Talk:Lolicon/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

That image (or "I don't think you guys get it")

The current image (Image:Lolicon example.jpg) is a terrible example. As one who thinks plenty of inappropriate thoughts while reading loli manga, I can tell you that that thing is hideous and must go. No lolicon would find that thing attractive. 70.129.185.143 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No lolicon would find that thing attractive. Why do you think they decided on something that's not at all representative of the subject otherwise? --lucid 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter if a lolicon will find the image attractive, but whether the image fairly represents the subject of the article. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want a better picture, contact a Japanese artist and tell them Wikipedia's constraints and the GFDL requirement. This has been discussed a million billion times. 137.22.97.219 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. A better image that conforms to GFDL would be quite welcome. Further complaints about the existing picture won't really address the problem. / edg ☺ ★ 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't we just have a photo of a little girl? --SeizureDog 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, since that will open a whole new can of worms (privacy, bluring and God-knows what else). For those wishing to ask Kasuga for a drawing, he won't do it. He stated on his talk page before that he does not wish to draw sexual graphics for the site. (I will also say now that I also refuse to draw an image). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be sexual (or even suggestive) to be lolicon though.--SeizureDog 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that image looks fine... ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.24.243 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about time this article got a decent image. Much more suitable than the last one. --M.W. (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Just asking... why would you revert to a less... implying but more revealing image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.219.74 (talk • contribs) 31 December 2007

See #New image below. Image:Lolicon Sample.png is GFDL-licensed and therefore more compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy. It may also be more representative in style of this article's subject. While a more explicit image would not have been preferable, being more or less "revealing" or "implying" was not the deciding factor. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


It's been a while, but I decided to check up on a few of my older editting haunts. I'm glad to see a new image that actually fits the task requirements has finally been posted. Well, that just leaves the problem of two thirds of the article being devoted to legal threats rather than knowledgable text... which is blatently inappropriate for a topic related to art or culture. Sweetfreek (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment & Suggestion

I just moved this from the preceding heading, since it didn't belong there.

May a non-Wikpedian make a few comments? My background for doing so in part includes having published a number of scholarly articles about manga and sexuality (I included a reference below; for more background see my User Page) and in part for having published a number of scholarly books and articles about human sexuality.

I sympathize with the issues and problems you're all debating -- they're not easy. Furthermore, the Lolicon article and the discussion (above) reflects some very deep differences in beliefs about sexuality, pornography, and the law. These problems interact in messy kinds of ways. Let me try to explain what I mean.

I am NOT trying to reopen any arguments about THAT picture -- the one that was deleted and put back and deleted and put back seemingly endlessly -- but I'd like to try to refocus the entire issue. The article itself does not provide a good definition of lolicon, although it gives examples. This is a "It's THAT kind of thing" approach and assumes that readers all share a set of unspoken agreements about sexuality, children, and pornography. But because there isn’t a clear definition of any of the important words (like lolicon itself), it is also unclear (in my opinion) what the picture shows at all or what it is supposed to show. In fact, I found myself wondering what you all *do* mean by the word lolicon because if that isn’t clear, nothing else is clear.

It’s not enough to speak about “sexualized” images of children. What you mean by the process of sexualization is not obvious. For example, does “sexualization” (or “sexualized”) refer to physiological changes in the child’s body that occur during pubescence? Do these words refer to responses in a **viewer’s** mind that transform an image into something erotic for that viewer? Does it refer to what happens when someone uses Photoshop to change an “innocent” image into something other people might call pornography? If one says “It’s pretty obvious that we mean things happening in the viewer’s mind,” then the article needs to discuss precisely that: how DO people perceive and interpret images in a sexual fashion? And then the article needs a background -- which it doesn’t currently have -- about the psychology of visual pedophilia.

Nor, again in my opinion, have the authors and editors of the article set the cultural framework of lolicon. Yes, there are some references and speculations, but lolicon has a more complicated history than merely Nabokov’s novel. Was Shirley Temple as a little girl a “lolicon” image, of course not called that because the word hadn’t been invented yet, but nonetheless identifiably lolicon in feeling, mood, and in how it was received? Where are the boundaries between lolicon and cute/kawaii? What are the differences between Gothic Lolita and lolicon? An **encyclopedic** article on lolicon should, I think, deal with those issues – and others as well.

Someone now might say that since I am asking these questions, I have to be the one to rewrite the article. But no, I don’t think that’s the case. I think this article has had enough of people making random (and strikingly non-consensual!) changes. Instead, I think the authors and editors need to define the scope and content of the article in ways that *are* encyclopedic. As I said, I’m not a Wikipedian and I don’t know the first thing about editing on Wikipedia. I’m an outside reader with some knowledge of how complex this area really is, who therefore has some hopes for what the article might eventually address.

