Talk:Kawaii/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pronunciation

OTRS request: somebody could do an audio file for pronounciation. David.Monniaux 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please. IPA isn't really accessible and people really murder it. Kotepho 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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 /ka wa ii/, but I don't know if that is correct formatting or not. Perhaps /kah wah ee/? --Crisu 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's actually four syllables: ka wa i i. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Referendum on "loanword" statement as original research/novel interpretation

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 [1] source shares the first two problems of the three above listed.
  • The Kinsella source [2] 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)

Therefore, >> as long as the assertion remains insufficiently sourced <<, the article should not contain any statements that kawaii is not a loanword, is a loanword, or that it is either growing or declining in acceptance as a loanword. However, we can make some explicit mentions of where it has appeared in media as long as we do not interpret this meaning for the reader.

  • Affirm The Crow 17:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm indeed.--Isotope23 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moot Point as "loanword" is no longer mentioned in the revised article. --nihon 20:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Affirm --nihon 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Done. The Crow 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • Affirm Barryvalder 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm, though this information may be useful from from a "public reaction" point of view, if we can find something to balance this with.--み使い Mitsukai 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Affirm. Neier 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction sentence

I see the article has been unlocked for editing. This is good news, but to prevent a repeat of editing wars we should attempt to reach a concensus over the content of the re-written article which will replace the present one. Most things have been covered here, but two things that I think need attention are the introduction sentence and the word etymology.

  • Introduction sentence. We have argued long and hard about this, but I still believe there little to no value in including any information about how kawaii may (or may not be) used to describe beautiful women; and even less value in describing what words are used in Japanese to describe good looking or cool men. The information adds nothing to the article and just acts to clutter up the explanation. If we know that the word kawaii means (for the most part) cute, then why the need to explain when people would describe something as such? Readers aren't daft and don't need to be spoonfed. If people are deadset on giving any kind of explanation, I would recommend something along the lines of:

Kawaii is arguably the most common adjective used in Japan for describing beautiful women.

And leave it at that. It removes all the needless guff which has nothing to do with the theme in hand and it would result in a clearer, more to-the-point introduction. Thoughts?Barryvalder 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As you've stated, the statement is "arguable", and I don't really see a place for arguable statements in the article. I would prefer skirting the issue completely, and incorporating the fact in the two related sentences: Kawaii is an adjective with the general/basic meaning of "cute" or "pretty". and Casually said, kawaii is one of the most commonly used words in the Japanese language., or something along those lines. We have sources supporting the second point as well.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The article on cuteness says ...the standard characteristics of infancy are typically used to judge the cuteness of other phenomena (for example, plush toys or adult animals). Besides the odd word choice of phenomena the wording isn't too bad, but by listing examples it really lowers the quality of the article. Classical dictionaries generally do not list examples of words appropriate for use with adjectives—for example under the definition for "dark" the definition would not extend to Dark is the quality of lacking in light or a contextual aspect of light (for example: a dark room, or a dark mood)—and instead would allow the reader to apply their own interpretation as to the use of the word. Modern dictionaries—or dictionaries of usage—often list examples in context, because they are now used just as much for record keeping as they are a guide to English (or whatever language they are in). My argument is completely stylistic; I just feel that it lowers the standards of the article (and assumes very little of the readers).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the opening statement, that would be a bad idea. Look up kirei (きれい, 奇麗) and utsukushii (うつくしい, 美しい) in your Japanese dictionary for the word "beautiful." Kawaii does NOT mean beautiful, not even "arguably" by any definition.--Endroit 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My word choice with arguably was a poor one. As was my word choice with beautiful. I didn't think that sentence through before posting it, and I will have to invoke my helpful get-out-clause of "something along the lines of." The point, however, wasn't to get back into the definitions of words , so I'll keep my dictionary on the shelf for now. It was to address the point responded to by the user above you. I would also prefer to avoid the explanation of when people use an adjective to describe something, but if concensus dictates it has to be included then I'd prefer to have something similar to what I or freshgavin wrote (with the wording properly thought through first in my case).Barryvalder 05:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to say though, kawaii is most often used to describe women that rank in the upper scale of beauty (whether they are kawaii-kei or not), much like beautiful is used to describe such women in English. That's quite a mouthful though.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to blurt out. But I believe the following should be alright....
Kawaii is arguably the most common adjective used in Japan for describing adorable women. --Endroit 05:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not blurting, you're conversing. If you really want to make such a specific statement, does it really want to single out women, and not babies, characters, items, etc.?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see the logical extension of that argument. It would be a value-laden judgement call to single out anything to make an example of in such a statement. All we can be left with I think (if indeed we have to have anything at all) is something which tell us kawaii is a very highly used word (and there are sources to back this point up). This also serves to render the "kakkoii is used to descibe..." section even more redundant than before. Barryvalder 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the current version is better than the one suggested here about the "adorable women." There's no need to change it.--Endroit 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice the current edit makes no reference to the word's popularity in the introduction sentence, instead choosing to inform readers that the word kawaii isn't normally used to describe males. I think this information has no value at all for this article and just serves to artifically bloat the introduction. Any objections to losing the stating of the obvious (not many people refer to males as 'cute' in any language) changing it to something like:

