![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The discussion really didn't seem to come to a conclusion and the links are multiplying like tribbles. I'm not particularly going to revert their removal. All of the links do have unobjectionable disclaimers(currently) though. Kotepho 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone just explain why links to lolicon imageboards are not illegal in U.S. jurisdiction. I'd like a real answer as opposed to "Jimbo says so"(if he did than explain WHY) or "stop trying to censor wikipedia lolololol"
Check here to find out why it's legal in the US:
http://animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=1247 anonymous, 28 May 2006
70.21.185.237 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) "Simulated" is obviously meant to refer to photo-realistic images; that could be assumed to be real photos of real children. Not porno anime. Who is being "PROTECTED" by regulating cartoons?
Well I was just wondering is it legal for a certain 14 year old sitting and typing right now to watch lolicon.
-lolifreak
I know the image has been debated endlessly about how it should be removed, but that's not really my point. I just don't like it as an example. I don't mind having a lolicon picture in this article, but I would at least perfer it to be someone cute. The current image is just...creepy. Something more along the lines of Weekly Dearest My Brother would be better. -- SeizureDog 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest anyone wishing to seriously discuss the image go read at least a smattering of the talk archive here. On a semi-related issue, fr:lolicon has a second image, in addition to the one used here, that is GFDL licensed and might be usable as a secondary illustration of the subject material here. -- tjstrf 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, what about this image? http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=firefox12803ie.jpg it's "Lolifox", a variation of Firefox. It's cute, it's not offensive, and it's Loli. Also there is this http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3307/innocentneko1044pi.jpg, but the quallity is not as good. Problem is that they have Nekomimies, so it might give a double message.
Is it really that hard to a Japanese artist to draw a picture for you? There are many Japanese artists that understand English and draw loli. A good example would be the main artist of [1]Tareme Paradise.
The Japanese wikipeida has a much better picture for their article on rorikon ... but I;m not really sure about the protocols and whatnot involved in putting it here so if anyone knows how to do it... please do. D4g0thur 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm an amateur artist. I draw a lot of manga, original (meaning no fanart) images. If you cannot find any image that can be entirely accepted, just e-mail me and I'll draw something for you. I don't sell my work, I mainly give it away to my friends or keep it, but I can draw something if you really need it. So as I said, lolicon images don't necesarily have to be nude or obscene, but they do have to have even the slightest suggestion in them, like a little girl sucking a lolipop or something of the sort. That is soemthing that only people that really know about lolicon can understand, but that can be depicted without being obscene. The image that is up at the moment really looks more like a pubescent girl. A 14 or 15 year old girl, yeah with big eyes (big eyes give off a sense of childishness or innocence), but she still has a developing chest. Lolis don't have a developing chest. Sakura Miyamoto 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sakura Miyamoto 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (I edited it cause some parts might be misunderstood.)
Removed three per the guideline. If another editor would like to argue one of these is by the guideline, here's a good place to discuss it. - brenneman {L} 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If Lolipedia isn't useful yet, why should we link it now? JayW 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you demand that the article "child pornography" links to pictures of child pornography? "This is not China", what does that mean, a comment reeking of cultural bias. Mackan 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a warning. Pay attention to it. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Observance of civility is policy. In any area that has proven controversial, it is also tantamount to disruption. I'd suggest that also editors remember that escalation is not the answer to incivility. brenneman {L} 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
A really basic problem with the Renchan link is this passage in WP:COPY: Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. This is a policy, not a guideline. Due diligence on the Rechan link reveals that, not only is the site "violating someone else's copyright", it is egregiously and blatantly violating many people's copyright, and indeed one of the main purposes of the site is copyright violation via image-swapping of copyrighted works. Furthermore, this is not a mere technicality but doubtless causes significant material damage to the copyright holders -- if no sites like Renchan existed, Lolicon producers could certainly sell many more downloads of their images than they do. And Wikipedia's Renchan link contributes materially to this -- someone above noted that an internal poll at Renchan showed that 20% of responders had found the site through this Wikipedia article.
