Talk:List of English words of Japanese origin

まんが

マンガ、というかたかな表記も必要かと思われます。 --60.40.95.153 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading

The title of this article -- "List of English words of Japanese origin" -- gives the misleading impression that these words are in sufficiently widespread and general use to be considered "English" by English speakers. In fact, only a tiny number of them fall into that category. Either the article needs renaming, or there needs to be a disclaimer at the start saying "these words are listed in standard English dictionaries, but..." I tried to do something along these lines but was reverted. Maybe my attempt was not good, but the way it reads right now cannot be correct IMO. Matt 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the article and the title are not well matched. My opinion is that words should be removed from the article. Would you agree that only words found in mainstream general English dictionaries should stay? Fg2 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion here has been discussed above in the Criteria section and in the subsequent sections. We could discuss that again if necessary, and delete some entries again.

Having said that, I agree with the anonymous editor regarding a need for a short disclaimer. However, the disclaimer in the begining should be kept simple and accurate, and I didn't agree with some of his details. For example, if you start listing words in the intro, it's going to look like original research.--Endroit 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the word be listed in at least three major English dictionaries. That should give a fairly impartial and general consensus of the wide-spread acceptability a word as English. Citations should probably also be given for the dictionaries. Bendono 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That would strengthen Criterion #2. Do you have opinions about Criteria #1 and 3? Fg2 08:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would a good idea to at least state the criteria for inclusion in the article. Referencing individual words to individual dictionaries even better I guess. Featured list List of English words containing Q not followed by U might have some general ideas and a model for a "disclaimer" warning. I accept the objections to my original edit as appearing like OR, but by way of explanation, my thinking was as follows. I came to this article interested in English words of Japanese origin. I scrolled down the list and saw Baren, Bokeh, Bunraku etc. etc. etc. My immediate thought was "this isn't what I want to know... none of these are English words." Hence my attempt to construct a very much shorter list of the words such as tycoon that, to my mind at least, could conceivably be called "English". On a different point, is there any reason why all the words are capitalised? Normal practice in word lists is to capitalise only propoer nouns isn't it? Matt 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Sorry for the late response. This page fell off my radar until a recent edit. Fg2 asked about Criterion 1 and 3. If we accept my above proposal, I do not think that any other criteria is needed. #1: if it is in three major English dictionaries, then it should "occur in English texts with [sufficient] regularity". #3: if it is used by people who don't speak Japanese, then it should already be in major English dictionaries. Realistically, it is unlikely that everyone will agree with #1 and 3, and it smells of original research. Nor should we have to; let lexicographers argue about those details. We can cite them. I asked for three or more major dictionaries to obtain a fairly impartial and general consensus of the wide-spread acceptability a word as English. Bendono (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The three-dictionary rule is nice because it's objective. Would you want to elaborate on which dictionaries are acceptable? Or leave it open? Fg2 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally I would hope that we do not need to specify. Just like with reliable sources, some dictionaries are more reliable than others. It is difficult to describe, so let me give a few examples.

Below are a few dictionaries that I consider to be acceptable:

• Oxford English Dictionary
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
• Webster's Dictionary#Webster's Third New International

Below are some that I would not consider to be major English dictionaries:

• A Dictionary of Anime Terms
• A Dictionary of Japanese History Terminology

The point is not to find a single obscure reference to a word. It is to find an impartial and general consensus of the wide-spread acceptability of a word. I think that the only objective way of doing that is by consulting multiple major English dictionaries, even if a specific list is not decided upon. That is the spirit of my proposal. As always, if there are any specific concerns, they can always be discussed here. Bendono (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think giving examples of acceptable and unacceptable sources for this list will help ensure an authoritative list and give a rationale for removing inappropriate or marginal edits. In that spirit, it might be helpful to list a few categories of dictionaries that we want editors to avoid: dictionaries for non-native speakers of English and for translators, specialized dictionaries (Japanese History Terminology is an example), open-content dictionaries, electronic dictionaries that don't have reliable print counterparts. We can of course discuss exceptions if there are any to discuss. The criterion on the article page would be quite simple; elaborations like the ones in this paragraph would probably be best left to the talk page. Fg2 (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As ever on Wikipedia a multitude of busybody users have weighed-in on an otherwise informative topic and spoiled it. Half of the words on here are only used to refer to items of Japanese culture in the first instance, and even then in fairly specialized contexts. Such words are hardly universally recognized in the way that, say, 'tycoon' and 'tsunami' are. The latter words have percolated so far into the English-speaking world that their origin is not immediately clear. Someone needs to put an end to the pedantry. Gunstar hero (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Same old discussion

I'm amused to see the constant desire to see words that are jargon in specific disciplines or hobbies related to Japan added to this page. Properly call these non-anglicized words jargon, and you can't make an argument against it. Suggest that they might be established loan words, and it gives logophiles the excuse to wage dictionary wars. But call this ever-dynamic page glossary of Japanese words, and there shall be eternal peace (and additions to the list).--67.121.120.67 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these words are English

None of these words can be considered part of the English language. They are simply Japanese words transcribed into English.

The title of the article needs to be changedGlobalscene (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, to "list of Japanese words known by American nerds" <eyes rolling> -WikiSkeptic (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionaries disagree with you. Please point out the words that reputable English dictionaries do not include. Fg2 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford,Merriam & webster seem to agree. Most of the words I've checked are either labelled Japanese terms or Japanese proper nouns.

