Talk:Lolicon

Restoration of verified academic expansions and source corrections

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The wholesale removal of recent edits across the Etymology and definition, History, and Analysis sections under WP:LLMPRV misapplies local cleanup guidelines to highly specific, source-grounded research. Pursuant to WP:LLMPRVOBJ, a formal objection is entered here on the basis that every single content addition and structural modification introduced in these revisions is anchored directly to page-specific text from the primary literature and targeted manual source maintenance, completely absent of the generalized phrasing or hallucinations typical of automated prose. The modifications systematically resolved long-standing errors, starting with the correction of the translation of Eiji Ōtsuka's 1989 title Shōjo minzokugaku (少女民俗学) from the conceptually flawed "Native Ethnology of Girls" to "Folkloristics of the Girl." This distinction is critical under WP:V, as the original translation conflated the study of folk customs (民俗学) with its homophone for ethnic groups (民族学). Alongside this, standard cleanup measures were applied to the Galbraith citation to resolve an orphaned short footnote template, fix a terminal punctuation collision using the postscript parameter and wikilink Japanese economic miracle to establish precise historical and economic framing.

The content expansions themselves replace superficial summaries with precise data points directly verified against the raw text of the underlying volumes. In the Etymology and definition section, the added material reconstructs the precise linguistic trajectory of the nomenclature and chronicles the "ironic adoption" of the Lolita complex concept by early fandom, tracing how early adopters self-consciously applied the pop-psychological diagnosis to differentiate their media consumption from normative maturation and mainstream adult sexuality. It further maps the core sociology of the shōjo archetype to provide the necessary structural context for its subcultural resonance. In the History section, introducing the "dreaming boy" (yumemiru shōnen) aesthetic captures the exact mechanics of late-1970s genre cross-pollination, while the elaboration on "idealized Eros" explains how the archetype embraced a "latent asexuality" to resist patriarchal reproductive expectations, explicitly supported by precise page numbers from the 1989 Ōtsuka text (pp. 18–20, 44, 200–201). In the Analysis section, the addition corrects a significant omission by introducing Ōtsuka's explicit 2004 critique from "Otaku" no seishinshi (p. 89), providing a verified academic counter-perspective to Chizuko Ueno's thesis on male withdrawal. The material accurately tracks his argument that the subcultural adoption of the aesthetic functioned to conceal rather than abandon male power (男の力, otoko no chikara) as detailed on pages 92–98. Reverting these page-referenced adjustments under a generic shortcut flag removes valid scholarship and undermines article depth. These blocks should be restored in full as they strictly satisfy WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MOS-JA.

Ryoske (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note to other editors, as this content was removed via LLM presumptive removal, it may only be restored if the steps described at the objection process are followed. This means another editor may assume responsibility for the content which requires first that all content and its sources be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with polices and guidelines. This means that all content and sources must be checked and corrected to ensure there are no V, OR, NPOV, MOS, etc problems. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2026

Add Brazil to the countries where lolicon is illegal, a new law was created that criminalized digital depictions/simulations of underage characters in sexual situations https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15487.htm BoulevardSea (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what list you're talking about. This would also preferably need a secondary source that discusses this, rather than a primary source (the text of the law itself). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Generative AI pornography has an RfC

Talk:Generative AI pornography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

More direct lead

There has been a consensus at Talk:Shotacon#Source to consider it as CSAM. Since then, the issue has also prompted broader discussion elsewhere, including other talk pages the Request for opinions, from the Legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, on Meta and subsequent discussions at c:COM:VP/P. Given that many editors have shared their opinions on what the whole subject even is. I think it would be appropriate to be more direct in MOS:LEAD, by clearly stating what the lolicon is; simulated child pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: AbleistSL, Dimadick, Ridesdragons, SIMSIMCITY, Skyshifter, ~2026-43529-97 - from above in Remove Category:Pedophilia from article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The main distinctions are that lolicon images are not supposed to be realistic in nature, and that they are often softcore in nature. Otherwise, they are still erotic images of minors, not unlike those found in the adult comics of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick , It seems that the lead is vague and dances around calling it stimulated child porn. I would suggest being more direct in the lead and adding the appropriate categories that reflect this. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Simulated. There is no such thing as "stimulated" porn. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Thank you. Sometimes auto correct, does that when I use mobile. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

