Talk:Lolicon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Discussion shifts to Renchan

Consider this passage, from WP:COPY: Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. This policy has been discussed as a reason for deleting the links to lolicon imageboards, but due to the lack of enforcement of the policy in other articles (Imageboard, Lion King, etc), it seems to have been determined that one lolicon imageboard is acceptable to inform. This determination could also be made for keeping the link to the image off our server, although it seems kind of silly to me to have a link to a single image in the external links, especially when there is already a link to an entire imageboard. -kotra 04:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This passage supports removing the recently added external link of the deleted image. We know that the image is breaking copyright. The site where it is located is not making any attempt to follow fair use.

The imageboard has hundreds of images of children engaging in sex act and being sexually expoited by adults. There is a worldwide movement to rid the world of all types of child exploitation. The images on the image board promote the sexual exploitation of children. This is against the values of every major government, religion, and child advocacy group. --FloNight ^talk 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the linked image breaking copyright, I agree. The link was removed some time ago, so we might as well let the discussion concerning it rest.

As for your comments on the images on renchan, this is all your opinion and I feel that it's silly to make claims (implied or otherwise) that the entire world and every major government and religion supports your views. There has been exhaustive debate over whether or not drawn images depicting children engaging in sex acts promote real-life sexual exploitation of children. There have been very few studies seeking answers to this question, but as a whole they find little or no correlation, and even in some cases an inverse reaction (this may be explained by pedophiles finding "release" for their sexual fantasies/perversions in fictional material, or simply coincidence). Regardless, it remains to be determined if drawn images promote real life acts, so your statements remain opinion, not fact, at this time.

I feel strange for having to justify a subject that I myself find distasteful, but I'd like to lastly quote a disclaimer from the front page of renchan's imageboard: No pornography that contains real people. Non-nude "child model" pictures fall under this category as well. You will get banned for this. -kotra 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But it is true : ) I didn't make the statement to support my opinion. I'm conforming my opinion to the opinion of the real world. We can't ignore the fact that every major government and religion in the world is against the sexual exploitation of children. These images promote the exploitation of children. Why are you defending them? We get to decide which external links appear on Wikipedia. Why are you arguing for these if you think they are distasteful? Why should you set your sensibilities aside. It is not censorship if we decide to exclude them.

The deleted link is still on the talk page. It should be removed. The talk page is public and published on the website just like the articles. FloNight ^talk 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This all depends on your definition of "sexual exploitation", of course. If by "sexual exploitation" you mean rape, then obviously rape of any age is illegal in all countries (with few exceptions); it's not specific to rape of children. If you mean consensual sexual behaviour with children, the age of consent ranges as young as 10 and 12 in some countries. And in Japan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others, the government sometimes systematically tolerates sex with children, although officially it may condemn it. Not "every major government in the world" is against sexual exploitation of children, if any form of sex with children is your meaning of "sexual exploitation". And again, saying that these images promote real-life exploitation of children is opinion, not fact. Again, the link between drawn pedophilic images and real life pedophilic acts continues to be debated in the courts and legislature, and in some cases (especially Japan), an inverse proportion has been shown to occur. [1]

Concerning your question, if I allowed my personal distaste for lolicon to influence my edits on Wikipedia, that would hardly be NPOV, would it? I felt that I had to defend lolicon because you made statements about it which I thought deserved correcting. And yes, it is censorship if the only reason for deletion is personal taste. That's why I try to use objective, defendable reasons for deletion. Removing the link from the talk page is unnecessary and would just confuse newer editors. Furthermore, I think that keeping a link to it on the talk page helps future editors understand what was rejected, so they don't re-add similar images. -kotra 14:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty unsavoury. Do you need the picture of that little girl? You don't illustrate the section on paedophiles with a sexy kid wearing a swimsuit, sucking an object which the paedophile clearly wishes was their own engorged phallus. Come on guys. Don't encourage these people, they want to have savage, bestial sex with young children who'd be really uncomfortable with the experience. Did you want an old man to have sex with you when you were ten? Come on. You know you're being silly. Let's all take the picture down and stop pretending that we're paedos. Like we could rock a young lad's anus like those guys do! And for God's sake, who needs to be 'informed' about this stuff? For a normal non-paedo, a simple description of what lolicon is a substitue for will be enough to confirm their position on it. i.e. sick gents who want to ravish the untouched trove of a young lad's bottom.

Only an aforementioned paedo would want a link the pics, over which he can then stimulate his child-pleaser, whilst picturing a real, hot young lad's boyhole saucily pushing around the side of his cute thong. Hey, I'm just saying. Christ, can't a guy express an opinion? Or more realistically, can't a guy get a Wikipaedophile to adopt the same discretionary approach they have towards paedophelia, towards lolicon? Which is basically the same stuff, but without real kids. We all know what those masters of a young lad's enticing ring would REALLY like to be squeezing around their toddler-teasers, and it ain't their sweaty palms, people!! LOL!--82.44.21.151 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the constant referal to "young lads"? Have you even read the article? socalifornia 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the following point: Given that we do not give links to, or examples of child pornagraphy in the paedophilia section, why are examples and links given for the lolicon section? Like I said, we are not ALL paedophiles on Wikipedia, we do not ALL habour a secret desire to hold a warm young lad's buttocks in our sweaty hands as we tell him 'not to tell your parents' and throng inwards with our meaty pole, before spraying his insides with an explosion of semen. ALL I'm saying is that if you find this description in any way provocative or, God forbid, slightly unsavoury, why on Earth should a more graphic means of depicting the abuse of a young child be given the full blooded support of this Wiki? Why are we providing links? Why are we providing pictures? Come on! We're not obessed with young lads here, let's stop pretending and get back to being boring old non-paedophiles. Child love for never, paedo! --82.44.21.151 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't censor Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to show things as they are, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I understand what you are saying, but understand this: it's not gonna happen. We're not going to tone down the article as an effort to stop sexual child abuse, that will not happen. You can make as many valid points as you want, but it won't get you anywhere. That's what happens with things like Wikipedia, something anyone can edit. It doesn't matter if it's wrong or not, it doesn't matter if it's evil or good, it's here, and it's here to stay. You are wasting your time trying to make this a moral issue. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Which valid points? That all people who like loli hentai art would enjoy molesting children in real life? Or that all loli fans imagine themselves as nasty protagonists of the these hentai manga? Btw. how do you like the edit of the article Wizard by 82.44.21.151? (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wizard&diff=prev&oldid=37447862) Zorndyke 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

