Talk:Kanji Kentei

Untitled
This page seems to use both "semi-2" and "pre-2" to talk about 準２級. I suggest that one or another is chosen as the standard for use throughout the page. Incidentally, the Eiken uses "pre-2" and "pre-1" as the English description of 準～級. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.102.62.110 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Converted all to "pre" in keeping with Eiken descriptions. 211.120.119.94 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure a consensus has been reached on this, but the article currently uses Semi-1 and Semi-2 for 準1級 and 準2級. I also agree that Pre-1 and Pre-2 are much better, and more commonly used. Maybe there was a change made and somebody reverted back to using Semi ? Not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed the remaining Semi-2 and Semi-1 to Pre-2 and Pre-1. Also changed Grade to Level in the Test level and skills section so that the wording is consistent with the rest of the article. However, I did find that the foundation does use both Grade 2 and Grade Semi-2 as the English names of 2級 and 準2級 according to FAQ 3. In my opinion, both Pre and Level are much more natural sounding and easier to understand and based upon my experience as a translator Grade and Semi seem to be the work of a non-native English speaker. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Japanese word for semifinal is 準決勝 (junkesshō) so I am guessing this might be why Semi-2, etc. was used on the 漢検 website. Semi-2 and Semi-1 seem very much like something spit out by some kind of translation software. I cannot think of any context where something such as Grade Semi-2 would be proper or natural. Other standardized tests also seem to prefer Pre over Semi; For example, the Test in Practical English Proficiency uses Pre-2 and Pre-1. As for the word grade, the Japanese word 級 (kyū) is often translated into English as grade and rank  as well as level. I have a feeling that grade was simply chosen without giving much thought to context and how it would sound in English. The JLPT, for example, uses the word level. This, however, is not a major sticking point and I think the most important thing is to be consistent throughout the entire article. So, one or the other has to be picked. If others feel differently, please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation
The kanken information packet (2009) is a source for a lot of information, including: the number of levels, the percent of test takers who pass each test, the percent of questions required to pass each test, the time allotted for each test, and the types of questions on each test. Maybe that fixes most of the citation problems? 211.120.119.94 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Information outdated
In 2010 Japanese government introduced a new Joyo Kanji list consisting of an additional 196 and removal of 5 kanji. Kanken was changed to reflect this change. For example level 2 no longer test Jinmeiyo kanji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.193.30 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes/References
Not sure why there is a separate sections for Notes and References. One of the links listed under Notes is no longer valid. The other link still is active, but it's not being used to only to cite the name of the test and nothing more anything specific in the article. In addition, the only item under References does not contain any link at all and is not even referred to in the article itself. There are quite a few Japanese websites (including the 日本漢字能力検定協会's website) that could be used to source material on this page if a sufficient number of English sources cannot be found. Some of them can be found on the exam's Japanese Wikipedia page. I think the Notes section should be scrapped altogether. References then can be added according to Citation Style 1 using Cite Web, Cite Book, etc. Anybody have any other suggestions? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Test Name
The name of this test is 日本漢字能力検定 and not 日本漢字能力検定試験. The Japanese word 検定 can take the meaning of test or examination, so the article as written seems to say Japan Kanji Aptitude Test Test. The official site for the test refers to the test as 日本漢字能力検定 so I think its best to use that name instead. If anybody feels differently, please discuss. Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Test Administrator
No information (not even the name) is given for the organization that administers the test. I think that at least the organization's name is certainly relevant enough to be mentioned. The 日本漢字能力検定協会 does not have an English website, but the same organization also administers the BJT. The BJT does have an English website and according to the Contact Us page, the 日本漢字能力検定協会 is using Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Public Interest Foundation as its English name. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the Foundation does not have an English version of its website, FAQ 3 does give the English name of the organization as Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Foundation. However, I am not sure how up-to-date this information is because the name given is different from the one given on the same organization's BJT English website. I added a sentence to the lead about the administrating organization, and used the name given on the BJT website because I think it's probably more recent than the Kanken website. What do others think? - Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The name of the organization has been updated on the BJT website (http://www.kanken.or.jp/bjt/english/contact/). I have updated the page accordingly. Lincstrunk (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Average people passing pre-2
There was a reference to the average-ability college student being likely to pass pre-2 with a small amount of study. I have the new problem book （８級問題集）and it has the statistics in the back. Only a third of candidates passed pre-2 in the most recent two sittings so I think the unsourced statement is not accurate. Interestingly only 3.8% passed pre-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for cleaning that up. I tried to make it better awhile ago, but you are right in saying that something like that should probably be properly cited; otherwise, it might be considered to be nothing other than original research. My personal feeling is that statement was true at one time, even with respect to 2級, but probably is no longer so these days because of computers, etc. Now, all you have to do is type what you want to say in romaji, hit enter or 変換 and let the computer do the rest. Even so, you still see lots of mistakes because people don't have to actually write characters out like they once did. BTW, Are you planning on taking 8級? It seems so long ago when I took that one. The lower levels are pretty straightforward so I found that studying old tests, etc. was really good practice. You might want to go over old tests for 9級 and 10級 too since you will be expected to know those characters as well. Good luck - Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have the Nintendo DS testing program (漢検３) which has thousands of mock tests conforming to the actual exam and can predictably pass levels 10,9,8,7 and 6. I'm working on 5 now. Each level seems to take twice as long as the level below it as the vocabulary grows in literally an exponential fashion.Markbenjamin (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanji kentei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020915105642/http://www.kentei.co.jp/ to http://www.kentei.co.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasu よ! 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Kanji kentei → Kanji Kentei – Both words in the test name should be capitalized. This is standard, and seen in virtually all English-language references to the test, such as in news articles. Lincstrunk (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