This addition would need sources, and would need to be mentioned in the article's body, not only the lead. Skyshiftertalk 15:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter, It seems that many editors over on meta, have provided countless options and reasons for why such content is. meta:Wikimedia Forum#Request for opinions, from the Legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

What matters is not the personal opinion of editors, but reliable, independent (and ideally, scholarly) sources. Skyshiftertalk 15:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter See, Talk:Shotacon#Source, with @Slatersteven's comment. Furthermore, there is also 18 U.S. Code § 1466A. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

What comment specifically, please? The one with the "Eisner Gorin LLP" source? That's just some US attorneys explaining if it is legal or not. And why would the law of a single country matter? Also, you said there was consensus to consider Shotacon CSAM, but I don't see it anywhere in that article. The Shotacon article does not say it is simulated child pornography or CSAM, only that "some say it contributes to abuse, some not", and that it is illegal in some countries. So why are we jumping the gun with the Lolicon article? Skyshiftertalk 15:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed "simulated child pornography" was added only in the infobox, without any mention of it in the article's body, and without any sources. I have removed it. This needs to be reliably sourced and mentioned in the article's text. Skyshiftertalk 15:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter , There is this comment by @JWilz12345, talking more about Ai and Philippines' laws. And others such as @Levivich here also more about AI as that was the topic on meta. Yet, it seems so clear by many editor as there are many more comments from the meta thread, that considered lolicon as child pornography in many countries.

It might be legal in Japan/USA, as we have Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Dost test. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

A lot of these comments are based on specific countries on organizations. Not all share the same opinion. As I said below, Lolicon#Legality and Lolicon#Debate makes it clear that this is not a simple question. There are organizations and scholars that opposes that it is CSAM. Skyshiftertalk 16:02, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter , Yet, there are enough laws globally that indicate it is. That is why I suggest for Wikipedia to be a little more clear in it's lead and in it's categories for this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

This article is for the English-speaking world, where it is child pornography; we should not mislead our readers into thinking they would not be breaking the law. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of gray area for the US. However, for many English speaking countries it just viewing it is absolutely unlawful. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The article already says "Child pornography laws in some countries apply to depictions of fictional child characters, while those in other countries, including Japan, do not." I don't see how that's misleading. Unless you want to specify that it is illegal in English-speaking countries? Skyshiftertalk 16:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

As this page is written in English, I would like it to be more clear and direct for calling this subject what it considered to be; simulated child pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not considered that legally in the largest English speaking country. You are manufacturing a consensus among English speaking countries that doesn't exist VivianaAnime (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are many laws in the world that consider that it is, while others do not, and some organizations and scholars also don't consider that it is. So we can't add, as a factual statement "it is child pornography", because that is not a simple fact, and there is debate about it. Skyshiftertalk 16:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

There are enough sources, laws, and common sense to indicate it is. Wikipedia, should be more direct while have a WP:NPOV in such a statement. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

There are enough sources indicating that this is not a simple question that can be boiled down to "common sense" (which everyone has differently). Skyshiftertalk 16:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter, On Commons and meta, I gave some defense to the matter as a different question was asked.

