Talk:Lolicon/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Definition of "lolicon" as "all-underage girls", including pubescent and post-pubescent?

Do we have any sources for this definition? JackALope044 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree here, it seems like lolicon was lumped together with three different age groups , there are tons of anime and manga that are not labeled as lolicon that have some sort of nudity with girls aged 16 - 17. Saying that manga and anime that have this as being lolicon is WP:OR and would require a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I dispute this addition you made. It makes it seem as though lolicon is solely about prepubescent girls. The sources don't seem to indicate simply "prepubescent." And the main image that is up there now looks to be depicting early pubescent girls, judging by the breast development. If the sources state "underage," which some of them do, then it's reasonable to think that "underage" includes pubescents and post-pubescents (especially since people usually mean pubescent or post-pubescent minors when they state "underage," such as "underage drinking," not a prepubescent child). And the lead and lead image caption currently state, respectively, "childlike female characters" and "childlike characteristics with erotic undertones"; since "childlike" usually means something that is not a child, but is rather childlike, those statements seem to indicate that lolicon characters are typically pubescent or post-pubescent with childlike features. And regarding this bit you removed, that was there per the Kinds of lolicon discussion. In that edit summary, you stated, "Removed definition of sexual attraction to young people, it fits but not quite I do not see a source within this that talks about lolicon in any way rather it just gives a broad definition." So I don't see how adding "prepubescent" is an improvement. Furthermore, that is just as much a WP:OR matter if there are no WP:Reliable sources out there supporting it. But I agree that we should have sources in that section focusing on lolicon definitions instead of definitions regarding pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, even though addressing the latter three can help people better understand lolicon.

I might take this matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying "The sources" what sources? Where does it say in reliable sources that lolicon includes females aged X - X? That is where the problem lies. You are taking definitions, laying them up in this article and saying okay... everything under <blank> falls under lolicon because lolicon is this and it matches what such and such says. If that were true then someone watching lets say Rosario + Vampire which has a young witch character in it must be a lolicon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The article needs sources that talk about lolicon not underage sexual attraction in general or a definition of it, that is what I meant by they are similar but where is the line drawn when it comes to lolicon? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Regarding sources, I stated, "The sources don't seem to indicate simply 'prepubescent.'" And "that is just as much a WP:OR matter if there are no WP:Reliable sources out there supporting it. But I agree that we should have sources in that section focusing on lolicon definitions." That is all I stated with regard to sources. And I was referring to the article. No, I am not "taking definitions, laying them up in this article and saying okay... everything under <blank> falls under lolicon because lolicon is this and it matches what such and such says." The lead states, in part, "The term lolicon is a portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex"; it describes an attraction to underage girls, an individual with such an attraction." See how it uses the word underage and is backed to four different sources), and yet you used the word prepubescent? I see prepubescent supported by the third source (Feitelberg), but it does not state that lolicon solely focuses on prepubescents, and if the other sources state "prepubescent," then why does the lead use the word underage; the word underage is not synonymous with the word prepubescent.

And, okay, I'll go ahead and alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga to this discussion now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Take the wording prepubescent out then if that is the hangup. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "prepubescent." Do you think that this discussion would benefit from the input of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, so that perhaps someone from there can give a more specific outline of the age ranges? Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It would help to get a second opinion but if we are going to include age ranges I think we should try to source it as it really gets in the gray area on what is lolicon and what is not the older you go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, I agree about only mentioning specific age ranges (prepubescent, pubescent and/or post-pubescent) if that wording is supported by one or more WP:Reliable sources in the article. I've alerted the aforementioned WikiProject. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay and thanks, I may be wrong here but for example I have never heard of a anime or manga that had post-pubescent females in it that was pushed as a lolicon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents here, the reason I brought this up is because there didn't seem to be any reliable sources defining the age range of "lolicon" - I don't think that the age-range should come from original research, or what we, as editors, "feel" the age-range should be. We can go back and forth on what we "think" the age-range should be, but I don't think this matters unless we have reliable sources defining it for us. JackALope044 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I just read the Darling article, "Plumbing the Depths of Superflatness", and Darling never uses the word "underage". In fact, he uses the word "prepubescent", instead. Just a heads up. I can provide a screenshot for proof, if necessary. The Feitelberg article, "On The Drawing Board", is inaccessible without a subscription, but I would like to be able to examine it personally, if possible. Note that the quote provided specifically uses the word "prepubescent", though. The fifth source, the Japanese web page, makes no reference to either "underage" or "prepubescent" - Only towards "lolita complex" itself. As far as I can tell, all of the reliable sources we have suggest that the correct age-range for "lolicon" is pre-pubescent, and not all underage girls. If anybody can provide access to The Erotic Anime Movie Guide, that would be appreciated, as well. I don't know why "A Reader's Guide To Nabokov's 'Lolita'" is being provided as one of the sources, too.JackALope044 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "all of the reliable sources we have suggest that the correct age-range for 'lolicon' is pre-pubescent." However, you can expand your search analysis by seeing what other book or manga sources state about this topic. And, yes, I'd like to see a screenshot for proof regarding the Darling source. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Feitelberg quote uses "pre-pubescent", and so does the Darling article, shown here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bqsaf8noloctsn/lolicondarling.jpg . The Japanese website makes no reference to either "underage" or "pre-pubescent". I would like to examine "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide" if possible to see what words they use exactly, as well as the "Reader's Guide". Half of the sources are clearly using "pre-pubescent", though, with no trace of the word "underage". JackALope044 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and ordered "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide", so once it arrives here I'll look through the pages in question to see the exact definitions they use, and will provide photographic proof, if necessary. JackALope044 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are currently 78 references in the article, with a good portion of them not readily accessible; so that is part of the reason that I am not convinced that "all of the reliable sources we have suggest that the correct age-range for 'lolicon' is pre-pubescent" and that "half of the sources are clearly using 'pre-pubescent'." If by "half," you meant two of the four sources I noted above, okay then. But I'd already pointed out the "prepubescent" aspect regarding the Feitelberg source, and stated "but it does not state that lolicon solely focuses on prepubescents." Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. By the "reliable sources" I mentioned, I merely meant the ones used at the top of the article, to provide the definition of "lolicon". If you want to use other sources to provide the definition of "lolicon" as applying to all under-age girls, then please cite them at the top. As for the Feitelberg source, you're misunderstanding the issue here. We cannot say that the definition you are attempting to apply is correct just because no source says it is incorrect. The Feitelberg source uses "pre-pubescent", and not "underage". It doesn't matter that the source does not say "lolicon is not an attraction to all underage girls, just pre-pubescent". If you want to use "attraction to all underage girls" as the definition, then you need to find a source that uses that as the definition. Claiming that because nobody says that "attraction to all underage girls" is NOT the definition means that it "attraction to all underage girls" IS the definition is simply incorrect to do. I'm sure there's a specific term for it, but it escapes my mind at the moment. Point is, find a source that says "all underage girls" rather than just "pre-pubescent". JackALope044 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm considering moving the fifth source - The Japanese page on "lolicon" - up to the portmanteau sentence, since it seems like the information it's providing relates more to that than where it is currently. Opinions? JackALope044 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

JackALope044, I am not attempting to apply any definition. As many at this site know, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state without any WP:Synthesis (an aspect of the WP:Original research/WP:OR policy). And similar to how you object to referring to lolicon as covering all underage girls, I object to referring to it as simply covering prepubescent girls...unless it is clear to me that the lolicon genre only covers prepubescents. And it is not clear to me that it does, especially with lolicon pictures (such as the lead image) showing pubescent girls. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, despite the few contributions under your current Wikipedia account, I can tell that you are not new to editing Wikipedia. Were you editing in these types of topics before your JackALope044 account? Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what my experience with editing Wikipedia has to do with this issue, so unless you give me a sufficient reason as to how it relates, I will decline to state. And as for what the reliable sources state, they all state that "lolicon" refers to "prepubescent girls", with no reference to merely being "underage". There is absolutely no synthesis here. The term "prepubescent" is used, and the term "underage" is not. I do not understand what your issue with this is. You do not have any sources which state that "lolicon" refers to "all underage girls" besides your own original research. I'm also not sure why you are attempting to use the lead image as a source here, either. It can easily be changed to fit the definition given by the reliable sources, if necessary. JackALope044 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors who are clearly not new to editing Wikipedia are commonly of interest to experienced Wikipedia editors. And you have not demonstrated that all, or even the vast majority, of WP:Reliable sources state that lolicon refers to prepubescent girls and that the genre does not extend beyond that. I never stated that there was WP:Synthesis in your argument; I was merely pointing out my editing style. And I'm not the one who added to the article that lolicon refers to all underage girls; so you can stop applying WP:Original research to me on that, especially since the WP:Original research policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." What I have done in this discussion is question that lolicon only refers to prepubescents; you have yet to prove that it does. Timothy Perper, who read manga and was largely responsible for the Definition section, for example (as seen in the "Kinds of lolicon" discussion linked above), seemed to think that lolicon extends beyond prepubescent characters. I was not attempting to use the lead image as a source; I was using the lead image as part of my argument here on the talk page; there's a difference. As for your threat of "[The lead] can easily be changed to fit the definition given by the reliable sources, if necessary."... Yeah, it can be changed to fit what a couple or a few WP:Reliable sources state, even if likely that other WP:Reliable sources report otherwise; that was already done, as shown above. But why are you so eager to tag this genre as "prepubescent" instead of looking over more sources? Given how you started off this section, and your other indications in this section that you are unsure of what age ranges lolicon entails, your claim of "And as for what the reliable sources state, they all state that 'lolicon' refers to 'prepubescent girls'" is not too convincing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed we should just leave prepubescent girls out of the article, unless you can find reliable sources that state that lolicon falls under that. As for extending beyond that again more sources are needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the subtle accusation there that I am a sockpuppet account. Either way, though, it's clear this argument has come to a stand-still and we're going around in circles, now. Would you like to request a third opinion to mediate our disagreement? Knowledgekid: The issue I'm having here is that Flyer22 is unable to provide any reliable sources that define lolicon as relating to "all underage girls", while the Darling and Feitelberg articles both explicitly use "prepubescent". The general argument being provided, as far as I can tell, is that we should continue using "all underage girls" as the definition because that's how it was originally, or because another Wikipedian says that's the definition, instead of relying on reliable sources. What I really don't understand is why we should continue using "all underage girls" as the definition just because no reliable source says that is NOT the definition. Regardless, though, I think it's best at this point to get some sort of dispute resolution here, since it's obvious that we're just going around in circles at this point. JackALope044 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether you are a WP:Sockpuppet, an editor who has employed WP:Clean start, or someone who learned the Wikipedia ropes as an IP, it's clear that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, and I am simply suspicious of the matter (as I am in all such cases). But you are correct that it's a matter that's off-topic, so I'll drop that. I already requested more opinions on this age range dispute by inviting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga to the discussion. As for you stating, "The issue I'm having here is that Flyer22 is unable to provide any reliable sources that define lolicon as relating to 'all underage girls'"... That's you assuming what I am unable to do, as well you again attributing the claim only to me as though I added that bit to the article. I certainly have not tried to look for a source that extends lolicon beyond prepubescent characters; I've spent part of my day in this discussion with you. And the matter of "all" certainly does not have to be what we're looking for; the genre simply extending to pubescent characters is enough to show that the genre is not restricted to prepubescent characters. And again, Timothy Perper indicated in the "Kinds of lolicon" discussion linked above, using the "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide" source, that the genre extends to pubescent and post-pubescent characters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer but the only thing that was sourced to the anime guide was "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" which I kept in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are able to provide a reliable source that defines lolicon as relating to "all underage girls", then please do so, and I will promptly drop this matter. Until you do so, though, the sources used for the definition of "lolicon" at the top of this article all use "prepubescent", and have no mention of "underage" in them. As I said, I have "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide" coming, so we will see what that states. If you wish to use the word "underage" as part of the definition of "lolicon", then you need to provide a reliable source which uses that word as part of it's definition for "lolicon", as well. You cannot simply state that there must be some source out there which does so, and use that as your proof. You need to provide that source yourself. Until you do so, and until I receive my copy of "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide", the two sources we have at our disposal currently for the definition of "lolicon" - The Darling and Feitelberg articles - both use "prepubescent" and do not use "underage". Provide me with a reliable source that uses "underage" as part of it's definition for "lolicon", and, as I said, I will promptly drop this entire discussion and concede to you. JackALope044 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, in the aforementioned discussion, it seems that Timothy Perper is tying that line to the age ranges he provided before that line.

