Talk:Lolicon/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

List of lolicon manga

I think there should be a list of lolicon manga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.174.117 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites out there which have this information, so there's no need to make a list here. It would serve no encyclopedic purpose. ···日本穣^{? Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A list like that can be left up to fans to make for personal sites. The concept 'lolicon' is very slang and not specifically defined. Many authors do not consider their works lolicon in nature but fans do, and vice versa. It is not used as widespread as 'shojo' or anything, it just will not work. Tyciol (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Development of recent American case

I've made an addition to the United States part of the article with a new development in the past couple days. I'd appreciate help in research related to this case and choosing what would be appropriate to post here from the references and if additional references can be obtained along with ongoing developments. Tyciol (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Images?

I'm not for censoring and I can probably guess how the responses will go but is the top image actually required for the article's quality? There isn't one for other articles of a similar topic. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The image was created as a free image specifically for this article as a representation of the topic as it relates to Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What similar topics? Mdwh (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Shotacon maybe? I guess noone has cared as much about that article to go to the trouble of creating art as an illustration of the subject matter. Overall it's an inferior article, shorter and doesn't describe it so well. We have a big 'law' aspect to this article, which would equally apply to the shotacon one, but there's no point duplicating the same data I guess. That article should probably focus on the 'shota' aspect of yaoi, which is, I think, much stronger than the focus on loli in yuri, which is why I found (as explained below) that slang was being used interchangably for the two. It's too bad that there's not an article encapsulating both, since there's not as much of a need to explain them separately at this point. Should we merge them into lolicon and shotacon to cut down on there being so much space? Tyciol (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuri terms

Recently I've been reading up on yuri and in particular, the term shōjo-ai is used to describe a particular kind of it here in North America. I have found this to be unsourced, so I'm deleting these additions. I'll post what I'm deleting here though, so that if these are in fact legitimate uses them people can go and find some sources for them. I have no clue who added them. From Yuri (genre): "In Japan the term shōjo-ai (少女愛, shōjo-ai? lit. girl love) is not used with this meaning,[6] and instead tends to denote pedophilia (actual or perceived), with a similar meaning to the term lolicon (Lolita complex)." with source: Miyajima, Kagami (April 4, 2005). Shōjo-ai, Sakuhinsha. ISBN 4861820316. How are we even supposed to check ISBN sources like this? Another example is the post on Homo in Japan. The odd wiktionary reference has been removed, but I'd like to more comprehensively examine these sources. Tyciol (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you wondering how to find a book with that ISBN? Or something else? Your question is not clear. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A little of both, I didn't know how to find it, yeah. Also though, how are we supposed to verify the contents of this book? It isn't online, and even if we could check it online, it's japanese. If this were easily accessible in a japanese public library, I could see it used as a reference in the japanese article, but why is it being referenced in this english article when we have no means of verifying it? We really don't know anything beyond that the book is real, not what it says. Tyciol (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a little trust involved. There are people in the Japan and Anime and manga WikiProjects who have access to books in Japan, so perhaps ask on one of those talk pages? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's right, lately on these issues I've gotten a bit paranoid and forgot to Assume Good Faith :) I guess I've just noticed a trend of issues related to this being tied into other issues as original research, so gotten suspicious about it. That's a great idea to ask over there if anyone has access to that book. Or, barring that, I suppose learn Japanese and see if I can find it :) It'd be nice if there were more than one source or at least a translated quote from the book to give a better idea of the contextual use of this slang. Tyciol (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's available on Amazon.co.jp. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

True, to those who can easily order things from Japan, afford the book, and read the book... Tyciol (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Explicit also

The introduction of this article is misleading: "Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in a suggestive manner." like Kojika and such, however, completely explicit hentai lolicon manga like the ones printed in Comic LO are also part of the genre (I think). --AnY FOUR! (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems we've slowly limited the definition to fit the lolicon image we have. If you look back in the history, the picture caption used to be "often depicts" and the intro used to say "wherein childlike female characters are depicted in an erotic manner". This was changed here for no clear reason; I don't think "erotic" is ideal, but it's more accurate than "suggestive", which applies to only a chunk of the whole. I'm restoring the caption and "wherein" line to "erotic manner" and "often depicts" for now. Please leave objections/opinions so we can clear this up for good. Estemi (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think either 'erotic' or 'suggestive' could equally apply. While there's a great deal over overlap, I don't think either term would cover fully what the other does, so there's some discrete area where both terms are useful in describing it. It's very difficult because it simultaneously describes a style of art, a complex, and a person likes the art and/or has the complex, so use of multiple adjectives is bound to come into play. Tyciol (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise it was for me to receive criticism regarding my edit. After it had been reverted I shrugged it off as another case of semantics getting the best of me. My rationale behind that particular edit was further define the genre by emphasizing "female children" and "characters" (anthromorphically depiction of very young girls) who could not reasonably be distinguished as being over the age of consent (depicted eighteen and over). In retrospect, I supposed I used “suggestive” as synonymous with softcore considering the context.

Tyciol brought up the matter in my talkpage of refining the definition of Lolicon and after reading the subject on this talkpage, I have a few suggestions that I think would cover the spectrum. How about: Outside of Japan, the term is most often refers to a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in a range of sexually promiscuous behavior or softcore and hardcore situations The term is less common and most often refers to a subgenre of kawaii manga and anime wherein prepubescent girls are depicted in suggestive to sexually explicit manner or situations.

In general, I agree with AnY_FOUR!, that current definition does not quite cover the entire range of Lolicon but I would also be careful about expanding the definition because of the legality and the possibility of a article hi-jack by editors who want to change the emphasize the sexually explicit aspect of this article under the guise of "free speech".--Kevin586 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem here is that 'lolicon' is a term that does get applied to characters who ARE over the age of consent. For example, the vampire in Negima (or Vampire Princess Miyu) is hundreds of years old, characters in Tenchi Muyo are thousands. Sci-fi aside, a more realistic example from 'Onegai Sensei' would be a girl who spent several years in a coma, and whose body remains frail and looks like a high school girl, despite her being 22. As such, they are reasonably distinguished as being over the age of consent. This isn't something you can 'look like' since there are always cases of people who look older and younger than they are. Furthermore, I also don't share your assertion here that it applies to softcore/hardcore situations. Both of those are types of pornocraphy, and lolicon art, while it can include hentai pornography, covers a wider variety of art beyond that as well. I share your concerns that people will attempt to make it sexually explicit, however, throwing away non-sexual uses of the word is something that does exactly that, so it's very important not to lose track of them. Tyciol (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Noticed something kinda strange about both this article and the Shotacon article pages. The Shotacon article even rambled on about how fans are ex-members of NAMBLA (and the caption under MJ's pic said something to the effect of "Michael Jackson is a well-known fan of shotacon.") . I know this sort of vandalism is easily fixed and all, but when people come in and do things this childish, I've no choice but to start a motion to make the two articles semi-protected. Any takers? Mikhajlovich (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism happens to just about every article from time to time. But there isn't enough vandalism to justify semi-protection for either of these articles. To receive semi-protection, the article has to be vandalized multiple times by IP accounts over a short period of time, usually 24 hours. The last time this article was vandalize was two weeks ago. That's too long ago to justify semi-protection now. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Lolicon nor Shotacon is vandalized frequently enough to warrant semi-protection, and both receive frequent good-faith edits from anonymous editors. There are many eyes on these pages, so vandalism can be reverted quickly. Besides, Michael Jackson should be used to it by now (no judgement intended). / edg ☺ ☭ 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be simpler if the Lolicon and Shotacon articles under was under semi-protection. With such a contentious issue, you can't really let vandalism sort itself out. It's true that these articles haven't been vandalized enough but I wish we didn't have to wait until they were. rapt3r 9:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is on the watch list of several individuals, including myself. So vandalism is quickly spotted and reverted. Also, administrators prefer not to protect articles for long periods of time, much else permanently, without some very compelling reasons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and everyone are encouraged to edit in a productive and cooperative manner. Long term protection of articles conflicts with that basic principle. --Farix (Talk) 05:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protection for these two articles is a great idea. I'm not sure how we judge 'frequently' in terms of vandalization, but they are obvious targets by people who dislike the genre. A great deal of erotic or sex-related articles, along with fandoms and such, are the target of this. Considering how this article broaches many different categories, including LAW, I think it's very important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy by avoiding these vandalisms. Tyciol (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

