Talk:Hepburn romanization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Education / Infrastructure / Law & government / Trains (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:22, September 19, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Education task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Infrastructure task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Law and government task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Trains in Japan descendant WikiProject.
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Particles in Hepburn[edit]

The article currently states that particles should be written as pronounced in Hepburn, but AFAIK the third edition doesn't mention this. Is this a Revised addition? Jpatokal (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominative or subjective by wa or ga.
Hito wa, a man.
That's what it says --iopq (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A-ha! But it also says "Accusative or objective by wo. Hito wo, a man.", whereas the Wiki article says it should be o? (And ye for へ, but that's archaic.) Jpatokal (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ISO 639[edit]

Is there an ISO639 code for Hepburn? (I've searched using Google and cannot find one; using the usual ISO code for Japanese, in HTML's "lang" attribute, causes browsers to try to download a Japanese font set.) If so, it should be mentioned in the article; and to mark-up Romaji words on Wikipeida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCCWebTeam (talkcontribs) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be? Hepburn is not a language!JimBreen (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Passport Hepburn[edit]

I've been trying to track down official sources for passport Hepburn; see Talk:Romanization of Japanese#Passport Hepburn for a discussion (well, monologue at the moment). Jpatokal (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ō vs ou[edit]

Is the spelling of the name [[Inoue] with "ou" consistent with (revised) Hepburn? --JadziaLover (talk | contribs) 18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The syllables are i/no/ue, so the o and u are clearly separate vowels. Jpatokal (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've often seen in romanization "ou" and "ō" to be the same. Is that Hepburn? ForestAngel (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpatokal, you're right about the point you're making, but the syllables are i/no/u/e. "Ue" is 上 (or うえ in hiragana), which is a two syllable word root. ForestAngel, an "ou" spelling is considered a variation of Hepburn (which means it is Hepburn). Look under variations in the article. (Ejoty (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC))


I came to this article to find out how to pronounce the names in my manga and I suppose I won’t be the only one who wants to know the pronunciation, without having to delve into the hiragana/katagana writing systems themselves. Is there a good reason why there is no pronunciation information in the tables (IPA is what I would prefer, not being an English native speaker). H. (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The pronunciation is explained in the article Japanese phonology instead. It does not fit in an article on a transcription system, since the same letter may be pronounced differently in different contexts. For example, using the Nihon-shiki system, the letter "t" is pronounced in three very different ways in the contexts "ta", "ti" and "tu". Putting in all of these aspects in the transcription system articles would move the focus from the transcription to the pronunciation. ( (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ[edit]

According to Hepburn's works such as this, this, and this, the kana ゐ/ヰ has never been "wi" at all; it was "i" from the beginning. (井 is the man'yōgana version of ヰ)

For ゑ/ヱ, it was "ye" from the beginning but it seems like it was changed to "e" later. This one and this one say "e" for ゑ. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are the old deprecated pronunciations (all "e" was "ye", which is why we have "Iyeyasu"). Also, the "wi", "we", and "wo" kana are never pronounced as such it seems, and the w is there because they've been historically included with the wa kana. Don't unilaterally change things just because you think it's right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the docs U.S. linked to? The original Hepburn docs do agree with what he says, and even modern-day sources like [1] still use the same style. The treatment of を is also inconsistent, with eg. the Kanagawa link above rendering it as "o". Jpatokal (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
They may agree with what he says, but they're still all in the wa-column. The rest of that column may not be pronounced with the w, but that does not mean that we should remove them because the old Hepburn styles do not use the w for them, or を.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please find a source that asserts that "new" Hepburn does use w for them then. Jpatokal (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No one uses these anymore. All that there is is some whiskey brand and the Rebuild of Evangelion movies. If we're keeping the w for を's entry, the w should be included for ゐ's and ゑ's, because that's all he removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How do we know is a reliable source? Unless we have access to the actual printed copy from 1867, we can't know that it's an accurate transcription. I have many books, including dictionaries, which use "wi" and "we" as well as "ye" in the charts, and they all consider themselves as using various versions of Hepburn. I suggest we mention both possibilities. I also recommend, Unnecessary stuff, that you stop making changes like this without discussion. You have a track record of doing things like this, and in almost every case, you are shot down to one degree or another. Please learn to work with people rather than trample over them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're sounding a little paranoid there -- the transcription at halcat even preserves typos and footnotes them (eg. "reeuced" as a presumed typo for "reduced"). I agree that the sensible thing to do is to note both variants, but I'm still interested in finding any refs that make the w* spellings "official". Jpatokal (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to call it that, if you wish, but I wouldn't put it past some of the POV pushers I've seen here to put together a site which looks legit just to support their POV. Some of them are so gung-ho about their POV that it wouldn't be too difficult to find the text somewhere and then slightly modify it. Given there is no such thing as "official" Hepburn since he's dead and different people disagree on all the variants of Hepburn out there, we have to make some decisions ourselves. The sensible thing, in this case, is to include both, and it won't be hard to do, either. Besides, we use Revised Hepburn, which includes some modifications to "official" or "standard" Hepburn. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found the 1867 1st edition and 1903 7th edition of Hepburn's actual work. The 1903 7th edition has わ = wa, ゐ = i, ゑ = e, を = wo. And just because they are all in wa-column doesn't mean they must have w. As you know already, Hepburn Romanzation is based on the actual pronunciation and that is why we have ta chi tsu te to instead of ta ti tu te to. If the ta-column and any other columns (such as sa/za-column, ha-column, etc) follow the actual pronunciation, why should the wa-column not follow the actual pronunciation? --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because all but wa are esoteric and archaic forms.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Look -- U.S. has provided rather authoritative proof that the original Hepburn scheme, up to the 7th edition, definitely used わ = wa, ゐ = i, ゑ = e, を = wo. The burden of proof is now on you to assert otherwise for modern variants.
(Incidentally, if you asked me to romanize ゐ or ゑ for whatever reason, I would also use "wi" and "we" to highlight their archaic nature. But alas, as far as WP is concerned my opinion is not a reliable source, and neither are you.) Jpatokal (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
They don't exist in modern Japanese to matter. In all cases except for one single instance of it being used in a brand of whiskey, these kana are not in any sort of usage. They are still the wa, wi, we, and wo kana, even if they have been pronounced as wa, i, e, and o in practical usage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we understand that this is your opinion. Now source it! Jpatokal (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess that I am wrong, as the Japanese Wikipedia points out that they are i and e. However, this article still has a note at the bottom that states "The characters in red are obsolete in modern Japanese. Additionally, ゐ/ヰ was written phonetically as i and ゑ/ヱ as e" And for whatever reason we still have it down as "wo" and have a similar note. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems like even though I provide an actual source, because I'm one of the minor users who cannot be here frequently, what I say does not get accepted unless someone else helps me out. Or is it that everyone should follow what the administrators say, even if what they say is wrong? --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anybody in this discussion is an administrator, nor that it would make any difference if somebody was. So, yes, I'm OK with your change, and Ryulong will need to show some sources if he wants to revert back. Jpatokal (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm just bothered as to why you feel that を/ヲ should remain as "wo" when it is always written as o in Hepburn, yet felt the need to remove the W's from the two obsolete kana.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually looked up Hepburn's old works, and the result was quite unexpected. The particle ヲ was actually romanized wo; when ヲ was not used as a particle, it was romanized o. (Historical kana orthography was in use, so ヲ could be used in words that are not particles.) This actually contradicts to what this article says. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A renewed wider discussion has been started at WT:MOS-JA#ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ん before vowel or y in traditional Hepburn[edit]

I checked a copy of the 1886 third edition of Hepburn's work, but I don't see any examples using an apostrophe; he uses hyphens in various places, but his usage of hyphens is not really unified. I found following examples so far.