True, I should have said "if they are valid or not". -- Ned Scott 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Zorndyke. Articles exist on Wikipedia not for entertainment but for educational purposes. These implications that pedophiliacs get their fix by reading an encyclopedia are absurd. Sociologists, criminologists, law enforcement officials, and plain intellectuals read about it. Encyclopedias are reference works that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek enkyklios paedia, meaning "general education"). The strong anti-intellectual opinions expressed by 82.44.21.151 are incompatible with Wikipedia's spirit of exploration. I am very reluctant to give in to censorship attempts such as these for fear of encouraging such behavior as well as rewarding such comments.--Primetime 07:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-intellectual? Are paedophiles now referred to as 'intellectuals,' amirite? God, I should stop being facetious and get back to what I still feel is my most awesome point. And here it is, people, drag your eyes away from the hot cartoon of an eight-year old boy getting some cock, because here I have it: Why, seriously, do we have images and links to other images here? Why is that necessary? We don't have it in paedophilia section, guys! If anything I'm being really intellectual! I'm arguing that a tasteful description on this subject along with all the in-depth stuff, should stand. Of course it should! But isn't it going a bit far to then provide, not just links, Chirst, but a an excellent example of the stuff on the page? Come on! Be reasonable and stop acting like its a good laugh! Stop pretending that it's necessary. We can understand child-pornography without seeing the rubbish, or getting links to Wonderland, Final Fantasy Seven! Now that I've reiterated my only cogent argument, let me retort to some of the entertaining nonesense: Do all loli fans fantasize about bumming a real kid? No! They're not completely imagining it, they've got the picture to help! Did the addition of the Greek derivation of the word Encyclopaedia help me understand why I'm here and what it is I want to do? Yes, thank you! You remind me a nice uncle (although not the kind of 'nice' 'uncle' who jacks off on loli and then rams my bottom, hell no!)! Did I appreciate the link to my exploits on the Wizard page? How dare you! I'm not the only retard with time to spare who uses this terminal! How dare you attack me in this unforeseen and compeltely unsubstantiated manner? Did I actually do it? Yes! Why? That's enough interlocution for today, Batman, let's download some cartoon images of children onto my PDA then make the screen sticky! If you know what I mean! Touch me! Hard! It's legal because I don't exist! LOL! =D--82.44.21.151 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is why I and at least another person think that you haven't been reading our discussions. A picture is worth a thousand words. This article is about a type of picture, so why do you think that seeing the material is not important to understanding what it is? Further, the picture on the page right now is not representative of all the types of lolicon available. It is an example of a very subdued genre. As for comparing this article to "pedophilia", I actually think that article should have pedophilic pictures. By the way, people who are just libertarians like myself don't like being called "pedophiles". You seem to know much more about it than me, anyway. In any case, this is one of the few places on the Internet where the material can be studied in a level-headed atmosphere. Anyone can find the material on Google, so removing it from Wikipedia is pointless. The reason it is dealt with here is to discuss the phenomenon so people are aware that it exists and that we can figure out solutions to solve it. So, I agree that child pornography is wrong, but attempts to remove the material from educational settings make it worse.--Primetime 00:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Asdf! JayW 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The moot point, surely (which is highlighted in my Batman and Robin roleplay) is that depictions of lolicon do not contain examples of any acts of real abuse. Therefore the images themselves do not contain necessary links to acts of real abuse, and so any links or comparisons to the treatment of such acts is spurious. Even real pictures only docutment acts of abuse which have already happened, so including a few of them is pretty harmless, frankly. And finally, why is it that a fellow libertarian believes lolicon is a problem which requires a solution? As the most harmless way of exorcising those kiddy-fiddling unrges, surely lolicon IS the perfect 'solution' to paedophilia? Overall, I agree with you, and the fact that you lack a strident tone is bonus. I want to thank everybody who helped us reach this point. It was a short journey, but new knowledge has become our destination. I need a poo. Goodbye, lads! I'll be back some glorious time for more electronic brain-stoking!!!!! +)--82.44.21.151 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghjkl; zxcv. :D qJayW 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked at some proper loli; consider me a convert and retract all previous statements contrary to the fact. Guys if you don't got some, get some now.--82.44.21.151 01:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Imageboard links

And just before that picture was added, User:FloNight goes and removes the link to renchan which was discussed before and kept (unlike all the other imageboard links), with the message "contained hundreds of images of children in sex acts" rather than anything based on policy or in addition to the previous discussion.

Are we going to have to purge wikipedia of links to these images? I note that Imageboard still links to renchan and not4chan, if someone does want to go on a censorship rampage. Otherwise, I think the renchan link should be restored here. We had the discussion, the link is clearly marked, renchan has more content than just the images, we've been through this all before. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have links to popular porn sites in Pornography? Ashibaka tock 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Popular porn sites are (presumably?) just images, whereas renchan was kept because it wasn't just images - it's a forum with a fan community and discussion, etc. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed Empornium from Pornography links a few days ago, as spam. Ashibaka tock 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but other article discussions have concluded with opposite opinions. This is not something that a few people should decide. I've made my opinion known. We will see what other people think. It is up for discussion like everything else on Wikipedia. By the way, I'm a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate. But sexually graphic images of children being sexually exploited is out of bounds. FloNight ^talk 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, don't think the concepts of being a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate are particularly compatible with wanting the removal of clearly-marked links to sites with *drawings* of such images (there are no children to be 'exploited' involved). But despite that, I don't particularly have a strong opinion about it staying - I think the stuff is disgusting, to be honest - I just object to selective removal of such links from this article and not from others, and to you removing it without even mentioning it here. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki that everyone can edit, right. We aren't suppose to ask persmission to edit. I don't edit war. I take it out once. If someone else puts it back I will wait for community consensus. I've taken inappropriate external links off other articles. I'm picking on this article.FloNight ^talk 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess it's a good thing that this article never has and never will include "images of children being sexually exploited". But nice strawman there. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about this point. The images do show children being sexually exploited. I think it is harmful to Wikipedia to promote these imageboards. Giving the impression that we cater to pedophiles is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. There is no real upside to including the links. Wikipedia is not a directory for imageboards. I'm sorry if you disagree with my thinking. I don't think censorship concerns trump the other concerns FloNight ^talk 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so name the child being exploited when someone puts pen to paper and draws one of these pictures. By the way, do you consider "normal" art exploitation of women when they draw nudes? Was Michaelangelo exploiting men when he sculpted David? I'm really interested in hearing how you can possibly justify that some person is being exploited merely because someone is drawing something. --Cyde Weys 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not exploitation of a single named individual but of a class of people. It's valid to hold, for instance, that drawings of women being raped and degraded are expolitive of women, regardless Arguable, but certainly valid. Herostratus 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the hyperlink function

I've removed the hyperlink function on the link to the renchan site, because an accidental click on the link can criminalise someone in many jurisdictions. This seems the best solution and is one practised in other articles with links of a sensitive nature, for example Last Measure. Hiding talk 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The link goes to a clear, unambiguous warning page. There is nothing illegal in any jurisdiction on that warning page. Plus it looks silly to have a URL that isn't linked. That's the whole point of hypertext. I've reverted it back. Powers 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good move to restore the link. The warning page should be sufficient. A suitable warning here with the link is good too, but no reason to remove the link. Johntex\^talk 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Criminalise "in many jurisictions"? How about stating which so people can decide whether this is actually true or, more likely IMHO, FUD. Lots of people WISH it were so, but few if any countries have been stupid enough to try to make it so, and none have survived legal challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.203.23 (talk • contribs)

See Lolicon#Legal_issues. Your questions and assumptions are addressed in the Lolicon article, quite visibly for any reader. -kotra 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's illegal to view lolicon in Canada. They have a point. Lepidoptera 05:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Redaction of Renchan Lolicon Community link

I'm reverting the Renchan Lolicon Community from a live link to just a listing of the web site. My reasoning is:

