Talk:Kawaii/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to move to Wiktionary

Shouldn't this be in Wiktionary instead? Saintjust 10:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I dunno; we have decent articles on hentai, shojo and plenty of others. You can always list it on WP:VfD if you think it doesn't belong. grendel|khan 13:13, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

how is this different from moe

The word kawaii means cute, and nothing more. There is no fashion movement called kawaii. There is no genre of manga called kawaii. There is no genre of anime called kawaii. There is no style of handwriting called kawaii. There is no style of drawing called kawaii and there is no specific type of personality called kawaii. As such, this article is nothing more than a dictionary definition. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barryvalder (talk • contribs) .
As involved with japan related articles I am suprised you dont know anything about kawaii.... --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Kawaii does not JUST mean cute. Kawaii is a $1 billion a year industry. Hardly something you would want to move to a dictionary.
Just like Sake, this article explains something important in japanese culture. The main diference is that Kawaii is not an as developed as sake. Kawaii definately has a history for example. How did it develop since 1970's? Take a look at [1].
There is definately a "kawaii" fashion. [2] from the University of Texas at Arlington. I am citing .edus here.
Please do a google search like this before even thinking of moves. Article hasn't been expanded properly yet that is correct. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


If you're unable to contribute to a discussion without acting like a child I suggest you don't. I was hoping we could have a proper discussion of the subject in hand without resorting to playground style 'you know nothing about this' bickering and sniping. It does make me wonder if it's worth arguing with someone like yourself. However, for the sake of trying to make some sense out of all this, I will press on...
If kawaii doesn't just mean cute (adorable/darling/etc), then let's get down to brass tacks and please give the exact meaning of the word as explanations so far have proved elusive. There may well be a huge industry in Japan for Dinsey/Kitty/etc mechandise, but it's not refered to in Japan as the Kawaii Industry.
This 'kawaii style' appears to be a construct of the western media and of anime and manga fans. Read the Japanese article of the same topic and you will see that there is no reference to any specific style (wether it be of clothing, music, handwriting etc) called 'kawaii'. Check any Japanese dictionry and you'll find the same. This has a lot to do with the fact that there is no specific style in Japan called kawaii. The only "evidence" so far presented is of western views of the phenomenon.
We need to isolate what's happening here, and that's the alteration in meaning this word is being given on it's use in English. If the word is indeed becoming a loanword (still a highly debatable point despite some reference from the Rice University - we'll be needing something a LOT more notable than some University most people have never heard of) then it's meaning is getting altered in the process. This article, if it is to survive at all, needs to address this issue in detail and make the distinction between what the word means and how it is used IN JAPAN, and what it is being used to refer to by fans of Japanese culture OUTSIDE OF JAPAN. This is where more of the confusion appears to be arising. I'm happy to accept that the word's use, when used in English, refers to a specific style of clothing / standing / talking / singing / drawing etc, as this is something you are clearly more knowledgeable than me. By the same token, you need to be ready to accept that the word, when used in it's original language and in it's original country doesn't refer to any specific style of clothing / standing / talking / singing / drawing etc. Barryvalder 08:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But I am citing sources claiming otherwise like [3] which shows actual pictures. Next personal attack such as "acting like a child" may result with a block. Be civil.
Rice university is definately heard. If you havent heard about it thats really your problem. If I am citing a source that is infact a university, then I guess it is notable enough. If you dont like it you are welcome to not visit the page.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The facts:
Rice University isn't a renowned linguistiuc authority.
The list of words you claim as hard evidence is a list of words created by current and former students of some English course at that university.
The list isn't a list of loanwords. It's a list of words those students have heard used anywhere.
It's a lists which includes the nicknames of contributers fathers.
I have always remained civil throughout this exchange, and if you are able to contribute to a conversation without sniping above: "you know nothing about this" then I'm quite happy to treat you like a grown up.
Please address the points made in my above posting re: the meaning of the Japanese word in Japan and in Japanese and the meaning it's being given in some English speaking cricles.Barryvalder 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, that source you cite [4], and while I'm sure you searched long and hard to find it, it's merely the project of one student at one univeristy (Christy Tidwell, for the record). It's not the published work of the university itself, nor is Christy Tidwell a trusted authority on Japanese cultural issues (although I'm sure she's a very nice person). The source is essentially worthless, even if it does have "actual pictures"
Barryvalder 04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find any acceptable sources. you see Rice university as a non notable source, infact one can say all you want to do is blank this article. You honestly know nothing about the topic since you are not only trying to get the article deleted, you are also blanking sections. You are also disputing citations. There is no trusted authority on any issues. Give me a break. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
OK Cool Cat. Despite your constant personal attacts by insisting I "know nothing about the topic" and that I am merely vandalising the article by blanking sections, I will not resort to such childlike sniping and playground-style name calling. Instead I ask that you please try and remain civil and I will break the disputed citation down into very simple terms so that even you may be able to follow.
First let's assume good faith, take a leap of faith and give you a headstart by accepting that Rice University is a valid source. Even if we accept this fact, the list is NOT an official publication of the university. It's not even a list of loanwords; the very fact it is meant to act as evidence for. It is a student project. It's a list of words which includes the nicknames of contributer's fathers. If this list, and first, let's quickly recap: It's by students. It's not a list of loanwords. It includes nicknames of contributer's fathers, is meant to act as "hard evidence" of the word's entry into the English language as a loanword, then Wikipedia should probably give up any hopes it has as a reliable Encyclopedia right now.
So when you accuse me of disputing citations like it's something I shouldn't be doing, first check the facts. I have every cause to dispute your "evidence", and if you think it's just me on some bizare personal vendetta against an internet encyclopedia article (a very odd arguement if ever I heard one), then check the two users below me who also regard your "evidence" as, for want of a better word, worthless. Barryvalder 11:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not with the univrtsity (although I've never heard of it), but with the list itself; if the list is notable then why don't we have entries on Jazboed and Qwnyatiyam either here or on Wiktionary? Shiroi Hane 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Rice is small, but has a decent reputation – which also happens to be completely irrelevant, because a student's (or student group's) homework project that says Kawaii is a loan-word does not make it so (unless you bide by the theory that no student is ever wrong in any report they make). Especially, as it seems to be a list of campus neologisms (Malcolmesque? N.O.D.?) with no real regards to whether the information is accurate, or not. Most likely, the student heard the word in that music video, and decided that "loan word" is a good way to describe it. I don't see how it can be treated as an authoritative reference in the form that it currently exists. Neier 05:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It may be becoming a load word. We are not claiming it is indee a loan word. The word Kawaii is used outside of Japan among English speaking people some being anime/manga fans as well as others (such as the pop singer). Simple as that. I do not see the reason of the dispute. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Question Cool Cat: What evidence do you have that Gwen Stefani knew the word kawaii before she visited Japan? And what evidence do you have that she continues to use it on any kind of regular basis or indeed instead of the word cute? A source is badly needed here. Barryvalder 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Arnie

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger really considered Kawaii? Rakeela 06:20, September 29, 2005

