[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Hentai: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 232: Line 232:


:::{{re|Herostratus}} I'm happy with the current revision of the article, as long as the image remains in it. But, just tell me one thing; Did the image lose it's offensiveness after being placed in the ''Eroge'' section? One more thing, the age of the reader/viewer of Hentai should be at least 18 or 16 in some countries, but the characters can be of what you called ''Underage''. So I'm not buying your argument that "the female subject appears to be underage" because there are some sub genre of Hentai like "Lolicon" or "Shotacon" exist in this world. [[User:Phoenix God|Phoenix God]] ([[User talk:Phoenix God|talk]]) 06:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Herostratus}} I'm happy with the current revision of the article, as long as the image remains in it. But, just tell me one thing; Did the image lose it's offensiveness after being placed in the ''Eroge'' section? One more thing, the age of the reader/viewer of Hentai should be at least 18 or 16 in some countries, but the characters can be of what you called ''Underage''. So I'm not buying your argument that "the female subject appears to be underage" because there are some sub genre of Hentai like "Lolicon" or "Shotacon" exist in this world. [[User:Phoenix God|Phoenix God]] ([[User talk:Phoenix God|talk]]) 06:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

::::{{re|Phoenix God}} -- I'm not at all happy with the current revision of the article. Of course the image does not lose it's offensiveness by being place lower down; it doesn't belong at all in encyclopedia widely used by schoolchildren. I was just reverting to the last stable version per our usual procedure. It is better [[Above the fold|below the fold]] than above it, anyway.

::::As to the girl being underage, couple things:
::::#She's wearing a skirt of a pattern which is generally most used as part of a secondary school girl uniform. The girl's features are also those of a secondary school child.
::::#Cut the crap. We both know exactly what is going here on, what the intended scenario is supposed to be, what the reader is to be put in the mind of, and who and what is being appealed to. Being disingenuous about this is both insulting and boring and doesn't advance the conversation. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:29, 2 October 2017

Yaoi and Yuri target-audiences?

How is it that Yaoi is presented as an exclusively female-oriented genre, while Yuri is presented as being aimed at heterosexual women as well as lesbians and straight men? Even if there's some straight women who like the Yuri genre, they're not the intended audience, or not any more than straight men being the audience of Yaoi. In fact, Yaoi attracts men as well as women, and a big part of those men are actually straight and not gay. (see the Wiki article on "Yaoi")

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hentai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hentai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored... but

When I first came to this page, in order to check the definition of 'Hentai', I was somewhat surprised to see some of the images it included and immediately 'thought of the children'. I rushed to this talk page to 'say something', but then noted from the top of this talk page that "Wikipedia is not censored". Okay, I'm being too prudish.

Next stop: Wikipedia's entry on Pornography, which I expected to be (and was) far more prudish in its approach to the subject matter. I was going to comment on that article's failure to provide clear visual demonstrations (aka the 'Hentai example'), until I followed through from 'What Wikipedia is not' to the guideline on Wikipedia:Offensive material.

This latter article states that (and I quote its entire first paragraph for context purposes, but have not bothered to carry links over - the reader can check them if they so wish):

Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

I suggest that some of the pictures in the Hentai article fail this test, and should be removed. Certain other pictures that have been included in the article are more than adequate to provide the reader with a clear understanding of Hentai. To be specific, I propose the removal of:

Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png should be considered for removal unless a specific value can be defined that it represents and that will be lost with the loss of the image.

While https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tako_to_ama_retouched.jpg may be offensive to some portions of the community, it is presumably of historical interest and thus adds value to the article from that perspective.

Can whomever has been involved in managing this particular page please consider this proposal on the basis of Wikipedia's guidelines and in particular the guidance on offensive material. If there are no responses in a day or two to this proposal, I will assume that what I am suggesting is uncontroversial and remove all three indicated images. Ambiguosity (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguosity, I don't have a strong opinion on the images and I see you have gone through with the removals. Some editors might object to the removals, but I think you are being quite sensible. You might be interested in reading this discussion from the Masturbation talk page for further context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The changes I made to this article have been reverted by Phoenix God - obviously without discussion here. The reversion states "Hentai is for adults only. That's why, Do not remove an image just because you think it's offensive for children. Also, the image's use is restricted by administrators so it is legal.", which I feel misses the point; nevertheless, I am not going to immediately revert it simply because it has not been 'talked through'.
I have posted the following to the talk page of Phoenix God, under the heading 'Please consider talk pages before reverting changes':

Hi. I see you have reverted changes I made to the Hentai page. I have no problem with this, as long as you have considered and contributed to the talk page's discussion rather than simply reverting - unfortunately this does not appear to have occurred.

