Talk:Japanese-Language Proficiency Test/Archive 1

Older topics
The JLPT does not test conversational ability, despite the descriptions like "has the ability to read, write, and converse..." on the JLPT site. Also, as I recall, the so-called "writing" section (on Level 1 at least, I haven't taken the others) does not require actually writing kanji, but rather just some knowledge about readings and which kanji are used in which words.
 * HowTF do you take a level 1 without going through 4,3,2? Oh well maybe something's changed. Yes, people who supposedly pass one of the JLPT tests can read, write, and conversate in japanese. If I remember correctly there is a listening side to it. Conversate would be the only term here up for debate. Most of the tests just determine how well you can read and identify parts of the japanese language. --Cyberman 02:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You can take any level you want. -ToothingLummox 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know about the other JLPT tests? -ToothingLummox 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the JLPT tests can be done with some studying. I'm suprised mr. bigshot up there did Level 1. Level 4 can be passed with about 6 months of study. You should google for some study guides or past tests. I think the next test (level 3) takes about 1 more year of study. From there it just gets a lot harder. I figure if you can get through a whole book, such as harry potter in japanese, than you are going to be able to pass a portion of the tests. --Cyberman 02:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I meant to ask whether the format of the other tests was any diffferent from Level 1 as I described it above. Was there any writing? -ToothingLummox 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The JLPT Tests, at least at levels 4 and 3, are completely multiple choice exams. No actual writing or conversation is needed. I believe levels 2 and 1 are the same. Ben W Bell 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ikkyū contains a small section where you have to write kanji characters on your own. The rest is just multiple choice question, if I remember correctly.  I haven't taken any other level, so I don't know anything about them. (Stefan2 10:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Are you sure about this? I took level 1 five years ago. It did not contain any kanji writing sections. It was completely multiple choice. Maybe things have changed since then, though. The previous years test is always made available for study at bookstores, so it shouldn't be too difficult to confirm. Bendono 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have last year's level 1 and level 2 tests, there is no actual writing for kanji involved. Roehl Sybing 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"A level four vocabulary is roughly equivalent to an early elementary school education, level three to late elementary school, level two to middle school, and level one to a high school graduate."

This claim seems very doubtful to me. An elementary school child knows significantly more than 800 Japanese words, and students know 2000 kanji going *into* high school, not graduating from it.

I'd like to change the words "There are too few levels" to "There are not enough levels". The first time I read it, I understood it as the much more common phrase "There are too many..." and kept on reading. I hardly ever see the words 'too few' used. Slightly silly of me to misread it, but this is the internet and these are web pages and I don't think you can be so 'puffy' in your language and expect people to concentrate in the same way. Any objections?


 * Yes. Firstly, a student at the end of elementary school knows 1006 kanji, not 2000. See kyoiku kanji. Secondly, I think the sentence you cited is clear as it is. "Too few" is simply not irregular or archaic, so there's no reason to change it. --Zaxios 02:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just noticed I was replying to two people. To both of them: it might be less confusing if you sign your name at the end of your comment. You can do that by typing four tildes (~); when you save the page the characters will be replaced with your name and a timestamp. And sorry for mixing your posts together. --Zaxios 05:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I too use the phrase "too few", often, in conversation. Also, it's a little bit difficult to believe that elementary students only know 1006 kanji.  just because they haven't been officially tought them does not mean they don't know them.  You pick them up off of signs and books and such very easily.  Saying that an elementary student only knows 1006 kanji would be like saying an Elementary student in Ireland only knows how to spell 600 words since that's all they learned in their "Spelling" classes. Liquidtenmillion 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
The current criticisms listed on this site are made by who? Should these not be sourced? Barryvalder 06:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the 'small window around September' in which to apply is actually 2 months, ample time for anyone to apply. I'd also argue that it is far from 'time consuming' Anyway, with the other criticisms on here following a similar vein of lacking sources and being infested with Peacock Words, I've decided to remove the whole section until some sources can be found and it can be rewritten in a style more acceptable to Wikipedia. ShizuokaSensei 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
I've removed the majority of the minute-by-minute commentary of what happens in the testing room. None of this is required as it's standard procedure for exams which take place every single day of the year and far from unique to this one. The fact the CD player is tested before the test starts really doesn't need to be mentioned... ShizuokaSensei 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. I've culled the same sort of standard test information from the 'Taking The Test' section as well Spurrymoses 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of Colours
I'd like to remove those colours in the table "Duration of Each Section". I think they are a bit too varied and bright and make it difficult to read. If no one opposes in a few days, I'll give it a go Spurrymoses 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

