English. | |||
In the following, I give a brief sketch of the linguistic situation outside Misplaced Pages because I think the past discussion was out of touch with the reality. We should base our decision on facts, not on someone's personal desire. | |||
This is an issue that has been discussed many times before, and I apologize for repeating it. However, I believe it is something that needs to be considered with an eye to the future, so I would like to propose it again. | |||
The most important fact to keep in mind is that Ryukyuan is an umbrella term (confusingly, it also refers to a language spoken in Shuri). Each traditional community or ''shima'' has its own spoken language. There are literally hundreds of languages. They would be clustered into 5, 6 or more groups with the inherently vague criterion of mutual intelligibility. But this does not mean there are 5 or 6 standard languages. There are no serious attempts of standardization, not to mention the creation of written languages. There is no lingua franca other than Standard Japanese. Speakers of these languages use Written Japanese in writing. | |||
This is the current rule. I don't mind using them as is, but problems are sure to arise in a few more years. | |||
With that said, I find it convenient to separate articles into linguistic and non-linguistic topics. | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Personal_names | |||
And as far as I know, linguistic descriptions (e.g., phonology and example sentences) are out of scope of MoS. Anyway, it is technically impossible to specify a standard way of transcription that can be applied to all languages concerned. External sources use their own ways of transcription with varying degrees of accuracy. The choice of transcription greatly depends on purposes: phonology or morphology/syntax, descriptive or comparative, or synchronic or diachronic. Fully descriptive approaches have been taken only recently (e.g., Shimoji Michinori's 2008 work on the Irabu language). There are some locally compiled dictionaries but they often present inaccurate and/or inconsistent data. Considerable difficulty would be experienced in integrating different sources. Also, for the reasons I explained above, reporting the informant's home community is a must. | |||
This is where the problem started. The policy was issued by the Japanese government's Agency for Cultural Affairs in accordance with the recommendations of the Japanese Language Council, an organization that defines how to write the Japanese language. | |||
For non-linguistic topics, most sources are written (1) by non-linguists and (2) in Written Japanese. English sources are scarce and some of them (e.g., George H. Kerr's "Okinawa: the History of an Island People" (1958)) are seriously outdated. In most cases, we end up consulting Kazari Eikichi (Amami Ōshima), Inamura Kenpu (Miyako) and Kishaba Eijun (Yaeyama), just to name a few. | |||
https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kakuki/22/tosin04/17.html | |||
This leads to two things. One is that data provided are linguistically inaccurate. The writer may not have fully understand the phonology of the language he spoke, and he had considerable difficulty choosing a proper sequence of Kana characters. The other is that the distinction between Standard Japanese and the writer's own language often blurs. What we read is Written Japanese borrowing some terms from local languages. The correspondence between the two is often regular and transparent. | |||
It is preferable that Japanese names be written in the romanized order of "family name - given name" (for example, Yamada Haruo). In addition, to prevent misunderstandings based on traditional customs, "surname - first name" can be changed by using methods such as capitalizing the surname (YAMADA Haruo) or placing a comma between the surname and first name (Yamada, Haruo). It may also be possible to show the structure.<br /> | |||
If a word or phrase is written in the logograph Kanji, it means that its pronunciation is left to readers. In that case, we would choose a "standardized" form for Misplaced Pages. The ] would write its name as 太 while it is pronounced something like "huθori" in Yamatohama, Amami Ōshima. In fact, such a conversion is done throughout Japan. "ɸɯɡɯsɯma" (this may not be so accurate) is what we know as Fukushima (福島). | |||
In the future, I hope that the above intentions will be put to good use when Japanese people's names are written in Roman letters in government offices and news organizations, as well as in the teaching of English and other subjects in school education.<br /> | |||
したがって,日本人の姓名については,ローマ字表記においても「姓-名」の順(例えばYamada Haruo)とすることが望ましい。なお,従来の慣習に基づく誤解を防くために,姓をすべて大文字とする(YAMADA Haruo),姓と名の間にコンマを打つ(Yamada,Haruo)などの方法で,「姓-名」の構造を示すことも考えられよう。<br /> | |||
今後,官公庁や報道機関等において,日本人の姓名をローマ字で表記する場合,並びに学校教育における英語等の指導においても,以上の趣旨が生かされることを希望する。 | |||
In line with this policy, around 2002, almost all school education in Japan was changed to writing the family name first. | |||
When Katakana is chosen, it is a sign of attempting to transcribe a local language. Here I use カムィヤキ (]) for a case study. Kamuiyaki was named after a pond in Isen Town, Tokunoshima of the Amami Islands. It is interesting to note that we cannot technically apply the (modified) Hepburn to カムィヤキ. The sequence "ui" represents not a diphthong but a central vowel. I think the name may be better transcribed as Kamïyaki. However, since this is about archaeology, no one in the field dare to choose such a complicated form. As far as I know, all archaeological reports transcribe カムィヤキ as Kamuiyaki. For your information, Okinawa-based archaeologist Asato Susumu refused to accept the name of カムィヤキ and used 亀焼 instead although no one follows him. If we adopted his proposal, the article title would have been Kameyaki. | |||
