Talk:Hentai/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Header image is inappropriate

Do we really need non-blurred, non-censored hardcore pornography on the first screen of the article for people to understand what hentai is? Other articles on pornography don't have any pictures at all, and it works for them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Europe). Even the main article on pornography doesn't have images until lower down in the article, and the only explicit picture is a centuries-old oil painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography).

The position that that hentai is such a difficult concept to grasp through words that a picture is necessary is indefensible. Scuttlest (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the length of the previous discussion regarding the image I assume that you have already devoted some time to reading it. I'll re-iterate some of the main points.

* If you find the image too explicit, feel free to suggest a new one that is available under a license compatible with Wikipedia. The current one was added after a lengthy hunt to replace an older equally explicit image that the community did not find to be representative of "real-world" hentai.

* Whether the image is explicit or not is beyond the point, does it convey the subject without trying to be overly explicit? If you find it overly explicit, do you know of another picture that satisfies the requirement of being an accurate representation of "real-world" hentai?

Now, to your points which have been addressed, but I'll re-iterate.

Pornography is generally commercial in nature, this could equally well be the reason why several other pages don't have any explicit illustrations. I'll be willing to change my opinion on this if you can refer to a discussion regarding this on their talk pages, but to the best of my knowledge this is not the case.

"it works for them", maybe, but if an illustration can add **anything** to the quality of an article it should be included, which in my opinion is the case of the image you attempted to remove from this article.

"The position that that hentai is such a difficult concept to grasp through words that a picture is necessary is indefensible.", Hentai is just as much about visual style as anything else and you wouldn't be able to hold the position that any art form such as Cubism could equally well be described using words instead of a combination of words and an illustration.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the image is moved down the page to a suitable section, but I don't find it an issue and won't move it myself. -- Dront (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to find a legally available "less-pornographic" image for the article if the current one is inappropriate for an all-ages encyclopedia. I don't know what "trying to be overly explicit" even means here, or how an image could succeed in being more explicit than the current one. The position that "the current image is not trying to be overly explicit" is ludicrous. If you can direct me to the wiki policy that says "We must always have pictures and if the only legal ones are inappropriate oh well we must have them anyway" I will be greatly surprised. Scheisse porn is about visual style as well, but there are no images of it on its wiki entry.

Your position seems to be founded on the notion that just because pictures have elucidatory value, that it is appropriate for them to be on the wiki. This is not supported by any wiki policy and is your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the relevant guidelines. In this case I do not think the elucidatory value of the image exceeds the degree to which it is inappropriate that the image be on the wiki at all. Anyone who is interested in what hentai looks like is free to do a Google image search, just as they could for Cubism or Vorticism or any other art style. Scuttlest (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Being explicit is not a valid criteria to debate in wikipedia as per WP:CENSOR and WP:DISC. As editors, we should be blind and deaf to those criteria, else you'll end being biased with your beliefs. And it's not up to you to decide what goes on wikipedia and what doesn't. The image is properly part of Commons project and part of its scope. So if you want just move it down in the page, please bring a reason that doesn't include explicitness or any judgement about it's content. As for manual of style, the image is perfectly fine in the header. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_is_not_an_excuse_for_gratuitous_offensiveness

The image is child pornography, and therefore both gratuitously offensive and possibly illegal by FL law. Pushing it back up to the head of the article unilaterally isn't supported by wiki policy either. So why don't you justify why it ISN'T gratuitously offensive before you accuse me of bias? Scuttlest (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize you're using your bias as main reason? I don't see anything offensive in the image, thus I don't think of it as an inconvenient. You do, and it's what motives you to move it down. This is a recurrent theme and there were long discussions about it, so if you want to change the status quo please get a consensus first. The current image was selected and specifically licensed to use it and illustrate this article. Think it this way: if the image were this one, would you move it down to the examples? Probably not, therefore you're judging your edit on the content of the image and that's just bias. You see it offensive, I do not, it's subjective. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you think it is CP (no comments there), feel free to call the feds. The image is part of Wikimedia Commons (so it will stay there even if the image is taken off of wikipedia). I managed the licensing so I can contact the artist, if those are your noble intentions go throughout it fully. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously personal for you. I don't think it takes a Puritan to see that the image of pair of underage people having sex is "gratuitously offensive" and possessed of needless "shock value." The consensus I see evolving here is that neither Dront nor I mind the image if it's pushed further down in the article, and you are the only one insisting it be at the head of the article. Consensus, defined as "majority opinion," is that the image should go further down the article. Judging an image based on its content isn't bias, it's reason. How else would an image be judged? You do not have the privilege of defining the standard of what constitutes objectionable material, and the subjectivity of the matter is exactly WHY there is a policy on such issues. Additionally, child pornography is illegal in the state of Florida, whether it's licensed or not. Scuttlest (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While child pornography is illegal the animated characters do not have any identified ages so the only way that an editor could determine this image to be child porn would be to make a personal determination of the characters ages based on what they think the characters look like and that is subjective since not everyone may agree that the characters are minors. It should also be noted that a similar rational was rejected at Talk:Futanari regarding an image there. I don't think that is currently enough evidence to make a legal determination (please see Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer). Regarding the other point, I also don't think there is enough of a consensus to move the image yet. So far we have one user wanting it moved, another user that said that they did not care one way or the other, and another user opposed to it. That seems like a very small sample, expecially, since one of the users did not commit to the move of the image but only said that they would be ok it it was moved. I think the image should be moved back at least until there is a more widespread consensus (perhaps a note to WP:ANIME would be a good idea to have more perticipation).--174.93.169.157 (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The caption under the image was also changed from Hentai to Ero-manga. I don't know enough about that issue so I am not sure if anything should be done about that change.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Scuttlest. You need to exhaust the talkpage first before retaking a bold action. Refer to WP:CON and WP:BRD. You don't have a consensus in just a night without letting regular contributors a chance to express. pmt7ar ^(talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pmt. You need to spend more time making a coherent argument and less time spamming my talk page with nonsense. You have yet to refute any of my points. Scuttlest (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's really baffling to me that you're so affronted by the idea that hardcore pornography not be displayed prominently on the front page of the article. I'm not even looking to get rid of it anymore, now that I know there's a grave danger of Wikipedia users not getting the full erotic manga experience. At this point I'm just looking to reduce the shock value of the article; why is compromise not an option for you? Scuttlest (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just keep calm and think a bit logical. Hentai (after western definition) is always at the borderline between pornography and erotic art. Your insults will not do any good. Additionally i can't see this image as offensive, nor do i see your actions as an attempt to improve the article. Instead you want get to get rid of the content that doesn't suit your taste (see wrong CP arguments above) or better said, you want to get rid of some part from which you think someone else shouldn't see. Thats exactly the reason why WP:NOTCENSORED was introduced. If you don't have anything else to add, then the discussion may stop right now. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing a sensible compromise to an issue that has cropped up numerous times in the past. I am not advocating the removal of the image. Moving the image down to lower in the article will keep the image in the article while minimizing the shock value, and you have provided no rational grounds for your belief that the image must remain in the header. I have therefore inferred that it is your position that you believe everyone shares your enthusiasm for illustrated squirting orgasms and that it is neither unduly shocking nor gratuitously offensive for a normal person to come upon such a depiction unawares. There are many people who have objected to the image in question (see the rest of this talk page), which is suitable evidence that the image IS gratuitiously offensive and shocking to normal sensibilities. What I am proposing is a compromise that will keep the same informational content in the article while miminizing the shock value. You can pretend to have the authority to "end this discussion right now," but I can get on a high horse of my own if that's what it takes to continue this conversation, and furthermore I will continue to revert the article until you explain to me why that is an unacceptable compromise outcome.

Just because you "can't see this image as offensive" doesn't mean that there aren't valid grounds to think such. Try opening your mind to other viewpoints a little; I personally have nothing against pornography of any kind (as the contents of my hard drive and browsing history can corroborate), but I can understand why other people would have such a problems. The policy of un-censorship is balanced against the policy of "no gratuitous offense or unnecessary shock value" because in an open society every person's point of view must be respected, though necessarily not accepted. Refusal to compromise demonstrates egregious lack of respect for the points of view of every individual who doesn't share your opinion; it is both selfish and hypocritical for you to demand that others conform to your viewpoint without your giving any consideration for theirs. Scuttlest (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scuttlest, please chill down and stop forcing your edit. I already cited you WP:BRD and WP:CON, and now I must ask you to read WP:CIVIL as your reply to my warnings are quite off the line. You won't get anything that way. And I remind you broke WP:3RR and already reported you on the noticeboard. Still you insisted a 6th time, so you are risking yourself to a block.

Back on topic: (1) you can't impose a compromise and force your edit, less when you have been reverted. you expressed your compromise, that's fine. but you must respect other editors and this issue was already discussed in the talkpage history and consensus achieved. your sole compromise won't break that consensus. (2) I remind you of WP:CIVIL again, to be safe. Don't talk about "normal" either, to me, all those who scream of fear for watching a picture aren't normal (3) my position (I don't speak for other editors) is that the content shouldn't be judged, which is what you're doing. Refer to my previous analogy of using another image, there wouldn't be logical your criteria to move it down. The image isn't for shock purposes, the article itself is "shocking" to some standards. It would be gratuitously shocking if this image were on Anime or Manga since even if it's part of it, it's not the focus and the choosing of that specific pic doesn't weight its possible shock value. Here is different, as the shocking is the article itself. The image in this context isn't shocking. The "moving down" is just an eogistic way of denigrate something you disagree. What is the criteria? Why put it down? To prevent it being seen at first sight? What if I have a 1000x3000px monitor? I would see it anyway without need to scroll it out. What if the entire article fits within my monitor's resolution? Your point lacks sense. If the issue to discuss is "move it down or not" it should be discussed on grounds of WP:MOS as its a mere style issue, not of the content of the image. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate the layout for controversial contents. Other projects do, I think chinese wikipedia hides with JavaScript all explicit images and you have to click each DIV to display it. But "moving it down" doesn't solve anything as per I said before, or do you intend to "protect" only people with low screen resolution? pmt7ar ^(talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you're reading a lack of calmness in my conversation on this page. What you post on my userpage is another matter entirely, and I have the right to say what I like in my talkspace. My premise here is that moving the image down does not reduce the informational value of the article. You have not refuted that in any way. I have said "moving the image down reduces its shock value to unwary viewers," to which you have replied, essentially, "if a solution doesn't prevent ALL unwary viewers from seeing it, we shouldn't do anything at all." This is specious and inane. At any monitor resolution smaller than that of a big-screen HD television, moving the image to the demographics subsection WILL prevent it from appearing to an unwary viewer until that reader has the opportunity to judge for himself whether he or she is interested in reading more on a pornographic subject. Furthermore, since when has "it's not perfect so it's worthless" been a valid refutation to any proposition? The name "hentai" does not mean ANYTHING to an English-speaker who is not already familiar with the subject, so it's not unreasonable for someone to come across this article without intending to view any kind of pornographic image. Once again I ask you why you are so opposed to a compromise on this issue. Many, many people have raised this issue before and you have vehemently denied them any say in the matter for what appears to be months. Your position is selfish and hypocritical. Scuttlest (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, as per BRD, I am now a Most Interested Person, so you *do* in fact have to reach a compromise with me. So let's "D." I've been holding up my end already; you can start by giving any kind of rational reason for why that image has to stay where it is. Scuttlest (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what you're saying. I just don't agree. My position is NOT "since it doesn't prevent it all, we shouldn't do it", that was just an example of the uselessness of your proposal. My position is that your reason is not a criteria we editors should have to improve articles. You care about the "shock" element. I care about article content and style. Your edit is driven by content judgement, which I morally reject (but I'm being backed with WP policies, it ain't just stubbornness) , and is in fact an unimprovement on the article style, so I have more reasons to believe it's better in its place than moving it down arbitrarily and in a futile attempt to do prevent something that wouldn't prevent. I understand your point, but you don't seem to understand mine. You seem to be quite unaware of wikipedia policies and guidelines, as you have demonstrated by your replies here, in the noticeboard (for example, you fail to see that you have been very uncivil, and no, you can't say what you want in your userspace). I perfectly understand your point, but it's in conflict with WP policies, so it isn't a matter of who is "right". Finally, consensus isn't a matter of "number majority", you would know it if you knew the policies. In controversial articles like this one, you will have 1000 editors and IPs wanting to remove content, but just 3 editors pointing the policies will be the ones making the consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, sorry if you though otherwise. pmt7ar ^(talk) 04:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of policy? I must not be linking you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_is_not_an_excuse_for_gratuitous_offensiveness

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images#Offensive_images then. My proposal is not "useless," it is precisely to comply with those two linked policies. Just as you consider the image inoffensive, there are others who find it offensive, and the principle of "least astonishment" is fulfilled by my proposed change. Making judgments based on content is part of wiki policy, because "gratuitious offense" is necessarily a content judgment.

There is no compelling stylistic difference between the image in its current position and the image in the "Types which are pornographic by definition" section. As an image that is pornographic, it is highly suited to the "Types which are pornographic by definition" section for obvious reasons.

My point is not at all in conflict with wiki policy, nor am I proposing that correctness is a matter of democracy. In fact, Wikipedia not being a democracy is exactly *why* you do have to work with me to reach a conclusion that is mutally acceptable, and I don't hear you proposing any kind of compromise. Do recall that my original position was that the image should be removed entirely, and reducing that position to "the image should be moved down" is already a significant concession on my part.

I am very sorry if your feelings have been hurt by my saying that your position is hypocritical and selfish and your points are inane and specious. Scuttlest (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not the case. It's not a case of "gratuitous offensiveness". So we should dismiss "[1]". The image was chosen to reflect the intended sexual character of the genre. An replacement not being sexually explicit would fail to add value to the article, and may be removed for better, it could fit Ecchi, not Hentai. And I remind you that the current image was specifically selected. When looking for a replacement to improve the represantation of the graphical style and subject of Hentai over the previous image, a set of options were proposed, this one was accepted and we did a process to get the proper licensing rights for its use. It's not a random image put there to shock somebody. It is there with the intention to improve the article. Your second policy cited doesn't back anything of what you said. The image is being used in an encyclopedic manner. And none of those two policies says anything about the best layout to diminish shock. So you can't back your "move it down" proposal either. If you want to "move it down", you must forget about the image content and base your reasons on the style of the article, in how it could aid readability and neatness. If you want to "move it down" you should be using something on WP:MOS to justify it. pmt7ar ^(talk) 04:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you were reffering to WP:Images#Images_for_the_lead point "2" for images of shock value in the lead, please read point "3" to see why I think that policy doesn't back you either. pmt7ar ^(talk) 04:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I remember why I stopped visiting Wikipedia talk pages. Not only is the interface awful, but so are the people. My bad- ad hominem before we even begin. The header image is offensive. Anyone who can't see this is not looking at it with the interest of an encyclopedia in mind. Perhaps the biggest reason why it's so bad is because it's not necessary. This is not the page for sexual penetration. This is the page for hentai, a word that means a lot of things, more than a specifically explicit picture. Even within the article, it explains that not all hentai is even pornographic in nature. The image chosen is not of a famous example of hentai, unlike with The Dream of The Fisherman's Wife which is displayed in the Tentacle Erotica page. Many other articles have managed to tastefully express dimensions of sexuality without being explicit, such as the page for BDSM, which was so well done that it made the Front Page picture of the day a few years back. The reason that the offending picture seems to continue to represent the topic is not for any necessary or logical means, but based off the recalcitrance and pride of a small group of board members which are using their profiles as posters to stubbornly admit a piece which harms the image of a non-biased nature of Wikipedia. The worst part about this, is that the word is likely to be researched by those who are not familiar with the horrors of the online world, and they will be instantly wretched from safety. All so that a few posters could keep their status quo. You should be ashamed of yourself, Pmt7ar. 8472 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

8472, please avoid comments such as "you should be ashamed of yourself". It's not a civil way to address other person. Also "the image is offensive" and "harm the image of" are comments to be avoided or stated to be personal opinions. Vanguardism and surrealism also are offensive (by definition) but you won't say it harms Wikipedia to have expressions of that movement in their articles. And all after your "the worst part about this..." doesn't compete us. We already have disclaimers. You can find more shocking and explicit images searching any woman name in google images. We don't have to think of children falling here randomly, wikipedia is not meant for minors. A minor can fall in "vagina" article using the random article funcion. pmt7ar ^(talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pmt7ar, don't tell me what is civil. Shame has been used to explain what manner of conversation is applicable for social consumption for the history of humankind. I'd go into it, but it's not relevant for this conversation, whereas my original contempt was.

