Talk:Lolicon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Replace the image

Are there no lolicon covers that don't have a half-naked girl holding a dildo bear on the cover? Another cover is also a reasonable solution to the argument.--Prosfilaes 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this cover is bad for a lolicon representation, considering loli's all about erotic depictions of girls; anything else wouldn't be very illuminating. At least it's not based in sadism. // paroxysm (n) 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there's a good number of people on either side of the straw poll, I believe this is the only solution. Whoever wants to try this should find a picture that meets the following standards:

1. Adds information to the article
2. Provides an example of illustrated lolicon
3. Is not terribly obscene (see Shotacon for an example of borderline images that have generated few complaints)
4. Does not portray too much nudity or anything that could be described as "sexual conduct", in line with the laws of Germany, South Africa, Canada, and so forth.
5. Can be used under fair use-- generally, this means the cover of a manga, a screenshot, or a promotional picture

If you would like to attempt this Herculean feat, you can try http://danbooru.donmai.us/ where I found the image that I tried to propose. I wouldn't be arsed uploading it until after it's been vetted. Ashibaka tock 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this? // paroxysm (n) 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... nice find paroxysm, 'tis a lot better (tho methinks it is still illegal... well at least in SA). Mikkerpikker ... 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No dildo, but it has frontal nudity... and partners... who look like twins... incest? Still, I support the idea, anyway. Finding a better cover is a tough job, in my estimation. EthanL 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the frontal nudity would be a source of conflict, although IMHO it's better than what we have now. In a week or so I might try to find another replacement. Ashibaka tock 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I searched on the same site that Paroxysm found, and came across several covers which have no obvious nudity. For example this one, [1], which is even called the "Lolita Complex Anthology". -Will Beback 19:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a description, not the title, by the way. DreamGuy 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and swap the images. -Will Beback 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly ADD an image, but I am opposed to removing the one currently here just to satisfy some people who are easily offended. They don't have enough votes for a consensus anyway, best to ignore them instead of violating the policy on censorship. Besides, Jimbo is top dog here and we know HE's not opposed to pornography. DreamGuy 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus to show the current image. If you want to get Jimbo's opinion on the exisintg Lolicon image please do so. I doubt he'd be as supportivce as you expect. -Will Beback 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. If a clear consensus (typically 2/3s or more of votes) cannot be established, then it defaults to the status quo: the way the article has been up to this point, which clearly DID have consensus up until the point new editors came to the article. I am confident that Jimbo would fully support this image, but if you disagree, by all means ask him. I'm not going to bother him over something so trivial. DreamGuy 05:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather bizarre interpretation of "consensus". Basically, you're saying "As long as 1/3 of the voters agree with me, I'm right." Ashibaka tock 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not bizarre, that's how things work. more than 1/3 now supporting something 2/3 or more in the past supported keeps it, just liks AfDs, etc.DreamGuy 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the considerable discussion going back many months, here and elsewhere,indicates consensus in support of the image. On the contrary, it indicates ongoing dissatisfaction with the image by a variety of editors, with a smaller number of more committed editors supporting the image. -Will Beback 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some editors refer to the "consensus image" but there has been no consensus for any image. Is there a reason that the image with the bare-butt is better than the one without? Is the newer image insufficiently dirty? -Will Beback 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This one is good! http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/view/22036 JabberMonkey 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good or not, it isn't a book cover, so we wouldn't have a clear fair-use justification. -Will Beback 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the archived comments on this discussion make the claim that viewing the article, with the image, is illegal in Canada. I'd like to point out that the Canadian government is itself linking to the article, and presenting it as information on the definition of "lolicon", not as an example of an illegal Web site: http://ncecc.ca/fact_sheets/anime_e.htm 69.63.62.226 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT and add more child pornography as long as Mohammed cartoons are visible here at Wikipedia. Because it's a right to love child porn. A kind of freedom of expression.

Onus on ... ?

Okay, so the result of the straw poll seems to be something of a draw (tho we should prob give it some more time)... in the mean time & for future reference, what significance does the draw have for keeping it inline or linkimaging it? Where is the onus? That is, should the image be kept inline only if there is community support for keeping it, or should the image be kept inline until there is community support for linking it? I'd suggest it's the former, not the latter. Quoteth Jimbo Wales (citation: Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Thus_spoke_Jimbo):

I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well... --Jimbo Wales 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) {emphasis added}

I think this makes a clear case for linkimaging it... I therefore ask one of the users on the OTHER side of the argument (i.e. those wanting to keep it inline) to make the necessary changes... (I won't, learnt my lesson about edit warring on this page already... :) Mikkerpikker ... 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a disgusting or idiotic picture: WP:NPOV. Jimbo's argument is terrible.

However, a legal replacement would be better. I'd do it, but... // paroxysm (n) 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Jimbo's argument only applies to "disgusting and idiotic" pictures such as Autofellatio_2 and Hello.jpg. This picture is considerably closer to the area where we apply WP:NOT censored. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... we'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose... I do think it's both idiotic and disgusting but I don't expect my POV to triumph. Mikkerpikker ... 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's so incredibly an abuse of Jimbo's statement... The image in question was nothing at like this one, it was hard core disgusting and had nothing to do with any article. This particular image on this page has been brought up on the admin's notice board several times before and this image always survived in the past, so there is no reason to believe Jimbo or admins would feel any differently this time. Furthermore, in case you don't know, Jimbo created this site originally as part of a pornography site so they'd have articles on porn... the idea that he'd object to a bare butt and no sexual content is just not realistic. DreamGuy

"Furthermore, in case you don't know, Jimbo created this site originally as part of a pornography site so they'd have articles on porn." This is utter bollocks. Ashibaka tock 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bomis proves you wrong. DreamGuy 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it proves me right, if you'll read it. "Bomis is most notable for creating the online encyclopedia project Nupedia, and hiring Larry Sanger to manage it. Jeremy Rosenfeld, another employee of Bomis, was the first to introduce Wales to the concept of a wiki." Nothing about a porno encyclopedia there. Ashibaka tock 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And besides, he had the caveat in his statement "until there is community support" and we already have community support for the one here, so, that's right out then as an argument. DreamGuy 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is also bollocks, the vote is 40/60 against. The vote on Autofellatio was 40/60, too. Ashibaka tock 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This images does have support, a small influx of censors showing up doesn't undo previous consensus. DreamGuy 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What "previous consensus"? A year ago it was just me and Sam Spade. Ashibaka tock 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Will Beback seems to have found a good replacement. Ashibaka tock 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE tell me this new image is acceptable to everyone! I think it is much better, prob is not illegal & should end the edit war / debate that has been going on for ages now... Mikkerpikker ... 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Babajobu 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable... it's just some partially cartoonish girl. IT could be an image for half a zillion other things. It does not illustrate the concept of Lolicon like the image we had been using forever did. It is just caving to a censorship drive by people violating policy for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing generic about the new image. It shows the girl in a sexual situation. Is Lolicon only images that show bare genitals and dripping semen? Ialso note that there have been 32 attempts to remove the image, not mention the Ifds, etc., so it is clear that there was never a consensus to have the image, just some editors with more perseverence than others. Among other reasons to change images is the information that Google blocks this page, apparently due to the old image. -Will Beback 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... the pic seems quite suggestive to me. But I suppose we won't ever agree on that. Please have some faith "censorship drive by people violating policy for no good reason"? MMMmmm again. Have you READ the talk page? I can go to jail for 10 years for seeing the image you want included and ppl from many other jurisdictions can also land in hot water for viewing it. This ISN'T a good reason for either linkimaging or replacing the file? (and please don't go 'it aint illegal in florida' - read the archive for why not). And, ummm... which policies are being violated? Mikkerpikker ... 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not an image for a half a zillion other things. It is, in fact, a cover of a loli manga. It's about as sexually suggestive as the covers of most US pornography magazines I've seen. And what Wikipedia is is decided by the editors, and no amount of chanting WP:NOT will or should get one picture exchanged for a more explicit one, if the editors as a whole prefer the first one. I, for one who has reverted in favor of the old image, prefer the new one.--Prosfilaes 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JabberMonkey's image, on the other hand, portrays penetration and is therefore illegal in Florida. He needs to stop adding it. Ashibaka tock 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Imouto Kan - Hentai Manga.jpg shows no penetration. JabberMonkey 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you bet your house on that? Ashibaka tock 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

yep JabberMonkey 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Google labeling this article as explicit

I just realized that google is censoring this article.

• Go to Google Preferences
• Choose Filter both explicit text and explicit images (that option is turned on by default in some countries)
• Then try this google search: site:en.wiki.x.io lolicon -- preceding unsigned comment by الفلسطيني

You are trying to censor images. JabberMonkey 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Going in circles

" Will Beback (Talk) (rv please goive a reason on the talk page for changing to an image that does not have consensus)"

A) Reasons were ALREADY given, claiming they weren't is a lie... you shouldn't lie in edit comments. B) It does have consensus, despite a group of petty censors showing up out of nowhere to try to overturn it. C) If it DID lack consensus, then ew default to what was here previously, which means keeping it. D) replacing the image does not have consensus either, so how can you justify doing something new without consensus because you claim the existing thing didn't have consensus. E) It is against Wikipedia's policy's to censor images that you personally find objecionable that otherwise have encyclopedic purpose, see WP:NOT.

The bottom line here is that unless you have consensus to MAKE changes, you cannot make them. For you to claim we need consensis to KEEP what's ALREADY here is completely against how this site works. DreamGuy 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one or is there consensus about bluddy well nothing on this talk page!?! :) Mikkerpikker ... 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Random question for Dreamguy: have you been contributing to lolicon under a pseudonym or as an ip? According to your contributions list the first time you edited lolicon or talk:lolicon was 25 January, 2006 and I went back to December 2004 in your contributions list and could find no other edits... (could have missed it of course...). Just wondering... Mikkerpikker ... 01:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that you haven't edited lolicon before Jan 25th 2006 on your DreamGuy account at least... Mikkerpikker ... 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"It does have consensus, despite a group of petty censors showing up out of nowhere to try to overturn it." You should read m:MPOV. Ashibaka tock 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having the new image at the top. It's less controversial, and still allows a person to get an idea of what Lolicon is all about. Still, there has been a consensus regarding the original image, and most of the objections of late have been over the fact that it was at the top, where everyone can see it. So, why not have it down in the middle of the article, where a person would have to scroll down to see it? That way, we don't lose the original image, and nobody will have to inadvertently view it, being warned in advance by the first part of the article. EthanL 05:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Errr.. that doesn't really work. If you open a page w/ an illegal image you commit a crime. NOT havinf an illegal image is the only way to NOT commit a crime when viewing this page. Mikkerpikker ... 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikkerpikker, stop talking bullshit, the image is not illegal. And it is not illegal to view an image that depicts illegal activity. Hooo33ter 05:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read this... viewing your image is def. illegal in South Africa and may be illegal in several of the other countries listed under "legal issues" Mikkerpikker ... 05:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Any image you show here is illegal somewhere! Even if it's illegal in South Africa, that's no reason not to include it here. And once again, you don't have to look at it, you just hit the back button if you don't like the first picture. As has been pointed out, it's possible to show too little and have a picture which is not descriptive enough. Lolicon isn't exactly something which can be easily described, you know. And there is a consensus about the original picture. EthanL 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not something that can be easily described? "sexual anime-style artwork portraying underage characters, often produced in Japan" does it much better than any number of examples.I would say, on the contrary, it's very easily described. We aren't missing anything by not having child porn on the child porn article.--Prosfilaes 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is not child porn! So stop comparing it with that which is clearly illegal. EthanL 13:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The question was, do you think the child porn article lacks because it doesn't have pictures of child porn on it? Do you think it would be improved if it did?--Prosfilaes 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography is illegal in Florida; this isn't. They're seperate issues and such an analogy does not compute.

