Talk:Kodomo no Jikan

Edit conflicts

No, it was a perfectly good argument. On Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to include original research, and we shouldn't assume things. Since it seems to me that you are assuming that the source is biased, you are in the wrong to change it according to how you are interpreting the information given. If you look at the reference literally, there is no reason to believe that they are biased, so you shouldn't make it seem like it is so, when that is not the case.--十八 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not noticing this until now.

I am not assuming that Seven Seas is a biased source. Rather, I think that it is a plain fact.

1) Seven Seas is one party involved in this very controversial matter in the manga community.

2) Claiming that Watashiya "demanded" the title Nymphet helps Seven Seas' case.

3) Therefore, Seven Seas is a biased source.

Furthermore, the Seven Seas blog you reference doesn't even claim that Watashiya made the demand. Instead, it claims that Futabasha claims that Watashiya made the demand. Very dubious. Forweg 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think it's true and supply circumstancial evidence that cannot be proven does not mean you are true and that your evidence is fact. It states at WP:NOR: Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. You are clearly in violation of these two key points, and what you are doing is pushing original research into an article.--十八 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One does not need proof for 2+2=4. It is fact. I would really love to hear how my three points above can be disproven.

Also, the article you link to also says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." That sentence wasn't adhering to what the source said. Seven Seas does not claim that that Watashiya made the demand. Instead, it claims that Futabasha claims that Watashiya made the demand. Therefore, the sentence was not adhering to what the source said. That violates Wikipedia policy.

One must analyze the sources in order to determine if they are reliable. This is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Forweg 09:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Analyzing to determine reliability has nothing to do with original research; those two are inherently different. But onto your three points. The first two points are stated facts, sure, but the third point is making an educated inference on the supplied information. Such guessing is called circumstantial evidence and is no better than original research. You must see what I am talking about. What you're saying is "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's a duck", but I am saying that that thought process is not always exact. Case in point: Water is both clear, and in liquid form, but not all liquids that are clear are water, such as hydrogen peroxide or sulfuric acid; see now why your argument is flawd?. Not only that, but you cannot find a reliable source that actually states that Seven Seas was biased to say that Futabasha said the author demanded the title change, but you can find a source that states that that is exactly what happened. Look, I'm not asking you to believe it, I just want you to see that you are assuming too much, and it's not your place to assume things on Wikipedia, even if there's some circumstancial evidence to "support" your claims; Wikipedia deals with hard evidence, and you have none.

And what are you talking about when you said this: That sentence wasn't adhering to what the source said. Seven Seas does not claim that that Watashiya made the demand.? The sentence in the article was written: The English trade name was chosen to be Nymphet after the original artist requested the title and demanded its use for the English manga. That just says that artist requested the change, not that Seven Seas said she requested the change. Get your facts straight.--十八 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"and 18 went en-garde! then, hai-yah! and it was all over. All that was left in its wake was destruction" Oh, on a side note - what is the "it" reffering to in 十八 first statment: "No, it was a perfectly good argument?" (presuming that the article was being voted for deletion because it was thought to be biased?) 24.19.25.118 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, see the edit summaries from July 16 to July 20 between me and Forweg to see what I was referring to.

And anyway, the article wasn't being deleted because it was thought to be biased. Someone nominated it for deletion because they thought it to be non-notable; read the deletion archive at the top of this page if you want.--十八 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reiji sexually abusing Rin

I'm sorry but, up until chapter 30, I have not seen what the article claims: "It is also been hinted that he has already been sexually abusing Rin"... so I'm putting the phrase under comments. Also, I think it would be smart to remove the text "As the story progresses it becomes clear that he is slowly losing his mind and is becoming increasingly delusional about someday being romantically involved with Rin" bacause, even tho it is HINTED, it is not spoken out loud. It could well lead into an unexpected answer in the manga. What I'm trying to say is... at least Reiji's part of the article seems kind of biased and uses some weasel words, so... maybe we could improve that. Guille ^.~ 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that could hint on 'sexually abusing' that I can think of is page 6 (116) in chapter 19, but that would really be stretching it. I'll just add an ref-needed as some anon removed your commenting and I don't want to risk a war over something like this.

Not sure about the second sentence, it seems like some times he is using Rin as a substitute for Aki; but at the same time he has also mentioned something about giving to Rin what he couldn't give Aki. Though this could of course be translations errors messing it up. I did some changes to the text, only minor stuff as I find him very sick and scary. --Execvator 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that " Though he is slowly losing control of his sexual urges as seen by him leaving hickeys on the back of Rin's neck." thing a couple of days ago, because I don't see Reiji leaving hickeys on Rin's neck. Somebody wrote it again, so I deleted it again. Let's discuss it here. Oh, yeah, to Haruyasha: if you are talking about last page, I dont see even one hickey. What's more, I think it's a hug. Guille ^.~ 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read chapter 31 a few times now and she does indeed have something that looks like a hickey (p.10, p.30). While he is the one most likely to have done it and it gets hinted at, on the last page (p.30, top-left panel), that he gave it to her; I still find it unclear whether he really is 'the guilty'.

Leaving it, as is, looks biased to me; though, I think it should be mentioned in some way, either in Rin's or Reiji's section. --Execvator 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That thing on page 30 looks like just a shadow to me. The one in page 10, how ever, I had not noticed... and it does look like a hicke. How ever, we could be wrong because... well, it looks like a hickey, but it might not be one. What if it is Aki's disease? (let's hope not... I certainly love Rin :( ). I think we should, at least, wait until it is clarified in the manga. Guille ^.~ 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aki didn't have skin cancer, she had lung cancer. Anyways, since there is so much doubt about it, I'll wait for Aoki to notice the hickeys.. (Should happen in the next chapter or so.) Although the fact that Reiji is unable to hold back no longer is visible through his constant kissing. Haruyasha 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay for original research and lack of 2nd/3rd party source citations! -masa ♫ 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking about a manga here. A manga, I suppose, we all read. It is obvious we are using original research: the manga is still being serialized and the anime series is still airing, and its Wikipedia page is the best source for info about it. About the source citations... well, I don't know if they can be taken for citations, but at least we say what issues and pages are we using as sources for our arguments. And, come on, after all, we are at the talk page. Guille ^.~ (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I find this rather disconcerting. A number of us are currently implying that Reiji, Rin's "guardian", has already made a mark, so to speak, on his potential partner. BUT we must also take note that he is just using Rin as a "substitute" for his inability to cope with Aki's death. A vassal, in other words, of Reiji's outpouring of grief and later culpability for Aki's sudden passing.

We must stress this point. --Animeronin (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. From what I can tell, Kaworu Watashiya has the same mischievous streak in her that Rin Kokonoe does. She seems to enjoy playing mind games with her readers by (strongly) implying something morally or socially questionable is happening, letting the audience squirm for a while, then later revealing that the truth wasn't nearly as salacious or insidious as it initially seemed. Unfortunately, this backfired with North American audiences when she insisted on using the title Nymphet, so we've got to be extra careful not to engage in the same kind of rampant speculation that killed the English language release in the first place. Kodomo no Jikan must be redeemed, and we're just the ones to do it! :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Redeem? Sure, why not? But what we really should and are already doing, is throughly documenting it. What I was trying to tell masa is that, as far as I can see, we are all not doing such a bad job at it. Not Haruyasha nor Lunar Archivist, nor any one else. How ever... we are off track here XD, so let's go back to the KnJ "Reiji sexually abusing Ring" talk. As Haruyasha said, we should wait for the next issue (or so) to include any implications on the hickeys. If they are hickeys, we'll be told about it by our beloved (or hated, who knows?) mangaka. If they aren't, we'll be avoiding the misinformation delivery. Guille ^.~ (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 32 is out. How ever, there is no hickey talk what so ever... so... let's see if there is in chapter 33. Guille ^.~ (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 33 is out. I've lost XD Guille ^.~ (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no one's lost or won anything just yet. I loathe Reiji as much as the next person, but at the moment, we really don't know who's to blame for the two hickeys on Rin's neck or even if they are hickeys. All we know for certain at this point is that she has them and that she's painfully aware of the love triangle she's stuck in (she's in love with Aoki but Reiji's in love with her). I'll admit that the evidence seems pretty damning and I almost want Reiji to be guilty, but Watashiya's propensity for misdirection combined with the pervading mystery of just who the heck was taking pictures of Rin, Kuro, and Mimi from a distance with a digital camera is leaving me with some serious doubts. Hell, for all we know, it could be Rin's biological dad molesting her or something. Lunar Archivist (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mh... no, it's pretty obvious. Mixing the last page on chapter 30 and the last 4 on chapter 33, you can discern it without thinking it too much. Guille ^.~ (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't get me wrong, WeirdGuille, I completely agree with you. But, especially with this series, someone's gotta play the devil's advocate until the suspect is caught red-handed. ;) Lunar Archivist (talk)