Kawaii is considered one of the most widely used adjectives in Japan. (and we do have a source for this information)

Barryvalder 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

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)

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)
I agree that Nihonjoe's version at User:Nihonjoe/Kawaii should be used to start out with.--Endroit 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii as a noun vote

Time to put this one to the vote. The discussion has started going in circles so we need to get as concensus one way or the other. Do the facts presented above prove the existence of what Japanese would refer to as a specific and definable kawaii fashion?

There are several sites listed above, one of which (not a Japanese source) defines kawaii style as consisting of pastel colours and pictures of animals. However, this is then contradicted by the other sources quoted. These sources display a wide and varying range of goods which are sold as under the title, or varients of, kawaii fashion. The word kawaii is interpreted by an editor above as being used as a noun, and it's this use of the word as a noun that's being held up as the evidence for the existence of a specific and definable kawaii fashion. However, given the contradictions across sources and the wide range in what is being sold under the word kawaii, there doesn't appear to be anywhere near enough commonality in the various goods sold to be able to define this as a definable kawaii style. This indicates to me the word is merely being used as the adjective which it is listed in all dictionarys as.

The sources above indicate the that some shops or websites advertise their goods or services as being kawaii but this in and of itself is not enough to prove the existence of a kawaii style. The the word may merely be intended as an adjective: "We think our stuff is cute, and we think you might too!" None of these Japanese sources make any attempt to define what is and what isn't kawaii fashion and until we have a source which does that, we cannot possibly be making reference to something which we simply don't have any evidence for. It's worth noting that the Japanese article for the same topic has no information whatsoever on the word with regard it's use to identify a specific type of fashion, comics or anything else. We need to find a definition for kawaii style in the same way you'd expect to find a definition for any fashion style (and, of course, variations exist within styles, but it is always within a clear, central theme). * This vote isn't questioning any aspect of the popularity of cute in Japan or abroad. *

If you believe the above list of cited internet shops or articles provides a specific and definable definition of what is and what isn't kawaii fashion then vote with clear. If it doesn't clearly define the existence of a specific kawaii fashion then vote with not clear and let's have an end to this debate one way or the other! Barryvalder 10:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not clear No suprise with my vote, then. :o) Barryvalder 10:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not clear ...meaning that I clearly understand the evidence but do not find that it demonstrates kawaii is a classifier rather than a qualifier. The Crow 13:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've been gone from this discussion for a while, but this poll is just confusing. It's under the heading of "Kawaii as a noun" (which no one has really argued for), but the debate is whether or not there is a "kawaii fashion"? Furthermore, you mention the stores, which are admittedly bad sources, but you ignore the mainstream news sources? I reject this current poll as a straw man. I would suggest that you re-create this poll with a clearer defined premise and using the standard format defined in Wikipedia:Polls. --DDG 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Crow and DDG. ---日本 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


