Talk:Lolicon

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.∞陣内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

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

Picture

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.