They're clearly insect bites, or some kind of rash :P -masa ♫ 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lunar Archivist. I don't think there's any concrete evidence that Reiji is the one making the marks on Rin. Rin has not given any response to Aoki yet and until we see a flashback of Reiji giving Rin a hickey, or Rin stating that Reiji did it, there's no proof. You could say that Rin is avoiding bathtime with Reiji because she's afraid of him molesting her, but there is another possibility. It could be that she is getting those marks from something/someone else and she is hiding them from everyone, including Reiji. Borrie (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, take note that it could have been something other than a mere "mark". We could freely speculate on things until we're damn sure, but one thing could be certain, like Borrie said: "I don't think there's any concrete evidence". Animeronin (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I think you are right. I was speculating... of course, it seems obvious, but with Watashiya-sensei it is speculation until solid proofs are given... so yeah, I'm removing the hickeys again. We'll have to wait until the last week of february to maybe be sure, tho... Guille ^.~ (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a wild guess by suggesting that it may be the school principal responsible for the hickeys on Rin's neck. In the prototype version of the manga, he was definitely a pedophile and, aside from Mimi Usa's being a cutter, this is one of two major ideas from the precursor series that hasn't been incorporated into "official" canon yet. Like WeirdGuille said, though, we'll have to wait until February 22nd, at least, to find out... Lunar Archivist (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CP as a category

OK... I don't know how much time it has been there and who put it there, but... why is the article categorized as Child Porn?! I mean, come on, that's obviously biased... so, I deleted the category markup. Guille ^.~ 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Child pornography" tag was added again by a random individual and removed again by Juhachi. Lunar Archivist (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the tag yet again. Is there any way to lock the categorization section down and prevent random people from adding this tag? This is getting really annoying now. Lunar Archivist (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You can add in a hidden note asking to not include the category though.--十八 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a "better" idea. Why don't we request that this article be semi-protected, as I have seen numerous vandalisms being done on the article page. --Animeronin 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with that. Looking at the last 50 edits in the history, only today was there a single IP who vandalized the page several times before being blocked, and aside from that, there really isn't much else recent vandalism, so I doubt an admin would protect the page at this moment in time.--十八 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

While I personally wish we could do what Animeronin suggested, Juhachi's technically correct. But it's extremely annoying to have random people like 194.83.68.131 put the "child pornography" classification back in, reversing the "deneutralization" of the Lolicon as a storytelling device section by 4.180.36.76, and then the article's vandalism by 83.19.45.10. All these changes for the worse did take place within the last 50 edits or so. Is there any kind of middle ground for protecting sections of this article or making it harder to edit by just anyone? Lunar Archivist 00:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it works like that. If a page gets semi-protected, then IPs and newly-made accounts cannot edit a page for the time being. If it gets fully protected, no one can edit it; there's no specifics for sections.--十八 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, 83.19.45.10 is back vandalizing the page again. Can we get protected status now or at least get his IP address permanently banned? Lunar Archivist (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that anonymous seems to have a skewed or rather trollish behavior. I second the IP ban and the protected status. --Animeronin (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a commentary there. It asks who ever is adding the category to come here first. Let's hope for an explanation this time... hopefully... Guille ^.~ (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed. But when someone replaces the sum content of the article with the phrase "FUCKIN PEDO ANIME", I think his opinion of the series is pretty clear... ^_^; Lunar Archivist (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A nobody wondering?

i was just wondering and wanted to ask the kind people who update the character bio, that knowing that the teacher and Rin are like main - main characters, but how come there is not much information about them, while the others who are less shown have a bit more, to way more one them. i mean if there is a rule to this king of thing let me know so i learn something new,anyways was just wondering. Chimasternmay 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Users have just contributed more to some characters and little to none; if you read/watch the series, feel free to add in the bios.--十八 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion for Lolicon Section

Just for the record, I am the individual who wrote the section on "Lolicon as a storytelling device" in an attempt to counterbalance the "Controversy" section concerning the cancellation of the manga's publication as well as the remainder of the article and provide context. The emphasis in this Wikipedia entry is placed on the same area as the controversy surrounding it, namely the relationship between Daisuke Aoki and Rin Kokonoe, which does a disservice to the manga considering that the story has advanced beyond that and become a complex psychological study of the main characters and their interactions with one another rather than an ad nauseum rehashing of the idea of a naive grade school teacher being sexually harrassed by a coquettish, mischievous student of his.

I know that neutrality is paramount at Wikipedia, but the "radioactivity" of the subject matter at hand has most people who read the short summary of the series automatically assume the worst, and this can only be counterbalanced by providing context, which is what I have tried to do. Lunar Archivist 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I get the feeling that when you say 'those people', it automatically means Americans. Aren't they always the ones responsible for neutrality disputes? I believe so. Haruyasha 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am American and I personally am full for talk of this kind. If I may say most Americans consider anything sexual (lolicon or not) to be taboo in public culture. I would say this is also true of western europe as well (notably where the catholic church presides). If people would take a moment to read their history books up until 100 years ago, sometimes a little more, a manga with similiar situtations to which are in kodomo no jikan would be considered close to normal. (I am not refering to teacher-student, but to older man-quite young girl.) Ergzay 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally wonder how much confirmation bias, social convention, pressure to conform, hypocrisy, and ego have contributed to contemporary popular opinion on this subject, to be honest.

Aside from the inexplicable double standard that exists today when it comes to the pairings Ergzay mentioned - if the male is the older partner, he is universally condemned because he "clearly" forced himself upon and took advantage of a helpless young female, while a young male getting involved with an older female, while not exactly encouraged, has an almost mythical "rite of passage" status associated with it - there's also media sensationalization to consider. I remember being extremely irritated by Dateline's interview with Mary Kay Letourneau after she was sent to jail, not because I sympathized with her position at the time (I didn't) but because it was painfully clear from the line of questioning, the reporter's voiceovers and interpretations of her reactions, and the way the footage was edited together that they were trying to hammer home the point to the audience (and possibly Letourneau herself) that she was insane, mentally ill, a sick sexual deviant, etc. rather than a victim of her own poor judgement. Hardly objective journalism at work there. Then there's the surreal stuff like the case of Traci Lords, where you wonder whether her claim that she was drugged and forced to peform in adult movies at the age of 15 is completely true or whether she's retroactively trying to distance herself from some bad, embarassing decisions she made as a teenager by using the porn industry as a convenient scapegoat. No clue on how to call that one. There's evidence to suggest that the poor impulse control of adolescents has a biological component, but the brain doesn't exactly have an "adult" setting that's magically switched on the moment someone turns 18. The age of transition from childhood to adulthood is completely arbitrary.

My personal opinion on the matter and lack of a relevant academic background makes me woefully unqualified to suggest a solution, but one possibility that comes to mind would be for someone to devise a kind of "cognitive development test" for children and adolescents, something akin to those psychological examinations to determine where someone is mentally competant to stand trial or whether a minor should be tried as an adult for a serious crime like murder. This would create a distinction between "biological age" and "mental age" and allow for a better measure of the degree to which a minor is responsible for his or her actions. Of course, how to create such a test, not to mention ensure that the results aren't influenced by pressure from peers, parents, authority figures, etc. is another question entirely. Lunar Archivist 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Haruyasha, we're not here to discuss international politics or cultural differences. This is a Wikipedia page. All that matters here is that we present the most clear and unbiased information. Your message seems skewed and your argument polarized - I'd refrain from adding more comments like this in the future. And Ergzay, something being "normal" 100 years ago does not make it right at the current moment; by that logic, slavery could be considered morally justifiable.Apocman (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To whoever wrote the above paragraph, please sign your posts, it makes it much easier to communicate in the future.Apocman (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[apocman]

I refuse to get sucked into international politics and finger-pointing. The last thing we need is a "The neutrality of this section is disputed." tag to be added to the talk page for an article whose neutrality is being disputed. ;) What personally annoys me is that I spent several days trying to make the section I wrote as neutral and ambiguous as possible. Instead of going the "pedophile apologist" route by dismissing any questionable scenes as figments of a reader's dirty-minded imagination or their looking too much into things, I acknowledged their existence directly and either linked to articles explaining their purpose in the narrative or provided examples to dispel purely negative interpretations and balance things out, leaving readers to come to their own conclusions with the new information provided. I purposely avoided touching any issues that could be even remotely linked to an opinion, such as:

• The unlikelihood that a female manga author would purposely create a series design to sexually objectify female children and condone their sexual exploitation or abuse.
• The fact that Rin appears to have a pretty "empowered" mindset for an alleged sexual abuse victim, since she only displays as much or as little of herself when and if she feels likes it and has shown great resistence to being forced to expose herself against her will (like when Aoki tried to remove her top when she dressed herself up as a boy).
• Omitting any condemnation/justification for Reiji's admittedly creepy behavior and changing the term "inappropriate conduct" to "grossly inappropriate sexual conduct" in light of the hickey incident.
• Mentioning or passing judgement on scenes I was personally shocked by or considered to be in poor or questionable taste, such as the mock-condom scene, the water fountain "blowjob", the gynasium crotch-rubbing fiasco, the breast-feeding scene, etc.

