Talk:Lolicon/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Legal status in the Netherlands

There's a short paragraph on this in the article. It sais that "the laws appear to only outlaw "realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct," and hence lolicon may or may not be included." In a footnote, the source is mentioned. However, in another footnote referring to the same paragraph, an article is mentioned that explains that this law is mostly about photoshopped images and the like, which makes sense, because one can't tell a photoshopped piece of lolicon from a real photo of an abused child (and the rest of the virtual child pornography law seems focused on disambiguation as well). So I propose to add that the common anime-style lolicon isn't outlawed in the Netherlands, or at least that such is more probable than the alternative.

Nobody's ever happy with the image on this article

Kanon doesn't mention it's Lolicon, the cover doesn't look anything like it to me (not that I've seen much other Lolicon, the idea is icky, etc). As such, the new image in the article seems inappropriate, just as much a violation of fair use as the old one, and with a caption stating something which is unsourced. Can't we just remove all images? It's been made clear that no-one's going to be happy with sexualised images of children, and given that seems to be the subject of the article, there's not really any chance of a useful (ie, representative) image. Note that I'm not arguing there should be such images present. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this image is silly. It's a replacement for the other two images which got deleted but it's not a good one. If we have to, I *will* draw an image myself. Ashibaka tock 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kanon is not Lolicon, the Kanon cover is fair use just like the old image, I say User:Sam Korn should be desysoped for abusing his sysop privilage. The Psycho 18:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kanon IS lolicon. They're underage girls. Probably a big shocker to many people who forget that lolicon and even real child porn is really anything under 18 in the US. For that matter, so is any Sailor Moon hentai, and Ranma as well (he/she's 16). In other words, Kanon is to lolicon as ephebophilia is to pedophilia. Another point of confusion might stem from the fact that companies have a habit of changing the girls' ages when exporting it to the US. e.g., instead of the girls being in high school, they just say they're in college, even though we know they're really high school girls (meaning grades 10-12 because the Japanese high school system is different, which means they're aged around 15-18). Dracil 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Lolicon is usually considered pedophilia, which means an attraction to mainly prepubescent girls. Ephebophilia is usually considered the attraction to postpubescent adolescents (13-20), and pedophilia an attraction to prepubescents (12 and under). Also, the age of consent in Japan ranges from 13 to 17, depending on the prefecture, so sailor moon/ranma/kanon would very likely fall into the category above the age of consent. Therefore, consensual sex with these characters or their real-life counterparts may not be considered statutory rape in Japan, depending on the prefecture. I think the major sources of confusion here are the meaning of 'pedophilia' and the notion that any sex with minors is underage or pedophilia. This may not be the case. -kotra 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The newest image, of magazines being sold, seems to be fine, in my opinion. Thanks, User:Sam Korn. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's actully lolicon, and not just hentai? The Psycho 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it even have to do with the article? --Jqiz 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Images on Wikipedia are for information purposes. They aren't for decoration. Ashibaka tock 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about Karon, but I'm OK with the images of the magazines for sale. Johntex\^talk 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 14:24, 3 April 2006 Fuzzie (the image clearly states Lolicon, and they certainly look like it to me)