However, I will not be defending it on Wikipedia, when it's clear that lolicon is. You are welcome to set up a RfC/notify relevant WikiProject/talks, to help gain a consensus from the larger community. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Huh? Aren't you the one interested in adding that "lolicon is child pornography", so you are the one to set up an RFC? And that's why you opened this discussion in the first place? I don't understand. I don't want to do anything. And I'm not defending that lolicon is not child pornography, please do not misconstrue my words. In fact, I am defending that we can not say that it simply isn't or it simply is. Rather, that there is debate surrounding whether it is or it is not among scholars, organizations, and different countries. This cannot be simplified to "it is" or "it isn't", that's the whole point. Skyshiftertalk 16:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Common sense is often wrong and inaccurate. Common sense tells people that cops have a more dangerous job than pizza delivery drivers, but that isn't factually true VivianaAnime (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

If there are multiple countries and legal organizations that define against it being CSAM then there is not consensus. Stop trying to manufacture consensus that is not there in the legal realm VivianaAnime (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It is clear that many RS do indeed consider it child porn, so much so that even looking for the term is a red flag in some countries. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Which sources? Skyshiftertalk 15:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The ones over at Shotocon for a start. I am not doing the search again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

There is absolutely no debate on the shotacon article and when such debate started to occur Issac demanded that it be moved to this article instead. You can't lose an argument somewhere and say "I won" when you move the debate elsewhere! VivianaAnime (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime , The matter was already open and closed months ago on the shotcon article. Now since it has sparked more attention, I am suggesting to move the matter here.

As shotacon is the male equivalent, any consensus here would directly impact it. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

So why are you acting like there is conensus there when there isn't Issac? VivianaAnime (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter The United Kingdom. "editor where Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 criminalises possession of certain pornographic non-photographic images of children, and Section 65 includes depictions of imaginary children. These would apply to manga and other fictional depictions." from @qcne, at. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

UK law doesn't apply to the US where lolicon is legal. VivianaAnime (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

It is also clear many RS say that it is not. Lolicon#Legality and Lolicon#Debate makes it clear that this is not a simple question, even if people want it to be. Skyshiftertalk 15:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

That talks about the law, are there any RS that say it is not pornographic? Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter , It should be more in the objective and clear in the lead that it is considered to be by many countries. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The lead seems pretty clear already; "Child pornography laws in some countries apply to depictions of fictional child characters, while those in other countries, including Japan, do not." What exactly is the proposed change? Skyshiftertalk 16:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The OP seems to ask the question, can we call it child pornography", not "can we say it's illegal". Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven , I wish for the shotcon article and for this article to mirror that claim. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I disagree that we can add "Lolicon is child pornography" as a factual statement into the article. There is clearly debate on whether it is or not, as the article itself shows. Not all organizations or scholars believe that "child pornography" includes fictional depictions such as lolicon. However, we can add that some countries consider it child pornography, yes. Skyshiftertalk 16:23, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree. Stating that some countries consider is csam is fine but making a blatant statement would cause people to believe it is illegal in places it is not. Japan does not consider it csam and claiming that it is factually would mislead people into thinking it was illegal in Japan. The US may have some laws against it but those laws were struck down as unconstitutional making Lolicon legal at least on a federal level. Wikipedia should not outright lie to people because one editor has an ideological bent VivianaAnime (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime Nor should it frame that it is okay in many English speaking counties. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether something is okay or not is a moral judgements that Wikipedia as an encolypedia is not qualified to make, the purpose of the encolypedia is to describe the world. If you want a moral authority you are looking for a religious or philosophical text which Wikipedia may describe as an encolypedia but it itself is not.

There is also no legal consensus. If one wishes to go country by country in the English speaking world there would be various different laws at various different levels of government. You cannot say that it is considered csam in all English speaking countries because that isn't true. In fact it is considered constitutionally protected free speech in the largest English speaking country! VivianaAnime (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I wish you weren't lying about consensus which is not there including in the shotacon thread but just because I wish something doesn't mean I'll get it VivianaAnime (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no good reason to place this under the category of csam. At best it warrants a mention that it is considered controversial in the field. There are good reasons to consider It not that. There are frequent complaints from organizations dedicated to policing such material that it being reported is useless as they cannot actually act on such reports. Frankly this seems to be a way of prejudicing a article about a subject this editor does not like and nothing more ~2026-51988-18 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC Should this be characterized in relation to CSAM?

