Talk:Lolicon/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

My Views

Why is it that every other encyclopedia, dictionary, etc is able to include an entry for terms such a paedophilia, lolita, hentai, rape etc without having to provide an image depicting the scene???? I'll tell you why: because an image is not necessary! Some people have put forward the argument that "If you don't want to see lolicon then don't visit the page" but this view is competely ridiculous. The article exists on Wikipedia for the benefit of people who don't know what lolicon is and need to find out. That doesn't mean they'd be interested in it. And they would certainly be offended by suddenly coming across that picture when all they wanted was a definition of the term lolicon.

god, some people are ridiculous. It's not a sexually explicit picture. It's generally agreed that young children can be partially naked without it being a sexual thing. Yes, the drawing is intended as pornography in this instance. But if you're turned on by that (which is what I assume your "offense" is covering for, as theres no other reason to be offended by a child's nakedness) that's your own problem, not the articles. -- 16:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No i'm not turned on by that image. If you want to talk about hypocricy how about this one: "Why do you log out before posting on this talk page??" I'm not offended by a child's nakedness (I myself am a naturist), but I am uncomfortable with an image of a child that:
  1. WAS intended as ponography
  2. IS illegal in many countries.
gorgan_almighty 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether you know me as "" or by some other name is irrelevent. Although I do have an account; I rarely sign in when making edits. I fail to see how my laziness is hypocricy ;) Anyway, like I said, there's nothing sexually explicit here, so why get offended? If it was a drawing of a girl being raped, then maybe you'd have a point. But as it stands it's pornographic intent is entirely dependent on it's context - on the cover of a pornographic manga, then yes it would be illegal in many countries. As an educational tool on an encyclopedia, I fail to see a problem. You're point of view is like saying that a wikipedia article on shoe fetishes that includes a picture of a shoe is going to offend anyone who sees it. -- 00:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
How is you being offended an excuse to remove the image? Maybe the article on refrigerators offends me. Why on Earth would they need to include a picture of a refrigerator in the refrigerator article??
But that's just my POV, and it doesn't belong here, just like yours. --Nymph 18:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice straw man argument. "Random page" and wikilinking mean people will end up here unaware of what will be before them (I got here through Cardcaptor Sakura, in fact), and you're not addressing Gorgan's points of illegality. nae'blis (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And we've been through this before. A picture of a vagina in the vagina entry is also illegal in certain countries as well. Are you advocating removing those pictures as well? If not, please resolve this inconsistency in your POV first. Dracil 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Simple. When I go to an article on vagina or oral sex, I can expect some diagrams/images that may be explicit. Since I came to this article from a page about a children's television show and had no idea what the term meant, having an image of an underage girl with a recently-used dildo above the fold was shocking. It's also possibly illegal (if not for the general public, then certain paedophiles who have restrictions on what they can view/possess). If it were behind a link or even below the fold for most resolutions, I'd have less of an objection. You can verify my POV in Talk:oral sex if you don't believe me. nae'blis (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
What children's television show article linked to this page? Isn't it illegal for minors to have access to vagina pics as well? I think we've already established that illegality in and of itself has no bearing on what should and should not be shown. I'd actually much rather that Wikipedia have certain articles have a "possibly illegal" warning flag before people view it. I wouldn't mind the current picture be replaced with something less sexually explicit, which would help highlight the fact that to some lolicons, it's not about the sexual content. Dracil 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Above, I linked to where I came from, Cardcaptor Sakura. Also, from What links here, I can spot non-genre links from Duck (disambiguation), Shrine of the Morning Mist, Mecha-tan and kawaii, off the top of my head. nae'blis (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's why I suggested changing the pic to a non-sexually explicit lolicon pic, as per below. As from what I know of those things, those definitely are in the lolicon category, and again, highlights that not all lolicon material is sexually explicit. Dracil 23:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
An example of what I'm thinking of is something from Ichigo Mashimaro. It's considered loli fodder, but it has no sexual content. Some random covers can be seen at or Dracil 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image some more

Although I agree with other contributors that the image should not be deleted purely because it is found subjectively offensive by some people (on this standard nearly EVERYTHING should be deleted), I do think the illegality of the image in some jurisdictions is sufficient for non-inclusion. (in my country, South Africa, it is most certainly illegal, see:

    • I don't think this image qualifies as "sexual conduct" in your reference and that inadvertant viewing is prosecutable -Nv8200p talk 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re the "vagina in Iran" argument, surely the relevant issue here is what the reasonable user of wikipedia is expected to know before accessing the web. In Iran the existence of very strict obscenity laws is a well-known fact and so a reasonable Iranian wiki user should know NOT to read the article on vaginas. Similarly, the reasonable user in China will know to avoid particular political concepts. South Africa (plus Canada and Australia etc.), however, are DEMOCRACIES where viewing most things on the web is legal; now the question is: does the reasonable South African or Australian know they shouldn't read the lolicon article on wikipedia? Even if someone knows simulated child porn is illegal in his or her country, is it reasonable to expect them to know the relevant article contains illegal images and they would be committing a crime by viewing it? I don’t think so, and on the principle that Wikipedia should not allow people to commit inadvertent crimes, the image should be completely removed. One can have a legitimate academic interest in pornography articles (mine stems from an interest in evolutionary psychology) without in anyway condoning the substance of that which is depicted, so FORCING me to commit a crime while researching this topic is slightly unfair. Mikkerpikker 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

couldn't the use of the image be claimed as being educational? Would laws against child pornography depictions still have anything against that? The other issue, that i've mentioned before, is that the image itself is not pornographic in and of itself. Nakedness does not equal pornography, even when it's a child (or maybe especially when it's a child). Now the fact that she seems to be holding a sex toy might be stretching it a bit but I still don't think there is inherantly anything pornographic here, in the context it's provided in. -- 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The point is the image constitutes child pornography de jure in some jurisdictions (specifically, in South Africa - see the link I posted) whether or not it is pornographic in any intuitive sense. My argument is that wikipedia should not contain content that the reasonable person would not realise is illegal. Again, the reasonable Iranian *knows* the vagina or sex or porn articles in wiki will contain information perhaps illegal in his or her country whereas the reasonable South African/Canadian/Australian CANNOT be expected to know - how could they know without first reading the article? - that by clicking on "lolicon" they are about to commit a crime. Lastly, exactly why is the image's inclusion so important? Surely saving wikipedians from inadvertent crime is more important than including the image? (People who really want to look at such images are free to do so in their spare time if they live in areas where it is legal...) NOTE: given the seriousness of this problem with the image's inclusion I will continue to delete it until someone offers an argument that defeats mine... Mikkerpikker 07:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You keep claiming that a "reasonable Iranian" knows to avoid the vagina article. Care to cite a source? 'Cause they don't speak English in Iran. Do the words "vagina" or "dildo" appear on the vocab list of your average Iranian English course?

