Talk:Shotacon

Should there be a mention of the Karl Andersson controversy?

A while ago there was a controversy regarding a researcher named Karl Andersson who was researching Shotacon. The researcher later self published a book regarding Shotacon fans which appears to be one of the few books about the subject. Would it be appropriate to mention this somewhere on the article? It would be relevant to anyone looking into the subject VivianaAnime (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'd add it to the Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors page, there's a UK→History section which lists things like this. I think it could then be pointed to in the "Legal aspects" section of this page. I would include the subsequent article on the affair by Casey Brienza (here).

As for the book, I read it and found it much more up to date compared to this page (which feels stuck in the early 2000s in my opinion, probably owing to the lack of more contemporary sources). Since it is self-published, it probably can't be used as a source. Maybe adding it to a "Further reading" section could work. Mojipittan (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately I'm not sure if it'd meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. When I'm free I'll try my hand at adding the controversy to both articles VivianaAnime (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually it should meet the requirements. He's been published before about the subject matter so I think it would meet the guidelines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works VivianaAnime (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, it should be addressed as a direct source for the article, rather than to regard his controversy. This article is not about him. Unknow0059 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, per WP:WEIGHT. Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Would mentioning self published research by a former academic really be undue weight? There are only going to be so many people researching the subject at a time. VivianaAnime (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I see that Karl Andersson (publisher) has an article that seems to pass WP:BIO. Per WP:RS, and WP:V, adding that content may be appropriate. Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There is also File:I am not alone (Andersson paper).pdf that is hosted at Commons. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Promotional File

In the change 1367176543, the article's exemplar was moved lower and replaced with a new file with "higher quality artwork" as the reason.

There appears to be a promotion violation here, and as per WP:WEAKSILENCE, it would be false to assume that non-contestation indicates correctness.

The edit complies with COM:WKL and WP:IMGDD. However, this file includes hyperlinks to multiple third-party artwork commission platforms, and besides, the first-uploaded version of the image had a QR code in it. Neither was found in the previous image, suggesting the replacement's use is promotional, rather than informative.

On Wikimedia Commons, various such files were uploaded simultaneously, following the same external link pattern.

Moreover, CC BY-SA 4.0 states that "Appropriate credit" requires "A link to the material", not unrelated commercial links.

I argue that this image's high-visibility position, the bulk upload to Commons, QR code removal, are all exacerbating factors that indicate violation of WP:PROMOTION (which does apply to files), particularly WP:NOTPUBLICITY. Note: This article doesn't regard a specific company, person or organization, and so, the file isn't applicable to the exception designed for those.

In a minor point, except where impossible, MOS:SHOCK prefers avoiding "perceived shock value" in a lead image. The new image is not shocking, but it is more sexual (in direct quote, "suggestive") than the previous (less or not suggestive), featuring a full character viewed closely at a low-angle.The article's topic isn't necessarily sexual, and as such, I think that a sexual image (if one must be added) would be better off added on its own, later section, instead of being the lead image. To that end, by the way, I propose citing the work of researcher Karl Andersson.

Finally, assuming "higher quality" is the concern, there already exists a different file that is a higher-quality lead image candidate than a newly uploaded file. This image, too, is less suggestive, featuring a character viewed from a distant high-angle.

I propose permanently reverting the change, or using the alternative instead, which would count as an "aesthetic" improvement.