Every word on this planet can be transcribed into English, it does not make it an English word.Globalscene (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of these words are naturalized English-language citizens (so to speak). But the list has become bloated once more; "Bokeh" is an example of a word that is still alien here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that every word on this planet can be transcribed into English. Note that Japanese has about fifty or a hundred thousand words that the English dictionaries have not seen fit to include. The English dictionaries include the Japanese words that have become English. There's a distinction between a word that is Japanese without being English, and a word that is English listed with its origin being Japanese. It's the latter that belong in this article.

Regarding "bokeh": photography magazines use the word freely. This is one of the criteria the editors of dictionaries will look at when deciding whether to include it as an English word. So maybe it's on its way to entering the dictionaries. But Wikipedia's function is not to predict what future editions will say; instead, we should wait until this enters reputable dictionaries as an English word. When it does, it belongs in this article. So check the dictionaries. If it's in them, keep it in this article; if not, remove it. Fg2 (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a list of words in an english dictionary, many are in the dictionary but explicitly say they are Japanese.Globalscene (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a problem exactly how? If they are in an English language dictionary, and they say they are Japanese, then they are obviously English words of Japanese origin. Hence this list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the dictionaries do not say they are Japanese. This seems to be a common point of confusion so let me explain. Every entry in an English dictionary is an English word. The etymology of words may be different. Some come from French, some from German, some from Middle English, etc. Some from Japanese. Apparently you see the etymology section and think that means the word is not English despite it having an entry in the dictionary. For example, if you look at an example brought up in the AFD, honcho, the MW entry says the etymology is from the Japanese word "hanchō", but that does not mean "honcho" is Japanese. Indeed, that isn't even the proper Romanization, the meanings are different, and so are the pronunications. --C S (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what is trying to pointed out here is that a large number of dictionaries give word origin information (though the detail varies). Therefore, if a word is of Japanese origin, the dictionary will often indicate this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. When the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines sayonara and writes "Etymology: Japanese" that means it's an English word that comes from the Japanese language. When the Oxford English Dictionary's Etymology page for the same word says "[Jap.]" it means the word is English and came from Japanese. As C S said, every word that has an entry in an English dictionary is English, according to the compilers of that dictionary. Words from East Asian languages take their place as part of English along with words from many historical and geographical relatives of German, French, Latin, and other European languages. And the example C S gives, "honcho," refutes the statement "They are simply Japanese words transcribed into English."

I agree that there are words in this list that are not yet part of the English language. "Bokeh" is in neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster. So maybe we need a new article, "Japanese words in use in English in specialized fields" or something similar, if these words are to find a place. Or maybe we should simply delete them. But we have to be careful to remove only words that are not English. Words that the compilers of reputable general English dictionaries agree are English belong in this article. Fg2 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

The following words are, indisputably, words of Japanese origina whose meaning would be understood and part of the vocabulary of the average speaker of English:

1. bonsai tree
2. haiku
3. karaoke
4. manga
5. origami
6. dojo
7. commiting hara-kiri
8. head honcho
9. judo
10. jiu jitsu
11. kamikaze
12. karate chop
13. ninja
14. nunchucks (nunchaku)
15. samurai
16. sumo wrestling
17. futon
18. hooch
19. kimono
20. gingko tree
21. hibachi grill
22. ramen noodles
23. shiitake mushrooms
24. soy sauce
25. sukiyaki
26. sushi
27. shrimp tempura
28. teriyaki
29. tofu
30. tycoon
31. shogun
32. Zen
33. akita dog
34. geisha girl
35. "Go" the game
36. kudzu vines
37. rickshaw
38. sayonara
39. Sensei
40. sudoku
41. anime

That's an impressive number of words right there. All the rest should be removed. There's no need to embellish the list. As a reverse analogy, I'm sure that the words "gerrymander" or "McCarthyism" have turned up in Japanese books, but they would not be considered to be part of Japanese vocabulary. I'm not sure that the opinion will be umaminous, but the list should be trimmed down to commonly used words. Mandsford (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the list should be trimmed. It may be useful, as well, to have a section with words familiar to people within a certain field (such as bokeh and photography). While such words may not be within the general public knowledge, they may very well be important and frequently used within a particular field. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives of this Talk page before taking radical action. This has been discussed thoroughly and there is no need to reinvent the list. Light pruning may be in order but not of the magnitude proposed. The link to the archives is in the Archives box at the top of this page. Fg2 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could separate the words that truly are "English words" from the lesser-known words that happen to be Japanese. No need to tell us to shut up, because a lot of people have discussed the matter of revising (what you call "reinventing") the list. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, now, that was uncalled for. No one is telling anyone to "shut up", so cool your jets. Fg2 simply asked you to read the talk archives before taking any major action (such as wiping out most of the list) as this issue has been discussed in the past. I know Fg2 well enough to know he wasn't trying to be rude here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether its been discussed in the past is irrelevant. The article is in need of a major revamp.Globalscene (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant if it applies directly to this situation. If you go read the discussion, you'll see there are quite a few people who agree the list needs revamping and regular attention to keep it from becoming bloated by Japanese words which are not really English words (yet). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the inclusion criteria is based on the most credible and reliable third-party sources for word origins and existence: major, published dictionaries. I can't imagine that there is a better (i.e. more reliable and authoritative) source than major published English dictionaries, so I can't imagine any better criteria for inclusion. If you have a specific proposal for inclusion criteria that you believe is better than using major published English dictionaries, please present it; however, caviling about how the list is too long and giving a list of words that should be included without any explanation of an independent criterion for selecting those words is not really a tenable proposal. You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer. Nohat (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Typhoon? Thats a pretty common english word from Japanese (Taifuu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawakismet (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed 'typhoon' because it did not enter English from Japanese, but rather via Portuguese, Greek, and Chinese. Japanese "taifuu" is On'yomi, so it also came from Chinese. Ulmanor (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion = vandalism?