Censoring this article for the sake of South Africa, and not doing the same to clitoris for Iran is a crystal-clear case of bias. // paroxysm (n) 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So I can't even ask if the child porn article would be better if it had pictures on it, if such pictures were legal in Florida? I'm not censoring this article for the sake of South Africa; I'm replacing a picture with one that equally depicts the subject without being the cause of such angst. There is no such equivalent picture for clitoris.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ya, let's censor wikipedia for the sake of China. Hooo33ter 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, let's try to find a solution that gets a consensus, so we're not spending time on small images. The vast majority of edits to this article have either been to the image, or to the external links. The newer image is a compromise, instead of having no image. -Will Beback 03:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They are both an erotic depiction of a little girl. They both illustrate the topic, one as good as the other; a dildo doesn't really inform. There is no particular political reason to choose this over that, other than "I think this one's prettier" or whatnot, which we can't determine using any policy or guideline. It would probably be best to just include the more legal one, then, in the aim of furthering Wikipedia's aspirations to best serve worldwide interests. // paroxysm (n) 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There are quite good reasons to protect users from inadvertent crime (and it's not just illegal in South Africa, btw). What are these reasons? Read the talk archives... (maybe then we WON'T have to go in circles!). Mikkerpikker ... 21:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, more edit warring

Can we stop it already and decide on an image on the talk page? I'm sure we ALL have better things to do than rv-ing... Mikkerpikker ... 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We already finished this debate. We have a compromise that displays a picture inline at the top of the page. We don't need two pictures in this article, and adding the other one for "censorship" reasons is WP:POINT. Ashibaka tock 06:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Debate is far from over, you may notice! Three editors with a personal dislike of a picture do not make a consensus! As for WP:POINT, it doesn't apply. That has to do with disruption of an article to prove the rules don't work. This discussion has nothing to do with the rules or policies of Wikipedia, and I put the picture up because it has a consensus, and because it fits the section where I put it - the one about Lolicon being controversial. EthanL 12:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Illustrated and fictional lolicon is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of paedophilia." Note, the picture illustrates what the article says right next to it. EthanL 12:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a lousy reason to have a picture, because the idea of having the picture is controversial. The whole idea of coming up with a less explicit picture was compromise, not to see if we could annoy people by having both. --Prosfilaes 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't even like the stuff! I'm just trying to keep the censorship out. Question is, is Wikipedia capable of handling controversial subjects, even rising above the moral panics of the day? EthanL 13:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT an experiment in anarchy, or democracy, or whatever you're talking about. We already found a replacement image so that the arguing about this could end. Now you are bringing the image back for the expressed purpose of continuing the argument about it. How is this helping anything? Ashibaka tock 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between censorship and editorial discretion. One picture was fine for a long time, and I don't see why we need two. Of the two, the Kotori one is prefered by the majority of editors. --Prosfilaes 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

the new picture sux. It does not demonstrate the subject matter clearly. Hooo33ter 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What's missing? Anime, check. child, check. sexual implications, check. As I said, it looks the cover of a porno magazine, with just enough concealed to let it be put on the shelves. I fail to see what is gained by going hardcore here.--Prosfilaes 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you never explained what you thought was wrong with this picture. Ashibaka tock 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not again...

Alright, DreamGuy is claiming that the former state of this article can be called a "consensus", although there was very little debate about it until recently. I don't want to hold another straw poll about this, but is it obvious to everyone else that the current debate overrules whatever there was before?

We can assume everyone in favor of linking the old one prefers the new one, and Paroxysm has asked everyone to keep the new one so to end the revert warring, so that puts us 9 to 5 (64%, or a two-thirds majority) in favor of the new one. Ashibaka tock 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu has expressed interest in his edit summaries about holding another straw poll. If he feels that is the only solution, then don't let this Talk page just sit there. Keep in mind that if we were to keep the old one, this edit war would probably continue indefinitely. Ashibaka tock 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how DreamGuy can know what the consensus is on the lolicon issue. The first contribution (see above) he made to the lolicon or talk:lolicon pages was on Jan 25, 2006. So unless he's been hanging around quietly (seems unlikely given his strong views) or been editing under a pseudonym, I'm not sure where he gets his ideas from. That said, I don't think another straw poll is necessary, the new image seems as close to consensus as ANY image will EVER get. Mikkerpikker ... 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, the last straw poll was six against eight, and the two people declaring a new consensus were both oppose voters. This is why Dreamguy and others take your declarations with a grain of salt. Babajobu 21:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the straw poll concerned linkimaging vs. keeping inline - that there is a rough consensus on the NEW image seems to be confirmed by the edit history. (of course I may be biased in my interpretation thereof, so feel free to do another poll if u think it necessary... i.e. new vs. old image). Mikkerpikker ... 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me count this out, with some assumptions based on the previous poll:

• For the new image: Ashibaka, Maxwahrhaftig, Mikkerpikker, Prosfilaes, Will Beback, = Silent War =, Vimescarrot, Physchim62, paroxysm (9)
• Against the new image: DreamGuy, Babajobu, EthanL, Hooo33ter (4)
• Don't know: Cyde Weys, Nightstallion (2)

9/13 = 70%. Ashibaka tock 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

you didn't count me. JabberMonkey 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against the new image. I'm just against forcing it into the page without a clear supermajority. I also think you should have waited a few days to allow people to comment rather than instantly declaring it a perfect compromise solution and revert-warring for its inclusion. Numerous voters on both sides of the issue have not yet had a chance to weigh in on the new image. Having said that, unless a few more voters object to either the new image or your handling of it, I won't fight the new image, despite the heavy-handed way with which you have sought to force it into the article and remove the previous image. Babajobu 07:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Babajobu. I'm not against the new image either, rather I'm against the exclusion of the original image, especially since the original was around for more than a year with plenty of opportunity for debate. Now all the sudden there's a consensus that it must go? I'm no edit warrior, so I won't go anywhere near 3rr over this. I'd rather argue here in favor of the original consensus, which cannot be denied given the history of this article. Also, I think the article looks better with two pictures than with one, but that's just me - I prefer examples over talk. EthanL 12:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And debate there was, and there were lots of people against it. Now since someone has come up with a good alternative, there's a consensus that the alternative is better. Just because we were with the status quo once, doesn't mean we should stay with it in the face of better alternatives.--Prosfilaes 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a non-WP:NOT violating argument for removing this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT doesn't mean that we have to put the most obscene picture that we have available in the article. We don't have to put a nude picture of Marilyn Monroe on her article. Editor discretion lets us pick the best pictures for the article. We have a good picture, and there's no need to add another just to add offense. There's a reason most of our sex position articles have drawings and not pictures.--Prosfilaes 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much edit warring over which picture to choose. Both are informative, neither are illegal in Florida, both are high quality and contain no images of sex acts. As a compromise solution, we should just keep them both. Babajobu 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a compromise solution. The whole reason for the new picture was to replace the old one. Why don't you run around and add some hardcore porn to the Missionary position article--the current drawing isn't all that explicit.--Prosfilaes 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never looked at that article, but I do know that until recently they had a picture of a woman performing oral sex on a man in the oral sex article. It was removed after over a year in the article because info on source was not available. But it was a good, informative picture, so it was kept in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, et cetera. Babajobu 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, et cetera. The point of that was that we don't need to replace a less explicit picture with a more explicit picture because of WP:NOT. I fail to see why we need to give gratatous offense in this article, that's certainly not demanded by WP:NOT. If we want to be informative, why don't we discuss the whole range of lolicon in the article. We can discuss bears with dildos in context with all the other done in lolicon.

Unilaterial means by one party. There have been several people making that change. And we tried compromising by replacing the picture with another one, but somehow this one picture was the only one that could do for the article.--Prosfilaes 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't try compromising. If you had tried compromising, I would have been amenable to it, because I don't really have a strong preference. What you tried doing was shoving an alternative version in place and insisting--over the objections of people who contended that no new consensus had been reached--that a compromise had been arrived at. It was a "unilateral compromise", in that only one side of the debate thought it an acceptable compromise. That's the tough thing about compromises--the other guy has to be involved, too. Frustrating, I know. Babajobu 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both pictures seems like a perfect solution to me. I've made the change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We discussed the new picture for a couple days, and then we added it to the article. If one side says "They don't have enough votes for a consensus anyway, best to ignore them", it's hard to reach a compromise. We have had a consistent majority against having that original picture inline for weeks, and the main argument against has been that WP:NOT means that Wikipedia should be gratitously offensive.--Prosfilaes 20:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "gratitously offensive" about either picture. I know gratitously offensive, and it's not that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court defense? It is gratitously offensive to have the first picture here.--Prosfilaes 20:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You find it offensive. Others don't. Welcome to the internet. Babajobu 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's the internet doesn't mean we should ignore how other people feel. Wikipedia is not a political experiment, where we should keep images for jsut purely political reasons; it's an attempt to create an encyclopedia, and not just for Babajobu.

No one has argued that Wikipedia should be gratuitously offensive...the problem is that the only argument advanced for removing the picture is that some users find it offensive, despite its obvious relevance, informativeness, and legality. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored to protect anyone's moralistic pieties. Give a non-censorial justification for removing the picture, and you're more likely to get a response other than "Wikipedia is not censored". Babajobu 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So, the legal argument is just moot then? Ashibaka tock 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer? I don't take legal arguments from people who are not lawyers. The foundation has lawyers. Why don't you ask them if the picture is ok? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking Florida. Why don't you read the "Legal issues" section of the article? Ashibaka tock 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I defidentally don't take legal advice from a Wikipedia article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why we tried replacing it, with an image that's equally relevant, informative, and legal. Not every image has to, or even can, stay in the article.--Prosfilaes 20:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Status in the US

Is there a reputable source that says that the US legal issues discussed (specifically, the PROTECT act) apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you go to [2], which is linked in the PROTECT Act article, you can read it yourself. Scroll down to the "OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" section. Ashibaka tock 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Found it at [3] You'll have to scroll down a bit. As far as reputable, this is a link to the U.S. House of Representatives website. Reproduced here:

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 71, Sec. 1466A, Para C. "c) Nonrequired Element of Offense. - It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."--Jack Schitt 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to quote the law, that's perfectly acceptable. If you want to engage in analysis of what it does, that's a violation of WP:NOR. You have to find someone who said the law did something, and then quote them in the article. By the by, and this here can't go in the article because it's OR by the wikimedia lawyers, wikipedia is completly isolated from any sort of liability under that setction - the standard is "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Wikipedia does not lack such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Florida, I was talking about all sorts of other countries, all listed in the article, where the new image is probably legal and the old image is probably illegal. Ashibaka tock 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_disclaimer - "Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information." Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? Just because we have to have a general cover our ass disclaimer doesn't mean that we shouldn't think twice before posting an image that may be illegal in large parts of the world.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, especially since there is no compelling reason to include an illegal image... Mikkerpikker ... 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Images of the Noble Prophet Muhammad are illegal in large parts of the world. Wikimedia Commons host a slew of such images. Should we delete them? No. Instead of obeying everybody's law, let's just obey the law where the servers are hosted, 'nkay? Babajobu 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This analogy actually works in favor of the new image. You'll note kindly that there is no image at Muhammad. Ashibaka tock 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I kindly note that there is indeed an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. It's under Muslim veneration of Muhammad. Babajobu 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*Awaiting a single argument put forward by the New Image nazis that is yet to be utterly, insurmountably pwned* --195.10.125.168 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I read through the PROTECT act and it states "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." That would seem to rule out Lolicon as illegal, at least as it is traditionally defined in America. - Kuzain 10:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New compromise

What about this: we keep 2 images but have the contentious one linkimaged? This addresses concerns about "censorship" but does not force ppl to commit crime & is not gratuitously offensive... (can we please keep it like this for a while and see what ppl think?) Mikkerpikker ... 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe the solution that Jimbo mandated at Autofelatio is abnormal and unencyclopedic. However, if you can convince the maintainers of the no-inline list to add the picture in question, this is a workable solution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the bad image list. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Responses can be found at: Talk:Lolicon/NewComp

Protected

...work it out here please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add the old image to the bad image list per Hipocrite's suggestion but this would be an obvious misuse of admin powers. Instead, I requested protection for this page so that the edit war would stop. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Information gathering

Please don't put any positioning here. Put your real arguments and what you really believe. Please sign anything acceptable to you.