anya アンヤ 暗夜
dōnyo ドウニヨ 童女
eni エニ
en-in エンイン 延引
in-i インイ 因位
i-nin イニン 委任
inyo インヨウ 引用
in-yō インヤウ 陰陽
i-nyō イネウ 圍繞
i-nyō イネウ 遺尿
in-yoku インヨク 婬欲
kani カニ
kan-i カンイ 簡易
kano カノ 彼
kan-ō カンオウ 乾嘔
kan-on カンオン 漢音
kanyo カンヨ 干與
kanyō カンヤウ 寬容
kanyō カンエウ 肝要
kanyū カンイウ 肝油
ka-nyū カニウ 加入
on-ai オンアイ 恩愛
onyaku オンヤク 音譯
onyōshi オンヤウシ 陰陽師
uni ウニ 海膽
un-i ウンヰ 云爲
un-ō ウンオウ 蘊奧
unohana ウノハナ 卯花
unu ウヌ
un-u ウンウ 雲雨
unyō ウンヨウ 運用
unyu ウンユ 運輸

By the way, this 羅馬字にて日本語の書き方 document from 1885 has this following:

第十六条 二つの語を以て成立ちたる語にして始の語は n に終り 次の語は母字又は y に始まるものはハイフン卽ち「-」の符標を以て其二つの語を區別すべし例へば gen-an 原案(ゲンアン) gen-in 原因(ゲンイン) kan-yū 姦雄(カンユウ) の如し genan, genin, kanyū と書けば下男(ゲナン)、下人(ゲニン)、加入(カニフ)の音となるなり

I'm not really sure, but it seems like this document recommends to use a hyphen before vowels and y. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Regarding "クワ was written as kuwa" - according to the information on this wiki page, it still is written as kuwa, and why wouldn't it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Later versions of Hepburn used kwa, as in Kwannon and Kwansei. Post-WW2, kwa became simply ka. Jpatokal (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As Jpatokal said, "Kuwa"(クハ,クワ,クヮ,クァ) in first version of Hepburn's dictionary was "kwa" in second version or later ((Japanese)『和英語林集成』各版ローマ字対照表 by Meiji Gakuin University), and "kwa" was abolished in Hyōjun-shiki Rōmaji (standard style) in 1908 ((Japanese)標準式ローマ字綴り方 by Daijisen).
Well..."kwa" for other languages seems to be in British standard for Japanese romanization (BS 4812:1972) that is one of the (revised) Hepburn romanization family. "Gwa"(グハ,グワ,グヮ,グァ) ("guwa" in first version) is so. Do they are needed in "For extend katakana" section? Umm...
Incidentally, "クワ" and "グワ" is left in some Japanese dialect such as Unpaku direct ((Japanese)拗音 by Daijisen, 雲伯方言 by ja:Wikipedia).--Mujaki (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

modified Hepburn[edit]

Is thw following explanation right in "Variants of Hepburn romanization" section?

It has been adopted by some major dictionaries (e.g. the Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary published by Oxford University Press).

Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary follows romanization called "modified Hepburn", but "modified Hepburn" means what is called "revised Hepburn" family in this case. Does Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary follow "modified Hepburn" style such as "Tookyoo"? And, what is other major dictionary adopting "modified Hepburn"?--Mujaki (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The US Library of Congress's current system is "revised Hepburn". The Kenkyusha's system is "modified Hepburn". How is that so hard to understand?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, would you please look over good sources?
You are fundamentally wrong. LC announced "The modified Hepburn system of romanization as employed in Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (3rd or later editions) is used..." as its Romanization system[2][3] as its Romanization system, and "For Japanese language publications, LC and CONSER folow the modified Hepburn system of romanization, as employed in Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (3rd and later editions)..."[4].--Mujaki (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Revised hepburn syllabic n and recent article modifications[edit]

Why was the revised hepburn rule for syllabic n changed on Dec 23?

Before Dec 23:

The rendering m before labial consonants is not used, being replaced with n.

After Dec 23:

Syllabic n (ん) is written as n before consonants, but as m or n before labial consonants, i.e. b, m, and p.

I am following the pre-Dec 23 rule for now. Wanted to point this out about the article, though.--Bxj (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed Hyōjun-shiki Rōmaji along the introduction.
  • The Hepburn system was subsequently revised and called Shūsei Hebon-shiki Rōmaji (修正ヘボン式ローマ字). This revised version was referred to as Hyōjun-shiki Rōmaji (標準式ローマ字) (standard style) before. (Dec. 14 2010 07:14(UTC))
To tell the truth, "revised Hepburn" is ambiguous, there are some opinions ("Variants of Hepburn romanization" section), and the definition vary in each opinions. "Revised Hepburn" often means ALA-LC (BS and ANSI adopt ALA-LC), but it is defferent from "Hepburn Romanization" in enwp.
  • third edition of Hepburn's dictionary (1886), Railway Standard in Japan (1947) etc.
    • Syllabic n is written as n before consonants, but as m before labial consonants.
    • "Traditional Hepburn" means first edition of Hepburn's dictionary (1868) in this case.
  • Hyōjun-shiki Rōmaji (1908), Romanization style defined by SCAP (1946)
    • Syllabic n is written as n before consonants, but as m or n before labial consonants.
  • New Japanese-English Dictionary by Kenkyusha (1927?), ALA-LC, BS(1972), ANSI(1972) etc.
    • Syllabic n is written as n even if it is before labial consonants.
--Mujaki (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Traditional Hepburn is Hepburn's 3rd ed/SCAP Hyojunshiki, and the ALA-LC system is what is usually meant by Revised. The 1st edition of Hepburn is simply obsolete, nobody uses spellings like "desz" anymore. Jpatokal (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
!? I didn't say traditional Hepburn always means first edition - "traditional Hepburn" means first edition if "revised Hepburn" refers to third edition([5][6][7]). it aside...
I don't see any of those sources saying anything like that -- all you can conclude is that some people's definition of "修正ヘボン式ローマ字" includes using M instead of N. (Which is a good point though, and should be noted.) Jpatokal (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • TuZino(p.3): The term "revised Hepburn" is used widely, but it is ambiguous. It means 3rd edition of Hepburn'd dictionary for it's 1st edition, or Hyojun-shiki by Romaji Hiromekai (Hepburn was a member of the association) for 3rd edition. Or it means rairoad standard style for them, (snip). "修正ヘボン式といふ名称は安易に使はれてゐるが,これがなにを指してゐるのか曖昧である.ヘボン氏の和英語林集成第一版に対して,第三版を修正ヘボン式といふこともあれば,第三版に対して,後のローマ字ひろめ会(ヘボン氏も会員であった) の「標準式」を修正ヘボン式と呼ぶこともある.また,それらに対して,鐵道省駅名用のローマ字表記を修正ヘボン式と称することもあるし,(snip)"
  • Unyu-Tsutatsu NO.490:Table-1 Romaji ("reversed Hepburn") "別表1 ローマ字(改修ヘボン式)"
    • (Clause 2 - )No.2: m bofore m, p, b "(二 前號に定めるものの外は、おおむね左の例による。 - )二 揆音はB・P・Mの前はM、その他はNを用いること。"
  • KAIZU:revised Hepburn by Romajikai (1885) "羅馬字会の「修正ヘボン式」"
    • Article 15: m bofore m, p, b "第十五条:一つの音の終にある n 及び m は仮名の「ン」の字に當る m, b, p の前にありては m を用ひ其外は皆 n を用ふべし例えば"
Do you need other sources for "m"? And I can cite some source for "n".--Mujaki (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article and article ALA-LC do not refer to each other. And ALA-LC for Japanese is illustrated in article Romanization#Japanese - Similar to Hepburn (in other word, a little different from Hepburn); ALA-LC is excluded from (revised) Hepburn family in enwp imply. So each articles should be updated, if "revised Hepburn" in this article will be based on ALA-LC.
The ALA-LC definition explicitly states that they use revised Hepburn as defined in Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary of 1954. Jpatokal (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen that [8]. I pointed out the consistency. For example, Kenkyusha's dictionary is the most common "reviced Hepburn" according to this. Therefore "revised Hepburn" in this article can follows Kenkyusha's dictionary, but it must be explained in this article. And other populer view should be referred per WP:NPOV.--Mujaki (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
And "revised Hepburn" adopts Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (1954) in dewp([9]), the term mainly means "Hyōjun-shiki Rōmaji" (1908) in Daijirin etc.; So i said "revised Hepburn" often means ALA-LC, "revised Hepburn" is ambiguous etc. I would update introduction along the theory, if "revised Hepburn" is unique in any source.--Mujaki (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

About my edit on extended katakana[edit]

外来語の表記 would be better than BS 4812 because the kana combinations on 外来語の表記 are formally approved by the Japanese government. The orange and blue shadings are originally based on 外来語の表記.

