Talk:Lolicon

Remove Category:Pedophilia from article

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)

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)

A friend mentioned to me that during a recent edit war on march 9 2026, while fighting to remove a picture, Meow also snuck in an additional edit - readding this category. while the picture was readded and Meow was warned, the change they snuck in there regarding the category managed to slip through the cracks.

can someone please remove the category again? I'd do it myself, but I honestly forgot I even had an account on wikipedia and feel making a change on a controversial page without any personal credibility is disingenuous.

edit: eh, guess I'll just do it myself nvm, I actually can't edit it myself anyway Ridesdragons (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur, deleting that sneakily added category seems prudent. Although there is some debate to be had over whether that category applies, as of right now, it should be removed. SIMSIMCITY (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed per status quo, but this merits a discussion. Skyshiftertalk 02:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal request of recently added paragraph.

The recent addition of an entire paragraph in the "1990s-present" section related to Shadman seems utterly irrelevant and unrelated to the history of lolicon as a genre. One internet artist who did not influence the genre should not be mentioned at all, let alone in the history section of the article. I would like to request it be removed, if possible. TransMagicalGirl (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that an entire paragraph on a Brazilian lolicon artist most known amongst the 4chan set shouldn't have a whole paragraph dedicated to himself in a 2 paragraph section covering from 1990 to now. However, the paragraph is well cited but is entirely overblown for the sources it actually cites. Definitely needs a lot of rewording for context and to not be such a prominent part of that section. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. Shadman was a controversial artist known only in niche internet circles. His inclusion in this article is questionable. Maybe a brief mention at most; a paragraph isn't warranted. SIMSIMCITY (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2026

Delete this paragraph under the "1990s–present" section.

The artist Shadman became known online in the 2010s for his lolicon depictions of video game and film characters, including those from The Incredibles, and of politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein.[77] He announced that he would stop creating lolicon artwork in July 2019. Rolling Stone described him in 2024 as "controversial" due to his lolicon artwork; he had accrued more than 727 thousand followers on Twitter and more than 321 thousand YouTube subscribers by 2021.[78][79]

Although the paragraph is well cited, the recent addition of an entire paragraph in the "1990s-present" section related to Shadman seems utterly irrelevant and unrelated to the history of lolicon as a genre. SIMSIMCITY (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. There might be something to say here, but this certainly went into unnecessary, excessive detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal request of recently added paragraph

The revision to the article on May 3rd, 2026 at 16:22 includes a large paragraph added to the section "1990s-Present" which brings up irrelevant topics related to junior idols in Japan. This paragraph also has zero citations.

I think this paragraph, in addition to not being high quality on its own due to lack of citations, simply should not be present on an article about a different topic. TransMagicalGirl (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The information is not presented in a way which clearly communicates its relationship with the anime and manga subgenre. If not removed then it should be edited to more clearly link to article topic VivianaAnime (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There is also a lack of English language sourcing in the relevant section which reduces the articles utility towards someone genuinely interested in the subject who does not speak Japanese. Other parts of the article use Garlbraith and other English language sources. While I understand that an article about a Japanese subgenre is going to have to use Japanese language sources sometimes surely it would be possible to find English language sources for the relevant paragraphs in the history section. VivianaAnime (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Background section contradictory with etymology section

In the background section it is claimed that "The foundational concept of the "Lolita complex" was introduced to the Japanese public via the 1959 translation of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel Lolita by , followed by the 1962 domestic release of Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation,"

However the term Lolita Complex is not in either work mentioned. It's origin as detailed in the Etymology section is in Russel Trainer's "The Lolita Complex" translated into Japanese in 1969. The background section should reflect that information VivianaAnime (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This problem is also in the second paragraph in the article. I believe the article should be consistent about the etymological origin of the term. Something like "derived from Trainer's The Lolita Complex whose title was derived from the novel Lolita" would be more appropriate. I recognize it sounds a bit tortured, I'm sure there's a phrasing that would be pleasant to read and be etymologically accurate. VivianaAnime (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg

I am coming over from Clop (erotic fan art), article's talk page. On that talk page we are discussing removal of an image per WP:GRATUITOUS, among a list of other rational. I have stated my position on that regarding that page's image, File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg appears to be worse then the one on the clop page as it depicts actually cartoon kids. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am Courtesy ping: Snow Rise, per their rational for the image on the clop page. While I don't necessarily believe that their rational is apropos per se for the Cuz clop image, it definitely resonates with me for this file. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk: Clop (erotic fan art)#Removal of File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.png (more specifically at Talk: Clop (erotic fan art)#RfC about images on this page ) specifically about the usage of an explicit image for an educational purpose. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep the image illustrates the market of lolicon doujinshi, which is perfectly reasonable and expected at the lolicon page. It is not an explicit lolicon image in itself (i.e. an explicit drawing like the Czu image), it is a photograph showing doujinshi manga being sold at a doujinshi convention, meant to represent the market for lolicon manga. The manga covers are not that obvious unless you actually zoom in the image, and as far as I can see, explicit parts of the covers have been censored (as expected in Japan). Skyshiftertalk 14:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What caught my attention was the porn covers on the right I wasn't trying to zoom in to see the censore. Because it looks like a child in an explicit position. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think what matters here is what the photo is trying to convey. This image serves the purpose of illustrating the lolicon doujinshi market in Japan. It is not an explicit drawing for the sake of it (which is what I thought of the Czu image in Clop), it is a photograph of doujinshi lolicon manga being sold at a convention, which has miles of difference. I believe this is a perfect case where WP:GRATUITOUS does not apply and the image actually serves a purpose. Skyshiftertalk 14:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Compare this to the image present in Girls' love#2010s–present: Genre diversification. It is literally the same purpose (doujinshi of that genre being sold at a convention). Skyshiftertalk 14:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter On that article, I am not seeing anything explicit or alluding to obvious pornography. There is a photograph of a stand, but at first glance there is nothing inherently explicit. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, being explicit does not mean it's prohibited. In fact, I'm not saying File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg doesn't contain explicit elements. I'm saying it serves the same purpose as the image in Girls' love#2010s–present: Genre diversification (which is true), with the explicitness being justified by what I said above: "This image serves the purpose of illustrating the lolicon doujinshi market in Japan. It is not an explicit drawing for the sake of it (which is what I thought of the Czu image in Clop), it is a photograph of doujinshi lolicon manga being sold at a convention, which has miles of difference." The Czu image in Clop was itself outright porn, the image in Lolicon is a photo of manga being sold at a convention (even if explicit). Skyshiftertalk 15:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)