Talk:Kawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Business and economy / Culture / Infrastructure / Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:05, July 25, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Culture task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Infrastructure task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Prefectures task force.
 
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Popular Culture (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Spelling[edit]

A recent anon revert of obvious vandalism changed the spelling from 'kawaiposa' to 'kawaisa'. Which is right, the anon revert or the original? --Gwern (contribs) 16:20 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-insert big section taken out on 2010/02/15 ?[edit]

Hey there, some random IP (without saying a word!!) completely removed this section on February 15 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuteness_in_Japanese_culture&action=historysubmit&diff=344236837&oldid=344041150), which I'd like to quote here again:
Foreign observers[who?] often find this cuteness intriguing, revolting or even childish because the Japanese employ it in a vast array of situations and demographics where, in other cultures, it would be considered incongruously juvenile or frivolous (for example, in government publications, public service warnings, office environments, military advertisements, and commercial airliners, among many others).
I think it's well-worded and should be re-inserted into the article. I actually came here to see what I had modified about 1/2 year ago and found all removed. -andy 217.50.51.220 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well what's your source? On wikipedia, you need to cite your sources. You also shouldn't phrase things in weasel words. Munci (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So, you want a source for common knowledge? Or are you insinuating that this is a phenomenom unworthy of a wikipedia article? That paragraph at least covers the 'what' of the topic better than what was there so I've put it back in, minus the examples that are now spread through the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.228.227 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not common knowledge in nearly the same as 'Obama's the President of America' is. If it was true, it wouldn't be difficult to find a source anyway. Munci (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry andy, but I hate to agree that your statement is just hearsay. Some people believe... should not be included in a good NPOV essay. Smokey bear and other mascots render this sentence of yours completely uninspired.01000100 14:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckeggsoup (talkcontribs)

Extreme cute[edit]

See 6%DokiDoki [1], which is "cute" turned up to 11. Did anybody take a usable photo when they were in San Francisco last month? --John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Hey, I'm a big fan of citations, but this article seems to be massively "overcited". I dont think every single word needs an own citation. It makes reading the article a rather unpleasant experience. My suggestion: Put the citations at the end of a sentence, even it makes it more difficult to assign them to the respective words. --MarsmanRom (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also a "big fan of citations". Citations are important on Wikipedia to know the content does not represent original research.--Ephert (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't suggest to REmove any citations, just to MOVE them to the end of the sentence to increase readability. --MarsmanRom (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with this article is that the citations are all basically from one type of source. It would help if we could find more citation sources. Also, all the citations are opinion pieces, that tend to overgeneralize. "women were seen as animalistic, now seen as docile" WTF? Cabbage patch dolls aren't prepubescent? There is a lot of inconsitency. I'm sure whoever wrote this article had some agenda.01000100 14:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above...some parts of the article are way too simplistic and overgeneralizing. No, in Japan, cuteness is NOT expected of both men and women. It's a popular beauty standard for women, but the ideal for men is still "manliness". Wtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.1.37 (talk)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Aervanath (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


Cuteness in Japanese cultureKawaii – According to a Google book result, Kawaii outnumbers Cuteness in Japanese culture.

  • Kawaii 19,800
  • Cuteness in Japanese culture 5
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There are three English-language books with "kawaii" in their titles. See here, here, and here. Oxford Dictionaries has an entry for kawaii. Don't take it from me. Hannah Minx is much better looking than I am and she explains "kawaii" here. Next we need a genki article. It is a travesty that this lemma is currently about some obscure historical period. !23px! Kauffner (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is about cuteness in Japanese culture, not "kawaii" stuff all over the world. I notice that some of those books do not distinguish that in Japanese culture, and the derivatives found outside it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly. Kawaii is not the same as 'cute', it's just that that's the closest translation we can get within a single word. We need an article to explain exactly what Kawaii is. If we want an article on "Kawaii in Japan" or "outside of Japan" - if there's enough - that'd be fine. But, let's get the subject-name right. It's misleading to suggest that Kawaii is just what non-Japanese people would describe as "Cuteness".  Chzz  ►  15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; the article title was correct before it was moved. However, I should caution against using a Google search to inform a choice between a descriptive phrase and an actual name. "Cuteness in Japanese culture" need not be a phrase in common use to be an acceptable article title, per WP:NDESC. Powers T 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I absolutely agree with this in the preceding post: " 'Cuteness in Japanese culture' need not be a phrase in common use to be an acceptable article title"; and the Google evidence presented at the start (see above) is almost meaningless. It would be absurd to expect the precise phrasal form of the present title to occur in great numbers in a Googlebook search, pitted against a single word. Try a Googlebook search for example on "Kawai (disambiguation)" (another title of an article on Wikipedia)! In any case, note that Google's "about" estimates are wildly unreliable.
Best to use a term that is meaningful to our readers, as these books do (all findable with Googlebooks):