Next, there are announcements of cabinet decisions issued by the Prime Minister's Office of the Japanese government.<br /> | |||
If you want to cover a broad region, it complicates things even further. Ryukyu in a broad sense is an aggregate of numerous, traditionally isolated communities. It is by no means a monolithic entity. What you have to do is a ''comparative'' study. 童名 (lit. childhood name) is a good example. In my opinion, it deserves comparative studies because it is the only name component shared across various subregions. The problem is the linguistic diversity. The term in question reads "warabena" in Standard Japanese, "warabïnaː" in the language of Yamatohama, Amami Ōshima, "warabinaː" in the language of Shuri, Okinawa Island, and "yarabinaː" in both the languages of Shika, Ishigaki Island (Yaeyama) and Hirara, Miyako Island (this is a rare coincidence). Given the fact that no local language has a status of lingua franca, I think Standard Japanese is a reasonable choice. | |||
https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/seimei_romaji/index.html | |||
1. Regarding the romanization of Japanese names in official documents prepared by each government agency, the order of "surname - given name" will be used unless there is a problem.<br /> | |||
Incorporating historical documents would be a nightmare. Again, Kanji leaves its pronunciation to readers. The problem is that Okinawa has some documents and inscriptions written predominantly in Hiragana. The language used in these resources are considerably different from the modern languages. It is partly because the set of sound changes that characterize the modern Okinawan languages happened relatively recently. But it is presumably different from the language spoken at that time too. No one attempted to faithfully transcribe a spoken language. After all, the written language was in Japanese literary tradition. Take おもろさうし for example. I am not sure if vowel raising (o > u) completed at the time of the compilation of the book, but おもろ (omoro) certainly corresponds to modern "umuru." さうし (saushi) is a obsolete spelling of そうし. And we name its article ]. | |||
2 This applies to the following official documents prepared by each ministry or agency. However, if there is a special practice, such as a format specified by an international organization, etc., it is not necessary to follow this.<br /> | |||
(1) Websites and social media in foreign languages (English, etc.) owned by each administrative agency<br /> | |||
(2) Documents in foreign languages (English, etc.) (bilateral and multilateral joint statements, white papers, basic plans, strategies, reports)<br /> | |||
(3) Lists, nameplates, etc. at conferences (public) hosted by Japan and each administrative agency<br /> | |||
(4) Documents in foreign languages (English, etc.) (letters, documents explaining our position to international organizations and other countries, and other documents that require approval by original document)<br /> | |||
(5) Administrative documents in foreign languages (English, etc.)<br /> | |||
(6) English and French translations of letters of credentials and letters of dismissal of our ambassadors<br /> | |||
(7) English and French translations of signature sections in exchanges of notes, etc., and letters of attorney of authority to sign international agreements<br /> | |||
3 When writing the names of Japanese people in Roman letters in official documents prepared by each ministry and agency, if it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the family name and given name, the family name will be written in all capital letters (YAMADA Haruo) and the structure "family name-given name" will be shown.<br /> | |||
4 Local governments, related organizations, and the private sector are requested to take care to use the order "family name - given name" when writing the romanized names of Japanese people, whenever possible.<br /> | |||
5 The above contents shall be implemented from January 1, 2020. However, if the measures can be taken by each government agency, they can be implemented before the implementation date. | |||
1 各府省庁が作成する公用文等における日本人の姓名のローマ字表記については,差し支えのない限り「姓―名」の順を用いることとする。<br /> | |||
To sum up, we need to realize the complicated situation before we try to create some kind of standardization. I think inconsistencies are inevitable but better than an unreasonable standardization. --] (]) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
2 各府省庁が作成する公用文等のうち,次のものを対象とする。なお,国際機関等により指定された様式があるなど,特段の慣行がある場合は,これによらなくてもよい。<br /> | |||
(1)各行政機関が保有する外国語(英語等)のウェブサイト,ソーシャルメディア<br /> | |||
(2)外国語(英語等)で発信する文書(二国間・多数国間の共同声明等,白書,基本計画,戦略,答申)<br /> | |||
(3)我が国及び各行政機関が主催する会議(公開)における名簿,ネームプレート等<br /> | |||
(4)外国語(英語等)の文書(書簡,国際機関・相手国などに対し我が方立場を説明する資料,その他の原議書による決裁を要する文書)<br /> | |||
(5)外国語(英語等)による行政資料等<br /> | |||
(6)我が方大使の信任状・解任状の英仏語訳<br /> | |||
(7)交換公文等の署名欄,国際約束の署名権限委任状の英仏語訳<br /> | |||
3 各府省庁が作成する公用文等において日本人の姓名をローマ字表記する際に,姓と名を明確に区別させる必要がある場合には,姓を全て大文字とし(YAMADA Haruo),「姓―名」の構造を示すこととする。<br /> | |||
4 地方公共団体,関係機関等,民間に対しては,日本人の姓名のローマ字表記については,差し支えのない限り「姓―名」の順を用いるよう,配慮を要請するものとする。<br /> | |||
5 上記の内容は,令和2年1月1日から実施するものとする。ただし,各府省庁において対応可能なものについては,実施日前から実施することができる。 | |||
In accordance with this, from January 1, 2020, official documents produced by the Japanese government have generally been changed to list the surname first. | |||
