Lolicon 3d Porn
β‘ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE ππ»ππ»ππ»
Lolicon 3d Porn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Lolicon .
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^ http://www.comipress.com/article/2006/11/17/1027
^ "President Signs PROTECT Act" (Press release). White House. 2003-04-30 . Retrieved 2007-06-11 . {{ cite press release }} : Check date values in: |date= ( help )
^ Diamond, Milton (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" . International Journal of Law and Psychiatry . 22 (1): 1β22 . Retrieved 2007-06-11 . {{ cite journal }} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored ( |author= suggested) ( help )
Simply replacing the current image in this article with one of your own choosing is not okay. When it contains copyrighted characters, the problem is compounded. Although I only speak for myself, I am sure we would be more than happy to accept original-content images so long as they are correctly licensed, etc. Although I do not have firsthand experience, there has already been considerable debate here as to the picture. While the picture may not be the best, I for one do think it is representative of the genre. And please remember that somebody put time into making it; simply getting rid of it would not be the nicest thing to do. -- Merovingian β» Talk 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Any reason not to use both images? -- tjstrf talk 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Okay, now who removed the new image? -- 83.245.135.80 08:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think I can shed some light onto why it was deleted. I was on #wikipedia at the time, mentioned the new artwork, and an admin at the time noticed it was signed with Kasuga 's name. Kasuga almost always uploads his own images and does so under CC and GFDL, not PD, not to mention that it clearly isn't his artwork. So basically who ever drew it, or someone who edited it later on, was lying about the source information. If we can clear that up, then the picture can stay. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Still on commons as image:LoliWikipetan2.jpg βThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni ( talk β’ contribs ).
I doubt the image was stolen, if that's the problem here. I dealt with this article the other day because it was being discussion on /a/. The person who made the image actually posted more than one version of the image still in production. In other words, I monitored the situation the other day from start to finish. -- Merovingian β» Talk 00:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Page got protected. There seems to be some miscommunication, as there is no edit war, and we seem to be making some progress on validating the image. I've left Nick a note about this. -- Ned Scott 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Hi, I'm the person who made the wikipe-tan picture, I also made the account "4lolicon" to post it with. By enlarging the picture you can see that the name signed is "Kohikki". This account is fairly old although I'm not sure if that sort of thing can be checked. If it can, it should serve as some form of proof that I didn't just make up an account based on the appearance of the name signed in the picture. -- Kohikki
(Edit conflict) Here's my beef right now. The uploader got the image off of 4chan's /a/ board. There's no way we can know the original author's intent nor copyright (Wikipe-tan is licensed under the GFDL or the Creative Commons). Secondly, there is an ambiguous signature that is meant to resemble "Kasuga" which is generally bad. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not to be self-referential, so having an image of Wikipe-tan here (like they have at the Japanese page) is bad press for the English Wikipedia. People got pissed when a normal image of Wikipe-tan was on the main page and considered the day's featured image. Kristal's drawing is not of Wikipe-tan and she has revoked all rights to it. I could contact her personally to confirm this, if necessary. It is better for a Wikipedia article to have an image that is not self-referential to Wikipedia itself.β RyΕ«lΓ³ng ( η«ιΎ ) 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Actually,the current image,isn't representative enough(the girl is too old).In other words the new image is more appropriate(kof kof), from an encyclopedic POV.If you dote that he is the othor,simply ask him to upload a hier resolution,then what already circulates.For Kasuga copyright thing,just post him a message to ask permition.As for self reference,i don't think ther's really an issue-- 87.65.142.171 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The self-reference argument against including the new picture falls flat. Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png and others are used in anime , fan service and moe anthropomorphism . Image:Wikipe-tan face.png appears in what must be hundreds of articles because it is part of a stub template. -- Merovingian β» Talk 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I have restored the image. The authorship question has been cleared up, the image is properly licensed (and can be moved back to Commons), and I am going to put the image back into the article. There seems to be enough wiki-side support for the current image to suggest to me that it should not be removed. -- Merovingian β» Talk 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think Kohikki can remove his/her signature from the image and reupload under GFDL and/or CC.