Plus, that BS 4812 might not really be a reliable source because it has errors on itself. (For example, し is romanized as shi on the table but later it is romanized as si.) --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because it uses si in the text and shi in tables does not mean it's not a reliable source. It's a Hepburn system. BS 4812 and ANSI Z39.11 are just as reliable. They're also featured in this 2010 publication on extending the katakana usage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
But how do we know is a reliable source? Unless we have access to the actual printed copy, we can't know that it's an accurate transcription. It even has si in the text and shi in tables. And that publication is extended Hepburn system, but that can't really be used as a source because it gives different romanizations for certain kana, and it is based on historical kana orthography, not on pronunciation. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
How do we know that any of the older website sources that similarly posted copies of publications are reliable sources either? Just because the prose of the BSI and ANSI documents aren't consistent does not mean that they cannot be used because the tables are being used instead. And each item is being used to source the possible extensions and the usage of w in wi and we to show that some Hepburn systems include that and so should the one we use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about eigher edit; "外来語の表記" is a very important source because loanwords in Japanese language are almost used in Japan. But it restricts style on science, technic, expression in the past and so on. Any Japanese romanization system is a notation for Japanese language, but romaji character for specific karakana such as "キェ" can be defined freely on some styles, and BS 4812:1972 is valid in only some countries in the Commonwealth; therefore katakana in only BS (uncommon katakana) are unnecessary, or they should be distinguished from common katakana clearly.
We can find an original text in KAIZU(halcat)'s archives if we want. And he says "ご心配のむきは、かならず原典をご参照ください。" in his text for BS/ANSI. This is similar to WP:IRS under WP:V in wikipedia. For example, BS 4812:1972 can be bought from ANSI in US[10]. I think the error "si" is perhaps typo by him.--Mujaki (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


By the way, I don't understand Ryulong persists "ウー(wu)" without relative source for any Hepburn system. Ryulong asserts his view in my talk page, but i don't agree with him because if his viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.--Mujaki (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you're looking at Mujaki, but ウー is in practice to stand in for wu in modern Japanese. It's all over Google, the Japanese Wikipedia (only one example), and in general Japanese media (names of two video game characters use ウー for the Chinese wu sound and in the name of some media where the English word "woman" is in use as ウーマン which surely isn't pronounced as ūman).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. You mistake alphabetical spelling in Japanese sentense for romaji. In fact, other parts with "wu" -e.g. "Wu-Tang Clan (ウータン・クラン)" "Dr. Wu (ウー先生)", "Tony Wu (トニー・ウー)," "JASON WU (ジェイソン・ウー)", "Pace Wu (ピース・ウー)", "Monica Wu (モニカ・ウー)", "VANNESS WU (ヴァネス・ウー)" and so on - are not obviously based on any romaji style.
The many wu come from Chinese in pinyin, they are usually written as "ウー" in katakana, but "ウー" is not written as "wu" in Romaji because "wu" as "ウー" is undefined in romaji style such as Hepburn's dictionary, Kenkyusha's dictionary, Kojien, Hyojun-shiki(Romaji Tebiki in 1909, Romaji no Tebiki in 1972), Japanese railroad standard, Japanese passport standard, Japanese romaji standard, British standard and so on.
In Japanese basic rule, "ー" in kana is a symbol for long vowel[11], and "ウー" means a long vowel u; In short, "ウー" is not pronounced /wu/ ([ɰu]), but it is pronounced /uː/ in Japanese([ɯː])[12][13][14].--Mujaki (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
ウー is still used as an approximation of the Chinese wu sound, and is clearly used much more commonly than ウゥ. We should make that distinction here and elsewhere. If it starts a word, it's not going to be ū.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
What is your authority (source) for saying that? You must not add any your original idea in the article without reliable sources per WP:V and WP:OR.
As I cited sources (dictionary), "ウー" in katakana means long vowel u in Japanese and "wu" as "ウー" is not defined in any romaji (Japanese romanization) styles. And the pronunciation of katakana term is not the same as the original pronunciation (魔法の発音 カタカナ英語 written by Yuji Ikegaya published by Kodansha). For example, Chinese name "ウー" ("呉", "武" etc.) in katakana can be written as "wu" in pinyin (Chinese romanization) without tone marks style exceptionally in Japanese passport standard style, but it is not in Hepburn style(ヘボン式によらないローマ字氏名表記)[15]. In other case, Korean name "キム" ("金"; "Kimu" in romaji) can be written as "Kim", but it is not Hepburn style too.
WP:OR refers to the following;
  • If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research;
If "ウー" is written as "wu" in Hepburn style, it is in many source for romaji and we'll find one of them easily.--Mujaki (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
My source? The fact that I've clearly explained that ウー is used in practice to approximate "wu" everywhere and it is more common than the ウゥ variant suggested in the 1974 Hyojun-shiki papers. If it starts a word, it's probably going to be "wu" and not "ū". If it is clearly in practice as I have explained , then it should be mentioned and there need not be a reference for it. In some cases ウー is ū and in others it's wu. Why is that such an issue. And would you stop quoting things and making huge comments? It's hard to have a discussion when you write a treatise every time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, you are, quite simply, flat out wrong. In fact, there is no "Chinese wu sound", as the pinyin article clearly explains:
Y and w are equivalent to the semivowel medials i, u, and ü (see below). They are spelled differently when there is no initial consonant in order to mark a new syllable: fanguan is fan-guan, while fangwan is fang-wan (and equivalent to *fang-uan).
In other words, Chinese "wu" is pronounced precisely the same as Chinese "u", and that's why both are romanized ウー. The different spellings are an artifact of pinyin, and have nothing to do with Hepburn. Jpatokal (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This rare katakana combination is still used by the Japanese to represent the wu͍ and phonemes in other languages as evidenced by "Wu-Tang Clan", "Bio Planet WoO" ([16]), among other instances, as well as in woman, Wolseley, Worcester, Wooster, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
ウー is also used to represent the German phoneme "ü", as in Hair Make ÜBER (ウーバー). Should we add ü to the kana table as well? And if not, why not? Jpatokal (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, did you lean Japanese language, pronunciation and romaji at school? by yourself? You don't or can't tell Japanese romaji style from other Latin spelling styles.
Kana are the syllabic characters[17] with some exceptions such as "おう" as "オー". "ウ" is pronounced /u/ ([ɯ])[18], "ー" is a symbol for long vowel[19][20] and "ウー" means long vowel u;
Chienese "wu" and English "woo" etc. are often written as "ウー" in katakana. Is "ウー" pronounced /wu/ ([ɰu]) in modern Japanese exceptionally? No.
  • "ウーロン茶(烏龍茶)" (wulong cha in pinyin, wu long tea (oolong tea is more common) in English) is pronounced /uːrontɕa/ in common Japanese (NHK日本語発音アクセント辞典(NHK))
  • "ウーマン" (woman) is pronounced /uːmaɴ/ in common Japanese (NHK) and "ウーマン・リブ" (woman liberation) is pronounced /uːmanɽibu/ in common Japanese (NHK, 新明解日本語アクセント辞典).
    • The pronunciation of "woman" is written as "ウマン" in katakana ("uman" in romaji) as English phonetic notation with supplementations ("「ウ」は口を丸めて「う」を発音...") in the appendix etc. (ヴィスタ英和辞典, ファミリア英和辞典 and so on)
If "wu" is specified for "ウー" in a certain romanization style, "ウー" in kana is written as "wu" in the romaji style. But it is not right in other romaji style such as Hepburn's dictionary, ALA-LC(Kenkyusha's dictionary), Hyojun style and so on because "wu" as "ウー" is not defined in them; "ウー" means long vowel u in common Japanese, and it is transliterated as "ū" in revised Hepburn (ALA-LC in here) style per its rule.--Mujaki (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you stop treating me like a moron? Why can't you understand that this is a special case? For all intents and purposes, ウー will be ū, except when it is being used to represent the wu sound, because ウゥ is never used in modern Japanese. Whenever someone wants to represent WOO, they write it as ウー and it would be disingenous to say that that should be romanicized as Ū in that situation when it is being used to approximate a very specific phoneme that we can point out by saying it's Wu instead of Ū. If it's in use to represent the sound in English, Chinese, or whatever other languages there are, why can't we point that out by calling it "WU"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a lovely piece of original research, but we're still waiting for you to produce even the smallest shred of evidence that the Hepburn romanization represents kana sequence ウー as "wu". Remember, Hepburn is a system for converting Japanese into the Latin alphabet, not the other way around. Jpatokal (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it from across the project and now the only thing that mentions "wu" is a footnote here and at Katakana.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What Hepburn Uses to Romanize Di/Ti, Ji/Chi, Si/Shi and Dzi/Tsi[edit]

