Talk:Lolicon

Superflat stuff

None of the "sources" quoted imply, in any way, that Superflat artists are "critical" of lolicon as much as they simply explore it and let the viewer come to the own conclusions. Even if they did, this would be an inherently flawed idea, simply because the very founder Superflat has supported and defended lolicon artists in the past and a lot of the Superflat artists commonly cited as being "critical of lolicon" *have in fact drawn non-satirirical lolicon artwork themselves*.

This is a HUGE preconception among Superflat fans. The logic seems to be, "this famous artist's work parodies lolicon art... so he and his kind must be against it right? After all, Lolicon is ICKY." In the end any actual research on the subject proves that such statements have little to no logical basis. --Iguanaray (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The issue is whether or not the reference cited supported the statement made -- it makes no difference if you agree with it or not. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And what if the sources are provably wrong? An art critic seeing a piece of art and thinking "hmm... I personally think this picture is meant to convey THIS message" then writes about it is no confirmation of the actual intention behind the picture. If you actually read the articles in question, one of them simply does not mention such criticism while the other SUGGESTS that such works MIGHT have such a meaning, but also considers other interpretations. --109.99.32.190 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Child Porn?

Is the first picture child pornography? If so, it should be taken down on ALL Wikipedia articles on which it is present. Nascargeek21 (talk)

No it isn't. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is on the record as not a fan of the infobox image, and described it as "tacky and stupid" in this thread in July 2010. The image survived this debate, and it is not illegal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In no way this is illegal. If this would be illegal, then you should never take a picture of a child at all. --Niabot (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not child porn, I can just as easily argue that the picture is of three girls in PJ's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced things

First, my english is pretty bad.

Second, ive been watching anime and reading manga for long time and been going around in wikipedias discussion to educate myself about these subjects. Been waiting for over a year in lolicon page to have certain changes wich are obvious, but i dont have sources.

First toddlecron (toddlekron) and lolicon are not synonyms. Toddlekron is very disturbing version of lolicon, ie involving children who are 2-10 years old. Lolicon is usually considered 11+ or so (depends on drawing style).

Second, lolicon is often considered just flat chested short girl, ie age has little to do here, since you can easily draw any look you want, and then just add any age you want. Its just a drawing, fantasy. Lolicon is just short girl with flat chest, but have adultish body parts(ie you can never find 12 year old real girl who looks like 12 year old lolicon when it comes to body). But also there are artist who try to imitate actual children, wich i dont consider lolicon since they are just disturbing imitations of real child porn.

And i dont think Comic LO is not much lolicon anymore (Obviously it has some lolicon in it like Comic Megastore etc), Comic RIN is allmost pure lolicon. And yes its legal in my country (Netherlands). You have to know that most anime/manga works have somekind of lolicon charater in it (even extremely popular stuff like K-On, where Azuna is portraited as loli, and even involved in faservice in second season opening), therefore saying there is one lolicon story in it, dosent make it lolicon magazine.

Most of these fact has to do with the reality, not some random article in newspaper who isnt involved. (not saying i am involved too much). Sadly there isnt much real reasearch about these subjects. Thou some japanese researchers try to claim that lolicon and child abuse have negative correlation, like recently in USA there was research claiming porn and sexual abuse have negative correlation, but they are certanly not difnitive.

This can be removed if its useless try for discussion. (And yes ive read alot of the archive considering lolicon and pedofilia, to be informed since ive met people who say its ok to have sex with 12 year old real girl like in mangas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.239.71 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice

I've added the {{SexEditNotice}} edit notice, which will display any time someone edits the article. —Farix (t | c) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In Japan is not genre

According to japanese wiki and ANN, this terminology in Japan doen't not define a genre per se but a behaviour, a random person attract or like little girls. [1]. ANN use the terminology not to define a genre but a theme, to specity better the sub-content, for example kojikan [2]. We should consider what the word mean in the motherland country not the improper use as internet meme in the west. For this reason i change the improper "genre characteristic" topic to "origin and charactersistics". If you have more source made in japanese (or japanese translated into english)that increase the meaning of the word please post here. With the same principle Hentai and Ecchi aren't genre but a behaviour, meaning pervert the first and sex,erotic the latter. Reikasama (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit. Your points is clearly stated on the header and under Definition. The subsection in question is precisely as lolicon as a genre (or classification) as its known for english readers (it's english wikipedia after all). And anyway that subsection is not describing its origins so the section name is not appropriate.pmt7ar ^(talk) 08:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed the POV content that was added using unreliable sources, such as the Japanese Wikipedia and Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Reikasama has been repeatedly told that these are not reliable source because they contain user generated content. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but classification is not genre, classification is made in the west to explain a sub-genre into a more specific field, but this not mean is the correct terminology in the original land. I change genre to classification then because i find better appropriate as Pm7tar stated. Reikasama (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The section discusses lolicon as a genre of anime and manga based on reliable sources. You don't get to change the section's heading because you don't think it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I post reliable sources that the word is not a genre per se but a behaviour as in original. I accept classification better than genre. My sources are reliable 100% as proof. You continue to abuse power and blocking webpages without providing sources on what you claiming for. I report this thread too. Reikasama (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre characteristics

