Jump to content

Talk:Lolita fashion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kri0930 (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 24 October 2022 (→Fashion Tips). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Designers

Novala Takemoto (嶽本 野ばら Takemoto Nobara?, born January 26, 1968) is a Japanese author and fashion designer. His real name is Toshiaki Takemoto (嶽本 稔明 Takemoto Toshiaki?). His pen name is translatable as "The Wild Rose."

Known as the "Lolitas' Bard", he is a heterosexual man self-described as having the charisma of a young maiden. He has been one of the most active promoters of the Lolita lifestyle. He once designed a line of clothing featuring his own logo for BABY, THE STARS SHINE BRIGHT and is consistently featured in the magazine Gothic & Lolita Bible. A few of his favorite things are Alice and the Pirates, Vivienne Westwood, MILK, rocking horse shoes, Christian Dior perfume, robots, science fiction, taxidermy, dolls, and Philip Glass. He also has a fascination with the Rococo era, and sometimes claims to have been born in the year 1745.

Mana is a Japanese musician and fashion designer, best known for a role as leader and guitarist of the visual kei rock band Malice Mizer. His clothing label, Moi-même-Moitié, was created in 1999 and helped popularize Japan's Gothic Lolita fashion movement. His brand features two lines of designs named "Elegant Gothic Lolita" and "Elegant Gothic Aristocrat". He regularly appears in the scene's top publication, the Gothic & Lolita Bible, modeling his own designs and giving updates on his various other projects. Mana is currently working on his solo project Moi dix Mois.

Elega-torian

Unless it's a term that's so new I barely know of it, I'm quite sure that it's to used for Lolita. I'm going to remove it till somebody has an "official" term (blogs may make use of this phrase but it is considered a subjective use.)

Lolita (ロリータ・ファッション lolīta fashoon) is a fashion subculture originating in Japan that is based on Rococo, Victorian and Edwardian clothing.

The origin of the term's meaning is complex, and remains unclear (but has nothing to do with the book.) The movement probably started in the late 1970s when famous labels including Pink House, Milk, and Pretty (later known as Angelic Pretty) began to sell clothing.

In the 1990s, brands such as Princess Princess began to rise in popularity which prompted the style to become popularized in Tokyo with Japanese youth.

Small corrections

Hello guys! I just saw the new additions and I think it's pretty well-made, good pictures too, but I had to take some things off from the Gothic Lolita section. Namely this:

"...has been seen as "the social backlash" in response to the "sunny California beach Barbie look" of the Japanese fashion Gyaru; however, many adherents of the Gothic Lolita fashion are inspired by manga and music, especially visual kei, "the visual rock genre" in which musicians combine rock music with visual effects and costumes."

Whether it's anything "against" other fashions ("sunny California beach Barbie look" is an opinionated expression) is not clear, in fact Lolita started as a fashion separate of Gyaru and Decora but lately there have even been mixtures of Decora and Lolita in the streets of Japan and they seem to be widely accepted. Also, Lolita adherrents generally tend to distance themselves from manga and cosplay (doesn't mean you shouldn't read manga though) and in some cases, from the Visual Rock style too. But that depends I guess and if you still want to insist on it it's already written in the intro and later on, that should be fine.

Also corrected the sentence: "Unlike the American Gothic subculture, this Gothic fashion is "reminiscent of what one might find in Victorian horror novels." Actually much of Western Gothic styling is based on Victorian horror novels and the way I saw it, it seems like Lolita fashion is based less on the horror aspect of Victorian novels than Gothic.

The problem is that the cited site: http://www.fashionlines.com/2007/jan/fashionPrettyBabies.php can hardly be considered a reliable site, since most of the pictures show Visual Kei and Gothic style, not really Lolita. Even though some of the girls on the pictures definitely show Lolita fashion, it looks more like a VK-based article to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotohime (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! And thanks so much for commenting! Fashionlines is a reliable source (from what I can tell) by Wikipedia standards since it is run by a staff and "has been featured in Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Town and Country Magazine and the San Francisco Chronicle." And well, I suppose that you could always send it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what other editors think. I added back in the sentence about its speculated origins and reworded it and (hopefully) removed the POV. Removed the quote as well since it was actually referring to the Japanese version of Gothic fashion (or at least what the Gothic & Lolita Bible covers). But most importantly thanks for pointing out the mistakes in the article—so few readers/editors actually do that. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a Lolita lover, I have been wearing lolita for 10 years. I noticed a problem while looking at the page. I think lolita is more than JSK, OP. It also has SK, which is a skirt. Although sk is less attractive to customers than jsk and op. I will attach the link, this link is in Chinese.Link:https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1729142307872090425&wfr=spider&for=pc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kri0930 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Lolita (ロリータ・ファッション lolīta fasshon) is a fashion subculture originating in Japan that is based on Rococo, Victorian and Edwardian clothing.

The origin of the term's meaning is complex, and remains unclear. The movement probably started in the late 1970s when famous labels including Pink House, Milk, and Pretty (later known as Angelic Pretty) began to sell clothing.

In the 1990s, brands such as Princess Princess began to rise in popularity[3] which prompted the style to become popularized in Tokyo with Japanese youth.

Out of style

I live in Japan and have noticed a sharply falling number of gothic/lolita inspired fashions. Even at the famed Harajuku bridge on Sundays, one rarely sees more than a handful of the lolitas that used to litter the place daily from the mid 90's to mid 2000's. I have a theory that the style influenced a particular age group some time ago that has since grown out of it and the fashion has failed to take hold with the next generation. 

I feel as though the western idea of Japan is actually lagging several years behind what is actually happening here.

Does anyone know of a reliable source that touches on this topic?

Fashion Tips

Coordinate carefully. Make sure any accessories go with the colors or print on the fabric. A few examples are; Coordinating animal ears only if you have that animal on your outfit's print. Making sure that if there is metal on your dress it matches any metal on purses or shoes. Match socks/stockings with patterns and/or color.