An article needs to be vandalized several times a day over a couple of days from different IPs before it is semi-protected. And then, semi-protection only last for a couple of days. The few times an article is permanently semi-protected is in the case of repeated long-term vandalism, such was the case with Anime were it battled with vandalism for almost two years before it was permanently semi-protected. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I hope there are enough people watching this to be able to catalogue if/when such abuse occurs. I think a lot of people good naturedly revert vandalisms, spending a lot of time, without cataloguing the quantity, so I'd ask that if there are any editors here doing this on a regular basis, to save yourself and others the effort, and to apply for long-term protection if this does become a problem in the future. Lolicon does describe a subclass of anime so haters of anime may inevitably choose this as a new target, and considering the greater importance of accuracy here over the anime article (where inaccuracies can't cause any immediate harm), a fast response is good to prepare for. I hope it doesn't get like that though because allowing anonymous editors is a boon to articles with constant international news updates like this one. Tyciol (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split

Farix proposed a split for the huge section we have for the legal issues. It is a good point, this subsection is probably bigger than the rest of the article combined. At the same time, prior to this, it would be important to think of a name. Furthermore, it needs to be guaranteed that all information that has been collected will survive the move, and that whatever this would split off into would be survived and not be immediately deleted by critics of legal information collection. Tyciol (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of cartoon pornography would be the logical name IMO and follows the same naming scheme as Legal status of Internet pornography. A similar section from Cartoon pornography can also be merged to create a unified article. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good - it would be good not to have duplicated info. I wonder if the article name should specify children/minors? (E.g, Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors) - a bit long winded, but I note that all the information in these articles seems to be about depictions of minors, so it would seem undue weight for an article supposedly about cartoon porn in general to focus on children? Mdwh (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support. This info is applicable not only to lolicon but to cartoon pornography involving minors in general. Mdwh's suggested title is good, although I think the word "cartoon" is a bit narrow - how about Legal status of erotic art depicting minors? Graymornings_(talk) 18:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is going in a better direction, I think. Minor is a more technical term (more pointedly legal) than children. I'm not sure using 'erotic art' as a substitute for cartoon pornography is going to be acceptable though. I do understand that the word pornography has negative connotations that people do not feel applies to much of loli art (because porn is something done primarily for sexual arousal, and sexual art could be done for another primary purpose with the arousal being a secondary or even unintended consequence). Finding a substitute for the term 'pornography' is a good goal, as even though it may be used sometimes in law, it isn't always widely used and the interpretations of the word are varied and conflicted I guess. Like cartoon, it is too narrow.

People may be in conflict with the use of both 'erotic' and 'art' too though. Unlike the aforementioned, rather than narrow, it may be too wide. The word erotic can apply to a lot of things which are NOT illegal, like how a kiss can be erotic. 'Art' is also something that people cling to, where it's argued you need to prove it is art before calling it that or some other silly misdirection. To avoid all that, in lieu of art I think the word 'image' or possibly 'depiction' would be more appropriate. I'm not sure what to pick in lieu of either porn/erotic though. I don't think 'sexual' works because there's similar problems with what people define as sex (from intercourse down to something erotic, as you mentioned). The term 'graphic' comes to mind, but that's obviously just a slang. 'Revealing' is too vague. Would 'lewd' work or is that also slangish? This is getting too complicated and confusing, maybe the answer will come later. Tyciol (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Legal status of cartoon pornography" is a dangerous choice of name because of all the people who claim that lolicon isn't pornography, or at least that some lolicon isn't pornography. It is important to preserve some information on the legal status of so-called "non-pornographic" lolicon, since in many places (for instance, Canada) that may still be illegal even when its users and purveyors think it isn't actually pornographic. If you put "pornography" in the name, you're guaranteed a fight between the people who think all lolicon is pornographic by definition, and the people who think that non-porngraphic lolicon exists. I would counter-propose the creation of an article named Legal status of lolicon - which is where I think people will look for this information - with a prominent cross-reference in it to Legal status of cartoon pornography. I think that there's enough claimed difference between lolicon and other kinds of cartoon pornography to justify the second article. At the very least, anyone who wants to claim a difference between the two (which many fans do claim) is going to be interested in information on cases involving specifically Japanese material as opposed to cartoon pornography in general. 216.75.188.196 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

However, the legal section isn't about the legal status of lolicon, but the much broader legal status of pornographic cartoons depicting children. So it's actually misplaced on this article. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, it's extremely unlikely that the legislation of any country specifically addresses the legality of lolicon per se, which casts serious doubts on the notability of an article such as Legal status of lolicon. Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, by the way. Bikasuishin (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinguishment of what would be pornographic would be dealt with in general terms, then for the article as a whole since the qualifications for lolicon would be the same as for the rest. As long as the article doesn't assume that all lolicon is by definition pornographic then it would be within the scope of the article.じんない 10:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jin, The problem isn't so much that distinction (I think this article does that already, so it'd be copying the 'distinction' explanations in the intro) but rather, how the legal section, while dealing (primarily) with loli cases, actually covers a broader spectrum of law which deals with all sorts of images depicting sexuality, so putting it in an article called 'of lolicon' would still be giving lolicon too much weight in mention. It's moreso moving what's currently here to an article that addresses this broader spectrum of legal information, which is directed to in a little blurb filling the space in this article where it used to be. Tyciol (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bika, I agree with your first statement, but I don't understand the 'doesn't offer legal advice' comment you followed up with. What in this compilation so far constitutes advise? There is no advise or tip or tutorial given to anybody at all. It is a collection of cases which have occured and information on what legal laws pertain to some artworks within this genre, so far as research has been able to collect. Tyciol (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that User:216.75.188.196 makes a good point - even though the laws intend to cover only "pornography", it is a matter of POV whether the things it covers are porn. How about something like Laws on cartoon pornography depicting minors, that way we make it clear that it's laws that have been written regarding "porn", and whether or not they actually cover only porn is another matter (although I also take Graymornings's point that cartoon may be too narrow). Mdwh (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a title that long does sound a bit windy. If 'internet' pornography gets its own 'legal status of' article then I do think 'cartoon' should as well. In terms of those which depict minors, it would probably be easier to make that a subheading within the article. I have to admit though, as this is the most controversial type of CarP (since people are calling it ChiP), such a subsection might still serve to overpower a new article. There are, I think, far fewer countries which outlaw ALL cartoon pornography (even those with only adult characters) so it probably would not get much of a mention. It may end up getting it's own article eventually if there are complaints about it overpowering that article as it is overpowering this one. In this case, currently the legal part is overshadowing the culture part, but in what I'm predicting, the culture part would overpower the legal part. Tyciol (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong support. As it stands, this article is a serious case of WP:COAT, that is only marginally informative about its nominal subject. Bikasuishin (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The information we're listing is about the nominal subject... albeit, it does address something that's a bit more broad (it applies to shota, as well as even mature characters like Sailor Neptune/Uranus who probably aren't considered 'loli') but since it is not currently addressed elsewhere, there's no other place for it unless we can find a proper label for the information, which is what this is about. This isn't a vote (so these 'strong support's are a bit out of place...) but instead, a discussion for what title would be appropriate for this legal information. The support needs to be directed towards a specific term, not just the general idea that we need to find one. Tyciol (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with combing it with Cartoon pornography#Cartoon pornography depicting minors and naming it to something akin to Legal status of minors in cartoon pornography is that the afore mentioned subject, which is also badly worded, deals with Digital art which is not covered even under the broad definition of Cartoons.じんない 00:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Split completed at Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. I didn't leave a summary behind since the topic was broader then lolicon manga and anime. And the controversy section should keep the article balanced out as well. --Farix (Talk) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Whorley data