In order that you have an opportunity to do this, and to read the relevant Wikipedia editorial guidance, I am not immediately reverting your change. Instead I encourage you to go to the Hentai talk page and present your perspective on what is appropriate or otherwise there.
I look forward to your participation in the discussion of what is in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on offensive material, and in the meantime will also post this comment to that talk page in anticipation of your joining it.
Thank you. (Signed)
Hopefully Phoenix God will join this discussion to present their opinion on this matter. For the moment I will simply wait; if no response is received within two or three days then I suggest that no further discussion is required and the expectations stated in offensive material will again be applied to the article - perhaps this time with a request for further edit locking. Ambiguosity (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambiguosity: I have reverted your edits because you didn't discuss it thoroughly, and only one user talk on this page. Also, You never told about what is offensive in those images. Phoenix God (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguosity and Phoenix God, both of your Wikipedia accounts are new, but you have been doing an okay job at engaging in this matter. For example, Ambiguosity gave a reasonable explanation for removing the images, and Phoenix God reverted and explained his (or her view) here on the talk page as well. Phoenix God, sexual images do fall into the "offensive material" category of things on Wikipedia because some readers will always find them offensive. Across Wikipedia, we've gotten complaints time and time again about such images. This is why, per the WP:Offensive material guideline, we should assess whether or not whatever sexual image is needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Ambiguosity has argued that the images he (or she) removed are not needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: I do agree with your point that sexual images can be seen as offensive by some users, but they're actually vulgar not offensive. And, in the WP:Offensive material guideline, it is clearly written that "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available", so i reverted his or her edits because i believe these images are useful in understanding the article. Now, if Ambiguosity can explain that these images are irrelevant to the article than i have no issue. Because in the previous edits he or she only said that these images are offensive, but never told about how these images are unnecessary for the article. Also, wouldn't it be best if we just ask administrator [Materialscientist] for his opinion about this discussion because he is the one who restricted the use of one of these images. Phoenix God (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix God, things that are vulgar are always offensive to many people. So I don't understand how you are distinguishing in that regard. The point is that sexual images are subject to the WP:Offensive material guideline and that they should only be included if they significantly aid in enhancing a reader's understanding of the topic. I am aware of what the guideline states; so is Ambiguosity, which is why Ambiguosity quoted that guideline when giving his (or her) reasoning. Ambiguosity was clear in stating that the absence of these images would not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Ambiguosity also believes that the other images are enough. I don't think that Ambiguosity was stating that the images are irrelevant. An image being relevant does not mean that it should be included; the aforementioned guideline is clear on that.
As for Materialscientist, Materialscientist usually does not weigh in on content disputes, but I've obviously gone and ahead pinged him. There is no need to ping me to this page, by the way, since it is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1). The image [[File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg]] represents the Eroge, and there's no other image in the article which can fulfill its purpose.
(2.) The image [[File:Hadako-tan.png]] represents the standard Hentai illustration, so it's useful for readers in understanding the article. (Also, no sex organs are shown in that image).
Both of these images have their own value in the article, and no other image of the article can be used on their place. The third one is more vulgar, so it can be deleted but these two looks necessary to me. I think we should follow Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Phoenix God (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just now found something, which can be helpful in making a fair dicision. There's is "Good Article" on wikipedia named A Free Ride, which contains a full length public domain film. I watched that film and is surprised to see that it is actually a sex video. So I'm confuse right now if WP:Offensive material guideline matters on wikipedia or not. Phoenix God (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It matters, per what I stated above. You will not see us randomly placing sexual images in articles, for example. Context is everything. The article and video that you speak of is about a pornographic film, and readers can decide not to click on that video. Furthermore, the inclusion of that video has been heavily debated. You will not see us adding pornographic videos to the Pornography article. Likewise, we do not need a pornographic image as a lead image in the Pornography article, which is why one currently is not there (other than a plain XXX image). Given how broad pornography is, it is challenging to find a representative lead image for that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to remind that WP:OSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly opposed to the removal of the images as they are a visual for their respective section/part. I also want to point out WP:DISC as this section implies that the only reason why the images are proposed for removal is that they are offensive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:OSE argument can be valid or invalid, as that essay makes clear. Both sides used the argument, and seeing what other articles do is relevant in this case.