Always match your shoes to your outfit. Pick the first or second dominant color of your outfit and that is the color shoes you should use. Don't try to mix colors that seem alike but ate different, such as mint blue dress with baby blue shoes. If you can't find a pair to match use white, black, or beige shoes.

Do I use socks or stockings? If you are older looking use stockings, you may wear short socks with the stockings as well if you want to get a cuter aesthetic. If you only wear socks make sure they always go over the knee.

Don't use too much cheap lace or over use ruffles. If you want to avoid the terms "lace monster" or "Ita" this is an important rule. Just make sure you don't look like you're body got lost in a loofah or that your lace doesn't look like it's barely being held together by spider webs. It's okay if you're new and can't afford better things yet though, we all start somewhere.

Body Line. Again I say, It's okay if you're new and can't afford better things yet though, we all start somewhere. BUT if you buy from here get body line originals, replicas are seen as a fashion no-no and are ethically wrong because they steal from the original designer.

Manage your hair very well. Keep your hair healthy and as frizz free as possible. When doing your hair in cute designs make sure it looks just how you want it, never settle for less. If you feel like this is unachievable by a wig. Make sure the wig doesn't shine too unnaturally and if you get odd colors that it at least somewhat goes with your coordination.

About the headgear I've bought some lolita headgear with official matching. So I think there are some lolitas with official headdresses.

Total Revision

This article needs a ton of work. I'll be trying to revise it. For anyone editing, try to keep a NPOV, because a lot of this article sounds like a bunch of opinions. Some parts of the Japanese vs Western like Kodona (I should have edited that earlier, though I was lazy at the time about it) should be pointed out, but every minute detail doesn't need to be noted, since that is more opinion than anything else and it makes the article unreadable and sound very sloppy. --Knowi7 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Lolita fashion terms like sweet Lolita, gothic Lolita and classical Lolita need citations, I have a link but I am unsure how to put it..

Link: https://books.google.ca/books?id=4fE3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=sweet+lolita+definition&source=bl&ots=AIX2a4tIXa&sig=BlhiYsoS46ZSxVyJniD3Yx9iVKM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja0tzM8YfWAhUF3YMKHQVfCVcQ6AEIhwEwEw#v=onepage&q=sweet%20lolita%20definition&f=false Littlenyphish (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Updates

Most of, if not all of the pictures offered in the article at the present are extremely outdated. The fashion has changed considerably since those pictures were taken. I think the hook image should be of a classic gosurori and an amaloli, just to give a better idea of the style. I will try to update the images this week and also contribute to the rewriting of the article. Also, I think we should include a better section on the Western lolita community. --Iriseyes 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The current picture of Mana is a bad way to represent gosuloli, as he doesn't really follow the "rules". He's more like erololi, but most people think he's gosuloli on that picture.


I agree. 68.96.251.14 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed the opening picture and I will start phasing in those taken two weeks ago in Harajuku. --Iriseyes 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I may be mistaken but on the picture labeled "male and female examples of Classic Lolita" the male seems to wear a coat by Moi-meme-Moitie (you can see a bit of the blue lining) and overall looks like Aristocrat. I think it would be more accurate to label it "Classic Lolita and Aristocrat".

Still needs more

This article continues to have conflicting information and a lot of POV (which is partially why it's conflicting). Terms mainly used in the west should be noted, but it shouldn't be used as a cover of POV (which is very obvious in some parts of this article). --Knowi7 05:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Guro Lolita

Does anyone know anything about this form of Lolita? It appears to be quite a recent emergence on the loli scene; it seems to entail dressing in basic Lolita fashion, "gored up" with the addition of fake blood, bloodstained eyepatches, bandages etc. - basically looking like a mutilated doll or "Zombie Lolita"; there is only a very brief mention of gurololi in the main article. My own encounters with it have been through the BJD scene, so I don't really know enough about it to add to the main article. Arkady Rose 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally detest that movement of lolita and it's a very very small one...my vote is to keep it out of the article altogether. --Iriseyes 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve mentioning. Gurololi is much more common than Qi Lolita but that's mentioned. Anyway, personally, I love Gurololi. (NOT the perverted kind. Get it? Guro and Loli?)~Sana (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Lolita

I couldn't find any substantial information on this. Doing Google search[1] only reveals 30 hits, mostly list of definitions type pages. No mention in the Japanese Wikipedia either. Is this just an obscure neologism that isn't really used? If so, maybe it should be removed from Wikipedia.—Tokek 07:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the Qi Lolita article for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi Lolita. —Tokek 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it's so rare is because most people tend to not thik of it as Qi Lolita, but rather just another branch of Wa Lolita. Essentially, Qi and Wa are just regular lolita combined with Asian elements, hence the reason why most people don't bother seperating the two. 64.121.36.5 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Pictures

I did some picture overhaul tonight; I hope you all approve of the new images. These were taken last week and the week before in Harajuku by my sister. --Iriseyes 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for cleaning up the external links (since it's been tagged for a few months)--removing all the links to stores will keep the article from violating #4 on the list oflinks to be avoided. The LJ community might count as a social network too, but Avante-Gauche could be acceptable as a directory.--Spiderchan 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Avant-Gauche seems to be the only link that is acceptable according to the policies. Linnell 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have all the External Links been removed? 69.145.215.236 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case I added a few appropriate links 69.146.15.115 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolitapedia

Please stop removing this link without comment. This could be construed as intentional vandalism after repeated, uncommented deletions. This site, when viewed, appears to be perfectly legitimate (moreso than others on the article especially) and easily should be included. If you have a personal beef with the site or some undisclosed rationale for it not being there, let's Talk-page about it. I have yet to see a single reason for removal. I'm readding it and expect that it will stay there, be discussed, or IF removed, done so with very good rationale in comment and here on the talk page. Many thanks! VigilancePrime 04:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry, I'm new to this. The reason why I was deleting it, was because that site is basically less than half-assed. Most of the information text on there was stolen from the Lolita Handbook, and the info on there is misleading and the information is not accurate aside from whatever was taken from the handbook site.
The original poster had previously commented on that site to ask about her text being taken and used without permission or credit, yet the site owner just deleted her comment without any response. Those who are dedicated to Lolita fashion has shared views about this site, as well.
Ahmanni 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wiki! We were all new at some point. No big deal.
Where are all these discussions? They should be here, on this page, if we're to have visibility on them. The site itself is very in-depth, though that can be a function of pasting from something else. That said, though, Livejournal pages usually would not be in a Wiki article either...
We just have to have the discussion. Especially when the same thing gets pulled and replaced over and over. It's just easier that way, you know?
Again, welcome to Wiki. Check out Wiki policies when you have some time. That will save you a lot of the angst others (like myself!) have gone through! You can even get to a bunch of them (the ones I think are most relevant) from my user page if you'd like.
VigilancePrime 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :'D
I'll look for the discussion pages on Livejournal. If you can't see them, I'll try to make a cap of it.
EDIT: this is the thread where most of the LJ community discovered it. And then here and here the creator of Lolita_Handbook (Carnet_atelier) talks about how things were taken. I don't think she's logged on yet to see that the Admin of Lolitapedia deleted her comment. EDITAGAIN: Nevermind. She posted right here.
Ahmanni 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDITONCEAGAIN: Here is the cap to Carnet's comment. Lolitapedia's forum was shut down because of drama that the admins didn't handle in a mature manner. Carnet along with the other people who's work was stolen tried to ask them to remove the items, but they either deleted it or remove their comment, so now the site is being reported for image theft and other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmanni (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Nyuen

At first inspection the blog seemed perfectly fine with some of the styles accurately depicted and explained, but some of her examples found in the blog border on cosplay or just plain mismatched pseudo-lolita. I felt that it did not explain the holistic element of the fashion in an accurate light and therefore I deleted it off the page. If there is a problem, feel free to PM me. Redredrobin 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mainichi Shimbun

Who put this up? I don't find this information accurate at all. Sweet Lolita has no relation or history with Gyaru fashion. Lolita fashion, whether gothic or sweet, is not connected to Gyaru fashion. Sweet Lolita and the Sweet Lolita brands existed about a decade before Gyaru fashion appeared. I'm taking this article down, if anyone have any objections please explain. But this news article is imho bull and it's misleading.

--Ahmanni 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ahmanni. I put the article up as evidence of Sourcing and Notability. I've stated my piece for its inclusion here: Talk:Gothic Lolita. In the subject area in which I usually edit, an article lacking sourcing and coverage, whether accurate or not, would be quickly deleted. It's interesting, but not entirely surprising, to see that's not the case in all subject areas... 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekkappai (talk • contribs)


Someone had added a link to some "gothic lolita/cosplay/sissy" shop website, I took it down. Ahmanni 6:47pm, 13 December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.8.43 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lolita LJ community

I'm taking this down, it doesn't bear as much relevance to the fashion style. Anyone who's interested in joining it can go to EGL to join up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmanni (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kitty and Vivienne Westwood References

Um... Hello Kitty is no really marketed just to children in the West anymore. There's tons of Hello Kitty Designer merchandise out there; by Designer I mean diamond jewelry that can cost as much as a new car. Also Vivienne Westwood only has one collection exclusive to Japan, and it's small accessories not clothing. Really it's nothing that would stand out as exclusive to one sub-culture or even noticable. You should say her Seditionaries (mostly Punk), Mini Crini (Rocking Horse Platforms, Cutesy School Uniforms), Portrait (Tops and Corsets with Famous Art Prints), and Salon (same as Portrait) Collections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.206.124 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On second thought, list Anglomania Collection, that's pretty much the brand that is the "affordable street wear" brand that carries alot of Lolita style items (at least one puffy skirt or Mini Crini each season). I know several people who have worked directly with Vivienne Westwood of the years and they all tell me there is no exclusive Japan label with the exception of some tights, tees, and undies available on her Japanese store. Even those are going to be available in Western Countries next season through her online store. Malcolm McLaren has done three collections exclusive to Japan, but they've been discontinued for years now.

I haven't heard of this store.
Are you sure that this "affordable street wear" brand carries the kind of quality that Lolita fashion usually demands? The only affordable site I've ever seen from overseas that is quite favorable is Anna House Fashion in China. Ahmanni 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vivienne Westwood is not a store, she is a designer, like Christain Dior, or Coco Chanel. Her company logo is a Sovereign Orb with a ring around it called the Satelite Orb, it shows up in Lolita Magazines and Books all the time. I'm abit stunned that someone who is contributing to this article is not aware of Vivienne Westwood, and would go so far as to ask if it "carries the kind of quality that Lolita fashions usually demand," to answer your question, alot of the Lolita brands do not carry the quality that Vivienne Westwood demands. She is a Grand Coutier, in other words, she has been Government certified to call her wares "Luxury Items". Affordable street wear is in quotes because it's far from affordable, a single piece from the Anglomania label can cost upwards of 200 GPS, that's around 400 USD or 4,000 YEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.206.27 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Lolita

Hadn't we ought to mention Sailor Loli?
I just wondered, as we have a sub-heading for Pirate Loli, which is less common, and Meta is mentioned as having "nautical looks, which derive from pastels instead of pirates", but not specifically Sailor Loli.
Several brands have released Sailor inspired pieces, including Putumayo, BtSSB, Innocent World and even Mary Magdalene.
--Torika 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Sailor and Pirate Lolita are big enough in the scene that they deserve a mention. We had a section on Pirate Lolita previously, but I see that was removed. BtSSB has a line called Alice and The Pirates, which caters specifically to Sailor Lolita and Pirate Lolita clothing. 216.9.11.111 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Wall Street Journal, Friday Septemeber 17, 2004 (front page and page A10) - "The Little-Girl Look Is Big in Japan Now - Among the Brave" by Ginny Parker is a well researched article that has would be useful as a reference here. Some quotes:

"The look originated in Japan over 30 years ago and has flowered several times since then. The current boom is particularly intense."

