Talk:Lolicon

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep, ZOOOOOM. 8) An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

How to non-selectively block display of images in your reading Open your monobook.css page, this will be User:yourUserName/monobook.css Add the following line: #lolicon{display: none;} Press save Note: you will need to bypass your browsers cache for the images to be hidden. Also note that the images will still download, though not visible, so this is not a legal solution.

Talk Archive

• Archive 1 - regarding the image, part 1
• Archive 2 - regarding the image, part 2 (includes straw poll)
• Archive 3 - the replacement image, and over 100kb of why dildos are better than no dildos
• Archive 4 - Poll that ended April 1st
• Archive 5 - regarding the image, part 5: dramatic interpretations of WP:FU and mailing list intervention

Nobody's ever happy with the image on this article

Kanon doesn't mention it's Lolicon, the cover doesn't look anything like it to me (not that I've seen much other Lolicon, the idea is icky, etc). As such, the new image in the article seems inappropriate, just as much a violation of fair use as the old one, and with a caption stating something which is unsourced. Can't we just remove all images? It's been made clear that no-one's going to be happy with sexualised images of children, and given that seems to be the subject of the article, there's not really any chance of a useful (ie, representative) image. Note that I'm not arguing there should be such images present. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this image is silly. It's a replacement for the other two images which got deleted but it's not a good one. If we have to, I *will* draw an image myself. Ashibaka tock 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kanon is not Lolicon, the Kanon cover is fair use just like the old image, I say User:Sam Korn should be desysoped for abusing his sysop privilage. The Psycho 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The newest image, of magazines being sold, seems to be fine, in my opinion. Thanks, User:Sam Korn. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

What does it even have to do with the article? --Jqiz 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Images on Wikipedia are for information purposes. They aren't for decoration. Ashibaka tock 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure about Karon, but I'm OK with the images of the magazines for sale. Johntex\^talk 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 14:24, 3 April 2006 Fuzzie (the image clearly states Lolicon, and they certainly look like it to me)

If you think those comics are lolicon you ain't looking too close. Ashibaka tock 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of them aren't, but to me it also looks like some of them are. I'm not going to edit war, though, so feel free to remove again (but if you don't think they're Lolicon, there's no point keeping the image). --Fuzzie (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The images aren't provided for the reader to guess which is relevant to the article, and from what I can see, most of the magazines are just hentai magazines. Someone already removed the image, thankfully. --Jqiz 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick scan of the image and there was not a loli in sight. Of course, all of the ones on the shelf could have been loli and everyone would be none the wiser. The image serves no purpose in this article (and not to mention it is huge). Also, edit warring over the thumbnail size is silly. WP:MoS tells you how large images should usually be. If you cannot make out details at that size, crop it. Kotepho 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the photo of the Japanese news-stand. I don't know of anything else that could be added that is as informative about the status of pedophilia in Japan as that photo.--Primetime 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the clear arguments above, what you're saying is really vague. Ashibaka tock 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzie. I'm reverting your change.--Primetime 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a consensus on which you can revert things. You said "this is a good picture," I said "what about the arguments against it above," you said "I am right and you are wrong." What a discussion. Ashibaka tock 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the image. Fuzzie himself stated some of magazine are obviously not lolicon magazine. Implying all the magazine shown being sold are lolicon would be false.--Jqiz 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".^[1] Pedophilia is not just the act, but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? I'm sorry if I didn't elaborate enough--I just thought that it was blatantly obvious. It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which one of the big busted chicks in the magazine shown illustrates little girl? And yes, I am saying they are just hentai manga. Even if there are one or two lolicon magazine (I must have missed it) in the pile, the majority of it are not. Lets not force the reader to play the game, 'Where's the loliicon magazine?'. --Jqiz 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First, their faces make them look young (e.g., large eyes in proportion to the rest of their faces). I can also see several girls illustrated in magazine covers in the bottom row of girls with smaller breasts. Also, I've seen underaged girls in public with larger breasts. Finally, note that they're cartoons (i.e., caricatures). Thus, it's understandable why someone would exagerrate their physical features.--Primetime 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly telling me that all the girls illustrates lolicon? I'm sure you mean good for the article, but...that's not lolicon. And I would bet they are not marketed as lolicon, either. By implying they are art, therefore, they can be lolicon in nature, then all hentai images will be lumped together, legality-wise, with lolicon materials. I would do a search on the title of the hentai manga, and link to you what it is catagorized as, but I can't type Japanese. --Jqiz 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please realize that every editor who has done the research on this subject believes the montage in question, which detail post-pubecent (notice huge breasts?) schoolgirls is not lolicon. Continuing to revert in the image is bad enough (it's not relevent to the article), but mis-captioning it is worse. Please make it clear that the image is not of Lolicon. There is no current GFDL lolicon image available. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been asking in several IRC channels and forums I frequent about whether that image is loli. Here are the responses I'm getting (four so far):