DONE Spurrymoses 14:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanket Statement
The statement at the beginning of the article: 'The Examination for Japanese University Admission for International Students (EJU) is now used by most universities for this purpose' - is a 'blanket statement'. Can anyone verify this so we can cite a source in the article? Spurrymoses 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, used the EJU site, which makes the same claim, as a (footnote) reference Spurrymoses 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Links
Some of the URL's like kanji-site.com and jlpt-kanji.com, I initially labelled 'Note: the JLPT kanji lists at this site are outdated'. But I decided to remove them. The Test Content was updated in 2002 (4 years ago), and these sites still have the old (pre-2002) Kanji lists. Someone may have a convincing argument otherwise, but currently I'm thinking to prevent sites with verifiably false information (see Test Content Spec listed as reference) from being included as a link. Spurrymoses 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proficiency page
Europe, the U.S., and Japan all have different concepts as to what constitutes "proficiency". I was thinking of writing an umbrella proficiency page. Feel free to stop over at Talk:ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines to comment. samwaltz 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Test's Recognition
I think it's important this page has a section on how recognised the test is. Attainment of JLPT1 is widely considered proof of Japanese fluency sufficient for study at a Japanese university and work in a Japanese company. BokuAlec 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, well, as an encyclopedic entry, we have to get something pretty solid. I agree though, it's difficult to judge from this whether it's worth doing or not, or how and when the results are used and by whom.

Pictures
This article lacks photographs. My friend and I took the JLPT this year and took some photographs. Would any of them be helpful? &mdash;Goh wz 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have photographs, but it would be better to have them of, say, the front page of a section of the test. Since there are testing sites all over the world, I don't know that photos of the Singapore test site would be very helpful to an understanding of the test as a whole. On the other hand, I think it might be useful to expand on motivations for taking the test (as you say, study language, but also visas, job qualifications, higher education, etc.) in the text of the article. Good luck with your results... Dekimasu 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a picture of the Certificate of Proficiency spurrymoses 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

how much does it cost? is it free?
sorry, i know this is not a forum, but anyones knows if the test is free or not, if not, how much does it cost? maybe that information could be usefull in the article --193.136.128.7 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It cost 5500 yen in 2006 so you're right, we should probably add this information. If we can find a link to a reference for this inf and add a conversion in USD that should cover the point I think.ShizuokaSensei 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a section called 'Application Procedure' which I derived from a past exam book - I didn't mention any dollar amounts. We could add evidence of the approximate cost by quoting particular sites (eg http://languages.arts.unsw.edu.au/japan/japantest.html) spurrymoses 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the fact that it costs more than double that much in the UK is anything to go by (http://www.soas.ac.uk/languagecentre/japanese/jlpt/faq.html) then a dollar conversion seems a bit irrelevant since there are clearly vast regional variations. Leushenko 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dead link 193.63.131.144 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Additions
Partly in response to someone WikiProject giving this page a 'Start' rating, I've added more sections, statistics and even an image of the Certificate of Proficiency. I'd like to think we can ramp this page up a notch spurrymoses 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Locations
What places are this test offered in outside of Japan? When I was looking previously for US locations I only saw like NY, Chicago, and others that are impossible to get to without a huge trip for most of us. But I've also heard conflicting information that smaller outfits are also able to administer it.

Can anyone contribute better knowledge of this? This information would certainly belong in the article. Thanks! -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really sure giving info about the locations does belong in the article, to be honest. This is due to change a lot, and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It would be far better to refer to the official JLPT page where this information should be. spurrymoses 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits / Vandalism
My great apologies to Sparky147, the 'vandalism' I referred to in my edit comment, was from an anonymous editor (almost certainly the the owner of jlpt.com's forum), not Sparky147. So sorry, I couldn't edit my comment

Amazon-Link
Deleted the Amazon link of "useful books". none of the books shown on the first result page seemed to be very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.37.203 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (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: 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. If need particular translation point it to me. Saludos.  pmt7ar (t&#124;c) 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) PS: I'll try to scan the guidebook on the embassy, it's english/japanese bilingual.  pmt7ar (t&#124;c) 09:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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.

