Talk:Lolicon/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fraught subject matter, I asked permission first from nominator Goszei on their talk, and they granted it (§ GA review of Lolicon — may I?). So, I'll be doing this GA review over the next few days. A cursory skim shows an article close to GA, and hopefully my ability to speak Japanese and long experience with internet culture will help. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review (4 October 2021)[edit]

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

young or young-looking girl characters — I think this is better stated as characters depicted as young girls. This handles the tendency of some works to have canonical explanations which make these characters thousands of years old, but still is clear that the depiction is always of a young girl.
- I think "young or young-looking" is more immediatiately understandable for the casual reader, as "characters depicted as young girls" requires some pre-existing knowledge of the tendency that you mentioned to make sense (they will wonder why it doesn't just say "young girl characters"). There's also the matter of dispute between whether "age" or simply "appearance" is the defining quality of a loli character (which has parallels in the scholarship, e.g. "roundness" and "cuteness" being parts of the appeal, the common "contradictory performances of age" seen in characters, laws which are often worded to target apparent character age). For these reasons, I think "young or young-looking" is the more clear formulation.
  - @Goszei: Don't entirely agree, but thoughts on [1] as a compromise? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Psiĥedelisto: That edit is fine by me. — Goszei (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~"lolis" — suggest to use this as first mention for writing ロリ and not § Definition and scope; Japanese has no plural.~~
- Done.
~~computer games — suggest switching this with videogames~~
- Done.
~~a keyword — strange phrasing. I know it's from the source, but how about has made lolicon a source of criticism of manga?~~
- Done.
previous pornographic gekiga — I think this is confusing wording, and would drop both words previous pornographic. It's clear from context that not all shojō manga are pornographic, so same should be discoverable from gekiga
- Removed. I decided that this paragraph's information is a little too technical for the uninitiated in manga scholarship, so I split it up (which I think also retains a better chronological flow).
otaku consumption ⇒ otaku media
- I changed it to "otaku sexuality", because this is what Saito, et al, are commenting on in particular (as with moe and "2D complex", the scholarship is all about the fan response just as much as the media).

Definition and scope[edit]

~~and in Japan ⇒ but in Japan~~
- Done.
I feel like this is the right place to discuss your young-looking comment rather than in the lead. You could mention how many popular manga have characters that are depicted as being young girls, but are canonically described as being old. I'm sure you can also find a source where the earnestness of such claims is discussesd (i.e. whether authors make them because they think it protects them from some class of threat).
- I made a comment about this above (I think the point is fundamental enough to allude to in the first sentence). The idea of artists trying to cover themselves legally is interesting, though I haven't found a source discussing that aspect in particular. Does the second paragraph of the "Media" section suffice in its discussion of "conflicting" character qualities and plot devices found in works?
~~The terminology of lolicon is… ⇒ In Japanese, the term lolicon is distinct from words for pedophilia and child pornography. (of course keep Japanese language translations)~~
- Done.
~~"deeply compromised" — in what way?~~
- Removed, since it restates the point about conflation discussed in the previous sentence. Surrounding text tweaked as well.

History[edit]

Background[edit]

marketed to girls → I'd add here that it was also most often produced by adult women, because Japanese names may not obviously convey gender to Western readers (who don't know to look for –ko endings, common given names like Sakura etc.)
- Added, and removed the list of 3 artists (which are all members of Year 24 Group, whose article is linked). I agree that the key point to get across is that shojo manga and imagery was predominantly created and read by women and girls, which started to change in the 1970s.
- So one funny thing about shōjo manga is that it wasn't primarily produced by women until the 1970s or so. In an interview with Rachel Thorn, Moto Hagio said, "There were only about seven artists drawing girls' comics in those days. Women, I mean; there were plenty of male artists drawing girls' comics then." I have edited the page to reflect that. Sandtalon (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sandtalon: Thanks Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it's worth linking to Lewis Carroll § Sexuality when you talk about Carroll's sexuality, even just in relaying a joke made in the 1970's. You don't want readers to leave with the wrong impression.
- Added on his name text, though I think this may mildly violate WP:EASTEREGG (?).
  - @Goszei: Yeah, fixed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the public hair ban twice; really you could consolidate these two sentences into one at the end saying e.g. The spread of lolicon imagery, both in manga and in photographs, may have been helped along by…
- Combined.