Is this the typical level of maturity displayed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalscene (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So is this article at the mercy of admin bias?

This is what I'm getting from this discussion. Especially these Japanese-American editors. Yes i did some background checking and alot of people here are actually Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalscene (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is probably a more relevant reason: namely you are mistaken in your assertions. Japanese etymologies of English words do not make the words Japanese, anymore than a Greek etymology makes an English word Greek. --C S (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you that a lot of people who you think are Japanese aren't. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Which words appear in dictionaries?

I wrote a small program to check various online dictionaries for whether a word is listed, and here are the results for the words on this page.

word	american_heritage	merriam_webster	random_house	websters_new_millennium	wordnet
adzuki	no	yes	no	yes	no
azuki bean	yes	yes	yes	no	no
aikai	no	no	no	no	no
aikido	yes	yes	yes	no	no
akita	no	yes	yes	no	no
atsu	no	no	no	no	no
aucuba	yes	yes	yes	no	no
banzai	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
bento	yes	no	yes	no	no
bokeh	no	no	no	yes	no
bokken	no	no	no	no	no
bonsai	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
bonze	yes	yes	yes	no	no
budo	no	yes	no	yes	no
bukkake	no	no	no	no	no
bushido	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
daikon	yes	yes	yes	no	no
daimyo	yes	yes	yes	no	no
dan	yes	yes	yes	no	no
dashi	no	yes	yes	no	no
dojo	yes	yes	yes	no	no
domoic acid	yes	yes	no	no	yes
edamame	yes	no	no	no	no
ekiden	no	no	no	no	no
enokitake	no	no	yes	no	no
enoki mushroom	no	yes	no	no	no
fugu	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
fusuma	no	yes	yes	no	no
futon	yes	yes	yes	no	no
gaijin	no	yes	yes	no	no
geisha	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
genro	no	yes	yes	no	no
geta	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
ginkgo	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
go	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
gyokuro	no	yes	no	no	no
gyoza	no	no	yes	no	no
haiku	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
hanami	no	no	no	no	no
happi	no	no	no	no	no
happy coat	no	no	no	no	no
hara-kiri	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
hentai	no	no	no	yes	no
hibachi	yes	yes	yes	no	no
hijiki	no	no	yes	no	no
hikikomori	no	no	no	yes	no
hiragana	yes	yes	yes	no	no
honcho	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
honcho	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
ikebana	no	yes	yes	no	no
imari	no	yes	no	no	no
inro	yes	yes	yes	no	no
judo	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
jujutsu	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
juku	no	no	yes	no	no
kabuki	yes	yes	yes	no	no
kaizen	no	no	no	yes	no
kakemono	yes	yes	yes	no	no
kaki	yes	yes	yes	no	no
kakiemon	no	yes	no	no	no
kami	yes	yes	no	no	yes
kamikaze	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
kana	yes	yes	yes	no	no
kanban	no	yes	yes	no	no
kanji	yes	yes	yes	no	no
karaoke	yes	yes	yes	no	no
karate	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
karoshi	no	no	no	yes	no
kata	yes	yes	yes	no	no
katakana	yes	yes	yes	no	no
katana	no	yes	no	yes	no
katsuo	no	no	no	no	no
katsuobushi	no	no	no	no	no
katsura	no	yes	no	no	no
katsuramono	no	no	no	no	no
keiretsu	yes	yes	yes	no	no
keirin	no	no	no	no	no
kendo	no	yes	yes	no	no
kimono	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
kirigami	yes	no	yes	no	no
koan	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
koi	no	yes	yes	yes	no
koji	no	yes	yes	no	no
kombu	no	yes	yes	no	no
koto	yes	yes	yes	no	no
kudzu	yes	yes	yes	no	no
makimono	no	yes	yes	no	no
manga	no	yes	yes	no	no
matcha	no	no	no	no	no
matsuri	no	no	no	no	no
matsutake	no	yes	yes	no	no
medaka	no	yes	yes	no	no
mikado	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
mirin	yes	yes	no	no	no
miso	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
mizuna	no	yes	yes	no	no
mochi	no	no	no	no	no
moxibustion	yes	yes	no	no	no
nappa, napa cabbage	no	no	no	no	no
nashi	no	yes	yes	no	no
netsuke	yes	yes	yes	no	no
ninja	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
noh	yes	yes	yes	no	no
nori	yes	yes	yes	no	no
nunchaku	no	yes	yes	no	no
obi	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
ooch	no	no	no	no	no
origami	yes	yes	yes	no	no
otaku	no	no	no	yes	no
oxa	no	no	no	no	no
pachinko	yes	yes	yes	no	no
panko	no	no	no	no	no
rame	no	no	no	no	no
ramen	no	yes	yes	no	no
randori	no	yes	no	no	no
renga	no	no	yes	no	no
rickshaw	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
romaji	no	yes	yes	no	no
ronin	no	yes	no	no	no
roshi	no	no	yes	no	no
sai	no	no	no	no	no
sake	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
sakura	no	yes	no	no	no
salaryman	no	yes	yes	no	no
samurai	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
sashimi	yes	yes	yes	no	no
satori	yes	yes	yes	no	no
satsuma	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
satsuma	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
sayonara	yes	yes	yes	no	no
senryu	no	yes	no	no	no
sensei	no	yes	yes	no	no
seppuku	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
shabu shabu	no	yes	yes	no	no
shakuhachi	no	yes	no	no	no
shamisen	yes	yes	no	no	no
shiatsu	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
shiba inu	no	yes	no	no	no
shiitake	yes	yes	yes	no	no
shinkansen	no	no	no	no	no
shinto	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
shogi	yes	yes	yes	no	no
shogun	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
shoji	yes	yes	yes	no	no
shoyu	no	yes	yes	no	no
shunga	no	no	no	no	no
sika	yes	yes	yes	no	no
skosh	no	yes	yes	no	no
soba	yes	yes	yes	no	no
soroban	no	yes	yes	no	no
soy	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
sudoku	yes	yes	no	yes	yes
sukiyaki	yes	yes	yes	no	no
sumi-e	no	no	yes	no	no
sumo	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
surimi	no	yes	yes	no	no
sushi	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
tabi	yes	no	yes	no	yes
taiko	no	no	no	no	no
takoyaki	no	no	no	no	no
tamari	no	yes	yes	no	no
tanka	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
tanuki	no	yes	no	no	no
tatami	no	yes	yes	no	no
tempura	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
tenno	no	yes	no	no	yes
teppanyaki	no	yes	no	no	no
teriyaki	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
tofu	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
tokonoma	no	yes	yes	no	no
tokusatsu	no	no	no	no	no
torii	no	yes	yes	no	no
tsunami	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
tsutsugamushi	no	yes	no	no	no
tycoon	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
udo	yes	yes	yes	no	no
udon	no	yes	yes	no	no
ukiyo-e	no	yes	yes	no	no
umami	yes	yes	no	no	no
umeboshi	no	no	yes	no	no
urushiol	yes	yes	yes	no	no
utani	no	no	no	no	no
uzushi	no	no	no	no	no
waka	no	yes	yes	no	no
wakame	no	yes	yes	no	no
wakizashi	no	no	no	no	no
wasabi	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
yagi	yes	yes	no	no	no
yakitori	no	yes	yes	no	no
yakuza	yes	no	yes	no	no
yukata	no	no	yes	no	no
yumi	no	no	no	no	no
zaibatsu	no	yes	yes	no	no
zazen	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
zen	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
zori	yes	yes	yes	no	no

