Talk:Lolicon/Archive 14

lede URL encoding
Two of the URLs used in this article are improperly encoded; they use Japanese characters that properly need to be encoded in hex. In technical terms, they are 'malformed'. Someday this will not be necessary, but we're not there; I wish were were. I'm quite sure of this, and HTML Validator brought it to my attention (a Firefox add-on based in part on HTML Tidy).

cite [3], at the end of the first sentence:


 * http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/Index.aspx?TWords=ロリコン&st=0&DailyJJ=checkbox

should be either of:


 * http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/Index.aspx?TWords=%E3%83%AD%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3&st=0&DailyJJ=checkbox
 * http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/?TWords=%E3%83%AD%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3&st=0&DailyJJ=checkbox

I suggest using the second of the two above, as specifying "Index.aspx" is not necessary; both are valid.

cite [6] at the end of the second sentence:


 * http://eow.alc.co.jp/ロリコン/UTF-8/?ref=sa

should be:


 * http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3/UTF-8/?ref=sa

I've no opinion on the cites themselves.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ It should be noted that this isn't an endorsement of anything, I'm just answering the editprotected request. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The second edit inadvertently removed the 'title', which needs restoring ASAP; it's in the diff but amounts to adding:
 * |title=ロリコン after the url; after 'sa'.
 * Thanks, Jack Merridew 20:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. I can find such issues, day-in, day-out, but mostly won't bother with this editing via proxies ;) Jack Merridew 20:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Terima kasih, that's fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit - At the 42 reference shouldn't it be "... Miyazaki's sexual fantasies", instead of "... Miyazaki's sexual fantasies,". There is no comma in the source. wiooiw (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

template
An editor has added and then restored a template to this talk page to the effect of "WP:NOTCENSORED, so hands off the picture in this article", claiming this is for those innocents who don't know WP:NOTCENSORED. However, the last two people to take exceptions to the image in this article are me (some time back) and Gwen Gale (recently). We are neither of us innocents and don't need to have WP:NOTCENSORED hammered into our eyeballs every time we access a talk page. I take the addition of this template to be a subtle effort to stifle discussion, and I am against it, so I have removed it. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been plenty of attempts to remove the image since it replaced File:Lolicon example.jpg on the bases that it is "child pornography" even though the image clearly isn't, so I think the talk page tag is justified. One could argue just how useful the tag is though. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I should also note that the template's documentation states that is is for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content. The article's history is very clear that it is prone to editors attempting to censor the image. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully realize there will still be attempts in the future. I am under no illusions that placing this tag will somehow magically stop people from complaining. If it stops even one person though given this question is continually raised time and time again, its worth saving the time and energy that can be used to improve Wikipedia. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "...if it stops even one person [from complaining]..." um, people are allowed to complain. Discussion is healthy. I personally don't have a problem with this image. Other have, partly on the basis that it is, after all, not lolicon. Even the argument that the image could be replaced with a less risable one is perfectly valid. The use of phrases like "...editors censoring..." is inflammatory rather than helpful in these situations. Herostratus (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I am not in favour of plastering templates at the top of a talk page, but this page is an exception. Anyone who wants to discuss a new image for the article is free to do so, but simply removing it and saying "I find this offensive" would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. This is useful piece of advice for newcomers.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically who i meant this for. Might not stop all of those types, but that's what i meant about "even one person". If someone has a legitimate greievence or alternative then that's different. It also means they can go post on the policy page and question them. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems then that your problem is with the template itself, and not its placement on this page. I might suggest that you TfD it if you find the template that offensive. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I support having the template on this page. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the template being here. Discussion is not censorship 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that the intent of the template is (obviously) to censor free discussion. I leave the contemplation of subjects such as "How We Become What We Hate" as an exercise for the reader. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's intention is to stop people from coming here with WP:IDONTLIKEIT complaints and that being their only reason they want it removed. It's not to stop serious discussion. It is also to informed people about Wikipedia's policy on censorship of which many are ill informed when they complain here. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I have read the words that you have typed. Herostratus (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as "discussion" on Wikipedia is concerned, aren't we supposed to discuss how we can make improvements to the article, rather than debate about the subject matter it covers? 159.230.142.227 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden

 * Översättare döms för barnporr från Japan in Arbetarbladet web counter part of Swedish newspaper RS
 * Court says manga translator’s research is child pornography English blog not RS

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Re this edit. The edit was intended to avoid original research or making the source say something that was not specifically stated. The source at |title=????|publisher=SPACE%20ALC is in Japanese (not one of my languages), so could someone translate here? The claim that Lolicon and paedophilia are interchangeable would need clarification. The legal status of this type of art is controversial, but it could be seen as POV pushing or legal advice to imply that it is illegal. The reality is that Lolicon comic books, although undoubtedly tasteless to many Western eyes, are sold legally in Japan.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well first would be how credible in comparison to western dictionaries/thesauruses is the site. Most English dictionaries aren't reliable even if they aren't user editable. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Promotes child abuse?
Again with these absurd concepts? A car is just a car, a gun is just a gun, and a videogame with people killing other people is just a videogame. How these things affect the reality perception of the user depends on the mental health of the user itself. Obese Civil Servant (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New image
Carleton Morrow -- Why not include a new image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Cara Carleton Morrow (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a controversial article and any new image would need a WP:CONSENSUS. It is also intriguing that the image 304014 - Azumanga Daioh Chiyo-chan.jpg is stated as being public domain and the work of the US government. Without a source given this seems unlikely.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, the new image is almost certainly a copyvio given that I got multiple TinEye hits for it and could find others besides that thru Google Image search, so I deleted it from Commons on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, even if it was copyright free, it would probably have been unsuitable for use in this article. This may have been someone's idea of a prank, but the matter is now closed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A picture from Azumanga Daioh would definitly be a copyright violation. --Niabot (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The first post in this thread is from a banned sockpuppet. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And account now locked cross wiki FWIW. -- Herby talk thyme 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section a tad long
I see eight diffrent paragraphs in the controversy section, is there a way to combine them better or put diffrent events in their own section under the Controversy umbrella? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

New anime and manga regulatory law
I'm wondering if most of that info should be here. Some of it should be as the history of its crafting is related to youthful characters, but I think the bulk of the details should be posted in manga and anime as it affects all characters. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

