User talk:Nihonjoe/Kawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the edit, nihon. Most of my problems here are personal, rather than Wikipedical? and I'll outline them here.

• The term is subjective... We've been over this one before and I really feel it's completely un-needed in this context. Adjectives are by nature subjective, and kawaii is no different from any other adjective in that sense (cute, happy, fun, smelly). The reason I so strongly oppose statements like this is because they seem to serve no purpose other than bloating the article, which is bad practice. Simply saying that kawaii is more widely in use than "cute" and "adorable" are in English suffices to bring this point across.
• Chinese term does not derive from the Japanese term. This is a personal qualm, I just feel it doesn't need to be said because it's generally understood that kanji all derive in some way from Chinese, and if it's not understood than that should be explained on a page dealing with the topic. Seems again like an effort to bloat the article.

Seeing as this article as about the Japanese word, I've removed these. --nihon 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kawaii is everywhere. This is much more the style of article I expect explaining kawaii, and it is well referenced and precise. My problem with this is that it doesn't make sense to have this information on a page about the word kawaii because there is no concept or movement of kawaii, it is merely a cultural artifact of Japan, so if not in the article on Japanese culture, this information could be put into a separate page along the lines of Cuteness in Japan, outlining it's importance in business, advertising, entertainment etc. I would genuinely support the creation and expansion of an article on that topic.

This has already been discussed to death, and if you read the referenced articles, you will see you are incorrect. There is a movement (or whatever you weant to call it). Take some time to read all of the articles and be enlightened. (^_^) --nihon 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kawaii can be also used to describe fashion. As you've already mentioned that the word is subjective, I don't see why this section needs to be included at all. You might as well say Kawaii can also be used to describe dogs. Most dogs that are considered cute are very small. Small is considered cute because they look helpless. It's non-encyclopedic and article-bloating. I would strongly a support an article along the lines of Cute Fashionism in Japan.

See my immediately preceding comment. --nihon 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Kawaii merchandise and other kawaii products are popular in other parts of Asia, including China, Taiwan, and Korea. You have started using kawaii as an English adjective in these sentences, which is not an accepted encyclopedic writing style. The adjective to use is probably "cute", and this, again, is information pertaining to an article on Cuteness in Japan#Influence outside of Japan.

Since the article is about "kawaii", and it's been properly explained above, it perfectly acceptable to provide examples of usage later in the article. Since using "cute" could fall under the same argument, using "kawaii" (which means "cute") is perfectly fine. --nihon 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will choose to ignore you comment about "kawaii" meaning "cute", which completely undermines all of your previous arguments.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree. While we've attempted to establish as close as possible the English meaning of kawaii, given the word's many nuances and subtleties (not to mention it is yet to be formally assimilated into the English language leaving any English meaning open to individual interpretation) it's innacurate to then continue the article using as a fully formed, universally accepted English adjective. Not to mention it is, as mentioned above, an unencyclopedic style. Barryvalder 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not unencyclopedic to use the word in the article once the word has been introduced. If anything, it assists those reading the article to gain a better idea of the meaning of the word and possible uses for the word. --nihon 09:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we accept your point, it still leaves the question of kawaii mechandise. We might be some way towards proving the existence of a kawaii style with regards fashion (I'm still not convinved of it's existence, but I will go with concensus) but stating that kawaii mechandise is popular abroard, when we've not yet found a definition of what is an defined and specific example of kawaii mechandise is a bit premature. The cited article points to the fact that users of mynippon.com have written in to state that Japanese characters are popular in other parts of Asia. This doesn't jutsify the comment that kawaii mechandise is therefore popular, as even if we accept the word of users of a website as a source, we're still lacking a clear definition of kawaii mechandise. Barryvalder 01:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of the articles indicate the "kawaii" merchandise is popular in Asia and in some other places around the globe. As for a specific definition of "kawaii merchandise", you'll just need to accept that it's likely as subjective as "kawaii fashion". It's a fad, and it changes over time. What might be considered "kawaii" today, may not be considered as such tomorrow. If you go with the definition that "kawaii merchandise" is generally "cute" in one way or another, that should be good enough. We've provided far more reference articles than most articles on WIkipedia have, and people can figure things out for themselves should they choose to do so. --nihon 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the shifting ideas of fashions "changing over time" would be better descibed as "constantly changing". But I'll admit I'm just being picky on word choice and style here. (@_@)Barryvalder 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• According to a list compiled by current and former students at Rice University, kawaii is an English neologism As it was an informal survey by students, that does not qualify it to be used as evidence for any sort. This statement serves to imply that kawaii is becoming a neologism in English, but if you pay attention to the rules for deletion, words becoming neologisms do not qualify them for articles. Only well established neologisms (and not necessarily borrowed words) with considerable or interesting changes of meaning qualify for articles.

 freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That sentence is merely one reference to how "kawaii" is becoming more commonly used in English-language popular culture. The entry on that page references an article which uses it in the title, and several of the other references on the "Kawaii" page itself use it in the title as well as frequently throughout the articles themselves. Whether or not you want to accept it, all of these references seem to indicate that the word is spreading throughout English-language popular culture. Given the number of articles I found, I'm positive there are several times more out there that I didn't find. --nihon 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave no objection to most of your sources, and I am glad that you have taken the time to gather reliable, well-known sources, but this is not one of them, and give that it is the only source you have that makes any bold claim at all, it is natural to assume that it is not valuable in defending this article.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to be defended by this one reference. Your AfD was already defeated (and will be again, should you try it again). This is merely a reference to the one sentence statement. All it's doing is presenting information to the reader of the article. It's up tot he reader to draw their own conclusions from what is found there. --nihon 07:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you've misinterpreted my reasons for AfDing the article. And second, just as Wikipedia isn't an unbiased collection of random information, it is also not an unbiased collection of links to external information about the articles, and external links should be as reliable (if not more) than the article itself. Regardless, I will rest on this issue for now, it's not a big deal and it can be handled much better later, when everything cools down.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I confer with the new images, which are much more appropriate, although I still feel that there are too many for an article of this length.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the dog picture from before, moreso than the two female characters (for putting pictures to the word Kawaii). I also wrote some more of my thoughts at coolcat's talk page. I agree with what Barryvalder wrote in this edit. It looks like things are moving in the right direction. Neier 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the dog is definitely kawaii. (^_^) Is the Dejiko pic okay? --nihon

You should probably add a link for Pikachu in the plane image caption, also for ANA.Shiroi Hane 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)