And for historical record, here is the program I wrote to do this:

#!/usr/bin/perl
 
use warnings;
use strict;
 
use LWP::Simple qw(get);
use Memoize;
 
memoize('my_get');
 
my %dictionary_data = (
    merriam_webster   => { url            => 'http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/%word%',
                           nomatch_regexp => qr/The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary/ },
    random_house      => { url            => 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%word%',
                           nomatch_regexp => qr/No results found for/,
                           match_regexp   => qr/Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary/ },
    american_heritage => { url            => 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%word%',
                           nomatch_regexp => qr/No results found for/,
                         match_regexp   => qr/The American Heritage/ },
    wordnet           => { url            => 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%word%',
                           nomatch_regexp => qr/No results found for/,
                           match_regexp   => qr/WordNet/ },
    websters_new_millennium =>
                         { url            => 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%word%',
                           nomatch_regexp => qr/No results found for/,
                           match_regexp   => qr/Webster\'s New Millennium/ }, #'
 
);
 
my @dicts = sort keys %dictionary_data;
 
print "{|\n|-\n! word\n";
foreach my $dict (@dicts) {
    print "! $dict\n";
}
 
while (<>) {
    chomp;
    my @results = ();
    print "|-\n| $_\n";
    foreach my $dict (@dicts) {
        if (is_in_dictionary($_, $dict)) {
            print qq(| style="background:#99FF99" | yes\n);
        } else {
            print qq(| style="background:#FF9999" | no\n);
        }
    }
}
 
print "|}\n";
 
sub is_in_dictionary {
    my ($word, $dictionary) = @_;
 
    my $url = $dictionary_data{$dictionary}->{url};
    $url =~ s/%word%/$word/;
    my $result = my_get($url);
    my $nomatch_regexp = $dictionary_data{$dictionary}->{nomatch_regexp};
    my $match_regexp   = $dictionary_data{$dictionary}->{match_regexp};
    if ($result =~ $nomatch_regexp) {
        return 0;
    } else {
        if (defined $match_regexp) {
            return $result =~ $match_regexp ? 1 : 0;
        } else {
            return 1;
        }
    }
}
 
sub my_get {
    my ($url) = @_;
    my $result = get($url);
    return $result;
}

Nohat (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with this data? For starters, I think words which don't appear in any of the dictionaries are good candidates for culling, provided no one can show that the word appears in a dictionary other than the ones given here, such as the Oxford English Dictionary. Nohat (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think words that are in at least two dictionaries should qualify. Also, in cases like "bokeh", which is a very common word in photography (I believe Fg2 pointed this one out), exceptions can be made on a case by case basis. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There were typo in the article and the list above was affected by them. Please see diff and check those that are fixed. "nappa, napa cabbage" also need to be checked separately. --Kusunose 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think before anything is done with the data, "Webster's New Millennium" ought to be removed. Clearly it is a rather brief dictionary, not even listing karate, karaoke, sushi, etc. even when the first three all do. Some dictionaries are more authoritative than others; not only have I never heard of the Webster's New Millennium dictionary, it seems rather hard to find in a print edition. For example, note that karoshi and hikikomori are listed in Webster's New Millennium but not the others. I have serious doubts about whether these have actually made it into the English language. --C S (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are some problems with this data. The Webster's New Millennium and the WordNet results do seems somewhat spurious, and and as Kusunose pointed out, there were some typos in the list of words I used. For me, the main takeaway from my experiment was to show that the majority of words on this page are in fact listed in multiple major published English dictionaries, and that there isn't much of a compelling argument to support the calls for a drastic shortening of the list that could be based on any reliable, verifiable criteria. Certainly I agree that the words that aren't listed in any dictionaries or are only listed in one dictionary are good candidates for removal, but there aren't that many of those. Unless someone else does it before I get the chance, I will post corrections to the list, and then a proposed rubric for removing words and a list of words to be removed for further discussion. Nohat (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nohat. By the way, thanks for going to this effort. I look forward to your revision. --C S (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Still a problem