UNICEF Japan?
In the controversy section, there is a sentence stating that "UNICEF Japan issued a statement calling for further tightening of child pornography laws in Japan". Can someone check if this statement was actually issued by the tiny office of UNICEF in Japan, or by the Japan Committee for UNICEF, a large private corporation unaffiliated with UNICEF, often fronted by Agnes Chan. The latter organisation is well known for it's campaigns against Lolicon. David Bailey (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
I'm placing any dead links here. If someone can find an archive of it, or find another source which covers the same material, then we can use it again. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080603004518/http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/kuchikomi/292 ? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tokyo Assembly Passes Bill 156"
The article is so seriously out-of-date and/or incomplete that it cannot be promoted (IMO) to GA status without some major work. Google "Tokyo Assembly Passes Bill 156" or equivalent. This ordinance has generated complex controversies, and the single sentence in the article about the present legal situation is insufficient (it reads only that the bill "... was approved in December and will take full effect in July 2011"). Timothy Perper (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It says a bit more in the background, though some info on reaction to it could be added. Really though the bulk of this belongs either in its own article (if it has that much commentary) or in anime and manga because it covers more than just lolicon. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether you want to sweep the law under the rug or not. At the moment, it could be argued that the illustration used with this article violates that law. Or someone could argue the opposite. The answer isn't to say "Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball," but to decide on what the article needs to tell readers who, IMO, may well want more information than is in this article. I am reasonably well-informed about the issue, but -- as a reader and a sometime Wiki contributor -- I also expect more from this article than what is here. I don't think that a GA can get away with a simple cross-reference or two to other articles. You can get a lot more information from Google; I'm not going to supply it -- sorry, no time. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the picture here violates that law or not - which according to the governing body it doesn't - doesn't matter as it doesn't violate US law or Flordia law. As you say, there should be some more info here because of its history, but its broad impact is that it affects the whole of the anime and manga industry, thus it probably should be split as there is probably enough commentary on it alone. Summary style doesn't mean we just split it and don't leave any trace in this article, but once its developed enough we, like the title says, summarize the info here. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point about the law. It makes no difference what US or Florida law says except to lawyers and judges; no one has brought Wikipedia to court about this issue. The point is that the Tokyo ordinance assesses the legality or illegality of the picture -- that is what this ordinance is about. We who live in the US have no idea what such ordinances do or what they regulate. We live under the First Amendment of the Constitution; Japan and much of the rest of the world do not. It's like saying that it makes no difference if Falun Gong reigious practices are illegal in mainland China; they're not illegal here, so who cares? The issue is not settled by talking about the United States.

But there's more involved than civil rights issues. The crux of the matter is that this ordinance comes from some strongly held beliefs among certain political spokespeople about the wrongfulness of certain kinds of sexual behavior and attraction. Who are those spokespeople? The article ought to tell us who backed the law and why. And it ought to tell us also who opposed it and why. All that information is out there in reliable sources if you want to look for it. That is the sort of information the article needs to discuss, briefly, neutrally, and succinctly, and referenced properly. At the moment, the article is out-of-date. Sharon Kinsella's article -- it receives a whole paragraph -- is from 1998. That's 13 years ago. There's a lot more material out there than that. So somebody has to do their homework and update the article -- and that means a lot more than merely adding some see also references.

Timothy Perper (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you are adding some of this material. Good. Keep it up. Timothy Perper (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other sources from ANN: . As mentioned,there's enough material to make an article as that's just from 1 website. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. There are Japanese sources as well. It looks like the article is in good hands now, so I'll quit here. Good luck with it. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. I forgot. Here's an internet reference to Diamond's work, which is covered as well in the Diamond and Uchiyama study . It's dated 1998-1999, but both are still widely cited. However, both discuss child pornography, not "rorikon hentai", the Japanese expression for the content of this article. By "pornography," Diamond means sexually explicit depictions of children, not little girls clad "suggestively" like the picture at the start of the article. So the reference is, strictly speaking, not really relevant. The same is true for Diamond's 2009 paper "Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review," International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 (2009) 304-314 . So the present article still needs to be updated. OK, no time for more. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All of this is already in Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of Youths. The only thing this article needs to do is summaries the main article, but otherwise doesn't need to get too extensively involved in coverage to do WP:WEIGHT. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This bill made the New York Times today (Feb. 9, 2011). Here's the URL. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/business/global/10manga.html?_r=3&hp It makes no difference what's in some other article. We're dealing with this one. And this one is out-of-date and incomplete. Cut stuff, rewrite it, delete, whatever -- but fix it. The article Farix cited has something like FOUR tags about incompleteness and it's worse off, IMO, than this one. Farix, why don't you check the Kanemitsu references in the article Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of Youths and let us all know if these blogs are Wiki-reliable. There are a lot of other things to do as well. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to check something else. I googled the phrase "Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of Youths" and got 2,200 hits. Then I googled "lolicon" and got 7,780,000 hits, the first of which was this Wikipedia article. If someone wants to know stuff about lolicon and this ordinance, in all likelihood (IMO) they will google the word itself, and get this article. So this is the main article at least so far as accessibility to the public is likely to be concerned. So it stands to reason, I think, that the Lolicon article needs to be made as good as possible. Nihonjoe, you can call me a perfectionist -- not your word, though -- if you like, but I think it's simply commonsense to fix this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never said this article couldn't be improved (because it can always be improved). What I did state was that you refuse to accept the opinions of anyone else on anything because you seem to be unsatisfied with any article unless you write it completely by yourself, and that you get upset at anyone who doesn't write things how you thinks they should be written. Being a perfectionist isn't necessarily a problem, but when you refuse to accept that someone else may just know a thing or two about a topic just because their information doesn't sit well with your opinion or point of view, then that's where the problem is. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a short and selective memory, Nihonjoe. In this discussion itself, I have twice explicitly welcomed changes by other people -- Jinnai and Malkinann. And I mean welcome them. Why don't you reread the comments above and see for yourself? I do not have time to work on this article, but I can and have made some suggestions about it. It's up to other people to accept or reject those suggestions. It strikes me that it is you, not me, who does not want to hear suggestions you don't like, specifically the delisting of this article as GA against your recommendations. But despite those recommendations, this article will not, IMO, reach GA status unless it has some major changes. Jinnai and Malkinann are making some of them, and I repeat what I said before: more power to them. Those changes include repairing the misspelling of Frederik Schodt's name, which Malkinann fixed, to adding more material on Bill 156, as Jinnai has done -- and a problem that still exists, the Diamond and Uchiyama citation the article uses.
 * Instead of criticizing me, why don't you give us your opinion of Diamond's work? I don't mean merely the citation the article cites, which is from the late 1990s, but his updated paper, which covers much the same material but is from 2009 and, on that score alone, is the far preferable citation. But perhaps you disagree; so why don't you read it and tell us if you think the more recent paper -- or the earlier one -- has anything significant to do with lolicon imagery? I don't think it does but I'd like your opinion. And if it doesn't, then I suggest we remove it.
 * But notice -- and I will remind you if necessary -- I am asking for your opinion and the opinion of other people involved in improving this article. It's up to you, not me, what to do with this article. At the moment, it is slowly improving but it has a long way to go, and needs input from more than just me. Do you understand what I just said, Nihonjoe? We all work on these articles, not just one person, not just me, and not just you. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to get this article improved posting a donation bounty. It's not nessasary of course, but it may also help the attraction to get this article up to a level you would want since it'll have more exposure that there's someone out there that wants it improved. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were an article about Gundam models, it might be a useful strategy, but not for lolicon. The subject matter is just too close to child pornography to make it a safe topic. This has nothing to do with "Wikipedia isn't censored" -- it concerns inadvertently violating US federal laws about child porn. I do not recommend that anyone start a wholesale research project into lolicon manga and anime; it's easy to run afoul of US Federal Law and start downloading stuff that is illegal in the US -- and there are NO exemptions for "research" in US law about downloading such material. I don't know about Australia, but I'd be just as careful over there too. So, no, I am not going to ask anyone to do "bounty research" on the subject of lolicon.
 * In fact, I can't do much more on this article myself. I'm already overextended. Contrary to what Nihonjoe might think -- and it's a shame he's so upset, so maybe I can reassure him -- I have a great deal of respect for what you people (plural!) can do without me. So I am going to try once again to back off this article -- certainly I have no more references to give, and I have no time either. But I do trust your (plural) skills, and wish everyone the best of luck and success. But I can't do much more here at all. So, over to you (plural). Timothy Perper (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Shoujo manga and lolicon in dictionary of fiction
In the lead, lolicon is described as an outgrowth of shoujo manga, apparently attributing this to the Dictionary of Fiction. What does the Dictionary of Fiction have to say about the lolicon-shoujo manga connection, exactly? In the Zank paper and the Shigematsu paper, as I gather it, lolicon is viewed as more of a sexualised appropriation of the shoujo manga imagery, rather than an outgrowth of shoujo manga itself. I mean, perhaps I'm thinking of more josei manga being an outgrowth as in the shoujo grew up and so did their comics... but I'd appreciate a clarification of this matter. --Malkinann (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't own the book; it's Indian, edited by Ashish Pandey. According to Google Books, it makes only two references to "lolicon," one a four line definition in the glossary and one a single word reference under "shotacon" in the glossary. The glossary entries say nothing whatever about lolicon and shoujo manga. This book is a marginal reference at best for this article. (Added later): I agree with your reading of the Zank and Shigematsu papers. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got my copy of The Otaku Encyclopedia back so I'll check it. In the meantime, if that's the case for Pandey's book, it should be removed as a source and possibly be moved to further reading or removed. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the statement in the lead to instead read that the lolicon art style is an appropriation of the shoujo manga art style, citing it to the Zank and Shigematsu papers. The Pandey book, on google books, supports the shotacon-lolicon equivalency.  I suspect this apparent sourcing was just a mistake when the lead was expanded in response to the GA review. I don't expect the lolicon entry in TOE to be very useful here, although it might confirm the Russell Trainer cite we need - the ANN review of TOE gave me the impression that the author prefers to focus on the positive side of fandom. --Malkinann (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It does. I think it has some more info not on the page. My headache is too big atm though. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples?
A number of manga are mentioned as "being" or "exemplifying" lolicon, but the references aren't (IMO) sufficient to warrant the description. A reference to the primary source isn't enough, since the label "lolicon" is an interpretation or evaluation of the work, and needs a secondary reference as support -- as in saying "XYZ lists titles A, B, and C as examples of lolicon manga (references)". These are scattered throughout the article, and maybe, if reliable (secondary) sources can be found, they could be brought together in one category. The mere existence of young girls in this or that manga is not enough to let us assign the label "lolicon" to it. We have to quote someone, not depend on our own intuitions or feelings. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feel free to add a cn tag or remove them. The issue isn't just for lolicon; its rampant in many genre/classification articles. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me work on it for a bit (my time is short). In some cases, the primary source is all we need -- for example, we don't need secondary sources to show that the heroine of Maison Ikkoku is named Kyoko. But we do need them for interpretations or evaluations like the ones in this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally got hold of a copy of Michael Darling's paper on superflat and "lolicom" [sic]. Darling links lolicon portrayals to Murakami's "superflat" aesthetics and to a variety of misogynistic views of women. We can validly cite Darling for his clearly documented antipathy to lolicon, but I would like to locate additional views of the manga he cites. Speaking for myself only: given his antipathies, I am reluctant to trust his assertions about what is and is not "lolicon." So it's going to be a tricky business lest we ourselves inadvertently accept Darling's POV rather than attribute it to him and to his critical perspectives on modern Japanese art and what he seems to believe are the sexual (im)moralities of modern Japan. Well, if you can get the article, it'd help a lot to get some additional reactions to what Darling is saying and how to use it in this entry. BTW, what I'm saying here is standard scholarly caution about sources! Timothy Perper (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the negative bias will show in many of them. FE, Manga/Anime, Media Mix: Scholarship in a Post-Modern, Global Community authors clearly had a very negative opinion of the word labeling the men (or men replacements) as solely abusers/rapists. The rest of it was clearly negative connation as well. In the end, I decided to drop all but the declarative sentance about it being created for men by men lest we stray into NPOV issues. However, I think we might be able to use the sources for a section on its negative reception if there are enough. However, given its popularity and that it has backers, we would again be risking NPOV violations if there wasn't any countering reception or somewhat more balanced coverage (given that there have been proponents defending it). 陣 内 Jinnai 02:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been worrying about the same thing. Most of the writers don't hide their dislike for lolicon portrayals and for the men who buy the stuff or who like underage girls, whatever that word means. I can't find (so far, at least) much in the way of defense of lolicon portrayals, and nothing defending pedophilia or hebephilia. I think it's a very good strategy to drop "all but the declarative sentences", as you said. More below, under the "refs" heading. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rizelmine reference: I just removed a quote from the reference footnote about Rizelmine that is irrelevant to the issue. It's an example of how the original author's anti-lolicon POV sneaks into the article. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't; either way, IMO it doesn't belong here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research problem
"restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime. This is exemplified in a case involving a man from Virginia who asserted at his arrest that after viewing lolicon at a public library, he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon."