Another case study. '']'' is a cultural practice of many communities of the Yaeyama Islands. Fortunately, it has an English source, Ouwehand's ''Hateruma'' (1985). As the title suggests, however, he limited his scope to Hateruma Island. What is worse, the performance associated with ''angama'' in Ishigaki Island is known as ''mushāma'' in Hateruma. So, for the most part of the article, I had to rely on Kishaba Eijun's articles written in Japanese. I am still unsure if I successfully merged the totally different sources. | |||
https://www.jice.org/en/info/2020/01/family-name-first-order-on-official-documents-starting-from-january-2020.html<br /> | |||
Ouwehand was a cultural anthropologist. While he used the modified Hepburn system for Standard Japanese, he added several rules to it to transcribe Hateruma speech in a not so accurate but easily readable way. Examples include ''mushāma'', ''angama'', ''tĒku'' (''taiko'' in Standard Japanese), and ''uguru p'sïn'' (''okuru hi''). Corresponding terms found in Kishaba's Japanese text are ムシャーマ, アンガマ, 太鼓 and 精霊送. The first two are in Katakana, presumably reflecting Ishigaki speech. And yes, the macron indicates a long vowel as in Hepburn. The third one (drum) is written in Kanji and we are expected to read it ''taiko'' as in Standard Japanese. The correspondence between Hateruma ''Ē'' (<nowiki></nowiki>) and Standard Japanese ''ai'' is regular and transparent. Kishaba did not consider drum as a technical term requiring special treatment. The last pair represents the same concept but different wording was employed. | |||
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASMBT3JB0MBTUCVL006.html<br /> | |||
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO49492880W9A900C1CR8000/<br /> | |||
https://www.jiji.com/jc/graphics?p=ve_soc_general20190723j-02-w600 | |||
Now, all major things like schooling, government documents, etc. are surname first, given name second, including passports.<br /> | |||
As I said above, the distinction between Standard Japanese and the writer's own language blurs. And since the latter has no written standard, each author had to invent his/her own method of transcription. No standards outside Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Some people write their surname last, instead of writing it first, as was traditionally done, and there are several possible reasons for this. | |||
1. They were taught at school to write their surname last, and are unaware that this has changed.<br /> | |||
===Break=== | |||
2. Westerners have always thought that Japanese people write their surname after their given name, and many Westerners are unaware of this change. Furthermore, this method is unfamiliar in the West. Therefore, they use the traditional method of writing surname last.<br /> | |||
:Don't unilaterally change the MOS without consensus. I've reverted your edits to the page for this reason. | |||
3.It will be difficult for people who have been doing business in the past to write their last name in the traditional manner, to change their name now. | |||
:That said, there is an existing consensus to use the established method for romanization of the Ainu language and just not using the Hepburn romanization for the Ryukyuan languages as it is common practice (as far as I have seen) to use romanization styles such as "uchinaaguchi" and "saataa andaagii" if at least for Okinawan. In your massive essay I see no compelling reason to change either of these practices on the project, considering the use of the languages on this project are limited. Also, no one in their right mind is going to read your treatise (I certainly haven't done so in full), so please summarize your main points and maybe then users such as myself can be swayed.—] (]) 14:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Also, don't write up two sections when they're about the same damn thing.—] (]) 14:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:And I find your ad hominem attack against me extremely unprofessional. My activity on this project should not in any way be a reason to dismiss my opinion.—] (]) 14:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
According to Misplaced Pages's current rules, the format used in English encyclopedias is ranked higher. However, I doubt that those in charge of creating English encyclopedias will take Japan's circumstances into account. They will likely follow the current custom and list the surname last. Despite the fact that more and more people are writing their last name first, and more and more documents are written with their last name written first.<br /> | |||
=== Request for a third opinion === | |||
If this happens, the following situation will occur. | |||
I would like to seek a third opinion. We have two things to discuss, the dark past and a bright future. I want to keep them separate. Otherwise the latter will become unconstructive too. For the latter, see the subsection above. In this subsection, I focus on the former. | |||
* The assertion that Ryulong's version is a consensus is plainly wrong. It's clear if you take a look at the ] (]). He simply devastated the discussion to the point that no one was willing to continue. As a result, he effectively ]. | |||
* Ryulong's version still explains "transliteration for the language." This is evidence for his ownership. He was taught that transliteration is the process of changing from one ''script'' to another (and thus one cannot transliterate a language). But it's still here. | |||
* This also demonstrates the unconstructiveness of the discussion with Ryulong. If a discussion does not make things better at all, it's just a waste of time. That's the very reason why a third opinion is needed. | |||