I see from the discussion page that this article has been seen as a problem for quite some time. Yet here we are, months after it was pointed out, and the article is still bloated with transliterated words. IMO, this article needs to be trimmed down a lot, as it's practically useless. There's a big difference between "karaoke" and "bunraku." IMO, the difference is that one word is used to describe an aspect of Japanese culture/history and the other does not. Ditto words like "hiragana," which are not general terms at all but words specifically used to describe Japanese things. If we're going to put every Japanese word that has ever ended up used in English, then we ought to break out a Japanese History book and start putting every single word that is of Japanese origin into this article... RobertM525 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What specific, neutral inclusion criteria do you propose? nohat (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The removal of any word which refers specifically to Japan or Japanese culture from the article. If the word cannot be realistically defined without mentioning Japan, then it's not an English word. It's the difference between a word having a Japanese etymology and a Japanese loanword for describing something Japanese. Compare, from this article: "hiragana: a Japanese syllabary, one of the four Japanese writing systems" with "karaoke: "empty orchestra"; entertainment where an amateur singer accompanies recorded music". And nevermind terms like "kirigami," which the article defines as "similar to origami, but involves cutting in addition to folding" but which The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines as "The Japanese art of cutting and folding paper into ornamental objects or designs." Just this would go a long way toward removing the bloat from this article. RobertM525 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the list is bloated with words that few people, if any, would consider to be "English". It seems to me that there are three different categories here (albeit with fuzzy and somewhat subjective boundaries):

1. Words, such as tycoon, that English speakers use naturally, without any conscious feeling that the word is of foreign origin.
2. Words, such as origami, that English speakers use naturally but in the knowledge that the word refers (originally) to a Japanese practice or custom.
3. Words, such as katsuramono that very few English speakers are familiar with, and would only be used in a specialist context that is specifically discussing the Japanese culture.

Are you saying the article should include only words from the first category, or would you admit words from the second too? 86.140.132.22 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I would say both #1 and #2 are fine. Though I would caution that some apply #2 so broadly that they use it as license to include practically any word their Japanese-English dictionary can find them. RobertM525 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have pruned the article somewhat. Feel free to reintroduce words I have deleted after discussing them here, if there's a good reason for it. RobertM525 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way I see it, the difficulty is in finding an objective way to determine if something is an "English word". I don't believe that inclusion in an English dictionary automatically makes a word "English" in the sense that most people understand it. Your suggestion to exclude words that "cannot be realistically defined without mentioning Japan" has some appeal, but is, I think, too subjective and too prone to arguments about what is a "realistic definition". More objective would be "words that dictionaries X, Y, Z define without mentioning Japan", but this would likely exclude many words that we might otherwise want to include. The only objective way to do this that I can think of right now is to rename the article "List or words of Japanese origin that appear in English dictionaries" (and nominate a selection of qualifying dictionaries). It would be nice to resolve this because it applies to a number of similar articles, not just this one. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

There are various kinds of dictionaries. In a reputable dictionary that is correctly described as a "dictionary of the English language," each entry is an English word. There are non-English words that are not used as entries, but the entries—the words being defined—are considered by the editors to be English words.

There are other dictionaries, written in the English language, that are not dictionaries of the English language. For example, a dictionary of Japanese performing arts, or a dictionary of Japanese martial-arts terms, or a dictionary of Japanese cuisine. In these dictionaries, the entries are mostly foreign words. Some may also be English, for example, "kabuki," "karate," or "sushi." These are also found as entries in general dictionaries of the English language. But many are not English, and do not have entries in the general dictionaries.

The title of this article, "List of English words of Japanese origin," makes it clear that the list should include English words, and only English words. We should include words that have entries in reputable dictionaries of the English language and are identified there as being of Japanese origin, and we should exclude words that do not appear in these dictionaries, or that are not identified there as being of Japanese origin. Fg2 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I completely disagree. The fact that a word is listed in a general English dictionary does not, to me, necessarily make it an "English word". All it means is that it's a word that's appeared frequently enough in English texts to satisfy the dictionary editors, which is a quite different thing. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your criterion? Fg2 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For "English word"? I don't have one: it's an imprecise and subjective concept. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Let's take the word "kabuki," which Fg2 has just reintroduced to this article. This is a proper noun for an aspect of Japanese culture. This is not an English word. This is a transliteration of a Japanese word that appears in English dictionaries; it is not a term which can be used in a way that is not relevant to Japanese culture. It is not a generic term. By contrast, a "tycoon" can refer to a person of any nationality—the word has become a part of the English language. "Kabuki" has not. Nor many of the other words Fg2 just reintroduced into the article. Furthermore, there are a number of food-based words that I was reluctant to remove. If they are only used in Japanese cuisine, they are not English words. IMO, the word must have a generic, non-Japanese usage before it can be considered "an English word." The fact of the matter is, this should probably be a very, very small list. There hasn't been much of a reason in any English-speaking nation's history to have had a massive influx of Japanese loanwords (other than, perhaps, the American occupation of Japan). English-speakers have not been politically or culturally dominated by Japan (anime fans not withstanding ;) ). Most English words are still of Germanic or Romance origin. So unless we rename this article to List of Japanese words that have been transliterated into the Roman alphabet, this article ought to be quite small. RobertM525 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with your general sentiments. The problem is that I've yet to see any fully objective criterion -- something that different people can apply and always arrive at the same conclusion -- to determine whether a word is "English" and should therefore be included (except, obviously, the "appears in dictionary X, Y or Z" one, which results in reams of words that almost no one thinks are "English"). I broadly agree with the idea of "must have a generic, non-Japanese usage", but there will inevitably be grey areas where this is just a matter of opinion. If we don't have an objective test to apply then we'll forever have some people adding words and others taking them out. The other option is, as you say, to rename the article. 86.161.41.37 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