The source for "restricting...crime" is in Japanese - how reliable is it, and can we find a corroborating source in English? While the man from Virginia may have quit accumulating real child pornography and switched to lolicon, the way it's treated is problematic. "This is exemplified" is drawing a link between the creation/accumulation of lolicon and the presumed reduction of sexual crime. How do we fix this one? --Malkinann (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I pulled up the website and did a Babelfish-style computer translation. It seems to be a discussion of various procedures for dealing with illegal material on the web, with discussions of protocols for handling such material, but I admit immediately I was not at all sure I understood what they were driving at. They mention child "pornography" but don't define it, so I suspect that they mean sexually explicit depictions of children rather than lolicon portrayals. In any event, there doesn't seem to be a substantive presentation of the "escape valve" theory of pornography, which says that it allows a harmless escape valve for otherwise anti-social impulses, thereby reducing the actual or real crime rate. The section doesn't seem to contain any references to the "escape valve" idea, and it struck me simply as the author's opinion (or hope).
 * So far as us using it as a source, the word "might" quoted by Malkinann is the crux: "restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime" (emphasis added). Yes, it might; but then again, it might not. The question for us is whether or not the word "might" is good enough for the Lolicon article. This source might (or might not!) be a useful reference for supporting the claim that sources on the internet/web do argue that child pornography is harmless, but beyond that (a) it doesn't seem to mention lolicon and (b) has no sources for its statements and hence seems merely to be someone's otherwise unsupported opinion. If you give me some time I can find some references (reliable ones, too) to the "escape valve" theory of pornography, but, once again, these will deal with pornography, not lolicon.
 * The phrase "this is exemplified" is OR, and can be taken out, IMO. Besides which, one case is hardly evidence of anything at all. In fact, it's fine with me to remove both sentences. Lemme see if I can dig up the Japanese for the material Malkinann quoted. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. Here, from http://www.iajapan.org/hotline/center/20060531public.html. It's way at the end.


 * 漫画・アニメ・ゲーム等における性表現を規制しても、性犯罪の減少にはつながらない. 規制することで代償行為を奪われるため、かえって性犯罪が増加するのではないか.


 * Regulating the sex expression in the cartoon animation game and the like, it is not connected to the decrease of characteristic crime. Because compensation behavior is taken by the fact that it regulates, it doesn't mean that characteristic crime increases rather? (Or thus sayeth Babelfish translation.)