* This time Ryulong declared refusal to join the constructive, fact-based discussion by blatantly labeling my proposal as "treatise." This is a very important point to note. With this situation, how can we make things better? | |||
--] (]) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:You posted a page and a half worth of text. No one should be expected to read all of that. And consensus still exists. Simply because you currently do not agree with it and Jpatokal did not agree with it does not change anything. And stop making these claims and ad hominem attacks against me. And the "Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems, last call" thread established the consensus that you claim does not exist. And oh my god if your problem is the use of the word "transliteration" just fix the terminology to "romanization". This is the same semantic garbage you pulled at ], ], and ].—] (]) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
::FWIW, I support the english wikipedia using whatever form is most widespread in english-language sources (however few) for the particular topic. (Isn't there already a guideline to that effect?) The problem with standardised transliteration rules is that we then end up with some editors self-proclaiming that all the verifiable sources about a series of subjects are "wrong" (IMO using wikipedia as a vehicle for their personal agenda of language prescriptivism) and changing article titles to a string which isn't used in any reliable sources (written in either language by subject experts). I don't see who that benefits; it creates a disconnect between wikipedia and all the other literature that the readers will be moving between. <small>(Aside, anyone read ]?)</small> ] (]) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Hijiri88's phone here. ], who never edits Japan/Okinawa/Ainu-related articles, is here referring to two incidents on ]. He there made the samebaseless strawman argument he does above, that I was claiming one romanization system to be "right" and the others to be wrong. He seems to believe that any and all English sources, including self-published ones, are superior to romanization of Japanese sources. IMO, for articles on Yamato-language topics (perhaps excluding Ainu and Okinawa topics), Japanese sources should ''obviously'' be used when there are few or no English (reliable) sources. As for the issue at hand, I am neutral because (like, presumably, Cesiumfrog) I don't know squat about Okinawan or Ainu. I think it's unlikely that the only reliable sources on a topic will be in katakana-fied Ainu, though Nanshu's comments, as far as I can see, are the most sensible. ] (]) 03:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::That said, ], to be fair, the one who wrote the section was not ] but ]. I personally can't stand Ryulong's unilaterally declaring him/herself the "owner" of this guideline page even though he/she hardly ever edits the majority of articles that are affected by it (probably 90+% of Ryulong's article edits are to topics ] ] under WikiProject Japan). But we should be fair: Ryulong would have probably reverted Nanshu whether he/she agreed with the proposal or not. "Consensus" isn't necessary to overrule a guideline that was not implemented according to consensus in the first place, however, and Ryulong is clearly in the wrong here. This appears to be a recurring habit, as it was last summer when Ryulong reverted my inclusion of a proviso that just so happens to have in fact been supported by a ], ] ]. ~ ] (]) | |||
::::How is reverting undiscussed changes a violation of ]? And last I checked, ] ] ], which does not just deal with ] (that's why it's called "Japan-related articles" and not the MOS for WP:JAPAN). I may not have to deal with non-Yamato languages fairly often ]. And please, that text was never agreed upon and ].—] (]) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm sorry Ryulong, but can you point me to where the current text was upheld by consensus at any point in the last seven years? Or the guideline that says removal of not-backed-by-consensus guideline content should be reverted? Otherwise, ] supports Nanshu's right to remove this text, and also supports your ''initial'' reversion of it. However, since then Nanshu has provided a well-reasoned and thought-out argument in favour of the removal, and all you have done is said ] and continued to oppose the removal without providing a reason. That kind of comment may be valid on ANI, but if you are going to participate in the construction of style guides, you need to be willing to consider complex proposals. An average of 80 edits/day over the last eight years implies you "don't have time" for such things, but then you should probably reconsider whether guideline talk pages are the right place for you. (I'm currently getting flashbacks to ]...) Also, your regularly referring to Nanshu as an "asshole" or the like, combined with your failure to present any reasoning for your opposition, implies to me you ] in opposing this proposal. ] (]) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::The consensus is that no one except for Nanshu and Jpatokal have raised any problems with this. And most of his argument is railing against me. And how is one time "regularly"? | |||