"Despite the nation's reputation as a culture with a love of all things cute, many in mainstream Japan are contemptuous of the Lolita look. Fans of the style talk about being called stupid by strangers, getting mean looks and having chewing gum stuck to the backs of their dresses. Ms. Otani, the store clerk, says her clothes get so many stares that her boyfriend, who dresses in punk fashion, won't go out with her unless she wears something else."

"Many Lolitas lead a double life, wearing normal clothes when they work or go to school, and "doing Lolita" in their free time."

"Within the group of Lolitas, there are suble differences. One faction prefers the "sweet Lolita" style-characterized by soft hues of pink, blue and cream. A growing number of fans are also exploring the "Gothic Lolita" style-a macabre take on the trend in which women dress themselves in ruffles and lace of all black." Denaar 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I found this article very interesting, as I was not aware of such predjudice. It's a little surprising, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.228.234 (talk) 17:02, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Lead Image (moved to correct discussion area)

The top image is not a good representation of the fashion. I am not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly, but it would be best to have no image at all than that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.83 (talk • contribs)

This image has (suddenly) been pulled and replaced many times, always without comment. The only thing said yet was recent that this is not a good representation. Howso? The comment made above is a clear POV. The image has been there for a good time and unless justification (and preferably a consensus) shown for why it shouldn't be there, I think that the general agreement would be that the removal is a single entity (and as an IP user) and carries less-than-ideal credibility. I would much rather have a discussion on this matter if it in fact is not a good, representative image, but without such rationale, it's going to be readded and retained. VigilancePrime 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76.19.39.83-If you are "not apt to replace it or write in discussion properly", then we are not apt to let you continue to do so, and you will be treated as a vandal. Chris 03:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. VigilancePrime 03:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL INTERNET SERIOUS BUSINESS, no really- since you have no idea on the subject why do you argue? It's fashion and most people will be blind to the subtleties. This picture appears to be of someone most lolitas would ridicule for her "cosplay" fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.39.83 (talk • contribs)

You must be trying to cover something, 76.19.39.83, by removing your IP address several times like that. Don't worry, we'll be responsible editors for you. Chris 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ero Loli

Hey I found another sub category - Erotic Lolita, or Erololi - characterised by more overtly sexual dress mode, such as suspenders and stockings and basques, corsets or waist clinchers.

Lincolnshire Poacher 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ero-lolita isn't detailed well enough or done correctly enough times to actually describe what it is without adding up the misconceptions dealing with Lolita fashion.
Ahmanni 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lolita"?

Is the word "Lolita" and allusion to the book? --Seans Potato Business 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of this article before asking this question? VigilancePrime 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had read parts but evidently, not the right ones. So the use of the word "lolita" predates the book? --Seans Potato Business 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on the term: Lolita_(term)#Origin, the book is the origin of the word, so I still would argue that the idea of describing a "cute young girl's" clothes as 'lolita' is derived from the book... --Seans Potato Business 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lolita has been used a nickname before the novel was released. For example, Lolita, TX was named sometime between 1905-1909, after a General's grand-daughter who was called Lolita, and unlike the "definition", she was said to be a very sweet girl. Lolita is simply an innocent nickname (any name-meaning sites will show you that Lolita is the pet name to 'Dolly' or 'Dolores') that was changed into something with a vile meaning because people couldn't tell that in Nabokov's novel 'Lolita' was a name and only a name, not something to define the girls he had a sexual attraction to (the correct term being 'nymphette'). Lolita fashion has no connection to Nabokov's work other than the fact that they share a simple name. Ahmanni (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple things I'd like to point out, the style originated from Japan, and the only reference saying "the term isn't from the book" is somebody from America, who although wears the fashion, isn't necessarily well informed about the origins of it, nor the origins of the term. In Japan, they call drawn pornography of young women "Lolicon" which is an abbreviation of "Lolita Complex". It's a well known term there, the shops are in many major cities. The book Lolita is very well known, whereas the term "Lolita" as a nickname is much less so. Also, having just read the book recently, I noticed several parts where he talks about buying her pretty frilly dresses and cute clothes. Could all be coincidence, but I think we need a solid Japanese source to be reliable.
Well, the statement that the term "Lolita" is not used in the same context as the book Lolita is also backed by the American editors of the Gothic & Lolita Bible ("People take one look at the word “Lolita” and assume that the fashion has a sexual undertone, as is true of the novel of the same name by Vladimir Nabokov. However, Lolita is inspired by clothing from the Rococo and Victorian era, and it emphasizes modesty and cuteness rather than sexuality."[2]) It's true that Lolicon does unfortunately exist and Lolita is well-known, but I think that they are simply coincidence and don't have anything to do with Lolita fashion. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the argument presented in your reference to be decisive because semantic inversion is not unheard of. Author Takemoto Nobara, cited in the Japanese wiki article on Lolita Fashion, has written extensively on the subject and makes the same point as the book you reference, but also mentions semantic inversion as the origin of the term. He also reveals a few other pieces of counter-evidence. There are quotes of various people in the fashion industry (including alleged originator or Lolita fashion), describing Lolita fashion as congruent with some themes of Lolita the novel. Of course these quotes prove nothing, but are at least a counterbalance to the quotes already existing in this article. Some of Takemoto's evidence is a bit of a reach, in my opinion, such as his connections to Kubrick's portrayal of Lolita, and to the British girlband Shampoo. It is anyway undeniable that both usages of Lolita involve a fetishization of a child-like aesthetic. I've only read the summary of Takemoto's work on the Japanese wiki page, however, and not the original source. Therefore, I will not be referencing Takemoto in this article, but I have made an edit to the article to indicate the uncertainty of the etymology. I just wanted to make this comment so that people are aware that there is uncertainty in the etymology of the term. It would be nice if someone had the time to go through Takemoto's work to add to this article. Cuebreaker (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"There are quotes of various people in the fashion industry (including alleged originator or Lolita fashion), describing Lolita fashion as congruent with some themes of Lolita the novel." Themes other than child-like aesthetic? Young girls wearing frilly dresses is not a concept originating from any novel. What are these common themes? After all if there are similar themes outside of child aesthetic then there's more basis for the claim the fashion was named for the novel. That said even if the fashion was named for the novel no lolita I know would agree with the suggestion child sexualization is a part of the fashion or its culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.220.199 (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of "Word on the Street" Page?