If you think those comics are lolicon you ain't looking too close. Ashibaka tock 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of them aren't, but to me it also looks like some of them are. I'm not going to edit war, though, so feel free to remove again (but if you don't think they're Lolicon, there's no point keeping the image). --Fuzzie (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The images aren't provided for the reader to guess which is relevant to the article, and from what I can see, most of the magazines are just hentai magazines. Someone already removed the image, thankfully. --Jqiz 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick scan of the image and there was not a loli in sight. Of course, all of the ones on the shelf could have been loli and everyone would be none the wiser. The image serves no purpose in this article (and not to mention it is huge). Also, edit warring over the thumbnail size is silly. WP:MoS tells you how large images should usually be. If you cannot make out details at that size, crop it. Kotepho 20:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the photo of the Japanese news-stand. I don't know of anything else that could be added that is as informative about the status of pedophilia in Japan as that photo.--Primetime 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the clear arguments above, what you're saying is really vague. Ashibaka tock 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzie. I'm reverting your change.--Primetime 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a consensus on which you can revert things. You said "this is a good picture," I said "what about the arguments against it above," you said "I am right and you are wrong." What a discussion. Ashibaka tock 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the image. Fuzzie himself stated some of magazine are obviously not lolicon magazine. Implying all the magazine shown being sold are lolicon would be false.--Jqiz 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".^[1] Pedophilia is not just the act, but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? I'm sorry if I didn't elaborate enough--I just thought that it was blatantly obvious. It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which one of the big busted chicks in the magazine shown illustrates little girl? And yes, I am saying they are just hentai manga. Even if there are one or two lolicon magazine (I must have missed it) in the pile, the majority of it are not. Lets not force the reader to play the game, 'Where's the loliicon magazine?'. --Jqiz 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First, their faces make them look young (e.g., large eyes in proportion to the rest of their faces). I can also see several girls illustrated in magazine covers in the bottom row of girls with smaller breasts. Also, I've seen underaged girls in public with larger breasts. Finally, note that they're cartoons (i.e., caricatures). Thus, it's understandable why someone would exagerrate their physical features.--Primetime 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly telling me that all the girls illustrates lolicon? I'm sure you mean good for the article, but...that's not lolicon. And I would bet they are not marketed as lolicon, either. By implying they are art, therefore, they can be lolicon in nature, then all hentai images will be lumped together, legality-wise, with lolicon materials. I would do a search on the title of the hentai manga, and link to you what it is catagorized as, but I can't type Japanese. --Jqiz 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Primetime, I don't know how you got here but it appears that you have zero knowledge about this subject. Go ahead and read the text of the article, and see if you can understand what it's about. Ashibaka tock 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Primetime's suggestion above: Large eyes and a youthful appearance is a convention of all manga, not simply those depicting children. The large eyes help to convey emotion while making the character look cute. One doesn't need to be an expert on the subject to understand that exaggerated large breasts are a feature of pornography designed to appeal to persons who are attracted to ladies who have already developed secondary sexual characteristics, while "lolicon" of course appeals to pedophiles. --Jonathan Drain 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that every editor who has done the research on this subject believes the montage in question, which detail post-pubecent (notice huge breasts?) schoolgirls is not lolicon. Continuing to revert in the image is bad enough (it's not relevent to the article), but mis-captioning it is worse. Please make it clear that the image is not of Lolicon. There is no current GFDL lolicon image available. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been asking in several IRC channels and forums I frequent about whether that image is loli. Here are the responses I'm getting (four so far):

No. Random doujin or whatever. C cup breasts != Loli
not loli
(paraphrased) Almost none looks like loli. The one to the the right of "Flower" near the left side is "Tennen Milk Pie" which is actually about someone's mom who gets raped. Huge breasts is not loli - artists try to keep breasts and ass small to be more realistic. Some artists do go for a nice round style, but then i'd argue that its not true lolicon. The only ones in that pic that look like loli are the third and fifth books in the first row.
{paraphrased) Loli makes you feel moe but these Hentai comics not. The first comic on the first row has a potential to be a Lolicon book.

Of course, this isn't a reliable source, but neither is simply saying it is loli. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I'll respond to someone on the mailinglist here, in saying that none of the covers in the picture are lolicon, to first order. Hpuppet - «Talk» 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here. That image would be perfect if not for the problem that it's not lolicon - rather, those are just doujinshi in general. The image is mis-named. --Jonathan Drain 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How are sexually-suggestive pictures of little girls not related to pedophilia? Pedophilia is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".^[2] Pedophilia is not just the act, but the preference itself. It also says right in the introduction that lolicon refers to pedophilia. You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? It seems to me that the material is relevant to pedophilia.--Primetime 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Kotepho 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are either (1) too lazy to give any evidence to back up your claims, or (2) just making that up.--Primetime 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material? You seem to think that all hentai is lolicon. That is absurd and untrue; ergo, you are ignorant. Kotepho 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though I agree with you, saying "you are ignorant" would count as a personal attack. -kotra 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The image I'm looking at contains mostly C cup breasts, those aren't 'little girls' and not Lolicon.. I vaguely argued that there were a couple of younger girl appearances in the shown magazines, but other people disagree and I'm not going to argue, they'd likely know better than I would. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Primetime who says: "You seem to be making an argument that they are hentai, but isn't hentai lolicon material?" It is not. The short answer is that hentai is drawn porn, while lolicon is drawn kiddy porn. In truth, both are a kind of new loanword used to cover something which the English language never had a word for until the internet allowed the seedy underbelly of Japanese erotic artwork to reach English-speaking countries on any meaningful scale. In Japanese, hentai simply means 'perversion' and rorikon is a contraction of lolita complex and is essentially a euphemism for 'pedophile'; the words changed in meaning in the jump to the English language when English borrowed the nearest word to fill a need. --Jonathan Drain 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting article

The back and forth reverting is pointless. It settles nothing. Leave the article alone and discuss it here.

