Talk:Lolicon/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Relationships in shoujo manga?

How is this relevant to lolicon, if it's about shoujo manga? "In shōjo manga, characters of stories may enter into relationships with others due to circumstance or mutual attraction. The relationship may even blossom into romance. In 2006, an editor-in-chief of a major shōjo magazine said "Love affair is a big theme in today's shojo manga. It's impossible to completely take out descriptions of sexual activity—that's just the result of love and affection"." --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As it's written -- and intended?? -- the answer is "zilch" = nothing at all. IMO, a discussion of the complex relationships between lolicon and shoujo manga has to be included in a section this article does not yet have, which would provides some example of lolicon narratives from manga and anime. Doing that will be very tricky, not only because of sourcing issues, but to avoid POV statements creeping in one way or another. At the moment, I am not inclined to add any examples -- not yet! -- because of those issues. So the sentences you quoted can be removed, which either you can do or I will. Later we can add it back reworded appropriately and extensively. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph as having no direct relevance to lolicon. It said:

In [[shōjo manga]], characters of stories may enter into relationships with others due to circumstance or mutual attraction. The relationship may even blossom into romance. In 2006, an editor-in-chief of a major shōjo magazine said "Love affair is a big theme in today's shojo manga. It's impossible to completely take out descriptions of sexual activity—that's just the result of love and affection".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080731151255/http://comipress.com/article/2007/07/17/2307|archivedate=2008-07-31|title=A History of Shojo, Loli, and Harmful Books|publisher=Comipress|date=July 17, 2007}}</ref>

The reference might be useful even though it's old. It contains some lolicon titles banned in Osaka if anyone is interested. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

History section

I like the idea behind the new history section of discussing the topic decade by decade. There is a lot of material on lolicon anime from the 1980s and 1990s in

McCarthy, Helen and Jonathan Clements. (1998). The Erotic Anime Movie Guide. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Chapter 5, pp. 42-51, plus material in the alphabetical list of anime.

They discuss, for example, many of the Cream Lemon anime from the 1980s, and in some detail, as well as later imitators. This section might be the place to describe briefly the content and approach of some of these anime. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, dividing the article that way (as suggested above, at #NPOV Backlash section) resolves certain issues and is more encyclopedic. A lot of good and/or great Wikipedia articles here are divided in such a way. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the division is fine, but the 1980s still needs to be noted as being considered the "lolicon manga boom" as that's how RSes treat that period. Also, if more info is added to 1980s, it will likely need to be redivided into those labels or similar ones we removed, just now as subsections of decade markers for readability.陣内_Jinnai 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, it may only be a tempest in a teapot. Let's see what the references bring, and then decide. For example, we might relabel the 1980s section "The 1980s and the Lolicon Boom" or something equivalent. Thus, a single phrase can be added to each title to capture what the sense of that era. "The 1990s and Backlash" and so on. I'm not going to make any such changes, but they are possible. But let's wait until the subsections get fleshed out a bit more before making any such decisions. There's no hurry about it. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific reference to the 1980s: "The otaku boom coincided with the early 1980s boom in lolicon anime and manga, in which, for the first time, graphic sex was coupled with the big-eyed, vaguely infantile character designs common to children's anime" (italics original). From Jason Thompson. (2007). Manga, The Complete Guide. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 258. Another reference to the same boom is in the McCarthy and Clements Erotic Anime Movie Guide, which I cited a couple of lines above here and is already in the article. So we have at least two reliable sources for the lolicon "boom" of the 1980s, one of them actually using that word. This aspect of the history is reasonably solidly sourced, but the sections need more details. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we want to use the word "nymphet"?

I'm not sure we do, but maybe it's useful. This would go somewhere early. The idea is that if the girls portrayed in lolicon are acquiescent, willing, or eager, they are called "nymphets" in English, a term first used in this sense by Nabokov in "Lolita." The reference is impeccable, nothing less than the Oxford English Dictionary, but maybe we don't need this. What do people think? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With some more thought, I'm tending now against using the term "nymphet" in this article. It adds a a diversion we probably don't need. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A larger issue for the article

What are we supposed to do with manga and anime that deals with romantic attraction between young girls (prepubescent up to ca. 14-15) who are shown involved romantically but sexually INEXPLICITLY with older men? These are not rorikon hentai but seem to fall within the limits of this article. Examples include Rizelmine, Cardcaptor Sakura, Marionette Generation, Magic Knight Rayearth, Dream Saga (by Megumi Tachikawa) and, probably most notoriously, Gunslinger Girl. There are others as well. I have reviews or commentaries about all of them that point -- usually with considerable distaste -- to the romances between these girls and older men.

(a) We can ignore them, but that means, IMO, redefining the intentions and scope of the article. Specifically, if we eliminate the non-sexual manga and anime then we have de facto defined "lolicon" as rorikon hentai. And then, logically, we should change the title of the article.

(b) We can -- and I think should -- include them. All of these, it seems to me, come from the 1990s and later. So we have a historical process, where the earlier Cream Lemon style of lolicon -- hot little nymphets running around half-naked trying to seduce men or monsters or demons or whatever -- gave way to some immensely popular shōjo titles that deal with girls who are not 18+ years old.

The basis in law is the very complicated situation involving the legal age of consent in Japan (see http://www.ageofconsent.com/japan.htm), which varies by prefecture but has hovered around 14 for simple garden-variety unforced sexual intercourse that excludes prostitution. My sense is that many manga and anime titles tacitly accept the traditional Japanese view that a girl reaches age of consent post-puberally, meaning 14+ years old or thereabouts.

Well, OK -- and that leaves us with a problem. The issue is that this article defines hebephilia and ephebophilia in Western European terms, meaning it refers to girls below the age 18 or so. Now, all societies define and control sex between adults and minors, but the age of legal and social cutoff varies considerably.

See: Mullis, Jeffery S., & Baunach, Dawn M. (2010). "The social control of adult-child sex." In Mindy Stombler, Dawn M. Baunach, Elisabeth O. Burgess, Denise Donnelly, Wendy Simonds, & Elroi J. Windsor (Eds.), Sex matters: The sexuality and society reader, third edition, (pp. 389-401). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

I usually opt for the simplest solutions I can visualize. That means that we can add some of these titles under the appropriate historical decade, pointing out that the sorts of romance portrayed have been acceptable in Japan and in manga and anime. We can find synonyms for "acceptable" if you don't like the word.

But it seems to me that as the article is presently structured, titled, and defined, we MUST include some of these titles. I hope that's clear. I do not want to argue if some manga "really" is lolicon or not. We need instead to reach some decisions about what to include and exclude, and why. Let me also add that a number of unresolved issues about references flutter around this problem, for example, Michael Darling's assertion that Alien Nine is lolicon.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I managed to forget to mention one of the most famous examples of all: Kyoko from Rumiko Takahashi's Maison Ikkoku. Kyoko falls in love with and starts to date her high school teacher when she is 16. They later get married, and he dies when they've been married only some months, thus fueling the entire plot. So the question of how old these girls are is not a minor issue for this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I also managed to forget to mention something else. At the moment, as several editors have pointed out, this article is POV -- it has a real sense that all these lolicon stories systematically lead to murder, mayhem, mutilation, and other evils. Well, someone asked for a better balance, and we can achieve that by including these manga and anime. They too are about "young" girls, but they are not paraphilic. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, in order to forestall arguments, is a quote from Clements and McCarthy about Gunslinger Girl.