1970s–1980s[edit]

~~I think the first mention of Comiket should be written Comiket as that's the English WP:COMMONNAME.~~
- Done.
~~I recommend that you write dōjinshi so that we're using a consistent transliteration style throughout the article.~~
- Done.
I'm quite concerned that we're calling Azuma the Father of Lolicon based on quite weak sourcing that doesn't explain the name's origin, which I consider suspect due to the fact that he's not the first or even second lolicon artist. He's also a recently deceased person so it's a WP:BLP matter. His own article quotes Anime News Network. Consider dropping this at least from the lead, and explaining where this title came from and fixing the sourcing.
- Well, it comes from Galbraith, who is a well-published expert and the best source we have on the topic, and one who translates and draws from Japanese texts (one could call him "Father of Otaku Scholarship in English" ). In his 2019 book, Galbraith writes more about Azuma (who was "at the center of a cult fandom in the early 1980s") and things he has been called by JP commentators, including "the man that spread lolicon and sickness in the world" and "the creator of cute eroticism", although he doesn't repeat the "Father of Lolicon" title. As Galbraith tells it, Azuma is indeed viewed as the "first" lolicon artist (at the very least the one who is credited with sparking the boom and the "cute movement" in manga), so I am inclined to believe him on the "Father" sobriquet. For example, Galbraith does not discuss (or even give mention) to other artists from Cybele.
  - @Goszei: I really don't think that this is anywhere close to enough proof to include a potentially BLP policy issue in the article. We also don't know what version of "father" was in the original Japanese—父さん、父、父親?—if all we have is Galbraith sources, my opinion is it needs to be removed, especially because this article is already extremely heavy in its reliance on Galbraith scholarship, when one of his facts is likely to be contested there's even more reason to remove it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Psiĥedelisto: After some Googling, I think the "father of lolicon" might be a less literal translation of something like "ロリコン漫画の元祖", "元祖ロリコン漫画家", and other variations on those (which, unfortunately, like the Uchiyama example, don't have easily accessible RS to back them up). Another Galbraith source lists an alternate moniker with its Japanese version: "the creator of 'cute eroticism'" (「カワイイエロ」の想像者"), but since we explain kawaii ero slightly later in the paragraph, perhaps that's not a good replacement? That being said, I don't think it's exactly a BLP issue, as WP:BDP states that it would "only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime", which is not the case here. (Azuma was already one of the most well-known lolicon artists from this time; calling him the "father" or "founder" of lolicon is not not very contentious and does not exactly have negative consequences for his family that extend beyond his already-existing reputation.) Sandtalon (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sandtalon: Because you are telling me that the word in Japanese is 元祖, then I think that this issue can easily be resolved by translating 元祖 word as pioneer instead, lolicon pioneer or use of the verb pioneering somehow. I view that as much less contentious. On to the issue of Uchiyama, I am seeing nothing that would convince me that calling him a king is appropriate. Many different artists draw lolicon, even though you are quoting a reliable source, I do not think that we should be repeating someone's value judgment on the quality of his work. Also I think that it kind of shows a trend that Galbraith's writing style is to try to give the people he writes about monikers, even if such moniker only seldom appeared in Japanese. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Psiĥedelisto: I don't know about User:Goszei, but I would be fine with describing Azuma as a "pioneer" instead. Re:Uchiyama, I'll expand on this more in my response to that comment, but I don't think that's a case of Galbraith giving him an epithet that wasn't used very often in Japanese or himself making a value judgement on the work; Uchiyama seems to have been more widely considered the "king of lolicon" during the '80s, which is less referring to the quality of his work and more to his commercial popularity as an artist during that time period. Galbraith actually refers to this title with some skepticism himself, writing that Uchiyama was the "so-called 'king of lolicon'", so I think Galbraith is including the title in order to demonstrate how Uchiyama is and was perceived generally. Sandtalon (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Psiĥedelisto: I agree with Sandtalon's evaluation on "pioneer" (I am fine with that wording). — Goszei (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~real gravure idols ⇒ gravure idol models~~
