Talk:Lolicon/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

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

The old caption for the new picture doesn't really fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carcer (talk • contribs)

How about something along the lines of Lolicon art often depicts childlike characters in suggestive situations.? --Merovingian ※ Talk 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd fit better. --Carcer 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. --Merovingian ※ Talk 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reason not to use both images? --

21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Bah, it was deleted on some technicality. Don't worry, we'll fix it soon. --

talk

08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I really hope so, because now the old fugly image is back. --83.245.135.80 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ruylong, can you tell us why did you restore Kristal's image instead of the Wikipe-tan one? --83.245.135.80 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Kristal's isn't a redlink. --

talk

09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3483/kasugahuhyy0.png This, my friend, is ridiculous. --83.245.135.80 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably just someone who has a beef with 4chan and doesn't want them to have anything to do with wikipedia. Smart thing to do would be to just accept the image as a compromise rather than have /a/ get ticked off again and start replacing it with random images.--Carcer 15:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having an image named after Wikipedia and incorporating Wikipedia symbols creates the impression of endorsement. I can see it now as the banner for anti-Wikipedia articles. It gave me pause, and I have some knowledge of the situation. Someone gunning for Wikipedia could have a field day with it. -Jmh123 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, basically you are saying that because it's Wikipe-tan, people could think that "Wikipedia endorses lolicon!" which in turn leads to people deleting the content, even if it was very relevant and completely free to use? Wouldn't that be basically deleting stuff just because they don't like it, and thus, not allowed?83.245.135.80 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was deleted. I didn't delete it, here, or at the Commons. Just commenting on the image. Sorry. -Jmh123 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, same user uploaded it there last night. From what I can tell, no one on Commons has been made aware of the situation. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that says "Kasuga" to me. --

talk

23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define on commmons. I know about it. The author is listed as "4lolicon" a fairly blatent throw away account but nothing more.Geni 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't really tell what it says either, but that's just what the admin who deleted it on en.wiki said. Even without the Kasuga thing, this was added at the same time as a bunch of other images from 4chan, and just kind of makes me wonder who's who and what's what. Also, if it's considered a derivative of one of Kasuga's then it's under an incorrect license. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And even though Kohikki has come forward and claimed that he is the author, per the other reasons above the image should remain off.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's got a correct license, or is CC/GFDL as a derivative, we can edit this to not be Wikipe-tan (it wouldn't be hard, it doesn't even look like her). (For the Wikipedia image concern, not for the self-reference, which is not an issue, as we've explained before with her other images). -- Ned Scott 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But why work towards another one when we have one that clearly states "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification"? The copyright on the Wikipe-tan one is ambiguous right now. Kristal's has a clear statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me answer that. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(to clarify, as I don't want to sound like a perv any more than what's been done.. I did not wish to insult Kristal, but eh) -- Ned Scott 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,it can be used for ANY purpose ;-)--87.65.142.171 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I currently see no reason to replace the image that's already here. The only issues that have been brought up in private discussion is that the copyright needs to be clarified, which I am trying to do by contacting the artist.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not replace, but clearly the effort put into any original picture should be acknowledged. I don't know why both pictures can't be included. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The old image is more of an adolescent.Lolicon is about little girls.In other words,the new image is ,better from a purely editorial point of view.--87.64.23.34 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current image does depict a little girl. However, due to the nature of the genre, the character has some features that are more indicative of adolescence (i.e., wide hips). Lolicon appears to cover both realistic and glamorized underage girls, but the "underage" part is common. Choosing one over the other is a matter of personal preference. Including both would demonstrate the variety of styles present in the genre. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The old image sucks. There, I said it. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My favorite so far "get rid of that ugly nonlolicon looking sick twisted nastyass picture!".Any way i don't think that any one is dupe,the copyright issue arises just because some prudes think that the image is too explicit and offensive.--87.64.23.34 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason why Kohikki even made the new picture is simply because the common opinion is that the current image is UGLY. If we have users like Merovingian confirming that it indeed was made by an artist (Kohikki) in /a/ completely for the purpose to use it in this article and Kohikki coming here and telling that he is the author of the image, I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't be included in the article. If some people don't want it "because it's from 4chan", then here's a little surprise to you: Kristal is from 4chan too. Just check her gallery, you can access it via the old image. And personal opinions shouldn't be used as a reason to delete something in the first place, right? So, at least USE BOTH IMAGES. A guy put up effort just for this article and Wikipedia and now you are saying "Sorry, but I don't like you, so no thanks"? --83.245.135.80 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The image is labeled as public domain when it is a derivative of a CC/GFDL image. I've removed the image from the article again for that reason. Also, do we have a link or anything to the discussion where the authorship was cleared up? -- Ned Scott 23:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not include elements of Foundation logos in kiddie cheesecake pics. The image cannot be used until these are removed. Herostratus 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The puzzle pieces are not owned by the Foundation, only the globe itself. They might have a claim to the trademark, but not the copyright. -- Ned Scott 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the same could be said of all Wikipe-tan images. By the way, would it be possible for the author to change the license? --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, the Japanese Wikipedia uses "elements of Foundation logos" in their "kiddie cheesecake pics" in their article on lolicon. -- 66.58.200.98 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kohikki did above. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's apparently badly copyrighted,do we need kohikki approval?He did put it under PD, so if it's not good we can simple change it to the appropriate CC/GFDL.It's not like if he copyrighted it,PD is not a copyright.This is really just a ridicules technicality.Because it could be a derivative of CC/GFDL,i don't see how it becomes a proprietary copyright that we can't use.And Herostratus,because you are an admin,that don't give you the right to insult the work of other (kiddie cheesecake pics),just draw a beater one your self,on top of that it seems to me that you just deleted it because of the content,not because of the copyright.--87.64.30.7 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think that about fits; thanks. --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hi, in the future please conduct image-copyright related discussion regarding commons images in commons. Had someone not explicitly pointed this page out, it would have been completely ignored. Thanks. --

03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the discussion took place. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The image was also on en.wikipedia, so we can discuss it here if we want. Anyways, the image fine the way it is now. Thanks for working with us and not tearing my head off. Good artwork Kohikki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Not unless they've fallen out of copyright, which I sincerely doubt. --

talk

23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the wikipe-tan image and the one most recently placed in the article. I don't think either is suitable for Wikipedia, and really I cannot think how one would illustrate this article without showing a degrading image of a child or a person who appears to be a child. For this reason, I've decided to reject both of those and I think it's better for the article to be unillustrated until the problem is resolved. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Tony, totally agree,

SqueakBox

01:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What problem? What possible resolution? And by what authority do you deem your opinion superior to all others'? (I may be walking into something there, but sans userpage I can't really say) --Eyrian 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the last question first, obviously I consider my opinion at least the equal of all others because, if I ever found an opinion superior to mine, I would switch to that. But that doesn't mean I put my opinion before yours. It just means that, well, it's my opinion.

Addressing the other two questions: the problem is how to illustrate this article without showing a degrading picture of a child. And the point of my statement was to suggest that a resolution may be a long time coming. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the pictures suggested for this article represent real people.Geni 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perceptive, but the reader is a real person and can be relied upon to want this subject to be covered with due care by Wikipedia. 's effics, innit! --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think Tony's viewpoint is superior to anyone elses. He's not even an admin though he is an experienced and somewhat respected user with a track record of this kind of POV,

SqueakBox

01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

That too is sexualized. It wouldn't be much of an illustration for this article if it were not. And that's the problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image that has been on the article was widely discussed before it was added and I feel comfortable that is portrays lolicon in the most tasteful way possible. Not including an image is overly restrictive since no laws are being broken with this type of inclusion. The issue is finding an image that is tasteful enough not to reflect poorly on Wikipedia yet honestly portrays the subject. I think the image used on the article meets the criteria. FloNight 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Actually no, the image I thought we were discussing was another, which showed a little girl in the same swimsuit, in an open-legged pose, with knees up. My apologies, I didn't scan the discussion too closely there.