You're using logic loops to avoid something that is cultural, and not personal. "The image is offensive" is an objective standpoint that takes a look at how a common culture endeavors to participate with one anther on a communicative level. You're trying to subvert that by escaping the relevance of the foul of the picture. It's not relevant. It's not a necessary method of conveying the subject. If I were, say, arguing that the presence of the article was not acceptable, due to some cultural stigma against pornography in general, then your arguments would be valid.

Your standpoint about "the worst part about this" comments I've made do not take into account any of the arguments I've made on the matter. I don't care about the children. I don't care about Google images. I understand that you've likely dealt with a number of people discussing this image at this point, but do not stand to lecture me if you are not willing to at least take account of my post. It is, how shall I say, not civil. If you plan to stand and act as a privileged poster and figure behind the Wikipedia title, then I hope you can act more tolerably than you are in this response, and that which I have read above. 8472 (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point that the image serves to illustrate a controversial topic, but not to be itself controversial for the topic. It serves to give an understanding of hentai as an type of art with typical characteristics which are well captured inside this image without going needlessly far. It is at the lower end of the scale what you have actually to expect, since it just shows an convenient sexual intercourse without exaggeration or the mixing in of other common topics like rape, lolicon, tentacles, BDSM, guro, netorare, futa, BBW, and so on. If it would combine such elements and would be strongly exaggerated so that it would miss the average understanding of hentai by being more controversial as the topic itself, then we could talk about the removal of the picture. Moving it down makes no sense to me. It is still visible at first sight on many displays, children would still be able to see it (we had this "argument") and it would not really suit into that sections, since they are specialized which this image is not (that's what so good about it).

PS: I don't know why it is the way it is, but somehow we only have complaints by accounts that where inactive for years and suddenly pop up, going straight for one topic, while knowing what to cite (the wrong way). --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point. The point is inaccurate. Hentai isn't a "controversial topic" in the way you describe. It is sexuality exemplified through the archetypes and symbolism of Japanese animation. Without just saying that 'all pornography is controversial', it in itself is not a controversial topic.

Hentai does not need to have a picture which shows sexual intercourse, and that is the key argument here. As described within this article, not all hentai includes pornography. And, even if it did, it wouldn't need to show actual sexual intercourse. In fact, Pornography, which does suggest actual nudity and sexual intercourse, does not have such an image, and uses an image which better represents the topic- one of the corny movie-box images.

There's a plethora of different icons that you could use to show the world what "hentai" means without becoming specifically sexually explicit. As previously described, the two of you, now, have failed to provide a reason why the image MUST contain something which is sexually explicit. Conversely to what you have described, this image seems to be controversial itself, and not illustrate the topic at hand.

P.S. This article seeks to remind me of why I first stopped posting, back at the days of early Wikipedia. A vocal minority would force an issue, and utilize their power to sit on their positions on a topic. Rather than to be actually unbiased and objective, this would be a matter of personal pride. Because of Wikimedia's preference for these arrogant jerks, and the weight placed on their opinions, information could be stopped or stemmed because one or two people decided it was better "because they feel like it". Back then, it was on the relevance of topics to be included on Wikipedia. Now it a few users that are self-described "Japanophiles", who are literally using the page to showcase their pornography, adverse to the betterment of the topic ((Again, if this was a specific turning point of a famous game or anime which was sexually explicit, but ultimately relevant we wouldn't be having this discussion, if you read my previous arguments)). Normally, I can sit back, and generally be content with Wikipedia's decisions. With this page, I feel like I have to come on and voice my opinions. Generally, if people who have been quiet for years are coming on to argue with you on a point which is already contested, it is not a sign in your favor. 8472 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At first: Where does the article say that hentai isn't pornographic? If it does than we should correct the article, since there is no hentai which isn't explicit. If it isn't than it is called ecchi. Thats the line between both terms.

The article Pornography is a very bad example, because it already suffered enough from people like you that want to represent topics with a blindfold. It can't serve as a reference and a cover of something is useless, especially if it doesn't relate to the actual content which is the true topic.

Coming back: Always the same story. I heard it so often and it never was true. Thats why i don't believe in such fairytales. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At first, the demographics section.

The problem here is that Pornography is a fine example. You just don't understand what 'relevant' means. Which is dangerous for a Wikipedia editor to go on about. The photos taken in this section are important and descriptive of the state of pornography without being pornographic themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a showcase. The article for M.C. Escher doesn't have every art piece he's ever put together. It has the ones that are most necessary for display. It is also not a textbook. It doesn't put together guides for how M.C. Escher put together his art pieces. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so what it requires is an image that attaches to the cultural significance of the article, so that someone has a general understanding of the topic. The header image of the Pornography topic is a cover, because that's how people can recognize the cultural significance of pornography at a glance. That's how pornography is marketed and distributed. It's a -relevant- image. Something that the Hentai header is not. You need not show every action that could be done and labeled as "pornography". You need only to show the ones which provide a general understanding of the cultural significance of the topic.

An example of your insolence and arrogance. You act as a decision-maker for a topic, and doubt those that express disdain for your opinion. I have no need to prove myself to you. You, on the other hand, have every need to prove yourself to me. You are one of the, what, three people that can change this topic? Your clique has made it clear that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", which means that you and your cronies have a responsibility to fix things when they are broken. If my role is not to change Wikipedia to be relevant, then my role is to showcase your inability to provide for your role, so that when your superiors show up, you are made to look as capable as you truly are. Until that point, I dare you to find a single piece of reason which makes your picture useful to the topic of Hentai, and welcome you to continue your fruitless insults. 8472 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know what you try to tell us. You talk about M.C. Escher and that the article does not contain all of his still copyrighted works and that it shouldn't display all of his works. Fine... But what has this to do with this article that contains three images from millions of possible images, from which, sadly, most aren't licensed in a way that we could use them or choose from. The point is an image that should point out the significance? Before you can do that you will have to inform the people about what we are talking, before showing some significance. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Give a man or woman, that never heard of hentai and has no access to the internet a copy of Wikipedia and ask him/her the question: "What is hentai?" Do you really think that he or she would be able to answer the question correctly and has a good understanding what hentai does look like, so that he or she would be able to distinguish it from western cartoon porn? If an article isn't able to provide this knowledge due to missing but available illustrations, than we failed the goal.

This image in the header is there for the reason that a reader can distinguish by the look of the picture, the drawing style and the style of characters, hentai from other stuff mentioned above. That is it's purpose. In case of the head image from pornography you wouldn't know how to distinguish the work from a comedy in which a teacher has some kind of attitude. It misses it's point entirely and would never be able to "provide a general understanding of the cultural significance of the topic". Either he grasps it from the wording of the article itself or not. This kind of image would not help him in any way. It's a mere place holder.

I'm not trying to prove anything. What i want to do is to write articles and to provide useful illustrations for the understanding. I have to thank Pmt7ar that he corresponded with an Japanese artist to release this image under a free license. I'm glad that we have this picture because it fits the style perfectly and is an valuable addition for the understanding of the topic.

Demographic Section: Is there any hint that hentai isn't pornography? It says that works belonging to genre X may be works seen as hentai, but it doesn't say that all works belonging to either of this genres have to be hentai and would be correct examples. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot find a relevant picture from the millions of images which shows the cultural relevance of hentai, using a picture that shows a character, scene, artist, motif, or any display of significant importance to the topic which lays outside of copyright, your solution is to take a random picture which displays the act of penetration because it lays outside copyright. Tell me how that benefits the article. Why not talk with the people from Katawa Shoujo and borrow one of the images of one of their characters in their underwear? I mean, someone apparently found a way to borrow pictures from that game, and it is one which has some pretty significant correlations for the topic of hentai.

(A 'copy' of Wikipedia. Teehee) There are certainly ways to display a good understanding of what hentai does without being needlessly vulgar, and show that it is dissimilar from western cartoon porn. What you want to show is something that is relevant. That's the main draw. Showing the act of penetration is not necessary to show the stylistic differences between these two things, unless there was some special significance to the specific stylistic difference specifically attributed to the penis, the breasts, the ejaculation, or the vagina. Since this stylistic difference is not the key difference between Japanese and Western pornography, these specific objects are not necessary to carry the point across.

As for you argument about pornography, you are mistaking the purpose of a good topic header. Look at BDSM. It is, simply, a picture of a collar around a person's neck. That COULD be a number of things. But because of the context of the article, it shows that the image is well placed, without being just a random picture of some guy with weights attached to his junk, even though that image would immediately cue to someone "hey, that's BDSM". The image was so good, as previously stated, it was the front page picture a few years ago. Pornography's image shows the stylistic means of marketing pornography at places like video stores. It's relevant on a number of different levels. If people want to know more about porn, they can then read the article, and understand that it's not some comedy, but a pornography. If they want to go and actually view porn, they can then go to Google Image, or any number of different sites that are not encyclopedias. The point is that the image is a compliment to the page, and that people who use encyclopedias use a wide variety of pieces of information to understand the topic.

Demographics Section: Of the markets discussed, only two are in the "are pornographic by definition", being 'ero-manga', and 'redicomi'. The four others, 'gei comi', 'BL', 'TL', and 'GL' are in the 'types which often (but not necessarily) contain pornographic content. If what you're saying is that the parts that do not contain pornographic content are not hentai, then this is another irrelevant point for the article, and should be amended. Otherwise, the topic is confusing, and should be amended. Perhaps this further shows that the people who are in the talk section defending the photograph are not capable of objective decisions about the relevance and choices made in this article. 8472 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS meant for minors. Wikipedia is meant for everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors Scuttlest (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an essay, with all its implications. But yes, Wikipedia is meant to be for everyone, like a library is meant for everyone. But an library isn't meant to be "child safe". It is there to serve knowledge. You are free to look up books or articles, but no one forces you to read it. If you pick up a book you may dislike the content. It's up to you to put it back or not. The same thing applies to Wikipedia, it's articles, it's content and it's illustrations. We are not here to write child books. We are here to write articles that will give a good understanding of the topic. If an illustration servers this purpose then it is an valuable addition to the article even so they won't necessarily like it. There is a huge gap between knowledge and moral. Knowledge has no moral. It states the facts. The moral is up to the person who comes in contact with the knowledge. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Werty8472 has proven that Demographics section can be misleading. We may have to express it better. ALL hentai is highly explicit and +18. No exception. What is listed as ML, BL, yuri, TL is not hentai by itself. There is yuri manga in shoujo magazines, without any kind of sexual relation. And there is hentai of yuri theme, which is, like all hentai, highly explicit. It's correctly addressed as "often cointains but not necessarily", but it's misleading to restrict those demographics under hentai. Yuri/yaoi and hentai are different things. Also it's unbalanced, it appears to be that the only demographics that cannot contain pornography are those for homosexuals. ren'ai manga is the heterosexual genre opposed to yaoi and yuri which is not hentai, but yet contains sexual scenes and explicit intercourse. Authors like Asamiko Nakamura, Rendo Kurosaki, Uko Nishi, Hiroaki Samura, Kiko Urino, to state a few, draw manga labeled as ren'ai or seinen with sexual themes and depictions of intercourse, but in an artistic and secondary plane. Hentai is made to provoke sexual arousal. That's its reason to be. Sex is the main and sole purpose of hentai (there are works with complex stories, but yet the focus is on sex). So you're technically wrong, all hentai is explicit. The image believe me, is of the most standard and light examples to illustrate the topic of the subject. pmt7ar ^(talk) 23:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And to Scuttlest, since you bring the theme again around the warning in the noticeboard: the issue of "age" of pictures has been discussed in the article before. Refer to the archives. I can give you over 30 logical reasons why you are ollimpically wrong, but I'll give you the best you'd likely agree: I contacted the artist and asked their age. Both are students of 高3 in a classroom in the third period, i.e. 18yo. Your user page with that kiddy joke of "anyone viewing this..." shows us that you have a bias towards doubting anything as it were underage.pmt7ar ^(talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear the other 29 reasons. Scuttlest (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What can I say? All I do is win. Now let's talk about how you can change the picture to something that is not explicit and still conveys the idea of 'hentai'. Despite the topic being meant to evoke sexual arousal, as previous stated a number of times now, the actual iconography in this article does not need to do so itself. I've now recounted a number of topics which deal with topics specifically around sexual arousal, and do not use their header images to display that. So, while I might have been wrong on that one point (and I admit it, I fail on occasion, but really only to keep my opponents on their toes), my core argument remains: There is no reason that the image chosen needs to be representative of the page, and a similar, non-explicit picture could be used to achieve the same knowledge set, if not more. And Scuttlest, don't get like that. A debater strikes with valor. 8472 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Refer to Archive #2 as for "why" there is a picture in the first place. In short, because it adds value to the article. Why isn't there an explicit representation of pornography in Pornography? Maybe because it's a common term and common in all cultures. We all know what pornography is without needing to see it. With Hentai it's different, because its describes a graphic style and is almost exclusively property of japanese culture, so a casual english wikipedia visitor could be enriched by a representative image (if it shocks him or not is another issue that doesn't compete us). It's the same reason why Surrealism and Cubism have images representing it, because the images add value to the written description. In Hentai it's the same because it responds to a visual style. It's not "any" pornographic cartoon. Simpsons' porn is not "hentai" (though used as a neologism in recent years). By the way, Cubism also has an explicit image, a painting with 5 nude females that may be shocking to some people. By the same motive, a previous image that stand for a few years before (Hadako-tan), was replaced by the current, because we looked for an image more representative of the visual style. As it could be replaced by other even more representative. The shocking is not the image but what it represents, and it represents the subject of the article. In short, we needed an image because it's not of common knowledge as Pornography AND because it adds value to the article, which is our motivation: to improve the articles. pmt7ar ^(talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I am still about although taking a back-seat for this one. If I may I would like to say that I am yet to see any suggestion of what we are to replace the current image with. You argue very well 8472, but as long as you (or anyone else for that matter) don't have an image to show that is non-explicit and conveys the nature of this article I will continue to support keeping the current one. I also can't see why I or anyone else in favour of keeping the current image should be forced to go through the anguish of recruiting yet another artist when we already find the current image satisfactory. Sorry for the interruption, please carry on. -- Dront (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

D'aww. I got a compliment on my argumentation. <3 Dront. I said in an earlier comment, that perhaps one of the pictures from Katawa Shoujo might be a good plan, as someone was able to take pictures from that game and put it up onto the site already. I'm not sure who talked to who, but taking it from, say Katawa Shoujo, would be more significant than just a random shot of sexual penetration, as Katawa Shoujo was a somewhat important (in terms of hentai) endeavor into the artform. I'm going to admit here, while I've played around on Wikipedia, and did some small work back in the day, I'm not hip on all the methods of going about getting things done. And, since you guys have made it clear that Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'm not gonna try right here and now to go through effort which may well just be ignored based on the statements and comments of how things are done made within this post. Also, since your team has already seemingly established contact with an artist that produces this sort of content, it seems reasonable to assume that you could ask the same person for a picture of close action done in underwear.