JackALope044, you have not shown that all of the sources in the lead use the term "prepubescent." So do stop stating "the sources used for the definition of 'lolicon' at the top of this article all use 'prepubescent'" until you do show that. Why not go ahead and assess all of the sources in the lead while you're at it? And once again, stop attributing the "underage" wording as being my wish; I explicitly explained myself above. Also, do stop twisting my words to make your arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this discussion is clearly getting heated, I'll refrain from further comments until a third opinion is provided, or my copy of "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide" arrives and I can assess it.JackALope044 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Giving my 2 cents here. These comments do not have reliable source, but can help you guys to get into right tracks maybe. I have skimmed through tens of thousands of lolicon material over the years and you have few assumptions wrong.

First lolicon is not related to age AT ALL. Its only about looks and drawing style. Examples Oshino shinobu who is around 500 years old or Komoe Tsukuyomi who is pure loli but fully adult and teacher. List is long.

Secondly including definition "underage" girls seems wrong, because a 14-15 yo are not called lolis often (unless drawn so), like dōjins of Kirino Kosaka from popular anime is never tagged lolicon or considered lolicon material (except few again where the artist decides to depict the character younger despite her/hes age).

These 2 reasons is why Japanese lolicon page does not have age range, because its irrelevant.

Third: one of the characteristics of anime is that they depict older characters younger and very young characters a bit older. If you would be strict and take the definition of pedophilia then majority of lolicon material does not fall under that category of prepubescent, since the drawn young girls have first signs of adolescence. The material which really is prepubescent is often tagged toddlercon. This is not so strict thou, but majority of lolicon does not fall under prepubescent.

Forth: There is no good scientific data about lolicon material. Most of the material is coming from people who have no scientific background in sexuality, paraphilias and actual industry itself. So the reliable sources will probably conflict each other as they comment on subject that they do not know much about. Even if commenter is an experienced artist in the field, they would not be scientifically knowledgeable about pedophilia, hebephilia, when does puberty really start etc.

For conclusion i do not think there is a clear solution to Flyers problem. Even when you include some of the "reliable sources", they have their small conflicts each other and most of them not really being experts (might be in anime and manga, but not in lolicon, which is very niche thing. Also thing of taboo and people in power commenting on it without seeing a page of it).193.40.25.254 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but we can't really use any of what you said unless we have reliable sources. Believe me, I've gone through quite a bit of lolicon material myself, but I can't use my own opinions about what constitutes lolicon and what does not on the actual article, as that would constitute WP:OR. I appreciate your trying to help, but the discussion here isn't over what lolicon is, as we all have our own personal opinions over that, but rather what the reliable sources being used for the definition of lolicon in the lead say it is. And, as far as I can tell, all of the reliable sources used in the lead for the definition of "lolicon" use "prepubescent" as part of their definition. I've still got the Erotic Guide on the way, so we'll see what that says when it arrives. If you want to discuss the reliability of the sources, as to whether or not they should be considered reliable for the purpose of citing them in this article, that's something entirely different. There's really no visible conflict between them, though, as far as I've read. We can't use our own opinions and knowledge when writing these articles, even if we do happen to be very experienced in the fields, like you and I. We HAVE to use the reliable sources, period.JackALope044 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I read through the mentioned sources and you are right about the usage and definition as "prepubescent". But every quote does not necessarily imply an actual/biological age (years old) and might also be seen in the sense of "looking like" (as an analogy) a prepubescent girl. This makes actually more sense in fictional cases, where age and appearance are a fairly free choice of the author. In my opinion we should mention both criteria and not a vague "prepubescent", which can interpreted both ways. In other words: We should state that the literature is not very defining and could relate to both. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that we should use the word "prepubescent" rather than "underage", since the reliable sources use "prepubescent" instead of "underage". I think we can say something about "girls who appear to be prepubescent, without regards to their biological age", or something like that, but I don't think we should use a blanket "underage" when none of the sources used in the lead for the definition of "lolicon" use a blanket "underage" term, but rather use a specific "prepubescent" term. I understand your apprehensions - Believe me, I do - but I just think we should adhere closer to what the reliable sources say, in this regards. I think we can safely go with "looks prepubescent", though, if you're up for that. I don't think we should "state that the literature is not very defining and could relate to both", since I think that may constitute WP:SYNTH. Let me know what you think about all this, and thanks for contributing your opinion to this matter - It's very much appreciated, by me, at least. JackALope044 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you going to do about the distinction of prepubescent and early adolescence? A 10-12 yo may not be strictly prepubescent but with clothes on the signs of puberty may not be developed enough to see them on first glance, thus being clearly a loli, but that individual is in puberty. Many people use prepubescent in that context as well, which is misleading strictly speaking. Of course for most people the distinction is not necessary as both age groups require defense in real world from abusers as their minds can not give meaningful consent (so prepubescent and adolescence is often lumped together), but this is wikipedia and accuracy would be welcome. I guess people here know it, but reliable sources say so then it must be written even thou it is wrong. Maybe try to add that prepubescent is often associated also with preadolescence.193.40.25.254 (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the discussion here is not about the delineation between what a loli is and what a loli is not. The discussion here is as to whether or not the reliable sources we have use "pre-pubescent" as their definition for what a "loli" is. Just because you think the reliable sources are wrong does not mean that your opinion trumps the reliable sources. If you can provide another reliable source (Not your own WP:OR) that agrees with you, then we can use that. Until then, though, we absolutely have to, by the rules of Wikipedia, go off of the reliable sources that we have. This discussion, then, relates to what, exactly, the reliable sources are saying, and not whether or not we agree with the reliable sources. JackALope044 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've received my copy of "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide", and looked at the section that discussed 'lolikon', as the book romanizes it. It makes reference to neither "underage" nor "prepubescent", but rather uses the word "young". The section in question spends less time defining what 'lolikon' is, and more discussing its origins. I think that this section can be a valuable reliable source for us, but not to be used in terms of defining the term "lolicon" in the lead. With that said, I will go ahead and edit the article to change "underage" to "young, prepubescent", given that those are what the reliable sources define it as. JackALope044 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding The Erotic Anime Movie Guide, then that source is an indication that you should add "young or prepubescent," since both are supported by WP:Reliable sources, not "young, prepubescent," like you did here. "Young, prepubescent" is silly wording anyway, considering that prepubescents are most certainly young. And while "young or prepubescent" can seem to conflict with "prepubescent" because prepubescents are young, it's easy to see that "young" is likely covering ages outside of "prepubescent." WP:Consensus above is clearly against "prepubescent" being the only age range listing for lolicon in the article. But it's there now because you have been insistent that we add it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it's very likely that I will change your wording to "young or prepubescent," regardless of your reply. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we could come to some sort of compromise. JackALope044 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

I recommend trying to place the sources in the lead in the article's body. The lead is meant to summarize the article as a whole and would look more encyclopedic with sources in the body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to citing the lead, I follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations; I judge whether to cite the lead on a case-by-case basis (though I usually end up citing the lead). In this case, judging by the discussion immediately above this one (and past matters concerning the definition at this article), it's clear that defining lolicon can be contentious, and so I think that those aspects of the lead should remain cited. Similarly, it seems that the laws aspect, a controversial topic, should remain cited in the lead. Both of those matters are summaries of the Definition and Controversy sections, respectively. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I just moved one source as it did not look good being in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that; no problem with the move at all, though it looks like it was added to source "lolikon or rorikon." As you know, I took the sourcing location matter further by moving four citations to the end of a sentence for a cleaner look, seen here (with followup commentary here). I'm not sure that the entire following part is covered by those sources, though: "a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are often depicted in an 'erotic-cute' manner (also known as ero kawaii), in an art style reminiscent of the shōjo manga (girls' comics) style." Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lolicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080116093145/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/fd20050206t3.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20050206t3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009062921/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?nn20050518f1.htm to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?nn20050518f1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Toddlercon

This picture is Toddlercon not Lolicon, most Loli look like petite woman/girls/teenagers not toddlers, please remove this image or replace it with something that is less incriminating -Anon -29/03/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.138.187 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Less incriminating? Less incriminating to who? The image has been discussed in the past, and this is the best of the very few available that meets Wikipedia's strict image use policy. The link for the term "toddlerkon" redirects to an entry at Glossary of anime and manga which says, with a source, that it's a subset of lolicon. The sources in the article (along with the lengthy discussion above) indicate that pinning down an age for cartoon characters based on design is somewhat subjective, so this seems like a dead-end. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Petite

Ok i've come up with something better then "young, prepubescent or underage" , since Loli is a drawing and doesn't have an age unless depicted as being a certain age, we should call it "Petite", Petite means any age but is a slim/slender girl, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_size http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petite -Anon 29/03/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.138.187 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources are very, very clear that lolicon is about age, not just physical size, so this is original research. This is specifically about girls who are young (or appear young, if you must), it's not about women who are short or skinny. The name "lolicon" itself is a reference to Lolita, which is a famous book named after a pedophile's victim. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is "lolicon" a "portmanteau" or "contraction"

