Talk:Kawaii/Archive 2

message: OTRS request: somebody could do an audio file for pronounciation. David.Monniaux 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  IPA isn't really accessible and people really murder it. Kotepho 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, is the current IPA text correct?  (the IPA article itself is a bit long, and I haven't properly scanned it yet) The spacing seems to indicate that kawaii is only two syllables, when it should be three.  Like //, but I don't know if that is correct formatting or not.  Perhaps //?  --Crisu 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually four syllables: ka wa i i. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I want to capture what seems like a strong consensus that statements regarding that kawaii is (or is not) a loanword must be considered original research, with these being the guiding principles:
* While Rice University may be notable and highly reputable, the particular source in question is not
** A peer-reviewed paper
** Published in any peer-reviewed journal
** Authored by professors or graduate-level students in the pertinent field
* Likewise, the self-published Tidwell source   source shares the first two problems of the three above listed.
* The Kinsella source  does not support nor disprove the loanword hypothesis.
* kawaii does not have overwhelming textual presence outside of otaku-related sites and documents
* Statements such as "may be becoming" a loanword would constitute future forecasting of an event that cannot be proven or disproven in the present, which Wikipedia is not.
* We cannot prove at this time whether kawaii will or will not become a loanword.  Excluding this from the article in the present does not rule out the possibility that valid sources may someday emerge, rendering it a candidate for inclusion.  The Crow 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not moot, as we need consensus to guide those desiring to treat the loanword subject if/when the article is unprotected and replaced with your article. Please consider affirm or reject response. The Crow 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will affirm if we change the wording to reflect that "kawaii" is not currently a loanword, but we recognize that may change at some time in the future and will accept it being called such if and when sufficient references can be located showing such a change. --nihon 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The Crow 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I have included the Tidwell essay in the Reference section for anyone who is interested in reading it. I think it's fine to include the link, but not specifically cite it as a source. I've also contacted Ms. Tidwell to see if this essay has been published in any journals. If so, then it will be a much more credible source (even though it is already, to some extent, with all of the sources she cites for her research). --nihon 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum on "loanword" statement as original research/novel interpretation 

message: Etymology. This section was re-written before the article was recently reverted wholeseale to a previous, disputed version. I would think the edit made by user freshgavin was an etymology more suited to an encyclopedia and I would request this one be used. Barryvalder 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment I support the transfer of what nihon has implemented in his sandbox, as it removes all of the completely unsourced statements from the original article and we can work on the further disputes from there. For the moment I just want to get rid of the really silly statments, like the one linking it to kafo-fayusi. I will be on a semi-Wikivacation starting today, as I will be pretty busy with otherstuffs, but I feel I've made my opinions pretty clear thus far and continually restating them won't serve much purpose anyways.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Nihonjoe's version at User:Nihonjoe/Kawaii should be used to start out with.--Endroit 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I'm about to start changing some stuff in the intro.  Give it a chance before you react, once you see where I'm going I think you'll find it agreeable.  The Crow
:The only suggestion I have is for you to go through the various footnoted articles and find those that support the claims made in the intro. The use the appropriate footnote link after the claims. --日本 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Agree that the points need referencing, but it's good to see the removal of the kakkoii information which never had a place here. Barryvalder 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "kakko-ii" line was useful and served a purpose. It is always useful to include one or more examples of how not to use "kawaii". --日本 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if we've defined the term then it's fairly self evident (in any language) that males are not commonly described as 'cute'. Getting into what words instead of kawaii describe what things is a slippery slope. This is spoonfeeding the reader and the article is better off without it. Barryvalder 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which of the statements are controversial, novel, or esoteric claims enough to require citation?  I mean, we're not disputing that kawaii is everywhere... we all know and accept this as common knowledge.  I thought what I added in the intro was in a similar vein.  The Crow 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only bringing it up because I thought some of the editors who want almost every word referenced may mention it. I think it's fine since the claims are referenced later in the article. --日本 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep it under consideration.  The environment has improved a lot with regard to contention, so maybe this is not an issue.  The Crow 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article's discussion area has improved a lot with regards contention, and I also agree with you that there is nothing controversial, novel, or esoteric which needs citation. Barryvalder 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Sourced info such as kawaii fashion is gone, any reason why? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loads of reasons. I know it's a pain in the ass but you'll have to read the whole talk page (and the archives) as well as the talk page on Nihonjoes version to find them.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The main reason is to make the article fit more into line with what we could find in any of the sources. Because it's so subjective, and what is considered "kawaii" changes so often, we thought it better to describe it as a "fashion sense" than a particular style. --日本穣 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled on this article and it really needs to be beat down. Anime terms are ok in their own context, but the word "kawaii" really only is the Japanese word for cute. Any attempt to discuss the sociological reason of WHY Japanese love cute things should maybe be addressed somewhere else. And the magazine Cawaii is a semi upscale woman's fashion magazine. It's like saything the magazine Egg is all about what Japanese think is an egg... struggle 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not alone in this view. If you have a look through the archives on this page you'll see the lengths this discussion went to. The current article is a compromoise bewteen those who wanted the article deleted, those who wanted it merged, and those who wanted it expanded from it's previous incarnation (check out the version of a month ago if you think the current artice is bad - it was a complete mess!). I still agree that the Japanese fasination with cute things should be addresed elsewhere, so it might be worth opening this one up again seeing as some time has now passed and the dust has settled on all the previous discussions. Barryvalder 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the dust has settled, it's only just barely. The discussion and fallout from the AfD has only been settled for about a week now. I don't think an AfD or merge suggestion is going to work anytime soon (if ever) as there are too many people who want to keep the article and expand it a bit more. --日本穣 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced info gone? 