Would it be appropriate to be more direct, in MOS:LEAD by clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography? This matter also concerns shotacon. Discussions elsewhere have spawned from this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women and Talk:Shotacon. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Notified: Talk:Generative AI pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Notified: WP:NPOVN, WP:OR/N. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC))

• Courtesy pings: V. S. Video, Mojipittan, Simonm223, Slatersteven, EducatedRedneck, ~2026-43529-97, Skyshifter, AbleistSL, Dimadick, Ridesdragons, SIMSIMCITY from above and from shotcon. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Do the majority of secondary reliable sources describe it that way? From a search, no. It is also definitionally not synonymous with "simulated child pornography", plenty of simulated child pornography is not lolicon and vice versa. Not all lolicon is even pornography; some of it is, to be sure, but I don't think this is in line with how scholarly sources discuss this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, Yet, anything that looks like a children doing sexual acts is called to be CSAM. I don't want to call lolicon CSAM as I feel that takes away from real victims. But there are enough laws that make viewing such content questionable, we should be more clear in this article lead. Many point to it being a victimless crime. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

What matters is what sources say and I don't think that's the consensus among them. Legally, that isn't the case where I live, so it's not universal by any means. How is it "abuse material"? Who is the abuse victim, the drawing? Whether it should be illegal or not the term is nonsensical here - child pornography as a term is at least more applicable in light of that, but again not all jurisdictions class it as such, not all scholars consider it such, and further, not all lolicon is even pornographic. You're arguing the article should say things because you feel it should. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I am suggesting for us to label it under simulated child pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least that solves the "abuse material" issue, but the rest of what I said remains. That is not what you said in your RfC nom, where you said it refers to it, which implied to me that we would be saying in the lead something like "lolicon is simulated child pornography", which would be a drastic change in scope and not what the sources say. If it's not that, what are you suggesting? I'm not clear on that.

Besides that, I have further issues. Another problem is not all lolicon material is pornography per se. For an example, the lead image is a lolicon image and while there are obviously sexual connotations to it I wouldn't call it pornography. Child pornography refers to a very specific thing in law, as does simulated child pornography by extension, and even in the countries that do class illustrated depictions of minors in sexual contexts as equivalent to real victimization of real children, not all of lolicon will fall under that scope.

But, fundamentally, we need to describe it how the sources do. Otherwise, what is the impetus for this request? It's a problematic topic and we could argue among ourselves all day about what should and shouldn't be the case but we can solve this by deferring to the sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

my nom "by clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography?" Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It's what I've been saying all along... Skyshiftertalk 20:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I am arguing that the article should be more to the point about the fact that lolicon can/is involved with simulated child pornography, as many claim it is victimless crime, it is not on the same level as real CSAM. There is a whole debate section in this article about that very point Lolicon#Legality. However, when reading the lead, that is not all that clear. Furthermore, as Slatersteven points out, there are sources supporting this. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

This line in the lead; "Child pornography laws in some countries apply to depictions of fictional child characters, while those in other countries, including Japan, do not.[4] Opponents and supporters have debated if the genre contributes to child sexual abuse. Culture and media scholars generally identify lolicon with a broader separation between fiction and reality within otaku sexuality." does not make that particularly clear. It's the only line in the lead that mentions the matter at hand.

I would suggest adding some additional wording somewhere in the lead. Even somewhere after this sentence: (ロリコン, rorikon) is a genre of fictional media which focuses on young or young-looking girl characters, particularly in a sexually suggestive, fetishistic or erotic context. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not inherently opposed to adding a sentence about that topic but if that's what you're suggesting I find this RfC was extremely unclear on that and so is not a useful RfC. Given what you were asking above especially, it seems like you were asking to change the scope of the page. And I don't think we need an RfC to workshop a potential sentence addition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if I was a tad unclear. I thought I was being clear with my initial post; but, if my point was being misconstrued, that is on me. I noticed from the massive threads on Meta, Commons, and here on English Wikipedia of this matter.