I don't think it matters much, but someone want me to discuss this before edit. In wikipedia "contraction" and "portmanteau" pages : "The definition overlaps with the grammatical term portmanteau (a linguistic blend), but a distinction can be made between a portmanteau and a contraction by noting that contractions are formed from words that would otherwise appear together in sequence, such as do and not, whereas a portmanteau word is formed by combining two or more existing words that all relate to a singular concept which the portmanteau describes." so why not change "portmanteau" to "contraction". Tmsndjk (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a WP:RfC. And a WP:RfC should only be started after discussion. I suggest you wait for others to actually discuss this matter, and that you do not change sourced content to wording you like and which differs from what the sources state. I also suggest that you do not WP:EDIT WAR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for what I did, but the source is...I should quote both pages. I've also found out it should be "portmanteau" and I misunderstood the sources, so sorry again. So by following Brd process, B revert A first time because it seem arguable than A should start a discussion if A don't agree with it. But I don't sure if you think the "Burusera is illegal after 2004" edit is wrong or seems challenging because I didn't give any reference, or just how revert works, or other reasons worth discussion.I'll re-edit that line with references after days if no one reply(not to have a war). Tmsndjk (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a contraction. Contractions are shortened forms of two words where the missing letters are replaced by an apostrophe ('). Contractions can be written in their expanded forms in normal writing without any loss of context. However, lolicon is a blend of two words to form a new word. Expanding the word into its two base words often results in a loss of context that requires a rewrite of the sentence. (ex. "X is a lolicon." vs. "X has a lolita complex"). —Farix (t | c) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reduction of Hayao Miyazaki speech

Hayao Miyazaki is already well known for his disregard with the evolution of anime and prefers the old-style tendencies of it, I would like to propose a reduction of his speech to only the important aspecs of it, as to when he refers to lolicon, the main reason for this is due to the irregular reference of this part of the article, in the site used as reference it can be seen on its disclaimer that it is "Translated without permission for personal entertainment purpose only. This is not, by any means, an accurate word for word translation, and the translator is solely responsible for any mistranslation or misunderstanding due to it.", which isn't appropriate, also because the interview isn't regarding the lolicon but an interview that just asked him questions about his work, and he briefly talked about what his character caused at the time, this kinds of things clearly contribute to the reduction of the reduction of the quality of the article, I'd like to discuss with the ones who object and also with the ones who support this descision here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilinhosan1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As no one objected I will then proceed to make the changes - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Lectonar did revert your deletion of the material. However, she did not object on the merits, just asked you to explain (her edit summary was "Undid revision... this was in the article for a long time; I'd say you take it to the article's talk-page before removing it again). Which you did do. So if User:Lectonar has a material objection, it's now up to her to come here and state it.

On the merits, the source says "This is not, by any means, an accurate... translation". It's possible that this is probably just their attempt at a disclaimer, and they're erring on the side of safety and modesty, but... they say it's not accurate. Since it's not accurate, they should not have published it, and we can't use it, so you're right. I've restored your removal of the material, and thank you, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: He has no objection :). Lectonar (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

OK then, everything is all Sir Garnet. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://taruiyoshikazu.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/MX-2600FN_20130613_194327.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130902071144/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/AJ201307270063 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/AJ201307270063

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on quotation

Thank you User:Lectonar for your editing and commentary. The Quoted material is the translation of the book “Kanjinai Otoko”, a classic of Japanese men’s studies and a best-seller of the year 2005. In the year 2005 there were a lot of heated discussions about the author’s argument on lolicon in Japanese gender-related circles, hence I believe this quoted text is not mere a layman’s opinion on this issue. I propose two things: 1) As for the entry in “Further reading”, I recommend to put the information about the book as it is because its Chapter 4 contains a very useful and helpful information about the “facts” of Japanese lolicon phenomena for English readers, and it is also a rare material that depicts, in English, a detailed reality of Japanese lolicon photo books and discourses in the 1990s and early 2000s. 2) As for the main text, the first choice is to make a subsection like “Psychology of lolicon men” and put the text under it. Second choice is to rewrite the text as “Philosopher Masahiro Morioka argues in his 2005 bestseller book on sexuality “Kanjinai Otoko” that in the minds of …”. Other things coming to my mind is: the quotation from Hiroki Azuma, found in the same paragraph, can also be considered to be an “opinion”. If the quotation from Morioka is considered an opinion and should be deleted, Azuma should also be deleted for the same reason. Midstleggy (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will add book information to "Further reading". Midstleggy (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that what you're trying to input here in the article is still strong WP:UNDUE and also really questionable, "escape their own bodies and secretly transport themselves into the bodies of young girls."; I think that you'll need more than a book stating the opinion of a guy to put an information like that here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilinhosan1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for now this is undue. The article on Masahiro Morioka relies entirely on sources affiliated with Morioka, which is a red flag. This perspective needs outside sources. Since this prompted heated discussions, it should be possible to find WP:SECONDARY sources discussing this. Azuma's opinion, on the other hand, is supported by such a source. At the very least, independent sources should more clearly establish why Morioka's opinion is significant. Being a professional philosopher isn't sufficient by itself. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it makes sense. I will try to find some outside objective source if possible. Midstleggy (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Japan Times, May 5, 2017, published a long article entitled “Professor examines Lolita complex by first looking at his own experience”, and this article quotes an interview with Morioka on his lolicon theory at length. For example: “In his book “Confessions of a Frigid Man,” originally published in Japanese in 2005 and recently translated into English, Morioka examines his own fixation with — and sexual fantasies about — young girls. Then he proposes a hypothesis: His lolicon resulted from a feeling of having grown into a man’s body “by mistake.” When he was about 12 — an age at which secondary sexual characteristics such as the first menstruation for girls and the first ejaculation for boys emerge — he recalls he was “unable to affirm” having a man’s body. “As my body became that of an adult, it began to produce male hormones, grow muscles, acquire a more rugged, angular shape, grow more hair and dirty itself with seminal fluid, and a strange odor began to emanate from somewhere inside me,” he writes. He felt uneasy about his physical transformation, which he says led to his fixation on the “clean” body of a girl and “a desire to slip my consciousness into her body, and while inhabiting it, experience her puberty from the inside.” (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/05/05/national/social-issues/professor-examines-lolita-complex-first-looking-experience/) I believe this article is considered to be an “independent source” on the credibility of his argument at least in the Japanese mass media. And this article itself is a valuable source on the Japanese lolicon phenomenon written in English. Midstleggy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

As it was already stated on the discussion, being a professional philosopher isn't sufficient by itself, and you indeed searched for independent sources regarding the opinion of this professor, but all that is being discussed in the article is his opinion on the subject and the book he wrote regarding his experiences and doesn't include data of any reasearch, nor was it peer reviewed by any group of specialists on the subject, making it still not valid as a justification to put his opinion on the article. In the article itself it is stated, "Morioka, who is heterosexual and married, concedes that none of his hypotheses has been or will ever be “scientifically” proven. He insists that his analysis only applies to himself, and it cannot be generalized.", making it even more clear that this content shouldn't be included here. I will be reverting the inclusion of his opinion on the article here while the discussion is still in progress and consensus hasn't been reached yet. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170322043416/http://japandailypress.com/anime-and-manga-associations-protest-proposed-revision-to-child-pornography-bill-3029742/ to http://japandailypress.com/anime-and-manga-associations-protest-proposed-revision-to-child-pornography-bill-3029742

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lolicon Sample.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Final decision was Keep. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Many good articles don't have illustration, but this one has an example of a pedophilic image!

Lolicon is pedophilia, is it forced to post an image of pedophilia on Wikipedia, like in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. How can an image display it? The lead image currently in the article does not display pedophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Lolicon does no include just pedophilia but also hebephilia and ephebophilia. Essentially, all forms of underage girls. Lolicon also describes the sexualized depictions of underage girls. What the image depicts is the latter without it being overly cringey. Could another image better illustrate the topic better? Verily likely, for example, a early early pubescent girl in a bikini. But such an image would draw fare more complaints because of its more overt and cringey sexualization of an underage girl. 24.149.102.47 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's cringey, but so is the entire topic. And it illustrates lolicon well without being porn. Lolicon is not pedophilia; it is a style of hentai that sexualizes young girls. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree; disturbing topic for me but it is legal in Japan and the image is important to demonstrate what it means. The image has been put up for deletion twice in WikiCommons (2010, 2019), but was a SNOWKEEP both times. Britishfinance (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article deleted from Google search results

This article appears to have been deleted from Google search results, at least in my area (US, California). You can try "site:wikipedia.org Lolicon" as the search results and this talk page comes up, and talk archive pages come up, and alternate language websites come up but the actual page does not. Is google attempting to hide this result or is this an accidental result of some mass purge of the term from their search archives. Ergzay (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not just you, I am on the east coast and both the main page and talk page are now gone from search results. If it is a purge then in my opinion it falls under whitewashing and political correctness. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Google's search engine ban on the word lolicon dates back to 18 April 2010, when it was first perceived by users at least, it is not accidental, but now it is even censoring the wikipedia page, which hasn't happened before, curiously enough the ban is heavier on the word lolicon, with the term loli being partially censored. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not really relevant to the article at hand. This is Wikipedia, not google. We have no control over Google. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, since there are no reliable sources discussing this there isn't really much we can do inclusion-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia admins. I doubt that Google specifically wanted to block a Wikipedia article. If the issue is brought up with Google, then they might rectify it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You will have the same luck by doing it yourself than the Wikipedia Admin would against Google. This would have to come from someone higher up like in the Wikimedia foundation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that bringing in the Wikipedia's admins to the issue is really a great idea, and talking inclusion-wise, we could begin a joint effort to address the censorship suffered by the lolicon culture in general, not only by google, beginning by creating a censorship section on this article - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the article seems to promote pedophilic images, not being illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not visible in Google in central Europe either. This Talk page is OTOH. Zezen (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The page is probably blocked in Google searches due to the paedophilic image in itTeddywithfangs (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Its actually a bunch of things..... see: Censorship by Google. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Pseudo Lolicon teacher not hired

See https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/lolicon-teachers-a-growing-concern

Not sure how to include it here: under moral panic? Unlawful discrimination? Zezen (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. If "lolicon teachers" is a notable term, maybe its own sub-section? If not, then under "2010-present"? Britishfinance (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it fits as this article is geared towards "media that focuses on the attraction to young or prepubescent girls". In Japan being called a "lolicon" is akin to being called a pedophile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

From the article: "“Lolicon” is a Japanese neologism that’s been around since the 1990s, when the nation somewhat flamboyantly shed a layer or two of sexual repression. It means “Lolita complex,” which refers to a taste among older men for very young girls. The Lolita of Vladimir Nabokov’s famous novel of that name was 12". No mention at all about media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I added this in the article, but there's confusion over what the term means because it actually has two meanings in Japan. For the average Japanese person, lolicon might be a synonym for pedophilia. But in the context of otaku culture in Japan, it means something pretty different, referring to both a genre of fiction and the attraction to fictional girl characters. The two can get confused with each other, even in Japan, but it's important to remember these two different contexts. Sandtalon (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Katakana for the full term