I can sympathize with RobertM525's frustration. As a native speaker of English, I do not consider most of the words listed here to be English. However, I would have difficulty in listing criteria, but I suppose it relates to the degree that I associate the terms to Japan. From the entire existing list, I only consider five words to be genuine English: tycoon, tsunami, soy, rickshaw, and moxibustion. These are words that most English speakers use without any special knowledge or association of their Japanese etymology. This corresponds to the above IP criteria #1. A few others I may include with the express knowledge that they strongly associated with Japan: origami, haiku, karaoke, zen, geisha, (top) ramen, sake, sushi, teriyaki, and tofu. These I would consider to be likely candidates for sometime in the future. This corresponds to the above IP criteria #2. I would remove anything from #3.

On the other hand, as a linguist who has done (Japanese) lexicographical work, I am fully aware of and can appreciate the importance of descriptiveness over prescriptiveness: if a word appears in English text, then it is English and should be recorded. That is essentially how the OED and other major dictionaries work. This will often generate extremely rare and obscure entries, though, that many native speakers often will not understand. Relying on dictionaries as a reference would certainly be compatible with the Wikipedia policies. But then this list could get much, much longer. And surely the complaints will continue for many more years, just like they have before this thread.

Rather, I must wonder why this article is even needed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I suggest taking this over to Wiktionary where it would be much more appropriate and get rid of the problem here. Bendono (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not just this article though... there are oodles of them, all for different languages, with many suffering, to varying degrees, from the same problem. I'm not sure how you'd get on trying to get agreement to wipe all of them from Wikipedia. 86.161.41.37 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

This is reminding me somewhat of the perfect solution fallacy (i.e., "because we cannot easily limit the article, we shouldn't really limit the article much at all"). The editors adding entries to this article are not robots. If the criterion is "words which can be used outside of the context of Japan/Japanese history/Japanese culture," for instance, then it would seriously curtail this article's problems (though, yes, not totally eliminate them). Ideally, it seems that this article is one in which a reader should be able to find words that they recognize but had no idea were of Japanese origin. Take karaoke—people familiar with karaoke often have no idea that the word is Japanese (unless they saw that Lifesavers commercial a few years ago :) ). Conversely, however, people familiar with kabuki know by definition that it is Japanese. While these seem to be two ends of a continuum, the transition from one end to the other is (for the most part) not so subtle that we ought to just forgo any attempt to keep this article reasonably "logical." Yes, there may be some words which will prove troublesome. But the "in an English dictionary" criterion is simply too broad to allow this article to perform its apparent intended function. RobertM525 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Food and drink terms (of which there are many) could be problematic. If a Japanese dish is (somewhere) cooked by a non-Japanese person outside of Japan then does that mean it can "be used outside of the context of Japan/Japanese history/Japanese culture"? If not, then to what extent must the dish be eaten outside of Japan to be eligible? What about words like "geisha", "anime", "manga", "kimono" and "shogun", which, to me, are very strongly or exclusively associated with Japan and yet are amongst the more familiar in the list? Would you include these? Your criterion would seem, for example, to definitely exclude "geisha", which I'm not sure is the correct decision. 81.151.231.242 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

I suppose with food it can be unilaterally excluded. My rationale here, FWIW, is that no matter how many quesadillas I make at home with my microwave and a block of cheddar cheese, the term is still a Spanish word for a Mexican dish. It is, after all, "Mexican food." If a dish with a Japanese name can be made and not considered "Japanese food," then it would qualify for being an English word not a Japanese dish that many English speakers are familiar with. Further rationale here is that if the food is intrinsically "Japanese food," then the fact that it has a Japanese name is expected—it would be much more surprising if it did not have a Japanese name. Now, onto manga and anime... Mangas are simply a type of Japanese comic book. I can possibly foresee the term "manga" being generalized to any B&W, digest-size comic regardless of the origin of the work in question. At the moment, however, "manga" still refers to "a Japanese graphic novel, typically intended for adults, characterized by highly stylized art.". Ditto anime; you would not call Mask of the Phantasm "an anime," for instance. Again, the problem with the words is not their familiarity to English speakers but their use by English speakers. Any word from any language can be transliterated into another language, but not just any word can claim to have integrated itself into the second language. "Admiral," for example, is a word adopted from Arabic through French that is a thoroughly English word. The word "geisha" is not even remotely analogous to this. RobertM525 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Robert for explaining at length his notion of what makes a word an "English word" (although it doesn't seem completely clear). However, I don't think we can use it (whatever "it" is) as criteria for this page unless it can be sourced to academic sources. What reliable sources use these criteria? The criteria used by dictionaries like OED and Merriam-Webster are well-documented and justified by academic practice. What they do when they attempt to capture English usage is perhaps broader than what the average person may consider, but it is straightforward for us to rely on their research and expertise than our own. --C S (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there is no current criteria for inclusion, either. As soon as the dictionary argument is made, then every word with a Japanese etymology found in any dictionary is eligible. But we are not a dictionary. It is not our problem. The page should be deleted pending moving entries to Wiktionary. The fact that similar pages exist is also immaterial. They need to be similarly handled one at a time, too. Bendono (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Robert, and I qualify all the following by reiterating that I broadly agree with what you are trying to do, I just don't see a way to make it work in practice.) The question of whether "a dish with a Japanese name can be made and not considered 'Japanese food'" is purely subjective. Really, it boils down to someone looking at a word and saying "I do/don't think it belongs in the list", which isn't a way forward for this article. Regarding the other words I mentioned, such as "geisha", I personally would not call this a truly "English" word (so perhaps there we are in agreement). However, if we exclude all words like this then the list is going to be really short. In fact, it might just contain the following: "bonsai"(?), "karaoke", "origami"(?), "satsuma", "soy", "umami", "tycoon", "hentai"(?), "koi", "rickshaw", "sudoku" and "tsunami" (you may not precisely agree with this, but you get the general idea). Is that what we want? Maybe it is? A long time ago I tried to put such a list at the start of the article, on the grounds that people might want to see a quick list of words that they might actually consider English, but it was quickly reverted as being OR. I imagine another similar attempt would meet the same response. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As this is not the right forum, this page will continue to be problem. But since people are not getting that, then perhaps we should add the 378 English words of Japanese origins as listed in the OED. Bendono (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bendono, that's an interesting title (and an expensive book). Its list would be a valuable addition to a Wikimedia project, but I don't know what copyright issues might arise. It does underscore what you and I have been saying: compilers of dictionaries put a lot of work into deciding whether a word has become English. They have various criteria, and some of them might resemble the ones various people have proposed, but there's no need for Wikimedia projects to duplicate their research (and policy tells us not to post the results of our own research). Personally, I don't mind if this List of English words of Japanese origin goes to Wiktionary (although my preference is for Wikipedia, which gets more traffic -- at the least it needs a "soft redirect"). But I do think it requires far more than a dozen words.

