![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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)
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
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)
I think that lolicon is just FINE.
69.248.110.188 (
talk)
23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I for one agree with the replacement, though this new image reflects the article more closely. -- Animeronin ( talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I passed this article after comparing it to WP:GA?. Littleteddy ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is the deal with removal of references? For instance in the passage "...though this stance is also refuted by others. [1]" 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; [2]" - 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)
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)
What about publications that assert there is no relationship between porn and sexual abuse in general? There are many of these:
{{
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 have removed these statements until such time as they can be sourced ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 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:
{{
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)
←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)
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.).
Original word is "Lolita complex". Why not "Lolicom"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.13.36.143 ( talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm - .:. Jigsy .:. ( talk) 04:30, 28 May 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)
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)
I have two questions:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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)
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
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)
I think that lolicon is just FINE.
69.248.110.188 (
talk)
23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I for one agree with the replacement, though this new image reflects the article more closely. -- Animeronin ( talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I passed this article after comparing it to WP:GA?. Littleteddy ( talk) 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is the deal with removal of references? For instance in the passage "...though this stance is also refuted by others. [1]" 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; [2]" - 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)
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)
What about publications that assert there is no relationship between porn and sexual abuse in general? There are many of these:
{{
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 have removed these statements until such time as they can be sourced ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 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:
{{
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)
←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)
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.).
Original word is "Lolita complex". Why not "Lolicom"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.13.36.143 ( talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm - .:. Jigsy .:. ( talk) 04:30, 28 May 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)
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)
I have two questions:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)