Is it true that because the commonly-known Hepburn Romaji system of writing treats the following syllables of di/ti, ji/chi, zi/si and dzi/tsi all as ji/chi, that the English word party is written down as paachii or pāchī??? If yes, then these common words below would be rendered thus:

Godzilla is spelled as Gojira. (We all know this one.)
3000GT (a Mitsubishi-brand sports car) is transliterated as Sanzen Jī Chī where Sanzen translates as "three thousand" (to write numbers in Japanese, the ones digit is multiplied by the thousands digit (the "-sen/zen"). Unlike other uses of "-sen" in Japanese for doing numbers in thousands, for 3000, "-zen" is used instead.

The pronunciations of the Latin Roman alphabet letters D, G and Z are all rendered as in Japanese. WikiPro1981X (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The Japanese government has come up with new digraphs to represent the sounds of ti, di, si, and zi. Also there is no such thing as "dzi" and "tsi". "Godzilla" is "Gojira" for one, not "Gojīra". And the the GT is read as "Jī Tī" and not "Jī Chī" because the Japanese government has decided that ティ is ti and チ is chi under the standard system. So "Party" is "pātī" under therevised Hepburn system and "paatii" under the modified Hepburn system.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify
  • ち チ is chi
  • ぢ ヂ is ji
  • し シ is shi
  • じ ジ is ji
  • つ ツ is tsu
  • づ ヅ is zu
  • ティ is ti
  • ディ is di
  • トゥ is tu
  • ドゥ is du
  • スィ is si
  • ズィ is zi
  • ツィ is tsi
  • Dzi does not exist in any form
Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even know that they finally cleared up confusion over ti/chi. I wonder how long ago they made these changes to the common Hepburn Romanization system? WikiPro1981X (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this romanization system uses the above standards. And there is a difference between チ and ティ that you seem to have not understood before. This system has also been in place since the 70s.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So, in other words - no more of this da-ji-zu-de-do, ta-chi-tsu-te-to, za-ji-zu-ze-zo, sa-shi-su-se-so and whatnot??? WikiPro1981X (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No. There's a separate symbol for di, du, ti, tu, si, and zi now for foreign words. It's still ta-chi-tsu-te-to and sa-shi-su-se-so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Godzilla - taste of the transrator. "Godzilla" is not based on any romaji and "Gojira" is right for "ゴジラ" in Hepburn style.
3000GT - "Sanzen jītī" (さんぜん ジーティー) with micron is right in reviced Hepburn style per Kenkyusha's dictionary.
Japanese government... Incidentally, Japanese Cabinet[21] adopt primary Kunrei style, and secondary Hepburn style and Nihon style. "ティ", "ディ", "トゥ", "ドゥ", "スィ", "ズィ" and "ツィ" are undefined and entrusted to translators in Japanese standard and Hyojun style (one of revised Hepburn). "スィ" and "ズィ" are defined in British Standard (one of revised Hepburn family), but undefined in Kenkyusha's dictionary (one of revised Hepburn).
  Hepburn Kunrei Nihon Japanese standard
sa shi su se so sa si su se so sa si su se so sa si
su se so
ta chi tsu te to ta ti tu te to ta ti tu te to ta ti
te to
za ji zu ze zo za zi zu ze zo za zi zu ze zo za zi
zu ze zo
da de do da de do da di du de do da zi
de do
--Mujaki (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

verifiability and validity[edit]


Mujaki you cannot keep unilaterally changing the page because you are finding contradictions between what is "revised Hepburn" and what is "modified Hepburn" according to the Japanese language.

  • Your issue with "Romajikwai" is easily dealt with because kwa is obsolete in modern Japanese.
  • Your various other {{citation needed}}, {{better source}}, and {{verify source}} tags are overly unnecessary and would be better dealt with on the talk page.
  • Your determination of what is "traditional", what is "revised", and what is "modified" is really incorrect, particularly where you introduce the new rules for へ, は, and を, and claim that long a and long e (from ee) in the revised Hepburn system get macrons.
  • There was no reason for you to remove the ウーマン and ウッド examples, just because you found a rare usage of ウゥ.