The cult of cuteness in Japanese youth culture
The aesthetics of cute in contemporary Japanese art
Young, cute and sexy: constructing images of Japanese women in Hong Kong print media
Cuteness assessed?: an examination of cute and childlike imagery used by public, private and state organizations in Japan

Some titles use "kawaii"; but in many cases there is a context to give some clue about the meaning, with "cute" or "cuteness" perhaps present also:

The cool-kawaii: Afro-Japanese aesthetics and New World modernity
Graphic Japan: from woodblock and zen to manga and kawaii
Kawaii in Japan: just plain cute or something else
Insidiously 'cute': Kawaii cultural production and ideology in Japan

Other books do have "kawaii" in the title without clues about the meaning. But is that something for Wikipedia to emulate, in its one article devoted to cuteness in Japanese culture? There is an odd orientalism about insisting on the native word, where the concept certainly has an immediate correlate in anglophone cultures – even if the exact manifestation is different, as of course it must be. Would we insist on le mignon or le chouette in discussing cuteness in French culture? I think not. We would want to stay informative, and to show common themes across cultures rather than insisting on the obscure, the exotically titillating, or the ephemeral chic.
NoeticaTea? 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. When the article was moved from "Kawaii" to the current title,it was because "kawaii" hadn't yet entered the English lexicon. As evidenced by the entry in Oxford, as well as the other references provided near the top of this discussion, this has now changed. The title of an article should be the shortest and most precise term or phrase possible. Kawaii is that short and precise term we are looking for. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Kawaii is what this article covers; translated titles such as "The cult of cuteness in Japanese youth culture" are just clumsy. bobrayner (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interpretation[edit]

Couldn't the article go into detail a bit (without being biased) on how scholars and such "interpret" the increasing significance of "cuteness" in Japan? It is rather ridiculous to list Escapism among the "See also" links while not losing one word about it in the article, as if to say "You know what I mean? Nudge nudge wink wink.". No country other than Japan "obsesses" over cute things in such a way, so the article should strive to outline some of the answers given by various academics in response to the question "Why Japan?" - while remaining absolutely unbiased, of course. --178.1.148.214 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin[edit]

I was wondering if "Kawaii" is of Hawaiian origin because it is spelled like "Hawaii" with a "k" in the place of the "h." "Kawaii" also has a similar pronunciation to the name of the Hawaiian Island of Kauai. "Kawaii" has become popular in Hawaii because a lot of Japanese immigrants live there and a lot of Japanese tourists also visit Hawaii for vacation. ~~User:CalicoCatLover 12:21, 8 January 2012 (PST)~~

It is not of Hawaiian origin; Hawaii, for instance, is actually spelled "Hawaiʻi" in Hawaiian, while Kawaii does not take an okina (as can be noted by the differing pronunciations). Powers T 02:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A significant portion of Japanese adjectives ends with "-i", and has been termed "i-adjectives". The "-ii" ending is a coincidence; the word is formed by conjugating "-i" to the word stem "kawai". --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yurukyara[edit]

Here is a list of yurukyara mascot characters of local governments and such. ja:官公庁のマスコットキャラクター一覧 Some got a lot of publicity. I think Hikonyan from Hikone Castle needs an article. Sento-kun should be translated. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Kawaii fashion[edit]

I uploaded photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_kawaii_dog.jpg I made in Japan. I cannot find any related article but fashion of kawaii dogs and cats noticeable in Japan. Unsure if new article must be added or [Lolita fashion] or something to be extended to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonusamuel (talkcontribs) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So what is this "kawaii" anyway?[edit]

An argument above for renaming the article "Kawaii":

Kawaii is not the same as 'cute', it's just that that's the closest translation we can get within a single word. We need an article to explain exactly what Kawaii is.