I don't know how POV statements have any significance to defining the aesthetic of the fashion. Also, someone tell me if that violates the policies? Redredrobin (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It looks plagiarized to me. (168.215.149.2 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shotaro Fashion?

Is there a male equivalent of Lolita fahsion? Haldo! (talk to me!!) 18:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's called ouji/kodona/aristocrat[unisex]/dandy 65.92.67.90 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)sarah[reply]

Costly lolita isn't even a name. XD It's it's either Cosplay Lolita, Itai Lolita,or Otaku (Ota) Lolita. --189.170.63.70 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Fashion?

IS there an ota loli fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.121 (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Those who copy the costumes directly from the anime (the original) and those with cosplay-esque quality materials. -121.54.29.121 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that called costly lolita or cosplay or something like that????? i suggest we add costly lolita and its reputation of being a low-class lolita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deathnote, Rozen Maiden, and the carrying of dolls and teddy bears

Deathnote is not an example of lolita fashion, just goth fashion. Rozen Maiden is not an example of lolita fashion, just Victorian fashion. Lolitas do not "commonly carry dolls", and the carrying of stuffed animals is pretty much the domain of cosplay-lolitas or otherwise poor-quality lolitas. Most lolitas do NOT do these things.

again...cosplay of lolita fashion exist. not all lolita dresses look the same, specific lolita dresses that only exist in manga or anime proves to be cosplay, not an actual fashion design (original).

also....pandora hearts seems to have a lot of lolita fashion. mainly on the males. so do any of you know what lolita looks like for males? half of the males in pandora hearts, are in lolita fashion.

so I'll add pandora hearts in. not to mention a few girls where lolita in the manga aswell.DeathBerry talk 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So carrying stuffed animals is not ita? Wow, that's a new one. But it's not true. ^^--189.170.63.70 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of stuffed animals, dolls, and lolita there are several lolita fashion companies, Baby the Stars Shine Bright and Angelic Pretty to name a couple, that have produced novelty stuffed animals as well as hand bags that resemble stuffed animals. Typically such bags are are worn with Sweet Lolita or dresses/skirts with toy or teddy bear themed patterns. Several lolita fashion companies have also partnered with the makers of Pullip dolls to create fashion dolls that wear small recreations of real lolita dresses. Most lolitas do not carry dolls or stuffed animals regularly though they may own some of these products. Owning or carrying such items are not necessarily considered 'ita' as it depends very much on how well they coordinate with the rest of the outfit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.220.199 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momoko? Shirololita? Kuro? Country?

Why are these things up? Shiro/Kuro and those other things are not sub-genres, they are just an example of a one-color outfit. I'm going to remove these because it really seems like unneeded information. Plus they are not strictly gothic or lolita; this is incorrect.

And as for Momoko, it is said that she likes "likes to spend her time acting like a sweet and innocent child". Had the poster read the book, she states in the book that she is far from that and states as such. I'm going to remove that piece from the article as well.

Who put all this stuff in there? The article looks jumbled up and confusing with this information being all over the place.

Also making minor word edits.

Ahmanni (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the first photo uses the term "kuro" but does not define or explain it, and it appears nowhere in the article. This is basic stuff, people... 76.23.157.102 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Lolita merge proposal

Hi. As of now, I am requesting that the Gothic Lolita article be merged into the section on Gothloli in this article. It's unnesecary and just makes more confusion. It's just a subst of Loli, much like the other styles. I realy don't see why it needs it's own article. ~Sana (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support merge. The overlap is significant.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo...how long do I have to wait until I can do it? I'm getting tired of this.~Sana (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it 5 days... there is no rush. Wikipedia is forever, right? If you're REALLY bored, your can work on the merged page in your sandbox, so it will be ready for the big move. Knulclunk (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Done and Done-er. Finally. ~Sana (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sana, it appears this is one of your pet pages, so I'll explain in a way I guess no one else has as to why the first picture is a bad representation. The girl pictured follows some outdated trends namely the headdress and heavy parasol (and I think she's far too heavy on the rings and bracelets) but Besides, the entire outfit appears to be based on a manga or anime character and is therefore a Costume. Real Lolis Never walk around in Costumes. Loli is who we are. When I'm dressed in my Loli best, I feel Normal and pretty and Comfortable in a way I never do in jeans and a shirt, or even a modern style dress. When I'm in jeans and a shirt, Then I'm in costume. And her lace looks stiff, and therefore cheap. Cheap lace is one of the biggest sins of the Ita and Cos Lolis.

And Qi Loli is a very small part, and normally not differentiated much from Wa Loli. Ero Loli should Never be included as part of Real Loli. Sailor Loli should be included, as it is a growing trend, (bigger than Qi) even if it's not usually done very well and often looks costumey. Steampunk is also growing and branching into Loli, with SteamLoli, usually a mix of Goth or Dark Loli, or more Classic Loli (more mature), and some SteamPunk elements, like a small top hat or feather spray instead of a bow, and more gold and brass tones and patterns, often more mature like swirls instead of flowers. Also Victorian style boots instead of the traditional MaryJanes or rocking horse shoes. I haven't heard of SteamLoli in Japan, but I have in America and Europe, where SteamPunk is very big right now.