User:Aron.Foster posted a new reference for us (bentcorner) along with additional statistics from that blog in regards to the 20year sentence also being for 50 real images, which when added to the 20 anime pictures totalled 70 images. I don't think a personal blog is a good enough reference in and of itself (Who is Rick Rottman? What is Bent Corner?) so I'm attempting to understand where this data came from, since it wasn't included in any of our other references about this case, I want to ascertain if it is true or not. It makes a big difference in terms of understanding the weight of the sentencing.

The sole reference for this blog is this 45-page PDF. I've been searching this transcript, and I'm unable to find the numbers 50 or 70 in it. Contrast to this, the number 20 DOES show up, relating to the obscene images of anime only. As this blog is, in and of itself, NOT a good reference, and the blog itself does not reference it's statistics, I reverted this addition until the whole '50 real images' thing can be confirmed. The 50 images thing might be related to the past conviction, which to me sounds like a previous conviction to the recent anime one. If someone could find the appropriate source in the PDF, or another source of BentCorner's statistics, or evidence that BC is a reliable blog to use as a reference (along with the sources this guy did get his info from) then please chime in and we can restore these numbers once they are demonstrated to be trustworthy.

I'm not sure if these were separate events or not. Either way, let's get a proper source for this '50/70' thing before adding it. Also, does this case have it's own article? It wouldn't make sense if our summary here was more extensive than the summary in the actual wiki article. I have found some more data (Sankaku, who also did a review on Handley... why do these guys all end in 'ley'?) which refers to "74 offences". So it does seem that there are more than 20 images, unless you can somehow get charged 3-4 times per image. Even so, 70 v 74, before adding either number let's figure out which is correct here. Unfortunately this source isn't referenced either (and also a blog) so I need to contact 'Artefact' to find out where he got his numbers just like someone can ask Rick about his, as I don't feel too comfortable approaching him. Tyciol (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have researched that more before editing. I still think the article should make clear that Whorley was convicted of actual CP in addition to the lolicon. I was able to find more info here which led to the actual Department of Justice news releases here and here. The 50/20 numbers are wrong; it's 20 cartoons and 14 actual images. A thought: Whorley's case is relevant enough to US Law that he could get a sub-section in United States. If there's no opposition to the idea, I'd like to pull all the Whorley stuff together at the end of "United States" and before "See Also". Aron.Foster (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

National legalities

United States

What sources in this article say lolicon is legal? How reliable are they? When was the last update? If I understand, several sources of mine are placing lolicon as illegal while quoting the law. --Lolitologist (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources to back up the claims made by the article are cited. You simply have to refer to the citations. As for Wikipedia saying that lolicon is legal in the United States, it doesn't. It simply states the various laws and court rulings affecting lolicon artwork. But the entire legal section should be split off as undue weight towards a specific aspect of lolicon. --Farix (Talk) 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll back Farix up here, there is nothing explicitly calling loli legal (presumably in the US?), that is actually disputed by the pre-christmas decision (Dec 19, 2008) in an appeals court. Tyciol (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, lolicon is not legal in the United States?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolitologist (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With the most recent ruling, that appears to be the case. However, this was a very convoluted case that also involved real child pornography. There is also a chance that the case will be appealed since it appears to contradicted what the SCotUS has ruled in the past. --Farix (Talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'Not legal' is different from 'not proven to be legal'. I really don't know how far-reaching the consequences of this local appeal case are in terms of laws that affect all of the United States (does it, or is it localized to Virginia?). Please try not to oversimplify the concept. Basically, it's not clearly legal, but it's not clearly illegal either. New laws have passed with vague wording which are being disputed in court. Hopefully as a result of this, the legality of these various Japanese artworks will be better clarified in future legislation. Tyciol (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia wants to say, in simple English, is that the legal status of lolicon in USA is currently ambiguous.. Jedi787plus (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So what im understanding is that Offically, Lolicon is Legal but a the 4 Circut Courts desided that, since the USA is reciving a Senate, they mide-as-well ignore the Orginal ruling, and insted infrenge on the First Amendment Right. Correct? I mean thats what the Document said from Whorlys Case.--Lolitologist (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? --Farix (Talk) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, im trying to find out, weather or not Lolicon is Legal in the USA or not. Because One section of the Main Artical doesnt list the USA as a Country with a ban against lolicon. But a nother setion of the artical does list the USA as a country with a ban on Lolicon.--Lolitologist (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to obtain legal advice, and there is no list of banned or not banned. There are some examples of countries that have banned pornographic cartoons that depicted minors in the lead, but the list is not complete nor is it intended to be. --Farix (Talk) 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, obviously there is some major misunderstanding about legal aspects of this sort of thing in the United States. Read the article on obscenity. It is that simple. Virtual child pornography is protected speech unless a) offered under the mistaken impression actual children were involved -OR- b) it is obscene. The 4th circuit court of appeals decision does NOT violate the previous Supreme Court rulings because a jury had already found the materials to be obscene, but to say this makes lolicon illegal in the US is also a complete misunderstanding of the law as well. To put it as simply as I can, all pornography that does not depict REAL minors is protected speech until the (local) community deems it obscene. What constitutes obscenity varies depending on your geographic location. When Whorley was convicted on obscenity charges, only those materials he possessed which were specifically found obscene by a jury are illegal in that ONE state. I edited the "Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors" article to reflect these changes. I didn't do that great of a job, but I got tired of seeing inaccurate information in the article for so long.Nope01 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

"Although several countries have attempted to criminalize lolicon's sexually explicit forms as a type of child pornography, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and Ireland are among the few to have actually done so."