日本、The Crow and DDG make two different points. DDG, I hear yout points. I'll be the first to admit I'm sometimes not as clear in what I'm trying to get across... With regard ignoring the news sources, I made reference to one and others have been mentioned above.
However, you are totally right, this poll needs to be re-created. Will do it when I get a minute.Barryvalder 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's better not to vote on everything for now (yes, I did 2 straw polls myself, but maybe that's enough for a little while). We can always come back to it. I think once we flesh out the article some more, maybe it won't be necessary to say "kawaii style" to get the point across, and thus avoiding the work of debating a secondary point. Or not. Just food for thought. The Crow 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not having to use the phrase kawaii style would indeed be preferable. I fear we are never going to agree on (or prove one way or the other) the existence of this elusive kawaii style, so the best resolution would be to avoid the phrase altogether.Barryvalder 01:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of them. Their opoints are not exclusive of each other. --日本穣 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The only thing they agreed on was that the current sources are insufficient in proving the existence of a specific kawaii fashion. As the validity of your use of the term kawaii fashion as a recognised fashion type in Japan is dependent on these sources, it would perhaps be wise to remove the offending passage until we have the evidence we need. Barryvalder 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that your comments above are Not Clear. The current entry for "kawaii fashion" is very clear in that it explains (as does the first paragraph of the article) that what is and is not considered "kawaii fashion" changes frequently. What is "kawaii" at one time is not necessariy "kawaii" at another time. This is why it only merits a mention in one paragraph rather than an entire article. However, since you seem to be so stuck on the phrase "kawaii fashion," I have excised it from the article and rewritten that paragraph.
In hindsight, my 'poll' was a pretty shoddy attempt at resolving this issue. I should have just continued the current discussion. I know you may think I'm being a pedant over the use of this phrase, but I think it's important not to give a false impression of the way this word is and isn't used in Japan.
Just for the record, only DDG described my comments above as Not Clear (or "confusing" if we're being accurate about it). The Crow demonstrated total understanding. Barryvalder 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What I think of what you wrote (and vice versa) is completely irrelevant now as the paragraph has been reworded again. (^_^; --日本穣 02:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact you misunderstood something may seem irrelevant in light of new edits to the article, but it's best not to let mistakes go uncorrected.
I'm going to choose to ignore your snide little swipe in the diff field (which you bizarely feel the need to write in Japanese) and ask you attempt to remain civil. Barryvalder 02:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
煩わしい means "annoying". I used it because I'm finding this semantic dance over "kawaii fashion" to be getting annoying. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Now, can we get back to the matter at hand? What do you think of the updated paragraph? If it's fine, I suggest we just quit hashing back and forth over it and move on to something more interesting. --日本穣 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware what the word means, and if it wasn't directed at me then I apologise. To avoid misunderstandings it's probably best to avoid such comments which don't have a place.
I agree this particular debate has become pretty stale, but I've always argued it is a fundamental and central point which went beyond pure semantics and therefore needed addressing (for reasons previously explained at length).
The paragraph now makes no reference to the kawaii fashion / style, just that kawaii can be used to describe fashions or styles. I believe this is a far more accurate use of the word. Barryvalder 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition, please make use of the "Show preview" button. I keep getting blocked trying to reply because of your minor little tweak edits to your comments. Thanks. --日本穣 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have my reasons (too boring to go into here), but I will be more careful about my "tweak edits" in future. (^.^)y Barryvalder 02:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the statement "what is 'kawaii' at one time is not necessarily 'kawaii' at another time." As we agreed it's a subjective statement, so its somewhat incongruous to imply there's a consensus of what is 'kawaii' at any given time. In the eye of the beholder, Kawaii is kawaii regardless of whether it's in or out of fashion. I guess what I'm getting at is that I feel we're presupposing trendiness as a condition of kawaii-ness, which I don't think is something any of us would say. The Crow 02:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Becuase of it's subjective nature, there is never a consesnsus, nor is there the possibility of one existing, on what is kawaii and what isn't . This section needs to avoid this presumtion. Barryvalder 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make one statement for clarification, if you'll allow me to avoid voting on this right now. I think a lot of the confusing here has to do with the way Japanese people use the word (and adjectives in general) themselves, contrasting with English. The term 可愛い系 (kawaii-kei) is really common and literally translates as "kawaii type" or "kawaii style", as I explained a little bit before. Japanese people love casually classifying everything in this manner, I am often variously described as 理数系, 面白系, 外人系, おしゃれ系, and the list goes on. When someone says omoshirokei it's obvious that they're not implying there are some kind of verifyable types of boyfriends, it's simply a casual classification to aid in understanding in casual situations. We do it in English as well: "He's the hard-working type", which is considerably different to the much more specific "workaholic".

Though I have to say as well that -kei is not always so general. Some uses of the word (e.g. 渋谷系, shibuya-kei) are quite specific and verifiable, so there's room for confusion.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Immeasuable improvement

While there are still various discussions ongoing with respect various aspects of this article, it's worth taking a minute to appreciate what progress has been made so far. The article as it stands now is lightyears ahead of what it was, and that's something we should be proud of. There is never harm in questioning sources or information, as the recent improvement in this article has only served to prove.

Yes, there are various things needing attention still, but the article is looking immeasurably better now than the edition before it was protected. I'd go so far as to the AfD nomination was the best thing to ever happen to this artcile!