The series also revisits many of the tried-and-tested character clichés of modern anime, including Rico, a consumptive girl whose trauma was constant hospitalization, and Henrietta, an innocent whose childhood was brought to a brutal end by the murder of her family. Mental trauma also provides a foundation for subplots that present the girls as submissive blank slates in the style of Chobits -- some of their handlers treat them like machines to be dispatched to perform tasks, while others try to befriend them, taking them on outings that, to cynical, might bear a close resemblance to the seduction of “damaged goods” in less mainstream works such as the Lolita Anime. [Boldface original]

Clements, Jonathan and Helen McCarthy 2006 The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation since 1970; revised and expanded edition. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press. Page 260, entry Gunslinger Girl.

Cynical or not, the connection has been made. Yet there is no sex in Gunslinger Girl. We are not allowed, IMO, to ignore the labeling as lolicon of stories about what are taken to be "submissive" girls and older men. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a loliconized image of Henrietta -- http://www.weblo.com/celebrity/available/Henrietta/664589/ Nothing in the manga or anime looks like this, BTW. This model was made for fans of lolicon. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember there was a huge debate on Gunslinger Girl at ANN, enough that the reviewer who originally labeled it as lolicon had to backpedal a bit so I think it should be included, but at the same time it needs to be explained very clearly that there is very serious disagreement with labeling those items as lolicon.陣内_Jinnai 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! Very clearly labeled!!!! Um, sorry, I'm being overenthusiastic or something. But you're making the point I wanted to make. The original stories are only dubiously rorikon hentai, but they elicited strong negative reactions about the issue; the ANN piece is only one example. In the meantime, other fans and marketers promptly started manufacturing and selling "loliconized" images of Henrietta, and others as well (I'm looking for references now). In brief, the whole mess is strongly connected to the themes of this article. It moves us into complex areas, but no one said this was going to be simple. Somehow we have to explain that "lolicon" leads to controversy and to non-sexual portrayals of girls in the original manga and anime, and from there to what I'm calling (for lack of a better term) "loliconized" models and images. All of that needs reliable sourcing, obviously, but we're getting there. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that needs to definatly be done in a very careful manner for WP:NPOV issues, probably moreso than any other part of this article.陣内_Jinnai 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. BTW, if anyone doesn't believe me about Gunslinger Girl, try Google Image searching for "Triela" plus "lolicon." That ought to convince anybody. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge Wikimedia Images section to Legal Status of Cartoons?

There's a flag on the Wikimedia Images section suggesting that this material should be merged into Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States. I think that the "Legal status" entry should discuss this issue, but I also feel that we must not remove the section from this article. The very brief material included here is fine, since it refers the reader to the main article on the issue -- and that's good. But we can't erase the subject from this article, since Sanger was attacking precisely the topics covered in the article. So we need to mention it, direct the reader elsewhere, and leave it at that. Opinions? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, we can mention it there also, but it shouldn't be removed from here.陣内_Jinnai 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if this has had any impact on lolicon as a whole though, it is just a mention and does not talk about lolicon on a worldwide point of view, just something which occured in the United States. I feel that it should not belong in the main body of the lolicon topic as it's own section and see no harm with it being a see also, or it being moved over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning is partly that Sanger made lolicon one of his targets when he attacked Wiki, and his accusations received a good deal of publicity. It's not merely an internal Wikipedia affair. If we don't mention it, with the main article referenced the way it is, it can look like we're trying to hide the whole thing or sweep it under the rug. I can readily see a reader unfamiliar with Wiki and who remembers only that "it had something to do with Lolicon" pulling up this article. Googling Sanger plus Lolicon got me some 167,000 hits, which is a lot for something that specific. So I completely agree that we shouldn't add any more, but I think we need to keep the brief section you and Jinnai put in. I don't want to see it vanish completely from the lolicon article. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, this article isn't Lolicon in Japan; its not a geographic article and so it should cover to some extent lolicon as viewed around the world. The focus can be Japan, but that doesn't mean you ignore the English-speaking world, especially when there is a huge debate otherwise you end up with another form of NPOV violation: geographic bias in an article that doesn't, by its title, lend itself to being about a specific region.陣内_Jinnai 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Years for Lupin III and Minky Momo?

I feel it would be a good idea to add first-released years to Castle of Cagliostro and Minky Momo for historical context, as follows: "Early lolicon idols were Clarisse from Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro (1979) and the shōjo heroine Minky Momo (1982), as female characters in shonen series at that point were largely mothers or older-sister characters." It is my belief that WP:CALC supports this as not being original research, as long as other editors agree that this is appropriate to add. Thoughts? --Malkinann (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it necessary if we wikilink?陣内_Jinnai 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

One could equally say 'is it necessary to define shoujo manga, etc. if we wikilink?', I think. I feel it helps to put the works in their historical context, which is the point of the history section. --Malkinann (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding the years is fine. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did the backlash go?

Currently, the history section describes that Miyazaki was a lolicon fan and that he did this awful thing to kids and he was executed... but leaves out the impact of his crimes on the lolicon segment of the anime and manga industry and fandom. Why is this so? --Malkinann (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The part you are looking for was moved to the 1980's section as this is when this all took place. "In the aftermath, the Japanese non-profit organization CASPAR was founded with the goal of campaigning for regulation of lolicon" The history section does not need a "lolicon boom" section or a "backlash" section, decades are more neutral here. What this article does need is a history of lolicon after the murders took place as lolicon still is present in Japan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the part I'm thinking of is gone. "He was found to be a "withdrawn and obsessive "otaku and in particular he enjoyed lolicon. This caused a moral panic about "harmful manga", and "sparked a crackdown by local authorities on retailers and publishers, including the larger companies, and the arrests of dojinshi creators"." This is more important to the article than knowing that he was punished. --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Readded it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The re-addition sounds good to me too. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