message: Mascots are definitely kawaii and they belong here, but I notice a large portion of the article seems to be related to them (basically all of the kawaii is everywhere section).  I don't have any ideas of how to improve this right now, I just thought I'd mention it.  The Crow 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overbalance of mascot stuff 

message: Which is it? Until this article, I'd never heard of Gwen Stefani. Anyone in the know want to check it out. If it's Harajuku Girls, please revert the anon edit. Thanks! (^_^) --日本穣 07:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is Hollaback Girl; she says the phrase to her bevy of Harajuku Girls, "Love", "Angel", "Music" and "Baby", named as such in the song Rich Girl.  It's confusing. --DDG 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your restraint. (^_^) There is a song/video titled Harajuku Girls, which may be what it's referring to. If so, then we need to revert the edit from the anon user (as mentioned above). --日本穣 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'll answer my own question: "super kawaii" is in the lyrics, so I've reverted the anon edit. --日本穣 07:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reading those lyrics, what a cringeworthy song that must be! (>.<)Barryvalder 11:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. (>.<) --日本穣 18:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll attempt to explain Gwen Stefani, as far as my understanding goes.  In the video for "Hollaback Girl", before the song actually starts, Gwen Stefani takes a picture of her Japanese entourage and declares them to be "Super Kawaii"; this won't show up on the printed lyrics, as it's only in the video.  She also uses the phrase in the lyrics for the song "Harajuku Girls".  Yes, it's very confusing. --DDG 18:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  2Cents - Just wanted to say that anyone who knows Gwen from her early days in OC singing with No Doubt knows that the girl is the complete opposite of kawaii. 逆にキモイ。She's a very nasty lady. It's too bad she didn't take the japanese kick and dub the Haraheta girls "Chō Kawaii!", seems more japanese, and more Harajuku. struggle 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, the verdict is out on whether Harajuku girls are actually kawaii or not anyways.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You be the judge - http://fashion.3yen.com/wp-content/images/harajuku_fashion_7162.jpg  struggle 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Red hair - totally cute! But if any picture hopes to encapsulate just how subjective 'kawaii' is, then that one does a good job; not many pastel shades and ruffles on display there. Barryvalder 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollaback/Harajuku Girls 

message: I propose renaming this article Chō kawaii n'dakedo~☆.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new article location 

message: Can somebody please explain to me why this article is necessary in an english Wikipedia? If a foreign term can be translated accurately into an english word, why do we need an article on it?
:Simple explanation: Otaku own the internet, and the Wiki, like the internet, bends to their wishes.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a longer explanation, read the two archived talk pages at the top.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aricle's very existence has been questioned on various occasions by various people and for various reasons. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. The archived pages directed to by User:Freshgavin tell you all you need to know about why and how the article came to be what it is. ShizuokaSensei 09:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for the information and will continue to support the war against otaku. Chokaro 04:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: 218.42.177.117 changed "utsukushi (愛し)" in the Nuance section to "itoshi (愛し)", saying "convert utukushi to itoshi. 愛し is not utukushi.". However, I beg to differ - in Kobun (Old Japanese), 愛し is both itoshi and utukushi. In this case, we're trying to point out the similarities between olden-day utukushi and modern-day utukushii, so I feel utukushi is the better transliteration of the two. I've reverted to my version—if you, or someone else takes issue with this, please reply. Thanks, Tangotango 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuance 

