Talk:Lolicon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Lolicon was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:15, July 28, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pornography (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hentai (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hentai, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hentai on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Definition, genre characteristics and meaning outside Japan.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

1990s[edit]

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

Picture[edit]

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

The image is clearly there to show, and describe with its caption, what lolicon looks like. I'm sure that most of our readers are not familiar with manga or anime, the typical styles used for those artworks. But you are not the first to complain about that picture; see Talk:Lolicon/Archive 15#Child Porn? Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTCENSORED, the picture helps the article as it shows what lolicon is, just as Vagina or Penis (To name two) have pictures showing what they are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The article, including the picture, is not "trying to make 'lolicon' synonymous with 'pedophile'." It has a Definition section, for example, that makes clear what a pedophile is and is not. Yes, the article also addresses child sexual abuse and the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors, but that is because various WP:Reliable sources discuss those matters with regard to lolicon. Those matters do not necessarily equate to pedophilia. Pedophilia is about the mental aspect (primarily or exclusively sexually desiring a prepubescent child); child sexual abuse is about actually acting on such sexual desires.
Also, properly sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

All manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography?[edit]

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

Going directly after the definition it is not. Works of lolicon might be innocent to erotic up to pornographic, but they are definitely not exclusively pornographic. --/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
About that, Niabot (/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\), someone might want to tweak the current definition of cartoon pornography in the Cartoon pornography article since the only criteria it gives is "erotic or sexual situations." Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The reference to cartoon pornography is referring to the depictions of lolicon manga or lolicon anime as "erotic-cute" and that makes it soft pornography, that is my edit isnt claiming that all lolicon is pornography. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your edit is about the manga and anime aspect of lolicon, not the other things that lolicon refers to; that is why I addressed the manga and anime aspect of lolicon in my initial post above in this section. The sentence is currently presented in a way that makes it seem as though all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography; it states: It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime cartoon pornography where childlike female characters are often depicted in an "erotic-cute" manner (also known as ero kawaii), in an art style reminiscent of the shōjo manga (girls' comics) style. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Also see what Niabot stated above about "erotic" not necessarily meaning "pornographic." Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Just have a look at the current image inside the lolicon article. It does not fall under pornography and is drawn in a typical style for anime and manga. Actually there are quite a lot of works that belong to the lolicon genre, but are not pornographic or even erotic at all. The current wording suggests that all manga or anime depicting so called "lolis" would be pornographic. Some examples are Kodomo no Jikan, Ro-Kyu-Bu!, Astarotte no Omocha! and so on. --/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 22:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very opening to changing the wording but would like to see the cartoon pornography article linked to still, if we can manage that♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I undid your edit for now, if you can place the link someplace in the article explaining how some lolicon are not porn while others are or that sort then go ahead just I do not see it belonging in the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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)