As for Ambiguosity's reasoning, that was not Ambiguosity's sole reasoning. At all. But the WP:Offensive material guideline is about taking offensive material into account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just got rid of one of the images mentioned above but chose to keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg as that is a quality image at the commons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the readers can choose not to watch a sex video on wikipedia. Then the inclusion of these images according to content disclaimer is fair, because they can use No Image option. Also, these kinds of images are currently being used in some articles. The Anal Sex article has an image like this in the lead, and the Non-penetrative sex article has some images that are as much vulgar as these images. Phoenix God (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sexual articles you point to are demonstrating the sex acts in question. Per the WP:Offensive material guideline, they also are illustrations instead of real-life sexual images because (besides having a more educational feel than real-life sexual images, which our readers only view as porn) they are adequate alternatives (equally suitable alternatives) to the real-life imagery. If we can use a less offensive but equally suitable alternative image, we should do that. Hentai (when not meaning the Japanese usage) is a genre; it is not a sex act, which is why there is currently no sexual image as the lead image. That might change, but a sexual image is not needed for the lead image of the Hentai article. As for a video vs. an image, it is not the same. When readers arrive at the A Free Ride article, they have the option to either click on the video or not. Images, however, are right there in your face without any sort of warning or option to not look at them. Readers usually do not know about WP:NOIMAGE. Being told of WP:NOIMAGE after the fact is not very effective. And either way, I do not see the point of continuing your argument to retain the images. Ambiguosity has decided not to continue the discussion, at least for now, and two editors (you and Knowledgekid8) have made a case for retaining the images. The images remain. So time to move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see I spoke too soon about the lead image. A sexual image is again the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image remains, not images as I thought that a compromise would work out here regarding the issue. The lead image is what Hentai is in the eyes of the International community. You are right we should drop the issue and move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is, based upon my reading of WP:Offensive, offensive. Yes, the people who read this article know where to find plenty of graphic images. Yes, they have seen it all before. Yes, they can (after having seen the image) realise that they should have set NOIMAGE - if they are even aware of that option. This is not an article displaying 'the finest Hentai', or 'all the Hentai' - it is an encyclopedia entry that can be used by all Internet users. In my opinion, the current lead image has no place in an encyclopaedia. If the community feels that it is somehow 'the ultimate means of displaying Hentai', then it should not be the lead image and it should be hidden by default. The suggestion that readers have the option to hide the image is pointless.
Phoenix God states that the current lead picture "represents the Eroge, and there's no other image in the article which can fulfill its purpose". I refer you to the Wikipedia article on Eroge, which seems to be lacking any art other than the series' Anime Eye. Presumably an image representing Eroge would be more appropriately placed -if at all- on that page. I am not arguing for that, simply pointing out that it is not required on either Wikipedia article.
Turning to claims about 'Hentai in the eyes of the international community', I did some searching. There is a Vice article about the 'Dying art of Japanese Hentai' (you will need to certify that you are eighteen to gain access to it); this user's 'images that blow their mind'; and a bunch of little pieces here and there. There is a useful article on comicbook.com, titled Anime Know-How: What Is Hentai?, which provides some useful context and history. I would encourage a read before seeking to claim a particular definition on behalf of 'the international community'; in particular, it states that the term as used in Japan refers to 'abnormal sexual fetishes' and is not specific to explicit sexual content. The article goes on to state that Hentai is used in the West to describe porn. Please feel free to direct me to the international community's eyes so I can understand a little more.