 * So it's not actually a statement at all, but a rhetorical question. TBH, I don't think this is a Wiki-reliable source. So, IMO, it can be removed. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The source (Internet Association Japan, see their site) appears to be reliable. Whether the information is being misinterpreted or being misconstrued is another story. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tim, I can only find the "escape valve" theory briefly mentioned on Wikipedia in the attraction to disability article - it isn't in the pornography article or its daughter articles. I've moved the stuff about the Virginia case to the daughter article on the legality of cartoon pornography, and placed a template on the IAJ citation to request a quote & translation so that we can verify what's being said - and if it's being misinterpreted or misconstrued.  Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me dig up some stuff about escape valves, but it will be about porn, not lolicon. Thanks, Nihonjoe, for the comment about the reliability of the IAJ source. I don't see how a rhetorical question is a useful source for the lolico article. Now, another question: the following quote from the article:
 * Conversely, the great cultural respect associated with old age would make it incompatible with portraying ecchi behavior in manga, except in a greatly exaggerated farce context (typical examples being "Dirty Old Men", Dragon Ball's Master Roshi, Master Happosai in Ranma ½).
 * seems to be irrelevant to the article. In other words, it might be true, and it might not, but either way it makes no difference to lolicon. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gone - it doesn't seem to be part of lolicon. Had a brief poke-round in the web edition of Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke, and I couldn't source it.  Having some information about escape valves in another article would be quite helpful, thanks Tim. :)  --Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Problem Paragraph
The article says:
 * "Sexual manga featuring children or childlike characters are called lolicon manga and are legal in Japan.[6][12] Kodomo no Jikan is an example of a series that, while not pornographic, draws on lolicon themes for its plot.[citation needed] Lolicon is also a subject of criticism in the Superflat art movement.[2][13]"

Yeah, well, the first clause in sentence #1 needs to go way up front in the lead, and the second clause, about legality, has to be removed. The new Tokyo ordnance changes the whole legal landscape. The second sentence has no source. And the third sentence should be moved way down to one of the later sections. So I'll give it a day or so and then make the changes. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it shoudln't be removed because of the ordinance, but updated to reflect changes. Ie, that the were legal, with reference to the new law. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, of course you're right. You OK with the other changes? Timothy Perper (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Illustration
Where did this come from? The caption cites Darling, page 82, and this image is NOT on page 82 of the Darling paper. The data page says it's original art by Midnight68, whose user page says has been blocked indefinitely. There is no indication that the young woman being shown is underage -- whatever that means -- so it doesn't seem to be an authentic Japanese lolicon portrayal. It's a standard manga panchira drawing, which are common enough -- if you'd like a real one, I can give you one: do a Google Image search for "Tenjho Tenge Volume 1" and compare the covers of the US and German editions. The US cover is censored, covering her panties, and the German edition is not censored. Well, that doesn't mean that Ten-ten is lolicon! This image has a very strange history, and I'm getting all sorts of seemingly contradictory things. I'll be back in a bit with more. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Feh. Not a simple history. The image is fairly widespread on the internet, attributed to "Blackshade9" on DeviantArt, where the artist has been banned permanently. Other places indicate that whoever "Blackshade9" is, he specializes in panty drawings and game design along the same lines. I found nothing indicating that Yuko -- that's the girl's name as given on these websites -- is supposed to be "underage." No citations or websites directed me to any Japanese language websites nor to any Japanese publications of "Kogaru Diaries," supposedly the name of the computer game "Blackshade9" designed himself and illustrated. Nothing I encountered indicated that the illustration is authentically Japanese or that it shows an "underage" girl's panties. I don't mean I found some "unreliable" sources; I didn't find any at all. So, no sources. Let me suggest getting rid of this image as inauthentic and improperly attributed first to Darling's paper and second to Midnight68. No good. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We already had some deletions on commons in the past of this images. Since some of them could be considered a crime, which also lead to closing his account. "Very low artistic value and just one thing in mind". I wouldn't consider it lolicon art. --Niabot (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My many thanks. I will be bold and remove it in a day or so unless people can come up with reasons to keep it. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it under the principle of facio is discedo or as we would say in English "No. Just... no". Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A fine solution. Thank you. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was User:Malkinann, here. I see that User:Malkinann has made a lot of edits here just now - they are intertwined with User:Jinnai who is also making a lot of edits right now, so it's kind of hard to sort them out. I'll assume that this particular edit was just a lapse in judgment, but if anyone wants to take a quick look scan the other material added by User:Malkinann and check that it's OK that'd be good (I'm not very familiar with the article or subject so I'm not well positioned to do this.) Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it was a good faith addition by Malkinann. She's a very competent editor, and a major contributor to the much-needed -- and tedious -- overhaul this article is now seeing. Yes, changes are coming in quickly now, as we all get with the purposes, which are (a) to eliminate garbage added in the past, not evil, just irrelevant; (b) to add as many high quality references as we can; and (c) to stay as NPOV as we possibly can, not an easy job, given how much this topic angers and upsets people. But those are the purposes... Timothy Perper (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 82 of the Darling paper says something like "Schoolgirls who often show their white underwear are common characters in lolicon manga and anime." I wanted to add that information to the genre section, but was not sure how I could fit it into the current flow of the words.  I was familiar with the image from the recent WPTAN fanservice argument, so I put the image in as an example of schoolgirls showing their underwear, with the caption cited to Darling. --Malkinann (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine, did not mean in any way to call into question your fine work here, which is appreciated, sorry if I was out of line. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IMAGE I agree that a real lolicon image may be called for (note the word may). By "real," I mean one that is of reliably known Japanese origin, from manga or anime, with a source we can document. The opening image was drawn, I gather, for this article by User:Kasuga, the same artist who drew Wikipetan. I do not wish to open up another prolonged battle about lolicon images, but I think that if we use any lolicon image it has to be directly sourceable to origins in manga or anime made and published in Japan. Otherwise, it is the graphic equivalent of Original Research. That eliminates run-of-the-mill, garden-variety (= meaning very common) panchira images; the image must be "genuine" lolicon. It must also be made very clear that we are citing it not in approval but for its encyclopedic value.
 * I am also well aware that at least some editors and users might prefer that no such images appear anywhere on Wikipedia. For many readers, editors, and users, such images are genuinely offensive. This issue cannot, IMO, be resolved merely by reciting memorized phrases that "Wikipedia isn't censored." We aren't talking about censorship; we're talking about trying to avoid a firefight like the one that broke out recently over Wikipetan and also trying to avoid a rerun of the accusations Sanger made against Wikipedia that it supports and disseminates images that are, for the critic, morally equivalent to child pornography.