::::::The section's intent is simple: don't use ] for the ] or the ] because Hepburn is only for standard Japanese. The only reason it's being argued against is because it says "don't use macrons for for long vowels in Okinawan et al because there's no standardized use, instead double vowels or use ou". Why is this so problematic that Nanshu felt the need to remove the entire section? What is so wrong with me reverting his bold move?—] (]) 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
大谷翔平←Japanese kanji.<br /> | |||
::I think it's evident to all that Nanshu has a far deeper understanding of this issue than the rest of us combined, and I obviously continue to support removing the "direct kana to romaji transcription" bit of the MOS and following ] instead. | |||
Shohei Ohtani←Westerners rewrite it this way out of custom, but to Japanese people it is an old way of writing. A Japanese person might write it with Westerners in mind.<br /> | |||
::I would also like to gently if probably futilely plead that we resist the temptation to make this personal, and instead focus on the actual issue. ] (]) 21:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
OHTANI Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write. Japanese official documents are written in this format.<br /> | |||
:::] is going to be hard to find considering that there is no standard usage between "Uchinaaguchi", "Uchinaguchi", or "Uchināguchi". Going with ] is the best option as there is no standardized romanization scheme (and most of Nanshu's opposition is because I used "transliteration" instead of "romanization"). And Nanshu's driveby nature of debate does not demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. If so, he would have provided an alternative other than simply removing it completely and spending 10k worth of text talking down to me.—] (]) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Ohtani Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write.<br /> | |||
:I don't know these languages enough to give a very intelligent comment, but I'll give a general opinion. It may seem strange to have different rominization methods for different languages or regions, but it is sometimes done that way. I would support using the one most English reliable sources use, even on a case-by-case basis. Though standardization is preferable, I don't know that we should try to enforce standards where a language has none. Just my thoughts. <tt>]]]</tt> 11:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Ohtani,Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write. | |||
The fact that the writing method is not completely fixed is very troubling.<br /> | |||
* The repeat-a-lie-often-enough strategy does not work here. There was no consensus and Ryulong's version does not deserve special status. If someone wants to keep the nonsense, he/she is required to make a convincing argument for it. | |||
A further problem is that even though the signatures written by Japanese people themselves, Japanese dictionaries, and Japanese official documents are all the same, only the English dictionary is written in a different way due to the publisher's convenience, and articles are created accordingly. There may be some cases. Is this appropriate?<br /> | |||
* The transliteration stuff was used as an example that demonstrated the unconstructiveness of the discussion with Ryulong. A lengthy discussion brought no improvement. The reason why Ryulong's version does not make sense was explained elsewhere. I don't see why he is unable to understand such a simple logic. | |||
We also need to consider the situation where only some Western publishers respond to the new system, while the majority write the surname last. Let's consider the situation where Company A writes the surname last, Company B writes the surname last, Company C writes the surname first, and American government documents write the surname first, just like Japanese official documents. Only a small number of publishers and the American government write the surname first. Since they are a minority, the question arises as to whether we should ignore them and continue to create articles that write the surname last. | |||
* Signs of devastation here. Ryulong will probably repeat the same thing like a parrot unless everyone else gets sick and tired of it. For a bright future of Misplaced Pages, we must not make it work. | |||
--] (]) | |||
:It's not my version. Nihonjoe wrote it up originally. I made it clearer. Stop blaming me for this. Stop saying you don't think I'm intelligent. Stop blaming me for everything.—] (]) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:And why can't we come up with our own standard form of romanizing these languages in the rare instances that they show up? That's what the manual of style is for. What exactly is wrong with saying "for Ainu and the Ryukyuan languages don't use Hepburn"? You do nothing but demand that the section be removed because you claim that I have some lack of knowledge in this area when I am not the one who created it in the first place. You suggest no alternative text. You simply demand its removal because it apparently stands in opposition to the handful of articles you've created on topics in this area, like ] and ] (moved from "Angama (Yaeyama)" because that's not really the best title). You spend half of these articles delving into the etymology rather than the subject, as well.—] (]) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