2 inline butt-bottom

For the currently protected:

1. Standard Wikipedia practice on mature-themed articles is to convey information without intent to cause offense, but also without dancing around trying to remove all content that someone might find objectionable. Let's not go down a slippery slope — this is not autofellatio, which was an abberation.
2. Disclaimer pages—particularly Wikipedia:NOT and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer—cover these issues.
3. More images = more informative, so long as all pictures are relevant and article is not overstuffed with images.
4. Order is irrelevent

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I endorse this summary Babajobu 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Single new image

1. The original argument was about whether to show the old image inline. This was hotly contested.
2. Since there were so many people on either side, the only feasible option was to choose a replacement image.
3. Now that a replacement image has been found, the current debate is about whether it's necessary to include the old one as well.
4. The only way to end the argument about the old image, complaints about censorship and legal responsibility aside, is to not display it on the page.
5. Since we have found a new image which does not make people so upset, and which provides the same purpose, it only makes sense to use this instead.

(Per Hipocrite, please debate this under a separate heading, below.)

Ashibaka tock 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Prosfilaes 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to 2 images, but argue about inlining?

Would signatories of "Single new image" accept linkingthe butt image? I would be strongly opposed to removing the butt image entirely, but the linking is something I'd be willing to discuss (though I do not support it). Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine by me. Ashibaka tock 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the current version is lacking in only one respect... the Hiyashibara needs to be left side because the section dividers are screwed up when it's on the right. Sweetfreek 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As of yet, the only arguments for the link-image are that a hypothetical person might get offended and as such we should pre-compromise for them. Where are the offended people? Someone has to be "upset," to have "found a new image which does not make people so upset," so where is that person? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm upset about the current image. I think it's detrimental to the article. There have also been people contacting me on my Talk page because they disliked it too. Ashibaka tock 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't list a single statement in your position above that said that *YOU* were upset, only that the image might upset others. Are you upset, or do you think others are upset? Is this much ado about nothing, with no one actually upset about anything? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't usually make editing decisions viscerally. I, for one, simply believe that the old image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Does the new image upset you? -Will Beback 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from an encyclopedia because it upsets people upsets me. If there's no one upset about the image, I think it should stay, to humor those of us who would be upset if it goes. If there's no viceral reaction to the image, it's much ado about nothing, correct? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And if there is viceral reaction to the image, it's POV to remove it, right? So you win either way. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are supposed to INFORM, not SHOCK. If the image is overly shocking in the context of the page, than it's too much. If someone who came apon the article knowing what they were getting into and looking for info shows up and says "OMG that image is terrible! Terrible!" I'd consider that a strong statement that the image is shocking and not informative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the image has been removed tform the article more than 32 times is an indication that many editors don't want it here. We're not just imagining it. -Will Beback 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How many of those users were just assuming someone else would be offended like the current proponents of image removal were? Shouldn't someone be offended and really campaigning for it here, if such tremendous offence exists? Right now it seems to me that the "removal" argument is based on the assumption of facts not in evidence - that someone is offended. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We just gave you 2 people who are offended. Here's the third I was referring to: User_talk:Ashibaka/History2#Question_about_the_image_on_rorikon Ashibaka tock 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter how many people the image offends? It's not Wikipedia's job to babysit our readers' minds. We're here to educate them, full stop. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR // paroxysm (n) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Paul" aka 70.68.76.132, wanted it censored not for himself, but for the minors that he teaches, and is a pure WP:NOT violator. The two other people have not said they were offended by the images - rather, that they are certain - certain that someone else was. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to speak for myself? Ashibaka tock 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you vicerally offended by the image? It looks from above that you state that you assume others are offended. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"I'm upset about the current image. I think it's detrimental to the article." Ashibaka tock 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And you described your upset above, and were very clear that you were upset because you were certain someone else was upset. Are you upset about the image directly, or about someone else being upset? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the compromise that Hipocrite suggested, is it agreeable to all? I don't objection. -Will Beback 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept my compromise (linking the butt image). Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? -Will Beback 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT. The image is neither shocking nor illegal in florida, and it is informative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it is not shocking? Why is that the criteria? Did you allow other images to be deleted because you found them shocking? -Will Beback 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not shocking because no one has expressed their shock over the image. "While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." I'd be willing to discuss linking them if someone found them shocking, but no one is even UPSET over them, except by proxy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So if I said I'm upset we can remove the image? -Will Beback 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but we could at least discuss what is upsetting about the image with someone qualified to have that discussion. Right now, we're tilting at windmills, with the assertion that someone out there must be upset. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so the business about being upset really doesn't matter to removing the image. Anyway, I've never asserted that we should remove it because folks are upset, though there are indeed signs that they are (This may be a hint: "OFFENSIVE IMAGE REMOVED YOU FUCKING PERVS"). I think we should remove it because we don't need to have kiddie porn on Wikipedia. Sure, we can talk about it, but there is not need to include drawings of children in sexual situations that are designed to arouse, IMO. -Will Beback 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But it's not kiddie porn. Not kiddie porn.

If including drawings of children in sexual situations that are designed to arouse can educate readers or shed light on the subject matter, they should be included. Wikipedia shouldn't censor helpful images because some people are "offended" by a dildo. // paroxysm (n) 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't take the contributions of vandals[4] seriously. It's not kiddie porn. I'm trying to avoid loaded words when talking to you - I would appreciate you doing the same. Do you think the image is a reasonably good example of the genre? I think it is. We've got actual pictures of children in sexual situations designed to arose elsewhere on the encyclopedia -> two photos of a barely covered 15 year old. And that's in an article about a popular movie! This is in an article about drawings of children in sexual situations that are designed to arouse. It seems that such drawings would be reasonable in such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Censorship" is a loaded word too. Almost every attempt to remove this image has been labelled "censorship". Do we have to call editing decisions censorship? That implies bad faith. I don't think anyone is censoring - certainly making the image a link would not be censoring since the image would still be available. Even moving the image down has been labelled a violation of NPOV.[5] BTW, The Blue Lagoon (1980 film) image does not have any dildoes in it. -Will Beback 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tread very carefully with flinging out the "censorship" word. I believe I only said it referring to "Paul," who actually did want it censored - for his students, and Mikkerpikker, who was tossing out spurrious legal arguments about how governments would ban the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That comment was not directed entirely at you. If you review the edit summaries and talk page comments of those editors who restored the contested image, you'll find frequent accusatoins of censorship. -Will Beback 02:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Toddlerkon page

The image in debate it NOT lolicon, it's toddlerkon. Those (most) in debate over this are not fans of the genre, those who are would agree that that picture does not belong in this article. And that toddlerkon is NOT a subgenre of loli, but a genre on it's own. Saying toddlerkon it a subgenre of loli is like saying loli is a subgenre of the "18 and legal" genre. Request to create seperate page for Toddlekon and remove the section and image from this page.

That's definitely not toddlerkon, she looks at least 7. A // paroxysm (n) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit

I propose changing this: Under the 'Controversy' heading, change the phrase 'crime against children in Japan' to 'reported crime against children' in Japan.

I suggest this in the spirit of accuracy. No crime is reported 100% and some are reported at low rates, such as rape in the US: 39% according to Wikipedia.
All these arguments are only in favor of adding the word "reported" to the article, once. Thank you for your consideration. Please offer reasoned comments/critcism.
(Maybe I don't understand how to suggest changes to a locked article?)

--Zaorish 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the admin who locked it. It shouldn't stay locked long, just until whatever squall is afoot blows over. --DanielCD 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since only reported crimes can constitute "evidence" in the context of a sociological study (such as the one cited), the sentence is true regardless of whether you use the word "reported" or not. The sentence is talking about the statistical analysis of evidence, not the actual number of incidents (which is, of course, unknown). As long as the sentence specifies that it is talking about the evidence of criminal activity, using the word "reported" is redundant. If the sentence instead said "There has been no increase in violent crimes against children and teens" we would need to add "reported". Kaldari 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See also

Some stuff for a "see also" (perhaps): Gothic Lolita and Lolita fashion. Didn't see either linked in the article, but didn't look hard for 'em either. Just FYI. --DanielCD 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This contain lolicon http://img.renchan.org/imgboard/

I don't want to break the law

If indeed as the article states, the PROTECT act covers simulated child pornography and it is illegal to possess- we need to ask if we are putting out American readers at risk for prosecution ot at least liabilty for viewing the pictures posted, (as we all know we "download" every picture we view on the net in order to view it). Beyond the question of decency is that of *responsibility*. No one here wants to break the law and so I advocate removing the pictures completely. I would have advocated it completely before but now there is a more practical reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angrynight (talk • contribs) .

No, we're not. Even if the PROTECT act is valid -- which it isn't -- it doesn't outlaw the lolicovers we have here. None of them depict "sexually explicit contact" or any "lascivious depictions of the genitalia or pubic area." // paroxysm (n) 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to work for a lawyer's office, and I know for fact that Lolicon images are legal. How? We've done federal cases recently based on people being prosecuted for downloading lolicon, and the courts have said by the decision in the COPA case, lolicon is legal.69.250.243.197 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that we have other legal systems to consider besides the US legal system (I'm assuming that 69.250.243.197 is from the US by their IP address). I think it was stated earlier (correct me if I'm wrong) that the picture was considered illegal in South Africa and possibly others (Canada?). I admit I haven't read the entire discussion (it's so repetitive) here but I think the issue seems to be that the butt picture may be offensive to some and possibly illegal in some countries. I personally have no opinion about it, though. I'll just be happy when a decision is finally made and the article is unlocked (I have a couple unrelated minor edits to make). -kotra 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trying to play hopscotch with all the different legal systems in the world is that everything is illegal SOMEWHERE. For example, there are muslim countries that forbid the display of women's faces, or depictions of the human body. Likewise, in China, it's illegal to display information/talk abot Falun Gong. Trying to alter our content to be legal everywhere is an exercise in futility that will benefit only the Encyclopedia Britanica, as they'll not have to worry about Wikipedia anymore. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That point has been made before, but not so many pictures are illegal in major English-speaking countries such as South Africa whence many visitors will come to Wikipedia. In fact, this is probably the only such picture. Ashibaka tock 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI: It's not illegal to depict womens faces in the Islamic world. A least not after the fall of the Taliban, they were the last. In spite of media depictions, such depictions have been present from a long time ago (centuries). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angrynight (talk • contribs) .

Any representation of the human form is forbidden according to many (usually Salafist) Muslims. I don't know what the national legal codes are for drawings of women are in Saudi Arabia, but there are certainly places in Dar al-Islam where viewing such images could get someone in very deep trouble. Would you want to get caught looking at Wikipedia's more risque pics in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan? I wouldn't. Babajobu 01:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this, I'm sure you'll agree. Though as to legal codes- I disagree once again. Angrynight 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected?