message: There has been a large number of edits over the last day which have fundamentally altered this article from the one reached at by weeks of discussion a few months back. This may or may not be for the best, and there have been too many changes to list them all here, but one central point that has been asserted by the recent edits is that this article is about the English use of a Japanese term. This was something which was discussed at length, and I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that this article was primarily about the Japanese phenomenon of cuteness (which love or hate the article is something beyond debate). If this is the case, then the current revision which introduces the article as a slang word originating from a Japanese term is born of a misunderstanding of what tis article is. It's either about the cultural phenomenon of cuteness in Japan, or it's about the way the word is used in English speaking circles. Which is it? ShizuokaSensei 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some factionalism at play in this article.  Otaku tend to appropriate a lot of Japanese language into their hobby culture, consider it to be notable enough to be considered part of mainstream English slang, and think it is appropriate to represent this view in Wikipedia.  They tend to load these articles with etymology, examples of usage, and references to where it has occurred.  Then you have others who agree that such articles should be judged on their topical content (such as Japanese cuteness) and should not be suggesting a stronger acceptance of the word than actually exists, or leaning too heavy into dictionary definition territory.  Thus, you end up with a sort of crappy consensus.  If you think you can improve it without proviking too much contention, by all means, give it a shot. The Crow 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just edited it to bring it back to its former purpose, but still incorporate most of the changes into the locations where they belong (or at least where it makes the most sense to incorporate them). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the consensus that was reached is that the article should stand as an example of the use of the word kawaii in English circles, as it had been previously evidenced that it had already become a common use word. An article on cuteness in Japan would (as discussed) be correctly placed at Cuteness in Japan.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point!  Let's remove all references to cuteness in Japan (which is more than 1/2 the article) and talk only about its usage as slang in English here!  Oh wait, the Otaku would be up in arms...Bethereds 11:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is entirely about the otaku. I mean, I'm no otaku - I'm about to start a master's program in Japanese Studies studying history, art, and culture - I'm serious about my Japanese studies. And I am not a supporter, for the most part, of fancruft, which our stereotypical otaku is. But I think that the content of this article (and its very existence) should be driven not just by some pro-otaku/anti-otaku culture war. The fact of the matter is, from an academic anthropological or sociological point of view, American youth culture (pop culture) is beginning to incorporate more and more elements of Japanese pop culture. Manga are sold in every Barnes & Noble, and many people, regardless of what you might think of them, have begun to use Japanese words like kawaii. I apologize to restart any sort of argument, or to stoke the fires of an edit war. I simply wanted to point out that there are people out there who study contemporary Japanese culture and sociology in a very serious and scholarly kind of way; we're not all otaku. LordAmeth 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you need to justify to yourself that you are not otaku then go ahead.  You really don't need to prove a thing to me.Bethereds 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get it.  Why would you want to remerge the article if this is the way you feel?Bethereds 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: This article, which does not only concern the kawaii phenomenon outside Japanese culture, should be merged with the Cuteness in Japanese culture article.  Exploding Boy 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Yes, as it stands this article resembles a long dictionary entry, but it is essentially a stub with little actual content.  Besides, discussion of the word should take place at the article on the phenomenon the word describes, unelss there is some very good reason to have two separate articles; here, there isn't.  Exploding Boy 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cutesy phenominon isn't called Kawaii in English! Kawaii isn't understood outside specific cirles!Bethereds 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That said, I'd be fine if people wanted to rename the article from Kawaii to Cuteness in Japanese culture. I just strongly object to the methods used in the last 24 hours to totally destroy all of the work that went into the Kawaii article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because I oppose the methods by which this whole thing was done. The way this article was gutted without any discussion at all is completely unacceptable. This kind of change should be discussed beforehand. I have therefore reverted the changes to the poitn before Bethered made all of the drastic changes, though I have left the mergeto tag. We can discuss changes here first, and then determine what course to take before making drastic changes to the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles are about two seperate things though.  If they are going to be merged, I propose at the very least that items talking about the word itself be put in one part of the article, and items about the cutesy phenominon be put in another part.Bethereds 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I'm bewildered as to Bethereds' motivations, and I disagree with his methods. I'm not even sure if you understand why some of us have a problem with this article in the first place. My initial argument (how many months ago?) was that an article about the word kawaii was nothing more than a dicdef, and anything describing a phenomenon in Japan would qualify for a separate cuteness in Japan article. If you are attempting to split the article in two, by what logic do you propose the original kawaii article to exist?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an explanation of the usages of the word in English.Bethereds 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I indicated above, I'm fine with renaming the article, though I think it should perhaps be more than just about Japan. Perhaps Japan's influence on cuteness in popular culture or something similar. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ridiculous that we have two articles, when the bulk of this article concerns cuteness in Japan, with only one section (by far the shortest) concerning what some editors above are claiming.  Exploding Boy 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now we have two identical articles.  Perhaps we should revert to the dictionary article for kawaii until we can decide what to do.Bethereds 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you want to make it totally not Japan related?  I don't think that's a good idea.  I don't see what the problem is now.  One's about a slang word, and the other is about the phenominon in Japan.  