Jump to content

Talk:Lolicon

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.91.248.85 (talk) at 12:00, 31 January 2019 (→‎Article deleted from Google search results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleLolicon was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 3, 2010Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 15, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 12, 2011Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Article deleted from Google search results

This article appears to have been deleted from Google search results, at least in my area (US, California). You can try "site:wikipedia.org Lolicon" as the search results and this talk page comes up, and talk archive pages come up, and alternate language websites come up but the actual page does not. Is google attempting to hide this result or is this an accidental result of some mass purge of the term from their search archives. Ergzay (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just you, I am on the east coast and both the main page and talk page are now gone from search results. If it is a purge then in my opinion it falls under whitewashing and political correctness. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google's search engine ban on the word lolicon dates back to 18 April 2010, when it was first perceived by users at least, it is not accidental, but now it is even censoring the wikipedia page, which hasn't happened before, curiously enough the ban is heavier on the word lolicon, with the term loli being partially censored. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but not really relevant to the article at hand. This is Wikipedia, not google. We have no control over Google. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, since there are no reliable sources discussing this there isn't really much we can do inclusion-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia admins. I doubt that Google specifically wanted to block a Wikipedia article. If the issue is brought up with Google, then they might rectify it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You will have the same luck by doing it yourself than the Wikipedia Admin would against Google. This would have to come from someone higher up like in the Wikimedia foundation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that bringing in the Wikipedia's admins to the issue is really a great idea, and talking inclusion-wise, we could begin a joint effort to address the censorship suffered by the lolicon culture in general, not only by google, beginning by creating a censorship section on this article - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article seems to promote pedophilic images, not being illegal.

Reduction of Hayao Miyazaki speech

Hayao Miyazaki is already well known for his disregard with the evolution of anime and prefers the old-style tendencies of it, I would like to propose a reduction of his speech to only the important aspecs of it, as to when he refers to lolicon, the main reason for this is due to the irregular reference of this part of the article, in the site used as reference it can be seen on its disclaimer that it is "Translated without permission for personal entertainment purpose only. This is not, by any means, an accurate word for word translation, and the translator is solely responsible for any mistranslation or misunderstanding due to it.", which isn't appropriate, also because the interview isn't regarding the lolicon but an interview that just asked him questions about his work, and he briefly talked about what his character caused at the time, this kinds of things clearly contribute to the reduction of the reduction of the quality of the article, I'd like to discuss with the ones who object and also with the ones who support this descision here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilinhosan1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As no one objected I will then proceed to make the changes - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lectonar did revert your deletion of the material. However, she did not object on the merits, just asked you to explain (her edit summary was "Undid revision... this was in the article for a long time; I'd say you take it to the article's talk-page before removing it again). Which you did do. So if User:Lectonar has a material objection, it's now up to her to come here and state it.
On the merits, the source says "This is not, by any means, an accurate... translation". It's possible that this is probably just their attempt at a disclaimer, and they're erring on the side of safety and modesty, but... they say it's not accurate. Since it's not accurate, they should not have published it, and we can't use it, so you're right. I've restored your removal of the material, and thank you, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: He has no objection :). Lectonar (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, everything is all Sir Garnet. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on quotation

Thank you User:Lectonar for your editing and commentary. The Quoted material is the translation of the book “Kanjinai Otoko”, a classic of Japanese men’s studies and a best-seller of the year 2005. In the year 2005 there were a lot of heated discussions about the author’s argument on lolicon in Japanese gender-related circles, hence I believe this quoted text is not mere a layman’s opinion on this issue. I propose two things: 1) As for the entry in “Further reading”, I recommend to put the information about the book as it is because its Chapter 4 contains a very useful and helpful information about the “facts” of Japanese lolicon phenomena for English readers, and it is also a rare material that depicts, in English, a detailed reality of Japanese lolicon photo books and discourses in the 1990s and early 2000s. 2) As for the main text, the first choice is to make a subsection like “Psychology of lolicon men” and put the text under it. Second choice is to rewrite the text as “Philosopher Masahiro Morioka argues in his 2005 bestseller book on sexuality “Kanjinai Otoko” that in the minds of …”. Other things coming to my mind is: the quotation from Hiroki Azuma, found in the same paragraph, can also be considered to be an “opinion”. If the quotation from Morioka is considered an opinion and should be deleted, Azuma should also be deleted for the same reason. Midstleggy (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection I will add book information to "Further reading". Midstleggy (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you're trying to input here in the article is still strong WP:UNDUE and also really questionable, "escape their own bodies and secretly transport themselves into the bodies of young girls."; I think that you'll need more than a book stating the opinion of a guy to put an information like that here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilinhosan1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for now this is undue. The article on Masahiro Morioka relies entirely on sources affiliated with Morioka, which is a red flag. This perspective needs outside sources. Since this prompted heated discussions, it should be possible to find WP:SECONDARY sources discussing this. Azuma's opinion, on the other hand, is supported by such a source. At the very least, independent sources should more clearly establish why Morioka's opinion is significant. Being a professional philosopher isn't sufficient by itself. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it makes sense. I will try to find some outside objective source if possible. Midstleggy (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Japan Times, May 5, 2017, published a long article entitled “Professor examines Lolita complex by first looking at his own experience”, and this article quotes an interview with Morioka on his lolicon theory at length. For example: “In his book “Confessions of a Frigid Man,” originally published in Japanese in 2005 and recently translated into English, Morioka examines his own fixation with — and sexual fantasies about — young girls. Then he proposes a hypothesis: His lolicon resulted from a feeling of having grown into a man’s body “by mistake.” When he was about 12 — an age at which secondary sexual characteristics such as the first menstruation for girls and the first ejaculation for boys emerge — he recalls he was “unable to affirm” having a man’s body. “As my body became that of an adult, it began to produce male hormones, grow muscles, acquire a more rugged, angular shape, grow more hair and dirty itself with seminal fluid, and a strange odor began to emanate from somewhere inside me,” he writes. He felt uneasy about his physical transformation, which he says led to his fixation on the “clean” body of a girl and “a desire to slip my consciousness into her body, and while inhabiting it, experience her puberty from the inside.” (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/05/05/national/social-issues/professor-examines-lolita-complex-first-looking-experience/) I believe this article is considered to be an “independent source” on the credibility of his argument at least in the Japanese mass media. And this article itself is a valuable source on the Japanese lolicon phenomenon written in English. Midstleggy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it was already stated on the discussion, being a professional philosopher isn't sufficient by itself, and you indeed searched for independent sources regarding the opinion of this professor, but all that is being discussed in the article is his opinion on the subject and the book he wrote regarding his experiences and doesn't include data of any reasearch, nor was it peer reviewed by any group of specialists on the subject, making it still not valid as a justification to put his opinion on the article. In the article itself it is stated, "Morioka, who is heterosexual and married, concedes that none of his hypotheses has been or will ever be “scientifically” proven. He insists that his analysis only applies to himself, and it cannot be generalized.", making it even more clear that this content shouldn't be included here. I will be reverting the inclusion of his opinion on the article here while the discussion is still in progress and consensus hasn't been reached yet. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many good articles don't have illustration, but this one has an example of pedophilic image!

Lolicon is pedophilia, is it forced to post an image of pedophilia on Wikipedia, like in this article?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolicon&oldid=881094835"