And, even after doing all this, I still got slapped with the damn tag... Lunar Archivist 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that part as an non-neutral one. When I noticed it, I really liked it just because of that. If anyone (or at least the person who tagged it) could tell us why was the tag placed, I'd really appreciate it. How ever, unless it happens, I'm motioning for its (the tag's) removal (if it is of any use). Guille ^.~ 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliments and kind words of support, Guille. As for why the tag was placed, I suspect it was done for the same reason that the article was briefly classified under the "child pornography" umbrella and the ones cited in the section I wrote. The manga's viewpoint of child sexuality (however much the story may distort reality overall) is unpopular and makes it a prime target for censorship. It's kind of ironic that the section is proving one side of the argument just by being there... :) Lunar Archivist 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one am also concerned about the tag. I've read your discussion, Lunar Archivist, as well as to how you presented your case analysis on the whole controversy. In any case, it would seem the tag was placed in light of knee-jerk reactions of people who are new to the concept and will agree with whatever "group" there is that tries to present the issue in a different light. This, of course, got me concerned. --Animeronin 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Animeronin. As I mentioned to Guille in my previous post on the matter, I find it kind of ironic that the section I wrote to try and balance out the article and bring neutrality to the discussion concerning the series in general is itself proving to be mildly controversial.

I'm no social psychologist, anthropologist, or anything of the sort, but I think the fact that so many people's feathers are ruffled by the author's "audacity" to not only suggest that a May-December romance - perhaps closer to February in this case ;) - as extreme as this might even exist within the series but also that it could be completely devoid of the stereotypical emotional manipulation, advantage-taking, and coercion often associated with such relationships involved speaks volumes. (The whole "evil adult seduces innocent child" cliché was actually used in the non-canonical precursor to the series of the same name, where Rin outmaneuvers the pedophile principal of her school in a sting operation, using herself as bait, when Aoki initially dismisses her suspicions based on her established sexual mischievousness.) Oddly enough, the fact that the characters are actively seen struggling to reconcile their feelings with social expections, norms, and acceptability - Aoki actively resists all of Rin's flirtations and Reiji, creepy and delusional though he may be, at least has enough self-restraint to "wait" until Rin comes of age before making a move on her - seems to be lost on a lot of people.

I suspect that the "real" issue people have with this series is that it subtly raises questions about something Rin herself touches upon when she tearfully comments at one point that, "Aoki only pays attention to me because I'm a child, but he also doesn't pay attention to me because I'm a child." There's this dichotomy in child psychology today where, while the welfare and emotions of a child are considered extremely important, there's this tendency to call into question, if not downright dismiss or condemn, a child's interpretations of his or her own feelings if they deviate significantly from what adults believe the "expected" or "proper" response should be. Rin is this dilemma personified: she has the feelings of an adult female (what Aoki referred to at one point as her "premature heart"), certainly has the sexual knowledge of an adult female, and definitely has more life experience than most of the adults in the series due to the losses and hardships she's endured in her nine brief years of existence. But she is a child and has the mind of one and thus lacks the level of cognitive development required to properly and constructively deal with it all. So she engages in "black box thinking"; by attempting to make her teacher fall in love with her based solely on her knowledge of sexual mechanics from various dubious sources. This strategy is akin to trying to develop a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex based solely on information gleamed from hardcore porn movies: doomed to spectacular failure. What makes Rin's situation especially tragic is that her love for Aoki appears to be genuine, but no one takes her seriously because of her age, causing her endless grief and frustration.

In any case, Matthew Skala's critique of vox populi child sexuality and the controversy surrounding this series that I linked on the main article page summarizes the points I've argued here a lot more clearly and concisely.

I realize that this lengthy post is out of place in a Wikipedia discussion section. My decision to write all this out here in spite of that was to demonstrate to anyone at odds with my section that I really did put a lot of thought and effort into maintaining neutrality despite my clear bias on this series and its issues, no matter what they may think. *gets off soapbox* Lunar Archivist 19:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So... time has passed, and no one has made a stand in favor of the neutrality tag. Shall we give it a date of expiration? What about november 16 (3~4 days from now, more than a week since I asked for a reason)? Guille ^.~ 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested date. Anyone else? --Animeronin 07:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it's time, right? I just deleted the tag. If anyone ever needs to place it again, use this section to give your reason. If you see the tag placed without a reason... please, remove it. Guille ^.~ (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh...sweet, sweet vindication at last! Thanks, Guille. :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that "lengthy post". I found it very educational and entertaining. Posts such as these are the reason why i keep on reading wikipedia talkpages. Rock on! Kratosxxx234 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.54.152 (talk)

Rin and Kuro's Level of Sexual Knowledge: Inappropriate or Not?

After having this independently edited out by both Servant Saber and Blue Eyes Gold Dragon, I've decided to set up this discussion topic here in response and have restored the point in the article for the time being.

I'm not quite sure how this point advances a point of view or is in any way inaccurate. If Rin and Kuro's level of sexual knowledge or behavior were in any way typical or representative of that of a significant number of nine-year-olds in the real world, I doubt that Kodomo no Jikan would've become the lightning rod for controversy that it has. Also, I don't think that anyone can debate that the series is "a comedy aiming to entertain the audience by means of an unlikely and improbable situation with verbal humor that includes sexual innuendo and word play", a description which fits the current Wikipedia definition of a farce.

Personally, I see this as a non-issue and vote to keep it in. Any opinions either way would be welcome. Lunar Archivist (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is a word that reeks of POV, moral and personal values, no matter whose. Go for "unusual" if you insist on keeping it. --Saber^Excalibur! 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it really just depends on whose standpoint you're referring to an "inappropriate". Just my two cents. --Animeronin (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See, now I understand what you meant by POV Servant Saber. A short comment describing the edit didn't quite make what you were trying to say clear to me. :)

The word "inappropriate" has been removed and replaced with the more neutral "broad", which describes the situation just as well. Lunar Archivist 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

dont children get sex ed at age 7? --Ricky326123 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in my school. Sex ed started around Grade 5 or so. As with most things academic, your mileage may vary. Lunar Archivist 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on your govenment (mileage?) dont know what Japan's age for learning about sex is. even so i knew about sex and stuff from older kids when i was at school maybe thats how Kokonoe learned?--Ricky326123 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The "mileage" reference was a bit of a joke, though the rest of the comment wasn't. :)

While I'm not debating the fact that children seen to be getting information about sex earlier and earlier these days, Rin and Kuro make reference to some pretty bizarre/obscure stuff that I think goes a bit beyond what schools teach or even grade schoolers who know all about the birds and the bees would be familiar with. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you remember fetishes like hadaka apron or nyotaimori being discussed in sex ed class? Would've made school a lot more interesting, I can tell you that... ;) Lunar Archivist 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

...and wouldn't make the whole Population Explosion debacle more or less interesting? :P Still, though... --Animeronin 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I initially heard that Japan's age of consent was only 14, but is apparently 16 as referenced by Kononoe Aki in the flashbacks and at the end of chapter 31. With an earlier age of consent comes earlier sex ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.233.120 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Censoring on dvd version

there is no Censoring on the DVD version as seen [[1]] here and [[2]]here --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whom has lung cancer

I think that sentence is a bit ungrammatical as 'whom' is the objective case of the nominative 'who' and in this case it is clearly the subject of the sentence and of the verb finite verb 'has'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.222.243 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender-Reversed "Kodomo no Jikan" Parody

I realize this isn't quite what the talk page was intended for, but this was too good to pass up:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/lunar_archivist/snh02mf9.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/lunar_archivist/snh03dn4.png
Kaworu Watashiya decided to parody herself by creating a reversed-gender version of the series as a (very) short story. Enjoy! :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha oh wow :) You just made my day! --Koheiman (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Rewrite and Manga Information

I was wondering if any of the "regular" editors of this page - such as Juhachi, WeirdGuille, and Animeronin - would mind if I started rewriting the article and episode summaries a little to make the tone more consistent throughout. Also, do you know of any way we could add short summaries of the manga chapters somewhere in this article or create a separate page (assuming this is even a good idea in the first place)? Lunar Archivist (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a rewrite (as I believe this article needs one), but as for the manga chapters, you could create something like List of Yotsuba&! chapters, but they have summaries of the volumes with a list of the chapters, not summaries of individual chapters. Do it well enough, and you may even get it up to Featured List status.--十八 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind either, Lunar Archivist. You seem to understand the context behind the series better than we do. Also, this article really needs a rewrite, as it's biased enough as it is by people unfamiliar with the intention of the manga-ka herself. --Animeronin (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your votes of confidence, guys. However, I do object to your statement, Animeronin, about my understanding the context of the series better than you (not in a bad way, though; I appreciate the compliment). While I'm trying to view the series objectively, I'm a fan of it and thus biased to a certain degree when it comes to interpretation, so it helps if all of you keep me grounded. :) Plus, add to that the fact that Wikipedia is a group effort and this article is "our" baby since we've all invested quite some time in its maintenance, and I'd feel like an ass going around and editing stuff without feedback and/or permission.

I've officially started on the rewrites and have complete the Introduction, Plot, Media, and Controversy sections thus far. I'll start on the Characters and Episodes soon. By the way, please ignore any unsourced statements for the moment. I'll add links to the relevant news articles and links when I get home later today and have full Internet access. And feel free to tell me whether I'm making this article better or worse overall! :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've also been thinking on asking you folks to improve the article (hive mind)... mostly because I don't want it to be a starter-class anymore... at least a B-class. I'd do it myself, but I kind of suck with english ^^ (most of my edits here are proofreading for fakes and adding new stuff... and then what I write usually gets fixed by someone because I suck at writing in english :( ).

