This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 18 March 2011 (Signing comment by 180.10.153.175 - "→"Pre-Beginning"?: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:48, 18 March 2011 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 180.10.153.175 - "→"Pre-Beginning"?: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Japan B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Education Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Results for 2009?
Does anyone know where the passing percentages for the 2009-1 (July) JLPT 1-2 exams might be found? It should be out by now, no? 124.38.64.230 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, at http://www.jees.or.jp/jlpt/pdf/2009/00-scr-all.pdf . I'll add them to the article. pmt7ar 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
When it can be taken
Currently, it is claimed at the top that the JLPT test can only be taken once a year. However, if one checks the official site, it's clear you can take it twice a year. In December as usual, but one can also take level 1 and 2 in July, but only in Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobberoth (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Twice a year hasn't started yet, but is scheduled to begin next year. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- It has as of this year. Kallewoof (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there real any evidence that N1 may be assessed normatively?
"# N1: the same passing level as the original level 1, but able to gauge slightly more advanced skills, possibly through normative assessment"
There is no citation attached...
91.85.136.118 (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the question. Nothing about the revised test had been cited yet. I think the sentence in question was referring to equating test scores, so I changed it to that and added a reference. Dekimasuよ! 05:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Only for non-native speakers
What makes anyone think it's exclusively for non-native speakers? I'd like a citation that specifically rules out the possibility of native speakers taking the JLPT test. Using the word "native speakers" is presuming to rule out the obvious. But some people born in Japan, may not have grown up in Japan... is there anything to say that they can't take the test? And what precisely makes someone a "native speaker" anwyay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spurrymoses (talk • contribs)
- New comments belong at the end.
- For official citations, you can read it in both Japanese and English.
- You are confusing the expression "native speaker". A native speaker is one who speaks a language as their mother tongue. It has nothing to do with being a "native" of a certain geographical location. If you prefer Japanese, it is 母語とする人. Regards, Bendono (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Five Level JLPT
Yep. JLPT is now updated as a 5-level test instead of 4-levels. http://www.jlpt.jp/e/info/index.html KyuuA4 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- From 2010, as we had already noted here. Are you saying that something has changed? Dekimasuよ! 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
i am a student of computer engineering branch and i am going to appear for the test of JLPT this year. can you please provide me some information and instructions about JLPT syllabus, books available and the details of the exams form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.82.97 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Pass mark
I changed the pass % in the table to show that it is an approx value. From The Japanese-Language Proficiency Test Test Guide 2009
- p10 (Decision of Pass or Fail)
- "...The passing score is determined by... every year, and is usually set at 70% or higher for level 1, and 60% or higher for Level 2, 3 and 4. In some instances , it may be adjusted downward."
--Boy.pockets (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- In practice, though, it has always been exactly that number except when a question has been thrown out. See, for example, the Japan Foundation in LA, which includes similar language but then gives explicit "passing scores" that are exactly 70% and 60%. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pass mark table meaning unclear
There is no description of what "Overall Pass Mark" means, nor how many "points" are on the test, nor how many "points" for each section, nor how many "points" each question is worth. As such, the table showing this information is currently unusable. --Orcrist (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, quick research reveals the specifications. . Posting clarifications now. --Orcrist (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Format table parentheses?
In the "Format" section, the table includes numbers of Kanji, vocab, etc., and each entry includes one approximate number and then a whole number in parentheses, but there is no explanation of what the numbers in the parentheses represent.
I'm guessing they represent the actual numbers that appeared in some edition of the test, but it would be nice to have an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iahklu (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
New Revision
I've found on my local japan embassy a guidebook by JF of the new examination. There are still things TBA (like the % required for passing). An online version is available (japanese only). http://www.jlpt.jp/j/about/pdf/guidebook1.pdf
Some new points:
- Now you are required to pass a minimum on each section, so even if your total is above the requirement if you fail on one section you fail all the exam.
- The total score for all levels is 180 divided in:
60 for mozi/goi, 60 for bunpô/dokkai and 60 for chôkai for N1~N3 120 for mozi/goi/bunpô/dokkai and 60 for chôkai for N4 and N5.
- N1 and N2 will have two sections, mozi/goi/bunpô and dokkai will be taken together, while N3~N5 while retain the tree sections (mozi/goi, bunpô/dokkai, chôkai)
- For N4 and N5, mozi/goi and bunpô/dokkai will be scored together.
- For N1, the time is reduced considerably (25 mins shorter) for the first part.
- Two examinations per year will be held on the first Sunday of July and the first Sunday of December each year. Some countries will not held the July examination (refer to jlpt site for more information). -more likely to only Asian contries will held the two dates-
- No official "Test Content Specification" will be published, as it's discouraged ("learning it's not meant to memorize kanji and vocabulary lists"), and example previous exams will be published starting on 2012.
If need particular translation point it to me. Saludos. pmt7ar 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) PS: I'll try to scan the guidebook on the embassy, it's english/japanese bilingual. pmt7ar 09:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
English version of the PDF (less detailed, but more accesible).
I've done the wikitables from those sources and are available at my sandbox. Feel free to use them if updating the article. I'm currently working on the edition of the spanish article, but will continue with the english version. pmt7ar 07:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
What is it good for?
What is the motivation of the applicants to take the test? Who requires it? 93.220.34.139 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- AFAIK, is the only official certification on language proficiency. Compare it to TOEFL, IELTS, FCE, CAE, but issued by the government (now independent as Japan Foundation). On each application there is a survey for the motives, they can be to know and test one's knowledge at the language. It's required in some educative institutions, job applications and for scholarships. Most universities now use EJU, but it is still required on some private institutions and government scholarships. pmt7ar 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Japanese Characters in English Encyclopedic Entry
I noticed the grades in one of the tables is specified as "1級" - is that really the right thing to do when this page is for the information of English speakers. No doubt the author understood it and prefers to see it, but surely there should be no core information written only in Japanese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.211.48 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Estimated hours
There was a 2 revert about this issue. The status quo was the official estimated, stated on the very certificate descriptions. The bold edit was one from a source quoting JLEC estimates that are doubles even quintuples the values. Since this is an official yet privately held exam I stand for displaying the official estimated as by JF and JEES. The proposed are from a private institution JLEC not particular better than the officials. Also, says about 1400-2000 hours for level 2, which I among others passed with less than 700 hours from scratch; so personally I seriously doubt those numbers.