And others agree.

After reading the article I still don't how the kawaii differs from the "cute", except that although Americans (and others?) think that cabbage patch dolls are cute, Japanese people (and others?) don't think that they are kawaii.

Interestingly, much of this article, ostensibly about the different concept of kawaisa, instead uses the word "cute". Example:

In Japan, cuteness is expected of men and women. There is a trend of men shaving their legs to mimic the "asexual" look. Many Japanese men are drawn to the owner of cute merchandise, because it is reminiscent of little girls, and Japanese women try to act cute to attract men. A study by Kanebo, a cosmetic company, found that Japanese women in their 20s and 30s favored the "cute look" with a "childish round face". (emphases added)

So how does the kawaii differ from the "cute"? Is anything other than cabbage patch dolls cute but not kawaii? Is anything kawaii but not cute? -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I see your question. At first, I thought the same. But I think kawaii is an anthropological concept, a structure that comprises the Japanese society, and even contains power, or lends a certain authority, in an unobtrusive or non-aggressive way. Notice the photo of the pink bunny in the construction barrier. Nearly all cautionary signs and safety manuals in Japan have a cute cartoon mascot. Hard to believe a pink bunny can have an authority, or a power, but the bunny itself has no power, it is a symbol that represents a greater authority. This has slowly built itself into the culture of the last 40 or 50 years. Kawaii characters are, like I said, in textbooks & manuals, so they teach you; in cautionary signs warning of danger, so they care for your well-being; they are on souvenirs in major tourist destinations, and they are on various items as commercial advertising, so they advocate places and products, are associated with commercial success, and validate the experience of a tourist.There are so many kawaii characters, that one can build a personal identity around one character.

I would think all kawaii items are cute, but not all cute things have kawaii, though even the first part is contestable - I mean, have you seen some of the more extreme anime? They make characters with freakish dimensions. Kawaii is even used in the pornographic manga/anime industry, so it can carry the erotic, and even the depraved, which may both leave behind "cute" as you might think of it. So, even though in daily language, kawaii is used much the same way we use "cute" in English, as in "That puppy is cute", but that doesn't impart any symbolic power on the puppy. I don't know of any source that says all this, so I can't include it in the text, but I maintain that kawaii is a cultural concept separate from "cute". Boneyard90 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I take this to mean something like:
Cuteness is of unusual importance in Japanese culture and society, where it often has symbolic power and where it is called kawaii. Therefore cute and kawaii are different.
However, use of arguably or would-be "cute" symbols strikes me as pretty common outside Japan too: Category:Sports mascots, Ampelmännchen, Mr Cube, and more.
Would the exclamation ワンちゃんは可愛い! (Wan-chan wa kawaii!, The puppy is cute!) be a speech-act investing symbolic power in the puppy? -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Further, having read the article, the contents are highly dubious. It is littered with citations but these seem to have been added to the article to decorate it and do not substantiate the claims made. In at least one case a fake citation was added to the article, which I removed. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To User:JoshuSasori: I moved your earlier comment, in which you wrote the same thing, to the bottom of the page, under the New Discussion. I also replied to your comment. When adding to a Talk page, it is best to add new comments to the bottom of the page. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with images[edit]

"Look out [for children] coming out of nowhere!" She's kawaii, and has authority over (adult!) drivers.
Pretty cool, and a little weird, but not so "cute".
I think your summary is near to it. But as far as your examples, I don't think I see cute/kawaii; certainly not all American sports mascots, where they often try to look more fierce or strong or authoritative or just "cool" (the Western converse of kawaii?); not in Ampelmännchen, though I would argue has high character recognition, and I'm not sure that "Mr. Cube" has either (sorry, don't recognize him). So, why aren't these characters cute/kawaii? I would say because they do not carry culturally ascribed traits for cuteness for one, unlike kawaii characters who sport almost universally sport certain features (big eyes, etc.), and for another "cute" has little or no authority in the West. We prefer our caution manuals to have "cool" characters. "Coolness" has been vested with cultural knowledge in the West, as "cool" conveys "experienced and authoritative" (think a drill sergeant or a respected athlete); while kawaii has been vested with cultural knowledge through its image of "innocent and concerned": you can tell the character in the caution sign is sincere, because the kawaii character looks so innocent, and thus pure, and incapable of deceit, and he/she/it is really concerned for your safety, or (in the image to the left) is asking you to be concerned for her safety.
Ocean sunfish, on deck, as described.