Yes, he's called "shuwa-chan". I mostly put it there as a counter-example. --DannyWilde 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
"He's called" is a genralisation. "some people call him" would be a lot better. Barryvalder 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how many of the females in Japan think Arnold Schwarzenegger is cute. And the usage of -CHAN is just for showing the friendliness to the person. It is not connected to the cuteness. (a comment from a 24-year-old Japanese girl) 134.114.183.163 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I know one Japanese lady who thinks Arnold is the best looking man in the world. Anyway, take a look at this: [5] If you are a Japanese girl, perhaps you could edit the current article so it makes some sense. Another good one is oyaji, apparently that is a very desirable state. Also, see josei. There are probably some more out there, but that is plenty of work for you to do. There are lots of manga fans on Wikipedia who don't know much about Japan or the Japanese language, perhaps you would care to help them with your inputs and insight? (from a 39-year-old British man) --DannyWilde 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of kawaii in Japanese

This article was very inaccurate. Somebody linked to here from a page I was watching which is how I got here. I've tried to do something with this article, but it's not easy. First of all "kawaii" just means "cute", it isn't a particular "fashion" or way of standing, and it isn't applied only to women. I picked Arnie for example. --DannyWilde 23:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Propose to merge into Culture of Japan

This article is a dictionary definition and accumulation of trivia. I thought to AfD it but then I thought some of it could be salvaged into Culture of Japan. Please discuss - Talk:Culture_of_Japan#Kawaii_merge The Crow 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the move. Any AfD will be greeted with great displeasure. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One objection does not a discussion make so you should not unilaterally reject the merge. The Wikipedia does not exist for your pleasure. For the record, I am also in opposition to the merge, since it has a place in Category:Anime and manga terminology, although the article does need work. Shiroi Hane 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To add a bit more detail... My #1 main objection as to why the article shouldn't stand on its own is that it is a dictionary definition. Kawaii is the Japanese word for "cute" or "adorable". The article is fluffed in size, owing roughly a third of the content to definition, etymology, and usage (standard stuff for a dictionary definition). There's then some content listing things in Japan that are cute, which aren't terribly different from cuteness found in other cultures. Large eyes? Pink frilly clothes? Loopy girlish handwriting? Cutesy stuffed animals? All found in Japan; but none specific to Japan. And then the author claims that "Kawaii" is becoming an English loanword, hanging it all on a quote from a Gwen Stefani video. Yes, the fascination with cuteness in Japan is notable, but a fluffed-up dictionary definition of the word "cute" and an accumulation of trivia is not the way to represent it. It is not a thing unto itself... it's a facet of the Culture of Japan, and there it should be moved. The Crow 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand the confusion. The article is certainly all over the place, and needs significant cleanup. However, third-party news articles such as the wired article mentioned or this Time article should indicate that the concept is used independently of its dictionary definition or the general culture of Japan, and it has its own purpose, mostly as a fashion sense. I think an analagous american fashion article would be Goth; like "Goth", the term is a definition, but the connotations of the word surpass its original usage, and it encompasses a fashion/style/movement. This article does need to be cleaned up to reflect this, as it seems inordinately focused on the appearance of kawaii in animation (which may be the origin of the usage, but is not its sole encyclopedic meaning). --DDG 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're lending too much weight to these 2 links. First off, Wired is known as a cutting-edge publication that works hard to be trendy, sometimes to the point of trying to manufacture trends. In the article cited, they are taking a bit of license in saying that "Kawaii" is "a sentiment unto itself" and "uttered alone". Clearly the writer doesn't understand much about Japanese, because it is quite common for sentences to consist of a single adjective. The other paper does a good job as to describing and chronicling the cuteness fetish in Japan, but does not really pin down "Kawaii" as a "movement". Most tellingly, there's no group identity associated with "kawaii". Anything and everything can be kawaii. I think this is really being elevated beyond what it is. If kawaii is encyclopedic because you hear girls yelling it everywhere in Japan, why not sugoi (awesome)? or samui (cold)? or oishii (yummy)? I guess I should be careful what I say, as I see the very pedestrian words "kodomo" (child) and "oyaji" (roughly "adult male") are now listed as "anime terms" on Wikipedia. Sheesh. There's just no limit. The Crow 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure where you're going with this. I agree that there are certain unencyclopedic things about this article (Gwen Stefani using a word once does not make it encyclopedic). However, the fact that major news organizations can write an article on a topic, and both describe it as a "fashion movement" make it encyclopedic. Your complaint above that "kawaii" can describe anything and everything is really a complaint that the definition of the phenomena is vague in mainstream circles; that's probably why the resulting wikipedia article is all over the place. Even if kawaii is a nebulous term that changes every season (like the Time article suggests), that still makes it notable. I found another article here which though not as notable as Time or Wired, presents a very encyclopedic presentation of an analysis of the movements of "kawaii" fashion through time. Basically, I guess what I'm getting at is that the article shouldn't be about the definition of the word "kawaii", but the preoccupation with "kawaii-ness" in Japanese culture that was prevalent in the 1980s, and has in small amounts spread to other cultures. If we refocus the article in that light, would you agree that the term is notable? --DDG 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not not saying it isn't notable, just that it isn't encyclopedic because it is a dictionary definition. That's really the reason the article is "all over the place" as you phrase it; there simply isn't enough non-dictionary content to be wrung out of it. As to the articles cited, they all go into great deal describing what's considered cute in Japan, and that cuteness has a unique place in Japan, but not that there's anything special about Japanese cute (which to me is a requirement for this being encyclopedic). I've said my piece, consensus will (or won't) act accordingly. The Crow 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with this article is that aside from the word definition (which I agree should be in the dictionary) is that 'kawaii' is an adjective. It is subjective. The fashion section suggests that it's a term used in Japan to describe a particular fashion. It isn't. There is no fashion movement or style called 'kawaii'. There is Gothic Lolita, there is Kogyaru, but there is not kawaii. All the fashion section actually says is that Japan has some frilly clothes and that some people think they are cute. Should this be in an Encyclopedia? Barryvalder 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions of foreign words exist on many articles and Allah is a fine example. However Kawaii does not translate directly and there are words similar to it. There is a very fine diference between kawaii and kowai and that must be explained as there is kowai style. This wouldnt be necesary if this wasnt the case. This however could be in its on section and the lead was and still is overcrowded. "Cuteness" in Japan is of course article worthy.
A merge is used for small articles and this one is most certainly not. It is not a stub. And I see no arguments about a merge, all arguments are about weather it is article worthy or not. This is not a merge criteria. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I hate do do this, but I am starting to question your understanding of Japanese culture. There is no fashion style in Japan called kowai. Where do you get your information from? Kowai is merely another adjective which describes something which is scary or frightening (again, a word which is entirely subjective - I know people who think Kitty is kowai. I know people who think the Nova Usagi is kowai.)
I fail to see how confusion would arise between the two words, as the only people who are going to be aware of both words will be either people who like manga and anime, or students of Japanese; both of who will be fully aware of the difference from the outset, and won't need an Encyclopedia to tell them.Barryvalder 08:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Japan has no horror movies? Horror is a part of any culture I can think of, weather its angels vs demons or good vs evil etc. I am sure Bleach has a "horror" factor. What is scary and what is cute depends on peoples preferances. The encyclopedia explains the two similar words so they are not confused (this is one line and is fine), you do not determine what information is excess or not. I do not see what harm this explanation does. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat, you have spectacularly misinterpreted what I wrote. Where do I state that Japan has no horror movies?
I'll quote myself: "There is no fashion style in Japan called kowai". I don't even mention movies.
You said "there is kowai style", yet Japan has no "kowai style" the same way it has no "kawaii style".
You said: "What is scary and what is cute depends on peoples preferances." yet your whole argument thus far is that there is a specific, defined "kawaii style". If it's entirely subjective as you just said, you need to stop reverting edits which make this clear, instead of making edits which refer to a specific "kawaii style".
Barryvalder 06:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed "Super kawaii" to "Supa-kawaii" as it's closer to the Japanese expression --Sophistifunk 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