And it seemed to me that this article about lolicon does not address the what it is called directly in the MOS:LEAD. If this matter was cut and dry, I don't think the WMF Legal team would have asked the community for feedback on meta for the ai image, and then Trust & Safety subsequently deleted other files. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, I am doubtful there will be consensus to include since many seem to oppose my suggestion.

I also mentioned labels and categories, why is this page not under Template:Pedophilia? Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus its just against you. There is not a single vote approve. That is a consensus on oppose. VivianaAnime (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Putting this under template pedophilia could be considered prejudicial and it would only reflect lolicon that depicts pedophilia. A lot of lolicon depicts loli on loli, whose real equivalent would be child on child sexual abuse. I would oppose that being added because at least in my particular experience survivors of that find it offensive to consider depiction equivalent to reality.

I wouldn't oppose adding a link to lolicon under the culture side of pedophilia as lolicon is a part of the culture around pedophilia and is frequently mentioned by groups related to pedophilia. VivianaAnime (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime There is obviously some line that explicit material of this matter is looked at by the WMF to be very problematic given they stepped in during c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Super Forbidden Love. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I was not there for that but there's a difference between saying "this might expose us to legal risk" in relation to images. WMF clearly does not consider all images to be problematic considering there are images on this article and shotacon that if all images were considered problematic would be removed. VivianaAnime (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Would you consider the lead image of this article simulated child pornography. Will you tell me that wikipedia has on one of its articles simulated child pornography as an image? VivianaAnime (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime, On some level it kinda of is. Now, I don't think there is any problem with it being on this article as it is not explicit nor graphic. It has a clear educational use. At Talk:Generative AI pornography#RfC on the debated file, I addressed and defended why such files are okay.

However, I am not giving my personal opinion. I have a different assessment at Commons, Meta, and ai pornography's talk, as there are different topic was at hand asking different questions. This topic, is about suggesting if the lead should be more blunt. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

So an image that is of three girls lounging around with no genitalia present in modest undergarments is pornography to you? I could find identical imagery on Disney channel. Are you going to call this porn?

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/vector-illustration-kids-playing-pillow-fight-eps-vector-illustration-kids-playing-pillow-fight-116107062.jpg

Is this erotica to you? I doubt even a catholic priest would find that objectionable VivianaAnime (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I know 2% of people are hebephiles but if either the Wikipedia image in this article or that image are dangerously pornographic to you then you need serious mental health, not editing on wikipedia VivianaAnime (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime, It is ultimately context there is another massive topic at c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Lolicon in general covering this matter and child nudity c:COM:HOSTed on Commons in general.

Since you asked for my personal opinion, I think the lead image is fine. I even think some child nudity is okay given the context, as Commons also hosts many examples. But. I am not talking about the lead image nor personal opinion. I simply suggesting to be more blun in the lead. We already have sections in this very article addressing it to be in that realm. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not the actual legal consensus. You are lying because you have an ideological bent against the subject of the article. While disliking the genre is fine lying and saying there is cosensus where there isn't is wrong! VivianaAnime (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime At talk page for shotcon Talk:Shotacon#Source, the matter was addressed after being notified at WP:NPOV/N and WP:NORN. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