The same editor made the same change in the japanese wiki, which quotes exactly the description of the certificates, but changed the values from the certificate replacing them with the ones from JLEC. The same here, the estimated hours are attached with others estimates (number of kanji and vocabulary), so using another values completely isolated to replace a table extracted from a single source is altering the source. Also in the japanese articule, he changed the year from 2009 to 2010 because his JLEC source includes a year from the revised test, yet this is incorrect because its including kanji and word ammounts not applicable to 2010 exam. The editor is misusing a source. The table is based on the test content specifications, it should not be altered with isolated values from other sources.
Any comments or proposal discuss it here before. pmt7ar 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
REPLY:700 hours for level 2 is pretty amazing if not unheard of if you have no Kanji background. This being, the Japanese language school norm is 2 years of study, and for students continuing onto University it's recommend that they have level 3 before entering language schools in Japan. Regulated by the government, each college must provide a minimum of 800 hours of classes per year and 760 hours for non college classified Japanese language schools. This being the case, if a person was to study the college student minimum standard of 120 hours per month (class+self), a person with average ability would pass level 2 after 5 months and level 1 after 7.5 months of study!!! This of course doesn't make any sense what so ever, as not even a top Chinese student could pass in such a short amount of time if they are starting from scratch, which means they can't even read hiragana.
The US government army manual states to learn Japanese to the level of being able to read a newspaper is 4500-6000 hours. There is no mention of levels of course however this completely wipes out any idea that a person can study 900 hours and read a newspaper according to the privately held JEES which collects over 25 million dollars per year just in test fees alone not including related materials.
I personally think the hours should be changed however if you work for JEES then you'll be against it. If that's the case let's publish the JLPT Study Hour Comparison Data within the page under a new heading.
By the way, I passed level 1 in 1992 after about 3500 hours of study and still have trouble with the newspaper at times. Before passing, I spent 2 years in school full-time and somehow only passed level 2 on the second year. I had always been a top student so I was pretty shocked at not being able to pass level 1 after two full years of study. Over the years I've met quite a few people that tell me how easy Japanese is. The funny thing is, none of them can speak... I know this because I always switch to Japanese and watch their face of confusion. Then I listen to their back peddling.
So should we add the data under a different title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Estimates depends of an enourmous ammmont of variables. A single table with just hours doesn't mean anything. The reference used in the original table are the officially referenced by the JF/JEES, giving also an estimate of kanji and vocabulary. By no means you may intend to mix values from a source within another (pretty obvious in the japanese wiki where you just replaced the values from a literal quote of the certificate description). That is certainly not admissible. You may gave passed 1k with 3500 hours, but I passed 2k with less than 700 and can read already a newspaper (maybe using a dictionary for unknown words, just once). I sit with a group of other 11 students that started with me (less than 700hs) and passed 2k and 1k, and several can read newspapers, from scratch (and we were in worse condition than chinese, since we aren't used to hanzi). I know institutes that teach you 3 years before sitting for 4k, that doesn't mean you need 1200hs of study to get N5. Also have aquitances that got a scholarship from MEXT without knowing japanese (a gasping 4k level) and in 6 months at BIL institute passed 2k while taking university classes in japanese (it also changes if you study in or outside japan).
- So yes, maybe 2000hs ain't enough for some, and 700 is more than enough for other some. Some courses keep you studying for years, other for months to reach the same level. Of course this has absolutely no value of truth, but it serves as a reference number. The JF/JEES, issuers of the exams, said that for 4k you need about 100 kanji, 800 words, and 150hs of study while in a basic course. Visitors can use that as an estimated reference, of course they can do better or worse than that.
- I see more useful a reference including word and kanji counts that a simple time table like the sourced by JLEC. If you feel a need to mention such a different estimates, you may include a reference below the table (like "The JLEC estimates xxxhs for 4k, yyyhs for 3k...."), but don't mix it with the test content specification reference to avoid falacies. But do include it in the same section, as this is a reference for the previous format and don't think it would relevant to make up a new section or subsection just for dissident estimates.pmt7ar 07:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw your edit, I agree the approach but not creating a new table on a section that should not be the focus. Plus the reference was duplicated in the introduction so I removed it. Are you okay with my edit? pmt7ar 12:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, not only did you remove the table but you made the font extra small taking away basically all value to the information. Who are you to decide this, this is the people's information! Being a past student this information is even more important than the silly numbers JF/JEES have published in efforts to stimulate their profits. You may disagree with the numbers however I strongly disagree with the numbers you are promoting. I mean, since there's other data out there why not have it written clearly for everyone to see?
Talking about study hours: Contrary to the US government's stated 4500-6000 hours, JF/JEES estimates the average person can pass level 1 after studying just 900 hours. This means, any person with average ability should be able to start in April with no prior Japanese knowledge whatsoever and pass level 1 in December. Well, isn't that a complete joke, I mean if these numbers were even remotely true no school would request level 3 before a student enters, nor would the majority of schools offer 2 year programs... Also what about the top students... if the average student is 900 hours, well then shouldn't a student with good language learning ability be able to master the test in half the time (450 hours)? I mean, it's not at all uncommon for there to be a drastic different in learning language. Another words, lots of students learn language in half the time.
The numbers speak for themself, and if a study is there well then it should be published properly. Another words I expect you to put the graph back.
