Talk:Lolicon/Archive 11

message: 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)
replies: text: lol u tk him 2da bar|? 69.22.130.14 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Term: 

message: 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)
replies: text: aka exactly the same as the existing definition, but in denial? Or are they just forgetting about the word moe? --tjstrf talk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: More modern defintion?

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

message: After reading through the entire legal status section, I realized we have a ton of unverified and uncited content, some of which looks like it may be original research and/or original synthesis. As is, even the cited sections often essentially say "there's a law, that nobody's tested in court yet, that may or may not apply to lolicon depending on how you read it". This is problematic, to say the least, since we're at best confusing people and at worst effectively spreading disinformation if we're wrong.
I'm really not sure how to improve this though, since a major part of the problem is that the laws themselves are absurdly vague. That all the legal citations are going to be in different languages certainly doesn't help with our fact-checking either. --tjstrf talk 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 . –Pomte 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing controversial in any of the above staements, SqueakBox 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We may have a greater policy concern than POV here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Good point, I'll speedy my cropped version then, SqueakBox 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Have you read any of the archives of this discussion page?  --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, I am a sucker for polls.  Hmmm...  --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That image is not suitable.  Please stop restoring it to the article. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this is fact and/or backed up by policy.  --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, please reference some sort of policy instead of just repeatedly saying "unsuitable". --Eyrian 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is likely illegal in the USA (where Wikimedia servers are located) under the PROTECT Act of 2003, which prohibits obscene and lascivious depictions of minors. Krimpet (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: however it uses the miller test of obscene which makes things rather less clear.Geni 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Miller test may be rather unclear, but it's definitely best to err on the side of caution in cases like this. There is precedent in pictures with non-exposed genitalia in a lascivious context being considered child pornography in the past. Krimpet (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but those involed real people.Geni 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Do we really need a picture at the top? 

message: 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)
thread_title: We need only one image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: usa wikipedia? absolutely not. The rest of your comment is also just plain wrong IMO, SqueakBox 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Squeak, your edit just managed to combine the worst elements of everyone's positions by not only putting the unofficial mascot on the page but also not being demonstrative of the subject and therefore not being an encyclopedic image. --tjstrf talk 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  -Jmh123 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So what are you saying? We have to illustrate a child porn image? And if so why? SqueakBox 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An objection that is struck down by both project consensus on censorship of articles and that it's simply inaccurate. You can complain about not wanting child porn on Wikipedia all you like, but it's really rather irrelevant since the image is not child porn. --tjstrf talk 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It isn't being used to illustrate child porn, it's being used to illustrate lolicon. The two are nothing near equivalent even if you don't draw a distinction between reality and fantasy. --tjstrf talk 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Again, patently incorrect. Much more falls under the term. I'm getting the distinct impression you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to anime and manga related subjects. --tjstrf talk 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: (unindent)DPeterson: I hardly think it's clear at all. And, in fact, would disagree. Given that the Supreme Court agrees with me , I think that the opinion has some credence. --Eyrian 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same line of thought ,hentai and porn encourages rape.--87.64.25.185 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New image

message: can someone add this please
*--87.65.205.174 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons link

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

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

message: I think the blue hair on the loli girl in the article should be noted with something like "...and lolicon may have anime aspects, such as blue hair in this drawing." SakotGrimshine 05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  More about the relationship between lolicon and anime in general would be great.  -Jmh123 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly says that "the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime". --Akronym 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue hair 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You mean "POV," right?  Powers T 13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I do. --Eyrian 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Can we remove the ?  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The  may be more applicable, but the factual accuracy on the article is not being disputed, which is what the  is for. --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