• Inclusion of the link at all is at least somewhat problematical in any circumstances. Per Wikipedia:External links:
  • "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums [are not OK]". The site calls itself and appears to be a "community", and appears to consist only of a forum or forums.
  • Also, WP:EL says "External sites can possibly violate copyright. 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." My reasonable effort consisted of entering the forum, where the first image I saw was a clear copyvio (it had "SAMPLE" watermarked across it, and the poster admitted it was copyvio). Given that the site is a forum with an unknown stringency of moderation, and given that pic-swapping seems a prime activity of the site, I think it likely that the site will constantly be violating someone else's copyright.
• Beyond that, the contents linked to are extremely problematical, for political reasons if nothing else. So I don't think that this is a case where we want to bend the guidelines in favor of keeping the link, quite the opposite in fact.
• This particular link has been talked about to the point that Jimbo got involved. It was Jimbo's suggestion that the link be redacted to a listing of the site rather than a live link. I think that's an extremely generous compromise and I suggest that you people take it. I might note that it's extremely annoying to me and others that Jimbo has to take time from his fundraising, publicity, and management efforts to deal with a single link on a single page. Herostratus 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Having the link listed at all is a compromise. I planned to gather community consensus to entirely remove this link and similar ones from Wikipedia. When Jimbo suggested the compromise, I felt it was fair and dropped my plan. So I'm very disappointed that some editors will not compromise and continue to add the active link. FloNight ^talk 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you are misrepresenting Jimbo's comments (read them yourself). He admits to not particularly being aware of this case and only mentions something that has been done in the past as an option. He does not say "Hey, we should do this!" but "This has been done before, it might be useful". This case is clearly different than the last measure as if you accidently click on this link you are confronted with a click-through disclaimer. In the case of Last Measure—well click it yourself and find out, it is much worse.

If you don't want to keep running to Jimbo, why don't you use the dispute resolution systems we have in place? Also, you should be seeking community consensus not assuming you have it and the other side is wrong and POV pushers. The purpose of RFC, mediation, etc is to resolve disputes, not to rally enough support for your side to win. Kotepho 20:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about Jimbo's comments, on second look, yes, it was the more laid-back version you note. Any misrepresentation was from memory and unintentional. As for using the dispute resolution we have in place, that's what I suggested: RfC. However, before that, I appeal to the community of editors around the article. According to one editor there have already been three RfC's for this page, and I know that was a recent IfD. This single article is already taking up an inordinate amount of space on the mailing list, which usually is intended for issues of more global interest. I don't really want to have the Lolicon-RfC-of-the-week be a permanent fixture of Wikipedia. But if that's the way people want to go, then so be it. RfC is a way of seeking community consensus. No of course I don't know which way an RfC is going to go. Herostratus 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, WP:EL says "should generally not be linked to" about forums, which I think is rather different from "are not OK" - although this case doesn't fall under any exceptions, from what I can tell. And we're not necessarily "linking to copyrighted works" - we're linking to the disclaimer page of a site which happens to contain copyrighted works only after you've clicked into the forums and, presumably, an images section. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, I used [is not OK] as shorthand for [is not usually encouraged] or whatever; just trying to be quick, sorry. As for linking to copyrighted works... I think "we're not linking to a forum, we're linking to a disclaimer page which precedes a forum", which has been pointed out several times, is kind of a not-very-important difference. That could be used to justify most any link: "We're not linking to AustraliansAreSubhumans.com, we're linking to a disclaimer page." And "we're not linking to copyrighted works, we're linking to site which happens to contain copyrighted works" is an even finer difference, the significance of which almost entirely eludes me. Herostratus

If the issue is that a link to a forum with potentially copyright-violating images on it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I cannot really argue, except to say that we need some sort of link to show examples, and if not this one, then some other one, somewhere. If the issue is the nature of the images found at that forum, then I can only say that there is no way someone can accidentally view lolicon images by clicking this particular link. At least three separate actions are required in order to get to anything potentially illegal. Powers 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

LtPowers: "...we need some sort of link to show examples...". In heaven's name, why? Herostratus 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The "warning page" distinction is to counter the argument that someone might "accidentally" view child porn by clicking on the link. It's nearly impossible for that to happen. As for why we need to show examples, it's because text alone is insufficient for imparting a good sense of the genre. The one example shown here is good but one image can't represent the whole spectrum of the genre. Powers 22:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. I personally didn't make the argument about accidental viewing, precisely because there is a warning page. It'd be a strong argument if there WAS no warning page, but there is, so that argument is more or less moot. More or less, although people are so paranoid that their life can be ruined by going to to the wrong web page that they won't take the chance. Apparently in New Zealand they can shoot you on the spot for viewing the site, or something. "...text alone is insufficient for imparting a good sense of the genre." Um, it is? If the article was, say, Cubism or Betty Page or whatever I'd agree. But this? "It's manga, but with sexed-up third graders" pretty much covers it, a little more detail can be (and is) added. This is not great art where we need to see technique, people. This is not even commercial-grade porno pics; this is commercial-grade porno pics by amateurs, if you're talking about Renchan. I got a pretty good idea of what we're talking about from the text. Herostratus 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Link inclusion policies

I'm not going to click the link, just in case, so I'm going to take it on good faith that the link doesn't take you to images immediately. However, there is no need for us to provide a link to images to show an example; the nature of the images is easily conveyed by text. People need to consider if we are advertising this particular site. If the goal is to provide links to images, then why has this forum been chosen in particular? Wikipedia is not a links directory, Wikipedia is not for advertising, Wikipedia does not link to copyright violating sites, and Wikipedia does not generally link to forums unless the article is about the forum in question, closely related or of a high standard. The question is, is this forum closely related, does that counter balance the advertising, copyright and vanity violations, and can a better link to a site where examples can be found be provided, if such examples are welcome. Given that the default position is to not include such links except in certain circumstances, people should accept the link should be removed until and unless there is a strong consensus to include it. Hiding talk 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There used to be links to a couple of imageboards and Renchan stayed because it is more than an imageboard. In the previous debates and edit wars over the links apathy was the majority opinion. Also, the only policy we have on links is the copyright one; the rest are guidelines. Are they commiting copyright infringement? I don't know. Lastly, even the part of the guideline that says to not link to forums was recently added and people object to it. You should also be careful about saying what wikipedia "generally does" as there are plenty of counter-examples (yes, this is a red herring.) Instead of debating and edit warring why not try to find better links? I have failed thusfar, but maybe someone else will succeed. Maybe someone should post on one of the lolicon fansites and ask for links that would be germane? Kotepho 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether something is a guideline or policy matters little, deviation from either requires strong consensus and shouldn't be the norm. However, it's worth noting WP:NOT is official policy, and notes "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." As to me describing anything as what wikipedia "generally does", please note I didn't, that's the explicit term used in policy. I am also unclear as to why better links are needed, and why this link is needed. Once again, the default position is to not have the link. Hiding talk 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not generally link to forums unless the article is about the forum in question versus generally should not be linked to. One is prescriptive and the other is descriptive; one is your words and the other is the style guide. There is quite the difference. Also, there are quite salient differences between policies, guidelines, and style guides. I'm not sure how the link is advertising either, at least moreso than any other. If you cannot figure out why better links are needed--well I don't know what to say. Most of the article is unsourced and all of the other links do not discuss the subject in general. I am also not sure how you support your position that we default to not having something. If that is the case, why do we need consensus to delete an article instead of keeping it out until there is consensus to include it? Kotepho 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll let my words speak for themselves. I'll also pass on the debate regarding policies and styleguides and so on. As to the link being advertising, per WP:SPAM Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of... Web sites, fandoms. With this link we're promoting one forum, one website, one fandom, over others. We also have to review our intentions. But you haven't yet declared why we need this link, beyond the idea that we have to link to somewhere where people can see this pictures, which seems daft given the ubiquity of google and it's image search facility. Oh, and don't think this article is treated any different, people frequently clean out external links. As to defaulting to keep on articles: what you'll find is that links aren't articles, so different policies apply. If you can't enlighten me as to why better links are needed, then I have no choice but to ponder your intentions. Hiding talk 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The future of this page

I think, given the amount of time that has been taken up by this page by people up to and including Jimbo, that the community of editors who are involved with this page appears fundamentally unable to deal functionally with the issues around this page.