My bad however it is still wrong to consider this a consensus. Also the law that is repeatedly cited as proving that lolicon is illegal was illegal itself and was struck down for violating the first amendment. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/timeline_event/child-online-protection-act-struck/ VivianaAnime (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime, I decided to give a (non-admin closure) to the thread as a while had passed without any more discussion. Additionally, the wording was already included in the shotacon's article. Lastly, there was the meta thread that subsequently picked up attention and it seemed that any more conversation at the Shotacon talk may be moot. Thus, I have set up the RfC to hopefully cover both lolicon and shotacon on this talk to reopen the matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime, However, this is not a solely US topic. There is a lot of gray area in the USA, for the handing of lolicon. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The US is the largest english speaking country in terms of primary language speakers. Your position is that there is consensus in it being considered CSAM. A law declaring it as CSAM was struck down as unconstitutional. These are conflicting positions. There cannot be consensus on illegality and gray area. You have effectively admitted being wrong here by admission of there being gray area. Wikipedia should reflect actual reality and not reality as you clearly would like it to be. VivianaAnime (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@VivianaAnime, While that may be true, List of countries by English-speaking population, There are many large English speaking countries that such content is illegal. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not declare something blanketly totally illegal on the basis of it being illegal somewhere in the world. Gun ownership is illegal in the UK and Australia but we do not put a link to Illegal Possesion of a Firearm in the page on Gun Ownership. You are asking Wikipedia to lie about its legality in Japan and America, two of the 12 most populated countries in the world because it is illegal in the UK and some other English speaking countries. VivianaAnime (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

In terms of English speaking population where I could get actual information the first country that I can say definitively has a ban on it is #5 in Pakistan. Which should be obvious to anyone considering Pakistan bans all pornography. The first country to ban it in particular and not pornography as a whole would be UK at number 8.

The population of the US is 315 million the population of the UK 64 million. You want Wikipedia to lie to 315 million people for 64 million people VivianaAnime (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. There is debate surrounding whether it is considered child pornography or not, so it cannot be presented as a fact that it is. I also agree with PARAKANYAA in that I haven't seen a majority of sources describing lolicon and shotacon as "simulated child pornography", and that not all content that may be considered lolicon is pornographic. Otherwise, please refer to my comments in the section above. Skyshiftertalk 17:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per PARAKANYAA. The article body does not use the term, nor does it clearly justify this particular classification. Lolicon is not inherently pornographic, so it would be inappropriate to say it refers to simulated child pornography. The definition section says the genre's definition is contested, and it brings up non-pornographic uses. I don't think sources widely and explicitly use the simulated term (especially non-US sources), and it may be non-neutral of us to plainly say lolicon refers to simulated child pornography. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per PARAKANYAA. Sarca sc (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per PARAKANYAA

This is clearly and unambiguous a request for wikipedia to lie to people for an ideological bent. There is not a consensus among legal scholars, or nations. There is not even consensus about this topic in the English speaking world. The current structure of this article already mentions that lolicon is considered CSAM in some countries. Key word there is some. Stating that it is universally considered such is a lie and would misinform users VivianaAnime (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Some lolicon might be child pornography according to many RS (perhaps even a strong majority), but not all is referred to as such in reliable sources. The proposed change would violate NPOV. Katzrockso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think most people can differentiate between fiction and reality. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Refer to it as virtual or simulated child pornography I would suggest people should actually read sources before they !vote. There is a long thread of scholarship including Galbraith, P. (2011).Lolicon: The reality of 'virtual child pornography in Japan. Image & Narrative 12(1) 83-114 and Savage, S. (2015). Just Looking: Tantalization, Lolicon, and Virtual Girls. Visual Culture & Gender 10 p. 37-46 that discuss how this has been viewed as simulated child pornography in Japan as well as looking at the harmful impact this has had on tangentially related subcultures such as Gothic Lolita. We have an academic bias and all these vague comments about ambiguous legal statuses ignore that we should be cleaving to the academy on this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Galbraith also says "from early writings to the present, researchers suggest that lolicon artists are playing with symbols and working with tropes, which does not reflect or contribute to sexual pathology or crime". This along with other sources in the analysis section does not support adding a CSAM label. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support We are the English wiki, and as far as I know, that it is how it is defined in the English-speaking world, and our job (at least in part) must be to inform people what is and is not a crime. Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand what you mean by "inform people what is and is not a crime", because it is objectively wrong to say "lolicon is a crime" or "lolicon is not a crime" when each country has different laws. The only thing you can do is say, at most, "lolicon in a crime in X, Y and Z countries". In fact, the lead says "Child pornography laws in some countries apply to depictions of fictional child characters, while those in other countries, including Japan, do not", so it already informs our readers well in that regard. If a reader wants to know if lolicon is a crime where they live, they can read Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors (which is linked in that sentence of the lead I just cited). Skyshiftertalk 14:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  And that's ignoring that not all lolicon content is explicit or pornographic in nature, including the lead image of this article. Skyshiftertalk 14:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  The lead could be seen by many as problematic by some, given it was nominated for deletion on Commons with that rationale Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lolicon Sample.png. There was also the whole Jimmy Wales considering the previous image that was on this page to be. When he deleted it Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan#Timeline back in July 2007. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone can find anything problematic. I said the image is not explicit or pornographic, which it isn't. Skyshiftertalk 15:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is some relevant historical context here. In 2009, the legality of File:Lolicon Sample.png was specifically questioned on Commons, including whether it constituted child pornography. Mike Godwin, then WMF General Counsel, was consulted about the image and stated that it was "neither obscene (according to the Miller test) nor child pornography as the concept is understood in the United States", noting that no actual children were involved. The file was subsequently kept.