*Blaming others doesn't make any progress. There are just different points of view, and standards are hard to find in positions like this. As I said, standards would be preferable. I am leaning towards keeping the standard, because it is a direction, even though, as far as I can tell, it may be somewhat arbitrary. I still question whether standards should really be enforced, but don't want to just throw what we have away, if it can be helped. <tt>]]]</tt> 07:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Just like Chinese and Koreans, Japanese people should seriously consider whether they should put their surname first.<br /> | |||
===The new consensus straw poll=== | |||
However, it would be too much work to change all the articles. For articles you will be creating or editing in the future, why not change to the Japanese government's official document format, where the last name is written in all capital letters? If the first letter is capitalized and the rest are lowercase, readers can decide that it is the old style. ] (]) 06:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|See ] and ]—] (]) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
Let's see how much actual consensus we have here. The crux of Nanshu's proposal boils down to removing this sentence from the MOS: | |||
:What's important about this proposal to write Japanese surnames first or later is that the Japanese government has decided that surnames should be written first, something that affects not only wikipedia, but also wikidata. | |||
''If no standard romanization method exists, use a direct kana to rōmaji transcription (use the standard modified Hepburn romanization scheme except when it comes to ou (オウ?), oo (オオ?), and uu (ウウ?), rather than ō (オウ?), ō (オオ?), and ū (ウウ?)) and doubling vowels extended by ー instead of using a macron over the vowel.'' | |||
:The discussion that has taken place several times so far has centered on what should be done since no clear criteria exist. This time, clear criteria do exist. However, the English-speaking public gives precedence to convention and does not follow the Japanese government's standards in various documents, such as dictionaries. | |||
:The Japanese government is not enforcing them on the private sector at this stage. In some cases, system modifications will have to be made. This would require a great deal of effort on the part of private companies. | |||
:However, there is a possibility that it will be upgraded to a recommendation in the future, and there will be strong calls for changes, and that the US and other countries' governments will issue notices to follow the Japanese government's standards. Fundamentally speaking, it is a question of whether to give priority to the descriptions in dictionaries written by publishers who follow convention and are unaware of changes in the situation, or to descriptions based on standards created by the Japanese government. ] (]) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for understanding. | |||
::When Japan didn't have clear rules and it was customary to put the surname in the front, there was no problem whether you put the surname in the front or the back in an English dictionary. But even after the rules were decided in Japan and it was decided to put the surname at the front, English dictionaries continued to put it at the back. Obviously, this is wrong, but what should we do in this case? | |||
::Of course, I don't think that people who are active and famous under a name with the surname at the back absolutely have to change it right away. That's because it will be treated as a common name. If for some reason it becomes necessary to change the surname to the front on all wikipedia pages, or if the owner of the name begins to use the name with the surname in front of it, you should change it. ] (]) 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== General Guidelines == | |||
So sign below if you want to remove it (support), or want to keep it (oppose). | |||
I strongly disagree with numbers 3 and 4. Romanizing the Latin text into Japanese seems unnecessary as well as redundant. Why? ] ] ] 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
(And yes, I realize Nanshu actually proposes removing the whole "Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems" section, which I also support, but we'd need to work out some new wording first.) | |||
== Surnames for repeated mentions? == | |||
;Support removal | |||
* ] (]) 21:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
* Of course. --] (]) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
If referring to historical figures repeatedly, should the format be their surname or given name? That is, if a name is in format, should i say, " did xyz", or did xyz"? ] (]) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
;Oppose removal | |||
:Normally surname, but it depends on the context. Is there any particular case you are wondering about? ]<small>]</small> 11:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*There shouldn't be any strawpolls either. Disputes are not solved on Misplaced Pages by a popular vote.—] (]) 03:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} |
Latest revision as of 13:13, 9 November 2024
ShortcutThis project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Video games#Non-English games
Archives of this discussion can be found at /VGGL and /VGGL2WP:VG/GL mediation
This discussion is now at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Misplaced Pages articles? |
How to write the surname and first name in Japanese names
First of all, I would like to apologize for using machine translation as I am not good at English.
This is an issue that has been discussed many times before, and I apologize for repeating it. However, I believe it is something that needs to be considered with an eye to the future, so I would like to propose it again.