However, the link is heavily defended, and the above is going to make as much dent in that defense as a .22 on a battleship -- I can picture editors right now with their hands over their ears going LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. So, whatever. Nevertheless, the link is incontrivertably in violation of Wikipedia policy. I mean, the passage from WP:COPY cited about couldn't be much plainer, could it? Herostratus 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'm sorry, but I didn't know that Lolipedia was added to the links section. I would actually feel better if it wasnt added yet, because it has not that much content yet. I was re-founded on 12th may, and so far i'm the only one adding articles (Additionally, it's a highly specialised wiki!), thats why its grwoing very slowly. The Special:Random will apparently only bring up articles that start with a roman letter. Those articles are only mostly stubs or redirects, because all the actual content articles start with or consist only of Unicode characters. I don't know if that will be fixed (so that you can get those articles by browsing a random page), but that aside. If you want a rought overview, check the allpages. ^_^; -- Tsaryu 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of stuff here because all the "word usage" stuff seems pedantic and I'm not sure that it's actually true. (At least, when I read Welcome to the NHK it seems that "lolicon" is used almost exclusively referring to ero-manga, and that's what the Japan Times articles indicate as well.) If someone can find a reliable source for it, feel free to put it back. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has more stuff on lolicon legal status on many countries and the controversy on the issue and not enough explanation on WHAT lolicon is about. I propose the creation of another page about lolicon legal status instead, link that to this article and focus on expanding lolicon itself. Feureau 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I just put a couple "citation neededs" in there, for statements that I think are inaccurate and unsourced. They are statements that the whole article is based on. Comments welcome. Even if I'm right, I think the solution is simple. Joey Q. McCartney 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just think it's untrue that, in the west, "lolicon" refers to images. (Rather, I think it describes them, just like it describes anything else relating to the attraction to young girls.) But I wanted to invite people to tell me I'm wrong and to provide a reliable source. If no one does, then I'll take the next step, which would probably be to suggest that most of the article be moved to "loli-manga." Joey Q. McCartney 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. I did not suggest moving the whole article. I just think there should be two articles, not one: an article on lolicon images (which are mostly manga images of young girls) and an article on lolicon (which is a fascination with young girls). Joey Q. McCartney 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I may have been somewhat wrong. Therefore, I've made a change to the lead which I think more subtly fixes my concerns. Joey Q. McCartney 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd just add some material that could be used to fix the areas that need proper citation. This paper here isn't specific to underage rape or lolicon material, but it has data about the positive/negative effect of widely available pornography, of which we know lolicon makes a significant part. This information could then provide a firmer basis for some of the claims about whether the legality/illegality is of benefit/detriment to society. The paper in question: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html N.B. I don't know how valuable or relevant this would be to Lolicon if it were analysed and condensed into something solid (something I'd need to allocate a chunk of time to), but I'll be damned if it doesn't provide some real data on the effects of legal, widespread pornography. --Anon. user 14:18 02 July 2006
That section sounds like it was made up on the spot. In any case, I deleted it. oTHErONE 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Toddlerkon is completely real, as the anonymous user before me seems to realize, and taking it out just means... you don't really pay attention to any loli. Toddlerkon depicts the same acts as most lolicon, but more around the 3 to 5 age range, generally around the stage where an anime-style child is still very chibi and moderately chubby. Having a section on Toddlerkon is just as logical as stating that High School Loli is also a genre within it, but I'm way too lazy to add such a thing~however, it would also be improper to say that Toddlerkon is in any way a Japanese name, because unlike certain forms of loli, it is a westernized name just like hentai being anime-porn. --Anon. user 12:59, 28 July 2006
Is this really what we mean? It seems that our use would be more accurately stated as "characters that resemble children" rather than "childlike". Would something involving a fully-developed woman that is childlike (i.e. innocent, naïve) be considered lolicon? Kotepho 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the legal status of Lolicon in it's originating country, Japan?