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 (t&#124;c) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. Wikipedia is about verifiability. Get a source, consent or desist.  pmt7ar (talk) 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, Wikipedia 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)

(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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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! <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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)

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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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)


 * @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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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". <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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.<span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 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 <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a forum, forum is another word that means discussion. Again, practice your English elsewhere.


 * The numbers are facts, but the comment that Pmt7ar work[s] for the test issuing office is not and is entirely off-topic, as well as being flame-baiting. The comments about Pmt7ar's English are starting to go overboard as well.  I could go and point out your multiple incorrect uses of the phrase another words for in other words, but what would that accomplish? How would that improve the quality of the page? Debate the facts, keep on topic, and keep the invective to yourself. Acidtoyman (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just I 100% believe Pmt7ar is a paid editor and I make the comment not to start a fight but to just point out the obvious. One only has to look at his past comments and there is no doubt left. Besides I would say that the majority of editors looking after corporate pages on this site are mostly paid editors. I mean people don't actually think for a minute that companies don't have an interest in pushing their view.

As for the English - I'm not wrong but my comment did go too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I 100% believe that Captain Beefheart is the greatest thing ever to have happened to rock'n'roll, but without some solid evidence I wouldn't be spreading that important fact around outside of maybe a bar. I've read this page up and down and it's still not "obvious" to me that Pmt7ar is a paid editor (and, yes, I'm perfectly well aware that such people exist). Nor is it obvious to me what anyone would gain from having a paid editor on this particular page. Acidtoyman (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The JEES-JF group receives over 200 million dollars per year to promote Japanese. Which is more than enough of a reason... if you read what Pmt7ar writes, it's motive written. There's no question at all about that. In fact, I would bet money right now that he has some sort of relation with the test manufacturer JEES.. If you want I can outline the comments but I doubt that's important. What's important is, when I have time I'll write up a section regarding the hours and we can go from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how JEES-JF would be either helped or hindered significantly by either set of numbers. I'll wait for your write-up, but is there some reason both numbers couldn't be included with a note explaining the differences? Acidtoyman (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all I was asking for all the time - just a simple equal space outline to show the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat, stop harassing. I'm not related to any japanese organization for god's sake. "Believe 100%", "totally convinced", if that's your reasoning without any criteria then you're simply wrong. And that's a fact, since you're 100% wrong about me. Please follow wikipedia policies and desist commenting on contributors. Also, I'll revert your edit. Are you aware you made up a "Study Hour Controversy"? Such controversy doesn't exist, it's a difference on opinion of... 4, 5 editors on wikipedia? That's not a controversy, and summarizing a talkpage discussion into the article namespace is not encyclopedic and biased. If you want to create a section about a controversy, please provide reference of an actual controversy. Has it appeared on newspapers? On any kind of media? Is there a dispute about organizations about the time of study? You can't use an user contributed talkpage as source, wikipedia is not a primary source. Several organization giving different estimates its just a difference of opinions, that is not a controversy. Controversy would be if others argue about that, like we right here; but you have to find a repercussion of this "controversy" in a reliable source outside wikipedia. I seriously recommend you read the policies and guidelines so you know how wikipedia works, because your behavior is getting disruptive. Please do not revert a revert or recreate that section without references and don't make up controversies from a wikipedia talkpage. I suggest you to do it first on a sandbox (and also creating an account so I can address you at your userpage). <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar  (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Study Hour Controversy
I added this following section as a result of the Japanese Language Education Center publishing drastically different hours to reach the same test levels however pmt7ar just reverted it. pmt7ar seems to have a problem with the term "controversy" as a section title etc. Obviously one exists since different organizations are publishing different numbers - and drastically different at that. Can someone create a section please and use suitable language? Here's the section:

