Talk:Lolicon

I want to create a genre overview

As the headline says, I want to provide an overview specifically about the genre itself, citing various entertainment media as sources such as Manga and visual novels. the things I want to include are more about the fundamentals and motives behind lolicon stories as well as some unique tropes and themes to the genre such as erotisised nostalgia or stranger danger among other things. Maybe even include a brief mini section overview of unique character archetypes such as the lolibaba (aka the old/1000yo loli).

Perhaps in doing so, the article could be re-elected to join the arts and literature section.

Lolibaba definition

here's what I (attempted) attempted to edit in (in bold, before being update locked from posting)

According to Kaoru Nagayama, manga readers define lolicon works as those "with a heroine younger than a middleschool student", a definition which can vary from characters under age 18 for "society at large", to characters "younger than gradeschool-aged" for "fanatics", and to "kindergarteners" for "more pedophiliac readers". Elisabeth Klar observes that girl characters in lolicon can show an "contradictory performance of age" in which their body, behavior, and role in a story conflict; an example is the Lolibaba ("little girl, old woman") archetype, a character who, despite having the un-aging youthful body of a little girl regardless of how old she actually is, speaks or acts with the mannerisms of either an aged woman, with a sense of childishness or both. Curvy hips and other secondary sex characteristics similarly appear as features in some of the genre's characters. Plot devices often explain the young appearance of characters who are non-human or actually much older.

But alas, it keeps getting reverted.

I know this to be true because it's all over Japanese fiction, and is regularly brought up in ero-manga and anime. There's even dedicated anthology magazines like Towako [永遠娘] which exclusively feature short H-stories with girls who fit the trope and the personalities of the girls (from what gets fan-translated) vary quite a lot within the range I mentioned in bold. (See series being sold below) https://www.dlsite.com/books/fsr/=/keyword_work_name/%22%E6%B0%B8%E9%81%A0%E5%A8%98%22+TITLE00002658/order/title_d/from/work.titles

I even included the following link as citation, which is the closest I can find with the definition in mind due to how much google censors lolicon sources.

https://honeysanime.com/what-is-loli-baba-definition-meaning/

Surely I'm not far from the tree, am I?

Censorship

@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 "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)

Balance information to maintain neutral tone

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)