They really don't have anything to do with each other, except that in the Japanese language, the word can describe the phenominon.  Seeing as how this is the English wiki, we should use English to talk about the phenominon.  All references to the word kawaii in the English wiki should be about the word itself or how it is used as slang in English.  I can't see why this doesn't make sense.Bethereds 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the spelling error buddy.  Anyway, I don't see how kawaii, in its usage in English is not slang.  It can't be found in the dictionary, while futon and tsunami can be. It isn't understood by people unfamiliar with Japan or Japanese language.  Futon and tsunami are, some even don't know that they originated from Japanese.  The only context in which kawaii is not slang is when speaking Japanese!  Now, if you want to simply turn wikipedia into an E-J dictionary then you've got a billion other articles to write.  This is the English wikipedia.  We should focus on a word's usage in English.  If you want to delete all references to the word in slang, then go ahead, but you should also then delete all references to the non-English usage as well.  I don't know why you don't see it.Bethereds 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're going to be bold then why not let's fork Culture of Japan#Popular culture into its own article, merge the pre-fork kawaii article as a major heading under that, and redirect Cuteness in Japan to it?  The Crow 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What purpose would the word kawaii serve under Cuteness in Japanese culture then?Bethereds 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be serious.  Exploding Boy 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am serious.  You don't open up encyclopedias and find Japan under "N" for Nippon, and you don't find the section for Japanese history under "Nihon no Rekishi".  The word itself doesn't belong in that article.Bethereds 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... ok, I agree that "cuteness in Japan" shouldn't be filed under "kawaii".  But if you say that the word "kawaii" itself has no place in an article about cuteness in Japan, surely you can't be serious... either you're crazy or you're making a WP:POINT. The Crow 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK then, what about simply merging kawaii into Culture of Japan and deleting Cuteness in Japan as a POV fork? The Crow 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, wait.  So now you've reverted to the pre-split version, so we have two identical articles, but you object to redirecting Kawaii to Cuteness in Japan?  I'm really getting confused about what it is you want here, especially given your recent change to your vote above, which I'm not sure I understand the motivation for either.  Exploding Boy 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I want is an honest editing process.  Look at the history of kawaii and then Cuteness in Japan.   These articles didn't arise independently and coincidentally; Cuteness in Japan was created 3 days ago as a fork of kawaii to create the appearance of redundancy in order to make it easier to dispose of kawaii.  And now he (and you) are protesting innocently "hey, we have duplicate articles, what are we going to do about this?"  Don't talk to me about duplicate articles, I'm not the one who created the identical POV fork 3 days ago.  I find this sneaky, dishonest, and unbecoming of Wikipedians.  I resent the fact that I have to oppose a conclusion that I support because it was offered dishonestly.  The first thing to do is fix the dishonesty, and then if you want, we can have a fresh discussion of where to put this content. The Crow 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cuteness in Japan was created only a few days ago by duplicating kawaii, this is abundantly obvious from the history of both articles.  This was clearly a POV fork and I've explained this a couple of times, yet you refused to acknowledge the situation and built your actions off the original dishonest act.  Perhaps I should not have attributed to malice what could have been adequately explained otherwise.  At any rate, it now looks like a fait accompli.  The Crow 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns Crow, but there's a big problem with what happens when somebody makes a WP:POINT; they can sometimes be irreversible or require an equally un-Wikipedian WP:POINT just to set things straight again. I, and I assume many others, have wanted to move the article for a long time, but nobody was willing to cause a disruption (we're like a bunch of peaceful hot-heads) and so nothing was done about it. I would have been equally unobjectionate had some anonymous IP user took it upon himself to forcefully move the Kawaii article here without any discussion, not because I wouldn't think it was an unjust action, but because I believe other Wikipedians will handle it in the way I would have tried to had I been given infinite patience to do so. By proposing we fix all this and go back to a white slate you're asking me (and others) to debate everything all over again, and it's clear that everyone is fed up with this issue. If you feel conflicted opposing something you essentially support (as I do) then remove your ballot (or rather, Wikipedians are supposed to say "opinion" now). As a Wikipedian I choose to interpret malice from a logical perspective, and it has never gotten me anywhere discussing minor degrees of good/bad faith. I respect your perspective, though, and it makes me wish all the more that we had a comprehensive essay/policy on how to be a good Wikipedian.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: # Exploding Boy 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Bethereds 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This article is about the word itself. Cuteness in Japanese culture is about the phenominon.Bethereds 17:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Yes, as it stands this article resembles a long dictionary entry, but it is essentially a stub with little actual content.  Besides, discussion of the word should take place at the article on the phenomenon the word describes, unelss there is some very good reason to have two separate articles; here, there isn't.  Exploding Boy 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cutesy phenominon isn't called Kawaii in English! Kawaii isn't understood outside specific cirles!Bethereds 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That said, I'd be fine if people wanted to rename the article from Kawaii to Cuteness in Japanese culture. I just strongly object to the methods used in the last 24 hours to totally destroy all of the work that went into the Kawaii article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because I oppose the methods by which this whole thing was done. The way this article was gutted without any discussion at all is completely unacceptable. This kind of change should be discussed beforehand. I have therefore reverted the changes to the poitn before Bethered made all of the drastic changes, though I have left the mergeto tag. We can discuss changes here first, and then determine what course to take before making drastic changes to the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles are about two seperate things though.  