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

Argument to remove section "Non-native Japanese language speakers [...] who passed Kanken level 1"
The section flagged with the 'unreliable source' tag should be removed. A lot of the info on the page is unsourced anyways but if we believe that "fewer than two thousand people take it each time it is offered, and fewer than 20% of those pass." and there are 2.8 million foreigners in Japan (Demographics_of_Japan) subtracting 778,112 Chinese who have Kanji knowledge, leaving us with around 2 M, which is around 1.6 % of the population. So 2,000 people taking the Kentei test, 1.6 % can be believed to be non-Japanese, 20 % of which pass, leaves us with 6.4 people each test that are foreigners and could plausibly pass the test. Even if we assume that immigrants are like 10x less likely to pass or be interested, it would 0.64 non-Japanese people to pass it. Since the test has been offered since 1992, 30 years, it's extremely unlikely to only have 3 people pass it, rather we'd expect almost 20. Rather, it seems that the person who passed it has a blog and some online visibility. If there is no secondary sources for the claim, it's just speculation and doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia. I propose the section is removed and the banner on top about the sources, too. Hiko (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The justification for removal of the section dedicated to non-native Japanese speakers and non-native kanji learners who have passed the first level of the Kanji Kentei, and the source the information for the section in question was taken from might perhaps have been valid for a more widely investigated domain with a more prominent public profile, and more material existing in its regard.
 * However, for niche topics sometimes there might be only one source - for a simple reason that there have been only one person who has explored it.
 * Considering that extensive and thorough research conducted by the author of the removed article (including soliciting information from other two persons who have passed the Kanji Kentei level 1, and who are neither native Japanese speakers or native kanji learners) did not bring any results regarding any persons other that those listed in the article in question, it is unreasonable to suggest otherwise, and deny the legitimacy of such claim, unless there is a solid evidence to disprove it - though, objectively speaking, there is a room to agree that in light of absence of other sources to corroborate it this claim may be tagged as "unreliable".
 * Supposition that statistically there should have been more such people does not go beyond speculation, and does not take into account the specificity of the subject (in terms of the amount of time and effort necessary to devote to acquire enough proficiency and expertise to be able to pass the first level of the Kanji Kentei - even for native Japanese speakers, let alone for non-native ones).
 * Purging a source just because it happens to be a blog article (notwithstanding that the article is written not only by someone with a first hand experience on the subject, but who also happens to have necessary credentials to be able to speak about the subject) - even despite it being THE ONLY SOURCE on the topic - goes against the spirit of pursuit of objective truth and academic integrity alike.
 * In light of the aforesaid, the section must be reinstated. Efugeni (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is only one source as you say, it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. A reliable source is needed, but blogs usually don't count when not written by professionals as they are not be subject to a fact checking process. More on this here. Furthermore, it's only a single primary source, yet Wikipedia tries to have a secondary source supplemented with primary and tertiary sources, as you can read here. Lastly, you seem to be the person who wrote that section but also the person who owns that website, so you have a self-published personal source for it. It has nothing to do with "objective truth" or "academic integrity", it's just not something that belongs on Wikipedia if we don't have reliable secondary sources for it. A compromise would be to remove the section and leave a mention of it in the intro, where non-Japanese speakers are mentioned, yes? Hiko (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are right about my identity as the owner of the web site in question - thus, objectively speaking there may be grounds for pointing out a certain conflict of interest or an attempt of self-promotion.
 * To this I can only say that I WOULD have more than happily referenced OTHER sources on the topic - IF they existed.
 * Having a certain academic background myself, I fully understand your argument about the necessity for secondary sources to corroborate the information.
 * However, in terms of reliability and objectivity, though it may sound presumptuous, currently I cannot think of any other source on the topic than the web site (and the particular page) in question: the fact of the matter is that the organizers of the exam do not publish statistics on the nationality / native language of test takers, thus the official data to prove or disprove the assumption stated on the page simply does not exist.
 * When Bret Mayer passed the test in 2012, this fact has been widely talked about, and he was referred to as the "first person without native kanji background" to pass it.
 * His passing the test is corroborated by such evidence as the photo of the certificate, and him being featured in the magazine published by the Kanji Kentei Association, and referred to as such on an official web site of the Japanese government ("漢字が使われる東アジア圏出身ではない外国人の合格は初めてだった").
 * Later in 2013, another person - John Brobst - passed it (for which there is also an objective evidence of his passing certificate).Since then, in as much as it is possible to surmise judging from the information that can be found in the open domain, no other non-native Japanese speaker / non-native kanji learner has passed it until 2021 when the third person (Evgeny Uskov) appeared to present a proof of passing.
 * It is, of course, possible to suggest, that from 2012 to 2021 (and later) there could have been other persons fitting the definition used in the section that you removed, however even upon the most thorough search it was not possible to find information on any other such persons. However, to address this problem the section also included a caveat by using a modifier "known" ("As of June 2021, there are three known holders of...").
 * Having dedicated a considerable part of my own life to studying kanji, kanji based vocabulary, and taking the Kanji Kentei test I created the web site in question to share information and insights that I was able to accumulate throughout my experience of engaging with the topic. As it stands now, it is the only source for the (objectively verifiable) data on non-native Japanese speakers / non-native kanji learners who have passed the first level of the Kanji Kentei test.
 * Yes, this source is not a peer-review article in a relevant academic publication or something published by an established media.
 * On the other hand, this data was compiled by someone with an authority (derived from personal experience and achievements in the field) to speak on the topic, and - as it happens - is the only in its kind.
 * As to what should be done at the end, I surely do have my opinions and beliefs, but do not have enough experience with writing or editing Wikipedia to have a clear understanding about how cases when there are conflicting interpretations regarding a particular issue are settled. Efugeni (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)