Talk:Shōjo

No Citation for Shōjō (fixed)
Moved to Shōjō

Single article dab
I thought single article dab (like this one) were not allowed on wikipedia... was there a change in policy? If so... alot of pages should exist on Wikipedia, to dab to other meanings that do not have articles. 70.51.9.81 (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's going to be expanding. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's a dab? Timothy Perper (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation page, only shorter and therefore quicker to type. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of 少女
Elevenscout742 deleted "small girl" from the definition, and is correct in doing so, though not necessarily for the reason he gives. (I don't think anybody suggested there is such a word as 小女.) The 大辞泉("Daijisen") dictionary of the Japanese language says that 少女 "Usually refers to a girl between the ages of approximately 7 and 18, and who has not yet reached adulthood." (ふつう7歳前後から18歳前後までの、成年に達しない女子をさす. ) A girl younger than seven (in other words, a preschooler) would be called a 幼女 "yōjo". Matt Thorn (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen it as a colloquial "little girl" or "small girl" when people are describing someone. Yes, it literally means "young girl", but it is used colloquially in these other ways. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's important to include "small girl" when "young girl" is sufficient and "small girl" implies preschool girl. Matt Thorn (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just more precise. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it more precise? I would argue the reverse. You say you've seen it used colloquially to mean "small girl," but surely you know that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability. If you can reference a source, please do. I've been a professional translator of Japanese for almost two decades, no dictionary I've ever seen has included "small girl" or "little girl" or "小さい女の子" as an acceptable translation or definition of 少女. The 『類語例解辞典』 (Explanatory Thesaurus, Copyright 2006 Shogakukan Inc.) offers six different terms that can mean "girl", and offers concrete examples of which are appropriate in what context:

Please note that there is no overlap in the use of 女児 and 少女. A 少女 is a school-age girl, not a preschooler, not an adult. Again, if you can find a source to support your argument, please do so. Until then, let's leave out that phrase that at this point is based on nothing but your impression. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't believe someone tried to change the definition of 少女 to "teenaged girl." Where do people get this stuff? What part of the dictionary definition "between roughly seven and 18 years of age" do you not understand? If you don't have a citable source, please don't change the definition! Matt Thorn (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently the person who said 少女 means teenaged girl is a native speaker of Chinese, but does not know Japanese. Maybe it means "teenaged girl" in Chinese, but that is not what it means in Japanese. Chinese and Japanese often use the same words in different ways. For example, 先生 (pronounced "sensei" in Japanese) means something like "Mr." in Chinese, but means "teacher" in Japanese. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that in them 先生, apart from meaning Mr, also means teacher in Chinese. Check out the definition of 先生 in here. Most of the Kanji have etymological root in Chinese. Although some of the mordern phrases deviated from the original usages (in some rare cases, meaning), overwheamingly large number of the Chinese characters and kanji still remain their common meaning. Here, the terms 少女 is just one the examples. Yes, 少 means little or young and yes 女 means female, but when they put together as a phase it simply means "teenage girl". Here is your reference http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/少女. Also u need to aware that 少女 is a type of 少年 ( http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/少年 says 一般的には、女児は含まない（おおよそ少女と呼ぶ）のだが) so the age applies for 少年 also apply for 少女 (which is 19 or younger) --Da Vynci (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although we may use text translated from other Wikipedias under the meta:Help:Transwiki method, we can't use them to verify or as a reliable source/citation for an article. :( -Malkinann (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Da Vynci, by your own admission, you do not know Japanese. I have been a professional translator of Japanese for nearly two decades. I know the legal meanings of 少年 and 少女, thank you. I also know how they are used colloquially. The reference you provide, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/少女, simply proves my point that 少女, in Japanese, is used to refer to any girl of school age, from roughly 7 to 18. Your rewrite of the definition makes it sound as if it is used in that sense only in legal jargon, and that elsewhere it means "teen girls." This is just plain WRONG. I don't understand why you felt you had to rewrite this definition, and add Chinese sources. Are you trying assert Chinese control over the Japanese language? What was wrong with the definition as is was? I hate to get into an editing war here, but I am going to change this AGAIN to make sure the definition includes girls of elementary school age. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because plain and simple, this two words 少 & 女 are writen chinese characters and when an article is talking about a phrase constructed with Chinese Character, you can't claim it is a Japanese exclusive phrase, and the term 少女 has been around long before Japanese adopted it. On the other hand, it is also essental to include the legal definition, because the modern popular colloquial usage is evolved from the formal definition. IMHO, I suspect you may have read too much manga that somehow u mistaken this is a manga term, especially after seeing you insisting the terms "school girls" must be included instead of the more formal definition stated by law. The reason why I changed the original opening sentence was because, despite how popular the mordern 少女 culture and colloquial usage maybe, an article that describes a millennium old pharse, it is totally irresponsible to just focus on pop culture and ignore it's formal definition and etymological development. It didn't say where the phrase is from, didn't explain since when the japanese adopted it, and how the japanese use it before 19th century, not to mention it also lacks legal defintion. Does it look like a good article to u? I hence suggest you to restore the legal definition. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, did u write in the article that when these characters are used together as a word? Do you realise there are 2 words here? 少 and 女. 少女 is a phrase constructed by 2 words. 少女 is not one word. Reference here --Da Vynci (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the legal meaning of 少女 is fine with me. I think it might also be appropriate to note that the word refers to a subset of 少年, which, in Japanese legal language means "minor"--literally, one of "few years". What I object to is the suggestion that in colloquial Japanese, 少女 refers to "teen girls" only, and not to pre-teen girls. In Japanese, this is simply not the case. As for 少女 being "two words," that is a Chinese perception. Ask any Japanese speaker if 少女 is one word or two, and 100% will tell it is one word--one word composed of two kanji. This is a difference of perception. Japanese use 女 (onna) as a single word, but they never use 少 as a single word. They use 少し (sukoshi) as a single word, but that is seen as something different from the kanji 少 as in a compound word such as 少女. I think it is a good idea to include the Chinese etymology, as well as reliable, citable information about how and when the word was introduced to Japan. I would just like you to keep in mind that the same pairings of Chinese characters--少女 or 先生--can have subtle, or sometimes drastic differences of meaning in Chinese and Japanese. Since this article is explaining the Japanese word pronounced shōjo and written 少女, it does not make sense to define it as the Chinese define it. It might be a good idea to note differences in the Chinese and Japanese use, but the Chinese use does not "overrule" the Japanese use. As for your accusation that I "read too many manga" and do not understand the use of the word 少女 outside of its use in the context of popular culture, let me assure that that is not the case. I am a cultural anthropologist who is an Associate Professor in a Japanese university (Kyoto Seika University), and who teaches all of his classes in Japanese. I was the head of the PTA of my son's public Japanese elementary school for two years. (As far as I know, I was the second non-Japanese head of the PTA of a Japanese public school in history. The first was a Korean national who was born and raised in Japan.) I wrote columns in Japanese for such publications as the Kyoto Newspaper (京都新聞) and the literary journal Dokushojin (読書人). I don't know how old you are, but I think I am justified in saying, 日本語に関しては君のような青二才にあれこれ言われる筋合いはない. Matt Thorn (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________

To Matt Thorn: ohoh, I have no problem including 12 yrs old, and if u insist, 11 yrs old too. My objection is including 20+ woman as 少女. Come on, u can be calling a 25 years old woman 少女 without adding slight sense of exaggeration. I know jp society place great value on the idea of youth, but before we distort it let’s not forget the phrase’s original meaning.

As for the definition of words, according to ur opinion, we might have a great translation fallacy here, but here is the logo when I questioned about your suggestion that 少女 is one single word:

In European language, words consist of characters aka letters.
 * A, B, C, are characters and a single character alone doesn’t bear any meaning. ( except in few exception such as the character A is also a word)
 * “Horse” is a word and bears meaning.
 * “Charley horse” is a phrase because it consist of 2 or more words.