This other image shows an anime picture of a little girl in a swimsuit. The problem with this image is that, while it's wonderful and everything, it will give the reader the false impression that lolicon is any image of a child drawn in anime style. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The point being that a similar, non-copyright, non-Wikipe-tan image would be just fine for this article. If the

02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the article content I would say we have to be extremely cautious about using any image. The image above looks far worse small than big. I'd support an image but not this one, we need an image that is completely desexualised or no image at all,

SqueakBox

02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is a free image but its the type of image I would happily see illustrating the article. Google's descrition is "Help fight Lolicon" presumably a transaltion of the Japanese,

SqueakBox

03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a campaigning logo so it's hardly appropriate for a neutral point of view article. It also fails to be illustrative. No I think we've got a very difficult problem here. A while back, Rama (I think it was him) tried to get an illustration for this article by getting a friend to walk into a Japanese bookshop and take some photographs of stacks of lolicon manga. However the objection to this at the time was mainly that the images weren't specifically of lolicon, and what cover images they could make out in the photo seemed to be generic anime style. --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Final Solution-chan" (image #1) was the image illustrating the article when the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Centre plagiarised the article[2] in February 2006. The RCMP didn't claim the image was illegal - on the contrary, they copied from, and later cited, Wikipedia as a respectable, authoritative source. For that reason, I think it's not plausible that that image is illegal in Canada as claimed by Exploding Boy above. As the statute (quoted in the article) says, there are some criteria like "for a sexual purpose" and "explicit sexual activity" (eating a Popsicle doesn't qualify no matter how lasciviously she does it) which need to be met for the material to qualify as obscene. 216.75.189.154 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh here they are:

• 
• File:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg

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

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

And a snapshot of the original discussion: here. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Infant style in the West? You got a source for that association? Schoolgirls seem pretty standard for lolicon, not that I know much about it. (Maybe you mean toddlerkon.) –Pomte 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but to me that picture says "small girl sucking dick". It's quite good at illustrating lolicon, but I don't think it's right for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason for that? Preferably one other than

talk

22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NO images now?!

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

I would be very happy with some images but dont know enough about the subject to find free images. But something like this would be entirely acceptable as would any head and shoulders shot. I dont understand how the artists have anything to do with wikipedia noir do I think removing someone else's edits is always a slap in the face to those editors, that isnt how we work,

SqueakBox

20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The images we had before were fine. Their copyright status was green-lighted, and they accurately represented the genre which is not everybody's cup of tea. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT card has been played in getting rid of them; Tony even removed the one that was up there for quite a while! Finally, the pictures that were up were not the very worst of loli art; they were actually mundane, and I doubt many of us have seen much worse that we ourselves wouldn't even consider putting into the article, no matter how relevant it is. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to one-up Squeakbox's proposal on the irony scale by submitting this image as a suggestion. --

talk

21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is truly wondrous how these things come about. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The cropped image does not illustrate the concept. That does give me one idea that may work for everyone, though I'd need to come up with a good caption for it. Give me a minute --

talk

21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but that was more

super deformed-style art (cf. Image:MahoroDVDcase.jpg). Not sure if a bust would be representative enough; guess it depends on who drew it and its suggestions. --Merovingian (T, C, E

) 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not make much sense to remove part of an image, unless one has a good reason to do so. Original version being "obscene" according to one user's opinion is not one. Prolog 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but that isnt the case. Obscene accordin g to a number of editors is the reality and needs to be taken seriously. I woulod prefer no image until this one gets resolved but to claim only one editor objects tot he obscene image is not true and this image damages not the article so much as the whole project,

SqueakBox

21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look in the article history where this topic was throughly discussed and consensus was to use the Final solution image. This was after several other images were deleted that were seen as too vulgar. This image was accepted after a long, long debate with RFCs and has been in place for many months. I think removing this image is a really bad idea unless you get a new consensus to do so. Editors worked very hard to find an image that was acceptable to all involved at that time. FloNight 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there will always be users/readers who object to some images, but we are

not censored. This image seems to have been here for a long time, so if you want it out, you should first try to get consensus instead of removing it repeatedly. Prolog

21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The evbents of the last few days show very clearly that a number of editors object tot his image and therefore we should remopve it until consensus has been reached. The number of users objecting to it now makes any past consensus irrelevant, this isnt a case of one or two users objecting to this image, and it was Herostratus who pappears (and rightly) to have started this. There simply is no consensus any more,

SqueakBox

22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ergo a return to status quo until a new consensus is reached. --

talk

22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FloNight's reply seems to cover this well. Since the image was inserted through a long debate and consensus of a number of editors, it should only be removed after a new consensus and it is clear there is not one at the moment. Prolog 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well lets wait and see if others remove the image which IMO is totally unacceptable and makes a quick removal of the NPOV tag impossible. This image makes it look like the project accepts child pornography and to claim that removing child pornography images is censorship shows a poor understanding of censorship. What next, real child porn images in the child pornography article because wikipedia doesnt censor?

SqueakBox

22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to get the facts straight, it was not Herostratus who first removed the final solution image. It was initially removed by User:Josh04, as his single Wikipedia contribution. The image has been there unopposed for some time. I don't love it as an individual, but I don't oppose it being there. It contains no foundation symbols and is not explicit. -Jmh123 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, Squeak. Final solution-chan is nothing close to child pornography. Even if she were a real girl, it would be a "

child model

" image, not a child porn one.

Besides, considering the way we illustrate other pages like

talk

22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That last is an appalling statement. Of course it is illegal not only in Flordia but where most of us have our computers and the violation of a child in nthat way would be unacceptable and rapidly destroy the credibility of the project. While this image isnt illegal it is still vulgar and unnecessary. Having doctored images at auto-fellatio is also something I have strongly opposed as I wiould oppose any pornographic image at wikipedia. Its out there, you dont need to come here to view it,

SqueakBox

22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, let me rephrase that to if it weren't illegal in general. As for the rest of your post, in other words you disagree with

talk

22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly there's the ethical issue that someone was harmed in the creation of it - I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on such images, but it's something that many editors may consider important. But the thing about a child porn image is that it would involve someone who didn't consent to being there - in that sense, it's part of a wider issue of putting images of people who didn't consent to their photo being taken. Other examples would be those also showing abuse (e.g., happy slapping), or a sexual image that was taken of someone without their consent. Again, I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a policy on this, or if this issue has been discussed. Personally, I'm fine with avoiding images where people didn't consent to the photo being taken, and using another one instead if possible. Since no people are involved in cartoons, that's not a problem here. Mdwh 11:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What consensus. At least 4 editors all strongly disagreeing isnt consensus esp when there arent really any more than 3 or 4 supporting the inclusion of the image. That strikes me as no consensus,

SqueakBox

22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to content that offends people in general, including pornographic content, things which are illegal in other countries, those Mohammed cartoons, etc.

As for this particular case, it's one of the least offensive of all the NOT#CENSORED articles we have. --

talk

22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole other issue. I dont have any objection to cartoons of Mohammed but I would not be happy if I was living (and say working) in Saudi Arabai (possibly a bad example as I dont think they have internet but you get my point). If this pic were used to illustrate an innocuous article like swimsuit I wouldnt object to it bit I do object ot it here. How about cropping the pic at the navel? Would that be acceptable?

SqueakBox

22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than getting rid of the badly drawn ankles, what would be the point? --

talk

22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

aka exactly the same as the existing definition, but in denial? Or are they just forgetting about the word

talk

22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

not really in denial, this is a truth. If you look in blogs and other sites in the anime community, the term has been used in ways other than to say the lolicon is sexually attracted. The "lolicon" in question simply likes loli characters a lot, but perhaps in an endearing manner rather than sexual. Moe is related, but not completely tied in. Kei-clone 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

btw, Tokyopop agrees with the more general definition of lolicon as someone who merely like younger children, but not necessarily sexual. Check p. 180 of Welcome to the NHK.Kei-clone 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is POV and needs considerable work to make it NPOV. It needs tagging,

02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) {{ 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, I agree it's POV. All it talks about is legal issues, with nary a word about the history and artistic acceptance in Japan. --

04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as being particularly POV. It just means that part of the article hasn't been written yet. --Eyrian 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not what Squeak meant though, and it happens to be upon the tagger to provide a reason as to why they want it cleanup tagged. Well Squeak? --

talk

04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it deals with child pornography in a way that glamorises it, so it needs tweaking to make it NPOV (and NPOV condemns child pornography as do the great majority of human beiongs and legal systems, while pro child porn POV is an extreme minority view),

SqueakBox

18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not child pornography, and the article doesn't glamourize it. For that matter it hardly even talks about it at all. --

talk

18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is child pornography and the fact that the article doesnt talk about it is because editors like you remove edits that do talk about it. Certainly in the UK child pornography does not have to involve images of real children,

SqueakBox

18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't in Japan, which happens to be the state of origin and hence the defining location for it. It's legal status in other countries is already covered in the various subsections. Beyond that, the genre encompasses material that, while suggestive, is not explicit, so some of it would not even qualify as pornographic.