1. No. Random doujin or whatever. C cup breasts != Loli
2. not loli
3. (paraphrased) Almost none looks like loli. The one to the the right of "Flower" near the left side is "Tennen Milk Pie" which is actually about someone's mom who gets raped. Huge breasts is not loli - artists try to keep breasts and ass small to be more realistic. Some artists do go for a nice round style, but then i'd argue that its not true lolicon. The only ones in that pic that look like loli are the third and fifth books in the first row.
4. {paraphrased) Loli makes you feel moe but these Hentai comics not. The first comic on the first row has a potential to be a Lolicon book.

Of course, this isn't a reliable source, but neither is simply saying it is loli. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I'll respond to someone on the mailinglist here, in saying that none of the covers in the picture are lolicon, to first order. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here. That image would be perfect if not for the problem that it's not lolicon - rather, those are just doujinshi in general. The image is mis-named. --Jonathan Drain 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".^[2] Pedophilia is not just the act, but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Kotepho 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are either (1) too lazy to give any evidence to back up your claims, or (2) just making that up.--Primetime 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? You seem to think that all hentai is lolicon. That is absurd and untrue; ergo, you are ignorant. Kotepho 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you, saying "you are ignorant" would count as a personal attack. -kotra 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

In reply to Primetime who says: "You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material?" It is not. The short answer is that hentai is drawn porn, while lolicon is drawn kiddy porn. In truth, both are a kind of new loanword used to cover something which the English language never had a word for until the internet allowed the seedy underbelly of Japanese erotic artwork to reach English-speaking countries on any meaningful scale. In Japanese, hentai simply means 'perversion' and rorikon is a contraction of lolita complex and is essentially a euphemism for 'pedophile'; the words changed in meaning in the jump to the English language when English borrowed the nearest word to fill a need. --Jonathan Drain 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting article

The back and forth reverting is pointless. It settles nothing. Leave the article alone and discuss it here.

Adding the external link with the deleted image is wrong. It is a clear copyright violation. No attempt at fair use done. Will everone agree that the external link of deleted image needs to be removed? --FloNight ^talk 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly not a useful external link and the only point of linking it would seem to be to cause trouble. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to the Wikipedia discussion only, not the subject of the article. So, it should have been posted on this Talk page I guess.

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~apacker/pictures/Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg (This link was removed by FloNight as inflammatory, but I think it ought to stay for historical purposes. Just remember, kids, it's probably not legal for you to view. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

And there we have it. You can remove it from the article now. Ashibaka tock23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, since no-one seems to be objecting and it's linked above if anyone wants to know what all the arguing was about. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no guarentee that the U of Oregon is going to keep that image on it's servers for more than a few years at most... and especially so if it generates this much controversy. In any case, kowtowing to this perverse morality by censoring the pictures is little more than a return to the policies of the numerous dictators and oppressive parties who destroyed information that contradicted their ruling. Don't come crying to me when your children loath you for relying on storks to bring into this world... or when they hate you even more when they realize you need to have s*x to do it, and were then force to cover your shame. Sweetfreek 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Link for deleted image on talk

- IMO, the image link can not stay here either. It is improper for use to have a link to an image that we know is outside of fair use. We need to set a high standard for copyright laws. FloNight ^talk 02:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Please do not remove this link under a fair use argument. Doing so proves you have no idea what fair use is.--Muchosucko 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~apacker/pictures/Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg (This link was removed by FloNight as inflammatory, but I think it ought to stay for historical purposes. Just remember, kids, it's probably not legal for you to view. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

• • There is some sort of vague fair use thing about linking, but seriously, it's someone else's website, not ours. Please don't mess with my comment any more. Ashibaka tock 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's not be vague here folks. Let's be direct and clear. Allow me. Fair use governs the use of copyrighted material. This is not the case here as we are linking to an outbound site. The picture is stored,published and served by another entity. We are not mirroring, inlining, or framing. We are however, "deep-linking" which may anger Oregon servers (Ticketmaster vs. Tickets.com, 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1344), but this is an educational institution, with many inbound deep-links. Hypertext links, that contain only text, as in this case is legal. Please do not hide behind abstruse legal terms to defend your position, I am willing to argue this under the light of the sun, I hope you are too. [3]--Muchosucko 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion. I don't revert edits more than one as a general rule. We will see what others think. --FloNight ^talk 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record