Nobodymk2 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I fixed the imige problem.
"creates a new reality, at least in the mind of anime fans"... heh. People are always trying to bend reality to their wish. The problem is, reality has a way of sneaking up beside you and and slapping you upside the head. Sorry Charlie, but reality is not just in your mind... Check out the article Reality-based community:
Except they forgot to tell the Iraqis.
"Loli art is a way to capture the essence of purity and innocence"... this strikes me as, not just bullshit, but bullshit on a stick. Purity and innocence are captured by images of children, in attitudes normal to children -- running, playing, what have you. Pictures of naked children can be innnocent, lots of people take pictures of their kids in the bath or whatever. Lolicon is not any of this. Even aside from the pictures of young kids being raped or engaging in sexual intercourse etc., you have the basic half-draped bedroom-eyes fuck-me pics. Real children don't strike poses like that. Look even at the pic accompanying this article... the artist straight out said that the posicle represents a penis, the popsicle drippings sperm, the bracelets S&M gear... and so forth. You can fool yourself all want, but Wikipedia has to report the facts... Herostratus 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
lol. However, that is the proper subject matter of the image, and I think the point Zorndyke was trying to make is that perception of art can be vastly different between different viewers. The picture, in the book The Little Prince, is supposedly drawn by the author/artist as a young boy. When he shows it to adults, they think it is a hat. But as the artist, he claims it is an image of a snake that just ate an elephant.
My point is simply that whether or not we have a difference in perception (and we do) telling us your personal opinions of the artistic merit/beauty/attractiveness/carnalality of lolicon has no bearing on the article, and can't really help us. -- tjstrf 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "fandom" statement, it's not only unsourced but also perverse (would you call pedophile activism the "child sex fandom"?). Ashibaka tock 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Purely out of curiosity, what is the legal status in Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.107.2 ( talk • contribs)
<personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.128.161 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The discussion really didn't seem to come to a conclusion and the links are multiplying like tribbles. I'm not particularly going to revert their removal. All of the links do have unobjectionable disclaimers(currently) though. Kotepho 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone just explain why links to lolicon imageboards are not illegal in U.S. jurisdiction. I'd like a real answer as opposed to "Jimbo says so"(if he did than explain WHY) or "stop trying to censor wikipedia lolololol"
Check here to find out why it's legal in the US:
http://animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=1247 anonymous, 28 May 2006
70.21.185.237 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) "Simulated" is obviously meant to refer to photo-realistic images; that could be assumed to be real photos of real children. Not porno anime. Who is being "PROTECTED" by regulating cartoons?
Well I was just wondering is it legal for a certain 14 year old sitting and typing right now to watch lolicon.
-lolifreak
I know the image has been debated endlessly about how it should be removed, but that's not really my point. I just don't like it as an example. I don't mind having a lolicon picture in this article, but I would at least perfer it to be someone cute. The current image is just...creepy. Something more along the lines of Weekly Dearest My Brother would be better. -- SeizureDog 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest anyone wishing to seriously discuss the image go read at least a smattering of the talk archive here. On a semi-related issue, fr:lolicon has a second image, in addition to the one used here, that is GFDL licensed and might be usable as a secondary illustration of the subject material here. -- tjstrf 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, what about this image? http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=firefox12803ie.jpg it's "Lolifox", a variation of Firefox. It's cute, it's not offensive, and it's Loli. Also there is this http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3307/innocentneko1044pi.jpg, but the quallity is not as good. Problem is that they have Nekomimies, so it might give a double message.
Is it really that hard to a Japanese artist to draw a picture for you? There are many Japanese artists that understand English and draw loli. A good example would be the main artist of [1]Tareme Paradise.