I've listed the image for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. (My reasons are the same for its non-inclusion in the article). Mikkerpikker 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If a "reasonable" Iranian would suspect that the vagina article has pictures of vaginas, why wouldn't a "reasonable" South African suspect that the lolicon article has pictures of lolicon? And if I was doing serious research on lolicon, I don't see why I would object seeing examples of it. Don't medical students in Iran get to see pictures of vaginas? I certainly hope so. Kaldari 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Silly edit war

I see rational discussion is out of the question with respect to the image. Frankly, I have better things to do than reverting repeatedly, so what about getting other users to comment about what should be done?

To be clear: I am not repeating the argument that the image should be removed because it is offensive. Nor am I saying it should be removed because it is immoral or hurtful or simply because it is child porn (that depends on your definition, which can be subjective). My argument is that since the picture is illegal in several countries, if we include the image we are forcing those with a legitimate interest in the topic to commit a crime when there is NO reason for them to suspect that is what is about to happen. I'd love to hear what can be said against this position and I'll readily change my stance if good arguments against me can be found. Mikkerpikker 11:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument that uses Iranian law as another example of censorship not being relevent to Wikipedia seems like a pretty good one. Wikipedia isn't made for any government. It's not wikipedia's fault if a state feels the need to censor free speech and information, whether that be images of sexual organs or drawings of (apparently) sexualised children in an educational context. We shouldn't have to cater to the whims of some government's bizarre decree against drawings. The image should only be removed if it is offensive on a purely personal level, not offensive to the prescribed morality of a state. And for the record, I believe that here in the UK there is a similar ban on depictions of sexualised children; but I havn't been arrested yet for viewing this page ;) -- 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you completely that wikipedia is not made for any government, but then, surely, it is made for the average person who wants to use it. As such, shouldn't users be protected from inadvertent crime, especially since the inclusion of the image is not particularly important to the article in question? (Reading the democracy article from, say, China might be illegal but -1- the reasonable Chinese user knows this and -2- the democracy article is objectively important whereas the image in question is not). Whether or not you AGREE with the laws forbidding "simulated child porn" they are laws and breaking them has (or can have) consequences - a reasonable person in many of the jurisdictions in which they are in place simply cannot be expected to know clicking on lolicon can land them in trouble. Consequently the debate about whether the image is offensive or not is irrelevant and so is the debate about whether the image "truly" constitutes porn, what matters is protecting users. Maybe I'm making no sense whatsoever, so I'll go sleep on it... Mikkerpikker 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "Lolicon" is a neologism in English, and people will not expect pornography on this page like they would with Pornography. You can say "well that's their problem, they need to use Wiktionary first" if you want, but keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to present new information to people don't know about something. Don't bite the readers.

That being said, you have both violated WP:3RR, and the next revert I see on that page is heading to the noticeboard. Ashibaka tock 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course readers shouldn't be presented with pornography if they aren't expecting it. But, as it has already been stated on this talk page, a partially naked child does not constitute pornography by most people's definition - it's generally agreed that children can be partially naked without it being sexual. Saying the image is pornographic is akin to saying that it's pornographic to include a picture of a shoe in an article on shoe fetishes. It's pornographic status is dependent on the deviance of the reader ;). -- 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
So, you're saying: "This picture of a child is not sexual, it's all in your interpretation." Reality: It's the cover of a lolicon doujinshi. The article is about pedophilia. If readers don't realise what they're looking at when they first pull up the article, after reading it they definitely will. This subject is too volatile for such an obscene image, and it's certainly different from foot fetish. Ashibaka tock 19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying that in the context here, there is nothing immediately obscene about the image. On the cover of a book, with presumably depictions of actual sexual acts inside, then of course it would be pornographic. Here however the image is presented on it's own and has no immediate sexual meanings - as I said, it is generally accepted that children can be partially naked without it implying anything sexual. The sexual context provided by the article is purely academic and secondary; all it does is define the image as being an educational example. It is exactly the same as my example using an article on shoe fetishes: such an article may plausibly contain an image of a shoe - however such an image on it's own is non-sexual in the general view of society and is therefore not likely to cause offense to the average reader. The image in question, much like the theoretical image of the shoe, is not "obscene" if you only realize it's apparent sexuality after reading the text of the article; it only has those qualities if the reader immediately inteprets it in that way upon viewing. And that, as I said, would entirely be a result of the reader's preconceptions, not the image itself. -- 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know I read your comment and I don't think it would be beneficial to pursue this any further. If anyone asks for another opinion on this subject please let me know and I'll be back. Ashibaka tock 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm just hoping that does not get the last say in this. "Here however the image is presented on it's own and has no immediate sexual meanings" - are we talking about the same image here?? A little girl in bed with her panties down, in an article about drawn child pornography, has "no immediate sexual meanings"? This is just absolutely silly and I hope this image gets removed. Not because it's illegal for me to view it (I live in Sweden), but because it makes me sick and should make you sick too. Moralistic, hell yeah. /skagedal[talk] 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    So what? It makes you sick, and..? Nazis make me sick, the Holocaust pictures make me sick, but hey, I guess dead, tortured jews can't compare to "a little girl with her panties down."
    The bottom line is Wikipedia is not censored so cry elsewhere if you don't like the picture, please. // paroxysm (n) 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I advice anyone who thinks it is not sexual to take a closer look at the teddy bear. // paroxysm (n) 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • re whether the picture is sexual or not: engage in this little thought experiment... one day you come home from work to find, say, a male relative sitting in your daughter's room looking at her & she is on her knees on a bed with her panties down and a dildo in her hand. How would you react? Would your first thought be, 'oh, a child can appear naked in a non-sexual manner and this is clearly like that - nothing to worry about at all"?? Similarly, if you came across a picture of your daughter (on the net or on a friend's camera or whatever) in that pose, would you NOT reasonably suspect she's being molested? Come off it, OF COURSE the picture is sexual. Obviously, not every picture of a naked girl (or woman for that matter) is sexual but how is a picture of a naked little girl in a provocative pose holding a dildo not sexual? Mikkerpikker 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to have some sort of vote about the picture? I've stated the reasons why I think it should be removed and (from my POV) they stand untouched. Although wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and although wikipedia can contain images some users find offesive, wikipedia cannot force users to commit inadvertant crime when it is not reasonable for these users to suspect such a crime is about to be committed. Please indicated for/against removal (and why if you like) Mikkerpikker 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

List of countries it is illegal in

I'm just wondering where exactly this is illegal in.

Apart from Canada and Australia, where else?

I started a section on this, please feel free to look up relevant obscenity statutes around the world. Ashibaka tock 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the Image

The image is offensive for people who are trying to do research, I would like to see it removed. In fact I'm going to do so myself.