Since it looks like there is a legitimate concern about the factual context of the usage of this word in English vs Japanese, I'm adding a disputed tag until this is resolved.--Isotope23 15:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Univercities claim it is indeed an english loan-word and this was cited. This dispute is hence resolved. There apre people who remove stuff they "dislike" to stubicise this article and make it suitable for merge, now they are trying to get it deleted. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
One University. And it's not even the university, it's merely a list of new words (created by English students, who, if you read the list seem to be lacking in some fundamental grammar skills) and is not evidence strong enough to suggest anything. You admit yourself above that the word isn't a loanword, now you're saying "it is indeed an english loan-word and this was cited".
The meaning of the word given by some users on this article is a clear misunderstanding of the word's meaning and usage in Japan, and therefore the article requires a disputed tag.
Cool Cat, I'm puzzled as to why you think people would act on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of articles they "dislike". The only reason I've got involved in all this is because of the misrepresentation and meaning of a word given on here. I don't have the time or inclination to rid Wikipedia of articles I "dislike". All claims made as to the meaning and use of this word are without evidence and factual accuracy. That's the reason this article needs stipping down and starting again (if at all). Barryvalder 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't dislike kawaii. In fact, I love kawaii. This article is garbage. I articles that do not conform to WP:Policy, and show signs of organized groupthink.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I voted to keep the article, but added the disputed tag because the claim that this is becoming a loanword (or even "may" be becoming a loanword) is factually and logically unsupported (see my above comments under the loanword section). The current version wording violates WP:NOT as crystalballism. I'm interested in seeing this article kept, but not the erroneous conclusions about the term's future significance in the English language; at least not until this significance can be proven.--Isotope23 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting by

As mentioned in the discussion for the deletion of this article, this information barely has any place here to begin with. However, what need is there to make a point of saying katakana was used in this new style of writing? Katakata is, and has been for a long time, part of the Japanese writing system. If it's notable to say it's being used in this "new" style of writing, then give reason why. Is it used differently than before? As it stands, it's akin to me saying that kanji was also used with this "new" style of writing; therefore pretty meaningless. I've deleted this information but it got restored without any explanation. Remember, the onus is on those publishing information to source it and ensure it holds validity, not on those wishing to delete it becuase it lacks it. Barryvalder 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As article explains its a new style of wiring using english characters, doodles (hearts etc), and Katakata characters. Etc. It is not something invented from scratch. But a combination of existing material otherwise not used together. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So it's "a new style of wiring using english characters, doodles (hearts etc), and Katakata characters." So it doesn't include kanji and hiragana? Becuase if it does (as it's obvious it does) then you need to include this in that section. You also need to be more careful than just cut-and-pasting something from a website (which is also lacking a source). Barryvalder 10:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-_-' stunning... You are basicaly complaining about information cited... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please respond to my point. The validity of the source from which this information has been taken has already been severly called into question by several other editors. Your blind belief that anything published (and we're talking here in the very loosest sense of the word) is somehow gospel is baffling. Barryvalder 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I've digested all the verifyiable and notable information on the page and this is what I have left:

Kawaii (ja:可愛い) is a Japanese word somewhat similar in meaning to the English words "cute" and "pretty". It is of much wider use in Japanese than either "cute" or "pretty" is in English, which reflects a popular trend towards all things cute in Japanese culture.

I therefore propose this as the new edit for this article.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. All the other information should either be lost or merged with the Culture of Japan article or the manga fandom pages which are no doubt out on Wikipedia with force. The validity of all the other information on this article is seriously lacking. Barryvalder 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of the other information, I concluded that 0% of it was worth merging into other pages.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think blanking article is the right way. You not only removed entier sections but also removed images. Do not delete the article manualy like this. Feel free to expand. Do not subacise so it can be merged else where. Overal stop annoying me. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I've annoyed you, I've tried not to speak to you at all but it seems there's no other way to get my point across. I'd like to emphasize that I had not blanked out any of the sections in this article, I merely deleted, one-by-one, statements that were unrelated, disputed, or meaningless and eventually a few of the sections contained no more text, and they weren't needed. The images stretched longer than the text itself so the smart thing to do was summarize them as well.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have people who claim Rice University is unheard of making edits to this article... William Marsh Rice University, commonly called Rice University and opened in 1912 as Rice Institute, is one of United States's top teaching and research universities. It isnt just well known it is among the top elite! --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Legit source?

I must express complaint at one of the sources linked to: http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/Cuties.html. First of all, in the first sentence she writes "Kawaii or 'cute' essentially means childlike". Not only is it a rediculous English statment (meaning cute = childlike) there's no factual basis for it. The entire article is drollingly long and randomly makes rediculous statements spattering them with un-needed Japanese words ( amai, airashii, mujaki, junsui, kantan, shojiki, yasashii, kizutsukeyasui, kawaiso, etc.) obviously done at the authors own pleasure. Given that the website http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/ is a self-confessed collection of original research by Kinsella herself, I don't see why this is included at all. It's also obvious that the original version of this article was nearly completely sourced from this article, because the information and sections were in the exact same order.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm... You are just finding reasons to complain about it. You are going great lenghts to get rid of this article. Sugested material "Published in Women Media and Consumption in Japan" hence is published and no longer "original research" as it isnt original.
Why are you contributing to a "Japancruft dicdef" ? Maybe because you are "prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters"? --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Just being published is not a criteria for validity, especially not self-published material. This particular source is a collection of original research that has not been published in a peer-reviewed or any journal known for academic rigor. If we are using sources to support statements of fact, then it is important that we review the validity of the source. Community consensus suggests that we should keep this article and improve it. Given that Cool Cat has admonished us repeatedly to improve it instead of deleting it, he should not now be dismayed that people are indeed improving it. The Crow 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Cute does mean childlike, at least to the inhabitants of the southern section of the large island off the northern coast of Europe, which I inhabit, who happen to consider themselves the originators of the English language and, as it happens, of that very word.
Encarta agrees "1. attractive in childlike way: endearingly attractive in the way that some children and young animals are" --Tony Sidaway 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tony Sideway, I appreciate you spending the time to find a legit source for that tidbit. I would like to argue that "attractive in a childlike way" does not essentially mean "childlike", but my basic stance is that Kinsella's wording and the information she presented was highly debatable, and thus it is not a reputable source.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I just find it odd that the only image left now is Verdandi, who is probably closer to Bijin than Kawaii. Shiroi Hane 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there are people blanking and removing content from the article. Same people tried to get it deleted. I or anyone cannot improve the article when there are people almost maliciously remove anything they see. Entier sections are gone. (I reverted. )--Cool CatTalk|@ 19:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The content which was removed was done so by another editor and he gave full reasons for his actions. To then blindly and unquestioningly revert everything, including such information which was removed becuase it was lacking a source or was under discussion becuase it's accuracy was disputed by several other editors, is rather strange behaviour.
With regards your concerns about the relevency of that particular image, apologies in advance to those who wish to document their hobby on Wikipedia, but I would suggest removing it. Barryvalder 12:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Several editors one being you and the other one "prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters"... I do not care what his "full reasons for his actions" are but after that statement he should not be editing here... He says he is going to slaughter the article... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not misquote me, in fact I'd prefer if you don't quote me at all. I actually said I was going to "make wikipedia a better place". By saying "I do not care what his 'full reasons for his actions' are" are you implying that you will not listen to reason? By what line of logic do you operate on, being the only one here that is strongly opposing my edits?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My choice of Verdandi was insignificant. Three images is a rediculous amount for an article of such little purpose and I just chose one of them to stay at random.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it odd as, out of the three, it is the one I feel least relevant [6]. Perhaps the best choice for a single image would be someone like Chiyo Mihama (although not an animated gif this time) who is designed to be kawaii; she is referred to as such repeatedly by the other Azumanga Daioh characters, or maybe something by Koge-Donbo. Shiroi Hane 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The way forward

