Talk:Kawaii

Archives

Older topics have been moved to the archives: 1

Pronounciation

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

Rewrite

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

Excellent job, couldn't have done better myself.--み使い Mitsukai 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction, but while I hate to rehash old points, this draft still makes the fundamental error of quoting a kawaii style. As we've discussed at length, the phrase kawaii style implies a specific, defined and measurable style which is univerally recognised as such. As yourself and Cool Cat (as the two most vociferous defenders of this article it's worth quoting you both) have both conceeded, kawaii is utterly subjective. Logic therefore dictates that no such specific kawaii style can exist. Therefore all references to kawaii characters or kawaii fashions are groundless value judgments with no basis in fact. The fashion section strikes me as especially worthless. Barryvalder

Did you even follow any of the new references and read the articles? The one right next to the "fashion" statement specifically addresses "kawaii" as a style. Do you consider The New Yorker to be unreputable? It very clearly states that "kawaii" is definitely a fashion style. --nihon 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read through that New Yorker article, but in your quest to jusify your opinions you're missing the point. This discussion isn't about the way westerneners might make use of this word. Come on, we established that a long time ago. The point is how the word is used in Japanese. This is what should be reported in article about a Japanese word; the Japanese meaning. In the Japanese language and in Japanese culture there is no fashion style called kawaii. This fact, I was under the impression, we had long since established. Barryvalder 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point I've been trying to make is that there is zero need for an article about the Japanese word; that qualifies it as nothing more than Wiktionary. My opposers have argued that it has considerable influence in North America, and that is what they are attempting to prove now (I assume), thus the push for a so called kawaii style. Although...  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the AfD, your point is moot. This article is not going away. There's no need to continue bringing this up. --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? What makes you think I ever wanted to delete the article? I never even voted in the AfD. Though I feel there is zero need for an article like this, my feelings and my respect for the Wikipedian system do not interfere with each other. The consensus clearly supported a keep and I fully support it, although I obviously had quite a few problems with many of the statements made by the supporters in the AfD. Don't misunderstand my intentions.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article makes no such mention. The quote is For Japanese girls, the main fashion choice is between being kawaii, or cute. There is absolutely no mention of a so called "kawaii style", the style they mention is bodikon.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say that about the mention of "kawaii", then the same thing applies to "bodikon". You are misrepresenting the meaning of the sentence due to the incorrect grammar used by the author of that article. The sentence, without the asides, states, "For Japanese girls, the main fashion choice is between being kawaii, or cute...and bodikon, or body-conscious." In the context of this sentence, either both are referring to a style, or neither are. If you go by the context of the article, both are fashion styles: the kawaii style includes "girl-ish pastel-colored clothes that might have pictures of furry animals on them, and sometimes you actually carry a toy furry animal with you," and the bodikon style "means you dress like a cross between Lil' Kim and a manga character." In the context of the article, "kawaii" very clearly refers to a certain fashion style. Reading it any other way is pulling it completely out of context. --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's accept your interpretation of the article for a minute. Even if we do, that is an extremely vague attempt at what you're pointing to as a definitive, clear and universally accepted account of what is "kawaii style". It's interesting that unlike the fashion style of bodikon this