I do like how the page is so far, though. Keep up the good work. Feel free to email me, ravenfaerie @ valornet.com 98.16.212.172 (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)RoseFaery[reply]

no mention of this root

this fashion has it's roots in the european erotic(not pornographic, however) magazine "Lolita". this is where you first see these fashions being used, was on the erotic child models. The whole article sounds like a PR release from the weeaboo community, and seems to hide the actual darker roots of the fashion movement. I hesitate to actually edit the article however, perhaps someone with more wiki experience can add the NPOV tag? Thank you. Stregamama (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um well, the majority of reliable sources that I've looked at have said nothing about what you're suggesting, but do you have a reliable source for that? And you'll have to explain why you want a NPOV tag...Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard that either. Are you sure that this was before the fashion was started, that it has no connection to Sissy style, and that it wasn't simply taken from the existing fashion? What date or year was this supposed to be? Are you sure it isn't just that they're wearing typical old-fashioned little girl clothes, which are by themselves comparable to some Lolita styles? I hesitate to accept that your claim is at all reliable, especially as its roots are traceable through old street snaps from magazines like Kera and Fruits - you can safely look at a bunch of pictures and work out what came from what. The first Lolita styles were nothing like modern Lolita styles, so anything on western models at the time would not have looked like today's Lolita and would probably not even be recognisable as the same. Please provide some proof. Chantililly (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Style types and then more style type

First their is a section entitled Style Types which lists four. Then (like an added train of conciousness) Other themes is beneath the first style section. This suggests that the sections evolved as the article did. They are ALL themes/styles/types so they should be under the same section heading. Or if they are sub types under the relevant main parental style type. Otherwise the present format looks like Original research with the second section being nothing more than a list of, "oh and by the way" ideas and fringe styles. They are either style types or not, I don't know enough about the subject myself to make these changes but as an independent I think the second section stating there are more styles (but separate from the first) comes across as afterthoughts rather than inclusion in the main topic section. 86.171.17.137 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Lolita Picture

I'm a Lolita, so when I saw the amaloli picture you guys used I was terrified... the makeup, it looks so clownish and those extra candy accessories on her hair, also I don't know if the cute pink horse purse is permitted, it looks more decora... same with the face jewels. Just because a model or brand do something it doesn't mean it's really Lolita. We have a word for that: Ita, or Lolitas who don't quite get it right... and even brands don't get it right all the time. All in all, Takulu isn't a good example of Amaloli. 189.173.139.13 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be bold and replace the picture with a more appropriate free (not copyrighted) example then. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I'm looking for. ^^ I just don't want it to be an outdated one,so I'm taking sometime and asking for permissions. ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.139.13 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your search! Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justa small, question, as long as it depicts an Amaloli, does it have to be japanese? Becuase I have found many really nice Amaloli coordinates,but they are worn by Western girls.And who knew! Plushies ARE permitted in Amaloli. XD I feel so oldfashioned 189.173.139.13 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just has to be a free, not copyrighted, picture. That's it. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I sent in the permission requests, I just have to wait for the response. Thank you for your help. 189.173.139.13 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found pictures, but after more research I found out there's actually something called Decora Lolita! XD It's like a subdivision of Sweet Lolita, so that's where Takulu falls in. XDDD That's why I didn't change it. XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.200.61 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Header picture, Gothic Lolita and possibly Sweet Lolita pictures could do with updating, along with some more pictures of styles? Could 'Article like essay' be removed if some citations were added?

I know it's been brought up in sections before, but I think that possibly, the only decent and truly representative photos in this article are of the Classic Lolita and the Wa-Lolita.

The Sweet Lolita is accurate in its portrayal of OTT Sweet but perhaps it might confuse the crossover between Lolita and Decora? Showing a more traditional style of Sweet might give a better idea of the substyle. The eye jewels are a bit dated now, too.

The header photo isn't a good example of Gothic Lolita. The headdress, the apron, the cheap lace, the bell sleeves... I'm wondering if it's a cosplay photo or a visual-kei-Lolita wearer? I support the previous idea to show a good photograph of a Gothic Lolita and a Sweet Lolita together, since they're the two most prevalent styles.

When writing an article like this, it might be better to show more 'definitely Lolita' examples of each style, so as not to become confused with the joins between Lolita and other fashions, so maybe the photo of the two Gothic Lolitas could be replaced with something a bit more... well, missing the translucent tights and the shorter skirt that is not 'traditionally' following the guidelines? I also think that some good photographs of Guro Lolita, Ouji and the other lesser-known substyles might be nice.

I know my objectivity is a little impinged upon by the fact that I'd like this article to show Lolita fashion in a good light; after all, it's probably the first stop for parents when newcomers to the fashion announce what they're going to be spending this year's gift money on, and so it's good for the subculture to represent it favourably. But I do apologise that I have this bias, and I try to be as neutral as possible.


With some of the sentences changed to be more subjective and some citations added, could the 'Article like essay' tag be removed with a little tweaking? Chantililly (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find better free license images, upload and add those instead. Flickr is usually a good place to start searching for free images.[3] As for your last question, yes. I think the reason for the tag is that a lot of what is really opinion is stated as fact. References and inline citations need to be added to make it clear who is expressing the opinion(s). Siawase (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Draculaura add erased

The MH character does NOT use Lolita styled clothing. She uses Gothic/Victorian inspired but nowhere does it say it's even Lolita inspired. that's why it's been erased. Anyone who has seen the show can corroborate it.189.173.96.74 (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spring (er, Fall) cleaning

Hi guys, I'm trying to help clean up the page a bit, and am myself a Lolita. Here are a list of edits I've made so far (feel free to challenge me on these, too)

Under "Outside Japan" Changed this: Outside Japan, the Lolita fashion, along with cosplay and other Japanese cultural phenomena, can sometimes be seen at concerts and anime conventions throughout North America (see Anime North), the UK, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, Belgium, Italy, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the rest of the planet

to this: Outside Japan, Lolita fashion, along with other Japanese cultural phenomena like cosplay, can be seen at anime conventions throughout North America (see Anime North), Europe, South America, Australia, and Asia.

The preceding paragraph was unnecessarily verbose. The problem I'm facing now is what kind of source to add for it.

I'm also deleting deleting "It is, however, becoming increasingly popular as an everyday subculture style" unless someone can source it, otherwise it sounds speculative.