in regard to Wikipedia

[1] - Can this be verified by a more reliable source? If so, I'm not sure where to put it, but its still relevant.陣内_Jinnai 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL - I should have just done this in the first place - click one of the links - anyway, since The Register meets the criteria for a Wikipedian RS, where should this go exactly?陣内_Jinnai 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll find the text of Sanger's letter at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=EDTECH&month=1004&week=a&msg=oh60TKAnthvEwBjcWNxxSg&user=&pw= There are other sources as well, but this will do. Note that Sanger was talking about Wikimedia Commons, and not the text of Wikipedia the encyclopedia. This whole business deserves its own section, fully and neutrally referenced. The absence of such a section in the present version is another of the serious (IMO) problems with this article. The link you included led me to a user page about the Netherlands; how is that relevant? Is the space between "fbi/ click one of the links" correct? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Which link? The first is a blog site that probably doesn't meet (in most cases) the critieria for SPS; the second is an article for The Register. I just rechecked them to make certain and its the same.陣内[[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|_Jinnai] 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a listserve based at Michigan State University, and Sanger sent a copy of his letter there. So it's a copy of Sanger's work, which he signed, and is de facto therefore reliable (like an artist's blog when he/she is talking about his own work). It's not someone else's opinions about it. The link is working now, so whatever was wrong has been fixed. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The link I gave to the EdTech listserve is given on Sanger's own website, here http://larrysanger.org/2010/04/more-replies-about-wikimedia-and-the-fallout-of-my-report-to-the-fbi/. So we have to assume it's correct. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The way to handle this, I'd suggest, is to cite Sanger's own website, and explain that he said he sent his letter to the EdTech listserve and then give the link to the listserve -- that's the one I gave already. In other words, the reliability is transmitted, so to speak, down the line, to the copy of the letter. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but what about the opinions of the Wikimedia Foundation, which are quoted by The Register?陣内_Jinnai

23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We have to cite them too, from The Register, which doubtlessly is a reliable source. There may be additional reliable sources for the Wikimedia side of the argument.Timothy Perper (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have so much wiki stuff on this article, when other lolicon scandals live in the "Child pornography in X" pages? --Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there really is a dispute that it isn't "child pronagraphy". That's the whole thing. At least those in the US if there are any there, should probably be moved out for NPOV reasons and put into a "Lolicon in the US". Probably for Japan to as they still treat it separably.陣内_Jinnai 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed there should be an article in this one titled "Lolicon in the US" the focus of this article should be a broad scope with Japan more so as it is where it orginated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that section might be better split off into Reporting of lolicon Wikimedia images by Larry Sangar or Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia commons.陣内_Jinnai 02:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this even notable outside of wikipedia? I mean yes it was bad but to have wikipedia be in the news how do you go about handling that? Worldwise speaking this does not have a huge impact either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] - That's just one source and given the title I assume the BBC (and others) did more; in fact I know NPR had programs on this. I know there is there is WP:NOTNEWS to consider, but I would consider this more than routine event.陣内_Jinnai 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I support a split for it to have it's own article then, I was around in 2010 here on wikipedia and I saw no loli images on wikipedia, strange. Anyways I do not think there needs to be a dab page for lolicon as we already have Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors and in that article being diffrent contries, maybe move the United States reguarding lolicon content (If there is any) from here to there?

Other than the Wikimedia info (which should be primarily in its own article, not US one as I believe it'll evenutally end up there anyway, there's just 1 small paragraph that deals solely with it. Anyway, are either of the proposed titles I made acceptable and neutral enough?陣内_Jinnai 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Either title would work in my opinion, a consensus can always be gathered on it as well on the article's page for more input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons

Can I get someone here to write a good lede? I think most of the info is added to the article at this point. There are more sources out there, I think CNET is one, but not sure if its anything new.陣内_Jinnai 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this was spun off there has been a naming dispute. Someone renamed it to "Reporting of child pornography on Wikimedia Commons" which violated WP:NPOV#Naming. I thought some here might be interested in adding comments since I had originally requested help with a neutral name here.陣内_Jinnai 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nearly verbatim quotes from The Otaku Encyclopedia

I checked Patrick Galbraith's The Otaku Encyclopedia entry for Lolicon (pp. 128-129) and found a number of sentences that are nearly verbatim quoted in this article. There are too many to quote, so here's only one: "The term 'Lolita complex' may have been first introduced to Japan when Russell Trainer's book The Lolita Complex (1966) was translated" (italics original; page 128). Compare to the History Origin subsection. There are some minor changes in wording, but the sentence in the article is clearly based on Galbraith's wording. Galbraith gives no source for his assertion, and it seems only to be a guess. There are other examples. Someone else with access to Galbraith's encyclopedia should confirm what I'm saying. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding copyvio, yes, that's likely one, so any which are that close should be reworded or removed until they are reworded (rewording being the preference). As for whether Galbraith has a source for his assertion, it doesn't really matter since he's the one making the claim. We can simply point to his claim regarding the source. Given how both are referring to the same thing, really (the meaning of the word "lolita"), it's not a huge jump to make that claim. Do we know when the book was introduced in Japan as a translated work? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not know the translation date, and Galbraith does not give it. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tried to fix it, but my browser has stopped displaying the text editing box (where you see the changes you're making) after the first time. So when it starts working again, I'll try it again. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. I didn't know the end result was that close. I didn't actually take his text and change it, but based it on the text that was originally there. That it so closely mirrors the encyclopedia's text is coincidence there.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all we have to do is revise it even further. I still can't get my #$%^& browser working, so it's up to you guys... sorry... Timothy Perper (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It works the first time, then stops. So I have to save, then load it again, then re-enter text (like I'm doing with this). So I can't do running edits. #$%^& nuisance. Sorry. It's time to call in my IS buddies. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a workaround in place, but a bunch of work just came in for me on a major project. So I won't be editing very much at all. Maybe someone else should try their hand at a rewrite. The article looks a lot a better, though it still needs work. Thanks for your patience. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Diamond and Uchiyama paragraph

