Talk:Kodomo no Jikan

Edit conflicts

No, it was a perfectly good argument. On Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to include original research, and we shouldn't assume things. Since it seems to me that you are assuming that the source is biased, you are in the wrong to change it according to how you are interpreting the information given. If you look at the reference literally, there is no reason to believe that they are biased, so you shouldn't make it seem like it is so, when that is not the case.--十八 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not noticing this until now.

I am not assuming that Seven Seas is a biased source. Rather, I think that it is a plain fact.

1) Seven Seas is one party involved in this very controversial matter in the manga community.

2) Claiming that Watashiya "demanded" the title Nymphet helps Seven Seas' case.

3) Therefore, Seven Seas is a biased source.

Furthermore, the Seven Seas blog you reference doesn't even claim that Watashiya made the demand. Instead, it claims that Futabasha claims that Watashiya made the demand. Very dubious. Forweg 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think it's true and supply circumstancial evidence that cannot be proven does not mean you are true and that your evidence is fact. It states at WP:NOR: Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. You are clearly in violation of these two key points, and what you are doing is pushing original research into an article.--十八 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One does not need proof for 2+2=4. It is fact. I would really love to hear how my three points above can be disproven.

Also, the article you link to also says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." That sentence wasn't adhering to what the source said. Seven Seas does not claim that that Watashiya made the demand. Instead, it claims that Futabasha claims that Watashiya made the demand. Therefore, the sentence was not adhering to what the source said. That violates Wikipedia policy.

One must analyze the sources in order to determine if they are reliable. This is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Forweg 09:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Analyzing to determine reliability has nothing to do with original research; those two are inherently different. But onto your three points. The first two points are stated facts, sure, but the third point is making an educated inference on the supplied information. Such guessing is called circumstantial evidence and is no better than original research. You must see what I am talking about. What you're saying is "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's a duck", but I am saying that that thought process is not always exact. Case in point: Water is both clear, and in liquid form, but not all liquids that are clear are water, such as hydrogen peroxide or sulfuric acid; see now why your argument is flawd?. Not only that, but you cannot find a reliable source that actually states that Seven Seas was biased to say that Futabasha said the author demanded the title change, but you can find a source that states that that is exactly what happened. Look, I'm not asking you to believe it, I just want you to see that you are assuming too much, and it's not your place to assume things on Wikipedia, even if there's some circumstancial evidence to "support" your claims; Wikipedia deals with hard evidence, and you have none.

And what are you talking about when you said this: That sentence wasn't adhering to what the source said. Seven Seas does not claim that that Watashiya made the demand.? The sentence in the article was written: The English trade name was chosen to be Nymphet after the original artist requested the title and demanded its use for the English manga. That just says that artist requested the change, not that Seven Seas said she requested the change. Get your facts straight.--十八 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"and 18 went en-garde! then, hai-yah! and it was all over. All that was left in its wake was destruction" Oh, on a side note - what is the "it" reffering to in 十八 first statment: "No, it was a perfectly good argument?" (presuming that the article was being voted for deletion because it was thought to be biased?) 24.19.25.118 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, see the edit summaries from July 16 to July 20 between me and Forweg to see what I was referring to.

And anyway, the article wasn't being deleted because it was thought to be biased. Someone nominated it for deletion because they thought it to be non-notable; read the deletion archive at the top of this page if you want.--十八 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reiji sexually abusing Rin

I'm sorry but, up until chapter 30, I have not seen what the article claims: "It is also been hinted that he has already been sexually abusing Rin"... so I'm putting the phrase under comments. Also, I think it would be smart to remove the text "As the story progresses it becomes clear that he is slowly losing his mind and is becoming increasingly delusional about someday being romantically involved with Rin" bacause, even tho it is HINTED, it is not spoken out loud. It could well lead into an unexpected answer in the manga. What I'm trying to say is... at least Reiji's part of the article seems kind of biased and uses some weasel words, so... maybe we could improve that. Guille ^.~ 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that could hint on 'sexually abusing' that I can think of is page 6 (116) in chapter 19, but that would really be stretching it. I'll just add an ref-needed as some anon removed your commenting and I don't want to risk a war over something like this.