Adding the external link with the deleted image is wrong. It is a clear copyright violation. No attempt at fair use done. Will everone agree that the external link of deleted image needs to be removed? --FloNight ^talk 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly not a useful external link and the only point of linking it would seem to be to cause trouble. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to the Wikipedia discussion only, not the subject of the article. So, it should have been posted on this Talk page I guess.

~~http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~apacker/pictures/Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg~~ (This link was removed by FloNight as inflammatory, but I think it ought to stay for historical purposes. Just remember, kids, it's probably not legal for you to view. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

And there we have it. You can remove it from the article now. Ashibaka tock23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, since no-one seems to be objecting and it's linked above if anyone wants to know what all the arguing was about. --Fuzzie (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no guarentee that the U of Oregon is going to keep that image on it's servers for more than a few years at most... and especially so if it generates this much controversy. In any case, kowtowing to this perverse morality by censoring the pictures is little more than a return to the policies of the numerous dictators and oppressive parties who destroyed information that contradicted their ruling. Don't come crying to me when your children loath you for relying on storks to bring into this world... or when they hate you even more when they realize you need to have s*x to do it, and were then force to cover your shame. Sweetfreek 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Link for deleted image on talk

- IMO, the image link can not stay here either. It is improper for use to have a link to an image that we know is outside of fair use. We need to set a high standard for copyright laws. FloNight ^talk 02:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

- Please do not remove this link under a fair use argument. Doing so proves you have no idea what fair use is.--Muchosucko 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

~~http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~apacker/pictures/Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg~~ (This link was removed by FloNight as inflammatory, but I think it ought to stay for historical purposes. Just remember, kids, it's probably not legal for you to view. Ashibaka tock 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

- There is some sort of vague fair use thing about linking, but seriously, it's someone else's website, not ours. Please don't mess with my comment any more. Ashibaka tock 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Let's not be vague here folks. Let's be direct and clear. Allow me. Fair use governs the use of copyrighted material. This is not the case here as we are linking to an outbound site. The picture is stored,published and served by another entity. We are not mirroring, inlining, or framing. We are however, "deep-linking" which may anger Oregon servers (Ticketmaster vs. Tickets.com, 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1344), but this is an educational institution, with many inbound deep-links. Hypertext links, that contain only text, as in this case is legal. Please do not hide behind abstruse legal terms to defend your position, I am willing to argue this under the light of the sun, I hope you are too. [3]--Muchosucko 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion. I don't revert edits more than one as a general rule. We will see what others think. --FloNight ^talk 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record

I'm dissapointed in how this turned out. Running crying to Jimbo, admin funny buggers, etc. - brenneman ^{L} 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Debates can't always end with a kiss and make-up. Ashibaka tock 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't end with do-whatever-I-want admin whacking and agressive archiving to sweep away debate, either. Bad form, be ashamed. It's admitting that logic has failed and resorting to what amounts to force around here. I say again: Bad form.
brenneman ^{L} 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing seems to be answer: All policies/guidelines can be overlooked, if there's a consensus. I do find it ironic that the people who preach the ironclad rules of policies/guidelines(admins and policies advocators) forgives this little mishap, because it favors their point-of-view.--Jqiz 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When a debate drags on for two years like this one, or if it's getting especially heated-up like this one was, occasionally we need a thunderbolt from some random guy holding thunderbolts. Ashibaka tock 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And that person should be someone from high up, not random admin who did it because it disgusted him, and because he 'can'. That was a very Jimbo-like action he performed. --Jqiz 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should just upload that image from that university site, then add it to the article. I think we all agree that's a lolicon, right?--Primetime 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree. However, until the current dispute ends, it's probably best not to, as any attempt will most likely will be reverted. --Jqiz 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That was the one that was deleted. Feel free to reupload it if you want though. Kotepho 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly urge you not to upload the same image. I request that you move it from the talk page too. It is not proper fair use on this page either. FloNight ^talk 01:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would we reupload the deleted image? Wouldn't it just get deleted again? Even if it survived deletion, I'm pretty sure if that image was put back on the article the silly edit warring would return. The current image has no copyright issues (percieved or not) and is less controversial, while still being somewhat representative of the genre. I think it's the best image we're going to get. -kotra 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I might have found an artist