So, of course I support you, Lunar. I would encourage you to read the following articles first, tho: First of all, the five pillars of Wikipedia. Second, the manual of style for anime-manga. Third, the Article Development tutorial. Oh, and what the article would need to get a better score on the Assessment Scale.

I know that last paragraph seems kind of smug, but it's really what we need to get a better article. Thanks for taking the initiative, Lunar ^^.

Oh, and because I just saw some stuff that should not be on a talk page a couple of titles back, I'll spam a Kodomo no Jikan imageboard, if any of you want to hang around there: http://www.4chan.org.uk/KnJ/ Guille ^.~ (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Guille. I'll keep an eye on that board. :D

I see Juhachi's also been busy editing this article. :) Just a quick list of some changes I made:

• In the Media section, I removed Tokai TV from the list of broadcasters because I reviewed the news articles and nowhere is it mentioned that they actually aired the show. They were in the middle of the ax murderer controversy and were trying to convince other stations to follow their lead.
• Added information on the manga prototype and its release date. I got the dates it appeared from the Japanese Wikipedia entry on "Kodomo no Jikan", but since my knowledge of the langauge is laughably nonexistent, I suggest that some double-check to verify it beyond the shadow of a doubt. I'm 99% sure the information is correct, though.
• Added the reasoning behind TV Saitama's decision to cancel the show. In this context, I kind of understand their decision, although I don't support it.

Well, that's it for now. I'll see about reworking the character profiles sometime soon. :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates in the manga section are correct, and by that I mean, they match the information supplied on the Japanese wiki. Of course, we have to put faith into that info since otherwise we don't have anything. As for my future contribs to this article, I think I've done most of what I can do via major contribuations. Anything else at this point will most likely be copyedits and fighting vandalism. Although if any reception is ever found, we may just get this up to GA status, but as of yet, there is nothing I've found in terms of how it's been receievd by the general public for the manga or anime versions.--十八 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification, Juhachi. I've finished cleaning up the article, best as I am able, and have rewritten the mini-profiles for Aoki, Mimi, and Kuro to round them out better. I plan to finish off the others by the end of the week and add ones for Aki, Shirai, and Oyajima so that everyone's covered. Lunar Archivist (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: You say that 'everyone' will be covered, but at the Japanese Wiki article on the series, there are three more there that won't be covered here: Nakamura, Nyaa, and Chuck. Now, I'm not sure if a cat, or stuffed bear deserve entries, though they could be inserted otherwise into text, like saying that 'Rin owns a stuffed bear named Chuck...' and 'Rin feeds a stray cat at her school named Nyaa' or something similar. As for Nakamura, it might be worthwhile to add him in due to understanding why Aoki comes in to be 3-1's new teacher.--十八 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure about Nakamura...after the first chapter of the series, I don't remember him even being mentioned again at all. I guess we could create a section for major and minor characters? Lunar Archivist (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or try to put him into context as well, like in Aoki's description put "Aoki replaced the previous teacher of class 3-1 named Nakamura. He was fired due to...", or something like that.--十八 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Right now, I'm doing a quick rereading of the entire series in order to finish off the character profiles and start work on the manga chapters list. Oh, and I'm going to temporarily remove the alleged release date of the final DVD volume later today because it doesn't make any sense. Since there are two episodes per DVD (making for a total of six volumes) and they're being released monthly starting in December 2007, it makes no sense that the last one is scheduled to appear in March 2008. May 2008 is more likely. Lunar Archivist (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is May; I accidentally wrote March instead.--十八 20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm being helpful (because I basically don't understand japanese), but here's the official DVD page: http://www.kojika-anime.com/dvd.html (but it looks better if you go first to http://www.kojika-anime.com/products.html ) Guille ^.~ (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! So that's settled, Juhachi. Sorry if I unintentionally sounded harsh before. I'm in a time crunch at work and that makes it hard to proofread comments properly. Two and a half hours and I'm back home to knock down another ten chapters... Lunar Archivist (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

List of manga chapters

Quick update: in keeping with Guille's suggestion about improvements and moving things towards A class, I've started work on a list of Kodomo no Jikan chapters based on the general style of the Yotsuba! one. I'll eventuallly overhaul this article and the one with anime episode summaries in a similar manner and possibly split the characters off into their own article so we can devote more time and room to them. Opinions, feedback, ideas, etc. are welcome. :) Lunar Archivist (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you got the years wrong by 10 years. Heisei started in 1989, so Heisei year 5 is actually 1995, not 2005; I changed all the years to 10 years prior in the manga chapters list to reflect this, and altered the context in the section about the canon chronology to have this make sense. Furthermore, I copyedited the lists themselves, adding in {{Nihongo}} templates that weren't there, and de-bolding those things that were unnecessarily bolded; and added the appropriate category. Aside from all that, the list is ready to move on.

But, please, do not split the characters into individual articles until suffiecient real-world secondary sources can be found on them. You can create a List of Kodomo ni Jikan characters article, but don't go and create individual artilces on them yet; there's been major strife related to this in WP:Anime if you weren't aware, so I wouldn't recommend it (and I would personally be very against it).

Also, can you clarify by what you mean by "I'll eventuallly overhaul this article and the one with anime episode summaries in a similar manner"; just what exactly are you planning to overhaul?--十八 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Juhachi, looks like we unintentionally got our wires crossed on a couple of points, so let me clarify them since we actually agree on most of them in spite of what it sounds like. :)

I reverted your changes of the years back to what I originall wrote. The Heisei 5 thing was a typo on my part. It was supposed to be Heisei 15, which is 2003. So that's been fixed. I may have accidentally reverted some additional changes you've made as well by accident, such as writing "page" and "chapter" small and writing out numbers (though I'm not really sure why you made those changes). Don't worry, I'll look them over and redo them when I have time. Please hold off redoing them until I've finished writing up the summaries for all four tankoubon so we can fix everything at once. I've also cleaned up the table code because a few important bits got accidentally deleted between our revision and cleanup attempts.

As for splitting characters into individual articles, I have no such intention. We don't have enough material on anyone to merit that. I was only considering doing what you said: making a "List of Kodomo no Jikan" characters with everyone on it and keeping the bio stubs in the current article where they are. And "overhauling" was too strong a word. By that I mean making sure that all the articles we have are similar in tone and are consistent with each other. Not trashing it all and rewriting from scratch. ^_^; Lunar Archivist (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: I may have accidentally reverted some additional changes you've made as well by accident, such as writing "page" and "chapter" small and writing out numbers (though I'm not really sure why you made those changes). I thought it was obvious: I made those changes for the good of article per many statutes in WP:MOS and WP:DATE; don't think I did them just for no reason. I added back in all those copyedits while keeping the tweaks you added, but also kept in the fourth volume as I see no reason why it shouldn't already be in there, seeing as you already went through the trouble of writing it all out only to revert yourself. And two other little things: you don't have to put the kanji for Heisei or Negima!: Magister Negi Magi since they have thier own articles, and it becomes too much if every foreign term has kanji next to it. If anyone wants to know the kanji for either of those, it only takes a single click on their articles to find this out; not to mention that their kanji won't help the KnJ chapters article in any way. Only add in kanji if it serves a reasonable purpose.

And I'm sorry for not waiting like you asked, but when it comes to having many constructive copyedits that took me a fair amount of time to do, and then have them reverted, I can't help myself but fix mistakes as soon as they crop up, so it'd be a bother for me to have to wait; if you haven't noticed this about me on Wiki, I tend to like doing things right away, and I rarely wait or draw out important edits.--十八 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only reason I reverted in the first place was because I neglected to check if you or anyone else had edited the page in the interim before copy/pasting all the writing I'd done first and I didn't want to come off like an inconsiderate jerk for something I'd accidentally done so I reverted it temporarily and planned to fix it later since it was my screw-up and therefore my responsibility. As for some of the changes you made, the page and chapter numbers I can understand since you apparently know Wikipedia style rules better that I do, but you also wrote "grade 1-1" in small letters, which doesn't make much sense to me at all. I do appreciate your work, though. Thanks. :)

As for my request to wait, that was more to avoid the possibility of inconsistent capitalization. Also, the list of chapters unpublished in takoubon form might end up being superfluous. I've already created a Volume 5 write-up for the existing chapters with "not yet released" and "to be announced" entries for the ISBN and release date slots, respectively. Lunar Archivist (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all let me clarify this: grade, along with page, volume, and chapter (all of which had been capitalized in a previous verison) are not proper nouns, so they do not deserve to be capitalized; it's just standard English. Second, I was merely copying the "unpublished chapters" list from List of Yotsuba&! chapters, but if you already have something in the works for volume 5, that would work too (probably better actually).--十八 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the superfluous chapters part. It's good someone put that up there. :)