The concensus has seemingly indicated that the article be kept. It also appeared fairly clear that many people were unhappy with the current state of the article. I thought I'd start to gather some of the conclusions that have been reached from current discusions.

1) It has been accepted that kawaii is very highly valued in Japan. 2) It has been accepted that there is no universal style on what is kawaii. A logial extension of this conclusion means nothing on the article can be presented as A is kawaii style. or B is made in typical kawaii style. These are clear value judgements with no place in the article.

Other points we need to come to an agreement on:

1) Evidence presented that the word is becoming a loanword is still hotly disputed. If this information is going to appear on the artcle it requires solid, indisputable evidence, correctly sorced. This has thusfar been lacking. 2) The etymology of the word in a previous edit (before the article was reverted wholesale to a previous version) appeared to have greater accuracy. This needs to be looked into. 3) Comparisons of the word to other, similar sounding words, has been so far lacking in any real jusification for it's inclusion. If we're going to do that, we'd have to do it for countless other words in Japanese which sound like kawaii (and if you extend it logically, we'd have to do it pretty much every article on a foreign word!)

This is just a starting point. It does feel like we're making some progress with this article. Why it was recently reverted to an old version which contains a lot of information either discredited or under discussion is a mystery, but we can hopefully soon get a point where we agree (to some degree at least) on what's worthy and relevent and what's not.Barryvalder 13:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We should probably also note the differences between Moe (slang) and kawaii, primarily in that while they are generally considered to be the same thing (at least by otaku vice wotaku [Japanese otaku]), they represent two different things in two different cultures. Also can touch on other aspects as needed. But I think we're all in agreement that this article needs a serious rewrite.--み使い Mitsukai 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Barryvalder I normaly do not ask people to go away but for the first time on my wikipedia I ask you to go away.
You do not see Rice univerisy as a notable source and declare that there is no kawaii cult. Hence you cannot write about something you beleieve does not exist. Please allow other people (doesnt have to be me) to write about this. I am actualy talking to the japanese and trying to lure them here as after all no one knows the japanese culture better than the japanese.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down Cool Cat. Constantly swiping at me, asking me to leave the site and trying to tell me what I can and cannot contribute to on Wikipedia isn't going to have any bearing on my attempts to ensure untruths and highly debateble information is not being presented as truth on Wikipedia. You continue to believe in the validity of the Students of Rice University list that proves kawaii "has become a loanword". This is your wording, although you do contradict yourself a number of times on this page, (it is a loanword, it's becoming a loanword, it may be coming a loandword. All of which you've stated at various points). With the reliability of this source having now been thrown out by several other editors, it is a little odd, and on the face of it, irrational that you continue to hold it up as proof of anything at all.
If you looked beyond what appears to fast be becoming a campaign by yourself against me, or any other editor who disputes the vailidity of your cited sources (with perfect reason) you will see that I believe kawaii is a huge factor in Japanese culture and is worthy of note. This isn't under debate. What is under debate is what is essentially groundless information being published on this site as held up as fact. Every piece of dodgy information and every sourceless "fact" will continued to be challanged until this article is something which is suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, your belief that people cannot write about things which they don't believe exist is such a daft statement, I don't even know where to start picking it apart. Barryvalder 22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Informal complaint against Cool Cat

First of all, nothing was ever blanked. I systematically removed (one by one) all of your un-sourced and un-founded points with a significant space of time between each edit.

Not one person objected to any of the edits that I made, in fact, as I cut down un-founded facts in the article, the comments on the AfD became much more positive, because the way it was written had nothing to criticize (other than the fact that it wasn't much more than a dicdef).

Since cool cat is the only user to object to the edits that I have made, he does not respond to consensus and is acting alone in trying to dictate this sector of Wikipedia.