If they are going to be merged, I propose at the very least that items talking about the word itself be put in one part of the article, and items about the cutesy phenominon be put in another part.Bethereds 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I'm bewildered as to Bethereds' motivations, and I disagree with his methods. I'm not even sure if you understand why some of us have a problem with this article in the first place. My initial argument (how many months ago?) was that an article about the word kawaii was nothing more than a dicdef, and anything describing a phenomenon in Japan would qualify for a separate cuteness in Japan article. If you are attempting to split the article in two, by what logic do you propose the original kawaii article to exist?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an explanation of the usages of the word in English.Bethereds 13:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I indicated above, I'm fine with renaming the article, though I think it should perhaps be more than just about Japan. Perhaps Japan's influence on cuteness in popular culture or something similar. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ridiculous that we have two articles, when the bulk of this article concerns cuteness in Japan, with only one section (by far the shortest) concerning what some editors above are claiming.  Exploding Boy 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now we have two identical articles.  Perhaps we should revert to the dictionary article for kawaii until we can decide what to do.Bethereds 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you want to make it totally not Japan related?  I don't think that's a good idea.  I don't see what the problem is now.  One's about a slang word, and the other is about the phenominon in Japan.  They really don't have anything to do with each other, except that in the Japanese language, the word can describe the phenominon.  Seeing as how this is the English wiki, we should use English to talk about the phenominon.  All references to the word kawaii in the English wiki should be about the word itself or how it is used as slang in English.  I can't see why this doesn't make sense.Bethereds 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the spelling error buddy.  Anyway, I don't see how kawaii, in its usage in English is not slang.  It can't be found in the dictionary, while futon and tsunami can be. It isn't understood by people unfamiliar with Japan or Japanese language.  Futon and tsunami are, some even don't know that they originated from Japanese.  The only context in which kawaii is not slang is when speaking Japanese!  Now, if you want to simply turn wikipedia into an E-J dictionary then you've got a billion other articles to write.  This is the English wikipedia.  We should focus on a word's usage in English.  If you want to delete all references to the word in slang, then go ahead, but you should also then delete all references to the non-English usage as well.  I don't know why you don't see it.Bethereds 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're going to be bold then why not let's fork Culture of Japan#Popular culture into its own article, merge the pre-fork kawaii article as a major heading under that, and redirect Cuteness in Japan to it?  The Crow 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What purpose would the word kawaii serve under Cuteness in Japanese culture then?Bethereds 16:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be serious.  Exploding Boy 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am serious.  You don't open up encyclopedias and find Japan under "N" for Nippon, and you don't find the section for Japanese history under "Nihon no Rekishi".  The word itself doesn't belong in that article.Bethereds 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... ok, I agree that "cuteness in Japan" shouldn't be filed under "kawaii".  But if you say that the word "kawaii" itself has no place in an article about cuteness in Japan, surely you can't be serious... either you're crazy or you're making a WP:POINT. The Crow 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK then, what about simply merging kawaii into Culture of Japan and deleting Cuteness in Japan as a POV fork? The Crow 19:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, wait.  So now you've reverted to the pre-split version, so we have two identical articles, but you object to redirecting Kawaii to Cuteness in Japan?  I'm really getting confused about what it is you want here, especially given your recent change to your vote above, which I'm not sure I understand the motivation for either.  Exploding Boy 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I want is an honest editing process.  Look at the history of kawaii and then Cuteness in Japan.   These articles didn't arise independently and coincidentally; Cuteness in Japan was created 3 days ago as a fork of kawaii to create the appearance of redundancy in order to make it easier to dispose of kawaii.  And now he (and you) are protesting innocently "hey, we have duplicate articles, what are we going to do about this?"  Don't talk to me about duplicate articles, I'm not the one who created the identical POV fork 3 days ago.  I find this sneaky, dishonest, and unbecoming of Wikipedians.  I resent the fact that I have to oppose a conclusion that I support because it was offered dishonestly.  The first thing to do is fix the dishonesty, and then if you want, we can have a fresh discussion of where to put this content. The Crow 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cuteness in Japan was created only a few days ago by duplicating kawaii, this is abundantly obvious from the history of both articles.  This was clearly a POV fork and I've explained this a couple of times, yet you refused to acknowledge the situation and built your actions off the original dishonest act.  Perhaps I should not have attributed to malice what could have been adequately explained otherwise.  At any rate, it now looks like a fait accompli.  The Crow 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns Crow, but there's a big problem with what happens when somebody makes a WP:POINT; they can sometimes be irreversible or require an equally un-Wikipedian WP:POINT just to set things straight again. I, and I assume many others, have wanted to move the article for a long time, but nobody was willing to cause a disruption (we're like a bunch of peaceful hot-heads) and so nothing was done about it. I would have been equally unobjectionate had some anonymous IP user took it upon himself to forcefully move the Kawaii article here without any discussion, not because I wouldn't think it was an unjust action, but because I believe other Wikipedians will handle it in the way I would have tried to had I been given infinite patience to do so. By proposing we fix all this and go back to a white slate you're asking me (and others) to debate everything all over again, and it's clear that everyone is fed up with this issue. If you feel conflicted opposing something you essentially support (as I do) then remove your ballot (or rather, Wikipedians are supposed to say "opinion" now). As a Wikipedian I choose to interpret malice from a logical perspective, and it has never gotten me anywhere discussing minor degrees of good/bad faith. I respect your perspective, though, and it makes me wish all the more that we had a comprehensive essay/policy on how to be a good Wikipedian.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Because most everyone seemed to be in agreement that the article shouldn't be at "Kawaii", the article has now been moved to the (hopefully) less troublesome "Cuteness in Japanese culture." I've reworded a few things in the article to make it more appropriate for the new title. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved 