A user added the katakana for the full term: "ロリータ●コンプレックス". I was looking at MOS:JAPAN, and while it doesn't forbid this ("Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced, provided that the word is not linked to another article on the English Wikipedia"), it seems really clunky and unnecessary to me, especially since the katakana ロリコン is at the beginning of the article. What do you think? Sandtalon (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference overkill in lead

Do we really need this many references in the lead supporting each side of the lolicon argument? In my opinion per WP:DUE we shouldn't be adding references like this to weigh down a particular viewpoint. Maybe some of these unused sources can be re-purposed elsewhere in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

References

@Knowledgekid87: All of those sources are used elsewhere in the article. I added all of those sources to the lead because the conclusions/arguments of many reliable sources go against people's expectations, and so I feel like listing many sources is necessary to back up that viewpoint. I don't know if it's necessarily WP:Due if the other side is given weight in the lead; however, I noticed that you modified the sentence at the end of the lead where more weight could be given to the other side of the debate. If you changed it back to the original sentence, I could add more sources on the other side (an example--although I personally vehemently disagree with the source, I'd be willing to add it in, or other sources like it, to provide more weight to the other side). That being said, although there might be some problems with weight right now, a very large proportion of the WP:RS that I've come across do take a more "pro-lolicon" stance (Galbraith, Nagayama, Shigematsu, Mark McLelland, Sharalyn Orbaugh, etc). Since WP:Due is about "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public," I don't think too much necessarily needs to be changed--maybe a few more sources from the other side of the debate to the second-to-last sentence in the lead if it's changed back. (As for the sentence earlier in the lead--maybe bundle the sources? Or remove one or two?) Sandtalon (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will drop the WP:UNDUE argument as this reflects what sources are available for the "Controversy" section. I still don't think that we should load that many references in the lead. Could you at the very least group them together so it looks better from a reader's point of view? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, bundling citations might not be the best idea, since the refs are used elsewhere, and bundling doesn't seem to work with named references. I condensed the references for that sentence down to three footnotes, instead. Sandtalon (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the surprising and unintuitive content in the introduction and controversy, I feel keeping sources is important. It protects the credibility of the claims, which are held to a higher standard given they go against most opinions. I5-X600K (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Galbraith 2017b

I think some of the recent quotations added from Galbraith 2017b are good, but at the same time, I was hoping to leave some of those references without the quotations as an inclusive citation. Because the entirety of that dissertation is making one, consistent argument about lolicon, I think inclusive citations are good if making more general statements that the entire works' argument would address. (So, if referencing a specific statement or subargument from that piece, quotations are good. But I think it might be better to cite the whole thing if merely using it to reference "lolicon in otaku culture is a separation of fiction and reality" and stuff like that.) Sandtalon (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I personally have a soft spot for quotations in Wikipedia references, and like to add them everywhere I go; even if the work as a whole is making a consistent argument, I believe that a quote that encapsulates that argument in a nutshell with a representative statement serves more-casual readers who don't have access to the source (though this particular source is available in full online). — Goszei (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Superflat

This is less a thing to be done immediately, but perhaps something for the future...we have the Darling article referenced, which makes me think...we could maybe have something about lolicon in the Superflat movement, particularly the art of Mr., as well as other Japanese artists like Makoto Aida who deal with it. Sandtalon (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a paragraph cited to Darling in the section "Genre and meaning outside Japan" that would be a good place to expand on this (right now it namedrops some Superflat artists like Chiho Aoshima and Aya Takano). — Goszei (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Information

This article lacks relevant information, here I leave a quote: Also, the term "Lolicon" was used to denote those who are obsessed with the "loli" characters. https://learnenglishfunway.com/loli-loli-meaning-what-does-loli-mean/

Apart from that, the definition of "Loli" should be placed in this article. It refers to a fictional female character with a childish or youthful appearance that despite their appearance they are not always minors, here I leave reliable sources: https://honeysanime.com/es/que-es-loli-definicion-ensename-onii-chan/ https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2018/01/loli.html?m=1 I hope that I am taken into consideration, I can not add it because I am a user of another wikipedia in another language Hastengeims (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It is not clear what change you want made. The article already mentions that the term is used for people obsessed with young-looking fictional characters. The article also mentions that this is common but not universally accepted.

Different language Wikipedia's have different standards for sources.

None of these three sources appear to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the English Wikipedia. LearnEnglishFunWay and japanesewithanime.com both appear to be anonymous blogs, which makes them WP:SPS. HoneysAnime looks slightly better, but it doesn't appear to have editorial oversight or have a "positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking" which is expected for sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that those sources do not count as reliable sources under enwiki standards (see WP:RS). That being said, we have all of that information in the article already: Lolicon also refers to[...]fans of these works and characters, young or young-looking girl characters (ロリ, "loli"), and Some define its characters by age, while others define its characters by appearance (those that are small and flat-chested, independent of age). Also, I think you should be autoconfirmed; are you sure you can't edit the article? Sandtalon (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need an example in picture form in the lede?

Just doesn't seem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.101.12 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There has been much, much, much discussion and debate over this issue over the years (even resulting in personal action from the founder of Wikipedia himself on an older image), but the state of the current image has been reached by consensus of the community. It is useful, and even recommended to have visual aids in articles; the image is not explicit but gives a good sense of what the topic is about. (And it was donated by the artist/editor Kasuga because of that.) Sandtalon (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the previous images were overly explicit... this one is a compromise, and it seems reasonable acceptable to most people. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn’t belong in the lede. It confused the attraction with an image of what the person finds attractive. The image is not a lolicon, which it’s presence in the lede implies. Yes, the caption undoes the misconception, but a lede image should not need a caption to unexplain it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In Japanese, lolicon can mean the attraction itself, an individual with the attraction, or the genre of media featuring eroticized girl characters. I think it's reasonable to illustrate the genre, which is what this article pretty much is about. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look through the talk page archives (and the referanda on GA status), in the past, there's been a good deal of consternation about the focus of the article--whether it's supposed to be about an attraction or a genre, etc. It's a complex topic, and those two sides can't really be separated from each other, but I think Goszei and I have done a fairly good job of focusing it and clarifying it--and there is more focus on the genre now. (If we wanted a lead image to illustrate the other meaning of lolicon, there is Ken Hirukogami.png, but I don't really think that would be helpful.) Sandtalon (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think both images could be used, to contrast the two meanings, with neither image in the lede, but in the first section. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I still don't really see why you think it shouldn't be in the lead. The image isn't depicting a lolicon, but the image is definitely an example of lolicon itself. I don't think people would get confused about this, as the lolicon genre is established from the very first sentence of the lead as a major part of what the article is about. I dunno, I was looking at MOS:LEADIMAGE, and I do think the current image is a "natural and appropriate" representation of lolicon. Sandtalon (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If the two images were to be both used, together they would be too much for the lede, I think. I just had a hiccup with the image not matching the first part of the lede sentence, the attraction. It's ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sandtalon: I just started a GA review of this article, and I have to say that I think something being missed here is what would it even look like to represent a lolicon, in the sense of a fan of the genre? Let's imagine an alternate universe where the word furry is Japanese-derived and has the same issue (refers to both a genre and a fanbase)—okay, it'd be pretty obvious how to represent a furry for the article—depict a fursuiter. How do you depict a lolicon? Anyone you pick could feel, perhaps quite rightly, singled out, there's no obvious way to look at someone and say “that's a lolicon”. So you'd end up picking a famous lolicon, singling them out, and also elevating one segment of them above another, no matter who you pick, a Japanese person, a Westerner, someone from elsewhere… this topic is fraught enough already without us deciding to pick an individual lolicon and say “you sir represent all lolicons”. Obviously the nuances are different with MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY and the issue at hand, but I feel a kind of synergy between the two. There's no credible way to depict a lolicon, therefore the logical thing to depict is the genre, as well established by consensus. I realize this conversation ended in July and it's a WP:DEADHORSE, but I want to just explain why I'm not going to oppose this in my upcoming GA review—the current image is perfectly reasonable and has years of community consensus behind it. (cc Goszei) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. I dont think the current image does much to capture what lolicon, at least modern lolicon, is actually about. When you look at modern loli characters in Anime, Manga, vTubing, LNs, and Games, the example image currently being used looks very removed. The characters being portrayed also dont really align much with the pixiv encyclopedia's jp defining of the loli character design. 162.40.224.204 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lolicon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Due to the fraught subject matter, I asked permission first from nominator Goszei on their talk, and they granted it (§ GA review of Lolicon — may I?). So, I'll be doing this GA review over the next few days. A cursory skim shows an article close to GA, and hopefully my ability to speak Japanese and long experience with internet culture will help. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Initial review (4 October 2021)

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• young or young-looking girl characters — I think this is better stated as characters depicted as young girls. This handles the tendency of some works to have canonical explanations which make these characters thousands of years old, but still is clear that the depiction is always of a young girl.
  • I think "young or young-looking" is more immediatiately understandable for the casual reader, as "characters depicted as young girls" requires some pre-existing knowledge of the tendency that you mentioned to make sense (they will wonder why it doesn't just say "young girl characters"). There's also the matter of dispute between whether "age" or simply "appearance" is the defining quality of a loli character (which has parallels in the scholarship, e.g. "roundness" and "cuteness" being parts of the appeal, the common "contradictory performances of age" seen in characters, laws which are often worded to target apparent character age). For these reasons, I think "young or young-looking" is the more clear formulation.
    • @Goszei: Don't entirely agree, but thoughts on [1] as a compromise? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Psiĥedelisto: That edit is fine by me. — Goszei (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• "lolis" — suggest to use this as first mention for writing ロリ and not § Definition and scope; Japanese has no plural.
  • Done.
• computer games — suggest switching this with videogames
  • Done.
• a keyword — strange phrasing. I know it's from the source, but how about has made lolicon a source of criticism of manga?
  • Done.
• previous pornographic gekiga — I think this is confusing wording, and would drop both words previous pornographic. It's clear from context that not all shojō manga are pornographic, so same should be discoverable from gekiga
  • Removed. I decided that this paragraph's information is a little too technical for the uninitiated in manga scholarship, so I split it up (which I think also retains a better chronological flow).
• otaku consumption ⇒ otaku media
  • I changed it to "otaku sexuality", because this is what Saito, et al, are commenting on in particular (as with moe and "2D complex", the scholarship is all about the fan response just as much as the media).

Definition and scope

• and in Japan ⇒ but in Japan
  • Done.
• I feel like this is the right place to discuss your young-looking comment rather than in the lead. You could mention how many popular manga have characters that are depicted as being young girls, but are canonically described as being old. I'm sure you can also find a source where the earnestness of such claims is discussesd (i.e. whether authors make them because they think it protects them from some class of threat).
  • I made a comment about this above (I think the point is fundamental enough to allude to in the first sentence). The idea of artists trying to cover themselves legally is interesting, though I haven't found a source discussing that aspect in particular. Does the second paragraph of the "Media" section suffice in its discussion of "conflicting" character qualities and plot devices found in works?
• The terminology of lolicon is… ⇒ In Japanese, the term lolicon is distinct from words for pedophilia and child pornography. (of course keep Japanese language translations)
  • Done.
• "deeply compromised" — in what way?
  • Removed, since it restates the point about conflation discussed in the previous sentence. Surrounding text tweaked as well.