All that aside though, you need citations if you want to redefine the term, as otherwise that is simply your personal opinion. Cheers. --

talk

19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV condemns child pornography" If this is your (and many others') definition of the term NPOV, then this article has more of a POV problem with those who condemn lolicon as opposed to those who promote it. --Grgspunk

But that only applies to "pseudo-photographs", which means that the image must be realistic - see

Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child. Cartoons are not illegal in the UK. The article does talk about these issues, in the legal section. The UK is considering criminalising cartoons (as mentioned in the article). But even then, this law would only cover images of sexual abuse, and not things like sexual poses, so whilst some Lolicon would presumably be criminalised, the current image would be fine. Lastly, just because some country has these laws doesn't mean that Wikipedia should remove them. The UK is planning on criminalising all sorts of simulated adult images, but that doesn't mean other countries have to follow, and anyway, there are already countries where all porn is illegal. All that matters legally is US law. Mdwh

11:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't condemn anything. --Eyrian 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan isnt the defining location as lolicon iconography has clearly spread outside Japan (it would be like saying Africa was the defining location for the article on

SqueakBox

19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Humans have had a bit more than 62 years to spread out. Everything under this article's scope is either from Japan or tries to look like it is from Japan.--

talk

19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

SqueakBox

19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some, yes, but we're talking about a definition. If that bill becomes law, then that would work, but as is the most you could say was "some people in Japan consider it a form of child pornography.[3]". --

talk

19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

We are not a scientific encyclopedia and NPOV does not demand scientific objectivity. Neutrality is also defined by common perceptions, ie the world as it is and not as we would like it to be, and in the world as it is child prornogrpahyu is almost universally condemned and we should reflect that and not some imaginary objectivity that gives equal balancce to the supporters and opponents of child pornography,

SqueakBox

19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can be neutral without glorification. Instead of saying "Lolicon is child pornography, and it is therefore morally apprehensible", say "Lolicon is widely considered to be child pornography [ref], and therefore held by many to be immoral". --Askild 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that,

SqueakBox

19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd need a reference for that "widely considered" though. --

talk

19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that'll do as a starter,

SqueakBox

19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag is okay because there is actually a dispute taking place here, but removing the image is not. Wikipedia is

20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Has anyone else even done research published in English on this subject? --

talk

20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

After reading through the entire legal status section, I realized we have a ton of

and/or original synthesis. As is, even the cited sections often essentially say "there's a law, that nobody's tested in court yet, that may or may not apply to lolicon depending on how you read it". This is problematic, to say the least, since we're at best confusing people and at worst effectively spreading disinformation if we're wrong.

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

20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and your earlier point about the article being more about legal conflicts over Lolicon than Lolicon itself is apt. Not sure where you want to go with that--a retitling or expansion. -Jmh123 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of any interpretations of a law without a verifiable court case to back it up. Laws about child pornography should be moved to child pornography and only briefly mentioned here if the comparison is within context. I think it's fine having statements of the law here as long as it is clearly applicable on lolicon, but this is up to debate, and sections without substance should be <!-- commented out -->. –Pomte 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing controversial in any of the above staements,

SqueakBox

20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I have offered an alternative, Image:Final Solution-chan1.jpg. I fully agree that the one you just removed is unsuitable. Do you think my cropped version is suitable or not? 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The most highly eroticised portion of the image is the face. No cropped version of that image is going to work. I strongly recommend that we consider going with one of the montages that I showed above. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll speedy my cropped version then,

SqueakBox

23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the subject is sensitive. No, we should not do a limbo under a bar of what-should-or-should-not-be. We do no damage to ourselves in keeping the images, and you have yet to argue against the images for any reason other than you don't think they're appropriate. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand your edit summary. There is nop consensus for having such an unsuitable image on wikipedia, indeed the consensus appears to be the other way. I think you are being naive in thinking this image does not harm the project and those opposing the image's inclusion have been much more articulate in their arguments than those wanting it here,

SqueakBox

23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read any of the archives of this discussion page? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, to be fair, the discussion was reopened, and the door was opened to that by adding the new Loli-Wiki image. Evoking the archives in a discussion like this would mean that no change could ever be made once a consensus was reached once. How about running a straw poll for a day or two to find out what consensus is? Or at least run through the last few days and create a quick list? -Jmh123 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a sucker for polls. Hmmm... --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That image is not suitable. Please stop restoring it to the article. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is fact and/or backed up by policy. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please reference some sort of policy instead of just repeatedly saying "unsuitable". --Eyrian 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is likely illegal in the USA (where Wikimedia servers are located) under the PROTECT Act of 2003, which prohibits obscene and lascivious depictions of minors.

talk

) 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

however it uses the miller test of obscene which makes things rather less clear.Geni 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The

talk

) 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yes but those involed real people.Geni 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As the person who removed the image last night and apparently re-open the debate, I feel I should chime in. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, although I do occasionally clear up things where I actually know what I'm talking about. I found this page through a link, and was immediately presented with an overtly sexualised picture of a young girl. It's a little bit unnerving, and more than a little creepy. Not really what I was looking for in an encyclopedia, an example of child pornography. I'm perfectly sure that I could have seen the basic summary, and the links to manga, children and pornography, and known as much as I wanted/needed to know on the subject. This isn't really the type of article which needs illustration for people to understand, especially as the rest of the article refers to it's legal status around the world. That's my two pence anyway: Not neccessary, slightly worrying. Josh04 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Both it and the Wikipe-tan-loli image are rather mundane as far as lolicon art goes. Plus, both images were created for Wikipedia or allowed for use here, as opposed to us just talking an image from anywhere else on the Internet. Of course we don't necessarily condone or approve of inappropriate content by and large. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need to stop asking "what's the policy reason for removing this image?" and look at the thing. It's a sexualized picture of a child. If there weren't a policy against it, we should have to make one. But as the question doesn't arise on articles other than this one, or at least not on many, we should probably just use our noggins. --Tony Sidaway 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean "use our POVs"? I'd prefer not to. Seriously though, I don't believe that removing an image based on how some people perceive it fits under common sense. I mean, it might to some people, but again, that's their POV. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mundane it might be, but surely the issue is whether the image is objectivly sexual, which I certainly feel it is. The emphasis on the hip lines as well as the phallic lollipop are just a little too graphic for an encyclopedia. The difference between this picture and the one, as quoted above, on autofellatio, is that this one seems desiigned to be provocative and a little sleazy. I know they're both characteristics of lolicon itself, but surely a more desireable method would be to put a conservative illustration of a child in the appropriate style, and comment that the images are usually much more sexual? Josh04 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could use something like this, which could be construed as lolicon, and describe it as you suggested, but FloNight's point below really knocks mine out of the water. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