I'm dissapointed in how this turned out. Running crying to Jimbo, admin funny buggers, etc. - brenneman^{L} 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Debates can't always end with a kiss and make-up. Ashibaka tock 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't end with do-whatever-I-want admin whacking and agressive archiving to sweep away debate, either. Bad form, be ashamed. It's admitting that logic has failed and resorting to what amounts to force around here. I say again: Bad form.
brenneman^{L} 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing seems to be answer: All policies/guidelines can be overlooked, if there's a consensus. I do find it ironic that the people who preach the ironclad rules of policies/guidelines(admins and policies advocators) forgives this little mishap, because it favors their point-of-view.--Jqiz 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When a debate drags on for two years like this one, or if it's getting especially heated-up like this one was, occasionally we need a thunderbolt from some random guy holding thunderbolts. Ashibaka tock 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And that person should be someone from high up, not random admin who did it because it disgusted him, and because he 'can'. That was a very Jimbo-like action he performed. --Jqiz 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should just upload that image from that university site, then add it to the article. I think we all agree that's a lolicon, right?--Primetime 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree. However, until the current dispute ends, it's probably best not to, as any attempt will most likely will be reverted. --Jqiz 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That was the one that was deleted. Feel free to reupload it if you want though. Kotepho 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly urge you not to upload the same image. I request that you move it from the talk page too. It is not proper fair use on this page either. FloNight ^talk 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I might have found an artist

Suggestions for content/poses/whatever? Kotepho 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing too pornographic, that seems to be why the previous one was deleted ... --Cyde Weys 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-1, Redundant Kotepho 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-1, Unfair Meta Cyde Weys 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is supposed to go on your userpage. At least follow your own rules. Kotepho 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I make the rules buddy :-P And I sure as hell ain't gonna be keeping the meta-moderating on my userpage indefinitely. That was just an April Fool's thing. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Final Solution-chan.jpg

Final Solution-chan

Thanks go to Kristal for pulling this off with amazing speed and art skills, and Kotepho for getting in touch with her. Youppi! Ashibaka tock 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you object to this image—well I don't care. I need a break. Kotepho 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken

Well, it guidelines/policies are there for looks. Nothing more to add. Signing off --Jqiz 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, another editor previously suggested bringing in Wales to settle the matter.

• I am confident that Jimbo would fully support this image, but if you disagree, by all means ask him. I'm not going to bother him over something so trivial.[4]

I'm not sure whyt anyone woud consider child pornography a trivial matter. -Will Beback 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't frigging child pornography. Jeebus. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Imageboard links

And just before that picture was added, User:FloNight goes and removes the link to renchan which was discussed before and kept (unlike all the other imageboard links), with the message "contained hundreds of images of children in sex acts" rather than anything based on policy or in addition to the previous discussion.

Are we going to have to purge wikipedia of links to these images? I note that Imageboard still links to renchan and not4chan, if someone does want to go on a censorship rampage. Otherwise, I think the renchan link should be restored here. We had the discussion, the link is clearly marked, renchan has more content than just the images, we've been through this all before. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have links to popular porn sites in Pornography? Ashibaka tock 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Popular porn sites are (presumably?) just images, whereas renchan was kept because it wasn't just images - it's a forum with a fan community and discussion, etc. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Empornium from Pornography links a few days ago, as spam. Ashibaka tock 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but other article discussions have concluded with opposite opinions. This is not something that a few peolple should decide. I've made my opinion known. We will see what other people think. It is up for discussion like everything else on Wikipedia. By the way, I'm a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate. But sexually graphic images of children being sexually exploited is out of bounds. FloNight ^talk 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, don't think the concepts of being a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate are particularly compatible with wanting the removal of clearly-marked links to sites with *drawings* of such images (there are no children to be 'exploited' involved). But despite that, I don't particularly have a strong opinion about it staying - I think the stuff is disgusting, to be honest - I just object to selective removal of such links from this article and not from others, and to you removing it without even mentioning it here. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki that everyone can edit, right. We aren't suppose to ask persmission to edit. I don't edit war. I take it out once. If someone else puts it back I will wait for community consensus. I've taken inappropriate external links off other articles. I'm picking on this article.FloNight ^talk 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)