Good work people! Barryvalder 00:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it was the best thing that could have happened. I think the same results could have been accomplished with less extreme means. I do agree that the article is much better than it was, though. --日本穣 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think without the focus brought by the AfD things would have taken a lot longer. Barryvalder 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
We couldn't have avoided the AfD as we could not have proceeded without a consensus to delete or keep. And AfD's can be messy, unfortunately. One thing I'll never do again is call something "cruft" (even though I may truly and secretly believe it) because it pretty much torpedoes the assumption of good faith from the get-go. So, learning experience all around. The Crow 02:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't think the changes would have ever taken place. But that's just my opinion, and I don't have any problem calling this (having called this) Japancruft, but I respect your decision to remove the word from your vocabulary : ).
The change of pictures does a lot to remove it from the crufty category, and now that everyone is being reasonable I think we'll be able to organize and possibly expand the controvercial points. I am going to create a skeleton article for Cuteness in Japan, though, so it'd be good to keep in mind how this article should stand alone from that, and work on strengthening those points.
Does no-one agree that "pretty" is a much better word choice than "adorable" for giving the translation? "adorable" is pretty useless anyways, because it's hardly different in basic meaning from the word "cute" anyways (find an example of something that would be adorable but not cute; I can't think of any), and I think "pretty" better describes the use of the word, at least when it is used in the fashion sense. Many things that a girl would call "kawaii" here would not be called "cute" or "adorable" in NA, but rather "pretty", or something like that. Also, the second sentence of the etymology contradicts the first, it gives a much smaller definition of the word than was previously given, and it feels pretty awkward, don't you think?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"Adorable is a much better choice as a translation for "kawaii." It's more accurate than "pretty" as something can be pretty without being adorable or cute. As for the second sentence contradicting the first, I don't believe it does. It just further clarifies its common usage.--日本穣 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how "adorable" clarifies the meaning any better than "cute" does. It seems like a redundant addition to me. By including "pretty" I'm trying to broaden the discription by indicating it can sometimes indicate things which would be considered "pretty" in English, though not "cute" or "adorable", because as I know you agree, "kawaii" is a broader word than either "cute" or "adorable".  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is a link-o-rama now with much less information, congradulations you stubacised the article, in a few weeks I guess you would come back for a merger... Amusing... Really... Of course you are satisfied you forced all your objections even if stuff was sourced cute clothing aka cute fashion is sourced info for example... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We had unanimous consensus with nobody objecting to the proposed direction of the article. Assuming that you registered an objection vote, there still would have been a supermajority of 7 to 1. We discussed the various sources and agreed they were insufficient for the conclusion being drawn. This is negotiation and consensus, there's no force involved. I don't understand your basis for complaint, assuming that you do understand what consensus is. The Crow 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I need to point out that the article has actually grown larger with consensus editing (current version 7KB, your favored version about 4.5KB). How exactly do you figure this is "stubacised"? The Crow 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sourced info gone?

Sourced info such as kawaii fashion is gone, any reason why? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Overbalance of mascot stuff

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)

Hollaback/Harajuku Girls

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)

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)

Uhhh, now that I actually took the time to look into the video, there is no reference to "Harajuku" or "kawaii" at all. The lyrics: [3] are pretty much what you would expect from a Gwen Stefani song. There is no reference to Gwen's supposed "Harajuku Girls" that "appear" in the video. If you look at the image in the Hollaback girl article, they don't look anything like Harajuku girls to me. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a girl in Harajuku wearing a toque and short tank top as Gwen is sporting, and of the two other people I can see in the image, one seems to be an afroed asian (Roppongi girl?) and the other is some morong with a fishing hat. In the background you can see fat college teenagers. Where is this Harajuku reference coming from? I have heard that Gwen has a liking for Japanese girly styles, but I don't see any of that stuff evidenced here. I have held back my urge to delete the section outright, again.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
On reading those lyrics, what a cringeworthy song that must be! (>.<)Barryvalder 11:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. (>.<) --日本穣 18:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
But then again, the verdict is out on whether Harajuku girls are actually kawaii or not anyways.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You be the judge - http://fashion.3yen.com/wp-content/images/harajuku_fashion_7162.jpg struggle 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

Proposal for new article location

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

I agree wholeheartedly. Barryvalder 05:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Mechamecha kawaiiyan! struggle 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's Chōkawaiisugiru ze.--Endroit 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (Translation: That's too cute.)

ねっ！ Barryvalder 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)