Jump to content

Talk:Shukusei!! Loli Kami Requiem

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the initial lyrics to "Shukusei!! Loli Kami Requiem" were "as painful as hitting someone with concrete"? Source: https://febri.jp/topics/shigureui1/ "コンクリートで殴るくらい痛そうな歌詞を「すごく面白いんですけど……」って相談して、豆腐ぐらい柔らかい表現にしていただいたのが今の歌詞です（笑）。"
    • ALT1: ... that "Shukusei!! Loli Kami Requiem", while popular among the youth, has been noted to be reminiscent of earlier Internet culture? Source: https://magazine.tunecore.co.jp/inspirations/328796/2/ "TikTokを通じて若年層リスナーの心を掴んだ「粛聖!! ロリ神レクイエム☆」だが、もう一つのターゲットが存在することも見逃せない。それはサービス開始からまもないころのニコニコ動画や、それ以前のネット文化に親しみ深いリスナー。あるいは、“インターネット老人会”と表現するのが手っ取り早いだろうか。"
    • Reviewed: 2nd DYK nomination
    • Comment: This is a viral denpa song with dark lyrics. The articles heavily relies on Japanese sources.

Created by Lol1VNIO (talk). Self-nominated at 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shukusei!! Loli Kami Requiem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • This isn't strictly a review of the article's eligibility for DYK, but rather to point out the elephant in the room suitably of this article to appear on the front page. The subject of the article is, according to the categories, a "song about criminals" and a "song about sexual assault", and as such we must exercise extreme caution approaching this topic before even thinking about featuring it on the main page for the world to see. I am not convinced that the current article sufficiently addresses an important topic regarding the reception of the song, that is, to speak plainly, the tension between the popularity of this viral hit and the awkwardness of its subject matter now broken out of its subcultural circles. There are reliable sources that addresses this issue that were not incorporated into this article, a partial translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, for example, those that describe the controversies surrounding select companies and celebrities who ill-advisedly chose to feature the song on their social media. _dk (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this hasn't been formally reviewed yet. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long enough, new enough. ALT0 short enough, interesting, and AGF sourced, as is every paragraph. No neutrality issues found, no maintenance templates found. As a nomination, there are no technical bars to approval.--Launchballer 15:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cause for controversies

[edit]

Among IPs, @Underbar dk and Yoshi24517: This is regarding the recent dispute, a slow edit war, between lolicon vs pedophilia as the cause for the controversies. Several IPs have persistently insisted on lolicon but have given no explanation and have been reverted.

Until one IP wrote: The video is centered around lolicon jokes, and there is NO substantial proof of lolicon being the same as pedophilia, the lolicon article is this very wiki is clear on this subject that there's not enough of a link, even though people can perceive it as such. This was reverted by _dk: lolicon in japanese just means pedophilia. the distinction between lolicon and pedophilia is wholly english. I presented reliable sources for using the term pedophilia and also reworded to exclude "centering around", since that has evidently not been seen as "to have something as the main subject of discussion ..." Another IP reverted my edit without explanation, and to initiate this discussion: Why? ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol1VNIO, I found this page through recent changes. I can take a look later today if you would like. What is it you would like me to look at? Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Online) 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshi24517: This is just a content dispute and question on IP conduct. I suppose you are free to discuss but if this disinterests you, you also can remain uninvolved. Best wishes, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lol1VNIO: I'll stay out of it. I'd like to not get into an edit war about something. If the IPs don't provide sources I'd say revert it on the basis being no source. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if we take Wikipedia's definition of lolicon that it is "fictional media where young (or young-looking girl) characters appear in romantic or sexual contexts", then to call this song as being about "lolicon" is basically saying this is a song about a fictional trope portraying pedophilia, which, since the song is already operating in the fictional realm, is no different from saying this is a song about pedophilia. This song is about pedophilia in the same sense that lolicon as a genre is about pedophilia. _dk (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That same article makes a point of stressing that in an animanga context the term is understood as distinct from meaning pedophile, even if it retains that connotation in the culture at large. It is thus not "about pedophilia" as the creators of the song mean to use the term. It is about itself, the fictional genre. Whether or not this still equivocates to pedophilia is something people like to argue about, but this is likely why people have made these changes; they think pedophile is a misnomer. But I'm not a Wikipedia editor, so I don't get to decide who's understanding of the term takes precedence. 73.12.244.117 (talk)
  • Lolicon basically is pedophilia. It’s pedophiliac attraction to fictional characters but it’s still a sexual fetish for a person based on them being pre-pubescent in appearance/behavior. It’s like arguing over whether something’s purple or mauve. I think this comes down to the fact that people who are into loli stuff don’t want to be lumped in with child molesters, but pedophilia isn’t a synonym for child molestation anyway even if it’s often treated like it is. Dronebogus (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps entering into broader of a discussion than would be typically be productive on a talk page, but I'm rather skeptical of this sort of claim. This stance necessitates that all fantasy or fictional attraction be the same as the actual paraphilic attraction, and this doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps this isn't the best resource but this article on POCD helps illustrate what I mean. https://www.treatmyocd.com/what-is-ocd/common-fears/if-i-like-lolicon-does-it-mean-im-a-pedophile-a-therapists-view Whether or not this is relevant to the editors is a separate question. 73.12.244.117 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could say it this way: irregardless as to whether “lolicon” the genre is literally the same as “pedophilia” (however you define that), fiction in the genre frequently deals with characters who are pedophiles. The song objectively deals with such characters (the main character’s perverted fans) in its narrative so it’s essentially about pedophilia thematically. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not this is true generally, I think there’s some context missing here. The characters the song deals with are ultimately the singers fans. The song as a whole is an in-joke between the creator and her audience, as mentioned in this clip https://youtube.com/watch?v=s2ZcaGzn3Y4==
Accordingly, I’m rather skeptical the characters in question are supposed to be understood as pedophiles. It follows from this that since the song does not deal with characters who are pedophiles, it is not about pedophilia thematically, at least not per se.
All told this may or may not sound nonsensical, but I think this should help further address the disconnect that seems to exist outside of the songs target audience. 73.12.244.117 (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is all “just a big misunderstanding” as they say then we need sources to show that instead of just sitting here musing about how many lolicons can dance on the head of a pin. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to add that I get what you’re saying on a personal level— I’m a fan of many Vtubers and am familiar with the convoluted system of irony used by the fandom and the animanga/otaku subculture as a whole, up to and including many semi-ironic lolicon references/jokes and the tenuous, controversial nature of Lolicon vs. pedophila. I’m just saying this is all pure WP:OR going on in this section and needs reliable, independent, relevant sources to prevent both Original Research and WP:SYNTH problems. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>Lolicon basically is pedophilia.

No it literally isn't. Cartoons are not human beings, and the only ones who seem to be unable to tell the difference are the ones accusing lolicons of being actual predators, which this article is essentially accusing Ui's fans of too. Not to mention, loli is not entirely about age, as emphasized by the fact that ADULT characters can be classed as loli if they're small and petite enough.2001:1970:5A1C:F700:FCF1:779:FBA4:C90C (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the title

[edit]

I searched the title on JASRAC website and saw that the title includes Gami not Kami, but in the song itself i clearly heard Kami. Which is the correct title Nguyen280405 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shukusei!!_Loli_Kami_Requiem&oldid=1248279050"