Responding to the general discussion, I reiterate what I wrote previously: a dictionary of the English language is a dictionary of English words. When compilers of reliable general dictionaries list a word in these dictionaries, they are saying that the word is an English word. General English dictionaries do not attempt to include every foreign word used in English; the compilers of dictionaries might do that in the databases they keep so that eventually, when a word appears in a sufficient variety of types of writing, they will know to add it to the dictionary, but they do not automatically publish every foreign word used in English in the general dictionaries they publish. Certainly, far more than 378 Japanese words have been used in English, and the OED is a huge dictionary, so it clearly does not list every Japanese word that its compilers have seen in English. The words that appear in general English dictionaries belong in this list, whether here or on Wictionary. Applying a separate criterion such as people not associating it with Japan would eliminate many words that, according to the compilers of these dictionaries, are English. That would not accord with the title of the article. Fg2 (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked several people about this, just for interest, using randomly chosen "foreign-sounding" (but familiar) words taken from a general English dictionary, and asking if they consider them to be "English words". Overwhelmingly, the answer was "no". I do not believe that your definition of "English word" as "a word listed in an English dictionary" accords with most people's understanding of that term. I think there are two issues here: firstly, the fact that the article's title is misleading (if all "dictionary words" are to be included), and, secondly, the issue of whether it would be more helpful for people to see a list of words that are "really" English, rather than having to wade through reams of unfamiliar transliterated Japanese terms that no one actually thinks are "English words". The second of these is very problematic due to the lack of any objective inclusion criteria. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I had another thought. How about we include only words that are in a short English dictionary -- one that only lists everyday words. We'd have to agree which dictionary(ies), but that might give us the objective criterion and cut out all the dross. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC). Strike that, it's a crap idea. Whether a word is common or unusual doesn't have any bearing on whether it's English. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The experiment you did is interesting, but ultimately is not the test compilers of dictionaries use when deciding which words are English. The compilers of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries write, "Before any word can be considered for inclusion, we have to have proof not only that it has existed in the language for a number of years, but also that it is frequently used by all sorts of English writers (as indicated by how often it appears in a variety of general-interest publications)." ("Why are some words missing from the dictionary? (e.g., misandry)?) And, "Simply put, to gain entry to the dictionary, a word must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time." ("I would like to see a particular word added to or deleted from the dictionary. What can I do?") The way they evaluate usage is 'Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking."' ("How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?") So, if a word appears in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, it "must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time." That extended period of time is not the brief term of a fad, but "a number of years." And the word must be "frequently used by all sorts of English writers (as indicated by how often it appears in a variety of general-interest publications)."

In addition, you mentioned the size of a dictionary. The compilers of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries comment on that topic: "Because an abridged dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, has fairly limited space, only the most commonly used words can be entered; to get into that type of dictionary, a word must be supported by a significant number of citations." ("How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?") Since the online dictionary is abridged, the words of Japanese origin cited in it "must be supported by a significant number of citations." These words are English. Fg2 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm reaching the stage where I'm just repeating myself, but the fact that a foreign loanword is used widely enough by English speakers to merit inclusion in an English dictionary doesn't make it an "English word". To choose an example at random, consider the word "voilà", which appears in several English dictionaries that I've just consulted. I don't care how many citations of this word you can find in English texts, the word is, to me, not an "English word". Do you think it is? 86.138.42.133 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Actually, if it's in a "dictionary of the English language" (which is what most English language dictionaries use in their titles or subtitles), it (by inclusion) is an English word. Regardless of what you think. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Try asking 100 English speakers whether "voilà" is an "English word", and see how many agree with you that it is. My guess is that the number will be approximately zero. 86.142.110.164 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, feel like I've gotten to the point where I'm simply repeating myself. I disagree with Fg2's assumption that dictionary compilers are, in fact, achieving their goal of only listing "English words" when, in fact, they are simply including words used in English language publications. And that's the problem: we're at a totally philosophical point of linguistic contention here. My definition of an English word is too restrictive for a dictionary, since a dictionary aims to allow people to read a large swath of material published in a given language and to know what it means. It's why there are people like George Washington in dictionaries--not because "George Washington" is an English word, but because his name is considered a phrase worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. Now, having said that, we're not writing a dictionary. We're writing a Wikipedia article, and we must ask, "What is the objective of this article?" If the objective of the article is to list every word of Japanese origin that has ended up in an English dictionary, then I am forced to concede that perhaps the article has no place on Wikipedia at all and ought to be deleted/moved to Wiktionary (as, perhaps, Bendono is arguing). If it is supposed to be a list of words commonly used by English speakers that people might be surprised to learn were of Japanese origin (e.g., tycoon), then that may be equally unmanageable because the criteria for such a thing would necessitate original research on the part of the article's authors. Thus, what does that leave us? An article that cannot, realistically, be written? I am starting to believe that this may be the case. (Which is, IMO, rather sad, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for the article I thought this was going to be when I ended up on it in the first place.) RobertM525 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument that words should be excluded because they are used exclusively to describe aspects of Japanese culture is gross ethnocentrism. The argument that something can only be an English word if it describes some aspect of Anglo-Saxon culture is indefensible and offensive. Blech.

