Talk:Harajuku Girls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What happened?[edit]

-I am completely confused - usually when someone wants to make a new article with a name that already exsists, they create a new article, why was this one re-written instead of a separate page being give to "Gwen Stefani's Harajuku Girls"? The Japanese do not call themselves "Harajuku Girls" but if you search the web you will find 1000's of hits and pictures of girls in Harajuku described as "Harajuku Girls" - it is a valid term in Western culture.Their biggest fan is Cassidy Gazaway. The original Harajuku article has also really gone down the drain, originally it was about Harajuku the area and the overall culture, while this article was specifically about the western phenomen of "Harajuku Girls" - people are going to search for this term to find more information about the girl's Gwen admires, not her side kicks. I agree with making them into separate pages, this article was hi-jacked. If it was found to be inappropriate, it should have been nominated for DELETION not deleted and changed to a different subject! Denaar 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus was reached. (I was advocating your suggestion). Harajuku Girls is the appropriate namespace for the band dance entourage. The Harajuku article is not sufficient enough to have a seperate article on subculture. Also see Gothic Lolita --ZayZayEM 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Consensus was reached, where is the link to the debate? Those are supposed to be archived and linked to the talk page (because if you read the information above, there is no consensus). Denaar 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's above. No dissent was voiced aside from mine. That's consensus.--ZayZayEM 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Second Life is using "Harajuku Girl" as a descriptive term for one of their default avatar choices. They don't seem to be referring to the dancers themselves, but the western term for a particular japanese-influenced style. Neither existing wikipedia page - the one called Harajuku or this one - was particularly helpful to me as I tried to figure out exactly what subculture they were referring to. However, I hesitate to jump into this fight with both feet since there seems to be disagreement about how this should be handled. Subversified 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if this links to Gwen's Harajuku Girls or not - but to say there is no term "Harajuku Girl" in Japan is plain wrong. But what would I know? I only live here and hang out in Harajuku/Yoyogi/ShibuyaSennen goroshi 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I've removed the "Controversy" thing for now because, despite two cited articles, I'm not really seeing anything controversial here. They're backup dancers, that's it. I'm sort of wondering how far I'd have to have delved into Gwen Stefani, and rock/pop in general, to run into any suggestion that having a bunch of pretty Japanese girls in school uniforms was controversial in any way. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Cho got a lot of flack for her comments and they were widely reported. Denaar 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the controversy was that she had a group of back-up dancers who were rumored to not be allowed to speak English (although it's a rumor and may be false, it was a controversial rumor nonetheless). Their performances often consisted of robotic-like dancing, and they were shown as a group of giggling schoolgirls in many performances. For more sources on the issue, here are some articles that discuss the issue: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. 17Drew 07:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"robotic-like dancing, and they were shown as a group of giggling schoolgirls" Wow that's an issue all right, and controversial and racist for sure, because everyone knows real Japanese schoolgirls never, ever, giggle.24.203.45.242 12:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment would more persuasive, were it not for the fact that they are not "schoolgirls". The dancers are all in their 20s, yet made to act like bubbleheaded teens in public. In fact, there is quite a fetish for Asian women associated with the "airheaded submissive giggling [psuedo]schoolgirl" stereotype, and as some Asian women will quickly point out, that annoying little stereotype is something they have to contend with any time they so much as walk into a bar let alone try to date a non-Asian male. I make no particular comment here on the actual dance group or Gwen's use of them in her career; just pointing out that there IS a reason for the "giggling schoolgirl" thing being listed as something some people find offensive... since, you know, some people in the media (not just the link I listed, there's also Cho's comments, at least one published on Salon, and a few others that I'm aware of but have not read completely yet) HAVE stated that they consider it to be offensive. More specifically, the complaint seems to be that the portrayal is demeaning and reinforces allegedly damaging stereotypes about Asian women as, well... submissive bimbos. Some of the imagery captured of these girls when interacting with Stefani would seem to fuel this; they are sometimes portrayed in a worshipful stance, for instance, and remain waiting mutely in the background while she does interviews in which she jokingly refers to them as possibly being figments of her imagination. It is... strange to say the least, but one can probably see why it upsets some people, particularly after listening to said people's particular complaints (which, to reiterate, largely have to do with fetishy stereotypes about Asian women, including the stereotype of them being submissive). 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole submissive stereotype is not some kind of Western fetish. All these perceptions and stereotypes were prevalent in Japanese culture (and other Asian cultures) before they made their way into the west. If Cho really has a problem with American stereotypes of Asian women, she should address the problem at the source - Asia. Repeter (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section has been renamed. It contains criticism of the group, and particularly Stefani's PR use of them. It does not detail anything contraversial. If renaming, Please provide reliable sources making this a controversial topic. I think it would be best left as "criticism" as that is what the section entails.--ZayZayEM 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the rename, but would like to see more detail included in this section, such as where Maragaret Cho is quoted; a quick internet search pulled up a post on her blog viewable here which reiterated her "minstrel show" comment (thus, we should possibly reword it to not she has "repeatedly" called it a "minstrel show") and also compared the depictions to Amos 'N Andy. Additionally, the Salon article went into far more detail and was far more acid in describing how/why the PR use/depictions of the girls is allegedly offensive than is actually connoted by the article at current. The OC Weekly article I linked further up on this Talk page also has some interesting criticism of it in the larger context of stereotypes of Asians/Asian-American experience that I think could potentially be a good addition (not familiar enough with the publication to know if it 100% meets notability requirements, which is the only reason I say "potentially"). 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist"?[edit]