Perper, Timothy and Martha Cornog 2002 Eroticism for the masses: Japanese manga comics and their assimilation into the U.S. Sexuality & Culture, Volume 6, Number 1, pages 3-126 (Special Issue).

Timothy Perper 08:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you so much, Timothy Perper, for bringing some rational sense into this over-emotional debate. "A set of unspoken agreements" have no place in a true encyclopedic article. Unless it's precisely an article ABOUT them.
About “sexualized” images of children, I've researched some established lolicon material and can give you a few examples of the wide spectrum it covers:
- Plain child rape by an adult. (Hello public uproar!) Extreme but rare stuff.
- Youngsters (i.e. children and/or teens) having a consensual sexual experience together. A sexualized mind of the character. Sometimes with overly mature physical attributes.
- Porn involving adults that look like youngsters. For instance, the sex life of furry toons like Mickey Mouse or Sonic the Hedgehog. Essentially in the viewer's mind.
- Specific fetishes not exactly pornographic, like youngsters getting a bare spanking, coaxed into a bath, having diapers changed while markedly over toddler age, etc.
- Or just classic but erotically-perceived tickling. (The other extreme of the spectrum.) What I called higher up "the kinky stuff". Ecchi.
"Where are the boundaries between lolicon and cute/kawaii?" They're as blurry and subjective as the boundaries between thin and fat, or short and tall. Most of the time, you'll face stuff that's infuriatingly borderline, drawing very contrasted judgements depending on the viewer. Such is the fate of sexuality topics. A bare-headed adult women is obscene porn to a taliban. Full frontal nudity is completely decent to a naturist. And law-makers are fond of over-cautiousness, for political motivations.
"And then the article needs a background -- which it doesn’t currently have -- about the psychology of visual pedophilia." Is there even such an article about the psychology of visual conventional PORN? An essential issue, I'm all with you there. And another guaranteed emotionally-charged controversy, I'll bet. Setting the cultural framework of lolicon is precisely what I am struggling to initiate. I think you could legitimately propose changes/additions in this talk page, and perhaps they'll eventually draw a majority's approval. As someone who's already published printed quality articles, you'd be very qualified for formulating things, I believe, and that's all that really counts. Anybody can insert your lines in the article if they're adopted.
Issar El-Aksab 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your kind words. Right now, I'm working with some other folks on a revision of the Manga entry, and that's going to take a while. After that, though, maybe I'll try some edits on manga and sexuality.
You've given some good examples of lolicon/rorikon. My concern is to create, well, if not a *boundary*, then a border zone between genuine "rorikon hentai" with more or less explicit sexual involvement between a child and another person, and images/narratives that may offend, outrage, or worry a sensitive American but are *not* pornographic. An example of the latter is the common and accepted practice in Japan of nude adults and children bathing together, for example, the scene in My Neighbor Totoro. Such bathing is customary (or has been) in Japan, part of what I mean by the "cultural backdrop" of lolicon in manga and anime.
I'm also trying to get away from the "we know it when we see it" assessment. That view is widespread indeed, and even Supreme Court Justice Potter used the phrase. But it's no help if we're trying to think clearly. What YOU see and what I see can be very different.
For example, the much-debated image on this entry of the girl with her lollipop holding a bucket and shovel at the beach.
Person A: "Yup, no question -- clear cut lolicon. Look at that penile lollipop and her nearly naked body!"
Person B: "She looks so unhappy. Maybe some boys came by and kicked down her sandcastle. She's about to cry."
To Person A, the image IS lolicon; to Person B it is NOT. There us no common ground of understanding or communication between Person A and Person B. All they can do is disagree and very likely fight about it.