This is a statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the introduction (bold is my emphasis). Ireland not only does not have a section, it is not mentioned under the UK section. I'm not entirely familiar with the law of the Isles but Ireland is part of the UK right? So mentioning it in particular seems sort of odd to me. The word Ireland doesn't even show up elsewhere in the article and there is no source listed by the statement either. I'm not able to determine who added Ireland, I can't find it done in December so it may have happened a while ago. If anyone wants to go locate the user that added this, could they ask them why they added it and if they have some kind of source for it being outlawed in Ireland? I really don't think this is the case, but don't feel comfortable of taking the initiative of removing it myself, so if anyone agrees, please remove Ireland until we've properly determined the legal status there. Tyciol (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is an independent country. The only part of the island that belongs to the UK is Northern Ireland which is a separate entity. The mention of Ireland in the introduction refers to the Republic of Ireland, not to Northern Ireland. Jedi787plus (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

South Africa

Related to this, I've made an introductory summary to the 'legal' part of this article (which I think's especially good if it does split, see bottom about Farix' proposal) which has added the United States based on the recent judgement in the appeals court. I'm not sure if that's appropriate since the Supreme decision to defend free speech may overrule that, this needs further discussion. South Africa is mentioned though, yet it isn't in the statement intially quoted here, South African law deserves equal recognition here. Tyciol (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Australia/New Zealand

Australia's not mentioned in that one because it is <16 and I was summarizing the <18 ones which is a censorship of more breadthly encompassment. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to mention New Zealand either, to be honest. While there is a section on New Zealand here, the laws quoted are vague and it seems rather up into interpretation of the court about whether or not loli would be legal or not. It is not as explicitly worded as the other nations. This is a very small section, and moreso than Australia, New Zealand's section requires a lot of expansion with more sources and further clarification of the statutes on these laws. Surely there's got to be some existing articles which cover this which could be linked to. Tyciol (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Same concern as New Zealand, only moreso because it's even smaller. Someone has even tagged this with a possibility of original research. If anyone knows good sources on Swedish information that'd be valuable. Any contacts on Swedish wikidia who may've covered it? Tyciol (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Mdwh caught a mistake of mine here, I was so caught up with the 'three' coincidence that I missed the 'more than'. It's a bit confusing though, that the source of topic here only says three. Generally criminal convictions are not a set number, they are a range with a minimum and maximum sentence, like "2-4" or something like that. I figured when I added the link to today's news report about police hacking that it was a minimum sentence, meaning someone could get more than three years. For all I know, it's the maximum though, meaning nobody could, and then there'd be no link. I think it'd be good to look into this and find out where the 'three' came from, and whether it describes the min or the max.

Numbers aside, there was the second criticism "a tenuous link unless a notable reference draws a link - there's no need to repeat this info on every article about a UK crime". I've had my share of revert wars so I'll try to settle this here. First, the latter: this is the first article I've added this reference/info to, I haven't added it to any other articles on UK crime. If somebody else has, that's their issue I guess. As for the former, I don't think we need a notable reference to draw a link between these two, because I do not think it is a tenuous link, and I'll explain why.

Computers are things that transmit data, such as pictures and stories. It involves the possession (in memory) of these, and via the internet (over which police hacking would occur) involves the uploading (distribution) and downloading (receiving) of data. Crimes based solely on information retainment and exchange are directly affected by this new law. It simply isn't relevant to most other laws, but pointedly relevant to these ones. If it were 'tenuous' it would mean that this police hacking thing affected a lot of other UK crimes. I could understand a couple it might affect, but not enough to lose this in the flow as something tenuous. Besides copywritten data (like music sharing) or the transmission of private government data (like military secrets) which are both illegal, what else would it affect? It isn't tenuous to mention this on 3 different issues. Are there more than three? If so, what are they? Tyciol (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sixth book from the right in 'Lolicon manga' image

Although it isn't visible from the thumbnail, it's clearly pornographic and I suggest it be censored or deleted. 69.196.141.240 (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If your problem is with the image itself, you should take the issue to the Commons which handles issues of appropriateness / legality. The image's description page is here. Estemi (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A new version which should meet US laws has been uploaded. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? All of those manga are 'clearly pornographic'. Also, on the new image, the first two on the right, what are they? They look kawaii, like something not pornographic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_censored#Wikipedia_is_not_censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.164.163 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lolicon manga is very often "kawaii", especially on the cover. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptologic Technician (Technical) 3rd Class Matthew S. Orth

A Mayport sailor just got busted for CP, some of which was lolicon. It's very similar to the case against Dwight Whorley, although the specifics are a lot less clear. Some news releases are still ambiguous as to whether or not there was any actual child pornography.

• 2 sailors sentenced for ship-board child porn
• Mayport sailors sentenced for child porn aboard ships
• Former Jacksonville Sailor Sentenced to Six Years

The "Legal Issues Elsewhere - United States" section is getting large, and I'm hesitant to add this to there before hearing thoughts from other editors. Wait for more info? Subdivide the US section? Toss it in there? Aron.Foster (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a "wait for more info" case if we aren't even sure of the entirety of the content.じんない 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First lolicon created

What is the first lolicon created on manga, magazine, anime, and OVA/ONA? It would be an interesting thing to know and put on the main article. Maybe under a "Trivia" Section. Can someone answer that? --Lolitologist (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the first OVA is considered to be Lolita Anime. Anime might be something like Sally the Witch (though it wasn't specifically marketed as such). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to correct a bunch of stuff in your post just now, please put more work into that. Looking past that, those are interesting ideas, but due to the vaguenss of what loli actually is, I don't think that would be a simple task, sorry. Tyciol (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

US case appeal

Seems someone found some evidence that states the judge did not think the Whorely case had anything wrong with lolicon here. While it's on a forum, the links are directly linked to the relevant documents.じんない 08:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, even so in case the forum post is deleted later, linking to them directly here would be more useful. Tyciol (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "complex"

There are words such as "Sister Complex", "Lolita Complex", "Inferiority Complex", "God Complex" ect... My question is, what does the "Complex" mean? Like what is a "Complex"? Does it mean "Obsession", "Multible", or what? Can some one answer that?--Lolitologist (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Complex" in this context is elaborated in the the article Complex (psychology)--Kencaesi (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate though, since these are all slang terms (sister/lolita are not psychological subcomplexes) they may not fit as specific a use as inferiority/god would. Tyciol (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mike Godwin, general counsel for the foundation, has indicated here that the image is not child pornography. This discussion is now closed. Thank you for participating. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually can't believe that I'm having to put this here, but since I'm even getting vandalism warnings then here goes: The image is illegal. Under most international law this is currently the exact same thing as having actual child pornography in that article. A more, how should I put this, "stern" court system could charge someone simply for having it in their browser cache. This is not an issue of censorship, it is an issue of legality in the same sense that you cannot place material in violations of copyright laws. If you have any response place them here, otherwise I will give a day or so before removing the image or bringing it up for official review in the case of editor dispute. But regardless, the picture is illegal. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I have to suport the above user that as the current version of the image it will be considered illegal depending on your location. Will it possible to revert the image or get another editor to censor it?--Kencaesi (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While the image may be illegal in some places, it is not illegal in the United States, where the foundation is located and where the servers are located. Wikipedia does not censor images, and if you don't want to see it yourself, then I suggest following the directions here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To further this discussion, I have brought it up over on Commons as that is where the image is located. Feel free to participate in the discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am bit confused here... I was under the impression that image the creator of section was refering to the "Lolimanga.jpg" image. Ever since that image was updated the explicit images on the spines are much easier to make out.--Kencaesi (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That one I could understand, but not this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is neither nudity nor sexual situations in this image; how in the world could it possibly be pornography? Powers ^T 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the image is illegal, it is your burden to prove so. While some countries may indeed see it as illegal, they may or may not be in the minority, and as mentioned may not apply based on server location. I have no strong conviction about the image itself, it simply doesn't appeal to, or bother me. But you can't simply claim it's illegal without providing some form of evidence or reasoning beyond a basic "it's illegal because it may be construed as child porn. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to participate in the discussion over here, too, as the image is hosted on Commons. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone point to the law that this image violates?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a comment over on the Commons, and will make a brief reply here based on comments before hunting down the exact legal sources.