- Done.
Obviously I oppose including the king of lolicon quote for an artist we don't even have an article about, especially right after two female artists we do.
- In his 2019 book, Galbraith explains that "Uchiyama is often heralded as 'the King of Lolicon,' because his work became so emblematic of the lolicon boom", and generally puts a high focus on him in all of his writings on the boom (including in a lengthy interview with the artist himself published in the appendix to Galbraith 2016). Both in Azuma and Uchiyama's case, Galbraith makes indirect comparison to Tezuka's title as the "God of Manga". I think relaying these titles gives the reader a sense of how each artist is remembered in relation to the boom (namely, as the 2 most significant figures in it). For what it's worth, I think that we could have an article on Uchiyama, and I may create one sometime in the future.
  - @Goszei: Same issue as above. 王様、王、国王、王者、キング. Could even be localization of 皇帝. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Psiĥedelisto: Based on some Googling, I think it's 王様, but sadly not from an RS, I think. The RS that would verify the Japanese for this would likely be some print publications that would be difficult to get access to right now (that online glossary that I linked to was turned into a published book, so maybe that? Or some older publications). That being said, it's not really a BLP issue here as Uchiyama has acknowleged the term himself in a published interview with Galbraith: "now I am remembered as the king of lolicon" (from The End of Cool Japan, p. 220). Considering that, might it be okay to include the "king of lolicon" epithet citing Galbraith with the ロリコンマンガの王様 spelling from the glossary? Sandtalon (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sandtalon: How about using the word self-described? I would be okay with it then. I think my issue with the word King compared to father is that it is a value judgment on the quality of work, while somebody who merely originated something may not have done so well in the first instance if that makes sense. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Psiĥedelisto: The only problem is that Uchiyama is not exactly self-describing there; he's more acknowleging a name he is known by but did not choose himself. The full interview is here, and in it Uchiyama also says, "Well, I never called myself such a thing. People started calling me that and I was like, “Oh, whatever!” You can’t do much about what people say. I just go with the flow." So he doesn't exactly object to the name, but he doesn't self-describe as it either. He also says, "I have become a symbol of something that was way bigger than me." As I mentioned in the previous comment, the word "king" is less a value judgement and more a statement on popularity or fashion; he was clearly more widely known as the "king" at the time, as a representative figurehead of the lolicon movement. Sandtalon (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sandtalon: Thanks for the further context, in that case, let's keep the king comment…With all due respect, after doing my own research, I'm very comfortable with it now. I think you're wrong about the most common form, it's not 王様 (ō-sama), it's 帝王 (teiō): ロリコン漫画の帝王, sometimes instead of ロリコン, オムツ (omutsu, diaper). Sometimes 漫画 written either マンガ or 漫画堺. (Some sources NSFW!) [2][3][4][5][6][7] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lolita Anime, released in 1984 and 1985 ⇒ Lolita Anime, episodically released between 1984–1985
- Used "released episodically in 1984–1985".
~~Define what a "lolicon idol" is before you give examples of them.~~
- Rephrased.
~~roots of lolicon anime lie in such magical girl shows ← add bolded word~~
- Rephrased.
~~How do scholars determine when the boom ended? Did something happen to end it?~~
- Goszei is pretty much correct, and I have added more explanation for the reason why the boom ended. Nagayama doesn't really give an indication of how 1984 was determined to be the end, but by conjecture, perhaps by sales numbers? Sandtalon (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1990s–present[edit]