In Asian languages ( Kanji, Korean, Chinese), words consist of strokes.
 * 亅,丿,一, are strokes and a single strokes alone doesn’t bear any meaning. ( except in few exceptions such as the character一is also a word)
 * 女is a word and it bears meaning
 * 少女 is a phrase because it consist of 2 or more words.

--Da Vynci (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Nobody has said that 少女 applies to a woman 20 years or older. Are you sure you are understanding my English? Do you understand the Japanese dictionary definition I offered? Here is the whole thing:


 * The main definition is number 1, which translates: "A young girl. Usually refers to a girl between roughly 7 and 18, who has not yet reached adulthood."


 * I don't know how I can make it any more clear.


 * I just asked a college-aged Japanese woman if she thought 少女 was two words or one. She didn't even understand the question at first, so I explained Da Vynci's argument. We were speaking in Japanese, but the gist of what she said is, "Of course it's one word. No Japanese person would think of 少女 as a two-word phrase. It's two kanji, but a kanji is not the same thing as a word. That must be a Chinese thing."


 * Da Vynci, on your user page is a logo that says (in Japanese) "I do not know Japanese." Is that true? If it is true, why do you feel qualified to make bold assertions about what anything means in Japanese? (I have already explained--twice--my own qualifications.) Until you answer that question, I am not going to argue with you anymore. As far as I am concerned, you are simply not qualified to offer an expert opinion on anything regarding the Japanese language. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To Matt Thorn: For edits regarding the phase original definition and etymology, your (and my) Japanese qualification is irrelevant here because 少女 is of Chinese origin despite it is also widely used in Japan just those thousands other Chinese phrases. Just like the phrase 萬歲/万歳 (Banzai) is also of Chinese origin, but made famous because of the crazy Banzai charge during WWII. Your objection to Chinese speakers editing an article that describes a phase of Chinese origin is like objecting Latin speakers editing article like de facto, in situ, Magnum opus. Yes, phases like de facto are widely used in the English speaking world, but does it mean Latin speaker can’t contribute now? Remember that Kanji are Chinese characters, we will get along just fine.

BTW, the logo on my userpage is of humourous purpose, just like all the Self-deprecation humbleness you may find in Asian culture. We, Asian, are not accustomed to arrogance. That means, even if I am an expert on a subject, we do not bluntly, deliberately exhibit it. I'd be surprised if you don't know abt this if you have arrived jp for so long.

I don’t know how u can make the definition clearer, but obviously did make the issue LESS clear when you insisted on stating “少女=young girl” here, coz you might call any female a “young girl” before their 29 yrs old. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________


 * What does the number of words have to do with it? Please read my comment below about reverse translation. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to join in with a few observations -- as for the length, well, bear with me. As an introduction, I'm a native speaker of American English, and not Japanese or Chinese. Translation is a two-way street. You've been discussing Japanese --> English, but translation also works English --> Japanese. So, I'm going to ask, ""What word in Japanese would be used in the following situations?"

First, it's traditional in the US for the nurse, physician, or midwife to announce the sex of the newborn baby with the expression "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" Thus, linguistically, we learn that girl can refer to a newborn infant. Birth is then the lower age limit for using the word girl properly in American English. Is it the same in Japanese? If so, then shōjo extends back to birth (or is it 幼女 yōjo?).

But, second, the upper limit is harder to identify. The upper limit blurs according to situation, to the people you're speaking with, to politeness, and to a desire not to be offensive. So I'll start by picking an informal occasion and the speech of young age contemporaries. One can then say about high school sports, "The girls on the volley ball team," even though they are 17-18 years old. Thus we learn linguistically the the upper limit for calling someone a girl is not set by puberty but can extend considerably farther. What word would I use in Japanese if I were translating that sentence in the same setting but in Japan?

The same will hold, but in less formal settings and more colloquially, for female college students. But here American-English usage begins to shift, and we invented a new term to cover this borderline situation -- the term coed for "the girls on the (college) volley ball team." But staying in the increasingly informal registers of English, the women on an office softball team -- who may be in their 30s and would in other linguistic environments be called women -- might refer to themselves as "us girls", a usage that connotes camaraderie and shared athletic enthusiasms, aka "team spirit." So, in informal registers in American English, the word girl might extend to women in their 30s or older. What word(s) would be used in Japanese?

However, third, the word girl has received intense scrutiny in American English because it has pejorative and offensive connotations. For example, and referring to an adult woman driving a car, a man might sneer, "Girls just don't know how to drive!" In offices and in formal and older school settings, the word girl is to be avoided. A superb example occurs in the anime Blood the Last Vampire, where the heroine Saya is walking down the hall of the high school associated with the US Air Force Base at Yokota. She is wearing a high school uniform and is seen by the school nurse Masako Caroline Asano, who knows that no student should be in the school. So she calls out to Saya in English to get her attention -- "Young lady!" Now we have moved into formal and proper registers of language, and Nurse Asano's expression is completely accurate in American English: the substitution of "young lady" for the informal and potentially pejorative girl. But, in Japanese, what might Nurse Asano have said? Could she call Saya shōjo under exactly these circumstances?

My point is that in American English the word girl is boxed in by or embedded in age- and politeness boundaries. It appears from what Matt is saying that the age range of shōjo is similar to that of girl in American English, except that it might not refer to newborn infants. More importantly, perhaps, shōjo seems to have similar upper limits in its age range. Thus, shōjo manga is translated (correctly) into American English as girls' manga but manga for somewhat older women is called josei manga. It therefore seems to me that shōjo refers to the age range of preschoolers to the borderline of young ladies or josei -- which is precisely the same point I think Matt is making.

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These are good questions, Tim. I'm not sure how much detail we want to go into here. The diagram I included above (which is of course not helpful to people who don't read Japanese) answers some of your questions, but not all. The closest thing to the English word "girl" is 女の子 (onna no ko), which literally means "woman child." It is used far more commonly in everyday Japanese than 少女 or any of the other words in the above diagram. When a baby is born, they would say "Onna no ko desu!", not "Shōjo desu!" College-age women regularly refer to themselves and are referred to by others as "onna no ko" or 女子 (joshi). This does not have the "politically incorrect" implication that "girl" does in English, probably because college-age boys are also referred to as 男の子 (otoko no ko) or 男子 (danshi). 少女 has a somewhat more formal sound. It's the kind of word used by journalists, academics, politicians, etc. It's not common in everyday Japanese to refer to someone as a 少女. But it is very common to use 少女 as a pseudo-adjective, as in "shōjo manga" and the other examples Da Vynci offered. Its meaning in both legal and non-legal contexts is very clear. It might be most accurate to say that a 少女 is a female who is old enough to be part of a social group (school) other than her family, but not old enough to be an independent member of society. College students are called "joshi" and "danshi" because they are in an ambiguous stage. They are legally adults, but they are not yet 社会人 (shakaijin, literally "society person(s)") in the sense of being independent of their parents/guardians and contributing to society. Even in news reports, they are referred to as 女子大学生 (joshi daigakusei, "girl college student(s)") and 男子大学生 (danshi daigakusei, "boy college student"), whereas a news report about a woman of the same age (above 20) who is not a student as a 女性 ("woman"). A girl or young woman being referred to more politely would be called in conversational Japanese お嬢さん (ojōsan) or お嬢様 (ojōsama), which would be very close to the English "young lady." This is a common way of referring to a girl or young woman whose name you do not know. For example, if a girl or young woman walking in front of me dropped her train ticket, I might call out お嬢さん、切符を落としまたよ (Ojōsan, kippu o otoshimashita yo, "Young lady, you dropped your ticket"). The point is, the use of 少女 in contemporary Japanese is much more restricted than that of the the English word "girl," but its meaning is very clear: it refers to girls roughly between 7 and 18, or, in the legal sense, 0 to 19. It does not refer specifically to teenaged girls. Matt Thorn (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Much of this I did not know. It's interesting that the upper end of the range -- around 18-20 years old -- is spoken of as ambiguous or at a boundary in both Japanese and English. It might be worthwhile putting a translated version of the table into the main text, together with your examples and illustrations. But the main point seems to be proven -- 少女 refers to girls younger and older than puberty, that is, not teenagers (who in American English are post-pubescent). Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many other languages show the same pattern -- French does with la fille. Not that I'd put that in, but there may be some wide-spread linguistic patterns here. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Matt, another question. I've seen various papers (in English) Ithat use the expression "the shōjo," meaning "the girl," thought of as a social category or group that has an identity and social place or role. Often these papers are debating what that role is or should be (and often disapprove of what they think are changes for the worse). Do you have some ideas about what these writers mean when they use the expression "the shōjo"? I hope that's clear. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim, I have a bunch of books on my bookshelves about "the shōjo," and IMO, most of them are crap. They talk about "the shōjo" as an abstraction or an ideal. The better ones focus on the origins of the concept in Meiji and post-Meiji Japan from the perspective of social history. What writers about "the shōjo" have in common is that what they are talking about rarely has any solid connection to real-life girls. What differentiates the better writers from the worse is that the former actually believe they are talking about real-life girls, whereas the former acknowledge that they are talking about abstract concepts created by and for adults who have some kind of agenda.
 * BTW, in the ancient 律令制 (pronounced "ritsuryōsei") legal code to which Da Vynci refers, a 少女 is defined as female between the ages of 17 and 20 (later changed in Japan to 21). This may be the source of the Da Vynci's belief that 少女 refers only to teens. The ritsuryōsei all but died out in Japan in the 10th century, although vestiges of it remained in the legal code through the end of World War II.
 * Anyway, here's a translated version of the table. Note the wide range of uses of the word 女の子 (onna no ko) in contrast to 少女 (shōjo).