Before you edit the page again, you should propose your changes here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The rest I'm not particularly concerned with, but I do think Mujaki has a significant point with the revised/modified/traditional differences: while this Wikipedia page has been proclaiming the "three standard variants" for years, as far as I can tell there are no sources whatsoever that actually support the claims that there a) actually are three "standard" variants or that b) these three are more "standard" than any others out there. In addition, the names Wikipedia has arbitrarily adopted are very confusing, because they're used to mean different things by different people. I think it's high time to throw away this fiction and actually discuss the variants in detail, with clear sources for where they're described and what those sources call them. Jpatokal (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Mujaki may have a significant point, but he/she is still radically changing the rules by which these three systems as we know them currently are treated. Long a and long e in words of native origin have never been treated with a macron in the system that Wikipedia currently uses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Jpatokal> Is it verifiable? - it is one of basic matter in Wikipedia. I think little editor edits in accordance with reliable sources, many editors don't doubt the explanations in this article in spite of few source. A certain editor seems to have given priority to one's wrong impression.
e.g. "Obsolete variants" section illustrate "Notable differences from the third and later versions include" with the items of first and second editions, and the item "Second version" illustrate "クワ and クワイ were written as kwa, kwai (e.g. Kwannon)". However it's not verifiable by the sources I read - "kwa" and "kwai" are carried in third and later editions and the error in this article is verifiable by some secondary/tertiary source such as the Daijisen[22].
e.g. "There are three standard variants of Hepburn romanization." - Whose view does these "three"? What are their Hepburn based on in this aricle? Is it the most reliable (is any source less reliable than it)? There are some major views for the traditional/revised Hepburn style as I explaned at "#Revised hepburn syllabic n and recent article modifications" section. And Japanese sources for romaji mention the Hepburn style disregarding long vowels -e.g. Tokyo-, also called English style or folk Hepburn, is the de facto standard in the English. In fact, "東北(とうほく)" in the recent news is written "Tohoku", not "Tōhoku", in newspapers and TV news.
"This (traditional Hepburn) corresponds to the third edition (1886) of Hepburn's dictionary" in this article - this is verifiable by some sources and it is in the majority, and the revised Hepburn means ALA-LC style (Kenkyusha's dictionary) as you said at the former discussion - this view is verifiable by some sources; at least, the reviced Hepben, also called "modified Hepburn", defined in Kenkyusha's dictionary is generally used in the libraries in the USA and Canada (but the revised Hepben generally means Hyojun style approved by Romaji-Hirome-kai in 1908 in Japan[23][24]). Anyone can check them qith the sources easily after they are specified.
traditional Hepburn (Hepburn's dictionary 3rd edition)
  • (wrong) When he へ is used as a particle it is written e.
    • (right) When he へ is used as a particle it is written he ye.
  • (wrong) When wo を is used as a particle it is written o.
    • (right) When wo を is used as a particle it is written wo.
  • (unverifiable) In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e is written ei.
    • (verifiable) (In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e in case of) The combination ei is written ei.
    • (verifiable)(In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e in case of) The combination ee is written ee e or ee.
revised Hepburn (Kenkyusha's Dictionry 4th edition (3rd and later editions))
  • (wrong) The long vowels o and u are indicated by a macron—e.g., long o is written ō.
    • (right) The long vowels a, o and u are indicated by a macron—e.g., long a is written ā.
  • (wrong) In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e is written ei.
    • (right) (In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e in case of) The combination ei is written ei.
    • (verifiable) (In words of Japanese or Chinese origin,) The long vowel e within 姉さん is written ē.
revised Hepburn (in case of ANSI (obsolete))
  • (wrong) The long vowels o and u are indicated by a macron—e.g., long o is written ō.
  • (unverifiable) In words of Japanese or Chinese origin, the long vowel e is written ei.
    • (right) The long vowels a, e, o and u are indicated by a macron—e.g., long a is written ā.
The "modified Hepburn" in this article is not verifiable (though I see a source about the "modified Hepburn" such as "Tookyoo", it gives six and more variations, it is less reliable than other sources such as ALA-LC, and it cannot testify that the view is not in the majority). e.g. "modified Hepburn" means ANSI style in the article "Romanization of Japanese" (thie view is also verifiable), and ALA-LC follows the "modified Hepburn" (and so on) as you said in the former discussion. Are all long vowels indicated by doubling the vowel in ANSI style and ALA-LC style? Of course not.[25][26].
Incidentally, SCAP ordered Japanese "Transcription of names into English shall be in accord with the Modified Hepburn (Romaji) system." (AB0500: SCAPIN-2 - Part II, 17) in 1945. This "modified Hepburn" seemed to be adopted as the Railway Standard in 1947 ("Guide to Geographical Names in the Japanese Empire" within "U. S. Board on Geographical Names, Special Publication" in 1944, and "Un'yu-Tsutatsu No.398/490" in 1947).--Mujaki (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mujaki, please make your responses shorter and more concise. And as far as I am aware, 母さん and 姉さん are not romanicized as kāsan and nēsan under the revised Hepburn system. Whatever edits you have made have no consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let me try to hit all of the points
  1. クワ being kwa is obsolete in modern Japanese so we should point that out in some fashion. It doesn't matter what system it went obsolete in.
  2. There are three versions of Hepburn: traditional, revised, and modified. Anything else (e.g. "Tokyo" and "Tohoku") is not a Hepburn romanization but merely a non-language entity providing their own rules as to how to write these names in the English alphabet.
  3. You do not have the right to unilaterally change the established rules of the romanization systems on this page, no matter how much research you have done into what constitutes the rules. As far as everyone is concerned on this project, the only long vowels that get macrons in the revised system (the one Wikipedia uses for all Japanese) are O and U. A, E, and I are only given macrons when part of foreign words.
Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Who is this "everyone", and what sources do you have for your assertion? Jpatokal (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's the standing consensus of this project and the version of the article prior to Mujaki's unilateral changes that lacked consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Mujaki's entire point is that the claims of the current article are incorrect, and he's marshalled up a fairly impressive list of sources to support it. What sources can you offer to counter it?
Also, this discussion is about the content of this article. Whether any changes made here need to be reflected over at MOS-JA or any other Japanese topics on WP is an entirely different issue. Jpatokal (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think sourcing his view is too heavy a burden to him.
About "traditional Hepburn" - to tell the truth, the "revised Hepburn" revised by Romaji-Hirome-kai in 1908 (more than a hundred years ago) is generally handled as "traditional Hepburn" at present in Japan[27]. The style is also called "Hyojun style", "kwa" and "gwa" were obsoleted, the particle "へ" is written "e", and the particle "を" is written "o"[28]. If so, the explanation "This corresponds to the third edition (1886) of Hepburn's dictionary" is not enough.--Mujaki (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
@Jpatokal: Mujaki's massive changes, even if they are sourced, still need to be discussed as it changes an entire set of rules for the romanization scheme as we describe it here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's why we're having this discussion on the Talk page. Jpatokal (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone know the source for the current article? If there is a more authoritative, more reliable and English source whether it is right or not, it has priority over non-English sources.--Mujaki (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the ANSI and BS documents (which are aspects of the Revised system that the Kenkyusha uses) do use ā and ē in words of Japanese origin. However, these documents may not reflect current usage, nor would whatever edition of the Kenkyusha you have used as a citation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then, what is the authority for this article? - this is the problem. In other words, some parts, especially the "modified Hepburn", of this article is not verifiable with a reliable source at present. Even if you deny a source for other view to be reliable, the problem remains unsolved.--Mujaki (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Three standards[edit]

Does no one knows who did say "there are three standard variants of Hepburn romanization" after all? I'll remove/modify this issue in a short while per WP:V.--Mujaki (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If we have three names (traditional, revised, modified), then common sense dictates that there are three standard variants.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you don't know any text. Your "common senses" is not worth serious consideration (see WP:COMMONSENSE).--Mujaki (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have access to any such texts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong's issue[edit]

Ryulong, please don't remove fact tags and verifiability tags without any sources - I identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source per WP:V, WP:IRS. Why are you afraid of citing the sources? Please don't request what you do not do from others - You have bulldozed your views such as "ウー" without reliable source in the article. Please understand core content policies in WP.