Now, pmt7ar, as you are now referring me to archived sections, perhaps it would behoove you to read my previous comments as well. I've already explained that unless the specific stylistic difference lays in the breasts, the penis, the vagina, or the ejaculate, then your argument does not hold. You could take a figure whom is in their underwear and represent the actions that are later made pornographically. This would still display everything which you're describing, and the actual written context that explains that it is pornographic would be sufficient to cue people off to it. As you said, the word 'pornography' is a cultural constant, and thus will be able to be understood- visually or verbally. Or, as I've described with the picture of The Dream of The Fisherman's Wife, you could take a specifically culturally significant picture and use that, and it would be relevant. Then you'd get no complaint from me, and be able to handle any complaints from anyone else much easier. Being locked in by copyright is not sufficient reasoning enough to just take something purposefully vulgar and explicit to use for something which can be shown without, because it is not within copyright. Especially when the effort was made to get this specific image before. 8472 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn. "... close action done in underwear" isn't even close to the concept of hentai. That would easily fall under ecchi (i linked it again). Additionally i have to question if Katawa Shoujo would be a good example. It is something special and a picture from the game would imply to depict a disabled heroin, which could leave a very wrong impression. The parts of the game that aren't to be considered 18+ would also add nothing to this article. It would suite in the visual novel article instead. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So, a game which gets a number of people from 4chan- a notoriously hard cluster to gather, mind you- to provide a realistic/positive attitude towards people with physical handicaps is not what you'd consider a significant achievement in the development of the topic of hentai?

Let me re-iterate: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource which helps people to better understand topics which are in its closure. The pictures of topics are used to guide people to understanding the topic, and can be utilized in a variety of ways to achieve this effect. The picture does NOT need to be a direct visual representation of the action detailed. If you used an "ecchi" image that was part of a "hentai" story, you would still be advancing the understanding of the hentai topic, since chronologically the 'ecchi' event would be part of the 'hentai' story. Using the actual written context, you could detail how the picture is relevant to the topic. Many Wikipedia articles, sexual or otherwise, use their header images similarly. Pornography and BDSM were listed, as well as non-sexual topics such as the Ludlow Massacre, abstract topics such as State Atheism, or long disappeared objects such as Friedrich Schiller's Skull. Other topics, such as Tentacle Erotica have used historical, cultural, artistic, or otherwise significant and relevant pictures to use nudity or sexually charged pictures which are meaningful to the topic, rather than 'whatever the authors could find at the time'. Or, I can agree with pmt7ar's following compromise, as pixilated genitalia are perhaps as relevant to the picture as the picture itself (considering Japan's laws on censorship and the like). Finally, the one last thing that I'd say, is that perhaps the only thing that REALLY needs to be done is to find an image that doesn't actually display the act of sexual penetration. With consideration to the cultures that I'm familiar with, vulgarity in pornography starts after nudity and begins at the actions of displayed sexuality.

Finally, I'm not going to suggest all of the other editors' arguments were valid. I've heard the "underage" argument, and it does not seem to hold up. That being said, I think the 'lolicon' image would be more relevant if it were better explained how the stylization which makes up the females in hentai is perceived to be younger than they necessarily are, due to differences in cultures, drawing styles, and that sort of thing. But since I don't plan on finding a research paper that I can use as ammo for that, I'm not gonna touch that can of worms. 8472 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"So, a game which gets a number of people from 4chan- a notoriously hard cluster to gather, mind you- to provide a realistic/positive attitude towards people with physical handicaps is not what you'd consider a significant achievement in the development of the topic of hentai?"

Yes I do. But i don't think that it is representative for hentai in general. It is an exception and a picture from it, no matter how much sympathy such a development has, would not be suitable as an header image. Would you use an skeleton from a human with polydactyly as the header image in human skeleton?

"If you used an "ecchi" image that was part of a "hentai" story, you would still be advancing the understanding of the hentai topic, since chronologically the 'ecchi' event would be part of the 'hentai' story."

It would not represent the hentai part of the story. In this case ecchi and hentai would look the same and it would not help the reader to understand the difference between both terms. More likely it would be confusing. Additionally there are a lot of hentai works which omit this part entirely.

Originally Ren´ai Adventures (which is the correct term for most of the games called visual novels) evolved from pure rape games to the point in which no hentai was longer part of the games itself. The well known adventure Kanon contained hentai elements, while Clannad (from the same creators) was one of the first games that didn't contain adult elements anymore. Which scene from Kanon would you choose to represent hentai in a way that it won't be confused with Clannad which has nothing to do with hentai?

"Other topics, such as Tentacle Erotica have used historical, cultural, artistic, or otherwise significant and relevant pictures to use nudity or sexually charged pictures which are meaningful to the topic, rather than 'whatever the authors could find at the time'."

This isn't true. We just don't have a single free licensed picture which depicts a scene of tentacle erotica (ero stands for pornography in Japanese) from a modern work. If we had one then we would include it as an part of the historical movement that circumvented the censorship laws, which encouraged Japanese authors to replace penises with tentacles. I don't think it could be contested that such an image would add nothing to the article. We just don't have such an image right now.

"With consideration to the cultures that I'm familiar with, vulgarity in pornography starts after nudity and begins at the actions of displayed sexuality."

I support this statement for the general case, but i don't support it for Japanese media, because of ecchi in between. Ecchi scenes are meant to visualize sexual innuendo. To give you some examples of what is considered ecchi:

• A half dressed girl and a clear innuendo what would be next (from Divergence Eve)
• Seeing what shouldn't been seen (click first) (from Kiss×Sis)
• Direct body contact (from Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-Chan)

All given examples are examples for ecchi but not for hentai.

"But since I don't plan on finding a research paper that I can use as ammo for that, I'm not gonna touch that can of worms."

I would like you to do that. It could change your mind on this topics. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes an exception is extremely useful for describing the potency of the topic. Many pages use pictures with special historical or topical significance, not because they are necessarily derivative of the whole, but because they do a better job of describing the topic than a simple copy. Like Bach to classical music, or for country and Johnny Cash. Sometimes just playing some violins and guitars isn't enough to show that there's more there. The thing that has been repeatedly shown is that you misunderstand the use of "Significance" in the choice of a topic picture. A picture of a human with polydactyly would not be a significant picture for the human skeleton picture because there are a wide range of diseases and changes in bone structure which causes difference from the average skeleton. For reasons previously stated, Katawa Shoujo is more significant to this topic than simply because 'it is different'. There are plenty of pictures in the hentai world that shows characters with atypical body parts that would not be significant to the subject.

You also forget the significance in text. You can put an 'ecchi' picture, and as long as you describe that the subject is pornographic, people will be able to make the cognitive leap. Humans have an innate ability to bridge the difference between non-sexual and sexual, and simply writing it would suffice.

I would argue that adding a current day tentacle erotica picture that was open source would add nothing to the topic. The topic, with the included historical iconography, is able to convey, text included, everything you might need to understand tentacle erotica. I stand by this.

Finally, pulling out some research paper about the subject for use in citation would not aide my understanding of the subject. This is perhaps the single-most reason why I took it upon myself to comment on this subject- I'm not uneducated in this topic, nor in a number of other topics. I stopped attending to Wikipedia because people care about the procedure and the rigorous adherence to codified rulings than I am willing to provide. That doesn't fault my arguments, nor does it give credence to the arguments made by those who find themselves in such a task. You came off like you had this chip on your shoulder. You had a few good points, but instead of using logic to decide the topic, a number of times the issue of position became a deciding factor. Maybe you like citation. Maybe other articles are truly made better by your efforts. If so, kudos. But just because you've done something there, doesn't make your opinion- and that's what a number of your points have come to, by the by: not facts, but opinions- more valuable than the opinions of others. You have an opinion about how pictures should be represented. You are a small number in a world community. Humble yourself. Not everyone thinks a picture needs to be the forthright centerpiece of the entire explanation of an article. That's an opinion that you're using as a fact. It's the cornerstone of your justification to having a piece of hardcore pornography situated on this topic, and it's not objective. Not because I'm right, mind you, because my arguments can be weighted on their own value, just because there isn't an objective truth to the value of visual icons. Next time some ancient user comes back from the grave to tell you off, maybe remember that you're not always right.

I'm officially done with this argument. I think the base of everything that I need to say has been said in previous posts. You can articulate a number of counterarguments, I imagine, and I'm sure they're dandy, but as I issued with this current response, a number of my counter-counter arguments can be made simply by pointing to even earlier postings. I'm going to log off, and disappear for a few more years, hopefully. Go make Wikipedia something that I don't have to log onto my account for again. We'll both be happier for it. 8472 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that a picture from Katawa Shoujo would be entirely meaningless for the article, but it is an example for an exception, an extreme. That means, that it doesn't suite the general/average understanding of hentai - at least not as an single image or the header image. Alternatively we could include an image from Clannad as one of the first Ren´ai Adventures that omitted the hentai part, but has it's roots inside the genre. But that would be useful illustrations for further going parts of the article like "Sub Genres", "Curiosities", etc. This would include bondage (shibari), guro, lolicon, tentacles, netorare, furry, and so on.

Yes text can be significant. But how often did i read already that anything that shows a little bit of skin or innuendo would be pornographic (hentai)? Quite often. Thats why it is good to give two illustrations for the terms (hentai/ecchi), to aid the reader to differentiate between both terms. Isn't an illustration of a situation in which the reader imagines the further progress (the hentai part) not the definition of ecchi? I think we could say so. It's like running in circles around the plain answer.

Given that we would use one of the first examples of tentacle erotica from the time after the censorship laws introduction, then i would find it quite useful and important for the article. But also never illustrations would add to the topic. They are the descendants of this time and are still present in many works and in nearly half of any ecchi themed manga or anime. For example To Love-Ru, Queen's Blade, Omamori Himari and so on. It doesn't even need to be explicit.

I just want to give a good understanding of the topic inside the article. That we might have different opinions is only natural. I'm simply not convinced that removing or replacing the header image with the up till now provided alternatives would improve the article or the readers understanding - quite the opposite. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't support the current version of the image. I prefer the pixelated one as it was original, or maybe the one extra pixelated for the russian project. Its content doesn't change and it mantains its properties and illustration of the subject, but it will reduce the "shock" effect and I hope calm the waters in future cases. I missed the time when the digitally reconstructed version replaced the original one, but I don't have any problem if you guys want to put the pixelated genitalia again (link). You can call that my compromise. I'm also open to other alternatives but regarding Katawa Shoujo is not a replacement in the same level, as it doesn't reflect the purpose of hentai that is the explicitly sexual. Some shounen manga covers are more provocative that a chat dialog on any VN. Such Katawa Shoujo image would fit Katawa Shoujo's article, or Ecchi's, or Bishojo's, not Hentai. Unless you want to add an H scene screencap and we would be in the same situation (note that we need a screen of the H scene, not the visual novel, as the article is about hentai, not visual novels). Or worse, given the context they are disabled girls, and the "big problem" of being underage according to other editors, it doesn't come as a solution. Of course we can add another image of an eroge, but removing the current one would remove value from the article (worst as its removal would be in the end, because of censorship).pmt7ar ^(talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of statistic data

The article hentai is viewed about 7.000 times per day.[2] From this visitors we have roughly 700 that view the header image in greater size by visiting the description page.[3] That makes 1 out of 10 visitors that is very interested in the depiction. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 09:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not helping your point. 8472 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New header image - Swing Out Sisters

I found a different image which I think suitably demonstrates the artistic style of hentai without being unduly shocking to those who come across the page unawares, leaving the decision in the viewer's hands as to whether to proceed further in the article. The previous lead image is still in the article. What are your thoughts? Scuttlest (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no justification to use a non free image. If there is a free commons image alternative we ought to prefer it. It has been already discussed before. pmt7ar ^(talk) 11:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, let me make a more positive feedback. I have no problems with an image like you proposed, it adds to the value and its representative. But it's not free content and we can only use it if there is no free substitute, and it's not the case. That image would only be valid in an article about "Swing Out Sisters" (like most covers are only valid inside their own articles). Also, why are breasts in the image pixelated? That's a quite puritan censorship if you ask me. If you want to recur to censorship to deal with shock value, there is a pixelated version of the current image here File:Hentai - yuuree.jpg and here File:Hentai censorship.jpg.But breasts censored? That's too much IMO. Not even hadako-tan got them censored. pmt7ar ^(talk) 11:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant policy being referred to: WP:Non-free content criteria, bullet point #1. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is showcasing a user's personal art over getting relevant content usually the policy in Wikipedia, or just on pages like this and futanari? --198.150.224.3 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to use a non-offensive lead image. Duh. The non-free argument is only being used by people who seem, um, overly obsessed with retaining the status quo, and/or showing off pornographic material, regardless of how many people complain. --198.150.224.3 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The current image is not from any wikimedia project's user. What's more, it replaced a previous user's creation so that bias you point could be avoided. Of course it makes sense, but it also makes sense the current image as its on a perfectly suitable context. "How many" complain is not our problem, masses is not equal to rightful, and wikipedia is not a democracy. There are thousands of files in Commons that millions of users could consider to be extremely offensive. That doesn't mean we contributors should make a campaign to eradicate those files. And if you think there is a bias in the preference of an user for its own creation in Futanari, start the topic in its talkpage. I'll be glad to search a third-party representative file with the correct licensing. pmt7ar ^(talk) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia ain't a democracy but you seem proud to run a plutocracy instead ;) Keep in mind only the people who loooove (the topic of) hentai are the ones who come here often enough to change it. That's probably why the top image stays pornographic, because nobody who dislikes it actually stays on the page to find out more. --198.150.224.3 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Images should be removed

Some of the images on this page are dubious or illegal to view in many countries, and as such should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.80.246 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the images are "dubious". As for legality, so long as the images do not violate the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, the images can be used. (WP:NOTCENSORED) —Farix (t | c) 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The tendency of a couple users to squat on a page and constantly demand uncensored explicit sex be displayed immediately on top of an article is dubious. Constantly controversial images should, by Wikipedia's own guidelines, be removed. That you have not is evidence of this squatting. --Sock Puppet 43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.239.170 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You can always propose a different image that has less "shock value". However, it needs to be free-use and illustrate the topic. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

The word 'Hentai' Literally means Pervert

Ilikefriedrice (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Source drop

Yay source drop. This AskJohn would probably do the article some good. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Public media exposure of a topic considered to be AT LEAST PG-13 to Mature Audience.

Where is the PG-13, or mature audience sticker warning, alongside the header of a PUBLIC expression.

You are defacto in violation of many sections of the USCODE, and many civil & penal codes of other nations, including international rulings.

Clean up your act by forcing a clearly visible STICKER warning concerning the material, subject matter that is exposed/expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on US law, but reading the WP:NOTCENSORED policy and WP:NODISCLAIMERS guidelines it is my understanding that you will need to escalate your request to the Wikipedia policy makers rather than asking for changes on this talk page. On a personal note, I would find it odd if the policy makers were unaware of whatever US law you are referring to and didn't take it into consideration when writing the current policies and guidelines. But I could of course be wrong in this respect. -- Dront (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that this is accurate. People have been trying to remove this image for years and if there was a law that expllcitly made this image illegal to show without a sticker I highly doubt that no one else would have realized this by now.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If the subject in the top image is not eighteen years of age or older, then this image violates 18 USC 1466A. If she is, then it should be made clear. 76.168.237.102 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's arguable. Few laws are cut and dried, and there's the question of whether the image has "serious artistic value" and so forth. The Foundation would likely respond to a takedown request under the law (either by showing fight or acquiescence, not sure which), but absent that the image will likely stay. Of course hosting the image is stupid and wrong, but the slogan is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit except misogynists, porn enthusiasts, and middle-school boys", so there you have it. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the 18 or over idea would work here since this is an animated image so it would not be possible to know what age the animated character was intended to be. This was also attempted at the Futanari article and was rejected for the exact same reason. Barring decisive evidence that the original author specifically meant the character to be a minor I don't see a case for removal on that end.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

So much of this article is absolutely hilarious because of how inaccurate it is. I'm tagging this appropriately, there is a huge amount of uncited material, improper material (which is outright wrong), and WP:OR here. This is embarrassing that Wikipedia cannot even get the material up to par with its foreign language counterparts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your tag addition, because it does not help to improve this article. You claimed a lot of issues, but you forgot to mention any of the issues:

• What is the uncited material?
• What is the improper material?
• Which lines fall under WP:OR?