-- A controversy exists over the recommended number of hours of study needed to reach the different language levels outlined by the tests. Up until 2010, the publisher of the test has officially stated that if a student studies for 900 hours they should be able to go from no prior knowledge of Japanese, to being able to read a newspaper, perform within the Japanese society, and pass the highest level of the tests. According to The United States Defense Language Institute it takes roughly 4000 hours to reach such a level of Japanese language. In January of 2011, the Japanese Language Education Center also published much higher numbers, stating it takes between 1800-4500 hours to reach the same level depending on a person's background. Here's a breakdown of their recommended study hours: -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It could help if you add some reference about this controversy, or at least one source commenting or criticizing the other. Else the focus of your proposed section is not relevant. If there are difference of estimates we can add them among the others if they meet relevancy criteria. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference is both the JLEC and United States Defense Institutes published hours and was quoted. The problem here is, you have a problem with the word "controversy" and you base your argument on the misunderstanding of a word. This isn't a personal attack what-so-ever. It's just your argument is stating that "controversy" is limited to your interpretation of the meaning. Well, you're wrong. Simply when two different parties voice different opinions especially in public like they have done here, that's a controversy! In January of 2011, the JLEC published different numbers directly regarding the JLPT tests.. if that's not a controversy I don't know what is.

Also, the Defense Language Institute 4000 published hours to learn Japanese conflict drastically to that of the 900 hours published by the test manufacturer. 900 and 4000 hours is surely a controvery.

As for being a credible source, the United States Defense Language Institute is as solid of a reference as they come.

I don't understand your motive. I mean, you've stated on at least 2 occasions that the 900 hours is not at all correct but at the same time you are unwilling, no, make that deterrent to revert any mention of any other study that shows what other groups are stating it takes to learn Japanese to the same level.

Can some please find suitable language that will please all and add this important section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that I believe the wording is suitable the way it is - it's only Pmt7ar who states that "controversy" is not correct English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pmt7ar is not the only one disputing the use of the word "controversy". You might want to wait 24 hours before making such statements so that everyone involved can actually get the chance to read the page.  See my rebuttal below. Acidtoyman (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy is correct English if that was in doubt and I`ll gladly revert it back for you.


 * No, it's not correct English. You guys are jumping the gun. See below. Acidtoyman (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I`ve been teaching English in Japan for the last 5 and a half years at the YMCA and have always wondered about the recommended study hours. At one point I was really gunho on learning the language but after failing level 2 a couple times I`ve kind of put it on the backburner. I have to say I`m happy to see these numbers as I really was starting to question my ability, or lack there of. They make total sense and are related to the subject matter at hand. Personally I would have loved to have seen the comparison years ago as I wouldn`t have been so discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.1.189.180 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you undo a revert if the issue is still the same? 180.10.153.175 has started a section on the talk page to improve his edit so please don't undo the revert if nothing has changed. If you want to add the DLI estimates, please provide a source and be free to add it next to JLEC one. If you want to add a paragraph (I think it will need much more to justify its weight to open a section at the same level that the 'Previous Format'), please provide reliable sources that verifies the controversy around those numbers. For this I mean an actual reference to the difference in estimates, no separate links to each institute'. Interpreting and making conclusions oneself about these differences falls in WP:OR. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" is not correct, and I would think that after all the fighting over reversion here recently that we could all cut out the reverting shenanigans already. I had assumed we were going to see the proposed changes on the Talk page before adding it to the main article.

What we have here is a "discrepency", a "contradiction", maybe some other word, but unless there has been some fighting about this outside of this talk page that can be documented and properly cited, then "controversy" is most emphatically not the appropriate word to use. Furthermore, unless a "controversy" can be shown (and documented, cited) to be significantly large and ongoing, there is absolutely no way it merits an entire section on it's own. As long as the "controversy" remains undocumented as a controversy outside of this talk page, all talk of it being a "controversy" clearly falls under WP:OR.

Noting the differences is fine, as both sets of numbers are documented and are citable. Making commentary and judgements on the numbers is way out of line for a Wikipedia page.

It would also be really, really nice if people would start signing their comments. It's bad enough when there's one "anonymous" around, but when there are two it makes things quite inconvenient and confusing when trying to address people. Acidtoyman (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The JLPT study hours (150-900h) are a complete crock and fall under the classification of bullshit. I can name at least 30 people in Tokyo alone that would agree to such a heading! This is a no-brainer; of course the US government numbers, as well as the Japanese Language Centre numbers should be in it’s own section bright and center, as the information directly relates to the test. tokyoboy 219.111.68.199 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether the numbers are realistic or not is not at issue. This is an encyclopaedia.  What's noted requires citation. Period.  No amount of language along the lines of "complete crock", "bullshit", "no-brainer" etc etc etc will change that.  If that bothers you, go blog about it, but it does not belong on Wikipedia without a citation. Maybe if you blog enough about it it'll become a documented controversy that can be cited.