Is this ready to be unprotected? It's been locked for a good bit now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't see any agreement, and it appears that the image-removal proponents have left to greener pastures. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement either. It's been protected long enough. Let it be free. --Cyde Weys 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement. Hipocrite offered a compromise, but then refused to honor it. There's still no consensus on what to do with the images. Perhaps we should just remove them all. -Will Beback 22:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an absolutely terrible "compromise" and it bespeaks an agenda. --Cyde Weys 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So why was it offered? What compromise do you suggest? -Will Beback 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Cyde and Katefan. Unprotect. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was what offered? Your suggestion to delete all of the images? I don't know, you're the one who offered it, you might be able to answer me that. And I have a simple suggestion in mind: it's called freedom of speech or "Wikipedia is not censored". --Cyde Weys 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

#Can we agree to 2 images, but argue about inlining? was a suggestion that we place the old image as an link. Regarding Wikipedia, removing information is not censorship. We delete infor and images all of the time. It's all about editing choices. A significant portion of the editors of this article do not agree to have the old image in the article, meaning there is no consensus. -Will Beback 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The title of that is clear that it was never offered as a compromise. It was offered as a base point about what we were going to argue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So what kind of compromise can we discuss that folks would actually be willing to implement? -Will Beback 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the image down the page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That'd be acceptable to me. I had tried that before, but it was immediately reverted by 63.238.214.110, who called it " picture tampering".[6] But if it gets a consensus then I'm all for it. -Will Beback 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we're in violent agreement. [7] Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So, is there anyone who disagrees with moving the images below the first screen? -Will Beback 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

// paroxysm (n) 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What does "//" mean? If you are expressing disagreement please give a reason. -Will Beback 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how just moving the pictures down will make any difference. The only way it would make a difference is if the readers knew what was coming. So, I feel that this would be ok only if there was a disclaimer before the actual pictures, perhaps at the top of the page as a template if one exists for this purpose (I couldn't find one). Actually, just before the butt picture would be ok, because it seems to be the only one people find objectionable. I still feel that the inline suggestion is the best compromise, though, and the least awkward for presentation. -kotra 09:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

This link was given to me from the 3rd opinion wikipedia page. WP:3O

My opinion is that there should be no image censorship on wikipedia, whatever the case, so long as it violates no laws in the land of the server's location (in this case, I believe, Hillsborough county, FL, USA . Or pinellas county, I'm not sure, but it was Tampa/st. pete area I think). Should you want any further clarification on my statement, please ask me on my talk page. Now removing 3d opinion entry as per rules. Thanks for flying delta. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Final argument about legality

For those of you not aware of this, Wikipedia is running the images of Muhammad at Muhammad cartoons, although these pictures are controversial and illegal and apparently also violence-inspiring in much of the world. But they're not illegal under Florida law, and they're notable and informative, so we run them. QED. Babajobu 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not fair use

I'm thinking that since the image in question is a magazine cover, and it's being used in an article which isn't about that magazine, it's not fair use? Alphax ^τεχ 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the captions under the thumbnails would enable us to legally exhibit them on this page. // paroxysm (n) 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for alternative images

Ignis, a contributor to Wikimedia Commons, has recently taken photographs which are both illustrative for this article, and might not carry the potential problems regarding law and susceptibilities that the present images do.

• 
• File:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg

The second one, in particular, might be a good candidate. Any thoughts ? Rama 10:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Great pics. I think that it would be a good idea to include the second pic, but also to include one of the pics we're currently using. The reason is that these new pics only show books about pubescent or post-pubesncent girls, whereas the current pics show books about prepubescent girls. Including one of each might be the most informative, since I assume both kinds can be considered lolicon. Joey Q. McCartney 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think those would be good replacements, and do not require a fair-use exemption. -Will Beback 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are substantially worse than the current pictures, in that they illustrate little, are poorly lit and poorly taken. Beyond that, they contain far more sexually suggestive content than the current picture. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not lolicon by any stretch of the imagination. :/ // paroxysm (n) 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. They illustrate the vast array of Lolicon available. I don't understand your criticsm that they are sexually suggestive - are you suggesting that is a reason to omit pictures? I think that even if they are more suggestive, they require the viewer to click on them to see the details. If they seem too dark we can lighten them. -Will Beback 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see two or three lolicon magazines mixed among a hundred or so regular erotic mangas. There's no argument for switching the pictures. // paroxysm (n) 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to show actual lolicon pictures at all. If you must have pictures, there are many alternatives, for example: pictures of prominent lolicon authors, people perusing the lolicon aisle at a manga shop obscuring the front covers, an array of lolicon titles with them stacked in such a way that the pictures are obscured etc etc etc. It is gratuitous and unnecessary to show the current picture, or any picture that depicts children in a sexual manner. The definition and discussion alone are enough to alert us to what lolicon is. AlwaysNever 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If the books in the current images are more "lolicon" than the books in the proposed images, I am in favor of keeping the current images, as seemed to have been decided further up the page. I do think pictures of artwork illustrate the subject better than pictures of book spines, manga artists, manga stores, etc., although there is no reason we can't use pictures of those, too. Joey Q. McCartney 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The degree of explicitness is irrelevant at best. As long as it depicts any children or pre-teens in a sexually explicit manner, it is unlikely to avoid the problem of illegality. Sorry, there is no such thing as degrees of legality here. Child depicted in sexually explicit manner= illegal.

IMO it is also POV to include an actual lolicon picture. Hear out my reasoning. If you show [I]any[/I] picture of lolicon, you are implicitly affirming the belief that the picture is not harmful or ethically dubious. Because, of course, if you believed it was harmful, you would not show it would you? IMO whatever you do, showing it is going to be POV. On the other hand, there are conditions where it would be non-POV not to include it. Eg. not including it, to avoid partcipating in the debate on whether or not it is right, either way. It is un-encyclopaedic to include it too. No encyclopaedia would include it, why should Wiki be the exeption?

Also I would like to be explained something:

It seems that some of the loli-pic proponents believe in degrees of badness in lolicon. Somehow: picture 1)child with dildo and pants down is too explicit to show, but picture 2) child with flushed cheeks and bed eyes, presumably

looking lustily into the eyes of the owner of the book, somehow falls under the "thresh-hold" of badness. Put your hands up if you believe there is a threshold at which it is no longer "bad" to depict children? Explain where this threshold is and justify it.

And IMO anyone that says it is not sexually explicit is just being disengenious. But regardless, if you think it is not sexual, I invite you to explain why not.AlwaysNever 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that moral theories are relevant here. We only need to ask ourselves whether an image is a good thing in the article, and if it is, find the best candidate which will illustrate the article, not cause any form of legal issue, and will not harm Wikipedia in any way. We are not writing case law here. Rama 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Current pics are fine. Gerard Foley 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK moral arguments aside, (though I think moral concerns are VERY relevant here) BTW the argument that it should be included for the sake of freedom of speech is a moral argument itself ;)

Rama, I am glad you raised the question of whether the picture is 1)harmful to Wiki and 2)legal.

It is harmful to Wiki-it undermines the ability of Wiki to be an encyclopaedic source. Remember, this article is not for the editors. It is in an encyclopedia thus, it is for a [I]general[/I] audience. Keep that in mind. The veteran editors have lost sight of the fact that a general audience may not have [I]any[/I] knowledge of lolicon. They , like I did when I first wiki'd this article, may have no knowledge at all. You can't reasonably suggest that people wiki'ing this page should already know that it may be illegal to view this page, and that it could be offensive!

And there is a very high likelihood this is illegal. We can never know all the places that it may be illegal, but you can be sure that it is illegal somewhere, or will be soon. It is the very stuff of case law. I know that in itself is not an argument not to include it (yes, I know the vagina argument *rolls eyes*). However, since Wiki is an encyclopedia, the onus is on US. Remove the picture, and replace it with something that doesn't feature a sexually suggestive picture of a child.

If you want so badly to have images, do it in your own websites, not a public encyclopedia. People cannot take responsibility for things they don't know about! AlwaysNever 03:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with Rama that moral theories are largely irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it gives information about many things that we would find totally unethical. Remember that it's supposed to be objective. Showing images that are directly relevant to the topic (so that the reader can better understand it) is not POV. If anything, it's NPOV because it allows the reader to make a more informed decision about whether or not it's ethical.

Yes, images of drawn nudity of children may be illegal in some countries, but they're not illegal where the server is (Florida), so technically it's legal to show these pictures. See the censorship policy. In addition, sexual suggestiveness is of course a subjective thing and would be very difficult to pin down in court.

Hurting Wikipedia is a much more difficult issue to answer and calls into question what Wikipedia is for. Obviously it's to inform. And pictures of lolicon help greatly in informing what it's about. However, I agree that there needs to be a line drawn between informing and offending. There's no question that the two existing pictures (especially the "butt" picture) are offensive to some. In my mind, the line crosses just about at the "butt" picture, because even though it's just very softcore porn, it is portraying a young girl. Since the Kotori-Kan picture (the other one) is there now, I don't really see a need for the "butt" picture as well, especially when it causes so much controversy. And yes, it seems that for most people there is a difference between these two pictures in terms of offensiveness, although you may not personally make a distinction.

Back on topic, the bookstore picture on the right would be a good replacement for the "butt" picture, if it's actually displaying lolicon. I'm thinking most of what I see there are young women over 18, but I might just be fooled by the humongous breasts. Are more than a few of them actually lolicon? If not, then we probably shouldn't use it because it's not very relevant and it would be lumping in other genres of erotica in with lolicon. -kotra 10:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the main topic :P Unfortunately, we are already in the thick of ethical judgments, whether we like it or not.. Ok, take the objectivity requirement. Why do we have to be objective? Cause Wiki says so, cause Jimbo told us to, cause everyone else told us to….well, maybe. But why does Wiki want us to? It comes from a moral theory-that it is right to let all sorts of views and ideas get a hearing, whether we like it or not. Whether we acknowledge or not, ethical judgments are being made. Cest La Vie. :D When we are aware of them, then we can make sense of them…

Kotra, I like what you are saying about the needing to be a line between offense and information! Hmmm, so you say the first picture is somewheres around the border. I don’t, I think its way past the border. Where do we draw the line? I would wager that a large proportion of the population would agree with me that any picture depicting a child for the purpose of sexual fulfillment is repulsive. But who is qualified to judge? Me? You? A roving vigilante group? An Unrepentant paedophile? An ethics professor? The editors of this article?...*rolls eyes dramatically* Jimbo?

I propose that all of the above are equally unqualified. No-one should be able to decide for someone else. But, it seems those that voted in favour of the picture felt they were the ones qualified. That is POV-they decided that they were the ones that knew what was offensive and what wasn’t. And they also seem to think they can choose for others. They give people no chance to disagree with their moral decision. As soon as they click, they have no choice but to see it. And it is already in their cache.

Like you say give people a chance to decide for themselves. Give a definition and a discussion of lolicon. Give pictures related to lolicon, but not lolicon itself. Give links to pictures, with a description of the content, and risks involved eg. legality issues. It is common practice for encyclopedias to omit some details, and give bibliographies for people to follow up.

And yup I know, Wiki has a no censor for minors policy. But, firstly, it is a community standard-these are the more agreed upon standards, but they are still open to further refinement. I would argue at the moment the community standards are ill-defined, and in conflict with each other. The minor guideline simply says that the organization Wiki can’t guarantee it will be safe for minors. But it goes on to say obviously inappropriate material will be deleted, but does not define what inappropriate is. It is simply describing the typical Wiki process. It isn’t prescriptive. As far as I am aware there are no agreed on censorship policies. Of course, it is a difficult subject!