specific kawaii style of "pastel colours" and "pictures of furry animals" is entirely unhead of in Japan. Barryvalder 13:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for all the cited sources. While they all make countless references to the popularity of cute items, the importance of being cute and so forth, (none of which is being doubted or debated) not one makes reference to, or attempts to give a clear definition of, a specific kawaii style. We've long agreed that the word is always used subjectively (ie: never as a noun) therefore any references to a kawaii style (which we've established most be specific and clearly definable) are false. Any rewrite needs to avoid any use of kawaii as a noun. "kawaii style" "kawaii characters" "kawaii goods" are all false. Barryvalder 10:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This has already been hashed out in the failed AfD discussion, and the very clear result was that "kawaii" does exists as a fashion style, that there are "kawaii" characters and "kawaii" goods. In all those cases, "kawaii" is used as an adjective or adjectival noun, which are both perfectly legitimate uses of the word. Keep in mind that English (as with any other language) is constantly evolving, and it appears, from all the articles cited and referenced in the rewrite, that kawaii is beginning to make inroads into popular culture in the English language. It may not be all-pervasive like "sushi" and "kamikaze" yet, but it very likely will be soon given the mainstream media that's noticing it. The New York Times, The New Yorker, the International Herald Tribune, Salon.com, Wired and Business Week are all well known and well respected media outlets, and they are all beginning to use the word in articles about this phenomenon. Even smaller newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle are beginning to notice it and write articles about it. How much more mainstream does it have to get before you and freshgavin will accept it? --nihon 12:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? I'm not arguing that this word isn't making inroads into the English speaking world (although, wether you like it or not, the level of which is still highly debatable). Nor am I doubting that various publications are using the word in their own manner. Please make a mental note of this, becuase it's not the first time I've had to repeat myself about it.
For the record, there was no "very clear result" about the existence of a specific, definable "kawaii style" in the AfD discussion. That's wishful thinking at best, and at worst you're just making things up.
Besides, since when was this article about the meaning given to this word when used in English? It's not about an English word named kawaii, it's about a Japanese word named kawaii. If the word is being used in English as a noun then that's a clear alteration in it's meaning from Japanese where is is always used as an adjective and always in a subjective manner. If there is a "kawaii style" then why are we still lacking in example of it? Why is there no fashion movement in Japan called "the kawaii fashion"? Why is there no section in a comic store for "kawaii comics"? The reason there is no such definition of an example of kawaii fashion or kawaii goods or kawaii comics, and this is something you have actually admitted yourself, is that it doesn't exist. You argument was that cuteness was such a part of Japanese culture that there were no specific kawaii styles. Why the (groundless) change in tact?
As you now beleive in their existence, what in heavens name are kawaii goods? If I told my boss there was a delivery of kawaii goods at the office he wouldn't know what on earth I was talking about. If I asked in a shop for the kawaii style scarfs, the shop staff wouldn't know where to direct me. It would probably be wise at this point to ask you not to make another rediculous sweeping generalisation about how Japanese people react to foreigners. The definition of an official kawaii item or an offical kawaii fashion have so far been lacking. Until we can locate a source, ideally published from a Japanese source, and not some western perspective which lays down the rules for what is a kawaii item and what is a kawaii comic and what isn't we'll have to accept that there is no such thing as a kawaii style anything. There is simply no evidence for it.
Barryvalder 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are some sources of places selling "かわいいファッション" goods:

