Content deleted Content added
→New lead: so suggest one |
|||
Line 876:
::The statement doesn't say that it IS, just that ''critics'' call it that. -[[User:Jmh123|Jmh123]] 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but everything has critics. Just because ''someone'' says something doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Further, to ensure NPOV, I feel that there should be a statement to the contrary, similarly sourced. --[[User:Eyrian|Eyrian]] 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Lolicon has had more than its fair share of critics. More than half the entry is about legal issues. The idea that lolicon is child pornography is not an "earth is flat" kind of idea. As for the statement to the contrary, perhaps you could write and source one for us? A huge part of the problem here is that there's way too little information about the genre itself. What do you expect people to think? It's sexy pictures of little girls, but it's not porn because....why? How about helping us out here a little? -[[User:Jmh123|Jmh123]] 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::An early version of the sentence already exists on the article with an attribution. But I don't find it all that extraordinary of a claim, but one that is fairly self-evident. In fact, I think the counterclaim would be the extraordinary claim and is the one that needs extraordinary evidence. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||