As I've said though, lolicon doesn't really dip too far below "extreme", however mild it is. The image doesn't illustrate much beyond a simple example, it doesn't need, in my opinion, to be so provocative. The image Merovingian linked is in considerably better taste, and is better drawn to top it off. Josh04 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That image is not lolican. And I object to using the image with puzzle pieces on the lolican article becasue I feel it associates the Foundation with sexualized child images. Not a good thing. FloNight 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why do we even bother worrying about "Wikipedia's image" when editing an article? Editors are only supposed to give accurate, relevant and non-biased edits. Period. Wikipedia doesn't give much room for censoring content, with the exception of blatantly illegal and/or IRRELEVANT pics/articles, so how is this reason going to be any better than the other reasons you stated that the image should be removed? I mean, it was decided that the image was to be kept in the Wikimedia Commons, so why should anything be different here? We need to focus more on keeping this article accurate, cited and NPOV (meaning being neither pro NOR anti loli, as much as some may hate to do) as much as possible. Like I said in the Commons, the possiblity of negative press does NOT justify censorship or POV edits.Grgspunk 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm unsure about the merit of including a lolicon image here but we certainly should not use an lolicon version of Wikipe-tan. Than makes a clear link between sexualising children and Wikipedia, which is totally inappropriate. WjBscribe 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree that any image with puzzle pieces in the hair are off limits for the reason you said. FloNight 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Images of Wikipe-tan should absolutely not be used in this context. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You should tell that to the Japanese Wikipedia, which didn't seem to have any problem using a much less suggestive image of Wikipe-tan to illustrate their article about lolicon. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we consider using those bookshop montages? They're free, they depict teenagers rather than infants, and there's a certain amount of distance provided by the use of scale and perspective. Or we could have no picture at all. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Infants" is really stretching it. They appear young, but you're exaggerating. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the bookshop images. It's not worth splitting hairs over whether or not they are sufficently representative. They get the point across without aligning Wikipedia with lolicon. Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added one of the bookshop images. Tony, please stop associating lolicon predominantly with infants. Search "infant" to see my comment above. –Pomte 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought he proposed it as a replacement to the popsicle pic? -Jmh123 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It's the same person, yes. And I assume there was little resistance to the image? Apologies to Eisenhower, but what's good for ja is good for en. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the cultural comparison, I disagree. Anime is much better known and understood in Japan. Japanese culture in general differs from America in regards to pornography. I also don't know if Japanese Wikipedia is the force in Japan that the English Wikipedia is here. Do you? All else aside, neither Japanese image is anything like a kiddie porn pic. Any connections to Lolicon are extremely subtle and WikiLoli was anything but. -Jmh123 04:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do know that the Japanese Wikipedia is mentioned on a somewhat regular basis on large Japanese websites, namely Futaba Channel. I was just defending the use of any suitable Wikipe-tan image in the article since Japan is the home of lolicon. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what would have happened if 'Babel' had been substituted instead of 'WikiLoli', but she wasn't the type some people wanted anyway, I gather. -Jmh123 04:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia's image is not the issue, the accuracy of the article is; Yet at the same time, the image of Wikipe-tan cannot be used as it associates Wikipedia with child pornography. So, we make do with a poorly drawn image which is unnecessarily sexual. Oh, and it's okay for Japan to use the Wikipe-tan image because, you know, those wacky Japanese.

Either the article should commit fully to illustrating just what illustrated child pornography looks like, or it should just stick with the image of the books. This double standard is insane. Josh04 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the description speak for itself -- manga of sexually implicit children? We don't have porn for the top of the

) 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly comparable; this is a non-nude cartoon character, and removing the image would cause the article to be much less informative. And we did in fact have porn on top of pornography for quite some time, but the image was deleted as derivative. Prolog 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Images are generally thought to improve article quality. Also I would answer your second question with the guess that there has been just as much disagreement over what kind of image(s) to include in Pornography as there has been here. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a nice idea. Grgspunk 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do that when we already have the Final-solution-chan (Image:Lolicon example.jpg) image? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone drew that last year for this article on our request. --FloNight 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was attracting controversy for whatever reason? (

talk

) 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people disliked it, and the loli-style Wikipe-tan image was created in good faith, but not everybody liked that, and then Tony Sidaway removed both images from the article... and so here we are. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, would you not agree that messedrocker's proposal is redundant? --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything bad about the Final-solution-chan image compared to any other image of lolicon under a free license? (

) 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it's free of not, it's whether it's a sexualised picture of a child. At least we don't have that horrible dildo-teddy picture any more, so we've made progress. But some articles probably should not be illustrated. I suggest that we consider that this may be one of those articles. Alternatively there are the bookshop montages that I suggested last night. They're free. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't sexually implicit children the entire idea of lolicon? (

talk

) 03:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the entire idea, but a simple google image search will effectively convey that fact. Wikipedia articles should focus on encyclopedic text, not erotic imagery. Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"But some articles probably should not be illustrated." Well, who gets to decide which ones? What makes anyone authorized to bowdlerize Wikipedia articles as they please? I'm not horribly experienced with Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that there is a non-censorship rule in place, and for good reason, I believe. If you want to make a "worksafe Wikipedia", or a "non-offensive Wikipedia", you are free to do so at your own lesiure, as the software used for Wikipedia is free. However, on this Wikipedia, you may not decide that a relevant, useful, free image, which illustrates the article is unusable because it violates your own moral code and sense of what is objectionable. It is of note that rape and bestiality are illustrated, and that depictions of what appear to be children having sexual contact with adults exists on Wikipedia. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_homoerotic_print_Hua_Ying_Chin_Chen.jpg ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_tondo.jpg ) "It is the entire idea, but a simple google image search will effectively convey that fact." Yes, then why include pictures in any article, if "a simple google search will effectively convey" an idea of whatever the article is about? Why include a picture of a rose in the rose article, if i could just go to Google Images and type in "rose"?63.224.157.159 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being a little facetious in my above comment, my point was that Wikipedia's niche is as a provider of encyclopedic fact and our mandate does not entail providing erotic images. That being said, images of every sort are commonly used to illustrate our articles, and I understand why so many people disagree with me on this issue. I would note that the two images you reference above are both reproductions of art work that is hundreds of years old and has innate cultural value. Similarly, other controversial images like the Muhammud cartoons and the Piss Christ photograph have similar intrinsic merit. Images like Sexuality pearl necklace small.png (NSFW) and Autofellatio 2.jpg (NSFW) are alike to the lolicon bookshop images in that they document life outside of Wikipedia. I would hate to see any of thoes images censored. Image:Lolicon example.jpg, on the other hand, has no intrinsic merit. Additionally, it is a Wikipedia lolicon exclusive, meaning that it has no merit as cultural documentation. If someone could find freely licensed lolicon that is signifigant in its own right (ie. it's been the subject of media scrutiny or it's from a genre defining work), I would not object to its inclusion. For the moment, though, no such work is available. Canderson7 ^(talk) 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On what basis can you say that the images hold no merit? Sure, they may not hold any great cultural merit, but as far as being artistic works from the hand of a person, they hold merit. Besides that, are you arguing that as long as something has "artistic merit" it is able to show whatever it pleases? Also, the object of having a lolicon character in the article is to give an accurate picture of what would be considered "lolicon". Honestly, can you get a clear, definite picture of what a lolicon character would look like by the definition "a genre of manga-style sexualized drawings involving childlike female characters"? If I didn't know what the article was talking about, I doubt I would be able to. Even worse, if you're not familiar with "manga-style" you're pretty much left completely clueless. Note that the article on "Cartoon Pornography" has an image. Once again, what this pretty much boils down to is "This violates my sense of what is objectionable." Unfortunately, what you find objectionable has no bearing on what should or should not appear in Wikipedia. The truth of the matter is, the image is useful to the article at hand. Whether or not your sense of morality agrees with its presence is irrelevant. 70.59.242.96 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your last statement is completely wrong. Condoning even pseudo child pornography is immensely damaging to the credibility of wikipedia,

SqueakBox

16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what's at issue here is not taste, but legality. The fact is that in some places it is illegal for individuals to view any sexual depiction of a child, even one that is purely fantasy. Certain of the existing images are problematic for this reason. This page could very easily, and very legitimately, be illustrated with a non-sexual image. All we have to do is show what a typical figure in the genre looks like. Exploding Boy 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's legal where this website hosted, then it is the viewer's responsibility to be aware of the fact that publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. It's clearly stated in the disclamer link at the bottom of every wiki page. Ignorance is not an excuse. Grgspunk

Once again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_homoerotic_print_Hua_Ying_Chin_Chen.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_tondo.jpg . They seem to represent a reasonable precedent.67.40.225.188 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I am okay with Tony's suggestion of the Japanese shop pics or we could find a new non eroticized image but to continue with the current image is unacceptable and puts the project in a very poor light,