Given the dispute, I've reverted the change for now.

~~~~ Unknow0059 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unknow0059, I understand your worries, but this was not in any way promotional, as I was just trying to find freely licensed shotacon. Image quality is not dictated by resolution alone. Shotacon is an inherently suggestive topic, so having a tamer image is less encyclopedic. This is the TLDR version, the full explanation is below.

Pt. 1. Why this image

If the article can be illustrated with freely licensed media, Wikipedia should always attempt to use freely licensed media. Now try finding freely licensed shotacon and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Easier said that done, isn't it?

Finding any type of shotacon is already difficult if you don't already know which art sites allow such content (most do not). The ones that do, well, there are no options to select open licenses (such as Creative Commons) and no incentives to try to release the work under such licenses, hence why artists don't do it. Lolicon and shotacon communities are usually built on trust, which is another reason for little demand for CC licenses.

Due to this, you have four options:

1. draw the artwork yourself (which I can't do well, this is my best attempt at a human),
2. commission an artist (which I can't do, because I'm Russian and we pretty much got separated from other payment processors due to sanctions),
3. ask an artist to release some of his work under an open license (most lolicon and shotacon artists use fanbox to restrict specific content, so you can probably guess how most permissions would go)
4. generate images using AI (which I can, but I won't per C:COM:AI, as non-AI media is preferred)

Also, most lolicon and shotacon is fan art that uses already existing characters (such as Anya and Becky), so fan art restrictions could also prevent uploading to Commons if the image is not transformative enough.

Miraculously, I managed to find Casytay, a relatively talented artist with a whole comic that uses original characters (not fan art) and could illustrate various themes of both lolicon and shotacon (hence why it's educational and is in Commons project scope), and then after a DM on Pixiv I got Casytay to release the artwork featured on her Catbox website under CC BY-SA 4.0. So me uploading the art is not in any way promotional, rather I just do what I can with what I have. The Baraag and Pixiv links were mostly a way to better convince the artist to release the images under CC BY-SA 4.0, as many artists won't release their works under open licenses unless there is clear benefit. Also, you saying that I removed the logo and QR code makes little sense next to your claims that I'm using the images for promotional reasons, as that would make the image less promotional.

Pt. 2. Why it's higher quality

Notice how I didn't replace the lead image on the Lolicon article. That's because I think it's fine enough as is. Shotacon, on the other hand, has two images in its category, both of which were drawn by decent but not amazing artists that don't have much experience with shotacon art. Compare this to Casytay, whose images look arguably more expressive and feature a more refined artstyle, since the artist has clear experience drawing shotacon.

When you say that File:Swimming Shota.jpg is "higher quality", you likely assume that because it has a higher resolution, which is true, but that is not the only indicator of quality. Once again, Casytay's images are expressive and refined, while other artists feature rougher geometry and less appealing colors. File:Hitaku and Mayumi.png has literal JPEG artifacts on the background, in a lossless PNG file. Truly, a sign of quality.

Pt. 3. Why it's barely sexual

First of all, this is literally one of the tamest images in the whole Casytay catalog. Second, the article's topic IS necessarily sexual. The fact that you want to replace the image with a non-suggestive variant directly contradicts the definition of shotacon as a "genre of sexualized young or young-looking male characters". Trying to replace it with a non-erotic image is therefore less encyclopedic, as it doesn't correctly illustrate the subject. I'm not saying that hardcore NSFW images should be preferred (after all, WP:GRATUITOUS exists), but putting a fully safe, non-erotic image is not illustrative of the genre whatsoever. For articles about suggestive topics, there is such a thing as too tame.

Epilogue

@Unknow0059, if you think that the image can be replaced with a better example than the three aforelinked files, feel free to commission a shotacon artist, ask them permission to release their work under CC BY-SA 4.0 or draw the artwork yourself if you so wish. If you want to, you may remove the Pixiv and Baraag links from the files, though I feel like that also needs consensus. Oh, and if you want a more explicit image for use later in the article, here you go, though it is by the same artist. I may add the Karl Andersson info myself if I have free time.

Pinging recent prolific article editors: @Mojipittan and @Issac I Navarro. Please tell me which of the three images do you think should be used as lead. I'll examine this and will revert if consensus says so.

Holy shit that was a mouthful. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 12:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars, Thanks, for the ping.

File:Super Forbidden Love Drawings 09 crop.png seems fine. The art style is more clean then the previous image. Furthermore, it is not explicit where it crosses the line to WP:GRATUITOUS.

My personal opinion on matters such as these is that drawings that habour explicit characteristics of children have no place on Wikipedia. This drawing is definitely in that realm, yet, it's not explicit. That being said, I would also be cautious of any image in that realm, due to a recent RFC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)#RfC about images on this page. The closer's statement was, "The main rationale cited was WP:GRATUITOUS. In addition some commenters consider the images harmful to children." I would be cautious that this image is not harmful to children. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how images can directly hurt someone (other than epilepsy gifs, I guess), but if you think this is an important issue that may span many articles about suggestive topics, then I feel like it is better discussed at a village pump, since most editors of suggestive topic articles are biased (including me). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 07:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars, Since a link to the WP:RFC was posted at the village pump for the clop page, WP:CON seems to have arrived.