Dandy Sephy, Will Beback - I'll hunt down a reference for you shortly. As I tried to clarify on the Commons, the relevant laws are similar to but different than child pornography laws, as they deal with graphic designs (of various forms; ink, photoshop, etc) depicting underage characters (either presumably, in the case of this which is reinforced by it's use here, or more specifically in cases where it is a "fan made" image depicting an established chracter owned by someone else who is "underage") in sexual forms. This is borderline here, but the fact that this image would definately be considered child porn if it was a photograph used in that wiki, I would personally err on the side not filled with felonies.

"it is not illegal in the United States" - actually, the US is one of the countries for it to most likely be illegal in, and certainly would be the one with the greatest impact to this situation. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a group of young girls in their underwear. But WP:NOTCENSORED very much applies here. The image is not inappropriate, but is relevant to the topic. In fact it is much better then the previous image that use to illustrate the article in both tastefulness and quality. It is also perfectly legal under the laws of the United States and the State of Florida (the only laws that apply to Wikipedia's content) and it would not be considered profane or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers. --Farix (Talk) 23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a group of young girls in their underwear used in an article on Lolicon, which is specifically an attraction or material covering an attraction to young/underage girls. I think that latter aspect is a valid point to keep in mind. I'm curious as to whether or not you would feel that this image or a similar photograph used in the Child Pornography if it would be appropriate or legal. That is an aside, but I feel a relevant one.

More on topic, the start of the relevant laws are the PROTECT Act of 2003 and the related HR 4472. The PAo2003 is the one that initiated the US-legal fact that cartoon depictions can be equally prosecutable. I'm still looking for more specific/recent legal statements, but obviously I am not a legal expert on these matters so of course I can miss things.

As another asside, there are a few international laws that Wikipedia could be held subject to if indeed it contained child pornography, as under them it could be argued that Wikipedia in and of itself facilitates international distribution. Whether an argument of such would be successful or if there are any international courts that would be capable, willing or desiring to run these proceedings is highly doubtful, but there are indeed international laws that Wikipedia can be found subject to even if it would be highly improbable of it being able to break them in the first place. Asside, asside...

--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• PROTECT Act of 2003
  • Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
• Does anyone think this drawing depicts sex acts, or is obscene under the Miller test?   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, here are the three parts, all three of which must be satisfied for it to be considered obscene:
    1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
    3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
  • Now, it's possible it would meet #1 depending on who was viewing them. However, it clearly does not meet #2 (no sexual conduct, and no excretory functions being depicted), and it clearly does not meet #3 as it could meet serious literary, artistic, and/or scientific functions as it is being used to illustrate an encyclopedic article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Under those three conditions, this image would not be classified as obscene. As for pending legislation, it is only pending. It is in no shape the law and it would be WP:CRYSTALBALLing to take any actions on it. But then again, that bill will likely refer back to the Miller test in determining if an image is child pornography. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The legislation I have so far references is from 2003 and 2006 respectively, and I have no intention of crystal balling. My closest reference to such is that many of the cases involving this situation have repeatedly flip-floped in the years since convictions, but regardless of such the laws that stand still make their topics illegal. What the future holds is not, in my opinion, an issue here currently. Pun intended. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Base on my interpretation of the Miller test, the image would not legally be judge as obscene, even within the context of the article. And since it won't be judge as obscene, it would not be considered child pornography. However, if you strongly believe in your case, you should contact WikiMedia Foundation's legal counsel. They will be in a better position then any of us on the legal matters. But the image will not be removed just because YOU BELIEVE it to be illegal. And continuing to argue about it will get you nowhere. --Farix (Talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith there, Farix. For starters, considering I made this talk entry and have gone to good lengths to provide concise points, I would have thought it was apparent that I wasn't going by what "I BELIEVE" (caps yours, not mine). I have also not been "argueing", unless by your definition every Talk Page discussion is an argument. I can't say that would be wholly incorrect, but that is (again) irrelevant. My only actual annoyance is that you and everyone else so far seems to have completely ignored my question as to how this would be handed in the legally identical topic covered in the cp article. I am not interested in an argument, but neither am I interested in the threats and other disparaging comments both here and in the Commons from Admins of all people, and I would rather like you to keep that in mind. The issues I have of note have already been covered, and I am quite aware that it would be pointless to ask for topical responses to the questions I have already posed. Barring any further questions or newcomers to the issue, I don't feel that I have more to say than I already have. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are basing your arguments about what you believe to be child pornography and lolicon. Where child pornography is simple a form of pornography, lolicon encompass a much wider definition and includes erotic non-pornographic images as well as pornographic images. So your question about adding a catalog's or sales paper's image of a girl in her underwear wouldn't be appropriate for child pornography, because the image is not child pornography, whereas a similar image on lolicon would be appropriate do to its wider definition. --Farix (Talk) 10:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(freaking edit conflicts) In my honest opinion, I feel that it really does depend on whether or not you include the context of the article in the decision. If you hold the image as a sole entity to the test, I do not feel that it would fail the first two aspects of the Miller test, while I think that the SLAPS portion would be more questionable. If you hold it into the context of the article as a whole, then I think that the outcome would be different, in the sense that the entire article is in effect stating that this image (and any lolicon image) is to be viewed in a sexual nature. It appears that the use of such an image (that does not contain graphic content) is being viewed by editors in this discussion in a different light than a similar image showing no graphic content but much overt (they are indeed in their underwear) and contextual (this is an article about, at base, sexual attraction to underage girls) would not be debated this much in the Child Pornography wiki. Legally, in the United States, at this time, these is no difference between Lolicon and Child Pornography, so it would stand to reason that the same logic and response should be held to both articles and the content thereof. I'm not about to say that if you think this image is OK I'm going to go put some child's underwear ad images in Child Pornography, just trying to make the point that legally it is incorrect to view the content of the two wikis differently. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Legally, a photograph would be problematic because of personality rights. There's no such issue with a drawing. Powers ^T 11:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion over Virgin Killer already. The censors were rightly shown the door. But you can bring this case (drawings of little girls in night gowns, how offensive and prurient!) to Mike Godwin if you want to be laughed at. Bikasuishin (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Over at Commons, Mike Godwin said it's okay. Case closed, I think. Powers ^T 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Old image

I seem to recall an old one with a gym uniform and a lollipop or something, I wonder why it got replaced with this one. This image could just as easily be called moe, pretty much both. Tyciol (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:Lolicon/Archive 12 § New_image