I don't think statements such as ワンちゃんは可愛い! invest power in the puppy, since there is the fine line of concept vs. physical attribute, but it can invest the puppy with other traits associated with kawaii, such as innocence and purity. If the puppy could express itself, it might channel that kawaii trait into a command, and it might have some authority, but it can't, so it's only kawaii with emphasis on "cute". And there is where there's a conflation of concept and reality. Kawaii insulates the mind from reality in a comfort zone, which is only an issue for the truly innocent (children). One friend told me how she thought Ocean sunfish were the most wonderful cutest things, because there was a cartoon character she liked; until one day a fisherman slapped one on the wharf while she was visiting the beach, and she watched the huge, dripping, slimy fish gasp and struggle, and she said it left her "traumatized", and for her it was a big step from childhood. Another example is in history books, where soldiers, even samurai, are shown in "kawaii" style, so you think, oh, they're not really hurting each other, but they are teaching me about war. Insulation, comfort, with knowledge and thus, authority.

What do you think? Does this make sense? I should write this all down somewhere... Boneyard90 (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Confession: I know next to nothing about north American sports. I'd been vaguely thinking about the person dressed up as some furry animal at whom the Tim Robbins character hurls a baseball in Bull Durham: as I vaguely remember that (excellent) movie, the furry animal get-up is very similar to the furry animal get-ups you see on sidewalks outside raucous stores in Tokyo. ¶ Well much of what you say sort of makes sense. (Some doesn't. How is a drill sergeant "cool"? I'm glad to say that I haven't encountered any in real life, but the Hollywood version, inaccurate though this may be, strikes me as the blustery opposite of "cool".) I find it fairly plausible that for some cultural or even societal reason the Japanese have a higher appetite for (or tolerance of) the "cute" than do other peoples. (When I first encountered grown women in Japan with miniature teddy bears attached to their bags and cellphones, I vaguely inferred that they were retards. But I suppose they do it partly because "they all" [i.e. many of them] do it, or because they think that guys go for retards or pseudo-retards.) However, forgive me for being somewhat brutal here, but I still don't see how kawaii differs from cute -- at least now that the slightly earlier meaning of cute to mean "annoyingly clever", etc, seems to have completely evaporated. Instead, if I understand you right, there merely seems to be a different attitude toward cuteness. ¶ Among your acquaintances, does anyone have native or near-native ability in both Japanese and English? I wonder if such people, fully familiar with the meaning of kawaii within Japanese and that of cute within English, will say that this or that is kawaii but not cute, or vice versa. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny and accessible, but "cute"?
Ok, yes, there's the dress-up sports mascots, which I think are for comedic effect and accessibility by kids, but not all are "cute", since as a value, it doesn't have depth in this culture. As for the drill sergeant, I see you go for the "military buffoon" parody popularized by movies such as Stripes (film), MASH, and others, while I was thinking the image of military professionalism and masculine, even paternal, authority, often epitomized by R. Lee Ermey, though admittedly, his portrayal of a drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket could fall on either/both sides of that divide. As for the topic, if you don't like a drill sergeant, pick another image of "cool" (experienced, authoritative) that you do like: John Wayne, John Lennon, John McClane, John F. Kennedy, James T. Kirk, Rocky, The Fonz, Mad Max, Jules Winnfield, Han Solo, Spartacus, Kato Kiyomasa, and on; take your pick, just remember, we're talking about cultural perceptions of "cool", which may differ from one individual's version (as in, yours or mine). As for Japan, as you said, there is a higher affinity/tolerance for "cute"; what you see as "retarded", they see as "acceptable" and even normal. You've seen grown women with little teddy bears? I've seen grown men with Hello Kitty sandals. So yes, there is a "different attitude toward cuteness", as you say, but I would strike the "merely". It's a pervasive cultural concept; it structures their reality. What would Japan be like if you suddenly removed all the kawaii things? Very different. What if you erased it all from history, from its inception to the present? Entirely different culture. As for your last question, regarding the perceptions of Japanese people on both sides of the culture line, well, I think I know someone I can ask, and now that you bring it up I'll be interested to hear her answer, but I should say that evaluating a conceptual abstraction inherent to one's own culture can be a difficult thing. Alot of people would downplay the significance of cartoons, video games, or science fiction movies, or anything they don't like or consider frivolous and unimportant, but the effects those phenomena have had on Western cultures has been significant. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, hang on. While my gut may tell me that an adult who attaches a teddy bear is retarded, my brain -- which, pace Stephen Colbert, I do try to use when thinking -- tells me that she is not. The possibility of retardation was only my first (long-ago) reaction. And I'm sure that cuteness, or kawaisa [sorry, I have trouble using kawaii as a noun] in Japan is of considerable anthropological interest. ¶ No, I don't want to say "All of this is silly!" or similar. Instead, I remain puzzled by the discussion screenfuls above about the title of this article. ¶ There's a common belief that the Italians are much concerned with beauty. This is most conspicuous and takes the most repellent form in the boorish remarks about women made by certain Italian plutocrats; but quite aside from that horrible extreme, many people have at times raved about the Italian concern for harmony, perfection, etc etc when designing cars, sofas, frocks or forks. Let's suppose for a moment that this isn't mere talk, and