This source talks about sex crimes and pornography in Japan in general, not about lolicon. While the topic of pornography in Japan is part of the background for this article, I wonder if we need this information repeated here - it seems to be a digression from the main topic. I have copied the paragraph into the pornography in Japan article (under the title sexual assault), and would like opinions on whether to remove the Diamond and Uchiyama information from this article. --Malkinann (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As there has been silence, I've boldly removed the Diamond and Uchiyama information from this article. Diff for reference in case anyone wants to reinstate it. --Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Missed this. I'm not sure it should be removed, but rather reworded. In the form it was, yes, it was an improperly used statement, but it could be relevant here if its reworded to indicate that the evidence to the contrary is for sex crimes in general. However, I'll have to think on it while others can give some thought.陣内_Jinnai 04:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Malkinann, I hadn't noticed your change here. I think it's OK to remove, as I have said, because D&U are discussing sexually **explicit** pornography, most of it dealing with adults, with (as I recall) only a few mentions of sexually explicit material showing children, but nothing to do with lolicon portrayals. One reason to be so careful here is that D&U have been widely cited in the sexological literature to suggest that explicit pornography is much less harmful than its critics say it is, but that conclusion -- even if true -- does not automatically apply to lolicon portrayals. But aficionados of lolicon want to show that it is harmless, and have jumped on the "pornography is OK" bandwagon. (I'll skip giving references to all that.) Accordingly, for this article to cite D&U is to suggest, at least to some readers, that this article is saying that lolicon portrayals are OK. We should not, I strongly suggest, draw any such conclusions, nor allow anyone the chance to conclude that we -- and hence Wikipedia! -- are saying that lolicon portrayals are perfectly all right. We need to be ardently NPOV here, if I can coin a phrase. Remember that one of Lawrence Sanger's accusations against Wikipedia was that it supported child pornography, and we need to avoid reawakening that argument (I've given the refs in other comments). So I urge everyone to use fairly narrow criteria of direct relevance for inclusion of citations in this article -- and D&U falls outside the limits of relevance to lolicon. If you don't believe me that this is an argument to avoid, read the heated and very angry debate about Wikipetan that has been going on for a while. So take out the D&U reference(s) and don't even try to reword the discussion to suggest a connection between the hard-core porn D&U were dealing with and the portrayals that characterize lolicon. Another way to say that is that maybe D&U are relevant to "sex crimes in general" and pornography, but extending that suggestion to lolicon is Original Research. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I think the D&U material belongs in the Japan and porn article, where Malkinann put it, but not here. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again! Forgot something else! I am not -- no, no, no -- recommending putting any of the general background stuff I mentioned above into the article. However, it is useful background for us, I think, as we consider and discuss what revisions this article needs to bring it up to GA level. Sorry if that confused anybody. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if there are other reliable sources that use said research to support the notion that lolicon has similar results, then it is relevant to include; however, like you say, we should be careful how we include it to keep from favoring one point-of-view.陣内_Jinnai 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; let's see what comes up as reliable sources. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The new Galbraith paper refers to Diamond and Uchiyama's study. --Malkinann (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It's part of the larger literature on porn and social violence that Galbraith is discussing. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it enough, though, to tie lolicon to the 'porn reduces sexual crime' stuff of Diamond and Uchiyama? For instance, (very poorly worded), to say that "Galbraith argues that lolicon also correlates with a general reduction of sexual crime rates in Japan, in accordance with Diamond and Uchiyama's work on pornography in Japan"? --Malkinann (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As you worded it, you have made the leap from Galbraith's paper to the Diamond and Uchiyama work. It's OR to say "in accordance with." (That's not a matter of which word you use; it's the sense that counts). Another problem is the word "correlates" -- what does that actually mean? Here is what Galbraith actually said, the only time he uses the term "correlation" in his essay.

With regards to lolicon, Takatsuki Yasushi points out that sexual abuse of minors was statistically much more common in Japan in the 1960s and 1970s, and has actually been decreasing since, which roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon (Takatsuki 2010: 258-262). Drawing attention to this correlation, a trajectory that coincides with Diamond and Uchiyama’s general findings on pornography in Japan (Diamond and Uchiyama 1999), is not to suggest that desires are redirected from real children to fictional ones. Rather, it is to suggest that the prevalence of these images does not necessarily reflect the desires of the viewers or influence them to commit crimes.

Takatsuki, Yasushi. 2010. Rorikon: Nihon no shōjo shikōshatachi to sono sekai [Lolicon: Japan’s Shōjo Lovers and Their World]. Tokyo: Basilico.

So Galbraith isn't saying anything about a "general reduction of sexual crime rates" -- he is talking, via the Takatsuki quote, about sexual abuse of minors. But his primary reference isn't Diamond and Uchiyama, but Takatsuki. Galbraith's argument is that Diamond and Uchiyama found something like this for pornography in Japan, therefore making Takatsuki's findings less controversial, less dubious, or more believable. Galbraith is also extremely careful not to use Diamond and Uchiyama's work to say that lolicon isn't correleted with sexual abuse of minors. In fact, he cites D&U only in passing. So Galbraith does not use D&U's work to show or suggest anything related to lolicon at all, except as an example of a similar correlation found for sexually explicit pornography.

In other words, Galbraith is being quite careful and precise in how he uses his references. I think we have to do the same thing, in order to avoid a number of POV and OR pitfalls. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't reading carefully - extraordinary claims, such as this, require extraordinary evidence, so I thought I'd better check. Would it be more accurate to say "According to Galbraith, Yasushi Takatsuki has noted that sexual abuse of minors has declined since the 1960s and 70s, which "roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon". Galbraith feels that this is not an argument that lolicon functions as an escape valve, but instead that lolicon imagery does not "reflect the desires" of readers, or inspire them to commit crimes." ? --Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's much closer to what Galbraith is getting at. I like the idea of quoting him, thereby locating these claims directly in Galbraith's ideas. We can tinker with the wording, but the principle is becoming clearer, don't you agree? Timothy Perper (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added it in, linking "escape valve" to a theoretical escape valve theory of pornography article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New Galbraith article on lolicon

Downloadable PDF at http://www.imageandnarrative.be/ It's Vol 12, No 1 (2011). By Patrick W. Galbraith, 2011 "Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan." Timothy Perper (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Tim. I've made superficial use of Galbraith's new article so that it doesn't end up being stranded on the talk page or in the further readings section, but it needs to be used more. --Malkinann (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially since it presents a reasoned voice of calm amidst a moral panic. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Dodgy statement

"An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection."

This is weaselly-worded (claim, scientific basis), based on a ten year old ruling, in America, about simulated child pornography created on computer (not drawings?). This is not the best source for talking about lolicon. --Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend removing it completely. It doesn't seem to refer to lolicon at all, and if it does, the application is OR. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Escape Valves

I'm sorry that I don't have time to do some serious searching for this concept, but if you google "pornography" and "escape valve" you'll get a good many serious sources. I got some 17,000 hits. It'd be a good article in its own right. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the "description" section supposed to be for?

What is the "description" section supposed to be for? Is it for describing lolicon as in the real-life paraphilia towards young girls? --Malkinann (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be a "Definition" section. How about changing the title of the section to prevent further confusion? Also you can define the article to deal with manga and anime, rather than with psychopathology. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the "dubious -- discuss" flag to the sentence in this section that reads: "Lolicon is a widespread phenomenon in Japan, where it is a frequent subject of scholarly articles and criticism." The flag goes with "widespread" and with "frequent." Both are weasel words as well as needing citations to something a lot more recent than Kinsella, preferably a source that has some kind of quantitation for each word. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't definitely stay, but I changed the title to Definition. For those who do not know, partly designing the section was discussed at Talk:Lolicon/Archive 14#Kinds of lolicon, a discussion started by Timothy Perper. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a useful change! Timothy Perper (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Weekly Dearest My Brother

Weekly Dearest My Brother may be relevant to this page. --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Superflat stuff

None of the "sources" quoted imply, in any way, that Superflat artists are "critical" of lolicon as much as they simply explore it and let the viewer come to the own conclusions. Even if they did, this would be an inherently flawed idea, simply because the very founder Superflat has supported and defended lolicon artists in the past and a lot of the Superflat artists commonly cited as being "critical of lolicon" *have in fact drawn non-satirirical lolicon artwork themselves*.