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

text: How would it make it more POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal section helps balance out the pro lolicon POV, SqueakBox 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What pro lolicon POV? --Farix (Talk) 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the pic for a start, the opening for second, SqueakBox 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps you could rewrite it here, and we can discuss it? --Askild 01:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay but not tonight, I'm about to go offline, SqueakBox 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean edits such as   and ? Mdwh 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: 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 .(SqueakBox will have a heart attack)--87.65.140.45 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ９才 indeed means 9 years old. --Tsaryu @ 12:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  japanese context 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 would be a good start for Western specific criticism. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can still see the code/markup by selecting "view source", so that shouldn't be a problem. --Farix (Talk) 03:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh thanks--I didn't see that. Yay.  -Jmh123 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Opponents of illustrated lolicon pornography claim that even fictional material encourages viewing children as sex objects and can contribute to actual sexual abuse.  However, others argue there is no direct evidence to support the claim that viewing pornography leads to sexual crime.  Diamond and Uchiyama suggest that there is a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13.  They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany, and conclude that the widespread availability of sexually explicit material can in fact reduce the rate of sexual crimes.  Diamond and Uchiyama also state, however, that it is probable that the reduction of sex crimes by and upon juveniles in Japan is due to other factors as well: the demands of the increasingly competitive educational system on children's time, an increase in consensual sexual outlets such as prostitution and pre-marital sex, and "socially positive proactive forces" such as sex education in schools and stronger family supervision at home.
-Jmh123 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the edit protect on there for you. I assume that only the first paragraph is to be changed? --Farix (Talk) 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Yes, just the first paragraph.    -Jmh123 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy and legal issues

message: One of my sources said by the 2000's half of Japanese animated pornography had become child pornography, which brings up a question--is lolicon just any drawn/animated child pornography that features little girls, and, if not, what distinguishes it?  Another question--are the girls in lolicon of ambiguous age as in other anime?  
What is all the "research" mentioned early on about specifically?  Psychology?  Art?  Sociology?  More?  What?
Kasuga's new section takes us to the end of the 80's, but what about the 80's to the present?  
The "lolicon in the west" section is pretty short also.  What do people watch?  How/where?  Do Americans draw it?  Europeans?  and so on -Jmh123 06:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone else even done research published in English on this subject? --tjstrf talk 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions and ideas