Then, in 2010, Godwin stated, regarding proposals concerning sexual content, that "the Foundation is disinclined to engage in editorial intervention in the absence of a clear legal imperative". He also stated that he expected the DOJ or other law-enforcement agencies to contact him if they had a problem with Wikimedia's content or policies, and that the Foundation had not been contacted by the DOJ or any state law-enforcement agency regarding the content then being discussed.

This is not current legal advice, nor does it establish the legal status of every work described as lolicon. However, it does seem difficult to treat "lolicon" or "simulated child porn" as an unqualified legal classification. The WMF's own General Counsel was specifically consulted about a lolicon image and did not characterize it as child pornography, while the following year he described the Foundation's position as being generally opposed to editorial intervention without a clear legal imperative. If a different legal definition is being relied upon here, it would be useful to identify it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g, The outcome for c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Super Forbidden Love was deleted by Trust & Safety. Thus, there must be some concern that this type of content could be labeled as simulated CSAM. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

One thing that should be clarified here: the deletion of the Super Forbidden Love files does not, by itself, establish that they were deleted because they were considered CSAM, as the WMF has not yet provided a substantive statement on the matter.

As I understand it, the contact address associated with the legal issue was cawikimedia.org, rather than reportswikimedia.org. Rogers also subsequently clarified that the deletion was related to obscenity laws, although that explanation was necessarily quite general and we are still waiting for the fuller response he said would follow.

So I don't think we can infer from the deletion alone that Trust & Safety classified the material as "simulated CSAM". At most, it establishes that the Foundation considered there to be a legal concern with the material. The precise legal basis matters here, particularly since "simulated CSAM" and obscenity are not interchangeable classifications. Amitie 10g (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Subtopic_4:_Longer_note_from_Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_Team — The WMF's response to the matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The different levels of acceptance and legality is something that should be discussed in the body of the article. But it's something with to much nuance to be put in the lead as suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose lolicon as a genre isn't even always about children. I'm going to be speaking more like a knowing otaku than what is typpically expected out of these wikipedia discussions since it's late and I need sleep, but the gohou loli (合法ロリ) and lolibaba (ロリババア), as tropes, are already well established in lolicon, with Towako magazine being exclusively about lolibabas, published since 2016 by the same company who publishes Comic LO, the core lolicon magazine in otaku subculture.

Lolibabas are defined by their old age and wisdom contrasting with un-aging, always youthful bodies.

Gohou loli (legal loli) are defined by their youthfulness contrasting with them being of drinking age and managing office hours (stereotypically). These kind of women also exist in real life and have been referred endearingly as lolis as well.