Thoughts on link proposal? AlwaysNever 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly for keeping the pictures of lolicon in the article. That's what the article is about after all, if pictures are available let's use them. I agree that drawings of children havig sex is more then a little... offputting to say the least but an encyclopedas job is to give the facts of what happends in the world, and to use other media (video, pictures, sound) to help where available. Gerard Foley 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmm hmmm. For sure that is what an encyclopedia is for, within reason. But, obviously, we don’t put everything in the encyclopedia. Eg. Articles that: invade privacy, break the law, incite to violence etc etc. There is already a limit on what you can say. We can’t be as “informative” as we like “about the facts of the world”

I am not suggesting censorship-that would be removing links to a picture at all. I am worried about issues of consent. I think it is not for us to force editorial decisions on other people. Just give people a chance to read first and decide whether they want to see it. Gerard what is your position on giving people the chance to consent first? AlwaysNever 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just had a thought. What about having a panel that hides the pictures with a warning about the content. People that want to read the Wiki without seeing the picture can, and those that want to see the pictures can click on them to unhide them. That way they can stay on the site, and gets around issues of consentAlwaysNever 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

this thought has been proposed before, but unfortunately it devolved into nitpicking about irrelevant details. I'd like to revisit that suggestion because I think it's the only compromise put forth that seemed to be acceptable for most people. (here's what it looked like: [8]) -kotra 06:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good compromise. -Will Beback 06:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

alright then. Here it is again, I hope we can finally come to an agreement this time. -kotra 08:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Can someone please add {{wiktionary|lolicon}} to this page. Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

It wouldn't have been my choice to unprotect the article yet, since consensus is still forming, but someone requested it be unprotected so they could make some changes, so I've done so. Please continue to work on coming to a consensus and avoid edit warring. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we block uses who edit war instead of protecting the page? Gerard Foley 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Objections to inlining?

As requested, let's revisit the inlining option discussed earlier. This would keep the second image (Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg) available in its current position on the page, but only as a link that the reader may follow at their discretion. (appearing like this: [9]) Some have expressed a desire to keep the image for relevance and against perceived censorship, and some have expressed a desire to remove it due to people not expecting to see the image and finding it offensive (or illegal in their country). This compromise, while not perfect, would allow the image to be both available on the page and protected from those who may find it offensive (or illegal).

Are there any objections? If so, please put forth an alternative. -kotra 08:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent!! I have absolutely no objections to it whatsoever. :D But it should be carried over to the first picture too, so the issues of illegality, consent and offensiveness are completely avoided. *Thumbs up* AlwaysNever 09:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We had reached consensus on moving the second picture below the fold. We have not, and will not, reach consensus on any of these other alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the very brief discussion on moving the second picture (and shortly after, both pictures) below the fold, two people were for it and a third was for it on the condition of a warning of some sort before the actual image. Even this is not a consensus because the condition was not agreed on. Besides, giving less than 12 hours to determine a consensus is unrealistic.

Later, one person expressed disagreement with either picture being displayed directly on the page, anywhere. As much as you and I wish for a consensus, we still don't have it, which is why I put forth this alternative, which in my opinion has a greater chance of succeeding (and staying). -kotra 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - are you a sockpuppet of an editor with a more extensive editing history, AlwaysNever? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?! No. I am working idependently. *sighs* Such groundless accusations-Give some substance to your allegations at least! Attack the idea, not me. Justify your stand. I understand you're upset by the suggestion; let's talk about it, rather than dealing in insults. AlwaysNever 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let me suggest that instead of focusing on this single change to the enecyclopedia you go out and work on another article - any other article. I don't take single-cause crusaders seriously. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you only edits to Wikipedia have been to complain about 1 article, it's understandable if people suspect you’re a sockpuppet. Gerar... I mean.. Mr. Sock 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC) *Innocent looks*

Where will it end...crusader, sockpuppet. Ok, I am new. I have only been on Wiki a bit more than a week. That's why I am only focusing on this page for the time being-better to get your bearings before you branch ay. You are being mean to a N00b :C. Meanie-pants!! But I am not a completely naive one; I know you are in breach of the cvility community standard-let's play nice mm'kay?

PS this page is not the only one I have commented on anyways. Look 'n see. PPS I'm going to write on the status of lolicon in NZ. SO HAH MR SOCK :P AlwaysNever 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion aside, is there still an objection to inlining the second image? I ask again because most of those who have commented seem to support it. I'm not interested in making this change without a consensus, though. -kotra 06:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes the image is fine as it is for now. Gerard Foley 14:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

alright. Although due to the nature of the image, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone brings this up again eventually. I'm a bit tired of going in circles though, so I'll just watch from the sidelines now. -kotra 06:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I support putting the image on a subpage. This is a great compromise. It keeps the image available for those who wish to see it. At the same time, it does not force the image upon someone who does not expect to see it. Johntex\^talk 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Pictures

All the questions and objections to the pictures in the article amount to people's point of view and censorship. This is in violation of 2 Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not censored and Neutral point of view.

Who is to say that these pictures are offensive, many people in the USA and Europe will probably think so (understandably) but clearly this view is not shared by all, i.e. the Japanese. What if someone had moral objections to woman in swimsuits, would we put them as links also?

Some people will look at this article and find the images offensive.

Let's link to the pictures instead.

Some people will look at this article and find the images offensive.

Let's link to the pictures instead.

And some people will look at this article and find the images offensive.

Let's link to the pictures instead.

This is clearly not a solution to the problem, unless we want to link all pictures where someone has an objection. If you don't want to see the pictures then don't read the article or turn off images in your web browser, just as I refrain from typing "child porn" into Google for fear of what I might get.

When making arguments for the removal or linking of the pictures, apply the same argument to all pictures where there may be objections and ask yourself, "If we do it for these pictures, why not those ones also?". Morally objectionable pictures have not been removed or linked to on more popular pages and the same should be true here. Gerard Foley 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Preferring to exclude a picture is not censorship anymore than preferring to include it is perversion. Please do not characterize the motives of your fellow editors. Hundreds of images are removed from articles everday. That's the topic, not censorship or perversion. Thanks, -Will Beback 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm hmmm. Censorship won't do. But it is not censorship. Note that anyone that wants to view the pictures could. We wouldn't be stopping them. One extra click they are there. It is in the article, it just isn't visible right away. No censorship here. And the advantage here is that they can do it knowing the risks involved eg legality.

I refrain from typing child porn in too, but If I wanted to find a general overview of pedophilia, I wouldn't expect to see a picture of child porn there.

Yup, alot of people could find it traumatising, offensive whatever...some *eyebrows raised* might enjoy it. But since we want to be NPOV lets not take a view either way to its status. Leave that up to the readers. Let them choose.

And yes, there is a community standard "no censorship for minors", but there is also one titled "Wiki is not an experiment in anarchy"-therin it says speech is non unregulated in Wiki. But we needn't take recourse to arguing between the many and conflicting guidelines. It isn't censorship. Its giving a choice.

And just because it is not yet established practice, doesn't mean we can't be among the first to use it. Wiki is constantly evolving, it is not set in stone. Dreadful would be the day it was. AlwaysNever 06:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. As Gerard has explained, doing such would be a precedent for any other image on Wikipedia which is illegal somewhere in the world, or which someone might find offending ("*eyebrows raised*"). Holding all images to the _same standard_ is neutral, clearly. Ineloquent 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to have choice, but why give a choice on this article when there is no choice on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article? Those images are highly offensive, yet are still in the article, so what's different here? Gerard Foley 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Like you say MR SOCK/gerard (it's such a cute nickname :P), it IS nice to give people a choice, isn't it? It would certainly go somewhere in defueling the edit-war that was/is going on there. Well, *ponders* mebbe they should consider it too. And it could simply be another tool in the belt of Wiki editors, and a courtesy to readers. But, happily it doesn't censor-you can see if you want. Its a joyeous marriage/civil union between the freedom to choose/freedom of speech. Awwww. Innit Darlin?

As for illegality, I know in NZ is well'n truely illegal. My poor fellow Kiwis may go to this Wiki unwittingly, and BAM! they're in breach of the law. Wre know for certain it IS very illegal in some countries. There'ya go.

OK the jyallands controversy is somewhat synonymous, but not completely. Most people are aware that Jyllands Controversy is over those cartoons, and alot go to see it. *shrugs shoulders* Can't say all of them do, but I'd say the vast majority are aware. Lolicon on the other hand is not at all mainstream-many Wiki'rs won't know squat. I didn't know anything except that it was a genre of anime maybe...

As for NPOV...Ineloquent/Paroxysm I fail to see why treating every single pikky exactly the same is NPOV. Pikkys may come in many sizes, shapes, positions in the page. Is that POV? It's a variation in presentation. It aint censorship. And precendent already happened-but thats beside the point. Just cos it aint a community standard yet does not mean you can't be among the first. There isn't anything saying no inliners. AlwaysNever 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay AlwaysNever, go propose on the mailing list that every picture anyone finds offending be hidden behind a little box. I'm sure you'll be met with great reception.

Then as soon as you gain community support for the idea come back and hide it. Thanks, Ineloquent 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ASlippery slope sure is fun to sled down!! But, in an argument you should avoid employing such logical fallacies. Using inlining does not somehow magically mean everyone will use it for every little offense. And I won't be proposing that! I don't think that hiding everything behind a little box is a good idea-only in a defined set of circumstances! 1)When it isn't reasonable to expect people to know that offensive pictures will be there. Eg. When the topic is not mainstream, so very few people are aware of the definition 2)When it is clearly illegal in some jurisdictions to view them. In that case I wondered if there could be country specific inlining ONLY FOR THE CASE WHEN IT IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL TO SEE IT IN THAT PARTICULAR COUNTRY, no other reason. Because its possible to detect what the country of origin is from their IP or something (isn't it?). That is only a speculative idea however. BOTTOMLINE: whatever happens the pictures are available to be seen by anyone. AlwaysNever 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

{{linkimage|Naziswastika.svg}}

This isn't a slippery slope at all, it's what you're proposing: to hide images behind boxes because you think they're ewww or illegal somewhere in the world. It's not up to Wikipedia to enforce the law of other countries (especially if you're trying to enforce the law of other countries on people who don't even live there.), and it's not up to Wikipedia to babysit our readers' minds.

..What is up to Wikipedia is to inform; these pictures inform; ergo, we have every reason to exhibit them for people who don't know what lolicon is. That's what Wikipedia's about. Ineloquent 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit? 'del crap' -Will Beback 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, though I have no idea why you've spontaneously asked me to do so.

That edit was made after the replacement image was uploaded, which was supposed to end the edit war and futile arguing. I did not see why another controversial image was being introduced when we already had reached a solution, so I deleted the crap. fin. Ineloquent 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A solution has not been found. It appears to me that you decided the picture was controversial, and deleted it. No consensus, no justification. Frankly, I agree with your decision and just wish you'd allow other editors to make the same decision that you made. -Will Beback 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We already had one illustrative image, which, above, you seemed okay with; I don't see what the old lolicon magazine further adds. So I deleted it, because its only apparent result was a revert war (I guess I was contributing to that, though: might not have been the best idea).

I would prefer to have lolicon with the one, new image, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that using a template to hide either is POV. Ineloquent 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the lolicon images and the Muhammed cartoons is simple. The lolicon images are illegal in many countries, and the Muhammed cartoons are not (they may be blasphemous, but not illegal). The issue is only partially about offensiveness, it's more about legality. And while the images would still be available to anyone, there would be a choice to view them. This is the opposite of babysitting, it's letting people choose on their own. It would be more POV to force unsuspecting readers to see something that may not be legal in their country. It would be like saying "my country's legal system is the only one that matters." This is not the sort of attitude that encourages worldwide collaboration, which is one of the things Wikipedia strives for. -kotra 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those Muhammad cartoons ARE illegal in the Middle East, not just blasphemous. Pornography is illegal in the Middle East as well. It doesn't matter what's legal in other countries. All that matters is that it isn't illegal in Florida, where Wikipedia is based. Kirbytime 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the cartoons were reprinted in Middle Eastern newspapers, specifically in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Yemen. Only two Jordanian editors were arrested and their charges were dropped two days later. So if the cartoons are illegal in the Middle East then that law isn't very well enforced. The strong reaction to the cartoons was mainly religious, not legal (even in a region where religion and law are relatively integrated).