~~Does anyone have any ideas as to why lolicon imagery became more accessible during this time, despite the Miyazaki case?~~
- Galbraith states this without further comment. The full quote is "[I]n the early 1990s lolicon-type imagery (i.e., sexualized girls who appear underage) actually expanded and became acceptable in manga."
Please give a more thorough legislative history of the removal of the text if possible. It'd be interesting if we can figure out why members of the Diet removed it, what they actually discussed. I wonder if someone has documented that.
- This source [8] (Takeuchi 2015) might help, and you haven't yet cited it
  - More info on the 1998 removal would indeed be good (specifically whether the provision met major public opposition, like in 2014); I will have to again refer to Sandtalon and the copy of Nagayama 2020. Strangely I haven't found another source that mentions this 1998 draft provision or opposition to it; Takeuchi, for example, does not mention it.
- Unfortunately, Nagayama doesn't elaborate much on the 1998/1999 law. The provision apparently did meet with opposition, but there is little information about it. The full quote is, "in 1998, the ruling political party presented an outline of the proposed [law], which included pictorial expression. The move to enshrine in law the regulation of pictorial and manga expression by piggybacking on the high legislative ideal of protecting the human rights of children drew criticism from many in Japan. When the bill was passed into national law in 1999, pictorial expression was excluded." Unlike Goszei, I do know some Japanese, but my skills at the moment are such that looking for more information on this in Japanese would be difficult, especially since this is a law from the '90s. Perhaps something to add in the future? In the meantime, I have added a partial quotation of that sentence. Sandtalon (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sandtalon and Goszei: I think I could find some more information, but let's wait until after the GA review then if I'm going to be contributing a significant amount of prose to the article. I agree with you both that this issue isn't enough to fail GA, but I shouldn't do it before GA because then it'll contain a significant amount of own writing. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are other reasons ever used as reasons for retaining lolicon's legal status? For example, cultural reasons?~~
- I haven't found a source that addresses that directly, the arguments of the Japanese opposition across sources seems uniformly centered on the points of freedom of expression, and a lack of a demonstrated connection between fiction and crimes.
~~and decided against criminalizing ⇒ and decided once again against criminalizing~~
- but also, is that even fair to say? It may not have been debated at all if the definitions weren't up for debate, so hard to say a positive decision on lolicon was made, more like no decision (maintain status quo definition)
- I think your evaluation is correct: it is better viewed as a maintenance of the status quo.

Media[edit]

Some may define lolicon by age only, but this is clearly a minority view, even in the cited source. I think that Some define its characters by age, while others define its characters by appearance gives WP:UNDUE weight to the minority view by putting it first and making it sound equal in number to the majority view.
- The full quotation from the source is "For some, the designation of a Lolita character, or a 'loli,' is age. A sexualized child character might be a loli. Others consider it a design issue, with characters that are small and have a flat chest being designated loli, which is independent of age." I don't believe that Galbraith is making any claims about majority or minority views on the matter; I couldn't find other RS on this point.
  - @Goszei: It's not required that an RS comment on this specifically to write it my way, you can simply make the judgment based on all the RS's you've read. Do you even have one RS where the claim is made it's only a canonical age issue? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Psiĥedelisto: Nagayama writes that when defining lolicon, "the standard is the age setting of the heroine". (It's the same paragraph in the book as the quotation in the following paragraph in the article, where he expands on the point about lolicon being a matter of age.) Nagayama also acknowledges some ambiguity in the same way that Galbraith does (though a little less clearly) by saying that sometimes the "icon" (design) matters more than the "idea" (child), but Nagayama ultimately emphasizes age, which is clear when he says lolicon manga is that with a "heroine younger than a middleschool student". I also can't think of an RS off the top of my head that explicitly says that it is a design issue either. (Maybe Klar?) I think most just say "children" or "girls" or something to that effect. Sandtalon (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Goszei: It's not required that an RS comment on this specifically to write it my way, you can simply make the judgment based on all the RS's you've read. Do you even have one RS where the claim is made it's only a canonical age issue? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~characters in the genre may appear ← add bolded word~~
- Done.
~~is since the 1990's mostly consumed by male audiences ← add bolded words~~
- I am not sure if the sourcing supports this temporal statement. Based on the 1983 Burriko survey contained in the footnote, for example, the genre (consistent with erotic/bishojo works more broadly) was still mostly consumed by men (~80%).
~~Does any of Murakami's work feature lolicon, or just works in the art style he created?~~
- The citation discusses lolicon more in connection to Murakami's protégés; I looked some more and couldn't find any sources discussing Murakami's works and lolicon in particular.
- There is at least one case where Murakami did explicitly lolicon work, which I added.Sandtalon (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to moe[edit]