message: Dear Sirs. I would argue that the magazine called Cawaii which is referenced on this page as being "dedictated to kawaii" is, in actual fact, nothing of the sort. Furthermore, I would go so far as to suggest the only reason it's been listed at all is merely that the name happens to be an alternative romanisation of the term kawaii. As such, I am compelled at this juncture to be so bold as to claim that it has no more of a place on the article than any other fashion / lifestyle magazine for young women; the logical extension of which is that I would urge it's removal from this page forthwith. Thank you for your kind attention with this matter. I honestly believe it one of urgency. (^.^)y ShizuokaSensei 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a big typo (in reference to your edit summary). (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave that exact same claim months ago, but I guess it was forgotton amongst the flabergasm of other criticisms I made about the article at the time.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be established that the focus of the magazine is emphasizing cuteness in fashion (or somethign along those lines), then it shoudl stay. Otherwise, it should be removed. Anyone here subscribe to it? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ShizuokaSensei's description of the magazine is correct. Other magazines (for example Zipper) much more suitably define cute fashion, and are directed specifically at that market.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  If anyone here subscribes to it I would hope they'd have the discretion not to admit to it. ;) It does have a rather charming website which should give a decent insight into the magazine's content. ShizuokaSensei 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cawaii magazine link 

message: Okay, I am really sorry to open this up again, but can we not have kawaii redirect here and put all references to kawaii the word, on a page called kawaii?  Kawaii's usage in English among anime loving circles or in Gwen Stefani's songs don't belong on this page, which is about cute things in Japan.Bethereds 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Bethereds.  "Kawaii", no matter how much Otakus love to use the word, still remains only the Japanese term for "cute".  That's a different subject from how "cuteness" has influenced Japanese culture.  Why were the articles merged in the first place?  There should be two different articles.  Hong Qi Gong 04:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the fact that a small circle of anime (etc.) lovers in the US (etc.) likes to use the Japanese word kawaii doesn't directly reflect the influence of the way cuteness is interpreted in Japanese culture.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  That doesn't even make sense!  This part of the article belongs on a different page!Bethereds 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's perfectly acceptable to have a section on "Influence on other cultures" when talking about cuteness in Japanese culture. It only makes sense that there would be some influence when aspects of the popular culture of one country are consumed, absorbed, and modified to become part of the popular culture of another country. That's what is happening with Japanese pop culture in the western world. Granted, it's not penetrated everywhere in "western" culture, but it's certainly made significant inroads. Same thing with various Asian cultures (such as those mentioned in the section). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also perfectly acceptable to have discussions of "kawaii" in an article about "Cuteness in Japanese culture," as the word "kawaii" will almost certainly come up multiple times in any discussion on the topic. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it won't!  It has to mutually be understood by both speakers, and they both have to be inclined to use it.  If the conversation is in English, there is a good chance the word won't even come up at all. The whole section is out of place, even in "influences on other culture."  Cuteness in Japan didn't make the word prevalent in English, the widespread distribution of anime and manga, and Japanese suddenly becoming hip in the 1990s did.  It belongs MORE on a page about anime than it does here, and all of us can probably agree that it doesn't belong on a page about anime.Bethereds 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak for yourself. A national passion for cute things gave birth to smitherines of anime. Anime gave birth to smitherines of maniac fans. Maniac fans like to use Japanese words in English. Sounds like it's relevant to all three from my eyes. I wouldn't actually write that in the article though, because I have no concrete source on that, even though it can be pretty easily defined from what I can see. I also recommend you don't try to create articles based simply on what you see and believe.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Be careful. The noun form isn't very common and I don't really think it needs a mention. Sino-Japanese words are common as nouns, but native Japanese adjectives are only nominized when it's absolutely necessary.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Originally, the noun form was added to distinguish between cute, and cuteness.  This article used to be terribly otaku, and used kawaii or things like kawaii-ness in the body of the article as if it were an appropriated English term.  We've gone through many revisions, and are currently debating whether or not to put kawaii on a totally seperate page.  It's mainly to emphasize that kawaii is an adjective.  I think it belongs.  The reason people don't use it so much is because "cuteness" doesn't come up so often in any language.  Nobody would ever say.. the cuteness of that is ASTOUNDING, they'd say.. That's pretty damn cute.  When comparing two things they'd say this one is cuter than that one.. rather than The cuteness of this one is greater than that of the other..... I'd just as soon move the section on the word kawaii to kawaii and leave it at that.Bethereds 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point. Where in Wikipedia can you find an example of an article that explicitly states: the nomilization of this adjective is xxxx. It's non-encyclopedic information, does not contribute to the article, isn't even explicitly mentioned in most dictionaries (because it's a function of grammar to nominalize adjectives) and a simple mention that kawaii is an adjective is completely sufficient.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, everyone else is missing the point that a section on the word Kawaii and its usage doesn't even belong in this article.Bethereds 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So everyone is wrong except you, but it's your opinion which should be followed? I've been staying out of this as it's all gone a bit OTT of late in my opinion. The creation of new articles, redirecting and so on that is going on in an article with a long history of contention, discussion and concensus reaching, is somthing I find hard to believe. Given the history of this article I would be reluctant to make any major changes without sounding them out in the talk section first, so to come in and start making such wholesale changes before even proposing the changes, or arguing your case until after the work is done, isn't the way to do things. ShizuokaSensei 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only echoing your previous sentiment where you criticized the article being about two seperate things.  Why would you be opposed to anything that I propose that sets to rectify the situation?  I don't propose to say that everyone is wrong except me, there are other editors who agree with me.  I wouldn't even say that my opposition is wrong. Some want to be sticklers to wikipedia rules that let the faction with the highest numbers have its way, while others in said faction take what i propose to do as a personal invalidation or a serious blow to their authority on Japan by virtue of having watched some anime or something.  I'm not trying to do any of that at all.  I'm just trying to make an article that makes sense.  This article is about Cuteness in Japan, not about an adjective in the Japanese language.Bethereds 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the problem we're having here is that everybody is confused as to exactly what Betherds really wants, and some of us are having trouble agreeing with you because the way you justify your edits is different. I think it's best if you take Shizuoka's advice (as we've probably all have taken the same sort of advice at one time) and just slow down and handle things calmly, one at a time. Nobody is going to die if this article exists in a slightly imperfect condition for a few weeks. You have to realize that there's probably 30 people that don't have as much time as I do to talk but are watching this page nonetheless, and it's probably not that hard to stir up an angry response.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kawaii 