Example combinations: "◯" = appropriate, "△" = less appropriate, "—" = inappropriate Matt Thorn (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A little late to the party, but this page covers some of the legal definition of shōnen mentioned above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nihonjoe. Adding a link to the shōnen page should save us the trouble of repeating legal definitions here. Matt Thorn (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Feel free to check my translations for all the various legal terms. Legal Japanese is not my forte, but I did the best I could. (^_^;; ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Table
I think it should be included in the article now that I see the translation. Let me suggest changing the circles and triangles to + for a circle (appropriate), +/- (or the unified symbol which I can't access with this browser) for a triangle (less appropriate), and - for inappropriate. Then Matt and Nihonjoe can concoct some E-->J and J-->E sentences showing usage and include them to illustrate the definitions. Or, with a bit more work, we can find some examples from manga.

Something tells me that these terms are being defined in the table in formal or semi-formal linguistic registers, a fancy way of saying polite discourse among adults, e.g., the words you'd use if you were talking to people in business whom you don't know too well. Is there some way of adding slang or colloquial language as well? I do not mean vulgarities, but slang.

For example, at a climactic moment in Masakazu Katsura's manga Shadow Lady, Bright Honda has a conversation with Shadow Lady -- he's in love with her, but she doesn't and never will like him one tiny bit -- and he says "Onna to shite." She looks distinctly annoyed and stalks off. Clearly, he is speaking in some kind of slang or informal register, even though the translation says "I love you as a woman," which seems to me to be much too formal for this occasion.

(1) What does "onna to shite" mean in plain, not formal, English?

(2) Why does he use the word "onna" here?

(3) When I said that "onna to shite" doesn't sound like formal language, that's an inference from the setting and knowing something about how people talk in such situations. The translation certainly is far more formal (and doesn't ring true in American English, at least to my ear).

We can all come up with other examples to illustrate these usages.

Here's a reference for defining "girl" in English that explains something of its complex meanings. Francoeur, R.T., Martha Cornog, Timothy Perper, and Norman A. Scherzer 1995 The Complete Dictionary of Sexology, New Expanded Edition. New York: Continuum.

Timothy Perper (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Newbie question: citations?
Should these various definitions include references to specific dictionaries or encyclopedias? If so, I can provide them pretty easily. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually, the articles to which the page links have the references. Disambiguation pages do not generally have citations or references. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Matt Thorn (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But in this case it isn't that simple. The reason that disambiguation pages usually don't cite references is that the articles the definitions link to are expected to contain them. However, in this case some definitions don't link to an article, so it's really this article that makes the factual claims, and therefore they should be cited properly. Shinobu (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll add references for definitions that do not link to articles. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I took the liberty of removing the "unreferenced" tag. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

school age or developmental stage?
Matt, does the dictionary specifically refer to the age grouping as being by school age, or is preadolescence to adolescence okay too? I'm finding the preadolescence article difficult to understand, as it seems to be describing the tween age group - i.e. a child of ten acting as though she wants to be fourteen - not smaller children such as five or so, as implied by your original addition (although increasingly you end up with boob tubes for toddlers and suchlike... ;_;) -Malkinann (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. The dictionary definition I provided says nothing about school or school-age. It simply says "roughly 7 to 18". This is in fact school-age, and I think there is a connection, but including "school age" in the definition here would constitute "original research." I'm looking at the definition from another dictionary (Kōjien) and it is even less helpful. Unfortunately, there is no Japanese equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary. The thesaurus I took the table from is actually more helpful, because it goes on to describe differences in nuance. About "shōjo," it says "「少女」は、子供と大人との中間の年齢層の女性をさしていう. 思春期のころが含まれる. 少々ロマンチックなイメージを持つことがある. " My translation: "'Shōjo' indicates a female of the age group between childhood and adulthood. It includes adolescence/puberty. [The word] can carry a somewhat romantic image." As for the American phenomenon of tweens trying to be teens, and wearing boob tubes and the like, this phenomenon is uncommon in Japan. I find that most elementary-school-age Japanese girls have no desire whatsoever to grow up quickly. Wearing make-up in public is totally out of the question, not because it is forbidden by adults but because the girls themselves would die of embarrassment. This begins to change in junior high school and high school, although even there girls experience far less pressure to "grow up" (date, wear brand-name clothes, wear make-up, etc.) than do American girls. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malkinann, since u are questioning my edit so please allow me to explain. Preadolescence is the proper term that describes a stage of human development before teenage (i.e. within age range of 少女), usually between 11 to 12 according to New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition. 2005) and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition. 2000). Preadolescence applys to all human races including the Japanese. It may not necessary refer to Tween, which is an American neologism and marketing term and is not widely used in Asia. Matt is right, we don't have such things as Tween in Asia but all human (including the Japanese) have human development stage of preadolescence & adolescence.

As Matt just mention, we should also include the romantic implication of the term too. --Da Vynci (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When I read the preadolescence article, it does not seem to include seven year olds in its definition, which is what Matt says the dictionary entry for shoujo says, 7-18, and that's why I'm iffy on it. That might be a problem with the preadolescence article rather than with this article, but it creates a problem for this article in that the dictionary isn't being quoted accurately.  I propose we skip the developmental stages and just put "roughly 7-18 years old" or similar. -Malkinann (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Maikinann. Saying "roughly 7-18" is fine -- it's enough to point to the age range the definition needs. Not everyone goes through puberty at the same time, so that term is less accurate. "Preadolescence" is even less precise because it refers to a cultural phenomenon (adolescence) that doesn't necessarily apply universally, So stay with the numbers 7-18 years old. Different societies and different periods of history have divided up the time frame in different ways. In this article, we're discussing how the Japanese language labels different periods, and we need to stay with Japanese. Franky, I think this is settled -- let's go with saying "7-18" or similar and cite the dictionary Matt is using.


 * How about adding the table now with some examples? See my comments above.


 * Someone just removed the disambiguation label. What's that all about?