By the way, do you work for either JF-JEES ? I believe this is a very fair question because of your attempt to manipulation the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the wikipedia guidelines, and assume good faith. No, I'm not related in any way to JF, JEES, MEXT or even Japan. I'm an overseas student which started from scratch with a latin-root mother language. We both are "past" students (I continue though) so have the same motive, indeed I believe an estimate is helpful for prospect students or to get an idea. But you see 900hs irreal and absurd, and I see 4000hs absolutely excessive and discouraging. Both opinions are equally valid, but wikipedia runs by some policies. Tabulating that source in that section fails style and weight guidelines, and also your source could also be easily discarded by relevance (I can get another completely different set of values from my local language institution and could fill this article with lots of useless estimates). If you don't agree a consensus, we can call for other editors.
- By the way, its not exactly 150 or 900hs, I wasn't the one who made that table, but if you look the source (the literal quote on japanese wki) it is 900hs plus completion of an advanced course, 150hs and half a basic course. I'll edit the current section to reflect that. pmt7ar 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- And its not "manipulating the data", its weighting the official and reliable source with an independent one, with less variables and quite different values. I'm sure most editors will stand for the official with a more complete set of estimates that another one with just the hours. Not saying the JLEC isn't reliable, but weighing relevancy is necessary, specially on a section that could be completely removed. pmt7ar 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so there is no confusion, the publisher of the test, JEES and their subsidiary overseas are "PRIVATELY" held companies!!! Sure they receive funding from the government to promote language however that's where the relationship ends. The relationship is a financial one similar to that of a local gym receiving funding to help promote fitness.
Another words, you're promoting a source on "good faith", and one that goes completely against US government estimated hours to be able to read a newspaper. The whole idea that the publisher's numbers are less than one quarter of the government numbers is worrisome.
The Japanese Language Education Center (JLEC) isn't a government agency however at least they are an independent non-profit foundation that has no financial interest in the test. On top of that, the JLEC comparison data published is inline with what the government states as well as the number of hours the school courses are designed for.
To repeat: virtually all schools request students to have level 3 before entering their schools. The standard program is 2 years and almost all the students studying at the language schools in Japan have a background in Chinese characters. This means according to the JLEC numbers, a typical student would need to study about 2050 hours to pass level 1. Well, if you calculate the standard 120 hours of study per month by a typical college student, the JLEC numbers are fully supported by what the schools are offering by way of courses.
In summary, the publisher of the test has a financial interest and JLEC doesn't. Not only that but the JLEC numbers are not only supported by the government but by the schools and the courses that they offer. Sure this may be discouraging for some people interested in studying the language however this isn't an ad to promote a test.
I don't follow your resistance, you have no problem with the numbers being published but only as long as the mention is in really small text and hard to follow... mmm... Yes, please let's call for an editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- That argument goes backwards to you. JLEC responds to educational centers and language institutes, not free of charge from what I know. Is better to keep you paying courses for 4 years at a really slow pace right? More money. Despite being privately held the JF doesn't get more than 50-100 dollars per exam, once a year. If you think its biased by money, JLEC has more reasons to be biased. And what do I care about the US gov.? I passed 2k last year and can read newspaper, so what. Friends of mine reached 2k or 1k and were able to take classes and write compositions at japanese universities in just 6 months of course. So what?.
- Please thing again carefully about what your blindly arguing. You defend and isolated estimated without any kind of references and completely subjective. That ammount of hours may respond for some people, and the JF ones respond for some other people. Neither is "correct", they are estimates and in the end are different from each individual studying japanese. The source is completely useless by itself, since the visitor can't tell anything from it. Hey, we even can remove all time estimates and leave the test contents ones, so the visitor just knows that he had to learn "100 kanji and 800 words" to pass 4k, and let him estimate how many hours it will take him. Right? If one of the two should be kept, it has to be the official one.
- And also, they could be the same. As I said earlier, its missing a part. The JF/JEES estimate for 1k was "900 hours after a completion of an advanced course". So just pretend the advanced course takes 3500 hours and then you got the 4500hs. We are talking about the same, no need to duplicate a source with a less detailed one. I proceed to adding those details, you should have no problems now. How long is a basic or an advanced course is certainly not a matter in this article and completely subjective for each institution.pmt7ar 02:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned the "CURRENT" courses offered by the schools validate the numbers(*JLEC is NOT a school silly). Please re-read what I just wrote again and call an editor.
- please don't miss the part about the US government's estimate to read a newspaper which supports the JLEC numbers. But then I'm sure you think the US government is lying ! please...
Also, this should be in it's own section outlining the drastic difference in hours by that of the government, The Japanese Language Education Center and the publisher of the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Before you reply make sure you actually check The Defense Language Institutes (US gov) published numbers. They quote different numbers than the hand book however they still state 4000 hours!! If you look within the literature you'll see that they recommend 1320 hours to get to level-2 of the DLI speaking proficiency test which is much easier than the JLPT level 2 test!! You should yet take further note that the current DLI language course hours equals 3750 hours of study time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
And also, you need to study more Japanese.. I mean you are translating incorrectly and are now just adding made up information. 900時間程度学習したレベル does NOT mean a student has to study 900 hours after taking a course. Instead it means the level is for students that have studied about 900 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to confirm, you do not need to take any courses whatsoever to take the tests. There's nowhere on the applications where they even ask you. I took the 3-kyuu, 2-kyuu and 1-kyuu without ever having enrolled in any course whatsoever. The number of hours only indicates that, for example, someone who has put in 900 hours of study should be able to pass the test, and that you shouldn't expect to pass it if you've put in less. Not only that, but you could be fresh off the boat, never studied Japanese for even an hour, and still take the 1-kyuu. You'll fail in the most miserable way, of course, but there is no barrier of any kind (outside of common sense) to stop you from making such a fool of yourself.Acidtoyman (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Never said the contrary on the article. Me neither, I never took any kind of course. The estimates are the "degree of" needed to pass. (and by the way to application form DO ask you that for statistical purposes). pmt7ar 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall that at all, and can't imagine how one would be able to reply to it if they self-studied. I know I have no idea how many hours I've studied---not even ballpark figures.