16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The moment Wikipedia becomes obsessed with its own image is the moment it loses credibility. Academic and intellectual integrity are based on pursuing facts wherever they go. This is an article about a cultural phenomenon. In a quality encyclopedia, all factual phenomena will be as illustrated as possible. Not illustrated in a way that's inoffensive, not illustrated in a way that's not risque, not illustrated in a way that conforms to anybody's cultural biases. The comments here seem to be repeatedly calling for censorship based on cultural POV, which is totally inacceptable. Now, for practical reasons, Wikipedia must not do anything that's illegal. It's pretty clear that these images are legally alright. Yes, someone could sue, but someone could sue the project over anything. --Eyrian 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To whom would wikipedia lose credibilty by focussing on its own image? Any credible business puts this first and if we are a professional organisation we should do so too. You may not care if the project loses credibility and respect by suporting a form of child pornography but to declare that anybody with academic integrity would agree with you is plain wrong. Being against child porn is a form of cultural censorship is another completely wrong statement. It sounds like you are trying to promote your political views at the expense of the project,

SqueakBox

18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a business! Business motives are at odds with academic ones. The only way we should focus on our image is by providing a comprehensive, quality encyclopedia. The project will not lose meaningful credibility by having factual and illustrative content. Not gratuitous (as the image hardly is), but illustrative. I have made no political statement regarding being against anything. Merely that a legal image should not be censored just because some people find it distasteful. Censorship is never in the interest of a comprehensive encyclopedia, except where the project might be sued and destroyed. Censorship is, by definition, the restriction of information. And that is fundamentally opposed to the goal of propagating information. --Eyrian 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Business models at odds with academic ones? In whose eyes? We should indeed be aiming to create a quality, comprehensive encyclopedia, hence my position on this image. I simply dont agree that removing this image is censorship. The image is used to illustrate a form of child pornography as if wikipedia were now siding with lolicon artists over their opponents (a clear violation of NPOV). Opposing child pornography is not propaganda or censorship but I am unclear what supporting it is ideologically, though in practice it is extremely damaging to the project and your statements seem to have a very strong libertarian POV which is not NPOV nor does it have anything to do with the goals of the project (we are not against censorship etc),

SqueakBox

18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I reverted the image you added. It isn't a good idea to use an image with Wikipedia symbols on it, no matter how innocuous. Adding an image without consensus is also not a good idea. The image you added is totally irrelevant to the article, except that it's an anime-like figure. -Jmh123 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Illustration indicates siding with the people involved? That's utterly ridiculous. Opposition is not censorship, but removing things is. By removing the image, it is an act to "remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." That is censorship. What you are attempting to do is censorship. Furthermore, I question the assertion that this is fundamentally damaging to the project. How is Wikipedia not against censorship? Perhaps not as a political ideal in the outside world, but Wikipedia is not censored. That's one of the core policies of the encyclopedia.

I'm going to drop the business vs. academic discussion, since that's an easy and far-reaching tangent. --Eyrian 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

There are some characters there that might qualify as lolicon, but I don't think the busty ones do. It is debatable whether breasts factor in to whether a character is lolicon-material or not. Anyway, that's why I changed the image caption, just to be on the safe side. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Safe side? Breasty sounds great in this context, we must not display child porn and am amazed that anyone would keep the bad pic,

SqueakBox

16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon is not child porn.And en wikipedia is not usa-wikipedia.You people have completely lost your sense with reality,the funny part is,that you think that somehow it will incite child molesting by people that they can't do the difference between fiction and reality.--87.65.205.174 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

usa wikipedia? absolutely not. The rest of your comment is also just plain wrong IMO,

SqueakBox

16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand very well,you mean that for you ,it is child porn?If no one get's hurt,then frankly where's the problem.Child porn is illegal just because is against peopol morals,or because it hurts children.It just like Jackson's breast story,exact same reasoning.According to wikioedia article her carier is going down hill now.--87.65.205.174 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You could argue that fake child porn doesnt harm, anyone but I would strongly argue that it does, and having it on the project damages the project. Not everyone who works here is a libertarian opposing all censorship etc, and neither should wikipedia be,

SqueakBox

17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If we where taking everybodies sensitivities we would end up with no picture at all.The nazi flag is realy taboo for the Germans, the Mohamed drawings are really taboo for Muslim, and ... well sex(?) is really taboo for Americans(i consider this issue a subset of a wider ... taboo(?)).If you really want to put your self in the position of the others,they feel equally angered as you on this issue as with there respective taboos.--87.65.205.174 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to compromise. I am opposed to making unilateral decisions about a contested issue, and adding an image without even asking for comment. The image you added was Wikipe-tan, the Wikipedia unofficial mascot Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Look at the name on the image you added. And I did "talk on talk". -Jmh123 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my previous comment on talk. I'll make it easier to find: Adding an image without consensus is also not a good idea. The image you added is totally irrelevant to the article, except that it's an anime-like figure. -Jmh123 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) -Jmh123 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, your edit just managed to combine the worst elements of everyone's positions by not only putting the unofficial mascot on the page but also not being demonstrative of the subject and therefore not being an encyclopedic image. --

talk

19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. -Jmh123 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what are you saying? We have to illustrate a child porn image? And if so why?

SqueakBox

20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying, SqueakBox. I said the image you added was inappropriate for several reasons. My only dog in this hunt is that the Wikipedia symbols not be used. -Jmh123 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, I dont object to your not using my suggestions but I do object to the current image,

SqueakBox

20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An objection that is struck down by both project consensus on censorship of articles and that it's simply inaccurate. You can complain about not wanting child porn on Wikipedia all you like, but it's really rather irrelevant since the image is not child porn. --

talk

20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It isnt strictly child porn but it is being used to illustrate child porn which is unacceptable enouigh to me and clearly others too,

SqueakBox

20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by illustrate? It shows something vaguely similar? What is this image doing that is so offensive? --Eyrian 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't being used to illustrate child porn, it's being used to illustrate lolicon. The two are nothing near equivalent even if you don't draw a distinction between reality and fantasy. --

talk

20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree and nor do many others, hence the opposition to Lolicon. My objection is indeed that Lolicon is a type of child porn and that as such we shouldnt illustrate it,

SqueakBox

20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, patently incorrect. Much more falls under the term. I'm getting the distinct impression you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to anime and manga related subjects. --

talk

21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the decision whether Lolicon is to be seen as a type of child porn would be the duty of a court, not yours. --Tsaryu ^@ 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is cearly child porn and supportive of Child sexual abuse and is unacceptable. It does not belong. DPeterson^talk 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)DPeterson: I hardly think it's clear at all. And, in fact, would disagree. Given that the Supreme Court agrees with me [5], I think that the opinion has some credence. --Eyrian 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the same line of thought ,hentai and porn encourages rape.--87.64.25.185 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article that goes with this talk page actually has a fuller story, if it wouldn't be too much trouble to read the page. -Jmh123 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone add this please

• --87.65.205.174 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

After the disgraceful behaviour of 2 admins there re the afd on the images I wont be adding it myself,

19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Is the {{

}}?)

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

talk

22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection to the neutrality of the section on controversy and legal issues which I did state here already--a lot is based on a single reference. There's been no effort to add opposing views beyond one little introductory sentence. Just because one scholar says something doesn't mean it should be the last word on the subject. We don't know if that's the commonly held view or a fringe view. We don't know if others have contradicted that view. Research on reliable sources on this topic is needed.

You said earlier that there were some other areas where the citations were weak or not existent. As is often the case here at Wikipedia, more time is spent debating a single point that improving articles. While I do not argue that neutrality is the main problem, I do argue that this article really needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard. -Jmh123 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the animenewsnetwork.com item I mentioned yesterday. I also did a quick Babelfish of the Japanese Wikipedia article on Lolicon. There's a lot of information there about lolicon itself (not the legal issues) for anyone who wants to take the time to distill it and follow through. It would take me days to translate and try to get everything right. My time is better spent elsewhere where I have the background. A lot could be done with this article by someone who knows some Japanese and has the time and inclination. There's lots of scholarly research about the topic in addition to what might be gleaned from the Japanese article. Seems to me like time better spent than fussing cause the illustration's ankles are not drawn well. -Jmh123 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to stop. Enough. A review of the Japanese research would be preferable, but being unable to do that, I have included accounts of citizens' organizations protests, notable child murders and so forth, to counter the limited claims in the old controversy section. I still say a lot of work needs to be done to add text to the article regarding lolicon and its history, as can be seen when this article is compared to the one in the Japanese Wikipedia article. As far as neutrality goes, I'm now satisfied. Quality of the article--not so much. -Jmh123 04:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I think my concern is that saying there's a significant public outcry is in my opinion a strong statement that can mislead the reader into thinking there's a significant proportion of the population against it, when often it's a vocal minority that speaks loudly about such things, and it could be that equal numbers of people disagree with them. It does cite the petition, but we don't know what the text says. It's true that there's a backlash, but it's not clear how representitive of general public opinion this is.