Officially it was my edit that won the AfD, with 60% of the keep edits being added after I was more or less satisfied with the contents of the page. I also find it an all too fortunate coincidence that the page was locked only after Cool Cat got his last word in.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. CoolCat, please step back and listen to what is being presented to you, and put your personal affection for anime aside. It's OK to have personal preferences and tastes, but it isn't OK if it prevents you from following Wikipedia norms for quality, civility, original research, and notability. At this point you should assume good faith that we all respect the AfD consensus to keep the article, and likewise respect the other consensus that came of it, which is that this article contains a --lot-- of junk and needs --serious-- overhaul. The Crow 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not willing to listen at all. I do not want to discuss this with people who do not "believe in the article". I will not discuss this article with people who have declared it cruft. I will most certainly not discuss it with people prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters. Nothing was ever blanked he says... Your edits removed an entier sections, and reduced all other sections to one or two sentences, you also removed two of the three images [7]. When you were done the article was stubicised and hence became move worthy.
[8] is an excelent source of information yet you are even questioning the legitness of that...
You repetively said that this is "not a cultural fad in japan" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. You are campaigning against the article and all "japancruft". You said so no top of the deletion page... Your tone is not only uncivil but insulting.
So, and let's get this straight, you believe kawaii is a cultural fad? Given everything you have said thus far, I feel compelled to ask you if you know what the word fad means. And if you do, do you undertstand the implications of your using in this context for your entire argument? Barryvalder 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to leave in peace. Perhaps come back in a month and see the progress meanwhile, other people can peer review. I am sure many of the people who have voted keep know wikipedia policies since a good portion were admins.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, just want to be sure I have this, in your own words. You are not willing to listen at all. You do not want to discuss it with people who do not "believe in the article". You ask editors who disagree with you to "leave in peace." This really does not sound like a position of respecting consensus or assuming good faith... are you sure you want this to be your position? The Crow 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat wrote: "I am not willing to listen at all." That would appear to have been your tactic so far in dealing with those who disagree with you or dispute your "sources" and "hard evidence".
The loanword point is still lacking in any solid evidence, yet you insist it should continue to stand on the article. The list of words created by students has repeatedly been questioned by numerous editors. If we're working with the idea that concensus rules (as I hope we are), then it's very clear that is has been thrown out. Your removal of the disputed tag is therefore an act made against this concensus. Are you still "not willing to listen at all."?
You've contradicted yourself on this page on a number of occasions, and the points you make here appear to have no bearing on what you wish to publish on the article. Case in point: Cool Cat wrote: "What is scary and what is cute depends on peoples preferances." The clear implication of this is that there is no, universal kawaii style, again something argued by numerous other editors. Yet you continue to make alterations to the article which state "A is drawn in kawaii style" or "Kawaii characters are...". Are you still "not willing to listen at all."?
I could go on and cite various other points on which you appear oblivious, or simply unwilling, to act in accordance with concensus, but I think these demostrate clearly enough that we have a problem here. Are you still "not willing to listen at all."? Becuase your responses would be really welcome right around now. Barryvalder 03:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't defend myself because I keep on getting bashed for doing so, but at the very least you can stop implying that I am trying to destroy this article, and I evidence the following diffs, which, contrary to your super-generalization of my edits spanning 2-days, details specifically why I re-formatted certain statements, removed bogus statements, and in one case, the section "fashion", because there was no encyclopedic evidence presented. You say that the article should be left to "peer editors" to fix up, and you fail to notice that we are the peer editors, and you blatantly refuse to listen to us. In fact, you rudely tell us to leave, which I can't begin to understand.
[9][10][11][12][13] (removed POV statements) [14] (removed statement with no encyclopedic value) [15] (removed the remains of the bogus "fashion" segment) [16] (rewording of etymology) [17] (removed un-needed images that added zero content to the page) [18] (rewording of hand-writing section) [19] (removed unrelated link with no evidence of a "kawaii culture") [20] (change to the link to disambig because disambigs with only 2 terms are not allowed [which it was at the time])
If you have any objections to any of the above edits please, inform me of how they could possibly be disputed in any way. If not, then please stop fighting your indepentand edit-war which reached a new level of incredibility when you removed the disputed tag without any form of consensus whatsoever for the second time; an act that borders on vandalism if you ask me. This would work much more in your favor if you just stopped freaking out and listened to what everyone was telling you.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Loanword?

There's a lot about this article that lacks any real evidence, but one thing I think is especially spurious is the assertion that kawaii is becoming a loanword. Some popsinger using it in a video while in Japan and the fact anime and manga fans know it makes it far from becoming a loanword.