  • The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.
  • Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
  • An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
    • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
    • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
    • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  1. The system was originally proposed by 羅馬字会 in 1885. - However current "Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" (日本ローマ字会, NRK) was founded in 1921, and the organization has been promoted Nihon-siki and/or 99siki[29]. In short, "日本ローマ字会" and "羅馬字会" are defferent organizations. The term "Romajikwai" for "羅馬字会" is used in Hepburn's dictionary, but I have not found the English "Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" for "羅馬字会" in reliable sources. So i request the source.
  2. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. per WP:V. And if you are sure that KAMINISHI Toshiwo's proposal is a reliable source, you should add "zhi" for "ジ", "zha" for "ジャ", "zhu" for "ジュ" and so on in the "Hepburn romanization charts" per WP:NPOV. If you think "zhi" etc. are minority, it means the source is unreliable. I found some explanations are wrong with sources -e.g. "kwa".
  3. Please study enough. (ref. #modified Hepburn section in this talk page).
  4. "ウー" and "ウッ" are not needed because they are not in the table. I'm sure that the explanation of them is only Ryulong's OR (see #wu section in this talk page). "ゔ" is the hiragana form of "ヴ", not katakana ("For extended katakana" section). And the hiragana "ゔ" is not defined in the chief Hepburn styles such as Hepburn's dictionary, Hyojun style, Kenkyusha's dictionary (ALA-LC), British standard and so on. if you want to add "ゔ" in the table, "ゔ" should be contained in the "ヴ vu" cell as "Hepburn romanization charts" because "ゔ" is the hiragana form of katakana "ヴ".--Mujaki (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I reverted all of your edits because they were for the most part unhelpful to the article and radically changed the rules of the systems as defined on Wikiedia. It is also extremely difficult to communicate with you because you have written essays in response to all of the actions taken. Please respond to this message with only a few sentences rather than with five paragraphs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now to address the issues
  1. "Romajikwai" is the archaic pronunciation. This is a sourcing issue that should be brought up.
  2. The Hepburn romanization charts on this page only cover what is established under the revised system, so I don't know why you are mentioning how we should include zhi for ジ and its digraphs.
  3. The differentiation between revised and modified Hepburn or the simple non-existance of the modified Hepburn system is not something you tag with fifty "citation needed" tags.
  4. It does not matter if they are not in the table. The fact of the matter is that those two digraphs are used to represent the sound in English and are in common use over the rare instance you found for ウゥルカーヌス. The section is to give examples as to how they are not commonly used in modern Japanese, as ウーマン and ウッド exist, and how ヲゥ which is homophonous with ウゥ exists in a Japonic language. And ゔ should be included somewhere where it is alongside other esoteric/rare kana forms, which is why it was put with the ヷ行.
Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read core content policies carefully.
If your edit is based on the reliable source, you ought to cite the sources immediately. Is it so difficlt? However you have sourced your view reraly. Your view should be removed or modified per WP:V and WP:NOR, if no one can cite any source for your challenged view.
  1. Please think logically. Even if "羅馬字会" is not never written "Rōmajikwai", it cannot prove "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" is right. What is the source for English name "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" for "羅馬字会"?
  2. You exactly edited under your WP:OR (see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position) - You cited the Toshiwo's proposal for your view "wi" and "we", but "zhi" etc. are in tha table of his proposal. If you are sure the source is reliable, you should not ignore "zhi" and so on. And you also cited the ANSI ans BS for your view, but "wi" and "we" are in the tabele of special katakanas for the loanword in the standards.
  3. (see the upper discussion too).
  4. You seem to think the kana table for Japanese is unique, to be mixed up in the translation and romanization, and to be able to think what's what logically.
    1. "ウゥ" is defined as "wu" in Hyojun style (1972). So "ウゥルガータ" (from Lexcon Latino-Japonicum (羅和辞典) published by Kenkyusha) is written as "Wurugāta" in the style. However it is not always right in other style. "ヷ" is defined as "va" in ANSI/BS styles. So "ヷイオリン" is written "Vaiorin" in the styles. However it is not so in other styles.
    2. What is the standard for romanization defining "ウー" and "ウッ" as "wu"? Who did standardize it? When is it? What is your authority for them?
    3. Though "ゔ" is not the katakana, it is not defined in major romanization standard, it is the hiragana form of "ヴ", and "ヴ" is in "ヴァ" row in tha table in this article, why did you add the hiragana "ゔ" in "ヷ" row in the table for "Extended katakana" section?
--Mujaki (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
羅馬字会 clearly uses ateji rather than katakana (also "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" is used here for "社団法人日本ローマ字会" which is pretty close), I have never violated WP:OR by using a source to prove that wi and we are suitable transliterations of ゐ and ゑ but ignored another romanization on the same document, and I am not confusing translation with romanization. The issue is with the stupid little footnotes at the bottom of the extended table. No where on the page do I suggest that ウー and ウッ are to be romanized as wu. The footnote merely describes that ウー and ウッ are used to represent the sound, even if they are not pronounced that way, because no one uses ウゥ regularly. And ゔ should be mentioned somewhere as it is a character that has been used historically in Japanese to represent the vu sound in hiragana. There is simply nowhere else to put the character on the page other than in the nice empty spot between ヸ and ヹ.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I advise you carefully look for the reliable documents for your view. After all, you you have cited few source for your views, or you have added your idea to original text when you cited the source. Perhaps, you have based on your pseudo information such as "I heard it somewhere". Or you have synthesized parts of few source due to advancing your view and ignored unfavorable part of the sources for your view - this is just OR. Your unverifiable views and OR should be reverted, removed or modified.
Sorry, i misunderstood the your explanation about "ウー" and "ウッ". However what are they based on? If it is your view and/or you cannot cite any source, it is not needed per WP:V and/or WP:NOR.
By which the Romanization standard is "ゔ" defined? And, what is your authority for the your view - "ゔ is a character that has been used historically in Japanese to represent the vu sound in hiragana...."? "ゔ" was added as the hiragana form of "ヴ" into JIS character sets in 1997 (JIS Kanji dictionary published by Japanese Standards Association). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
BTW, have you never read the history (in Japanese) of 日本ローマ字会 (i and) you cited? You possibly misunderstood it. It explains "日本ローマ字会" founded in 1912 is defferent form "羅馬字会" founded in 1885. "日本ローマ字会" introduces theirself as "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" in English - that's all. It (title) instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Is "羅馬字会" tranlated as "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" in an English source? At least, "Romajikwai" is used in Hepburn's dictionary, UHM Library, sci.lang.japanese FAQ (unreliable source (netnews), but much reliable than only you) and so on.--Mujaki (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Can't answer the first one, "ウー" and "ウッ" are used in the modern language in words that have "woo" in English, ゔ exists in rare Showa era uses, and for all intents and purposes 羅馬字会 is ローマ字会 in ateji so it should seem that they have the same translated name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you find sources for your views in the end?
BTW, I traced the cause of the English title for "羅馬字会" in this article: According to an edit summary, a certain editor changed the title to "The Society for the Romanization of the Japanese Alphabet" because he/she mistook "日本ローマ字会" for "羅馬字会(ローマ字会)". The previous Jimbreen's edit was valid because the title is verifiable by some English sources.--Mujaki (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Whta the hell do I need sources for again? To state that ウー and ウッ are used in modern gairaigo words when I have examples that show their usage? That ゔ exists and there's no suitable place on this table to put it other than with the extended kana? That the standards of the revised system that have been in place on this article for several years in no way match whatever book you are using that calls a particular system "revised" when it doesn't match with what we have here and that the modern system exists? Be more concise and specific as to what your issues are because it took you a month to respond. And whatever the issue is, we are using what the Library of Congress determines is the "revised Hepburn" system, rather than whatever ancient dictionary edition Mujaki is pulling from.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So what? Your groundless commentaries are nonsense in the article in WP. Please understand core content policies. If your views are based on a good source such as Japanese Romanization textbook, you only cite the text. So hard? If so, it means the views are not needed in WP. Elementary, Ryulong.--Mujaki (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And you need to realize that you cannot unilaterally change everything based on whatever you and only you have found in the reference texts. You cannot eliminate a form described on this page just because you are finding conflicting information concerning it and you should not unilaterally change an entire system for these same reasons. I disagree with your changes, even if they have a reliable source behind them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, this has gone on long enough -- please read that last sentence of yours again and reflect on what you're saying. You may disagree with him, but Mujaki has found a large number of reliable sources that support his position, and you have found precisely zero (0) to support yours. It would be bad enough if you were simply reverting his changes to the text, but reverting even eg. the addition of citation needed tags for patently questionable claims (eg. "three variants") that have no source at all borders on vandalism.
So. I'm going to revert back to Mujaki's last edit, and then we can start addressing his objections one by one until the text of the article is in line with reliable sources. Jpatokal (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources or not, such a massive change requires discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
And for the umpteenth time, we should not use Mujaki's example for wu because it ignores actual modern uses of ウー and ウッ (despite not being pronounced that way) that do not need to be sourced to a single dictionary where the ウゥ form described in one of the sources we have is used in only one word. I have however moved ゔ out of the extended katakana tables.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Total rewrite of the variants[edit]

So, I have killed the sacred cow of the three variants, chopped it up into mince, made patties out of it, grilled them on the barbecue and enjoyed them in a lightly toasted sesame-flecked bun with ketchup, mustard, onion rings and pickles. To wit:

  • There are now two major styles of Hepburn: Shimbashi ("traditional") and Shinbashi ("modified").
  • The second one is called "modified" because that's what the Library of Congress, and hence every library in the world, calls it. Stick this ref in your pipe and smoke it:
  • The fiction of "modified" and "revised" referring to different things has been dropped. 99.999% of the time both mean the same thing: "Shinbashi".
  • The style used by Pocket Kenkyusha is now known as the style used by Pocket Kenkyusha. If you can find anything or anybody else actually using it, much less calling it something else, let me know, 'cause I sure couldn't.