that instead there's something to (and sources for) it. "Beauty in Italian culture" may not be the best title for a WP article about such a phenomenon, but it doesn't seem a bad one. So the WP article starts -- but no, some people pop up to say that what the Italians call bellezza isn't quite the same as what the anglophones call beauty: that this or that is regarded as the one and not the other. No surprise there (after all, what's regarded as beautiful in Eugene, OR is probably not quite the same as what's regarded as beautiful in Dallas, TX). But is the concept better called bellezza and the article retitled accordingly? I doubt it. But if it is so retitled -- if this Italian word really is so important -- then after a little prefatory introduction to the word bellezza (perhaps unfamiliar to many anglophone readers), I'd expect bellezza rather than beauty to be used. ¶ For this article, the word kawaisa is enthusiastically prescribed -- but then its advocates only sporadically bother to use it within the article. Strange. ¶ Very often I get the impression that anglophone writers about Japan rush to describe this or that as peculiar (or even unique) to Japan, on flimsy evidence. I wish that writings such as Peter Dale's The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness were a little more widely read. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So has your question changed? You seem to have adjusted your stance. You stared with "What is kawaii anyway?", to "What is the difference between kawaii and cute?", and now it seems like the question is "Should we change the title of the article?" Which of these was/is your question? Perhaps you are not aware, but there is the title Cuteness in Japanese culture that you might find appropriate, but at some point was apparently changed. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Same question throughout. Yes, the article was titled "Cuteness in Japanese culture". It still seems to me to be about cuteness in Japanese culture, or perhaps society. The simpler "Cuteness in Japan" might be better, but "Cuteness in Japanese culture" seems reasonable. I look above and see the relief with which people discover that an Oxford dictionary of English lists kawaii as an English word, thereby legitimizing a change of title to kawaii for an article that, they insist, isn't really about cuteness but instead is about kawaisa (Japanese) or kawaii (English). Well, how do cute and kawaii differ? You've tried to explain, and I appreciate your effort -- but I'm not convinced. They seem slightly different, yes; but no more different than the difference in cute that I'd expect between one anglophone subsociety and another (perhaps as divided geographically, by social class, or by age). Are they instead crucially different? As I've said, I doubt it. But if they are, why does the article continue to talk about cuteness? ¶ And so my original question: Assuming for a moment that kawaii is so unlike cute as to require this change of title, the differences intrigue me. What are they? (Corollary of that: If the differences are instead minor, or if it's OK to talk in the article about cute, why add the term kawaii?) -- Hoary (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
For my money, "Cuteness in Japanese culture" is a perfectly acceptable article title; it's just that "Kawaii" conveys the same meaning while being more succinct. For anyone familiar with the topic, the first thing they'd ask while reading an article with the longer title is "why didn't they just say 'kawaii'?" Powers T 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. If the two do indeed have the same meaning, then yes, I see your point. Though its flip side would be the ease of understanding of each of the words of "cuteness in Japanese culture" in contradistinction to the unusual (within English) word kawaii, which I concede does appear in some E-E dictionaries but which doesn't appear in any of mine.
To User:Hoary: Now see, you've changed angle once again. You've gone from asking what the difference is, to asking why use the two different terms, cute and kawaii (or kawaisa, if you prefer). "Cute" is the best translation of kawaii, so I can't speak for the original contributors, but that's why I'd think they're used interchangeably in the context of a discussion on cuteness in Japanese culture. I didn't write the article, but if you would like to change all the cute's to kawaii, for the sake of consistency, I'm sure nobody would protest. You asked a question, I tried to answer it. I've tried to explain the difference, and I have failed to make you understand, or perhaps you disagree with the concept so much that you do not want to understand. We haven't really engaged in a discussion, you have asked questions and argued against my answers, which is a little different. You set up the situation for debate. You said, "please explain to me the concept", and moved to "now convince me the article is correct". You ignored or did not respond to many of the points I've made, which in my experience means that the other party is loathe to concede a point, and would rather continue a discussion/debate indefinitely. So I think, for the moment at least, I'm done. I'm out of this discussion. I may check on it later. On a side note: I'm sure an article on Bellezza would be quite interesting, and may explain a bit about Italians and maybe Europeans in general. Good luck with that. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I regret that you think you've wasted your time. I enjoyed reading what you wrote, which I found thoughtful, thought-provoking, and sometimes rather persuasive. I was and remain particularly struck by your citing of (and generous illustration with) cute/kawaii authority figures; certainly I haven't noticed this kind of thing outside Japan. ¶ It's possible that I misread some of what you wrote; in particular, I wrote some of the recent stuff after I should have gone to bed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's good to know. Perhaps I just needed a break. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Article says "Kawaii is the quality of cuteness, especially in the context of Japanese culture." (my italics). Can we delete "especially"? 81.159.110.25 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Boneyard90 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