Suggestions for content/poses/whatever? Kotepho 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing too pornographic, that seems to be why the previous one was deleted ... --Cyde Weys 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-1, Redundant Kotepho 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-1, Unfair Meta Cyde Weys 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is supposed to go on your userpage. At least follow your own rules. Kotepho 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I make the rules buddy :-P And I sure as hell ain't gonna be keeping the meta-moderating on my userpage indefinitely. That was just an April Fool's thing. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Lolicon example.jpg

Final Solution-chan

Thanks go to Kristal for pulling this off with amazing speed and art skills, and Kotepho for getting in touch with her. Youppi! Ashibaka tock 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you object to this image—well I don't care. I need a break. Kotepho 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks. The image is excellent IMO.Apollo 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken

Well, it guidelines/policies are there for looks. Nothing more to add. Signing off --Jqiz 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, another editor previously suggested bringing in Wales to settle the matter.

I am confident that Jimbo would fully support this image, but if you disagree, by all means ask him. I'm not going to bother him over something so trivial.[4]

I'm not sure whyt anyone woud consider child pornography a trivial matter. -Will Beback 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't frigging child pornography. Jeebus. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Rox? Is he Jimbo Wales or Master Ticklebottom? The Psycho 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the new image

Okay, the popsicle is an oral sex reference, and the drippings on her chest represent semen, and the hearts on her breast and crotch indicate the target audience's attraction to those parts, and the things on her ankle and wrist possibly indicate control/submissiveness, but what the hell is the deal with the shovel and the bucket? I've been pondering them for ten minutes, and I feel like I'm missing something but I just can't figure it out. The only possible connection I could make is an old limerick (bucket/Nantucket/fuckit), but that's really a stretch, and not very Japanese. And it still doesn't explain the shovel. Is there some euphamism I don't know? 4.253.42.184 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it - the dripping popsicle is pretty much the only innuendo in that picture. Even so, the dripping being red prevents it from correctly conveying what the artist intended it to. To be honest it's not a perfect representation of the typical style of Japanese CG artwork, but it's presumably difficult to find an example of "the real thing" which isn't indecent, not to mention illegal in certain areas. If a better image can be found, perhaps it would be the cover of a manga or doujin on sale in Japan, which, being a cover that has to go on a shelf, ought to be subject to certain decency restrictions which would suit Wikipedia. --Jonathan Drain 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, a cover is what we had here before and what caused the whole problem in the first place. Let's not go there again! While the current image is very nicely done, I agree that it may not adequately illustrate the concept. Powers 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- As the artist I can tell you that he's correct on his assumptions of the different parts of the drawing. As for the color of the popsicle, its to represent what I think lolicon is about, which is the loss of innocence. Usually red if a very prominent color of that loss, aswell as passion. Sorry if my style isn't classic generic "anime".--Kristalnonymous 01:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Yeah but you still haven't told us what the shovel and bucket represent! ;) Anyway, my unfamiliarity with the genre may be coloring my thoughts a bit. If folks think this is a good representation of the genre, I think it's a great image to put in the article. It doesn't have to be standard generic anime to work here. Powers 02:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    - The shovel and bucket are to represent that she really is still a kid. What's more childlike than building a sand castle? Also, on a lesser extent "I has a shovel," is a bit of a reference to where you see the rest of my art posted frequently. However, enough about this stuff, this isn't what the article is about. --Kristal 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The shovel and bucket are just child toys consistent with the bikini; she needs to be holding something in both hands so that she has to carry the popsicle in her mouth. As for the red color of the 7-inch cylindrical object in her mouth, LOL, well all I can say is it isn't deeply metaphorical. Apollo 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new one isn't necessarily representative of what lolicon actually is. The only lolicon I've actually seen was the previous cover, but I have seen quite a bit of manga, and the lolicon looked to have the same artistic style, whereas this new thing doesn't, at least not really. --Cyde Weys 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

well, the person who drew this isn't a professioanl japanese lolicon/hentai/manga artist. The Psycho 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's arbitrary. Most lolicon art is amateur and posted to personal art websites. Ashibaka tock 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This new image represents Lolicon very well. Johntex\^talk 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The current image is fine. My knowledge of lolicon comes from reading WP articles and the external information on the internet. My only experience looking at lolicon is surveying the external links on this and related articles. Most of the images available look similar in style to this one. If and when someone else offers up another free lolicon image with a different style, we can discuss replacing this one or moving this one lower on the page.