The entire article doesn't touch on lolicon ever meaning anything other than prepubescent girls. 8-13 is a very poor and unusual definition for ephebophile. Keep in mind that since this is mainly illustrated lolicon isn't as ambiguous about age as real life is. An image won't be considered loli unless it is notably prepubescent. If loli-con encompasses pubescent girls then there should be some information somewhere on this page about that. Without it, it's just incongrous to call lolita ephebophile. Keep in mind that lolicon is separate from nobokovs' lolita and Gothic Lolita. Their ephebophilia has no impact on this term. Lotusduck 04:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Legality of cartoons depicting sexual abuse of children

I just spoke with someone in IRC who claims to be a law student in US and who said that this article is incorrect in suggesting that cartoons depicting sexual abuse of children are not illegal in US. He pointed me to following links regarding a recent conviction for possession of such material: [1], [2], [3]. He also suggests that distribution of the picture in the article may be in violation of U.S. law, though it doesn't seem to me to depict sexual abuse, per se. Babajobu 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see some evidence, please. What statute? Someone on IRC claims to be a law student in the US - and that's supposed to make me believe what he/she says? The links point to articles about a repeat offender who got the book thrown at him for obsenity, but there's not a single mention of the statute he was convicted under, thus no way to verify it. 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Legal or not, there is a question of choice. I don't know that Wikipedia needs to choose to include this image. Why should it? Any reason not to delete it? -Will Beback 11:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been hashed out here time and time again. Unless there's a consensus, leave it alone. 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The third link states that he was convicted under the PROTECT Act of 2003, which criminalizes trafficking in drawings or CGI depicting minors involved in "explicit sexual conduct". I don't think this picture involves "explicit sexual conduct" at all, and I have no problem with keeping the picture in its original place. I just thought I should let you know, considering the guy was correct that the legal information in the article was dead wrong. Babajobu 14:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The legal analysis is not dead wrong! The case you cite has not been brought to the Supreme Court. Therefore, we have one final ruling on the constitutionality of outlawing lolicon, and that is in 2002 when it was ruled un-Constitutional. The links you cite are about using it to re-convict previous sex offenders, and considering the costs of a Supreme Court battle when they have already been convicted it makes sense that they just plea bargained. Ashibaka tock 02:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A case need not be brought to the Supreme Court to count as a real judgment or to set a real precedent. It's possible that in time the relevant provisions of the PROTECT Act will be overturned, but in December, 2005 they were used to convict a man who had received and sent cartoons over the internet of seventy-four counts of trafficking in child pornography. His status as an ex-offendor is not relevant...he was not judged in violation of a special provision of parole, he was convicted of violating a child pornography law. As I said, I have no dog in this race, I don't have a problem with the picture staying where it is and I wish our servers were hosted in space so that we weren't subject to any country's laws. But the guy was right...the legal info in the article was dead wrong. Plus, this sentence is pure original research: "it is highly unlikely that if a case involving the PROTECT Act were brought to the Supreme Court, the previous ruling would be overturned." I'm removing it. And the Supreme Court need not "overturn" its previous ruling, it would need to judge that the PROTECT Act was itself unconstitutional. This has not yet happened, the Act has already garnered successful prosecutions, and Wikipedia is not in a position to claim that eventually it will be overturned. We can't know that, and if we give someone the sense that it is legal to traffick in hardcore Lolicon in the U.S., and they are then convicted under the Protect Act, we'll have a problem. Babajobu 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No, no. The PROTECT Act says the same thing as COPA; the Supreme Court would have to totally flip-flop to call that enforceable. There's no problem with pointing that out-- Wikipedia does not provide legal advice anyway. Ashibaka tock 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Is there some reason why the picture needs to be large and prominent? -Will Beback 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