 * I'll repeat it again---Whether the numbers are realistic or not is not at issue. Don't confuse the issues. Acidtoyman (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors should not reflect any personal judgement on the articles. The data is added as data, as it is. And if there is some debate or crossed opinions, only add it if this is documented by a reliable source outside. We all can see that there is a big difference between 900 and 4000, but we can not write our own conclusions about it. We can add all the numbers by different relevant sources, and state it, no more than that. The visitors may wonder "why are they so different?", sure, but that's nothing we editors should answer (doing so clearly constitutes WP:OR and advances a position WP:NPV). If there is a verifiable source that address this issue, only then we can note this difference. By the way, if you have the source for DLI estimates share it here on the talkpage; I don't have that information and wasn't able to find it. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm the boy that made the comment that the 150h-900h should be under the classification of bullshit. Reading the two anal replies made me laugh, as both commentators failed to understand the point. The point being, as a result "the US government numbers, as well as the Japanese Language Centre numbers should be in it’s own section bright and center". Another words, because the 900h is so drastically different compared to other organizations, more importance should be given when displaying the information surrounding the subject.

BTW, the ILR Index quotes 4000 hours to learn Japanese. The current course is only 2,200 class hours, however if one studies really hard after class, and dates lots to get speaking practice, one should reach S-3 after completion of the course. Which is about the same as the JLPT N2. - that's Mr. Tokyo219.111.68.199 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to create a blog and talk about it. Wikipedia is not the place for that. I'm sorry if this discourages you, but wikipedia has its procedures and policies. If its not verifiable, it should not be included. And editors can't make their own analysis. We don't care about personal experiences. 58.1.189.180 was discouraged by failing 2k a couple of times seeing it takes around "600hs", I would feel discouraged if seeing 2000hs for 2k since I'll look too difficult. I don't pretend to be uncivil, by the contrary, I'm glad there are more users trying to improve the article, but I see that you (i'm talking in general to the IP addresses) doesn't seem to know how wikipedia works, and practically this is a waste of time since I'm pointing you the policies and you don't event sign your comments.
 * As this could get disruptive and abusing of the talkpage, I'll proceed the following way: I'll revert anything unsourced or issues discussed in talkpage without consensus or compromise reached. I'll explain everything that needs more than the summary here, but will not explain everyone the rules and policies that you must know. Luckily, the newcomers will understand the policies and arrange their proposals. If not I'll simply pass of those users in the talkpage while reverting any abuse. If an absurd edit warring happens again I'll consider requesting semi-protection. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You sure talk a lot of smack like your the boss, as if you have some sort of ultimate authority over Wikipedia. It's no wonder why people here have commented negatively about you.

From the scant of the conversation, nobody here wants to add commentary, just the data from the government numbers and the Japanese Education Centre. Since you pretend to know everything, why not provide how it should be added rather wasting peoples' time with your rants of power! T-boy219.111.68.199 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @"T-boy": You might want to look at the text that was reverted before commenting. It did not just add the government numbers. It added the numbers along with a commentary, and all in a brand new section labeling the whole the thing a "Controversy" in the section header, with not a shred of evidence (aside the the arguing on this Talk page) that anyone actually called it a "controversy". Acidtoyman (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@"Mr. Tokyo": laugh all you want, but you might want to check out WP:OR and WP:NPV before composing your next comment. They're not just "The Rules"---there is sound reasoning behind having those guidelines.

Further, I am highly suspicious that you are not a different individual from 180.10.153.175, given that you are both inclined to use the phrase "another words" in place of "in other words". This mistake is not all that common. Grammatically it doesn't even make sense---"another" is singular, "words" is plural. The fact that two (three?) people identified by their IP addresses rather than a proper signature fighting tooth-and-nail over this issue and making the same uncommon grammatical mistake is rather unlikely.

What exactly is the problem here? Why can't the numbers just simply be reported with a note noting the discrepancy and leave it at that? If it really is a controversy (note the huge difference in meaning between "discrepancy" and "controversy"), it shouldn't take too much effort to hunt down the references and cite it properly. If you can't be bothered to hunt down the references, then you really have no business edited a Wiki page in the first place. If the references just can't be found, then there really is no reason to believe there is a controversy in the first place.