Answering and discussing the previous questions could really help to improve the article, just adding some more tags does not. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 07:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The word term is unsourced and it does not accurately depict the word meaning in Japanese versus its usage in English. The very first line is totally inaccurate. Essentially the whole history is uncited and wrong. It has to be scrapped. Demographics, classification... Everything on this page essentially trash. Its like a vandal has gotten away with some serious messing around of the article. The tags stay till I work up the courage to actually edit this article. Unless you want to take a crack at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the first line inaccurate? And how does it not accurately depict what the word is? The history has 6 sources so I would not call that unsourced. How are the demographics, classification, etc... wrong? The tags do not stay up, until you specifically tell us what is wrong with the article. Instead of you mostly calling it trash. So that is it can be changed in a constructive manner. Instead of other editors having to guess. What do you want to specifically have changed and what information do you find factually incorrect? Please explain in detail. That way authors can quickly resolve this issue that you find this article to be "trash". NathanWubs (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all this article doesn't even source the term at ALL. This HAS to be sourced because the term hentai as in THIS article is not the term that the Japanese refer to. You can be a hentai as in sexual pervert. There was some attention for Oxford adding the definition to their dictionary, referring to an explicit definition for English use. The term in Japanese should also be noted here with clarity and sources as well. The terms use in English covers explicit content of just about any sort, while in Japan it is only attributed to more extreme things, such as the infamous tentacle videos. Strangely enough the source for Mark McLelland's academic work is not used in the history at all. Which leads to the second point, McLelland's work covers the history of it, which is why I laugh at the history section in its entirety. Read it yourself. Its the first source that's used on this page and it is under-utilized. I'd detail the entire history of it, not just when it started coming to America, but then you have to realize something dramatic... the term hentai and what you categorize as hentai is not the same. This article makes little distinction and ops for the Americanization of hentai as the catch all with a casual note on the original attribution.

Rather then address the matter of 'demographics' in an academic manner it is devoid of sources and is so-so and covers nothing of prevalence and culture. Classification is no different, its just naming off sub genres with disregard for the entirety. Which goes into media... but by now you probably know that actual media types, examples, relative prominence and such are probably more useful then saying the media it extends to. And the fanfiction matters begs the question of how stories tie in with your term of hentai displayed on this article. But whatever... I'm not going to get involved in a huge dispute over this article, its just that this article is terrible right now. I may fix it in a few days if I have reason, but I NEED to know if this pages watchers are willing to entertain them. Though I think my point with the history alone will give credit to my taggings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehm... it's just me or the summary about the term is in fact consistent with the source Chris is claiming to be included? What are you exactly arguing about? (1)Hentai is used in the West (including America) to refer to generally all pornographic or sexually explicit material, (2)In japan, ecchi or ero is used in the same meaning as hentai in the west; reserving hentai for extreme behaviors, as the etymology provides (sexual perversion, 変 from strange, so in Japan hentai is used towards WEIRD and perverse sexual behavior, not just for porn as in the west.

That's what the Mark McLelland's source says, and that's what the article says. So what is it exactly what is wrong? pmt7ar ^(talk) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The term itself is no bad, but the lede is JUST the term and says nothing of the history, origin or evolution of it. Even minor things like the adult comics are not restricted to hentai themselves. While Berserk is definitely graphic it is not labeled as such, Golgo 13 or Fist of the North Star are other examples. This article really defines hentai as the western view and not the Japanese view, both of which should be detailed on here. I'm not saying the term is wrong, but it is not clear and its placement is not great. We should use the oxford version as a backing source for the definition of the term coming across in the 1990s and define it as such. The Japanese version is pretty much fine, but McLelland's work is underrepresented here, and other sources I'm sure exist. The evolution of the term is totally lost, which I am a bit concerned about. McLelland's homosexuality argument is interesting, the history alluded to is more the important aspect that should be added. And that includes the evolution of the term in its own proper context and section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the tags per my understanding of WP:BRD. I'm not sure if this applies to tags but I suppose so. I looks like ChrisGualtieri is the only editor who wants the tags. I have little knowledge of or interest in this subject, but it appears that ChrisGualtieri does and his concerns may be valid (I don't know). Mr Gualtieri, could you perhaps write up an improved lede section, or other sections, for discussion here? Or at any rate make improving edits directly to the article, and then we can talk about if this improve the article? That'd be great and would leverage your expertise to our advantage. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As you read the talk page, WP:BURDEN, I've stated my case and I've made a point by point. Removing valid tags is disruptive. I will work on this article later, but I do not have access to a few key sources to fix it. Start with ero-guro and moving forward seems to be a valid point, but the shunga prints should at LEAST be noted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I need a collection of about 8 journal works to fix this. I do not have access the majority of them. If someone has a JSTOR account I would be able to provide information on Writing the Love of Boys: Origins of Bish nen Culture in Modernist Japanese Literature and Contact Moments: The Politics of Intercultural Desire in Japanese Male-Queer Cultures, while Poison Woman: Figuring Female Transgression in Modern Japanese Culture. Though also important are Redacted: The Archives of Censorship in Transwar Japan, Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain for the UK matter and of course Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan. Anyone got these? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't, but it looks like JSTOR has a deal where you can access journals for free -- but only up to three at a time, but at least that's something. Don't know if this is some new feature or what. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm fairly happy with the definition of the term, including narrowing down the origin of the word and providing the speculative and two published early examples. I thought it was inappropriate to provide links to 1997 circa web pages which contain links to other hentai pages, but they did exist by that time. The usage was limited to those English speakers that drew very close to the source materials, but a wealth of materials advertised as 'hentai' came out on those pages, but none of these match reliable resources and almost all of them are dead. I'll work on it with the history section. 'Fritz the Cat' is a prime example of confusion that needs to be corrected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the new lede, it's way worse than the previous now moved down to 'Term'. I hope you can work on that to make it a proper leading because as it is now, it would be better to restore the previous one. has diverse meanings and uses if not telling anything more is better off. WP:LEAD. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Its far from complete, the new lede may be terrible, but this is a work in progress and I just went through 500 years of history for that concise Japanese usage. Most of the other history is going to go bye bye though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The current lead reads like an entry in an etymology dictionary... I am not experienced enough as an editor to know if this is appropriate but it does feel odd to me. It is almost as if we should split the article in two, one talking about the etymology of the term and one describing the content that is covered by the word outside of Japan. -- Dront (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was worried about that.. I'm not even half way finished with this either. The main issue exists that "hentai" to Japan is not the "hentai" outside of it. Hentai, outside of Japan, is just a blanket erotic material which leads to common, if not explicit, heterosexual intercourse being 'hentai'. Homosexual intercourse, usually male, was not taboo is tied with the history of Japan. Even lolicon material was not automatically deemed "hentai" and has distinctive resonance in Japan that the depictions are likened to a third sex by some. The best sources I have place the extreme stuff as "hentai" appropriately and that followed into all "adult" works to differentiate between the shoujo and shonen titles being released. A matter compounded by the websites selling eroge images of non-hentai sexual intercourse as "hentai" which capitalized and solidified the distinction despite its inaccuracy. The movement to "ero" is still on going, but the language is in a constant state of flux. No doubt the major focus will be on the "correct" genre term, but that is because the word has entered english use. I hope I can clean it up some more... I still got a good amount of material to cover. Though, I believe my previous tagging is considered 'valid', now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to run the risk of incorporating or expanding too much on the 'regular' manga medium, but I am having some conflicts about the actual form in which to bring up the introduction to English in the proper context since it is so... ethereal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, so much work left to do, but the history section seems fairly accurate, but I still have yet to address the obscenity laws and make relevant links out to the content. I've axed some of the "hentai" titles listed here before because they were not as notable and literally thousands of titles exist. I instead chose to focus on the first of its kind. I'll have to translate and read the Japanese articles to garner more insight for polishing and refining the history, fill in a few gaps and tighten up a few ends. Among the more interesting things, the first "hentai" manga and anime to arrive in America are now detailed properly and I've purged off that scathing attack from that Fritz the Cat review. 1001 Nights was not listed as X rated, Cleopatra was self rated, but it was such a failure in Japan and America, that even while the release predated Fritz the Cat, the criticism was a bit undue and probably not NPOV. Hideo Azuma finally gets a mention for his major role in creating the pornographic genre, and while the focus was lolicon material, it was the precusor that brought about the unrealistic depictions over the more realistic depictions popularized in manga, and by realistic I mean a distinctive 'Western' feel. I'll have to research some additional sources as a few aspects are left out right now. The good news, the material is basically in line with the decent articles over at ecchi and lolicon, this article is of the greater importance and will have to get to the marketing matters later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The anime and manga sections look fine for now... I'm still missing a few points, but I rather not bludgeon the topic too heavily as the length is getting up there on the history. The current task falls to the last common form of "hentai" as eroge. While the most blurred of content, the history is forming up pretty well and I'll stick to naming the important firsts and a few major genre defining works. I let Princess Maker slip in for its role, but I do not know if it deserves a place as it is not an ero-ge. I'll probably end up taking it out if I am conflicted about it. I did some work on a table, but I think I will just split the classification and genres off to a list where it will be more appropriate and not destroy the page with some really weird fetishes that can be summed up with the term "WTF!?". For that reason I am thinking about what types are most notable, a subjective thing, and trying to define what should be included. Common themes? Common fetishes? And do I really need to include the lolicon/shotacon and tentacle sex topics which I mentioned above? I am no expert on the works and a majority of these topics are covered in Japanese only. Anyone reading this, care to chime in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

About the redlinks, please leave them. The whole movement is really important if not understated, I have almost enough material to do a full article on the background and a few of the major journals of the time. Slowly but surely I'm integrating more of the research into the article, I actually am debating including Tanaka's use in court cases as an expert... but I doubt it will rise to the notability of his journal, enough to impact the culture in such a way. I've also got some of the first English uses I could find, and the eroge section is fairly good, up to Kanon. I do not want this to be a running timeline, so at least a decade back is relevant enough to get a feel for the history. This is not a list of works or a timeline, and while I understated the popularity and success many of the works listed here, they all have articles which branch off for that reason. Still... so much work left to do that I may end up destroying and rebuilding the bottom sections, the classification and non-scholarly stuff is not my forte. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

More expansion coming

In the coming days it is likely that I'll split off the history of the three individual parts and make a singular chronological history that is two-three times more indepth while compressing the material here somewhat. The nitty gritty details do not interest the common reader so much, and if this is going to make FA, it will have to be done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Do as you think it's convenient. Thank you for your effort. You could create a sandbox while rearranging the info. I'll refrain from editing since you're doing a huge amount of edits constantly, as to not disturb. Btw, it's necessary the lead image? It was there before and was removed, the article isn't about calligraphy or the term, so I don't see the purpose of it. The word in kanji is already in the text; it's like having an image of a word "car" instead of a photo of a car in Automobile. Articles are about the signified, and that's what should be illustrated. Illustrating the signifier is pointless.pmt7ar ^(talk) 14:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The image that was there previously is further on down in the eroge section, it was only removed temporarily as per for previous discussion. I do understand your point, I want six more pictures or so for this article, but it will be about two days before I start expanding it again in a major way. The images are not on commons and fair use uploading is difficult for me to figure out. As for the content, the information is actually already written and I intend to replace the current three sections with three paragraphs and create a timeline aspect, as I doubt many readers want to sit through the current section about Tanaka or even the pre-Tezuka era. Have you considered joining WP:HENTAI? Its a budding project, but you have good ideas and comments, the project is still in its beginnings, but if you have any interest, comment and discuss things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the proposed changes:

Most analysts agree that precursor to erotic manga originated in the Edo period (1600-1868), with a new direction in ukiyo-e art. The erotic prints were called shunga, were banned after the Meiji Restoration (1868), however, they had a great influence on visual imagery and themes of modern Japanese pornography. Modern hentai was developed in the 1970s. A pioneer in the world of erotic manga was Go Nagai, whose humorous work Harenchi Gakuen (1969) was subjected to harsh criticism for its vulgar story and resulted in the protests from women's associations and parent committees. Also in 1969, the first erotic anime - Senya Ichiya Monogatari was released. Erogekiga increased in popularity throughout the 1970s. The 1980's production of animated drawn resulted in the creation of OVA-series like Lolita Anime and Cream Lemon. In the 1980s and 1990s emerged and developed separate genres and directions: yaoi, yuri, futanari, and others.

Its not there yet, but two or three paragraphs like this would probably serve the history function just fine. I'll save the complex chronological and 'firsts' and such for a separate sub article. Who knows maybe it will make FA one day as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.72.120 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review - suggestions

Before this article should pass GA, it could benefit from a few significant changes. The lead needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. The section on Hentai subgenres lacks adequate references and could be further expanded. The history section is also still underdeveloped; more is needed on the development of this genre in the 19th and 20th centuries. - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hentai (word)

Since the article is mostly about the word and not about a specific topic, I moved it to "Hentai (word)". Bhny (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please move it back; I've shortened the article for readers who do not need need a lot of prose on the history. It is a genre and I was only thorough in its definition because it has a very unique origin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead and the first three sections are only about the word. The lead has to define the topic and the topic of this article is the word. I think that's fine and another article could be written about the genre. Bhny (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine... the word does probably deserve its own spot. I'll deal with the rest later and clean this up a bit. The original article got too big and I split it off, I can do a better history anyways, so I'll remerge that split content off and expand the rest. Sound good? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! I started the genre page for you- hentai Bhny (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a terrible move, and the issue should have been discussed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga before daring a move. Also, the article was moved without the associated page history. That aside, this is a terrible move because only two sections of the Hentai article were about the word hentai. The other parts of it, now existing in the Hentai (word) article, are more about the concept. The lead was mostly about the word, but that was no reason to move the article. The lead could have been fixed. There is WP:Primary topic and WP:Spinout to think about. "Primary topic" plays into this because people will be looking for the hentai topic under the title Hentai, not Hentai (word). A spinout wasn't needed, and definitions of the concept being in the article about the concept help people understand the concept. Many Wikipedia articles have etymology and/or definition sections, either because the concept cannot be adequately discussed without discussing the definitions or simply so that people can understand the concept better, and there is no good reason that this article shouldn't have the same. C'omn, Bhny, we've discussed this type of stuff before.[4] I'll contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga about this now. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides the Hentai article not having its full page history anymore, it also no longer has its talk page (redirects here for now). You did some kind of copy and paste move, which shouldn't be done. This will need to be fixed, via request at WP:Requested moves, if the Hentai/Hentai (word) split remains intact. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that there is no need to further disambiguate the article title with "(word)", Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is what Wiktionary is for, so changing Hentai into a dictionary definition of the word, which is just redundant with this article's content, makes no sense and is against policy. Besides, this article already has an entire section about the genre in Hentai (word)#Classification. We don't need to split the article into smaller and smaller subsets of the same subject.--十八 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bhny often cites WP:NOTADICT. That's why he or she split the article. So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not something you have to tell him or her. However, the WP:NOTADICT policy allows for articles about words, but has guidelines about that. Anyhoo, I obviously agree with you about a split not being needed for the hentai topic. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree to move the page back but how? I have tried but it looks like the history has been erased somehow, maybe an admin can assist? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved everything back to Hentai because the move was (obviously) not uncontroversial and move-protected the page for 2 weeks, which should grant more than enough time to form consensus on a move request­. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Now I see what is going on. Moving to (word) is to essentially attack the page with the grossly improper and incorrect dictionary def tag.[5] I moved the history off the page, but if this is how someone is going to respond to a proper citation regarding origin and usage and development of the word, I can by all means MAKE a word definition section. I have 3-4x more content including how the term arose in legal usage (thanks to Tanaka) which would further push it into mainstream usage. I'll wait for the review before responding, I personally think that the coverage is pretty fair without breaking it down; I can easily re-add the split section if it is found lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi folks, I do think the current article has some issues that makes the move request somewhat reasonable. There seems to be a very strong emphasis on the word and its history rather than what hentai is. As someone not overly familiar with the term, perhaps this is reasonable. But compare this with Cartoon where the word and where it came from isn't really discussed at all. Heck, even the lede doesn't tell us what the word means in English until the second-to-last sentence--that's highly unusual. Finally, there has to be additional free versions of hentai. Right now there is just one image of a sub-genre. I'd suggest the article should be more about Hentai and less about the history of the word. Hobit (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed the lede, and honestly, English and Japanese usage are completely different. It is important to present a worldview and that is represented with the first two sections. Granted I may split off the etymology section if I go with a word definition of hentai, but it most definitely not an article on just a word. Now that its fixed, let this debate die. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm feel this article is trying to do too much. I agree the English and Japanese usages are different. I think the article, being on the English Wikipedia, should focus primarily on the English usage. Right now it's going the other way and spends, IMO, way too much time on where the word comes from. I'd prefer the lede start with the English definition

"a subgenre of the Japanese comic and animation (specifically manga and anime), characterized by overtly sexualized characters and sexually explicit images and plots" or some such (not useable as written due to being too close to the original source) as the first sentence in the lede.