Enough said. What do you think? Jpatokal (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there is no difference between "modified" and "revised", then how did we have a different treatment of the long vowels between the two systems? Do we just rely on the rarity of long A and long E within one kanji form?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read that again. Writing 新橋 as "Shinbashi" == New Kenkyusha 3rd ed == ALA-LC == "modified" == "revised". Writing it as "Shiṉbashi", a style previously (misleadingly) called "modified", is apparently only used by the Pocket Kenkyusha dictionary and is thus now described as such. Jpatokal (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I am asking why we had a system where all long vowels were doubled rather than macronned (except for ei and ii) if we had no source to support it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Trawling back through the revision history, apparently the claim was added by an anon IP back in 2005, and accepted as gospel ever after. Which is an excellent demonstration of the kind of WP:OR crap articles end up with if there are no references to back up their claims. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine, but then why have we had the revised system as only indicating long O and U with macron forms for such a long time if long A and E (as ee) are apparently given the same treatment?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Because before Mujaki started asking questions, nobody ever bothered to check what Kenkyusha and ALA-LC actually said? (And because long A and E-as-ee are quite rare in native Japanese/Chinese words.) Jpatokal (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So it doesn't seem like anything changes, and it will only affect お母さん.—Ryūlóng (竜龙)

Mujaki's repeated removals from the tables[edit]

While I have realized that mentioning that "woman" and "wood" are not written as ウゥ is not relevant to the page (however replacing it with a fact tag saying that ウゥ is used in Internet slang was pointless), I have yet to see any reasoning as to why mentions of ヲゥ (Ryukyuan wu) and ゔ (Hiragana vu) are being removed over and over. Mujaki has yet to respond to any of my inquiries on the matter, and instead focuses on how the previous version of the article was poorly sourced.

So here I would like a clear and concise answer from Mujaki as to why the Ryukyuan wu and the Hiragana vu should not have any mention on this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's so elementary and simple reason. Though Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references, you have not been able to source for your idea for a long long time even if I warned you again and again. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
OK, I'll give you one more week to source. There are some ways to find out the source -e.g., you may read good text in a library. Cannot you access the good text? You can request for comment for your views.
  • I can see counterexamples against your view easily. You seem understand examples i cited are everything for usage even if they are parts of usage.
    • e.g. "ウゥルガータ", "グラディーウゥス",... in dictionary, book...
    • e.g. "ウゥ"(interjection, onomatopoeia), "ギュウゥーッ"(mimetic),... in lyric, comic, videigame...
  • "In the Ryukyuan languages where the wu phoneme exists, ヲゥ is used to transcribe it into Japanese text." - So what? Do you want to say Ryukyuan "ヲゥ" is defined as "wu" in Hepburn? If so, what is your authority for saying that? The pronunciation of "をぅ" (and "う") varies with the context and I could not find out any Hepburn style defining "ヲゥ".
  • "The ヴ forms are more often used instead." - Who did say so? The translator may choose one for "V" among "ヴァヴィヴヴェヴォ"(allowable), "バビブベボ"(general) or other(unnegative). -e.g., "Volvic" is witten "ヴィック" (mixed) in Japanese. "ガリヷー旅行記", "ヷイオリン", "ヸオロン", "ヹルレエヌ" and "ヺルガヂ" in Meiji era are generally written as "ガリバー旅行", "バイオリン/ヴァイオリン", "ヴィオロン/ビオロン" "ベルレーヌ/ヴェルレーヌ" and "ボルカジ" in mordern Japanese. 国語審議会 recommended "バビブベボ" for the sound of consonant V sinse 1954 until the recommendation was obsolated by 外来語の表記 in 1991. This is easily verifiable official document, encyclopaedia, dictionary, books or other sources. In other words, "the バビベボ are more often used instead." is more valid. And it is a convention of translation, not of Romanization. Of course, e.g. the view of a recognized authority on Japanese is valid, he/she said about Ramanization for "ヴ forms" against "ヷ行" in his/her work. And English source should have priority over non-English source.--Mujaki (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
ヲゥ is "wu" regardless of what the system is being written as, and fine, ヴ is not always used. But that does not excuse the removal of ゔ from this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ā/aa in modified Hepburn[edit]

Currently this article says,

In modified Hepburn:

The long vowel a is indicated by a macron in other case:
  • お婆さん(おばあさん): o + ba + a + sa + n = obāsan – Grandmother

But on the 6th page of this ALA-LC document, ああしたい is romanized aa shitai (and there is no word-border exists between those two あs). If the above statement were true, it should have been ā shitai. As far as I know, revised/modified Hepburn places macrons only on o and u except long vowels that are in loanwords or that are denoted by the chōonpu (ー). --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone discovered that when ああ and ええ are within the same kanji, then they get a macron. For the case of ああしたい, it's not a word in kanji so aa is right. I really don't agree with the fact that 婆 is so I am going to remove this. It is clear the dictionary that was used as a source was terribly out of date.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, then can I get a source for your statement "Someone discovered that when ああ and ええ are within the same kanji, then they get a macron"? I also would like to check this. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just scroll up. I'm not going to go out of my way to find something that I don't agree with. Mujaki found a recent edition of Hepburn's dictionary that says those combinations get macrons. You were in the middle of that god damn argument in the beginning of the year.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I am, however, fairly certain that the rule only applies to the existence of the long a and long e vowels within words derived from the Chinese language. For a word such as ああ or ええ, this rule does not apply, at least according to that document.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been busy and didn't have time to join those arguments. One thing I found more than a year ago is that the second edition (see page v) of Hepburn's dictionary changed ā and ī to aa and ii, and aa and ii have been used since second and later editions. I checked the copies of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th editions (see User:Unnecessary stuff/Hepburn), and found no (notable) change on romanization. Since we have Niigata instead of Nīgata because of the change on the second edition, I'm pretty sure we have aa instead of ā. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've switched things around to show that the original form was macrons for every long vowel (which is what you have discovered) and the newer version has the macrons only for o and u in native words.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
ALA-LC Romanization has a little difference from Kenkyusha's dictionary and ANSI.
  • Kenkyusha's dictionary (Appendix: 本辞典に使用のローマ字綴り方表) explains long "a" is written as "ā" (1.長音には母音の上に長音符( ̄)を付けて示す。ā(アー)、ū(ウー)、ō(オー)). "おばあさん" is written as "obāsan" and "ああ" is "ā" in the dictionary. Long "e" as "e+e" is not defined in the directions, but "姉さん" is written as "nēsan" in the dictionary. German Wikipedians investigated it so well (see de:Hepburn System).
  • ANSI Z.39-11 also defines Japanese long "a" and "e" as "ā" and "ē".[30]
The traditional Hepburn in this article is based on the Hepburn's dictionary 3rd edition referred by many sources[31][32][33][34] (Hepburn romanization#Variants of Hepburn romanization).--Mujaki (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I restored "溜息" to "招いて" because it is possible that "招いて" is pronounced "マネーテ"[35], but "溜息" is never pronounced "タメーキ".
And I restored "chōonpu" to "loanword" because Japanese long "i" is not defined as "ī" and "ī" is defined for loanword in Kenkyusha's dictionary (1.1.外来語にはīēを付して正確を期す。ティー(tī)、テー(tē)、ディー(dī)、デー(dē)、フィー(fī)、フェー(fē)). Incidentally, long i in common Japanese is written not with choonpu, but with "い"[36]. And e.g. "富永みーな" is commonly written as "Miina Tominaga".--16:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujaki (talkcontribs)
Mujaki. It is clear that there is some sort of mixed signals going on here. Unnecessary Stuff has found that only the first edition of James Curtis Hepburn's dictionary uses the ā and ī for things, while subsequent editions (which I would call revised editions) use aa and ii. Seeing as this article is on the Hepburn romanization system, we should not be using forms from other dictionaries that use similar systems. Unnecessary Stuff has also found a Library of Congress document that uses aa for "ああ". As an article on Hepburn romanization, we should define things by using the Hepburn system and not the system set forth by the Kenkyusha.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
During my student years, I worked at a university library helping catalog Japanese books. I was given that ALA-LC document as a guide--which I still use--and was always taught to follow the Kenkyusha dictionary for romanization. I was also taught that you don't use a macron when the long sound crosses kanji. So it is never Hirō for 広尾. お母さん should be okāsan because it is still in same kanji (a brief search of LC shows that a keyword search of okaasan comes up with nothing, while okāsan retrieves multiple records). ああ may in some cases be rendered aa because it can be rendered as two kanji: 嗚呼. Michitaro (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Does the same hold true for ee and ii?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Mujaki. While the "modified" system is what was used in the Kenkyusha 3rd edition, it appears that the Library of Congress has been using a new edition of the dictionary to determine what is and is not identified by a macron. Indeed, in 1983 when the ALA-LC tables were first written up, they used the 3rd edition of the Kenkyusha, and those are seen here. However, sometime between 1983 and 1997, the Library of Congress changed its romanization tables, again, to this one that Unnecessary stuff lists above. This one uses aa, ii, ō, and ū. So perhaps, we should write something about this updated system, that the English Wikipedia has been using anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


