Talk:Lolicon/Archive 6

message: Kanon doesn't mention it's Lolicon, the cover doesn't look anything like it to me (not that I've seen much other Lolicon, the idea is icky, etc). As such, the new image in the article seems inappropriate, just as much a violation of fair use as the old one, and with a caption stating something which is unsourced. Can't we just remove all images? It's been made clear that no-one's going to be happy with sexualised images of children, and given that seems to be the subject of the article, there's not really any chance of a useful (ie, representative) image. Note that I'm not arguing there should be such images present. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this image is silly. It's a replacement for the other two images which got deleted but it's not a good one. If we have to, I *will* draw an image myself. Ashibaka tock 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kanon is not Lolicon, the Kanon cover is fair use just like the old image, I say User:Sam Korn should be desysoped for abusing his sysop privilage. The Psycho 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kanon IS lolicon.  They're underage girls.  Probably a big shocker to many people who forget that lolicon and even real child porn is really anything under 18 in the US. For that matter, so is any Sailor Moon hentai, and Ranma as well (he/she's 16).  In other words, Kanon is to lolicon as ephebophilia is to pedophilia.  Another point of confusion might stem from the fact that companies have a habit of changing the girls' ages when exporting it to the US.  e.g., instead of the girls being in high school, they just say they're in college, even though we know they're really high school girls (meaning grades 10-12 because the Japanese high school system is different, which means they're aged around 15-18).  Dracil 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Lolicon is usually considered pedophilia, which means an attraction to mainly prepubescent girls.  Ephebophilia is usually considered the attraction to postpubescent adolescents (13-20), and pedophilia an attraction to prepubescents (12 and under).  Also, the age of consent in Japan ranges from 13 to 17, depending on the prefecture, so sailor moon/ranma/kanon would very likely fall into the category above the age of consent.  Therefore, consensual sex with these characters or their real-life counterparts may not be considered statutory rape in Japan, depending on the prefecture.  I think the major sources of confusion here are the meaning of 'pedophilia' and the notion that any sex with minors is underage or pedophilia.  This may not be the case. -kotra 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure it's actully lolicon, and not just hentai?  The Psycho 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does it even have to do with the article?  --Jqiz 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Images on Wikipedia are for information purposes. They aren't for decoration. Ashibaka tock 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (cur) (last)  14:24, 3 April 2006 Fuzzie (the image clearly states Lolicon, and they certainly look like it to me)
If you think those comics are lolicon you ain't looking too close. Ashibaka tock 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously some of them aren't, but to me it also looks like some of them are. I'm not going to edit war, though, so feel free to remove again (but if you don't think they're Lolicon, there's no point keeping the image). --Fuzzie (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images aren't provided for the reader to guess which is relevant to the article, and from what I can see, most of the magazines are just hentai magazines.  Someone already removed the image, thankfully. --Jqiz 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick scan of the image and there was not a loli in sight.  Of course, all of the ones on the shelf could have been loli and everyone would be none the wiser.  The image serves no purpose in this article (and not to mention it is huge).  Also, edit warring over the thumbnail size is silly. WP:MoS tells you how large images should usually be.  If you cannot make out details at that size, crop it. Kotepho 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Compared to the clear arguments above, what you're saying is really vague. Ashibaka tock 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fuzzie. I'm reverting your change.--Primetime 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a consensus on which you can revert things. You said "this is a good picture," I said "what about the arguments against it above," you said "I am right and you are wrong." What a discussion. Ashibaka tock 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed the image.  Fuzzie himself stated some of magazine are obviously not lolicon magazine.  Implying all the magazine shown being sold are lolicon would be false.--Jqiz 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". Pedophilia is not just the act,  but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? I'm sorry if I didn't elaborate enough--I just thought that it was blatantly obvious. It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one of the big busted chicks in the magazine shown illustrates little girl?  And yes, I am saying they are just hentai manga.  Even if there are one or two lolicon magazine (I must have missed it) in the pile, the majority of it are not.  Lets not force the reader to play the game, 'Where's the loliicon magazine?'. --Jqiz 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, their faces make them look young (e.g., large eyes in proportion to the rest of their faces). I can also see several girls illustrated in magazine covers in the bottom row of girls with smaller breasts. Also, I've seen underaged girls in public with larger breasts. Finally, note that they're cartoons (i.e., caricatures). Thus, it's understandable why someone would exagerrate their physical features.--Primetime 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you honestly telling me that all the girls illustrates lolicon?  I'm sure you mean good for the article, but...that's not lolicon.  And I would bet they are not marketed as lolicon, either.  By implying they are art, therefore, they can be lolicon in nature, then all hentai images will be lumped together, legality-wise, with lolicon materials.  I would do a search on the title of the hentai manga, and link to you what it is catagorized as, but I can't type Japanese.  --Jqiz 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Primetime, I don't know how you got here but it appears that you have zero knowledge about this subject. Go ahead and read the text of the article, and see if you can understand what it's about. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Primetime's suggestion above: Large eyes and a youthful appearance is a convention of all manga, not simply those depicting children. The large eyes help to convey emotion while making the character look cute. One doesn't need to be an expert on the subject to understand that exaggerated large breasts are a feature of pornography designed to appeal to persons who are attracted to ladies who have already developed secondary sexual characteristics, while "lolicon" of course appeals to pedophiles. --Jonathan Drain 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, to be clear, I'll respond to someone on the mailinglist here, in saying that none of the covers in the picture are lolicon, to first order. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree here. That image would be perfect if not for the problem that it's not lolicon - rather, those are just doujinshi in general. The image is mis-named. --Jonathan Drain 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". Pedophilia is not just the act,  but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  Kotepho 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are either (1) too lazy to give any evidence to back up your claims, or (2) just making that up.--Primetime 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? You seem to think that all hentai is lolicon.  That is absurd and untrue; ergo, you are ignorant. Kotepho 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I agree with you, saying "you are ignorant" would count as a personal attack.  -kotra 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? The image I'm looking at contains mostly C cup breasts, those aren't 'little girls' and not Lolicon.. I vaguely argued that there were a couple of younger girl appearances in the shown magazines, but other people disagree and I'm not going to argue, they'd likely know better than I would. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  In reply to Primetime who says: "You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material?" It is not. The short answer is that hentai is drawn porn, while lolicon is drawn kiddy porn. In truth, both are a kind of new loanword used to cover something which the English language never had a word for until the internet allowed the seedy underbelly of Japanese erotic artwork to reach English-speaking countries on any meaningful scale. In Japanese, hentai simply means 'perversion' and rorikon is a contraction of lolita complex and is essentially a euphemism for 'pedophile'; the words changed in meaning in the jump to the English language when English borrowed the nearest word to fill a need. --Jonathan Drain 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody's ever happy with the image on this article