What I'm thinking, then, that in order to take a burden off the editors this page, that any significant future controversy over the contents of this page go directly to the larger community via WP:RFC. I hope that we don't have to see RfC's about this page every week, but if that's what it takes, let's do that, I guess. Herostratus 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can settle this here through compromise. If not, we have no other choice but to do a Rfc. If this goes to Rfc, the option of completely removing this and similar links will be on the table. If we follow WP:EL guidelines, no image board external links with highly questionable content will be allowed. FloNight ^talk 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this would help anything. If a group of editors here can't reach consensus, then how would a (presumably larger) group of editors somewhere else reach consensus? Johntex\^talk 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As it has been discussed in other places, the long term regular editors of this article are not typical of the Wikipedia commuinity. Many editors don't edit articles related to sexual material, child porn, child sexual abuse, and pedophilia because they are icky topics. Some editors are uncomfortable editing with self-identified pedophiles. But they do have opinions about the topic and will offer them in a Rfc. FloNight ^talk 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has identified themselves as a pedophile. There may be one or two people who one may assume from their edits and statements that they're interested in lolicon material, but I think that's as far as it goes. Leaving the article entirely to people who are unfamiliar with the subject may not be a good idea. As with every article, the people who know more about the subject are more likely to make edits. I think that's a good thing. I feel we have a healthy distribution of editors biased for and against lolicon already. And you may notice that the controversy and edit warring over this article seems to be dying down. It was much worse before. I don't think turning to RfC every single time something controversial comes up is needed or even beneficial. -kotra 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, several editors here are self-identified pedophiles. I don't think it's appropriate for me to write a list, but if you review the history of the article and this talk page that should be enough. The point of an RfC is to encourage more participation by previously uninvolved editors. That seems like a good idea here. -Will Beback 10:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any self-identified pedophiles (besides the editor a couple weeks ago who used a bunch of sockpuppets to edit war, although they may have just been trolling/vandalizing with no actual pedophilic motivation) in the time I've been watching this talk page (since January), but that doesn't mean there haven't been any. I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I don't think it matters much because if one is secure in one's own moral code, one wouldn't let proximity to a pedophile make them uncomfortable.

Anyways, I agree that RfC is a good idea sometimes, even for here, but we've already done I think three times in just the last few months. We should be looking at the other ways of resolving disputes. For example, I've only seen one survey taken, and it was quickly discarded. If we need to, we can try using a survey to guage consensus. Right now, I don't see a real need to have another RfC. -kotra 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Reversion of edit of 15:09, 11 April 2006

Reverting this edit because the editor (User:Primetime) responded, after prompting, with the following rationale: ""I don't care about your lengthy explanation, because (1) users should be able to click on links if they want to and (2) you are not an administrator."

The first point I feel is merely an argument of assertion which insufficiently addresses the concerns raised by earlier discussions. The second point I found to be... well, different, anyway. Herostratus 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that there should not be a hotlink to the site? I notice that you participate in the "pedophilia article watchlist" project, so I'm going to assume that you're trying to make it harder to find the pictures for censorship purposes. FYI, I'm a libertarian, so you're going to have a hard time convincing me.--Primetime 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I stated my reasons above, in detail. You can assume whatever you like, I've been attacked from both sides, but ad hominum attacks don't become you. I don't find a word of cogent explanation for your revert in your comment. I'd revert you again, but I won't be goaded. I request another editor to revert. Failing that, let's go get some broader input. Herostratus 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe broader input is being added in above sections of this page, in case you hadn't seen it. Powers 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything above this section written after 12 April 2006. But let's take a look, exdent, and summarize. It's hard to keep track of all this, but if I have the sequence right:

• Link removed. Reasons given: Links to forums not encouraged, copyvio issues, Wikipedia PR/political issues, (mild) note by Jimbo.
• Link restored. Reasons given: You overstated Jimbo's comment (accepted); links to forums are discouraged, not prohibited (accepted); no one can accidentally click to illegal pics (granted); we need some link to show pics (disputed); discouragement of links to forums is itself controversial (not accepted as germane). Some more back-and-forth that it's harder to summarize, including raising of more anti-link issues. No real attempt made to solve copyvio issues or Wikipedia PR/political issues, link-to-forums-is-OK argument seems quite shaky, Jimbo's intervention deprecated but not negated. I just don't see that the issues raised were addressed well (or in some cases at all) or that the pro-link points raised would likely be very convincing to a hypothetical disinterested party. So,
• Link removed.
• Link restored. Reasons given: argument by assertion ("users should be able to click on links if they want to"), non sequiter (you are not an admin), ad hominum/assumption of bad faith/red herring (you, your project, censorship), not sequiter (I am a libertarian).
• Link removed. Reason given: No good new arguments given for restoration. Herostratus 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to mention though is there was already much debate over this and the new arguments that you bring are not convincing. Having a non-hyperlink seems quite silly. What exactly does it solve? The only issue that is changes is the accidental clicking which you yourself agree is unsound. Kotepho 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for summarizing the argument, Herostratus. Another thing I notice is that part of the summary of the link can be confused with the URL, leading users to the wrong site. Also, I don't really care about copyvios. It's my controversial opinion that Wikipedia is not really liable for copyright infringement on our site, let alone on sites we link to. They certainly wouldn't sue us for this, as the stewards of Wikipedia cannot be expected to be aware of every link in every article. Even if they were found to be liable, a jury might fine us 5 cents to compensate the company in question for lost revenue.

  As for morality, I don't think copyright infringement is wrong so long as it is used for non-commercial purposes. (I understand that you haven't heard that one before, either.) I also think it's important for pedophilia to be understood. We shouldn't hide it, because if we don't understand it, we won't know how to fix it or we might not even be worried about it.--Primetime 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The non-activated link is a compromise. Based on WP:EL and WP:RS, I think no external links should be included to unregualted unmoderated imageboards with images of children being sexually exploited by adults. It is unencycopedic and irresponsible to include these links. I completely removed the link on April 4th. It was readded. After Jimbo suggested deactivating the link, I supported this compromise positon. If we do an Rfc, I will offer complete removal as an option. Your idea that copyright can be ignored is clearly out side of Wikipedia policy. There is a difference between using an image as examples of a type of art with critical discussion, and promoting the viewing of images at image boards. FloNight ^talk 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can compromise, too. I'll go ahead and add angle brackets to set off the URL so the summary will not be confused with the address. As for a link compromise suggested by Jimbo, did he even mention whether it is a hotlink or not?--Primetime 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's not much of a compromise. Sorry. But I do appreciate you working to be flexible. Anyway, you'd have to get The Psycho to sign off on it anyway, it looks. I don't know how you'd do that, though, since he responds to messages on his talk page by deleting them. Herostratus 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Structural problems

This is kind of amusing, I guess, but has anyone noticed that despite 10,000 gigabytes of text on the talk pages, this article has serious structural problems?