As for capitalization and spelling, I'll let you handle it. However, I would very much appreciate it if you would not edit my table code any further. I spent a long, long time getting it to look just right and every time it's edited by someone other than me, the spacing, the line breaks, sometimes even the cells, everything gets messed up, and it's getting pretty frustrating to have to go back and fix it all the time. Do what you want with grammar, spelling, etc. but please leave my poor table code alone from now on. -_-; Lunar Archivist (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot do that. This is not "your" code or "your" table; you may have started it, but that does not mean any hill of beans on this Wikipedia according to WP:OWN. Furthermore, your removal of the running numbers list I had installed I do not agree with since other similar (Featured) lists at List of Yotsuba&! chapters and List of Naruto chapters (Part I) have a running number line which correspond to the chapters, instead of starting back at number 1 with each volume. And frustration, I'm sad to say, is apart of the game. I get frustrated on a daily basis on this Wikipedia, as do countless other editors; it just something we have to live with. I'll tend to leave the table code in more capable hands unless I can do it myself, but otherwise I'm here to make sure that the article stays consistent with other featured examples, while conforming to guidelines set out at WP:MOS or what not.--十八 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's not "my" code or "my" table. It's free to edit by anyone. But I have the right to do exactly what you're doing: making sure the article is as good a quality as it can be. And when someone goes in and consistently edits code without consideration about how it's going to affect other aspects of that same code and the end result looks in some ways worse than what preceded it, then it's my obligation to make sure my concerns are addressed. For comparison:

Your old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kodomo_no_Jikan_chapters&oldid=184886281

My current version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kodomo_no_Jikan_chapters&oldid=184916686

Check out the entries for "Chapters", "General timeframes", and "Specific timeframes" in your version. Your addition of the running numbers list fixed the chapter problem and made the "Class Period" numbers match the chapter ones. And good eye on spotting that, by the way, because I missed it. But because you didn't remove or edit the break tags after adding the running numbers list, the spacing and line breaks between the three columns became completely inconsistent with one another. I was trying to get the entries in each column to line up as much as possible under the given circumstances. And then there's this older one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kodomo_no_Jikan_chapters&oldid=184648706

In this one, you edited the "ISBN" column layout to create two rows and ISBN-10 and ISBN-1 subcolumns. That was fine. But doing so completely messed up the placement of the "Release Date" header relative to the other two.

I was trying to be diplomatic before and I hate seeming like a demanding jerk, but I also can't let messed-up spacing and layouts like this fly, either. In the current version of the page as of this writing, I've managed to work around your ordered numbers list and fix everything, so the table code is fine now and we can all be friends again. Lunar Archivist (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can respect your views on the table, and now I see why we are in disagreement. You must be using some other browser than IE or MSN (I use MSN to browse Wiki because I like how it renders it), because when I compare the current version of the list of how it is viewable on MSN and how is viewable on Firefox (which is what I use to browse everything except Wiki), I find a stark difference in how the chapters line up. I suggest you see for yourself to make sure, and then look at my version of the two you pointed out above in IE and see how the lines all nicely match up with each other just as your current version does in whatever browser you're using (which I am positive isn't IE/MSN or else we wouldn't be having this tiny disagreement on how the chapters line up). I was merely trying to align the chapters, but I was unaware that there'd be a discrepency between how they are aligned on IE/MSN and how they'd be aligned for another browswer since, as I said, I only use MSN for all my Wiki browsing (aside from the Japanese Wiki, but that's because of a translation Firefox extension I use to translate text). Of course, I am also aware that this problem is also easily recified by the slight alteration in the text size in IE/MSN to make it one level smaller, which corresponds to the default text size of Firefox (IE/MSN on default has larger text, not by much, but there's enough of a difference to cause problems like this).

Either way, now that I know of this fact, I'll be more careful if I edit the table code, and I'll make sure to double check any additions in Firefox to make sure, though I doubt there's much else I would want to do regarding the code anyway. Glad we've finally come to an understanding; I can now check KnJ off my "gives me Wikistress" list (kidding). :P Actually, you know, that might be a funny thing to make. Every time an article starts giving me some Wikistress, I'll add it to the list, and when the dispute is overwith, I'll cross it off. I wonder how long it'll be...: User:Juhachi/wikistress; congrats on being the first on the list; you should consider it an honor (lol).

And, heads up, if you haven't realized it yet, there is an ongoind discussion at WT:ANIME#Discussion of format for Lists of chapters which will most likely eventually put out a real template for chapter lists, much in the same form of {{Japanese episode list}} does for anime episode lists, so sooner or later, the table code will have to go. Kind of sucks considering the work you put into it, but it was bound to happen eventually.--十八 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if it goes and is replaced by something better, I don't mind. I just want it to look as good as it possible can until that point in time. And let's hope that my creation of the "List of Kodomo no Jikan characters" page didn't give too much Wikistress. I'll start polishing the rough spots in the main article and the "List of Kodomo no Jikan episodes" pages so we can get everything bumped up to B class before going any farther. Lunar Archivist (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon as a storytelling device

I removed "Lolicon as a storytelling device" as it is nothing more than original research and POV. As stated by its writer in a post above, it was made to counterbalance the "Controversy" section. But it's against wikipedia policy (and also unencyclopedic) to counterbalance statements from third-party sources with editors' own analysis. It doesn't matter if examples from the series itself have been used, this is still OR, and POV. Want this section back? Then write a proper one, with statements from third-party sources. But without such sources this kind of thing has no place here. Kazu-kun (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could be more polite about it, quite frankly. If you feel it's Original Research, that's one thing. And if you feel it needs removal, also fine. But don't talk down to me like I'm a six-year-old that needs lecturing. 76.67.207.97 (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you'd like talking down to a six year old, wouldn't you? 76.66.124.145 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Season Two / 2nd Term Distribution Medium

What's this? Second season is an OVA series? Please check AnimeNewsNetwork and the official website to confirm (or not), and then update this article based on your findings. Also, I believe there may have been a video release that has not been mentioned. Please check the official website and likewise update the article on any required updates. Animeresearcher (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ANN right turn only

Right turn only vol 1 review --KrebMarkt 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be established clearly

The article looks like a lot of them do: a good amount of content, but somewhat unorganized, lacking as a coherent explanation of the subject. It doesn't really give the readers a good idea of what it's all about. I haven't seen Kodomo no Jikan, so with the various references to controversy, censored shots, and a cancelled release, permit me to be direct:

Does either the manga or the anime depict fucking kids, kids in other, overtly sexual situations, kids being presented as fuckable whether in-story or to the audience, or an expressed desire to fuck kids? --Kizor 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes, The main characher Rin makes sexual advances to her teacher to the point of rubbing up against his you know what to having milk (?) poured into a condom and saying "You came so much sensei". What is intresting to note is that the anime is not about some perv and it is Rin the girl who does the sexual advances. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That much is clear from the article. Children going after adults is comedy, cringe or otherwise. What is not clear from the article is whether Kodomo no Jikan also has adults going after children, or kids depicted in sexualized, erotic, arousing or other disgusting ways. While I am not an expert on either anime or child molestation, I assume that this is a crucial property. The article needs to get this right, and say so clearly.

So does Komodo no Jikan depict kids as fuckable, arousing, desirable or otherwise sexually attractive, either from the point of view of in-story characters or for the audience? Signs point to "yes" (check the image of the DVD: I see London, I see France, I see pre-teen underpants), but the article needs more concrete data.

Less importantly, does anyone know an equally unambiguous synonym so that I can stop using "fuck" so much? --Kizor 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Question not Adressed anywhere

So I've come to realize no where online is there an answer to "Is this legal to read in the US online?" It seems like something most people that come across this would wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.96.113 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content is legal in the US and this comic does not contain any depictions of explicit sexual conducts so it is not obscene under 18 U.S.Code § 1466A. This content is obviously not child porn according to 18 U.S.Code § 2256 because it doesn't contain any actual minors. So it seems reading this in the US online is legal under federal laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.160.29.10 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request from Reikasama, 28 August 2011

After reading 9 volumes of this manga i fail to see why there is the lolicon tag in. Is a slice of life and more a seinen manga with drama and comedy elements like the original author stated. Manga-updates has the correct tags too. Lolicon is not a genre is japanese media but a word that mean "lolita complex" always related to ero manga and more specifically to a behaviour of someone. Hentai is not a genre too but a behaviour. The correct tags are: [Drama], [Comedy], [Slice of life], [Romance] and [Seinen]. These define tha manga itself. In Japanese wiki you can read better about the genre and explanation. Reikasama (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We have several sources identifying the series as lolicon. Mainly on the news blog of the retail site AnimeNation.[3][4][5] (WP:ANIME/RS#General) You must have a source stating that the series is both "Drama" and "Comedy" because the two genres and opposites of each other. "Slice of life" will also require a source and Seinen is not a genre, but a demographic (target audience).

Seinen define a target audience and is correct as a tag because Kojikan targeting a seinen demographic. Lolicon define a behaviour not a category nor a tag, animenation also use "Ecchi lolita" that is fine in this case. Correct tag however is "loli manga" if you want use the proper word. Also there is here a list of correct tags: [WP:COPYLINK redacted]. also drama (rin mother death) and comedy are still present in the manga. In japanese Kojikan wiki and general manga/anime media this term doesn't exist and define a behaviour. Use the correct tags please [seinen][romance][comedy][drama] and [loli manga] if you want, and unlock the kojikan webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.197.137 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include demographic groups in the genre list. The rest is just original research. And finally a website that engages in copyright violations is not a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, sorry for incorrect links before. Still lolicon is not a genre and define a behaviour, you can use kojikan japanese wikipedia page as source. The terminology doesn't exist in japanese anime and manga media. Also this is a reliable source on MAL [6] and ANN [7] as correct tags. ANN and MAL are reliable and updated source. Still i don't see the big problem here to use properly tags and lock the page? Really?