Perhaps, it's the quickest solution for the first problem. Whether to use it is another problem. -- Kasuga 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm not super wiki-savy, so I'm not certain I used the correct license options and such upon re-uploading it. [ [1] ] sorry for any inconvenience my incompetence may cause.-- Kohikki
Everything seems fine now to me. I'm still not wild about it being Wikipe-tan, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Hi, in the future please conduct image-copyright related discussion regarding commons images in commons. Had someone not explicitly pointed this page out, it would have been completely ignored. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, I like this new image better. I mostly don't get involved in these sorts of battles, but... well. I have a pretty extensive anime LD collection, including most of Cream Lemon and a volume of Lolita Anime. Most of my Cream Lemon LD jacket scans are already online, though I did them with my old scanner and they're a bit blurry - easily remade. Think any of those would be suitable for this article? Snarfies 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The Wikipe-tan swimsuit image was inappropriate because it was Wikipe-tan. I would have no objection to a similarly non-sexual image that wasn't her. Exploding Boy 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Just to be sure, we're talking about this image? That image is not sexual in the slightest. A non-sexual image does not suddenly become sexualised because it happens to be placed in this article. Exploding Boy 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Oh yes, I saw that one. That one is definitely sexualised. Exploding Boy 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The point being that a similar, non-copyright, non-Wikipe-tan image would be just fine for this article. If the bestiality article can be illustrated, this article certainly can. Exploding Boy 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Again, what is your point? It'll save us all a lot of time if you just say what you mean. If what you're saying is that images aren't widely available, I'm sure someone can hunt one down or create one, or the lack of availability might well be justification for a fair use argument. Exploding Boy 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Again, you're going to have to be more specific. I don't know which images you're talking about. Exploding Boy 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
No, it wasn't, but thanks for your sarcasm. I've numbered the images in your post for convenience. #s 1, 3 and 4 are clearly inappropriately sexual, and probably illegal in America and certainly Canada. Image 2 would be fine if it weren't Wikipe-tan. Exploding Boy 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'd like to gather comments on these now. They have the advantage that they're free and, because of the perspective and range, not too explicit.
A close inspection suggests that the right hand picture depicts covers with schoolgirls in uniform, not quite the infant-style that is associated with lolicon in the west, but I understand that the Japanese term refers to any depiction of a person under the age of consent (whatever that is in Japan these days). -- Tony Sidaway 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I like those two images. They'd also be good in the manga article. How's this for a possible solution:
Exploding Boy 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I don't know why. They're not at all the same
This is absolutely ridiculous. This is censorship. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the genre is, there is nothing wrong with illustrating this article. Removing those pictures is also a slap in the artists' faces. They took the time to make the article better, just as much as somebody who writes a FA from scratch, or a shutterbug whose photos get Main Page coverage. What's been done here is against the things that we should stand for. -- Merovingian ( T , C , E ) 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
How about my cropped image? It gives us an idea of these drawings and is uncontroversial because its just head and shoulders. The iom age licence clearly allowed for this. I certainly agree they werent the worst examples as I found out pumping lolicon into a google images search, SqueakBox 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If im correct then Lolicon is the sexuallition of underaged Anime Charaters! I know this is the true term! before I fuix the page does anybody disagerr?-- Lolichan4u 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
More recently the term "lolicon" is being used as a more general term for an anime watcher who simply tends to like loli characters a lot, but in a non-sexual manner. Can this somehow be implemented into this article? Kei-clone 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It's been removed. Please explain why an on-topic, legal image should not be present. -- Eyrian 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
This article is POV and needs considerable work to make it NPOV. It needs tagging, SqueakBox 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected }} Here I added the edit protected request template. -- MichaelLinnear 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Yes, I agree it's POV. All it talks about is legal issues, with nary a word about the history and artistic acceptance in Japan. -- tjstrf talk 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Japan isnt the defining location as lolicon iconography has clearly spread outside Japan (it would be like saying Africa was the defining location for the article on human . I'll look for some citations, SqueakBox 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If you condemn something, you are not of a neutral point of view. Neither are you if you glorify something. Being NPOV is about not condemning or glorifying, but being neutral . Using neutral language about a controversial topic is not the same as glorifying it. Looking over the article, I could not immediately see something that glorifies anything; can you please point out the exact verbiage you are concerned about? -- Askild 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The POV tag is okay because there is actually a dispute taking place here, but removing the image is not. Wikipedia is not censored and is not damaged by displaying an image that is not child pornography. Many think that the image is not a good depiction of the genre, but it's the best free image we have right now, so it's informative to readers wondering (they are not having illegal thoughts) about the artistic features of lolicon. β Pomte 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm OK with the final solution image myself. It was there a long time without conflict. I think readding the new LoliWikipe-tan when there is so much debate about it going on on various areas of Wikipedia would be disruptive.
Regarding NPOV. I've found some things on line regarding controversies in Japan over lolicon, including a parents organization formed against it: Lolicon backlash in Japan . I don't have time to do further research on this right now, but I've seen enough to convince me that the research presented in "Controversy and legal issues" hasn't gone undisputed. The tag should remain until this is fixed. - Jmh123 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
There is some research by Sharon Kinsella.[ http://www.kinsellaresearch.com/nerd.html AMATEUR MANGA SUBCULTURE AND
THE OTAKU PANIC]
Anymouse1 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
After reading through the entire legal status section, I realized we have a ton of unverified and uncited content, some of which looks like it may be original research and/or original synthesis. As is, even the cited sections often essentially say "there's a law, that nobody's tested in court yet, that may or may not apply to lolicon depending on how you read it". This is problematic, to say the least, since we're at best confusing people and at worst effectively spreading disinformation if we're wrong.