The current image is GFDL-licensed by the artist, which makes it preferable for Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the reason the current image is preferred. The old image is copyrighted-free-use, which is much less restrictive than GFDL as licenses go. You may be thinking of the really old image which was a fair-use example of actual published lolicon showing the bare butt of a very young girl. But that one didn't have a lollipop. =) Powers ^T 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The old image was determined to not be as representative of lolicon, and people seemed to like/prefer the current image over the other one. It's just my opinion, but I found the other image to be butt-ugly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not it. The new image was supported because it was a higher quality image then the previous image. It's still not an exact fit, but it is the best that we are going to get. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, wouldn't it be good to show variety? Like high and low quality, ugly and not-so-ugly? It's not like it's overpacked with images... and who put the one with the books back? Wasn't that taken down because of what you can see on the spines when you zoom in? Tyciol (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

URLs

Only two external links, which are actually news sources, if anything they're more appropriate as news references or something like that. I did find an article about a bunch of ads telling lolicons to keep their hands off but I was told it was a bad reference. Tyciol (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Handley redirects here

But the article doesn't mention him once. What? He should get his own page, or at least a blurb under "Controversy".Roothorick (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The redirect has been deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I created that redirect. I have contacted User:Graeme Bartlett about this deletion, it was unwarranted and too spurious. The reason he is not mentioned is because the section mentioning him was moved to the article which split off from this one. Before trying to get something deleted you should really contact the person who put it there and ask why it was put there, because established editors generally have some method to their edits. Tyciol (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaiman

AnmaFinotera, you deleted my quote, you gave no reason for this deletion but rather asked a question instead. I am answering it for you: his response on his personal site is notable because he is a famous author who is commenting on an issue for which he was interviewed by MTV. The reason what he says specifically is relevant is because he is on the board of the directors for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the an organization which is supplying legal defense for Christopher Handley (the guy mentioned above, whose redirect I assume you had some hand in the death of) as you can see here. So I am restoring what you reverted. If you wish to have it removed again please discuss it first. A celebrity chiming in on a controversial issue by name is relevant information. Tyciol (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a random celebrity chiming in on a controversial issue is not relevant information. Your addition makes absolutely no mention that he is on the board of directors for the CBLDF, nor that the remarks were made while being interviewed on the topic. If you have given the appropriate level of details, it would have given that context (and answered the question), but you didn't even add this when you restored it? Why not? And yes, I CSD Handly's redirect to this article because, as noted above, this article doesn't really mention him. I see you recreated it pointing to a totally different article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to assume you're a newbie to this article if you don't have a clue what's going on there. As I mentioned, he WAS on this page. Part of this page was split off into legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. He's mentioned there. That's where I put the new redirect. That's where YOU should have put it, if you'd do the slightest bit of research into where it was originally intended to point. I believe I even had the #section as part of the link. You should contact the person who made a redirect if they're an active editor and ask what their intent was instead of being a rabid deletionist without the faintest idea about an article's history, what data was originally on it, and if that data still exists somewhere.

Similarly enough, that you would perceive Gaiman to be a random celebrity simply shows a lack of reading of this and related articles, as he was mentioned in the legal section before it split off, and has addressed this topic several times in his blog, and holds fundraising for legal defense on this and related issues. Now, ignorance is certainly forgivable, however you have once again deleted the addition, this time knowing why I have added it. Instead of deleting it a second time, you might have simply added mention that he is on the CBLDF. So now, for a third time, I am adding this again, with mention of the position, so please do not delete it just because you lack knowledge of who the person is and how they have weighed in on the issue. Tyciol (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks on Wikipedia, and remember to assume good faith per WP:NPA and WP:AGF. And for your newbie comment, you might also want to read WP:BITE. TransOceanic (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph did not contain any personal attacks. I also did not assume bad faith. In retrospect, I think deleting my redirect was violating the guideline to assume good faith in regards to my good faith for creating that redirect. I am not attacking someone for being a newbie or being ignorant, either, but rather, explaining where the appropriate data could be found, and how this could be found out by consulting an article's history. Tyciol (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a newbie thanks, nice of you to be civil in the face of having no consensus for your actions. And for your information, I DID look at the history of the redirect, figuring someone had changed it by accident. However, it HAD NO HISTORY. *gasp* There was no content, nothing. Just its creation, without any clue as to why it was pointed here. As nothing in this page mentioned the man now and there was no clue as to where it was supposed to go, it was removed. And no, there was no section in the redirect link either. And, quite frankly, considering your seeming love of creating unnecessary redirects that often make little sense, I figured this was another one and went ahead and CSDed it. Since an admin deleted it (not me), it seems obvious they also saw no point to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant new to the article, not wiki in general, before writing that I had already checked your contributions and saw that you were an experienced editor. I am not sure what you mean in regards to a 'consensus' for my actions, since the action in question is redirecting a name which was mentioned on this page before that section was split to a separate page. It is important to check why redirects were made, and not simply delete them because mention of them cannot be found on a page. Pages get vandalized all the time, and do undergo splits, and if you simply delete a redirect without consulting its creator (who might have an idea what it was for) or checking what it originally pointed to (check the date of a redirect creation and then compare it to the version date on that page it directed to) then this interferes with searches people may wish to undergo for information on the cases referenced in these articles.

Your statement 'it had no history' is false. It did have a history: 1 edit, which directed to this page, at a given date. As stated above, you can use that to check past versions of where it points to see if it originally pointed to something (or if you're unable to do that, ask its creator for help). You also made another false statement, you say 'it had no section'. This is blatantly false, it has a section, just as it has a section now that I recreated it. That would be using a number sign with the subtopic heading, which I believe was #United States since that's where Christopher Handley was (and is) mentioned due to his relevant court cases. Therefore since it had a section THAT was the clue for where it needed to go. Now unfortunately since you managed to get the redirect deleted, there's no history of its original creation, damaging the historical ability of Wikipedia, because that could be matched up with the date prior to the 'legal status' exodus which you can read about in the talk page archives.

Posting a full name is hardly unnecessary, and certainly not of 'little sense'. I would not just make up the name Christopher Handley out of the blue. Assuming you've read this article, the 'legal status' splitoff article is clearly listed at the bottom and he's listed there. Anyone who thoroughly reads an article before editing it would know it's a real name. In fact, I would question how you came to know about the redirect at all if you were not familiar with the name and its place here.

When I last left it, that redirect was accurate. Other volunteers helped to split the article, and unfortunately neglected to update redirects (this is understandable). When a redirect is out of date, you're not supposed to delete them: you're supposed to update them. The admin deleting it (I believe Graeme Barlett as mentioned above, which I checked in the records before restoring the redirect) not seeing use to it does not support it being useless. It was obviously useful: Handley was mentioned in a section, it redirected to the section.