This is a MAJOR issue in the present discussion and in most discussions of visual depictions of sexuality. There is literally no way that Person B can tell Person A that A is upset about something Person A is making up in his own head. To use a fancy word, we ATTRIBUTE sexuality to images.
Even this statement can elicit angry responses. "Do you mean to tell me that a picture of a naked woman with six men ejaculating on her is NOT sexual? Whadda you, crazy?" This person is missing the point. In most of the discussion on this talk page and in the lolicon article itself, we are NOT discussing explicit depictions of bukkake or pedophilic oral penetration. We are discussing images that have many readings -- to use abother fancy word, these images are "polysemic."
I didn't invent these problems. But they are central to any analysis of sexual imagery that goes beyond "I know it when I see it." And, as I indicated, I don't think the Lolicon article deals with these sorts of issue.
Timothy Perper 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
"My concern is to create, well, if not a *boundary*, then a border zone between genuine "rorikon hentai" with more or less explicit sexual involvement between a child and another person, and images/narratives that may offend, outrage, or worry a sensitive American but are *not* pornographic."
It's a pleasure meeting someone both informed and analytic. It's definitely difficult at times to put one's sensitivity backstage and leave it there. I for one find the average american public's attitude waaay oversensitive (they're definitely near the high end of the spectrum), but my feelings have no place on Wikipedia. They're completely off-topic for a wikipedian. All I would have the deontological right to do, is objectively contribute to articles dealing with such social issues, by bringing facts like social and historical backround, or mention of current events. While avoiding adding my personal biases.
The "we know it when we see it" assessment is linked to the hip with another article that several debaters seem oblivious of: the Miller test. Which basically brings us back to your summary: sexuality, eroticism, obscenity, art, beauty, etc are in the viewer's eye, and highly dependant on subjective "contemporary community standards". These criteriae change with place and time. In an encyclopedia they have to be stated, not judged. Not because "you or I" think so, but because such are the guidelines. The existence of such tense discussions in itself is a very interesting and revealing phenomenon. Perhaps deserving a Wikipedia article? ;-)
"Do you mean to tell me that a picture of a naked woman with six men ejaculating on her is NOT sexual? Whadda you, crazy?"
Well, to a seasoned porno producer, it's just routine work. Might leave him perfectly neutral, thinking only about the scene composition. To the cleaning lady, it's also work awaiting her when the shooting (no pun intended) is over. I recently read a science article where human coitus was studied live by MRI. The photo felt quite peculiar: a couple in the missionary position in the backdrop, positioned on an MRI moving plate halfway inside the machine; and a doctor in the front examining some of the image plates. Sexual, sure. Technically. But neither titillating nor pornographic. In reality it was just a scientific study, both viewpoints being necessarily separated. The couple certainly must've had a hard time keeping their focus in that noisy machine.
I studied everything about human reproduction in Med School. Everybody in class was focused and taking notes. And that's in the Middle-East! There's simply a proper time for everything. Similarly, I've "unlearned" several social reflexes, like thinking about sex at any sight of nudity, or feeling disgust when witnessing vomiting (now I feel clinical, purely analytic). Much more than what we believe is actually the pure doing of the mind, applying a pre-existing set of taught reactions.
I get the feeling your presence and contribution might help bring this whole article back on the track of the Wiki spirit, Mr Perper. Time will tell.Issar El-Aksab 01:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


