Jump to content

Talk:Lolicon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tweak.
No edit summary
Line 105: Line 105:
::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 [[tilde]]s (~), like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
::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 [[tilde]]s (~), like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


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


[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]], with regard to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=590378896&oldid=586137796 this edit], I'm not sure that all anime lolicon is cartoon pornography. And, after all, there is the pornography debate in this article. And with regard to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list&diff=prev&oldid=590379479 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. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]], with regard to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&curid=419038&diff=590378896&oldid=586137796 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list&diff=prev&oldid=590379479 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. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:02, 12 January 2014

Former good articleLolicon 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 3, 2010Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 15, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 12, 2011Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


"Outside Japan"

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

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

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

All languages have words with multiple meanings. Another example is otaku and another is hentai -- and there are others as well. What we need to do when we write something for Wiki is to give those meanings, with reliable references for each one. We don't get to say one of them is right and another is wrong. Sometimes the term lolicon refers to a kind or sort of cartooning, as in saying "That is an example of lolicon" and sometimes the same word refers to an individual, as in saying "He's a lolicon," meaning that he has a Lolita Complex. Usually the context tells you which meaning is intended. Just add some references and the issue should become a LOT clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well not at all, if you use a word made in my country with another meaning in your i tell you "learn better how to speak my language". A word has only 1 original and real meaning. Infact in this case the variant was invented from scratch in the west like a internet meme. Same for otaku and hentai, otaku is a denigratory word while hentai mean "pervert" in Japan. These words has no more meaning in the original country, this is the difference i was referring when you made an article to explain a foreign terminology. Reikasama (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, for me the true meaning is the original one, then we have the wester variant. This should be specified in the article more clear because atm is not. So i was propose to merge the two topics "Genre characteristics" and "Meaning outside japan" because this word is referred as a genre but only in the west and these two topics and in contraddiction on each other. How you want make this change more clear is up to you because i don't have enought rank to edit a semi-locked page for now. Reikasama (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody has changed anything and don't care i merged the 2 titles according to the latest discussion above. Feel free to adjust the article but be carefull that in Japan in NOT a genre expecially when there are references to original magazines and comics. I guess is the best compromise because people who read here should understand that the terminolgy is something invented and created in the west and not the original meaning. Reikasama (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added new updates....

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

Definition, genre characteristics and meaning outside Japan.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

1990s

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

Picture

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

All manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography?

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