History

Background

• marketed to girls → I'd add here that it was also most often produced by adult women, because Japanese names may not obviously convey gender to Western readers (who don't know to look for –ko endings, common given names like Sakura etc.)
  • Added, and removed the list of 3 artists (which are all members of Year 24 Group, whose article is linked). I agree that the key point to get across is that shojo manga and imagery was predominantly created and read by women and girls, which started to change in the 1970s.
  • So one funny thing about shōjo manga is that it wasn't primarily produced by women until the 1970s or so. In an interview with Rachel Thorn, Moto Hagio said, "There were only about seven artists drawing girls' comics in those days. Women, I mean; there were plenty of male artists drawing girls' comics then." I have edited the page to reflect that. Sandtalon (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Sandtalon: Thanks Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• I really think it's worth linking to Lewis Carroll § Sexuality when you talk about Carroll's sexuality, even just in relaying a joke made in the 1970's. You don't want readers to leave with the wrong impression.
  • Added on his name text, though I think this may mildly violate WP:EASTEREGG (?).
    • @Goszei: Yeah, fixed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• You mention the public hair ban twice; really you could consolidate these two sentences into one at the end saying e.g. The spread of lolicon imagery, both in manga and in photographs, may have been helped along by…
  • Combined.

1970s–1980s

• I think the first mention of Comiket should be written Comiket as that's the English WP:COMMONNAME.
  • Done.
• I recommend that you write dōjinshi so that we're using a consistent transliteration style throughout the article.
  • Done.
• I'm quite concerned that we're calling Azuma the Father of Lolicon based on quite weak sourcing that doesn't explain the name's origin, which I consider suspect due to the fact that he's not the first or even second lolicon artist. He's also a recently deceased person so it's a WP:BLP matter. His own article quotes Anime News Network. Consider dropping this at least from the lead, and explaining where this title came from and fixing the sourcing.
  • Well, it comes from Galbraith, who is a well-published expert and the best source we have on the topic, and one who translates and draws from Japanese texts (one could call him "Father of Otaku Scholarship in English" ). In his 2019 book, Galbraith writes more about Azuma (who was "at the center of a cult fandom in the early 1980s") and things he has been called by JP commentators, including "the man that spread lolicon and sickness in the world" and "the creator of cute eroticism", although he doesn't repeat the "Father of Lolicon" title. As Galbraith tells it, Azuma is indeed viewed as the "first" lolicon artist (at the very least the one who is credited with sparking the boom and the "cute movement" in manga), so I am inclined to believe him on the "Father" sobriquet. For example, Galbraith does not discuss (or even give mention) to other artists from Cybele.
    • @Goszei: I really don't think that this is anywhere close to enough proof to include a potentially BLP policy issue in the article. We also don't know what version of "father" was in the original Japanese—父さん、父、父親?—if all we have is Galbraith sources, my opinion is it needs to be removed, especially because this article is already extremely heavy in its reliance on Galbraith scholarship, when one of his facts is likely to be contested there's even more reason to remove it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Psiĥedelisto: After some Googling, I think the "father of lolicon" might be a less literal translation of something like "ロリコン漫画の元祖", "元祖ロリコン漫画家", and other variations on those (which, unfortunately, like the Uchiyama example, don't have easily accessible RS to back them up). Another Galbraith source lists an alternate moniker with its Japanese version: "the creator of 'cute eroticism'" (「カワイイエロ」の想像者"), but since we explain kawaii ero slightly later in the paragraph, perhaps that's not a good replacement? That being said, I don't think it's exactly a BLP issue, as WP:BDP states that it would "only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime", which is not the case here. (Azuma was already one of the most well-known lolicon artists from this time; calling him the "father" or "founder" of lolicon is not not very contentious and does not exactly have negative consequences for his family that extend beyond his already-existing reputation.) Sandtalon (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Sandtalon: Because you are telling me that the word in Japanese is 元祖, then I think that this issue can easily be resolved by translating 元祖 word as pioneer instead, lolicon pioneer or use of the verb pioneering somehow. I view that as much less contentious. On to the issue of Uchiyama, I am seeing nothing that would convince me that calling him a king is appropriate. Many different artists draw lolicon, even though you are quoting a reliable source, I do not think that we should be repeating someone's value judgment on the quality of his work. Also I think that it kind of shows a trend that Galbraith's writing style is to try to give the people he writes about monikers, even if such moniker only seldom appeared in Japanese. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Psiĥedelisto: I don't know about User:Goszei, but I would be fine with describing Azuma as a "pioneer" instead. Re:Uchiyama, I'll expand on this more in my response to that comment, but I don't think that's a case of Galbraith giving him an epithet that wasn't used very often in Japanese or himself making a value judgement on the work; Uchiyama seems to have been more widely considered the "king of lolicon" during the '80s, which is less referring to the quality of his work and more to his commercial popularity as an artist during that time period. Galbraith actually refers to this title with some skepticism himself, writing that Uchiyama was the "so-called 'king of lolicon'", so I think Galbraith is including the title in order to demonstrate how Uchiyama is and was perceived generally. Sandtalon (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Psiĥedelisto: I agree with Sandtalon's evaluation on "pioneer" (I am fine with that wording). — Goszei (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• real gravure idols ⇒ gravure idol models
  • Done.
• Obviously I oppose including the king of lolicon quote for an artist we don't even have an article about, especially right after two female artists we do.
  • In his 2019 book, Galbraith explains that "Uchiyama is often heralded as 'the King of Lolicon,' because his work became so emblematic of the lolicon boom", and generally puts a high focus on him in all of his writings on the boom (including in a lengthy interview with the artist himself published in the appendix to Galbraith 2016). Both in Azuma and Uchiyama's case, Galbraith makes indirect comparison to Tezuka's title as the "God of Manga". I think relaying these titles gives the reader a sense of how each artist is remembered in relation to the boom (namely, as the 2 most significant figures in it). For what it's worth, I think that we could have an article on Uchiyama, and I may create one sometime in the future.
    • @Goszei: Same issue as above. 王様、王、国王、王者、キング. Could even be localization of 皇帝. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Psiĥedelisto: Based on some Googling, I think it's 王様, but sadly not from an RS, I think. The RS that would verify the Japanese for this would likely be some print publications that would be difficult to get access to right now (that online glossary that I linked to was turned into a published book, so maybe that? Or some older publications). That being said, it's not really a BLP issue here as Uchiyama has acknowleged the term himself in a published interview with Galbraith: "now I am remembered as the king of lolicon" (from The End of Cool Japan, p. 220). Considering that, might it be okay to include the "king of lolicon" epithet citing Galbraith with the ロリコンマンガの王様 spelling from the glossary? Sandtalon (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Sandtalon: How about using the word self-described? I would be okay with it then. I think my issue with the word King compared to father is that it is a value judgment on the quality of work, while somebody who merely originated something may not have done so well in the first instance if that makes sense. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Psiĥedelisto: The only problem is that Uchiyama is not exactly self-describing there; he's more acknowleging a name he is known by but did not choose himself. The full interview is here, and in it Uchiyama also says, "Well, I never called myself such a thing. People started calling me that and I was like, “Oh, whatever!” You can’t do much about what people say. I just go with the flow." So he doesn't exactly object to the name, but he doesn't self-describe as it either. He also says, "I have become a symbol of something that was way bigger than me." As I mentioned in the previous comment, the word "king" is less a value judgement and more a statement on popularity or fashion; he was clearly more widely known as the "king" at the time, as a representative figurehead of the lolicon movement. Sandtalon (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
            • @Sandtalon: Thanks for the further context, in that case, let's keep the king comment…With all due respect, after doing my own research, I'm very comfortable with it now. I think you're wrong about the most common form, it's not 王様 (ō-sama), it's 帝王 (teiō): ロリコン漫画の帝王, sometimes instead of ロリコン, オムツ (omutsu, diaper). Sometimes 漫画 written either マンガ or 漫画堺. (Some sources NSFW!) [2][3][4][5][6][7] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Lolita Anime, released in 1984 and 1985 ⇒ Lolita Anime, episodically released between 1984–1985
  • Used "released episodically in 1984–1985".
• Define what a "lolicon idol" is before you give examples of them.
  • Rephrased.
• roots of lolicon anime lie in such magical girl shows ← add bolded word
  • Rephrased.
• How do scholars determine when the boom ended? Did something happen to end it?
  • I will have to refer this to my collaborator User:Sandtalon, who has the copy of Nagayama 2020, but I believe that the boom's end is explained by the shifting interests to "baby-faced and big-breasted" characters stated later in this paragraph. The lolicon boom was itself a product of the manga market ripening enough to support innovation and niches, and these niches continued to expand and displaced the genre in the 1980s with more varied bishojo imagery. Maybe we could state this more strongly or in clearer terms, if Nagayama does
  • Goszei is pretty much correct, and I have added more explanation for the reason why the boom ended. Nagayama doesn't really give an indication of how 1984 was determined to be the end, but by conjecture, perhaps by sales numbers? Sandtalon (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

1990s–present

• Does anyone have any ideas as to why lolicon imagery became more accessible during this time, despite the Miyazaki case?
  • Galbraith states this without further comment. The full quote is "[I]n the early 1990s lolicon-type imagery (i.e., sexualized girls who appear underage) actually expanded and became acceptable in manga."
• Please give a more thorough legislative history of the removal of the text if possible. It'd be interesting if we can figure out why members of the Diet removed it, what they actually discussed. I wonder if someone has documented that.
  • This source [8] (Takeuchi 2015) might help, and you haven't yet cited it
    • More info on the 1998 removal would indeed be good (specifically whether the provision met major public opposition, like in 2014); I will have to again refer to Sandtalon and the copy of Nagayama 2020. Strangely I haven't found another source that mentions this 1998 draft provision or opposition to it; Takeuchi, for example, does not mention it.
  • Unfortunately, Nagayama doesn't elaborate much on the 1998/1999 law. The provision apparently did meet with opposition, but there is little information about it. The full quote is, "in 1998, the ruling political party presented an outline of the proposed [law], which included pictorial expression. The move to enshrine in law the regulation of pictorial and manga expression by piggybacking on the high legislative ideal of protecting the human rights of children drew criticism from many in Japan. When the bill was passed into national law in 1999, pictorial expression was excluded." Unlike Goszei, I do know some Japanese, but my skills at the moment are such that looking for more information on this in Japanese would be difficult, especially since this is a law from the '90s. Perhaps something to add in the future? In the meantime, I have added a partial quotation of that sentence. Sandtalon (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Sandtalon and Goszei: I think I could find some more information, but let's wait until after the GA review then if I'm going to be contributing a significant amount of prose to the article. I agree with you both that this issue isn't enough to fail GA, but I shouldn't do it before GA because then it'll contain a significant amount of own writing. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Are other reasons ever used as reasons for retaining lolicon's legal status? For example, cultural reasons?
  • I haven't found a source that addresses that directly, the arguments of the Japanese opposition across sources seems uniformly centered on the points of freedom of expression, and a lack of a demonstrated connection between fiction and crimes.
• and decided against criminalizing ⇒ and decided once again against criminalizing
  • but also, is that even fair to say? It may not have been debated at all if the definitions weren't up for debate, so hard to say a positive decision on lolicon was made, more like no decision (maintain status quo definition)
  • I think your evaluation is correct: it is better viewed as a maintenance of the status quo.