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it, as per Disambiguation, there are only 2 Disambiguation Methods are permitted on wikipedia: Disambiguation links & Disambiguation pages, both require the terms ( Shōjo, shojo or shoujo) have their own articles in order to disambiguate. If we decide to disambiguate, we have to at least create articles for shojo (as in 処女)and shoujo (as in 猩猩) . If not, it seems unnecessary to keep disambiguation label? Please correct me if I am wrong. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable, and thanks for the explanation. Instead of a dab page, I agree that we have a short article. So yes, I agree. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malkinann, that's useful. I've added my proposed edits below. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing
OK, I just edited the introduction for clarity and grammar. I also added two references, one to a Chinese-English dictionary (in print) removing the Google citations (Google is less authoritative than a dictionary published by Harvard University Press), and another to a dictionary of sexology that I helped edit that points to complexities in how the word girl is defined and used in English.

I also included the 7-18 year-old criterion for defining the Japanese word, as I just mentioned in the preceding comment.

Reference #6 is to a Chinese language website, which is not helpful to readers of an English-language Wikipedia. The quote from the Book of Han is overstated (undue weight) and needs to be translated. If not, then we should remove it as unnecessary baggage that tells an Anglophone reader nothing at all.

If that's all OK, can we move to the table?

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Timothy Perper, for Reference #6, as per Citing sources, non-English reference is permitted in English wikipedia when English reference is not available. Reference #2, #4, #8, #5, are all non-English reference that tells an Anglophone reader nothing at all too, they are there because they are relevant. I don't understand why it is undue weight, on the contrary it is important because it is the earliest text ever recorded the term. A translation will be worked on and provided when available, but removing the etymology citation doesn't seems constructive IMHO. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that the references are in Chinese -- that's fine! The problem is that the reference for the Book of the Later Han quote needs a translation for the quote, which must include the city and publisher plus an English translation of the title of the book or source. The same problem exists for all references not in English. "Undue weight" refers not to the Book of the Later Han -- which is an excellent source here -- but to how the page is set up. First, there's no reference for the quote itself, which is given undue weight by being indented and introduced by a very large quotation mark, and, second, the phrase needs to be translated. I'm going to rearrange the section now and you'll see what I mean. The presently untranslated Chinese sentence will go into a footnote, with the wiklink, but it will still need a reference and translation. Third, I will change the word "Etymology" to "Early Usage" because "etymology" refers to the origins of the word itself, its "derivation," and not to early uses in ancient texts. This is all called "cleanup" in Wiki jargon. If you can supply the references and translations, we'd all be most grateful. It's the lack of translation and citation that makes the references useless, not that they're in Chinese. I hope that is clearer.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I just made the changes I mentioned. The Han book is now quoted in a footnote (where the Chinese needs a translation) with the source originally given. I put in some citation needed tags, and the Japanese language reference also needs a translation. Once again, all this is called "cleanup" in Wiki jargon. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, u seems can't wait a second for the translation, which I uploaded a rough version. Book of the Later Han is published in the 5th century, why the city and the 16 centuries years old publisher would matter? and i believe the 1st edition was handwritten by the authors themselve. But I do manage to find the full text from Department of Asian History, Nagoya University. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Etymology vs early usage, allow me to reproduce what is on the "Etymology" page:


 * Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. Etymological theory recognizes that words are originate through a limited number of basic mechanisms, the most important of which are the following:
 * Borrowing, i.e. the adoption of loanwords from other languages.
 * Word formation such as derivation and compounding.
 * Onomatopoeia and sound symbolism, i.e. the creation of imitative words.


 * Citing The Book of Later Han alone of course doesn't qualify for Etymology but the rest of the paragraph provides evidents how the term is adopted into another language, so I guess it is acceptable to name the section Etymology? --Da Vynci (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Da Vynci, can you please wait until I have finished my editing rather than putting material in to create edit conflicts? I know quite well what "etymology" means in English, and this section is not about etymology. It is about early sources of the term shojou. Thank you. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Perper, if you think from your own perspective of course I am the one "in your way", but do you realise I (and possibly others) also encountered the "edit conflict" when you were doing your editing? But, if you insist on using early usage, I am fine with it. . --Da Vynci (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The templates inuse can be used to signify when one editor is going on an editing flurry with one article, but it should be used sparingly, for periods under a few hours, and it should be removed (& possibly replaced with underconstruction) when an editor decides to go on a break. Inuse no longer applies when the article's been left alone for two hours or so and it can be removed. Content can be talked about on the talk page while inuse is ... in use.  I feel I should also mention that inuse can be seen as unfriendly.  -Malkinann (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool...
 * didn't know such tool exist, thanks for the info...but for now I think this page is probably ok without such intense tool, it is still pretty rare to encounter the "edit conflict" warnings...--Da Vynci (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments below above . Timothy Perper (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Book of the Later Han
Da Vynci, thank you for your edits, but you are editing at the same time I am, and creating edit conflicts. This is non-productive. I will not make further edits on this section until after we have discussed it and achieved consensus.

Here are my proposed changes in the section and their reasons.

Present text
 * The earliest record of the term 少女 is on the Book of the Later Han, published in China in the 5th century, in Chapter 86, The myth of Yao, referring to young girls.

盤瓠種，昔帝嚳時患犬戎入寇, 乃訪募天下，有能得犬戎之將吳將軍頭者，購黃金千鎰，邑萬家，又妻以少女. Translation: The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand Yi of gold, myriad of houses and young girls as their wives.

Here it is as it comes out.


 * The earliest record of the term 少女 is on the Book of the Later Han, published in China in the 5th century, in Chapter 86, The myth of Yao, referring to young girls.

盤瓠種，昔帝嚳時患犬戎入寇, 乃訪募天下，有能得犬戎之將吳將軍頭者，購黃金千鎰，邑萬家，又妻以少女. Translation: The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand Yi of gold, myriad of houses and young girls as their wives.

Here is my proposed edit.


 * The earliest record of the term 少女 is in the Book of the Later Han, published in China in the 5th century, in Chapter 86, The myth of Yao. The section reads 盤瓠種，昔帝嚳時患犬戎入寇, 乃訪募天下，有能得犬戎之將吳將軍頭者，購黃金千鎰，邑萬家，又妻以少女 where the characters 少女 end the section. This section may be translated as "The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand Yi of gold, myriad of houses and young girls as their wives."

 It looks like this.


 * The earliest record of the term 少女 is in the Book of the Later Han, published in China in the 5th century, in Chapter 86, The myth of Yao. The section reads 盤瓠種，昔帝嚳時患犬戎入寇, 乃訪募天下，有能得犬戎之將吳將軍頭者，購黃金千鎰，邑萬家，又妻以少女 where the characters 少女 end the section. This section may be translated as "The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand Yi of gold, myriad of houses and young girls as their wives."

The proposed edit does not stress (give undue weight) to the Book of the Later Han, but includes it as a straightforward quotation with a source. The translation is not quite correct English;


 * "the king is looking for a warrior" or "the king is looking for warriors".


 * "will award thousand Yi" --> "will award one thousand Yi" or "will award one thousand yi" since English does not capitalize nouns.

The translation itself needs a citation and source, for otherwise it is original research and is subject to challenge and deletion on those grounds. Note -- this is crucial -- the translation uses the expression "young girls" and thus is not evidence for what the original expression 少女 may have meant to Chinese writers in the 5th century. The quote proves only that 少女 dates back that far, not that it once meant "young girls." To illustrate what I mean, I might translate 少女 as "young chicks," but I could not now claim that the Book of the Later Han used the expression "young chicks" in the 5th century.

The section still needs to be renamed "Early Usages" and not "Etymology" for reasons I've explained.

We need to discuss these problems and alternatives and come to consensus.

Timothy Perper (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From TP again, about the translation. Da Vynci, did you create the translation yourself or are you quoting it? If you created it, I'd like to suggest a few changes in order to fix up various minor points in the English. And thank you for your efforts.


 * As it is now: The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand Yi[6] of gold, myriad of houses and young girls as their wives.


 * I'd suggest, if the original warrants it, something like the following possibilities, where I've corrected a bunch of minor errors in the English.


 * First revision: The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for warriors who are capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award one thousand yi of gold, a myriad of houses and young girls as their wives.