I also added a source to show that BtSSB has stores in Paris and San Francisco

I'm also disputing this because the only company I've seen that doesn't offer international shipping is Victorian Maiden: International sales are not widespread for most Japanese brands, despite the fact that many of the clothes produced by non-Japanese designers are not accepted by the Lolita community (for being inaccurate in portraying the style and as not being of as high a quality as the Japanese-brand clothes).

Finally, the last paragraph of this section mentions the author Novala Takemoto visiting America. Is there some documentation of this? Otherwise, it doesn't really seem like it belongs We all know that Lolitas like to get together and have tea parties, but is there any way to source this?

UPDATE 10/28 While I'm sure the Pokemon reference under the "Gothic Lolita" section is well-intentioned, unless there is a source somewhere confirming the influence of Lolita fashion on pokemon (such as an interview with the designer or something), then it's technically original research and does not belong.

Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any feedback :3 Cdelonga (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC) updated Cdelonga (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your updates are looking fine so far. You might find nobody talks to you about your changes unless you make one that they disagree with. Cleaning up articles like you are doing is a good way to get started and work out (the daunting number of) policies and procedures. The only comment I would make is that you should use edit summaries when you make changes. They let everybody know why you're making them. --GraemeL (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Should the second line of the article really be advertising for the Angelic Pretty brand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.175.20 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, looks like undue weight if nothing else. Various brands, including that one, are mentioned in the next paragraph and that should be enough. I removed that sentence. Siawase (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EGL reference academic paper

This looks promising in detailing the EGL culture:

I've added these to help reference Kamikaze Girls but it can be expanded upon for other sections. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Switchblade

The look created by Strawberry Switchblade around 1980/1981 is sometimes referred to as being "proto-Gothic Lolita". Given that they were also popular in Japan, are there any sources with usable content about this, if there was any actual connection. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your input, but unfortunately I don't know any scholar who has written over this cross-cultural investigation yet. If anyone find some papers with reference to this phenomena, please just notify me please on my talk page.
Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabakov book - again

The IP editor changed the Origin from:

The origin of the term Lolita is uncertain, and not confirmed to be connected with Vladimir Nabokov's book Lolita.

to

The origin of the term Lolita was chosen for the fashion as it derives from a girl's name in several cultures, but also is used as a term to mean girl as in girly, frilly, or feminine. Fitting for the fashion since it's main focus is on more frilly and lacey astetics of the victorian and rococo fashion periods. The fashion itself also has no affiliation with the book written by Nabokov about a girl who dresses in the nymphet fashion style, other than the name.

The trouble is that this is even more unsourced than the previous version. The original doesn't state that the book is the source of the term "lolita fashion" - indeed it makes it clear that there is no known origin. The replaced text makes the further assertion that the book definitely doesn't have anything to do with the term. Unfortunately, this is Original research - if sources can be provided to confirm this, then ok, great - but that needs to be provided before the change. As the origin of the term is uncertain, the current text is acceptable, and anything else is unsourced - ergo unacceptable.

Please discuss opinions before entering a potential edit war, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this has been discussed...many, many times...for years. No creditable sources have been provided for the attribution, and many have been that refute it...yet following a trend that is hardly NPV, but more and more common here, many editors seem determined to define counter/sub cultures as a prurient and draw spurious denigrating associations.
Even the earlier version you mentioned, as of this (IP logged) writing, reverted to be the current version, seems deliberately worded to imply that a connection does exist, and is just not confirmed by a citable sources...rather than point out how many sources say otherwise. What is more, the (reverted and unsourced) edit also creates an association to fashion in the mind of the reader...where in Humbert Humbert's reminiscing did he ever use "nymphet" to refer to his eponymous step-daughter's couture rather than what his sick mind imagined her to herself be? "Nymphet" refers to Lolita, and other children's nature and actions, in the narrator's pedophilatic mind, in that book, not any style of dress. Indeed, the classical nymphs he refers to are expressly stated to be naturally nude!
It is far too late to head off an edit war, this is just one more battlefront in the systemic war of the most persistent and equipped groups to use Wikipedia to push their myriad, misleading...and utterly biased agendas...that is costing us our credibility. We should find a source to directly cite that mentions the alleged association, and accurately reports evidence, put a disambiguity link (based on what I seen provided as evidence, one stating "Not to be confused with..", in my opinion) at the head of the article and leave it be. This is worse than Sonic hedgehog.
Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral aggrigate of impartial information that points readers towards legitimate sources, not a mouthpiece for Culture War zealots spreading disinformation to today's "Lucky Pierre's."71.235.31.212 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing:

Finding appropriate sourcing for this article is somewhat difficult, but not impossible. It's a bit of a niche fashion in English speaking nations and only sparsely covered by the media. I would suggest expanding this article with Japanese language sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots of sources, and I have already processed them in the Dutch Wikipedia. If I have the time I will process these sources in the English Wikipedia. You can find them at my profile, if you are interest in them.
Moreover it will be an honour to find somebody how can read the other papers that are writtten in Non-English sources like Swedisch, German, Finnish or Japanese and offer a transcription.
Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish:
  • M. Laine (2010) Doll Dressing tale, Savonia University of Applied Sciences.
  • M. Ventoniemi (2010) Suomalaisten lolitojen pukeutuminen ja elämäntyyli, University of Helsinki.
German:
  • E. Agy (2010) Titel der Magisterarbeit: Gothlic & Lolita Mode in Japan, Universität Wien, Magistra der Philosophie. (Recommended Translation)
  • I. Sabina Opalinski (2014) Geschlechterforschung in Jugendkulturen: Differenzierung von Jugendkulturen in feminin, maskulin und 
 geschlechtsneutral anhand einer Analyse der schwarzen Szene, Otto-Friedrich-Universität
, German.
Japanese:
  • 松浦桃 (Matsuura Momo)『セカイと私とロリータファッション』、2007年。ISBN 978-4787232755.
  • 嶽本野ばら (Okamoto Nobora)『パッチワーク』 文藝春秋、2010年。ISBN 978-4167773861.
Swedish:
  • Xue Mei Berg & Daniel Johnston (2007) Harajuku Gyuaru, Japanska subkulturer i urbana Sverige, Stockholms Universite
Added Literature List of the foreign languages, Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date Issue of the establishment of Manifesteange Metamorphose temps de fille, it is either 1993 or 1997

Dear Wikipedians,

I discovered that their is an ambiguous information about the origin of the establishment of Manifesteange Metamorphose temps de fille.