Going through the definition and usages of terminology carefully -- and you have to -- I get:

• In Japan
  • "Lolicon" = pedophilia/pedophiles.
  • "Loli" = broad term covering:
    • "Lolita manga" or "Loli-manga" = manga
    • "Loli photobooks" = photos
• In the West
  • "Lolicon" = same meaning as "Lolita manga" has in Japan.(See Note 1)
  • The other terms are not used, or anyway not mentioned. (On the other hand, "Toddlerkon" and "Cub art" are solely Western terms.)

Note 1: this assumes that "As evolved in the West, "lolicon" anime or manga is anime or manga that contains sexual/erotic representations of underage girls" is intended to mean "As evolved in the West, "lolicon" is anime or manga that contains sexual/erotic representations of underage girls".

---

But all this is this is kind of smushed together, and the use of the term "lolicon" seems to shift a bit between the Japanese and Western meanings throughout the article. I had to actually cut and paste text around to figure out what was referring to what, and that shouldn't be necessary.

What is sounds like is we need two separate articles, right? One focussing on pedophilia in Japan, and one focussing pedophilic manga art in the West. Does this make sense? I mean, these are pretty different areas. An alternative would be one article seperated into two distinct sections.

I understand that pedophilia in Japan involves manga, but it also involves photobooks, dating services, and so on. I think this would be much the more interesting article, and could use some serious expansion. It says that in Japan pedophilia is common and much discussed. I'd like to know more, namely: Why Japan? How else is it manifested? How socially acceptable is it? Is there political controversy? What do Japanese cultural critics say? Not that a Wikipedia article can answer all that, but it could provide a lot better starting point than this one does.

The other article (or section) is more fleshed out already, I guess. The legal section very nice, kudos to the editors who did that. I don't know how much more you can say about Western lolicon, but there's enough there to make a separate article already.

Does this make sense? I mean, OK, you hate me, but besides that, does this make sense? Herostratus 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There isn't enough content as it is to make a split. If this article amasses enough sourced information on the things you mention it would make sense, but as it is I do not see the need for two articles.

I'm not exactly holding out for much improvement if people are going to edit war over "child-like" or "young looking" and if a link is linked or not. Kotepho 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point, although there's nothing wrong with (temporarily, or even permanently) very short article. But then what about splitting into two distinct sections? Herostratus 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Two sections is my preference. I think we need to decrease the number of articles related to child pornography and pedophilia not increase them. Any thing we create will be subject to more editing conflicts because the topic is controversial. These discussions are sapping the time and energy of too many editors. FloNight ^talk 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try two sections. Herostratus 04:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Wheeee, something accomplished. I changed the text very little, mostly only to fit into the new structure. I did add one ((fact)) tag, and changed the picture caption and one sentence on the assumption that themes and subjects in (Western) lolicon are the same as in (Japanese) loli-manga. If not true, fix plz. I think I reversed the clauses in one other sentence. Of course, edit ruthlessly as needed. Herostratus 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that lasted... 54 minutes. Reverted because the new format hides the picture. Glad we've got our priorities straight, here. I mean having the article make sense is all very good, but not if you're gonna make me scroll down to see the picture. Sheesh. I'll put it back. Herostratus 06:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to his version and editted it a little, but left the picture at the top since that seems to be the only contested part. It made a huge blank space beside the TOC anyways. Kotepho 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Great solution, has a good layout now. I had moved the picture down to put it with the material (Western lolicon) that seemed most germane to the pic. But really the pic is related to both definitions, so it's OK to have it up there, and it makes a better layout. Thanks.Herostratus 19:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "pedophiliac theme". Even though there are many manga that might fit this definition, there are many manga and just manga style drawings that do not deserve this label.

I'm even not talking about the common "translation" pedophilia = child abuse. Please take a look at the definition of "pedophiliac" at reference com:

1. "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."

2. "of, relating to, or affected with pedophilia"

3. "PEDOPHILE" (noun)

Many manga and especially single manga style drawings don't involve adults, so the 1st definition does not apply.

A lolicon drawing is not necessary related to pedophilia, thus the 2nd definition does not apply as well.

I support a separation between the Japanese and the western terms in this article though. But it must be made clear that lolicon drawings must not be necessary related to pedophilia. You can enjoy lolicon manga even if you're not pedophile nor even interested in pedophiliac theme. May be you just treasure the innocence of a child, your soul from the time when you was a child. Thus in your dreams you're still much like a child. May be you even dream of being a child of the opposite gender.

This fantasy is distinct from desire of adult to have sexual relation with a child or viewing of child pornography. The distinction lies not only in being harmless, but also in the very nature of the desire. Since the object of desire is not real (just not of this world), the viewer must be not of this world as well, at least in his/her dreams to be compatible with the object (anime character).

I think we should link lolicon to otaku culture instead of pedophilia. Being anime otaku in general is about being able to adore anime characters in the way incomprehensible for the people not involved in this culture. The same is with being loli art fan. In attempt to give a short and clear answer we create a wrong, distorted image of the subject.

The term "pedophiliac theme" is unjust. I suggest to replace

"As borrowed into the West, Lolicon means manga (or anime) with a pedophiliac theme."

by

"As borrowed into the West, Lolicon means anime style sexual artwork involving child-like characters." Zorndyke 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, hrmm, well. There are several shades of meaning for "pedophilia". First of all, the DicDef you cite, as well as the Amer. Psych. Assoc. definition, are just one defintion (well, two) and not the last word. The definition I am using, which is just my personal definition but is derived from a Dutch group, is "Paedophilia is the attraction to children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life." So that includes romantic as well as sexual, to the extent that there's a difference, if that helps. Secondly, recall that the word "pedophile" is not inherently pejorative, it just means child+love, it's not inherently a put-down like "fag" or whatever. I understand that it can be used a put-down, but that just reflects the fact that, fairly or not, people generally deprecate pedophiles.

I understand that people have different shades of personal meaning of the word, and (if they are pedophiles) come to the term from their own internal sexual and romantic climate, which indeed does often include identification with the object of interest or desire. But there's a limit to how well we can express all that, so best stick to common and commonly understand terms.

Also I'm not clear on the difference between "child" and "child-like character".

So I personally would be reluctant to make a change like that, I find it a bit less precise actually. Herostratus 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An anime character is not a child. Loli art does not fit even the definition you just quoted.

Whose inner sexual or romantic life is dominated by attraction to children?

First, to me "pedophiliac theme" sounds like a theme that deals with sexual attraction of adults to children and it's definitely not true for many of loli art works.

Second, a loli drawing is not necessary created by pedophiles or for pedophiles. Are you saying that anyone who is sexually attracted to a young looking (child-like) anime character shall be called pedophile?

As for "child" vs. "child-like character" - the difference is pretty obvious from my point of view. A loli character is not necessary a substitute of a child neither for loli art fans nor for the artist. In spite of some or even many child-like characteristics a loli character need not represent a child. I guess it's difficult to understand for people who are neither otaku nor moe art fans.