I'm fine with the current wording, though. Mdwh 23:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is likely that there was a significant proportion of the population against it, particularly when four children had been murdered. I didn't mind rewording, though, once I was over my snit. When the page is unprotected, I have more research on public reactions to add. -Jmh123 23:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-free is debatable. But that will be resolved on Commons. You yourself have admitted that it is a good illustration of the article subject. That trumps any concerns about tastefulness. The comic stack picture isn't illustrative at all. The notion of using an image that contains a stack of books that may or may not depict the article subject if you rummage around a little and squint is utterly ridiculous. It's not illustrative at all. And what do you mean by "pre-school sexual abuse victim"? Is it not clear to you that this is not a real person? Drawings can't be abused. --Eyrian 05:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well to answer you last question first, it shows a flat-chested little girl with a mock-phallus stuck in her mouth.

I don't think "a good illustration of the article's subject" does trump concerns about taste and decency. I'm the guy who put the untranscluded picture of a guy sucking his own cock onto the autofellatio article, but I think this is a bit creepier than that. She's a little girl. It's a symbolic dick. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your personal concerns are, per Wikipedia policies, topical images trump any distaste. You've been here long enough that I don't need to start tossing out acronyms. I simply don't understand how you can't see that. Further, I don't fully get what you mean by "she". There is no she. There is no little girl. There is nobody to abuse, or degrade, or otherwise inflict harm upon. We could run in circles about "incitement", but that's always tremendously dicey. --Eyrian 05:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

No more of the little girl with a phallus stuck in her mouth, not everything needs an image, especially something that describe a "sexual attraction to a girl who is under the legal age of consent." --MichaelLinnear 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Which has what to do with its encyclopedic relevance? --

talk

06:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's odd, because the lollipop doesn't bother me at all; it's the cameltoe that disturbs me a bit. But the fact is that it's clearly an unrealistic picture of a nonexistent girl, so whatever. Seems to me like it's a fair compromise for illustrating the article. The stack of comic books seems much inferior: I don't know if any of them are lolicon books, but even if some are, it would be like putting a picture of a culturally diverse crowd of people (some black, some white, some Asian) in the black people article, and then justifying it by saying "hey, some of them are black!" In that vein, I'd like to offer the following picture/caption for illustrating the article: --Ashenai 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that the popsicle (despite being indeed somewhat phallic) is not nearly as bad as the character's body overall. And as you say, the picture is not realistic, and does not depict a real person. Nobody is harmed, and claims that such images encourage illegal behavior are somewhat farfetched; I should hope that people have more willpower than to let an exaggerated picture on some website dictate their own actions. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more in the

08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images should not be included just for the sake of it, but if an image would be useful to the article, then some people finding it offensive is not a reason to disallow it.

: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

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

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

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

I agree. The only discernible lolicon books in the picture are ラヴュッ娘お兄ちゃん and (maybe) some of the other Million Comics titles. But as they're not featured as prominently as their standard huge-breasted hentai counterparts in the front I'm questioning the relevance of this picture. 85.196.190.200 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You could equally argue that we should illustrate child porn at thast article because people wont know what that looks like either though the reality is people apear to want soemthiong obscene to illustrate lolicon, we could easily illustarte it without having an abusive picture,

SqueakBox

17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Abusive to whom? --Eyrian 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone. Children, our readers, our editors, the project itself etc. This lolicon stuff is being opposed and banned in the "real" world because it is abusive, and encourages criminal behaviour,

SqueakBox

18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How so? Who is being harmed and how? Claiming that since it is banned, it must be harmful, is an extreme fallacy, akin to "the government knows best", and has no place here. --Eyrian 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The point, at least for the bookstore picture, isn't about obscenity but about relevance. The picture should either illustrate lolicon or it shouldn't be there at all. 82.156.120.129 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that we would indeed have a picture at

child porn were it not illegal in the United States. Powers ^T

19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its my understanding that we wouldnt,

SqueakBox

19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was perhaps a bit hasty in stating that; there are, of course, other considerations besides legality. However, as I indicated below, many, if not most, of those considerations just plain don't apply to illustrated pornography when there is no real child involved. Your constant insistence on conflating the two is puzzling. Powers ^T 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not my insistence but that of the vast majority of decent thinking (ie good faith) people,

SqueakBox

17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the vast majority of decent thinking people had weighed in on this topic. Are you perhaps privy to data the rest of us are not? Powers ^T 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And, I hasten to point out, even if we would not, that has no implications for this article, because objections to images of real child pornography can involve actual harm to the real child depicted, an objection which patently doesn't apply in the case of lolicon. Powers ^T 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Child porn is, unlike lolicon, set is stone as being totally illegal. Also, of course, it does affect real people adversely. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think more people know what children look like than "lolicon" - with the latter, there are far more questions to be answered, such as in what way are the characters depicted as "child-like"? Are they clearly children, or is it ambiguous? Etc.

And you appear to be conflating "abusive" with "offensive" - this is not helpful to the discussion. I suspect that most editors would be against including child porn images not because it might offend people, but because people have been harmed in its creation. Now sure, some people like yourself claim that putting a picture of a cartoon will somehow cause harm - but some people say that putting pictures of Muhammad will cause violence. Either way, speculative claims are not the same as when actual abuse has already occurred, and the consensus seems to be (on all articles, not just here) that the former is not grounds for not having an image.

Are you really saying there are only two possibilities for Wikipedia: (a) the child porn article should show child porn images, or (b) no article should show images if at least one person somewhere might be offended by them? Mdwh 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its hardly a matter of one, its the vast majority of people,

SqueakBox

17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that the vast majority of people would find the image on this page offensive - do you have evidence for this claim? Anyhow, being offensive is not a reason to remove an informative image (as in the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy case - the consensus there was to show the images, even though it offends many people). There are reasons other than "it's offensive" to not show child porn pictures. Mdwh 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there isnt the universal condemnation re lolicon that there is re CP but I would argue it does hurt people just as any fake CP hurts people, and this is a strong argument used by many people to condemn it,

19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it strong? --Eyrian 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Err....well the arguemts are good, well thought out and correct,

SqueakBox

20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What arguments? You just said the fact that it's harmful is a strong argument. Where is the argument there? --Eyrian 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You dont think child sexual abuse victims suffer harm? or what?

SqueakBox

17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do, but there aren't any real children involved with lolicon. --Eyrian 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How does any fake child porn hurt people? Mdwh 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By encouraqging real child sexual abuse,

SqueakBox

17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious, unproven, inconsistent. --Eyrian 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to you, which of course doesnt make your assertion true,

SqueakBox

19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the principles of fundamental skepticism, which is essential to rational, scientific thought. Something is dubious until it is proven. And the link has not been proven. As for inconsistent, few people consider showing other illegal activities encouragement.--Eyrian 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If we deleted images based on any claim that it encouraged abuse, then this would pretty much mean that any image which someone found offensive would have to be removed. Should the Doom screenshots be removed, because "they encourage violence"? Mdwh 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Few people. That's completely wrong, and as for using skepticism to justify CP, that's an abuse of skepticism,

19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

So is anyone arguing over inclusion of the image as regards policy, or are we now just debating the merits and potential harmfulness of the subject itself? Because if it's the latter, then while it may be philosophically interesting to argue over whether a person's character is influenced by exposure to media vs. whether the exposure merely brings out existing traits,

00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a reprehensible image and does not belong. It is CP and is supportive of child sexual abuse. DPeterson^talk 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but

talk

00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

WP:NOT#CENSORED is basically the only guideline, right? WLGades

08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that everybody who is objecting to pictures of lolicon being included on this article, are also outraged by

08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

We tried the first route and he stated that he did not wish to contribute pornographic images to Wikipedia. He stated this on his talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute this is actually his site?He draw all that?And he is somehow ashamed to contribute some hentai to wikipedia,this seems weard to me.Maybe he is afraid that king Jimbo treats him a "pedophile troll".--87.65.169.41 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He has comported himself with class throughout this debate (primarily by staying out of it), and is the only one of you who has actually made a substantive contribution to the text on the page since this whole debate began. Seems to me he's got a sense of propriety and a lot of respect for Wikipedia. I think posting that link was.... well, I'll be civil and just say it was thoughtless. -Jmh123 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's my site. But you can't use the images in my porn-art site under the copyleft. Because all of they are fanarts. Even if I will draw the original art, I can't contribute any pornography to the site where children browse. --Kasuga 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I would support that effort. This constant bickering is destructive to the project, regardless of the merits of either side. Powers ^T 11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A very nice addition this morning Kasuga. Thank you! -Jmh123 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

That's not self-evident at all. I removed it because I believe it to be

talk

02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the blue hair on the loli girl in the article should be noted with something like "...and lolicon may have anime aspects, such as blue hair in this drawing."