Removed the term "racism" from the lead, a serious but unsourced accusation. Also there are "some" commentators not "many," changed that too. 24.203.45.242 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is there a no-sources tag for that particular accusation when all of the criticism in the actual Criticism section is well-sourced? Shouldn't it just read "(see "Criticism", below)" after the comment...? 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created archive[edit]

I created an archive. Talk:Harajuku Girls/Archive 1

I tried to leave any active discussions.

Most of it details the discussion about article content/title and the removal of Harajuku and Gothic Lolita related content from the page to focus on the dance entourage.

I have also removed wikiproject tags. This is not a Japan-related or Fashion-related article anymore.--ZayZayEM 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not used in japan?[edit]

how about nearly 2000 matches for the term "原宿の女の子" when searching google.jp ? and believe it or not, the majority did not refer to gwen stefani. I have no issue with this page pointing towards the dance group, but to say the term isnt used in Japan is totally wrong.

read items such as this http://www.web-across.com/observe/d6eo3n000001x8f8.html to find someone Japanese using the term in a manner that has nothing to do with a dance group.Sennen goroshi 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, how about those hits? Considering the fame of 原宿 in Japan and the normality of the phrase 女の子, 17,800 hits (as of a few seconds ago; perhaps one of our Googles was misbehaving) seems low. Let's go one station south: "渋谷の女の子" got 101,000 hits just a few seconds later. -- Hoary 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any dispute then then the phrase "No term corresponding to "Harajuku girl" is currently used in Japan for girls who frequent Harajuku (known as a center for teen and avant garde fashions; see Harajuku)." should be removed. The fact that searching for that phrase in Japanese on google.jp yields about 2000 results, shows absolutely that the phrase is used in Japan. If someone thinks that other phrases are used more often than "Harajuku Girls" (which I would agree with) then state it - to say "No term" is false. So either that whole phrase should be removed, or it should be changed to read that there are other more specific terms that are more popular.Sennen goroshi 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. 原宿の女の子 can simply mean "girls in Harajuku." Indeed, it's used to mean exactly that in the first hit that comes up. The second is for a Flikr page in English. Also among the first ten results, a discussion of the Harajuku Girls (Gwen Stefani's), using the gloss ハラジュクガール. I don't see much evidence if any to suggest that the term is used in Japan the way it is in English. Exploding Boy 06:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with EB here. The example you use seems to be using it to convey "This is a young women from Harajuku", not suggesting anything to do with a particular outrageous fashion style.--ZayZayEM 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*unindent* I've modified it so it is not the overtly aggressive "no term". This isn't really substantiated. However a few of the 'ハラジュクガール' hits I looked at seemed to be directly about Gwen Stefani's album. Many were blogs, that like this one (English trans) which says "でも原宿の女の子達はグウェンの事を知りません"

Which to me is saying "I really don't know what this "Harajuku girl" thing of Gwen's is on about". But my Japanese is pretty poor. (But, Harajuku girl, Gwen's thing, I don't know of)--ZayZayEM 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani is from California, which despite bombardment by Japan by balloon (!) in World War II has never been part of Japan. Her native language is English, not Japanese.

In the light of this, I find it utterly incomprehensible that the following statement has found its way into the lead section of this article about a group of Japanese girls hired by an English-speaking woman to accompany her English-speaking stage act.