The LOC's romanization for long vowel a (a+a) is as follows:

  • term "ああ" as adverb or interjection:
    • "aa" - all cases[37][38]...
    • "ā", "a" - I could not find them in their catalog.
  • other cases:

The long vowel e (e+e) is as follows:

"ē" and "ee" are intermingled in LOC.--Mujaki (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The style as a whole says "aa" and "ee".—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Particle へ in traditional Hepburn[edit]

I'm writing this just in case. Page 739 of 3rd edition of Hepburn's dictionary romanized particle へ as ye, not as he. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The table lists present-day kana spellings, the "ye" spelling is obsolete (see Historical kana orthography). Interestingly, though, "ye" was usually used for え (now read "e"), while the particle has always been へ ("he"). Jpatokal (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not the point. This has nothing to do with any tables, and I'm not talking about the historical kana orthography. Check the link, go to page 739, and you'll see that the particle へ is romanized ye, not he. And that indeed is the copy of the 3rd edition, which constitutes traditional Hepburn. Yes, from 3rd edition and on, ye has indeed become e, but the particle へ and the currency yen were left as they were. (BTW, I checked は and を from that copy as well, and they were romanized wa and wo.)
Or, provide a source that actually romanizes the particle へ as he. --Unnecessary stuff (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As Unnecessary stuff said, "ye" is verified by 3rd edition, Daijisen[54] and Daijirin[55]. ( was my mistake, maybe)--Mujaki (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the 1884 edition uses "ye", I'm simply stating that it's ridiculous to assert that it's spelled that way in modern usage. As the article says, "the third edition (1886)[4] often considered authoritative[5] (although changes in kana usage must be accounted for)". The same doc also recommends eg. "riyen, sanyetsu, shoyen", are you seriously suggesting those are still used today? Jpatokal (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, Romajikai's Hyojunshiki, which is essentially trad. Hepburn, uses "e": "Doko e odekake desu ka?" Jpatokal (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Would there be objections to identifying this as the standard-bearer for "modern traditional" Hepburn? It's grounded firmly in the 3rd edition but seems to reflect kana spelling changes etc accurately. As the Sanseido cite in the first p says, "現在は、1908 年(明治 41)に、ローマ字ひろめ会の修正した「修正ヘボン式」を指すことが多い。" Jpatokal (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"At present, the Hepburn romanization generally means the modified Hepburn by Romaji-hirome-kai in 1908". Well, there are many variations of traditional Hepburn. Now, "Traditional Hepburn, as defined in various editions of Hepburn's dictionary, with the third edition (1886)[4] often considered authoritative[5] (although changes in kana usage must be accounted for)." in this article. Does the tradional Hepburn mean Hyojun-shiki you cited[56]? If so, it should be declared in this article precisely, long vowels are also indicated with circumflexes and "ん" is also written as "n" before "b", "m" and "p". This is same problem as what is the modified Hepburn. For example, Hyojun-shiki by Romaji-hirome-kai is also called the modified Hepburn and Hyojun-shiki.--Mujaki (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see that? According to this both seem to be allowed, although the "m" form is listed first: M m(M, B, Pの前にはM(注14):またはN, nを使う): あんま amma(anma); えんま emma(enma); とんぼ tombo(tonbo); 鉛筆 empitsu(enpitsu).
The circumflex/macron thing is already covered in detail in the article, I don't think it's a meaningful feature of either style. Jpatokal (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"According to this both seem to be allowed." - Yes. So you should refer both like the source per WP:OR if you cite the source. BTW, do you notice the hyojun-shiki (1972) includes both elements of the traditional Hepburn style and the modified Hepburn style?--Mujaki (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

modified Hepburn[edit]

split section
The form used on Wikipedia is the United States Library of Congress's last ALAC form, which uses wa's, o's, and e's for particls.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"This style was introduced in the third edition of Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (1954), adopted by the Library of Congress as one of its ALA-LC romanizations" in this article - If this article adopts ALA-LC as the modified Hepbun, that explanation, "Long vowels" part in this article and "Japanese" section in the article Romanization should be modified; Your edits ("The ALA-LC romanization system uses...") means ALA-LC is different from the modified Hepburn, and they should be written in "Variations" part.--Mujaki (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The ALA-LC was modified as recently as 1983 and this article adopts that definition.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Tohkyoh in variation part[edit]

Is variation "Tohkyoh" needed as Hepburn? It refers to Japanese passport romanization, but....

  • "OH" for "おう/おお" is generally explained as the romanization that is not based on Hepburn romanization (ヘボン式によらないローマ字氏名表記 or ヘボン式ローマ字氏名表記)([57][58][59][60] etc.).
  • "OU", "OO" and/or "UU" for "おう/おお" are also authorized as the romanization for passport by some prefectures([61][62][63] etc.).

--Mujaki (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The section lists various other similar romanization styles that follow the Hepburn rules of "match the pronunciation". "Oh" is simply an option that is given to romanize おう and おお sounds and the "Tohkyoh" entry is an example of that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If so, that part should be moved to Romanization of Japanese. There are many variations of the Hepburn system for.... - I think that part refers about differences among of Hepburn systems.--Mujaki (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs says they require "Hepburn" spelling for Japanese passports, but the Hepburn described in this article and the actual Hepburn used in dictionaries is slightly different from the passport Hepburn. There is currently a debate going on elsewhere as to how we should spell Japanese people's names, so I checked the actual rules according to the passport office, and they say that long "o"s and "u"s are not to be distinguished from short ones. This is apparently due to technical limitations on what is acceptable on passports, but it is not strictly speaking accurate to the Hepburn romanization system. The official sources, however, do not mention this distinction. Is there any way we could fit this into the article? The article currently implies that Japanese passports are obliged to use a macron, but it is in fact the opposite. (Also, modern passports are allowed certain variations on the Hepburn system, so the statement is basically inaccurate.) Unfortunately, I am not sure if it violates WP:V or WP:NOR to point out that "Such-and-such dictionary defines Hepburn romanization this way. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses Hepburn, but it defines it that way. This way and that way differ in the following respects: ..." if we don't have a reliable source that says the same... elvenscout742 (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find anything online about restrictions on how names are written. I'd think that there would be a great deal of flexibility. For example, some Japanese first names are pretty close to English: "Saimon" as a first name would probably be allowed to be spelled "Simon". LittleBen (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The guidelines are of course for Japanese citizens, and so English-language versions are obscure. [64] says that Kondō must be spelled KONDO, etc; "KONDOH" and "KONDOU" are from 2009 also acceptable if one asks at the window (up until that time one needed to submit a form). If a person has a foreign name for whatever reason, they are allowed to spell the name in the foreign spelling but they still need to submit the form. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"The article currently implies that Japanese passports are obliged to use a macron" - I don't think so. As I said in the previous discussion, this article causes the misunderstanding that long o is spelt as "oh" in Hepburn romanization for passport. Kondō is spelled KONDO in Hepburn romanization for passport. "KONDOH" and "KONDOU" are also permited in Romanization for passport but they are not in Hepburn system (ヘボン式によらないローマ字氏名表記 or 非ヘボン式ローマ字氏名表記).
"The guidelines are of course for Japanese citizens" - Of course, you are right. But macronless style such as Hepburn romanization for passport is defacto standard in English writing. According to a research by GSI, the long vowels are not omited for pronunciations in Japanese-English dictionaries etc., but they are not commonly indicated in English writing (Romanization) [65]..--Mujaki (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

R vs L[edit]

One could make a strong case that the English "L" is much closer to the Japanese らりるれろ than the English "R". So it would be very interesting to know why, historically, this was rendered in Hepburn as R instead of L. I know that for Portuguese, R may be closer to the Japanese sound than L, but if Hepburn is based on English, then why wasn't L used? --Westwind273 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)