None at all, also the image, if it needs to be included should be moved down to the section it most describes, theres no reason for this image to be at the front of the page. If the image directly describes a portion of the article then it can be there, because it isn't neccessary to illustrate the article in its' entirety, in my opnion. Lotusduck 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. If there isn't something that needs illustrating, then we don't need an illustration. We already provide external links for those who want to learn more. -Will Beback 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What? It's clearly exemplifying this:
In the Western world, the term lolicon refers to sexual anime-style artwork portraying underage characters, often produced in Japan.
...and the rest of the article. I'm seriously befuddled how you couldn't manage to gather that a sexualized little girl in a loli magazine is relevant to.. lolicon.
It does not "need" to be prominent, but the top is generally where we include an illustration, and moving it down for POV reasons is unacceptable (uncongeniality is purely relative). The image change doesn't remedy the legal issues, either. // paroxysm (n) 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does shrinking the image, or moving it down, violate NPOV or NOT? Why do we need to place it so large and so prominent? Why do we even need this image, which is clearly child pornography? The legal issues are beside the point. Also, please restore the citation request tags that you removed. Thanks, -Will Beback 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It does not manifest a POV in the article, but the basis for moving and compacting it seems to be that it is explicit or offending, which is no more than personal opinion. I do not see the purpose in obscuring it from sight and shrinking it beyond recognition. It detracts from the quality of this article, nothing more.
This image does not meet the qualifications for child pornography in the country where it is hosted. According to WP:NOT, these are the only legal obstructions relevant to inclusion of anything in Wikipedia. // paroxysm (n) 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this article have to adhere to the untied states version of the term? Why should we use this image to further suggest that lolicon is only animated or illustrated? Its a huge misunderstanding that people separate the term from photographs of underaged girls or photographs altered to make girls appear underage. Sure, in the united states it's solely manga, but why should we reinforce that bias? Lotusduck 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article deals primarily with its Western implementation, and there's no reason that shouldn't be illustrated; its quite far from violating WP:NPOV. Arguing that illustrating one of the usages is nonneutral is as ridiculous as accusing an article about cars of bias if it features a picture of a car with the steering wheel to the left. // paroxysm (n) 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't non-neutral as far as violating anything, it just gives the wrong idea. It helps along the popular misconception that loli is just drawings. Lotusduck 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a reason to delete it. This article is about the art, rather than the Japanese meaning of "lolicon," which is covered at pedophilia. Kind of like hentai has a picture of a group of women, and not a pervert. // paroxysm (n) 22:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the art. The article discusses the legality of actual real life underage girls in pornography. This is just an example of making every japanese related article focus on anime and manga. Lotusduck 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lotusduck and Will Beback, both of you will sooner or later come to the realization that Comstock is dead and gone and his legacy is remembered only for it's treacheries. Additionally, you should also realize that no matter how much Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell want to control what everyone does, they do not own Similarly, you do not have the right to come in here and make unto yourselves as guardians of morality with accusations which are both factually wrong and POV. Ordinarily I would not consider this to be vandalism (notice that I did not call the previous controversy "vandalism" back then either), but since you have used defamatory arguments as the premise for removing the image, I have little choice to consider your actions to be like those of street gangs who deface roadsigns. Sweetfreek 07:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No one is vandalizing here, they are expressing genuine disagreement about what is best for the article. For what it's worth, I was the one who raised the issue at the administrator's noticeboard, and no one there seemed to think the picture was legally problematic. And there's no doubt that it's informative, even if it's not representative of all Lolicon, so I would personally vote to leave it at its current size and above the fold. Babajobu 07:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do doubt that this picture is informative, in the same way that a picture of a human turd doesn't belong at Feces. It has a gross-out factor and nothing else. Ashibaka tock 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh...most readers are familiar with the appearance of a human turd, and will not be further enlightened by a picture of it. I'd never seen "Lolicon manga" before, though. Babajobu 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I should have been more specific: "If you don't know what child porn is, here's a picture." Not helpful. The article at Pornography has some good examples of how to display erotic content while still being more informative than obscene. Ashibaka tock 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, "obscenity" is a matter of opinion and hence irrelevant to Wikipedia. // paroxysm (n) 20:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A bunch of opinions banded together is a consensus. See Wikipedia:Pornography, which gives examples of the liberal but not all-encompassing approach we've had so far. Ashibaka tock 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A bunch of opinions banded together can't choose to impose their POV on an article; in other words, "consensus" does not at all trump our policy on neutrality. // paroxysm (n) 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How is removing or replacing this image POV? If someone finds a more representative one that's all good. Ashibaka tock 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You're reasoning that the image should be deleted because you personally consider it "obscene," and that this somehow detracts from its informative value. However, "obscenity" is a relative concept and in accord to your POV; hence, such an argument is invalid so long as our WP:NPOV policy holds true. POV cannot be used as justification for removing an image. // paroxysm (n) 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who wants it removed. Roughly a dozen people have complained, either here, or on my talk page, or on the Village Pump; it's just you and the anon right now who want to keep it. Ashibaka tock 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Sweetfreek; and I'm sure there are others. It's survived IFD, after all.
And, uh, at any rate, just to repeat myself:
"Consensus" does not at all trump our policy on neutrality.
That's it. If other editors consider the image obscene and ungodly, I apologize, but Wikipedia just isn't the place. // paroxysm (n) 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I second Ashibaka's comment... maybe we should have a vote? Re paroxysm, consensus does not trump neutrality but consensus needs to be established about neutrality. U're confusing levels of abstraction... Mikkerpikker 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait.. so if I can gather enough people who are offended by headphones (obvious obscenity), we can all get in a vote and delete that article because we personally find it offending? And all this in accord with WP:NPOV..?
Alright, now I see your guys' logic that censoring Wikipedia based on personal tastes is acceptable and not in violation of any policies whatsoever. I'm just a crazy POV pusher who wants to impose harmful images on our children. // paroxysm (n) 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Errr, no... It is YOUR POV that removing the image will violate NPOV but you are (presumably) not omniscient & hence you can make mistakes. Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong about the image & it's neutrality? (p.s. If you read the talk page you'll see I'm not advocating the removal of the image for reasons of "taste" but for very good legal reasons). Besides, why in the hell is keeping this image so vital? Make it your background if it's that important to you but don't force innocent ppl to commit crime... (as for the headphones argument, I direct you to red herring and straw man) Mikkerpikker 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What violates NPOV is itself POV... hmmm. You, Sir, have create a new element of uncertainty in the matter, therefore the only proper solution remaining to eliminate POV controversies is to allow be everyone else to make up there own minds by seeing it for themselves rather than force them to rely on our collective kvetching. Sweetfreek 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not omniscient. Strangely, I do not consider omniscience essential to determine that deleting an image because I personally considered it "obscene" or "offending" is nonneutral. I could be wrong, of course, but arguing in a spiritless manner is worthless.
As for your "very good legal reasons," according to WP:NOT, they aren't. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to filter its content to conform with dictatorial legal systems held by other countries.
Lastly, my headphones comparison was neither a red herring nor a strawman, but what I consider to be an appropriate analogy to Ashibaka's argument -- apparently not yours, though; sorry. But if you don't want to imply agreement with someone you might not want to "second" them.. // paroxysm (n) 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oy, I didn't say anything about deleting obscene articles. I argued strongly in favor of keeping Pedophilia advocacy, if you'll kindly remember. And if I really hated this picture so much, I would be edit warring to get rid of it, but rather, it's been there for over a year since I first noticed it. Ashibaka tock 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Ashibaka said "I'm not the only one who wants it removed. Roughly a dozen people have complained, either here, or on my talk page, or on the Village Pump; it's just you and the anon right now who want to keep it" then I said "I second Ashibaka's comment". (by which I meant to indicate support for the preceding comment by Ashibaka, not everything Ashibaka has said). Secondly, WP:NOT says "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." In other words, objectionable content may be included only if they do not violate Florida law (i.e. non-violation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion). This means my legal argument is not ruled out by WP:NOT (I'd render the argument in formal logic but the symbols aren't supported unfortunately). Thirdly, if you honestly think the countries in which lolicon is illegal have "dictatorial legal systems" I suggest you do some very urgent research over at, say, [ Freedom House] or democracy. Mikkerpikker 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is to be used at one's own risk. Again, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to filter its content to abide by other countries' laws. The same reasoning could be used to argue against the inclusion of any of the various articles or images banned in less liberal countries.
By dictatorial I did not mean "of a dictatorship," but overbearing restrictions on harmless personal activities, like downloading lolicon. // paroxysm (n) 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's risk disclaimer is mainly a legal notice to avoid it being sued, not a statement that it won't respect national laws. Re the argument that less liberal countries's laws will be used as a justification for censoring other articles (such as vagina), I wrote above (under "Image some more" and "Silly edit war":
Whether or not you AGREE with the laws forbidding "simulated child porn" they are laws and breaking them has (or can have) consequences - a reasonable person in many of the jurisdictions in which they are in place simply cannot be expected to know clicking on lolicon can land them in trouble. Consequently the debate about whether the image is offensive or not is irrelevant and so is the debate about whether the image "truly" constitutes porn, what matters is protecting users.
That is, reasonable people in Iran know not to read vagina whereas reasonable people in South Africa (or Canada/Australia/Britain) do not know to avoid lolicon. Protecting users from inadvertent crime is more important than the inclusion of a silly image. Mikkerpikker 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not speculate about what "reasonable individuals" in different jurisdictions would do...Wikipedia obeys the laws where the Wikipedia servers are located: for EN. that's Florida and Netherlands. We don't kowtow to the law elsewhere, say Iran or Pakistan. It'd be hopeless to try. Babajobu 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
So you honestly have no problem with people going to jail for reading a wikipedia article in a democracy? That wouldn't bother you at all? Mikkerpikker 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Votes are evil, and as for gaining consensus to remove this image, it's already been discussed on the Village Pump who decided that it's borderline OK. My main qualm is that it should be replaced with something less borderline that conveys the same or more information, like the pictures used on Pornography. Ashibaka tock 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pornography is pretty modest in its choice of pictures, but that's hardly the wikistandard. Check out Oral sex. Babajobu 00:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oral sex only uses informative (non-pornographic) illustrations. If you put an actual photograph there I bet Jimbo will come in and remove it. :) Ashibaka tock 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with replacing the present image with something better. // paroxysm (n) 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh...for a long time, and as recently as December 27 [4], the article included a picture of a young lady schlupping away on a PP. That picture seems to have been removed from the article on Dec. 28 because it lacked source info, not because it was "vulgar" or some such polite concern. Babajobu 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to removed