In Japan, no equivalent term to "Harajuku girl" is in widespread use to refer to young women who frequent Harajuku (known as a center for teen and avant garde fashions; see Harajuku). The "Harajuku Girls" represent "Stefani's interpretation of Tokyo street fashion in the Harajuku district".

It just doesn't make any sense. The Japanese language is not obliged to have an equivalent phrase for any and every term used by English-speaking people about Japan or Japanese culture. --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, of course it isn't so obliged. But pop fans aren't always the brightest lightbulbs, and it seems that many non-Japanese-speaking Stefani fans infer that "Harajuku girls" (lowercase "g") is a particular concept, or even a lexical item. What do you suggest? -- Hoary 08:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English language generic "harajuku girls" is an obvious candidate term to use about Japanese girls who express their identity in their local youth subculture by dressing in Harajuku styles, particularly gothic lolita, a style that has proven popular enough in the West that I could walk into a London store and buy such clothing (though sadly I no longer have the doll-like figure to carry it off). Gwen Stefani's use of the term would undoubtedly influence the putative widespread adoption of a such a term as a generic. This isn't unusual in fashion. Nearly all common fashion generics originated as a look specific to one fashion house (we even speak of the New Look to describe post-war revolution in fashions that originated with Christian Dior's debut collection). Needless to say, Gwen Stefani is an influential fashion designer in her own right, and shrewdly exploits the Japanese connection promoted by her touring image with the Harajuku Lovers fashion line. --Tony Sidaway 09:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, but I hadn't noticed that Stefani was influential or particularly popular in Japan. Thus I don't suppose that "Harajuku girl", or some calque on it, is going to become a regular Japanese term any time soon. It might do, and it's an interesting notion to natter about here, but as for the article itself all this is mere crystal balloc-- er, I mean crystal ballistics. As long as neither "Harajuku girl" nor anything like it is widely used in Japan, aren't en:WP's innocent young readers slightly helped by being informed of this very minor linguistic fact? -- Hoary 09:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might be relevant enough to be put into the article somewhere. I'd be very sensitive to the wording, however, because really I see no evidence that Stefani or the Harajuku Girls have ever used the term as a generic, and obviously it wouldn't be in their interest (in the commercial sense) to do so. --Tony Sidaway 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the term Harajuku Girl is not used by the girls in Harajuku to describe themselves, but by people who are describing the girls in Harajuku whilst not being an actual Harajuku Girl themselves.Sennen goroshi 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from lead for now[edit]

I'm removing this from the lead for now because of concerns about balance.

In Japan, no equivalent term to "Harajuku girl" is in widespread use to refer to young women who frequent Harajuku (known as a center for teen and avant garde fashions; see Harajuku). The "Harajuku Girls" represent "Stefani's interpretation of Tokyo street fashion in the Harajuku district".[1]
Stefani has drawn criticism for her use of the Harajuku Girls, who some commentators see as promoting negative stereotypes of Asian females.

The link is out of date, and should be updated to this:

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/04/09/geisha/

By way of support for the "criticism" statement, we've only got two statements, and no indication that those statements were particularly influential. One was by Margaret Cho in Blender Magazine (our article on that magazine sadly also shows signs of giving too much weight to negative commentary, but that is unrelated to this issue). The other was by Mihi Ahn in Salon.

Whilst the criticism is well-informed and significant, I question whether it is of such magnitude as to merit attention in the lead.