• Sells items listed as "Kawaii fashion, kawaii accessories, misc. kawaii goods" and "kawaii interior goods"
• Online shop listing "Kawaii fashions" and "Brands"
• Partners of Japan Airlines, two of which offer "kawaii wrapping service" or "kawaii fashion items"
• Sells various shoes, several of which are described as "kawaii fashion which increases your sweetness"
• A mook on Amazon.co.jp titled "Kawaii Seikatsu", which translates to "Cute Lifestyle"
• A short paper by a student at the University of Tokyo which, oddly enough, references both the English and Japanese Wikipedia entires for kawaii. This one actually defines "kawaii style" as being "childlike."

That's some of what I found in a quick search. I'm sure more could be found if I spent a lot of time on it. --nihon 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the student project, they are some interesting internet links you cite. However, please refer to the points I made. My point all along has been the lack of a specific, defined definition of what kawaii style is. None of these sources attempt to give this. They class some of thier goods as or services as kawaii but given the vast variations on display across these sites, (and if you search further you will find even greater differences in what is apparently this elusive kawaii style) all they serve to display is the subjective nature of the word. In our quest for locating the standadised and specific kawaii style of fashion, these sites bring us no closer. Coninue your research by all means, as I'm more than happy for the site to refer to kawaii comics or kawaii fashions as specific examples of a clear and defined style (much like we have for Gothic Lolita), but until we have this definition of what is kawaii style and what isn't, (becuase these sites fail to give this; if anything they just blur the boundries and confuse the issue further) then, the article isn't able to refer to anything as kawaii style becuase it is a style that hasn't been proved exists. So go to it, Batman, and let's get this article finished! Barryvalder 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a problem you'll run into with any article about any fashion style. ALL fashion is subjective, and the definition of any particular fashion style is bound to change fairly often. The over-arching characteristic of the "kawaii" style is that people consider it "cute". The exact content of the style changes (just as with any other fad), but it's always what people generally consider "cute". All of those articles address that to one degree or another. One of them even lists off how the "kawaii" style has changed over the last few years. Perhaps I should throw in something about the style changing, as with all fashion fads? --nihon 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That would help, certainly. I agree most styles are subject to change and variation, but I think we have a fairly certain idea what most fashion styles are. As mentioned above, Kogal or Gothic Lolita are good examples. It's very clear what is Gothic Lolita and what isn't, and this distinction is still lacking here. A t-shirt with Astro Boy on it of course isn't Gothic Lolita. But the same t-shirt may or may not be kawaii. As may Gothic Lolita be descibed (not incorrectly) as kawaii style. It's a word used to describe fashions, (as the rewrite article states) but it isn't a word which in Japan has a clear meaning as a specific fashion style. I think we're going in circles here and I fear we will never agree on this!
I think a compromise would be to ensure the use of such phrases as kawaii style and kawaii merchandise is kept to a minimum given it's vague and undefinable nature.
I am also still uneasy about the use of kawaii as an English adjective as on the rewrite. I don't believe we're in a position to use the word as an English adjetive for the reasons I stated on the proposed article's discussion page, and I also still agree with another editor that it isn't an accepted encyclopedic style. Continuing to use the English phrase cute would ensure there's no grey area here.Barryvalder 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard the pictures, focusing purely on anime (with no less than three pictures of it!) is no way to represent the fact cuteness is highly valued in Japan as anime fans don't account for the majority of Japanese culture. Any illustrations need to attempt to reflect the presence of such listed examples (planes with Pikachu on the site, grown men with Kitty hanging off their mobile phone).Barryvalder 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Perhaps you could provide a couple good replacement pics? --nihon 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a couple pics myself. --nihon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ごくろうさん、but I thought we'd come to the conclusion that the remaining anime picture was the least appropriate of the three. Barryvalder 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that being decided. Beldandy is definitely "kawaii" (and since it's a subjective thing, that's perfectly acceptable). --nihon 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's totally acceptable. With regard it's suitability in respect to the other pictures, may I refer you here: Talk:Kawaii#Images. Barryvalder 07:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've used Dejiko. --nihon 07:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kawaii!!!! (^o^)/~ Barryvalder 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be more than one picture. Anyways my comments are on the talk page of your article nihon, I stand with Barryvalder in that it's a step in the right direction (Though it would be difficult for me not to say that, since it uses many of my edits!).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