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not just a genre. It is also a term for "sexual perversion", one being medical in nature and the other the popularized fascination which spawned eroguro. The other is the word which underwent numerous alterations including the ecchi/ Hentai / H shift. It is absolutely paramount that the origin, definition and usage of the word be explicit and covered. It gets a little less worse with yaoi and yuri, but this article is about Hentai, not just the word and not just "sexually explicit anime and manga" as defined in English. So it is not correct to start with that definition because it is a naive and incredibly short-sighted sentence. You will not find a "genre" of hentai in Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I get that the English usage and the Japanese usage are quite different. But shouldn't the English use be the primary focus of the topic on the English Wikipedia? I don't know if there is a policy/guideline on this, but I think that is how we generally do things here. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:BIAS covers this. Presenting the original Japanese influence and view is actually more important then the 'English' usage because the English usage is secondary and radically different. It is important to provide a worldview of the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't see how WP:BIAS applies (there may be something on that list that is on-target but it isn't jumping out at me). We don't cover foreign words here in general. Now if Hentai is used in English in both ways (and I don't know that it isn't) then we should cover both ways. But if not, we shouldn't be covering non-English usages as a matter of course. Here, I'd agree the Japanese use should see coverage, but more as an entomology issue than as a focus of the article. Are there other articles that cover dual-use words in the way this article does? I could easily be wrong, but this does feel very non-standard. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I reject your assessment. This is not about a word and I am not going to cater to your personal preferences. You do not seem to have even read the article because the origin and usage are directly related to this article. I do advance the genre form of English users after dealing with the Japanese usage. This is not an article on a word, period. Your tagging of "dict def" was completely incorrect and petty given the pushback from other editors. Do not move it again, do not tag it again. This is not an article on a word, so stop trying to make it so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite sure where the insults are coming from--I've certainly read the article I just feel that the emphasis of the article isn't where it should be. I understand you disagree. I'm on the road right now (and will be for a week or so). What I'd like to propose is that we wait a week or so for others to chime in and failing that start a RfC or something like it. I'd.not be shocked I'd others agree with you, but I do think it likely that folks would expect the article to focus on the English use of the word. Sound acceptable? Hobit (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Rewriting the introduction

Let me go trough the current introduction and give you some of my thoughts and questions about it.

Hentai is a word of Japanese origin which entered usage in Meiji era scientific and psychological journals. While it literally means a change of appearance or strange condition, its association with perversion stems from popular sexology. With the sexualization of Japan, a renewed interest in perverse publications led to normalization of the word in everyday life.

Why do we start of with the historic origin as the introduction to the topic? Shouldn't we start with the current understanding/meaning of the term, because that would be the actual definition - the current definition?

What do you mean with "sexualization of Japan"? From a reader perspective i wouldn't know when this did happen or what it means (refers to). Such vague wording should be avoided.

Japanese usage of the term "hentai" is specific to describe sexual perversion of any type and does not define a genre of work; its usage describes a bizarre or unusual sexual desire or nature. The term entered English usage in the 1990s, as a catch-all term to describe erotic anime and manga pornography.

This is much closer to an actual definition of the term (Japanese+English usage), but it is also partially written like a part of the history section. (History should not be avoided, but it is not essential/helpful for the initial understanding)

Due to its ambiguous and broad attribution, the hentai genre is often superseded by the classification and categorization of specific themes and acts into sub-genres. Among those works natively considered hentai are tentacle erotica, monster sex, futanari, BDSM, bestiality, guro, transformation and fringe paraphilias. Popular western usage refers to any pornographic content or depicted sexual acts as hentai, including including heterosexual, homosexual and masturbation scenes.

I'm not very happy with this part. It speaks about hentai as a broad genre (western usage), which is correct, but it was never mentioned that it is seen as some kind of genre inside the English language before.

What do you mean with "natively considered"? I'm not sure if a closed but incomplete list of sub-genres helps at this place. But it is surely wrong to define them as sub-genres (previous sentence). The listed genres do not necessarily fall under hentai. For example: BDSM is a not uncommon mostly humorous theme in works considered as ecchi. Guro is not considered hentai (after western definition) as long it does not depict sexual themes.

Why do we have a second (repeating) definition of the western at the end of this paragraph?

What i would expect as a reader inside the introduction. 1) A very exact, not ambiguous, but easy to understand definition of the term/genre in current English language. 2) A clarification that the original (but current) Japanese meaning differs from the English language. (How was the term introduced the English language? What is the current Japanese wording [ero, ...]?) 3) Rough classification of the topic relevance (Market Share, Influence, etc.). 4) Short introduction to "artistic freedom vs law". One of the most interesting and fundamental aspects about this topic. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am bad at writing ledes, go for it. The lede is weaker than I want. And yes... English usage of guro is different than ero-guro. I'll try and tweak the lede a bit, but I wrote it rather quickly in response to the discussion above. Writing and rewriting is how this will get stronger. Thanks for the input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I did some work, but I'll have to find more material I guess. Needs some more tinkering as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hentai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. This article is going to need substantial expansion and revision before it will meet GA standards. This may take more time than you have right now, so I can fail the article and review it once it is more likely to pass, or I can wait if you think you'll be able to pull it together in a reasonable amount of time. Let me know how you prefer to handle it. I'll go for broad suggestions at this point rather than getting overly specific because the larger issues would need to be addressed before it would be worthwhile to start nitpicking.

• It is not adequately comprehensive in its broader scope or the level of detail. The Russian and Chinese versions are at FA and I've provided a translation of the Chinese TOC so you can see what kind of material is covered (the Russian is basically the same).

An you should realize they are not even one article. They are a basic copy and paste of several English Wikipedia's articles run through Google Translate. Notably on yaoi and yuri. Hentai has to be broad, not comprehensive and definitely not splitting up entire works. I already believe this article to be longer than it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish we could talk about this instead of writing, because I feel like we're miscommunicating here. Any article, as it improves in quality, improves in comprehensiveness. That's a criteria for GA and FA. But what does comprehensive mean? Obviously it shouldn't include every detail about every element of every subtopic - that's what we create other articles for. So the Hentai article doesn't need to copy, paste and contain every bit of what's in the main Yaoi article for example, but it does need to briefly summarize the key information (think 4-5 sentences) in the genres discussion. This is like a top-level article that people will visit to get a broad overview of the most important aspects of hentai. There are important aspects like particular genres and themes that are missing here. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 10,000 sexual kinks that hentai has been written about. But if there's an entire extensive article written about a genre, it should be paraphrased in this article too. Does that help clarify the level of detail and comprehensiveness I'm looking for? Part of the problem now is the coverage of topics is too light. You feel the article is too long, but I don't agree. Take as long as you need to do the topic justice. As it's written now, it's a bit fragmented and hard for a casual reader to get a sense of the full extent of what hentai means as a genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurbaby (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To briefly summarise that: Notability.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sections missing in this English version are (1) a discussion of the industry itself, to include production, and (2) a discussion on controversy and criticism.

Fair point on #1. #2, did I not cover it adequately?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Once the section on the industry is created, here are some images to potentially include: pic of Eroge shop File:A eroge shop in Akihabara.jpg, pic of manga in a store File:Yaoi Books by miyagawa.jpg, pic of hentai videos for sale File:Hentai manga in Japan 002.jpg, pic of production studio File:Nitroplus Office Tour (8).jpg

Alright... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• It makes more sense to combine the Term and Etymology sections under the Etymology heading.

I guess, but the words origin is different then its usage. I prefer to be specific for this, but it is an editorial decision is all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The history section needs to be significantly expanded to better trace the emergence, rise in popularity, internationalization and diversification of hentai across genres and formats.

Are you serious? I not only covered it, but gave each major milestone in its development including the first stylistically anime pornographic "hentai" and the originator of all "true" hentai. Hentai is not merely vanilla sex, its original definition is perverse and I doubt that Wikipedia needs another 30k on the development of tentacle sex when that article already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hentai is not merely vanilla sex"? Not in Japan, certainly, but according to the western usage (which is what the Hentai article on the English Wikipedia must cover) does include vanilla sex. If you wish to cover the Japanese term, rather than the English one, then you are not writing about what the article is supposed to cover. You are instead pushing your own, personal, point of view.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Check for internal consistency - the lead paragraph suggests hentai emerged in the 1970s, and then the next section on manga suggests erotic art goes back to the Heian period. Although these things are distinct, the article doesn't make the distinction clear to the reader so it calls the 1970s assertion into question to a certain extent. A more complete explanation of the history and evolution of erotic art becoming hentai will help clear this up.

That would be pushing my opinion of the matter; your definition is the lens upon which you want to attribute. Scholars have attributed Shunga as the precursor or the start of hentai, where Azuma and others point to the penning of Cybele as the "Tezuka-style" is the iconic anime traits, but the erogekiga and even pre-war eroguro works are retroactively hentai. No clear explanation is going to come on this page unless someone decides to establish a strong POV. I can address wording; but I am not going to be pushing my stance or research on it here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just have the article say one thing somewhere, and something else, in another place. If there are differing views, these should be mentioned and explained. From WP:VERIFY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The classification section needs to be expanded to cover all the subsets of hentai and basically provide a summary of the key information about each of them that can be found in their respective main articles (terminology and defining characteristics, origin and spread, author and reader demographic, revenues etc).

This would push into OR and worse very quickly. Consider it a courtesy we are dealing with the definition and not explaining the finer points of how perverse and niche it can be. Not only have I never seen a single "reliable source" on those parts of subject matter, but I'd be hard pressed to find even questionable sources. It is hard to be really fair or present a valid view when the only coverage amounts to "... is a repellent piece of shit concocted by the worse degenerates our society has ever produced". I'd take a failure over even attempting to detail half the niche stuff in hentai... I can't stomach it. NOTCENSORED is one thing, but mere descriptions are stomach churning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lemurbaby covers this pretty well, in the above comments on being comprehensive. Also, what you personally can stomach, has no relevance whatsoever. If it's notable and relevant enough, it needs to be included. If you, personally, can't stomach it... Fine. Let someone else do so. You are not the only editor of wikipedia, after all. You are not the sole person responsible for the Hentai article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The section on Censorship can be expanded to include "Censorship and legislation" to discuss laws pertaining to age restrictions, labeling, packaging, distribution etc.

All of one case in Japan? I dunno, I suppose I could throw Honey Room into it, but aside from the whole "demonic phalluses" and one issue of rape in the book it is actually really borderline in Japan... even by its definition. I could go into Rapelay though...— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both the Russian and Chinese versions dedicate a section to doujinshi, which should probably be added here, too.

Yeah... they just copied and merged the articles together. I don't like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The prose needs to be revised for clarity, conciseness and correctness of grammar. I'd recommend a copy edit either by you or a third party after you've made your expansions and content revisions.
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the content in the article.
• There are quite a few statements that lack references, and some referenced statements that are of questionable accuracy as identified by other editors below (but the Naruto one was my mistake - I was trying to revise the sentence so it made sense and that was the conclusion I came to, evidence of the need for the prose to be copy edited for clarity!)

Please point them out with tags, most are cited at the end of the paragraph or section and I can just pop the inline citation to them. I didn't want citation overkill, I was told one per paragraph or section was enough when I was doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you were massively misinformed. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:When to cite and WP:BURDEN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Need for consistency in the formatting of references, in terms of date formatting, where the page numbers are (in-line or under References section), completeness of citation information etc like in the other anime articles we're tackling

Not a GA criteria, but this won't pass I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Remove periods at the end of incomplete sentences in image captions
• I removed the Futumari Ecchi image because the copyright allows it (as a non-free work) to be used in the article about the specific manga only. We can replace this with an uncopyrighted work. I've added some, and you can tweak the captions to make best use of them to illustrate points in the article. Otherwise image copyrights check out.

End review until these changes are made. The translated table of contents are below.

There are more problems than that. The article contains unverified statements:

• It is claimed that Yuri is defined as referring exclusively to pornographic lesbian works, in Japan. This is unverified, and runs counter to the verified information in Yuri.

Was this for over two decades. I am not going to deal with that editor's issue here - surely there is a language barrier, but the last 5 years are a bit much to discount its 90%+ usage just because some erotic magazines run softer content as well and a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues really doesn't impact the whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true... Please verify it, using reliable sources. Reliable sources which actually say what you claim. So far you have failed to provide any sources, which anyone sees as backing you position ...and what is this talk about a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues? I don't remember there being any mention of any such magazine (if you mean Yuri Shimai, that was almost immediately replaced by Comic Yuri Hime, so...)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is claimed that the genres that contain homosexual acts, are Yaoi and Yuri ...which ignores Bara (works containing male homosexuality, which is directed at gay men).

Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not an answer. That doesn't say or communicate anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Any and all mentions of the demographics of said genres.

I have only read a few bits of the article, so I may have missed a lot more problems, but... A Good Article needs "Citation of reliable sources where necessary", and these are clear examples where it lacks them. Thus making it unworthy, in its current state. Oh, and the article claims that Naruto is female, which is clearly wrong (just check the article about him ...or read the manga. He's a boy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was not me. The reviewer made that mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Lemurbaby already admitted to that mistake. There is no need for you to repeat it ...but more importantly: Why did you assume that you were blamed for it? You do realise that you aren't the sole editor of wikipedia, I hope? Wikipedia articles are not made by one person.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The very first sentence of the lede is incorrect - The negation term "not" is missing from the second part of the statement and is confusing.
   • Should read

     "..., it does not represent a genre of work."