Media

• Some may define lolicon by age only, but this is clearly a minority view, even in the cited source. I think that Some define its characters by age, while others define its characters by appearance gives WP:UNDUE weight to the minority view by putting it first and making it sound equal in number to the majority view.
  • The full quotation from the source is "For some, the designation of a Lolita character, or a 'loli,' is age. A sexualized child character might be a loli. Others consider it a design issue, with characters that are small and have a flat chest being designated loli, which is independent of age." I don't believe that Galbraith is making any claims about majority or minority views on the matter; I couldn't find other RS on this point.
    • @Goszei: It's not required that an RS comment on this specifically to write it my way, you can simply make the judgment based on all the RS's you've read. Do you even have one RS where the claim is made it's only a canonical age issue? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Psiĥedelisto: Nagayama writes that when defining lolicon, "the standard is the age setting of the heroine". (It's the same paragraph in the book as the quotation in the following paragraph in the article, where he expands on the point about lolicon being a matter of age.) Nagayama also acknowledges some ambiguity in the same way that Galbraith does (though a little less clearly) by saying that sometimes the "icon" (design) matters more than the "idea" (child), but Nagayama ultimately emphasizes age, which is clear when he says lolicon manga is that with a "heroine younger than a middleschool student". I also can't think of an RS off the top of my head that explicitly says that it is a design issue either. (Maybe Klar?) I think most just say "children" or "girls" or something to that effect. Sandtalon (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Goszei: It's not required that an RS comment on this specifically to write it my way, you can simply make the judgment based on all the RS's you've read. Do you even have one RS where the claim is made it's only a canonical age issue? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• characters in the genre may appear ← add bolded word
  • Done.
• is since the 1990's mostly consumed by male audiences ← add bolded words
  • I am not sure if the sourcing supports this temporal statement. Based on the 1983 Burriko survey contained in the footnote, for example, the genre (consistent with erotic/bishojo works more broadly) was still mostly consumed by men (~80%).
• Does any of Murakami's work feature lolicon, or just works in the art style he created?
  • The citation discusses lolicon more in connection to Murakami's protégés; I looked some more and couldn't find any sources discussing Murakami's works and lolicon in particular.
  • There is at least one case where Murakami did explicitly lolicon work, which I added.Sandtalon (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Relation to moe

• Some more explanation is needed as to the difference between moe and lolicon artwork. Lack of sexualization is one thing, but I think another worth mentioning is that moe characters are often canonically in adolescence, such as the 14 year old Sailor Moon or the teenage NGE characters, but yet are still often depicted as having younger bodies than their age and behaviors would lead one to assume.
  • It's a good point, though I struggle to find direct support in a source. The following sentence touches on "physically immature" characters as being most associated with the moe form, and I think the paragraph thus gets across the general point on the bishōjo character form.

Genre features

• It's going to be difficult for the average reader to understand what is meant by the inclusion of the term pedophilia in the list of what's in "[m]ore extreme works", as many Western readers already consider loli pedophilia, rightly or wrongly. I suggest you nix that term and make it about the ages of characters instead.
  • I was going to replace it with "adult–child sex", which gets across the same point (?), but "rape" is listed there, which covers it. I decided to remove it from the list.
    • @Goszei: This issue seems solved by just removing the term, not sure if Sandtalon did that. Either way, striking. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• I love her quote about the consciousness of sin however, and definitely think that some abridgement of this second part of the section is lead material.
  • I think it is a good analysis on Nagayama's part as well, but I disagree on its suitability for the lead (I think the paragraph-length context is needed to understand the point).

Censorship

• Online publication to escape restriction—interesting note, and makes me wonder how often is that brought up as something that makes local ordinances pointless in practice?
  • No direct discussion as far as I can find.
• Please quote Naoki Inose more thoroughly, so readers can better understand what she wanted banned and why.
  • As above, I will refer this to Sandtalon and their copy of Nagayama 2020.
  • There isn't much to describe Inose's motivations in Nagayama (he interprets the motivations of pro-censorship politicians in general, but as interpretation and not necessarily about Inose specifically), but I have added a quotation from Inose in Nagayama. Sandtalon (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• vendor cancellations in re Kodomo no Jikan—do we know which? I also don't think we need to name the company president.
  • I don't believe the company ever named the vendors which canceled their orders. Removed mention of DeAngelis.
• No Game No Life light novel ban—I think Western readers could use clarification that light novels are often full of manga-like illustrations.
  • I have added a footnote on this.
• This section really seems like it's missing a lot of information. I find it hard to believe that these are the only notable cases of lolicon censorship, or even that they're the most notable. For example, why not talk about how Reddit used to allow lolicon but now doesn't? [9][10][11] (Primary sources: Reddit's policy beforeReddit's policy after) Why not talk about Discord's ban? [12] Are there any other online bans which ought to be mentioned?
  • Further, the section on Australia even seems to be missing some critical sources, like [13].
    • I have added the ABC source. There are a lot of more details scattered in RS around with respect to Bonaros' campaign (such as [14]), but I want to aim for more concise treatment here and stick to what the RS highlight as most notable (a senator in a major country singling out manga and anime and getting a popular series banned). I have added a brief sentence on Discord and Reddit's prohibitions (though I had to use a primary source to verify the latter).
  • And, is there anything that 4chan's long history of allowing lolicon can tell us about its status on the internet? Is it possible to bring up the commonly repeated chan user argument that lolicon is a "canary in a coalmine" vis-à-vis online free speech, or has no reliable source taken this seriously? (I genuinely do not know, and am not suggesting they should if they have not.)
    • It is certainly an interesting point, though unfortunately I have not found an RS that explores it. It strikes me as something that scholars will perhaps be talking about in 5 to 10 years as part of broad trends on the Internet.

Commentary

• I suggest that this section go through a reheading. Legal aspects of lolicon really are not in any way commentary, so don't belong in § Commentary. I think that § Legal aspects should become a top level heading, freed from § Commentary, and § Academic and critical should become the new toplevel § Commentary, perhaps under the new name § Academic commentary.
  • I have conducted a different reorganization which collects information on both legality and censorship under a new top-level section, and have moved the info on the debates over legality to a sub-header in that section.

Academic and critical

• My issue with this section is primarily from an WP:NPOV perspective. The first sentence says that critics generally support the idea that lolicon is not a manifestation of pedophilia, but there are no critics mentioned who don't think that. If they don't exist, generally is the wrong word; if they do, they ought to be mentioned.
  • This is a challenging point. I have found two statements from scholars which characterize the positions of the scholarship more broadly: McLelland says "scholarship on the whole" emphasize a distinction, while Kittredge says "the majority of the cultural critics" do so, which I have expressed here as "generally". Personally, I think they are both under-stating the foundational nature of this position on the "reality of fiction" (since I have found no critics in the manga/anime sphere, in English or Japanese, who claim that desires in manga and in reality are one and the same, or even significantly related), but I don't think a stronger statement can be made given the sourcing.
  • There are few sources of scholars and critics who unequivocally and outright claim that 2D lolicon is equivalent to 3D pedophilia, but there are more who strongly imply or can be interpreted as feeling that way. Some of the sources who are critical of lolicon, such as Funabashi, Nakasatomi, etc. fall into the latter category (these argue for a causal relationship between lolicon and child abuse), but I think interpreting or reading those sources in that way would skew towards WP:OR. (They likely believe that it is a reflection of real pedophilic desire, but they do not directly say so.) That being said, I have added a scholar who more directly claims that this kind of desire is outright pedophilic in nature. Sandtalon (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Other than that, I don't have a problem with its contents—I do think that it might be helpful to mention things happening in Japan that Western readers may not be aware of to contextualize Japanese gender relations. For example, falling birth rates, achievement gaps, etc.
  • I think the quotes from Itō and Kinsella serve to get across the basic idea of an achievement gap and the growing power of women in society; more context may be helpful, but as complex and broad sociology topic (changing birth rates, attitudes to marriage, gender roles and expectations, etc.) I am struggling to write a footnote that meaningfully adds to reader understanding.

Legal aspects

• Interestingly, this section does contain some people who would link lolicon and pedophilia, not all of it legal related. I think that for example the comments of Kuniko Funabashi belong in the above section and not this one.
  • I believe there is a subtle distinction here (Funabashi is saying lolicon contributes to attitudes which in turn contribute to sexual violence, rather than lolicon as an expression, or a cause, of pedophiliac desire). I will refer this to Sandtalon, who has access to the source.
  • Goszei is generally correct on Fubabashi’s point (which, I’ll add, is not terribly well written or argued). She does argue that fiction and reality get confused, but not in a way where she says directly that 2D lolicon is equivalent to 3D pedophilia, as she’s referring to pornography in general with that statement. (The same problem that I mention above: the authors in this section who are critical of lolicon argue that there is a causal relationship with child abuse, but they do not directly state that lolicon is the same as pedophilia, even if they might imply so.) Sandtalon (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I think there's some confusion about the UN HRC guidelines. What is the UN actually asking for regulation-wise?
  • Modified to "encouraged state parties to include explicit drawings of fictional children in laws against child pornography".

See also

• I suggest removing the article Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons from this list, but would like to hear your thoughts. As I see it, instead of talking about this here, which seems a bit like navel gazing to me by Wikipedia, we could bring it up in § Censorship instead—a section I thought was too short.
  • Removed.

Style

• Remember to always italicize lolicon, a few places don't.
  • Done, everywhere except for book/article titles, which I believe should be left unmodified (?).
• You refer to Kaoru Nagayama a few times by her surname even between sections. As readers are likely to read or link to only one section, I'd not do this.
  • Done, fixed other cases as well.

Sources

• Please avoid linking to predatory third parties like Academia.edu when possible; Galbraith 2021 is better linked to https://www.stockholmuniversitypress.se/site/books/m/10.16993/bbn/
  • Done.

GAN criteria

Having done my preliminary review of the article, I will now discuss my feelings of how well it meets the various good article criteria.