I'm really not sure how to improve this though, since a major part of the problem is that the laws themselves are absurdly vague. That all the legal citations are going to be in different languages certainly doesn't help with our fact-checking either. -- tjstrf talk 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Ideally the page's main section would be about the history and influence of lolicon on manga and anime as a whole. That's the significant part, as it's the bit that's unique to the subject. We have plenty of articles covering the arguments surrounding the (im)morality of sexualizing children already. -- tjstrf talk 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've again removed an unsuitable image from this article. A true depiction of lolicon, as this one is, shows a sexualized child. Such images aren't suitable for Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
We are an educational reference and need to be as complete as possible. This is an extremely mild example of lolicon. Unless it is pointed out, many people would not be aware of it. So it can hardly be called very offensive. The educational benefit of using a single example of lolican on an article outweighs the distaste of the subject matter. Having the image on site does not endorses or promotes the concept. FloNight 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
What harm do you feel comes from using an example of lolican on the article? Surely, you do not feel that we endorse lolicon by discussing or showing it. The examples that I will agree to use must appear to be drawing not real children and must be not offensive enough to titillate those looking at it. I feel the image that has been on the article fits both of these criteria and still gives a sense of what lolican is. That is the reason that I agreed to it last year. FloNight 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Until May 18, there was a different image, the Library of Babel.png : diff= [4] . Image drawn by Kasuga. Yes, the Library of Babel image is Wikipe-tan, but she is fully clothed in the typical Wikipe-tan outfit of dress and apron, and reading a book. - Jmh123 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Doesn't the description speak for itself -- manga of sexually implicit children? We don't have porn for the top of the pornography article, so why here? ( messedrocker β’ talk ) 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've removed the unsuitable image and moved the montage to the top. It illustrates lolicon about as well as we're able, I think, without shoving eroticised pictures of minors into the reader's face. -- Tony Sidaway 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Here's what I am thinking: if Kasuga is interested, we could get him to create a new character with no affiliation to anything, and then with that he could draw a lolicon of it. Remember, this is contingent on his interest to do this. ( messedrocker β’ talk ) 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is there anything bad about the Final-solution-chan image compared to any other image of lolicon under a free license? ( messedrocker β’ talk ) 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Are sexualized images of minors legal in the US, even fantasy ones? Exploding Boy 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I am okay with Tony's suggestion of the Japanese shop pics or we could find a new non eroticized image but to continue with the current image is unacceptable and puts the project in a very poor light, SqueakBox 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Where exactly are the lolicons in the image,i only see women with huge breasts.-- 87.64.1.180 05:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
How does the image I tried have wikipedia symbols, I cant see them. Why revert. Claiming that because I didnt mmention it on the talk page fiorst isnt a reason. We need to resolve this, why are some editors so opposed to any sort of compromise? SqueakBox 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
After the disgraceful behaviour of 2 admins there re the afd on the images I wont be adding it myself, SqueakBox 19:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
afd is closed, [6] .-- 87.65.205.174 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It has been reopened. Cary Bass demandez 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is the {{ NPOV }} tag on the page actually accurate? I realize there is an ongoing dispute here, but it doesn't seem to be an WP:NPOV issue to me. (Do we have a {{ giantoverblownargument }}?)
SqueakBox had mentioned something earlier after he added it, but that complaint seems to have been fixed by modifying the lead. If we still need the NPOV tag, would someone please point out which sections of the article are POV and why? -- tjstrf talk 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Sorry, Mdwh, I didn't know you were editing me. I cut and pasted when there was an edit conflict because I didn't want to redo the refs I was working on. The name of the article was Lolicon Backlash in Japan. I tried to be NPOV by making it about a broader term based on the content. Change it if you think an article called Lolicon Backlash isn't about a lolicon backlash. PS--I hatessssss edit conflicts cause they've been going on all week. Sorry to get snippy. Hope I found an acceptable compromise. Jmh123 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It seems that every time I come back to this article somebody has put a picture of a prepubescent girl with a pseudophallus stuck in her mouth into the article. This is pretty good as an illustration of lolicon, but it's sort of tasteless. I've promoted the second picture, which is free and shows stacks of comic books, some of which feature rather buxom teenagers in school uniforms, to top place. This is lolicon, too, but it's not unnecessarily creepy. Please consider carefully before adding the little girl picture back: why is it necessary to use a non-free picture of a pre-school sexual abuse victim when a free one of older children is available
Spanked 3d
Fuck Sleep Step Sister
Teen Creampies Com Porn