As this article stands, it agrees with the description from comicbook.com in words but not in images. The lead image in particular is clearly pornographic in nature, with no 'perversion' or 'fetish'. It is graphic to an unnecessary extent in such an article, which features many other images that represent the art form without being offensive. Similarly, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai#/media/File:Futanari.png image is unnecessary in the discussion and depiction of Hentai - it serves to perhaps entice or excite the reader, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose. I argue that these images are not necessary to the description of Hentai, and their inclusion is offensive. To quote from Wikipedia:Offensive material, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". There is plenty of alternative material that can replace both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png.
There are two ways you can argue for retention of one or both of these images, and against the application of Wikipedia:Offensive material:
  • You may present a case that removing or replacing these images "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available"; or
  • You may argue that the images do not fit the definition of "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers".
If you wish to present one or both of these arguments, this would be a really good time to do so. Otherwise, I return to the original statement in and intent of this talk thread - that they should not be in the article. To be clear, it is not up to me to persuade anyone of their 'lack of value'; it is up to the images' defenders to state why the images comply with Wikipedia's policies and should be retained.
Given previous objections by Phoenix God I have set no time limit, but time and tide wait for no man - and vice versa (or if you prefer, "words, words, words - I'm so sick of words..."). I look forward to further civilised and erudite discussion. Ambiguosity (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this discussion many times, but all I've been seeing is just Ambiguosity calling the images "Offensive". He don't even clarify how these images are unnecessary for the article. Also, Eroge is a Start class article so it doesn't give us a proper example of what image should be used for Eroge, and "Pinterest" is not even a reliable source. One more thing, this article is not just about "Hentai" as a "word/term" or as a "genre", It is about Hentai as a Whole thing. There is a paragraph in the lead clearly stating that "Internationally, hentai is a catch-all term to describe a genre of anime and manga pornography. English adopts and uses hentai as a genre of pornography by the commercial sale and marketing of explicit works under this label." So it is related to Pornograpy and is not just a term to describe Perverse behavior. As I've said before there is sex video included in the "A Free Ride" article, so it means that exception can be made on Wikipedia, and if a reader doesn't know about "No Image" option then it's his/her own fault. The Content disclaimer also says that offensive material is a part of Wikipedia. Phoenix God (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also read this discussion and I will explain my view on this subject. The image should remain. So I guess we should look at the different policies in an attempt to view this image in the way I want to explain it: WP:CENSOR Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
WP:GFFENSE A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines.
So I guess we have to look at the context of this image. The image is located prominently the top of the article, and displays a male penetrating a female. The article states that Internationally, hentai is a catch-all term to describe a genre of anime and manga pornography. Now, how I look at it is that I think of what a traditional encyclopedia might view when we turn to the page "Hentai" or really any other sex act. Other stuff exists, such as Fellatio and Anal Sex and they still use the images of the sex acts, even though some users may find it and classify it as pornography. Now, the image in question is really not that outlandish. The viewer has already decided to research "hentai" in an attempt to learn more information about it, and so they view the article. They read the article, they see that image, and they understand the concept. The image is especially relevant because while Hentai may vary, the vast majority of it that's shown is going to be heterosexual and with penetration, hence the image fits and is not WP:DUE weight. It fits relevance because it's not just on random "Anime" page, it's a hentai image on the hentai page, no irrelevance there. You claim they're not necessary, but the article would indeed suffer loss of relevance without the image. It's not an out of place image. You also state The lead image in particular is clearly pornographic in nature, with no 'perversion' or 'fetish'. Isn't that really the point? The image does not need to be the most expansive or be a fetishistic image. It should be a general sexual image, which I think the image as it presently sits currently is. Tutelary (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutelary: I think you have misunderstood my opinion. I completely support the inclusion of the image. I called them Pronographic because I want Ambiguosity to understand that "Hentai" is not just about perverted behavior, but it looks like my way of telling that is wrong. Phoenix God (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Tutelary was responding to Ambiguosity. As for the rest, I've already made my arguments. And I stand by them. As for it being a reader's fault for not knowing about WP:NOIMAGE, I find that to be faulty logic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Infobox photo