message: According to Kinsella, lolicon is an outgrowth of a style of amateur manga drawn by women, popular in the 80's, which featured male homosexual love stories and parodies of famous boys' manga. In the late 1980's men began to follow these women's styles in writing amateur manga about girl characters: "Lolicom manga usually features a volumptuous girl heroine with large eyes and a pre-pubescent body, scantily clad in an outfit which approximates a cross between a 1970's bikini and a space-age suit of armour.  She is liable to be cute, tough and clever." (Kinsella, p. 11)    As the genre created by and for men evolved, it moved from these cute, tough heroines towards depictions of girls as sexual victims: naked, helpless, fearful, sometimes bound or chained.  Lolicon can be found in computer games and animated videos, as well as manga. 
Kinsella asserted that amateur manga expresses a disjuncture in cultural expectations of gender roles in Japan.  The amateur parodies of famous manga drawn by women ridiculed the macho male stereotype, and appealed to both women and men who found the stereotype unattractive.  Lolicon manga, on the other hand, expresses male resentment towards and a fixation with young women, who have become increasingly powerful in contemporary Japanese society, and "a reactive desire to see these young women disarmed, infantilised, and subordinate."  Male interest in girls' manga expresses simultaneously, "fear and desire" towards women. (Kinsella, p. 11, 12) Kinsella argued that a parallel situation exists in the west, both as to the most popular forms of manga imports and the popular parodies of Star Trek, Red Dwarf and the like, and to the underlying sociological conditions being expressed.  (Kinsella, p.12)
Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki stated in an interview with Animage in 1988 that while he prefers to make his heroines girls, "It's difficult. They immediately become the subjects of rorikon gokko (play toy for Lolita Complex guys). In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict (such heroines) as if they just want (such girls) as pets, and things are escalating more and more."  He expressed concern as to what this might mean for "human rights for women."  original source: Animage, vol 125, November, 1988
:I'm not sure if Kinsella portrayed the roots of lolicon art correctly, but as of now there seem to be quite a few female mangaka who don't mind loli at all. I don't know many mangaka by name, but here're some examples:
:Hikari Hayashibara - her artwork was used for wiki lolicon article for a long time (as representative lolicon artwork, it was removed because some people considered it offensive even though the official reason was copyright issues iirc... it doesn't matter now, I'm just saying that it was considered a good example of lolicon art)
:Yukiru Sugisaki - Rizelmine anime is based on her manga. It was *the* lolicon innuendo anime for a long time
:Kaworu Watashiya - author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the West (thanks to S7' attempt to publish it, the scanlations, etc.) 
:Well, I don't object the proposed change anyway. Zorndyke 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding.  I applied over at translation yesterday asking for a translation of the relevant sections of the Japanese lolicon entry to try to resolve the conflicting versions of the origins before adding this.  I don't think what I've written implies that "female mangaka...mind loli", rather, that they originally drew a different kind of character. Would you say that the lolicon of the mangaka's you have linked portrays girls as victims & pets or as tough & clever?  If they also draw victimized girls, and if most of those who buy their work are also female, then that would call Kinsella's thesis into question.  I'll check these links you indicate.  I'd much prefer that you and others who actually know something about lolicon get involved with writing and adding information this entry.  Why is it that there's so much interest in the illustration (keeping it, changing it, improving it) and so little in the content?  In comparison to the entries on hentai, yaoi, and others, lolicon is absurdly empty of information about the genre itself.  This is a case where one picture is not worth a thousand words.  -Jmh123 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating a few of my earlier questions: One of my sources said by the 2000's half of Japanese animated pornography had become child pornography, which brings up a question--is lolicon just any drawn/animated child pornography that features little girls, and, if not, what distinguishes it? Another question--are the girls in lolicon of ambiguous age as in other anime?  The "lolicon in the west" section is pretty short. What do people watch? How/where? (There's a partial answer in the links you provided.)  Do Americans draw it? Europeans? These sites such as 4chan seem to be very influential, at least on some of the Wikipedia folks--what are they exactly, and what role do they play in the reception of lolicon in the west?  I present these questions because I believe that the answers should be in the entry, with sources, not because I want to write all about these things myself. I really don't.  I simply find that many times content disputes are a result of a poorly written entry, and that much could be resolved by improving it.  I think that's the case here, and I want to encourage all the editors who appear to defend whatever picture is current when it's challenged to get engaged in improving the entry.  -Jmh123 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all we shouldn't use the term "child pornography", especially if you hope that people who know something about this topic join this discussion. This term is quite offensive for many loli art fans. If you check the rules of loli forums and image boards you'll see that "NO child pornography" is mostly the first rule. Let's reserve this term for *actual* child pornography. There will be no dialogue as long you treat loli fans with tar and feathers. Btw. 4chan has nothing to do with lolicon. It's just the biggest (or one of the biggest) English image boards that *used* to have a lolicon section, but it was removed long time ago (mostly to be able to use certain payment service). Zorndyke 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking questions because I don't know.  Thanks for your response.  So what's the appeal of lolicon?  Why is it so popular?  What is it exactly anyway?  If the term "child pornography" is offensive to those who view it, and "NO child pornography" is the first rule, then why doesn't the entry state that?  The article should be written so that people who don't know anything about lolicon can understand the genre better.  -Jmh123 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: If we are going to have the opening pic I suggest we keep it at 40 pixels and if people want to see it in more detail they can click on it, SqueakBox 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The opening pic is illustrative and on-topic. Please stop trying to censor it. --Eyrian 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points for creativity in attempted censorship, but why on earth should we create arbitrary difficulties for the visually impaired? If you don't want to see it when you edit the article, you're quite welcome to block the image with FireFox. --tjstrf talk 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not censoring at all. You want the pic illustrating and we have it. Please assume good faith which false censorship accusations is not as censorship would be removing the pic, if so. Its not what I want its what our readersd get to see that is important. If you folk keep refusing point blankl to any compromise we nmeed some kind of dispute resolution. I might be willing ot go up a few pixels but removing the size and leaving a gighantic pic is not a solution esp given this article is tagged because of the pic, SqueakBox 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, please, let this one go. The picture was approved by a member of ArbCom a long time ago.  It's called "final solution" because it was the final solution to a protracted battle. -Jmh123 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above threrads shopw clearly that the mere inclusion of the pic is disputed. Having pornographic cartoon pics of children is not acceptable. Members of the arbcom get to vote just like everyone else in content disputes like this. if she didnt have the ice cream in her mouth it would be better. i am making a lot of efforts to compromise and dont see anyone supporting the pic making any compromises, SqueakBox 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't have votes. It has policies and arguments. The policies clearly indicate what needs to be done here, and I have yet to see an argument beyond "I don't like it" in opposition. There is no reason I can see to remove a freely-licensed, illustrative image. --Eyrian 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because they've all fought this battle before, and the current picture is a compromise.  It was not wise to stir things up by soliciting a new image, the LoliWikipetan, but that one is gone.  The current picture has been there for ages.  -Jmh123 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic size