Besides, my point wasn't that Wikipedia should censor itself for the legal systems of other countries. My point was that Wikipedia should respect the people who live under such legal systems enough to provide them with an informed choice (without taking away the pictures!). -kotra 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kotra well said. No-one is trying to enforce the law. NOTE WELL: look at my suggestion for legality issues above. If practible, country specific hiding would give viewers discretion. It is still available and they can click it if they want. Ergo, (latin words are sooo cool :P)it is not enforcing the law. They can break the law if they like; I don't care. They can do it standing on stilts screaming "the law is nonsense on stilts" for all I care, because I don't. It isn't my place to care. But forcing people to break the law by I do care about

It would not babysit peoples minds. They can do what they like, they can click on it, whatever. Imagine little kids: they can eat chocolate ice-cream to death if they want to- I would be a negligant babysitter indeed :P. Placing the picture on the top is babysiter behaviour. It is like sitting on top of a metaphorical child, stuffing brusselsprouts in their mouth. "Eat, Eat damn you! You have to be free to see these pictures! If you have freedom to see a picture, you need freedom not see the picture too. Otherwise notions of freedom of speech are a meaningless nonsense. AND it is important they aren't. "Society has made you free to see these pictures, NOW LOOK DAMMIT!"You say stradling the person, thrusting the picture in their face.

And, it is culturally chauvinist-by forcing people to see, you are not tolerant of individual differences. By not giving a choice, you say, there are many different viewpoints in the world, but hey, my one is the best. And Kotra makes an excellent point, it is also legalistically chauvinistic.

And before anyone says, "OH but they a free as a bird not to type in lolicon", that is a flawed argument. Like I and others have said before, that's paradoxical. If you don't know already what lolicon is, (This is a bleedin' encyclopedia, you know :P), how can make a choice not to see the picture? AlwaysNever 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Giving them the images in inlining allows them to read what the topic is, tand then click on the images only if they want to. Lolicon is not that common a word. It is easy to imagine someone hearing it at lunch and searching on it when they are back at school or work. Why show them an image that runs a high chance of offending them or being illegal for them? Clicking one extra link is a small bother if they decide to do so after they are well informed. Johntex\^talk 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

CSS self-censoring of images

While it's a laudable attempt at resolving the issue, changing one's CSS file to self-censor the images is not a realistic solution. The reader doesn't know they can censor these particular images until they view this talk page (who reads the talk page before the article itself?). And even if the notice template was put at the top of the Lolicon article itself (god forbid), many viewers will still not understand the process needed to change their CSS file. -kotra 06:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, can anyone give me some more advice on how to do this? Dammit, everytime I log on and press on the watchlist the pic loads up. I donwannasee. And I can't review the article w/o seeing the dildo pic. How do you reroute the cache?! No friggin clue. AlwaysNever 07:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What's monobook? I've used notebook to alter CSS files, but not familiar with monobook..same thing is it? Or where can it be found? Yah, I think this CSS edit thing may be good for editors to avoid seeing it every time, but not for normal viewers. Same reasons stated above. AlwaysNever 07:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

the word 'monobook' might throw you off. I'm not sure what it means either, but it doesn't really matter. First go to your User:yourUserName/monobook.css page, which in your case is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:AlwaysNever/monobook.css. Then you go to edit the page, adding in #lolicon{display: none;} and then saving. Then to bypass your cache you: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. hope that helps! -kotra 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kotra! Got it first time-you're a good teacher *grins* <3 AlwaysNever 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Status: New Zealand

Will do research on New Zealand. According to Wiki Child pornography any depiction seen to promote pedophilia is banned. That includes cartoons. It may be out of date, not sure on that count. Will follow up. AlwaysNever 07:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OR

The following claims are clearly OR: "The Act however doesn't seem to include works of art such as manga if they do not appear to look like a photograph." " Case law, notably the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production." Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The first statement I don't believe is original research, because it's common sense. If manga doesn't appear to look like a photograph, then you can't really call it a pseudo-photograph. I'll delete the "seem to" because it's an obvious statement.

The second statement is definately not original research because the idea is drawn directly from the R. v. Sharpe transcript, but it needs to reference it. I'll reference it so it won't be misinterpreted as original research.

I'll also remove the original research template accordingly, but if these aren't the only statements that were considered original research, you're welcome to restore it. -kotra 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Common sence" is another word for "origional research," if people don't agree. If case law says something, quote it and cite it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a detailed dissertation on exactly why everyone knows that R. v. Sharpe covers fictional persons, is beyond the scope of the article. Nonetheless, I am adding a relevant quotation from paragraph 38. I'm not going to touch the "original research" template because "original research" evidently means something other than what I thought that phrase referred to. It's very clear, well known to everyone who cares Canadian child pornography law, and not original with me, that purely fictional material is captured by 163.1 - that is the main reason R. v. Sharpe was contentious at all. It was also relevant in the Eli Langer case.69.63.62.226 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The R. v. Sharpe statement is not a new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of the published data. It is an accurate paraphrasing of the exact concept given in the transcript. It's easily verifiable by anyone, and probably doesn't even need the quote given by 69.63.62.226. Please reread What is original research?. This falls well outside of original research. Here are some quotes from that page, in case this still is not clear:

"Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations."

"...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

The statement is easily verifiable, especially with the citation, and even more so now with the direct quote.

As for "common sense" being "original research", this is false. I'm not sure if the meaning of "original research" is completely understood. There is a specific statement on WP:OR just for ideas and statements that aren't published, but any reasonable adult would know or could easily find out:

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions."

Besides, "common sense" was probably a bad choice of words. The statement "The Act however doesn't include works of art such as manga if they do not appear to look like a photograph." is a true statement that anyone could verify by going to Indecent_pseudo-photograph_of_a_child, which is linked in that same paragraph for anyone to see. It is not a new interpretation or original research in any way.

If you feel that I'm incorrect and you can support your position with Wikipedia policy, please feel free to explain here and make any changes necessary on the article page. But I don't want to edit war, so please only do so if you have made a sincere effort to understand my position and, after re-evaluating your own position, still in all honesty believe yours is correct. -kotra 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures discussion

Please move all discussion about the linking, hiding or censorship of the images to Wikipedia talk:Censorship. Thank you Gerard Foley 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? We are not talking about censorship, we're talking about the editorial decision of which images to use to illustrate this article. Please do not depict that process as censorship. -Will Beback 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

People are talking about linking, hiding or censorship of the images. I'm asking people to move that to Wikipedia talk:Censorship. The discussion of which images to use to illustrate this article does belong here. Gerard Foley 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerard, it seems (from what you say anyway) that you don't group linking or hiding in the same category as censorship either. Lining or hiding don't belong in that forum for that reason. Disagree? In order to refute my claim that it isn't censorship have to furnish me with particular reasons why you consider them censorship. <3 AlwaysNever 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Censorship is only one of the issues discussed in those threads. Linking the images, moving them down the page, relevance of proposed images, etc are not related to censorship. The discussions would not belong on Wikipedia talk:Censorship unless they were exclusively (or even mostly) about censorship, which is definately not the case. -kotra 08:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Linking the images is an editorial decision, which is entirely appropriate to discuss here. If we decide the best way to treat this issue is to link to the images, that is what we should do. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This has already been gone over numerous times, and the conclusion was there was no consensus to remove or link the images. We can go over it, AGAIN, if you must, but I will have to insist that if my time is wasted AGAIN going over it, those who vote to remove the edit be forced to make 5 helpful contributions to the encyclopedia that are not reverted for every person that is forced to AGAIN come to this talk page and AGAIN reach an obvious no-consensus default decision to keep the images as images on the page. Given that giving an inch on moving one of the two images down the page has resulted in the taking of a mile, if we are forced to go over this decision AGAIN, I will have to reneg on the prior agreement to move the "more offensive" image down the page and will swap image locations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel it is a waste of your time. I wasn't aware of this page when there was a previous discussion, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate in it. As far as helpful contributions to the encyclopedia, I have over 4,000 edits here (including over 2,000 to the article space) you can pick through them yourself and pick your sets of five. I hope you will find five there you consider helpful. Johntex\^talk 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was talking about you Johntex, but about AlwaysNever, whose only contributions to Wikipedia was to complain about the images. Gerard Foley 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making pointless threats, Hipocrite. And while we don't have consensus (largely because of you), that is no reason to demand more contributions from people who are only trying to improve Wikipedia. If you are getting frustrated that the discussion keeps returning to this issue, perhaps you might consider the possibility that the majority would like to see change, instead of being obstinate. I myself (along with several others) would like to see the image removed completely (my reasons being that it is unnecessary now, and stirs up gratuitous controversy), but in the interests of compromise, I'm willing to give up a lot for inlining. But a compromise doesn't work unless both sides are willing to give. Remember that in a good compromise, everybody is equally unsatisfied with the result. -kotra 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source: The Beat on "toddlercon"

Citation from "the Beat" is not a reliable source. I understand from the blog entry that Edmonton Journal has this information. Please cite directly from this article. As it stands the citation is unreliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources under online sources for information as to why. Ta. AlwaysNever 07:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Edmonton Journal is not a reliable source. The article in question confused anime with hentai much in the manner of the more recent NCECC fact sheet, made the statement that "Anime is illegal in Canada[.]", and drew the ire of anime fans both in Canada and abroad. It did not use the term "toddlercon", but it did state that images of toddlers were included in the material at issue. The online version of the article was retracted, but you can probably find a mirror if you search Google on "Edmonton Journal anime" or similar. For my part, I'd consider a random blogger more authoritative; granted that's not saying much. 69.63.62.226 04:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You may prefer it, but as far is reliability is concerned, a random blog is even worse!! These people can say whatever they like without backing. And the bloggers they are not academics, or noted experts in the field of anime. Point taken that the Edmonton Journal article is very unreliable. Seeing that the toddlercon bit appears to be taken from the Edmonton Journal anyway...I doubt at this point in time whether we can credibly say anything about "toddlercon". There is one exception, if the bit about toddlercon was a direct quote in the EdJournal it may be reliable, or if we could find this "expert" they quoted and interview them, the toddlercon section could stay. Otherwise, it is best to either delete the toddlercon section, or tag the lolicon wiki as unreliable. AlwaysNever 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, neither the blog nor the Edmonton Journal article are reliable sources (the Edmonton Journal article is a good example of a "verifiable" source not always being a "reliable" source). I don't think the section should be deleted though, because it's informative and accurate (I googled "toddlerkon" to make sure... and it is indeed there as described). If it needs a warning about being unverified, I suggest {{Sectfact}} or {{Not verified}} be added to the Subgenres section. For now though, I'll just remove the source in question because of the reasons stated above (unreliable). -kotra 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In September there were only 28 hits, now there are several hundred. I would suggest we have propagated this neologism and should remove it. Rich Farmbrough 00:37 20 March 2006 (UTC).

Linking Images is not censorhip - removing editorial choice is

Having read the discussion here, I support putting the images on a sub-page, with prominent links from this article.

1. Putting the image on a subpage allows readers who may be offended by the image to read the article and learn about the topic without having to see the image.
2. This still keeps the image readily available to anyone who wants to see it.
3. Editors of a given page deserve to be able to use this tool if they decide it is helpful to them.
4. Readers deserve to be able to make an informed choice before they see images such as this. They can't be asked to choose ahead of time to make their browser stop displaying images, and they can't be asked to know ahead of time that an article may contain offensive or illegal images.