- Anyways, that's irrelevant. Why did you revert the whole "and after completion of the first half of an elementary course" thing when you yourself are now admitting that no such course is needed? I'm reverting it back. If you want to get it back in the article (and I can't imagine why you would), get a citation first.Acidtoyman (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- (1) It's not said anywhere on the article you need to do a course to take the exam. You pay it you sit it. (2) The table indicated estimates. Estimates. FYI, it means they estimate that to pass X level you need to study Y hours after adquiring the knowledge of a Z level japanese course. It's for reference, not at requisite. If you don't do a course, it may take you more time of study. Or less if you study harder. Estimates. Try a dictionary on that word. (3) The citation is implied, with a "*" above the table. It's on the Test Contents Specifications and the estimates also are on the back of the certificates. Buy the book if you want to see it yourself, I checked it myself with a copy at my local library. As for the back of the certificate, I took a photo for you here. (4) The next time you apply for the exam, look at question #10, that is indeed the question that ask you where do you study japanese. If you don't study in an institute, the answer is "6". Check it in your next application or check your application booklet if you still conserve it. Please discuss before reverting a revert. pmt7ar 02:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just in case you don't understand the table, the rows are about the level. So the "Time of Study" column is a reference of the time needed to pass that level, nowhere is said it's a reference to sit for that level. As you said, a freshman can sit for 1k if he wants. I took a photo of the booklet for you, they do ask you where you study japanese to build statistics. You HAD to answer that if you took the exam. (self-studying? -> "6"). The description on the back of the certificates is from the mentioned book, ISBN 9784893586117, if you're still unsure I'll take a photo next time I go to the library. If you have any more doubts discuss it here first. pmt7ar 02:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, I don't remember the question, but that was also not the point of the reversion, was it?
- It clearly states "and after the completion of the first half on an elementary course". No, you do not have to complete any kind of course whatsoever. You even agree with this. If it's important enough to you, then reword it to something like "(the equivalent of the first half of an elementary course)", but the wording as is would make anyone believe taking a course is mandatory. Now stop reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I told you to not undo a revert without discuss it BEFORE. You need consent. You have a problem of reading comprehension. Read this: nowhere is said you have to do any course to take the exam. So your revert is WRONG. I don't choose the wording, its as it is in the source. You have seen it yourself. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability. Get a source, consent or desist. pmt7ar 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you can say nowhere is said you have to do any course to take the exam when the source says and after completion of the first half on an elementary course. This phrase is wrong in two ways: (a) it clearly states that a course is necessary, and (b) it states that the course is necessary in addition to the study hours (that's what the word and means). Both things are entirely incorrect---not only that, but unverified.
- Furthermore, and it's on the record, I told you to stop reverting and get a citation, which you have repeatedly failed to do, so stop trying to make it look like you were telling me to do so. The information you keep reverting is both incorrect (as three people on this talk page, including yourself, have verified) and remains unverified. You state yourself, Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, so you did you revert an unverified edit three times, even after being told to stop? Even after being given suggestions on how to improve it? And why do you have to insult someone---You have a problem of reading comprehension---when it's obvious that English isn't even your native language? (I've held off on correcting your numerous grammar mistakes until now. The correct grammar is problem with reading comprehension. This is only one of many mistakes that are obvious to a native speaker, so you should be very, very careful before you start criticizing someone else's reading comprehension. Not only is it inflammatory, but makes you look the bigger fool). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I told you to not undo a revert without discuss it BEFORE. You need consent. You have a problem of reading comprehension. Read this: nowhere is said you have to do any course to take the exam. So your revert is WRONG. I don't choose the wording, its as it is in the source. You have seen it yourself. Misplaced Pages is about verifiability. Get a source, consent or desist. pmt7ar 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(a) It doesn't "clearly" states it. It doesn't state it at all. Using "basic/intermediate course" as a level reference is not telling its a requisite to apply. It's used as reference for the estimated study work it require to pass the exam. Read it again. You're making up things. Nowhere on the article its said you need to take a course to apply.. (b) I'll explain you the "and": it means that they estimate to pass that level, you need X hours of study AND completing a course (i.e. after acquiring the level of a Y course). It amounts the degree of the level, not any requisite. Use a dictionary please. (c) Its about verifiability. You reverted two times without any reference on why doing so, so you're in fault. The reference is there, Exam Specifications, and the very certificate, that I kindly took a photo for you and gave you the book ISBN (will give you page number later). Reference and sources doesn't have to be only URL. They can be from books. There are no references of that you need to take a course to sit for the exam, you're right, but there are no reference of that because that is not said on the article. We don't need to reference things that are not in the article. If you want a reference of why JP and JEES says the level is the one after a certain course, be my guest and check the Test Specifications, or grab your certificate and look at the back. I didn't modify it at all, its exactly like the source. Look at the photo I took. That table stands for that description of the levels (with the addition of the exact number of items taken from the Test Specification). All the numbers, (100 kanji, 800 words, and 150hs plus first half of a course) is all written by JP and JEES at the back of the certificates and in the official specifications. I'm not pushing it to that wording, that is how they estimate the level difficulty. Complain to them. pmt7ar 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The context of the document provided and the context of the table are different. By the table, it's not at all clear that the courses are not required. Read the table in its context and not in the context of the document you provided (where the relevant passages occur at the end of a paragraph giving them the appropriate context). Quoting a sentence out of context often changes its perceived meaning---this is important, and I've already given you an example of a way to clarify it. Rather than taking it into consideration, you've decided to declare an Edit War.
- Furthermore, you were asked (repeatedly) to add citations before reverting. After three reverts the table still lacks those citations. You went through all the trouble to post those photographs on the talk page, why are you so reluctant to provide them for the actual document?
- Lastly, about my reverting without proof---it's the information in the document that needs to be verified, not the lack of it. If I claimed that the JLPT documents were the Prime Minister's favourite thing for breakfast, do you think I would expect you to prove it wasn't true before reverting? How could you do it? Could you provide a document stating, The Prime Minister NEVER has the JLPT for breakfast? Don't be ridiculous. The onus is on you to cite the information you want included, and if you can't be bothered to do it, you should expect it to be reverted.