Reikasama (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither MyAnimeList nor Anime News Network's encyclopedia are reliable sources because their content is user generated. (WP:A&M/ORS) In addition, there are several reliable sources that does identify lolicon as a genre, many of which are identified at Lolicon#Genre characteristics. —Farix (t | c) 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, ANN and MAL are reliable source more than the blogs you post as proof. ANN adn MAL rapresent all the fandom anime and manga community. Lolicon is NOT a genre, absolutely, ask in the japanese wiki. And where are these reliable source you claiming? The wiki you link is false and should be edited too, and all with the other anime and manga with this tag should be edited and fixed. If you have to post sources post reliable sources not blogs, like anime publishers or big websites with a large community like ANN and MAL. I've report the issue to an administrator because block the page for no purpose with a false and improper statement. Lolicon is NOT a genre, neither in Japan neither is the west, expecially in japan. Because someone say that in internet don't mean is true since big anime communities claim the countrary. You have to comapare what the terminology mean in Japan, and in Japan mean something different and unrelated to categories of genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.197.137 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do read over WP:A&M/ORS first. This page is a result of the vetting process by WikiProject Anime and manga and the Reliable sources noticeboard. Repeating the same point over and over again without a reliable source isn't going to get the point into the article. Also, just to show the community wisdom of ANN's encyclopedia, it also lists Kodomo no Jikan as a lolicon series.[8][9][10] But based on your comments, its clear that you are just here to push a specific point of view —Farix (t | c) 17:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

you are the same, insist with a improper point of view. I've reported clairly the tags using MAL and ANN for the serie, countrary you haven't post a reliable source about the specific manga. If 2 communities mark the manga with specify tags this mean that is right and you are wrong because you refuse to post a reliable source that claim the countrary. You still continue to provide links unrelated to the manga. BUT i pick up the link you provided and i read: Genres: comedy, romance - Themes: lolicon . So Lolicon IS NOT A GENRE but A THEME. This is the third ufficially proof i've find that lolicon is not a genre but something different like a theme, a behaviour or more specify a internet meme created in the west. Please unlock the page and let me edit the tags with the correct statement.

MAL and Anime News Network's encyclopedia are not reliable sources because their content is user generated. AnimeNations's news blog has been identified as a reliable source because AnimeNations is a major anime/manga retailer that has been in business since 1995. Also the reliable sources cited in the Lolicon have identified it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, ANN and MAL are reliable source because they have the contribution of the fandom of anime and manga like wikipedia. And who decide what is a reliable source? You? Don't make me laught, is the community that decide not a single blog post with a personal and random opinion stated by a random user. Fact is that if you read the terminology in the japanese wiki, this word is not a genre but a kind of behaviour. You want deny the japanes meaning of a word created in Japan? This make no sense at all. You trust a random blog because you don't have any more resourced where i provide you 3 links with correct tags. ANN and MAL stated that kojikan is not a lolicon genre but has loli themes in sure, the correct genre is drama, romance and comedy. You are wrong and selfish and abuse your privilege for no reason and personal attacks and insiste with a false statement without providing more sources like i've do because you haven't anything more as proof. Hope administrator consider my links as a reliable and consistent proof. Unclock the page and let me edit the content with the properly tags.

Any user generated content is not reliable. Even Wikipedia is not a reliable source by itself because it is based on user generated content, and that includes the Japanese Wikipedia which almost never cites any sources. Also AnimeNation is not some "random blog by a random person", but one of the oldest anime and manga retail websites and its CEO, John Oppliger, has been writing the "Ask John" column for several years now (since 1999). So claiming that he is not a expert in the field of anime and manga is the same a claiming that Steve Jobs is not a expert in the field of computers. —Farix (t | c) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is old like ANN, is a random blog with a personal point of view. Japan wiki is reliable for a simple fact, you trust a foreigner or people where the word is originated? Is like tell me that the pizza is created for the first time in the us because a random blog say so. You are blind, after i provide you proof you still continue with nonsense and this random blog. Why don't post more link then? Because there aren't, because is not a genre but a behaviour, a sub-theme like japanese wiki stated and how is considered this word in Japan. ANN and MAL are more reliable then AN. They are professional and respectfull. Unlock the page please.

We can take this matter to the WP:RSN. But before we do, carefully read over WP:V and WP:RS. I will guarantee you that ANN's encyclopedia, MAL, and the Japanese Wikipedia will not be considered reliable sources because of their user generated content. The only parts of ANN that are reliable are its news and views sections which are created by its staff. AnimeNation, on the other hand, will be considered a reliable source because they are part of the industry and John's column has been recognized by other reliable sources.[11] —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not true and highly offensive to the two of the most big community of anime and manga in the WWW. They are absolutely reliable sources. ANN expecially is a professional and fully reliable website more than animenation (that provide only a article as blog and personal opinion). I give you proof not only from ANN but to MAL too, another reliable source. Also the best reliable source is the japanese Wiki made from Japanese people, the creator of this word (is impossible you can't trust a japanese). Lolicon IS NOT a genre but a theme, a behaviour, or a word used in the west to expand an explanation of a category. I've the permission from the administrator of Wikipedia Fastily after providing him sources. Please stop to lock the page and delete my fixes. Another thing, i can accept the "Loli manga" tag too because is pertinent and the correct genre where you can classify this work. Reikasama (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you refuse to get the point that user generated content is not a reliable source, which is explicitly explain in Wikipeida's policy on verifiability and to which I have pointed out to you multiple times, then you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. Just because you believe the user generated content to ben true doesn't make it a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don'r refuse anything, i link proof as evidence, is not my POV is the POV of the enire community of anime and manga. If you block me you abuse your power only because you are selfish and want your opinion to be the only reliable not accepting other opinion and sources. You fail to privde me more links as a proof, i provide you 3 links but you refuse to accept the evidence assaulting me with personal attacks. Reikasama (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• A Google image search for the name of this series with the word "lolicon" shows this: [12] Even without the word lolicon, it shows images which are clearly lolicon in the manga and in the anime. I just looked it up on YouTube and saw a clip. That is certainly lolicon, and very disturbing. This isn't just showing their panties either. Little girls touching each others breasts, leaning down and sucking the teachers finger in a sexual manner, etc. Dream Focus 20:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This don't matter and it wasn't what i was talking about. what i was talking about was that the word lolicon is not a genre but a behaviour ans is incorrent using it in the tags, also the link you provide are random post from internet with lot of doujinshi, not official works at all, not reliable source, nothing. As i stated before Kojikan misk different genres (drama, slice of life, comedy, romance) and yes has loli theme into it but is a sidetheme. I've the permission to edit the page direct from the administrator of wikipedia Fastily because i send him proof about correct and reliable tags. Reikasama (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• The official product will have listed on it what genres it belongs to. If its not listed on a sales page or the official website, just find a picture of the cover or back cover of it, and see what it says. Dream Focus 21:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Still lolicon is not genre in Japan. Lolicon is a behaviour of a person in RL or fiction not a category where you can classify anime. You should read reliable sources like ANN or MAL not random post over the internet and expecially google images. This make zero sense. I can accept the tag "Loli Manga" too because is pertinent, but the word lolicon has no purpose here. Reikasama (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a genre. I'm sure they have a name for it in Japanese as well. Lolicon#Genre_characteristics Dream Focus 21:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, is the same source the moderator link me before but is incorrect statement made by someone without any source but linking some works and random stuff. The correct source is the japanese wiki of the same terminology, but you have to use google translate if you don't understand japanese. Japanese consider the word a behaviour not a genre, only in the west some people call it a genre but is a improper use of the terminology and more a internet meme. I will edit this article later too providing more sources. Also you shouldn't trust me, you should learn where the word is originate and the meaning in the mother country not in a random west country. Reikasama (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I will add the following tags to the main page: [Drama][Comedy][Romance][Slice of Life], picked up from MAL and ANN articles about this specific serie. Fell free to add tags but the lolicon one. You can suggest to remove too but please specify why is not correct (for this i hope you have read the manga till volume 9 because content vary from volume to volume with different undertones). You can use "loli manga" or "loli" too if you want so much specify the side content. Thanks. Reikasama (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have demonstrated according to Wikipedia's polices and the sources already vetted by WP:ANIME (WP:A&M/ORS), MAL, ANN's encyclopedia, and the Japanese Wikipedia are not reliable sources. And continually inserting material based on unreliable sources will eventually result in the loss of your editing privileges. —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese wiki is written by japanese people where the terminology is created in origin so is a 100% reliable source. Or you say that japanese people are liars? Come on use common sense. If you lock or remove again the tags i'm force to report you again to administrator, you have to privide reliable source in japanese (or japanese translated into english) that clearly stated that is agenre other than a behaviour, not pick up the definition in a random blog made in the west by someone. Reikasama (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provide as reliable source for the genre. You, on the other hand, have only proved links to sources containing user generated content, which are not reliable under Wikipedia policies. —Farix (t | c) 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have proved reliable source too, the one you link is a generated opinion of a random guy on the matter and is not a fact. My link are more that 1 proof because they are generated not by 1 guy but from the entire community so is better accurate. Reikasama (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't provided any reliable sources. You posted links to user generated content, which will never be considered a reliable source. It is best that you drop your stick now and read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and identifying reliable sources before you continue to spout off non-sense that user generated content is reliable because you happen to agree with it. —Farix (t | c) 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes i have, ANN ensyclopedia is not editable like wiki, is locked and managed by competent people. You spout nonsense and provide no link only worlds, i provide sources both here and in the admin section. Less words and more facts. Reikasama (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is the definition of Lolicon itself. While the sources describe lolicon as the depiction/attraction of/to minors of a certain age (sexual or not), it is often used (in fan terms) to indicate drawings with sexual/pornographic background with child like characteristics or characters itself (mostly flat chested, despite of fictional age). If you go after the first definition, which is usually found inside the sources, then Kodomo no Jikan is part of the lolicon genre. This doesn't mean that it is illegal or pornographic. If you go after the second "definition" then you can come to the conclusion that it isn't, since the manga/anime-series does not show any sexual relationships or pornographic content (at least up till now).