Above by Johntex\^talk 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your first and second arguments support your conclusions. On the other hand, your third and fourth "arguments" don't support your conclusions--they are your conclusions, although they may still be valid conclusions.

Regarding your conclusion that readers "can't be asked to know ahead of time that an article may contain offensive or illegal images," I'm not sure I agree. Arguably, when a reader navigates to an article he knows nothing about, he assumes the risk that the subject will turn out to offend him, will contain language that offends him, or will contain pictures that offend him. Wikipedia contains much material that some readers may find offensive. My own conclusion tends to be that the burden to know what will offend a reader is on the reader himself, not Wikipedia, and that the burden to know what is illegal in a reader's jurisdiction is on the reader himself, not Wikipedia. I probably also tend to feel that Wikipedia's duty in this regard is simply to avoid images that the vast majority of people would find offensive or inappropriate, and to avoid images that are illegal in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Joey Q. McCartney 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To Johntex: by putting the image on a subpage, you mean inlining, like this, right?

To Joey Q. McCartney: keep in mind that the image in question will continue to be easily available. If the image was inlined (linked to prominently), then all Wikipedia would be doing is being considerate to a large percentage of readers, those that find the image offensive and/or illegal. I wouldn't know how large this percentage is. But judging just by editor comments, it seems to be more than just a small fraction. Besides, I have yet to hear an argument explaining why inlining the image is a bad idea. Unnecessary, possibly. But bad? On the other side, there are people who really feel that not inlining the picture is bad, and have given arguments to justify this. If this were a democracy then there probably would have been a change long ago, but we try to work toward consensus... Too bad that some people aren't willing to compromise (I'm not referring to you). -kotra 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To Joey Q: Yes, you are right, 3 and 4 are my conclusions. I agree with you that the reader has to take some risks. For example, since we can't completely control vandalism, any article may contain something whacky at any time. However, we do *try* to control vandalism. Likewise, I think there is reasonabl chance that someone who does not fully understand what a Lolicon is will come to this article. While we can't eliminate the risk for the reader, we can take reasonable steps to minimize their risk. Inlining just gives that reader a little help, and hurts no one, since the image is still readily available. I think we should do this for images that a "sizable minority" of readers might have an issue with. The editors of any given page can make that determination together.

To Kotra - Yes, that example you give is exactly what I am suggesting. Johntex\^talk 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This subpage idea is good, I support it. (I was directed to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Censorship.) --Vsion 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I also support linkimaging the images. The purpose of the article is to inform. The images do not add significantly more information than that which can be ascertained by reading the rest of the article for them to require direct inclusion. The article is about lolicon in general not these specific instances of it whereas the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article is about the specific images to a much greater extent. 70.161.91.189 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Imageboards

Do we need to list these imageboards? We already include two examples. If we do list the imageboards then perhaps we don't need the examples. Either way, it seems unnecesary to have both. -Will Beback 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is use for both. If someone is really interested they can go to the imageboards. If someone is just casually interested they can look at the included images for an example that is not as explicit. 70.161.91.189 21:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So we are including them to make it easier for readers who are "really interested" in viewing explicit "lolicon" images? If that's the reason then I vote to remove them. -Will Beback 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was that wikipedia has no control over the content of the imageboards and as such they might be very explicit. Wikipedia already links to many things that people might find untasteful or explicit, so why is this any different? kotepho 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not obliged to link to sites with objectionable or illegal content. Why is it necessary to link to these sites (and similar ones at Shotacon)? We don't generally link to forums, and these sites do not provide information about Lolicon, only dirty pictures. -Will Beback 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia undoubtedly links to content that is objectionable and/or illegal in a vast number of cases, it just depends on who you ask if it is objectionable or illegal. There are also numerous cases where forums are linked. I think a better solution would be to find better links to replace the imageboards. kotepho 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them, since they were added without discussion and there is no consensus. We already have over a dozen external links which provide solid information, so "better links" are already present. -Will Beback 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any links about lolicon; the others are about the legal status of lolicon. I think they contributed to the article as such, but I am not going to revert. If someone has links about lolicon, a listing of lolicon manga, or other such things I think they should be added. kotepho 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the links to lolicon imageboards aren't really 'needed' when there are already examples of lolicon in the actual article. There is some precedent for linking imageboards, but I think the only instances of this are in articles that talk about the imageboards themselves (like the 4chan article). I don't feel strongly enough about this to put the imageboards back up in the External links, although it might be good to mention in the article itself that lolicon has become sufficiently popular outside of Japan that there are English-language imageboards dedicated entirely to lolicon images. I think they're notable enough to merit an external link or two if they're discussed in the article. -kotra 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like the External links section is exploding with spam so I don't see the harm with a small number of relavent links. Gerard Foley 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The tame pictures and descriptions in this article are not suffice to illustrate lolikon. Since none of the references provide any further enlightenment, and the pictures already on this article are hardly even loli, I've readded not4chan and renchan. Those links have been here for ages and were not just suddenly added now. 24.224.153.40 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the links were just added on March 7, [10]. The images are sufficient, as we've already discussed at length. -Will Beback 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That anon was only reverting the removal of the links by another. Here's not4chan on 17 Feb 2005, and renchan has been here since at least 22 May 2005. They have been used as examples since then. It's akin to giving the address of the whitehouse, in case readers might want to see it for themself, except even more relevant since we presently have pretty shallow examples of lolikon accompanying this article. TrueMirror 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The images we're talking about are simulated child pornography. So it is not like linking to whitehouse.gov, it's like linking to the old whitehouse.com (which went to a porn site). The sites are currently linked from the Imageboard article - we don't need to increase their rating by adding the links to numerous articles. -Will Beback 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not an appropriate an analogy, but it does bring up the good point that we link to http://whitehouse.com/ in the Whitehouse.com article -- for obvious reasons. That these websites contain content (not simulated child porn, though) that could offend, or is illegal in New Brunswick and Zimbabwe, is not a valid reason to delete them. TrueMirror 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

They aren't linked from Imageboard actually. They aren't even on Overchan's list either. Whether or not you find them distasteful does not apply. You are not a one man consensus either. Instead of reverting each other why don't you try to find better links? kotepho 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If they aren't linked from Imageboard then perhaps they aren't notable sites. I'm not sure what you mean by "better" links. The article is properly sourced. We don't need to provide further external links. -Will Beback 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be they are not linked because of their subject matter. The other links are not about lolicon besides the one paper. I doubt I can find a category on Amazon for lolicon manga and even trying to find a general article on lolicon I am coming up empty on Google. More things along the lines of [11] would be useful information in addition to the myriad of links about its supposed legal status. kotepho 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't link to forums, so I see no reason to link to picture forums. -Will Beback 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually we do link to forums, for example here, here, and here. Sometimes forums are a good way to learn more about a subject. Imageboards would be the equivalent for forums when the subject is mainly a pictorial one. I'm afraid I agree that the two current pictures aren't a good illustration of what lolicon usually is, so one or two lolicon imageboards would inform when the article itself can't (for example, as done in the Pornography article). It doesn't need 5 links to very similar imageboards though. Wikipedia isn't a repository of links. -kotra 08:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If the current pictures do not illustrate Lolicon then let's remove them. As for the imageboards, in addition to being forums they also are simply compendiums of copyrighted material which are all apparently posted with without the copyright holders' permission.

• 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. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.Wikipedia:External links

Can we find a site that does not violate copyrights? -Will Beback 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

THAT is a good point. Many of the images on imageboards are posted in violation of someone's copyright. However, you may notice that copyright-infringing imageboards are already linked by Wikipedia (Imageboard has many), so perhaps there is a hazy exception made for links to websites that don't control what is posted on them. One might argue that the imageboards themselves don't post the copyrighted images, although they allow visitors to. I personally don't think that argument is good enough, so I think the copyright issue is a sufficient reason to not link these imageboards directly. There should be a sentence or two noting that they exist though. -kotra 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the current images DO illustrate lolicon. What I meant is that they don't illustrate the explicitness of most lolicon. And I think that's good because anything more explicit would be a bad idea. At least one of the images should remain to illustrate the article, but I won't go back to that debate, at least not in this section. -kotra 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I think it would be appropriate for us to say somthing like "the material appears in books and magazines, and is distributed over the internet via imageboards" and leave it at that. We can indicate the facts without actually linking to the sites. I've posted a parallel question about copyrights at the talk:imageboard page. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. You may want to raise the question at shotacon also, because it links the same imageboards as lolicon does/did. -kotra 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The links to the imageboards are revelent to the article. As mentioned, imageboards itself cannot violate copyrights. It's what is posted that can. Similarly, the article P2P shares a similar situation and they link to p2p websites. Are we here to inform readers or what? --24.184.24.134 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that your interpretation of copyright law is correct. Napster hosted copyrighted info and were were found to violate copyrights by doing so. Though anime artists in Japan don't have the resources to litigate imageboards the way the RIAA went after Napster, the principle is the same. Yes, we're here to inform our readers by giving them the best article we can. Wikipedia is all about the content here, not the external links elsewhere. We're not a link farm or a portal. We can describe the material here perfectly well. -Will Beback 05:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then what about Mininova? Bittorrent? Adding one relevent link is far from turning the article to a 'link farm'. --24.184.24.134 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not fracking adding a link to a torrent where people can download lolicon porn. End of discussion. --Cyde Weys 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not end of discussion. We have a link to the material you object to: imageboard So far, from the discussions above, it seems to shove the controversial link to another page is fine, but embedding in this article is not? Are you ok with a straightout imageboard that does not have torrent download? --24.184.24.134 05:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am really on the fence about Renchan. It does seem to be more than just an imageboard. I do not know about the others, but it has forums and others things that lead me to believe it is about more than posting porn. kotepho 06:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Renchan is more than that. It has fanfictions forums, fanarts forums, etc. It's a community with lolicon as its underlying theme. But do not be mistake - it does have pornography; but the underlying theme of lolicon is pornography. --24.184.24.134 09:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the removal of Renchan due to copyright violations. There are numerous wikipedia articles which violates it, but mostly the controversial are the ones that gets contested. Over at Lion King, the article links to lionking.org. Do we assume Disney gave the webmaster permission to use all the images/sounds/videos hosted on the website? Over at Pornography, they linked to Eonsex, which is basically the same as an imageboard -> read the term of use. I can find many more examples, if you wish. Why the double standard? Where's the uproar? --24.184.24.134 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the point of the imageboards not posting copyright violations themselves as a counterpoint that I discounted. The fact is, they allow copyright violations to be posted. They don't have to, and therefore the site is responsible for it. The example of Napster is a valid one. Besides, it doesn't matter who posts the copyright violations, what matters is if the website linked displays copyright violations or not.