message: To revisit this discussion (in my first contribution), cuteness in Japanese culture is a quite specific phenomenon, and fully justifies its own Wikipedia entry and its own name, which I suggest is often 'kawaii' - including among non-Japanese.  In English, it could have become known as 'cuteness in Japan', if that complete term were recognised as a unit, like 'American football', but not merely to suggest that, under the topic 'cuteness', the Japanese variety is no more noteworthy than, say, German cuteness.  The only common specific term is 'kawaii'.
Here in Hong Kong, where pop culture is often influenced by Japan, 'kawaii' is understood by many Westerners and most younger Chinese.  Not all, but enough to confirm 'kawaii' as at least on the verge of becoming the established term for the phenomenon.  Can anyone confirm the common use of 'kawaii' elsewhere in Asia?
I have no problem with the new header 'Cuteness in Japanese culture', to keep it accessible, but the term 'kawaii' must continue to feature prominently.
Also, I amended references to 'Western' views to 'foreign' or 'overseas', since as the article already notes, other Asian cultures are among the most influenced.
Earthlyreason 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'kawaii', especially in Asia 

message: I want to propose merging the two sections about influences into one, as this:
:;Influence on other cultures
:Cute merchandise and products are especially popular in other parts of east Asia, including China, Taiwan, and South Korea.See Wired: "Cute Inc." URL accessed April 19, 2006. See "Cute is cool in Japan". URL accessed April 19, 2006..  While many of these products are imports from Japan, indigenous creations have also appeared. "Supercute" things have become so synonymous with Japan that many people often mistake non-Japanese creations (Such as the Korean made Mashimaro) to be Japanese in origin.
:In some western cultures, the Japanese word for cute (kawaii - 可愛い) has joined a number of other Japanese words borrowed by Western fans of Japanese pop culture.  While the usage is almost entirely limited to the otaku subculture, it been used by figures as notable as American singer Gwen Stefani, who gave kawaii a brief mention in her Harajuku Girls music videoSee Salon.com: "Gwen Stefani neuters Japanese street fashion to create spring's must-have accessory: Giggling geisha!". URL accessed April 19, 2006..''
Both are highly related and the US doesn't really deserve it's own section, as the Japanese influence is not limited to just one country in the west. I'll wait about 24 hours.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of this article, there doesn't really need to be more than one section, especially since both sections are so small.  And there's a whole other article about the subculture that was spawned by overall Japanese pop cultural influence in the west.  Otaku.  --- Hong Qi Gong 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree based on the size of the article. There may be reason for separate sections when the article gets bigger, but as there is no objection I will reformat the sections now.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge sections 