This is a HUGE preconception among Superflat fans. The logic seems to be, "this famous artist's work parodies lolicon art... so he and his kind must be against it right? After all, Lolicon is ICKY." In the end any actual research on the subject proves that such statements have little to no logical basis. --Iguanaray (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The issue is whether or not the reference cited supported the statement made -- it makes no difference if you agree with it or not. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And what if the sources are provably wrong? An art critic seeing a piece of art and thinking "hmm... I personally think this picture is meant to convey THIS message" then writes about it is no confirmation of the actual intention behind the picture. If you actually read the articles in question, one of them simply does not mention such criticism while the other SUGGESTS that such works MIGHT have such a meaning, but also considers other interpretations. --109.99.32.190 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced things

First, my english is pretty bad.

Second, ive been watching anime and reading manga for long time and been going around in wikipedias discussion to educate myself about these subjects. Been waiting for over a year in lolicon page to have certain changes wich are obvious, but i dont have sources.

First toddlecron (toddlekron) and lolicon are not synonyms. Toddlekron is very disturbing version of lolicon, ie involving children who are 2-10 years old. Lolicon is usually considered 11+ or so (depends on drawing style).

Second, lolicon is often considered just flat chested short girl, ie age has little to do here, since you can easily draw any look you want, and then just add any age you want. Its just a drawing, fantasy. Lolicon is just short girl with flat chest, but have adultish body parts(ie you can never find 12 year old real girl who looks like 12 year old lolicon when it comes to body). But also there are artist who try to imitate actual children, wich i dont consider lolicon since they are just disturbing imitations of real child porn.

And i dont think Comic LO is not much lolicon anymore (Obviously it has some lolicon in it like Comic Megastore etc), Comic RIN is allmost pure lolicon. And yes its legal in my country (Netherlands). You have to know that most anime/manga works have somekind of lolicon charater in it (even extremely popular stuff like K-On, where Azuna is portraited as loli, and even involved in faservice in second season opening), therefore saying there is one lolicon story in it, dosent make it lolicon magazine.

Most of these fact has to do with the reality, not some random article in newspaper who isnt involved. (not saying i am involved too much). Sadly there isnt much real reasearch about these subjects. Thou some japanese researchers try to claim that lolicon and child abuse have negative correlation, like recently in USA there was research claiming porn and sexual abuse have negative correlation, but they are certanly not difnitive.

This can be removed if its useless try for discussion. (And yes ive read alot of the archive considering lolicon and pedofilia, to be informed since ive met people who say its ok to have sex with 12 year old real girl like in mangas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.239.71 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Child Porn?

Is the first picture child pornography? If so, it should be taken down on ALL Wikipedia articles on which it is present. Nascargeek21 (talk)

No it isn't. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is on the record as not a fan of the infobox image, and described it as "tacky and stupid" in this thread in July 2010. The image survived this debate, and it is not illegal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In no way this is illegal. If this would be illegal, then you should never take a picture of a child at all. --Niabot (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not child porn, I can just as easily argue that the picture is of three girls in PJ's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's counted as Child Porn in Sweden, but as wikipedia is not hosted in Sweden it should not be a problem, but it might be a huge issue for Swedish users like me, because just viewing child porn is illegal here --193.11.163.169 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you speak about this image. Then it isn't child pornography. Please look up the defintion of pornography inside swedish law. The case in where a man was arrested for possesing Lolicon-Dōjinshi was based upon this definition. The image inside this article isn't illegal, since it isn't pornography and therefore also not child pornography. Otherwise you should restrain from taking images of children for your family album as well. --Niabot (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish wikipedia page about Lolicon clearly states that lolicon falls under the Swedish Child Pornography Act, and it has been a lot in the news with law experts confirming it that way. "Lolikon är lagligt i många länder, däribland Japan, men faller i Sverige under samma lag som barnpornografi[1][2]." translating to "Lolicon is legal in many countries, including Japan, but in Sweden falls under the same law as child pornography.". When the law got stricter they added to the definition that any picture that can make a person fantasize, and there were even debates about that the picture doesn't have to be of pornographic nature. --193.11.163.169 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, you should have seen the picture they used to have -- a six-year old naked from the waist down with a teddy bear in BDSM gear, a dildo, and a come-hither look. Getting rid of that pic was a massive, massive undertaking requiring many scores of man-hours -- many people defended that picture very vociferously -- and finally an out-of-process deletion by fiat, an action that possibly could not be repeated today. This picture is the replacement for that picture and is very much less problematic, so count your blessings. Herostratus (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against the pic or anything, and I do certainly not want it to be removed because the law is completely ridiculous (and no one understands it anyway, not even the courts). I just wanted to make clear that it can be troublesome for some Swedes if they were to somehow get caught with watching it (now how they would that I don't know, maybe workplace or a family member :P)(but I guess it's their own fault of looking at such things while others are around). --193.11.163.169 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It took a while to find an open web proxy which wasn't IP-blocked. I'm sorry, but I don't dare to comment here while logged in or while using my normal IP address because of the stupid law. I'd guess that the Wikipedia illustration is not illegal in Sweden, but I'm not sure. In any case, if it is illegal, any Swedish person reading this article could be fined for doing so. Take a look at the illustrations which were not deemed as child pornography in the court of appeal. The "banana one" was not considered child pornography because it was not possible to see whether the breasts were past puberty or not (the breasts are hidden by other things so that you can't see them at all). The one on Wikipedia has the same feature: the breasts are hidden (so you wouldn't be able to tell whether they're past puberty or not), so the illustration is probably legal on the basis that it is not clear whether it shows a child or not. The other issue is that the illustration must be pornographic to be illegal. This means that the purpose of the illustration is to "appeal to sexual desires", whatever that means. It could maybe fail this definition (I'd say that the purpose is to illustrate this Wikipedia article instead of "appealing to sexual desires"). It seems that a picture may be pornography in some cases but not in other cases. For example, you may have read in newspapers recently about the case where a man and around 20 (I think) women from various parts of Sweden were found guilty for "child pornography crime" (barnpornografibrott). Some of the pictures were apparently photos of the women's nude children and grandchildren, stored in family photo albums. They were considered as child pornography in this case since they were distributed for the purpose of "appealing to the man's sexual desires", but similar photos are legal to possess in your own family photo album, since the purpose is instead to keep memories of your families, in that case without references to sexual desires. However, even if the Wikipedia illustration were to be taken out of its context, it is not clear whether it would be considered as child pornography or not. Take some of the other pictures not found to be child pornography in the Tierp illustration case. Take the picture of the nude girl with blue hair and cat ears, for example. According to the court, the picture shows a child (which by definition is a human being; according to the court, it is perfectly natural that a human being may have cat ears), but it was not clear if it is meant to "appeal to sexual desires" or not, so it was not considered to be pornography (and it's thus legal). The Wikipedia picture doesn't look "worse" in that sense than the human being with cat ears, so it might not be considered as pornography for the same reason. The problem comes from the text under the image on Wikipedia: "Lolicon art often blends childlike characteristics with erotic undertones." The text is very clear: there are "erotic undertones", implying that the illustration "appeals to sexual desires". Since the article tells how to interpret the illustration, there is maybe no option to interpret it in any other way, and the text under the illustration on Wikipedia could thus maybe make the illustration on Wikipedia illegal, but I'm not sure exactly how the law works. --78.47.147.38 (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Make it easier: we don't care about swedish law. If it's illegal to you to see it, don't see it. If Wikipedia has turned risky because of that, stop using wikipedia. If you don't like it, claim to the sweden legislators. Wikipedia has nothing to do with it, the only law it applies are the US's or wherever the servers are hosted.. pmt7ar ^(talk) 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hosted under US law and is not responsible for the content of external websites. The infobox image in this article is not illegal under US law, as discussed on other occasions. See also the Wikipedia:General disclaimer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice

I've added the {{SexEditNotice}} edit notice, which will display any time someone edits the article. —Farix (t | c) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In Japan is not genre

According to japanese wiki and ANN, this terminology in Japan doen't not define a genre per se but a behaviour, a random person attract or like little girls. [3]. ANN use the terminology not to define a genre but a theme, to specity better the sub-content, for example kojikan [4]. We should consider what the word mean in the motherland country not the improper use as internet meme in the west. For this reason i change the improper "genre characteristic" topic to "origin and charactersistics". If you have more source made in japanese (or japanese translated into english)that increase the meaning of the word please post here. With the same principle Hentai and Ecchi aren't genre but a behaviour, meaning pervert the first and sex,erotic the latter. Reikasama (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit. Your points is clearly stated on the header and under Definition. The subsection in question is precisely as lolicon as a genre (or classification) as its known for english readers (it's english wikipedia after all). And anyway that subsection is not describing its origins so the section name is not appropriate.pmt7ar ^(talk) 08:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed the POV content that was added using unreliable sources, such as the Japanese Wikipedia and Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Reikasama has been repeatedly told that these are not reliable source because they contain user generated content. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but classification is not genre, classification is made in the west to explain a sub-genre into a more specific field, but this not mean is the correct terminology in the original land. I change genre to classification then because i find better appropriate as Pm7tar stated. Reikasama (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The section discusses lolicon as a genre of anime and manga based on reliable sources. You don't get to change the section's heading because you don't think it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I post reliable sources that the word is not a genre per se but a behaviour as in original. I accept classification better than genre. My sources are reliable 100% as proof. You continue to abuse power and blocking webpages without providing sources on what you claiming for. I report this thread too. Reikasama (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre characteristics

I tagged this after some discussion at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and reviewing the sources. It appears the Japanese page does not list it as a genre and with mostly English sources on a subject that seems to heavily involve Japan, the lack of Japanese sources does appear to be biased as a western critique, although purely unintential.陣内_Jinnai 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply because in Japan is NOT a genre but a behaviour. Only in the west is considered a genre but source that stated this aren't reliable and base on personal opinions. In the west is used to classify a sub-theme for practical use. I think is better to use classification instead of genre till more info and source are available. Reikasama (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care here if the sources don't actually use the term "genre" in each instance.陣内_Jinnai 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I care because using genre is not a valid statement. You have to prove me that lolicon is a genre in Japan before you claim is frue. All the actual reference here don't prove that this is a genre. Reikasama (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a "genre in Japan". All that matters is that reliable sources identify lolicon as a genre. And there are several in the article that do just that. —Farix (t | c) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It matter because the word is originated in Japan and used there, importing a word and use in another way is a improper usage of an original terminology and should be fixed according to the origina country. Lolicon is NOT a genre but a behaviour. Provide me sources that stated the countrary, in japanese or english translated from japanese. Till you don't privide sources you statement and opinion matter zero and is unreliable, because i provide sources, is not my opinion is a fact. Reikasama (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This it the English Wikipedia, however, and the usage here should reflect its English usage. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you use [lolita complex] yes, but you use a japanese word not an english one. A japanese word has a specific meaning in the original country. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty straw man argument there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Words' usage and meanings evolve, and lolicon has evolved at it is adopted by other languages. Wikipedia's coverage of the word should be comprehensive including how the word is used all around the world. —Farix (t | c) 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Link me sources here that prove this stament. I provide links and sources, prove me the same. I want read these articles thats stated clearly that is a genre, you should have them since you claim this. In the link on the main arcticle i don't find anything thats stated this clearly. Reikasama (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Galbraith, Patrick W. (2011) Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan Image & Narrative 12 1 83-119.
• Kinsella, Sharon (2000). Adult Manga. University of Hawai'i Press.
• Galbraith, Patrick W. (2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's guide to the subculture of Cool Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha International.
• Shigematsu, Setsu (1999). "Dimensions of Desire: Sex, Fantasy and Fetish in Japanese Comics". In Lent, J.A.. Themes and Issues in Asian Cartooning: Cute, Cheap, Mad and Sexy. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Where is here the usage of this word as a genre? Again is an opinion of someone, you fail to provide me evidence that in Japan this terminology has 2 meanings. If in the west is used with another meaning doesn't mean that is the correct transliteration from the original. Is a west meme. You consider west meme ok? I think is better use the sentence "foreign clasisfication" istead of genre. Or if you want so bad keep "genre" you should adding something that clearly specify that "genre" is INVENTED in the west as sub-category. Reikasama (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out a few already on the article. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Word usage evolves and this should represent the English viewpoint; however, that's not an excuse to ignore the Japanese viewpoint or French, German or any other viewpoint for that matter. This is especially true because there is a section entitled "Meaning outside Japan". As I mentioned before, this article is still in need of updating. While its better, we really need some reliable Japanese sources to discuss this.陣内_Jinnai 20:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the genre section should be moved into the "Meaning outside Japan" section. —Farix (t | c) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It make zero sence, why a word, native from Japan, sould have a different meaning outside? This word should be used with the original meaning not with a foreign meaning. I don't get it. 08:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikasama (talk • contribs)

It isn't a foreign meaning here; this is the English language Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for a word native to one country to have a subtly different meaning in another country. Take, for example, Sensei, and note especially Sensei#Uses in English. You can see a discussion of some other words that mean different things here. They offer a number of examples of English words that have different meanings in Japan. If there are culturally different interpretations of words, it's important to accurately document that, but it is not the job of encyclopedists to prefer one over another. We're simply here to explain to our readers how subjects are described by reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources that describe lolicon as a genre

Solely in response to a request at ANI, I am adding a few reliable sources in English that describe Lolicon as a genre.