More than one pic is useful for showing the pervasiveness of "kawaii". --nihon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were trying to promote this article as an account of the pervasiveness of "kawaii" outside of Japan.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That may have been the original purpose, but that seems to have morphed into the pervasiveness of Kawaii in Japan, and how it's spreading to popular culture outside Japan. --nihon 07:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It'[s of use because it shows some evidence of the use in the English language. No other claim is made with that link. Again, it's better to present the information available so that those reading the article can have as much reference information as possible available to them. The entry on the Rice U site also references an additional newspaper article that may be of interest to those reading the Kawaii article. --nihon 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as it's not acting as the supporting evidence for the word's entry into the English language as one user insisted it was not so long ago... Barryvalder 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good rewrite, I remain opposed only to mentioning "kawaii" as a loanword such as in the elided statement that it "it may be becoming a loanword". Well, it also may not be becoming a loanword, and the evidence is inconclusive either way. Do we include unsettled speculation in encyclopedic articles now? I have no problem noting that a lot of otaku use it (this is probably why it appears in the Rice students homework project) and that Gwen Stefani uses it, but I think any mention of it being a loanword is so premature as to be unsupportable. I also want to add I think it's still a dicdef and an original research/trivia accumulation magnet, but the community has decided to keep it, so at least we can make it the most accurate, highest-quality collection of dicdef trivia it it can be. The Crow 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The loanword information simply has no place in the article. What 'evidence' has been put forward has been repeatedly thrown out and all that is left is the specualtion that it may be becoming one. Wikipedia isn't in the business of speculating on what might happen in the future without solid sources to back it up. This is lacking any evidence strong enough to make this anything other than, to quote another editor, pure cyrstalballism. Barryvalder 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove the unfounded speculation from the "Appearances in other cultures" section and I'm satisfied with this article. I don't object to the Rice University Statement on the grounds that the current statement is factual and I'm content letting readers decide how useful or worthless this list may be on it's own merits.--Isotope23 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Term / Word

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

You're arguing semantics. "Word" and "term" in the context in which I used them have exactly the same meaning. "Kawaii", by definition, means "cute," and therefore has a meaning, so "kawaii," being a "word...having a particular meaning" is a "term". Just because Person A's opinion of what is and is not "kawaii" differs from what Person B thinks doesn't make it any less of a term. Almost every word in the English language has subjective meaning (Bill Clinton tried to argue over the meaning of the word "is," for example). Ask ten people what their personal opinion of "hot" is, and you'll likely get ten different answers. The same applies to "kawaii." This doesn't change tha fact that it's a "term" and a "word." --nihon 12:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a word? Is it a plane? No! It's a neologist Japanese Dog Show! ^^; Shiroi Hane 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a core issue of whether kawaii is a subjective attribute or an objective class. I don't think semantically breaking it down into "word" vs. "term" really gets at the matter. And furthermore I think this branch of discussion really should be tabled for the moment. It was a pivotal argument to whether the article should exist. But since fiat inclusionism has effectively overruled the argument, this particular debate is secondary and distracting right now. The Crow 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Barryvalder 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Informal consensus resolution

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

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

Please affirm or reject below:

• Affirm all. Speaking for myself, I now regret using the term "cruft" and will not do so in the future as it is needlessly inflammatory, and I hope others will exercise similar rhetorical restraint. The Crow 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Affirm I can get on board with that.--Isotope23 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Affirm nihon 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Affirm That is a very good assessment. I think since this article has been put under the spotlight, it has shown vast improvement. The hostile reaction of one editor was unfortunate, but despite that I think we've made excellent progress. Barryvalder 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Affirm. I completely agree with the above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Affirm. Well said.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• If prefer not to have 2 people in this debate. those are User:The Hokkaido Crow User:Freshgavin, User:Barryvalder --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Handwriting section

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

Handwriting

When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s, a fad for writing notes and letters in rounded, childish characters began to catch on among teenaged girls. This style of penmanship was dubbed Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting by Yamane Kazuma, during his two year study of handwriting in Japan (between 1984 and 1986).

Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. The new writing used extremely stylised, rounded characters with English characters, katakana, and cartoon pictures such as hearts, stars, and faces inserted into the text. The new style of handwriting was distinct.

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

I agree it needs properly sourcing, but it also needs some thorough rewording. As it stands it's just cut and pasted from another website and includes such misinformation as stating that horizonatal writing hadn't been done in Japan before teeneage girls in the 1970's first picked up their mechanical pencils. That's simply false. Barryvalder 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he got that information out of the Kinsella essay, which makes a mention about it about halfway.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

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

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

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

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

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)