I think that lolicon is just FINE.69.248.110.188 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of half the lead paragraph

To User:CyberGhostface - The paragraph refers to contradictory positions which are commonly held about lolicon. Please note that these positions are presented with citations in the article itself. The lead paragraph need not be footnoted when the relevant footnotes are included in the article. The language for this paragraph was agreed upon on this talk page after considerable debate. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

list of Lolicon Anime?

I want to know from you people is Lolicon a genre? If so do ya see ANY GOOD REASON not to create a List of Lolicon Anime?--Hoshi no hate 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be crossing the line into promotion and should be avoided. I also really don't see a need for such a list either. --21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)
I don't see the need either, but some examples within the text would be helpful. -Jmh123 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How about a category? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Catagory?--Hoshi no hate 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A category may be an alternative, but I'm afraid that will serve as a "hit list" for the anti-pedo patrolers. I also question if there are any lolicon works that are truly notable, outside of Kodomo no Jikan. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this article is a joke anyway. Just look at the picture. There are lots of better of examples, but asking a Japanese artist for permission to use a picture isn't so simple. Since the people who insist on labelling all lolicons as pedophiles are killing this article, here's a better article on lolicon (it's short, but it doesn't have any of the biases of the Wikipedia article): [1] For the record, apart from moe type material, lolicon is a genre of hentai, but I don't think a list of lolicon anime will ever be created. --M.W. 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know what to list at lolicon. I personally don't. As for the image, my suggestion is to maybe give Flickr a whirl. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
On second though, maybe Flickr isn't (NSFW) the best choice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My eyes, gouging out they are. Kyaa the Catlord 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That was my reaction. The reason why I tried to look at Flickr is that there could have been some art, already there, we could just ask to use and not having to ask one of us here to draw it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Lolicon is not a genre of hentai! Its a genre! There are Lolicon as Ecchi, Hentai, and Even Eroguro so I dont know what you mean by its hentai! and besides a list is a good Idea! You have List of orther genres of anime so why not Lolicon? It could be a good sorce for future info and help those looking for lolicon anime to watch!--Anime Expo 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we get into an issue of what is lolicon, which is the source of edit wars we are experiencing now. That needs to be settled before we do anything else. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you consider lolicon a genre, anyway? Care to cite some instances where it is being treated as such? Also, this couldn't be limited to anime. Other Japanese media have this as well. --Animeronin (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take much for something to be considered a genre. The simple definition of genre in Wiktionary is, "A kind; a stylistic category or sort, especially of literature or other artworks." If you're thinking of larger genres like Sci-fi, action, horror, etc., then we have an undetailed genre we're dealing with of "anime" (of more often "animation"). It shouldn't be difficult to find an anime that is easily called a 'lolicon anime'. There are lists for Hentai, Ecchi, Yuri, and other articles with less notable in-article lists I ran across like Magical Girl and Catgirls. With the exception of Hentai, the rest of those aren't particularly strong genres seen everywhere. They're the type that exist because of the large amount of content focused in that style, which is where lolicon fits in. To further fulfill your request: The Genres of Anime and Manga Defined: Lolicon explains lolicon well as a genre, and this website's genres page has everything well sorted into the many genres that are often thrown into unclear/broad genres. A list for lolicon would be quite appropriate as it is for these other articles, for the same variety of reasons. --TerraGamerX (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, most lolicon anime and manga are either not notable or simply unknown by the English reading population at large. So including a list will potentially crossing the line into promotion. I also don't see how a list will add to this article, and the only reason I can see on including such a list would be to promote those particular titles. And given the questionable status in the United States, there are potential legal liabilities that we should probably best avoid. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also add that those two links would not be useful because the first one is a blog entry and the other is not a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Plus, even if they are not considered lolicon, I have see many people consider anything with little kids, with nothing sexual in nature, lolicon anime. The personal examples I seen are Lucky Star, Higruashi no Naku Kuro Ni (don't ask me why) and Shakugan no Shana (ditto). It will be just a major headache, so no list of lolicon anime please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

legal status in US?

this section seems very contradictory of itself, can anyone tell me if lolicon is illegal or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.79.222 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6216660.html?tag=cnetfd.mt it depends. --Startcover 02:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Besides that, wikipedians and wikipedia can't and don't give legal advice. If you're looking for legal advice, you should consult a lawyer. Bear in mind it's often difficult for even a lawyer to know if something is illegal or not since ultimately it depends how judges intepret the various laws involved (which likely includes the constitution) Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New image

A new image for lolicon was added by Nihonjoe today. The new image isn't as suggestive as the previous, but the quality of art is much higher. Also, the image is a free-use image. On the latter two points alone, I think I would be able to support this new image as the illustration for this article, even if it is not a perfect fit IMO. So what say the rest of you? --Farix (Talk) 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was drawn by Kasuga, so there was a discussion on his talk page about it. This was as most suggestive as he wishes to go. We do have a dedicated license and if there is a need for clarification, we just ask him directly. But regardless of what image we choose, people will not be happy, as we saw by the first edit after the new image was added. I still support the new image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support the new image as the other one was butt ugly. That's my main reason for supporting it. That, and GFDL/CC-SA. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the form, but it looks fine to me. I don't think the previous artist ever filed a persistent free use declaration with WP:OTRS; having a proper GFDL from the artist is an improvement. I see no downsides. Strong support. / edg ☺ ★ 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a quality image, and it's good that it clearly fits the free-use criteria. It also helps that it's less suggestive, and thus will hopefully upset less users. As such, I support the use of the new image for the illustration of this article. ~ Homologeo 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
God bless you Kasuga Shii (tock) 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This image looks unobjectionable and an improvement on the previous image. Thanks to the artist for contributing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly an improvement. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Less suggestive? I think it's way MORE suggestive, lol. I personally like the other one better, but this one is fine. Anchoress 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a lizard, that's all I care about. - 71.84.195.131 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one agree with the replacement, though this new image reflects the article more closely. --Animeronin (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two sections

At the beginning of the "In Japan" section, part reads "Kodomo no Jikan is an example of a series that, while not pornographic, draws on lolicon themes for its plot." Then later in the same section (under the controversy sub-heading), it reads "There are some female mangaka who draw lolicon, notably Kaworu Watashiya, author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the west, Kodomo no Jikan...."