I've already criticised the long paragraph I'm removing on the grounds that it is a statement of something completely unsurprising: that not all English-language references to Japanese culture are direct one-to-one translations of Japenese terms. There are many English language terms that borrow Japanese words but do not have direct Japanese equivalents, and vice versa. --Tony Sidaway 08:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unsurprising to you and me, because we're at least moderately well educated and thoughtful. But the page will be read by teens and perhaps preteens too. -- Hoary 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether "the criticism is well-informed and significant". Sample: She's taken Tokyo hipsters, sucked them dry of all their street cred, and turned them into China dolls . . . Stefani has taken the idea of Japanese street fashion and turned these women into modern-day geisha. First, who are these hipsters? I don't suppose she means the backup dancers themselves; she's more likely to mean some "type" of Japanese female. But if she's talking about girls in Harajuku, "shoppers" comes to mind faster than "hipsters". OR tells me that the majority of girls go to Harajuku to look pretty, or to find out about how to look pretty; "hipness" is largely limited to choosing one brand rather than another. "Street cred": What's this: qualification to appear in this or that fashion magazine? And which is the awful result of Stefani's sucking: "China dolls" or "geisha"? This is less a criticism than a mere rant. -- Hoary 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Cho is a very significan critic on this matter, I think, but I've just noticed that the commentary here was made on her blog, and I think it would be more appropriate if we could find out whether this particular blog statement has been referenced widely, or whether Margaret Cho has reproduced her commentary on this subject in more appropriate media.
I was also surprised to see that, although we do in fact have an article about Mihi Ahn, it comprises solely a reference to that particular article in Salon. That is to say, our biographical article on that journalist says that her sole claim to fame is that she criticised Gwen Stefani in an online magazine (albeit a fairly influential one in its own right).
These two new observations concerning the provenance of the criticism strengthen my feeling that the criticism is being given undue weight. --Tony Sidaway 09:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it to be perfect now, if there is some dispute as to whether the term "Harajuku girls" is used and/or how widespread the usage is, surely it would be best not to mention it, until someone can categorically prove if it is used or not. If this was an article about the girls who hang out in Harajuku, I would suggest that it might be better to have something along the lines of "Harajuku girls are commonly referred to in terms that are more specific about their style of dress, such as........." but as this is about the dancers not the actual girls from Harajuku, I'm not sure how necessary it would be to state that (however, I don't see it doing any harm) Personal notes: 1. Maybe because I'm a foreigner in Japan, my knowledge of Japanese culture is not 100%, however I have personally heard/used the term on numerous occasions. 2. The claims that she is stereotyping Japanese/Asian gils is kinda retarded - while the style might not be 100% representative of the young girls in Japan, it's not far off, they do spend a lot of time hanging out in their school uniforms with too much makeup on, Margaret Cho needs to get her ass over to Japan, walk around Harajuku/Shibuya/Shinjuku and realise that this stereotype is so damn close to the truth. (the last 2 statements were just me ranting, and have nothing to do with my intentions for this page)Sennen goroshi 09:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have one remaining concern, and that pertains to the sourcing of the Cho quote. Cho has definitely made these observations--they're on her blog--but at present the article says that she made the observations in an interview on Blender for the January/February 2006 edition. Sourcing from a blog and claiming the observations were made in a more prominent forum is less than ideal, although I think I've hacked the article about enough today so I'm reluctant to remove the thing completely. I would like to see this resolved, however. --Tony Sidaway 10:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now prodded Mihi Ahn. -- Hoary 10:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would like to remove the criticism section, I think it deserves to stay, maybe without the quotes, considering the short length of the entire article, it seems to overwhelm the rest of the text. Maybe just stating that they whined about stereotypes, and having a link to their attention seeking whining session, rather than quoting them would be best?Sennen goroshi 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed a large section about alleged "racism" and the like, basically reproducing the criticisms here, from a section of the article Love. Angel. Music. Baby. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we going through this again? See Talk:Harajuku Girls#Controversy for a list of articles that mention or include criticism of the group and of Stefani. The fact that you're not surprised that people criticized her doesn't mean that it's not a significant viewpoint that should be represented fairly. I've seen Cho's comments referred to in several reliable publications: Entertainment Weekly, MTV, The Honolulu Advertiser, and Entertainment Weekly again. 17Drew 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You list four. The first two say almost nothing, they just look like exercises in filling space. They're no more substantial than blogs, even though their publishers may have hugely bigger budgets. Indeed, the second one is a mere gossip column. After looking at the first two, I was too bored to want to plow on, but I forced myself to look at the Advertiser article. The coverage there is: Undaunted, standup comedian Margaret Cho publicly criticized the Harajuku Girls as "a minstrel show" that reinforced ethnic stereotypes of Asian women. Period. Gosh! ¶ Is this something that has gone beyond mentions in celebrity magazines, etc.? The US still has magazines worth reading; have any of these published anything on this that merits more than three seconds' thought? -- Hoary 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? The issue was that using a primary reference as a source of criticism. The information has been republished and mentioned or discussed in several reliable sources. The quality of American journalism is not relevant to an article about the Harajuku Girls. 17Drew 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the issue was of whether the criticism was notable. To be notable it would have to be recognized as incisive, or at least brought up a lot of talk. Maybe it has, but I haven't yet seen any discussion of it, merely mentions of it the most insipid, barrel-scraping articles. Has this been discussed, even for just a paragraph or so, in an article in the Asian-American or feminist press, or Atlantic, New Yorker, Nation, Harper's, American Prospect or similar? -- Hoary 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps a good solution would be to retain the M.Cho quote and reference while removing the other (rather un-notable) reference, as the only thing Mihi_Ahn is notable for, is complaining about the Harajuku girls...(hmmmmm If I complain about the Harajuku girls on my blog, do I become notable?)Sennen goroshi 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] Why would we remove the information from Ahn's article? No, writing an article about Stefani doesn't make her notable (and the Mihi Ahn article really should be deleted). But not every source needs to have been covered by other sources to be considered a reliable source. 17Drew 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed as there is not much difference between someone who is only notable for writing one criticism re. someone famous, and me whining about someone in my blog. She is not notable, her wikipedia entry is up for deletion - it should be a reliable source, she is as reliable as a blog, but whatever keep it/delete it, I'm not a Gwen Stefani fan, I don't really care that much...do whatever the current consensus is.Sennen goroshi 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement was added to explain that "Harajuku Girls" are not a unified sub-culture. Harajuku is just a shopping district where the streets were closed to traffic (and then opened again). Different cultures have been closly associated with the area - but there isn't a difinitive "Harajuku Girl" but rather "Girls who happen to be in Harajuku". It is especially interesting to me that the height of the "Harajuku street style" was during the 90s when the streets were closed to traffic, it was already in decline by the time Stefani published her album. (See the book Fruits published by Phaidon Press, it was a reference on this page at one time - it mentioned the decline of Harajuku street fashion in 2001). Mostly what is published in American Magazines now as "Harajuku street style" is the Gothic Lolita subculture or cosplayers, and not street fashion at all. The Harajuku article really isn't up to par, but there aren't many resources outside of fan pages for it. Denaar 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR tells me that Harajuku was considerably helped by Dōjunkai Aoyama Apartments. When this was gutted, pulled down, and replaced by yet another interchangeable shopping mall full of the same shops you get in airports selling hugely overadvertised stuff ("Chanel", etc) to silly rich people, Harajuku lost a lot. Though whatever the brand, for decades Harajuku has always been about shopping and consumption. But now perhaps the docile consumariat is supposed to think that shopping for frocks is "hip" or "edgy". Counterculture all the way to the ATM. -- Hoary 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gwenihana". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-06-13. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