I'm going to totally back up Pmt7ar here where he says "I'll revert anything unsourced or issues discussed in talkpage without consensus or compromise reached. I'll explain everything that needs more than the summary here, but will not explain everyone the rules and policies that you must know." And before anyone starts accusing me of things, you might want to read a little farther back on this Talk page first. I started out here spending considerable time fighting against Pmt7ar's reversions.

Lastly, could we please watch our language a bit here? The ad hominems are totally unnecessary. Please stay on topic and focus on the issues. Acidtoyman (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr Detective, that is outstanding detective work however it's only a grammatical error in class, out of class it's Canadian English, must be 'an'other' good old Canadian eh. :) btw, t-boy and Mr Tokyo have the same IP and that's me :)

Funny that you are also going to 'revert' - made me laugh because I don't think anyone here is trying to post anything. I thought this was an issue of wording. Of course, if it's an issue of someone posting unsourced info, well then I'll revert also, you have my vote.

Tomorrow's a holiday here so I'll do the leg work, which references do you want? sir-toyko219.111.68.199 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, I would like to see the publication of DLI giving estimates to JLPT levels; that will merit a mention. But forget about a section or even a paragraph comparing between them, in that case we'll need a reliable source actually nothing the differences. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"But forget about a section or even a paragraph comparing between them" - the boss with ultimate authority over Wikipedia has spoken yet again. It's interesting that what you feel is important is the final word. You're the boss and you make all the decisions.

Funny that even though you're the boss of Wikipedia you aren't even following the comparison matter. You know of course that this has nothing to do with test levels but instead the language level JLPT states you can reach after a certain number of hours of studying! eg: ability to read a newspaper

JLPT publishes: 1. test level 2. language ability reached and 3. study hours to get there. What's being compared is 2 & 3

JLPT quotes 900 hours, the ILR Index quotes 4000 hours, and the Japanese Language Centre quotes 1800-4500 which all refer to the same language level. These are reliable sources and already referenced.

I suggest adding the chart above with the breakdown of hours as well as a comment below about the ILR Index hours. I would think that would be sufficient. Dr. Tokyo219.111.68.199 (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Boss authority? Yes, policies have that authority. I'm not being bossy, I'm perfectly aware of WP:OWN. What I said, is with the current information, you can forget about getting a section, because not me, but guidelines says so. I don't have word on it, I can just revert it with WP:OR and WP:V in the summary and any editor would agree. I did say, that for getting a section you will need a couple of reliable sources. Get them first, then you can start thinking of a new section. As it is right now, N-O.
 * Second, still nobody showed the document of DLI estimates or whenever they are actually talking about this test. I'm not doubting it, I just couldn't find it, will help if you provide a source. That will make a difference, because I'm sure that DLI has a different objective than JP/JEES, i.e. DLI has specific goals to cover when teaching languages. JLPT doesn't cover teaching at all and just measures general purpose japanese. It was proposed: "the publisher of the test has officially stated that if a student studies for 900 hours they should be able to go from no prior knowledge of Japanese, to being able to read a newspaper, perform within the Japanese society, and pass the highest level of the tests"... where is that? Certainly its not on the actual reference, for 1k it says only "sufficient command for life in Japanese society". There is an abyss between those two. Are you sure it's not WP:OR?. I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself, but if nobody provides a source for DLI statement we are losing our time discussing it because it could be a different thing. We can't do anything without knowing that source, so until that source appears I think DLI has no place in here. We're discussing about air. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Dr Tokyo": saying "I don't think anyone here is trying to post anything" just shows that you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on at all, because that's exactly what 180.10.153.175 did---added an entire section with the word "Controversy" in the header despite being disputed here.

Further, if you clicked through my username you'd see that I'm Canadian myself. Not only that, but my family have been in Canada so long we still use words like "chesterfield". My ancestors were Loyalists. I lived in Ontario and Alberta my whole life before coming to Japan 13 years ago. The phrase "another words" is not in the least bit common, either inside or outside of class. In fact, it's so uncommon that Google returns pages with the phrase "another's words" on the first page to make up for the lack of legitimate hits.

We're going around in circles here, but the fact that two authorities have published conflicting sets of numbers is not the same thing as a controversy. You're putting your refusal to even find out what the word actually means here on the public record to be viewed for potentially generations to come. Nobody is saying that the numbers should be kept off the page. It's the manner in which the numbers are presented that is in dispute. The fact that the "controversy" has not been documented suggests there is no controversy. If there is, get your references straight first and then add the text. NOT references to the conflicting numbers---references to the fact that it has become a controversy outside of this page. And go find out what the word "controversy" means before responding.