As I have said all along, let's leave the decision of what is an English word up to the professional lexicographers. If there are a few dozen words here that you didn't know before stumbling upon this page, what's the harm?nohat (talk)

There is no harm as such, except that some people feel that a list of every single word of Japanese origin that appears in an English dictionary is not Wikipedia material. The title of the article is, however, misleading because many (most) of these words are not "English words" according to the way that most people understand and use that term. 86.136.194.247 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC).

Please point out these "some people". They obviously include you (whoever you are), but who are the others in this "some people"? We certainly aren't going to change things just because you and some vague group labelled "some people" don't like it. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the thread. 86.142.110.164 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This really is one of the most ludicrous edit-wars I've stumbled across in some time. Is someone actually going to *do* anything about this bloated and uninformative list of Japanese words masquerading as English ones? I imagine Japanese dictionaries explain lots of English words too, but it doesn't make them Japanese words. How about applying some simple common sense here people? {90.194.145.147 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}

keep the size

The list is big, but they are necessary words. Yes, necessary mostly to nerds or English speakers living in Japan, but still necessary to some people. the word pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is used exclusively by doctors, does that mean it's not an English word? If you know Kabuki, you use the word Kabuki in English. If you know manga, you use the word manga in English. There are many aspects of Japanese culture like that which don't have translations and so are used in English, just because some arn't used by non-specialists, doesn't mean it's not English. I've never heard anyone but educators use the word Andragogy, but that does not affect it's status as an English word. 109.76.186.30 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of English words of Japanese origin → List of words of Japanese origin appearing in English dictionaries — The majority of the words currently listed are not "English words" in the way that term is generally understood. 86.184.237.148 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't think making such a minor distinction is worth such an unwieldy title. If you want to emphasize the point that your criterion for inclusion is that the words appear in English dictionaries, just say so in the intro to the article. Recury (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do not agree that this is a "minor distinction", and, as you can see from the discussions above, neither do a number of other people. In fact, this distinction is a source of repeated confusion and argument about the article's purpose. Some of this confusion may be alleviated by clarifying the title. 86.173.34.139 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (proposer).

• And a good alternative to renaming was provided, too. The title doesn't need to contain absolutely every caveat about the list. That's what the intro is for. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• That would all be fine, except that in some people's view (though I appreciate it may not be yours) the present title is actually wrong, not merely in need of elaboration. Specifically, it is wrong to call most of these words "English words". 86.186.35.26 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose for the same reason as Recury. Just clarify the scope in the intro. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihonjoe & Recury. Don't use an unwieldy title, just write a clear lead. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is like arguing for an article titled "List of American baseball players" which then explains in the lead that the list also includes baseball players of other nationalities. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Do you really need to harass everyone you disagree with? If a Japanese word appears in a dictionary of the English language, it's an English word. More than half of the words in any such dictionary are originally from another language, yet they are considered "English" words. This expansion of the title is completely unnecessary. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am surprised that you use such a word as "harass" when I am simply arguing my case and responding in an entirely civil way to the objections that others have raised. Regarding your point, if you truly think that all the words in this list are "English words" then I believe you are in a small minority. 86.186.36.45 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose For consistency's sake as in Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin. See Consistency in Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency is not good if it means consistently wrong. I am aware that many of these articles suffer from exactly the same problem: they purport to be lists of "English words", yet they include many words that no one believes are "English". This nomination is, if you like, a test case, so I would ask you not to use consistency alone as a reason to oppose. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose. If they are listed in dictionaries of the English language, they're English words (of Japanese origin, in the case given). Every word needs to originate from somewhere. --Theurgist (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yep, they are still not English words

This page is truly awful. Half these words are just the japanese word for whatever it happens to be. Bunraku, for example, is merely the name of that kind of puppet show. IT IS NOT AN ENGLISH WORD. It would neither be appropriate for me to list "Gato" as an English Word of Spanish Origin, meaning cat. Come the fuck on.

Anime should also be stricken from the list, as it said in the description, "(from the English word "animation" as 'animeshon')". It's origin is english. It is not of Japanese origin. This kind of idiocy is what hurts the integrity of Wikipedia.

• Yep, five years on and the article is still dominated by words that, irrespective of the fact that they may appear in some English dictionaries, ARE VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT NATURALISED ENGLISH WORDS. The article is ludicrous, at least with its present title. 86.167.19.229 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)