     Nitpicky crap, but I tend to catch these while perusing. Thumbcat (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
     
     

Unless I am going crazy... what happened to the lede? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Table of Contents - Chinese version 1 Etymology 2 Historical development 2.1 Early art 2.1.1 Erotic Fiction Illustration 2.1.2 The emergence of spring painting 2.2 The rise of the word hentai 2.2.1 Adult Animation 2.2.2 Adult comics 2.2.3 Alternative Comics 2.3 1980 2.3.1 The golden age of animation 2.3.2 Lolicon craze in Japan 2.3.3 Other types 2.4 Modern development 2.4.1 1990 2.4.1.1 Review questions (?) 2.4.1.2 Japanese comics industry 2.4.1.3 Hentai overseas 2.4.2 2000s 3 Classification 3.1 Homosexuality type 3.1.1 Gay relationship 3.1.2 Lesbian relationship 3.2 Child sexual relations 3.2.1 Controlling 3.2.2 Lolicon 3.3 Types of sexual abuse 3.3.1 Novelty style 3.3.2 Tentacle theme 3.4 Other 4 Industry Development 4.1 Adult Animation 4.2 Adult comics 4.3 Adult games 4.4 Other Products 4.5 Doujinshi 5 Review of legislation 5.1 Product Review 5.2 Legislative restrictions 6 Controversy and criticism Table of Contents - Russian version 1 Etymology 2 History 3 Censorship 4 Classification 4.1 Tentacles 4.2 «ML» (bara) and «BL» (Yaoi) 4.3 Lesbian relationship 4.4 Futanari 4.5 Eroguro 4.6 Early sex 4.7 Other Genres 5 Industry 5.1 Anime 5.2 Manga 5.3 Computer Games 5.4 Other Items 6 Doujinshi 7 Controversy and criticism of the genre 8 Legislation

It has been two weeks. Has a decision been reached? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• It has been another month: in that time, there have been no edits here, and only one minor edit to the article by someone not involved in this review. Given over six weeks of complete inaction while this has been on hold, and the many issues raised with breadth of coverage, it's time to close this review. Once the article has been given the work and attention it needs, it can be resubmitted to GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular heroine Naruto?

Come on guys, Naruto isn't that androgynous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.216.48 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hentai Image removed?

Ummm.... I noticed this Image is not in the article anymore. Are we getting rid of the image after nearly 4 years of service? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an user right now doing major changes unilaterally. After he is done, we can discuss all his changes and restore the image if that's the case. But since he removed the 'under construction' tag, maybe it's safe to discuss it now? pmt7ar ^(talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

According to an edit that removed the image by ChrisGualtieri, "now this picture is irrelevant and unencyclopedic other then 'look at this dirty picture'. I'll try to obtain better images, but no image is better then this right now." Personally I would disagree and put it under media and potentially even on the Eroge article as well. I also hold my previous stance that an image is certainly better than no image and that anyone that want to see it replaced should put forth candidates to be discussed before axing the current one. -- Dront (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been active for two days on this page so I removed the tag for then. And I did restore the image, but at the 'origin of eroge' section in which it properly illustrates. I was trying to add images, but I had trouble with the form and reasoning. I got a picture of the original medical journals Tanaka wrote for, but I didn't get permission yet from the photographer. And it does not illustrate the main point, so I need to make a page for the article before I can use it here. I want at least 4-6 pictures for this article right now. One being a photo of Tanaka, one of the key individuals behind the normalization and professing hentai acts as banal. I'd like to include a cover of Lemon People or the earliest 'adult' ero manga we can find or the cover of the original English release of Bondage Fairies. The anime section being a screenshot of Lolita Anime or Urotsukidōji is also really notable and neither have coverage there. For the Eroge one, I really want a split to match the 'eroge for sex' to 'eroge for story'. My issue with the image is that it is not from an eroge, its just a hentai drawing. We do not even get text to go with it. Perhaps I'll get Kawata Shoujo screenshot as it is BY-NC-ND. Thanks for the input, I do not want to upset anyone with the image removal. So I will wait till I have a better replacement first. Though I was a bit annoyed by having the entire mobile phone window be replaced by the picture upon immediately clicking the article. While it is an adult topic and wikipedia is not censored, the principal of least astonishment applies, a picture that completely fills the screen is a bad choice no matter what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Side note: That's your and your's phone problem, the image was a thumbnail and any thumbnail in the lede would look alike in mobile phones, in this or any other article; don't let it be a factor in deciding using images in the lede.pmt7ar ^(talk) 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't my phone, but least astonishment does not equal not censored. The previous article didn't even mention or discuss eroge, so if you wish, put it back at the top, but the current picture really is better placed where it is now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe OP should stop propositioning his pet image? Lol.

It is nice to see the image dropped lower than the top of the page after years. Sentakuban (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Child Pornography in hentai

Article makes no mention of child pornography in hentai, although I have seen many claims that it exists. In the US, people are apparently sentenced, at times, due to possessing anime depicting child porn. Looking through the archives, I found a user directing to this link: http://www.economist.com/node/15731382. The user was told it could not be included in the article because 'I have not seen child porn in anime' which seems like a greatly biased statement. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. There's been a lot of talk about it, e.g. [6] -- deerstop. 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

An editor deleted this image (along with a paragraph of related material) with an edit summary of

This has been discussed several times in the talkpage's history. The image was found quite a few times not to belong on the article.

I don't recall that, and a search through the the archives only shows me a couple of references to the image, and those are in passing when talking about something else.

I don't have much an opinion on this either way, but the image has been in in the article for a while and since the edit summary seems not to be accurate, I rolled this back, subject to someone point out where this image has been discussed and found to not belong, or absent that a cogent argument to that effect. Herostratus (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh; my lurking must be betraying me. My apologies. I swore it was discussed a few times, with no one contesting the argument that since it wasn't anime, it really had no place in the article (only being included because it happened to be Japanese). We could use this as a conduit for that discussion, perhaps. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WOW... Going way back unexpectedly

Image first considered to be deleted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#IMAGE

No one retorted that anon's complaint. It was deleted for some time.

Randomly readded later.

After a while, another points out it is impertinent to hentai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#Image_doesn.27t_even_really_demonstrate_hentai

Included in massive discussion about impertinent images here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#Image_is_too_explicit

This seems to be a case of "at first glance, it appears to be pertinent to hentai, so no one really gives it thought." With that, the image has been on the article for quite sometime (despite repeatedly being deleted well before our time's on Wikipedia). Those repeated deletions seem to come when someone gives it a little more thought. It's then readded when someone who's seen the article before but didn't check the talkpage thought "oh, that must have been a mistake" - and the last time that happened seems to be years ago. Indeed, they were not quite as thoughtful as you bringing this up on the talkpage (and even if we conclude the image not to belong here, it wouldn't surprise me if it just pops back up again on the page later by someone with said thought). I suppose I'm about four years late to point it out, but indeed, I am in agreement with the few that have given it a little consideration in the past: it's not germane to the article as a watercolor image that happens to be Japanese and have tentacle erotica (which is erroneously over-associated with hentai). Perhaps a mention suffices, but I don't think the image itself belongs here. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. What you say makes sense. I guess the counterargument would be "here's some of the backstory of Hentai... " You know, like for such-and-such architecture style or whatever we might have "Here's a picture of building X, it's not in the style of such-and-such architecture but you can see how it people who makde such-and-such architecture a century later maybe drew some inspiration from this sort of thing" or whatever. Whether there's anything to this I don't know... why did Hentai arise in Japan and not France? Does the cultural attitude exemplified by the fact that Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is Japanese (and it's hard to imaging something like that being made in France at that time) mean much of anything? Does Dream of the Fisherman's Wife exemplify the sort of thing that at least a few Japanese artists were drawing (and that may have continued down through the years to find a later expression in Hentai) or is it just a one-off weird picture?

Not knowing the answers to these question I'm not able to judge whether or not the picture belongs. Herostratus (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

After i read the words from Arisedrew i had more or less the same questions in mind. But at first i looked up the work named The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, which was drawn by the well known artist Hokusai. Most of his works are related to the genre Ukiyo-e. Like many other artists in the Meiji era he also published Shunga artworks, and this image is of them. But it is also evident that shunga artworks were an inspiration for modern hentai. The article Shunga: Japan’s Ancient Erotica (including sources) gives a good overview about this relation.

Overall i see a close relationship between hentai and this artwork. But if it has to be this particular artwork or another shunga is a different question.

Facts in favor of this image are:

• Well known, sourced artwork
• Shows close relationship to the hentai genre Tentacle erotica
• Sexually explicit

Facts against this image are:

• Might favor the tentacle cliché of hentai (like if any hentai has something to do with tentacles)
• Might be considered bestiality
• Sexually explicit

--／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016

OH GOD THE PICTURE IS FUGLY can i change it to something else? Swagedit4u (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

For instance, state which picture you want changed and why, keeping in mind that Wikipedia isn't censored. clpo13_(talk) 23:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hentai. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.guidemag.com/temp/yaoi/a/mcharry_yaoi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm writing this in the right place but oh well, let's try. The image "File:Futanari.png" isn't properly showing in the Classification section. I can't edit the page so I would like to request an edit to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.136.28 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006164915/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2007/10/19/ask-john-how-did-the-word-hentai-get-adopted-into-english/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2007/10/19/ask-john-how-did-the-word-hentai-get-adopted-into-english/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925211808/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2008/03/26/ask-john-how-did-hentai-become-popular-in-america/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2008/03/26/ask-john-how-did-hentai-become-popular-in-america/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121205102947/http://www.shii.org/geekstories/eroge.html to http://www.shii.org/geekstories/eroge.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505172501/http://www.animenation.net/blog/2003/07/22/ask-john-how-much-cream-lemon-is-there/ to http://www.animenation.net/blog/2003/07/22/ask-john-how-much-cream-lemon-is-there/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zD3HXBo6?url=http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/ClassifiedWorks/06F862821A46D9C8802566C00033C26C?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/ClassifiedWorks/06F862821A46D9C8802566C00033C26C?OpenDocument

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130415042305/http://www.matt-thorn.com/mangagaku/history.html to http://www.matt-thorn.com/mangagaku/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701112841/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/general/index.php to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/general/index.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hadako-tan.png
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

I want to remind that WP:OSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120630231015/http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUJ%E7%88%86%E4%B9%B3 to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUJ%E7%88%86%E4%B9%B3

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

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)

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)
• Include I add my opinion below Brustopher's. Hentai is just some titties on the internet, albeit in a specific drawn style. The image represents just that. I have no preference for specifically this image and no opinion about putting it in an infobox. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• 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. File:Hadako-tan.png should take its place. See my reply here for more information on my position. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Tutelary (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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: [7][8]. 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your latest argument is also odd. So I repeat: "Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is specifically for topics like this." That project deals with all manga and anime issues, and that includes image issues regarding manga and anime articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but as I've said before the "Anime and Manga Wikiproject"'s guidelines can't help us in choosing a perfect lead image for "Hentai" article because it's not an Anime or Manga series. It's genre of Anime and Manga. So the participants of "Anime and Manga Wikiproject" can only join the discussion but can not tell us a guideline that will solve the issue once and for all. Phoenix God (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It matters not that hentai is a genre; it's a genre of manga and anime. Therefore, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is its main WikiProject. Editors from there don't have to try to choose the perfect lead image. As I've stated before, there is no perfect lead image for this topic; this is specifically because it is a broad genre. There is no representative lead image for it. When it comes to WP:Med, a WikiProject I am often involved with, they have image cases as well. You don't see MOS:MED significantly tackling images, but that does not make WP:Med any less suitable for weighing in on the situation. WikiPojects might mention image style or image preferences, but the main guidelines to follow for images are MOS:IMAGES and WP:Offensive material. WikiProjects are not supposed to make guidelines that contradict the existing guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You're only proving my point that there's no Wikiproject exist, that can help us much, in choosing a lead image for this article. As for being no suitable lead image for the article, is your personal opinion. There're so many wikipedians out there, so I'm sure someone will find an undisputed image. Phoenix God (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what it is with you and Knowledgekid87 and your "I'm only proving your point" rationales, but you are wrong. You claimed that there is no WikiProject for this issue; there is. Things like this are based on guidelines, policies and editor opinion. The guidelines and policies are opinions as well; they simply happen to be widely supported opinions. It is the editors who interpret the policies and guidelines during disputes and form WP:Consensus. The most relevant WikiProject in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga; simple as that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the specific Wikiproject for this article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Hentai which is inactive now so it doesn't count. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is not specially made for Anime and Manga genres. One more thing, Wikiprojects do play a role in choosing a perfect lead image. For example, "Wikiproject Anime and Manga" participants mostly follows an rule of using the first volume's cover for Manga articles, even if contains only one characters. That's why, I wrote that there's no Wikiproject that can help with this article, and you also said that no Wikiproject can help with this image issue, so in the end, we're saying the same thing in different ways. Phoenix God (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You clearly didn't even know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Hentai until I pointed to it, and I am the one who noted that it is inactive. Because of that inactivity, it is not the go-to WikiProject for this issue. It is not the specific WikiProject for this issue. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is. So my statement that "The most relevant WikiProject in this case is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga; simple as that." stands. Your comment that "The Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is not specially made for Anime and Manga genres" is like stating that WP:Med is not specifically made for cancer types. Silliness. We are not stating the same thing. And now, instead of debating the image, you are debating the relevance of a WikiProject that is obviously relevant, which is why this talk page is tagged as being within its scope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that i don't know about that Wikiproject, just because you pointed it out first. I didn't mention it because it's inactive. And i never said that it doesn't come within "Anime and Manga" Wikiproject's scope. The question is that if there's a Wikiproject that cover the whole article. Because the "Anime and Manga" Wikiproject can only deal with Hentai as a genre, not Hentai as a whole thing.

But, it looks like you're not going to listen anything other than "Offensive Material" guideline. So lets just end this Wikiproject issue. Phoenix God (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You began by stating "there's no specific WikiProject for this article." What did you state after I pointed to it? "[T]he specific Wikiproject for this article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Hentai." Your claim that you didn't mention it because it's inactive is one I do not believe. As for the rest, you were acting like there is no WikiProject for this issue, which is false. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is for this issue. Your "Anime and Manga Wikiproject can only deal with Hentai as a genre, not Hentai as a whole thing" argument is ludicrous. I won't even cite a WP:Med comparison again since the silliness of that statement is so clear. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga has been dealing with "hentai as a whole thing" for years. I should know; I've been here for years. I doubt that you are entirely new, despite your new account, but I decided not to focus on that, other than the brief mention about your supposed newness when first addressing you and your dispute with Ambiguosity. Your interpretations of the rules are certainly newbie-ish. As for you stating that I'm "not going to listen [to] anything other than 'Offensive Material' guideline," that is also false. I've been listening to everyone and have yet to take a hard stance on any of this. I have, however, been challenging your invalid and odd arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey! The discussion is not about lead image it's about the infobox image, and the infobox image is placed in the infobox. But, what infobox should be used for an article is decided by the Wikiproject that is nearest to the article. As for "Hentai" article, even if you claim that "Anime and Manga" is the most relevant Wikiproject, I doubt if you can agree all the editors who have joined discussion into using the Infobox animanga (which is clearly related to "Anime and Manga" Wikiproject). Similar to that, if a Manga gets a Live-action adaptation, and a separate article for the film is created than we use Infobox film instead of Infobox animaga. But, for this article if a specific Wikiproject is available than an "Infobox" is also available, and that Wikiproject's "Manual of Style" can give us a hint about lead image. In this case, even if this article is tagged within the scope of "Anime and Manga" Wikiproject, the article doesn't follow it's "Manual of Style". I start the "Wikiproject" argument because the Sexuality and Pornogarphy are equally relevant Wikiproject for this article, and the "Anime and Manga" Wikiproject can't fulfill their purpose. So no Wikiproject can cover the whole article, we need more than one. I think I've cleared my point on how a Wikiproject is related to this image issue.

