Talk:Lolicon#Proposed split

{{re|GigaMigaDigaChad}} I have brought this to the talk-page as your edit is contested. Please discuss here first... I know its tempting to restore your edit, however given that Lolicon is a hotly debated subject we as editors have to be more careful with this particular topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

:Hi, thank you for reaching out to me here, I am fairly busy right now so I will try to be quick however if I were to give my two cents on the topic, these reverts just seems pretty inconsistent, arbitrary, and biased against my edits in particular, if you look at the edit history of this article within the last few weeks, what seems to happen is whenever I change make an edit, it's automatically reverted to status-quo under the justification that "one can't change something hotly contested without forming a new consensus first", yet when the reverse happens and I want to revert to status-quo when someone makes a recent edit that's pretty controversial until a new consensus is formed first, said rule is convinently ignored and the new edit is kept regardless even if such is far from consensus. It seems to me that despite claims of some users here that the article is pretty biased towards the defense of lolicon against neutral perspectives, I actually see the reverse to some extent with wording being removed or kept based largely if it aligns with certain users who are explicitly staunchly opposed to it. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

::The only justification you gave for your revert was the edit summary "{{tq|I think it is fair to say that "It's status quo until you form a new consensus" also applies here}}". You still haven't explained why you contest that specific edit. That makes this indistinguishable from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

::If you want to discuss the edit itself, here's the place to do so. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think some portions of the article should be looked over to ensure that opinions are afforded their due weight. The disparity in information is especially noticeable in the "Critical commentary" section, in which Kimio Itō, Kinsella, Chizuko Naitō, and Christine Yano's work is contained in a single (short) paragraph. The next paragraph is solely dedicated to an alternate interpretation of filmmaker Miyazaki's rejection of lolicon, that suggests that he actually DOES like lolicon. These paragraphs are similar in length.

Since most/all of the sources not given sufficient detail in the article seem to be the ones criticizing lolicon, the neutrality of the article is a bit questionable. This can easily be fixed by expanding on those sources and balancing the content. FlookieBee (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with this, there is clearly some bias here since, specially since someone change "associated with unrealistic and stylized imagery" (which is the most accurate description) to just "associated mainly with stylized imagery" which is missing the important part of unrealistic as most anime is, there are more changes that were made that are trying to subtly paint an incorrect image, they also removed the "moral panic" that very much happened in 1990s about "harmful manga" removing it is nonsensical since TO THIS DAY there's still a moral panic over these genres and this clear biased change is evidence of it. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

:I have removed the paragraph on Miyazaki, which is indeed tangential to the topic. Regarding the broader point of neutrality, I believe the current "Analysis" section is a fairly good review of the scholarship as it stands. There is an argument to be made that it leans too heavily on Galbraith and sources derived from his work, and for balance I support the addition of more analysis in the vein of the last paragraph, if it can be found. Regarding the changes I made to the lead section, as discussed by the editor above, I believe they make the lead read more neutrally: "stylized" is agreed upon by all commentators, while the aspect of "unreality" is discussed from various perspectives in the article; stating the phrase's "common meaning" outside of the subsequent/specific otaku context, as explained in the body, is important; and not using the charged term "moral panic" is an improvement. — Goszei (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi I wonder if the image is appropriate here in the sense that it does not depict the object of the article, but the sexualised object ? Nattes à chat (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

::I find it a bit gratuitous myself. Pretty much any picture of a young female child from anime would get the point across. The picture of three scantily-clad prepubescent girls is overkill.Emiya1980 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::It is completely and totally appropriate. 2600:8806:919C:6100:E56C:EFD2:D689:FE74 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I {{tq|”completely and totally”}} disagree. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The image has already been deemed appropriate for the article on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lolicon_Sample.png two separate occasions] in the past. A non-sexual image making you personally uncomfortable is not reason enough to censor or remove it. 2600:8806:919C:6100:9489:FB14:BB68:7AC1 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cunny&redirect=no Cunny] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24#Cunny}} until a consensus is reached. Valorrr (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The use of Category:Pedophilia on this article considered offensive and defamatory as lolisho is not considered pedophilic, and I would like to see it removed from the article as such category is considered extremely charged in this context.

Disclaimer: Like most people I condemn pedophilia, and any claims to the contrary are considered highly defamatory and are therefore reportable to site administration. AbleistSL (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you always announce which categories you add or remove in an article's talk page? Volunteer editors do not typically ask for permission. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{strikethrough|I can't edit it because the page is protected, someone else will have to do it.}} Disregard my last post I was confused by a notice on the site, I will make the edit myself. AbleistSL (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)