The aforementioned link was misleading; this article deals with drawn representations of children, not with photographed child pornography. I have removed the link in order to prevent future mistakes. 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good call. I actually didn't check that. Dracil 04:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sweetfreek keeps adding this link back and I don't know why. What's more, the link now has child porn in it! But in accordance with WP:1RR I'm not going to revert it again. Ashibaka tock 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What are the grounds for removing it? People find it upsetting? Babajobu 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You mean to s--
Okay. Never mind. Ashibaka tock 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, haha, lol! I thought you were still talking about the picture in the article, rather than an external link. Yeah, that link looks potentially illegal. Certainly not a happy pic. Regardless, your statement about Jimbo removing a picture of real oral sex from the Oral sex article is wrong, because as I showed above, and extremely "real" picture of said act existed in the article for a very long time before being removed in late December because of sourcing concerns. It's still available in the history, if you'd fancy a peek! ;-) Babajobu 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the blog just a few minutes ago to see what the fuss is all about, and that's not child porn. I had to go down to to verify the source (since is currently down) but I'm pretty sure that those are adult models--I can't be absolutely certain because I don't read Japanese. At any rate, most of the blog is about legality issues of lolicon. Sweetfreek 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a great blog... in Spanish. Here's a compromise, I'm going to ferry this link over to Spanish Wikipedia and they can do what they like with it. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if you're certain that the links are not illegal in U.S., then remove the disclaimers. We can have Spanish links in EN.wikipedia, we have plenty of foreign language links. Babajobu 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's already on that page anyhow. Sweetfreek 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a highly non-notable blog to me and I almost removed it simply based on that thesis WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally useless as a source of reference, for that reason and because it's in another random language. Removed as linkspam. Ashibaka tock 01:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka's New Lolicon Image

I have uploaded deleted image which I found on Danbooru. Looks like the same damn thing? Yeah, it is, if I uploaded a picture of fluffy bunnies it would no longer be an informative addition to this article. But it is a bit less explicit, which will probably resolve complaints. At least, it's well enough for me. And it might be legal in some of these various countries we are talking about. Ashibaka tock 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka, that image is a thousand times worse!! Babajobu 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained my rationale above. It's nudity vs. less nudity. Ashibaka tock 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That's outrageous! The new image is a thousand times more overtly sexual and hints of pedophilia mixed with S&M dominance fantasies, which is a sick combo!!! The other pic at least looked more like the Coppertone girl! Wow!! This new one is NASTY!!! Babajobu 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You're telling me that the old one was neither sexual, nor pedophilic, nor a million other things? Are we talking about the same picture here? Ashibaka tock 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It hardly demonstrates the age of the person.. she looks postpubescent to me. // paroxysm (n) 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Looked at the image & (again) increased the chances of being sent to jail! I think it still constitutes simulated child porn ito South African law but don't know about other countries... Mikkerpikker 02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the actual (U.S.) cover art is similar, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oy, let's just use that as our header image. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
South African law is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, since none of our servers our hosted there. In Turkey it's illegal to speak critically of Kemal Ataturk, fortunately we don't have servers in Turkey, either. Babajobu 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant wrt whether wikipedia can be sued to remove the image but it is not irrelevant wrt users being held responsible for viewing particular pages... If I'm in South Africa (or Canada/Australia etc.) and I view the lolicon article I'm committing a crime. Am I the only one that sees a prob with that?? Mikkerpikker 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Mikkerpikker, half the content of this encyclopedia is illegal in Iran or Saudi Arabia, some of it in China, and parts of it in every tinpot dictatorship everywhere else in the world. If we don't cater to those places, why should we cater to South Africa? Babajobu 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Because if you live in Saudi Arabia and have a brain you won't go read vagina. If you live in China and have a brain you won't go read democracy. Reasonable people in these countries know (a) they don't live in a liberal democracy and that hence (b) some types of information can be illegal and hence (c) they know to watch their step. The same is not true in democracies like SA/AUS etc. The reasonable South African does not (and cannot be expected to) know clicking on that wikilink lolicon is illegal. You only know it's illegal when it's too late! I must be missing something because nobody has yet provided a coherent argument against what I'm saying and yet nobody agrees with me! :) Mikkerpikker 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Alas, the link Kirill provides doesn't really look like lolicon manga, so I'm not sure if it's relevant here. Babajobu 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that complaint when I tried another replacement earlier. So, it looks like I'm 0 for 3:
  1. Doesn't resolve legal issues
  2. Cannot be misinterpreted as an innocent drawing
  3. Not pedophilic enough (thanks Paroxysm)

Better luck next time. I'm marking this for speedy deletion. (nah, I'll wait a few hours first) Ashibaka tock 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

haha, Ashibaka has got a pretty good sense of humor...Babajobu

Kodus to Ashibaka for trying WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


What about this compromise btw the inclusionists and deletionists of the image... why not put the image (or several images) on a sub-page with obscenity + legal warnings for clicking thru? Mikkerpikker 02:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's Template:Linkimage, which is only used on Autofellatio (under Jimbo's decree). But it certainly makes sense here. Ashibaka tock
Mmmmm... if it's used on autofellatio (and that image isn't even that bad) why not use it here? Frankly, I think most people are more comfortable both legally and ito morality (and all that) viewing the autofellatio image than the current lolicon image... Mikkerpikker 02:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Quoteth Jimbo Wales (from Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Thus_spoke_Jimbo):
I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well... --Jimbo Wales 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) {emphasis added}
Remind me again why the status quo is to include the image? Mikkerpikker 02:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, several contributors do want to have our picture inline. But it looks like Jimbo acted on the Autofellatio picture because (1) more people wanted it as a link, and (2) he thought it was disgusting. That's Western morality for you. :) Ashibaka tock 02:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
And (possibly more importantly) because (3) the debate over that particular image had become a prominent and community-wide point of contention. —Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
But the debate was running 70-44, as you can see. He decided to err on the side of being inoffensive. Ashibaka tock 03:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course; I wasn't disputing that in the least. My point was to the effect that it had been determined beforehand that there was no better alternative image, so the question became a binary one: inline or not inline. Here, on the other hand, that doesn't appear to be a settled issue. —Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Poll:_Should_the_image_be_shown_inline.2C_or_as_a_link.3F established a precedent which we will do well to follow... what do you guys think?? Mikkerpikker 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: is the image under discussion the only suitable one? Can an alternative illustration to the article be found that would not require such treatment? Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if there are other possible images but I doubt it given people insist any image used has to be "sufficiently pornographic" and any image that passes that test will count as "simulated child porn" de jure Mikkerpikker 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, why? Not all lolicon fodder is pornographic. Dracil 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
My point was that if it isn't pornographic "enough" ppl will complain, and if it is pornographic "enough" it is de jure simulated child porn... Mikkerpikker 13:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Using that template is still POV, whether it is here or at the autofellatio article. It does not belong on Wikipedia. I think I'll nominate it for deletion. // paroxysm (n) 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Have fun. Ashibaka tock 03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If so it's a POV supported by Jimbo and a big majority of the community... Mikkerpikker 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I say just keep the image inline. It's not illegal where the servers are being hosted, and it's not even offensive. Babajobu 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"Not even offensive"? Yeah, let's talk about POV... Ashibaka tock 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Legal Status