 * So we need to be extremely careful, especially about documenting our reasons for using any lolicon image we decide to use, if we do in fact decide to use one. Frankly, and speaking only for myself, I think the easiest course would be to exclude all such images. But that decision needs to be made consensually and not unilaterally.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we even having this convo? The image on the page is fine in my opinion, it gives an idea about what lolicon is but does not cross the line as being overdoing it. So my question would be why remove an image that serves the encyclopedia good? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its because its not clear its really lolicon, ie a prepubescent girl. The page doesn't really define the term very well and the few sources I have define it as such. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So would asking User:Niabot to draw a free use image of lolicohn be a good idea then? I have a feeling that after Jimbo deleted Kasuga's loli wikipe-tan drawing he went easy on the new image in order not to offend. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be asking anyone to draw anything for this article. That's inventing the data, aka original research. This article needs authentic example(s) if it needs anything at all (which can be argued pro and con). What Wales or anyone else thinks of Wikipetan or of the drawings associated with this article simply does not matter: the principle is that anything we add to Wikipedia has to be directly traceable to a reliable external source, because otherwise the five pillars say No, you can't do that. If I wasn't clear the first time, I hope that's clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Phooey -- I forgot to add something. Nor does the quality (= excellence, skill, appeal, allure) of the drawing matter. The issue is that the image has to be directly traceable to a reliable external source, otherwise we can't use it. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The image in current use at the top of the page is as authentic a lolicon image as any other, and since it is free, we can not use a non-free image. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 08:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the image is "authentic" lolicon. "Authentic" means it can be traced to an external reliable source, not created by an artist affiliated with Wikipedia as an "lolicon-ish" picture. The question of free or not-free is irrelevant; no one says we must use a picture at all. It might be nice if we did, but we do not have to -- for example, we might instead use the kanji for rorikon hentai as an alternative instead. Moreover, Wikipedia already has lolicon images, one at Lemon People and one at Manga Burikko that have identifiable external sources (in these cases, magazine covers). We might, for example, use the image at the Manga Burikko entry. But external reliable sources are essential for any image that we claim to be lolicon. Otherwise, we're just making it up. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to remove the image are getting tiresome. This has been discussed here many, many times, and it has been decided multiple times over that the image is an accurate depiction of the topic of the article. The image was created at the request of a few editors here so the project could have a free image to use as, per the WP:NONFREEIMAGE policy, we can not use a non-free image in this article unless we specifically discuss it in depth within this article. The image is a lolicon image, though certainly not the only one ever created. Anyone who does even a minimum of research will be able to determine that the image fits the basic description of lolicon imagery within this article. Unless you want to take on the task of convincing the WMF board to change their non-free image policy, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another issue now arises. Can we use the cover illustration of Manga Burikko for the Lolicon article? At first glance, the answer seems obvious -- of course we can. However, some difficulties arise that I feel sure other editors may raise. So let's deal with them first.
 * The fair-use rationale for downloading the Manga Burikko image says it will be used to illustrate the cover of the magazine, which is certainly the case here. But the fair use rationale also says that the cover has been downloaded to illustrate the article on Manga, which I assume means the article on Manga Burikko. And that is where the problem is. Someone opposing the use of this image can quickly object that the image was not downloaded with the rationale of illustrating the article on Lolicon and therefore cannot be used here. This objection is known as Wiki-lawyering and is of undisputed effectiveness in stopping things dead in their tracks.
 * I'd like to avoid this sort of endless argument because we need to get this article out of a trap -- namely the use of inadequately referenced assertions and opinions, all strongly held, all held in good faith, but all out-of-line, as I believe, with the purposes of Wikipedia. We're trying to get this article promoted, eventually, to GA status, and I'm not here to wiki-lawyer with people. Sooner or later, the current illustration will have to be removed, but shall we replace it with a neutral image of, say, the Japanese kana for "lolicon" or should we use the already downloaded Manga Burikko image? BTW, there is no doubt that Manga Burikko is a lolicon manga magazine. Please share your opinions on the question. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that we absolutely cannot use the Manga Burikko image for anything other than that article. (It could also possibly be used in an article on the artist (whoever he is) if we had one, and if for some crazy reason we had an entire article on that exact drawing we could maybe also use it there. But that is it.) For an analogy, consider the cover of the Pink Floyd album Dark Side of the Moon. An image of that can be used in the article on that album or an article on that artist, but it could not be used in Prism (optics) or Album cover art or Modern art or Top-selling albums or anywhere else. Fair use exceptions are pretty restrictive. If the uploading rationale said otherwise, it's wrong. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I won't argue about this issue -- it isn't worth my time or effort. There may be all sorts of reasons internal to Wikipedia why this image has to be used, but it is nonetheless not lolicon manga or anime. Nihonjoe may find it "tiresome" to discuss whether or not Wikipedia can or should use invented images and/or data, but so far as the rest of us are concerned ("us" out here, who visit Wikipedia from time to time and contribute in specific areas (like me), or who use Wikipedia as a source of reliable information) -- well, for the rest of us, it's not authentic. If that's OK with you, I won't argue about it. It's the equivalent of Original Research and ought not to be acceptable. But, hey, that's up to you. A better analogy might be to say if I drew a sketch and said it was a Picasso look-alike picture for illustrating the entry on Picasso, well, (a) it isn't and (b) if you don't care, I won't waste my time arguing. It's that simple. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention. The identical argument has been going on about the Hentai entry as well. This problem isn't limited to Lolicon. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As an long time follower of anime and manga i can assure you, that this image is representative. The style is a little bit older, not following the recent developments, but as it is, it fits the topic perfectly. It can well be considered lolicon art, while not being overly offensive. We should always consider that anime and manga style isn't limited to Japanese people or people living in Japan. There are two different cases. The one of copying the style of a single artist (Picasso) and more general styles that have a strong variety and not one distinct author.
 * Regarding the image from Manga Burikko: This would be an bad illustration. It shows a little girl, but it doesn't show any direct relation to lolicon. In this case it wouldn't be educative. Im not even sure, if another title page would be even more suitable for this magazine. --Niabot (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I have published quite extensively in the scholarly print literature about sexuality, manga, and anime. I won't list any of my publications; they aren't directly relevant. Concerning Picasso, I am sure you as an artist know that Picasso (and Braques) were much more than "individual artists" -- they were founders of so-called Modern Art, for example, in Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon with its some 40,000 images retrievable on Google Images. So it is quite possible to imitate the Modernism of Picasso, just as someone can imitate the style of lolicon or hentai. But such imitations, even if excellent technically, are not "the real thing" -- they are still imitations. Thus, the problem with the illustration used for Lolicon is not quality of the mimicry; the problem is that the work cannot be traced back to an original for its style, manner, or form. To people indifferent to visual aesthetics, this may seem to be a minor or trivial issue, but it is not, not really. I urge the view that if the "real thing" exists, it should be referenced directly.