Flyer 22 Reborn: I'm not challenging the relevance of a Wikiproject to this article, I'm taking about it's usefulness to the image issue. Phoenix God (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my previous arguments. Your "no Wikiproject can cover the whole article" argument is very poor. So are your other arguments. Talk pages are often tagged with more than one WikiProject; it doesn't mean that all of them are equally relevant. As for WP:SEX and WP:PORN, they are relevant to this topic, obviously, but they are not equally relevant in the least. If I leave a message at WP:ANIME, WP:SEX and WP:PORN about this article, most of the comments are going to come from WP:ANIME. I should know, given how often I work on sexual topics at this site and how long I have been at this site. Furthermore, WP:SEX is barely active. WP:PORN isn't very active either (although it has more helpers than WP:SEX). On top of that, there are many more people who are not interested in cartoon porn than there are those who are interested in it, as the current lack of participants in this RfC indicates. Even less are interested in Japanese cartoon porn. The average person has no idea what hentai is, which is one of the main reasons why most participants would be WP:ANIME participants. Whether or not you are still arguing your WikiProject thought process because you want the last word, it's time to drop the stick. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In the earlier edits when i talked about Hentai's use as word/term. You called that the article is mainly about Hentai as genre. Now, you're saying that "Average person don't know what Hentai is" which makes it sounds like the whole Hentai industry is hidden from the rest of the world. I mean, just how can you decide about the other people's knowledge of Hentai. Now, since you're not understanding my Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles argument, I want to propose that the image "Hadoko-tan.jpg" should be kept using as the lead/infobox image of the article, because no "Gentiles" are shown in that image, and the face of the other character is also not shown, so nobody can prove they're portraying "Intercourse". Also, In United States, the 18+ rated films that are released in theatre do contain scenes in which girls are shown on the top of males but the gentiles are not shown, and if the United States's law allow their exhibition in theatre than it only means that these kind of images are not offensive, because i don't think the offensive material can be exhibit in theatre. So the WP:Offensive material guideline doesn't apply on "Hadako-tan.jpg".

As for the WP:Stick thing, my Horse is pretty much alive. Phoenix God (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What does the article mainly being about the genre have to do with the fact that the average person has no idea what hentai is? They don't, just to reiterate. The average person has no idea what yaoi and yuri are either. Since you want to forgo common sense by asking me "just how can [I] decide about the other people's knowledge of Hentai," how about per sources? This 2014 "Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga" source, from Stone Bridge Press, Inc., page 43, states that "Manga and anime are slowly creeping into the average American's lexicon." A number of other sources note that, while manga and anime have found popularity in America, the average American and/or average person from another country that is not predominantly Asian do not know what manga and anime are. Heck, even many Americans who learned of anime through Adult Swim or similar do not know what manga is. And before you ask how do I know this, I'll cite another source: Like this 2014 "Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime" source, from Routledge, page 302, states, "Today's children often become familiar with media such as anime and video or computer games before reading their first manga." And yet you are willing to bet that the average American knows what the subset hentai is? Sure, a lot of young boys seek out porn sites, but those porn sites don't usually readily display hentai; one has to search for hentai. As for the rest, it's not about not understanding your WikiProject argument; it's about your WikiProject argument being wrong. As for your latest WP:Offensive material argument, I'm not even going to touch that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Regarding that "Japanese Visual Culture" source, which I traded out, here is the 2014 version; the one above is the 2008 version, with a different publisher. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The "Dreamland Japan" source is a reprint from the 1996. A lot of things have changed since 1996 (obviously), but, from reading more recent sources over the years (and from personal experience), it still doesn't seem that the average person knows what anime and manga are, especially those from older generations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we just accept that this discussion is now moot as there is no longer an infobox? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: - I feel that Japanese cartoon pornography is unique enough to merit a descriptive image. We aren't talking about Hello Kitty here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

Please stop citing unreliable source like "Pinterest", and even though Comicbook.com and Vice's articles describe the Hentai very well, but we can't change this whole article based on their research, we can only use a portion of it. According to Flyer22 Reborn and some other users; this article is basically about Hentai as a genre, so the image fits perfectly in it. I don't know if Wikipedia is a Democracy or not but if it isn't than there can be no discussion on Wikipedia and everyone will just start editing whatever they want. Also, it doesn't matter if the characters shown in the image are minor because the reader/viewer is supposed to be an adult not the Hentai character. And, the "Offensive Material" is not the only guideline on Wikipedia; the guidelines like "Content Disclaimer", "OSE", "Due" and "Wikipedia is not Censored" allow the inclusion of the image in the article. You said that the culture difference between the English and other language readers is the reason why the the image is not seen as offensive on other Wikipedia, but the English language Wikipedia is not related to just one country, the people from all over the world read English Wikipedia so the culture difference doesn't matter on English Wikipedia for selecting a less offensive image. Phoenix God (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Content Disclaimer is not a guideline. And WP:OSE is an essay. As for WP:Due and WP:Wikipedia is not censored, which are policies (not guidelines), clearly, not everyone agrees with your arguments in that regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think of them as guideline myself. That's a mistake on my part. I tried to tell all the policies and essays that support the inclusion of image in the article, in one sentence, so i accidentally wrote the word "guideline. But, that doesn't mean they're worthless compared to "Offensive Material" guideline. Phoenix God (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Policies and guidelines are the rules; the other stuff is not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - would prefer that any image used in the infobox is as non-explicit as possible, and leave more explicit ones for scrolling down through article (if they have to be included at all). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hentai in the western world's eyes means cartoon porn in a specific art style. Take a look at Nude (art) for an encyclopedic example, anyone can take that image and masturbate to it. Does that mean that people just go to that page to get their jollies? I'm sorry but I just don't understand what looks to be a double standard here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Err...I'd be really surprised if anyone was masturbating to David..and there is a difference between understated male nudity and fairly explicit intercourse. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• You don't know the internet then, if it exists then someone somewhere has made porn out of it. In this case we are talking about a form of drawn or animated artwork, am I correct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ok point taken - I almost never edit in these areas but decided to offer comments in as many RfCs as possible as my own are gathering tumbleweeds...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Its okay and thank you for your comments. As an anime and manga fan it is hard here sometimes to show that it is the style of artwork at issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include, if kids are looking up articles on hentai, then it is safe to assume that they already are looking at much worse. Same goes if they are looking up articles on blowjob, doggy style, woman on top, and bukkake. Vivexdino (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No - that is to explicit and revealing - instead one of these images could be included: https://i.justporno.tv/images/147329/64/1473296475.82446.jpg, http://www.animetric.com/review_images/thumb_2671_koihime%20(4).jpg, http://static.yuvutu.com/prod-live/thumbnails/b3/38/48991_labluegirlvol1-7.jpg, or if you totally decide to censor, why not put cover art from one of the very vanilla titles, like so: http://www.hentairider.com/media/images/1/koihime-hentai/koihime-hentai-3697.jpg ? Nathanielfirst 19:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The first image you provided is low quality, and the second image isn't even a depiction Hentai making it misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

How large are you going to make the image you squeeze in here? If you make it huge, quality will matter, but if it is smaller, less so. Would a higher quality version of the first image work? [[User:Nathanielfirst|Nathanielfirst] 23:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to make the current images large as they are of good quality, also being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. I want to add this link here: [9] on why quality images are beneficial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg, File:Hadako-tan.png, or similar image in lead section of article. Wikipedia is not censored. We should have an image in the lead that depicts the art-form described. As for arguments based on WP:GRATUITOUS, it is not gratuitous to include a pornographic image in an article about pornography, in the same way it isn't gratuitous to include an illustration of a sex act in any of these articles about sex acts. AdA&D 17:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, this is not a "not censored" issue. And the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument about other sexual topics has already been addressed by me above. The Hentai article, just like the Pornography article, which does not have nor need a sexual lead image, is not about a specific sexual act; it is a genre. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, not every Wikipedia article needs a lead image and some topics cannot have a representative lead image. How are any of the suggested sexual lead images for hentai representative of the topic, given how broad the topic is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Pick one:

1. quote WP:OSE essay at me
2. use Pornography as an example of an article that doesn't have an explicit lead image

In seriousness, Hentai describes anime or manga style pornography. I think having an image in the lead section that shows what hentai's style of artwork generally looks like adds valuable context to the article. I'm really not that invested in this RFC, so I won't be replying further, but my !vote is staying the way it is. Cheers, AdA&D 21:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, pick one, why? I've noted before that WP:OSE can go either way. There can be valid WP:OSE arguments and invalid ones. WP:OSE also notes this. When I see what I consider to be invalid ones, I am likely to mention it.

If there was something in the lead of the article, or lower in the article, about a certain type of hentai being the most common, in the same way that the Anal sex article is clear that anal sex most commonly means "penis in the anus/rectum," then I would better understand the need for a sexual lead image for the Hentai article. I suppose one could argue that since the average person doesn't know what hentai is, it is better to show what it is with a lead image, but, again, hentai has a variety of different styles.

Also keep in mind that WP:LEADIMAGE touches on the "offensive material" guideline, pointing to a section that covers it as well, and also states, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

I'm not heavily invested in this RfC either. Just challenging some arguments here and there. No need to ping me to this talk page since I am watching it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer we are repeating the same arguments, WP:LEADIMAGE also says: Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia. Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images (repeated below). It is clear that editors here have their own views on sexuality but we are an encyclopedia not a general forum on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If editors would take the time to read the previous arguments, that would significantly cut down on the repeating. It is not impossible to avoid a lead image with perceived shock value in this case at all, any more than it is for the Pornography article. To repeat again, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is not a policy or guideline. And WP:LEADIMAGE, [[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images]] and WP:Offensive material state what they state regardless of people having their own views on sexuality. I know that you support having a sexual lead image for this article. I simply do not see that it is needed. If am responding to a different editor on the matter, you can simply view my comment as that -- responding to a different editor, not to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case yes it is impossible because we are talking about a specific style of artwork here. I want to add that this argument is going nowhere, are we talking about adding an info-box here or the general inclusion of the images in the article? When this closes I would leave things as they are unless a closing admin reads what the consensus is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on the "impossible" aspect in this case. And my argument is about the infobox/lead image. I'm not arguing against general inclusion. Even when it comes to the infobox, I don't feel strongly about the issue; it's just that I don't see a need for a sexual lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. Issues of prurience aside, per WP:LEAST "the average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article." While people who look up sexual intercourse or one of its variants can tell from the title what kind of topic they're about to read about, "hentai" is a Japanese word whose meaning is likely to be unknown to most English-speaking readers. They may look it up to find out what it means, and are consequently most likely not expecting to see explicit pornographic imagery as the first thing in the article.  Sandstein  21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion

For note, the image in question use to be in the eroge section for a while ([10]) and File:Hadako-tan.png was the lead image. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

What makes you think that the children can read about Hentai, if there's no sexual image on the article? The content alone can be seen as offensive in the view of many communities. That's not even a part of Sex Education. In the first place, children should not read or learn about Hentai stuff. Phoenix God (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond crazy, we are an encyclopedia so if it were an image about a butterfly describing the genus you wouldn't be complaining. As for the age of the girl, are you going to complain about stick figures with boobs now? How can you tell the age of a drawing? I agree with Phoenix here that children shouldn't be here in the first place (unsupervised) as per WP:DISC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that there are pictures at Sexual intercourse with younger looking drawn girls with less of a chest including one depicting rape. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've commented on this below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that the album art of Virgin Killer came under fire for similar reasons, but the consensus was to retain the infobox image since it didn't violate any US laws. As Talk:Virgin Killer says, if you find the image offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display it. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@ChamithN: Virgin Killer is a completely different scenario. It is an album, and that specific image is its official album cover. The drawing of the anime schoolgirl with her tits out getting jizzed into, is not the official hentai image in the same way. Here there is a real choice as to what image to put in the header, or if any image at all warrants being placed there. As User:Herostratus's timeline points out, its inclusion at the top of the article was petty attempt to piss someone off. In the circumstances it is understandably very hard to take the people writing walls upon walls of text decrying the importance of non-censorship seriously. Brustopher (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Brustopher (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thank you SO MUCH for assuming good faith here... The image represents what westerners view Hentai as which is Japanese cartoon pornography. But not any cartoon, but of a certain art style that is found in anime and manga. It seems to me that you starting to beat a WP:DEADHORSE here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the point you made about the image not being an "official hentai image" in contrast to Virgin Killer's context. Moreover, if Knowledgekid87 moving the image to the lead really "was petty attempt to piss someone off" like you said, I say they have fairly succeeded in doing so. For that reason, I'm fine with the image not being used in the lead per MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says [the] lead images should be of least shock value; however, I do not believe that it should be entirely removed from the article as it still is an accurate representation of what hentai (as a genre) really is. -- ChamithN (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that MOS:LEADIMAGE also says Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia. Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images If you can find a free high quality tame example of cartoon porn then go ahead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think I would be able to do that. Anyhow, don't you think that in this case it's not impossible to avoid using a lead image, since it would not play an integral role like a labeled image of human genitalia does? -- ChamithN (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Dude I've made literally two comments, both of which raise different points. I've purposefully left my comments brief, and made an RfC to get some outside opinion. The idea that I'm the one beating a dead horse is so absurd as to be hilarious. Also you've not addressed the actual point raised. How is that image you added to the article a "compromise" position compared to the one it replaced, and not an overt attempt to aggravate? Ofc you should assume good faith, but its foolish to stick with an assumption when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Brustopher (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguosity, I am astounded by your research and the ability to actually develop strong arguments for your position, given that you don't have the thousands of edits that the majority of editors to this topic have. I'm not disparaging you, I am just glad that new editors are still managing to break their way into Wikipedia discussions since they can be very intimidating and wordy. Nonetheless, I believe that you make some faulty arguments and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy regarding offensive content.

First, the notion that Wikipedia is a democracy is false, like you stated, however we have functions of a democracy. We !vote on topics and indeed Wikipedia's consensus policy does state it's not really the amount of editors that !vote on something that matters, but taking in every editor's arguments in a matter to form consensus. At the end of 30 days, an uninvolved administrator will take a look at these arguments, including yours, mine, etc and make their decision. (Though we do make admins based on the number of "Yes" votes they get based on percentage, at WP:RFA, so that's a bit of a democratic aspect.)

Second, I believe you're misunderstanding what it means for Wikipedia to not be censored. Per the policy, it is 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. Also, I am not the one bringing up the "schoolchildren" Or "Kids" issue. Phoenix God originally brought it up in an edit summary, and then Herostratus brought it up directly. It's an absolute non sense argument as this is not an encylopedia for kids, but an encylopedia for all of English speaking people.

Regarding your research into the exact definition of Hentai, that would be relevant in a discussion about the WP:LEAD and possibly, about the image later. Though it would not help your cause in the slightest if you're already against having the images in the article. If the definition is changed to "abnormal sexual fetishes", then there might even be more images that would be even more objectionable proposed, and maybe adopted given the change in definition. Though you said it yourself: Hentai is used in the West to describe porn. which I think kind of proves my own argument that the image is suitable.

As you state that the article is "pornographic", the guideline that you continue to cite says that you should not use such terms in arguments, as they may inflame discussions. Per WP:BOWDLERIZE. Regardless, if it is (which I don't consider it to be) so what? Hentai is a pornographic term in itself, and going on that logic, the top lead image should be pornographic to match. Though I'm not saying it has to be gratuitous, but I don't believe that any of the Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg in the article is gratuitous in nature at all. The other images are certainly debatable, but I don't think they rise to that level either. None of them are intended to be used for jerk off material, or to scar schoolchildren (For herostratus' concern). I'm also not going to entertain the notion of speculation regarding fictional character's ages. That's not relevant to the discussion at hand. They're meant to be an encylopedic images of the topic at hand, as an article about Elephants may have an image of an elephant, the article about Hentai may have an image of Hentai at the top. It just makes sense.