Japanese fashion[edit]

The criticism cited in this article of these four groovy babes, or of Stefani's use of them, strikes me as underinformed or silly or both. Still, that's just my opinion. I'd love to point out that the geisha of today don't look anything like these four, but I don't do so, for any of several reasons. And these seemed reasons to delete this well intended addition. However, I added a link to Japanese street fashion, for those who'd care to look it up. In general I'm not in favor of linking from quotations (indeed, I think the MoS rules against it), but here it seems harmless. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "underinformed" so much as "really really sensitive", by which I mean - I have only noticed women within the Asian community in America complaining about it (Cho, Ahn, etc.), and their main line of complaint that's consistent seems to be "it utilizes the fetishy stereotype of Asian women as submissive, giggly bimbos"; this is something that apparently young Asian women in America nowadays do deal with (at least when going to bars and clubs or trying to date non-Asians, at any rate), men assuming they'll be somehow submissive or some such, just because they're Asian. However, one little article I ran across while looking up stuff related to this group did describe it in terms of a sort of fetish as well as a stereotypical assumption based on supposed traits of certain well-known Asian cultures (Japan, China, etc.), with the whole Harajuku Girls/Gwen Stefani thing being basically implied to be just a symptom of a larger societal issue that Asians have to contend with. Though it's not really well-discussed on cable news or anything like that, it IS kind of interesting, the more I read about it. I'm not an Asian-American, so it had never occurred to me that they have to deal with these kind of annoying assumptions about what they're like. In light of all that, though I myself had considered it just "weird" or "silly" as far as Gwen's little Harajuku obsession goes, it does actually make sense to me now that they might not like the Harajuku Girls or the way Stefani uses them in her PR and stuff. I do think most of the criticism of the group and Stefani is coming from Asian-Americans though, and knowing this can help put some of it in perspective a bit I think. (By the way, thanks for including the link to Japanese street fashion, I think that's a good idea, particularly since some people might be trying to find that when they stumble across the article) 70.118.80.144 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Harajuku Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harajuku_Girls&oldid=1201788213"