Should this article have the follow picture in its infobox? File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg Brustopher (talk). What about some other different pornographic hentai image? [followup question added at Tutelary's request. 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brustopher, I feel as though you should have discussed this requests for comment ahead of time. Often times, it's not so useful if the question is so limited in scope. For example, you didn't elaborate on the fact that there were other candidates of images that could also take the place of the top image, or other suitable alternatives. I'm in favor of the current image, which is what I argued against. But let's say this RFC goes the full length...30 days and its consensus is "No". Then there could be even more discussion about another image. What are we gonna do? Start another RFC for each separate image? I'm not sure if you can withdraw a RFC at this point in time. I'm not opposed to it, since it would be useful to gather more thoughts from uninterested editors regarding this subject. I'm opposed to its current question. My alternative would be to change the question to: "Would it be encyclopedic to have some image of Hentai in the top of the article?" Tutelary (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a follow up q per request. Tbh I'm not too worried about the scope being narrow. I'm sure people will not feel unable to discuss wider issues as they arise over the course of debate. Brustopher (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Views

  • No Yeah Wikipedia's not censored and all that, but this is just laughable. What actually justifies the presence of this picture in the top infobox beyond a cheap excuse to stare at some anime titties on the internet? Compare and contrast with the wiki page for Pornography. Or your average Wikipedia page for a pornstar, which for the most part tend to feature fully clothed photos. Brustopher (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Certainly the current image is not perfect. Though the user who started this RFC only seems to suggest that because the image is seen as pornographic, and uses the term "anime titties" that it should have no place on an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. This type of problem has been occurring on similar pages for a while now. The arguments never change. "Think of the kids, it's porn, it's anime titties, it's offensive." All of these are nonsensical arguments. The current image has with it a good amount of WP:DUE weight since heterosexual penetration is a common type of hentai, and the image is not more fetishistic as to be irrelevant. Just as the article on the Footjob, Fellatio, and Anal Sex all have images of the sex act, this article should be the same way. The article would indeed lose some type of relevance with the removal of the image in question, though perhaps one of the other images would move into its place. Regardless, I think it's more of like a compromise image either way. Either it gets removed, and some other image gets moved into its place, or the anime portal takes its place. Regardless, I think it would suffer. This image provides the best overview in a single photo as to the subject of "Hentai", since it's a subset of cartoon pornography. If consensus is to remove this image, I propose that one of the other images (currently in the article), take its place. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participants should see the #Wikipedia is not censored... but discussion for background information on this RfC. Like I stated in that discussion, articles like Anal sex and Fellatio are demonstrating the sex acts in question. Hentai (when not meaning the Japanese usage) is a genre; it is not a sex act. Even internationally, the lead currently states that it "is a catch-all term to describe a genre of anime and manga pornography." That stated, when westerners think of hentai, they do think of whatever sex act or other erotic imagery. So it's not too unreasonable that some type of sexual image be the lead image of the article. For some cases, WP:Offensive material does stress trying to find the least offensive image, as long as it is an adequate alternative. In this case, however, it can be that a representative lead image is debatable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak include (summoned by bot) - I think the image deserves to be somewhere in the article. It's widely used on other language projects and illustrates the genre well enough. However, I'm not seeing a dire need for an infobox. If there is to be an infobox, I have little problem with this image. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - The image shows what Hentai looks like in the view of the Western world. Last I checked Pornography was not a GA, or FA article. In fact the FA candidate had a pornographic image in the lead: [1][2]. But this just boils down to WP:OSE, I take issue with the OP treating this discussion like a joke "a cheap excuse to stare at some anime titties on the internet" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated above (my "0:35, 18 September 2017" post), given how broad pornography is, it is challenging to find a representative lead image for that topic. It is also a genre issue rather than a simple sex act issue. Furthermore, we don't need an image of a penis entering a vagina as the lead image in the Pornography article. It not being there does not make that article any less informative. Both sides have been using WP:OSE arguments, and WP:OSE arguments can be valid or invalid. WP:OSE is an essay, however, while WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material are our rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include ― In the first place Hentai is a word to point out those perverted acts that are done by living humans not fictional characters, and we are not using an image in which a living person is shown doing perverted things. The current lead image contains two fictional characters in a sex act, which is the easiest way to describe Hentai as a genre, and since the image is not of a real person, so it means that we are already using a less offensive image. Phoenix God (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a genre, hentai is about animated characters; so there is no real life-image for the matter anyway (unless one is talking about cosplay). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: Sorry but i don't agree with your point that; As a genre, hentai is about animated characters; so there is no real life-image for the matter anyway, because the acts that are considered as perverted behavior (Hentai) can easily be found in many Japanese films (for example City Hunter) and TV shows (for example Prison School live-action), so you can't say that there's no real life image available. I mean that Hentai is not just a genre of manga pornography, it's examples can be found in real life. That's why, everyone who is against the inclusion of current lead image should remember that it's already less offensive because it's an art. Phoenix God (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up two fictional characters portraying hentai, as if that matters. It does not matter because hentai cannot be portrayed by real-life people, unless they are cosplaying some type of hentai topic. The cosplaying comment was not meant to be taken seriously. City Hunter is not hentai. Prison School is not hentai. Perversion in manga or anime does not automatically make that work a hentai work. If you were to add imagery from those works to this article and call it hentai, people would call it WP:Original research, regardless of the fact that we have more leeway with images than with text. And if you added a real-life sexual image to this article and called it hentai, you would not have a solid case. That image would be removed; I would personally see to its removal. In the case of this article, the inclusion of the cartoon/animated images are being argued on the basis that hentai is widely taken to mean "a genre of anime and manga pornography." Your argument that the cartoon images are less offensive alternatives because they are cartoon images is invalid because there are no valid real-life alternatives. You wouldn't be able to take a picture of a real-life man known as a pervert in Japan and add it to this article as an example of hentai.
On a side note: Do not ping me to this page; it is already on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about any Original Research, I'm just saying that a single character from any particular series "Real life or Not" can be an example of Hentai behavior, because for example even though Prison School is not a Hentai series but most of it characters shows perverted behavior. The anime like School Days and My Wife is the Student Council President are not Hentai series but they do contain Hentai illustrations that can be used in the article, so it doesn't matter if a series is completely not a Hentai. Also, I do agree with your point that Hentai (Anime and Manga Pornography) can not be portrayed by real life people; but the Hentai behavior can be portrayed by real persons (for example an image of a man sniffing the underclothes of a lady is considered as Hentai behavior). Phoenix God (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be conflating hentai as a genre with hentai as an adjective in Japanese. This article is about the genre. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not written anywhere in the article that it's about the genre. The first two sections specially describe it as Japanese term for perversion, so i believe it's not just about Hentai as a genre; it's about Hentai as a whole. Also, I'm well aware of the difference between Hentai as genre and Hentai as a term or adjective. Phoenix God (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir means that the article's focus is on the genre. As for the Japanese word usage, in the same way that we would not include images of people in the Perversion article and label them perverts, we would not include images of people in this article and label it hentai. The Perversion article also does not need an image of people engaging in BDSM, with the caption that "BDSM is sometimes considered a perversion." But doing that would be far more understandable than adding an image of a Japanese man to this article and stating that he is an example of hentai because he is known as a pervert in Japan. No, he wouldn't be an example of hentai. A live-action image from any of the non-hentai manga/anime adaptations would not be an example of hentai. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that the etymology and definition of the word is described in the article, it's primarily focused on the genre. And also, if we were to go with your rationale that the article is not just about Hentai as a genre; it's about Hentai as a whole, one could argue that the image should be moved back to its previous position under eroge section, since otherwise it would put an unnecessary emphasis on hentai as a genre. As far as I understand, the RFC is about whether the image should be placed in the infobox, not whether to remove it entirely from the article. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Than, we have more than enough reasons to keep using the current lead image of the article. The current lead image is already being used in some other language of Wikipedia, so the English Wikipedia readers can't be more sensitive than the others. Phoenix God (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, your comment about the image being used in other Wikipedia projects boils down to WP:OSE. The discussion has been dragged so far mainly due to concerns over the image's necessity as an infobox image, not the general readers' sensitiveness. -- ChamithN (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no clear guideline about what image should be used in the lead for articles like this, and there's no specific WikiProject for this article. So we should use an image that is nearest to the topic (which the current image already is). Phoenix God (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is specifically for topics like this. We also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Hentai, but it is inactive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article falls under the "Wikiproject Anime and Manga"'s concerns but that's not specially for a genre related article. I mainly edits in articles related to Anime and Manga Wikiproject, so i know that it's "Manual of Style" can't even give us a hint about the perfect lead image for this article. The project participants basically works for Anime, Manga, Light Novel, Game, and live-action series related articles. They don't have any rule for the lead image of a article about genre. Phoenix God (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix God, your real-life imagery comparisons are wrong in this case, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove My views have already been expressed at length, but presumably they need to be repeated in this specific thread.
Firstly, I suggest that the argument should be based upon a greenfields perspective, not 'they have been here for x time and thus tradition'. Tradition has no relevance to any encyclopaedia, and applies even less to an encyclopaedia such as this that is designed to evolve and change. Similarly, other languages have little or no relevance - if a picture is presented on the Japanese page that does not mean it meets cultural requirements regarding offensiveness in the English version.