Barryvalder 08:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove it. The Crow 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, restored. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Listen to it at [21]. She does say it... It is becoming a loanword as article suggest that doesnt mean it is a loanword and article does not suggest this. Kamikaze is a japanese word used in english for example. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you're not going to give up in your assertion that Kawaii is becoming a loanword, despite having zero evidence to support your view. One pop singer saying the word WHILE IN JAPAN is no evidence at all. I also note that you have downgraded your belief that the word merely MAY be becoming one. If this is the case this information has no place in an encyclopedia. Any number of things MAY be happening in this world and I could present one peice of tenuous evidence to support that, but that wouldn't be anywhere near strong enough evidence to justify publishing it in an encylcopedia. Barryvalder 09:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't take exception to the fact that Gwen Stefani said the word "Kawaii". Loanwords are words that fall into widespread common usage, and using a single instance to justify a claim of "loanword" constitutes a novel interpretation that does not have textually present support. Thus, it is original research, it does not belong. The Crow 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting a word is 'becoming' a loanword is something which is very difficult to back up with any kind of hard evidence. Certainly one pop singer saying it is nowhere near enough proof of this. At very best the word is currently known by fans of Japanese things. This is no great suprise as many foreign words are well known to specialist groups. To suggest it is becoming a loanword, ie: something that is known and used by the majority of all native English speakers, on this evidence looks plain daft.Barryvalder 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You dont think its a loadword or its becoming one, thats your pov. Please refrain from making pov edits, also read WP:NPOV
  • POV A: Kawaii is becoming a loanword.
  • POV B: Kawaii is not becoming a loanword.
  • NPOV: Kawaii may be becoming a loanword.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not my POV, it's fact arrived at by the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. Barryvalder 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard evidence: [22] --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That hard evidence you point to is a list of neologisms. New words - not loanwords. This is a list created by former and current students of ENGL215/LING215 English course at Rice University. Yes, I have no idea where Rice University is either. Further examples of words from that webiste include: Kwijibo: "Bart was playing scrabble with father Homer, and spelled out the word “Kwijibo”, Homer demanded a meaning and Bart replied with “big-fat-dumb balding ape”, a rip on Homer" Simpson’s episode, on Thu Jan 1, 2004 or the entry: Big D: My dad. "For some reason we started calling our dad Big Dad because big is good if it is muscular, but now it's mainly fat. And it slowly went to Big D, and now back to D. "Hey D, how was your day at work"" -Our family, on Sat Jan 1, 2000
Now I'm fairly sure that “Kwijibo” or “Big D” and are not becoming loanwords, although feel free to check with an influential and renowned linguistic source. However, do forgive me if I don't take this list of words created by some English students on some course at some University as hard evidence of kawaii's entry into the English language. Barryvalder 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Deleted loanword reference... there is no evidence that 1 usage by Gwen Stefani = it becoming a loanword in English... that is crystalballism. So called "Hard Evidence" from [23] is nothing of the sort per Barryvalder's argument above. On the page it is sourced to 1 article in the "Houston Chronicle Entertainment Section". Where is the evidence of wider usage? Where is the evidence this has become a pervasive usage? Some of the words on the list are legitimate slang neologisms (i.e. Krunk or Kegerator), but find me evidence of someone using the term "Kevork". I live in MI and noboday says that around here... and Jack is from here.--Isotope23 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Restored it. Rice university is more than adequate. It was presented in a neutral tone. I cited adequate evidence and .edu evidence is hard to come by. Yes the list is prepared by student contribution. The professor aproved it as well. This doesnt mean the word is in dictionaries, it just suggests it may be a loan word in the future. Article does not suggest anything more. Even if anime fans are using the word, that still can make it a loan word. Only soldiers used the word kamikaze at a point. Suggesting it may be becomeing a loan word because of its increasing usage is nothing wrong. Hard evidence you require would be dictionary.com I am not claiming the word is a loan word. I am claiming it may be one. Rice university agrees. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Added back disputed tag. "Evidence" is nothing of the sort despite your claims. I dispute the validity of your assertion that it may become a loanword in the future.--Isotope23 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Would I be out of line in suggesting a neutral compromise? Something that cites the references, yet doesn't assert "it is becoming a loanword", or "it is not becoming a loan word"? Such as: "Although still in relative obscurity, kawaii's popularity in American culture is becoming more apparent[24], and may be on its way towards loan-word status[25]." Meneitherfabio 20:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, I don't think that would be entirely unreasonable, although it is still a big leap to take. We would need to find some evidence to support it, as depsite claims there is already hard evidence, this has been repeatedly thrown out by other editors. Barryvalder 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • My problem wiht your compromise is the same problem I have with Cool Cat's text: It's crystalballism. "implies the term may be becoming a loanword..." denotes that at some point in the future, Kawaii may be used as part of English extensively enough to be considered a loanword and there is simply no evidence this is the case. Besides, it violates WP:NOT. I am fine with the wording "According to a list compiled by current and former students at Rice University Kawaii is an English neologism..." as this is a factually accurate statement (though I do have a big problem with the inherent lack of worth of said list since it is not based on any sort of scientific survey of language; but that is another issue entirely). The Rice University statement can stay, but the preceeding paragraph needs to be reworded because there is no implication, inference, or conclusion that can logically be drawn about future usage of a term from one usage in a Gwen Stefani music video.--Isotope23 14:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've done a bit of a rewrite over here: User:Nihonjoe/Kawaii. Please let me know what you think. --nihon 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, couldn't have done better myself.--み使い Mitsukai 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a step in the right direction, but while I hate to rehash old points, this draft still makes the fundamental error of quoting a kawaii style. As we've discussed at length, the phrase kawaii style implies a specific, defined and measurable style which is univerally recognised as such. As yourself and Cool Cat (as the two most vociferous defenders of this article it's worth quoting you both) have both conceeded, kawaii is utterly subjective. Logic therefore dictates that no such specific kawaii style can exist. Therefore all references to kawaii characters or kawaii fashions are groundless value judgments with no basis in fact. The fashion section strikes me as especially worthless. Barryvalder
Did you even follow any of the new references and read the articles? The one right next to the "fashion" statement specifically addresses "kawaii" as a style. Do you consider The New Yorker to be unreputable? It very clearly states that "kawaii" is definitely a fashion style. --nihon 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read through that New Yorker article, but in your quest to jusify your opinions you're missing the point. This discussion isn't about the way westerneners might make use of this word. Come on, we established that a long time ago. The point is how the word is used in Japanese. This is what should be reported in article about a Japanese word; the Japanese meaning. In the Japanese language and in Japanese culture there is no fashion style called kawaii. This fact, I was under the impression, we had long since established. Barryvalder 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the point I've been trying to make is that there is zero need for an article about the Japanese word; that qualifies it as nothing more than Wiktionary. My opposers have argued that it has considerable influence in North America, and that is what they are attempting to prove now (I assume), thus the push for a so called kawaii style. Although...  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to the AfD, your point is moot. This article is not going away. There's no need to continue bringing this up. --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? What makes you think I ever wanted to delete the article? I never even voted in the AfD. Though I feel there is zero need for an article like this, my feelings and my respect for the Wikipedian system do not interfere with each other. The consensus clearly supported a keep and I fully support it, although I obviously had quite a few problems with many of the statements made by the supporters in the AfD. Don't misunderstand my intentions.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The article makes no such mention. The quote is For Japanese girls, the main fashion choice is between being kawaii, or cute. There is absolutely no mention of a so called "kawaii style", the style they mention is bodikon.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to say that about the mention of "kawaii", then the same thing applies to "bodikon". You are misrepresenting the meaning of the sentence due to the incorrect grammar used by the author of that article. The sentence, without the asides, states, "For Japanese girls, the main fashion choice is between being kawaii, or cute...and bodikon, or body-conscious." In the context of this sentence, either both are referring to a style, or neither are. If you go by the context of the article, both are fashion styles: the kawaii style includes "girl-ish pastel-colored clothes that might have pictures of furry animals on them, and sometimes you actually carry a toy furry animal with you," and the bodikon style "means you dress like a cross between Lil' Kim and a manga character." In the context of the article, "kawaii" very clearly refers to a certain fashion style. Reading it any other way is pulling it completely out of context. --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's accept your interpretation of the article for a minute. Even if we do, that is an extremely vague attempt at what you're pointing to as a definitive, clear and universally accepted account of what is "kawaii style". It's interesting that unlike the fashion style of bodikon this specific kawaii style of "pastel colours" and "pictures of furry animals" is entirely unhead of in Japan. Barryvalder 13:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The same can be said for all the cited sources. While they all make countless references to the popularity of cute items, the importance of being cute and so forth, (none of which is being doubted or debated) not one makes reference to, or attempts to give a clear definition of, a specific kawaii style. We've long agreed that the word is always used subjectively (ie: never as a noun) therefore any references to a kawaii style (which we've established most be specific and clearly definable) are false. Any rewrite needs to avoid any use of kawaii as a noun. "kawaii style" "kawaii characters" "kawaii goods" are all false. Barryvalder 10:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This has already been hashed out in the failed AfD discussion, and the very clear result was that "kawaii" does exists as a fashion style, that there are "kawaii" characters and "kawaii" goods. In all those cases, "kawaii" is used as an adjective or adjectival noun, which are both perfectly legitimate uses of the word. Keep in mind that English (as with any other language) is constantly evolving, and it appears, from all the articles cited and referenced in the rewrite, that kawaii is beginning to make inroads into popular culture in the English language. It may not be all-pervasive like "sushi" and "kamikaze" yet, but it very likely will be soon given the mainstream media that's noticing it. The New York Times, The New Yorker, the International Herald Tribune, Salon.com, Wired and Business Week are all well known and well respected media outlets, and they are all beginning to use the word in articles about this phenomenon. Even smaller newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle are beginning to notice it and write articles about it. How much more mainstream does it have to get before you and freshgavin will accept it? --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
How many times must I repeat myself? I'm not arguing that this word isn't making inroads into the English speaking world (although, wether you like it or not, the level of which is still highly debatable). Nor am I doubting that various publications are using the word in their own manner. Please make a mental note of this, becuase it's not the first time I've had to repeat myself about it.
For the record, there was no "very clear result" about the existence of a specific, definable "kawaii style" in the AfD discussion. That's wishful thinking at best, and at worst you're just making things up.
Besides, since when was this article about the meaning given to this word when used in English? It's not about an English word named kawaii, it's about a Japanese word named kawaii. If the word is being used in English as a noun then that's a clear alteration in it's meaning from Japanese where is is always used as an adjective and always in a subjective manner. If there is a "kawaii style" then why are we still lacking in example of it? Why is there no fashion movement in Japan called "the kawaii fashion"? Why is there no section in a comic store for "kawaii comics"? The reason there is no such definition of an example of kawaii fashion or kawaii goods or kawaii comics, and this is something you have actually admitted yourself, is that it doesn't exist. You argument was that cuteness was such a part of Japanese culture that there were no specific kawaii styles. Why the (groundless) change in tact?
As you now beleive in their existence, what in heavens name are kawaii goods? If I told my boss there was a delivery of kawaii goods at the office he wouldn't know what on earth I was talking about. If I asked in a shop for the kawaii style scarfs, the shop staff wouldn't know where to direct me. It would probably be wise at this point to ask you not to make another rediculous sweeping generalisation about how Japanese people react to foreigners. The definition of an official kawaii item or an offical kawaii fashion have so far been lacking. Until we can locate a source, ideally published from a Japanese source, and not some western perspective which lays down the rules for what is a kawaii item and what is a kawaii comic and what isn't we'll have to accept that there is no such thing as a kawaii style anything. There is simply no evidence for it.
Barryvalder 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here are some sources of places selling "かわいいファッション" goods:
That's some of what I found in a quick search. I'm sure more could be found if I spent a lot of time on it. --nihon 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the student project, they are some interesting internet links you cite. However, please refer to the points I made. My point all along has been the lack of a specific, defined definition of what kawaii style is. None of these sources attempt to give this. They class some of thier goods as or services as kawaii but given the vast variations on display across these sites, (and if you search further you will find even greater differences in what is apparently this elusive kawaii style) all they serve to display is the subjective nature of the word. In our quest for locating the standadised and specific kawaii style of fashion, these sites bring us no closer. Coninue your research by all means, as I'm more than happy for the site to refer to kawaii comics or kawaii fashions as specific examples of a clear and defined style (much like we have for Gothic Lolita), but until we have this definition of what is kawaii style and what isn't, (becuase these sites fail to give this; if anything they just blur the boundries and confuse the issue further) then, the article isn't able to refer to anything as kawaii style becuase it is a style that hasn't been proved exists. So go to it, Batman, and let's get this article finished! Barryvalder 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a problem you'll run into with any article about any fashion style. ALL fashion is subjective, and the definition of any particular fashion style is bound to change fairly often. The over-arching characteristic of the "kawaii" style is that people consider it "cute". The exact content of the style changes (just as with any other fad), but it's always what people generally consider "cute". All of those articles address that to one degree or another. One of them even lists off how the "kawaii" style has changed over the last few years. Perhaps I should throw in something about the style changing, as with all fashion fads? --nihon 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That would help, certainly. I agree most styles are subject to change and variation, but I think we have a fairly certain idea what most fashion styles are. As mentioned above, Kogal or Gothic Lolita are good examples. It's very clear what is Gothic Lolita and what isn't, and this distinction is still lacking here. A t-shirt with Astro Boy on it of course isn't Gothic Lolita. But the same t-shirt may or may not be kawaii. As may Gothic Lolita be descibed (not incorrectly) as kawaii style. It's a word used to describe fashions, (as the rewrite article states) but it isn't a word which in Japan has a clear meaning as a specific fashion style. I think we're going in circles here and I fear we will never agree on this!
I think a compromise would be to ensure the use of such phrases as kawaii style and kawaii merchandise is kept to a minimum given it's vague and undefinable nature.
I am also still uneasy about the use of kawaii as an English adjective as on the rewrite. I don't believe we're in a position to use the word as an English adjetive for the reasons I stated on the proposed article's discussion page, and I also still agree with another editor that it isn't an accepted encyclopedic style. Continuing to use the English phrase cute would ensure there's no grey area here.Barryvalder 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
With regard the pictures, focusing purely on anime (with no less than three pictures of it!) is no way to represent the fact cuteness is highly valued in Japan as anime fans don't account for the majority of Japanese culture. Any illustrations need to attempt to reflect the presence of such listed examples (planes with Pikachu on the site, grown men with Kitty hanging off their mobile phone).Barryvalder 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. Perhaps you could provide a couple good replacement pics? --nihon 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found a couple pics myself. --nihon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
ごくろうさん、but I thought we'd come to the conclusion that the remaining anime picture was the least appropriate of the three. Barryvalder 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember that being decided. Beldandy is definitely "kawaii" (and since it's a subjective thing, that's perfectly acceptable). --nihon 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's totally acceptable. With regard it's suitability in respect to the other pictures, may I refer you here: Talk:Kawaii#Images. Barryvalder 07:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've used Dejiko. --nihon 07:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Kawaii!!!! (^o^)/~ Barryvalder 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why there needs to be more than one picture. Anyways my comments are on the talk page of your article nihon, I stand with Barryvalder in that it's a step in the right direction (Though it would be difficult for me not to say that, since it uses many of my edits!).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
More than one pic is useful for showing the pervasiveness of "kawaii". --nihon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you were trying to promote this article as an account of the pervasiveness of "kawaii" outside of Japan.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That may have been the original purpose, but that seems to have morphed into the pervasiveness of Kawaii in Japan, and how it's spreading to popular culture outside Japan. --nihon 07:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to ask why the information regarding that list of words created for some student project is included at all. In the discussion regarding it on this very page the usefullness and validity of it was repeatedly questioned with a clear majority believing it of no use whatsoever. Does concensus still count or have the rules changed? Barryvalder 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It'[s of use because it shows some evidence of the use in the English language. No other claim is made with that link. Again, it's better to present the information available so that those reading the article can have as much reference information as possible available to them. The entry on the Rice U site also references an additional newspaper article that may be of interest to those reading the Kawaii article. --nihon 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So long as it's not acting as the supporting evidence for the word's entry into the English language as one user insisted it was not so long ago... Barryvalder 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good rewrite, I remain opposed only to mentioning "kawaii" as a loanword such as in the elided statement that it "it may be becoming a loanword". Well, it also may not be becoming a loanword, and the evidence is inconclusive either way. Do we include unsettled speculation in encyclopedic articles now? I have no problem noting that a lot of otaku use it (this is probably why it appears in the Rice students homework project) and that Gwen Stefani uses it, but I think any mention of it being a loanword is so premature as to be unsupportable. I also want to add I think it's still a dicdef and an original research/trivia accumulation magnet, but the community has decided to keep it, so at least we can make it the most accurate, highest-quality collection of dicdef trivia it it can be. The Crow 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The loanword information simply has no place in the article. What 'evidence' has been put forward has been repeatedly thrown out and all that is left is the specualtion that it may be becoming one. Wikipedia isn't in the business of speculating on what might happen in the future without solid sources to back it up. This is lacking any evidence strong enough to make this anything other than, to quote another editor, pure cyrstalballism. Barryvalder 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Remove the unfounded speculation from the "Appearances in other cultures" section and I'm satisfied with this article. I don't object to the Rice University Statement on the grounds that the current statement is factual and I'm content letting readers decide how useful or worthless this list may be on it's own merits.--Isotope23 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the "Appearances in other cultures" section has been rewritten to remove references to "loanword". Is it acceptable now? Everything it states is absolute fact. --nihon 19:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If consensus dictates that we must keep this article (which it does) then I think your rewrite is a good starting point for expansion. The Crow 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Term / Word