The Japanese wikipeida has a much better picture for their article on rorikon ... but I;m not really sure about the protocols and whatnot involved in putting it here so if anyone knows how to do it... please do. D4g0thur 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm an amateur artist. I draw a lot of manga, original (meaning no fanart) images. If you cannot find any image that can be entirely accepted, just e-mail me and I'll draw something for you. I don't sell my work, I mainly give it away to my friends or keep it, but I can draw something if you really need it. So as I said, lolicon images don't necesarily have to be nude or obscene, but they do have to have even the slightest suggestion in them, like a little girl sucking a lolipop or something of the sort. That is soemthing that only people that really know about lolicon can understand, but that can be depicted without being obscene. The image that is up at the moment really looks more like a pubescent girl. A 14 or 15 year old girl, yeah with big eyes (big eyes give off a sense of childishness or innocence), but she still has a developing chest. Lolis don't have a developing chest. Sakura Miyamoto 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sakura Miyamoto 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (I edited it cause some parts might be misunderstood.)
Removed three per the guideline. If another editor would like to argue one of these is by the guideline, here's a good place to discuss it. - brenneman {L} 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If Lolipedia isn't useful yet, why should we link it now? JayW 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you demand that the article "child pornography" links to pictures of child pornography? "This is not China", what does that mean, a comment reeking of cultural bias. Mackan 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a warning. Pay attention to it. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Observance of civility is policy. In any area that has proven controversial, it is also tantamount to disruption. I'd suggest that also editors remember that escalation is not the answer to incivility. brenneman {L} 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
A really basic problem with the Renchan link is this passage in WP:COPY: Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. This is a policy, not a guideline. Due diligence on the Rechan link reveals that, not only is the site "violating someone else's copyright", it is egregiously and blatantly violating many people's copyright, and indeed one of the main purposes of the site is copyright violation via image-swapping of copyrighted works. Furthermore, this is not a mere technicality but doubtless causes significant material damage to the copyright holders -- if no sites like Renchan existed, Lolicon producers could certainly sell many more downloads of their images than they do. And Wikipedia's Renchan link contributes materially to this -- someone above noted that an internal poll at Renchan showed that 20% of responders had found the site through this Wikipedia article.
However, the link is heavily defended, and the above is going to make as much dent in that defense as a .22 on a battleship -- I can picture editors right now with their hands over their ears going LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. So, whatever. Nevertheless, the link is incontrivertably in violation of Wikipedia policy. I mean, the passage from WP:COPY cited about couldn't be much plainer, could it? Herostratus 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I'm sorry, but I didn't know that Lolipedia was added to the links section. I would actually feel better if it wasnt added yet, because it has not that much content yet. I was re-founded on 12th may, and so far i'm the only one adding articles (Additionally, it's a highly specialised wiki!), thats why its grwoing very slowly. The Special:Random will apparently only bring up articles that start with a roman letter. Those articles are only mostly stubs or redirects, because all the actual content articles start with or consist only of Unicode characters. I don't know if that will be fixed (so that you can get those articles by browsing a random page), but that aside. If you want a rought overview, check the allpages. ^_^; -- Tsaryu 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of stuff here because all the "word usage" stuff seems pedantic and I'm not sure that it's actually true. (At least, when I read Welcome to the NHK it seems that "lolicon" is used almost exclusively referring to ero-manga, and that's what the Japan Times articles indicate as well.) If someone can find a reliable source for it, feel free to put it back. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has more stuff on lolicon legal status on many countries and the controversy on the issue and not enough explanation on WHAT lolicon is about. I propose the creation of another page about lolicon legal status instead, link that to this article and focus on expanding lolicon itself. Feureau 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I just put a couple "citation neededs" in there, for statements that I think are inaccurate and unsourced. They are statements that the whole article is based on. Comments welcome. Even if I'm right, I think the solution is simple. Joey Q. McCartney 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just think it's untrue that, in the west, "lolicon" refers to images. (Rather, I think it describes them, just like it describes anything else relating to the attraction to young girls.) But I wanted to invite people to tell me I'm wrong and to provide a reliable source. If no one does, then I'll take the next step, which would probably be to suggest that most of the article be moved to "loli-manga." Joey Q. McCartney 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. I did not suggest moving the whole article. I just think there should be two articles, not one: an article on lolicon images (which are mostly manga images of young girls) and an article on lolicon (which is a fascination with young girls). Joey Q. McCartney 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I may have been somewhat wrong. Therefore, I've made a change to the lead which I think more subtly fixes my concerns. Joey Q. McCartney 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd just add some material that could be used to fix the areas that need proper citation. This paper here isn't specific to underage rape or lolicon material, but it has data about the positive/negative effect of widely available pornography, of which we know lolicon makes a significant part. This information could then provide a firmer basis for some of the claims about whether the legality/illegality is of benefit/detriment to society. The paper in question: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html N.B. I don't know how valuable or relevant this would be to Lolicon if it were analysed and condensed into something solid (something I'd need to allocate a chunk of time to), but I'll be damned if it doesn't provide some real data on the effects of legal, widespread pornography. --Anon. user 14:18 02 July 2006
That section sounds like it was made up on the spot. In any case, I deleted it. oTHErONE 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Toddlerkon is completely real, as the anonymous user before me seems to realize, and taking it out just means... you don't really pay attention to any loli. Toddlerkon depicts the same acts as most lolicon, but more around the 3 to 5 age range, generally around the stage where an anime-style child is still very chibi and moderately chubby. Having a section on Toddlerkon is just as logical as stating that High School Loli is also a genre within it, but I'm way too lazy to add such a thing~however, it would also be improper to say that Toddlerkon is in any way a Japanese name, because unlike certain forms of loli, it is a westernized name just like hentai being anime-porn. --Anon. user 12:59, 28 July 2006
Is this really what we mean? It seems that our use would be more accurately stated as "characters that resemble children" rather than "childlike". Would something involving a fully-developed woman that is childlike (i.e. innocent, naïve) be considered lolicon? Kotepho 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the legal status of Lolicon in it's originating country, Japan?
Nobodymk2 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I fixed the imige problem.
"creates a new reality, at least in the mind of anime fans"... heh. People are always trying to bend reality to their wish. The problem is, reality has a way of sneaking up beside you and and slapping you upside the head. Sorry Charlie, but reality is not just in your mind... Check out the article Reality-based community:
Except they forgot to tell the Iraqis.
"Loli art is a way to capture the essence of purity and innocence"... this strikes me as, not just bullshit, but bullshit on a stick. Purity and innocence are captured by images of children, in attitudes normal to children -- running, playing, what have you. Pictures of naked children can be innnocent, lots of people take pictures of their kids in the bath or whatever. Lolicon is not any of this. Even aside from the pictures of young kids being raped or engaging in sexual intercourse etc., you have the basic half-draped bedroom-eyes fuck-me pics. Real children don't strike poses like that. Look even at the pic accompanying this article... the artist straight out said that the posicle represents a penis, the popsicle drippings sperm, the bracelets S&M gear... and so forth. You can fool yourself all want, but Wikipedia has to report the facts... Herostratus 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
lol. However, that is the proper subject matter of the image, and I think the point Zorndyke was trying to make is that perception of art can be vastly different between different viewers. The picture, in the book The Little Prince, is supposedly drawn by the author/artist as a young boy. When he shows it to adults, they think it is a hat. But as the artist, he claims it is an image of a snake that just ate an elephant.
My point is simply that whether or not we have a difference in perception (and we do) telling us your personal opinions of the artistic merit/beauty/attractiveness/carnalality of lolicon has no bearing on the article, and can't really help us. -- tjstrf 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "fandom" statement, it's not only unsourced but also perverse (would you call pedophile activism the "child sex fandom"?). Ashibaka tock 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Purely out of curiosity, what is the legal status in Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.107.2 ( talk • contribs)
<personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.128.161 ( talk • contribs)