It is true that some articles link to websites that have copyright violations, but I think they are given exception to the rule because the links are directly representative of the article in question. With a subject like lolicon, which can mean pedophilia, pedophiles, an attraction to underage-looking adolescents, those who are attracted to underage-looking adolescents, and erotic photographs and illustrations (in anime, manga, video games, etc) of underage children or underage-looking adolescents, the imageboards only illustrate a small portion of the subject. That, in combination with the copyright violations, is a defendable reason why these specific imageboards shouldn't be linked, in my opinion. -kotra 10:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But Renchan, a lolicon community/gallery, was not given exception over lionking.org because? Renchan.org(fan site) has as much to do with the lolicon article as lionking.org (fansite) as to do with the Lion King article. --24.184.24.134 11:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the main difference is that renchan.org probably has way more copyright infringement than lionking.org, and that renchan.org only examines a certain type of lolicon, not every aspect of it, as lionking.org does. But I honestly am pretty much on the fence about this issue. If an imageboard or two stays or not is all the same to me. -kotra 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to be content edit warring over it. I'm not even sure if we should bother with a poll as it is unlikely to tell us anything useful. kotepho 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

They are very similar the violation of copyrights. Sounds/videos/images freely available on lionking.org. WP:EL does not discriminate on the number of copyrights violated. I believe the article is referring to illustrative lolicons materials, since the article seems to center around materials. The article hentai links to one type of hentai as an examples as well. I have no complaints if you want to add links to show other aspects of lolicon; we're here to inform after all --24.184.24.134 09:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with links to other aspects of lolicon is that they're either in Japanese or they're illegal (in Japan, their country of origin, as well as the United States, where the Wikipedia servers are). The article focuses more on the anime/manga images because that's the only aspect of lolicon that English-speakers don't already have a word for. The other aspects we would call pedophilia or child pornography. So it would be hard to find links to educate on the other aspects (if we even want to). -kotra 00:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then we will try to inform on what we can. Take pornography for example, which falls into the same catagory. It does not and cannot illustrate all points of pornography, child porn, for example, yet it still links to examples to illustrate. Shota? --24.184.24.134 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

<comments redacted by admin>

why did you block The Molester? Johntex. Lord Algezera 02:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• The username was a violation of WP:POINT and WP:U. Johntex\^talk 02:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• And now Lord Algezera is blocked for violating WP:U (see al-Jazeera) and for setting out on a vandalism spree immediately upone creating his/her account. Can we get back to writing an encyclopedia, now? Johntex\^talk 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Per the guideline

They do not provide a unique resource (e.g. convenience is not uniqueness) as these images can be widely found elsewhere. There is no reason to link them. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:External links suggests that the ext. links should be kept.

"Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)"

12:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Sam Spade (talk • contribs) .

My reading is that that is for board where current and ongoing discussion about a topic takes place. For example, Harry Potter fansites are (occasionally) the first place that news is broken. These boards appear to exist mainly as swapping stations (hence the name, "imageboards") and thus do not add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.
brenneman^{T}{L} 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Being an imageboard does not exclude discussion. Even if they didn't, pictures can still add "encyclopedic understanding" of a subject. Even if you agree with this line of reasoning, that leaves the issue of renchan unsolved. kotepho 13:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add Renchan back on the ground that it is a major fansite available for lolicon. It's not only an imageboard. --Jqiz 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

For what reason was not4chan removed? Why would be linking to imageboards unencyclopedic? Imageboards are very informative. The images posted are often discussed, as well as shown.

Is this the policy section you're disputing on the grounds on:

In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. ?

If this is the contention, then there are many 'unique' resources that cannot be shown in the article, that is available on the imageboards.

Also, the word 'brilliant prose' links to WP:FA. You may want to check WP:FA->Sports and games->Doom->External link->Doom Soundtrack. Or you may follow Doom. Convience could be very well an issue when including an external link, especially when it is relevant to the article. --Jqiz 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the links right now are really bad and we could use better/more informative ones but there really is no reason to remove them unless we have better ones to replace them IMHO.

A better choice may be to use like a linkfarm that has descriptions of links like this to avoid the OMG I STUMBLED UNTO A LOLICON SITE factor WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I can agree. The Doom article is filled with the, "I STUMBLED UNTO A DOOM SITE" factor and made a compendium of links under external link, but it is a featured article The main question we should be asking is whether the links adds onto the article. --Jqiz 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting an editor to add back not4chan.org link. I cannot as the page is under protection. --Jqiz 03:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles aside (because we're not shooting for the lowest common denominator here) I spent considerable time examining the contents of these links before I removed them. The overwhelming preponderance of activity is swapping images or discussion about where to source further images. Subject matter aside, this is not diferent from any other external link examination, and any encyclopedic content provided by these sites is minute. - brenneman^{L} 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked the links, but if what Aaron Brenneman says is true then it probably doesn’t need to be added to the article. Gerard Foley 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

We currently have two fair use images on the same page. Thus clearly one of these is not fair use, and is instead a copyright violation. In the event of copyright questions, all issues are to be removed before the image is re-added, as noted in the blocking policy.
brenneman^{T}{L} 12:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel the removed image illustrates the article better than the other image (which was left in the article), as icky as it is. --Fuzzie (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I swapped the image back. They are both very representative of the topic - and the frontal view image has generated less controversy. There is no need to be deliberately controversial for no gain to the article. Johntex\^talk 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching the rest of this argument with a bargepole, but I don't feel that frontal view image is particularly representative - a reader could easily take it as a simple oversexualised-clothing image of a child rather than the terribly icky situation which is actually the case, in my opinion. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(moved up by brenneman^{T}{L} 12:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

See the section just above this one. --Fuzzie (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which section of the fair use policy was violated by having two pictures? --Jqiz 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

brennenman are you a lawyer? because we have a few hundred thousand articles here which have more than one fair use image in them Yuckfoo 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes has over 150 fair use images. Many articles on video game and movies have more then 1 image. Gerard Foley 01:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Brenneman is just making stuff up. I've never heard of this supposed "can't have two fair-use images on one page" policy. --Cyde Weys 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What is clear about fair use is that it only exists when we are posting the image for the purpose of discussing the image. Since we are not discussing either image, neither can be used under the fair use exemption. -Will Beback 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Star Trek link posted by Gerard, Doom and Starcraft, which are both a WP:FA. The articles does not discuss any of the images; the caption does, and in the case of the Star Trek list, it does not, at all. Only critical commentary are needed, as stated in the fair use policy, which currently met by the comments in the caption in both pictures.

Wikipedia:Fair use:Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). --Jqiz 18:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, so it requires critical commentary, which we don't have. I would think that a caption is certainly part of an article, so that is a fair locaiton. But critical commentary is limited by our own policies, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT? -Will Beback 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which means that we couldn't say something like "This is a beautiful image" but we could say something like "This image is an example of ___ sub-genre". Johntex\^talk 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The current images has already met the standard, and there's nothing POV about it, from what I can see. Do post the line in question that violates NPOV, if you feel otherwise. I don't know which part of WP:NOT is violated, either --Jqiz 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstodd the intent. Per Johntex, commentary must be cited and not original. For example, while I happen to agree with Fuzzie that the teddy-bear-with-wet-dildo image is more representative of the genre, that's just my opinion, and thus "critical commentary" to that effect would not be acceptable to put in the article. - brenneman^{L} 04:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything stated in the captions are factual. There's nothing PoV about it. The pictures are lolicon mangas. Where exactly is the POV?

"Kotori-Kan Vol. 2 ", part of the Lolita Complex Anthology, is one of hundreds of lolicon manga published in Japan each year."

"Lolita Girls Collection by Hikari Hayashibara is a typical lolicon manga (ISBN 4-7567-2463-9)"

Take out the word "typical" if that is the problem. --Jqiz 04:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image re-added

• Image re-added

I've removed this again. Please please do not re-add images whose fair-use status has been disputed until consensus is achieved. - brenneman^{L} 07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please explain exactly and clealy why the image is not fair use, add why the images at List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes are. Gerard Foley 07:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Star Trek images have tags with this text:

• This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

If the images do not fulfill those requirements then they are not fair use. Very likely they do not, since they do not give a detailed rationale for their use. However that is a question for another talk page. We are here to discuss the images on this page, not the ones on the Star Trek page. -Will Beback 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you will explain the difference here. List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes has over 150 fair use images. Why are those all fair use while the second image here is not? If those images are not fair use why are they not being removed? Gerard Foley 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the dispute the word 'typical' in the caption? It can easily be removed as mentioned above. --Jqiz 09:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• First, let us dispense totally with the Star Trek nonsense. Those may or may not be fair use, but that it totally irrelevent to these fair use images. By the "you can't remove these if those stay" logic we'd either have to just ignore all the copyright violations on Wikipedia or remove every single one at a time. So, clearly that doesn't make sense.
• As to this page, unless we provide a compelling reason in the text for providing more than one image, it's not fair use. Please also note that the burden is on the person whom inserts the image to provide a detailed rationale.

brenneman^{L} 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the image. You have not explained why it is not fair use and it has a fair use rationale. You don't have to remove every copyright vio on Wikipedia at the same time, just make a start and show that these other "copy vios" are also going to be removed. If your argument is true then you can start with Star Trek. Otherwise I am starting to take this as back door censorship. If you have a case to present then I suggest you present it. If you don't then leave the image where it is. Gerard Foley 14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair use because it only takes one image to illustrate. The next person who re-adds that image (after I remove it again) will find themselves blocked per WP:BP#Copyright_infringement_and_plagiarism, because even if it does turn out to be fair use re-adding while discussion is ongoing is not "erring on the side of caution". - brenneman^{L} 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you have removed the WRONG image. The image you removed was the first one placed on the article to illustrate the subject. Swap them. Secondly, are you asserting no one else may alter the caption to fit the policy? That would violate WP:OWN, would it not? --Jqiz 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have went ahead and swapped the image and altered the caption to fit the policy. The image removed been here since last year. Therefore, it was the second image (you've decided to keep) that violated the fair-use policy when it was added. --Jqiz 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, actually the order doesn't have anything to do with it, since when there are two they are both violations of fair use. And what's this about the caption, anyway? Putting the word "typical" in or not isn't germain, really. - brenneman^{L} 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why the order does not matter? If I added a fair-use image to an article, even though it violates the policy you've mentioned, then that picture and the picture already on the article is violating the policy? It should be the second one added which violates it, because we already have one example. Interpreting both are in violation will be a serious loophole in the current policy, as any controversial picture can be easily removed by adding another similar picture onto the article. This can be a censorship tool. Lets not go that direction. There are currently only one image on the page. There are no violation of the fair-use now. --Jqiz 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, rereading your comment, I think you misinterpreted what I've meant. I swapped the image, not the order. There is no second picture, therefore, no violating of fair-use. --Jqiz 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, I meant just what you thought. It's like if you've got three people in a car that's only legally able to carry two, you can't tell the cop "only he *pointing to last one in* is breaking the law." It would make sense to take the most recently added one off LIFO style, but as long as they are both there they would both (probably) not be fair use. Non-issue now, of course. - brenneman^{L} 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the FIRST one was NOT breaking the law. It was the inclusion of the second one that made it. You're holding the charges of the inclusion of the second picture to the first? This CAN be used as a censorship tool. You're introducing a huge loophole that should be discussed over there, if you want to holding the section through that kind of interpretation, a clarification over the fair use's talk page would be most appropiate. --Jqiz 17:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is one image there now. Let's just leave it alone until this fair use thing is solved. Gerard Foley 16:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of fair use is that an image can only be used when the article contains "commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question" (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright). There is currently no such commentary or analysis specific to this image, so it's not fair use. Ziggurat 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is commentary pertaining to the significance of the image. It's right under the caption. The policy requires a commentary OR analysis. It meets the requirement with the comments in the caption. --Jqiz 19:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that description or labelling is commentary in itself. Furthermore (and again, in my understanding) cover images are used to illustrate the 'issue' in the sense of an issue of a magazine - so it's fair use to include the cover of a comic in an article that is about that comic. This article is not specifically about this comic, because outside the caption it doesn't even mention this comic, so a fair use claim is not legitimate. Template:Comiccover describes the cover of a comic being used only "to illustrate: the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question", not issues or descriptions surrounding the comic and using it as an example. Of course, take all this with a grain of salt, and hopefully someone will be able to clarify authoritatively soon! Ziggurat 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're taking the policy too literally? With your interpretation, all broad subjects cannot show pictures, such as the article sports,anime, or pornography. --Jqiz 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, they just have to use copyright material carefully, sparingly, and only where appropiate. See the recent Time magazine cover RfC.^{[citation needed]} - brenneman^{L} 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)