The definition of 'term' as quoted from Dictionary.com: "Term: A word or group of words having a particular meaning." Since the meaning of kawaii is by nature so subjective, to quote kawaii as a term gives a false impression that is has a "particular meaning." Kawaii, is an all-encompassing word and can correctly be applied to describe any particular style or type of anything at all. Given kawaii's lack of particlular meaning, to regard the word a term is innacurate and it should correctly be referred to as a word or an adjective. Barryvalder 11:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics. "Word" and "term" in the context in which I used them have exactly the same meaning. "Kawaii", by definition, means "cute," and therefore has a meaning, so "kawaii," being a "word...having a particular meaning" is a "term". Just because Person A's opinion of what is and is not "kawaii" differs from what Person B thinks doesn't make it any less of a term. Almost every word in the English language has subjective meaning (Bill Clinton tried to argue over the meaning of the word "is," for example). Ask ten people what their personal opinion of "hot" is, and you'll likely get ten different answers. The same applies to "kawaii." This doesn't change tha fact that it's a "term" and a "word." --nihon 12:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it a word? Is it a plane? No! It's a neologist Japanese Dog Show! ^^; Shiroi Hane 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a core issue of whether kawaii is a subjective attribute or an objective class. I don't think semantically breaking it down into "word" vs. "term" really gets at the matter. And furthermore I think this branch of discussion really should be tabled for the moment. It was a pivotal argument to whether the article should exist. But since fiat inclusionism has effectively overruled the argument, this particular debate is secondary and distracting right now. The Crow 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Barryvalder 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Informal consensus resolution