From the article: ...and there have been prosecutions under this new law.[2] The PROTECT Act's provisions regarding simulated child pornography have not been tried in the Supreme Court, but the majority ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition stated that "In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

As of currently, in the US, Lolicon is illegal. Any speculation of what the supreme court might do is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and has no place for Wikipedia. It is dangerous and highly irresponsible since it might put people at risk. Even if it does not survive the Supreme Court, just merely getting “charged” bears a huge stigma (as it may appear in background reports, or media). Please do not put people who have otherwise clean records in legal jeopardy… I beg you, PLEASE! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deleteme (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions. The current statement is good; just last night when we were all yammering about the image, I also fixed up this paragraph so that instead of saying whether it's likely or unlikely that the ruling would be overturned, it simply states the facts. Arrests have been made, and the Supreme Court has said that in the recent past. Ashibaka tock 15:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Please cite sources for the new additions you've made. They're welcomed, but without a source they're no good. Ashibaka tock 16:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You are giving the impression that it’s legal. WIKIPEDIA only gives facts, you are supporting the point of view that it will be challenged and defeated. The fact is that currently it is illegal. I have added references below as you asked, here’s the proposed paragraph, also please read this [5]
The United States Supreme Court decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutional, and stated "In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse ... Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."[1] Following that ruling, congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) [2], which was signed into law by President Bush on 30 April 2003, it criminalizes simulated child pornography, and there have been prosecutions under this new law.[3] As of January 2005, possession of lolicon is illegal in the U.S. and there are no current challenges to the law.[4]
I ask that the chunk of text above not be modified on this page, keep an eye for it and I ask that the text on the page be monitored as to clearly display its legal status. I am not going to break the 3 revert rule, i'm about to make my second revert, if I have to do a third revert I'll be escalating this. Deleteme 16:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add this: Even the PROTECT Act of 2003 clearly states: Prohibits computer-generated child pornography and illustrated lolicon pornography. Deleteme 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That's because I added it there. You're being totally uncooperative. If Texas enacted another anti-sodomy law, you wouldn't go around writing in Wikipedia, "SODOMY IS ILLEGAL DON'T DO IT". You'd let them know what the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the issue.
Also, your "reference" is broken. Ashibaka tock 17:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
On a more obvious point, does the PROTECT Act use the term "lolicon"? It certainly prohibits something, but we should avoid over-simplification, particularly given that we haven't formally defined the term in this article. —Kirill Lokshin 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It prohibits computer renderings and illustrations, and when arrests are made for illustrations the news reports always mention that they're Japanese. So... yeah. Ashibaka tock 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, looking at the text of the act, we have "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings" (p. 77) among other things. IANAL, though, so I'm not sure to what that applies. —Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in that part of the bill, but Title V, Sec. 504 explicitly outlaws "drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings". Ashibaka tock 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About adding legal warnings

It gave an anon a chance to cite Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and change the link back to an inline image. Which was actually a sensible move if he didn't read Talk. So, I'm afraid it will have to go. If there is no disclaimer, readers can either ignore the link or figure out why it's not inline. Ashibaka tock 16:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Errr... someone hit me with a soggy snoek but I competely fail to see how Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer forbids us from putting a legal notice on the linkimage... it says (in part)

Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction (place) of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia. The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional i.e. by a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case. Please contact a local bar association, law society or similar association of jurists in your legal jurisdiction to obtain a referral to a competent legal professional if you do not have other means of contacting an attorney-at-law, lawyer, civil law notary, barrister or solicitor.

Now, this is a denail of warranty i.e. it says "we aint responsible if you break laws"! It does not say (anywhere) that "Wikipedians shalt not give legal advice" or anything similar. In fact, "even if a statement made about the law is accurate" clearly implies Wikipedia does make statements about laws. The only thing Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer does is disclaims (hence the "disclaimer part") legal responsibility (hence the "legal" part). Now unless someone can show me a policy that says "no wikipedian shall give legal advice" I'm adding it back. Mikkerpikker ... 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Now unless someone can show me a policy that says "no wikipedian shall give legal advice..."
WP:NPOV // paroxysm (n) 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 :) I need another smack with the snoek becuase I have just now (again) read WP:NPOV and I find nothing whatsoever that says one cannot add legal warnings. Please be more specific and copy & paste the section(s) you think germane. In the mean time here are some facts:
1. Viewing lolicon images is illegal in several countries and in some (e.g. SA) can carry stiff penalties (up to 10 years in jail is not idle...)
2. The average reasonable user of wikipedia in countries in which lolicon is illegal has no reason to suspect clicking on the linkimage is illegal until they have read the "legal status" section
3. We should notify users to read the "legal issues" first.
What's the big problem with doing this?? Mikkerpikker ... 21:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
How can advice be neutral? // paroxysm (n) 21:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate (citing WP:NPOV so I can follow your argument). And, I propose the following wording for the legal warning "Please take note of "Legal status" below as viewing the following image may be illegal in your jurisdiction". Do you think this violates NPOV? If so, why? Mikkerpikker ... 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikkerpikker, this is actually really simple:

  1. Editor sees legal warning.
  2. Editor sez, "Hey, wait! All countries have some degree of censorship. WP:NOT censored."
  3. Editor changes the linkimage back to inline.