message: Someone please explain the current reason for this tag. --Eyrian 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pic is diputed, it shouldnt be in the article at all and is POV, SqueakBox 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? --Eyrian 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned, you may remove it. -Jmh123 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you mean "You may remove the tag" and not "You may remove the picture." 216.75.189.154 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant remove the tag.  While I'm here, please excuse my incorrect edit comments and self-reversion in the controveries section today.  -Jmh123 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: ; Statement by 
*Since Wikipedia is not censored, and the current image is legal, free, and illustrative, it should remain as the primary picture for the article. --Eyrian 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Regarding image placement and sizing: I believe the image should stay at the top of the article unless and until we obtain a better freely licensed image. As for the sizing, while it is generally advised not to manually resize images, the image does have odd dimensions, with its vertical size pushing the caption off the page even when viewed on a decently large resolution, so limiting the width down to 160 pixels to force the image to stay on one page might be an appropriate formatting choice. Anything smaller than that, however, is an excessive trimming, especially a reduction to the point that the image is blurred, obscured, or otherwise difficult to see. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

message: * I have no opinion on whether this image best represents lolicon, or "illustrated lolicon material", but within the limits of the subject matter (which seems to be art depicting sexualized children), it seems tasteful and appropriate. The size is currently being set in User preferences (under Files) — on my screen it is 600 pixels high, which is fine because it is quite narrow; as discussed in #Pic_size, reducing it only makes it less useful by obscuring the content. / edgarde 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by uninvolved parties 

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

text: That was one of the previously warred-over images, the cover of some random lolicon manga. (A relatively innocuous one, all things considered.) It was eventually replaced by the current one due to copyright issues. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal in Canada or not?

message: Okay this statement is FACTUALLY WRONG
"The government did not appeal this ruling."
The US DoJ has indeed appealed the Eleventh Court decision to the US Supreme Court and is on the docket for review.  The only matter is that this review will NOT happen until the 2007-2008 session at earliest or be denied for actual review and allowed to stand as is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  
:Can you give us a source or citation? -Jmh123 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lolicon USA INCORRECT edit

message: Pleeease? --Potato dude42 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can. Please make it happen, SqueakBox 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already does. See Lolicon#Controversy and legal issues. Unless your proposed section consists of artistic criticism or something, I don't see how it would be anything but redundant. --tjstrf talk 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated into the text a number of criticisms over the last couple of months, and the entry has long had a section on controversies and a lengthy section on legal issues in various countries.  Having a separate criticism section is less effective than an integrated presentation, and encourages divisiveness, but there's nothing to stop anyone from constructively contributing more criticism, just as there's nothing to stop anyone from adding informative material on the topic.  And tjstrf, without so little text on the actual art itself, it would be pretty pointless to add artistic criticism, wouldn't it?   -Jmh123 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this article have a "Criticism of lolicon" section?