Anyway, my version gives the reader at least a chance to understand that a loli artwork does not necessary depict nor nurture sexual attraction of adults to real children. Zorndyke 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take your word for it. The images I have seen sure look like children to me. A loli character does not represent a child... why not, if it has "many child-like characterists"? It represents a child a lot better than it represents anything else, I would say. Granted there is a range of characterizations and styles, some images more realistic and some less, still, the images are mostly, basically, children. I'm not saying and wouldn't say that someone who is sexually attracted to a young-looking anime character is a pedophile, and the article doesn't say that; is says "pedophilic theme", referring to the images not to the viewer.

I guess basically I'd want to see a citation or something before changing something like this... this article has been a black hole for editor time, we want to be super careful... Herostratus 03:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, "pedophiliac theme" in the header wouldn't help to reach a long-term consensus. It's too ambiguous since the first/main meaning of "pedophilia" is a medical term/illness (or even child abuse). Many readers would think that lolicon artwork in general promotes/advocates pedophilia.

About "portraying/representing children"... Tell me, would you enjoy an artwork that portrays “in bright colors” something that you hate and loathe? For me it would be just absurd! Remember that we're not talking about works like Nabokov's "Lolita". The latter actually portrays a child in a sexual relation with adult, but it portrays it in the way that rather makes you sad than sexually arouses.

Is this a depiction of a child http://i3.tinypic.com/wqplw5.jpg ?

Or this http://i3.tinypic.com/wqr7ev.jpg ?

http://i3.tinypic.com/wqr8za.jpg

http://i3.tinypic.com/wqr96r.jpg

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=5_1.jpg

(Note: none of these images are hentai, they're rather small except the last one.)

Calling them "depictions of children" sounds like a slander. And not just because one makes a connection to pedophilia where there isn't necessary any. An anime character exists in context of anime world and can represent a perfect synthesis of elements that will never appear combined in a human being. For many otaku anime > real world, quite a few can't stand children. Zorndyke 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Legality in the US

I found a possibly-useful quote on the legality of this sort of thing in the US:

Even so, legal experts said such virtual behavior between adults isn't likely to break the law, since there are no real children involved.

"It would not be (illegal) under child pornography laws because no actual child was used in the act," said Jack Balkin, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School and an expert on legal issues surrounding virtual worlds. "Child pornography laws receive special treatment under the First Amendment because children are sexually abused and people traffic in the results of that abuse." This does not apply in the age-play situation, he said. [2]

On the other hand, the section on laws in the US already seems to cover things fairly well. Anyone got any opinions on whether that quote should be added? 86.137.192.163 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote above is referred to behavior between adults, where one is pretending to be a child - "...such virtual behavior between adults ...". If so, then I don't see how it is relevant here. Johntex\^talk 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moe

It normally isn't sexual so I don't think it really fits as a 'similar concept' in the same way that shotacon and hentai are. Would you object to it just being listed at the end instead of similar concepts? Kotepho 14:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my opinion was mostly based on discussion above, where someone mentioned that Moe is (for some people) considered necessary to categorize something as lolicon. I would tend to agree that perhaps "similar concepts" is not the correct categorization for the link to Moe (slang), but I do think it belongs in the article somewhere, as it is at least related, if not "similar". =) Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that grouping it with Hentai and Shotacon gives the wrong impression of what it might be. Shotacon certainly applies as a similar concept, but the other two aren't really in the same sense. Maybe just kill that heading totally as the intro mentions shotacon now? Kotepho 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

As noted above and as has been widely suggested for awhile, I'm placing an RfC on the Renchan link. I summarized arguments below; I tried to summarize the keep-the-link arguments as fairly as I could, but of course link advocates may want to edit them (similarly for delete-the-link arguments). Herostratus 07:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

People coming here from the RfC, here is a summary of discussion

Should the link to the Renchan Lolicon Community (Note: viewing images at this site may be illegal in your jurisdiction) be kept in the article, listed only as a URL (and not linked), or deleted? The site in question contains drawings of very young children naked, in suggestive poses, and/or engaged in sex, including young children being raped. It bills itself as a community that has an IRC channel, traditional forums, and imageboards. While fileswaping does occur there is also discussion about lolicon.

---

Arguments in favor of Deleting the link:

• Forum:It is a group of forums, imageboards and text-based. The Wikipedia:External links style guideline discourages links to forums as generally unencyclopedic, with some exceptions none of which apply here. As basically a picture-swapping site it is even less like a normal reference link than even a text-discussion forum.
• Copyvio: Wikipedia:Copyright states that if investigation shows that a site is violating someone's copyright, it should not be linked to, period. Investigation shows that the site is rife with images violating someone's copyright. That this link clearly and overtly violates Wikipiedia copyright policy is alone sufficient for the removal of the link.
• Verifiability: It is illegal for Wikipedians in many countries to view the site. This makes it impossible for them to verify the contents of the site or use the site as a reference. Not knowing the contents of links in an article also makes it impossible for editors to properly edit the article, a situation not tolerated for any other article.
• Public Relations: Linking to this site could, if publicized, have negative impact on Wikipedia's reputation as a scholarly reference. (While as children of the Enlightenment we are proud to take heat for linking to the Muhammed cartoons and political sites etc., many Wikipedians are not willing for the 'pedia to expend its public goodwill defending its links to lolicon imageboards.)
• Use of WP Resources: This article, and this link in particular, have taken up an inordinate amount of time and attention on this talk page, on the mailing list, in numerous RfC's, and even from Jimbo. Settling this issue with a right decision could help alleviate this.
• Morality: The site promotes and glorifies the sexual use of young children (although, as drawings, not of any particular actual child). This is evil, and may discourage good editors from being associated with Wikipedia.
• WP:NOT has no bearing on whether we include a link, an image, both, or neither. WP:NOT certainly does not require us to include non-encyclopedic material just to prove we are not censored. Further, WP:NOT does not say material will never be removed because it is considered offensive. It merely says that we can't immediately revert all vandalism, meaning that we don't have 100% control over what readers will see, and that some articles may contain material some people will find offensive.
• Not needed. The text description and example image is completly sufficent for encylopedic purposes, and makes clear what lolicon is. As with every article, we provide an appropriate overview, with deeper reasearch at some point up to the reasearcher.

---

Arguments in favor of Keeping the link:

• Images Needed: Lolicon is images, and needs to be seen to be fully understood, but no free images are available, so this link (or a similar one) is the only way to do that.
• WP:NOT Censored: It is possible that some editors arguing for removing this link is are doing so out of a desire to censor; at any rate, the net effect of removing the link would be censorship, which Wikipedia does not allow.
• Forum (Refutation): WP:EL discourages but does not forbid links to forums, and anyway the exceptions do apply here. Also, addition of this clause is recent and only supported by a dicussion with a handful of editors. Its addition to the style guide has even been reverted. Plus, it is a style guide and we should do what is best for the article.
• Copyvio (Refutation): It is not a link to copyvio material, it is a link to a disclaimer page which leads to a forum which may lead to images, which may be copyvio but that is not our problem to worry about. Also the website changes fast, so (unlike a static website) if you name any particular specific image that is copyvio, that image may be gone in a short while, so the copyvio problem you have named no longer exists.
• Morality (Refutation): Saying that children should not engage in sex is an unprovable subjective opinion reflecting cultural bias, in some cultures this is encouraged, besides which Wikipedia is not in the morality business which is why WP:NOT censored. Anyway these are drawings. Drawings are not child pornography, since no actual child is exploited.
• Public relations: Many people object to us linking to Stormfront and displaying the Muhammad cartoons and yet we still do.
• Use of WP Resources: Gay Nigger Association of America has taken up a great deal of time and it isn't going to be deleted anytime soon.
• Verifiability: It isn't being used as a reference so what needs to be verified?