To restore faith and move forward with unprotecting, I just want to check in what I believe to be the case, that we have a consensus of people who agree that:

  • 1: The AfD result was keep and we are required to respect the decision to keep
  • 2: However, the AfD discussion also reflected a strong sentiment that the article contained a lot of low-quality, speculative content and we are also required to respect the rewrite consensus as well.
  • 3: We shall not perform a de facto deletion of the article by gutting it
  • 4: The article may temporarily appear to be gutted as we remove the unacceptable elements, but this will not be taken as rationale to delete or merge the article.
  • 5: The article should be expanded with factual, validly sourced information presented in a non-novel interpretation.
  • 6: Everyone will have personal opinions on the subject, but assume good faith requires assuming that everyone is putting their personal feelings aside, debating only the merits of the content.
  • 7: Affirmation of the above principles pertains only to the consensus editing process and does not endorse or reject any version of page or content.

Please affirm or reject below:

  • Affirm all. Speaking for myself, I now regret using the term "cruft" and will not do so in the future as it is needlessly inflammatory, and I hope others will exercise similar rhetorical restraint. The Crow 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm I can get on board with that.--Isotope23 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm nihon 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm That is a very good assessment. I think since this article has been put under the spotlight, it has shown vast improvement. The hostile reaction of one editor was unfortunate, but despite that I think we've made excellent progress. Barryvalder 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm. I completely agree with the above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm. Well said.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If prefer not to have 2 people in this debate. those are User:The Hokkaido Crow User:Freshgavin, User:Barryvalder --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's 3 people... Anyway, we're not all here to placate you, we're here to make an encyclopedia article by consensus. If you have specific complaints against the users you should file an RFC, but you can't just petulantly declare that you don't want to work with people. --DDG 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Link please

Which is the "Tidwell source"? None of the article links listed on the page say anything about "Tidwell." --nihon 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed above (was not Tidwell, should have been Kinsella, case of dyslexia on my part with something else I'm working on). The Crow 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not a self-published article. It states right at the top of the article that it was "Published in Women Media and Consumption in Japan" with "Lise Skov & Brian Moeran" as editors. That book is availabnle through Amazon here. From all appearances, it is a peer-reviewed collection of essays published by the University of Hawaii Press. At least 13 other works cite this collection of essays for their own essays or critical works. --nihon 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is my mistake then, it appeared to me that it was a collection of personal works. I withdraw the criticism of the source, but now note that it doesn't make any mention of the loanword question at all. The Crow 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually i was correct but second-guessed myself... there is a Tidwell source [26] cited in this Talk page and it does have the issues I pointed out in addition to not treating the loanword. (Your above comments still stand regarding the Kinsell source). So I'm reinstating that comment and keeping the Kinsell comment that was raised in the mixup. Hope nobody minds, if the change isn't transparent enough I'll be glad to go over it again. The Crow 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"Loanword" is a moot point now as that has been removed from the article, here. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional link: Time Magazine (Asia version), June 25, 2001 (describes how kawaii is a fashion statement, originating in Japan). An excerpt from the above link says: "Kawaii, an adjective usually mistranslated as simply 'cute,' has become much more than a word. It is a state of mind for Japanese teens, a modifier that means cool, bitchin', groovy, killer and I-love-it all rolled into one, then squared."

Rather brave of that article to contadict what must be nearly English / Japanese dictionary ever published. Worth noting that dictionaries also steer clear of such faddish and fleeting language as "bitchin', groovy, killer". As a counter claim to this it would probably be worth quoting ditionary definitions which squarely define the word as an adjective always used subjectively. Barryvalder 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Aside from suffering from the orientalist tendency to see things that aren't there, this also doesn't treat the loanword topic. The Crow 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Overusage of the word kawaii in the Japanese language is likely to spill over into English (and other languages) as well, if it already hasn't.--Endroit 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Crystal-ballism. Wikipedia can't forecast that this will happen. The Crow 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The "crystal-ballism" was mine, not Wikipedia's, and so that's why I wrote it here in the discussions. I am neutral regarding the "loanword" statement, because I choose to stay out of that debate. I merely suggest that the above link be added to the article.--Endroit 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided has been added. Thanks! (^_^) --nihon 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Handwriting section

No references can be found for this section, so I'm putting it here until such references can be found.

Handwriting
When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s, a fad for writing notes and letters in rounded, childish characters began to catch on among teenaged girls. This style of penmanship was dubbed Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting by Yamane Kazuma, during his two year study of handwriting in Japan (between 1984 and 1986).
Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. The new writing used extremely stylised, rounded characters with English characters, katakana, and cartoon pictures such as hearts, stars, and faces inserted into the text. The new style of handwriting was distinct.

If we find any verifiable references, we can move it back to the main article. --nihon 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs properly sourcing, but it also needs some thorough rewording. As it stands it's just cut and pasted from another website and includes such misinformation as stating that horizonatal writing hadn't been done in Japan before teeneage girls in the 1970's first picked up their mechanical pencils. That's simply false. Barryvalder 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe he got that information out of the Kinsella essay, which makes a mention about it about halfway.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Now that the page has been unprotected, can we at least re-add the {{disputed}} tag, which was deleted for a second time by Lukewarm Cat, until there is greater concensus on the contents? It would be prosumptuous to say that there was no dispute (i.e. I'd dispute that statement!)  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be added seeing as the discussion is still ongoing (although a number of our feline friend's hotly disputed points have since been thrown out of the reckoning).Barryvalder 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the old version with the new, improved version that seems to be better accepted than the old one. Since everything in it is now sourced, I don't think the {{disputed}} tag is necessary. --nihon 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Still a few ongoing issues of style, wording etc, but these can get sorted out over time and with the aid of a couple of votes. Barryvalder 08:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kawaii/Archive_1&oldid=1144667619"