This is the current rule. I don't mind using them as is, but problems are sure to arise in a few more years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Personal_names
This is where the problem started. The policy was issued by the Japanese government's Agency for Cultural Affairs in accordance with the recommendations of the Japanese Language Council, an organization that defines how to write the Japanese language.
https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kakuki/22/tosin04/17.html
It is preferable that Japanese names be written in the romanized order of "family name - given name" (for example, Yamada Haruo). In addition, to prevent misunderstandings based on traditional customs, "surname - first name" can be changed by using methods such as capitalizing the surname (YAMADA Haruo) or placing a comma between the surname and first name (Yamada, Haruo). It may also be possible to show the structure.
In the future, I hope that the above intentions will be put to good use when Japanese people's names are written in Roman letters in government offices and news organizations, as well as in the teaching of English and other subjects in school education.
したがって,日本人の姓名については,ローマ字表記においても「姓-名」の順(例えばYamada Haruo)とすることが望ましい。なお,従来の慣習に基づく誤解を防くために,姓をすべて大文字とする(YAMADA Haruo),姓と名の間にコンマを打つ(Yamada,Haruo)などの方法で,「姓-名」の構造を示すことも考えられよう。
今後,官公庁や報道機関等において,日本人の姓名をローマ字で表記する場合,並びに学校教育における英語等の指導においても,以上の趣旨が生かされることを希望する。
In line with this policy, around 2002, almost all school education in Japan was changed to writing the family name first.
Next, there are announcements of cabinet decisions issued by the Prime Minister's Office of the Japanese government.
https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/seimei_romaji/index.html
1. Regarding the romanization of Japanese names in official documents prepared by each government agency, the order of "surname - given name" will be used unless there is a problem.
2 This applies to the following official documents prepared by each ministry or agency. However, if there is a special practice, such as a format specified by an international organization, etc., it is not necessary to follow this.
(1) Websites and social media in foreign languages (English, etc.) owned by each administrative agency
(2) Documents in foreign languages (English, etc.) (bilateral and multilateral joint statements, white papers, basic plans, strategies, reports)
(3) Lists, nameplates, etc. at conferences (public) hosted by Japan and each administrative agency
(4) Documents in foreign languages (English, etc.) (letters, documents explaining our position to international organizations and other countries, and other documents that require approval by original document)
(5) Administrative documents in foreign languages (English, etc.)
(6) English and French translations of letters of credentials and letters of dismissal of our ambassadors
(7) English and French translations of signature sections in exchanges of notes, etc., and letters of attorney of authority to sign international agreements
3 When writing the names of Japanese people in Roman letters in official documents prepared by each ministry and agency, if it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the family name and given name, the family name will be written in all capital letters (YAMADA Haruo) and the structure "family name-given name" will be shown.
4 Local governments, related organizations, and the private sector are requested to take care to use the order "family name - given name" when writing the romanized names of Japanese people, whenever possible.
5 The above contents shall be implemented from January 1, 2020. However, if the measures can be taken by each government agency, they can be implemented before the implementation date.
1 各府省庁が作成する公用文等における日本人の姓名のローマ字表記については,差し支えのない限り「姓―名」の順を用いることとする。
2 各府省庁が作成する公用文等のうち,次のものを対象とする。なお,国際機関等により指定された様式があるなど,特段の慣行がある場合は,これによらなくてもよい。
(1)各行政機関が保有する外国語(英語等)のウェブサイト,ソーシャルメディア
(2)外国語(英語等)で発信する文書(二国間・多数国間の共同声明等,白書,基本計画,戦略,答申)
(3)我が国及び各行政機関が主催する会議(公開)における名簿,ネームプレート等
(4)外国語(英語等)の文書(書簡,国際機関・相手国などに対し我が方立場を説明する資料,その他の原議書による決裁を要する文書)
(5)外国語(英語等)による行政資料等
(6)我が方大使の信任状・解任状の英仏語訳
(7)交換公文等の署名欄,国際約束の署名権限委任状の英仏語訳
3 各府省庁が作成する公用文等において日本人の姓名をローマ字表記する際に,姓と名を明確に区別させる必要がある場合には,姓を全て大文字とし(YAMADA Haruo),「姓―名」の構造を示すこととする。
4 地方公共団体,関係機関等,民間に対しては,日本人の姓名のローマ字表記については,差し支えのない限り「姓―名」の順を用いるよう,配慮を要請するものとする。
5 上記の内容は,令和2年1月1日から実施するものとする。ただし,各府省庁において対応可能なものについては,実施日前から実施することができる。
In accordance with this, from January 1, 2020, official documents produced by the Japanese government have generally been changed to list the surname first.
https://www.jice.org/en/info/2020/01/family-name-first-order-on-official-documents-starting-from-january-2020.html
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASMBT3JB0MBTUCVL006.html
https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO49492880W9A900C1CR8000/
https://www.jiji.com/jc/graphics?p=ve_soc_general20190723j-02-w600
Now, all major things like schooling, government documents, etc. are surname first, given name second, including passports.