Further comments from editors previously involved in the issue

(I would ask editors recently involved in editing (and revert-warring) the article (including myself) to place additional comments in this seperate section, except for responses to particular issues raised, in the interests of clarity. (N.B. Some involved editors have exercised and asserted their right to place their general comments in the section People coming here from the RfC, please comment here notwithstanding its title and intended use. So just as an awareness point, general comments from involved parties Primetime, Powers, and perhaps other involved parties may be found mixed into that section.)) Herostratus 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

To comment on what a couple of editors noted: The question in the RfC is link or no link, I think it'd be better to keep it simple. The question of just listing the URL without it being a link should now be off the table, IMO. IMO listing the URL is about the same as keeping the link. (True, in earlier discussions, this was offered as a "compromise" by the anti-link editors in a desperate attempt to avoid yet another RfC, but despite giving the pro-link editors about 90% of what they wanted, it was disdainfully rejected out of hand by the pro-link editors. Since this forced the RfC, I think its a dead issue.) Keeping the link as just text is about the same keeping the link - live-link or just-text is quibbling about formatting. Herostratus 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I only added it to the summary as it has been discussed. Personally, I think it doesn't solve any of the issues and is not a good solution, but people should come to that decision themselves. Also, I dislike your characterizing this debate as "righteous editors willing to sacrifice versus the ruthless huns." The other side doing vice versa doesn't help either (e.g. fight the man trying to censor us). I'm not sure if I should be commenting in this section either, as I have never revert warred. I only commented in the other section as I'm sure it is useful for people to know when the summary changed and which comments came before and after such changes. Even though I'm trying to stay out of that debate, I see no reason why other editors should be disallowed from commenting down there. Even though you and I have tried to make the summary inclusive, it certainly does not express everyone's opinions clearly. We really should not be arguing point counter-point constantly in the summary either as that is just confusing. If you want my views on this matter, ask on my talk page. Frankly, I have more productive things to do than debate endlessly over one link. Kotepho 13:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Then as I said you have every right to comment in whichever section you think best. I was just trying to be neat and separate the old from the new for clarity. As usual, this was met with reverts and rude accusations on my talk page, which I guess is an improvement over the more usual reverts with no comments, with or warning templates, which is why I got snarky, sorry for that. If the summaries don't include everyone's opionion, they should either edit them or add additional comments in which ever place they think appropriate, I guess. Yes we're all tired of debating this one freaken link. I'm not going to give us just because I'm tired, though, until consensus is reached. Herostratus

I am also sorry if any of my comments have been tactless and I encourage people to either edit the summary or comment on it if you do not think it expresses your views. I just think we should not be responding back and forth in the summary, at least without additional comments. Kotepho 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I want to add one more reason to remove the link that isn't addressed above. Per WP:SPAM Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of... Web sites, fandoms. With this link we're promoting one forum, one website, one fandom, over others. We have have to review our intentions as to providing the link: is it of value to wikipedia and its readers? No other considerations should take place. Hiding talk 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

People coming here from the RfC, please comment here

I'm obviously not a total newcomer to this issue, but let me state my position. There are good arguments, and good editors, on both sides of this matter. No one is right or wrong, though solutions may be effective or ineffective.

Back some months ago, during a previous dispute about links, I had checked this site. Since then the software and setup have changed markedly. The images are less obvious now than they had been before, requiring an addtitional click or two. However I also came across this poll: http://forums.renchan.org/showthread.php?t=415, (work safe) which reveals that 20% of Renchan forum participants responding found the site from this link, the second leading source after unnamed "other boards". As an encyclopedia it is our job to report on, not affect, reality.

I disagree with the notion that we must provide a link to illustrate the article, beyond the existing image. I disagree that we are not providing a link to a source which is primarily a purveyor of improperly copied, copyrighted, material. Though children may not have been hurt in the drawing of the images, they depict imaginary children who have been brutally raped for sexual stimulation as if that is a desirable situation. Though they are mere drawings, blueprints are also mere drawings yet blueprints determine the outcome of a structure. Regardless, we are not talking about completely banishing Renchan- only whether the link will be "live" or whether it will require the reader to take an extra step to go from Wikipedia to depictions of children in extremely pornographic settings. I am in favor of reducing the google-rating of this site by de-activating the link. -Will Beback 08:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO the link should be text-based or removed. Since what we want is images to illustrate this, why not link to the Google Image search for "lolicon"? Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Google Image search for "lolicon" is not particularly informative. Many results are duplicated, and other results don't qualify as lolicon. It'd be better than nothing, but I think a link to something that explicitly calls out its content as lolicon would be better. Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Anytime we link to anything, we're going to be driving up traffic at that site. While it's true that that affects reality, it doesn't affect it in the traditional way that encyclopedias avoid. Encyclopedias also affect reality by informing their readers; surely that's not something undesirable! Anyway, Renchan is currently the eighth site listed by Google on a search for "lolicon" (WP is #1, with the Answers.com mirror at #3). I highly doubt anyone looking for lolicon would be kept away from Renchan.org by removing the link to it. And making it text-based looks silly (it defeats the whole point of hypertext) and merely adds a third or fourth step to the two or three already needed to access the images. Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up/edited the summary a little. Kotepho 13:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never edited this article in the past, but let me offer my opinion. External links should add value to an article that the article cannot provide itself - the question here is, then, does the link do anything to enhance the article? There's already an example of a lolicon-style picture in the first paragraph - it's questionable whether one example of a lolicon-promoting website/forum would add any value to the article. It's just plain precarious to link to a website that might infringe on the laws of some countries when there is no hard-set rationale to include the link. (If lolicon were something promoted by a single website, and if the link was to that website, then that might be a good reason to include the link, offsetting the legal danger.) As for a text-based link, I consider that to be out of the question - it's bad style, and it would be much better to just delete the link if this were the case. Plus, I agree that people who want to look for lolicon material will simply shop elsewhere - that's none of our business. While I know that Wikipedia has a policy of no censorship, frankly, I simply see no point in including a link that causes so much trouble, both legal and psychological. -- Tangotango 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the starting page on the Renchan website, contains a disclaimer regarding the illegality of the content in certain juridictions, and actually refers to the wikipedia article, the comment of (contain lolicon images that may be illegal in your jurisdiction) should be removed. I feel the link is useful to those who wish to research the subject. Wikipedia isn't censored, and it shouldn't be. There are many articles in wikipedia that contains content that can be illegal in certain less developed countries, just because this article links to a site that is illegal in some western jurisdictions doesn't mean this article should be except from the anti-censorship policy. From WP:NOT: 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.