- You should also keep in mind that I'm not the first one who reverted your revision. When two people can't accept your uncited, out-of-context information, maybe you should think twice about your approach before starting an Edit War.Acidtoyman (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
(1) I've already told you, it's not uncited. It's sourced and verifiable. Look at the table, its title have a "*" indicating the source, so its even more clearer than a reference (you don't have to scroll down to the ref list, its right there for you: the values of the table are by JP and JEES and the Test Specifications). (2) Read the header of the table, "Time of Study (est.)". That means, the values in the column are time references. The "completion of a course" is not a requisite, is a time unit. Yes, time. JP estimates, that for completing that level, you need that many hours after the time it took you to complete that kind of course. The text does not imply its a requirement for application. It's alongside a time reference, under the estimated time header, under the Test CONTENT table, referenced as the official issuers express (did you want CONTEXT? then please look at what do you want to modify: a table about the CONTENTS. So I don't know why you think the time values are REQUIREMENTS.). Specifically, I didn't made any rewording so to avoid any bias. But I do have a problem, because if removing them then the values are at fault. Let's say you leave only "900hs". That implies the issuers estimated only 900hs of study and that's a lie. If you want to leave only the number values, 900/300/150hs, please add a reference where JP/JEES says that level requires around that amount of time. If you go through the original source, you will see that "600hs" is NOT ALONE. look. I won't consent a fault value, you're arbitrarily wanting to record half the information and that isn't accurate. This is a quotation here, the table indicates what the issuers describes the exam. It's not acceptable to say "JP says X" when its saying Y. It's better if the columns are emptied than leave it as you want, since not mentioning is at least is omission, but leaving half of it is record a fault value. I haven't hear any good argument to desist or consent a new wording. To me is clear that the table is an estimate for reference purposes. If you want to remove half of the cells, please provide a source where the issuers changed their mind with those NEW values you're proposing; if not, it stays as the current source (did you check your certificates?). OR if you really think it can be easily misinterpretable, propose a new wording and let's look for a consensus in that direction. pmt7ar 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The revision has now been reverted by three people who believe the wording in the context of the table implies that a course is required to take the test. Rather than waiting for a consensus, you have reverted it yet again. Do you really think anyone is going to believe you are interested in discussion (or consensus)? You blocked me after 3 reversions, but have now made 5 reversions yourself without consent.
- The information in the table is not conveying the information you think it's conveying. Claiming This is a quotation here is not sufficient, as quotations require context. Is the rest of the article a quotation? Would anyone be satisfied with it if it were nothing but quotations? The information needs to be conveyed to readers as clearly and unambiguously as possible, then the citation should be provided to show the source of the information in its original context. How helpful is this page if it leaves the average reader believing that the test requires taking a course? Will you just smugly console yourself by insulting people's "reading comprehension" skills? Will you divest yourself of all responsibility by spewing "This is a quotation here"?
- People who have so little regard for their readers have no business writing.Acidtoyman (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please lower your tone. If you check your very first comment here you were already disrespecting me, so don't cry for doubting your skills as I didn't cry for you believing "I'm making a fool of myself", being the "bigger fool" or "failing the most miserable way". You opened a discussion in here and that's good but editing the section in question is completely avoiding the issue. That's why I reverted Canterbury Tail' edit, since the procedure is to reach a consensus before taking action. And the usual position WHILE on discussion is status quo, and usually the same if no consensus reached. I don't think it makes believing that the test requires it, nowhere says the word "requirement", "is needed" or any phrase with that meaning. Yet, if you're convinced its confusing we can consent a rewording. As I said before, for me is removal or rewording the full meaning, the only thing I won't consent is cutting the quote at half.
- Now, I didn't comment on your proposal earlier. I'm not convinced on "the equivalent of", since it doesn't say 900hs is equivalent to that level. As for my understanding, the guideline gives an estimate in hours alongside one in contents, since time alone doesn't mean anything (I can "study" really bad 30000hs and don't improve anything, or can do quality study for 100hs and reach 1k level, yes, its trivial and vague), so I take it as: it estimastes XXX hours, implying that in that time the applicant acquired the knowledge of a YYY degree course. If you understand something different from the quote in the original context, propose another rewording. I'm not yet convinced on using a number of hours as "equivalent to" a X course. Else lets wait for another editor to comment on your original rewording. pmt7ar 04:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is very important that you understand this: You are completely misunderstanding the usage of the word "you" in that sentence. It is the colloquial way of saying (the much more formal) "one would make a fool of oneself". A native speaker of English rarely makes use of the word "one" in that way and instead uses the word "you" to mean "one", except in very formal situations. Not only that, but that comment wasn't even made in response to one from you, but to an unsigned comment, so I don't know why you would think it was directed at you yourself. The "you" in that comment was an imaginary person who would be foolish enough to take the JLPT 1級 without ever having studied Japanese (or did you think I was accusing you of never having studied Japanese?). Reread the comment carefully, and you'll see that I'm not making this up. The use of the word "someone" and the phrase "fresh off the boat, never studied Japanese for even an hour" should have made this obvious, even if you didn't understand the usage of the word "you". You'll want to be very careful about attacking people over "reading comprehension" in the future, I think.
- I propose removing the offending text until something more appropriate can be agreed upon. Why? Because as long as the text is there, it is actively confusing readers---to the point where three editors have felt strongly enough about it to take action and have it removed. Now imagine someone who didn't know this stuff already---the average reader who visits this page because they don't know this information and have come here to get it. A number of them---maybe even all will leave this site believing that taking a course is necessary to take the test. Some may not even take the test because, for whatever reason, they are not in a position to take such a course. Yes, people shouldn't be coming to Misplaced Pages to get vital information like that, but the fact is that they do, and then they spread what they've "learned" to friends, acquaintances, on message boards, etc etc etc. It's better to leave the information out than to leave these people misinformed, and it's especially irresponsible to leave it in (or revert it back after being removed) when you are conscious of the fact that people are, in fact, misreading it.