05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. More about the relationship between lolicon and anime in general would be great. -Jmh123 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly says that "the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime". --Akronym 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Err how do you get it that policy suports your side of this POV conflict. I always get nervous when people start demanding their version of an article because policy demands it. Such policies do not exist even with the best wiki-lawyering. Given the determination of a small number of pro the image editors to edit war their way to success against a larger number of editors who dont want it I cannot see how unprotecting would do any more than rekindle the edit war. All compromise is being rejected by those who want the image, esp Sidaway's porn shop pic compromise,

SqueakBox

00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't really been established that the "porn shop pic" even depicts lolicon manga at all. Certainly the majority of it depicts fully-developed post-pubescent females. As for compromises, the current image (finalsolution-chan) actually is a compromise. You should've seen what was there before. =) Powers ^T 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What was there before was worse but this image is still no good, post-pubescent breasts is at least somewhat acceptable, portrayal of pre-pubescenbt children in sexual poses is unacceptable,

SqueakBox

01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While you may not like the image, there is nothing illegal about it according to US or Florida laws, is not pornographic, is a free use image, and removing the image because you are offended by it would be a violation of

WP:NOT#CENSORED. --Farix (Talk

) 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "post-pubescent breasts" are not illustrative of the topic. As for unacceptability, it's clear that you don't accept it; Tony doesn't accept it; several other people don't accept it; but it's far from clear that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can't accept it. Powers T 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite policy. You seem to be claiming that displaying the image is NPOV; that's simply not true. Does displaying images of Hiroshima encourage the use of nuclear weapons? The image that is currently in use demonstrates the subject. It does not say it it is good, it does not say it's bad, it merely illustrates what it is. How could showing what something is possibly be NPOV? --Eyrian 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean "POV," right? Powers ^T 13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So I do. --Eyrian 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to accept child sexual abuse illustrations? More alarmingly why would anyone expect someone else to accept child sexual abuse illustrations?

18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules doesn't mean just do what you want so articles are as you want them. It means that procedure shouldn't get in the way of improving the encyclopedia; that the letter of the law shouldn't interfere with the spirit. Censoring the article is against both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies. There is no Wikilawyering. You want to remove illustrative, legal images because they offend you. There is no policy that supports that spirit. Overwhelming consensus is that the article is legal (And besides, that's not ours to decide, that's a

WP:OFFICE problem). Do you contest that the image illustrates the article subject? If it meets those conditions, then it should be in the article. Anything else is censorship. --Eyrian

20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any image of sexual abuse on this article. IAR says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; I don't see how having the image there prevents anything. Mdwh 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to accept child sexual abuse illustrations? Now you are making strawmen as there is no "child sexual abuse illustration" on the article. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

{{

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

I would strongly oppose removing this tage, especially givent he article is locked. It replaced an NPOV tag which I put on because of the pic and my inability to edit the opening in an NPOV way without this being reverted,

SqueakBox

00:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But what is being disputed? As far as I can tell, all of the POV issues have been addressed, though the use of

weasel words needs to be cleaned up. --Farix (Talk

) 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Once you find consensus about the content of the page, the page can get unprotected. At the moment, there does not appear to be consensus, so I am disabling the editprotected tag. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was asking for unprotection, but for the totally disputed flag tag to be removed. As he says, we have no idea what is being disputed. If we like, we can replace it with the NPOV tag as that's what it replaced, and is currently being discussed, but there appears to be no issue of the page being totally disputed. Mdwh 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The {{POV}} may be more applicable, but the factual accuracy on the article is not being disputed, which is what the {{totally disputed}} is for. --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the huge section about the legality of lolicon is

) 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Strongly oppose splitting, it would make the article more POV than ever,

00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How would it make it more POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal section helps balance out the pro lolicon POV,

SqueakBox

00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What pro lolicon POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the pic for a start, the opening for second,

SqueakBox

00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Other then being of poor artistic quality, I see nothing wrong with the first image. The second image of the book store doesn't actually illustrate the subject. I also don't see anything wrong with the lead as it states what lolicon is and that some people consider it a form of child pornography. So exactly what in the lead does is POV or is factually incorrect? However having 2/3 of the article dedicated to the legal aspect of lolicon does not "balance out" the lead. Instead, it's undo weight. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont you mean undue weight? Well I disagree and the article isnt long enough to be split so if you8 want to balance it to whaty you conmnsider NPOV I would suggest adding to the article not removing some of it,

SqueakBox

01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

POV shouldn't be "balanced out", it should be fixed. You didn't say what in the lead you consider POV. If you say what it is, then perhaps it can be fixed. --Askild 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits there were reverted but not sure when I made them over these last days so hard to find them, if the article were unlocked I would (and will) try to rewrite it again),

SqueakBox

01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could rewrite it here, and we can discuss it? --Askild 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay but not tonight, I'm about to go offline,

SqueakBox

01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean edits such as [7] [8] and [9]? Mdwh 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be POV as lolicon isn't limited to just pornography. It is a more complex issue then that simplified description. --Farix (Talk) 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that you believe the image to be offensive, and to cause children to be abused, but in what way is the image POV? In what way is the opening POV? Mdwh 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

{{

}}

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

Current:

Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon), in the Western world, is a genre of manga-style sexualized drawings involving childlike female characters. The term Loli is derived from

portmanteau short for Lolita complex. In Japan, it refers to an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. The equivalent genre focused on male characters is shotacon. Some people consider its sexually explicit forms to be a type of child pornography,^[1]

and their legality in some Western nations is ambiguous.

Proposed:

Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon), alternatively spelled lolikon, is a

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

.

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

I'd suggest "young girls," "girls in their teens or below," or possibly even "prepubescent girls," though that last is of questionable validity given the large number of so-called "lolicon" characters with bouncy adult-type breasts. Not "girls below the age of consent." Someone doesn't magically start or stop being a lolicon fan just because they crossed an international border to somewhere with a different age of consent. Defining lolicon in terms of the law also comes dangerously close to begging the question on the legality discussion, and thus dangerously close to the kind of POV you're trying to eliminate. 216.75.189.154 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't payed that much attention to AoC laws in Japan, but it use to be 14. But I think they recently changed the age to 16, which is in line with most other nations, AFAIK. --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I'd change "legality is...ambiguous" to "...contested," as there seems to be a fair amount of arguing and modifying laws still. The law at any given time is clear, but changes are fluid. How is sexualized depictions different from poses? Myabe just skip that? "...drawn in suggestive or erotic poses..."???? -Jmh123 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording a bit. First I replaced the word "ambiguous" with "contested" as you suggested, I also added anime into the Western description. And finally I changed "...drawn in suggestive or erotic poses..." to "...depicted in a sexualized manner...", in part because of what you said and in also recognized that not all lolicon is drawn. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds excellent! -Jmh123 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If your asking if there has been any complaints from SqueakBox about it having a pro-lolicon POV? Not yet. --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to go back on that. I disagree with it as it currently stands. Calling something child porn is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary source. Some article doesn't really meet that. I think that needs a better source if it's going to stay. --Eyrian 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement doesn't say that it IS, just that critics call it that. -Jmh123 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but everything has critics. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Further, to ensure NPOV, I feel that there should be a statement to the contrary, similarly sourced. --Eyrian 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

An early version of the sentence already exists on the article with an attribution. But I don't find it all that extraordinary of a claim, but one that is fairly self-evident. In fact, I think the counterclaim would be the extraordinary claim and is the one that needs extraordinary evidence. --Farix (Talk) 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I say below, at the basic level this is simply a matter of definitions and interpretation. Is the image on the article that of a child? Well, one would answer yes, in the context of what it is depicting, but clearly there is no child. This applies to anything fictional - if a film portrays a murder, has a murder taken place? Well yes, in the story, but clearly a murder hasn't really taken place. But I think the question is what is meant by saying it's child porn - if someone said "murder in films should count as murder", whilst films obviously depict murder, I'd find that quite an odd statement. Mdwh 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon has had more than its fair share of critics. More than half the entry is about legal issues. The idea that lolicon is child pornography is not an "earth is flat" kind of idea. As for the statement to the contrary, perhaps you could write and source one for us? A huge part of the problem here is that there's way too little information about the genre itself. What do you expect people to think? It's sexy pictures of little girls, but it's not porn because....why? How about helping us out here a little? -Jmh123 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand it's not an "earth is flat" idea, but on the other hand, there are people who say "pornography is rape" or "pornography is abuse" - whilst this viewpoint should be covered, it's not a candidate for the lead definition of pornography.