Not sure about the second sentence, it seems like some times he is using Rin as a substitute for Aki; but at the same time he has also mentioned something about giving to Rin what he couldn't give Aki. Though this could of course be translations errors messing it up. I did some changes to the text, only minor stuff as I find him very sick and scary. --Execvator 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that " Though he is slowly losing control of his sexual urges as seen by him leaving hickeys on the back of Rin's neck." thing a couple of days ago, because I don't see Reiji leaving hickeys on Rin's neck. Somebody wrote it again, so I deleted it again. Let's discuss it here. Oh, yeah, to Haruyasha: if you are talking about last page, I dont see even one hickey. What's more, I think it's a hug. Guille ^.~ 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read chapter 31 a few times now and she does indeed have something that looks like a hickey (p.10, p.30). While he is the one most likely to have done it and it gets hinted at, on the last page (p.30, top-left panel), that he gave it to her; I still find it unclear whether he really is 'the guilty'.

Leaving it, as is, looks biased to me; though, I think it should be mentioned in some way, either in Rin's or Reiji's section. --Execvator 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That thing on page 30 looks like just a shadow to me. The one in page 10, how ever, I had not noticed... and it does look like a hicke. How ever, we could be wrong because... well, it looks like a hickey, but it might not be one. What if it is Aki's disease? (let's hope not... I certainly love Rin :( ). I think we should, at least, wait until it is clarified in the manga. Guille ^.~ 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CP as a category

OK... I don't know how much time it has been there and who put it there, but... why is the article categorized as Child Porn?! I mean, come on, that's obviously biased... so, I deleted the category markup. Guille ^.~ 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A nobody wondering?

i was just wondering and wanted to ask the kind people who update the character bio, that knowing that the teacher and Rin are like main - main characters, but how come there is not much information about them, while the others who are less shown have a bit more, to way more one them. i mean if there is a rule to this king of thing let me know so i learn something new,anyways was just wondering. Chimasternmay 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Users have just contributed more to some characters and little to none; if you read/watch the series, feel free to add in the bios.--十八 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion for Lolicon Section

Just for the record, I am the individual who wrote the section on "Lolicon as a storytelling device" in an attempt to counterbalance the "Controversy" section concerning the cancellation of the manga's publication as well as the remainder of the article and provide context. The emphasis in this Wikipedia entry is placed on the same area as the controversy surrounding it, namely the relationship between Daisuke Aoki and Rin Kokonoe, which does a disservice to the manga considering that the story has advanced beyond that and become a complex psychological study of the main characters and their interactions with one another rather than an ad nauseum rehashing of the idea of a naive grade school teacher being sexually harrassed by a coquettish, mischievous student of his.

I know that neutrality is paramount at Wikipedia, but the "radioactivity" of the subject matter at hand has most people who read the short summary of the series automatically assume the worst, and this can only be counterbalanced by providing context, which is what I have tried to do. Lunar Archivist 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I get the feeling that when you say 'those people', it automatically means Americans. Aren't they always the ones responsible for neutrality disputes? I believe so. Haruyasha 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to get sucked into international politics and finger-pointing. The last thing we need is a "The neutrality of this section is disputed." tag to be added to the talk page for an article whose neutrality is being disputed. ;) What personally annoys me is that I spent several days trying to make the section I wrote as neutral and ambiguous as possible. Instead of going the "pedophile apologist" route by dismissing any questionable scenes as figments of a reader's dirty-minded imagination or their looking too much into things, I acknowledged their existence directly and either linked to articles explaining their purpose in the narrative or provided examples to dispel purely negative interpretations and balance things out, leaving readers to come to their own conclusions with the new information provided. I purposely avoided touching any issues that could be even remotely linked to an opinion, such as:

• The unlikelihood that a female manga author would purposely create a series design to sexually objectify female children and condone their sexual exploitation or abuse.
• The fact that Rin appears to have a pretty "empowered" mindset for an alleged sexual abuse victim, since she only displays as much or as little of herself when and if she feels likes it and has shown great resistence to being forced to expose herself against her will (like when Aoki tried to remove her top when she dressed herself up as a boy).
• Omitting any condemnation/justification for Reiji's admittedly creepy behavior and changing the term "inappropriate conduct" to "grossly inappropriate sexual conduct" in light of the hickey incident.
• Mentioning or passing judgement on scenes I was personally shocked by or considered to be in poor or questionable taste, such as the mock-condom scene, the water fountain "blowjob", the gynasium crotch-rubbing fiasco, the breast-feeding scene, etc.

And, even after doing all this, I still got slapped with the damn tag... Lunar Archivist 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that part as an non-neutral one. When I noticed it, I really liked it just because of that. If anyone (or at least the person who tagged it) could tell us why was the tag placed, I'd really appreciate it. How ever, unless it happens, I'm motioning for its (the tag's) removal (if it is of any use). Guille ^.~ 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)