I tagged this after some discussion at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and reviewing the sources. It appears the Japanese page does not list it as a genre and with mostly English sources on a subject that seems to heavily involve Japan, the lack of Japanese sources does appear to be biased as a western critique, although purely unintential.陣内_Jinnai 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply because in Japan is NOT a genre but a behaviour. Only in the west is considered a genre but source that stated this aren't reliable and base on personal opinions. In the west is used to classify a sub-theme for practical use. I think is better to use classification instead of genre till more info and source are available. Reikasama (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care here if the sources don't actually use the term "genre" in each instance.陣内_Jinnai 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I care because using genre is not a valid statement. You have to prove me that lolicon is a genre in Japan before you claim is frue. All the actual reference here don't prove that this is a genre. Reikasama (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a "genre in Japan". All that matters is that reliable sources identify lolicon as a genre. And there are several in the article that do just that. —Farix (t | c) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It matter because the word is originated in Japan and used there, importing a word and use in another way is a improper usage of an original terminology and should be fixed according to the origina country. Lolicon is NOT a genre but a behaviour. Provide me sources that stated the countrary, in japanese or english translated from japanese. Till you don't privide sources you statement and opinion matter zero and is unreliable, because i provide sources, is not my opinion is a fact. Reikasama (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This it the English Wikipedia, however, and the usage here should reflect its English usage. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you use [lolita complex] yes, but you use a japanese word not an english one. A japanese word has a specific meaning in the original country. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty straw man argument there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Words' usage and meanings evolve, and lolicon has evolved at it is adopted by other languages. Wikipedia's coverage of the word should be comprehensive including how the word is used all around the world. —Farix (t | c) 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Link me sources here that prove this stament. I provide links and sources, prove me the same. I want read these articles thats stated clearly that is a genre, you should have them since you claim this. In the link on the main arcticle i don't find anything thats stated this clearly. Reikasama (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Galbraith, Patrick W. (2011) Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan Image & Narrative 12 1 83-119.
• Kinsella, Sharon (2000). Adult Manga. University of Hawai'i Press.
• Galbraith, Patrick W. (2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's guide to the subculture of Cool Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha International.
• Shigematsu, Setsu (1999). "Dimensions of Desire: Sex, Fantasy and Fetish in Japanese Comics". In Lent, J.A.. Themes and Issues in Asian Cartooning: Cute, Cheap, Mad and Sexy. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Where is here the usage of this word as a genre? Again is an opinion of someone, you fail to provide me evidence that in Japan this terminology has 2 meanings. If in the west is used with another meaning doesn't mean that is the correct transliteration from the original. Is a west meme. You consider west meme ok? I think is better use the sentence "foreign clasisfication" istead of genre. Or if you want so bad keep "genre" you should adding something that clearly specify that "genre" is INVENTED in the west as sub-category. Reikasama (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out a few already on the article. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Word usage evolves and this should represent the English viewpoint; however, that's not an excuse to ignore the Japanese viewpoint or French, German or any other viewpoint for that matter. This is especially true because there is a section entitled "Meaning outside Japan". As I mentioned before, this article is still in need of updating. While its better, we really need some reliable Japanese sources to discuss this.陣内_Jinnai 20:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the genre section should be moved into the "Meaning outside Japan" section. —Farix (t | c) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It make zero sence, why a word, native from Japan, sould have a different meaning outside? This word should be used with the original meaning not with a foreign meaning. I don't get it. 08:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikasama (talk • contribs)

It isn't a foreign meaning here; this is the English language Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for a word native to one country to have a subtly different meaning in another country. Take, for example, Sensei, and note especially Sensei#Uses in English. You can see a discussion of some other words that mean different things here. They offer a number of examples of English words that have different meanings in Japan. If there are culturally different interpretations of words, it's important to accurately document that, but it is not the job of encyclopedists to prefer one over another. We're simply here to explain to our readers how subjects are described by reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources that describe lolicon as a genre

Solely in response to a request at ANI, I am adding a few reliable sources in English that describe Lolicon as a genre.

A few examples

"Lolicon: A genre in manga that depicts girls, usually childlike, in an erotic manner."Bergman, Gregory; Josh Lambert (16 January 2011). Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, An A to Z Guide to All Things Geek. Adams Media. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-4405-1114-1. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "For example, virtual child pornography, pornographic images and text delivered by SMS messages, sexual age-play in virtual game worlds, the soft porn Manga genre of Lolicon and Rorikon are all challenges to current laws and issues...." John R. Vacca (2009). Computer and information security handbook. Morgan Kaufmann. p. 735. ISBN 978-0-12-374354-1. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "Lolicon, rorikon. A genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in an erotic manner." Steiff, Josef; Tristan D. Tamplin (1 April 2010). Anime and Philosophy. Open Court Publishing. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-8126-9670-7. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "...novels break away from the dominant pattern according to which the sexual abuse of children (particularly girls) had been narrated in prior fiction (typified by what in Japan is known as the Lolicon or Lolita complex genre)" Hurley, Adrienne Carey (28 July 2011). Revolutionary Suicide and Other Desperate Measures: Narratives of Youth and Violence from Japan and the United States. Duke University Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-8223-4961-7. Retrieved 1 September 2011. "Lolicon manga are usually short stories, published in media specializing in the genre and bought predominantly by white-collar men in their 20s and 30s." Sparrow, William (23 February 2008). "Japan's Lolita merchants feel the heat". The Asia Times Online. Retrieved 2011-09-01. "Rape and sadomasochism are common manga themes, and the genre called Lolicon gratifies men's Lolita fantasies about underage girls." Strickland, Eliza (1 November 2006). "Drawn Together". San Francisco Weekly. Retrieved 2011-09-01.