- Take some responsibility. Remove the confusing text, and then open a discussion on how to include the information in a way that best gets it across to readers.Acidtoyman (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The text '|150 hrs and after completion of the first half on an elementary course' clearly implies a course is required, where none is, it should be removed. To leave it in is unencyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- To remove the legend we will need a source supporting that new value. Else we should find a new rewording that prevents confusion or directly remove the column. pmt7ar 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Pmt7ar: Now without a doubt I not only think you need to study more Japanese but also need a bit of work on your English. I'm not trying to be rude at all however like the other writes, you aren't understanding what is written properly. Also, you are taking the meaning from the English which is a second rate translation. Here's the jap:
1級-900時間程度学習したレベル。
2級-600時間程度学習し、中級コース修了したレベル。
3級-300時間程度学習し、初級コース修了したレベル。
4級-150時間程度学習し、初級コース前半を修了したレベル
You state that you've passed level 2 so you should be able to comprehend that the above to only mean:
Level 1: For a person that has studied to a level of about 900 hours
Level 2: For a person that has studied to an intermediate level of about 600 hours
Level 3: For a person that has studied to a beginner level of about 300 hours
Level 4: For a person that has studied to a pre-beginner level of about 150 hours
There is no mention of any course needed nor is there any suggestion in the slightest that the hours are separate to taking a course. If you think so, you really need to study more Japanese. I've been in Japan since 1984, I spent 7 years in public school here in Japan and if you want we can debate this in Japanese however stop already with your corrections - I mean first learn the language at least to level 1 before you start commanding what is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you addressing me? I didn't do any translation or wording! And exactly, there is no mention of any course needed or required. That's what I've been saying all along! pmt7ar 14:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need a source to remove unencyclopaedic and incorrect text, especially when said text isn't sourced in the first place. Everyone here is agreed that the text shouldn't be there, yourself included so I'm removing it. Please do not re-add it in again unless there is a good reason and a source to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you realize its considered rude to take action while there is a discussion in place? Your edit is out of place. First, "everyone on talk page" has not agreed, we have not reached a consensus. Second, you are misusing my words. There ARE sources for number+legends. There are NOT sources for only the numbers and that's why I'm opposing to that. What I said was: or total removal, or rewording to keep the meaning so it wont confuse the readers. If you want to remove the legends find a source for the new value, else I will remove the complete column and problem solved (anyway, this whole section will eventually be removed since its for the previous format). I'll revert it once again. If you want to propose a clearer rewording go ahead (in the talkpage first, please). If you want to remove it, delete the complete column, I won't oppose that. pmt7ar 16:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes there is a discussion going on, but everyone is actually agreed that the text shouldn't be there and you seem to be the only editor that is opposed to the removal of the text even though you admit yourself that it isn't correct. I can't warn you for it as I'm involved, but you are breaching 3RR on this matter, but I shan't edit it any further either at this point although there is nothing to stop others if they feel a consensus has in fact been reached. We have a source for the numbers, so I don't understand the problem here. You say the source is for numbers plus text, well if we're agreed the text is wrong we still have a source for the numbers. There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that we have to include everything in a source. I really don't understand what your objection to removing this is as the sourcing argument doesn't seem to add up to me. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see logical to accept a source only taking one part of a sentence as truth and other as false. If you reject the source as misleading then all is misleading, editors shouldn't parse at their discretion what to take or not, they shall only wikify per style guidelines, not filter the content (because thats biased). I'm not imposing anything, just sticking to the rules. If taking the source, the only options is to omit it all (numbers and legend) or keep it all (and as pointed, a rewording may be needed). If editor insist in only leaving the numbers, then they have to add a source supporting that alone. If not, the content can be removed completely for lack of references. I won't revert that section anymore, since to begin with I don't consider it to be that important (in a previous debate about alternative estimates I already pointed that its just too vague and relative. any source can estimate different things, me myself don't agree with the officials, I passed 2k with less than half that time and just self-study; the only reason its there is because its the official estimate by the issuers). If it stays that way I'll just add the corresponding templates and eventually remove the unsourced elements. pmt7ar 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The anonymous commenter above gave both the original Japanese and a translation that's both correct and fits the context. If we can get a citation pointing to the original Japanese, why don't we just include his/her translation as given? I can't do it myself because Pmt7ar has unilaterally had me blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see logical to accept a source only taking one part of a sentence as truth and other as false. If you reject the source as misleading then all is misleading, editors shouldn't parse at their discretion what to take or not, they shall only wikify per style guidelines, not filter the content (because thats biased). I'm not imposing anything, just sticking to the rules. If taking the source, the only options is to omit it all (numbers and legend) or keep it all (and as pointed, a rewording may be needed). If editor insist in only leaving the numbers, then they have to add a source supporting that alone. If not, the content can be removed completely for lack of references. I won't revert that section anymore, since to begin with I don't consider it to be that important (in a previous debate about alternative estimates I already pointed that its just too vague and relative. any source can estimate different things, me myself don't agree with the officials, I passed 2k with less than half that time and just self-study; the only reason its there is because its the official estimate by the issuers). If it stays that way I'll just add the corresponding templates and eventually remove the unsourced elements. pmt7ar 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes there is a discussion going on, but everyone is actually agreed that the text shouldn't be there and you seem to be the only editor that is opposed to the removal of the text even though you admit yourself that it isn't correct. I can't warn you for it as I'm involved, but you are breaching 3RR on this matter, but I shan't edit it any further either at this point although there is nothing to stop others if they feel a consensus has in fact been reached. We have a source for the numbers, so I don't understand the problem here. You say the source is for numbers plus text, well if we're agreed the text is wrong we still have a source for the numbers. There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that we have to include everything in a source. I really don't understand what your objection to removing this is as the sourcing argument doesn't seem to add up to me. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you realize its considered rude to take action while there is a discussion in place? Your edit is out of place. First, "everyone on talk page" has not agreed, we have not reached a consensus. Second, you are misusing my words. There ARE sources for number+legends. There are NOT sources for only the numbers and that's why I'm opposing to that. What I said was: or total removal, or rewording to keep the meaning so it wont confuse the readers. If you want to remove the legends find a source for the new value, else I will remove the complete column and problem solved (anyway, this whole section will eventually be removed since its for the previous format). I'll revert it once again. If you want to propose a clearer rewording go ahead (in the talkpage first, please). If you want to remove it, delete the complete column, I won't oppose that. pmt7ar 16:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need a source to remove unencyclopaedic and incorrect text, especially when said text isn't sourced in the first place. Everyone here is agreed that the text shouldn't be there, yourself included so I'm removing it. Please do not re-add it in again unless there is a good reason and a source to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Pmt7ar: I addressed you because you're the problem... you state on one hand that the info, that you yourself wrote and added is incorrect, but in the same breath you argue that it should be there??? I'm still trying to comprehend your motive as there no sense to what you are saying.