message: I replaced the anime image with the one to the cartoon-style military advertisement. I think the cartoonish depiction of military forces shows an example of where Westerners might find cuteness odd or incongruent.  I think this is better than the anime character because cuteness is not unexpected or exceptional in anime. The Crow
:: Couldn't agree more. Think that's an excellent picture and a far better example of cuteness being a wider part of culture than a cartoon drawing. Good work, fella! ShizuokaSensei 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This section should really feature upon the areas where Japan's use of cuteness is unique to Japan (the basis for the article) and be careful to avoid examples of which the same use of cute which could be readily found ouside Japan. I trimmed back three of these (A TV company's mascot, The fact Baseball teams have mascots and something about a construction company using a cute mascot) which don't fit the 'unique to Japan' bill. The current examples of Police forces using cute mascots, Prefectures all having a masoct and so on are far more indicative of Japan's use of cute where is isn't elsewhere.
ShizuokaSensei 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Japan's use of Cuteness 

message: An anonymous editor is insisting on replacing the stylized Furen jietai image at the top of the page with an anime figure.   I believe this does not serve the article.  First, this article is about the role of cuteness in Japanese culture, not the definition of cuteness.  The kawaii representation of military forces serves to demonstrate the unique role of cuteness in Japanese culture.  The other figure is just an example of a cute thing, in a context where cuteness is entirely routine.  Second, the Wikipe-tan is a Wikipedia self-reference, not a product of Japanese mass culture.  Finally,  I do concede that I made the photo which I advocate, and I offer it only because I feel it is best suited to this purpose.  I take exception to the hostile and condescending edit summaries of anonymous user  who implies I only support this image because I created it.  For reasons described above, and reasons discussed elsewhere on this talk page by other individuals, I believe it is the best demonstration of the unique role of cuteness in Japanese culture.  Please see talk page for other discussions on the image.  The Crow 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The military image works because it shows the pervasive nature of kawaii in the Japanese culture. You would not have a cartoon of the US Army, or the Russian one, or the Chinese. The image is remarkable precisely because it is so distinct. Removal of images by anonymous users count as violation of 3RR. Support JSDF image. Chris 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should put this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which would force anonymous users to either register or stop 3RR vandalizing the page. Chris 11:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This has now been explained to you by three different people, who agree this image is a good example of the unusual way cuteness is used in Japan.   There is nothing unusual about the cuteness of an anime character.  Also, Wikipe-tan violates the policy WP:Self which says self-references to Wikipedia shouldn't be used to illustrate subjects other than wikipedia.   Please stop the disruption.  The Crow 14:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for a moment. The reason to delete Wikipe-Tan is not explained at all. And, is your image an image officially adopted in the Self Defense Forces? I hope for information with which the culture of Japan is refined more to be offered. --60.62.240.108 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you somehow not see the explanations by ShizuokaSensia, Chris, and myself?  Is English a difficult language for you to understand?  Is there another language in which we could try to explain it?  The Crow 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest image dispute 

message: There are large parts of it that are uncited, though, and a lot that could well constitute original research or even a non-neutral point of view ("Western observers may find this cuteness intriguing yet strange and frivolous..." being just one example of many. Who are these Western observers? It's weasel-worded.)--HisSpaceResearch 13:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to have references for everything until it was gutted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article 

message: Some kawaii anime characters would be more appropriate than an airplane, and a billboard. 65.40.195.176 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about defining cuteness in Japan, it's about the use of cute symbols, pictures etc where it is usually unseen outside of Japan. ShizuokaSensei 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  None of the images are very kawaii 

message: Seems like a good source for some new content.  Blueaster 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just found a news article 

message: I'd like to know how the word Kawaii is pronounced. Maybe a new paragraph could go into this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't require a paragraph. An audio file from a native speaker as found on other articles woul suffice. ShizuokaSensei 12:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation? 

message: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070319-000004.html
This article psychoanalyzes the whole phenomenon. Do you think this info should be put into the article? SuperGerbil 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology Today article 

message: How come no one talks about how 可愛 (pinyin: keai) is also a Chinese word and especially the relationship between the Japanese kawaii and the Chinese keai. Both are the same characters. Now, I don't know for sure if kawaii is a loan word from Chinese but I suspect it is. In Chinese, 可愛 can denote cuteness but it also denotes adorable, loveable, affectionate. --71.146.11.48 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  kawaii or 可愛 in Chinese 

message: The image :Image:Sunkids.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Sunkids.png 

message: Doing things like creating cute anthropomorphic boxes of facial tissue to teach children about hygiene seems to harken back to animism.  Could this preponderance of characters for aeroplanes and police dept.s and whatnot have something to do with a latent culture of spiritual guardians?
-samaraphile  —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animism? 

message: Please tell me there's an Androgyny in Japanese Culture page, but only if you mean it ^_~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Androgyny?