GA?№1

• The article is very well written and understandable to a broad audience despite minor things I thought Western audiences could use some help understanding.
• However, the article really suffers when it comes to how well it follows MOS:JAPANESE, especially regarding its lack of inclusion of Japanese script on first instance (if non-linked) for way too many terms—this needs fixing in order for me to be able to pass the article on this citeria. The insistence on using rōmaji only makes the article more difficult to read. Kawaii ero e.g. should say かわいいエロ, lolibaba should say ロリババア and is a perfect instance of why this is needed. One might think that the kanji are implied to be ロリ婆, because you missed the macron over the final a (shoul be lolibabā). There are so many ways to say "lolicon boom" (ロリ好景気？) that we really do need the script ロリコンブーム. We should also remember that we include Japanese script to help people research in Japanese, so even dictionary terms like nijigen complex (二次元コンプレックス) need Japanese script…especially medical terms like shōniseiai (小児性愛). I recently added a bunch of Japanese script to Bara (genre) because I literally could not figure out without 20 minutes of research how some of these authors spelled their names/works, and didn't want anyone else to need to do that.
  • Let me know if you need help meeting MOS:JAPANESE if you don't speak Japanese well enough to do it.
    • I do not speak Japanese, and so took my best swing at this. I decided to include the script for less-essential terms within footnotes, in the interest of keeping the prose light and directed at more casual readers, which providing script for those who want to research further in Japanese sources.

GA?№2

• Excellent citation format, better than many of my articles (clearly you have no love for the VE hehe). Nothing to work on format-wise.
• However, I do notice that you don't mention any Japanese-language scholarship or even sources. I am not saying you must do this, but I think if you can do this the article would benefit. If you don't have the ability, it can very easily be considered a minor thing which shouldn't hold up a GA nom but might need consideration if you want to go for FA, to make sure that your coverage is really as broad as it could be.
  • I agree that more Japanese-language sources could be beneficial (I don't know Japanese myself), and offer that I have tried my best to make use of Galbraith's original translation work from the writings and interviews with Japanese scholars (Akagi, Fujimoto, Ueno, Harata).

GA?№3

• I believe I covered quite well the ways I think the article could be broadened already in the above section-by-section review.

GA?№4

• Besides the one NPOV concern I had, I'd feel fine passing the article on this criterion.

GA?№5

• I think this criterion is worth discussing in detail, so that people have an explanation for why I passed it on this criterion. The history of this article, concerning its stability in general, but also its stability with regards to the GA process, is quite rocky. The article was extremely controversial in the early years of Wikipedia, before we really came up with ways to handle controversial topics as well as we do now, and before we came up with the enforcement mechanisms for community consensus we have now, and the strengthening of our quality standards over the years. The article was twice listed for deletion, once in 2006; once in 2010—speedily kept both times. The article was listed on GA after an extremely lazy 2007 review by Littleteddy, a user who is now indef blocked for being a sockpuppeteer. Jezhotwells then began a 02/2011 GAR after a request by Malkinann. This GAR mostly came down to a feud between two editors about whether or not the article was really done, questions about its expand tags and sourcing, and so on. Jez failed the article at that time, I likely would've done the same. Jinnai saw it as a procedural defect that a feud overshadowed the GAR, and began another GAR immediately after the other one closed. Ultimately, the admin Geometry guy decided that SilkTork's argument that the feud is immaterial and that the article at that time failed GA?№1 and GA?№3, so upheld the delisting.

In the ten years that have followed, editors have come together, finished the article, and worked out many of its remaining issues. The article has also become much less controversial as it has become much more fact-based and much less explicit. While talk archive 15 covers a three year period, the most recent archive has half the topics and covers seven years! El_C made the article indefinitely autoconfirmed and above access required, which I find more than fair given the depth of knowledge of our policies one would need to be able to contribute to it. Since this admin's decision, the article has been extremely stable in my review of the history, with editors avoiding edit warring and working things out on each other's talk pages and the article's talk, when appropriate.

As GA?№5 is not here to judge future stability (e.g. should another admin remove the indef flag) nor to harshly judge an article's past, I can quite easily  pass the article on this procedural criterion even during this initial review. There's no reason for me to challenge this and have Goszei and other editors Wikilawyer with me about the definition of stability, I am satisfied with the article's stability.

GA?№6

• As mentioned on the talk page, this was a criterion I'd already made up my mind on— passing lolicon on GA?№6. My main motivation is my reply to Talk:Lolicon § Do we really need an example in picture form in the lede?, but I have another reason: if any criteria has been beaten to death on this article, it's this one. Images have been the cause of much community consternation on this article. It simply would be improper for me to use my role as holding the ceremonial rite to pass or fail this article as a GA to try to push through changes in the image lineup, period, and would feel like borderline skirting consensus to me. I accept the community consensus on the acceptability of the existing image lineup, and find them relevant.

---

Initial review complete! 🌟

@Goszei: When you can, please answer the above concerns. Please strike dealt with concerns to keep us organized. (We can unstrike them all en masse when the review is complete as a public record.) Please review all my comments by seven days from today and either implement the requested changes or explain why you don't want to. Thank you. I look forward to finishing the review, and hope that this is what you were expecting it to be. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Response from Goszei: I've just completed my initial comments and edits, and I thank you for your thorough treatment. I hope you can bear with me on some of the sourcing difficulties inherent to the topic, both as a taboo subject and as an oftentimes vague one (blending smoothly into the general phenomenon of character affection). You bring up some excellent points that I hope will be published (or simply found by editors greater than I) in RS in the future — otaku and manga scholarship in English is rapidly improving, with more translations and new material every year, so I am hopeful that our coverage in this area will only get better. I deferred some of my responses above to my collaborator on this article, User:Sandtalon, who informed me that they may have time to take a look at this review today or tomorrow. — Goszei (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Response from Sandtalon: If I may be so presumptuous to add my own concluding comment (although I have been on a partial wikibreak as of late and am not the nominator, I am a major contributor, and Goszei and I collaborated heavily on the article with the intention of bringing it to GA status), I would also like to thank you for your review. I have addressed some of the remaining concerns on this review, as well as some of my own, and I look forward to your final decision! Sandtalon (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sandtalon and Goszei: Thanks for your prompt replies. FYI despite the state of the strikethroughs all that remains is Goszei's thoughts on replacing "father" for "pioneer" given the actual Japanese text used…I agree that everything else is as far along as we can bring it at this time…then I can submit the final review and close this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Final review (13 October 2021)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

After much collaboration, I  pass this article as a GA, a decade since it lost its status. Congratulations to all the editors who have worked on it, especially the recently careful rewriters, Goszei and Sandtalon. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The minor issues in clarity I found during my initial review were resolved easily and quickly.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The article's lack of Japanese script, which was a major roadblock for verifiability of some things, as well an impediment to readers familiar with the Japanese language who wished to do further research in Japanese, was fixed in a coördinated, team effort.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   As already said, but worth repeating again: beautiful reference formatting. So much so in fact, I copied some of it over to 2channel (use of {{efn}} and {{notelist}}) after learning about it from reading and reviewing this article.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   We had some problems dealing with some statements I found likely contentious, but we soon determined that many of these issues were actually just criterion (1)(b) in disguise. I am now confident in the lack of WP:LIKELY challenges.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Certainly, the article is GA-quality broad. However, it's not quite FA-article broad, as stated.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Indeed, deviations from the main topic are studiously avoided.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   With a man once thought to be a father now correctly described as a pioneer, I'd say this article is as neutral as possible given its highly contentious topic — as if the end of the world is being described by an alien race rather uninterested in Earth. Bravo.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Passed in the initial review—see § GA?№5.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No copyright issues.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Passed in the initial review—see § GA?№6.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article passes GA, a hard won achievement. I only saw two matters concerning which this article could be improved even more on what I assume is its journey to WP:FAC:

   • more reading of Japanese scholarly sources and including them where English sources do not have the content in question. Perhaps this could also be done to decrease the article's firm reliance on the work of Patrick Galbraith. Although a very capable scholar, there is no doubt, having Japanese sources to back up his claims would go a long way towards featured article status, I think.
   • More information about the 1999 law and legal matters in Japan in general; why the 1999 provision on loli was removed way back then, what it said, any other legislative history we can find.

Suggestion: Some Cultural Critics who are against Lolicon should feature in the Critical Commentary Section

The current section exclusively features pro lolicon voices. While this clearly wasn't the intention, it can come across as a lolicon apologist's toolbox of handy quotes, rahter than its obvious original intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connchúirdubh (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

When Goszei and I were preparing the article for GAN, I made sure to try to include balanced perspectives on the topic. What we found is that there just aren't that many anti-lolicon voices that would fit in that section (you can see our discussion about this in the GA review). However, I would disgree that the section exclusively features "pro-lolicon" voices. There are several sources that seem to have a more negative view on lolicon in the third paragraph, namely Kinsella, Naitō, and Yano, as well as Miyazaki in the fourth paragraph. Sandtalon (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock the article

Can the article be unblocked now? 151.34.110.78 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, because this is a highly sensitive subject that teenagers with school computers love to abuse. Sure it might seem funny at first, but try being the editors who have to clean up the huge mess over and over again afterwards to show people what they are actually looking for. If you want to edit this page then please create an account on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Lolicon is about children, not "young girls"

"Young girls" can imply someone in their 20's. Lolicon is specifically art of prepubescent girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linux rules, Windows drools (talk • contribs) 05:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As I put in my edit summary, in the 1980s, "lolicon" could mean older teens (and per the Nagayama source, to some people in Japan even today, "lolicon" could still mean that), so changing it might be unwise. Also, I think anybody referring to adult women in their 20s as "young girls" is being rather patronizing and sexist; it is not the usual or assumed usage in contemporary English to use "young girls" to refer to people in their 20s. (Young women? sure. But "young girls"? No.) Sandtalon (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to add to the argument above that the legal definition of age varies around the world. An ongoing issue for organizations such as ICMEC has been the legal age definition of a "child" in various countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Lolicon is art about unrealistic characters. We see this reflected in Sato's views that Lolicon do not have an attraction to or interest in living children. This difference manifests itself in the way the characters are designed, leading to their actual shape being different. I think an uninformed reader would get the wrong idea if such phrasing is used. 162.40.224.204 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Girls are by definition children... EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Girl" has multiple definitions depending on usage, but most common uses of the term still fit within this context. Arguably better than "child" would due to how loli itself can be applied to a wide range of character age groups. 162.40.224.204 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They're right, the actual definition is "In Japan, the term describes the attraction to underage girls who have just entered puberty or the individual who feels such attraction ". So not merely "young girls". Could someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.110.78 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In terms of sources I would take one from Academia.edu (research studies/papers) over "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition to McCarthy and Clements not actually supporting this claim, which I wrote about below, I checked Darling, and that source doesn't support the claim either. Nowhere in Darling does it mention "underage girls who have just entered puberty." Granted, Darling does use the phrase "prepubescent girls" (which I would add is definitionally not "girls who have just entered puberty": that phrase would indicate "pubescent") or "preteen," but he also uses the phrase "young girls," which is what this article also uses in order to account for the ambiguous scope of the definition as found in Nagayama and Galbraith 2019. Sandtalon (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

A for-profit non-Japanese pop culture-specialized source? Yeah, right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.26.100 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Academia.edu is only a host or repository for scholars to upload their works...if you want to look at the validity of a source on Academia.edu, you need to look at the source of the source. And in the case of the works used to support the current definition of lolicon, they are Japanese pop-culture specialized sources published by academic presses. For example, Nagayama is from Amsterdam University Press and Galbraith 2019 is from Duke University Press. (Incidentally, I have access to McCarthy and Clements, and nowhere does their chapter on lolicon actually specify an age range.) Sandtalon (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of prepubescent as a descriptor

In the first sentence,I believe alongside "young girls" there should be prepubescent. Even if the claims that sometimes it portrays older women were true, it is also true that often times this artsyle portrays pre-pubescent children. And so, ought to be included. Else it give the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Id imagine "young" and "young-looking" should have enough range to touch on such an area. Such anatomical features dont exactly seem like a requirement, or particularly common in popular characters and works, so specifying it in the introduction seems unnecessary. Im not sure what "wrong impression" that would give.