Also, what do we actually mean by saying it is child porn? At the most basic level, it's simply a matter of definitions - whether "child porn" only covers actual children, or includes any child-like depiction. But I'm not sure that this debate is simply one of definitions, and suspect it is something more? E.g., people who claim it might be saying it should be treated as child pornography from a legal point of view, or saying that it is just as immoral as porn involving actual children. So I think we need to be specific on what is being said - and then we can see if this is appropriate for the lead or not. Mdwh 02:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think it should say? Write it and try it out. -Jmh123 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends what the sources should say. Based on [10], I think that is saying that it should be treated as child porn legally, so perhaps something like "Critics believe that lolicon should be classified as child pornography"? (or "legally classified"?) The debate seems to be what the law should cover, rather than what the non-legal definition of child pornography is. Also, we should be careful - would such a proposal criminalise all lolicon? The source says "contain depiction of sexual activities" - as with the UK's proposed law, this suggests images of sexual acts, but not necessarily including things such as sexually suggestive posing, so it's not clear whether they believe that all lolicon should be included under child porn laws. Mdwh 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've adjusted the last sentence to associate critics with criminalization of lolicon as a type of child port instead of just calling it child porn. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It implies that all critics believe that, and I think it's too specific about what forms the critics think should be criminalized. I think the previous sentence was superior, and with a little tweaking could have addressed Mdwh's concerns. =) Powers ^T 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that last sentence or two are ever going to satisfy everyone. I've adjusted it again to hit a happy medium. But I'm sure someone isn't going to like it in one form or another. Part of the problem is that it is a generalized statement. And like most generalized statements, it is never going to be 100% representative of the issue. --Farix (Talk) 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But surely that's a problem with all the other versions too - it's not true that all critics believe it should be classified as child pornography, either (and I can't help feeling that there can't be many people who believe it is a form of child porn, but don't believe it should be illegal, as surely that would imply they believe child porn should be legal). "no different" seems rather vague - presumably they don't think it's the same in every form (since it doesn't involve children), so in what ways do they think it is the same? And what sources are there for this claim? Mdwh 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather then having everyone keep complaining about the last two sentences, why not offer an alternative? --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did (see above) (what we say should be what the sources say, and if we don't have any reliable sources on what critics say as a whole, then we probably shouldn't be saying anything in the lead, as Zorndyke says). But I think your version now is fine, and I prefer it to my suggestion, so thanks. Mdwh 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think the comipress source is sufficient to make the claim that critics believe it should be criminalized as child pornography, just that it should be illegal. Reading it a few times, I don't see the former factual connection. A better source will be required to make the "Critics claim" sentence. --Eyrian 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead should be changed back to how it was until 5 June.

"Critics believe..." And what if some other people believe that hentai art (inclusive lolicon hentai) contributes to relief of sexual desires thus lowers abuse potential? Shouldn't we include it in the lead too? None of this belongs in the lead, it belongs in Controversy. Also I agree that "critics believe" sounds like all critics believe it, it should be "some critics claim". But as I said - it doesn't belong in the lead anyway.

I disagree with moving of the Western interpretation behind the Japanese one in the lead. The order is fine the way it is now in the article. I think it's quite obvious that the most people who view this article for the first time either followed a direct link on some anime/hentai site(forum) or followed a google link looking for the meaning of "lolicon" in anime/manga context. Let them read what they're looking for first. Zorndyke 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that it seemed much better to me, but it seems that you were correct. Powers ^T 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the entire article must cover the most important points in an article. So not only is mentioning criticism in the lead appropriate, but is necessary according to

WP:LEAD. Also, the term originates from Japan, so the Japanese meaning of the term takes primacy over its Western meaning. It would be systemic bias if you switch the two around, because you are saying that the Western interpretation is more important then the original Japanese meaning from which the term comes from. Also, if you look at the leads of both anime and manga, you will also see that the Japanese meanings of the terms are given first, with the Western meaning following. --Farix (Talk

) 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While I still prefer the current order, it's true that your version would be more consistent with other wikipedia articles.

Still you can't mention in the lead the critics alone. There doesn't see to be a cohesion between strict laws regarding lolicon art and decrease of child abuse. The argument that lolicon's impact is rather positive is not less evidentiary than the opposite one. So if you insist on including critics' views, you should include the views of the proponents in the lead as well. And the small group that is mentioned in the referred article as not more representative than a lolicon art community. Zorndyke 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the "rebuttal" needs to be brought up in the lead, but it should be in the criticism section. But exactly what sources are there to rebut the critic's charges? --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Critics believe that lolicon is a type of child pornography, and several countries have attempted to criminalize its sexually explicit forms." This version saves the causal argument for the controversies section, where it is addressed/rebutted/etc. Will that satisfy those who think the emphasis in the lead is too strong? -Jmh123 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Barring any further comments, I'll send a request for this new lead. --Farix (Talk) 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus. I was still looking for better sources, but the ones below should be sufficient to counter comipress (that mentions a rather small group) and Bush's speech (he simply ignores the First Amendment and the ruling of Supreme Court).

For now please remove the last sentence.

Not "critics", it's "some critics claim".

To clarify it further:

Critics vs. some critics: you don't have a source summarizing all or even the most critics. Thus it should be "some".

Believe vs. claim: we don't know what they really believe. All we know is what they claim. They could as well be just very disgusted by lolicon drawings and use the well known "think of the children" tactics. Thus it should be "claim".

Even more importantly - if you really want to include "Critics believe" you should add the defenders/proponents view too. As for sources, this one could be included: http://www.akibaangels.com/articles/06_2006/protect_freedom2_e.php

Also how about this source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it."

It's obvious that if Supreme Court would find a direct connection, any kind of proof that materials like lolicon cause child abuse, it would not oppose banning of the former. These are the reasons why many countries don't ban lolicon and even the countries that seem to have legislations against it usually don't enforce it ( 1. No real proof for causation found. 2. A mere suspicion of some people is not sufficient to ban something. ) Zorndyke 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well, yeah, this article urgently needs unprotecting as the issues go far beyond the image that has caused the locking,

SqueakBox 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - the 1973 source cited in the article actually says that pornography will increase sex crimes, and is countered by another, later (1999) source that argues what this source is attributed to arguing--this error is a result of an error I made in earlier edits. In the earlier version sourcing was not at all clear--that is, a general pronoucement was made, not attributed in the text to any individual source (but footnoted), but now that I know what's what I can follow the original. I should've checked more carefully. So, the error in the current version (which is my error) is the source to which one of the statements is attributed.-Jmh123 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh, why don't you start a new draft of the section on the talk page like I did with the lead above? As it stand now, that is the only way in which anything is going to get done. As for possible sources, I'm sure that Answerman's complaints about lolicon in his columns on Anime News Network[13] would be a good start for Western specific criticism. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to fix the errors I made first, but I can't grab the code because the page is locked. I have sources and notes already for a few new things after that, but I'm a first things first kind of person. I want to fix my ding-danged mistakes. -Jmh123 03:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can still see the code/markup by selecting "view source", so that shouldn't be a problem. --Farix (Talk