Talk:Kawaii/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: "He's called" is a genralisation. "some people call him" would be a lot better. Barryvalder 08:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know one Japanese lady who thinks Arnold is the best looking man in the world. Anyway, take a look at this:  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)
thread_title: Arnie

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed Tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: -_-' stunning... You are basicaly complaining about information cited... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting by 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Of the other information, I concluded that 0% of it was worth merging into other pages.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed edit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I just thought it odd as, out of the three, it is the one I feel least relevant . 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is it a word? Is it a plane? No! It's a neologist Japanese Dog Show! ^^; Shiroi Hane 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Agreed. Barryvalder 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term / Word 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Actually i was correct but second-guessed myself... there is a Tidwell source  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)

text: "Loanword" is a moot point now as that has been removed from the article, here. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: This is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Crystal-ballism.  Wikipedia can't forecast that this will happen.  The Crow 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The link you provided has been added. Thanks! (^_^) --nihon 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal consensus resolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Actually i was correct but second-guessed myself... there is a Tidwell source  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)

text: "Loanword" is a moot point now as that has been removed from the article, here. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: This is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Crystal-ballism.  Wikipedia can't forecast that this will happen.  The Crow 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The link you provided has been added. Thanks! (^_^) --nihon 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this is a moot point now as references to "loanword" have been removed from the article. --nihon 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link please

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Handwriting section

message: Now that the page has been unprotected, can we at least re-add the  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)
thread_title: Unprotected