But if there's no explanation given, the natural idea is to go to Talk and see why it's there. Having warnings next to the external links, by the way, is fine (although not a written policy). Ashibaka tock 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems to me like a good practical reason not to have the warning (i.e. avoid edit war) but I still have not seen any policy or guideline that says we can't have such a warning. (which was my point). As for the argument that users will check the talk page: sure, the experienced ones will since they knew the use of linkimage is rare. Casual users, however, will not know the check the talk page & many ppl will simply click out of curiosity. THAT I have a huge problem with because then we're leading some ppl into inadvertent crime. I guess the question is therefore this: what is more important? Avoiding a potential edit war with the WP:NOT censored crowd or preventing wikipedia users from committing inadvertent crime? I dunno about you, but the latter seems far more important to me... Mikkerpikker ... 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The way you've replaced the legal notice looks better to me. I guess we can keep it there. Ashibaka tock 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
YaaaY! Mikkerpikker ... 06:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The legal status of this image was discussed at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_December_13. It was deemed legal because it does not portray a "sexually explicit act". Please discuss its use on article pages on that article's talk page. Those are the words on the image's page... deal with that fact, book-burners! Sweetfreek 08:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that in case people were wondering whether it was legal for the Wikimedia Foundation to host it, from Florida. That doesn't apply to the great number of countries outside the U.S. Ashibaka tock 15:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion about the pic

How about changing the image to a link to the image? I don't get the feeling that most people who casually click a link to this article to see what something's refering to would appreceiate a pic of a semi-naked cartoon girl being slapped onto their monitor. However, if someone wants to see a graphic that illustrates the article's subject, they only need to click the link. This would also solve the problem of people inadvertantly stumbling upon illegal content, if the link was labeled with a "this image may be illegal to view in your country" or similar warning. = Silent War = 12:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The only people who usually come through this page either a) know about this particular subject, b) know about anime/manga, and c) know about pedo-subculture. Except for a handful of troublemakers and other nosy bastards, I well imagine that anyone who finds this page would be intelligent enough to swallow any moral outrage they may or may not have. Sweetfreek 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It used to be like that, but then got changed...yet again. I'm not sure why. Vimescarrot 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Random, anonymous users keep changing it back. Ashibaka tock 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A link to the image should be sufficient. -Will Beback 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The image is legal. Wikipedia (and thereby wikipedians as well) are not the judges of decency. However, I have read your userpage's discussion section, and I'm just wondering how many other people have. Sweetfreek 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sweetfreek, there has been a 2-year argument about the image. The consensus and compromise is that we will keep it as long as it is not displayed inline. There are too many people with differing opinions for you to simply say that your way is the best. Ashibaka tock 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been no such consensus like the one you describe. The "consensus" (actual votes on more than one occasion) has always been that the image stays. Have I not made myself clear on this matter, Mr. Comstock? Sweetfreek 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
m:Votes are evil. The consensus is what everyone except you is reverting. Ashibaka tock 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
We are all the judges of the content, and what should be contained in here. -Will Beback 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sweetfreak, you saying "the image is legal" makes me think you haven't even read the article. Please realise that linkimaging is a compromise btw those who believe the image should be deleted (me, Ashibaka, etc.) and those who believe the image should be included inline. Linkimaging is a compromise neither side is particularly happy with which tends to indicate it is a healthy compromise. Stop reverting and DISCUSS if you think we're wrong... Mikkerpikker ... 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweetfreek isn't the only person here who thinks the image should remain inline. I do as well, and so do various anonymous editors - their opinions count too, and we shouldn't discriminate. You can't blame people for not wanting to put their name on an article which arouses such discussions as this one. So, for discussion, let's look at a few relevant details.

  • History - the image has been here since October 2004, and was always inline - until now.
  • Wikipedia conventions - Images are displayed inline throughout Wikipedia, with as far as I know only two exceptions: Autofellatio (by decree of Jimbo) and Lolicon, by decree of... editors who find it too "shocking".
  • Reasoning - nobody has offered any compelling reason to use a non-standard way of including an image. Whether it's legal or not is not for us to decide - the US Supreme Court's most recent ruling on such matters should mean something.
  • Precedent - Do we really want Wikipedia to be drawn into the mess of international laws? Isn't it enough to just follow the laws of the US and Florida? Do we need to comply with the laws of the most restrictive countries? Do we want myriads of standards of decency, morality, religion, etc. to define every article which is somewhat controversial, in a misguided attempt to make Wikipedia non-offensive to everybody? If so, we're in for some rough road ahead.
  • WP:NPOV - By linking to an image which has consistently been displayed inline, and doing so only because the content of the image is offensive to some of the editors, we portray a bias against the subject matter of the article. It's like walking into a bookstore and finding that certain books are behind the counter where you have to ask to see them, and you get a warning from the clerk that such books are "controversial" or "borderline". Do we really need that? EthanL 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I find your points about History and Conventions irrelevant. If it's "always done this way", all the more reason to break with tradition.

If you really don't understand the reasoning for this, read the rest of the talk page above you.

Precedent is irrelevant for the same reason "Conventions" is irrelevant. Let each set of editors decide on each article's talk page what to do.

Which leaves us with NPOV. Perhaps you should argue NPOV before Jimbo, as he's the one who removed the image from Autofellatio. {{linkimage}} is provided for that minority of pictures that (1) are unacceptable for most readers to view and (2) provide information for the rest. Ashibaka tock 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to lay out some of the reasons not to change the picture. I don't think that this discussion has reached the point of necessitating the action taken with Autofellatio. In that case, it was done because Jimbo decreed it. Jimbo has not decreed it here, and it should not be done on a whim. Also, the picture is not unacceptible for most readers to view. It may be disturbing, but we shouldn't run from things just because they're disturbing. EthanL 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Should we ask Jimbo for advice, then, if that's all you'll take? Ashibaka tock 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
EthanL, have you read all of the talk page? Please do so before making arguments here. Mikkerpikker ... 15:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes -- twice, in fact, and that's saying something! I still don't see why my arguments aren't good enough for you. Let me add this:
  • We cannot comply with all the laws around the world, and to attempt it is to disregard someone's laws. The best policy is to comply with the laws in Florida, USA, and leave it to the reader to decide what to do about his own laws.
  • In the Autofellatio article, there is an illustration of the act right up front. A reasonable person who is not a native English speaker should not be expected to know what autofellatio is, and could therefore inadvertently break the law in his/her jurisdiction. Yet nobody is edit warring over that. In this article, we also have an illustration up front. What's the difference? Color?
  • Removing the image and changing it to a link uglifies the article.
  • A picture speaks a thousand words, thus one may find out what Lolicon is very quickly via the picture.
  • Similar articles (e.g. BDSM, Catgirl, Tentacle_rape, Shunga, Pederasty, and especially Shotacon, the "brother" of Lolicon) have similarly placed relevant images.
  • A person who is curious about Lolicon manga can easily satisfy their curiosity without having to go any further or click any links. Someone who lives in a jurisdiction where such images are illegal could, if discovered, always plead innocence in this matter -- they would have a good defense -- whereas if they clicked the link to see the picture, it could be said that they were actually looking for illegal material, which in many such laws adds to the penalty.
  • Most of the laws mentioned in the article are dealing with virtual, simulated, or realistic child porn, which looks like the real thing. This is not that at all.