The case for retention seems (this is an assumption, feel free to correct me) to be based upon a combination of arguments:
  1. There are similar or more explicit images elsewhere on Wikipedia. This argument can be taken in three ways. "He hit me first!". That's great, but the teacher didn't see it and did see you hitting him so you're in trouble. The next way of viewing this argument is that perhaps those pages need to be reviewed. Finally, "So what?" There are differences between various parts of Wikipedia based upon the context and purpose of the page. This argument does not support the relevance of a particular image on a particular page within Wikipedia.
  2. The majority of respondents here think the page is fine with this image. That's fantastic, but I never thought Wikipedia was a democracy; I would be horrified were it to act like one!
  3. "You're just trying to 'think of the kiddies'. Wikipedia is not censored." No, it's not censored. Neither does it need to shock people. Again, I refer the reader to Wikipedia:Offensive material. From that page, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." The note goes on to state "Here a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely." (You may wish to refer back to my statement about a picture's use in another language version of Wikipedia.)
  4. "...they're actually vulgar not offensive." (from the previous discussion, stated by Flyer22 Reborn). That is an amazingly long stretch, and seeks to read the minds of visitors to this site.
Now back to my own arguments, based upon a 'greenfields' approach (i.e. would the image be acceptable if it were not already there) and the precepts of Wikipedia:Offensive material. The image under discussion here, as well as the other images I identified in the previous thread, are just a few of many examples of Hentai that the article portrays. The other images presumably represent Hentai, or they would not be there. Thus the suggestion that the image(s) are needed to explain Hentai seems somewhat thin. Similarly, a web search of Hentai tends to result in images that are less 'offensive' than the image under discussion here - that is, the image under discussion is 'offensive' according to the norms of those publishers that have written articles about Hentai, even when they require the reader to declare that they are over 18 before gaining access! Assuming that content from the previous thread is not going to be considered in making this decision, I will repeat some of it here - in slightly edited form, to reflect the new location.
Regarding claims about 'Hentai in the eyes of the international community', I did some searching. There is a Vice article about the 'Dying art of Japanese Hentai' (you will need to certify that you are eighteen to gain access to it); this user's 'images that blow their mind'; and a bunch of little pieces here and there. There is a useful article on comicbook.com, titled Anime Know-How: What Is Hentai?, which provides some useful context and history. The latter article provides a definition of Hentai, stating that the term as used in Japan refers to 'abnormal sexual fetishes' and is not specific to explicit sexual content. The article goes on to state that Hentai is used in the West to describe porn.
As this article stands, it agrees with the description from comicbook.com in words but not in images. The lead image in particular is clearly pornographic in nature, with no 'perversion' or 'fetish'. It is graphic to an unnecessary extent in such an article, which features many other images that represent the art form without being offensive. Similarly, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai#/media/File:Futanari.png image is unnecessary in the discussion and depiction of Hentai - it serves to perhaps entice or excite the reader, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose. I argue that these images are not necessary to the description of Hentai, and their inclusion is offensive. To quote from Wikipedia:Offensive material, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". There is plenty of alternative material - as shown on the websites to which I have linked - that can replace both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png.
There are two ways you can argue for retention of one or both of these images, and against the application of Wikipedia:Offensive material:
  • You may present a case that removing or replacing these images "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available"; or
  • You may argue that the images do not fit the definition of "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers".
Turning once again to Wikipedia:Offensive material, I refer the reader to the following:
"Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Any image that does not achieve this policy goal, or that violates other policies (e.g., by giving an undue or distorted idea of the subject), should not be used.
"Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject."
Wait - where can I find public domain hentai that is not offensive? There are a some public domain Hentai images at Wikimedia Commons - including several versions of the image currently under discussion. It is possible that the artist may permit more of their images (e.g. on Pixiv) to be placed into the public domain. Wikipedia's article on the Copyright law of Japan states that "Many pre-1953 Japanese and non-Japanese films are considered to be in the public domain in Japan. An author's work may be put into the public domain fifty years after the individual dies, unless the publisher re-publishes the work", referring to this article about a court case. In other words, a search for "public domain Hentai" in your favourite search engine is likely to result in all sorts of options to replace the offensive image(s).
Hentai is not just about 'penis entering vagina of a girl who is wearing a school uniform and may well be viewed as younger than 18'. As shown both by the other images on the page and by the links I have included in this comment, it is clearly a much wider subject than this. There is no need for what I argue is in breach of Wikipedia:Offensive material.
My final point is this. I have seen no argument that shows how this image is representative of Hentai in a manner that all the other images on this page are not. It is not up to me to persuade anyone of any image's 'lack of value'; it is up to the images' defenders to state how the images comply with Wikipedia's policies and should be retained. Ambiguosity (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