Some more explanation is needed as to the difference between moe and lolicon artwork. Lack of sexualization is one thing, but I think another worth mentioning is that moe characters are often canonically in adolescence, such as the 14 year old Sailor Moon or the teenage NGE characters, but yet are still often depicted as having younger bodies than their age and behaviors would lead one to assume.
- It's a good point, though I struggle to find direct support in a source. The following sentence touches on "physically immature" characters as being most associated with the moe form, and I think the paragraph thus gets across the general point on the bishōjo character form.

Genre features[edit]

It's going to be difficult for the average reader to understand what is meant by the inclusion of the term pedophilia in the list of what's in "[m]ore extreme works", as many Western readers already consider loli pedophilia, rightly or wrongly. I suggest you nix that term and make it about the ages of characters instead.
- ~~I was going to replace it with "adult–child sex", which gets across the same point (?), but "rape" is listed there, which covers it. I decided to remove it from the list.~~
  - @Goszei: This issue seems solved by just removing the term, not sure if Sandtalon did that. Either way, striking. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I love her quote about the consciousness of sin however, and definitely think that some abridgement of this second part of the section is lead material.~~
- ~~I think it is a good analysis on Nagayama's part as well, but I disagree on its suitability for the lead (I think the paragraph-length context is needed to understand the point).~~

Censorship[edit]

~~Online publication to escape restriction—interesting note, and makes me wonder how often is that brought up as something that makes local ordinances pointless in practice?~~
- No direct discussion as far as I can find.
~~Please quote Naoki Inose more thoroughly, so readers can better understand what she wanted banned and why.~~
- There isn't much to describe Inose's motivations in Nagayama (he interprets the motivations of pro-censorship politicians in general, but as interpretation and not necessarily about Inose specifically), but I have added a quotation from Inose in Nagayama. Sandtalon (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~vendor cancellations in re Kodomo no Jikan—do we know which? I also don't think we need to name the company president.~~
- I don't believe the company ever named the vendors which canceled their orders. Removed mention of DeAngelis.
No Game No Life light novel ban—I think Western readers could use clarification that light novels are often full of manga-like illustrations.
- I have added a footnote on this.
This section really seems like it's missing a lot of information. I find it hard to believe that these are the only notable cases of lolicon censorship, or even that they're the most notable. For example, why not talk about how Reddit used to allow lolicon but now doesn't? [9][10][11] (Primary sources: Reddit's policy before Reddit's policy after) Why not talk about Discord's ban? [12] Are there any other online bans which ought to be mentioned?
- And, is there anything that 4chan's long history of allowing lolicon can tell us about its status on the internet? Is it possible to bring up the commonly repeated chan user argument that lolicon is a "canary in a coalmine" vis-à-vis online free speech, or has no reliable source taken this seriously? (I genuinely do not know, and am not suggesting they should if they have not.)
  - It is certainly an interesting point, though unfortunately I have not found an RS that explores it. It strikes me as something that scholars will perhaps be talking about in 5 to 10 years as part of broad trends on the Internet.

Commentary[edit]

I suggest that this section go through a reheading. Legal aspects of lolicon really are not in any way commentary, so don't belong in § Commentary. I think that § Legal aspects should become a top level heading, freed from § Commentary, and § Academic and critical should become the new toplevel § Commentary, perhaps under the new name § Academic commentary.
- I have conducted a different reorganization which collects information on both legality and censorship under a new top-level section, and have moved the info on the debates over legality to a sub-header in that section.