Your argument is that because the issuer of the test wrote the part you added, it should remain. What you aren't following is... the issuer of the test has never written that. I mean you yourself, shortened the poorly translated English version which has changed the meaning completely. Another words, you are publishing misinformation as a result of your misunderstanding of what was written.
Also, if there is any question or doubt regarding the English then it's only logical to read the original text which is written in Japanese. Doing so, clears up any misunderstanding. Well, if you look above, not only have I provided a copy here but I also kindly translated it just for you!
I note that everyone here is in agreement and therefore I'm going to correct the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, here's an original written in Japanese which also includes the crappy English translation. **it's important to understand that the ENGLISH is simply a translation of the "Original" copy of the Japanese... and the problem is, it's an extremely poor translation. For this reason again, the Japanese has the final say and there is no question that it's ONLY 900, 600, 300 and 150 to pass each test. If you look the translation for level 1, it ultimately states that "900 study hours are required" to pass! I mention this because the grammar is the same for all levels but that's the only one with an acceptable translation. http://www.jlpt.jp/statistics/pdf/2009_2_02.pdf 180.10.153.175 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I saw your edit and have no problem with it. Many angry people here. As I've been saying several times before, I was asking for a new source or rewording proposal, but two users just keep reverting; you tried a new rewording and its viable, that was all I was saying. I know japanese is more reliable, but well, look how many times they have doubted my japanese without even translating a single word!. Think how it would be if I actually imposed my own translation. So I desisted doing any translation myself or proposing a rewording to avoid any arguments about bias, since I sensed some hostility to my person. (to the others) was that so hard? look how easy he did a rewording...
- Personally I don't have clear about "pre-beginning" but simply I don't care about that table.
- I proceed to addying that PDF as reference, since from there is where other values (rounded kanji numbers) came from, and I only had physical source not online. pmt7ar 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Pmt7ar: I'm not sure you follow what has happened so I'm going to provide a bit of a time line:
1. I added the JLEC study numbers that strongly go against the JF-JEES study hours.
2. You complained stating that you passed level 2 in 700 hours which was way less than the numbers quoted by JLEC and wanted to erase them.
3. I countered back providing both the national course study hours as well as the US government published study hours which more than support the JLEC published hours.
4. At this point you added a quote to each of the questionable, if not criminal JF-JEES study hours stating that on top of the hours a student would have to complete a course. You then went on to write that the JF-JEES hours are roughly the same as the JLEC hours because one has to complete a course!
5. Many people tried to delete your add-on and some sort of mini edit war started... at least to the point where you blocked someone.
6. Now today, I deleted your add-on and replaced it with a 'description' to the hours. Another words, I changed the meaning back to the original.
Yes, that's correct, "a description"... which means nothing!... and what you now say you've been fighting for !
I don't have time right now however when I find time, I'm going to add a new section outlining the controversy with regards to the recommended number of hours needed to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the guy he blocked. Just to be fair, he was quoting verbatim from a source; he just wasn't understanding how the change in context changed the meaning of the sentences he quoted (read them in the context they were written in and the exact same words somehow don't come across as saying you need to take a course).
- I do have to say I'm peeved at how a guy who blocked another guy over the 3RR would have the balls to revert the contended text five times himself, all while insulting people's "reading comprehension".
- So am I unblocked yet?Acidtoyman (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody blocked anyone. I'm the only administrator involved in this conversation, and since I'm involved can't and wouldn't exercise those privileges in the dispute. So I don't know why you think you were blocked. A warning was added to your talk page by another editor, but that is not the same as being blocked from editing. Anyone can put a warning out there, only an administrator can perform an actual block. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry, I assumed it was a warning that I was blocked. I've never had any kind of confrontation over an edit before, and I've never gotten a warning (or any kind of message) before.Acidtoyman (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody blocked anyone. I'm the only administrator involved in this conversation, and since I'm involved can't and wouldn't exercise those privileges in the dispute. So I don't know why you think you were blocked. A warning was added to your talk page by another editor, but that is not the same as being blocked from editing. Anyone can put a warning out there, only an administrator can perform an actual block. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Acidtoyman: I can't block you, I'm a normal editor (AFAIK you haven't been blocked at all). I just added a template warning because you were active and the time frame would have made it a 3RR a didn't know if you knew that policy. @ip: Yes, indeed this was a quite dumb discussion, and yes the main argument was about the description that some find confusing and I don't, but I never rejected a rewording, I just opposed to citing only half a quote (my problem was not with the numbers, or with the source, but the combination of both: if using that source then the data should be recorded in full). I didn't argue about context or rewording with you but Acidtoyman. And lastly, I still stand my position about the estimates. As I already said, we can got 2,452,282 or more different estimates, it's unrelevant. The US gov. estimate is not more relevant that any other. English speaking countries consider japanese as the most difficult language to learn, FROM ENGLISH TO JAPANESE. Is subjective. It doesn't mean anything. We can have 270 different government estimates, and 200000000 estimates from educational organizations. In that point the issue is relevancy. If you add what the US gov. estimates, then I'll do a round of mail to every educational center with courses for JLPT in various countries and add it too. Well have an useless and irrelevant list on an obsolete section of the article, that anyone will agree to delete due to weight. Even if this is the english wikipedia, the JLEC estimate that was finally added doesn't tell if its for english to japanese, for italian to japanese, and so. For english natives japanese is more hard, for spanish natives pronunciation is a piece of cake. This is indeed another redundant point that isn't even worth such extensive talk. There are as many estimates as different voices, and no one is more accurate than other. If I had to choose one, I'll start with the official, at least it could met relevance criteria. That's the only reason I leave that one, as I said I don't like those numbers neither, but that's me. For me the real numbers should be much lower, but hey, JLEC where more than twice. And thats them. pmt7ar 05:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"Pre-Beginning"?