A few examples

"Lolicon: A genre in manga that depicts girls, usually childlike, in an erotic manner."Bergman, Gregory; Josh Lambert (16 January 2011). Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, An A to Z Guide to All Things Geek. Adams Media. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-4405-1114-1. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "For example, virtual child pornography, pornographic images and text delivered by SMS messages, sexual age-play in virtual game worlds, the soft porn Manga genre of Lolicon and Rorikon are all challenges to current laws and issues...." John R. Vacca (2009). Computer and information security handbook. Morgan Kaufmann. p. 735. ISBN 978-0-12-374354-1. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "Lolicon, rorikon. A genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in an erotic manner." Steiff, Josef; Tristan D. Tamplin (1 April 2010). Anime and Philosophy. Open Court Publishing. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-8126-9670-7. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "...novels break away from the dominant pattern according to which the sexual abuse of children (particularly girls) had been narrated in prior fiction (typified by what in Japan is known as the Lolicon or Lolita complex genre)" Hurley, Adrienne Carey (28 July 2011). Revolutionary Suicide and Other Desperate Measures: Narratives of Youth and Violence from Japan and the United States. Duke University Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-8223-4961-7. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "Lolicon manga are usually short stories, published in media specializing in the genre and bought predominantly by white-collar men in their 20s and 30s." Sparrow, William (23 February 2008). "Japan's Lolita merchants feel the heat". The Asia Times Online. Retrieved 2011-09-01. "Rape and sadomasochism are common manga themes, and the genre called Lolicon gratifies men's Lolita fantasies about underage girls." Strickland, Eliza (1 November 2006). "Drawn Together". San Francisco Weekly. Retrieved 2011-09-01.

Personally, I do not care what Lolicon means. But it's worth reinforcing, as noted above, that languages are living things; words change meaning as people use them. This is why good dictionaries not only record what a word means, but also the date range when it is believed to have gained that meaning. (Even within language families, words change meaning; see the evolution of the word koto, for instance]].)

Again, I don't care what Lolicon means personally. I am placing this here solely to demonstrate that the absence of sources provided at ANI is not indicative of absence of sources. (For all I know they're all in the article anyway; I've never even read it.) They are plentiful and require only a few minutes to locate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

These are just personal opinion without any source, like the blog posted by Farix, what i was talking about is a source in japanese that stated clearly thats [lolicon] is a genre in Japan but everyone fail to provide me this info, continuing link western native sources and opinions where the word is invented as category for practical use. For some people is more easy calling a manga with lolis as main heroine lolicon but this don't mean is the correct meaning of the word. Link me an original source translated from japanese that stated that in Japan, because the word is japanese and belong to this language, is a genre. In the japanese wiki page references point out that is a behaviour in real life or fictions not a genre. Example: "Where you are looking Daichi? - You damn lolicon!", hope you catch the joke here. If you want use the same meaning here you should use a synonym like [loli manga] or [loli anime] about anime and manga that rapresent the correct translation of the word. Tagging a show [lolicon] mean you call this show loli complex, make zero sense. Is because i think that changing the "genre" to "foreign classification" is more ppropriate don't think? Or specify that the genre meaning is used ONLY in the west. Because is what we talking about here, a improper use of the terminology outside japan. Reikasama (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, those are by definition on Wikipedia "reliable sources". They are peer-reviewed publications produced by reputable press. Please read WP:IRS to help you understand the difference. Let me make clear here again that I am interacting as an uninvolved administrator. I don't care how this article develops, as long as it develops within the consensus process. But it is very important that you understand that Wikipedia exists as a "tertiary source" to record precisely what sources such as these say about topics. It is not up to us to determine whether or not the sources are right, although we do document when reliable sources disagree. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point but since you admit that this terminology is made here in WEST as opinion, i propose to clearly specify this like someone stated before, so if someone read the content understand that this word has 2 different meanings, one in the west and one in the original country. So misunderstandings are avoided. Btw, i should post again all this matter there Wikipedia:Verifiability? You admin send me to open debates from a place to another, i'm start to get lost. Reikasama (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It is already very very clear in the very first paragraph: "In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent) or an individual with such an attraction. ... Outside Japan, 'lolicon' is in less common usage and usually refers to the genre." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Powers ^T 12:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, unfortunately there is another thread called "Meaning outside Japan", so seems that the thread before is a terminology valid in the east as a genre cause the title. Reikasama (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. Powers ^T 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you should not post this matter there. :) This is a specific instance; if you want to argue that usage of words must conform to the country of origin and only sources in the original language can be used, you need to do it there in the general principle, not in this one. I think you'd be wasting your time, though. Languages simply don't work that way. Imagine if the Japanese Wikipedia could only use English sources for all of the words in the list I provided above. Considering how many words cross over, it would simply be a mess. I don't think the community would embrace that standard.

But in terms of "opinion", really, all definitions are opinion. Words don't inherently mean anything. :) The word may have been invented in Japan with the first agreed upon meaning, but things change. One of my favorite examples of this in English is the word "awful." It originally meant (and as recently as 1845) something that fills you with awe. A good thing. I'm sure people from that era would be confused to hear that it is most frequently used now to describe something extremely bad.

In any event, it's up to the editors here (including you) to agree how best to represent the information, so long as reliable sources are accurately reflected in one way or another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that should be more clear this difference, i propose to merge the title "Genre Characteristics" and "Meanings outside of Japan" into one unique paragraph that explain that the content listed there rapresent a western vision of the terminology and not the original one. For example "Classification and meaning outside of Japan", or Genre, or Category instead of Classification. Reikasama (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Farix suggested a merge above, but that's it. The info would still be there, but the information would be under one section.陣内_Jinnai 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It will surely be better and appreciated merge them with an appropriate title that clearly stated and mark the difference of terminology from Japan and the west. If you can manage to do it try it out. Reikasama (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Awe" back then meant "reverential fear or dread", so "awful" was never a good thing per se. Powers ^T 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Outside Japan"

After a lengthy discussion with Reikasama on his talkpage, I think what he is saying is that the concept represented by ロリコン, and the concept represented by the letters l-o-l-i-c-o-n are different. Lolicon is a genre of output of the film and comic industry, but ロリコン isn't used that way - they would actually badge the comix with some different Japanese word. From a discussion with Qxyrian (also on Reikasama's page) it appears actually possible that this could happen, but I don't know if its true in this case.

So (I think) he is saying that some of the article is actually about the western term even though it appears to be about the Japanese term. I don't speak Japanese (other than to order noodles) and I know practically nothing of anime and manga of any kind. Could those more knowledgeable discuss this, particularly any Japanese speakers. If he's right, it may mean that when something is read in translation, it uses the word lolicon, where the underlying text didn't use ロリコン. Or something like that.