Personally, I do not care what Lolicon means. But it's worth reinforcing, as noted above, that languages are living things; words change meaning as people use them. This is why good dictionaries not only record what a word means, but also the date range when it is believed to have gained that meaning. (Even within language families, words change meaning; see the evolution of the word koto, for instance]].)

Again, I don't care what Lolicon means personally. I am placing this here solely to demonstrate that the absence of sources provided at ANI is not indicative of absence of sources. (For all I know they're all in the article anyway; I've never even read it.) They are plentiful and require only a few minutes to locate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

These are just personal opinion without any source, like the blog posted by Farix, what i was talking about is a source in japanese that stated clearly thats [lolicon] is a genre in Japan but everyone fail to provide me this info, continuing link western native sources and opinions where the word is invented as category for practical use. For some people is more easy calling a manga with lolis as main heroine lolicon but this don't mean is the correct meaning of the word. Link me an original source translated from japanese that stated that in Japan, because the word is japanese and belong to this language, is a genre. In the japanese wiki page references point out that is a behaviour in real life or fictions not a genre. Example: "Where you are looking Daichi? - You damn lolicon!", hope you catch the joke here. If you want use the same meaning here you should use a synonym like [loli manga] or [loli anime] about anime and manga that rapresent the correct translation of the word. Tagging a show [lolicon] mean you call this show loli complex, make zero sense. Is because i think that changing the "genre" to "foreign classification" is more ppropriate don't think? Or specify that the genre meaning is used ONLY in the west. Because is what we talking about here, a improper use of the terminology outside japan. Reikasama (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, those are by definition on Wikipedia "reliable sources". They are peer-reviewed publications produced by reputable press. Please read WP:IRS to help you understand the difference. Let me make clear here again that I am interacting as an uninvolved administrator. I don't care how this article develops, as long as it develops within the consensus process. But it is very important that you understand that Wikipedia exists as a "tertiary source" to record precisely what sources such as these say about topics. It is not up to us to determine whether or not the sources are right, although we do document when reliable sources disagree. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point but since you admit that this terminology is made here in WEST as opinion, i propose to clearly specify this like someone stated before, so if someone read the content understand that this word has 2 different meanings, one in the west and one in the original country. So misunderstandings are avoided. Btw, i should post again all this matter there Wikipedia:Verifiability? You admin send me to open debates from a place to another, i'm start to get lost. Reikasama (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It is already very very clear in the very first paragraph: "In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent) or an individual with such an attraction. ... Outside Japan, 'lolicon' is in less common usage and usually refers to the genre." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Powers ^T 12:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, unfortunately there is another thread called "Meaning outside Japan", so seems that the thread before is a terminology valid in the east as a genre cause the title. Reikasama (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. Powers ^T 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you should not post this matter there. :) This is a specific instance; if you want to argue that usage of words must conform to the country of origin and only sources in the original language can be used, you need to do it there in the general principle, not in this one. I think you'd be wasting your time, though. Languages simply don't work that way. Imagine if the Japanese Wikipedia could only use English sources for all of the words in the list I provided above. Considering how many words cross over, it would simply be a mess. I don't think the community would embrace that standard.

But in terms of "opinion", really, all definitions are opinion. Words don't inherently mean anything. :) The word may have been invented in Japan with the first agreed upon meaning, but things change. One of my favorite examples of this in English is the word "awful." It originally meant (and as recently as 1845) something that fills you with awe. A good thing. I'm sure people from that era would be confused to hear that it is most frequently used now to describe something extremely bad.

In any event, it's up to the editors here (including you) to agree how best to represent the information, so long as reliable sources are accurately reflected in one way or another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that should be more clear this difference, i propose to merge the title "Genre Characteristics" and "Meanings outside of Japan" into one unique paragraph that explain that the content listed there rapresent a western vision of the terminology and not the original one. For example "Classification and meaning outside of Japan", or Genre, or Category instead of Classification. Reikasama (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Farix suggested a merge above, but that's it. The info would still be there, but the information would be under one section.陣内_Jinnai 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It will surely be better and appreciated merge them with an appropriate title that clearly stated and mark the difference of terminology from Japan and the west. If you can manage to do it try it out. Reikasama (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Awe" back then meant "reverential fear or dread", so "awful" was never a good thing per se. Powers ^T 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. Reikasama (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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)