 * Second, the Lolicon article does not adequately make an important distinction (one of the major issues with the article). That distinction, which I've mentioned in passing before, is between "rorikon" (ロリコン) and "rorikon hentai" (ロリコン へんたい or ロリコン変態). (Again, I'll skip the references here, but see below.) The difference is in the degree of sexualization of the model, which can range from nearly none (as in the cover the Manga Burikko issue illustrating that article) to quite extreme, examples of which can be retrieved from a Google Image search for "lolicon hentai." Kasuga's drawing in the present article is towards the anatomically non-explicit end of the spectrum, and thus is "representative" only of one kind or type of rorikon imagery. His illustration, whose quality is undisputable, is therefore only one glimpse of a much wider range of imagery. I am not suggesting illustrating all of that range, but we need to understand, I believe, that it is only one slice through a much larger phenomenon. For example, Michael Darling, writing in the Art Journal (an essay cited in the Lolicon article) believes that Alien Nine is "lolicon" whereas McCarthy and Clements, in their two encyclopedias of sexually explicit anime, hold that the sexuality of lolicon portrayals is characteristically much more to the front. Obviously those are opinions, but they clearly illustrate that there is no single type or kind of lolicon image. However, I do not want to burden down this comment with references.


 * My personal opinion is that the article on lolicon needs to deal with this complexity. I (also personally) have no objections to the content of such images, but the Kasuga illustration exemplifies lolicon only if we know beforehand that that is what it is supposed to be. Otherwise, it is simply a picture of three girls, without much obvious meaning. Only the context tells us it is supposed to be lolicon. One of the purposes of a citation to a reliable source is that the source provides -- or would provide -- that context, by locating the image in a specific style or manner. Other images may be equally useful for that purpose -- I have no vested interest in using the Manga Burikko image, and have been told authoritatively that it cannot be used. Well, that's fine; I'm not going to argue that point. There are still alternatives, like using the kana or kanji for "lolicon." But the lack of direct traceability of the Kasuga image to a reliable external source is, to my way of thinking, a serious problem that needs to be addressed for this article, perhaps addressed once again, but addressed nonetheless. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, Kasuga's illustration could equally well be used to illustrate an article somewhere on "girl's slumber parties" and therefore lack any and all implication of sexuality. It is only the caption -- and the sources the image and caption are based on -- that lead our minds and eyes to "see" anything lolicon-ish about the image. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed Tag for Lolicon Magazines
There was a citation needed tag next to the titles of three lolicon-related manga magazines. One of them is Manga Burikko and I added the reference from that entry to this article. I temporarily removed the other two titles = Lemon People and Comic LO -- pending finding sources identifying them as lolicon-related. The Comic LO entry has such a source, but it is an archive and was not working when I tried it. The Lemon People entry had no sourcing, but I hope one will be forthcoming. If you have such references, please add them. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added Comic LO back to the article, following Manga Burikko. The archival source was working when I tried it, so I think we're OK here. Now I'll try to find something for Lemon People. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Lemon People may be harder. I found a number of mirror sites of the Wikipedia entry, and a few others, but in Japanese, and I do not know if they are reliable or even relevant. Pending further poking around on the web, and someone else who can look also, this will have to wait. Given that the entry itself for "Lemon People" doesn't have any in-line citations, this may be tricky and take some time. But we now have 2/3 of the originally unsourced statements with sources, which is a definite improvement IMO. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With many thanks to several colleagues, here are some references for "Lemon People" manga. I do not have either book, and they are both in Japanese. (1) Yonezawa Yoshihiro ( 米沢 嘉博) 戦後エロマンガ史 = Sengo Ero Manga-shi. ISBN 4883792587; and (2) Nagayama Kaoru エロマンガ・スタディーズ = Eromanga sutadiizu. ISBN 4872577329. There are some other sources not yet published as well. If anyone has these books or wants to look for them on different Japanese websites, that'd be a help. Amazon.co.jp offers them both for sale (search for the ISBN). I've also located another reference for Manga Burikko, this a book in French (and which I do have). I'll add the reference shortly. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, added the reference and fixed up some other stuff also. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

LEADCITE
I feel that the subject matter of this article is sufficiently controversial for us to ignore the general proscription against citations in leads and instead to heed WP:LEADCITE's advice that "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged requires citations - I challenged the relationship of shoujo manga to lolicon just recently. I feel that the lead needs to be fully cited. --Malkinann (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple things that should be, such as the age range, but there were still far too many cites there. Just because we may ignore it, it shouldn't be free license to treat it as the rest of the article and cite everything. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not, given that that is exactly what LEADCITE recommends in this circumstance? This article is controversial, and the lead contains material that is likely to be challenged, even as the rest of the article does. (esp. the 'why of lolicon' stuff I've been adding from Shigematsu etc.)   The lead is not exempt from needing citations, and I would argue that it needs to be fully-cited, due to the nature of the beast we are working with here. --Malkinann (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the lead is done the way it should be and only summarizes the rest of the article, then it doesn't need any citations at all because they will be found throughout the rest of the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least IMO, the lead and the text need to mention (a) differences between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebephilia -- nothing long, just so the reader knows about them; (b) the difference between "lolicon" -- meaning girls portrayed in sexual-emotional situations -- and "lolicon hentai" or "rorikon hentai," meaning more or less explicit sexualization of young-looking girls; and (c) the existence of animation-based lolicon in the late 1980s-1990s Cream Lemon series (for example). That means a new set of references will be needed in the text, e.g., to the encyclopedic work by Helen McCarthy and Jonathan Clements. But if these are properly documented in the main text, then we won't need to reference them in the lead. That means a lot more work is still needed before this reaches GA status, at least IMO.Timothy Perper (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, folks. I put something in here I didn't intend to -- so I removed it and shifted it down to a new section. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reorganise article?
I experimentally reorganised the article in an attempt to get rid of the gender roles section and to improve the lead. It's not entirely perfect, but thoughts? --Malkinann (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are people editing both of these versions at the same time? It looks like it, which is confusing. How about just doing one at a time instead? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its stabalized enough for the time being. It's mostly us 3 doing any work on it atm and I have no issues with it. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're making some progress here. Slowly, to be sure, but bit by bit. I just found out that Lolicon is listed as one of Wikipedia's "controversial" articles. I'd never have guessed ;-). Timothy Perper (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to reassure Malkinann that I have not been ignoring her reorganization, even if we spell the word differently. We're focussed on somewhat different components of the process of fixing this article. I've been adding details to the existing draft, trying to raise the level of sourcing, ideas, and writing, whereas Malkinann has the "larger picture" in mind. I agree completely that we're going to have to reorganize the article, and I like her efforts in that direction. But speaking only for myself I'm not into that level of rewriting yet. I hope that's OK with you, Malkinann! Timothy Perper (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some switches in the paragraph order to try to bring the overall structure closer to what Malkinann seems to have in mind. I hope I didn't get her intentions wrong. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the major sources (Shigematsu, Ito and Zank) had been gathered and used (though, in the case of Shigematsu, not used fully) and that we could now reshuffle. To me, what Kinsella is saying is broadly the same stuff as what Ito is saying... so I feel we should put those together. --Malkinann (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside Japan section
I made some grammatical and other changes to this section. These are all relatively minor fixes on the writing. However, the section has some other problems. It seems to be in the wrong place, and doesn't actually refer to lolicon manga outside of Japan, but to what the word "lolicon" means to various mostly US writers. However, the disagreement described is quite real -- some people define lolicon to refer only to prepubescent children, but others include peripubescent children. We are going to need additional sources here, so the changes I put in are only a start. I have been asking outside colleagues for some help with the references, but that may take a bit of time. I'm going to change the section title to "Definitions outside of Japan." Timothy Perper (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Kodomo no Jikan, aka "Nymphet"
It's actually quite notorious in the field, because it's about an elementary school girl who falls in love with her teacher (and vice versa, I assume -- I've never read it). Then it got pulled from US publication by Seven Seas. The present article has a sentence saying it's lolicon, which seems to be true if we define lolicon as not necessarily explicitly sexual. But it needs a reliable reference. It's also not the only example of such things; CLAMP's Cardcaptor Sakura shows not only Sakura in love with Yuki, her brother's good buddy, but also shows an elementary school girl classmate of Sakura's in love with her teacher (and vice versa). Cardcaptor Sakura has no sex in it at all. But then we need a reliable reference for Cardcaptor Sakura. These references may be hard to come by. So how about we drop the issue? Or should we try to tackle it? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Kodomo no Jikan should be included without a doubt as it caused quite alot of news I dont know about the whole CLAMP thing. Kodomo no Jikan is lolicon, it involves the girl falling for her teacher and has erotic sections, and images in the story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Would images like these:, be telling enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd say so. The first one led me to a "no-hot-linking" page. We need to be hypercareful posting images -- not that that was your suggestion. I think something written would be preferable. Maybe something on ANN about the whole Nymphet mess? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats weird seeing that they do not own the images and no it was not. I will try and look up something written here, I think though that in one of the references over at Kodomo no jikan it goes into saying how the manga is lolicon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Other ref issues