Reikasama might perhaps confirm if I've understood him - without using the term 'true', because both meanings are 'true' (ie verifiable). The only concern is whether or not there is a difference in usage which is not being picked up. If it isn't happening, then it may be down to a language difficulty on Reikasama's part, but if it is, it may be that English speaking editors have the language difficulty. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

All languages have words with multiple meanings. Another example is otaku and another is hentai -- and there are others as well. What we need to do when we write something for Wiki is to give those meanings, with reliable references for each one. We don't get to say one of them is right and another is wrong. Sometimes the term lolicon refers to a kind or sort of cartooning, as in saying "That is an example of lolicon" and sometimes the same word refers to an individual, as in saying "He's a lolicon," meaning that he has a Lolita Complex. Usually the context tells you which meaning is intended. Just add some references and the issue should become a LOT clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well not at all, if you use a word made in my country with another meaning in your i tell you "learn better how to speak my language". A word has only 1 original and real meaning. Infact in this case the variant was invented from scratch in the west like a internet meme. Same for otaku and hentai, otaku is a denigratory word while hentai mean "pervert" in Japan. These words has no more meaning in the original country, this is the difference i was referring when you made an article to explain a foreign terminology. Reikasama (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, for me the true meaning is the original one, then we have the wester variant. This should be specified in the article more clear because atm is not. So i was propose to merge the two topics "Genre characteristics" and "Meaning outside japan" because this word is referred as a genre but only in the west and these two topics and in contraddiction on each other. How you want make this change more clear is up to you because i don't have enought rank to edit a semi-locked page for now. Reikasama (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has changed anything and don't care i merged the 2 titles according to the latest discussion above. Feel free to adjust the article but be carefull that in Japan in NOT a genre expecially when there are references to original magazines and comics. I guess is the best compromise because people who read here should understand that the terminolgy is something invented and created in the west and not the original meaning. Reikasama (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Added new updates....

I waited a few days to weeks for someone to point out the story, but Japan's LDP is trying to get Lolicon banned again, so I submitted it. I hope I didn't make any mistakes. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1990s

The section has never been completed. Gravitoweak (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition, genre characteristics and meaning outside Japan.

I've been thinking that this is not a good division. A definition and characteristics are one in the same. This just makes it more confusing. The current division just makes it unclear what's what. What makes the difference between a "definition" and a "genre".

Also, I'm not sure if we should be mentioning works with relatively little sourcing here or on their page unless its clear there's overwhelming evidence they are lolicon artists by either self admission or more than 1 person's take for BLP concern. It very well could be a contentious label if they don't consider themselves to be and would be removed. I am talking mostly about Weekly Dearest My Brother which doesn't seem to claim from the text that it is labeled as actual lolicon and she is non-notable person. The others may be MPOV BLP issues since its only 1 source claiming all of those are such.

IMO the sections should be merged and divided into "defition and genre" with a subsections for "In Japan" and "Outside Japan". The info should be resorted (as it seems somewhat redundant) and the specific series references in the second section should be removed...atleast the one not by Darling.∞陣内Jinnai 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no citation for this: "In the 1980s, lolicon manga became widely available in a number of anthology pornographic manga magazines. In 1989, a serial killer was found to be a devoted lolicon fan, creating a moral panic and calls for regulation of manga." What serial killer? Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.156.14 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed them from the intro, I think it's too specific to be there. It is already on History section, including the killer (Tsutomu Miyazaki?). pmt7ar ^(talk) 06:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is late but I want to add, マンション ('manshon') means big apartment in japanese, but obviously isn't that meaning elsewhere. On the Japanese wiki this would be its meaning but here it's clearly not classified as a 'large apartment'. The same goes for lolicon. Japan is one of THE most egregious offenders when it comes to creating false friends, so a debate about keeping the 'original' meaning of the japanese word seems hypocritical in that regard, especially if you see other, less controversial terms like 'Hentai' (which have a very different meaning in the West and in Japan). All modern languages are/were composites (there are no living languages today that don't at least have some loanwords from other languages); Japanese itself borrows words from Chinese which look identical but have vastly different meanings (勉強 comes to mind). Languages do not 'own' meanings any more than Japanese owned anything in the first place to begin with (or English for that matter). θvξrmagξ ^contribs 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Why does this article have a picture? This seems totally inappropriate and unnecessary. Tiggum (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The image is clearly there to show, and describe with its caption, what lolicon looks like. I'm sure that most of our readers are not familiar with manga or anime, the typical styles used for those artworks. But you are not the first to complain about that picture; see Talk:Lolicon/Archive 15#Child Porn? Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED, the picture helps the article as it shows what lolicon is, just as Vagina or Penis (To name two) have pictures showing what they are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel everything, including the picture, is trying to make "lolicon" synonymous with "pedophile". I completely disagree with this. Many materials involving lolicons portray them as people who want to keep loli characters pure and protect them, rather than sexually assault them. A pedophile is the exact opposite of what a lolicon is. A lolicon finds a loli cute and seeks to preserve them in that state for as long as they can, where a pedophile finds them sexually attractive and seeks to violate, corrupt, and sexually assault them. It may be true that a lolicon finds a loli attractive, but not always in a sexual sense, more of a fatherly love. This does not mean there are no cases where a lolicon would be sexually attracted to a loli, but a lolicon would never assault a loli, that goes against what it means to be a lolicon. I would also like to point out that the majority of loli characters are MUCH older than 14 years old. ---Ruckkus 10/23/2013 207.254.244.56 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The article, including the picture, is not "trying to make 'lolicon' synonymous with 'pedophile'." It has a Definition section, for example, that makes clear what a pedophile is and is not. Yes, the article also addresses child sexual abuse and the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors, but that is because various WP:Reliable sources discuss those matters with regard to lolicon. Those matters do not necessarily equate to pedophilia. Pedophilia is about the mental aspect (primarily or exclusively sexually desiring a prepubescent child); child sexual abuse is about actually acting on such sexual desires.

Also, properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

All manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography?

SqueakBox, with regard to this edit, I'm not sure that all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography. And, after all, there is the pornography debate in this article. And with regard to this image request you made, see the section immediately above this one about whether or not that image is pornographic. I'll alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai to these matters so that they might comment on them. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Going directly after the definition it is not. Works of lolicon might be innocent to erotic up to pornographic, but they are definitely not exclusively pornographic. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

About that, Niabot (／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼), someone might want to tweak the current definition of cartoon pornography in the Cartoon pornography article since the only criteria it gives is "erotic or sexual situations." Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference to cartoon pornography is referring to the depictions of lolicon manga or lolicon anime as "erotic-cute" and that makes it soft pornography, that is my edit isnt claiming that all lolicon is pornography. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your edit is about the manga and anime aspect of lolicon, not the other things that lolicon refers to; that is why I addressed the manga and anime aspect of lolicon in my initial post above in this section. The sentence is currently presented in a way that makes it seem as though all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography; it states: It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime cartoon pornography where childlike female characters are often depicted in an "erotic-cute" manner (also known as ero kawaii), in an art style reminiscent of the shōjo manga (girls' comics) style. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see what Niabot stated above about "erotic" not necessarily meaning "pornographic." Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just have a look at the current image inside the lolicon article. It does not fall under pornography and is drawn in a typical style for anime and manga. Actually there are quite a lot of works that belong to the lolicon genre, but are not pornographic or even erotic at all. The current wording suggests that all manga or anime depicting so called "lolis" would be pornographic. Some examples are Kodomo no Jikan, Ro-Kyu-Bu!, Astarotte no Omocha! and so on. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am very opening to changing the wording but would like to see the cartoon pornography article linked to still, if we can manage that♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I undid your edit for now, if you can place the link someplace in the article explaining how some lolicon are not porn while others are or that sort then go ahead just I do not see it belonging in the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)