message: - IMO, the image link can not stay here either. It is improper for use to have a link to an image that we know is outside of fair use. We need to set a high standard for copyright laws. FloNight talk 02:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~apacker/pictures/Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg (This link was removed by FloNight as inflammatory, but I think it ought to stay for historical purposes. Just remember, kids, it's probably not legal for you to view. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link for deleted image on talk

message: I'm dissapointed in how this turned out.  Running crying to Jimbo, admin funny buggers, etc. - brenneman{L}  00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debates can't always end with a kiss and make-up. Ashibaka tock 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't end with do-whatever-I-want admin whacking and agressive archiving to sweep away debate, either. Bad form, be ashamed. It's admitting that logic has failed and resorting to what amounts to force around here. I say again: Bad form. brenneman{L}  00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing seems to be answer: All policies/guidelines can be overlooked, if there's a consensus.  I do find it ironic that the people who preach the ironclad rules of policies/guidelines(admins and policies advocators) forgives this little mishap, because it favors their point-of-view.--Jqiz 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a debate drags on for two years like this one, or if it's getting especially heated-up like this one was, occasionally we need a thunderbolt from some random guy holding thunderbolts. Ashibaka tock 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that person should be someone from high up, not random admin who did it because it disgusted him, and because he 'can'. That was a very Jimbo-like action he performed. --Jqiz 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should just upload that image from that university site, then add it to the article. I think we all agree that's a lolicon, right?--Primetime 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree.  However, until the current dispute ends, it's probably best not to, as any attempt will most likely will be reverted.  --Jqiz 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the one that was deleted.  Feel free to reupload it if you want though. Kotepho 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would we reupload the deleted image?  Wouldn't it just get deleted again?  Even if it survived deletion, I'm pretty sure if that image was put back on the article the silly edit warring would return.  The current image has no copyright issues (percieved or not) and is less controversial, while still being somewhat representative of the genre.  I think it's the best image we're going to get.  -kotra 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record 

message: Suggestions for content/poses/whatever?  Kotepho 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing too pornographic, that seems to be why the previous one was deleted ...  --Cyde Weys 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -1, Redundant Kotepho 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -1, Unfair Meta  Cyde Weys 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is supposed to go on your userpage.  At least follow your own rules. Kotepho 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I make the rules buddy :-P  And I sure as hell ain't gonna be keeping the meta-moderating on my userpage indefinitely.  That was just an April Fool's thing.  --Cyde Weys 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I might have found an artist