Different sources are mentioning different dates, but the big problem is that lots of the sources are just copying Wikipedia or just the one source paper.

1997

1993

Media Links

Q.E.D https://web.archive.org/web/20040923200754/http://www.metamorphose.gr.jp:80/english/_aboutus/index.htm (Waybackmachine the owner of the company mention 1993)

So I suggest the year 1993 is the correct date based on the evidence and 1997 is incorrect information that is circulated in the world wide web.

--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review Quality of Wikipedia Article based on Quality Scale: Diving Deeper in the Literature

Quality of the article does fulfill the requirements to be categorized as C-Class. 

"The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style."

By all means ethnography sources based on participant observation are the holy grail for starters and for replication of empirical data. For example is the Brittan Lolita subculture the same as America Lolita subculture. To not cherry picking location you can replace Brittan or America with any country you want.

But one problem of participant observation is that it could be biased if it is not done property. Some sourced used informants to understand better the situation. (is it biased?)

The dilemma of ethnography problem is known as Insider and Outsider Perspective in Ethnographic Research.

But other research about why Lolita act like they act are also very helpful, with theories or historical context which would support the statement. - Atkinson for example make a relation between theory and the information from her informants about the Nostalgia for Girlhood or a Return to Youth 

A critical problem with papers could be that specific empirical data is searched to support the statement and not include data which not support (disapprove) the statement (biased). It is like cherry picking.

Other work can also used to analysis more the deeper the meaning of the things behind the Lolita fashion.

One problem is that a source does not refer to a peer-reviewed book (do not judge the entire thesis by this example), used to clarify the problem of citing 

1. Let's take a look at the following statement:

"Lolita fashion is a multi-faceted style of clothing that initially came into existence in the late 1980s, and became solidified in the early 1990s (Suzuki 2007)." (Atkinson 2015) 

2. Let's look up the source:

Suzuki, Mariko. 2007. “Gothic, Lolita, Visual-Kei: First Kansai then the World (via Harajuku)”. Pp. 134-165 in Style Deficit Disorder: Harajuku Street Fashion ed. 

3. Reference is a book. Let lookup the authors

Tiffany Godoy known as a veteran fashion editor. Suzuki: Ph.D. in Human Sciences, 2003, Osaka University M.S. in Human Sciences, 1993, Osaka University B.S. in Natural Science, 1983, Nara Women’s University Main Specialism: Education 

4. So can we say these writers has authority and the source is reliable?

Hard to say, it is an ethical question. One thing what can be said: Everyone can write, but some do have knowledge about the topic and their opinion should be valued higher then people with no proof of being knowledgeable about the subject. On the other hand the authority of knowledge should be validated.

To rate it as B-scale

  • Referencing & citations should be checked on [bias] -> Sort of, but all the sources referred are the sources which exist about Lolita fashion in English written language. No more information exists or they have published their papers in 2017 or 2018 until present moment. A deeper analysis should be done about bias in the sources.
  • Coverage & accuracy should be [checked on scope] -> Not everything is covered "implication of social theories".
  • Structure should be checked on [clearness] -> Nearly perfect I think.
  • Grammar & style should be checked on [sentence structure and correct use of expressions and tenses] -> ? Lots of grammar issues were already removed, but I cannot make a judgment about the current state.
  • Supporting materials should be checked on [copyright, suitable supplements] -> supplement links are good, pictures can be outdated, but no better pictures can be found under creative commons license.
  • Accessibility should be checked [clearness] -> I think it is written understandable language for general public.

B-Rate Requirements— 

   The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) is optional.

   The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

   The article has a defined structure. Content should be organised into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

   The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

   The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

   The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

I hope this clarify the current stance of the article and broader your understanding why the article contains these sources. If you read the talk history, you can understand why using reference avoid the problems which can occur like neutral point of view and no original research or write (undo) wars.

--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article. I hypothesise the criteria of quality can be sufficient for quality grade B. Not everything is perfect, but quality grade B also took that in account.

1. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) is optional.Yes

2. the article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Yes, all information comes from references

3. The article has a defined structure. Yes, Properties, History (Influence), Culture (Social, Motives, Influence) and Relations(Confusions, Influence)

4. The article is reasonably well-written. Yes, checked by users last 6 months.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Yes, relevant links and images are added. Images which are licensed under creative commons CC-BY(-SA).

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. Yes, language is used which are used by the the broad public

If the article does not suffice to the indicators requirements, please improve the article so that it does reach the norms.

The arguments I gave to rate it as B-scale in previous post can be used as input to review it as A-quality. For the two first arguments you can counter it with these arguments: 1. Anything is vulnerable to biases, no writing is never perfect. The academics can have biases, but that does not mean their work is not useful or trustworthy. 2. How broad should a scope be? Social theories are very broad. Shouldn't social theories stay within the scope of the social theories article.

--Sorrow of Sophie (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis sources

As far as I know, doctoral thesis are not reliable sources. Thus they should be removed from the article and better sources found. Am I wrong on this? Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's 138 sources in this article - which ones are you specifically referring to? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is probably a better place to ask, but a quick search through archives there suggests that a thesis falls into a similar category as a primary source - ie one that can be used, but with caution, and not necessarily removed outright. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doctoral thesis aren't reliable as a whole? That's new to me. Even master's thesis undergo quite extensive reviewing processes, although I suppose that could depend on the university. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly done tidying up citations. IMO what should be done now is get rid of the citation overkill in the lead (for each sentence, use the best source), and trim down on factoids. If there are three 'main' types, the lead doesn't need to have all the subtypes listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolita_fashion&oldid=1118024498"