--Eivind^t@c 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment they do have a disclaimer now, but we have no control over whether that disclaimer stays or not. Johntex\^talk 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly having the disclaimer is not censorship; it is sound advice - as Johntex states, we cannot vouch that the site will have that or any disclaimer in the future. Personnally, I don't see how that link provides any value-added, besides helping people gain access to material already well explained in the article which may be illegal where they are. OTOH Wiki should not be censored - but the question is - are we putting material here just to prove that we aren't censored, or to provide shock, or to provide value added? IMHO only the last reason justifies putting up material or links which are not just potentially offensive, but known to be offensive to a large proportion of the public. Bridesmill 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I found the images on Renchan to be helpful in delineating the genre. Some things just can't be adequately explained with just text. I have no interest in shocking people nor in adding gratuitous images just to prove WP is not censored. I wouldn't be arguing for it if I didn't think it was genuinely useful. I'm certainly not wedded to the Renchan link in particular, but no one's suggested any replacement except a page of Google search results. Powers 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wiki, you know. If ever the disclaimer page is removed from the imageboard in question (which I find highly unlikely), we can always just delink the link and add our own appropriate disclaimer. --Cyde Weys 00:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The link should stay. A picture is worth a thousand words and the picture currently on the page is a toned-down version of lolicon. The material is graphical in nature. Thus, if we want the reader to truly understand what lolicon is, we should provide an opportunity--if they so desire--to look at the material. Further, there are many different types of lolicon, so a single picture on the page cannot represent them all.--Primetime 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• While it is clear that almost all of the contributors objecting to the link are doing it because of morality reasons rather than objective editorial reasons, we must judge contributions instead of contributors, so here goes:- the link should stay. I think the refutations given in the above summary are adequate and I can't think of anything else to add, except the subjective opinion that the link IS needed for the article. Loom91 08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I've no particular objection to having our own disclaimer or making the link text-based. While I don't feel there is any need to do either, the stakes not worth fighting for. Loom91 08:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

...

Advertisements for forums/imageboards are not needed. They lower the quality of the encyclopedia and any user who wishes to study such images can easily find another way. Wikipedia is not a one stop source for pornnography nor a place to advertise.

In addtion the legality of this material is questionable in the U.S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.60.37 (talk • contribs)

The article lacks images of the various genres of lolicon. As a compromise, readers can visit another site to see them. It\'s essential to see lolicon to understand the topic as a picture is worth a million words and the material is visual in nature--Primetime 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The website does not have to be hyperlinked in order for it to be available for those who wish to view Lolicon images. -Will Beback 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it more assuring to see them in blue as that makes the path seem more certain. It also helps the link stand out. Publishers usually either underline links or color them blue to make them stand out in books, as well.--Primetime 21:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We can underline it if you feel it is insufficiently noticeable. -Will Beback 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Simulated child pornography is illegal in this U.S. This is the english language wikipedia. Also wikipedia is not simply around to provide every bit of information on every single topic. It\'s here to provide verbal information not to link toforums.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.60.37 (talk • contribs)

No it isn't illegal. Also, in response to Will: the underlining of the link doesn't solve my other concern raised (certainty of the path) and it makes it harder to visit the site. We've already removed the old picture and the other link, but there's only so much that you guys will be able to get before we begin to feel like we're giving too much. Also, 67, can you sign your posts with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~? Thanks.--Primetime 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I thought "we" were saying that even changing the image was "giving" too much. In any case, it's not about us, it's about the encyclopedia. It's hard to see how links to websites carrying images depicting the imaginary rape of toddlers helps the project. -Will Beback 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people who aren't pedophiles study pedophilia. I read an article about it in World Book Encyclopedia a little while ago out of curiosity. Further, making information on the subject available to other people is in line with Wikipedia's spirit of exploration. You mentioned that pedophilia is a bad thing earlier, but I don't think trying to hide the problem helps to solve it. Further, if the material is disgusting, letting other people see it will actually help your cause because they will see for themselves how bad it is. The same works for other forms of censorship. For example, if a neo-Nazi wants to deny the Holocaust, fine, because the very idea discredits him and his agenda.--Primetime 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Including the link, and underlining it, hardly amounts to hiding it. -Will Beback 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't illegal. The PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law)[5], which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on 30 April 2003, also criminalizes simulated child pornography. I'm not clear what ground you're standing on here. Also while making information available may be in the spirit of wikipedia there is such a thing as quality control. If you want unfiltered access to the internet use google. If you want quality information and not advertisements for "lolicon" communities you should 'hopefully' go to wikipedia. As for "censorship" when did improving the quality of the encyclopedia become censorship... 70.18.162.252 14:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)D.S.

How would removing the link improve quality, though‽ As I said above, you need to see the material if you hope to understand it fully. As for legality, it's a link to an image board, which is quite different from showing the pictures directly. There are quite a few mitigating factors here, and if it wasn't legal, I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't have proposed it. Also, in response to Will above, I think we're a bit worried about the consequences of giving too many concessions, because although giving an inch in disputes like these is meaningful to you and me, it means nothing to some people, especially dogmatic ones. There will always another person who will want to remove something from the article. This article will be under attack indefinitely, and the disputes over it will not stop unless it is deleted.--Primetime 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Concession and consensus is how Wikipedia operates. I disagree that one concession will lead to others and thence to the deletion of the article. For example, I don't think anyone is objecting to the new image. -Will Beback 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Two people have, see Talk:Lolicon/Archive 006, bottom heading. Kotepho 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they're not objecting about it being too offensive. The objections I see are one perosns diens't understand the symbolism and another doesn't think the artistic style is accurate. Neither represent the beginning of a slippery slope towards total deletion of the article, IMO. -Will Beback 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just stating that people have expressed concerns. Kotepho 22:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The current image is not incredibly more sexualized a child than you might see on television, remember that the show Bratz depicts prepubescent girls with thong strings above their pants. Also, the current image was probably not drawn from life, whereas previous images were potentially in that legal violation, I assume wikipedia still has servers in california, and I assume that using children for drawings meant to be pornography is illegal there, although I am not sure. But take this as an example: The upskirt article on wikipedia has no image. It shouldn't have an image, because we don't need to diagram it, and also the images are often possible invasions of privacy or otherwise break the law. The current loli image on this page can't really be breaking an laws, so good. But there is precedent for a page just not having an image. Lotusduck 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Toddlerakon

I was always under the impression that toddlerakon was seperated because visualy, it looks preety different from regular lolicon. Not that it offended regular lolicon afficianados. Johhny-turbo 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's original research. Ashibaka tock 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal in UK?

Is Lolicon illegal then in the United Kingdom, because I hear sometimes that it is and that it sitn, i'm confused.

No. (IANAL) JayW 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography whether photographs or drawings is illegal in the UK. Tyrenius 04:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states

"UK law has dealt with simulated images quite differently since 1994, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. The Act however doesn't include works of art such as manga if they do not appear to look like a photograph." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.241.144 (talk • contribs)

However, please note Explanatory Notes to Protection Of Children And Prevention Of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005:

17.The term "image" is defined in section 3(c). For the purpose of the Act, "image" includes photographs, cartoon strips, email attachments and drawings.

Tyrenius 05:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That quote seems to have nothing to do with the matter being discussed here - the relevant section of the Act to that explanation is about showing such images to children in an attempt to 'groom' them. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Scottish law doesn't apply in England, Wales or Northern Ireland... Mike1024 (t/c) 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

SZadeh, Kotepho was correct to revert you. Please leave the image in place. The image on the Lolicon article has been discussed and found to be an example of lolicon that is appropriate for this article. This particular image replaced one that was quite controversial. You are welcome to voice your opinion on talk but it is unlikely that many editors are ready to revisit this issue now. The change happened fairly recently. You can read the discussion on the talk page and in it's archives. regards, FloNight ^talk 03:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FloNight. Johntex\^talk 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, this particular image is not illegal in any country which has decent laws... (Nor is it illegal in America, the UK, Australia, and Canada.) JayW 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)