Admins often assume good faith. They will check that a redirect isn't on a page, assume it was never on the page and go on their way. This does not strip you of the responsibility of checking thoroughly yourself before posting it for deletion. It would be very good if GB could somehow restore the original history, but I am not sure if that is possible at this point. Also, since we've wavered off topic of discussing Neil Gaiman, if you'll consent I can move this portion of the conversation to the above topic. Tyciol (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it can go on Wikiquote. Gaiman's quote isn't particularly useful here, even though he is famous. Even with his position on the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Gaiman is not in a position to affect policy, so this gives undue weight to the opinion of one of many tangentially connected people, and this article does not need a quotefarm. I would say remove it. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote comes from his response to a question from one of his blog readers; it is not from an interview by MTV. And even though he is on the BoD of the CBLDF, I don't see any evidence that he is an established expert on lolicon—in fact, he admits he doesn't know much about it. (WP:SPS) --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The interview with MTV was actually quite sparse. Where he says something doesn't really matter though. Furthermore, when he says he doesn't know much about it, he's being humble, indicating that he has not read it and thus would not understand specific titles or subtleties. He clearly does understand the issues at hand though, since he made a lengthly comparison to a variety of similar works, such as Lost Girls. Tyciol (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with not including it, as it is basically just one person's opinion. But the same goes for Nagaoko's opinion too (the bit about half of them allegedly containing schoolgirl characters is a claim of a fact, so is reasonable to mention, but the opinion is no more relevant, notable, or authorative than Gaiman's). Mdwh (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Either they all go or all stay - with clarification of who they are and why their opinion might in any way be relevant and notable - otherwise we get into problems with WP:NPOV.陣内_Jinnai 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of 'one person's opinion'. Gaiman isn't just a guy off the street, he has an article, is a famous person, and on the CBLDF board, the ones who funded the defense. You can't just throw an 'NPOV' at this without dismissing these distinguishing facts. Gaiman isn't making any unsupported claims about the content like Nagaoko (who?) but rather stating his opinion on the issues in general and how they pertain to the case and the ongoing changes in general. Tyciol (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lolimanga.JPG

It... I mean, have you tried looking at it? It's incredibly obscene. Two or three of those volume have side-covers that fully depict the nude bodies of those children. It's not like that's uncommon among h-manga either -.-" Whoever uploaded it should have checked more closely. Unless someone disagrees with my analysis that such blatant (despite being small relative to the image) nudity is too much to be on wikipedia, please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.199.173 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, so you will need to go there. Click this link for the image page on Commons, and you can see where to contact them by clicking here. Hope that helps. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a notification on the Commons about this then. Tyciol (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lolicon = Lolita Icon?

I read on a WIkipedia Artical that Lolicon can be short for Lolita Complex or Lolita Icon. So why isnt Lolita Icon on the artical?--Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Unless a reliable source actually confirms what Lolicon means, it does not belong here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese abbreviated compounds are normally formed by taking the first two morae of each word. "Lolita icon" is transliterated ロリタ・アイコン RO-RI-ta A-I-ko-n and so the abbreviation would be ロリアイ "roriai" or "loliai". It's not really plausible that "lolicon" could come from "lolita icon"; for it to do so might seem reasonable under English abbreviation rules, but those are not the ones that apply. Instead, the word comes from "lolita complex" (ロリタ・コンプレクス RO-RI-ta KO-N-pu-re-ku-su, turns to ロリコン "rorikon" or "lolicon"). 216.59.252.65 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Manga and gender roles redirects here

I don't quite understand this. I feel this gives a very bad impression of manga and anime. Also, Lolicon is a very narrow part of gender roles in manga, so it isn't correct either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.158.186 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's a strange redirect. I've put it up for discussion. liquidluck✽talk 06:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Criminalization in US

I added the United States to the list of countries where lolicon is criminally prosecuted, because it is. You removed it.

Two web references:

1. http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/05/26/american-guilty-of-loli-manga-possession-faces-15-years/

2. http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000415.shtml

Please allow my edit to stand, or add your own edit. This was a fairly big story; I'm surprised you missed it. Too busy being Wiki police, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.143.65 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a very convoluted case. The judge initially threw out the "possession of child pornography" charge, but not the mailing obscene material charge, only to have Handley plead guilty to it later. On top of that, the SCOTUS has previous ruled that a similar law was unconstitutional. So the Handley doesn't mean that lolicon is illegal. The simple fact of the matter is that it is that the legality of lolicon is very unclear. So I'm removing again. —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not have sufficient reason to remove the US. He plead guilty. He has been sentenced. Six months, $250,000, confiscation of his (7) computers and all of the lolicon manga he possessed. These are facts. A conviction in court is prima facie evidence that it is illegal. Don't assume SCOTUS will toss this case. Let the edit stand, make a note, and remove the US from the list when SCOTUS actually does reverse it.

If you can't bring yourself to list US with Canada and the other countries where it is illegal, then list it in another category. "Countries where it will soon be illegal, based on these precedents:" listing the Handley case as one of the the several examples.98.106.110.244 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't have sufficient reason to add the US because it is not clear if it is illegal or not. He may have plead guilty for possession of child pornography, but that doesn't mean that lolicon is illegal, especially when the judge originally tossed out the child pornography charge. We still don't know why he plead guilty as he only faced the mailing of obscene material. We can only speculate that he was guaranteed a more lenient sentence by pleading for both charges than if he would was convicted of the obscenity charge alone. Also, precedents doesn't determine legality. Only the law, which is written by elected representatives, can make something illegal. Not some overzealous prosecutor looking for a pound of flesh. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone pleading guilty to a criminal charge does not indicate the state of the law in the US. As an example, there was a case here a few years ago where someone broke into a house and stole some items. He pleaded guilty to "criminal copyright infringment". That doesn't mean that taking things from somebody's house constitutes copyright infringement, it means that the prosecutor felt the mandatory life imprisonment for a third breaking and entering conviction was too harsh, and negotiated an alternate pleading that gave the desired prison term.

If you want to know the state of the law in the US, look for a case where someone pleaded "not guilty", was convicted, appealed on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional, and had the appeal decided on. The higher the level that the appeal is decided at, the better: a Supreme Court hearing is better than a Supreme Court denial of hearing is better than a Circuit Court hearing is better than a Circuit Court denial of hearing. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultures are not the same around the world nor are people. Jane's nude swim was eliminated from the film: Tarzan and his Mate. The Hula was outlawed. Nude statues have been attacked and disfigured. The long banned works of the australian artist Norman Lindsay are controversial to some people. The erotic art of the Chandela Temples in India is considered to be sacred. Dance nude on a Broadway show for an audience of the rich who have expensive tastes and it is art. Dancing nude on a stage before beer drinking grunts in a local dive trying to support your one parent family is obscene to some people. In the USA not covering a woman's face with a veil is looked on as being offensive by a minority. It all depends on who is calling the shots. The powerful have money and make the rules. Kazuba (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if the status of the law is still unclear, you might want to do something about the image on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors 159.230.140.194 (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing illegal about a drawing of three girls in pajamas. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed "Virtual" Child Porn law in Japan

Creators Decry Tokyo's Proposed 'Virtual' Child Porn Ban (Update 7) - Posting this here for those who don't visit WT:Anime as the site may get some more traffic (and possible vandalism) because of this.陣内_Jinnai 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