These seem to conflict with each other; if it's not pornographic and merely "draws on themes" then it does not make sense to say that it is "lolicon" later on, especially given that the article also claims that the word "lolicon" is used in the West to describe pornographic content. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page on Kodomo no Jikan seems to have quite the lively debate over whether or not it should be considered inappropriate, so it's wrong to claim one or the other on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.102.86 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Kodomo no Jikan is definitely lolicon, though not pornographic (meaning no graphic (or non-graphic) sex or nudity. Even the bath scenes are pretty tame (pretty much what was shown in My Neighbor Totoro)). It's definitely a case of putting adult words into a child's mouth in the series, as the children in the series are far too knowledgeable and world-savvy for their ages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

still not sure about the legal status

I think the article is really vague in the legality in the US section, do you think it could just say if it is illegal on the bottom or not like with all the other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.79.222 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article can't say if sexually explicit lolicon artwork is legal or not because different courts have said vastly different and contradictory things about its legality. --Farix (Talk) 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

TOC float left

From Template:TOC float left:

Do not use this template to just force word wrap around the TOC, as this is inappropriate method of achieving this. Instead add a CSS class to your monobook.css file which will apply site wide.

This template should not be used when the result is to place the TOC in a visually poor location. A TOC that crosses a section division is probably a poor idea, if that can be avoided.

Unless the section in which the {{TOCleft}} is placed is long enough, the result may well be undesirable. Note particularly that if the TOC is floated left of a bulleted list, the bullets will be hidden.

It should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles. See Help:Section#Floating the TOC the TOC for further guidelines.

I think that there's no overwhelming reason to float the TOC by these guidelines. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than that it looks like crap to have that much blank space at the top of the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just the way Wikipedia articles look, and that's the way that the relevant guidelines suggest that we format them. This way reduces clutter, and emphasizes the lead section, something (I assume) important to illustrate the overall encyclopedic meaning of the topic to the average user without overwhelming them with information. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for another image replacement

While Kasuga's drawing certainly is an improvement from the previous one, I suggest replacing it with a better image. These images may or may not be copyrighted, but they are hosted in multiple websites already, and I think that a fair-use rationale is strong since it is using it like a quotation or excerpt. I think that the advantage of being a free-use image does not matter if both usages are legal anyways. I do not think that the current image is representative of lolicon. I do think that while this image is certainly improvement, that it certainly is of not enough quality, and I think my suggestions would also be less objectionable. Here are my suggestions: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Again, I think that the present image is not much of a problem, but I think that it is not representative of lolicon, and I think that at least one of these images are better.--24.62.236.10 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is copyright; per Wikipedia's free content rules, we absolutely cannot use an image here that isn't under a "free license", even if it's better, because a free alternative exists. So if you give us a list of images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under free licenses, then your proposal will be more likely to succeed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, I'll look for free images.--24.62.236.10 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You could try searching deviantArt; I believe they've allowed users to specify copyright licenses for a while now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The images above are mostly from various games. A couple fan-produced images, but nothing that can be used here (as indicated). It's unlikely you'll find many free images on Deviant Art. Almost all of them use CC-by-NC. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And Flickr was given a shot earleir, but came out with results that, let's say, won't work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The images you suggested do not describe lolis but teenage girls. Note that lolis are, generally speaking, girls that appear to be (or have the body of) between the age of 9 to the age of 14, while the girls in the pictures appear to be between 15 to 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.81.218 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

legality

Is it necessary to state the position in select countries? or Any reason why the citing the legality of lolicon of only some countries is necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.32.114 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For completeness and because the legal states of lolicon media does vary from country to country. It is also a case of "show, don't tell". --Farix (Talk) 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

I passed this article after comparing it to WP:GA?. Littleteddy (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Is a Lolicon and Girllover the exact same thing, just different words? (Think, "...describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person.") If so, should that article redirect here, since this one is far better, thorough, and referenced?

BTW: Welcome to PAW. (Stated purpose: "ensure veracity and freedom from bias" - at least, freedom from bias PAW doesn't like...as already seen in the deconstruction of this article today.) This is going to be fun. Lots of fun (to watch). I'm going to bring popcorn. Let the games begin... :-)