 * "strange collusion which exists in Japanese culture between the hentai (pervert) and the kawaii (cute)." - since this is a quote, I'd like to know if it is listed as that or if the items in the parethese were added by users. Considering some other issues with quotes (the quite liberal usage of them for single-words) and refs, i'm not convinced its part of the original quote.
 * Also i removed a lot of the single-word quotes as they seemed to be splashed around quite liberally to the point that they destracted from the longer quotes. I also paraprahsed a few of the direct quotes. I think a few more could be paraphrased too. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the following unless someone can justify it:
 * comparable to the image of acheerleader in the United States. Burusera shops cater to men with lolicon complexes by selling unwashed panties, men can make dates with teenagers through terekura (telephone clubs),[19] and some schoolgirls moonlight as prostitutes.[20]
 * Cheerleaders in the US has no reference, and they aren't even similar to Japanese schoolgirls; if burusera is relevant to lolicon portrayals, a reference is needed; terekura is about prostitution, and so is the last reference. So add opinions, and it there's consensus, we can remove these. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Burusera shops cater to men with lolicon complexes by selling unwashed panties, men can make dates with teenagers through terekura (telephone clubs),[19] and some schoolgirls moonlight as prostitutes.[20]" isn't relevant to lolicon manga and anime, but it is relevant to lolicon as in the lolita complex - men being attracted to real, actual, young girls. --Malkinann (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that first part about panties really about lolicon? It sounds like it could be about any age female. I also think the latter is really lolicon. The definition seems rather vague as "underaged girls"; given that the general definition is prepubescent, I'd argue that its just another way of saying the same thing and thus anything with teenagers doesn't really belong here to begin with. 陣 内 Jinnai 11:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about this -- and that leads to another, maybe more important issue about this article. What is this article really about? The lead implies that "lolicon" refers to (a) attraction among real men to real underage girls, and (b) portrayals of underage girls in various erotically charged ways in manga and anime. I think we have to narrow it explicitly to one or the other. The first, it seems to me, belongs to pedophilia and hebephilia or to their derivative articles about such things in Japan (if those articles exist), while the second belongs to the realms of manga and anime, that is, to pop culch, cartoons, and the media. Most of the article itself deals with the second issue, not the first, and I think we should keep it that way. Maybe in the lead we need something like "This article deals with portrayals of underage girls in manga and anime; for attraction to pre- and peripubescent children, see -- " and then we name the other articles. Ideally, we could change the article name, from "Lolicon" to "Lolicon in manga and anime." Whaddya think? I, for one, know very little about the psychiatric or sociological issues of pedophilia and hebephilia.Timothy Perper (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made some adjustments/revisions to the text about Azuma and the early history of lolicon manga, and also added some citation needed tags. The changes have all been checked against the cited sources and are now correct. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, getting back to Jinnai's original question. Here's the quote from the newspaper article, which I got through a UK library service after some waiting.
 * The Decora-chan girls also hint at the strange collusion which exists in Japanese culture between the hentai (pervert) and the kawai (cute). It also points up an interesting parallel between the international indie-zine movement's obsession with innocence and childhood, and the Japanese fascination with the blossomlike transience of youth, which is referred to in its sexual mode as Lolicon (short for Lolita Complex) and in its musical mode as Lolitapop Making the transition from the provocatively demure sailor- suits of their school uniforms to the baroque mix'n'match of their Decora-chan gear (Marie Antoinette as a cyberpunk milkmaid), Japanese teenage girls go from one highly fetishised image to another. The crucial difference is that one is passive, the other active; one submissive, the other creative. When they get to Shibuya, the schoolgirls speak their own slang, embrace their own fetish status, and shop deliriously in celebration of their new-found freedom to choose its cutest expression.
 * TURNING JAPANESE?; TURNING JAPANESE ? I REALLY THINK SO; The Herald/Sunday Herald (Glasgow); Sep 26, 1998; Nick Currie; p. 31.


 * So, the terms in parentheses are in the original. The sentence, however, is discussing schoolgirl chic. I'd say this was being quoted out of context, but maybe it's OK -- at least it mentions lolicon. But do we have to cite absolutely everything that mentions the word? What do other people think? Timothy Perper (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's discussing lolita fashion rather than lolicon? --Malkinann (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know. As you say it appears to be quoted out of context which would violate WP:V. The only useful thing out of there seems to be the Lolitapop terminology. It also hard to say if she is distinquishing of teenagers from children. It can be read either way. The senatace "It also points up an interesting parallel...musical mode as Lolitapop" appears to be self contained tangent, so just using that to say the musical form of lolicon is lolitapop is imo fine, but the quote should be removed from this article. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not going to hear any argument from me against removing it. I think it's tangential at best. Yes, it seems to concern Lolita fashions. It was written in 1998, when the Gothic Lolita material had not yet crystallized into a by-now internationally recognized fashion style. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that took care of that -- thanks, Malkinann. Here's another of these reference problems. It's the reference to Mio Bryce and Jason Davis (ref #46). First of all the reference is screwy -- the actual paper is at http://www.asianlang.mq.edu.au/japanese/documents/Bryce_Davis.pdf The article is being used to reference lolicon being drawn by males for males. Here's the section:
 * The major part of the published content consists of parodies of popular manga titles. These can range from mild treatments faithful to the original settings and characters, to aggressive reworkings that often involve erotic depictions, e.g., Lolicon and YAOI manga. According to Nimiya (1995), such parodies are not to express the writers’ sarcasm, but their playful homage to the originals. Lolicon (Lolita Complex) manga was initially created by males for male readers. Its “cast of characters” are predominantly cute girls with exaggerated feminine bodies which are the exclusive, fetishised focus of the genre and their abusers/rapists are often absent or depicted as non-human (e.g., machines, monsters’ tentacles). In contrast, YAOI are about ...

The "males for males" part is a side issue here, nothing major, and is without any sources of its own. There is one more mention of lolicon in the essay, also made in passing. I am reluctant to use this as a usefully reliable source, meaning that I don't doubt the authors' credentials, but I do doubt if it's any too valuable as a source about lolicon. Any ideas? Timothy Perper (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove this reference unless someone convinces me otherwise. It also flatly contradicts another statement in the article, that women mangaka draw lolicon manga. The second is, IMO, far better referenced (although not perfectly) and is more trustworthy. Any objections? Timothy Perper (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, took it out. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Backlash section
This section is full with murders and implies that the recent history of lolicon is all painted with bad news. It would be one thing to put some of this into the controversy section but not here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. That section has to be redone bottom up. It's -- my own opinion only -- an NPOV disaster area. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well its more that there needs to be another section after it. Immediatly after that murder spree, yes there was a very serious backlash. However, it doesn't reflect up through modern times. It's less of an NPOV issue and more of a expansion issue. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated it. If you still feel the NPOV tag is warranted, put it back, but I think the article tag + expand-section under history does a good job imo. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the new tag. The reason it seemed -- or was! -- so POV is that the material is old, and comes only from some of the highlights, if we can use that word, of the worst of the backlash. So it ought to improve, and the one-sidedness should lessen significantly, with newer material. What's the new section you mentioned? Timothy Perper (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a new section, a new tag - top of the article - and i put an expand tag under history. There probably should be another section under backlash, but not sure what to do here as its not clear when the backlash started to fade so we cannot use traditional yearly divisions like 1990s. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "out of date" tag. Plenty of controversies covered here at Wikipedia are old. Controversies do not need to be "up to date," unless there is more to state about any one controversy. Most stuff at Wikipedia is "out of date" if we're applying "out of date" to "old information" in general. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To me the backlash section is NPOV as it can easily be seen as everything bad about the current status of lolicon its a history section not the controversy section. The way it goes now: Lolicon begins (Orgina), Lolicon Boom, Doom and gloom with murders and critics, that is okay as long as there are things to balance it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the section is not NPOV? You're right that the information is a part of the History section instead of the Controversy section; I think my point was/is that the information relays "controversy" either way. But in regards to balancing things out, Controversy or Backlash sections often do not have information "balancing them out"; this is especially true in the case of Backlash sections, as those sections are about the backlash. If there is enough response from people opposing whatever is considered controversial or whatever caused backlash, that is a different story. Not all sections are going to be NPOV. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, i think the issue is that there is no data beyond the early 1990s atm there and very little between the reaction to the murder spree and the time of the Nonexistant Youth bill which makes it appear that things have continued to spiral downward and always been as bad or worse then right after the murders. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is no more data is exactly my point. If the backlash was then and not now, is not still going strong today, then that is that. And, generally, Backlash sections are going to be largely negative...unless there's some equally positive views on whatever caused the backlash. The same goes for sections titled Controversy or Controversies, such as displayed in the Kanye West article and many others. Making things not seem as though they "have continued to spiral downward and always been as bad or worse then right after the murders" should be able to be fixed; that is a wording issue. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than using the words "backlash" and "boom" then why dont we use decades (70s - 80s ect..) it seems reasonable rather then this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, blending in criticism/controversy/backlash rather than having sections purely devoted to those things is generally advised by Wikipedia (except in the case of film articles; Critical reception sections, for example), so your suggestion is a reasonable solution. You would be retitling the section, rather than truly blending it in, but at least it takes away direct focus on the backlash just the same as "true blending" does. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Kinds of lolicon
Here is a draft paragraph not yet ready for insertion into the article about the different kinds of adult-to-children attraction. It is as short as I could make it, and is referenced.
 * Three kinds of sexual attraction to young people have been identified in adults: pedophilia, attraction to prepubescent girls or boys; hebephilia, attraction to pubescent girls or boys (11-14 years old); and ephebophilia, attraction to young people in general, but below the age of legal consent in their society. Individuals in each group respond sexually to visual images of children and young people in distinct and narrow age ranges. Lolicon manga and anime contain images and narratives involving romantic and erotic interactions between typically an adult man and a girl in the age range desired by such men.