countries that have criminalised loli

i note that the article lists a few a countries which have criminalised loli. they are all cited, apart from ireland. does anyone have a source for the legal position of loli in ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.73.211 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you do not mean Northern Ireland which would be part of the United Kingdom? In terms of Southern Ireland I am not sure, I'll put up a request for you on the other page. Tyciol (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the Republic of Ireland rather than a region of southern Ireland around Kerry or Wexford --109.255.209.202 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what you call it, is it cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.82.176 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Handley case in the USA should be discussed in the main article. 98.106.110.244 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This doesn't need to continue here. What does or doesn't happen on CItizendium has no bearing on WIkipedia. Regardless of what happens there, nothing is changing here unless sources can be found. supporting Rothorpe's desired content. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it pronounced? Lólicon (lólly)? Lolìcon (Lolìta)? (At first I thought it must be LOL + Icon...) Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's Loli+con as it is derived from the phrase lolita complex. In Japanese, phrases are sometimes abbreviated by the first syllable of each word, e.g. Personal Computer becomes PasuCom or PasoKon (it's a transliteration personal computer, PASOneru KONpyuta). 173.173.70.215 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But where is the main stress? LOLLy con, LolEE con, or lolly CON? Rothorpe (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a "main stress". Each syllable receives the same amount of stress. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I suspect the stress goes to the last syllable in English. Rothorpe (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends. I've heard people stress the first sylable or the last. I've never heard anyone stress the middle syllable.陣内_Jinnai 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put in a note. Rothorpe (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note reverted. Unless you have a verifiable source on the accent, then it is best not to note it at all. Otherwise, it's original research. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. Rothorpe (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't even agree among ourselves how to pronounce it with an English accent.陣内_Jinnai 09:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put it in Citizendium as 'either stressed'. [1] Rothorpe (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with adding a stress when there is no stress at all? At least, none indicated by reliable sources. And propagating unverifiable and potentially false information over to Citizendium doesn't helping matters. I am sure they don't want unverifiable information any more than Wikipedia does. —Farix (t | c) 14:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed, just curious as to how it is pronounced - whether like 'lolly', as it appears, or like 'Lolita', whence it is derived - I thought my opening query would be easily answered, and User:Jinnai has answered it. English is a stress-timed language, so there has to be stress somewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But there is no stress and any stress someone may add to the term when speaking the term is all part of their accent. So why do you insist on applying an artificial stress? —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the English language that insists on that. Rothorpe (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then where is the reliable source that states that the term has a stress? Don't assume that a word must have a stress until you have a reliable source to back it up. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All English words have stress, apart from unstressed monosyllables (for example, it is very rare to stress 'than'). We don't need a reliable source for that. Rothorpe (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do. —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly you do. Rothorpe (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the one trying to insert the claim. And you are the one trying to insert a claim into the article. —Farix (t | c) 19:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

English words have stress, trust me. And I have not been trying to insert anything since you reverted it several days ago. Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not English words having stress sylables or not (that is an issue for the English language article. What is the issue here is that there are no verifiable claims from reliable sources stating for lolicon, which, if any, sylables are stressed. I cannot even find sources stating that it has seperate sylables in English.陣内_Jinnai 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)~

It's very hard to find sources for the obvious. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, obviously, you need to let the issue drop. Until you can find one or more reliable sources documenting the pronunciation, then it doesn't belong in the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped it. It's in Citizendium. Ciao. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on Citizendium either because it cannot be verified. If I could challenge it there, I would. So I strongly urge you to remove it from there. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've put in a link to here from there. We'll see if anything happens. [2] Rothorpe (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You simply don't get it. It should be removed or just changed to "Lolicon", even at Citizendium because you have no reliable sources. It's crap like this is why people trust Citizendium far less than they trust Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they complement each other. They're different models. People should be wary of both, and sensible ones are. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

I object to the expression 'Rothorpe's desired content'. I don't desire it: I did not attempt to reinsert it, and only continued the discussion because others did. Clearly there is no way Wikipedia's rules allow it to pronounce on the pronunciation, unless or until a reliable source can be found. I am very happy to (again) end the discussion. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You argued for it ad nauseum, so you obviously want it in there. If you want to change your mind now, that's fine, but that doesn't change how you were arguing for it. I've struck-through it, though that's as far as I'll go. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind. I didn't realise how unassimilated the word was. I've taken Farix's advice & removed any pronunciation guide from Citizendium. Thank you for crossing that out as I was not arguing for its inclusion here. Rothorpe (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

See this thread on Jimbo's talk page. Describing the image as "tacky and stupid" is probably fair comment. More relevant is the claim that it is WP:OR. It is hard to find images for some articles without citing fair use, but would there be objections to removing the image?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Illustrating an article on Lolita complex - themed media with an example of the same would only be legitimate if Lolicon itself were legitimate. Which I don't think it is. Thus I suspect it would violate one WPdia policy or another, I don't know which. In one of the few exceptions, if a necessary one, of wp:NOTCENSORED?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is/was very likely WP:OR, which is why I rm'd it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Having seen some of Kasuga's work, it's not WP:OR, it is actually a lolicon image. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to original poster)You raise a good point. This is not an actual lolicon image, but someone's idea of what a lolicon image would look like if they drew lolicon. On the other hand: 1) There have been scores of thousands of bytes expended on what image is best for this article (see the talk page archives if you have the time). 2) One of the things I take from these discussions is that there is going to be an image in the article, period. There are just too many people who will cry WP:NOTCENSORED and "Not Illegal==Therefore We Must Host It" for this to ever be otherwise, in my opinion. 3) This is image is hella better than previous images that have been used in this article or that could be used. 4) It is free, which is superior to fair use on copyright grounds; I and many others would take a gimlet eye to any attenpt to replace a free image with a fair use image in the context of this article. Besides which -- and this is my opinion -- it's pretty good artistically, and a lot less offensive (believe me!) than we could have. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's legal, which as far as I can tell, is the only helpful thing about it. That's not enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research, either. It's a lolicon image done in the artist's style. Kasuga has done all kinds of art outside of this image (and outside of what he's done for Wikipedia/Wikimedia), and a fair amount of it would be classified as "lolicon" to some degree or another. It is not even close to original research, and it immediately shows people what lolicon is. This picture is definitely worth a thousand words, and it should not have been removed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While I would not go to the wall to defend this image, it is representative of a certain type of Japanese Internet art. It does not go over the top (see the lead image in the Encyclopedia Dramatica article "Wikipedophile", cannot link to it, it is banned by the spam blacklist). By Japanese Internet standards, File:Lolicon Sample.png is far from the worst thing that a person could come across. Wikipedia would not touch this image with a ten foot pole if it was illegal, but it does illustrate how parts of the Japanese language Internet work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the image that is original research and is in keeping with WP:NOR. The image is an original image produced by a Japanese artist on request in order to illustrate the article's subject. The request was to have a free-use image that is also legal and not overtly provocative. The article didn't qualify for a NFC-compliant image because such a free-use image could be produced. If any original image are now going to be labeled as original research, then we have two policies that are contrary to each other and thus harming Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. So we either ignore one of these interpretations or change the policy so that we don't create these Catch-22s. —Farix (t | c) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the current image with this post-pubescent sample: File:Anime Girl.png.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That image doesn't fit the subject of the article, which is about pre- or early-pubescence. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Kasuga certainly seems to know what he is doing with Japanese cartoon art. While Wikipedia does not commission original research, nor does it allow the use of a non-free image where a free image might reasonably be created. Anyone interested in their own spot of original research could try doing a Google Image search on "Lolicon", but be warned, some of the images are genuinely disturbing and offensive. Kasuga's image captures the controversial tackiness of Lolicon art, but does not do anything outrageous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As the author of File:Anime Girl.png i must deny it. The girl in my picture is “too old”. --Niabot (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out a 2006 debate about how this article should be illustrated. The image on Flickr that was suggested at the time was unsuitable (and copyrighted anyway). The current image was created to fulfill the requirements of being copyright free and within acceptable limits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The current image is fine as it portrays what the term is and the alternative proposal is too old for the context of this particular article. in addition the current image is much more tame than what you can find on the rest of the net while still clearly showing the intent.陣内_Jinnai 05:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)