I interpret the consensus to be that if an image has crossed the line to WP:GRATUITOUS and could be considered "harmful"/stressful, or emotional disturbing for children to see—specifically if it depicts a child character in an explicit manner and/or contains other elements connected to media that children are typically drawn towards, portrayed in a graphic or obscene manner. If an image has both those two factors then the image should be excluded.

The image for this page doesn't seem to cross into WP:GRATUITOUS. That being said, it definitely depicts a child like character. However, the image doesn't seem to be graphic, akin to the Lolicon article that is currently at GA status. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems like we need to post this to WP:RFC too. I definitely feel like the Casytay image has a higher chance of survival than File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png that was discussed on the clop page. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 09:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars I don't believe a RFC will be needed, unless there is more editor that feel strongly about this matter. For the time being, I have added an Infobox, and the file without the qr code. The file is suggestive, but I don't believe It crosses into WP:GRATUITOUS, and I don't see any policy reason why I should be excluded.

On another note, I have also removed the other image that was on the page. Given the current size of the article in addition to the other image not adding anything different article. It seems redundant to have both files on this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the response, particularly your finding-curating process, I'm thankful you shared that.

About File:Swimming Shota.jpg, it's notable that at in its source location, it lacks the license stated on its Wikimedia Commons file page, instead, it's reserved. This would exclude it as an alternative option. Note, though, the initial image sufficed this.

Regarding 1, thanks.

Regarding 2, on quality. I grant the initial image wasn't of great quality, and also that the new image is better than previous two.

But, if a preexisting, sufficing image exists, aesthetic quality seems neither relevant nor sufficient reason for change.

Between the initial image, changing to a new but 'prettier' one "adds nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already" (COM:CENSORS). Furthermore, "It does not matter if it is of poor quality" (COM:INUSE) and "not realistically useful ... artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" (COM:NOTUSED). It does say "New educational files of exceptional quality are always welcome", but it doesn't itself, seem a reason for change.

Regarding 3, on sexualness.

You could argue that the new is more representative due to being more suggestive, since as you say shotacon is "necessarily sexual", but, the article also says "...works that range from the explicitly pornographic to mildly suggestive, romantic, or entirely nonsexual", which is true, contrary to "not being illustrative". Staying on the same level of suggestiveness (or lack thereof) as the initial wouldn't need adjudication between more or less of it.

On promotional links, the initial file lacked them, I don't see why this, especially, should have them. Unknow0059 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unknow0059

It seems that you are citing some of Commons guidelines/ policies, here on en wiki see WP:NOTCENSORED. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unknow0059, There is also, WP:Offensive material, WP:CHILDPROTECT and MOS:LEADIMAGE. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone, these are my thoughts.

Regarding the promotion aspects, I had the same concerns, but I since don't know enough, I looked at the leading image for Boys' Love and it links to its source and author's website, so if there are hard rules against unrelated links then these should be removed. Aside from that, it looks fine to me. I'm mostly worried we could end up with too many images, as I don't want to have to fight to make room if I need to add one to augment the text later. I loved the previous image (the amateur feel is a charm), but this one is fine by me too.

This page is about shotacon, the attraction and the culture that formed around it and its components. The image with Hitaku&Mayumi highlights this attraction through an onee-shota situation (it features a pairing, a woman "only-looking", a blushing boy, aware, an age gap and imbalance -- i.e. many elements of shotacon each with their lineage). The Casytay one is a shota character whose stand-out features are that he's cocky and suggestively rosy, and notably he wears short pants, an emblem of shota characters from day one.The gloves also recall how shotacon kicked into gear as a genre when Sunrise started making successful action shōnen anime for kids in the late 1980s. So you have good elements of the genre shown in this image too, and you could say both images simply represent different aspects of shotacon.

Lastly, while I agree sex is a major defining component of the genre that should obviously be described, I don't think it's inherent to it (as in, the genre cannot exist without it). After all, the image of Hitaku&Mayumi is clearly shotacon too, just different. A suggestive image alone would not be representative, but a safe image alone is not either, so having both could be a good balance. Regarding how "risky" it is, I'd say it's about on par with the one on lolicon, I don't think it comes off as gratuitous in this context, but that's me. I've been reading a lot and working on this page over the past month, so for my part I'm more preoccupied with the text right now. Mojipittan (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mojipittan and @Unknow0059 do you have an issue with the link-source over at Commons, for this file? I don't believe that it is an issue here or at the file's page on Commons.

The file proposed seems sufficient. Furthermore, with the article's current size, one file will be enough to convey the topic. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I think the unrelated links, besides the primary source-material link, are promotional and should be removed even if there's no explicit rule against them.

I'm willing to compromise: keep the image, keep the source-material link, remove the promo links, keep the original image as the leading image instead of the new.