VigilancePrime (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image has nothing to do with lolicon, so it doesn't belong. I also never heard of the term "girllover" until you brought it up here. This article actually covers many things regarding the term lolicon, which has a rather complex meaning depending on what your taking about. So equating the two is original research.
As for PAW, I really don't have a problem with them except for SqueakBox, who has a long history of of POV-pushing on this article in that it doesn't condemn lolicon and over whether there should be an image to illustrate the subject. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No way, Squeak POV-pushing? (I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so, actually.) I understand the image is unrelated to Lolicon itself, but if Lolicon and Girllover are the same thing, would a subsection that covers this (instead of two seperate articles on the exact same characteristic with different names) want to include it? That's why I was asking. I had to delete the "In the West" section as it was a word-for-word copy from a reference website (I retained the reference elsewhere). It can be readded, but by someone with more knowledge/expertise/experience/willpower/energy than myself. Also, should one redirect to the other? Hoping to find others who have actual experience or investment in this article (as I only recently followed links to it). VigilancePrime (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you provided a reliable source that they are the same thing because otherwise girllover cannot be mentioned and nor can the pic be included. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Both pages give the same effective definition. Think about it. Also, I fixed the image for you since you tweaked out the coding (I also shrunk it cause you probably just object to seeing it too). Oh yeah, I think I also, above, was asking and not asserting other than to say that each page gives essentially the same definition. Maybe you could give an answer instead of focusing on deconstructing a non-existant statement by linking policies without rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) specifically, asked a question: "Is a Lolicon and Girllover the exact same thing, just different words?"
That isn't a reliable source it is your original research which is not allowed here. I don't want a logical argument I want reliable sources that independently verify your claim. And what is this image doing here otgher than trying to support your what at the moment appears to be original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Linking lolicon and girllover as one and the same is purely original research. This article covers lolicon as a publishing genre, which I'm pretty damn sure girllover isn't. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That, Farix, is why I ask. When I read the Lolicon article, it seems clear from the opening that it is not only literary but also a personal characteristic. If that is not the case, great! That's why I ask. Unlike Squeak, you seem to read my question and respond with a logical reply. Thank you for that. Not only that, I appreciate your civil tone. This is a discussion, after all. Now, if the Lolicon article is meant to be strictly about the literary aspect, I would think some of it would be removed or moved elsewhere as a lot of it seems to describe people rather than art, but that's not an area of expertise for me and thus I only mention it as an observation.
Squeak, you could learn from Farix. Farix, thank you for the understanding. Your help is appreciated. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I learn from everybody all the time. Lets just stay with reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur that "Girllover" does not belong in this article because linking them is original research. There are zero reliable sources using both words in the same document. Regarding the logo illustration, that also has nothing to do with Lolicon; the source of that image is a publication by the FBI, where they describe it as: "Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences" and "symbolizes a relationship between an adult male or female and minor girl." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, Jack. The image is linked to GL, and if the terms do not arrive at the same place, then it doesn't belong here but instead there. That's why I asked in the first place. It seemed logical. Still, I wonder how this would translate to other terminology-based differences (none come to mind at the moment) where different words are used in different areas of the world. Anyway, that all makes sense. Hence the purpose of asking. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

removal of references?

What is the deal with removal of references? For instance in the passage "...though this stance is also refuted by others.[1]" the reference was removed. This seems an unexceptionable reference to support the statement.

The reference directly supports the statement. It points to an instance of, indeed, someone refuting, and cogently too. How does this not contribute to the article. Is the position being advanced that the statement is not refuted by others? What is wanted here, a second-party reference? Why?

Also re the addition of "the term is a neologism, with no entry in major English language dictionaraies;[2]" - it's a word, so does it really matter if its a neologism or not. To say its a neologism is one thing (although I don't see how its particularly useful); to hammer it into the ground with the second clause is not helpful in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, I removed it because it's not a reliable source according to WP:RS and WP:V. It's a self-published essay on a website forum, run by a company that profits from selling Anime products, so it's not an independent source. If it were being used only to describe something non-controversial, like, say... "Anima drawings are colorful"... (just making up an example), then I might not have removed it (though even then the commercial nature of the source might be cause for removal). But in this case, the sentence it was supporting is somewhat controversial. Here is the full sentence:
Some critics claim that lolicon can contribute to actual sexual abuse of children, though this stance is also refuted by others.
Since the reference was supporting the second half of that sentence, that the sexual abuse of children issue is "refuted by others", that makes it a controversial statement that needs a solid reliable source. Ideally, we would find a peer-reviewed study addressing that question. If we can't find that, then at least we need a paper (or section of a book) written by a psychologist, or perhaps a legal expert. The person who writes the "Ask John" column in the forum on animenation.net is described as having a degree in literature and being an expert on anime and manga; in the forum post that was referenced he makes it clear that he is expressing his personal opinions, not supported by any research or references. It's just not a reliable source for this particular use.
Regarding the word being a "neologism",... I added that because it applies. Most people in the west have not heard of lolicon, even though it's an element of pop culture in Japan and among its fans. I don't see why that's a problem. Maybe the article should be added to Category:Neologisms, there's lots of articles in that category. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement is "...refuted by others". If the statement was "...refuted by scholars", then that'd be different. If the statement "...refuted by others" is inappropriate (which it might be, since "others" here can just mean "joe-schmoe laypeople with no more expertise, necessarily, than you or I") then that'd be different too. Other than that though, you seem to be saying that if I have a statement "Blogger X says XYZ" (assuming that's appropriate for a given article), I can point to a statement by Professor A saying "Blogger X says XYZ", but not to an example of Blogger X actually saying XYZ. If WP:RS actually says or implies that, which I doubt, then it's just obviously a mistake which contradicts common sense and can be safely ignored for this purpose. Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Ask Joe" guy is just saying what he believes as an individual, he's not speaking for the unnamed "others". His reference could be used no problem, if the statement were "Ask Joe, an expert on Anime, states that he believes ... etc" but that's a different statement than what's in the article, and I don't think that's the intended point for that part of the article.
In order to include the views of a group of people described as "others", there needs to be a study, or some form of research, or at least a journalism story from a reputable fact-checking organization. In this situation, all we really know is that the statement is "refuted by the Ask Joe guy". The statement as it exists in the article is broad and needs more support than that.
In the interest of friendly collaboartion, I'm not reverting your re-adding of the removed reference at this time. But I disagree with its use; "Ask Joe" does not meet the requirements of WP:RS for in this context. I'm not trying to undermine the statement, it just needs a better reference to support it and I believe with some work, something better can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about publications that assert there is no relationship between porn and sexual abuse in general? There are many of these:

The problem is that they don't mention lolicon in particular, but it follows from uncontroversial deduction that a refutation of porn contributing to sexual abuse means a refutation of lolicon contributing to sexual abuse. This may be argued as original research, so I'm not adding it. –Pomte 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is for the best that you don't add it. Deduction is perfectly acceptable when not challeneged but I think in this case such material would be challenged. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statements

I have removed these statements until such time as they can be sourced ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro, 2nd paragraph

Others disagree, citing research that suggests a correlation between increased availability of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a decrease in reports of sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13.

This is sourced in the "Controversy and legal issues" section. The lead doesn't need to repeat citations, though in this case it may be prudent. However, the lead shouldn't have this much detail on one specific study anyway. –Pomte 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal status in the United States, 3rd paragraph

However, since Whorley was on parole at the time, and charges against him under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) were coupled with charges for possession of child pornography featuring real children, civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, did not take interest in his case and the possibility of appealing his conviction.

City, State, and Federal Laws

In the U.S. is it possible that a City(or state) can ban lolicon even if Federal Laws Protect it?--LoliMedia (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

references entirely in Japanese

References in the Japanese language are not useful unless there is a translated version that can be verified. Especially when the reference is supporting a controversial statement that requires scientific research as a support.

In particular, this reference offers no information at all for a person who does not read japanese:

The content of the reference may be just fine, but it doesn't support the text if it can't verified.

I'm not removing it at this time, but I am expressing a concern, as the two statements it is supporting are controversial. A better reference, or a translation link for this one, is needed for those statements. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? It's fairly accurate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It's hard for me to see where the text in that translation supports the two sentences that have that footnote in the article:
  • Some critics claim that lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others claim that there is no evidence for this, or that there is evidence to the contrary.
  • This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no direct evidence to support the connection, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime
Is there a particular section of the translated text that shows this information? I was not able to locate that. Maybe it's there and I missed it, but I don't think it's clear.
If no references can be found that unambiguously support the text, then the text will need to be changed. There might be some WP:RS references in English for those ideas, but so far, it appears they have not been found. (Unless there's something in the google translation I missed.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Click the first link on that page, "As of May 31, 1918 report of the results of opinion released" (the year is obviously supposed to be 2006 instead). I can't read Japanese, and what I gather from Google and the previous blog translation is that people phoned in to this presumably national hotline to say their opinions. I'm thinking the "his" pronoun there should really be plural, because it seems there's no singular antecedent anywhere. The support for those passages is found at the bottom, under the "His three other opinions" section. The first bullet point supports the no direct evidence/no scientific basis part. The second bullet point seems to support the claim about harmless outlet/compensation, though it's hard to understand (the blog post sheds some light).
Now, "their" opinions obviously may not be valid, but if IAJapan publishes it, it's a reliable source for the claim being made by a non-trivial amount of people, not how strong the claim is. As for the language issue, anyone reading it who notices the citation will know to not take it for certain truth unless they can somehow verify it themselves, just like for other citations that require fees to access, other citations in difficult-to-understand English, etc. –Pomte 06:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into the details. I looked at it and it sort of makes sense, but it doesn't look solid as a reference. Interpreting it seems to me to come close to WP:OR unless we have a better translation. I don't have time to work on this now though, so I'll leave the reference in place for now and when I can I'll try to find something better. Maybe you could check further too. Have you tried a Google Books or Google Scholar search? The alternate spelling, "Rorikon", seems to show more hits. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to be kidding. The simple fact that some people do not understand it doesn't mean it cannot be verified. Or someone could claim that a perfectly fine reference for a General Relativity article is unverifiable just because it contains mathematical symbols which they don't understand. Also, this is not at all what WP:RSUE says.
This article is about a predominantly Japanese social phenomenon. It is only fair that Japanese-language sources should be considered (not to say that sources in Tamil or Bantu shouldn't be, but they're less likely to be more in-depth than English ones). Bikasuishin (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If a non-English source is used, a translation of the relevant passages in the source must be provided so readers can confirm the accuracy of the use. The translation can be quoted in the footnote to avoid cluttering up the main text. Per WP:RS that's a poor substitute though for sources in English, and is to be used only rarely, and carefully. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Jack, there is nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that requires a translation of non-English sources. English sources and professorially translated sources are preferred, but non-English sources are not excluded. You also can't remove sourced information from an article because the source isn't in English. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I didn't remove the text from the article. Even sourced material needs to be verifiable. I'm asking for a translation because the text supported by the citation is complicated and controversial, and because this article is in itself about a controversial topic and has had difficulty attaining NPOV. I'm not insisting on a formal on-line translated version of the complete text, I'm just asking for someone to translate the relevant sentences and post it here. If no-one can do that, then how can the source be of any use? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is no official translation available, an arbitrary translation should not be put in a footnote as that's what readers can't verify. Readers can use the translation service of their choice, rather than be led to trust a random Wikipedia editor, or even Google. –Pomte 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

←That's a good point about the translation issue. But it doesn't solve the concern that a reference for a controversial complicated statement can't be verified by an English source. (a wider issue than just this article, it affects many articles).

On this article, the Japanese reference is used to support text making some strong and controversial claims about the results of scientific studies, on points that are central to the topic of the article. I'm not pressing for an immediate solution, but I question whether or not the text is an accurate interpretation of the studies, or actually, what appears to be a third-party publication of the study results. In general, terminology used in scientific studies is subtle, for example, a study that "finds" something to be true is different than "the results suggest that..." etc.

Here is the text from the article that is footnoted only by the above source in Japanese:

An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.

That's a strongly stated and unusual claim, that reducing access to pornography would increase crime. It could be accurate, but it's important for something like that to be well-sourced, per WP:V. Maybe the Japanese reference does support it, but maybe not. I've seen many scientific texts used to support complex statements, that turned out when the sources were examined, not to support the text at all. I'm not saying that's hapening here, but it could be and there would be no way to know. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging the cathartic effect of pornography is not particularly unusual. See Pornography#Effect_on_sex_crimes, or previous references by Pomte, for a small sample of the sizeable literature to that effect.
The Japanese reference at stake is not a scholarly paper and doesn't claim to address the issue of whether lolicon material should be considered harmful. It presents an outline of user-submitted opinions about an Internet-related legislative proposal, as collected by a (reputable) association of Japanese ISPs. While an academic source would probably be preferable, this does seem to be an adequate reference (per WP:V and WP:RS) for the fact that Some critics claim that lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others claim that there is no evidence for this, or that there is evidence to the contrary (emphasis mine), as well as the other one you mention. The relevant part is at the end of the linked document, "３　その他の御意見" ("Other opinions"). I'll translate this paragraph for your convenience.

In addition, while not directly related to the Guidelines Bill, we have collected a large number of comments regarding the "Research Center for the Protection of Children from Harmful Practices in the Virtual Society" set up by the National Police Agency. They argued that:

  • There is no scientific basis for the claim that manga, anime and games have an influence on the increase of sex crime against children.
  • Regulations of sexual material in manga, anime and games will not reduce sex crime. It may in fact increase it by suppressing an outlet.
  • Regulations of sexual material in manga, anime and games will have detrimental effects on the industry.
  • The regulations of the Child Pornography Law should not be extended to "drawings" in manga, anime and games.
We will be forwarding those opinions to concerned agencies (National Police Agency, etc.).
There's also a mention of the argument that drawings from manga, anime and games should not be subjected to Child Porn regulations on account that drawings cannot be considered "minors" (that's paragraph ２（１）イ（イ）). Bikasuishin (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)