Something I do agree with Pmt7ar about is the wording "pre-beginning". I have trouble imagining what such a phrase is supposed to mean, and it's definitely not a direct translation of the Japanese. 「前半」 means "first half", doesn't it? So 「初級コース前半を修了したレベル」 would more properly be something like "equivalent to having completed the first half of a beginner(elementary?)-level course", would it not? Although I hope someone can come up with a translation that's not so ugly and wordy.Acidtoyman (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- In fact the wording of the official translation was right, just the grammar was a bit "engrish". IMO just adding "a ____ level" like the last edit would have cleared the confusion "it's a requirement" into "it's comparing it to a level". "intermediate course" and "basic/beginner course" is a correct translation, and in 4k it compares it with the "half" of a beginner course. i.e. while on the middle of a basic course you'll have already covered the contents for 4k. I don't have clear "pre-beginner" because where I live there is no such thing as pre-"the lowest level", but if english speaking countries they have that term and it isn't misleading then I have no problems with it. pmt7ar 05:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not "pre-beggining".. that's what you wrote Pmt7ar... I wrote, "pre-beginner" which is a course name sometimes used. Look online and you'll find it here and there...
Pmt7ar: I have to say you're beyond ignorant... I'm referring to your threat of loading useless information to wipe out a section. Well, when I have time and have added the important study hour comparison to both the Japanese and English sections you are welcome to locate other quotes and add them. I will be interested to see which other organizations you will find that offer such data. Actually it would be good to find others as I've looked hard and have only found the 3.
Also, I should note, your use of the the word "official" is way over used. Official implies for the most part that some regulated body has issued the data. In this case it's just some company contracted to promote the study of Japanese. Thus, using the word 'official' when quoting study hours is incorrect.
Pmt7ar: please remember that this is the "ENGLISH" part of Misplaced Pages, directed to English speakers. Another words, if Japanese is the most difficult language for English speakers and the hours to study it take longer, well then that's what should be written. Of course you are welcome to edit your own language in which ever way you want... maybe that's a good idea.. why not spend your efforts in the language that you know rather than wasting all of our time here having to teach you English@!
I still can't get over your ignorant comment about loading useless data to try and wipe out a section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please not again. And stop harassing. Whatever you do, please check relevancy and weight first. What US government thinks of the language has nothing with the text, leave that for articles such as Defense Language Aptitude Battery or Second language. And remember that you CAN'T prove or support an estimate, because its TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE. Any source can put whatever value and they all can be different as already exposed. And yes, get along with the word "official". This is an international standardized test and what the people who decide the contents, arrange the tests and issues the certificates says is pretty much the "official" version. A contracted company? Fine, but this article is about that company' exam, so his version is the "official". pmt7ar 07:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I say, I'll create a section when I have time - most likely at the beginning of next month.
I still can't get over your ignorant comment about loading useless data to try and wipe out a section...
By the way, you've totally convinced me that you work for the test issuing office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this last comment was meant to mean, but it sure seems like it's intended to pick a fight.Acidtoyman (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see 296,000 hits for "pre-beginner" on Google. I've never encountered the phrase before.
Given the kerfuffle over gaining consensus before making revisions, it might be advisable to post proposed changes to the wording here before going ahead and changing it. "Beginner" and "basic" are certainly very free translations of the original Japanese. They also don't quite convey the same information. Acidtoyman (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is picking a fight, I just stated a fact. The whole idea that Pmt7ar is so against the mention of the controversy over the study hours to learn Japanese is bizarre. His comment about writing that it will discourage students from studying and a list of other comments support my comment. The fact is, the test maker states it takes 900 hours to learn Japanese to a level where one can read the newspaper etc.. JLEC states it's takes 1800-4500 hours and the US government states 4000 hours. On top of this the Japanese school courses support that it takes over 2400 hours...
This isn't subjective information but factual information that is crucial for western students thinking they are can go to Japan with NO prior Japanese knowledge for an 8 month college course and come back with level 1. This just isn't happening and even if it was, it makes no difference. What's important is, the drastic difference in numbers which is factual information.
I'll write up something next month and am happy to have the masses make a decision whether the facts are relevant. I personally find the information crucial to English speakers wanting to learn Japanese and for this reason will spend some time to properly outline the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Remember this is an article about the exam only, not the language. As such I don't think its "crucial to English speakers wanting to learn Japanese", as this test isn't required by any institution and you don't learn language, it's only a test -without courses included- for those who already know japanese to measure they knowledge. Same with BJT. Articles possibly related to japanese language learning and english speakers could be this, this this or this.pmt7ar 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, JLPT is a test of language ability. In particular, it's in place to measure language ability. In doing so, the maker of the test has outlined the number of hours it takes to get to each language level. The thing is... the current school system as well as other organizations disagree with those numbers. Even yourself expressed a number of times that the numbers are questionable.
There's no point talking about this - please save your comments as they mean nothing and just waste time. Sure it may be good English practice for you but that's not the purpose of this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- (1) this is NOT a forum, (2) sign your comments, its annoying the bot following you every time, (3) desist commenting about editors, comment the CONTENT pmt7ar 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories: