Jump to content

Talk:Lolicon/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

A new image?

Simply replacing the current image in this article with one of your own choosing is not okay. When it contains copyrighted characters, the problem is compounded. Although I only speak for myself, I am sure we would be more than happy to accept original-content images so long as they are correctly licensed, etc. Although I do not have firsthand experience, there has already been considerable debate here as to the picture. While the picture may not be the best, I for one do think it is representative of the genre. And please remember that somebody put time into making it; simply getting rid of it would not be the nicest thing to do. --Merovingian ※ Talk 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The old caption for the new picture doesn't really fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcer (talk • contribs)
How about something along the lines of Lolicon art often depicts childlike characters in suggestive situations.? --Merovingian ※ Talk 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd fit better. --Carcer 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, great. --Merovingian ※ Talk 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reason not to use both images? --tjstrf talk 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now who removed the new image? --83.245.135.80 08:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah, it was deleted on some technicality. Don't worry, we'll fix it soon. --tjstrf talk 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I really hope so, because now the old fugly image is back. --83.245.135.80 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ruylong, can you tell us why did you restore Kristal's image instead of the Wikipe-tan one? --83.245.135.80 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Because Kristal's isn't a redlink. --tjstrf talk 09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3483/kasugahuhyy0.png This, my friend, is ridiculous. --83.245.135.80 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably just someone who has a beef with 4chan and doesn't want them to have anything to do with wikipedia. Smart thing to do would be to just accept the image as a compromise rather than have /a/ get ticked off again and start replacing it with random images.--Carcer 15:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Having an image named after Wikipedia and incorporating Wikipedia symbols creates the impression of endorsement. I can see it now as the banner for anti-Wikipedia articles. It gave me pause, and I have some knowledge of the situation. Someone gunning for Wikipedia could have a field day with it. -Jmh123 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
So, basically you are saying that because it's Wikipe-tan, people could think that "Wikipedia endorses lolicon!" which in turn leads to people deleting the content, even if it was very relevant and completely free to use? Wouldn't that be basically deleting stuff just because they don't like it, and thus, not allowed?83.245.135.80 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why it was deleted. I didn't delete it, here, or at the Commons. Just commenting on the image. Sorry. -Jmh123 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light onto why it was deleted. I was on #wikipedia at the time, mentioned the new artwork, and an admin at the time noticed it was signed with Kasuga's name. Kasuga almost always uploads his own images and does so under CC and GFDL, not PD, not to mention that it clearly isn't his artwork. So basically who ever drew it, or someone who edited it later on, was lying about the source information. If we can clear that up, then the picture can stay. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Still on commons as image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs).

Yeah, same user uploaded it there last night. From what I can tell, no one on Commons has been made aware of the situation. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like that says "Kasuga" to me. --tjstrf talk 23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends how you define on commmons. I know about it. The author is listed as "4lolicon" a fairly blatent throw away account but nothing more.Geni 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't really tell what it says either, but that's just what the admin who deleted it on en.wiki said. Even without the Kasuga thing, this was added at the same time as a bunch of other images from 4chan, and just kind of makes me wonder who's who and what's what. Also, if it's considered a derivative of one of Kasuga's then it's under an incorrect license. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the image was stolen, if that's the problem here. I dealt with this article the other day because it was being discussion on /a/. The person who made the image actually posted more than one version of the image still in production. In other words, I monitored the situation the other day from start to finish. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't stolen, I saw it in production as well. The signature doesn't look like a "Kasuga" to me, but I guess the low resolution made it somewhat ambiguous.--Carcer 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Page got protected. There seems to be some miscommunication, as there is no edit war, and we seem to be making some progress on validating the image. I've left Nick a note about this. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I'm the person who made the wikipe-tan picture, I also made the account "4lolicon" to post it with. By enlarging the picture you can see that the name signed is "Kohikki". This account is fairly old although I'm not sure if that sort of thing can be checked. If it can, it should serve as some form of proof that I didn't just make up an account based on the appearance of the name signed in the picture. --Kohikki

(Edit conflict) Here's my beef right now. The uploader got the image off of 4chan's /a/ board. There's no way we can know the original author's intent nor copyright (Wikipe-tan is licensed under the GFDL or the Creative Commons). Secondly, there is an ambiguous signature that is meant to resemble "Kasuga" which is generally bad. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not to be self-referential, so having an image of Wikipe-tan here (like they have at the Japanese page) is bad press for the English Wikipedia. People got pissed when a normal image of Wikipe-tan was on the main page and considered the day's featured image. Kristal's drawing is not of Wikipe-tan and she has revoked all rights to it. I could contact her personally to confirm this, if necessary. It is better for a Wikipedia article to have an image that is not self-referential to Wikipedia itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And even though Kohikki has come forward and claimed that he is the author, per the other reasons above the image should remain off.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's got a correct license, or is CC/GFDL as a derivative, we can edit this to not be Wikipe-tan (it wouldn't be hard, it doesn't even look like her). (For the Wikipedia image concern, not for the self-reference, which is not an issue, as we've explained before with her other images). -- Ned Scott 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But why work towards another one when we have one that clearly states "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification"? The copyright on the Wikipe-tan one is ambiguous right now. Kristal's has a clear statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me answer that. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(to clarify, as I don't want to sound like a perv any more than what's been done.. I did not wish to insult Kristal, but eh) -- Ned Scott 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes,it can be used for ANY purpose ;-)--87.65.142.171 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually,the current image,isn't representative enough(the girl is too old).In other words the new image is more appropriate(kof kof), from an encyclopedic POV.If you dote that he is the othor,simply ask him to upload a hier resolution,then what already circulates.For Kasuga copyright thing,just post him a message to ask permition.As for self reference,i don't think ther's really an issue--87.65.142.171 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The self-reference argument against including the new picture falls flat. Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png and others are used in anime, fan service and moe anthropomorphism. Image:Wikipe-tan face.png appears in what must be hundreds of articles because it is part of a stub template. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I currently see no reason to replace the image that's already here. The only issues that have been brought up in private discussion is that the copyright needs to be clarified, which I am trying to do by contacting the artist.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not replace, but clearly the effort put into any original picture should be acknowledged. I don't know why both pictures can't be included. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The old image is more of an adolescent.Lolicon is about little girls.In other words,the new image is ,better from a purely editorial point of view.--87.64.23.34 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The current image does depict a little girl. However, due to the nature of the genre, the character has some features that are more indicative of adolescence (i.e., wide hips). Lolicon appears to cover both realistic and glamorized underage girls, but the "underage" part is common. Choosing one over the other is a matter of personal preference. Including both would demonstrate the variety of styles present in the genre. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The old image sucks. There, I said it. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My favorite so far "get rid of that ugly nonlolicon looking sick twisted nastyass picture!".Any way i don't think that any one is dupe,the copyright issue arises just because some prudes think that the image is too explicit and offensive.--87.64.23.34 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The main reason why Kohikki even made the new picture is simply because the common opinion is that the current image is UGLY. If we have users like Merovingian confirming that it indeed was made by an artist (Kohikki) in /a/ completely for the purpose to use it in this article and Kohikki coming here and telling that he is the author of the image, I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't be included in the article. If some people don't want it "because it's from 4chan", then here's a little surprise to you: Kristal is from 4chan too. Just check her gallery, you can access it via the old image. And personal opinions shouldn't be used as a reason to delete something in the first place, right? So, at least USE BOTH IMAGES. A guy put up effort just for this article and Wikipedia and now you are saying "Sorry, but I don't like you, so no thanks"? --83.245.135.80 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image. The authorship question has been cleared up, the image is properly licensed (and can be moved back to Commons), and I am going to put the image back into the article. There seems to be enough wiki-side support for the current image to suggest to me that it should not be removed. --Merovingian ※ Talk 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is labeled as public domain when it is a derivative of a CC/GFDL image. I've removed the image from the article again for that reason. Also, do we have a link or anything to the discussion where the authorship was cleared up? -- Ned Scott 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We do not include elements of Foundation logos in kiddie cheesecake pics. The image cannot be used until these are removed. Herostratus 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The puzzle pieces are not owned by the Foundation, only the globe itself. They might have a claim to the trademark, but not the copyright. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the same could be said of all Wikipe-tan images. By the way, would it be possible for the author to change the license? --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If you hadn't noticed, the Japanese Wikipedia uses "elements of Foundation logos" in their "kiddie cheesecake pics" in their article on lolicon. -- 66.58.200.98 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kohikki did above. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's apparently badly copyrighted,do we need kohikki approval?He did put it under PD, so if it's not good we can simple change it to the appropriate CC/GFDL.It's not like if he copyrighted it,PD is not a copyright.This is really just a ridicules technicality.Because it could be a derivative of CC/GFDL,i don't see how it becomes a proprietary copyright that we can't use.And Herostratus,because you are an admin,that don't give you the right to insult the work of other (kiddie cheesecake pics),just draw a beater one your self,on top of that it seems to me that you just deleted it because of the content,not because of the copyright.--87.64.30.7 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Kohikki can remove his/her signature from the image and reupload under GFDL and/or CC. Perhaps, it's the quickest solution for the first problem. Whether to use it is another problem. --Kasuga 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not super wiki-savy, so I'm not certain I used the correct license options and such upon re-uploading it. [[1]] sorry for any inconvenience my incompetence may cause.--Kohikki

I think that about fits; thanks. --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Kohikki. Do you mind about asking if it is your original work? If it's a derivation work of Wikipe-tan, you should put the link to Commons:Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png. Thank you for the work.--Kasuga 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems fine now to me. I'm still not wild about it being Wikipe-tan, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in the future please conduct image-copyright related discussion regarding commons images in commons. Had someone not explicitly pointed this page out, it would have been completely ignored. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the discussion took place. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The image was also on en.wikipedia, so we can discuss it here if we want. Anyways, the image fine the way it is now. Thanks for working with us and not tearing my head off. Good artwork Kohikki. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I like this new image better. I mostly don't get involved in these sorts of battles, but... well. I have a pretty extensive anime LD collection, including most of Cream Lemon and a volume of Lolita Anime. Most of my Cream Lemon LD jacket scans are already online, though I did them with my old scanner and they're a bit blurry - easily remade. Think any of those would be suitable for this article? Snarfies 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless they've fallen out of copyright, which I sincerely doubt. --tjstrf talk 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the wikipe-tan image and the one most recently placed in the article. I don't think either is suitable for Wikipedia, and really I cannot think how one would illustrate this article without showing a degrading image of a child or a person who appears to be a child. For this reason, I've decided to reject both of those and I think it's better for the article to be unillustrated until the problem is resolved. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Tony, totally agree, SqueakBox 01:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What problem? What possible resolution? And by what authority do you deem your opinion superior to all others'? (I may be walking into something there, but sans userpage I can't really say) --Eyrian 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Addressing the last question first, obviously I consider my opinion at least the equal of all others because, if I ever found an opinion superior to mine, I would switch to that. But that doesn't mean I put my opinion before yours. It just means that, well, it's my opinion.
Addressing the other two questions: the problem is how to illustrate this article without showing a degrading picture of a child. And the point of my statement was to suggest that a resolution may be a long time coming. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
None of the pictures suggested for this article represent real people.Geni 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perceptive, but the reader is a real person and can be relied upon to want this subject to be covered with due care by Wikipedia. 's effics, innit! --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would you think Tony's viewpoint is superior to anyone elses. He's not even an admin though he is an experienced and somewhat respected user with a track record of this kind of POV, SqueakBox 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipe-tan swimsuit image was inappropriate because it was Wikipe-tan. I would have no objection to a similarly non-sexual image that wasn't her. Exploding Boy 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That too is sexualized. It wouldn't be much of an illustration for this article if it were not. And that's the problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The image that has been on the article was widely discussed before it was added and I feel comfortable that is portrays lolicon in the most tasteful way possible. Not including an image is overly restrictive since no laws are being broken with this type of inclusion. The issue is finding an image that is tasteful enough not to reflect poorly on Wikipedia yet honestly portrays the subject. I think the image used on the article meets the criteria. FloNight 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-mod-2.jpg

Just to be sure, we're talking about this image? That image is not sexual in the slightest. A non-sexual image does not suddenly become sexualised because it happens to be placed in this article. Exploding Boy 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, the image I thought we were discussing was another, which showed a little girl in the same swimsuit, in an open-legged pose, with knees up. My apologies, I didn't scan the discussion too closely there.
This other image shows an anime picture of a little girl in a swimsuit. The problem with this image is that, while it's wonderful and everything, it will give the reader the false impression that lolicon is any image of a child drawn in anime style. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I saw that one. That one is definitely sexualised. Exploding Boy 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironicaly that image does have copyright trademark issues try Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seasidewhiteball.PNG.Geni 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The point being that a similar, non-copyright, non-Wikipe-tan image would be just fine for this article. If the bestiality article can be illustrated, this article certainly can. Exploding Boy 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

bestiality is a far wider term. Lolicon is a rather more recent development thus it tends not to be in the public domain.Geni 02:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what is your point? It'll save us all a lot of time if you just say what you mean. If what you're saying is that images aren't widely available, I'm sure someone can hunt one down or create one, or the lack of availability might well be justification for a fair use argument. Exploding Boy 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

given japanese and other modern copyright law systems the odds of an image copyright havein expired are zilch (this is an area which was specificaly mention by the foundation when they were talking about EDPs). Someone has created one. But you object to it (or aparently all three of them).Geni 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're going to have to be more specific. I don't know which images you're talking about. Exploding Boy 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious by this stage but 1. Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg, 2. Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seasidewhiteball.PNG and 3. image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg (also 4. Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg).Geni 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, but thanks for your sarcasm. I've numbered the images in your post for convenience. #s 1, 3 and 4 are clearly inappropriately sexual, and probably illegal in America and certainly Canada. Image 2 would be fine if it weren't Wikipe-tan. Exploding Boy 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the article content I would say we have to be extremely cautious about using any image. The image above looks far worse small than big. I'd support an image but not this one, we need an image that is completely desexualised or no image at all, SqueakBox 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont think this is a free image but its the type of image I would happily see illustrating the article. Google's descrition is "Help fight Lolicon" presumably a transaltion of the Japanese, SqueakBox 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a campaigning logo so it's hardly appropriate for a neutral point of view article. It also fails to be illustrative. No I think we've got a very difficult problem here. A while back, Rama (I think it was him) tried to get an illustration for this article by getting a friend to walk into a Japanese bookshop and take some photographs of stacks of lolicon manga. However the objection to this at the time was mainly that the images weren't specifically of lolicon, and what cover images they could make out in the photo seemed to be generic anime style. --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Final Solution-chan" (image #1) was the image illustrating the article when the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Centre plagiarised the article[2] in February 2006. The RCMP didn't claim the image was illegal - on the contrary, they copied from, and later cited, Wikipedia as a respectable, authoritative source. For that reason, I think it's not plausible that that image is illegal in Canada as claimed by Exploding Boy above. As the statute (quoted in the article) says, there are some criteria like "for a sexual purpose" and "explicit sexual activity" (eating a Popsicle doesn't qualify no matter how lasciviously she does it) which need to be met for the material to qualify as obscene. 216.75.189.154 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh here they are:

I'd like to gather comments on these now. They have the advantage that they're free and, because of the perspective and range, not too explicit.

A close inspection suggests that the right hand picture depicts covers with schoolgirls in uniform, not quite the infant-style that is associated with lolicon in the west, but I understand that the Japanese term refers to any depiction of a person under the age of consent (whatever that is in Japan these days). --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And a snapshot of the original discussion: here. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Infant style in the West? You got a source for that association? Schoolgirls seem pretty standard for lolicon, not that I know much about it. (Maybe you mean toddlerkon.) –Pomte 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like those two images. They'd also be good in the manga article. How's this for a possible solution:

thumb|right|center|180px|cropped-chan

Exploding Boy 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would mistake that for a Bratz character. –Pomte 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why. They're not at all the same

Sorry but to me that picture says "small girl sucking dick". It's quite good at illustrating lolicon, but I don't think it's right for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason for that? Preferably one other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or it makes me feel icky inside. --tjstrf talk 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NO images now?!

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is censorship. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the genre is, there is nothing wrong with illustrating this article. Removing those pictures is also a slap in the artists' faces. They took the time to make the article better, just as much as somebody who writes a FA from scratch, or a shutterbug whose photos get Main Page coverage. What's been done here is against the things that we should stand for. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be very happy with some images but dont know enough about the subject to find free images. But something like this would be entirely acceptable as would any head and shoulders shot. I dont understand how the artists have anything to do with wikipedia noir do I think removing someone else's edits is always a slap in the face to those editors, that isnt how we work, SqueakBox 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The images we had before were fine. Their copyright status was green-lighted, and they accurately represented the genre which is not everybody's cup of tea. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT card has been played in getting rid of them; Tony even removed the one that was up there for quite a while! Finally, the pictures that were up were not the very worst of loli art; they were actually mundane, and I doubt many of us have seen much worse that we ourselves wouldn't even consider putting into the article, no matter how relevant it is. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to one-up Squeakbox's proposal on the irony scale by submitting this image as a suggestion. --tjstrf talk 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is truly wondrous how these things come about. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about my cropped image? It gives us an idea of these drawings and is uncontroversial because its just head and shoulders. The iom age licence clearly allowed for this. I certainly agree they werent the worst examples as I found out pumping lolicon into a google images search, SqueakBox 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The cropped image does not illustrate the concept. That does give me one idea that may work for everyone, though I'd need to come up with a good caption for it. Give me a minute --tjstrf talk 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but that was more super deformed-style art (cf. Image:MahoroDVDcase.jpg). Not sure if a bust would be representative enough; guess it depends on who drew it and its suggestions. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not make much sense to remove part of an image, unless one has a good reason to do so. Original version being "obscene" according to one user's opinion is not one. Prolog 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but that isnt the case. Obscene accordin g to a number of editors is the reality and needs to be taken seriously. I woulod prefer no image until this one gets resolved but to claim only one editor objects tot he obscene image is not true and this image damages not the article so much as the whole project, SqueakBox 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you look in the article history where this topic was throughly discussed and consensus was to use the Final solution image. This was after several other images were deleted that were seen as too vulgar. This image was accepted after a long, long debate with RFCs and has been in place for many months. I think removing this image is a really bad idea unless you get a new consensus to do so. Editors worked very hard to find an image that was acceptable to all involved at that time. FloNight 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course there will always be users/readers who object to some images, but we are not censored. This image seems to have been here for a long time, so if you want it out, you should first try to get consensus instead of removing it repeatedly. Prolog 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The evbents of the last few days show very clearly that a number of editors object tot his image and therefore we should remopve it until consensus has been reached. The number of users objecting to it now makes any past consensus irrelevant, this isnt a case of one or two users objecting to this image, and it was Herostratus who pappears (and rightly) to have started this. There simply is no consensus any more, SqueakBox 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ergo a return to status quo until a new consensus is reached. --tjstrf talk 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
FloNight's reply seems to cover this well. Since the image was inserted through a long debate and consensus of a number of editors, it should only be removed after a new consensus and it is clear there is not one at the moment. Prolog 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well lets wait and see if others remove the image which IMO is totally unacceptable and makes a quick removal of the NPOV tag impossible. This image makes it look like the project accepts child pornography and to claim that removing child pornography images is censorship shows a poor understanding of censorship. What next, real child porn images in the child pornography article because wikipedia doesnt censor? SqueakBox 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to get the facts straight, it was not Herostratus who first removed the final solution image. It was initially removed by User:Josh04, as his single Wikipedia contribution. The image has been there unopposed for some time. I don't love it as an individual, but I don't oppose it being there. It contains no foundation symbols and is not explicit. -Jmh123 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't be absurd, Squeak. Final solution-chan is nothing close to child pornography. Even if she were a real girl, it would be a "child model" image, not a child porn one.
Besides, considering the way we illustrate other pages like autofellatio, I see no reason why the child pornography article wouldn't be illustrated if it weren't illegal in Florida. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That last is an appalling statement. Of course it is illegal not only in Flordia but where most of us have our computers and the violation of a child in nthat way would be unacceptable and rapidly destroy the credibility of the project. While this image isnt illegal it is still vulgar and unnecessary. Having doctored images at auto-fellatio is also something I have strongly opposed as I wiould oppose any pornographic image at wikipedia. Its out there, you dont need to come here to view it, SqueakBox 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, let me rephrase that to if it weren't illegal in general. As for the rest of your post, in other words you disagree with WP:NOT#CENSORED? Well, glad to have that cleared up so I know where you're coming from, but there's consensus for the inclusion of such images, so if you want to challenge it you'll have to take it up at a wider forum. --tjstrf talk 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well firstly there's the ethical issue that someone was harmed in the creation of it - I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on such images, but it's something that many editors may consider important. But the thing about a child porn image is that it would involve someone who didn't consent to being there - in that sense, it's part of a wider issue of putting images of people who didn't consent to their photo being taken. Other examples would be those also showing abuse (e.g., happy slapping), or a sexual image that was taken of someone without their consent. Again, I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a policy on this, or if this issue has been discussed. Personally, I'm fine with avoiding images where people didn't consent to the photo being taken, and using another one instead if possible. Since no people are involved in cartoons, that's not a problem here. Mdwh 11:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What consensus. At least 4 editors all strongly disagreeing isnt consensus esp when there arent really any more than 3 or 4 supporting the inclusion of the image. That strikes me as no consensus, SqueakBox 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to content that offends people in general, including pornographic content, things which are illegal in other countries, those Mohammed cartoons, etc.
As for this particular case, it's one of the least offensive of all the NOT#CENSORED articles we have. --tjstrf talk 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a whole other issue. I dont have any objection to cartoons of Mohammed but I would not be happy if I was living (and say working) in Saudi Arabai (possibly a bad example as I dont think they have internet but you get my point). If this pic were used to illustrate an innocuous article like swimsuit I wouldnt object to it bit I do object ot it here. How about cropping the pic at the navel? Would that be acceptable? SqueakBox 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than getting rid of the badly drawn ankles, what would be the point? --tjstrf talk 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Term:

If im correct then Lolicon is the sexuallition of underaged Anime Charaters! I know this is the true term! before I fuix the page does anybody disagerr?--Lolichan4u 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

lol u tk him 2da bar|? 69.22.130.14 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More modern defintion?

More recently the term "lolicon" is being used as a more general term for an anime watcher who simply tends to like loli characters a lot, but in a non-sexual manner. Can this somehow be implemented into this article?Kei-clone 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

aka exactly the same as the existing definition, but in denial? Or are they just forgetting about the word moe? --tjstrf talk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
not really in denial, this is a truth. If you look in blogs and other sites in the anime community, the term has been used in ways other than to say the lolicon is sexually attracted. The "lolicon" in question simply likes loli characters a lot, but perhaps in an endearing manner rather than sexual. Moe is related, but not completely tied in. Kei-clone 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
btw, Tokyopop agrees with the more general definition of lolicon as someone who merely like younger children, but not necessarily sexual. Check p. 180 of Welcome to the NHK.Kei-clone 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The old image

It's been removed. Please explain why an on-topic, legal image should not be present. --Eyrian 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is POV and needs considerable work to make it NPOV. It needs tagging, SqueakBox 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) {{Editprotected}} Here I added the edit protected request template. --MichaelLinnear 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what you think is POV. --Eyrian 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's POV. All it talks about is legal issues, with nary a word about the history and artistic acceptance in Japan. --tjstrf talk 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as being particularly POV. It just means that part of the article hasn't been written yet. --Eyrian 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's not what Squeak meant though, and it happens to be upon the tagger to provide a reason as to why they want it cleanup tagged. Well Squeak? --tjstrf talk 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it deals with child pornography in a way that glamorises it, so it needs tweaking to make it NPOV (and NPOV condemns child pornography as do the great majority of human beiongs and legal systems, while pro child porn POV is an extreme minority view), SqueakBox 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not child pornography, and the article doesn't glamourize it. For that matter it hardly even talks about it at all. --tjstrf talk 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is child pornography and the fact that the article doesnt talk about it is because editors like you remove edits that do talk about it. Certainly in the UK child pornography does not have to involve images of real children, SqueakBox 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It certainly isn't in Japan, which happens to be the state of origin and hence the defining location for it. It's legal status in other countries is already covered in the various subsections. Beyond that, the genre encompasses material that, while suggestive, is not explicit, so some of it would not even qualify as pornographic.
All that aside though, you need citations if you want to redefine the term, as otherwise that is simply your personal opinion. Cheers. --tjstrf talk 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"NPOV condemns child pornography" If this is your (and many others') definition of the term NPOV, then this article has more of a POV problem with those who condemn lolicon as opposed to those who promote it. --Grgspunk
But that only applies to "pseudo-photographs", which means that the image must be realistic - see Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child. Cartoons are not illegal in the UK. The article does talk about these issues, in the legal section. The UK is considering criminalising cartoons (as mentioned in the article). But even then, this law would only cover images of sexual abuse, and not things like sexual poses, so whilst some Lolicon would presumably be criminalised, the current image would be fine. Lastly, just because some country has these laws doesn't mean that Wikipedia should remove them. The UK is planning on criminalising all sorts of simulated adult images, but that doesn't mean other countries have to follow, and anyway, there are already countries where all porn is illegal. All that matters legally is US law. Mdwh 11:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't condemn anything. --Eyrian 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan isnt the defining location as lolicon iconography has clearly spread outside Japan (it would be like saying Africa was the defining location for the article on human. I'll look for some citations, SqueakBox 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Humans have had a bit more than 62 years to spread out. Everything under this article's scope is either from Japan or tries to look like it is from Japan.--tjstrf talk 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Rastafari movement has a strong connection with Jamaica but it isnt defined by Jamaica as it has spread out inot the world, and the same can be said for lolicon from what I can see. This shows there are some in japan who see lolicon as child pornography and want it banned, SqueakBox 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some, yes, but we're talking about a definition. If that bill becomes law, then that would work, but as is the most you could say was "some people in Japan consider it a form of child pornography.[3]". --tjstrf talk 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you condemn something, you are not of a neutral point of view. Neither are you if you glorify something. Being NPOV is about not condemning or glorifying, but being neutral. Using neutral language about a controversial topic is not the same as glorifying it. Looking over the article, I could not immediately see something that glorifies anything; can you please point out the exact verbiage you are concerned about? --Askild 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not a scientific encyclopedia and NPOV does not demand scientific objectivity. Neutrality is also defined by common perceptions, ie the world as it is and not as we would like it to be, and in the world as it is child prornogrpahyu is almost universally condemned and we should reflect that and not some imaginary objectivity that gives equal balancce to the supporters and opponents of child pornography, SqueakBox 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You can be neutral without glorification. Instead of saying "Lolicon is child pornography, and it is therefore morally apprehensible", say "Lolicon is widely considered to be child pornography [ref], and therefore held by many to be immoral". --Askild 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, SqueakBox 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You'd need a reference for that "widely considered" though. --tjstrf talk 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that'll do as a starter, SqueakBox 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag is okay because there is actually a dispute taking place here, but removing the image is not. Wikipedia is not censored and is not damaged by displaying an image that is not child pornography. Many think that the image is not a good depiction of the genre, but it's the best free image we have right now, so it's informative to readers wondering (they are not having illegal thoughts) about the artistic features of lolicon. –Pomte 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the final solution image myself. It was there a long time without conflict. I think readding the new LoliWikipe-tan when there is so much debate about it going on on various areas of Wikipedia would be disruptive.

Regarding NPOV. I've found some things on line regarding controversies in Japan over lolicon, including a parents organization formed against it: Lolicon backlash in Japan. I don't have time to do further research on this right now, but I've seen enough to convince me that the research presented in "Controversy and legal issues" hasn't gone undisputed. The tag should remain until this is fixed. -Jmh123 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else even done research published in English on this subject? --tjstrf talk 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some research by Sharon Kinsella.[http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/nerd.html AMATEUR MANGA SUBCULTURE AND THE OTAKU PANIC] Anymouse1 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We may have a greater policy concern than POV here

After reading through the entire legal status section, I realized we have a ton of unverified and uncited content, some of which looks like it may be original research and/or original synthesis. As is, even the cited sections often essentially say "there's a law, that nobody's tested in court yet, that may or may not apply to lolicon depending on how you read it". This is problematic, to say the least, since we're at best confusing people and at worst effectively spreading disinformation if we're wrong.

I'm really not sure how to improve this though, since a major part of the problem is that the laws themselves are absurdly vague. That all the legal citations are going to be in different languages certainly doesn't help with our fact-checking either. --tjstrf talk 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and your earlier point about the article being more about legal conflicts over Lolicon than Lolicon itself is apt. Not sure where you want to go with that--a retitling or expansion. -Jmh123 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Get rid of any interpretations of a law without a verifiable court case to back it up. Laws about child pornography should be moved to child pornography and only briefly mentioned here if the comparison is within context. I think it's fine having statements of the law here as long as it is clearly applicable on lolicon, but this is up to debate, and sections without substance should be <!-- commented out -->. –Pomte 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing controversial in any of the above staements, SqueakBox 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the page's main section would be about the history and influence of lolicon on manga and anime as a whole. That's the significant part, as it's the bit that's unique to the subject. We have plenty of articles covering the arguments surrounding the (im)morality of sexualizing children already. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image

I've again removed an unsuitable image from this article. A true depiction of lolicon, as this one is, shows a sexualized child. Such images aren't suitable for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have offered an alternative, Image:Final Solution-chan1.jpg. I fully agree that the one you just removed is unsuitable. Do you think my cropped version is suitable or not? 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The most highly eroticised portion of the image is the face. No cropped version of that image is going to work. I strongly recommend that we consider going with one of the montages that I showed above. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I'll speedy my cropped version then, SqueakBox 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the subject is sensitive. No, we should not do a limbo under a bar of what-should-or-should-not-be. We do no damage to ourselves in keeping the images, and you have yet to argue against the images for any reason other than you don't think they're appropriate. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand your edit summary. There is nop consensus for having such an unsuitable image on wikipedia, indeed the consensus appears to be the other way. I think you are being naive in thinking this image does not harm the project and those opposing the image's inclusion have been much more articulate in their arguments than those wanting it here, SqueakBox 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read any of the archives of this discussion page? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, to be fair, the discussion was reopened, and the door was opened to that by adding the new Loli-Wiki image. Evoking the archives in a discussion like this would mean that no change could ever be made once a consensus was reached once. How about running a straw poll for a day or two to find out what consensus is? Or at least run through the last few days and create a quick list? -Jmh123 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am a sucker for polls. Hmmm... --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That image is not suitable. Please stop restoring it to the article. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is fact and/or backed up by policy. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, please reference some sort of policy instead of just repeatedly saying "unsuitable". --Eyrian 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The image is likely illegal in the USA (where Wikimedia servers are located) under the PROTECT Act of 2003, which prohibits obscene and lascivious depictions of minors. Krimpet (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
however it uses the miller test of obscene which makes things rather less clear.Geni 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Miller test may be rather unclear, but it's definitely best to err on the side of caution in cases like this. There is precedent in pictures with non-exposed genitalia in a lascivious context being considered child pornography in the past. Krimpet (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
yes but those involed real people.Geni 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As the person who removed the image last night and apparently re-open the debate, I feel I should chime in. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, although I do occasionally clear up things where I actually know what I'm talking about. I found this page through a link, and was immediately presented with an overtly sexualised picture of a young girl. It's a little bit unnerving, and more than a little creepy. Not really what I was looking for in an encyclopedia, an example of child pornography. I'm perfectly sure that I could have seen the basic summary, and the links to manga, children and pornography, and known as much as I wanted/needed to know on the subject. This isn't really the type of article which needs illustration for people to understand, especially as the rest of the article refers to it's legal status around the world. That's my two pence anyway: Not neccessary, slightly worrying. Josh04 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Both it and the Wikipe-tan-loli image are rather mundane as far as lolicon art goes. Plus, both images were created for Wikipedia or allowed for use here, as opposed to us just talking an image from anywhere else on the Internet. Of course we don't necessarily condone or approve of inappropriate content by and large. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think we need to stop asking "what's the policy reason for removing this image?" and look at the thing. It's a sexualized picture of a child. If there weren't a policy against it, we should have to make one. But as the question doesn't arise on articles other than this one, or at least not on many, we should probably just use our noggins. --Tony Sidaway 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean "use our POVs"? I'd prefer not to. Seriously though, I don't believe that removing an image based on how some people perceive it fits under common sense. I mean, it might to some people, but again, that's their POV. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mundane it might be, but surely the issue is whether the image is objectivly sexual, which I certainly feel it is. The emphasis on the hip lines as well as the phallic lollipop are just a little too graphic for an encyclopedia. The difference between this picture and the one, as quoted above, on autofellatio, is that this one seems desiigned to be provocative and a little sleazy. I know they're both characteristics of lolicon itself, but surely a more desireable method would be to put a conservative illustration of a child in the appropriate style, and comment that the images are usually much more sexual? Josh04 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could use something like this, which could be construed as lolicon, and describe it as you suggested, but FloNight's point below really knocks mine out of the water. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We are an educational reference and need to be as complete as possible. This is an extremely mild example of lolicon. Unless it is pointed out, many people would not be aware of it. So it can hardly be called very offensive. The educational benefit of using a single example of lolican on an article outweighs the distaste of the subject matter. Having the image on site does not endorses or promotes the concept.FloNight 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've said though, lolicon doesn't really dip too far below "extreme", however mild it is. The image doesn't illustrate much beyond a simple example, it doesn't need, in my opinion, to be so provocative. The image Merovingian linked is in considerably better taste, and is better drawn to top it off. Josh04 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That image is not lolican. And I object to using the image with puzzle pieces on the lolican article becasue I feel it associates the Foundation with sexualized child images. Not a good thing. FloNight 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why do we even bother worrying about "Wikipedia's image" when editing an article? Editors are only supposed to give accurate, relevant and non-biased edits. Period. Wikipedia doesn't give much room for censoring content, with the exception of blatantly illegal and/or IRRELEVANT pics/articles, so how is this reason going to be any better than the other reasons you stated that the image should be removed? I mean, it was decided that the image was to be kept in the Wikimedia Commons, so why should anything be different here? We need to focus more on keeping this article accurate, cited and NPOV (meaning being neither pro NOR anti loli, as much as some may hate to do) as much as possible. Like I said in the Commons, the possiblity of negative press does NOT justify censorship or POV edits.Grgspunk 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What harm do you feel comes from using an example of lolican on the article? Surely, you do not feel that we endorse lolicon by discussing or showing it. The examples that I will agree to use must appear to be drawing not real children and must be not offensive enough to titillate those looking at it. I feel the image that has been on the article fits both of these criteria and still gives a sense of what lolican is. That is the reason that I agreed to it last year. FloNight 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the merit of including a lolicon image here but we certainly should not use an lolicon version of Wikipe-tan. Than makes a clear link between sexualising children and Wikipedia, which is totally inappropriate. WjBscribe 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree that any image with puzzle pieces in the hair are off limits for the reason you said. FloNight 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Images of Wikipe-tan should absolutely not be used in this context. Canderson7 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You should tell that to the Japanese Wikipedia, which didn't seem to have any problem using a much less suggestive image of Wikipe-tan to illustrate their article about lolicon. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we consider using those bookshop montages? They're free, they depict teenagers rather than infants, and there's a certain amount of distance provided by the use of scale and perspective. Or we could have no picture at all. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Infants" is really stretching it. They appear young, but you're exaggerating. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of using the bookshop images. It's not worth splitting hairs over whether or not they are sufficently representative. They get the point across without aligning Wikipedia with lolicon. Canderson7 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added one of the bookshop images. Tony, please stop associating lolicon predominantly with infants. Search "infant" to see my comment above. –Pomte 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought he proposed it as a replacement to the popsicle pic? -Jmh123 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a lolicon image of Wikipe-tan: Not news!

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ロリータ・コンプレックス --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Until May 18, there was a different image, the Library of Babel.png: diff=[4]. Image drawn by Kasuga. Yes, the Library of Babel image is Wikipe-tan, but she is fully clothed in the typical Wikipe-tan outfit of dress and apron, and reading a book. -Jmh123 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the same person, yes. And I assume there was little resistance to the image? Apologies to Eisenhower, but what's good for ja is good for en. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Re the cultural comparison, I disagree. Anime is much better known and understood in Japan. Japanese culture in general differs from America in regards to pornography. I also don't know if Japanese Wikipedia is the force in Japan that the English Wikipedia is here. Do you? All else aside, neither Japanese image is anything like a kiddie porn pic. Any connections to Lolicon are extremely subtle and WikiLoli was anything but. -Jmh123 04:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do know that the Japanese Wikipedia is mentioned on a somewhat regular basis on large Japanese websites, namely Futaba Channel. I was just defending the use of any suitable Wikipe-tan image in the article since Japan is the home of lolicon. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Who knows what would have happened if 'Babel' had been substituted instead of 'WikiLoli', but she wasn't the type some people wanted anyway, I gather. -Jmh123 04:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia's image is not the issue, the accuracy of the article is; Yet at the same time, the image of Wikipe-tan cannot be used as it associates Wikipedia with child pornography. So, we make do with a poorly drawn image which is unnecessarily sexual. Oh, and it's okay for Japan to use the Wikipe-tan image because, you know, those wacky Japanese.
Either the article should commit fully to illustrating just what illustrated child pornography looks like, or it should just stick with the image of the books. This double standard is insane. Josh04 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a picture at the top?

Doesn't the description speak for itself -- manga of sexually implicit children? We don't have porn for the top of the pornography article, so why here? (messedrocker • talk) 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly comparable; this is a non-nude cartoon character, and removing the image would cause the article to be much less informative. And we did in fact have porn on top of pornography for quite some time, but the image was deleted as derivative. Prolog 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Images are generally thought to improve article quality. Also I would answer your second question with the guess that there has been just as much disagreement over what kind of image(s) to include in Pornography as there has been here. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We need only one image

I've removed the unsuitable image and moved the montage to the top. It illustrates lolicon about as well as we're able, I think, without shoving eroticised pictures of minors into the reader's face. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My idea for a solution (for those who want a lolicon picture)

Here's what I am thinking: if Kasuga is interested, we could get him to create a new character with no affiliation to anything, and then with that he could draw a lolicon of it. Remember, this is contingent on his interest to do this. (messedrocker • talk) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a nice idea. Grgspunk 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do that when we already have the Final-solution-chan (Image:Lolicon example.jpg) image? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, someone drew that last year for this article on our request. --FloNight 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was attracting controversy for whatever reason? (messedrocker • talk) 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people disliked it, and the loli-style Wikipe-tan image was created in good faith, but not everybody liked that, and then Tony Sidaway removed both images from the article... and so here we are. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, would you not agree that messedrocker's proposal is redundant? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything bad about the Final-solution-chan image compared to any other image of lolicon under a free license? (messedrocker • talk) 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it's free of not, it's whether it's a sexualised picture of a child. At least we don't have that horrible dildo-teddy picture any more, so we've made progress. But some articles probably should not be illustrated. I suggest that we consider that this may be one of those articles. Alternatively there are the bookshop montages that I suggested last night. They're free. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't sexually implicit children the entire idea of lolicon? (messedrocker • talk) 03:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is the entire idea, but a simple google image search will effectively convey that fact. Wikipedia articles should focus on encyclopedic text, not erotic imagery. Canderson7 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"But some articles probably should not be illustrated." Well, who gets to decide which ones? What makes anyone authorized to bowdlerize Wikipedia articles as they please? I'm not horribly experienced with Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that there is a non-censorship rule in place, and for good reason, I believe. If you want to make a "worksafe Wikipedia", or a "non-offensive Wikipedia", you are free to do so at your own lesiure, as the software used for Wikipedia is free. However, on this Wikipedia, you may not decide that a relevant, useful, free image, which illustrates the article is unusable because it violates your own moral code and sense of what is objectionable. It is of note that rape and bestiality are illustrated, and that depictions of what appear to be children having sexual contact with adults exists on Wikipedia. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_homoerotic_print_Hua_Ying_Chin_Chen.jpg ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_tondo.jpg ) "It is the entire idea, but a simple google image search will effectively convey that fact." Yes, then why include pictures in any article, if "a simple google search will effectively convey" an idea of whatever the article is about? Why include a picture of a rose in the rose article, if i could just go to Google Images and type in "rose"?63.224.157.159 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I was being a little facetious in my above comment, my point was that Wikipedia's niche is as a provider of encyclopedic fact and our mandate does not entail providing erotic images. That being said, images of every sort are commonly used to illustrate our articles, and I understand why so many people disagree with me on this issue. I would note that the two images you reference above are both reproductions of art work that is hundreds of years old and has innate cultural value. Similarly, other controversial images like the Muhammud cartoons and the Piss Christ photograph have similar intrinsic merit. Images like Sexuality pearl necklace small.png (NSFW) and Autofellatio 2.jpg (NSFW) are alike to the lolicon bookshop images in that they document life outside of Wikipedia. I would hate to see any of thoes images censored. Image:Lolicon example.jpg, on the other hand, has no intrinsic merit. Additionally, it is a Wikipedia lolicon exclusive, meaning that it has no merit as cultural documentation. If someone could find freely licensed lolicon that is signifigant in its own right (ie. it's been the subject of media scrutiny or it's from a genre defining work), I would not object to its inclusion. For the moment, though, no such work is available. Canderson7 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
On what basis can you say that the images hold no merit? Sure, they may not hold any great cultural merit, but as far as being artistic works from the hand of a person, they hold merit. Besides that, are you arguing that as long as something has "artistic merit" it is able to show whatever it pleases? Also, the object of having a lolicon character in the article is to give an accurate picture of what would be considered "lolicon". Honestly, can you get a clear, definite picture of what a lolicon character would look like by the definition "a genre of manga-style sexualized drawings involving childlike female characters"? If I didn't know what the article was talking about, I doubt I would be able to. Even worse, if you're not familiar with "manga-style" you're pretty much left completely clueless. Note that the article on "Cartoon Pornography" has an image. Once again, what this pretty much boils down to is "This violates my sense of what is objectionable." Unfortunately, what you find objectionable has no bearing on what should or should not appear in Wikipedia. The truth of the matter is, the image is useful to the article at hand. Whether or not your sense of morality agrees with its presence is irrelevant. 70.59.242.96 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think your last statement is completely wrong. Condoning even pseudo child pornography is immensely damaging to the credibility of wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what's at issue here is not taste, but legality. The fact is that in some places it is illegal for individuals to view any sexual depiction of a child, even one that is purely fantasy. Certain of the existing images are problematic for this reason. This page could very easily, and very legitimately, be illustrated with a non-sexual image. All we have to do is show what a typical figure in the genre looks like. Exploding Boy 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's legal where this website hosted, then it is the viewer's responsibility to be aware of the fact that publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. It's clearly stated in the disclamer link at the bottom of every wiki page. Ignorance is not an excuse. Grgspunk
Once again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_homoerotic_print_Hua_Ying_Chin_Chen.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_tondo.jpg . They seem to represent a reasonable precedent.67.40.225.188 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are sexualized images of minors legal in the US, even fantasy ones? Exploding Boy 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy ones, yes. I'd think that the fact that 4chan, 7chan, 12chan, lolisuki, and any number of other image sites (assuming that all of the aforementioned sites are hosted within US jurisdictions) where these pictures are posted haven't been taken down by the FBI is proof that lolicon is still a-ok in the US. In fact, I'll refer you to the recent brouhaha over the manga Kodomo no Jikan as an example of a lolicon work (albeit a rather "softcore" non-explicit work) that was set to be legally sold in the US, but was ultimately canceled by the North American license holder because they feared releasing it would be harmful to business. It's reasonable to assume that some legal team looked over the content of the book to see that it was legal to sell such a thing in the US before they purchased the rights. --Billdorr 07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am okay with Tony's suggestion of the Japanese shop pics or we could find a new non eroticized image but to continue with the current image is unacceptable and puts the project in a very poor light, SqueakBox 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The moment Wikipedia becomes obsessed with its own image is the moment it loses credibility. Academic and intellectual integrity are based on pursuing facts wherever they go. This is an article about a cultural phenomenon. In a quality encyclopedia, all factual phenomena will be as illustrated as possible. Not illustrated in a way that's inoffensive, not illustrated in a way that's not risque, not illustrated in a way that conforms to anybody's cultural biases. The comments here seem to be repeatedly calling for censorship based on cultural POV, which is totally inacceptable. Now, for practical reasons, Wikipedia must not do anything that's illegal. It's pretty clear that these images are legally alright. Yes, someone could sue, but someone could sue the project over anything. --Eyrian 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
To whom would wikipedia lose credibilty by focussing on its own image? Any credible business puts this first and if we are a professional organisation we should do so too. You may not care if the project loses credibility and respect by suporting a form of child pornography but to declare that anybody with academic integrity would agree with you is plain wrong. Being against child porn is a form of cultural censorship is another completely wrong statement. It sounds like you are trying to promote your political views at the expense of the project, SqueakBox 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a business! Business motives are at odds with academic ones. The only way we should focus on our image is by providing a comprehensive, quality encyclopedia. The project will not lose meaningful credibility by having factual and illustrative content. Not gratuitous (as the image hardly is), but illustrative. I have made no political statement regarding being against anything. Merely that a legal image should not be censored just because some people find it distasteful. Censorship is never in the interest of a comprehensive encyclopedia, except where the project might be sued and destroyed. Censorship is, by definition, the restriction of information. And that is fundamentally opposed to the goal of propagating information. --Eyrian 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Business models at odds with academic ones? In whose eyes? We should indeed be aiming to create a quality, comprehensive encyclopedia, hence my position on this image. I simply dont agree that removing this image is censorship. The image is used to illustrate a form of child pornography as if wikipedia were now siding with lolicon artists over their opponents (a clear violation of NPOV). Opposing child pornography is not propaganda or censorship but I am unclear what supporting it is ideologically, though in practice it is extremely damaging to the project and your statements seem to have a very strong libertarian POV which is not NPOV nor does it have anything to do with the goals of the project (we are not against censorship etc), SqueakBox 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I reverted the image you added. It isn't a good idea to use an image with Wikipedia symbols on it, no matter how innocuous. Adding an image without consensus is also not a good idea. The image you added is totally irrelevant to the article, except that it's an anime-like figure. -Jmh123 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What? Illustration indicates siding with the people involved? That's utterly ridiculous. Opposition is not censorship, but removing things is. By removing the image, it is an act to "remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." That is censorship. What you are attempting to do is censorship. Furthermore, I question the assertion that this is fundamentally damaging to the project. How is Wikipedia not against censorship? Perhaps not as a political ideal in the outside world, but Wikipedia is not censored. That's one of the core policies of the encyclopedia.
I'm going to drop the business vs. academic discussion, since that's an easy and far-reaching tangent. --Eyrian 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg

Where exactly are the lolicons in the image,i only see women with huge breasts.--87.64.1.180 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some characters there that might qualify as lolicon, but I don't think the busty ones do. It is debatable whether breasts factor in to whether a character is lolicon-material or not. Anyway, that's why I changed the image caption, just to be on the safe side. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Safe side? Breasty sounds great in this context, we must not display child porn and am amazed that anyone would keep the bad pic, SqueakBox 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lolicon is not child porn.And en wikipedia is not usa-wikipedia.You people have completely lost your sense with reality,the funny part is,that you think that somehow it will incite child molesting by people that they can't do the difference between fiction and reality.--87.65.205.174 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
usa wikipedia? absolutely not. The rest of your comment is also just plain wrong IMO, SqueakBox 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand very well,you mean that for you ,it is child porn?If no one get's hurt,then frankly where's the problem.Child porn is illegal just because is against peopol morals,or because it hurts children.It just like Jackson's breast story,exact same reasoning.According to wikioedia article her carier is going down hill now.--87.65.205.174 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that fake child porn doesnt harm, anyone but I would strongly argue that it does, and having it on the project damages the project. Not everyone who works here is a libertarian opposing all censorship etc, and neither should wikipedia be, SqueakBox 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If we where taking everybodies sensitivities we would end up with no picture at all.The nazi flag is realy taboo for the Germans, the Mohamed drawings are really taboo for Muslim, and ... well sex(?) is really taboo for Americans(i consider this issue a subset of a wider ... taboo(?)).If you really want to put your self in the position of the others,they feel equally angered as you on this issue as with there respective taboos.--87.65.205.174 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

How does the image I tried have wikipedia symbols, I cant see them. Why revert. Claiming that because I didnt mmention it on the talk page fiorst isnt a reason. We need to resolve this, why are some editors so opposed to any sort of compromise? SqueakBox 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to compromise. I am opposed to making unilateral decisions about a contested issue, and adding an image without even asking for comment. The image you added was Wikipe-tan, the Wikipedia unofficial mascot Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Look at the name on the image you added. And I did "talk on talk". -Jmh123 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's my previous comment on talk. I'll make it easier to find: Adding an image without consensus is also not a good idea. The image you added is totally irrelevant to the article, except that it's an anime-like figure. -Jmh123 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) -Jmh123 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Squeak, your edit just managed to combine the worst elements of everyone's positions by not only putting the unofficial mascot on the page but also not being demonstrative of the subject and therefore not being an encyclopedic image. --tjstrf talk 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. -Jmh123 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So what are you saying? We have to illustrate a child porn image? And if so why? SqueakBox 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying, SqueakBox. I said the image you added was inappropriate for several reasons. My only dog in this hunt is that the Wikipedia symbols not be used. -Jmh123 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That is fine, I dont object to your not using my suggestions but I do object to the current image, SqueakBox 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
An objection that is struck down by both project consensus on censorship of articles and that it's simply inaccurate. You can complain about not wanting child porn on Wikipedia all you like, but it's really rather irrelevant since the image is not child porn. --tjstrf talk 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It isnt strictly child porn but it is being used to illustrate child porn which is unacceptable enouigh to me and clearly others too, SqueakBox 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by illustrate? It shows something vaguely similar? What is this image doing that is so offensive? --Eyrian 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't being used to illustrate child porn, it's being used to illustrate lolicon. The two are nothing near equivalent even if you don't draw a distinction between reality and fantasy. --tjstrf talk 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree and nor do many others, hence the opposition to Lolicon. My objection is indeed that Lolicon is a type of child porn and that as such we shouldnt illustrate it, SqueakBox 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, patently incorrect. Much more falls under the term. I'm getting the distinct impression you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to anime and manga related subjects. --tjstrf talk 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the decision whether Lolicon is to be seen as a type of child porn would be the duty of a court, not yours. --Tsaryu @ 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is cearly child porn and supportive of Child sexual abuse and is unacceptable. It does not belong. DPetersontalk 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)DPeterson: I hardly think it's clear at all. And, in fact, would disagree. Given that the Supreme Court agrees with me [5], I think that the opinion has some credence. --Eyrian 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In the same line of thought ,hentai and porn encourages rape.--87.64.25.185 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The article that goes with this talk page actually has a fuller story, if it wouldn't be too much trouble to read the page. -Jmh123 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone add this please

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Lolicon.

After the disgraceful behaviour of 2 admins there re the afd on the images I wont be adding it myself, SqueakBox 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

afd is closed,[6].--87.65.205.174 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been reopened. Cary Bass demandez 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag accurate?

Is the {{NPOV}} tag on the page actually accurate? I realize there is an ongoing dispute here, but it doesn't seem to be an WP:NPOV issue to me. (Do we have a {{giantoverblownargument}}?)

SqueakBox had mentioned something earlier after he added it, but that complaint seems to have been fixed by modifying the lead. If we still need the NPOV tag, would someone please point out which sections of the article are POV and why? --tjstrf talk 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection to the neutrality of the section on controversy and legal issues which I did state here already--a lot is based on a single reference. There's been no effort to add opposing views beyond one little introductory sentence. Just because one scholar says something doesn't mean it should be the last word on the subject. We don't know if that's the commonly held view or a fringe view. We don't know if others have contradicted that view. Research on reliable sources on this topic is needed.
You said earlier that there were some other areas where the citations were weak or not existent. As is often the case here at Wikipedia, more time is spent debating a single point that improving articles. While I do not argue that neutrality is the main problem, I do argue that this article really needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard. -Jmh123 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the animenewsnetwork.com item I mentioned yesterday. I also did a quick Babelfish of the Japanese Wikipedia article on Lolicon. There's a lot of information there about lolicon itself (not the legal issues) for anyone who wants to take the time to distill it and follow through. It would take me days to translate and try to get everything right. My time is better spent elsewhere where I have the background. A lot could be done with this article by someone who knows some Japanese and has the time and inclination. There's lots of scholarly research about the topic in addition to what might be gleaned from the Japanese article. Seems to me like time better spent than fussing cause the illustration's ankles are not drawn well. -Jmh123 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I need to stop. Enough. A review of the Japanese research would be preferable, but being unable to do that, I have included accounts of citizens' organizations protests, notable child murders and so forth, to counter the limited claims in the old controversy section. I still say a lot of work needs to be done to add text to the article regarding lolicon and its history, as can be seen when this article is compared to the one in the Japanese Wikipedia article. As far as neutrality goes, I'm now satisfied. Quality of the article--not so much. -Jmh123 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, Mdwh, I didn't know you were editing me. I cut and pasted when there was an edit conflict because I didn't want to redo the refs I was working on. The name of the article was Lolicon Backlash in Japan. I tried to be NPOV by making it about a broader term based on the content. Change it if you think an article called Lolicon Backlash isn't about a lolicon backlash. PS--I hatessssss edit conflicts cause they've been going on all week. Sorry to get snippy. Hope I found an acceptable compromise. Jmh123 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my concern is that saying there's a significant public outcry is in my opinion a strong statement that can mislead the reader into thinking there's a significant proportion of the population against it, when often it's a vocal minority that speaks loudly about such things, and it could be that equal numbers of people disagree with them. It does cite the petition, but we don't know what the text says. It's true that there's a backlash, but it's not clear how representitive of general public opinion this is.
I'm fine with the current wording, though. Mdwh 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is likely that there was a significant proportion of the population against it, particularly when four children had been murdered. I didn't mind rewording, though, once I was over my snit. When the page is unprotected, I have more research on public reactions to add. -Jmh123 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why use a non-free picture of a pre-school sexual abuse victim?

It seems that every time I come back to this article somebody has put a picture of a prepubescent girl with a pseudophallus stuck in her mouth into the article. This is pretty good as an illustration of lolicon, but it's sort of tasteless. I've promoted the second picture, which is free and shows stacks of comic books, some of which feature rather buxom teenagers in school uniforms, to top place. This is lolicon, too, but it's not unnecessarily creepy. Please consider carefully before adding the little girl picture back: why is it necessary to use a non-free picture of a pre-school sexual abuse victim when a free one of older children is available? --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free is debatable. But that will be resolved on Commons. You yourself have admitted that it is a good illustration of the article subject. That trumps any concerns about tastefulness. The comic stack picture isn't illustrative at all. The notion of using an image that contains a stack of books that may or may not depict the article subject if you rummage around a little and squint is utterly ridiculous. It's not illustrative at all. And what do you mean by "pre-school sexual abuse victim"? Is it not clear to you that this is not a real person? Drawings can't be abused. --Eyrian 05:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well to answer you last question first, it shows a flat-chested little girl with a mock-phallus stuck in her mouth.
I don't think "a good illustration of the article's subject" does trump concerns about taste and decency. I'm the guy who put the untranscluded picture of a guy sucking his own cock onto the autofellatio article, but I think this is a bit creepier than that. She's a little girl. It's a symbolic dick. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever your personal concerns are, per Wikipedia policies, topical images trump any distaste. You've been here long enough that I don't need to start tossing out acronyms. I simply don't understand how you can't see that. Further, I don't fully get what you mean by "she". There is no she. There is no little girl. There is nobody to abuse, or degrade, or otherwise inflict harm upon. We could run in circles about "incitement", but that's always tremendously dicey. --Eyrian 05:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop this patronising nonsense about "personal distaste"? It's a pedophile fantasy picture. --Tony Sidaway 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No more of the little girl with a phallus stuck in her mouth, not everything needs an image, especially something that describe a "sexual attraction to a girl who is under the legal age of consent." --MichaelLinnear 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Which has what to do with its encyclopedic relevance? --tjstrf talk 06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The planet Earth, where all known lolicon comic books can be found
It's odd, because the lollipop doesn't bother me at all; it's the cameltoe that disturbs me a bit. But the fact is that it's clearly an unrealistic picture of a nonexistent girl, so whatever. Seems to me like it's a fair compromise for illustrating the article. The stack of comic books seems much inferior: I don't know if any of them are lolicon books, but even if some are, it would be like putting a picture of a culturally diverse crowd of people (some black, some white, some Asian) in the black people article, and then justifying it by saying "hey, some of them are black!" In that vein, I'd like to offer the following picture/caption for illustrating the article: --Ashenai 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely agree that the popsicle (despite being indeed somewhat phallic) is not nearly as bad as the character's body overall. And as you say, the picture is not realistic, and does not depict a real person. Nobody is harmed, and claims that such images encourage illegal behavior are somewhat farfetched; I should hope that people have more willpower than to let an exaggerated picture on some website dictate their own actions. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more in the pederasty article. SakotGrimshine 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images should not be included just for the sake of it, but if an image would be useful to the article, then some people finding it offensive is not a reason to disallow it. Wikipedia is not censored. If you disagree with that policy, then it needs to be taken up at a higher level. Also see Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

So even if we did a straw poll and decided that the typical Wikipedia reader would find the images offensive, that would not be reason to remove it, if there were good reasons for including it. So, are there good reasons for including it?

In my opinion, this falls clearly into the category "information about offensive material" - the article is about Lolicon, so presumably anyone who found the image offensive would find lolicon offensive in general. It's not being added into the article to cause offence, it's there to depict an offensive topic. An example of being offensive might be putting this image into a general Anime article, when clearly other images could be used.

As someone who knows little of Lolicon, my first thought is "So what is an example of Lolicon? What does it actually look like?" The bookstore image does not answer this question, and confuses the issue by also showing non-lolicon pictures, I believe. Mdwh 11:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only discernible lolicon books in the picture are ラヴュッ娘お兄ちゃん and (maybe) some of the other Million Comics titles. But as they're not featured as prominently as their standard huge-breasted hentai counterparts in the front I'm questioning the relevance of this picture. 85.196.190.200 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You could equally argue that we should illustrate child porn at thast article because people wont know what that looks like either though the reality is people apear to want soemthiong obscene to illustrate lolicon, we could easily illustarte it without having an abusive picture, SqueakBox 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Abusive to whom? --Eyrian 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much everyone. Children, our readers, our editors, the project itself etc. This lolicon stuff is being opposed and banned in the "real" world because it is abusive, and encourages criminal behaviour, SqueakBox 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How so? Who is being harmed and how? Claiming that since it is banned, it must be harmful, is an extreme fallacy, akin to "the government knows best", and has no place here. --Eyrian 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The point, at least for the bookstore picture, isn't about obscenity but about relevance. The picture should either illustrate lolicon or it shouldn't be there at all. 82.156.120.129 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that we would indeed have a picture at child porn were it not illegal in the United States. Powers T 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Its my understanding that we wouldnt, SqueakBox 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I was perhaps a bit hasty in stating that; there are, of course, other considerations besides legality. However, as I indicated below, many, if not most, of those considerations just plain don't apply to illustrated pornography when there is no real child involved. Your constant insistence on conflating the two is puzzling. Powers T 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not my insistence but that of the vast majority of decent thinking (ie good faith) people, SqueakBox 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the vast majority of decent thinking people had weighed in on this topic. Are you perhaps privy to data the rest of us are not? Powers T 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
And, I hasten to point out, even if we would not, that has no implications for this article, because objections to images of real child pornography can involve actual harm to the real child depicted, an objection which patently doesn't apply in the case of lolicon. Powers T 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Child porn is, unlike lolicon, set is stone as being totally illegal. Also, of course, it does affect real people adversely. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think more people know what children look like than "lolicon" - with the latter, there are far more questions to be answered, such as in what way are the characters depicted as "child-like"? Are they clearly children, or is it ambiguous? Etc.
And you appear to be conflating "abusive" with "offensive" - this is not helpful to the discussion. I suspect that most editors would be against including child porn images not because it might offend people, but because people have been harmed in its creation. Now sure, some people like yourself claim that putting a picture of a cartoon will somehow cause harm - but some people say that putting pictures of Muhammad will cause violence. Either way, speculative claims are not the same as when actual abuse has already occurred, and the consensus seems to be (on all articles, not just here) that the former is not grounds for not having an image.
Are you really saying there are only two possibilities for Wikipedia: (a) the child porn article should show child porn images, or (b) no article should show images if at least one person somewhere might be offended by them? Mdwh 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Its hardly a matter of one, its the vast majority of people, SqueakBox 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sceptical that the vast majority of people would find the image on this page offensive - do you have evidence for this claim? Anyhow, being offensive is not a reason to remove an informative image (as in the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy case - the consensus there was to show the images, even though it offends many people). There are reasons other than "it's offensive" to not show child porn pictures. Mdwh 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there isnt the universal condemnation re lolicon that there is re CP but I would argue it does hurt people just as any fake CP hurts people, and this is a strong argument used by many people to condemn it, SqueakBox 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it strong? --Eyrian 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Err....well the arguemts are good, well thought out and correct, SqueakBox 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What arguments? You just said the fact that it's harmful is a strong argument. Where is the argument there? --Eyrian 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You dont think child sexual abuse victims suffer harm? or what? SqueakBox 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I do, but there aren't any real children involved with lolicon. --Eyrian 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
How does any fake child porn hurt people? Mdwh 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
By encouraqging real child sexual abuse, SqueakBox 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Dubious, unproven, inconsistent. --Eyrian 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
According to you, which of course doesnt make your assertion true, SqueakBox 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand the principles of fundamental skepticism, which is essential to rational, scientific thought. Something is dubious until it is proven. And the link has not been proven. As for inconsistent, few people consider showing other illegal activities encouragement.--Eyrian 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If we deleted images based on any claim that it encouraged abuse, then this would pretty much mean that any image which someone found offensive would have to be removed. Should the Doom screenshots be removed, because "they encourage violence"? Mdwh 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Few people. That's completely wrong, and as for using skepticism to justify CP, that's an abuse of skepticism, SqueakBox 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. I'm going to stop. I disagree, but I don't think any headway will be made here. --Eyrian 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone arguing over inclusion of the image as regards policy, or are we now just debating the merits and potential harmfulness of the subject itself? Because if it's the latter, then while it may be philosophically interesting to argue over whether a person's character is influenced by exposure to media vs. whether the exposure merely brings out existing traits, having pages protected happens to be a Bad Thing and prevents improvement of the article. --tjstrf talk 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a reprehensible image and does not belong. It is CP and is supportive of child sexual abuse. DPetersontalk 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Reprehensible images is turning up as a redlink for me. Am I spelling it wrong or something? All I can find is this. --tjstrf talk 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon victim of Moral panic?(i am targeting some of you)--87.64.5.92 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how the nesting should be, but I wanted to agree that if you come to this article, there should be an illustration of what lolicon is. It seems like the only argument against is possibly offending someone, which various people have already pointed out shouldn't be the criteria. If it were illegal, then yes, obviously there's a clear case against it. But given that it isn't (at least, I haven't heard anyone argue that it is), WP:NOT#CENSORED is basically the only guideline, right? WLGades 08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that everybody who is objecting to pictures of lolicon being included on this article, are also outraged by Image:Coition of a Hemisected Man and Woman.jpg, because not only is that also a drawing, it's a drawing of an actual sex act between two individuals of ambiguous age. If you're going to be outraged by one drawing of a non-nude girl of ambiguous age (ex: my sister-in-law is 32 and could pass for 13, seriously), you should also be outraged by all drawings of penetrative sex acts between persons of ambiguous age. Did anybody remember a few months ago when the featured picture of the day on the main page was eye surgery? Boy, did people ever complain about that one! As squickish as that picture was (I avoided Wikipedia as much as possible until midnight GMT when it changed), it remained there because WP:NOT#CENSORED. --Billdorr 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

People, I have thought of an easy solution. Why not ask our very own Japanese Lolicon artist to give us permission to use some of his works or make a new one, since his lolicon pictures are pretty extreme? Then we'd have an actual lolicon image made by a Japanese Lolicon artist in the page, and it would be completely free! What could be more fitting? We could choose the image from here. --83.245.135.80 10:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We tried the first route and he stated that he did not wish to contribute pornographic images to Wikipedia. He stated this on his talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute this is actually his site?He draw all that?And he is somehow ashamed to contribute some hentai to wikipedia,this seems weard to me.Maybe he is afraid that king Jimbo treats him a "pedophile troll".--87.65.169.41 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
He has comported himself with class throughout this debate (primarily by staying out of it), and is the only one of you who has actually made a substantive contribution to the text on the page since this whole debate began. Seems to me he's got a sense of propriety and a lot of respect for Wikipedia. I think posting that link was.... well, I'll be civil and just say it was thoughtless. -Jmh123 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's my site. But you can't use the images in my porn-art site under the copyleft. Because all of they are fanarts. Even if I will draw the original art, I can't contribute any pornography to the site where children browse. --Kasuga 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese culture

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife by Hokusai.

I think that one of the problems with the article is that it considers the issue out of context.hentai and Pornography in Japan articles are doing a beter job in that.From what i understood,because of too much censorship,all the weardow stuff appeared in order to circumvent it.--87.64.25.185 06:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Those entries have some content--that helps. This one does a poor job of even explaining what lolicon is, hence some of the confusion. It also has the burden of being about animated child pornography, which takes it into a different realm of issues when it comes to imagery. While the content is weak, one thing is obvious, and that is that the appropriateness of this kind of imagery is controversial, period, not just on this page. Sure the images being debated are tame compared to actual lolicon, while still conveying the suggestiveness that creates a border between lolicon and other genres, but because it is child pornography, it is a more sensitive subject. It's been my experience that many disputes over a single area of content are resolved if the entry as a whole is improved. No one asked me, but if they did, I'd say put this issue aside for a month or two and concentrate on improving the entry. -Jmh123 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support that effort. This constant bickering is destructive to the project, regardless of the merits of either side. Powers T 11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A very nice addition this morning Kasuga. Thank you! -Jmh123 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. In an attempt to contribute to the cultural information in this article, I added the following very carefully phrased paragraph, complete with appropriate internal links:
Two combined factors may explain the notable prevalence of marked juvenile aspects in japanese kinky art. First, the "kawaii" phenomenon, known in the West as "tiny is cute", and extremely popular in Japan, where it is present in all the manga/anime style. Then there's the age-related respect culture, which considers the signs of mature age as synonymous with venerable wisdom: when an old character -preferably a sensei- displays flirting or kinky behavior, it's nearly always in an off-beat humorous and caricatural "Dirty Old Man" manner (Dragon Ball's Muten-Rôshi, Master Happosai in Ranma 1/2...).
Now I see it has been removed. Is it vandalism, or does somebody in charge believe this contribution is irrelevant to the understanding of Japanese culture and WikiProject Japan? I didn't think it needed more reference than the internal links, the rest being self-evident. Or did it somehow sound like a POV defense of Lolicon?
P.S.: I've just created a user account, after discovering that some dubious edits were attributed to my IP address, perhaps because my provider distributes those partly at random upon connecting. I hope this will prevent any misunderstandings caused by vandals in my area. Issar El-Aksab 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not self-evident at all. I removed it because I believe it to be Original Research, which Wikipedia does not publish. If you would like opinions of other editors, you'll probably have more luck if you post in a new section at the bottom of the page. (Hit the "+" tab.) --tjstrf talk 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue hair

I think the blue hair on the loli girl in the article should be noted with something like "...and lolicon may have anime aspects, such as blue hair in this drawing." SakotGrimshine 05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. More about the relationship between lolicon and anime in general would be great. -Jmh123 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The article clearly says that "the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime". --Akronym 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

As it was said, having this page protected is a bad thing. It is standing in the way of the improvements mentioned above. It is my view that keeping the images is a matter of policy. Wikipedia is not censored, and people against the images have yet to cite anything aside from offensiveness or encouragement to sin, which is not a valid reason to censor illustrative images. The arguments are not going to be resolved, but the policies are clear. The page should be protected, with that understanding of policy in mind. If people don't want the images to stay, and have a valid policy reason to have them removed, please indicate that here. --Eyrian 21:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Err how do you get it that policy suports your side of this POV conflict. I always get nervous when people start demanding their version of an article because policy demands it. Such policies do not exist even with the best wiki-lawyering. Given the determination of a small number of pro the image editors to edit war their way to success against a larger number of editors who dont want it I cannot see how unprotecting would do any more than rekindle the edit war. All compromise is being rejected by those who want the image, esp Sidaway's porn shop pic compromise, SqueakBox 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't really been established that the "porn shop pic" even depicts lolicon manga at all. Certainly the majority of it depicts fully-developed post-pubescent females. As for compromises, the current image (finalsolution-chan) actually is a compromise. You should've seen what was there before. =) Powers T 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What was there before was worse but this image is still no good, post-pubescent breasts is at least somewhat acceptable, portrayal of pre-pubescenbt children in sexual poses is unacceptable, SqueakBox 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
While you may not like the image, there is nothing illegal about it according to US or Florida laws, is not pornographic, is a free use image, and removing the image because you are offended by it would be a violation of WP:NOT#CENSORED. --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but "post-pubescent breasts" are not illustrative of the topic. As for unacceptability, it's clear that you don't accept it; Tony doesn't accept it; several other people don't accept it; but it's far from clear that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can't accept it. Powers T 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Please cite policy. You seem to be claiming that displaying the image is NPOV; that's simply not true. Does displaying images of Hiroshima encourage the use of nuclear weapons? The image that is currently in use demonstrates the subject. It does not say it it is good, it does not say it's bad, it merely illustrates what it is. How could showing what something is possibly be NPOV? --Eyrian 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean "POV," right? Powers T 13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So I do. --Eyrian 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to accept child sexual abuse illustrations? More alarmingly why would anyone expect someone else to accept child sexual abuse illustrations? WP:IAR is the best policy we have for this issue, SqueakBox 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules doesn't mean just do what you want so articles are as you want them. It means that procedure shouldn't get in the way of improving the encyclopedia; that the letter of the law shouldn't interfere with the spirit. Censoring the article is against both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies. There is no Wikilawyering. You want to remove illustrative, legal images because they offend you. There is no policy that supports that spirit. Overwhelming consensus is that the article is legal (And besides, that's not ours to decide, that's a WP:OFFICE problem). Do you contest that the image illustrates the article subject? If it meets those conditions, then it should be in the article. Anything else is censorship. --Eyrian 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any image of sexual abuse on this article. IAR says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; I don't see how having the image there prevents anything. Mdwh 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to accept child sexual abuse illustrations? Now you are making strawmen as there is no "child sexual abuse illustration" on the article. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

{{editprotect}} Can we remove the {{totally disputed}}? DPeterson (talk · contribs) added it but never give any reasons as to why he is disputing the entire contents of the article. If it was simply over the image of FS-chan, then the tag was misapplied. --Farix (Talk) 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose removing this tage, especially givent he article is locked. It replaced an NPOV tag which I put on because of the pic and my inability to edit the opening in an NPOV way without this being reverted, SqueakBox 00:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
But what is being disputed? As far as I can tell, all of the POV issues have been addressed, though the use of weasel words needs to be cleaned up. --Farix (Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Once you find consensus about the content of the page, the page can get unprotected. At the moment, there does not appear to be consensus, so I am disabling the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he was asking for unprotection, but for the totally disputed flag tag to be removed. As he says, we have no idea what is being disputed. If we like, we can replace it with the NPOV tag as that's what it replaced, and is currently being discussed, but there appears to be no issue of the page being totally disputed. Mdwh 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The {{POV}} may be more applicable, but the factual accuracy on the article is not being disputed, which is what the {{totally disputed}} is for. --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think the huge section about the legality of lolicon is undo weight because it causes the article focus on this single aspect rather then on lolicon in general. The section should be split omto its own article and a brief summery put in its place per Wikipedia:Article series. --Farix (Talk) 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Is it legal?" is by far the most-asked question about lolicon, at least from people who know what lolicon is at all. (The second-most-asked question is "Can I see an example?") As such, I think it's appropriate to answer the "Is it legal?" question; and because of the variation among jurisdictions, it's not possible to answer it briefly for a global audience. However, a strong argument could also be made that if the legality stuff were split into a separate article, it might encourage better-quality editing of the other information (NOT related to legality) in the main article, so we might be better off with the split anyway. My !vote would be against splitting, but not strongly against. 216.75.189.154 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose splitting, it would make the article more POV than ever, SqueakBox 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How would it make it more POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The legal section helps balance out the pro lolicon POV, SqueakBox 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What pro lolicon POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the pic for a start, the opening for second, SqueakBox 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Other then being of poor artistic quality, I see nothing wrong with the first image. The second image of the book store doesn't actually illustrate the subject. I also don't see anything wrong with the lead as it states what lolicon is and that some people consider it a form of child pornography. So exactly what in the lead does is POV or is factually incorrect? However having 2/3 of the article dedicated to the legal aspect of lolicon does not "balance out" the lead. Instead, it's undo weight. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Dont you mean undue weight? Well I disagree and the article isnt long enough to be split so if you8 want to balance it to whaty you conmnsider NPOV I would suggest adding to the article not removing some of it, SqueakBox 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
POV shouldn't be "balanced out", it should be fixed. You didn't say what in the lead you consider POV. If you say what it is, then perhaps it can be fixed. --Askild 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My edits there were reverted but not sure when I made them over these last days so hard to find them, if the article were unlocked I would (and will) try to rewrite it again), SqueakBox 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could rewrite it here, and we can discuss it? --Askild 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay but not tonight, I'm about to go offline, SqueakBox 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean edits such as [7] [8] and [9]? Mdwh 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be POV as lolicon isn't limited to just pornography. It is a more complex issue then that simplified description. --Farix (Talk) 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that you believe the image to be offensive, and to cause children to be abused, but in what way is the image POV? In what way is the opening POV? Mdwh 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

New lead

{{editprotect}}

The lead paragraph could be made more clear, so here is my stab at it:

Current:

Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon), in the Western world, is a genre of manga-style sexualized drawings involving childlike female characters. The term Loli is derived from Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita. In Japan, Lolicon is a slang portmanteau short for Lolita complex. In Japan, it refers to an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. The equivalent genre focused on male characters is shotacon. Some people consider its sexually explicit forms to be a type of child pornography,[1] and their legality in some Western nations is ambiguous.

Proposed:

Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon), alternatively spelled lolikon, is a slang portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". The phrase is a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita, in which a much older man becomes sexually obsessed with a twelve-year-old girl. In Japan, the term is used to describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. Outside Japan, the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon. Critics believe that lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, and several countries have attempted to criminalize lolicon's sexually explicit forms as a type of child pornography.

--Farix (Talk) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest "young girls," "girls in their teens or below," or possibly even "prepubescent girls," though that last is of questionable validity given the large number of so-called "lolicon" characters with bouncy adult-type breasts. Not "girls below the age of consent." Someone doesn't magically start or stop being a lolicon fan just because they crossed an international border to somewhere with a different age of consent. Defining lolicon in terms of the law also comes dangerously close to begging the question on the legality discussion, and thus dangerously close to the kind of POV you're trying to eliminate. 216.75.189.154 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't payed that much attention to AoC laws in Japan, but it use to be 14. But I think they recently changed the age to 16, which is in line with most other nations, AFAIK. --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I'd change "legality is...ambiguous" to "...contested," as there seems to be a fair amount of arguing and modifying laws still. The law at any given time is clear, but changes are fluid. How is sexualized depictions different from poses? Myabe just skip that? "...drawn in suggestive or erotic poses..."???? -Jmh123 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording a bit. First I replaced the word "ambiguous" with "contested" as you suggested, I also added anime into the Western description. And finally I changed "...drawn in suggestive or erotic poses..." to "...depicted in a sexualized manner...", in part because of what you said and in also recognized that not all lolicon is drawn. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds excellent! -Jmh123 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there consensus to use this as the new intro? --Eyrian 23:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If your asking if there has been any complaints from SqueakBox about it having a pro-lolicon POV? Not yet. --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to go back on that. I disagree with it as it currently stands. Calling something child porn is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary source. Some article doesn't really meet that. I think that needs a better source if it's going to stay. --Eyrian 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The statement doesn't say that it IS, just that critics call it that. -Jmh123 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but everything has critics. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Further, to ensure NPOV, I feel that there should be a statement to the contrary, similarly sourced. --Eyrian 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
An early version of the sentence already exists on the article with an attribution. But I don't find it all that extraordinary of a claim, but one that is fairly self-evident. In fact, I think the counterclaim would be the extraordinary claim and is the one that needs extraordinary evidence. --Farix (Talk) 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As I say below, at the basic level this is simply a matter of definitions and interpretation. Is the image on the article that of a child? Well, one would answer yes, in the context of what it is depicting, but clearly there is no child. This applies to anything fictional - if a film portrays a murder, has a murder taken place? Well yes, in the story, but clearly a murder hasn't really taken place. But I think the question is what is meant by saying it's child porn - if someone said "murder in films should count as murder", whilst films obviously depict murder, I'd find that quite an odd statement. Mdwh 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Lolicon has had more than its fair share of critics. More than half the entry is about legal issues. The idea that lolicon is child pornography is not an "earth is flat" kind of idea. As for the statement to the contrary, perhaps you could write and source one for us? A huge part of the problem here is that there's way too little information about the genre itself. What do you expect people to think? It's sexy pictures of little girls, but it's not porn because....why? How about helping us out here a little? -Jmh123 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand it's not an "earth is flat" idea, but on the other hand, there are people who say "pornography is rape" or "pornography is abuse" - whilst this viewpoint should be covered, it's not a candidate for the lead definition of pornography.
Also, what do we actually mean by saying it is child porn? At the most basic level, it's simply a matter of definitions - whether "child porn" only covers actual children, or includes any child-like depiction. But I'm not sure that this debate is simply one of definitions, and suspect it is something more? E.g., people who claim it might be saying it should be treated as child pornography from a legal point of view, or saying that it is just as immoral as porn involving actual children. So I think we need to be specific on what is being said - and then we can see if this is appropriate for the lead or not. Mdwh 02:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you think it should say? Write it and try it out. -Jmh123 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends what the sources should say. Based on [10], I think that is saying that it should be treated as child porn legally, so perhaps something like "Critics believe that lolicon should be classified as child pornography"? (or "legally classified"?) The debate seems to be what the law should cover, rather than what the non-legal definition of child pornography is. Also, we should be careful - would such a proposal criminalise all lolicon? The source says "contain depiction of sexual activities" - as with the UK's proposed law, this suggests images of sexual acts, but not necessarily including things such as sexually suggestive posing, so it's not clear whether they believe that all lolicon should be included under child porn laws. Mdwh 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've adjusted the last sentence to associate critics with criminalization of lolicon as a type of child port instead of just calling it child porn. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it. It implies that all critics believe that, and I think it's too specific about what forms the critics think should be criminalized. I think the previous sentence was superior, and with a little tweaking could have addressed Mdwh's concerns. =) Powers T 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that last sentence or two are ever going to satisfy everyone. I've adjusted it again to hit a happy medium. But I'm sure someone isn't going to like it in one form or another. Part of the problem is that it is a generalized statement. And like most generalized statements, it is never going to be 100% representative of the issue. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But surely that's a problem with all the other versions too - it's not true that all critics believe it should be classified as child pornography, either (and I can't help feeling that there can't be many people who believe it is a form of child porn, but don't believe it should be illegal, as surely that would imply they believe child porn should be legal). "no different" seems rather vague - presumably they don't think it's the same in every form (since it doesn't involve children), so in what ways do they think it is the same? And what sources are there for this claim? Mdwh 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather then having everyone keep complaining about the last two sentences, why not offer an alternative? --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I did (see above) (what we say should be what the sources say, and if we don't have any reliable sources on what critics say as a whole, then we probably shouldn't be saying anything in the lead, as Zorndyke says). But I think your version now is fine, and I prefer it to my suggestion, so thanks. Mdwh 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't think the comipress source is sufficient to make the claim that critics believe it should be criminalized as child pornography, just that it should be illegal. Reading it a few times, I don't see the former factual connection. A better source will be required to make the "Critics claim" sentence. --Eyrian 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the lead should be changed back to how it was until 5 June.
"Critics believe..." And what if some other people believe that hentai art (inclusive lolicon hentai) contributes to relief of sexual desires thus lowers abuse potential? Shouldn't we include it in the lead too? None of this belongs in the lead, it belongs in Controversy. Also I agree that "critics believe" sounds like all critics believe it, it should be "some critics claim". But as I said - it doesn't belong in the lead anyway.
I disagree with moving of the Western interpretation behind the Japanese one in the lead. The order is fine the way it is now in the article. I think it's quite obvious that the most people who view this article for the first time either followed a direct link on some anime/hentai site(forum) or followed a google link looking for the meaning of "lolicon" in anime/manga context. Let them read what they're looking for first. Zorndyke 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going to say that it seemed much better to me, but it seems that you were correct. Powers T 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead is a summery of the entire article must cover the most important points in an article. So not only is mentioning criticism in the lead appropriate, but is necessary according to WP:LEAD. Also, the term originates from Japan, so the Japanese meaning of the term takes primacy over its Western meaning. It would be systemic bias if you switch the two around, because you are saying that the Western interpretation is more important then the original Japanese meaning from which the term comes from. Also, if you look at the leads of both anime and manga, you will also see that the Japanese meanings of the terms are given first, with the Western meaning following. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
While I still prefer the current order, it's true that your version would be more consistent with other wikipedia articles.
Still you can't mention in the lead the critics alone. There doesn't see to be a cohesion between strict laws regarding lolicon art and decrease of child abuse. The argument that lolicon's impact is rather positive is not less evidentiary than the opposite one. So if you insist on including critics' views, you should include the views of the proponents in the lead as well. And the small group that is mentioned in the referred article as not more representative than a lolicon art community. Zorndyke 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the "rebuttal" needs to be brought up in the lead, but it should be in the criticism section. But exactly what sources are there to rebut the critic's charges? --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How about, "Critics believe that lolicon is a type of child pornography, and several countries have attempted to criminalize its sexually explicit forms." This version saves the causal argument for the controversies section, where it is addressed/rebutted/etc. Will that satisfy those who think the emphasis in the lead is too strong? -Jmh123 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Barring any further comments, I'll send a request for this new lead. --Farix (Talk) 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus. I was still looking for better sources, but the ones below should be sufficient to counter comipress (that mentions a rather small group) and Bush's speech (he simply ignores the First Amendment and the ruling of Supreme Court).
For now please remove the last sentence.
Not "critics", it's "some critics claim".
To clarify it further:
Critics vs. some critics: you don't have a source summarizing all or even the most critics. Thus it should be "some".
Believe vs. claim: we don't know what they really believe. All we know is what they claim. They could as well be just very disgusted by lolicon drawings and use the well known "think of the children" tactics. Thus it should be "claim".
Even more importantly - if you really want to include "Critics believe" you should add the defenders/proponents view too. As for sources, this one could be included: http://www.akibaangels.com/articles/06_2006/protect_freedom2_e.php
Also how about this source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it."
It's obvious that if Supreme Court would find a direct connection, any kind of proof that materials like lolicon cause child abuse, it would not oppose banning of the former. These are the reasons why many countries don't ban lolicon and even the countries that seem to have legislations against it usually don't enforce it ( 1. No real proof for causation found. 2. A mere suspicion of some people is not sufficient to ban something. ) Zorndyke 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

japanese context

It's not about lolicon,but anybody can sea the relevance with the article.I mean,in order to understand lolicon in the Japanese context [11].(SqueakBox will have a heart attack)--87.65.140.45 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Japanese but i'm ready to bet that ,that 9,is not 9 Yen.[12]--87.65.140.45 06:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

９才 indeed means 9 years old. --Tsaryu @ 12:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

I've just discovered that the main source in the controversies section was written in 1973 (smacks self for not checking that sooner) and is about television watching, the effect of TV violence on kids. I wonder if the book addresses lolicon specifically at all or just sexual images/violence/etc. on TV. At any rate it couldn't have addressed "the early 1970s onward" (implying till today) as our text says, when it was published in 1973. So that whole argument about pornography reducing the incidence of crime is thirty years old, and I'd like to rewrite accordingly once the page is unlocked. Are Japanese sex crimes still down as the pornography industry has grown? Somebody might want to find a more up-to-date source on this. I'd like to keep working on the social issues in the controversies section as I still have more ideas and sources on that.

Well, yeah, this article urgently needs unprotecting as the issues go far beyond the image that has caused the locking, SqueakBox 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - the 1973 source cited in the article actually says that pornography will increase sex crimes, and is countered by another, later (1999) source that argues what this source is attributed to arguing--this error is a result of an error I made in earlier edits. In the earlier version sourcing was not at all clear--that is, a general pronoucement was made, not attributed in the text to any individual source (but footnoted), but now that I know what's what I can follow the original. I should've checked more carefully. So, the error in the current version (which is my error) is the source to which one of the statements is attributed.-Jmh123 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Jmh, why don't you start a new draft of the section on the talk page like I did with the lead above? As it stand now, that is the only way in which anything is going to get done. As for possible sources, I'm sure that Answerman's complaints about lolicon in his columns on Anime News Network[13] would be a good start for Western specific criticism. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to fix the errors I made first, but I can't grab the code because the page is locked. I have sources and notes already for a few new things after that, but I'm a first things first kind of person. I want to fix my ding-danged mistakes. -Jmh123 03:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You can still see the code/markup by selecting "view source", so that shouldn't be a problem. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh thanks--I didn't see that. Yay. -Jmh123 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the first paragraph with the errors fixed and some edits:

{{editprotect}} Opponents of illustrated lolicon pornography claim that even fictional material encourages viewing children as sex objects and can contribute to actual sexual abuse.[2] However, others argue there is no direct evidence to support the claim that viewing pornography leads to sexual crime. Diamond and Uchiyama suggest that there is a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany, and conclude that the widespread availability of sexually explicit material can in fact reduce the rate of sexual crimes. Diamond and Uchiyama also state, however, that it is probable that the reduction of sex crimes by and upon juveniles in Japan is due to other factors as well: the demands of the increasingly competitive educational system on children's time, an increase in consensual sexual outlets such as prostitution and pre-marital sex, and "socially positive proactive forces" such as sex education in schools and stronger family supervision at home.[3]

-Jmh123 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection, can we ask User:MZMcBride to replace the paragraph with this corrected and amended one? That citation error is driving me nuts. Thanks. -Jmh123 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I put the edit protect on there for you. I assume that only the first paragraph is to be changed? --Farix (Talk) 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, just the first paragraph. -Jmh123 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions and ideas

One of my sources said by the 2000's half of Japanese animated pornography had become child pornography, which brings up a question--is lolicon just any drawn/animated child pornography that features little girls, and, if not, what distinguishes it? Another question--are the girls in lolicon of ambiguous age as in other anime?

What is all the "research" mentioned early on about specifically? Psychology? Art? Sociology? More? What?

Kasuga's new section takes us to the end of the 80's, but what about the 80's to the present?

The "lolicon in the west" section is pretty short also. What do people watch? How/where? Do Americans draw it? Europeans? and so on -Jmh123 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bringing this from earlier--I read it today and it's very interesting. Also pertinent to 80's to today. I recommend it and I'd be interested in hearing others' reactions to it. -Jmh123 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else even done research published in English on this subject? --tjstrf talk 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some research by Sharon Kinsella.[http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/nerd.html AMATEUR MANGA SUBCULTURE AND THE OTAKU PANIC] Anymouse1 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More interesting reading: "I'm alone, but not lonely" [14] -Jmh123 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose moving "Lolicon in the west" (to be expanded someday by someone) to immediately after "Lolicon in Japan," followed by "Origins," which takes us to the end of the 80's, and then this new section, which would then be followed by the "Controversies" section. That section could then perhaps be rewritten a little. This proposed section sets up the debate in the next between the "Otaku panic" in reaction to the murders of the little girls and the Hawaii research. I haven't created the formal code for the cites in this proposed section, just put the info in parens, as this is simply a draft. Please feel free to critique, add, subtract, and so forth. -Jmh123 17:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new section - Lolicon and gender roles

According to Kinsella, lolicon is an outgrowth of a style of amateur manga drawn by women, popular in the 80's, which featured male homosexual love stories and parodies of famous boys' manga. In the late 1980's men began to follow these women's styles in writing amateur manga about girl characters: "Lolicom manga usually features a volumptuous girl heroine with large eyes and a pre-pubescent body, scantily clad in an outfit which approximates a cross between a 1970's bikini and a space-age suit of armour. She is liable to be cute, tough and clever." (Kinsella, p. 11) [15] As the genre created by and for men evolved, it moved from these cute, tough heroines towards depictions of girls as sexual victims: naked, helpless, fearful, sometimes bound or chained. Lolicon can be found in computer games and animated videos, as well as manga.

Kinsella asserted that amateur manga expresses a disjuncture in cultural expectations of gender roles in Japan. The amateur parodies of famous manga drawn by women ridiculed the macho male stereotype, and appealed to both women and men who found the stereotype unattractive. Lolicon manga, on the other hand, expresses male resentment towards and a fixation with young women, who have become increasingly powerful in contemporary Japanese society, and "a reactive desire to see these young women disarmed, infantilised, and subordinate." Male interest in girls' manga expresses simultaneously, "fear and desire" towards women. (Kinsella, p. 11, 12) Kinsella argued that a parallel situation exists in the west, both as to the most popular forms of manga imports and the popular parodies of Star Trek, Red Dwarf and the like, and to the underlying sociological conditions being expressed. (Kinsella, p.12)

Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki stated in an interview with Animage in 1988 that while he prefers to make his heroines girls, "It's difficult. They immediately become the subjects of rorikon gokko (play toy for Lolita Complex guys). In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict (such heroines) as if they just want (such girls) as pets, and things are escalating more and more." He expressed concern as to what this might mean for "human rights for women." original source: Animage, vol 125, November, 1988

I'm not sure if Kinsella portrayed the roots of lolicon art correctly, but as of now there seem to be quite a few female mangaka who don't mind loli at all. I don't know many mangaka by name, but here're some examples:
Hikari Hayashibara - her artwork was used for wiki lolicon article for a long time (as representative lolicon artwork, it was removed because some people considered it offensive even though the official reason was copyright issues iirc... it doesn't matter now, I'm just saying that it was considered a good example of lolicon art)
Yukiru Sugisaki - Rizelmine anime is based on her manga. It was *the* lolicon innuendo anime for a long time
Kaworu Watashiya - author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the West (thanks to S7' attempt to publish it, the scanlations, etc.)
Well, I don't object the proposed change anyway. Zorndyke 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I applied over at translation yesterday asking for a translation of the relevant sections of the Japanese lolicon entry to try to resolve the conflicting versions of the origins before adding this. I don't think what I've written implies that "female mangaka...mind loli", rather, that they originally drew a different kind of character. Would you say that the lolicon of the mangaka's you have linked portrays girls as victims & pets or as tough & clever? If they also draw victimized girls, and if most of those who buy their work are also female, then that would call Kinsella's thesis into question. I'll check these links you indicate. I'd much prefer that you and others who actually know something about lolicon get involved with writing and adding information this entry. Why is it that there's so much interest in the illustration (keeping it, changing it, improving it) and so little in the content? In comparison to the entries on hentai, yaoi, and others, lolicon is absurdly empty of information about the genre itself. This is a case where one picture is not worth a thousand words. -Jmh123 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Repeating a few of my earlier questions: One of my sources said by the 2000's half of Japanese animated pornography had become child pornography, which brings up a question--is lolicon just any drawn/animated child pornography that features little girls, and, if not, what distinguishes it? Another question--are the girls in lolicon of ambiguous age as in other anime? The "lolicon in the west" section is pretty short. What do people watch? How/where? (There's a partial answer in the links you provided.) Do Americans draw it? Europeans? These sites such as 4chan seem to be very influential, at least on some of the Wikipedia folks--what are they exactly, and what role do they play in the reception of lolicon in the west? I present these questions because I believe that the answers should be in the entry, with sources, not because I want to write all about these things myself. I really don't. I simply find that many times content disputes are a result of a poorly written entry, and that much could be resolved by improving it. I think that's the case here, and I want to encourage all the editors who appear to defend whatever picture is current when it's challenged to get engaged in improving the entry. -Jmh123 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all we shouldn't use the term "child pornography", especially if you hope that people who know something about this topic join this discussion. This term is quite offensive for many loli art fans. If you check the rules of loli forums and image boards you'll see that "NO child pornography" is mostly the first rule. Let's reserve this term for *actual* child pornography. There will be no dialogue as long you treat loli fans with tar and feathers. Btw. 4chan has nothing to do with lolicon. It's just the biggest (or one of the biggest) English image boards that *used* to have a lolicon section, but it was removed long time ago (mostly to be able to use certain payment service). Zorndyke 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking questions because I don't know. Thanks for your response. So what's the appeal of lolicon? Why is it so popular? What is it exactly anyway? If the term "child pornography" is offensive to those who view it, and "NO child pornography" is the first rule, then why doesn't the entry state that? The article should be written so that people who don't know anything about lolicon can understand the genre better. -Jmh123 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading a rough translation on Google of /wiki/ロリータ・コンプレックス at ja.Wikipedia.org, the translation proposal appears well thought out. The only problem is placing the new Subsection in the context of the Article; at this time, I would recommend making the Translation a new Subsection 1.2 in the absence of better context. - B.C.Schmerker 07:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never a plan to insert the translation directly into the text. We're just looking for information to expand, and might use part of the translation in the entry. And yes, 1.2 (prior to the current 1.2) is where the information is relevant. In fact, I think 1.1 is actually a translation from Japanese Wikipedia, more or less, but I'm not sure. -Jmh123 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know the legal statis in Australia?

Technically it is illegal to sell X-rated material (films AND pictures including illustrations) in Australia outside of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
Under amendments made in 2005 to the Criminal Code Act (CCA) of 1995,
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/cc94/
Australian laws states that 'virtual porn' of children is given no exclusion from the same limitation as porn that has actual underage people in it. Though many pople DO import it the same way that they import X rated films and those that are "RC".

Pic size

If we are going to have the opening pic I suggest we keep it at 40 pixels and if people want to see it in more detail they can click on it, SqueakBox 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The opening pic is illustrative and on-topic. Please stop trying to censor it. --Eyrian 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Points for creativity in attempted censorship, but why on earth should we create arbitrary difficulties for the visually impaired? If you don't want to see it when you edit the article, you're quite welcome to block the image with FireFox. --tjstrf talk 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not censoring at all. You want the pic illustrating and we have it. Please assume good faith which false censorship accusations is not as censorship would be removing the pic, if so. Its not what I want its what our readersd get to see that is important. If you folk keep refusing point blankl to any compromise we nmeed some kind of dispute resolution. I might be willing ot go up a few pixels but removing the size and leaving a gighantic pic is not a solution esp given this article is tagged because of the pic, SqueakBox 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, please, let this one go. The picture was approved by a member of ArbCom a long time ago. It's called "final solution" because it was the final solution to a protracted battle. -Jmh123 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The above threrads shopw clearly that the mere inclusion of the pic is disputed. Having pornographic cartoon pics of children is not acceptable. Members of the arbcom get to vote just like everyone else in content disputes like this. if she didnt have the ice cream in her mouth it would be better. i am making a lot of efforts to compromise and dont see anyone supporting the pic making any compromises, SqueakBox 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have votes. It has policies and arguments. The policies clearly indicate what needs to be done here, and I have yet to see an argument beyond "I don't like it" in opposition. There is no reason I can see to remove a freely-licensed, illustrative image. --Eyrian 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That's because they've all fought this battle before, and the current picture is a compromise. It was not wise to stir things up by soliciting a new image, the LoliWikipetan, but that one is gone. The current picture has been there for ages. -Jmh123 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Someone please explain the current reason for this tag. --Eyrian 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The pic is diputed, it shouldnt be in the article at all and is POV, SqueakBox 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why? --Eyrian 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, you may remove it. -Jmh123 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope you mean "You may remove the tag" and not "You may remove the picture." 216.75.189.154 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant remove the tag. While I'm here, please excuse my incorrect edit comments and self-reversion in the controveries section today. -Jmh123 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop wasting our time

A month ago, the loli wikipetan image was added. Now, after 155kb of talk page discussion, an AN/I thread, multiple edit wars, commons image wrangling, one of the longest runs of full page protection I've ever seen, and divine intervention, we're in the exact same spot as we were before the new image was drawn. (Jmh deserves some credit here, since he's been trying to actually work on the article.)

Every option has been discussed at least twice, and nothing has agreement but the status quo. Until such time as we have another image to consider, it is going to be best to simply Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

That is all. --tjstrf talk 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing your compromise, SqueakBox 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
For the mmmmth time, SqueakBox, the image is a compromise created after the last edit war. In case you haven't noticed, no one but you is complaining. I don't "like" it, but it meets the guidelines of Wikipedia. -Jmh123 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, you are seriously lacking in perspective here. The article has been in a compromise since before you, I, or Jmh ever stumbled upon this page. Go read the archives. --tjstrf talk 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well all articles pretty much are in a state of copmpromise. I have tried at least half a dozen different compromises all which have been rejected by yourself for the same uncompromising inclusion of this obscene pic, SqueakBox 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nothing you've proposed has been a compromise at all, since they've all just been ways of getting rid of illustrative images entirely (or in one case, gratuitously harming the sight-impaired). I'd be fine with including another or a different image. Any other image, though, would have to meet the following criteria:
  1. Illustrative of the article's subject matter.
  2. Cannot contain Wikipe-tan. (This is a "Jimbo says", so it's not really negotiable.)
  3. Free content. (This would possibly include de minimis situations, like the giant stack of dojin photo that Tony Sidaway wanted put in but which wasn't illustrative. We could also have a secondary fair use image if it was of some historically significant lolicon thing, but that wouldn't be usable as the primary illustration.)
  4. Of equal or better artistic quality to the current image.
  5. Preferably non-nude. We aren't censored, but we also try not to be gratuitously offensive.
Anything come to mind that meets those requirements?. --tjstrf talk 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What is thast about harming sight impaired people? (absolutely include me as one of them), SqueakBox 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Your attempt at downsizing the image to a 40 pixel wide blur. --tjstrf talk 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that just is not so, SqueakBox 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Sidaway option is certianly the best. Jimbo didnt want anything anything associated with wikipedia to be used to illustrate lolicon and I 100% support that as lolicon is nothing more than obscene pornography and this does harm the project. The current image does no good whatsoever to the project, SqueakBox 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The current image has no Wikipedia symbols on it; you tried to replace it with an image that does have Wikipedia symbols on it. Wales objection was to the use of an image with Wikipedia symbols on it. -Jmh123 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What this image? SqueakBox 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what? Illustrating the article with a photograph of a stack of lolicon dojin is probably the highest option on the scale of potentially offensive. I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're asking for there.--tjstrf talk 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Best to assume that I do, and I trust Sidawy's judgement on this kind of issue from way back, see his above statement, SqueakBox 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony's image didn't actually contain any lolicon dojin in it, which is why it was removed. --tjstrf talk 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes but we dont want an obscene dojin image, that is the whole point, SqueakBox 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now we've hit the crux of the issue: You do not want illustrative images on this page.
Until you start accepting illustrative images as options, then there is no "compromising" with you because none of your proposals will be compromises at all. Since you seem to be in no danger of changing your mind on the matter either, I once again suggest that you stop wasting our time arguing over this.
Have a nice day, and happy editing — somewhere else. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't get to decide who edits where, pal. --Captain Obvious 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We dont illustraste child pornography with images of naked, sexualised children and this is a very similar case. I suggest you desist from asking other editors whom you disagree with to stop editing the articles wihere you disagree with them, such a comment is unhelpful, SqueakBox 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any nudity on this article either. And, as several people commented previously on this page, if child pornography weren't illegal (and we had a public domain image) we would illustrate that article. --tjstrf talk 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that is their opinion, fortunately people with such beliefs dont dictate wikipedia, and the evidenc says this isnt the case, ie look at Pornography, SqueakBox 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
History of erotic depictions. --tjstrf talk 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Cant see anything objectionable there, SqueakBox 22:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't see anything objectionable here either. --tjstrf talk 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So you have no problems with explitic homosexual and explicit sadomasochistic illustrations, but a non-nude image is offensive? You have strange standards. --Tsaryu @ 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
While I do not agree with SqueakBox's objection in the case of finalsolution.jpg, I do have to point out that a pornographic image of a child is different from a pornographic image of an adult. I would think that's a no brainer, and I'm not sure why you are offering random examples of nude or sexual pics in Wikipedia that are not relevant to this situation. Do you really not understand the difference? -Jmh123 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I reduced all the pic sizes in the bondage article a while back because (as I believe with this image) a small one is just as good as a large one and intrudes less into the text. And yes sex between consenting adults is different. Though I would rather not see pornography here on wikipedia I recognize that isnt likely to happen and its not my encyclopedia but I believe we should be more child and youth friendly on this issue, 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think large images distort the text, change your thumbnail size in your preferences. What may look good on your monitor looks unnecessarily tiny on mine. --Eyrian 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice idea but impracticval as I dont use a separate browser for wikipedia from that which I use at work where I need images to be big, SqueakBox 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Jmh: I was countering what I believe was the implied point of his link, that we don't really have photos of porn on the article about porn, by linking him to the page about the history of porn, where we do. The point, there as always, was trying to drill into his skull that Wikipedia is not censored, even if he really really really wants it to be.
SqueakBox: Not what he meant. You can change your Wikipedia account preferences to reduce the default thumbnail size. It wouldn't change the preferences anywhere else, just on Wikipedia. --tjstrf talk 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you dont try to drill anything else into my skull, tjstrf, which is quite fragile as it happens (goes withh the eyesight problem). Thanks for the preferences tip, SqueakBox 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If we want to go by other articles we should the example of the second pic in Autofellatio, SqueakBox 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If we had an image which actually involved nudity, maybe. --tjstrf talk 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean autofellatio, where we have an uncensored, drawn image right at the top? Hmmm... --Eyrian 01:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This pic is definitely worse than just nudity, SqueakBox 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A drawing with a bikini is worse than a nude drawing? You never fail to confuse me, SqueakBox... --tjstrf talk 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case you havent been reading the arguments, a nude adult is better than a crude depiction of a minor, SqueakBox 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No image on this article depicts a person at all.
By the way, I'd prefer you keep yourself to one account in this argument, SqueakBox 7-03-07. --tjstrf talk 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Someone agreeing with me is not reason for suspecting sockpuppetry, stop behaving in a bad faith way cops things arent going your way and in order to justify your endless edit warring, 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)SqueakBox

Did you say the same about User:Skanking?

You have a history of sockpuppetry. The name is sockpuppet-indicative, as shown above. You welcome templated them. There's also the fact you just claimed they were "agreeing with" you by vandalizing the page under a claim of the image being ugly. Not grounds for a checkuser, but enough to justify some serious suspicion. --tjstrf talk 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No motivation, a sockpuppet would edit war and come in after me, I am involved in various conflicts and wouldnt waste my time on a sockpuppet here while I am not banned. Plus nobody else has edited the article from my location, I'll guarantee that. I welcome most userrs who appear with a red talk page on my watchlist and it is perfectly reasonable to say he or she agreed with me (as did Potato dude) as your claim of vandalism is ridiculous if not a downright statement of bad faith towards anyone disagreeing with you, SqueakBox 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say. The claim of vandalism is completely grounded given the edit summary "Damn that picture is ugly." --tjstrf talk 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What you think the picture isnt ugly? I actually thought the edit summary was proof itself that it wasnt vandalism any more than potate dude's edit was vandalism, SqueakBox 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" SqueakBox 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think its aesthetic qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with its suitability to the article. Simply because a vandal's edits happen to agree with your agenda doesn't make their edits non-vandalistic. --tjstrf talk 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Request for Comment

Dispute: Does the current image belong in the article?[16] Should its size be reduced from the default size (reduced size example)?

I have filed a Request for Comment.
Editors disagree whether or not the current picture, Image:Lolicon example.jpg, should be on the page (and whether it should be at default size). Arguments have flown back and forth, with a great deal of edit warring, which has resulted in page protection. 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone unfamiliar with the RfC process should first read Responding to RfC's. The RfC process is for new comments from uninvolved editors. Please do not repeat the above debate in the RfC.

If you are already involved, you may add a concise statement on the dispute topic (only). It is recommended to link sections that state your case instead of repeating previous discussion at length. / edgarde 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Statement by Eyrian (talk · contribs)
  • Since Wikipedia is not censored, and the current image is legal, free, and illustrative, it should remain as the primary picture for the article. --Eyrian 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by SqueakBox (talk · contribs)
Statement by Tsaryu (talk · contribs)
Statement by tjstrf (talk · contribs)
  • Eyrian summarized the argument perfectly: Wikipedia is not censored, even if someone really really wants it to be. (I'd also like to mention, to avoid any confusion to incoming readers, that a lot of the early discussion on this page has to do with a now-deleted image, not the one currently on the article.) --tjstrf talk 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding image placement and sizing: I believe the image should stay at the top of the article unless and until we obtain a better freely licensed image. As for the sizing, while it is generally advised not to manually resize images, the image does have odd dimensions, with its vertical size pushing the caption off the page even when viewed on a decently large resolution, so limiting the width down to 160 pixels to force the image to stay on one page might be an appropriate formatting choice. Anything smaller than that, however, is an excessive trimming, especially a reduction to the point that the image is blurred, obscured, or otherwise difficult to see. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Merovingian (talk · contribs)
  • No, Wikipedia is not censored. We are not breaking any rules by including an image that was created without harming any person in the process. Unfortunately, the paranoid types here and on Commons managed to weasle in a deletion for two correctly-licensed and harmless Wikipe-tan images that could have been used in the article. I'm sick of the whole mess. If you people think an iffy picture of a fictional character will lead to the destruction of the project, you need a serious reality check. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Let me better address the current topic with a clearer head. Yes, I believe the current image should stay; I have no opinion on the image size that should be displayed. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Will Beback (talk · contribs)
  • I am a strong opponent of including laviscious images of children in Wikipedia, and spoke out against some other images. However I believe that this current image is not laviscious, and is the best way we can illustrate the concept. Wikipedia is not censored but it is edited. Image choices and formatting are legitimate editing decisions. It isn't necessarily helpful to label calls to remove images "censorship". Clearly even this milder image is generating controversy. Some editors sought to shrink the image to make it less prominent, but that appeared a bit silly (IMO). A better way of making the image less prominent would be to move it lower in the article. It needn't be the first thing one sees when loading this page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by LtPowers (talk · contribs)
  • The current image is a decent compromise between an illustration depicting child nudity and no image at all. It also has the advantage of being under a free license. If there are issues with the quality of the image, those concerned are welcome to commission a new work. It's possible the image is too large to suit the article; a slight reduction in size may be in order. Powers T 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Zorndyke (talk · contribs)
  • Until we find a better image, the current image should be kept. As Eyrian said, it's legal, free and illustrative. I think it's small enough too. Zorndyke 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Statement by TheFarix (talk · contribs)
  • I'm not sure if I would be classified as an involved party or not since I participated late in the previous discussions above. However, I see nothing wrong with the inclusion of the current image (Image:Lolicon example.jpg) or with its size. The image, as far as I can tell, is legal under the laws of the U.S. state of Florida—which are the only laws that apply to Wikipedia content. As such, there are no grounds to remove or reduce to an unusable state the image other then to engage in censorship.

    The only cases where the images can be reasonably removed is if the copyright and free use status are brought into question, if an image of higher artistic quality is presented as a replacement, or if the editors no longer think the image properly illustrates the context of the article. --Farix (Talk) 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved parties

  • I have no opinion on whether this image best represents lolicon, or "illustrated lolicon material", but within the limits of the subject matter (which seems to be art depicting sexualized children), it seems tasteful and appropriate. The size is currently being set in User preferences (under Files) — on my screen it is 600 pixels high, which is fine because it is quite narrow; as discussed in #Pic_size, reducing it only makes it less useful by obscuring the content. / edgarde 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I still wish for the people who have been emailing the creator of the image send emails to WP:OTRS so we can archive the permission, just in case the forum page goes down. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While I am not convinced of the artistic merit of the picture (which seems too western for my tastes)it is illustrative of the topic at hand and not in the least over-graphic or offensive and I would not advocate replacing or editing unless we have a picture of similar subject matter and better art quality Kraznaya 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image is illustrative and not inappropriate. Keep. Anchoress 10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Periphery

Involved disputants are advised to not revive earlier debate within the RfC. The following comments were moved with permission from the editors.

Lolicon Wikipe-tan

This section refers to an image that has already been removed from Wikipedia, not the image being considered in this RfC. / edgarde 04:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

  • I realize it's not standard to reply to other people's statements, but you're incorrect on some details and might want to amend your statement. Commons kept the Wikipe-tan images in their deletion discussion, Jimbo deleted them personally. (At the same time mentioning that he didn't see the final solution-chan image to be unacceptable, by the way. See commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales.) However, this RfC is over the Final Solution-chan image, not the Wikipe-tan ones. --tjstrf talk 22:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An admin unilaterally decided to keep the image even thought he consensus was 2 to 1 in favour of its deletion [17] so to claim there was consensus to keep those images on commons is simply not true, SqueakBox 22:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The admin chose to keep the image because it didn't violate the rules of Commons. Their only regulations have to do with whether the uploader has the rights to the photo or drawing, and whether those rights are licensed to Commons correctly. He kept trying to explain that. Also, people were coming in and voting who weren't already participants on Commons, so the situation was similar to when there's an effort to gain consensus on a topic here at Wikipedia and anons and SPAs suddenly appear. -Jmh123 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And that was why I deleted them in the first place on here; I was so unsure of the sourcing, location and authorship of the image. While I had those answered, Jimbo decided to delete them anyways and that is a deletion I do not wish to overturn. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo did the right thing. It should've stopped here before it started. -Jmh123 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You did all that you could, I did what I could, but this issue is what I would consider "water under the bridge." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From one perspective, which is presumably the one Jimbo and the delete voters were operating under, the deletion made sense. That is to say, if you think Wikipe-tan exists primarily as a representative of Wikipedia, then having her on this page in any form is going to be unacceptable. (We presumably don't want guro, futanari, or tentacle rape Wikipe-tan images either.)
From another perspective, my own and probably that of most of the other keep voters, Wikipe-tan is a tool of the encyclopedia first, a mascot second, so using her to illustrate manga-related articles wherever possible is completely reasonable, guarantees correct licensing, and gives a unified and more professional feel to the articles. --tjstrf talk 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You said it far better than I certainly could have! With Wikipe-tan (and a willing artist) we have an easy accessory for any article where getting an unoriginal image would be far too hard. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC closed

Comments by uninvolved parties agree the image currently named Image:Lolicon_example.jpg is acceptable, and should not be deleted, resized, or otherwise obscured.

Recommendation: please have the creator file a free use declaration with WP:OTRS stating that in compatibility with Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement there is no significant legal restriction on the image's use, redistribution or modification, for any purpose. (OTRS contacts)

Any replacement proposed for Lolicon_example.jpg should also be free use — per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, a free image should be used wherever possible, even if a better non-free, "fair use" image exists.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Apologies if I'm commenting in the wrong section - I'm not sure I qualify as "involved in the dispute", but I'm not familiar with the details of this process and don't know what other heading would be appropriate. If there is one, please move my comment. Anyway, I'd like to draw attention to my comment above on this page, made June 8 from IP address 216.75.189.154[18]. There have been claims (in particular, one by Exploding Boy[19]) that the current image ("Final Solution-chan") is "child pornography" and, in particular, illegal in Canada (where, as the article states, the legal definition of child pornography includes fictional material). I don't think those claims are credible. An agency sponsored by the RCMP (which is Canada's national police force, charged with enforcing that law) gave the article, which included "Final Solution-chan" a much more eroticised example image at the time, the sincerest form of flattery: they plagiarised it.[20] They made no statement about the image in particular, but (in the revised, partially-attributed version of their posting) they pointed to the Wikipedia article including that image as an authoritative source, not as an example of illegal child pornography. Although that particular agency is on record as being somewhat incompetent, it's nonetheless clear that they looked at the image and didn't see anything inappropriate or illegal in its use in Wikipedia. I think we can rest assured that the "Final Solution-chan" image is not illegal merely having an example image, even a rather suggestive one, won't make the article illegal in Canada.216.59.228.3 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That cache is dated 7 Feb 2006 05:35:52 GMT. Wonder what the image was at that time? Looks like it was [21] [22] Image:Kotori-Kan Vol 2.jpg, now deleted--a rights issue?? At any rate, it's the hentai article they're using, which is actually a decent article that tells something about the genre. Lolicon is linked at the bottom. ETA: Finalsolutionchan shows up here: [23], a few months later. -Jmh123 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you're right and I had my sequence of events wrong. There was an edit war going on at the time and Final Solution-chan seems to have been introduced on 4 April 2007, after the plagiarism incident. I thought it had already been put in place before then. So the NCECC hasn't implicitly endorsed the article with Final Solution-chan, but to some extent that actually strengthens the argument in FS-c's favour: they endorsed the article with a different image that was a lot closer to being explicit. If the Kotori-Kan image wasn't a problem, the new one definitely shouldn't be. 216.59.228.3 03:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That was one of the previously warred-over images, the cover of some random lolicon manga. (A relatively innocuous one, all things considered.) It was eventually replaced by the current one due to copyright issues. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

More Information Pertaining To the Subject Itself?

While the recent edit wars have focused on the opening image and the legal status of lolicon, shouldn't there be more info regarding art style, popular characters (Card Captor Sakura, Sasami, etc), and relation to other subjects that this topic links to (such as moe)? Kraznaya 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hell, yeah, to put it bluntly. Don't think anyone who knows anything cares, sadly. To Merovingian, I don't think anyone's trying to destroy the project. I do have to ask why the amazing response whenever the picture is threatened isn't matched by even half the interest in explaining the genre in the entry itself. As I keep saying, if people had some idea what the genre was, in detail, not just that it's controversial and possibly illegal, and involves sexualized images of children--which is about all one can learn from the entry--you all might not have to spend so much time debating the photo. -Jmh123 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The number of editors knowledgeable enough to contribute to this article is probably far less than that of editors capable of reacting to perceived kiddie pr0n.
Contributions are encouraged, especially if they can be sourced. I know nothing about this subject. / edgarde 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm talking about editors who are defending the picture and clearly do have some knowledge of the genre. -Jmh123 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a major problem with adding material is proper sourcing- particularly since much of the lolicon (especially the english based one) community is underground and it would be hard to find an article or page bluntly stating the finer aspects of lolicon. 75.31.137.142 08:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, that was me, I forgot to log in. Kraznaya 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not exactly underground. However:
1) There is no united lolicon community. There are many different loli communities and rather loli-friendly communities, but quite a few of them don't like each other and the prevalent views differ.
2) Would a forum post, a forum thread, a forum poll be suitable to include as source at all?
3) Would the editors and admins here tolerate a link to a lolicon community site? In the past every link to LAH and Renchan were removed. Not sure if it would make a difference if it's not just a link but a reference/source.
What this article lacks the most is a reference to nijikon. Many of loli fans have little interest in real girls nor women. Also it seems that the moe/loli art & culture has a high potential to turn people into nijikons. It makes sense because loli characters (or even just moe characters) are made to be perfect and when you get used to this perfection reality slowly turns grey. It's not like they have no such interest at all, rather just less interest. But I don't have any suitable sources, it's just a general impression from many threads I've read in OC3, Renchan, LAH, HF, etc.
Actually it would be hard to link a lolicon forum article because the most of them are strictly 18+ and require registration to view anything related to lolicon. Zorndyke 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think forum posts would be an acceptable source, but if forums are the main focus of lolicon enthusiasts in the US and/or Europe, I think that could be said. I got much of what I added from searches in the Japanese English-language newspapers, especially the Japan Times, but lolicon was the only term I knew to look for. Names and descriptions of the most popular artists and what they've produced would be helpful, and I'm not sure you'd have to have citations to put those in, but searches on those might yield some citations. Some of the things you have posted right here in Talk could easily go in, I think. You could search terms like nijikon, otaku, moe, etc., looking for relevant material. Something is needed to make the jump from the bare bones description and the picture to some kind of a sense of what lolicon is. Maybe someone could create a section in talk or even a draft page like Lolicon/draft of proposed additions, and start with things you'd like to say if you could find citations, discuss among yourselves whether there is agreement on things or identify disagreements that might be worth mentioning, and build it from there. -Jmh123 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Subpages are obsolete in the mainspace, they were ditched due to problems with things that actually have slashes in their proper names (e.g. Fate/stay night). If you wanted to make a draft subpage it would need to be in the talk or user namespaces, since those do accept subpages.
One thing that could probably be safely mentioned is that lolicon manga often focuses on taboo relationships, such as brother-sister and teacher-student, but also between children. A brief discussion of Kodomo no Jikan could also be useful, since it's a specific instance which has detailed sources regarding it, and also an example of a series that, while not pornographic, draws on lolicon themes for its plot (student attempting to seduce teacher). --tjstrf talk 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So go for it, please. Again, with a link to another Wikipedia entry, there's obviously material to work with, as in the case of nijikon, otaku, and moe, also hentai. -Jmh123 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I decided to go ahead and add the section I had proposed earlier, even though I'm not entirely happy with it. I determined that making attributions to Kinsella for all the statements might overcome the difference in versions regarding the origins. We really need some cites on the Origins section, by the way. I think it's basically a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia article. Can that be cited?

Zorndyke, I'm hoping that you will fairly quickly write up the information you posted in response [24], in order to maintain NPOV on this topic. This is touching on another question that I asked earlier: what is the appeal in the west? I think the answer is starting to emerge in our discussions, and in addition to the info about female mangaka, I think some response to Kinsella's theory about the appeal in Japan is in order, if folks strongly disagree, and possibly an alternative explanation, even if there's no citation for it right away. For example, if there's a moe element, that could be stated (if that makes any sense at all). I'd like to see this explored in the entry, also from Zorndyke: "What this article lacks the most is a reference to nijikon. Many of loli fans have little interest in real girls nor women. Also it seems that the moe/loli art & culture has a high potential to turn people into nijikons. It makes sense because loli characters (or even just moe characters) are made to be perfect and when you get used to this perfection reality slowly turns grey. It's not like they have no such interest at all, rather just less interest." If anything, perhaps you could say something like, "some users speculate that...." Perhaps Kinsella's stuff on the otaku ("Amateur Manga Subculture and the Otaku Panic") would be relevant for cites/extrapolation to the western situation??

Some old questions brought forward, which are starting to be answered: In the west, what do people look at/watch? How/where? Do Americans draw it? Europeans? The sites/forums seem to be very influential--what are they exactly, and what role do they play in the reception of lolicon in the west? I think you can describe the forums and name the most prominent ones, without linking or a citation. What about games? Are they popular in the west? -Jmh123 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no sources and I doubt it would be of any use to include original research. Also I ask myself why so few other fans of loli art contribute to this article even though it's been linked on many loli sites forever. One possibility is that outside of otaku culture the image of lolicon will be distorted no matter what you write. Or may be even worse - the more you write the more hardened the wrong impression becomes. To see the beauty of a fish you need to observe it in its natural element, in water. What we're doing here is dragging the fish out of water and poke it with sticks. Sure to some degree it may apply to any article, but there're very few topics as controversial and at the same time as dependent on a transient subculture as loli art. Even though I spent much time on editing of this article already it wouldn't make me sad if it just disappeared. Zorndyke 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I hear you, so let's stick to the non-subjective. This:

I'm not sure if Kinsella portrayed the roots of lolicon art correctly, but as of now there seem to be quite a few female mangaka who don't mind loli at all. I don't know many mangaka by name, but here're some examples: Hikari Hayashibara - her artwork was used for wiki lolicon article for a long time (as representative lolicon artwork, it was removed because some people considered it offensive even though the official reason was copyright issues iirc... it doesn't matter now, I'm just saying that it was considered a good example of lolicon art) Yukiru Sugisaki - Rizelmine anime is based on her manga. It was *the* lolicon innuendo anime for a long time Kaworu Watashiya - author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the West (thanks to S7' attempt to publish it, the scanlations, etc.)

is neither hardening the wrong impression nor incapable of being sourced. Naming the artists and the artwork they have done isn't controversial or impossible to verify. Please just write this up.
And could someone please name some of the most popular or famous lolicon manga/mangaka? -Jmh123 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the bare bones of Zorndyke's list of female mangaka, without commentary. I hope someone can name some examples as requested above ^^^^. "Lolicon in the west" is looking more and more empty in comparison to the rest. Zorndyke, I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's possible to add some content, despite the difficulties. -Jmh123 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon USA INCORRECT edit

Okay this statement is FACTUALLY WRONG

"The government did not appeal this ruling."

The US DoJ has indeed appealed the Eleventh Court decision to the US Supreme Court and is on the docket for review. The only matter is that this review will NOT happen until the 2007-2008 session at earliest or be denied for actual review and allowed to stand as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Can you give us a source or citation? -Jmh123 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can this article have a "Criticism of lolicon" section?

Pleeease? --Potato dude42 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It can. Please make it happen, SqueakBox 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It already does. See Lolicon#Controversy and legal issues. Unless your proposed section consists of artistic criticism or something, I don't see how it would be anything but redundant. --tjstrf talk 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have incorporated into the text a number of criticisms over the last couple of months, and the entry has long had a section on controversies and a lengthy section on legal issues in various countries. Having a separate criticism section is less effective than an integrated presentation, and encourages divisiveness, but there's nothing to stop anyone from constructively contributing more criticism, just as there's nothing to stop anyone from adding informative material on the topic. And tjstrf, without so little text on the actual art itself, it would be pretty pointless to add artistic criticism, wouldn't it? -Jmh123 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant addition on Japanese culture?

I don't understand. In an attempt to contribute to the cultural information in this article, I added the following very carefully phrased paragraph, complete with appropriate internal links:
Two combined factors may explain the notable prevalence of marked juvenile aspects in japanese kinky art. First, the "kawaii" phenomenon, known in the West as "tiny is cute", and extremely popular in Japan, where it is present in all the manga/anime style. Then there's the age-related respect culture, which considers the signs of mature age as synonymous with venerable wisdom: when an old character -preferably a sensei- displays flirting or kinky behavior, it's nearly always in an off-beat humorous and caricatural "Dirty Old Man" manner (Dragon Ball's Muten-Rôshi, Master Happosai in Ranma 1/2...).
Now I see it has been removed. Is it vandalism, or does somebody in charge believe this contribution is irrelevant to the understanding of Japanese culture and WikiProject Japan? I didn't think it needed more reference than the internal links, the rest being self-evident. Or did it somehow sound like a POV defense of Lolicon?
P.S.: I've just created a user account, after discovering that some dubious edits were attributed to my IP address, perhaps because my provider distributes those partly at random upon connecting. I hope this will prevent any misunderstandings caused by vandals in my area. Issar El-Aksab 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not self-evident at all. I removed it because I believe it to be Original Research, which Wikipedia does not publish. If you would like opinions of other editors, you'll probably have more luck if you post in a new section at the bottom of the page. (Hit the "+" tab.) --tjstrf talk 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll move it for you. tjstrf is indicating that you have no source, but are merely speculating. That is, yes, Wikipedia has an entry on kawaii, but to connect kawaii to lolicon manga is original research unless you can find someone who has written about this. Likewise, if you can find a source who has compared the "Dirty Old Men" in these anime to lolicon (in the original sense of the word), then it would be acceptable. I found what you wrote interesting, and would like see if others can provide some feedback. Rather than be totally dismissive of him, I'd like to see him get credit for trying. -Jmh123 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jmh123. I've merged our two bottom sections.
So, following Tjstrf's suggestion, I submit the following question to anybody familiar with ordinary Japanese culture:
Do you feel like it is OR/POV, or that it is self-evident and useful to the article as I genuinely believe? Does it really need some official internet-published research on kawaii and manga to be Wiki-adequate?
Thanks in advance for your feedback. As a new user, I need the opinion of experience. Mine might not be the same as the majority of those familiar with Wikipedia standards.
Any improvement tips are also welcome. :-) Issar El-Aksab 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I think it's pretty definitely OR. The "kawaii phenomenon" isn't agreed to be a real thing and doesn't have an accepted definition - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kawaii and Talk:Cuteness in Japanese culture and note that kawaii is no longer the name of the article about kawaii - and I'm not aware of "tiny is cute" being a common way to define the kawaii phenomenon in the West, even among people who think there is a kawaii phenomenon at all. I don't think I've heard that particular phrase before at all, and it fails the (admittedly flawed) Google test. So although your ideas about linking kawaii with lolicon may in fact be correct, they can't go in Wikipedia without references to reliable sources who present those ideas. Similar issues apply to the stuff about "respect culture." That paragraph also seems to use the word "kinky" to refer to something other than what I think that word means. Normally "kinky" describes sexual fetishes of the BDSM variety. You'll have a fight on your hands with the "Oh, we just like looking at little girls, it's not anything to do with sex at all!" people if you refer to lolicon as invariably a sexual fetish, and even if you think it is always a sex fetish, I think it's questionable whether it's the particular kind of fetish people usually have in mind when they say "kinky." 216.59.228.3 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
None taken, we can agree to disagree. Issar El-Aksab 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But honestly, simply because the "kawaii phenomenon" is subject to some debate (like probably most social trends), doesn't mean one must not refer to it. I see that in the end that article was kept, and the (very lengthy) discussion closed. Anybody I've ever read who's -even vaguely- familiar with Japan knows kawaii for an obvious fact, just like "political correctness" in the West, no matter how unofficial or imprecisely defined it may be to the lay man. The case of "Bushisms" is not very different, and yet the article is not under heavy crossfire. Anyway, this per se would concern the "Cuteness in Japan" article (and the possibility that it may be OR/POV), not the one on Lolicon.
I take note on your pertinent remark on the title, though. It's easy to adjust anyway.
As for the "Google test", I just got the following results with Yahoo: "small is cute" - 286 results; "tiny is cute" - 107 results; "young is cute" - 99 results. Never claimed it was a "phenomenon" in the West, just that there was an equivalent expression to convey the general idea across the cultural gap. I chose "tiny" because it felt more adequate and encompassing than "young" or "small". It could also be more literally phrased as "juvenile-looking is cute, whether in humans or animals or partly-humanoid cartoon characters", but you have to admit it's far less catchy and would sound awkward.
Basically, Lolicon is about linking sexual context with drawn characters of juvenile aspect, be it purely in style or also in the official scenario. I'm just saying, to rephrase it, that Lolicon appears just like kawaii hentai. Kawaii is cute, loveable, and taken to the extreme, likely to be a plus on the seduction/sexual appeal of comic characters for a Japanese mind. (Where are the culturally-enlightened when you need their opinion?) I really don't see how making a parallel with kawaii is taking overly bold assumptions. No more than the notorious traditional respect to the elders, and its relation with manga elder men interested in eroticism or pretty girls being necessarily presented in the style of farce to avoid being gravely offensive otherwise. Regarding something as notorious as the "respect culture" in the East, you might as well demand references for the patriotic feeling in the USA. It's public knowledge, and I wonder whether I should search for a corresponding Wikipedia article to prevent any risk of the "burden of proof" scrutinizing my every word. Maybe I will, if paranoid caution is the rule of 10 thumbs.
Next point, I opted for "kinky" in order to illustrate the underlying spirit: in my cosmopolite (and alas non-specific) culture, kinky (derived from the French "coquin") means simultaneously erotically connoted and an amused attitude toward it. A dirty old man obsessed with stealing women's underwear like Happosai is typically kinky. Especially in the land of wise old men. If my choice of words is a tad inadequate for the U.S.-predominant vocabulary of English Wikipedia, I welcome everyone's pointers. After all, English is only my third language, subtle nuances are tricky to convey through translation... as we were just discussing with this kawaii issue! ;-) Would you prefer "salacious"? What's the adequate word for a harmless old perv?
I'm getting the disturbing vibe, here, that perhaps the "sensitive" content of this article is making many people much more cautious than usual, which could come dangerously close to the beginning of self-censorship. I was positive that my added contribution was just pointing out the obvious, "explaining, not excusing", for those less familiar with modern Japan than I am. Instead, I see what looks like widespread fear of saying anything without the court documents to back it up? Are we treading on eggs for fear of being seen as the Devil's advocate?
Oy. All that trouble just for the permission to state the obvious. But such is the holy ministry of spreading knowledge, all knowledge, and nothing but knowledge. ("I do, your honor.")
Konnichi wa? I'm still waiting for Japan-savvy users to pitch in so we can make valuable progress. Issar El-Aksab 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I may comment more later, but: I think you're right that people's sensitivity to the subject matter is a big part of the problem here; standards are being applied to this article that wouldn't be applied to most other articles and probably shouldn't be applied to any articles. But there's not much that can be done about that. The large number of borderline editors interested in this article is not going to go away, and strict adherence to Wikipedia's written rules is about the only insurance we have of some sanity in the editing process. On using "kinky" to describe a "harmless old perv": a very big part of the problem here is that some people think (and they also think this is "obvious" and doesn't need to be cited) that there's no such thing, by definition. There's a substantial contingent with the "lolicon equals child pornography equals child abuse" axe to grind, and there's also a substantial contingent with the "lolicon equals harmless and NOT equals child pornography" axe to grind. There's not much way to embed a concept like "harmless old perv" into your language, without siding (or being SEEN as siding) with one or the other of those two camps. 69.63.63.131 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about the majority of the loli art fans, but I for one consider the terms "kinky" and "harmless old perv" offensive. It's in the eye of the beholder what's perverted and what's not. I wouldn't call anyone "perv" for liking *any* anime/manga art. Also I don't think we need to segregate the older fans of anime/hentai art. Zorndyke 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to draw advice from the constructive criticism received, and worked on a better referenced formulation of well-known facts. Otherwise put: a better encyclopedic style.
In the absence of contributions from other wikipedians well versed in Japanese culture and society, I have to consider my relative expertise as the best reference for now.
I regret to have to state that the existence of a controversy about Kawaii (among Westerners) is by no means a rational counter-proof. Especially that it seems to have been settled a good while ago for the Wiki article. Sheesh! Just ask any Japanese citizen! I've read numerous articles written by those, and all correlated, but I just don't know whether they have an official synthesis on the internet that I can brandish. In all honesty, "I've never heard of that" can't be taken for sourced arguments, it's just making the discussion run in loops. Sociology articles are not mathematical theorems, if every word needs to be carved in stone nothing ever gets established, there's always room for questioning and debating minutiae and ending up in disagreement. Which is detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia.
"Someone angry" will always disagree in a sensitive issue such as this one. So what? Our only duty is providing optimal encyclopedic fact. Fearing the tiniest emotional reactions of any sort means killing Wikipedia.
I hope etiquette will be upheld, and no deletion initiative will take place again before rational ideas trading. Our motto is "it needs to be proven in places", not "if you can't prove it in court never say it".
Issar El-Aksab 03:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

reply to Issar El-Aksab regarding deletion

I attempted to source what appeared to me to be original research that had existed for some time without sourcing. While I was able to find references in scholarly sources (electronic datebases, not open internet research) that connected kawaii with lolicon, I was not able to do so with what you call "oldie-con." Feel free to do some research and reference it yourself, but it shouldn't stand too long without sourcing of any kind. Thanks. -Jmh123 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Oldie-con" was of course a pun neologism, since precisely this genre doesn't exist. :-) I think this is just stating the obvious (see the link about etiquette in Asia), and it adds relevant insight to the cultural aspect of the article's issue. Otherwise put: the Japanese have several reasons to focus their Hentai on young characters. Or do you feel perhaps that stating the obvious may still be considered OR? Not encyclopedic enough? We need to be very strict? If such is the case, okay, I won't threaten to commit seppuku. It's just that I saw my whole contribution entirely reshaped without previous discussion here, and while most of it was for the better the reasons for some deletions felt unclear.
I don't know of published research regarding this part. Remember this is practically a taboo issue; even in the West, sexuality of the elderly in real life is still barely being acknowledged and accepted today. Maybe someone else knows more, as was the case with the many (impressive) improvements made to my original edit? If I was nothing more than a catalyst, then I was useful to the Cause of Knowledge and all is fine. Issar El-Aksab 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I do understand the way in which you were using "oldie con" in the comments. I also like what you wrote and I've even encouraged people on this very page to do exactly what you did--as a starting point. Your contribution was extremely helpful in leading to reliable sources. Ultimately Wikipedia's content should be derived from those sources. Everything you read in policies and guidelines indicates this: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and so on. I hope you'll be able to find some external sources that elaborate on the ideas you have introduced. I hope to see more additions from you on this topic. Can you be a little more specific about these characters you mention and the roles they play? Is there any connection between the kawaii and the "dirty old men," any meeting of these two aspects? -Jmh123 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't personally know of specific external sources/references, but I can certainly expand on the "stating the obvious" part.
Lolicon is markedly juvenile Hentai. Since old age, sometimes as early as being parents, becomes synonymous with respect, honouring and veneration in all of the Far East, it is naturally opposite to Lolicon. And a very likely component of that cultural specificity regarding young erotica. The younger the characters involved in sexual adventures, the further they are from insulting a symbol of respectable elders, one day to become ancestors in Shinto. Most parents in manga are very carefully well-behaved, in compliance with the strong tradition of respect associated to them in Asia.
As for my examples, Master Happosai is precisely a kawaii old tyrant sensei, with a fetish for stealing and collecting women's underwear, frequently getting in trouble doing so. He's in compliance with the generalized farce context of Ranma 1/2. As for Muten-Rôshi, he's essentially a shameless voyeur, the typical DOM.
It's a pity someone saw it fit to delete the DOMAI (Dirty Old Men Association International) article, after I discovered it and added insightful links in it. The Dirty Old Man is the typical figure we know in the West, of elderly gentlemen who are way beyond a sex life, but unabashedly enjoy looking at pretty young women. A very official reference to that is the story by Isaac Asimov: "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man", describing precisely that. (Amazon.com page reviewing the book, with excerpts.) Issar El-Aksab 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In view of the latest version of the involved paragraph, I think we have optimal encyclopedic quality. And a nice example of collective work. End of discussion then. :-) Issar El-Aksab 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but the penal code section referenced makes no mention of pornography based on nonexistent minors, while making ALL pornography based on a real underage person illegal, no matter how it is produced.

Adequate Reference?

Is reference 8 (referencing a Presidential speech, from the look of it) really an adequate reference for "contributes to child abuse"? I wouldn't think so, seeing how the President is far from an expert in this field, and the document/statement isn't really peer reviewed any. I move that the comment be removed unless somebody can find a better source in the near future.

  1. ^ http://www.comipress.com/article/2006/11/17/1027
  2. ^ "President Signs PROTECT Act" (Press release). White House. 2003-04-30. Retrieved 2007-06-11. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Diamond, Milton (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 22 (1): 1–22. Retrieved 2007-06-11. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolicon/Archive_11&oldid=1083523285"