As far as the image Futanari.png, I'm not going to accept your premise that it is intended to entice or excite the reader. I'm not going to take the mindset of juveniles that they solely visit this page to look at the image for masturbatory reasons. There have no doubt been multiple editors who have looked at the image and each has their own interpretation, as outlined by this discussion. It could even be more suitable, given your definition of "abnormal sexual fetishes". Yet even if the Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg is decided as a "No", I believe that image may take its place. You also seem to be fond of quoting from WP:Offensive Material, yet I have already stated my argument on it. The article would indeed be less informative, relevant, and particularly inaccurate if the images were to be removed. The reader would lose clarity based on the lack of image up top, or indeed, if all the images were removed altogether. You also have not stated any particularly alternative to argue for, and only seek to want the images removed, with not suitable alternative proposed. Maybe you'd want File:Tako_to_ama_retouched.jpg to be the lead image instead, despite the fact that it's more fetishistic than simple heterosexual penetration, given the fact that it's beastiality within the Hentai realm, but it's less "detailed" and less "voyeuristic" according to some mindsets, and was drawn in 1814, vs in the 2000s as the discussion about this image was.

I have no doubt that maybe some small subset of Wikipedia readers take offense to the image. But the vast majority I believe would consider it to be encylopedic in nature. The latter is who we will cater to, per WP:CENSOR, and not the former. I also indeed argue that the images do not fit material that would be considered vulgar or obscene, which is a particularly lean standard to meet, regardless. What counts as vulgar or obscene? Any sexual images in general? After all Obscenity includes images and writings, per US law, and the only standard by a literal judge was "But I know it when I see it" which doesn't help at all. It's a rather useless standard, but I still believe all the images in the article meet it.

As far as the foundation, the controversial images do indeed meet the principle of least astonishment necessary for an image about Hentai. Especially Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg in particular. We didn't select this image based on the fact that it's a "really sexy image", we selected it based on the fact it was encylopedic and provided a good overview over all of the subject matter, and not any outlandish outward fetishes.

As far as any possible Wikimedia Commons hentai alternatives , that would be an interesting issue to discus, but I visited the commons page you linked, and while some of them seem to be contenders, I'm not going to discuss any until you specifically cite the ones you want to talk about. I'm not gonna waste any effort given my reply is already long enough.

So in short, I do genuinely believe that the article would suffer if Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg were to be removed from the top images, because the article would lose accuracy, would lose relevance. The image is not gratuitous and is indeed not the most offensive option possible, and was not picked to be the most offensive options. It's intended as an encylopedic image overview of the topic at hand, and it suits that well. Tutelary (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg is a free use quality image on both Wikipedia and the Commons. These WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments should be discredited as the image adds value to the article's lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention; Ambiguosity and some other users want to completely remove the images from the article. He/she is the one who started the whole "Think About Kids" argument in his first edit in "Wikipedia is not censored... but" discussion. I just don't understand why everyone is trying to make this article prone for an age group that shouldn't be learning about Hentai in the first place. I think that unlike Sexual Intercourse (which can be use for sex education), this article has nothing to do with kids, so why make this suitable for school children. Phoenix God (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Phoenix God: I suppose I should not be surprised that I am being misquoted and accused of some sort of thought-crime - please go back up and read what I said about 'kiddies'. Then tell me where I stated that I think all images should be removed from this article. I suggest that perhaps you are seeing me as 'the devil' for actually raising an issue that has now taken up a lot of words and does not seem to be slowing down, but please be careful not to put words into the mouths of other editors.

My apologies, Tutelary - I was in a hurry (as I am now), and somehow actually used the word 'pornography' - which indeed is totally lacking in descriptiveness. Thank you for the compliment on my 'research', but it has in fact been quite slap-dash and rushed - I have better things to do with my time!

I am unclear, though, why the burden falls upon me to nominate one of the many public domain images that are out there as 'suitable replacements' for a particular image. As to my personal opinion, I suggest that in fact File:Tako_to_ama_retouched.jpg is a much better choice for lead image. It is, as the text states, a classic of the genre. It displays an early example of Hentai. I realise that some may find it offensive, but it is fitting both to the Japanese and Western definition of Hentai.

Next, to whether an image is "considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". I suggest that this article be put forward for page of the day. That is the easiest test of the typical Wikipedia user, that will reach the widest audience and if any images cause concern result in comment. I can say that I approached a family member for a 'sense-test' and asked her for an opinion. Suffice it to say that I was fortunate to leave the room unscathed - she was not at all enamoured of the image under discussion. (I did not have either the time, or the willingness to further risk my health, necessary to show her any more of the page.) This experience leads me to three important questions:

1. Have you shown this page, and the image under discussion, to any female in your life?
2. Will you seek the advice or comment of any female?
3. If not, why not?

I look forward to hearing the results of this survey of family and/or friends. You may wish to include age range - in this case, it was 'over 50'. I put it forward merely as one alternative to seeking 'page of the day', and a means of gaining a wider exposure for this discussion. And for now, I must rush - apologies for whichever Wikipedia rules of etiquette I have breached today. I have to date tried extremely hard to ignore provocations, including by simply walking away from the discussion for a while, but it appears that some editors still want to see the world burn while others expect me to propose 'the solution'. Ambiguosity (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ambiguosity: About the kids stuff Tutelary wrote that Phoenix God originally brought it up in an edit summary, and then Herostratus brought it up directly, so i was just clearing that i never started that argument, I wrote that in an edit summary after reading your comment that 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'. That's why, please don't think I've accused you of some sort of 'thought-crime'. And, I never said that you want to remove all the images from the article, I mean that you want remove the "image in question" and the "present image" not just from the lead but also from the article, so I'm not putting words into others mouth. Also, the survey you talked about falls under original research, so it doesn't matter.

BTW, Don't you think you're trying to make this discussion personal by using words like "the devil" and "see the world burn"? Phoenix God (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a general consensus that the images should be kept but not so when it comes to a lead image. I would recommend this be closed as status quo for now with a future discussion on a possible lead image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I support Knowledgekid87's advice because the image was being used for the representation of Eroge, and not much people find it troublesome. Phoenix God (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I too believe that it's best to maintain the status quo for now. I don't think there's any reason to completely remove the image from the article as it was there since 2013. And MOS:LEADIMAGE specifically applies to the lead, so this so-called shock value thing wouldn't be a problem as long as the image is not in the lead. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 stated, "I want to add that there are pictures at Sexual intercourse with younger looking drawn girls with less of a chest including one depicting rape." What images are you referring to? I'm looking at the images and I see none that indicate that the females are children or teenagers. The supposed rape image uses the word girl, but this does not mean that the female is a child or otherwise underage. We can't fully see her breasts because arms are blocking the chest area, but there appears to be an attempt by the artist to indicate that she has breasts (judging by the start of the chest area). Furthermore, the artist may not have wanted to emphasize breasts, and let's not forget that there are women who have very small breasts. Regardless, hentai is known to sometimes include female characters that appear very youthful; it's part of the genre, and is an entirely different topic.

Herostratus called Ambiguosity a "she," but I don't see that Ambiguosity has confirmed a gender. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: You are proving my point on trying to find hidden things in artwork. I can say: "By the size of her body I declare that she is a teenager therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia". In the end somebody out there somewhere is going to be offended so these comments are in the eye of the beholder and aren't really helpful to a remove/keep discussion. BTW Herostratus also called me a "she" which I found to be a bit odd. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am proving your point. You made a claim that holds no weight. I challenged it. With perhaps the exception of thinking that the aforementioned girl is just a girl after reading the title of the image, I highly doubt that anyone would think that the female illustrations in the Sexual intercourse article are depicting underage people and object on those grounds. The time periods the illustrations are showing had different age of majority and age of consent views anyway. When it comes to hentai, it can quite clearly be seen that some of the images are of young girls, whatever their ages. If they are in high school uniforms, I doubt that they are adult women engaging in sexual roleplay; they are high school girls. Either way, the main point of the discussion has not been about whether any of the drawings are depicting underage girls; that is a side discussion that has distracted the main point of contention.

On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to talk pages I am watching; I'm clearly watching this talk page. As for Herostratus using "she," I think that's because he prefers to use "she" instead "he" when he doesn't know someone's gender. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We can disagree that people look at artwork differently. As for the main discussion I see no wheels moving on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people look at artwork differently. The the fact remains that this, this, this, this and this image from the Sexual intercourse article are not illustrations of children. If one wants to interpret them as illustrations of children, they can, but they would still be wrong, unless their definition of "child" is in line with the time period these images are depicting. But they aren't. Do any of those images show a teenage girl? Maybe, but there is unlikely to be an objection based on that since the females are not obviously teenagers. By contrast, some of the hentai or carton images are obviously of teenagers (or younger, like this lolicon image). We should be staying on-topic, not throwing any and every comparison against the wall and hoping it sticks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Invalid WP:Other stuff exists arguments help no one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay we have moved on from that, is there anything else worth arguing at this point? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Firstly, where's my horse??? I'm getting hungry with all this disputation!

Secondly, and in response to ongoing questions about my sexuality, I have neither confirmed nor denied that it exists. Herostratus was adopting what is probably the most appropriate course of action in view of that lack of evidence, in referring to me as "she". (The other appropriate alternatives would have been "she/he" or "s/he" - and the latter may be considered demeaning in some circles. Debate pending.)

Thirdly, I am not sure that I can make a discussion 'personal' by suggesting that others appear to have formed certain views of me, Phoenix God. I can only state my personally formed opinion based upon the evidence before me - which includes the statement just before mine that "Ambiguosity and some other users want to completely remove the images from the article". Are you trying to argue that your statement was not in fact addressed to me even though it named me? No, I did not "make" this discussion personal - I merely responded to a personal attack.

Fourthly, I want to ask Nathanielfirst what his third link was intended to depict,but don't quite dare. Are those images public domain?

Finally, thank you for the laughs. Seriously, Michelangelo's David, Knowledgekid87? Undoubtedly it does comply with Rule 34, but I suspect not in its original form.

This horse looks delicious! Ambiguosity (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: I know that some people state "sexuality" to mean gender, but we weren't questioning your sexuality. As for Herostratus referring to you and others as a she because he didn't know your gender, "she" is significantly less common than "he" for such cases (and some people use "she" instead because of feminist ideas). Furthermore, the vast majority of Wikipedia's editors are male (as research has consistently shown). So when someone is called a she on Wikipedia, that person is likelier to actually be considered a she. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It appears indeed there was some confusion about whether or not there should be an explicit image in general as the lead image, or whether there was opposition to just the current image, but another image would be acceptable. File:Hadako-tan.png is the current image in the article per Herostratus' revert of the previous status quo. I did not want to edit war, so I didn't. However, the more I got to looking at this specific image in general whenever I came to the article, I believe my view as changed. While I previously argued that File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg was superior to File:Hadako-tan.png , the more that I grew accustomed to it. While it conveys pretty much the same heterosexual penetration benefit of the File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg , it does it more in comical, more traditional fashion. It shows the shoes in the background, a cute character as well, and doesn't show the "cumshot" which other editors did object to. So I support the current status quo, but I believe my original arguments via WP:NOTCENSORED are still relevant and do not wish to strike them. I do wish to have File:Hadako-tan.png to be the current lead image, as it currently is, and I oppose any effort to change its position or its image or any sort of censorship at all to the image itself. Tutelary (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

The Lolicon description should probably be changed to read: "Centered on characters that appear to be prepubescent or pubescent girls. This includes both homosexual and heterosexual relationships." The Shotacon description should probably be changed to read: "Centered on characters that appear to be prepubescent or pubescent boys. This includes both homosexual and heterosexual relationships."

I have never seen these terms applied to characters that appear to be fully sexually developed ("post-pubescent"). However, I have seen the term applied to characters that look child-like, yet are stated to be above the age of 18. These changes would more clearly define the common usage of these terms. I don't have a direct source to back up my claims, though. Mangagamer1991 (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done CLCStudent (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

pervert?

Is it appropriate to use pervert as translation of hentai? Strange or transform(ed) seems much more appropriate. I'm talking about the value of the word "pervert." Strange is a deviation from the normal. Perversion is a judgment of the deviation.

This is perhaps best exemplified by Masami Akita (more known as Merzbow): "We have no deviant sex because we have no Christianity. That is, until the end of the Tokugawa era in the 1800s. We began to import Western scientific theory and our sexuality began to Westernize. We also imported Western sexuality without knowledge of Christianity."

In Western/Christian culture, anything from masturbation and contraceptives (sex for other reasons than procreation) can be considered a perversion.

By translating hentai as pervert, we put a pagan society under Christian judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Lolicon Sample.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Akibachan5a.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggest to use kinky as the English translation of hentai.

Suggest to use kinky as the English translation of hentai. Richarddong (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best translation. The literal translation of the kanji is "transformed figure," and the word has definitions of "transformation" and "abnormality." See https://jisho.org/word/変態) Sandtalon (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

2600:1700:3EC0:74B0:C43B:EB85:6CC5:8DF8 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of the picture!

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

I am suggesting that the illustrations for Hentai are straight up examples of pornography, yet there is no restriction on who can see the images on the page at Wikipedia.org after a simple word search. At the very least the page needs to contain a warning about such images. And it would be wise to place some sort of age restriction/parental control restriction to make the images less available to just anyone - even a young child. Danakday (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not censored.: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive." Dimadick (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Toddlercon" and "Toddlerkon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toddlercon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 29#Toddlercon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ditto for Toddlerkon. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Fetish/Paraphilia

I noticed that in the second table of hentai subgenres, the table distinguishes between "fetish" and "paraphilia" subgenres. This distinction doesn't really make any sense, and especially not with the way the subgenres are currently categorized--there seems to be no consistency. I propose that we remove that column, since it is inconsistent, confusing, and doesn't really add any information of value. Sandtalon (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody else has commented, so I went ahead and made the change. Sandtalon (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

an edition onto the end 84.15.181.83 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Hentai is the highest form off pleasure someone can get in sexual and just relaxing vibe check with it beaning the best form off life source we can get.

 Not done: Not a serious request. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Reason for uncensored main picture?

As a recent edit points out, the main picture for this article was edited from the original to remove censorship of the genitalia. Is there a particular reason for this? The great majority of hentai (and, indeed, all pornography produced in Japan) censors genitalia for legal reasons. Furthermore, I think it would be fair to say that the pixelation of genitalia in Japanese pornography (including hentai) is no longer merely a legal concession, but has become (especially in the international world) a recognized cultural marker of Japan. Given this, it seems to me that this image is not very representative of hentai as it currently exists, which I think makes it inappropriate as the lead picture for this article. I therefore propose changing it to the original censored version.

Thoughts?

Forgonewarrior (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The only problem with that assertion is that hentai is sometimes distributed without censorship outside of Japan. For example, Fakku distributes uncensored eromanga, and I think most hentai anime legally distributed outside of Japan doesn't have censorship, either. In addition, fan scanlations of eromanga will often "decensor" the work with photoshop. So I don't think censorship is necessarily a defining marker of what "hentai" is. Sandtalon (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If we are talking about Japan then yes the censored version would be the only one legally available. This gave birth to tentacle porn as a way to get around the censorship laws. [11] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...that wasn't my assertion though. The original comment was arguing that censorship was something of a "cultural marker" of hentai, and I was just saying that this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it's censored in Japan, but Japanese "hentai" is often distributed without censorship internationally, and it still counts as hentai. Sandtalon (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

I request you remove the image. It should really be there because Bengal being explained verbally is enough. 2601:681:4501:C620:A414:5FAD:6EA6:137A (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Spain you may be in the wrong venue, suggestions to the page Bengal may be done in Talk:Bengal   melecie   t 13:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)