Academic and critical[edit]

My issue with this section is primarily from an WP:NPOV perspective. The first sentence says that critics generally support the idea that lolicon is not a manifestation of pedophilia, but there are no critics mentioned who don't think that. If they don't exist, generally is the wrong word; if they do, they ought to be mentioned.
- This is a challenging point. I have found two statements from scholars which characterize the positions of the scholarship more broadly: McLelland says "scholarship on the whole" emphasize a distinction, while Kittredge says "the majority of the cultural critics" do so, which I have expressed here as "generally". Personally, I think they are both under-stating the foundational nature of this position on the "reality of fiction" (since I have found no critics in the manga/anime sphere, in English or Japanese, who claim that desires in manga and in reality are one and the same, or even significantly related), but I don't think a stronger statement can be made given the sourcing.
- There are few sources of scholars and critics who unequivocally and outright claim that 2D lolicon is equivalent to 3D pedophilia, but there are more who strongly imply or can be interpreted as feeling that way. Some of the sources who are critical of lolicon, such as Funabashi, Nakasatomi, etc. fall into the latter category (these argue for a causal relationship between lolicon and child abuse), but I think interpreting or reading those sources in that way would skew towards WP:OR. (They likely believe that it is a reflection of real pedophilic desire, but they do not directly say so.) That being said, I have added a scholar who more directly claims that this kind of desire is outright pedophilic in nature. Sandtalon (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I don't have a problem with its contents—I do think that it might be helpful to mention things happening in Japan that Western readers may not be aware of to contextualize Japanese gender relations. For example, falling birth rates, achievement gaps, etc.
- I think the quotes from Itō and Kinsella serve to get across the basic idea of an achievement gap and the growing power of women in society; more context may be helpful, but as complex and broad sociology topic (changing birth rates, attitudes to marriage, gender roles and expectations, etc.) I am struggling to write a footnote that meaningfully adds to reader understanding.

Legal aspects[edit]

Interestingly, this section does contain some people who would link lolicon and pedophilia, not all of it legal related. I think that for example the comments of Kuniko Funabashi belong in the above section and not this one.
- Goszei is generally correct on Fubabashi’s point (which, I’ll add, is not terribly well written or argued). She does argue that fiction and reality get confused, but not in a way where she says directly that 2D lolicon is equivalent to 3D pedophilia, as she’s referring to pornography in general with that statement. (The same problem that I mention above: the authors in this section who are critical of lolicon argue that there is a causal relationship with child abuse, but they do not directly state that lolicon is the same as pedophilia, even if they might imply so.) Sandtalon (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think there's some confusion about the UN HRC guidelines. What is the UN actually asking for regulation-wise?~~
- Modified to "encouraged state parties to include explicit drawings of fictional children in laws against child pornography".

Style[edit]

~~Remember to always italicize lolicon, a few places don't.~~
- Done, everywhere except for book/article titles, which I believe should be left unmodified (?).
~~You refer to Kaoru Nagayama a few times by her surname even between sections. As readers are likely to read or link to only one section, I'd not do this.~~
- Done, fixed other cases as well.

Sources[edit]

~~Please avoid linking to predatory third parties like Academia.edu when possible; Galbraith 2021 is better linked to https://www.stockholmuniversitypress.se/site/books/m/10.16993/bbn/~~
- Done.

GAN criteria[edit]

Having done my preliminary review of the article, I will now discuss my feelings of how well it meets the various good article criteria.