Provisional, but useful. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This stuff goes somewhere into the first section, I think. I've gotten some additional references also. More later. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The description of pedophilia and of ephebophilia look good to me. Hebephilia, we usually describe as "pubescent" (some stages of puberty are already underway) rather than "peripubescent" (which means "around" rather than "in" puberty.)  Typically, it's ages 11-14 (about 6 months younger in females), or "Tanner Stages 2-3" (where Tanner 1 is prepubescent and Tanner 5 is adult).  Complete references, if they would be of help, are on the hebephilia page.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My great thanks. I've corrected the draft. The problem here is that I have no space for extensive references; this paragraph is only an absolute minimum as background for the lolicon material itself. I've also added a reference for the last sentence, this also an absolute minimum. Thanks again. (Other readers may notice that Dr. Cantor's name is on the article cited.) Timothy Perper (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will add the revised paragraph to the article in the "Japan" section. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the paragraph and cleaned up some other stuff as well. The section still needs more work. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that "ephebophilia" shouldn't be described as "attraction to young people in general," since it excludes prepubescents. However, it is sometimes used interchangeably with "hebephilia" and is somewhat tricky to distinguish from hebephilia due to the pubescent overlap (just as pedophilia can be tricky to distinguish from hebephilia when speaking of early pubescents who look prepubescent), but we use Cantor's (and his research group's) definition for the primary definition of ephebophilia here at its Wikipedia article -- which specifies "mid-to-late adolescents (15-19)." Furthermore, all three philias are more accurately defined by the "preference," not just "attraction." For example, a man may find a 17 or 18-year-old sexually attractive but not be an ephebophile (which is a preference for that age group). Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this tweak, per what I stated above, and because the reference also stresses "preference." It says "at the cusp of puberty" for hebephilia, and the Hebephilia article says "in the early years of puberty," with Cantor's approval. Either way, 11-14 clearly deals with "early pubescents" more so than mid or late pubescents. And while some people, girls in particular, finish puberty at ages 14 or 15, most medical sources do not state these ages as the typical end of puberty for both sexes. In fact, most sources (medical or otherwise) I have come across state that boys finish puberty at ages 16-18. This is why hebephilia and ephebophilia overlap towards the "mid" part. Age 14 can be considered early puberty, in the case of a boy who only hit puberty at age 13, and it can be considered mid-puberty/mid adolescent. It seems the most accurate way to look at it without getting too much a headache is like this: Hebephilia covers early to mid pubescents (late or post pubescents in the case of some girls), but generally early pubescents. And ephebophilia covers mid to late pubescents...but generally post-pubescents. Really, they both touch on the "mid" mark...and the "mid" mark (14/15) is not a big age range (so it's fine), but one (hebephilia) is more about early pubescents and the other (ephebophilia) is more about late/post-pubescents. Therefore, to attribute "pubescents" to hebephilia, without any qualifier (such as "early" or "early to mid") doesn't distinguish it all that well from ephebophilia...at least not in the case of pubertal boys aged 15 to 17. But maybe Cantor can weigh in on this. This overlap irks me.


 * On a side note, and also because of the overlap: At the Ephebophilia talk page, we agreed to use "mid-to-late adolescents" to describe this sexual preference, as saying "mid-to-late pubescents" does not cover post-pubertal individuals, and saying "post-pubescents" does not cover mid-to-late pubescents...while the age range 15-19 does. This is also why I tweaked the description here away from "but below the age of legal consent in their society," because ephebophilia also encompasses people of legal age and ephebophiles (usual ones anyway) do not draw the line at "only underage people." Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in general, the distinctions you're making are valuable in a discussion of pedophilia and hebephilia. But, IMO, we can't get too involved in this article about these distinctions because our main focus has to be on lolicon, not debates among sexologists, psychiatrists, and penologists about attraction to "young people" however defined. I'm not going to revert anything, because the change you made is fine with me, but I don't want to see us all going overboard about questions of psychiatric definition and etiology. You are not the only person irked by these definitional overlaps; everyone in the field is irked by them. But they're out there in the literature, and my feeling is that we should not dwell on them in this article. Somewhere else, maybe, but not here. I hope we agree on that, because this article has in the past been a dumping ground for all kinds of opinion, viewpoint, and source. We have to do some serious pruning on those excesses, at least IMO. There are other issues dealing far more directly with lolicon that need our attention, specifically, its history, sociology, and narratology in manga and anime. Thus the article still needs material on lolicon anime, and the history section needs a lot of work (as other editors have noted). Timothy Perper (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, Timothy Perper. I was not saying that this article should get into "debates among sexologists, psychiatrists, and penologists about attraction to 'young people' however defined," no more than Cantor was saying that. Why would I feel that those debates belong in this article? I can, from what you state of past "dumping ground" issues, see how you could be alert that I might be leaning in that direction. But, truly, I just don't understand your drawing that conclusion from my above statements. I was only saying that if we are going to be distinguishing the three philias in this article, as we should distinguish, and as the drafts you made distinguished, then we should be accurate about it (even with the definition of ephebophilia sometimes being used to include early pubescents; enough sources distinguish it from hebephilia). All my tweak did was make things more accurate, trade out words for other words, not add a bunch of material, so I don't see how reverting would even be justified. Yes, there is overlap between pedophilia and hebephilia, and hebephilia and ephebophilia, but it's only minor and is to be expected, and I'm sure that most people are smart enough to see that all on their own, and realize that the overlaps do not take away much from the definitions. And, anyway, most experts are in agreement that pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescents; so, really, the DSM debate and attraction vs. preference doesn't belong in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think they do either, so we're agreed on that. So let's leave it as it is now, with your tweaks. Which -- as I said -- are fine with me. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)