 * Second revision: The myth of Yao: the country is being invaded by barbarians, the king is looking for a warrior who is capable of taking the head of the general of the invading army, and for this the king will award thousand yi of gold, a myriad of houses and young girls as his wives."


 * "Myriad" means ten thousand in English, and needs an article -- "a myriad".


 * The reference to yi gets added back later.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of bolding the shoujo characters within the quote as well as in the translation. -Malkinann (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. My browser doesn't show them, but it's a good idea. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * TP again. I assumed you meant in the original Chinese text, because my browser doesn't show those bolded characters. We can bold them in both places, provided we know that "young girls" isn't a modern anachronism for 少女 -- perhaps it meant simply women to the author(s) of this section of the Book of the Later Han. I'd like to see an authoritative source (= a Wiki-reliable source) for the translation "young girls" and, in fact, for the entire translation. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The character Da Vynci translated as "myriad" (萬) is pretty much identical in meaning to the English word. That is, it means both "ten thousand" and also "a huge number". Matt Thorn (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It still needs the article "a". Timothy Perper (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

response to Timothy Perper's suggestion
I originally was going to let it be Early Usage, but since u mention about reasons, let’s talk about your reasons about rejecting etymology. Your said: ''"etymology" refers to the origins of the word itself, its "derivation," and not to early uses in ancient texts. “I know quite well what "etymology" means in English, and this section is not about etymology”? ''

Firstly, if you consider 少女 a Japanese word, that its origin is China, and the section provide evident of its origin as a borrowed word. One of etymology’s most important mechanism is Borrowing, i.e. the adoption of loanwords from other languages. The section demonstrated that. Secondly, strictly speaking there is no derivation here, the writing of 少女 has been the same since 5th century, modern Chinese & Japanese also use the same words for 少女. Matt is correct, borrowing is a proper term here, not derivation. If you are not sure what exactly derivation is, allow me to reproduce what is on the Derivation (linguistics) page: ‘’In linguistics, derivation is "Used to form new words, as with happi-ness and un-happy from happy, or determination from determine.’’, eg, 美少女 is a derivation from of 少女, but 少女(Japanese) is NOT a derivation of 少女 (Chinese) because the writing is the same.

Now, let’s discuss your reasons for suggesting the citation from Book of Later Han has undue weight. Your provided reason is:

Undue weight"….. First, there's no reference for the quote itself, which is given undue weight by being indented and introduced by a very large quotation mark, and, second, the phrase needs to be translated. I'm going to rearrange the section now and you'll see what I mean. The presently untranslated Chinese sentence will go into a footnote, with the wiklink, but it will still need a reference and translation.

Reference was actually there but you (probably accidentally) removed it, a translation is now also provided. The quotation template is designed to distinguish it from the rest of the text to improve readability. It is especially important if a non-English sentence is quoted. So readers won’t out of sudden see a long foreign sentence in the middle of the paragraph and get confused.

Now you have the reference and translation, but you now are saying The translation itself needs a citation and source,, well, according to Citing sources & Verifiability:

''Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.''

The above means the translation can be done by editors and the translation itself doesn’t require citation (although a citation, when available, is prefered), and the original text can also be quoted in article.

As for meaning/expression, there is an annotation in Nagoya University's full text saying 少女 means young girl, it is in the second paragraph, check it out if your know enough kanji XD. It actually doesn’t matter whether the words meaning changed over time, taking example from gay, in etymology section, it quotes source that appear early in history when gay means “care free”. So, as long as the writing is the same, we can quote early text to demonstrate etymology even the meaning may be different in history.

As for grammar, feel free to change. As there is no such things as plural in Chinese, my rough translation could be a bit messed up. ^^ Wow, i just got another "edit conflict" in this discuss page, u guys are all hyper and editing this article ? o_O

--Da Vynci (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. You seem not to have read my proposed edit, because the sources are all cited properly. None were omitted. Please re-read the text I posted and the text of the article. The quotation is not in a footnote, though I had put it there before you changed that. We must discuss the text currently being used, which I have quoted. Anything older than that is now gone and is irrelevant. Once again, no references have been omitted.


 * No one will become confused by encountering a Chinese sentence in the middle of the text. It's Chinese, and they skip over it if they want to or read it if they can. I don't believe it deserves the typographic stress that it has in your version. Note that the quote and translation could go into a footnote if we want them there.


 * Yes, the translation is usable on Wikipedia. Thank you for quoting the section of the guidelines about that. But that does not settle the issue. Is it your own translation or are you quoting it from another source that must be given?


 * The translation as currently given is not grammatically correct English. The errors are minor, but must be corrected. We must not use an ungrammatical translation. I apologize if that sounds unfriendly or insulting, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we need to write in proper English.


 * The term etymology does not refer merely to the history of words, but to their specific derivation from other and older words. Let me give two examples.


 * The Japanese word 少女 derives from Chinese, as a borrowing. However, only the characters were borrowed and not the pronounciation shoujo. So the etymology of 少女 is not complete as given in the text quoted, because the quoted text does not explain the origin of the Japanese pronounciation. Instead, the text provides only an early usage of the term 少女, not its etymology.


 * A second example. In English, the etymology of the word reason is from Old French raison and from there to Latin (ratio). The etymology of the related (the technical term is cognate) word "rational" is a borrowing from the Latin spelling ratio, without passing through Old French. Likewise, the etymology of the word "woman" is from Old English, wifman or wyfman. The best source for finding etymologies of English words is the Oxford English Dictionary. Such etymologies are not simply lists of the earlier occurrences of a word in ancient texts. Books that deal with such things and their texts are called "chrestomathies." Please observe that colleaagues of mine and I, including my wife Martha Cornog, have edited a published dictionary (I provided the reference earlier) and I am not an amateur in this area. I therefore prefer the technically more accurate section title "Early Usages" than the less technically accurate title "Etymology."


 * To summarize: I have omitted no references. The translation is usable, but needs to be put in grammatical English and a source must be given if it is not your own translation. "Etymology" is not the correct technical term for the section, but "Early Usages" is correct.


 * And, above all, note that we cannot conclude that the term shoujo was used in the 5th century by Chinese writers. Only 少女 was used then.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology & grammar correction
LOL, did you actually read my comment? I said it is my rough translation, and what ever grammatical mistake you found you can change it until it is grammatically perfect. You are welcomed to improve spelling and grammar on wikipedia. Indeed, there are spelling and grammar fanatics on wikipedia who focus mostly on fixing this kind of minor things, while do little or nothing on the content. My goal inclines to be getting the content up and provide references. I won’t take it as offence if you decide to devote your life to correct others grammar mistakes. XD

As for etymology vs early usage, fair enough, I accept early usage for now, coz we can always go back to etymology when enough info, as you described, is uploaded.

However, I am surprise about your comment on pronunciation: However, only the characters were borrowed and not the pronunciation shoujo''.

I am interested to know how did you jumped to such conclusion? Do you actually know how 少女 is pronounced in Chinese?

Helping publishing dictionary is great, and I appreciation your contribution, but it isn’t much relevancy here if you decide to jump into conclusion saying that the pronunciation Shōjo wasn’t influenced by Chinese pronunciation without knowing first knowing the pronunciation in both languages. You may be right abt thousand of other words, but if you are wrong about this particular one, you are wrong.

Since Chinese Characters DO NOT record pronunciation, it is usual to have some (huge, in some case) pronunciation change when the words traveled geographically, even within China. While the writing remains unchanged, people in different region decide their regional pronunciation after learning the writing. So your theory about if there is a pronunciation change then there is no etymology (if that's what u were suggesting) is probably invalid in Sinosphere’s context.

Even given the usually change of pronunciation when travel geographically, there is still a striking similarity --Da Vynci (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mandarin’s (Beijing) pronunciation 少女 is Shao nu (using pinyin)
 * when it arrived Korea it became, So nyŏ (using McCune-Reischauer))
 * and finally in Japan it became Shōjo.