Some people write their surname last, instead of writing it first, as was traditionally done, and there are several possible reasons for this.
1. They were taught at school to write their surname last, and are unaware that this has changed.
2. Westerners have always thought that Japanese people write their surname after their given name, and many Westerners are unaware of this change. Furthermore, this method is unfamiliar in the West. Therefore, they use the traditional method of writing surname last.
3.It will be difficult for people who have been doing business in the past to write their last name in the traditional manner, to change their name now.
According to Misplaced Pages's current rules, the format used in English encyclopedias is ranked higher. However, I doubt that those in charge of creating English encyclopedias will take Japan's circumstances into account. They will likely follow the current custom and list the surname last. Despite the fact that more and more people are writing their last name first, and more and more documents are written with their last name written first.
If this happens, the following situation will occur.
大谷翔平←Japanese kanji.
Shohei Ohtani←Westerners rewrite it this way out of custom, but to Japanese people it is an old way of writing. A Japanese person might write it with Westerners in mind.
OHTANI Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write. Japanese official documents are written in this format.
Ohtani Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write.
Ohtani,Shohei←Name formats that Japanese people may write.
The fact that the writing method is not completely fixed is very troubling.
A further problem is that even though the signatures written by Japanese people themselves, Japanese dictionaries, and Japanese official documents are all the same, only the English dictionary is written in a different way due to the publisher's convenience, and articles are created accordingly. There may be some cases. Is this appropriate?
We also need to consider the situation where only some Western publishers respond to the new system, while the majority write the surname last. Let's consider the situation where Company A writes the surname last, Company B writes the surname last, Company C writes the surname first, and American government documents write the surname first, just like Japanese official documents. Only a small number of publishers and the American government write the surname first. Since they are a minority, the question arises as to whether we should ignore them and continue to create articles that write the surname last.
Just like Chinese and Koreans, Japanese people should seriously consider whether they should put their surname first.
However, it would be too much work to change all the articles. For articles you will be creating or editing in the future, why not change to the Japanese government's official document format, where the last name is written in all capital letters? If the first letter is capitalized and the rest are lowercase, readers can decide that it is the old style. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- What's important about this proposal to write Japanese surnames first or later is that the Japanese government has decided that surnames should be written first, something that affects not only wikipedia, but also wikidata.
- The discussion that has taken place several times so far has centered on what should be done since no clear criteria exist. This time, clear criteria do exist. However, the English-speaking public gives precedence to convention and does not follow the Japanese government's standards in various documents, such as dictionaries.
- The Japanese government is not enforcing them on the private sector at this stage. In some cases, system modifications will have to be made. This would require a great deal of effort on the part of private companies.
- However, there is a possibility that it will be upgraded to a recommendation in the future, and there will be strong calls for changes, and that the US and other countries' governments will issue notices to follow the Japanese government's standards. Fundamentally speaking, it is a question of whether to give priority to the descriptions in dictionaries written by publishers who follow convention and are unaware of changes in the situation, or to descriptions based on standards created by the Japanese government. Tanukisann (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding.
- When Japan didn't have clear rules and it was customary to put the surname in the front, there was no problem whether you put the surname in the front or the back in an English dictionary. But even after the rules were decided in Japan and it was decided to put the surname at the front, English dictionaries continued to put it at the back. Obviously, this is wrong, but what should we do in this case?
- Of course, I don't think that people who are active and famous under a name with the surname at the back absolutely have to change it right away. That's because it will be treated as a common name. If for some reason it becomes necessary to change the surname to the front on all wikipedia pages, or if the owner of the name begins to use the name with the surname in front of it, you should change it. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
General Guidelines
I strongly disagree with numbers 3 and 4. Romanizing the Latin text into Japanese seems unnecessary as well as redundant. Why? ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Surnames for repeated mentions?
If referring to historical figures repeatedly, should the format be their surname or given name? That is, if a name is in format, should i say, " did xyz", or did xyz"? Saturniapavonia (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Normally surname, but it depends on the context. Is there any particular case you are wondering about? Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)