Lastly, the ad hominems and posturing have to stop. Especially from Tokyo Boy. They accomplish absolutely nothing. Stay on topic, stick to the facts. This page is long enough as it is without having to wade through Tokyo Boy's lack of etiquette. Acidtoyman (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not Dr. Tokyo, you are all (2?) posturing and throwing authority.

I'm not Canadian but I am 180.10.153.175 and I'm okay with not adding a section titled 'Study Hour Controversy' as long as the table outlining the JLEC hours and the Defense Language Institute hours are mentioned. Another words, I would agree to simply adding the chart and a short mention of the 4000 hours published by the military just below the JLPT chart. Is everyone in agreement with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying the entire time? Acidtoyman (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are correct. Okay, let's add that... what about Pmt7ar? are you okay with that?

Also, I forgot to ask, what's wrong with the following wording: "the publisher of the test has officially stated that if a student studies for 900 hours they should be able to go from no prior knowledge of Japanese, to being able to read a newspaper, perform within the Japanese society, and pass the highest level of the tests."

1. publisher of the test = JEES-JF (they do acknowledge publishing the test, it's written on their website) 2. 900 hours of study = (stated by JEES-JF) 3. read a newspaper and perform within the Japanese society = (stated by JEES-JF) *sufficient for life in Japanese society... tons and tons of references to not only being able to read a newspaper but to do so unassisted. 4. pass the highest level of the test - (stated by JEES-JF )

What part of that statement is not correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was suspicious about point (3), I don't remember reading that; specially with the taboo of japanese newspapers (said to be too difficult to read). Extending the original to that is advancing a position in the wording (though I don't see a point in it, maybe it was just an error or I overlooked it -in which ref is that?-). Personally I don't like the idea of adding another chart when we can combine it (i.e. adding the JLEC numbers in the same cell that JP/JEES and specify the reference in a legend below it).
 * About DLI, no. Absolutely no mention of DLI without a source with their estimates for this exam. I don't need reasons, just WP:V. If the estimates are not related specifically to JLPT, then this is not the place, try at Japanese Language or DLI. Let's cut this already and move on. Once (and if) the source appear, then we can discuss it, knowing what exactly says.
 * I'll be glad to add any relevant estimates (JLEC and DLI are), but with due weight and sourced: that is my position. We add the values plain and clean, and let the visitor wonder. Wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic, editors can't make their own analysis. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now wait a minute, am I understanding this correctly? The DLI estimates are not estimates for the study time for the JLPT?  If they are only study estimates to attain a certain level of ability rather than estimates to pass the JLPT then those numbers have no business being on this page at all.  It may be appropriate to include them on a page for the Japanese Language or Japanese Language Study, but unless the numbers mention the DLI figures mention the JLPT itself I can't see how it would be appropriate to have them on a page for this test.  It's not like the JLPT is the only test for Japanese---there's the J-test and the Business Japanese Proficiency Test, and I could have sworn there was another test as well.  And hasn't the JLPT been replaced with a different test for university admissions?


 * Maybe more appropriate would be a page on Japanese language tests. There you could compare the various organizations' study estimates.


 * Also, I don't recall anything about the 1級 being a newspaper-reading level of Japanese. I thought it was (previously) supposed to be the minimum level required to get into a Japanese university.  I know that I couldn't get through the first page of a newspaper without my densi jisyo even after having passed the 1級 in 2008. Maybe assuming that the highest level of the JLPT is equivalent to the highest level given by the DLI is the mistake being made?   I can promise you, 1級 of the JLPT is not native-like fluency. Acidtoyman (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nononononono, please let's avoid discussin DLI numbers. I can see IP coming discussing your comment just now and you replying and the source still missing. I was talking "if" they are not specifically about the JLPT, but I cannot know, again, because I don't have a source. Pretend that DLI NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST as long that source remains missing. Please let's not start a new discussion about something that we don't know at all. Thanks. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of talking of this as well. As agreed I just added the JLEC table and left out the DLI numbers to end the subject. Pmt7ar, you are welcome to change the description wording however the data stays as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.10.153.175 (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)