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons. EthanL 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:edit summary

This is not kiddie porn! // paroxysm (n) 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It depicts a kid with a naked butt and a dildo. It isn't a Hallmark card. -Will Beback 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Child porn is pornography with a child. A drawing of a child is not a child.
And I don't think was talking about any policies regarding alleged kiddie porn, but WP:NOT, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and WP:NPOV. // paroxysm (n) 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I talked it over with him on his user page, and he did say his issue was NPOV. He also said that he felt NPOV could not be overruled even by basic decency, which I think is the heart of the problem. Ashibaka tock 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're yet to see a coherent argument as to why linkimaging violates NPOV. RVing linkimage removal should continue until we see some arguments on the talk page.... Mikkerpikker ... 14:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy which requires us to show this image? -Will Beback 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Concealing it behind a template is ridiculously unencyclopedic and a definite example of bias, unless we were to censor everything that could be considered illegal anywhere. // paroxysm (n) 22:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss the point that this type of image is illegal in most major countries = Silent War = 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Most major countries? Err.. you mean like the United States, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Bangladesh and Nigeria? ..Are you sure? // paroxysm (n) 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "The PROTECT Act of 2003...criminalizes simulated child pornography (USA)"
  • "an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child" prohibited as if it were a true photograph (UK)"
  • "the Netherlands introduced legislation which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal."
  • "German law does not discriminate between actual or "realistic" sexual depictions of children"
  • "...the Canadian Criminal Code outlaws pornographic images which depict the subject as being under the age of 18."
  • "(in South Africa) any image or description of a person "real or simulated" who is depicted or described as being under the age of 18 years and engaged in sexual conduct...constitutes 'child pornography' (and is thus illegal)"
Am I sure? Yes. = Silent War = 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
But most of those aren't relevant. It's not a pseudo-photograph (which has to look like a photograph), realistic, or simulated.--Prosfilaes 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a depiction of a kid, it's pornography, we don't need to include it in our encyclopedia. -Will Beback 09:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a pretty bizarre definition of pornography. I suppose the little girl with her bathing suit pulled down by a dog is pornography to you? That's used in major advertising and was never brought up on porn charges. Please stop trying to censor Wikipedia to fit your opinions on what you find personally acceptable. DreamGuy 13:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Was she holding a dildo? Ashibaka tock 14:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but she was mugging a standard glamour girl shot pose while an animal tore her clothes off and bared the same naked parts shown in this photo. Bottomline is that this image doesn't meet any accepted laws (as compared to laws overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) of pornography, and censoring it based upon your personal objections is completely unacceptable, especially when the whole issue has been thoroughly discussed earlier and found to be moot. DreamGuy 14:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
...found to be moot by you. Ashibaka tock 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, found to be moot by the overwhelming consensus of editors who discussed it here... And I was not even one of them. I just watched the discussion a couple of times in the past and showed up now when some POV-pushing edit warriors tried to enforce their will on the article and it got mentioned on the 3RR page as one where fighting was going on. Furthermore, it is a policy here that Wikipedia is not censored. You need to lose your attitude and accept that you have to go along with what the majority of editors decide, especially when it follow the very policies this site is built upon. DreamGuy 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Given an option to put it behind a link, I for one have changed my opinion from keeping it on the page. It's a touch further than most of our images.--Prosfilaes 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Argh! Read the relevant section: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. No one has argued we shouldn't include the image because children would be damaged by viewing it so reflexively citing WP:NOT is literally irrelevant... Mikkerpikker ... 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not interjecting "attitude" into this, I'm merely writing short comments. As for the policies this site is built on, Jimbo has said before that some images are too obscene to be worthy of inlining. Ashibaka tock 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy POV

After having the first nomination removed I added the notice again.

Illustrated and fictional lolicon is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of paedophilia

As far as I can see that statement is POV from a pedo's perspective. ([6]) -- الفلسطيني

How is it POV from a "pedo's" perspective? // paroxysm (n) 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The context that "lolicon" is used in, in the United States, is meant to distinguish it from pedophilia. I agree with you that this is rubbish (if that's what you're saying), but if you want to censor the entire dispute because you think it's rubbish, you're adding POV yourself. Ashibaka tock 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Paroxysm, Do not remove the tag again! First notice that it's not {{POV}} but instead it's {{POV-CHECK}}. I’m merely nominating for it to be checked by OTHER people for POV. Thus the statement reads "...nominated this section to be checked for its neutrality...". I just wanted to avoid discussing it myself. There's a slew of people who keep an eye on that category and they’ll come to it eventually.
Paroxysm, I do not have a problem with the pedo subculture being here, if Lolicon lowers sexual tension then, great! Let it be there and let it be available. You are lucky to live in a place where free speech such as that is allowed. However the pedo subculture must be wary not to push it’s POV as aggressively as this, it will cause a backlash, eg with people like me and even worse with sites such as: which threaten Wikipedia as a whole.
You must keep in mind that this is an intense subject matter and people will not change views no matter how the facts are presented and how strong the facts are. It’s very similar to research conducted here. You will not have reporters come up to this article and change their minds. Just like w/ any movement, such as black rights, gay rights, things take time…. a VERY long time. Look at what happened in France, the black youth revolted and now there’s a slew of hatred for blacks, immigrants and Muslims. Pushing “any” controversial subject that hard will get you into hot water.
Here’s what’s POV regarding that section:
  1. Illustrated and fictional lolicon is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of pedophilia Let's use a simple analogy on this, if I say tht "Jessie Jackson if frequently accused of being racist", then inherently it's assumed that I'm I'm a Jessie Jackson supporter. That statement should better be worded: "Jessie Jackson has come under fire frequently for making racist remarks". In the same fashion the article should state that "lolicon has come under fire for being a subtle form of pedophilia". Don't even bother trying to claim it's not pedophilia, you yourself stated: loli's all about erotic depictions of girls [7] .
  2. Another point of note is that the children depicted in lolicon often do not have realistic proportions for their apparent age, more closely resembling older females on a smaller scale I can't vouch for this fact but I can say that is not 100% true considering the cover image, she looks like a kid as far as I can see.
  3. I have placed CITE tags at other disputed statements as they speak for themselves. I can't vouch for their authenticity but such claims require strong evidence.
Again, consider what you "win" from this and what you got to loose. الفلسطينية 06:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Since there is an obvious disagreement over what the consensus/majority is here, let's hold a straw poll. Ashibaka tock 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For displaying the image inline

  1. Polls suck, but alas.. // paroxysm (n) 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's kind of stupid to have to keep redoing this everytime a new set of censors show up... DreamGuy 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. The image is not illegal in Florida, it's informative, it's been in the article forever. Babajobu 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Polls are evil. Censorship is also evil. —Nightstallion (?) 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Wikipedia isn't censored. Period. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Don't censor Lolicon, unless you want to censor all of Wikipedia. And see comments above.EthanL 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

For displaying the image as a link

  1. Ashibaka tock 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. See my message above. Maxwahrhaftig 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tired of arguing about this, see the talk page above for my supporting reasons. Mikkerpikker ... 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Working compromises are good. --Prosfilaes 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Compromise that retains the picture for those who like looking at that kind of thing, without forcing it on everyone who just happens to visit the page. -Will Beback 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. See my arguments above. = Silent War = 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. We've got to learn to compromise. Vimescarrot 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. This is not censorship: censorship would be to delete the image. RW law trumps Wikipedia policy. Physchim62 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)