If you want to get into variation in the visual elements of the archtype, the definition section might be a better place to elaborate on those details. It might be good to find some resources that go over the aesthetic and design elements more. Crimsan (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

How are they not common or not a requirement? Especially if its meant to portray children?

Wrong impression such as, "ah young, so like 14-15. Not 8" Genabab (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Theres no strict age requirement for loli characters to begin with. Ages in anime tend to be particularly nonsensical in relation to design. As the media section(and the japanese pixiv dictionary definition) point out, loli utilize secondary sexual characteristics, often to an exaggerated degree.

And id argue its "more often" rather than just "some" when you look at modern mobile games and manga designs. Many defined features found on other character body types can be found on loli in these popular works within the mediums. This is especially prevalent in animation, as most animated works need character designs to be as generalized as possible due to an excessive number of artists often working on the hand drawn animation.

The primary difference in what makes loli different from standard or larger anime girls is more their head heights than anything else. Other shapes tend to be retained for visual appeal. You wont find an actual child with the same body shape(or mannerisms) as a vast majority of loli characters. As the definition and critical commentary sections point out, the genre and community dont seem to have an interest in actual children, so why would such characters adhere to their biological or psychological development? It might be better to view loli as a "replacement" in this way rather than a depiction or representation. Crimsan (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. In terms of what their "canon" age is, this may be the case. But in terms of what they are being based off of, and what must necesarily be in the artists mind when being made, is a prepubescent child. Or at least a minor.

Certain designs being exaggerated, I don't think, really changes the fundamental point (above)?

Why wouldn't it be the proportions in the figure too?

Well yes, of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't find many men that look like someone in an anime either. Because they are a cartoon. But that doesn't mean its not a depiction of a man? Genabab (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that the characters features and traits itself heavily contradict the traits of a "prepubescent child". When these traits are so distinct, it shouldnt be ruled out that the creators specifically just have this archtype/trope in mind, especially when their actual features and behaviors are simply distinct from that of a child, much less a prepubescent one. Terms like "prepubescent" refers to a specific period of human development, a system and set of rules that fictional characters dont necessarily end up bound to, and neither does the creators imagination it seems. Especially when research into the history and psychology hints at a strong disconnect between the two.

I guess the difference here is asking, whats "exaggerated" and whats just something different? These "exaggerations" in proportions as well as shapes are changes seen from human development after all.

Like i said above, the figures actual features are often changed and different as well. Secondary sexual characteristics like the waist, breast definition, wider hips, leg shape are all features "borrowed" from developed figure anatomy and utilized for the figure. These are often shapes taught for figure drawing to create visual appeal, theyre shapes our eyes seek out. So it makes sense some will find these characters visually appealing because of them. There are examples of slender petite cosplayers who match many of the shapes found on the characters while being adults themselves.

Perhaps a close analogy here would be with Furries? Where the goal is something distinct in "existance" at a deep enough level that the community and culture sort of "creates" an alternate existance for their own desires and ideas? Theres also a bit of a difference between gendered descriptors and descriptors surrounding specific developmental stages as well. It just doesnt seem like a helpful descriptor with all the evidence that its seemingly not widely utilized or desired within the genre. And there doesnt seem like theres any particular benefit to this specification either, just more confusion that will arise as a reader goes further in the article. Crimsan (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"it shouldnt be ruled out that the creators specifically just have this archtype/trope in mind" I am not specifically familiar with qualifications for a character to be seen as a "loli". But in some cases artists seem to be imitating popular characters and designs from previous works, or characters that personally appealed to them. Take, Rei Ayanami for example, a popular character from the 1990s. Her distinctive design consisted of a youthful and somewhat cute appearance (but not model looks), short blue hair, stoic facial expressions and attitude. and a rare eye color. She inspired a long list of characters with similar or identical features (see this image for an example). I have seen a couple of anime series where characters resemble those in older series in both appearances and personalities. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Theres no strict age requirement for loli characters to begin with."

There's toddlercon ages 1~3, lolicon ages 4~12, and your regular hentai and anime with schoolgirls ages 12-18+ which are definitely not lolis anymore.

Lolicon pretty much encompasses pedophilic interest (tanner stage 1 or 2) when it comes to the age range and by age I mean the portrayed age, not the mentioned 500 year old vampires'.

"You wont find an actual child with the same body shape(or mannerisms) as a vast majority of loli characters"

In 90% of the cases the only unrealistic or exaggerated body part is the big head with big eyes. When it comes to the behavior you are absolutely right though, it's the other way around.

" the genre and community dont seem to have an interest in actual children"

That's very poorly referenced and the whole subject may suffer from extreme bias due to the taboo. Zazae (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Re:age. We've been over this again and again on the talk page. In the 1980s, it had a broader definition, and per Nagayama, even now there may be a broader age range subsumed under "lolicon" for the Japanese public, even if not strictly within otaku culture.

And I think it's very well referenced, personally. (And I would think that the taboo would lead to bias in reliable sources in the opposite direction, if anything.) If you can find reliable sources to make the article better, though, go ahead. Sandtalon (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about colloquial usage

I am a native Japanese speaker and this article, though well-cited, repeatedly claims that lolicon is a term used only for attraction to fictional characters, when in vernacular Japanese it is used to describe pedophiles (i.e. adults attracted to real life children) as well. How should this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusyeeter (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible bias and inconsistency.

I accept the notion that I'm alone in this conclusion. I've noticed that the majority of the article seems to lean heavily to otaku views, at the very least omitting the more common views of the topic and non-proportionally over-representing the Lolicon side.

For example, the very first paragraph represents the common understanding of Loli in its one sentence, and proceeds to describe the Otaku view in detail for the rest of the paragraph.

The particular use of "Moral Panic" in the 3rd Intro paragraph suggests that the 90s criticisms were irrational and of emotion and not reason. The passage then becomes inconsistent in the 4th overall paragraph, stating that the lustful version of the definition is most prominent, before contradicting itself in the very next sentence stating that it's now more often used to denote female children (despite the first lines' definition stating that it is the lustful definition that is more accepted?).

I think the possible bias is most noticeable in the Legality and Censorship section (and the need to use the word censorship here could be argued as well). Unless I'm missing some universal formatting standard: shouldn't the UNHRC and other experts have more weight than Japan and should be mentioned first? The defense portion has more experts cited, and the offense section implies that CASPAR was formed because of the Miyazaki case which doesn't seem true, it also cites less perspectives and experts than the defense section.

I'm bad at constructing thorough run-downs, but as I read the article it seems ever so slightly off and tipped in one favor over the other. Again, I understand that I may be entirely in the wrong and the article is fairly weighted, but it does seem that there's a larger hand dealt to Otaku and Lolicons rather than the actual public and common perception. MagiTagi (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi there! I don't really think I am in the mood of having a serious debate here over the specifics of the article but just to give my quick two cents regarding the claim of "bias" in this article as a person who has only a vague interest in the topic, I would strongly disagree, I think it's pretty neutral considering the serious amount of controversy that surrounds the topic, there are plenty of more controversial pages on this site that could be said to have serious biases towards certain beliefs, often by people with much more extreme political views, and from how I see it, I don't really see people trying to distort the information to portray a narrative.

Rather as how I see the situation, I see yourself making good-faith edits on the article which merely slant differently than most other editors, with you leaning more in opposition towards lolicon much more than the rest of the community, and thus feel the need to call out the articles use of terms like "moral panic" and "censorship" to describe both critics and restrictions on such content fairly since you might feel it misrepresents opponents, but as I see it, I think how the opponents are represented is perfectly fair, as suppressing or restricting art for being seen as "objectionable, harmful, or sensitive" is both what censorship is typically defined as, and typically also the basis for justifying the restriction of stuff such as lolicon in the first place, and as for using the term "moral panic" to refer to reactions against lolicon, I think is also valid. I have personally witnessed the continued discussions online, especially on social media of people usually with certain agendas who attempt to conflate the depiction of fictional cartoon characters that either are underage in-universe or at least appear shorter and more "moe" or fit into a stereotypical "childlike" appearance (lolicon/shotacon) as well as animals (as in furry content) drawn in sexual acts to be akin to engaging in the production of actual CP/Animal porn as if they were either almost or equally just as bad, and using this sentiment to push the silencing of things they are uncomfortable with being depicted in art and fantasy fearing they will/already have a serious negative impact on society, which to me seems incredibly similar to the concerns already widely considered to be "moral panics" made against other forms of fictional media that depict illegal, oftentimes even more hyper realistic acts such as violence and gore in cartoons, music, video games, and movies in the past, and to some extent still today despite there being scarce proof confirming any of these things have any drastic or even moderate effect on either normalizing those actions in reality, or making people want to commit them despite continuing fears

In the very least I would think we would need some serious hard-proof to confirm that their accusations are true, that being that lolicon does indeed encourage said actions in reality since the burden of proof is on their claims, and since serious claims require serious evidence, and there really is a lack of scientific material to confirm their case, I don't think my comparison between them and previous moral panics against fictional content is invalid.GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 16:58, 9, March 2024 (EST)

The question that should be asked here is if the information is sourced? What does the following say about it?

McLelland, Mark (2016). "Introduction: Negotiating 'cool Japan' in research and teaching". In McLelland, Mark (ed.). The End of Cool Japan: Ethical, Legal, and Cultural Challenges to Japanese Popular Culture. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1–30 [11]. ISBN 978-1-317-26937-3.

If this information is in the source given, then you are going to need a counter argument from another reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems indeed that the use of the word "Moral Panic" is correct when in the context of the 1990's period, as there was somewhat founded but overall unconstructive and reductive views on the issue.

I think I mistakenly interpreted the word "Moral Panic" as meaning all or most of the criticism was unfounded, rather than a sizeable group that may or may not be the majority.

To be more inline with the source quoted specifically for 4th reference, I've included 'the west' as belligerents in the debate.

Somewhat unrelated, but due to my inexperience with Wikipedia, I can't find a way to respond to users or talk with them one on one or privately, advice? Apologies if it's a dumb question. MagiTagi (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"I can't find a way to respond to users or talk with them one on one" Have you tried leaving messages on their talk pages? Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)