I'd be in favor of keeping both files, but, if we must have one file, I say keep the original. This new file (or perhaps one of the other Aug 1st Commons files), instead, could be used on a future section directly addressing the sexual aspect.

Before further response I'll await for @Dabmasterars. Unknow0059 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Unknow0059, the information for this file and it's links on Commons seems to be outside the concern of this project and this talk. That being said, the information seems fine over at Commons.

Also the image proposed for this page, seems suitable. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the promo links at the Commons page as per "you may remove" and the compromise. I don't think is undue, if it is, tell me.

Also accidentally made the change while not logged in, but that was me. Unknow0059 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The proposed alternative image is very clearly fan art of Kagamine Ren VivianaAnime (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Swimming Shota.jpg? Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually sorry reverse image searching it appears to not be Len but someone's OC who looks like Len. I guess all anime boys look the same VivianaAnime (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I will say the current file looks significantly better and while suggestive is much better fitting for the article. Even if I'm nostalgic for the previous VivianaAnime (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

When looking at the Deviantart page that the image is from, it does seems that the artist draws tends to draw quite a bit of Kagamine Rin/Len. Source Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Source

@Issac I Navarro Those infobox statements and contentious categories needed to be sourced on the body of the article per WP:V and WP:CATV. Having been previously included under a see also section do not support their inclusion. V. S. Video (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:NPOV/N, WP:NORN. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

agreed, also some notes:

• Shotacon is not a branch of Lolicon
• Saito Tamaki is not relevant to shotacon's history at all. I don't know what they doing in major figures.
• Hamamatsu & Komaki merely coined a term (which was hardly used until the mid-1990s), in a different context, they aren't major figures either.
• the "influenced" field is for other genres influenced by Shotacon, not related links to magazines.

Some ideas:

• Branches: Dōjinshi, Hentai, Manga, Light Novel, Anime
• Influences: Dōjinshi, Yaoi, Boys' Love, Hentai
• Influenced: Otokonoko

Worth keeping in mind this page is about the shotaro complex -- a phenomenon with associated erotic/sexual elements, and not just a pornographic genre. Mojipittan (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@V. S. Video, It is quite clear that this is a sub category of lolicon. Lolicon is understood to be linked to cartoon child pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH for us to say that because a source has stated that lolicon is considered to be child pornography, and another source stated that shotacon is a sub category of lolicon, therefore shotacon is considered to be child pornography even though no source has supported this specific statement. (I'm not making any assumption about the existence of any such sources, they may or may not exist.) V. S. Video (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@V. S. Video, this article by the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/11/manchester-university-phd-masturbating-to-comics-of-young-boys calls it "young boys". It is quite clear that shotacon is sexualized young-looking male characters. It is objectively about children, specifically, young boys. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I see. The article calls this "images of young boys", although it does not say that this is child pornography. Would you agree to leave the article stating that shotacon is a type of drawn image "of young boys", but not make any mention of child pornography, as this source does? That would leave the reading public to come to their own conclusions. The possible distinction here seems relevant, given that this person in the article wasn't even charged with any crime. V. S. Video (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This topic is objectively about drawings of boys that have the features of a child. This whole topic is about illustrations of a boys with childlike bodily proportions and facial proportions doing an erotic poses. Child pornography laws in the United States#1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, states; "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting" that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Furthermore, Child pornography laws in Japan#Lolicon and shotacon states that; the young boys equivalent (to Lolicon) is called shotacon. Outside Japan, lolicon only refers to the hentai subgenre, usually involving simulated pornography. There is also the Hentai#Censorship article. In the Child pornography "See also" it has Shotacon listed. In addition, the Lolicon article has, Shotacon, Simulated child pornography and Victimless crime listed in it's see also.

I don't see much to be gained by dancing around the degree of this matter. This topic covers childlike drawings of boys. That's it. All drawing in this category, objectively appears childlike. This is due to identifiable fact that the typical features, (as seen with the lead image) are the proportions of the heads relative to the body, length of limbs relative to the torso, and no amount of argument can make these proportions not so. There is no question in my mind that this isn't connected to Lolicon; Lolicon is connected to CSAM. Child pornography laws in some countries apply to depictions of fictional child characters, while those in other countries, including Japan, do not. Opponents and supporters have debated if the genre contributes to child sexual abuse - Lolicon article's lead. Also see Lolicon#Debate. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, Nagaike Kazumi, in Boys Love Manga and Beyond (2015):

"We should be clear that shota should not be discussed in the same discursive frame as pedophilia. The analytical features of shota and pedophilia in the Western context need to be explored separately. As I will discuss in later sections, shota involves fantasy narratives which contain idealized images of boys, rather than expressing any overt sexual desire toward actu­ally existing boys. See Saitō Tamaki, “Otaku Sexuality,” in Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime, ed. Christopher Bolton, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr., and Takayuki Tatsumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), for a detailed discussion of the lack of commensurability between pedophilia and shota."

This page is about Shotacon, which is similar but not the same as Lolicon. Mojipittan (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mojipittan Shotacon is the male equivalent of lolicon. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not a sub-category of lolicon at all. It was influenced by lolicon from the mid-1990s (among others), but shotacon formed from women's dōjinshi at Comiket, particularly yaoi, and has its own cultural lineage. This page hardly has a history section (yet), but you must do some research before editing the page. Mojipittan (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I came from NPOV/N. I wonder if anyone has bothered looking at the retraction notice for the Andersson paper that Sage posted. notably this statement The Editors are mindful of arguments that moral offense generated by the publication of the note provides problematic grounds for the censoring of scholarship. However, the Editorial Team recognises the argument that the note legitimizes sexual activity involving sexually graphic illustrated images of children and young people, both as an activity in itself and as a research method. Such arguments make the note highly problematic due to the potential to cause significant harm. I would suggest that this kind of supports that academic institutions treat Shota as a subset of child pornography. With that said, I would implore both the for and against sides of this dispute to seek out better sources. For instance The Masturbation Article Affair: Japanese Manga, Scholarly Publishing, and the Twenty-First Century Politics of Censorship. Published in: Publishing Research Quarterly, Jun2023, By:Brienza, Casey, lays out a detailed argument about whether Shotacon constitutes child pornography suggesting that it is obviousy such by UK laws and not much more ambiguous by US laws. Likewise an article in Anthropological Review takes as a given that Shotacon constitutes child pornography in specific jurisdictions outside of Japan and then uses that as a basis for a forensic assessment of whether any given piece of sexual manga / anime material constitutes part of the set. There's more but there's only so much scholarship on this distasteful subject I am willing to read before 9 AM on a Wednesday. As such, my assessment, as a neutral and disinterested third party, is that there is ample sourcing to call this media child pornography but that this sourcing is not being appropriately utilized on this page. I suggest the parties go to Wikipedia Library and look at the actual scholarship on this subject which has faced much more academic scrutiny than a single PhD candidate's misguided attempt at participant observation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is the warning you get with a google seach for the term

Caution

Child sexual abuse content is illegal and harmful. Get confidential help.

If you're worried about your thoughts or behaviour Stop it now UK

Seeking sexually explicit images of children can have serious consequences for yourself and others. If you are worried about viewing sexual images of children or are experiencing urges to do so, you can access anonymous, ::confidential, and effective help from Stop it now UK.

Get help

• This is gona put any searchers off, and yes, does say it's child porn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ah yes, Google Search, the most reliable and unbiased source ever created. @Slatersteven, what term were you trying to search? Because I have never seen this message despite searching up various lolicon artists. Is it a regional thing? Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dabmasterars, it pops up for me as well, but, slightly different. As I am in the United States. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Shotacon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven Same.

  When I type the word on Google it gives me:

  "Caution

  Child sexual abuse content is illegal and harmful

  Get confidential help

  .

  If you're worried about your thoughts or behavior

  Help Wanted

  Seeking sexually explicit images of children can have serious consequences for yourself and others. If you are worried about viewing sexual images of children or are experiencing urges to do so, you can access anonymous, confidential, and effective help from Help Wanted.

  Get help" Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  So even searching for this topic is actually putting editors at risk, as this is being flagged somewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven, Indeed, the word alone flags something on Google. As stated above, I am in the United States.

  As pointed out above, laws in the US, cites lolicon CSAM. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• [] "The answer is no. As a result of the PROTECT Act of 2003, lolicon meets the federal criteria for child pornography. If you are caught in possession of lolicon or shotacon, you could face federal criminal charges and significant prison time if convicted." . Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven In that article, it's very clear to state that "Possessing loli is illegal." Furthermore, any visual depiction that "appears to be" of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Under this definition, lolicon is considered child pornography." It is very clear, that this topic is/in, the realm of CSAM. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly, it is clear that (in some jurisdictions at least) Shotcon is covered by child porn laws, and is a branch of lolicon (as it is covered by anti-lolicon laws). Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Arriving from WP:NORN. I suspect that is where the RS will agree, but we should go off of what (ideally academic) RS say, not a legal conclusion based on on jurisdiction. After all, it's explicitly NOT CSAM in Japan, so arguing for a legal definition of one locale seems like an NPOV issue. Plus, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, a tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit, despite what the overwhelming consensus of biologists is.

  Doing a Google Scholar search, the first result I can access concludes, What within majority culture may seem to be pornography of the most noxious kind [(Shotacon)], may actually be relatively safe for young women... which seems to indicate that the mainstream view is that it does qualify as CSAM. The second source doesn't appear to draw any conclusions, noting the challenging articulation of the highly regulated Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) category when the content is non-photorealistic animation. A guide for investigators refers to lolicon and shotacon as [The terms Lolicon and shotacon are] regularly used in the United States by child pornographers as a search term and as a file tag for animated content involving minors. (p. 17) Another book writes, [Banning Shotacon] is indeed what several countries outside of Japan have done, where drawings have been included in the child pornography legislations in for example Australia, Canada, the UK, and Sweden. (p. 3)

  This seems to suggest that the topic of Shotacon is treated by mainstream literature as child pornography, though a substantial minority view exists that, because it is a victimless crime, it is not. I believe the best way to handle this is to identify it as "usually considered child pornography" but, farther in the body, identify and describe the opposing view.

  And now that all this crap is in my search history, I'm going to go sit in the sun and remind myself that good things still exist. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Which is what we already say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Cool? Like I said, I just came from NORN. If that's what the article already does, then cool, less work to implement consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @EducatedRedneck Thank you, for your input. I couldn't agree more with you. You are absolutely correct. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Certainly @EducatedRedneck is correct we should prefer academic sources. Their review of Google Scholar and mine of Wikipedia library returned different articles but the same ultimate conclusions. I think it's pretty clear there is something of an academic consensus here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that "drawings have been included in the child pornography legislations in for example Australia, Canada, the UK, and Sweden" does not mean that there are no countries that don't (such as Japan and Germany). We could explicitly clarify that countries have different laws, though that doesn't really solve the problem of whether or not the contentious categories should be included. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 16:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nor should we give the impression it might be legal, where it is not. We have a duty to inform, including warning about possible transgressions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  To note, I have added some links in the "See also" section if the page that are directly about this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The question before us is not whether these drawings are legal. Clearly they are handled differently in different jurisdictions. The question before us is rather whether it is encyclopedically neutral to refer to these drawings as a form of child pornography. Based on the academic sources reviewed by @EducatedRedneck and myself the answer to that is unambiguously yes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  And just to add, I don't really relish keeping this page on my watchlist so I'd request that @Dabmasterars, @V. S. Video and @Mojipittan please confirm whether they have any further objections to this inclusion on the basis of the newly provided sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, Since this matter is very closely linked to lolicon. I would also suggest that the WP:MOSCAT, for that page also reflect this. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  As I think I'm making clear I'd rather not get further involved in this dispute and, having offered a third party opinion simply want confirmation if there's anything more in this specific dispute that needs to be addressed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because the sources that Redneck found do not directly say that this is "child pornography", my view is that we should attribute the statements that it so (and that it isn't, if any source says the contrary). That would be an efficient way to account for contradicting legal definitions of child pornography across different countries. V. S. Video (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any reliable sources (note a retracted paper is categorically non-reliable because it was retracted) that indicate it is not treated this way? Because multiple academic sources agree that it is child pornography and I've seen nothing to contradict that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please reread my post. The last two sources were as explicit as I could ask for, and the first one is clearly talking about CSAM in the context. I often harp about SYNTH and that it needs to be avoided, so I can understand where you're coming from, but this 'aint SYNTH. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  (Also, as an aside, if you would like to abbreviate my handle, "ER" tends to work well, and doesn't run the risk of being taken as a pejorative.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I genuinely have no clue. I mean I personally wouldn't put the categories, but that's my personal bias. Sources don't state the category precisely, only using vague statements, making the situation even more complicated. Because of this, I don't have any objections of what happens to the categories, regardless of the outcome. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Or we keep the page more or less as is? we already say it's illegal in some places and not in others. What needs to change? Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven, I don't believe anything needs to change. (To note: I have added more to the See also section) Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is the Eng Wiki, so its target "market" are English langauge countries, are there any where it's legal? Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven, there is Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors, covers a bunch of countries and cases, everything seems to be sourced well. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 16:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)