 * Look -- I'll be polite. If you make grammatical errors, you correct them. I'm not here to fix your mistakes. I have too many other things to do. I also have other things to do than argue with you about it. The way to avoid such mistakes is to post your proposed or preliminary translation here on the talk page, and ask other people for advice and consensus, just the way I did above. If you want to simply insert material into an article being edited by experts -- Matt Thorn, Malkinann, and myself, and trust me, we're experts in the area of this article, meaning shōjo manga -- then you can expect to be edited. Down below this work space, it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Nothing excuses you from being edited, or having your work criticized. We all appreciate your efforts and have thanked you a number of times for them. What none of us want -- because no one wants -- is being told that WE have fix your mistakes. It doesn't work that way. The crux on Wikipedia is consensus, not going off on your own and fighting with people who are trying to work with you.


 * As an example, you lecture me, quite condescendingly, about pronunciation. No, I do not speak Chinese -- but I am much more familiar with these principles than you think. For example, in Japanese, kanji often have two (or more) quite different pronunciations. One derives from the Chinese, called the on pronunciation, and the other is called the kun prounciation and derives from Japanese itself. Thus, 女 can be pronounced jo, nyo, and nyō (on prounciations) or 女 can be read as onna or me- (kun prounciations). This gives what are called "doublets" in linguistics -- defined as being two words, of different derivations, with the same meaning. In Japanese, megami and joshin both mean goddess and are doublets and are written with the same two kanji. (Since I do not have a kanji keyboard, I'll give them by their Jōyō Kanji numbers, 102 and 310, or, in Spahn and Hadamitzky's numbering system, 3e0.1 and 4e5.1; megami and joshin share the same Spahn and Hadamitzky number, 3e0.1.9.) There are a great many doublets in Japanese (and also in English). Like Matt, I too am considerably older than you are, and probably have a great deal more scholarly experience than you. Don't lecture me as if I were your little brother.


 * All of us -- Matt, Malkinann, and me -- are quite willing to work with you to make your useful contributions even more useful. But that means you must work with us, and not treat us as condescendingly as you have.


 * If you don't want to work with us and accept good faith criticism and help, then we cannot do anything about it. I will simply shrug and do something else. But I and the others would prefer it if you worked with us and not against us. Consensus is the key.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation questions
Is it 1000 yi that was offered, or many thousands? (ie. 2000+ yi). When it says "young girls" and "warrior", is that implying that the king wanted to reward one warrior with many houses and young wives? (polygamy?) Was it that the king wanted many warriors with the skills needed, and would reward them with one house each and one wife each? -Malkinann (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * hi Malkinannm it says 千鎰, so a strictly technical translation is "thousand(s) yi", but customary understanding would suggest 1 thousand, coz for money, unit, dimension, number "1" in 1 thousand is often omitted. But technicallly speaking it doesn't really exclude the possibility of 2,3,4...thousands.


 * You see....that is one of the classic problem about Translation fallacy, as there is no such thing as plural form in Chinese word, we don't write like 少女s to indicate plural form. In classical Chinese single/Plural is indicated by putting a extra word like 一 (one/single) or 數 (number of/plural) in front of the subject concerned if is important to indicate the number . Evidently, the king/write didn't think it was important to restrict the number of warrior(s) can answer the call or whether the head will be obtained by 1 or more warriors. Cheers--Da Vynci (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers for clearing that up for me. :) Assuming the warriors called for are many, it creates a possible logic problem - if the king/scribe didn't see fit to limit the amount of houses and wives, why should he feel the need to limit the yi?  Maybe wives and houses are easier to come by?  -Malkinann (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, when did i say the yi is specifically limited? i said: a strictly technical translation is "thousand(s) yi", but customary understanding would suggest 1 thousand, coz for money, unit, dimension, number "1" in 1 thousand is often omitted. But technicallly speaking it doesn't really exclude the possibility of 2,3,4...thousands.--Da Vynci (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Another picture?
I wonder -- heh-heh -- if we can get away with adding another picture to this little article. I really liked the cheerful, slightly tipsy red-haired sea sprite who Malkinann found! Could we add a 1920s-1940s (that is, classic) image of a modern shoujo for the top? Or is that too much? Timothy Perper (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, from the Wikimedia Commons there's commons:Image:Shirokiya Shojo Ongakutai 1911.jpg, and then there's commons:Category:Takarazuka Revue. -Malkinann (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the Shirokiya Shojo Ongakutai more -- Takarazuka is not what I think of as typical of Japanese shoujo. Matt, what's your take on it? Timothy Perper (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also commons:Category:Women of Japan and the daughter categories, but the images are too modern, perhaps. I'd suggest browsing this category with caution - some of the images are NSFW. -Malkinann (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Loving the picture, Matt. It's too cute! :D -Malkinann (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Perfect. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shōjo in pop culture and media
Just a suggestion, I think perhaps we should open a section to document more about Shōjo's usage in pop culture, romantic connation, social phenomenon that jp society put great focus on idea of youth...etc --Da Vynci (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kind of like what's in Class S (genre)? We had a brief discussion in Talk:Shōjo_manga/Archive_2 about "shoujo culture" a while ago that might also prove relevantish.   -Malkinann (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * emm, another suggestion would be start translating what is in http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/少女, such as how the term could be used as a derogation and as compliment. How the word's definition become loose when used in pop culture, such as they use the word for 少年隊,少女隊 dispite the members are actually adults. Also, probably this: 近代では1920〜30年代の近代市場社会、都市型小家族の完成期に浮遊性・脱秩序性・非生産性等の様々な「印」を持つ少女文化が開花した. --Da Vynci (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The big problem is that that article, like so many Japanese Wikipedia articles, has no citations whatsoever (although that one at least includes a bibliography). The line you quoted sounds extremely interpretive/subjective, and therefore couldn't be used without a proper citation. The Japanese Wikipedia REALLY needs to get its act together. It is almost useless for anyone doing serious research, because of the lack of citations. The only thing it's good for is very casual research for the curious, or for college students looking for something to plagiarize for a report. BTW, the members of 少年隊 and 少女隊 actually were shōnen and shōjo when they began those groups. 少女隊 broke up ages ago, but 少年隊 is still hanging in there, doing dinner shows(!?). They should probably change their name to 小父隊 (Ojitai), or maybe even 爺隊 (Jijiitai). (^_^) Matt Thorn (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, 少年隊 should be renamed to 小父隊/爺隊, ROFL. Anyway, fair enough, I was hoping that anyone who has access to the one of the books in that bibliography can provide in-text citition, but if that isn't the case, let's wait until some reference turn up. --Da Vynci (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Article?
Wow. This article is getting to be a lot bigger than I ever imagined. I believe it was intended originally to be a disambiguation page containing simple definitions of each word. If we want to stick to hard, citable facts, I'm not sure how much farther the article can be taken. There was a fad of semi-academic books on "the shōjo" in the 1990s. I just pulled 6 such books off my bookshelf. The most famous (and interesting) of them is オトメの祈り〜近代女性イメージの誕生 ("The Maiden's Prayer: The Birth of the Image of the Modern Woman"), by 川村邦光 (Kunimitsu KAWAMURA). It was published in 1993. The literature on "shōjo" is best when it sticks to hard historical facts, and worst and when it goes into abstractions. It's like the English-language literature on "the teenager," and the questions that come up again and again (e.g., "Is the concept of 'the shōjo' a modern invention?") are similar. From the point of view of someone who for years has studied shōjo manga by talking with actual readers about the place of manga in their lives, the one important thing missing from most of these 少女論 (shōjo ron, "shōjo theory") works is the voices of actual girls themselves. I personally do not want to make this article into a literature review of work that I see as mostly akin to debates on How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Regardless, I think we probably have enough on "shōjō" (猩猩, 猩々) to make it a stub article of its own. Right now, this article is trying to do at least two things at once: disambiguate, and be an article on 少女.