Yes, but you shouldn't consider the definition made by some western fans, in Japan the definition correct is the second, is not a genre but define a behaviour. I trust japanese people and the origin of the word than a random community on internet and the improper use of it. Reikasama (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that Kodomo no Jikan falls into the genre of lolicon, because it plays with this theme all the time. It's right at the borderline between ecchi and hentai, but this has nothing to do with the definition of lolicon itself, a word which has different meanings depending on context. The genre has a much wider scope then what the typical anime/mange fan means inside conversations. You could use this word to describe a person with interest in minors, a work with such content or a character-type. --Niabot (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that falls into this "created" genre but is improper use of the word according where the word is originated (japanese wiki), is better use "loli manga" as a tag because is the perfect sub-genre that define the content not a behaviour like in origin. I don't see the issue here. Reikasama (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that for the "genre" of lolicon on said page they are heavily English-centric for defining the genre characteristics. While I'm not condoning Reikasama's using MAL, ANN Encylopedia and Japanese WikiPedia as RSes, there does seem to be a geographical bias of non-Japanese world (particularly the English-speaking US). I've tagged that section. The article is far from perfect so it could use some more Japanese views, or note the lack of their classification as a genre.

All that aside, it is still considered a genre in the English-world and the primary audience is English. As long as there is no reliable source disputing its a lolicon manga, that's what we use (and those sources Reikasama pointed out aren't reliable for Wikipedia. My personal feeling is it isn't lolicon because its not hentai and its not trying to glorify or promote sexual relations with young girls. Having it in a manga doesn't mean it promotes something.陣内_Jinnai 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is a terminology used in the west as a genre but originally in Japan the genre [lolicon] doens't exist in the first place. So the point is, we should use english or japanese genre as tags? I still prefer use the correct tag as [loli manga] because is properly correct both for japanese and english audience. Reikasama (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well this is primarily an English-lanuage Wikipedia, not a Japanese one. That the genre characteristics in lolicon are heavily weighted to non-Japanese POV doesn't mean that we can ignore RSes when multiple ones list it as lolicon, personal opinions aside. That doesn't mean we automatically ignore Japanese sources, but you need to find those from reliable sites, such as Japanese magazine reviews, etc. They do exist out there and several articles do make use of them.陣内_Jinnai 17:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This terminolgy in Japan has a different meaning and is used to explain a behaviour not to define a genre. Hentai, lolicon and ecchi are all behaviour not genres. In the west they are used for practical use and categorize some comics. I think my sources are reliable, since the target of the manga is a seinen and is published on a free ofr all magazine, the better tag should be [loli manga] because 1) is not denigratory 2) has the same meaning that the old tag but in a different manner. There are references on wikipedia japan page about this terminolgy that define it a denigratory behaviour and not a specific category of anime. Also, as i stated several times, if ANN is not a valid source then all the articles pick up from ANN aren't valid sources and everything should be put on hold and rechecked one by one by an expert of wikipedia. Reikasama (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, these are the page of the publisher, the retailer and the author. Reading them i'm not able to find this tag [lolicon] anywhere, nor is a genre and nor Kojikan belong to this hypotehtic category. The only thing that is valid compared to the article here is that Comic High is a seinen magazine. [13][14][15]. Reikasama (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those links states the genre of the series. You cannot claim that a series is one genre and not another based on the absence of evidence. However, there is already a reliable source cited to verify that the series is of the lolicon genre. In fact, the source explicitly states it. You have to provide a reliable source that explicitly states that the series isn't of the lolicon genre. And even then, it wouldn't completely remove mention of the lolicon genre from the article because it will mention the disagreement between sources. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't notice here [16] that kojikan belong to this genre and lolicon is a genre. Since you claim that lolicon is a genre you don't provide a valid source that indicate the existence of this genre in Japan. I point out that neither the original creator neither the publisher consider this comic a lolicon or belonging to this hypothetic lolicon genre. So if i provide a non reliable source either the actual sources aren't reliable until you should me that 1) lolicon is a genre in Japan, 2) Kojikan belong to this genre. If you provide evidence and reliable source i give up and leave the page alone otherwise keep the page locked till you have them because i wont accept the actual tag. If you can't prove that the actual tag is reliable you should put on hold all the references till are all verified. Reikasama (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if lolicon is a "genre in Japan". All that matters is that reliable sources identify lolicon as a genre and that Kodomo no Jikan is part of that genre. Lolicon has several reliable sources that state that it is a genre and I've provided sources that Kodomo no Jikan is part of the lolicon genre. Pointing to sources that don't state any genres doesn't conflict with the sources that state that Kodomo no Jikan is part of the lolicon genre. —Farix (t | c) 10:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Provide me link where you stated that Kodomo no Jikan belong to this hipothetic genre and that lolicon is a genre in Japan. Why you don't provide me reliable sources? Since the manga is created in Japan and not in the west, reliable sources are from the japanese media. Provide link to prove your point. I already provide severa link that prove my point as reliable, japanese sources translated directly from the company thanks to ANN. If you don't provide sources then i'm right and the word should put on hold to re-check valid sources. 82.55.198.11 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is already a link to a reliable source in the article citing that the series is in the lolicon genre. There are also plenty of other links in the Lolicon article establishing it as a genre. —Farix (t | c) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The link you provide don't state that lolicon is a genre since the link that i posted on the same website consider the better terminology [lolita manga]. Also i don't see what you claiming for, can you please provide me DIRECT copy paste where is clearly stated that "lolicon is a genre" and kojikan belong to this genre? The link posted in the main article point to ANN, ANN provide correct tags in the encyclopedia page and this manga here is not tagged in this way. I correct the article again with my sources till you provide me link with reliablre sources over the mine. Reikasama (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Now we don’t see Lolicon anime like Moetan, Ichigo Marshmallow, Petopeto-san, and Kodomo no Jikan that premiered during the height of the moé boom."[17] —Farix (t | c) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately on the same website: For the sake of convenience, I’ll refer to this genre as “Lolita anime” meaning “moe” anime featuring preadolescent looking bishoujo. [18]. He don't mention lolicon. So i assume that the editor used the word as convenience and for practical use but isn't an appropriate word at all to classify this manga. Have you more source? Link me another one please, but this time not referring to anime but manga specifically, they are 2 different works made by different people. Also you can put in in the reliable_source_noticeboard your reference and ask if is reliable or not because seems more a personal blog opinion then a reliable fact. Just said. Reikasama (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this page on ANN [19] stated the same current tags as here i agree with your corrent edit. Reikasama (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama is incorrect; the use of the Lolicon tag was correct due to the fact that Lolicon is a genre in the same way hentai is a genre. And in addition, the claims of the word Lolicon being of Japanese origin are incorrect; the word is an English loanword, coming from 'Lolita Complex', which refer's to the book 'Lolita'. Lolicon is a multi-definiton word, and the previous usage was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.241.107 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As stades from the same source you cited, Animenation, lolicon is not a genre, loli manga or loli anime is a genre. Reikasama (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Lolicon as genre