GA?№1[edit]

~~The article is very well written and understandable to a broad audience despite minor things I thought Western audiences could use some help understanding.~~

However, the article really suffers when it comes to how well it follows MOS:JAPANESE, especially regarding its lack of inclusion of Japanese script on first instance (if non-linked) for way too many terms—this needs fixing in order for me to be able to pass the article on this citeria. The insistence on using rōmaji only makes the article more difficult to read. Kawaii ero e.g. should say かわいいエロ, lolibaba should say ロリババア and is a perfect instance of why this is needed. One might think that the kanji are implied to be ロリ婆, because you missed the macron over the final a (shoul be lolibabā). There are so many ways to say "lolicon boom" (ロリ好景気？) that we really do need the script ロリコンブーム. We should also remember that we include Japanese script to help people research in Japanese, so even dictionary terms like nijigen complex (二次元コンプレックス) need Japanese script…especially medical terms like shōniseiai (小児性愛). I recently added a bunch of Japanese script to Bara (genre) because I literally could not figure out without 20 minutes of research how some of these authors spelled their names/works, and didn't want anyone else to need to do that.
- ~~Let me know if you need help meeting MOS:JAPANESE if you don't speak Japanese well enough to do it.~~
  - I do not speak Japanese, and so took my best swing at this. I decided to include the script for less-essential terms within footnotes, in the interest of keeping the prose light and directed at more casual readers, which providing script for those who want to research further in Japanese sources.

GA?№2[edit]

Excellent citation format, better than many of my articles (clearly you have no love for the VE hehe). Nothing to work on format-wise.
However, I do notice that you don't mention any Japanese-language scholarship or even sources. I am not saying you must do this, but I think if you can do this the article would benefit. If you don't have the ability, it can very easily be considered a minor thing which shouldn't hold up a GA nom but might need consideration if you want to go for FA, to make sure that your coverage is really as broad as it could be.
- I agree that more Japanese-language sources could be beneficial (I don't know Japanese myself), and offer that I have tried my best to make use of Galbraith's original translation work from the writings and interviews with Japanese scholars (Akagi, Fujimoto, Ueno, Harata).

GA?№3[edit]

I believe I covered quite well the ways I think the article could be broadened already in the above section-by-section review.

GA?№4[edit]

Besides the one NPOV concern I had, I'd feel fine passing the article on this criterion.

GA?№5[edit]

I think this criterion is worth discussing in detail, so that people have an explanation for why I passed it on this criterion. The history of this article, concerning its stability in general, but also its stability with regards to the GA process, is quite rocky. The article was extremely controversial in the early years of Wikipedia, before we really came up with ways to handle controversial topics as well as we do now, and before we came up with the enforcement mechanisms for community consensus we have now, and the strengthening of our quality standards over the years. The article was twice listed for deletion, once in 2006; once in 2010—speedily kept both times. The article was listed on GA after an extremely lazy 2007 review by Littleteddy, a user who is now indef blocked for being a sockpuppeteer. Jezhotwells then began a 02/2011 GAR after a request by Malkinann. This GAR mostly came down to a feud between two editors about whether or not the article was really done, questions about its expand tags and sourcing, and so on. Jez failed the article at that time, I likely would've done the same. Jinnai saw it as a procedural defect that a feud overshadowed the GAR, and began another GAR immediately after the other one closed. Ultimately, the admin Geometry guy decided that SilkTork's argument that the feud is immaterial and that the article at that time failed GA?№1 and GA?№3, so upheld the delisting.

In the ten years that have followed, editors have come together, finished the article, and worked out many of its remaining issues. The article has also become much less controversial as it has become much more fact-based and much less explicit. While talk archive 15 covers a three year period, the most recent archive has half the topics and covers seven years! El_C made the article indefinitely autoconfirmed and above access required, which I find more than fair given the depth of knowledge of our policies one would need to be able to contribute to it. Since this admin's decision, the article has been extremely stable in my review of the history, with editors avoiding edit warring and working things out on each other's talk pages and the article's talk, when appropriate.

As GA?№5 is not here to judge future stability (e.g. should another admin remove the indef flag) nor to harshly judge an article's past, I can quite easily

pass the article on this procedural criterion even during this initial review. There's no reason for me to challenge this and have Goszei and other editors Wikilawyer with me about the definition of stability, I am satisfied with the article's stability.

