Talk:Jūminhyō

Article title

Juminhyo is a transliteration of the Japanese word for Residency Registration. Using the word Juminhyo is not educating people. Using the Japanese pronunciation to impress people with your multi-cultural ability simply shows you are unable to distinguish the two languages in your mind. Claiming that calling residency registration Juminhyo is appropriate because most people do so, which is arguable, does not make the misnomer appropriate. We should be using terms that well-spoken, educated people use. If most people said 'me' instead of 'I', we would not change the rules of grammar, would we?

Of course, words like sushi or kimono symbolize things that are not present in other societies, and that is a different issue. Residency registration is easily translatable.--Mak Allen (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

C S (talk) points out on the discussion page of Japanese alias that neither juminhyo or koseki appear in standard English dictionaries. I think we should rename this page. Dissenters?--Mak Allen (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As such a move is likely to be controversial, I would suggest posting it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I wasn't aware that being listed in an English dictionary was a necessary requirement for article names, especially when the Japanese term is widely used and understood. --DAJF (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, see my comments in the Requested move section please.--Mak Allen (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese term is only widely used by less proficient speakers of Japanese as a foreign language. This is the English WP, and we ought to be explaining the issues in English, not trying to throw around words that a few misguided foreigners who have spent brief periods in Japan think sound cool if they put them in their English.

One other thing, we should name this Residency registration system, and then try to get some authors who are familiar with the Korean and Chinese registry systems to contribute portions. Vietnam might even have a history of using the system as well.--Mak Allen (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. "Jūminhyō" is the widely-used and widely-understood term, whereas "Residency registration system" appears to be an arbitrary term chosen by the nominator (with just 346 Google hits). Does any Japanese-English dictionary give this as a translation of "Jūminhyō"? The Kenkyusha "Green Goddess" doesn't, and the comprehensive Eijiro online dictionary doesn't either. --DAJF (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Query: What do those dictionaries give as the translation? --C S (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Kenkyusha just gives "a resident card" as the translation. Eijiro gives "certificate of residence" / "residence certificate" / "residence registry" / "resident card" / "resident register" / "resident's card". --DAJF (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Juminhyo is not a proper noun, and is not listed in standard English print dictionaries. The authors' duty is to translate concepts and only when there is not an appropriate equivalent, does one transliterate. For example, Kimono is appropriate because there is no equivalent in English speaking cultures. Residency Registration is done across many countries, so in order to list all the different systems in one place, we should use a generic term, rather than one term for the Korean registration system, and another for the Chinese system. Presently, this may be what is occurring, which would explain why I cannot find a listing for the Korean or Chinese residency registration system; the author of the Korean or Chinese article used the transliterated term.--Mak Allen (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This page describes the specific system used in Japan and is not about residency registration systems in general. Renaming it to a generic term is inappropriate. --Kusunose 05:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mak Allen seems partially motivated by a belief that usage of terms like "juminhyo" is due to a desire to "sound cool" and is not in fact widely used. I see no evidence this is correct. The other reasons given are that juminhyo is not a proper noun and is not listed in English dictionaries. The first seems to be based on confusion over the concept of "proper noun". The latter is somewhat compelling but I am satisfied for now by DAJF's comment that this is a more recognized term than the proposed alternative. Also note that "residency registration system" is in no way limited to Japan, so the title would need to include something like "(Japan)". --C S (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposer has yet to supply any sort of source to justify his claims that jūminhyō is not widely used, or that there even exists an official English translation. -Amake (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Juminhyo is Japan-specific, and so is the article. "Residency registration" happens everywhere, but in drastically different ways: the Chinese version is at Hukou system, and there are few if any parallels to be drawn. Jpatokal (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The "No established usage" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) appears to cover this situation as follows:

It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that no established usage exists. Very low google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.). --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The Japanese term is only widely used by less proficient Japanese speakers." Um, what? This is a very bold claim and needs serious sources to back it up. Last time I researched this subject the most common English term seemed to be "Certificate of Residence," but this is certainly not widely understood, nor is it an "official" translation. Since the Japanese term is the only official, widely recognized term that exists, it has been my experience that everyone, regardless of proficiency in any language, uses jūminhyō. -Amake (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again the point is how you define "everyone". In the practice of law in Japan, people speaking English use the English terms for legal terms such as this. The transliterated terms might be used more by some foreigners in Japan, but the point is not to change the rules of language when the language is misspoken. For instance, if everyone used 'me' instead of 'I', the English language rule on grammar would not change.

Note, all the examples DAJF lists above are proper names, and juminhyo is not a proper name. It is a legal term. The naming conventions DAJF lists above do not support his position, rather they support the name change. Also, the Certificate of Residence is the product of the registration. If we were writing an article on Social Security cards in the US, an article named Social Security cards might redirect to an article on the Social Security system since that is a broader term, but an article on just the card would be less useful, just as an article on just the certificate would leave a lot out. However, even Certificate of Residence would be better than juminhyo.--Mak Allen (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jūminhyō is not a proper noun? Then why is it usually capitalized? --DAJF (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A proper noun is a "name of a particular person, place, organization or other individual entity; it is normally written with an initial capital letter". See Wikitionary. A residency registration system or certificate is not a person, place, organization or entity. Also, determining that juminhyo must be a proper noun because you are capitalizing the transliteration of a Japanese word is circular reasoning. Therefore, that is not indicative of whether juminhyo is a proper noun.--Mak Allen (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is being meant in that definition by "individual entity" but the standard definition of "proper noun" that everyone learns in school includes "things". For example, see [1]. So the Declaration of Independence is a proper noun despite not being a person, place, organization or (apparently) "individual entity" (although I really suspect "individual entity" was meant to include such things). "Oreo" is also a proper noun that doesn't appear to be one according to you. So there is no reason a particular residency registration system could not be referred to by a proper noun. As for "circular reasoning", no, it is not an example of circular reasoning. In English, people usually capitalize words to indicate they are proper nouns. Often transliterations from Japanese are not capitalized to avoid confusion with proper nouns. Can you give an example of such a transliteration that is not a proper noun but still capitalized? I think that must be difficult to find, and if "juminhyo" is often capitalized, this indicates a belief that the writer intends it as a proper noun, just like we might capitalize Social Security. --C S (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.