I must wonder why you added lolicon as a genre. So far i have read every chapter and the work itself could be hardly considered as belonging to the "lolicon genre". The story is based around the lolicon scenario, having it as a main topic, but at the same time it isn't comparable to works that really belong to the "lolicon genre". I doubt that the author of the source (can we call it a source?) had the intention to put Kodomo no Jikan in the same group as other lolicon works. In short: It discusses the genre, but it is not part of the genre itself. For example: YuruYuri has yuri as the main topic, but does not follow the path of a typical yuri story. It is more or less a parody on yuri. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If there was not controversy surrounding it I would agree with you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Which controversy? Or better said. Why would a controversy turn a work about lolicon into a work of lolicon? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would go with the common name here as used by sources is what it comes down to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We have exactly one source and it contradicts itself. I don't call that a reliable source. If it even includes Ichigo Mashimaro, then this would easily apply to Papa no Iu Koto wo Kikinasai!, Mitsudomoe, Kyō no Go no Ni or even Usagi Drop as well. From that i have to conclude that the author of the source called every work with children in the main role a "lolicon anime", which is in conflict with the definitions sourced in lolicon. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, is not a lolicon manga at all, is a normal romantic comedy. 87.19.32.242 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, however, this genre has been sourced to a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a „reliable source“. The used definitions are questionable and inconsistent throughout the entire text. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 02:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Is only an opinion of a random website and not an absolutely reliable source. An reliable source is the original classification of the manga, is published in comic high that is a seinen magazine. I never see this manga classified as lolicon, also the same animenation has made another article that stated that is more a loli manga than a lolicon in this specific case. Lot of opinions here point out that kojikan is not a lolicon manga and i agree with them. 79.26.242.164 (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify more: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-11-21/kaworu-watashiya/kodomo-no-jikan-manga-to-end-soon and here https://twitter.com/watashiya/status/271268730732965889 refer about it as "manga comedy", never read or mentioned the term "lolicon" nor from the original author nor from other websites that review it. If animenation is considered a reliable source then ann is too, but they are only opinions like ours here, however the original twitter of the creator is 100% reliable, so if author refer to his creature as comedy then the manga is a comedy and not a lolicon. Simple as that.79.26.242.164 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Forbidden Time

Thinking we should include a disambiguation statement for this series from 2000. It was a 6 OVA hentai anime series also called 'Kodomo no Jikan' which came out 5 years before this KnJ was even a manga. It seems the 'forbidden time' might've just been an American retitle (probably to avoid problems with something called 'a child's time' being a title for a hentai OVA? Ranze (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kodomo no Jikan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://zepy.momotato.com/2007/10/05/tv-saitama-kodomo-no-jikan-and-axe-girl-stuff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kodomo no Jikan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014015307/http://dbeat.bandaivisual.co.jp/netradio/kojika.php to http://dbeat.bandaivisual.co.jp/netradio/kojika.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228180639/http://www.alafista.com:80/2007/10/11/teletama-reply-for-pulling-kodomo-no-jikan/ to http://www.alafista.com/2007/10/11/teletama-reply-for-pulling-kodomo-no-jikan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kodomo no Jikan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://homepage2.nifty.com/WATASHIYAKAWORU/nikki/nikki.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720140341/http://mrcaxton.livejournal.com/26421.html to http://mrcaxton.livejournal.com/26421.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kodomo no Jikan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231314/http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910244090537&Action_id=101&Sza_id=RR to http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910244090537&Action_id=101&Sza_id=RR

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Should Kodomo no Jikan be categorized as lolicon?

The following discussion 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.

---

It's time to put an end to this dispute. I, for one, believe that Kodomo no Jikan is undeniably lolicon, as it is blatantly pedophilic in nature. Why? Because of the sexualization of 9 year old girls, the forbidden relationship between the 23 year old teacher (the main character) and his 9 year old student (they even engage in sexual intercourse in the manga's final chapter), and the fact that this stance is further validated by an industry professional, Zac Bertschy, who writes for Anime News Network. Quoting his Answerman entry, " This is - I think, anyway - the first lolicon title that's explicit enough to be released here with shrinkwrap, so the potential for danger is probably higher than it is with yaoi manga, but for right now I'm not sure I'd be panicked about this release." RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC). Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - as nominator. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment For the record a past consensus exists here: Talk:Kodomo no Jikan#Edit request from Reikasama, 28 August 2011 and at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan#Lolicon as genre. Most recently the topic was brought up by Prince here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 72#Should Kodomo no Jikan be categorized as lolicon? Is Oreimo of the incest genre?. This article already has an entire section dedicated to the controversy, per WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS I do not feel we should add categories or "Lolicon" as a genre without a consensus or additional secondary sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• No - I had the impression that there was a pretty clear consensus. Also, that it had already been dealt with in the past. This is being dragged out needlessly.

The Answerman comment is a generalization made in passing, not a statement of fact. He is not reporting on the title's genre. He opines on the suitability of releasing the title. He writes dramatically to forcefully give his opinion. For example, the sentence, "Barf."

To possess WP:RS, a source must be considered for context WP:RSCONTEXT and this article fails that. Further to this point, as he stated in his comments, he was not familiar with the work except by name.

Given who the author is, if he seriously meant that there actually was such a genre, he could have it added to the list of them on ANN. But it's not in their list of genre even though he has had a decade to do so. So this position gives undue weight to an offhand comment from someone who isn't familiar with the material and whose own actions contradict the novel interpretation.

It fails WP:NEWSBLOG which advises that while professional writers may be acceptable sources, caution should be exercised as such writing will not necessarily be fact-checked. I'm not stating that this is an unreliable site, but rather that we use judgement as to a single off-the-cuff sentence. (Well, always use judgment but especially here.)

Additionally, even if everyone put aside whether this was legitimate statement or not, WP:ONUS states that those seeking to include disputed content have the onus to achieve consensus, whereas the consensus here seems strongly against adding it.

You can't make up genre on the fly because the whole point of having it is to be able to classify similar titles which can't happen when you only have one.

WP:EXCEPTIONAL recommends extra caution when surprising claims are not covered by multiple mainstream sources. As far as I am concerned, this is original research. Proponents are interpreting statements and synthesizing something new, beginning with a descriptive phrase and concluding with a genre (a word never used). Personally, I don't like the idea of taking an offhand comment and then incrementally converting that into an obligatory fact. If wikipedia were to add this genre to this title, it would be the single mainstream site to do so WP:NOR. If it actually were a genre, you would be able to find the works categorized as such on all sites but there are zero that do so. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize what other sources have said, not lead everyone into new places.

Genre is by definition a very broad brush. On ANN for example, 16 genres cover all works. If it's seriously contested then it shouldn't be used. The same way that this is a named field on wikipedia, it should be a named field on a source site. Confusion around this field provides no advantage to any reader.

I'll close with this from WP:NOR:

"Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research…"

ogenstein (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know enough about the subject of lolicon (nor am I willing to learn) to give a clear opinion on this, but I would like to dispute the idea that lolicon is "only a description and not a genre". Genres are not something set in stone and terms that start as descriptors can evolve into genres. If enough people use a certain term to describe or tag a certain type of work, that will become a genre, regardless of what some fans will claim. You see this happening in music all the time with things such as shoegaze, indie rock or post-rock, which were used to describe certain attitudes or ways of approaching music rather than coherent genres, but then morphed into full-fledged genres as the term became more and more crystallized. The decision to label Kodomo no Jikan as lolicon should be based on how much of its content aligns with other works usually labeled as lolicon. Claiming "lolicon" is not a genre despite the fact that the word is used to describe a very specific type of content found in manga is a poor defense and should be ignored in the context of this dispute. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm in the same boat on the actual material but as you say, that's a separate issue.

As far as genres go, it isn't wikipedia's purpose to be on the bleeding edge of things that may not develop. If you want to create new genres with only one title in them, make your own fan site. The objective here is to summarize what is already out there — in this case, what is the mainstream classification for this work, and that won't come from the offhand, one-time comment made while discussing a different subject but ignoring how the site actually classifies the work. What sense does it make for wikipedia to be the only site with a 'lolicon' genre? And if the question arose, "Where did it come from?" The answer would be ANN. Meanwhile, ANN doesn't have this as a genre. Wikipedia would look foolish as well as failing to follow its own policies, guidelines and purpose. It may one day evolve into a genre but it hasn't (and it's been 12 years since the comment), so it shouldn't be used here. ogenstein (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a reliable source which establishes the fact that Kodomo no Jikan is Lolicon? If yes, cite chat source. If no, don't include the statement in the article. This didn't need to go to RFC. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• The problem though stems from who is reliable in regards to the source, and who is not. Anime News Network is a large site which includes a non reliable user generated "encyclopedia" portion, as well as blogs and posts by established writers. So in short, it is a "situational" reliable source which editors have to look over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - I don't see past consensus, but those supporting the designation appear to have the better arguments. Those opposing the designation do not seem to understand or accept Wikipedia guidelines. The WP article, Lolicon, is well-referenced and the designation appears to clearly apply to this subject.--Rpclod (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Unless the source directly says that this series is "lolicon", it is using other sources to come up with your own conclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as fetid.--Rpclod (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• No (invited by the bot) First, from a policy standpoint sourcing or possible even strong sourcing is required to apply such a characterization and there appears to be little or none. The basis for the argument "the designation appears to clearly apply to this subject" is a clear violation of wp:synth. Second, the article should provide source information, and a characterization applied by wiki editors is a characterization not information. Regarding characterizations, I tend to say "when in doubt, leave them out" North8000 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

About that wiki

Why? Filip Mutapčić (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Light novel of KnJ, does it even exist?

I'm wondering what is the source for Kodomo no Jikan having a light novel - I've looked through the WWW far and wide, even using Japanese words and nothing came up for a LN. No stores sell it, there is no external website referencing it. I think I'm not mistaken and this is a piece of media different than the manga itself, as it is listed as published apart from the main series on a different date (2012). I was just curious about who added this entry to the Wiki page and where did they get knowledge of it from. Thanks for your attention. 193.207.200.164 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It does exist. Here's the Amazon JP listing for it. Harushiga (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)