It might be worth pointing out at this point that 少女 is sometimes (but not often) pronounced otome in Japanese. Akiko Yosano used it this way in her famous 1901 collection of poems, 乱れ髪 (midaregami, "Tangled Hair"). Matt Thorn (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I agree with you -- this is getting out of hand. Too long, too imprecise, not informative enough. At the moment, there's no reason to get into the contentious literature on shōjo ron. If someone else wants to, fine, but I'm not here to argue with people about what "etymology" means. Been there, done that. So I'm going to shift my attention to a couple of our other projects. If Da Vynci wants to include a translation that is grammatically incorrect, I think that is unwise, but I can't stop him. Nothing personal, nothing offensive. I'm just not interested in debating how many angels, etc. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on, when did I say wants to include a translation that is grammatically incorrect? What i meant is, you are welcomed to correct grammatical mistakes but don't just throw the whole thing away because of minor grammar mistake(s).  As for etymology, I think we should try to find more info & reference to make it a proper etymology section, instead of try to downgrade it to Early usage.--Da Vynci (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the recent progress of the article. This article was a simple dab page to link several articles with the similar pronunciation due to the Romanization. The terms and usages of shōjo are almost identical to that of China and Korea except shōjo manga because it originally comes from Chinese characters. If the words are differently used in Japan, the article has a special meaning, but 処女 is also used as the same usages in the neighboring countries. I believe the etymology should go to shōjo manga, and the monster, Shōjō is worthy to have its own article. And the article would go back to the dab page.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question, Caspian Blue. Let me try to explain, since I'm one of several people working on the article. It is a "work in progress," meaning that we are adding material to it over time. One result is duplication between this article and the Shōjō article. We will eventually transfer the new Shōjō material from this page to the Shōjō page and cross-reference it here. Likewise, differences among Japanese, Korean, and Chinese usages, written forms, and pronunciations of Shōjo are developing here in this article. Finally, we'll reconstruct the dab page. But none of this can be done overnight, meaning immediately -- it all takes time, for example, finding and examining references. But please don't worry -- we will fix this article and the Shōjō article as well. I hope that helps. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Caspian, I will reply with a question. I don't understand why you'd like the etymology of shoujo to go into the shoujo manga article - I feel it's like wanting to put the etymology of "girl" into the Girl Power article.  We have been hoping to get enough information on the shōjō and its Chinese origins to do a split that will prove the notability of the shōjō so that it's not accidentally deleted. -Malkinann (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your rationale. I think you confuse words used in Japan with ones used in English. The shōjo manga was previously at "shojo" which just literally means "a girl" as you know well. If you want to develop shōjō (I already copied and pasted the etymology there), you have to go to the article and edit! I don't think the new stub would likely be deleted since it is referenced. If you insist that the current article is a dab page, you're totally wrong. The current page forces readers to read the whole content even if someone just want to jump to a needed article. The real dab page is missing right now. My keyboard doesn't type the macron, so every time I search entries in Japanese or Vietnamese or any other languages other than English, I want to find romanizied word simply and Iquickly. I believe that is also as same as other readers. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My keyboard doesn't type macrons either. The shoujo manga article was moved from "shoujo" to shoujo manga because calling shoujo manga just "shoujo" is an English language slang. Then Shōjo (disambiguation) was moved to here. Then most of the "shoujo" links pertaining to manga specifically were ported to the shoujo manga page. I was hoping to first develop the shōjō material here so that when it really truly proved it could stand on its own merits it could be moved - I find that sometimes even referenced, brand-new, stubs can have people prodding them and suchlike. I agree that this article is no longer a disambiguation page. Is it that you're frustrated that you can't easily find articles with shoujo in the title? -Malkinann (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, such development on the monster should be happening at the new stub.(I hate to copy the macron every time referring to it) If you believe that the stub is likely deleted, you have to deal with a PRODing admin, or add materials quickly. However, you already found the ja.interwiki, so I don't believe that you think the article be deleted. Well, the last question seems redundant since I already stated about it. This page is not a place to compare words.(that is a job for linguists).--Caspian blue (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should be deleted, I fear it may. It's usually safer to expand a section in another article until it's clear the section can be its own article per WP:SPLIT. I think that this article is an okay place to compare the words shoujo, shojo and shoujou (of course, with citations), as a miss-spelling can change the meaning quite significantly. -Malkinann (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I made you misunderstand my last sentence due to my limited English. The article originally was made to collect entries with similar pronunciations, and spellings for readers able to easily find a desired entry. BUT, currently, the article looks like WP:SYNTHESIS a bit like how each term has its etymology and historical materials in comparison. Or it looks like a guide for beginners who learn Japanese not to be confused. Well, if the article is not a dab page, at least shojo could be the one?--Caspian blue (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the prose currently in the article a synthesis (a form of original research) ? That's a serious statement to make, and I am confused as to why you think it's synthesis as opposed to just plain research.  Each word having sourced information on its roots and what it means is a good thing! :( -Malkinann (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... another miscommunication. I did not mean the current article is compiled of original research, but a synthesis can be made with reliable sources. I really don't get what the goal of the current article is. It seems like an essay to compare every term similarly pronounced from anthropological point of view. The original article started from a dab page and I believe it should be at that position. So I think each entry should be as succinct as possible to guide readers to jump to needed articles, and the article is clearly not dictionary page.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your point, Caspian Blue. The people who are working on this article know that a dab page is needed. We also know that more information is needed -- and, by "information" I mean verifiable, sourced information, not opinions. The people who are working on the article are trying to find that kind of sourced information. Do you have such information? If you do, please tell us on the talk page -- but, please remember that the information must have reliable sources. If you do not have reliable, sourced, referenced information then please do not include it in the article. If the information you include is not properly referenced, it can be challenged and deleted. Those are the rules of Wikipedia.

I will repeat the question asked by the previous editor. Do you believe that the current entry is a synthesis of data and information? If that is what you think, then I tell you that I do not agree.

Frankly -- and you have been told this before -- I think you are arguing for the purpose of arguing. I recommend that instead of arguing, you should work with other editors to create a well-referenced and well-sourced article. Let me give an example of how you might do that. Tell us, with proper references, what are the Korean sources of the two words "shojou" and "shoujou"? I do not mean your opinions, but please provide for us all sourced and referenced material on the origins in Korean of the two words "shojou" and "shoujou".

That -- in my opinion -- is how you can help the other editors create a well-referenced article.

If you do not -- or if you cannot -- provide such information, then you are not helping the article.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Timothy Perper, do you believe the recent progress helps readers easily to find articles by pronunciations and reduce confusions? Besides, I think you are arguing for the purpose of arguing.--> Why are you so hostile at my opinion? Yes, I'm complaining about the article is getting far from the original simple and clean dab page. What is the Korean term equivalent to shojo"? If you ask about the pronunciation, it is called "sonyeo"(girl) and cheonyeo" (virgin). I don't think I have to add references to this article but to the article at Wiktionary where needs such references from Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese based on same Chinese characters. It may also apply to shonen, and others. Sorry if my opinion sounds an obstacle to your whatever goal, but I do not want the article to look messy like this. Yes, the article is getting referenced, but what is the real goal of the article? If you want me to expand this article with references, I would say "no" but if you ask me to expand the monster, I would say "yes". Because the term and the character are unique.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A new dab page has been created by Nihonjoe (see comments below). The present article -- about shōjo -- is now a new article, and is no longer a dab page. It does not have to be a dab page because there is a new dab page. Please add the Korean to the Wiktionary; that sounds like a good idea. If you do not want to add it to the present article, that is up to you, but someone else might do so later.


 * Eventually, but not right now, we may want to expand another article, the one on shōjō, but that has not yet happened. I do not understand what you meant when you said "if you ask me to expand the monster". What do you mean by expanding the monster? Do you mean expanding the section of the article on the shōjō? I think that is a good idea if you have sourced and referenced material but if you do not have that kind of material, then, no, please do not add unsourced material to the article. It can be challenged as original research and deleted. So if you have Korean sources to add to the history of shōjō, please post them here on the talk page and we can all look at them and reach consensus about what to include.


 * The key to working on Wikipedia is cooperation and consensus. Those goals cannot be met if we do not work together. If you are here only to complain about the article, then you are not working with us but against us. However, I hope that you will work with us to improve the article.