GA?№6[edit]

As mentioned on the talk page, this was a criterion I'd already made up my mind on— passing lolicon on GA?№6. My main motivation is my reply to Talk:Lolicon § Do we really need an example in picture form in the lede?, but I have another reason: if any criteria has been beaten to death on this article, it's this one. Images have been the cause of much community consternation on this article. It simply would be improper for me to use my role as holding the ceremonial rite to pass or fail this article as a GA to try to push through changes in the image lineup, period, and would feel like borderline skirting consensus to me. I accept the community consensus on the acceptability of the existing image lineup, and find them relevant.

Initial review complete! 🌟

@Goszei: When you can, please answer the above concerns. Please ~~strike~~ dealt with concerns to keep us organized. (We can unstrike them all en masse when the review is complete as a public record.) Please review all my comments by seven days from today and either implement the requested changes or explain why you don't want to. Thank you. I look forward to finishing the review, and hope that this is what you were expecting it to be. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Goszei: I've just completed my initial comments and edits, and I thank you for your thorough treatment. I hope you can bear with me on some of the sourcing difficulties inherent to the topic, both as a taboo subject and as an oftentimes vague one (blending smoothly into the general phenomenon of character affection). You bring up some excellent points that I hope will be published (or simply found by editors greater than I) in RS in the future — otaku and manga scholarship in English is rapidly improving, with more translations and new material every year, so I am hopeful that our coverage in this area will only get better. I deferred some of my responses above to my collaborator on this article, User:Sandtalon, who informed me that they may have time to take a look at this review today or tomorrow. — Goszei (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Sandtalon: If I may be so presumptuous to add my own concluding comment (although I have been on a partial wikibreak as of late and am not the nominator, I am a major contributor, and Goszei and I collaborated heavily on the article with the intention of bringing it to GA status), I would also like to thank you for your review. I have addressed some of the remaining concerns on this review, as well as some of my own, and I look forward to your final decision! Sandtalon (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandtalon and Goszei: Thanks for your prompt replies. FYI despite the state of the strikethroughs all that remains is Goszei's thoughts on replacing "father" for "pioneer" given the actual Japanese text used…I agree that everything else is as far along as we can bring it at this time…then I can submit the final review and close this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final review (13 October 2021)[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After much collaboration, I pass this article as a GA, a decade since it lost its status. Congratulations to all the editors who have worked on it, especially the recently careful rewriters, Goszei and Sandtalon. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The minor issues in clarity I found during my initial review were resolved easily and quickly.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The article's lack of Japanese script, which was a major roadblock for verifiability of some things, as well an impediment to readers familiar with the Japanese language who wished to do further research in Japanese, was fixed in a coördinated, team effort.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
As already said, but worth repeating again: beautiful reference formatting. So much so in fact, I copied some of it over to 2channel (use of {{efn}} and {{notelist}}) after learning about it from reading and reviewing this article.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
We had some problems dealing with some statements I found likely contentious, but we soon determined that many of these issues were actually just criterion (1)(b) in disguise. I am now confident in the lack of WP:LIKELY challenges.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Certainly, the article is GA-quality broad. However, it's not quite FA-article broad, as stated.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Indeed, deviations from the main topic are studiously avoided.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
With a man once thought to be a father now correctly described as a pioneer, I'd say this article is as neutral as possible given its highly contentious topic — as if the end of the world is being described by an alien race rather uninterested in Earth. Bravo.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Passed in the initial review—see § GA?№5.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No copyright issues.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Passed in the initial review—see § GA?№6.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article passes GA, a hard won achievement. I only saw two matters concerning which this article could be improved even more on what I assume is its journey to WP:FAC:
more reading of Japanese scholarly sources and including them where English sources do not have the content in question. Perhaps this could also be done to decrease the article's firm reliance on the work of Patrick Galbraith. Although a very capable scholar, there is no doubt, having Japanese sources to back up his claims would go a long way towards featured article status, I think.
More information about the 1999 law and legal matters in Japan in general; why the 1999 provision on loli was removed way back then, what it said, any other legislative history we can find.