---

Then there's the terminology. Pardon me if I am remembering incorrectly, but "CSAM" was meant to be used to get away from "child pornography", since pornography is generally understood to be consensual when made, thus CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) was meant to replace that so to put better emphasis on the abuse happening in photos and video recordings of registered children.

If we were to put this up against Lolicon, not only would it crack intent of the legal phrasing like a broken plate, but it wouldn't even thematically match lolicon as a genre wide thing because many stories show the loli being happy with their situation, if not being the initiator to an otherwise meek protagonist. Sometimes these stories are literally about kids in their blossoming years falling in love and sometimes making pink mistakes as they get use to their blossoming bodies, such as Takahashi Note's (タカハシノヲト) short stories since the Reiwa era began. I fail to see how that is abuse. That sounds more like stories of growing up, but without a "kiddie" filter.

Some lolicon stories do cover abuse like those created by Nogiwa Kaede (野際かえで), but this is within a much larger pool that is more zoned in on moé than it is on recreating Nobokov's tale, and many of these darker stories try to create moé feelings through sympathy mixed with endearing elements and subtext.

I think I may be getting ahead of myself. but I think my point is made. Lolicon is a much more complex genre (living up to its namesake I suppose) than calling it depictions of child abuse, let alone treating it as such. thus the claim to call it "abuse material" would be highly innaccurate. Samalik16 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Samalik16 The suggestion was for simulated child pornography not Child pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

your main question was

Should this be characterized in relation to CSAM?

and the answer you're given is "no"

Samalik16 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. "clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography" implies that it is a black-and-white matter, where lolicon definitely refers to that. which it does not. as others have also pointed out, much lolicon material is not pornographic in nature, and much lolicon material has nothing to do with children. you cannot claim all rectangles are squares just because you know of one that is a square.

also, for that matter, I've been calling to have the "pedophilia" category to be removed from the article, in the now-deleted thread above, alongside several others. this is a false equivalence. the category has been removed several times, and yet it keeps getting snuck back in by bad actors. why hasn't this been reverted yet? Ridesdragons (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ridesdragons, This is for the matter of the lead.

However, we do have text in the body of the article that does points to pedophilia. Additionally, there are many RS that state it is connected. To remove all mention of pedophilia throughout the article would be wrong for us to do. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

that is not what I said and you know it. I'm talking about the category. that we've already had a consensus on, that it should not belong. it has been removed several times, only to be snuck in by known bad actors who were later warned for their behaviour (including meow3323, the last person to sneak it in). Ridesdragons (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

scratch that, meow3323 wasn't the last one to sneak it in, you were. Ridesdragons (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

regardless, firmly oppose. just like most of the others you called into this. your request has no basis. as the lead article even states, the lead is the first, and often only, thing people see when visiting a page. putting in blatant misinformation without any proper sourcing is a no-go. Ridesdragons (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support a mention in the lead that lolicon is regarded as virtual/simulated child pornography/abuse material by some academics and in some jurisdictions, as well as by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. "The Committee is deeply concerned about the large amount of online and offline material, including drawings and virtual representations, depicting non-existing children or persons appearing to be children involved in sexually explicit conduct, and about the serious effect that such material can have on children’s right to dignity and protection. The Committee encourages States parties to include in their legal provisions regarding child sexual abuse material (child pornography) representations of non-existing children or of persons appearing to be children, in particular when such representations are used as part of a process to sexually exploit children." This is a compromise that avoids a wikivoice definition but gives due weight to a common definition outside Japan. Fences&Windows 13:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  The issue here is that not all lolicon even involves sexualized/sexual imagery. Much of it does, but there is some that doesn't (e.g. some of the pictures in our article). The Lolicon#Media section clarifies this.

  I would agree with including some of the sources you have mentioned here; the academic sources that explicitly mention lolicon are high-quality and directly address the subject and it would be a NPOV violation to exclude the POV that sexual lolicon is simulated child pornography. Katzrockso (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• I support the idea, but a properly framed RfC must propose exact wording and the place for the change. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)