Again, I want to bring up the idea that the imageboard external links need to be removed from this article. We need to have links to articles that discuss lolicon in an scholarly or at least insightful manner. We do not need external links that promote these images. The comments on these imageboards are not the caliber to qualify for quality criticism. Some of the imageboard comments are disgusting. FloNight ^talk 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since lolicon is a picture-oriented subject, the best way to inform people about it would be to show pictures and allow people to make their own conclusions. Since it isn't practical or considerate to put a bunch of lolicon images on the Wikipedia article, the next best solution is to link offsite to an existing website that does. That way, if people want to learn more, they go to renchan knowing what they're getting into. Not to mention that renchan seems to have a forum separate from its imageboard, so discussion of lolicon also exists, presumably. So we have two scholarly articles in External links, many more in Footnotes, and one lolicon website that includes an imageboard. I think that's a good distribution of links.

And keep in mind that external links are not promotion. We link to neonazi websites at Nazism, porn websites at Pornography, and pro-zoophilia websites at Zoophilia. Just because we link to something doesn't mean we promote it in any way. We're just presenting further information that's outside the scope of the article. People can decide for themselves how they feel about it. -kotra 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think the new image is rather good work. It serves as an example of what lolicon is, and has got no legal problems attached. =] —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The new image is a joke--ditch it! No, really, get rid of it completely... because it utterly fails to illustrate the nature of lolicon and... it doesn't even look Japanese-drawn for crying out loud!! If you think this new picture actually serves to describe what lolicon is, then you might just as well think the Totally Spies describes anime. How should I say this, YOU FAIL!! ALL OF YOU FAIL COMPLETELY!! At least the Hiyashibara cover had long been acknowledged as not just "a good example" but practically the defining standard of the nature and substance of lolicon--damn it, that was the whole reason the Hiyashibara cover was used in the first place!!!!! Sweetfreek 10:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since you're obviously an expert on lolicon, perhaps you could provide some valuable feedback: Why does it fail to illustrate lolicon? In what way does it fail to illustrate lolicon? Hypothetically speaking (since the picture isn't GFDL), how could this picture be modified to make it look more like lolicon without violating child pornography laws (the last proviso is because we don't want Wikipedia to be charged or sued)? Also speaking hyphothetically, how could this picture be modfied to make it look more like lolicon while disregarding child pornography laws? We're trying to be informative here, and since you know how lolicon is supposed to look like, your input would be greatly appreciated. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

let's cut the bullsh*t my friend, the Hiyashibara picture does not violate any US child pornography laws. The Psycho 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was. I'm asking if the image can be modified without violating child pornography laws. In other words, can the image be modified such that the resultant image also doesn't violate child pornography laws. I never said anything about the original image violating child pornography laws. I don't see anything I wrote above that would qualify as "bullsh*t". --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, licensing is: Template:Copyrighted free use Could we get artist to change the license to one prefered at WP? The wording on the image page makes it clear the artist/uploader wants it to be free. FloNight ^talk 12:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, copyrighted free use means "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose and without attribution, including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. So yeah, we can do whatever we want to it to make it more representative of mainstream lolicon. --Rory0 96 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone really needs to sort out these image tags. People are going around making changes to them that are silly or change the meanings of them without proper discussion. If anything, you should make a new version of the tag if you want to change it not just retroactively do it. Also, they are apparently not uniform across projects and some have different names.. gj!

Anyways, on subject, she did not express that she wanted the image to be free (as I have no idea what you mean by free.. you could mean any number of things). Also, how is the current license not preferred? It probably should be tagged {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} with attribution/the link or {{Attribution}}, but certainly not {{NoRightsReserved}} or {{PD-self}} (which itself is silly, why does the template suggest it?). I'm too lazy to link to the commons templates, but those are the ones I am talking about.

Lastly, lolicon is not a style or genre but a theme. Just because the techiniques and medium differ from some/most published lolicon works does not make this image any less representative. I've seen plenty of döjinshi oekaki by Toshiaki that is not that dissimilar. What changes are you suggesting? You might want to ping my talk page as I am not really around watching. Kotepho 00:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)