RFC discussion

For note, the image in question use to be in the eroge section for a while ([3]) and File:Hadako-tan.png was the lead image. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well but that's rather misleading. File:Hadako-tan.png has not been the lead image in any stable version for at *least* two years and maybe longer (I didn't check back further). Dredging up old history isn't too helpful here I would say. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, you meant the lead image below the infobox. I was thinking of the eyeball thing in the infobox as the lead image. So this is probably just a misunderstand of terms. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the principle of WP:BRD I've restored the article to the version of 11:46 on 30 August. I believe this edit (by User:Nemo_bis was the last useful edit and the last edit to the thex before editors started screwing around with the images and edit warring rather than trying to improve the article (I'm willing to stand corrected if this is not so). It's not a version I particularly care for, but I *think* it was the stable version at least as regarding the placement of the pictures. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As regarding the recent edits, I looked at them, and there's nothing really of great note here, but since I did the work here it is:

  1. here and here on September 8, User:Ambiguosity removed several images with an edit summary of "Removed image in accordance with proposed change in talk 'Wikipedia is not censored... but'". However, as far as I can see the discussion "Wikipedia is not censored... but" (immediately above) was not conclusive. So (although I agree with the edits on the merits), Ambiguosity should probably not have done that; per WP:BRD she's technically allowed to make bold edits, but consensus should have been asked for first in this case.
  2. User:Phoenix God reverted these edits (I think) here and here, with an edit summary (for the first edit) of "Hentai is for adults only. That's why, Do not remove an image just because you think it's offensive for children. Also, the image's use is restricted by administrators so it is legal" (which edit summary I'll return to present. This was right and proper per WP:BRD, although the second edit summary was "...[P]lease contact an administrator if you want to remove these images" which is kind of a non sequitor, but whatever.
  3. User:Knowledgekid87 then here added a second infobox above the normal one used for manga articles with File:Hadako-tan.png as the image. This image implies but does not show penetration, so it's borderline hardcore pornography. Bold per WP:BRD, but quite a bad idea without discussion since it's borderline hardcore porn, and the edit summary was "Infobox" which would be OK if you're fixing a technical error in an infobox, but is a pretty bad edit summary for adding an infobox above the normal one, which puts hardcore porn above the fold. Whether this was intended to make the edit seem anodyne and so be passed over I don't know.
  4. User:Knowledgekid87 then replaced File:Hadako-tan.png with File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg, which is egregious hardcore pornograpy as it graphicly depicts penetration along with bodily fluids. In addition the female subject appears to be underage. The edit summary was "Lets compromise here..." which is misleading (it's not any kind of compromise) and also inflammatory and insulting, as if adding egregious hardcore pornography to an article above the fold without discussion is some kind of comprise. [User:Knowledgekid87]] is a ten-year editor and presuming she is not moron (which I do presume) she must have know this was misleading and inflammatory and insulting. So this is a very bad edit and very poor behavior.
  5. User:Knowledgekid87 then made seven edits messing around with the caption, Onel5969 made a technical fix, I reverted to (what I believe is) the last stable version, and here we are. Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: I'm happy with the current revision of the article, as long as the image remains in it. But, just tell me one thing; Did the image lose it's offensiveness after being placed in the Eroge section? One more thing, the age of the reader/viewer of Hentai should be at least 18 or 16 in some countries, but the characters can be of what you called Underage. So I'm not buying your argument that "the female subject appears to be underage" because there are some sub genre of Hentai like "Lolicon" or "Shotacon" exist in this world. Phoenix God (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Phoenix God: -- I'm not at all happy with the current revision of the article. Of course the image does not lose it's offensiveness by being place lower down; it doesn't belong at all in encyclopedia widely used by schoolchildren. I was just reverting to the last stable version per our usual procedure. It is better below the fold than above it, anyway.
As to the girl being underage, couple things:
  1. She's wearing a skirt of a pattern which is generally most used as part of a secondary school girl uniform. The girl's features are also those of a secondary school child.
  2. Cut the crap. We both know exactly what is going here on, what the intended scenario is supposed to be, what the reader is to be put in the mind of, and who and what is being appealed to. Being disingenuous about this is both insulting and boring and doesn't advance the conversation. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&oldid=803392552"