This seems to be original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Further, having read the article, the contents are highly dubious. It is littered with citations but these seem to have been added to the article to decorate it and do not substantiate the claims made. In at least one case a fake citation was added to the article, which I removed. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC) -->

You'll have to be more clear: What seems to be "original research"? The article, or my posts in the above discussion, So what is this "kawaii" anyway?

If you mean the article, I can't answer for that, as I wasn't the primary contributor. I don't think I've done any additions, only editing for readability, clarity, grammar, etc. If you're talking about the above discussion, then I wouldn't call it "research", so much as "my understanding of the topic in response to another editor's question". Boneyard90 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

The lead section says "The root word is "kawai", formed from the kanji "ka" (可), meaning "acceptable", and "ai" (愛), meaning "love"." but the Kojien, Daijirin and many other Japanese respected dictionaries say 可愛 is ateji and the word is actually a corruption of kawayui, which in turn is kahohayushi(かほ(顔)はゆし(映)).

Shouldn't we modify this part or at least delete it, unless there's some strong source that trumps all the traditional ones?

That section isn't referenced, but even if the word is ateji, I see no problem with explaining the meaning of the component kanji. However, if you have referenced material regarding etymology, you should definitely add it. That would be great, and it would improve the article. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article title be "kawaisa"?[edit]

It is the noun form and the proper word for describing the phenomenon, after all. - AJF (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess most western readers would know it under the form "kawaii". After all, we're supposed to be catering towards the majority of English-speaking readers. Many things on Wikipedia aren't "technically correct", but we write things in such a way anyway, for the sake of familiarity for readers. --benlisquareTCE 13:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
True, but it is the name of the phenomenon. You could do the reverse of what the article does now, with kawaisa being the first thing and kawaii also bolded. AJF (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME and note that the corresponding Japanese article is also under "Kawaii": ja:可愛い. Siawase (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, I retract my suggestion. AJF (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)