 * Once again, a new dab page has been created by Nihonjoe. See comment below.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Timothy Perper, the dab page is recreated and that is very good thing to clean up other entries which is the reason of the article getting messy. So at least the article can focus one theme after the cleanup. However, I really don't understand why you keep preaching me as if I have not edited article with sources. I'm not your student or soldier under your command, so please be civil. I'm always editing articles with sources if you research on me. (it seems like you already did per your above comment)


 * This is a talk page, so everyone can express concerns and opinions on the pertinent subject. You don't WP:OWN the article or talk page and why don't you try to assume good faith? I'm very aware of the cooperative spirit. If I forgot about consensus, I would try to make this article back to the original dab page. Please don't speak like that to other editors in such hostile manner. That would only serve to kick potential editors out of the interest to develop the article.


 * I already added useful book sources to the monster article. Besides, I also never said that the spirit in a form of monster is found in Korean/Chinese culture with the same Chinese character. So why don't you check my comment carefully before saying accusations. Well, I think I don't need to work with you (honestly, don't want to) from now since the clean dab page is created and the sea monster article about which I care is not under the umbrella of this article. Moreover, when editing articles, editors must consider readers first. It is a very good experience to acknowledge many things.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to cool off a bit. Caspian blue raised some valid points, and I think they have been (mostly) addressed, so the argument seems to be moot. Now that we have a a dab (thanks to Nihonjoe) and a separate Shōjō (猩々) article (thanks to Caspian blue), this article (that Tim and Malkinann have put a lot of work into) can focus exclusively on Shōjo (少女). Can we agree that this article is about the Japanese usage of 少女? And can we also agree that while the basic meaning is the same in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, each language carries its own subtle (or maybe not so subtle) nuances? And can we further agree that it might be appropriate to add some mention of those differences of nuance, while remaining focused on the Japanese usage? If we can agree on these things, then maybe I can contradict what I wrote earlier and suggest that we start introducing some of the literature on the "concept" of "the shōjo," and how its usage has changed in Japan over the centuries. Although I personally think most of the literature on the "concept" is crap, it is out there, and it is based on serious research, published in books and academic journals, etc. At the very least, we might add references to 1) the sudden increase in the use of the word in the Meiji period, 2) the relationship between that increase and changes in the education system, 3) the gradual decline of its usage in the postwar period, and 4) the relationship between that decline and (among other things) further changes in the education system. The best known and most prolific scholar on the subject is Kazuko Honda (本田和子). I have a couple of her works and have ordered some more. This is just an idea. I'm not necessarily advocating it. Maybe the article does not need to be expanded much more. Opinions? Suggestions? Matt Thorn (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fine idea. Let's move the shoujou material to the shoujou article and use this one for shoujo only. I like the idea of introducing some historical and social material to this article about shoujo, from Matt's resources and other places if we have the references. I was going to make these suggestions but Matt got to it first -- thanks. And Caspian Blue, I have nothing against you at all. Nothing. So, I'm going to post a comment on the shoujou page that we'll be moving material from here and ask for reactions. In the meantime, please let me know (here) what content should be moved -- I'd think everything under the shoujou heading, because redundant material can be edited out at the receiving end, that is, once it's been transferred to shoujou. What are your reactions, everyone?


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, Matt Thorn. I like your suggestion and you apparently have good sources on the term referring to young girl in Japanese culture.(though I would edit the monster article more) Interestingly, shōjō is also used to refer to some species of Japanese maple trees due to the red color of the monster's hair according to some source. Well, the issue should be dealt within the new stub. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambig page
The disambiguation page has been recreated here: Shōjo (disambiguation). I removed the section on the other words like this one and put that information (severely edited) into the dab page. I also reorganized the "See also" section in this page. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nihonjoe! Timothy Perper (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do NOT try to translate the Japanese Wikipedia article!
Someone put a "Translation from Japanese Wikipedia article in progress" notice at the top of the article. As I stated above, the Japanese Wikipedia article is completely useless, because it is entirely unreferenced. I know it seems like the logical thing to do, since you would assume that the Japanese article is more authoritative, but please take my word: the article is a complete mess. It is all "original research" (meaning some arrogant amateur talking out of his a*s), or, worse yet, uncited, plagiarized work. At ths point, the English language article is much more reliable as a source for people doing serious research. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The last thing we need in this article is more unreferenced stuff. Don't use the Japanese Wiki if it has no references. The purpose isn't to fill space with opinions and original research, but to add verifiable information that is genuinely useful to a reader. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
We have:
 * Shojo (disambiguation)
 * Shōjo (disambiguation)

Logically speaking as Shojo is the what most people would commonly type when searching for all three: Shōjo, Shojo処女 and Shōjō猩猩, should we use Shojo (disambiguation) on the top of the page instead of *Shōjo (disambiguation)? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I redirected the second to Shojo (disambiguation), so we only have one. I just hadn't gotten to that when you posted. So, all fixed now. (^_^) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nihonjoe! Matt Thorn (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving material to Shōjō page
Moved to shōjō page

Magazines/Other works lists?
I just noticed these lists. Are they necessary? The magazine list includes one English-language mag, one Japanese mag, and one Japanese mag that went under more than a decade ago. (BTW, I just realized that Shōjo Comic is the sole remaining Japanese magazine with the word "shōjo" in the title. Weird.) But if we are going to include the long-since defunct Shōjo Friend, the you have to ask why include that one but not the dozens of other defunct magazines that have come and gone since 1902. I could probably list twenty off the top of my head. The question is, though, what would be the point? I can understand including Shōjo Beat and Shōjo Comic as contemporary examples of the use of the word, two does not make a list. As for other works, again, the number of manga, novels, anime, etc. that include the word shōjo in their titles is potentially endless. We could never hope to make a comprehensive list, and, again, what would be the point? I think these sorts of list get started because someone thinks, "Hey, I know an example!" and then it snowballs from there, until someone steps in and asks (as I am now) "What's the point?" If I don't get a response in, say, 48 hours, I'm going to "be bold" and remove these sections. Matt Thorn (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be fine to list other magazines, even those without articles. I think those may be the only ones with articles, so that may be why they are the only ones currently listed. I think the list is useful as it is not going to be very long and it provides an idea of how many magazines there have been. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Is the picture necessary? It also happens to be a really bad picture. kaixokkiten 21:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for an article here
Thee article at this title was recently redirected to Shōjo manga after an AfD (Articles for deletion/Shōjo). That specific version of the article went against WP:NOT, as it was focused on the etymology of the word itself, but I think the title can hold an article on shōjo bunka/girls' culture, which an important cultural topic (the ideal of the pre-marital, adolescent girl) covered extensively by many authors, who trace it from Meiji literature and the influence of Romanticism to shōjo manga and beyond. There are sources across a wide array of fields (sociology, literary criticism, feminist perspectives; often focusing on shōjo manga as its distillation in the 1970s). Here is just a few that I found:


 * "Yoshimoto Banana Writes Home: Shojo Culture and the Nostalgic Subject" (1993) by John Whittier Treat, Journal of Japanese Studies, 19(2)
 * Passionate Friendship: The Aesthetics of Girl's Culture in Japan (2012) by Deborah M. Shamoon, University of Hawai‘i Press
 * Girl Reading Girl in Japan (2012), edited by Tomoko Aoyama and Barbara Hartley, Routledge
 * "Magic, Shōjo, and Metamorphosis: Magical Girl Anime and the Challenges of Changing Gender Identities in Japanese Society" (2014) by Kumiko Saito, The Journal of Asian Studies, 73(1)
 * International Perspectives on Shojo and Shojo Manga: The Influence of Girl Culture (2018), edited by Masami Toku, Routledge
 * Age of Shojo: The Emergence, Evolution, and Power of Japanese Girls (2019) by Hiromi Tsuchiya Dollase, SUNY Press

Just leaving this note for future editors. — Goszei (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)