Talk:Hentai

Image doesn't even really demonstrate hentai

If you want to be specific (see previous sections for people who do), the image being shown isn't even hentai. It's HCG. Besides being explicit, and controversial, it's also not a very good indicator of what hentai is to somebody uninitiated (who would be unaware of what an HCG was, or how to play one, or how to find one in English). It also wouldn't be a very good indicator to someone who excels spotting such items at porn stores (yes, I would know). So the picture is... pointless in function? --Reichax (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever try to pronounce HCG the right way or to understand what this abbreviation stands for? After you have found out, you should read your own words ("..., the image being shown isn't even hentai") again. Do you know how most imagery, in the context of hentai, is created today? Do you know a better illustration for the topic, that is freely licensed? How would someone spot hentai in a porn store? Does he read "hentai" as a category description or would he compare the graphics and it's characteristics?

As i read your comments i only got the impression that you claim to know what hentai is, that this image is evil, and that without being actually able to find out that HCG is a sub-term, a category of hentai. Very impressive argumentation, which made me laugh. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"the image being shown isn't even hentai" -ohh, I can assure you it really is . "Besides being explicit" -of course it is, and its good that way, "and controversial" -which is subjective and doesn't compete with Wikipedia, as long as its inside its scope its fair to use, "it's also not a very good indicator of what hentai is to somebody uninitiated" -I really think it is, that's the very reason of the picture itself. "who would be unaware of what an HCG was, or how to play one, or how to find one in English" -as long as it gets the meaning of hentai, the user can go check CG and make its own conclusions. for gameplay you have software manuals. for english markets I couldn't care less, personally animated porn made in USA is not hentai (to me only japan can produce it). "It also wouldn't be a very good indicator to someone who excels spotting such items at porn stores" -you have never enter any media shop in japan, didn't you? not even a bookstore or mall. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

By "controversial" I meant "look at all the argument above you". If pages of arguments are not controversy then maybe I am stupid. Yes, HCG is a subset of hentai, but then again so is lolicon, guro, etc. You (plural) didn't choose any of those to use, did you, so your explanation of using a sub-category of hentai to picture it doesn't make sense.

If demonstrations of media MUST include visible, explicit insertion to be viable, then by all means start adding them to every relevant article possible. Start with the pornography article already. --Reichax (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ehm... no, you're wrong. First, "controversial" yes it is, but read again, that doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Wikipedia includes content whenever its controversial or not. Second, HCG is not a genre nor a subset. What would you want? Pensil drawings? Oil paintings? Scanned images edited (like 99% of hentai) count as HCG or hand drawings?. If so, make an article of HCG, like lolicon and guro do have. Third, please be kind to read past discussion, that point was already discussed. In a nutshell, pornography exist in every single country of the world, a picture to illustrate is not particularly needed (though it would sum, sure). Hentai by the other hand only exists in Japan and it's an exclusive cultural item of Japan. Therefore, illustration is needed, since without it the concept is hard to understand for those who don't know it beforehand. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is people need to see a phallus penetrating a vagina to satisfy any understanding of the foreign phenomenon? If hentai is pornography then yes, it contains many of the things that would make pornography obvious without showing such. --Reichax (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there are hentai images which the penetration - if any - is covered by the angle of the image. However, finding a CC image of comparable quality to the existing one that isn't as explicit has been one no one who comes here complaining about the existing one has attempted to do. Hentai is sexually explicit depicitions so something without some kind of sexual intercourse would fail NOR as it doesn't depict the content of the page. An image from a game or manga is going to fail NFCC because it would be replacable by a CC image.∞陣内Jinnai 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

The image being used as the illustration for hentai is not redrawn nor made by an amateur. I've seen it before. It comes from a hentai game. If I remember correctly, images someone doesn't have permission to use is not allowed and since they have shown no proof that they have permission to reuse the pic the law and Wikipedia can only come to the conclusion that it is not suppose to be here. Am I wrong? --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Such an allegation would require more concrete evidence than a vague claim of recognition. Hentai scenarios are clichéd and all share the Japanese visual style, so one could easily misremember a similar but distinct image. Further, the policy is not quite that draconian; otherwise, anyone could just steal a genuine original image off Wikimedia Commons, claim it as their own, and then insist the Commons copy be taken down. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, TinEye finds only one other hit for the original image, and it's a random Japanese blog post with a bunch of unattributed images. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that. Compare it to the other pictures from the same account/user ゆーれー (yūrē) on Pixiv: [1] (you will need to login first). They are all drawn in the same style. For example: [2] I think you are simply mistaken. If i use the Google image search function (reverse search with drag an drop) i find about 50 uses/duplicates of this image. All created after publishing it on Commons. At Commons itself we have an OTRS ticket in which the artist gave his permission. --Niabot (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

At the very least we would need to know what game this is susposely from so someone can look into to see if the image was in fact originally from that game.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe its from a game originally. Hentai doesn't need to come from a game. There is some additional evidence, such as the pixel resolution which is well beyond any game out there to date. If it was later used in a game that doesn't invalidate the copyright.∞陣内Jinnai 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is highly silly. It is highly stupid to assume that an image is someones property implying they are responsible enough to actually upload their own shit. Just because someone claims to have redrawn an image, that doesn't mean they did and it's more likely someone will lie about doing it than actually being truthful. Need I add that even redraws are illegal in the US(and Japan) and Wikipedia has a responsibility to make sure the pics they use are actually allowed to be uploaded. Or does the terms of use not mean shit to any of you? Use some common sense. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop talking shit. The actual image is a redrawn by user Niabot done in accordance with all applicable licenses, as exposed from the commons filepage. It's　licensed under CC BY-SA and verified by the commons OTRS team. I arranged the licensing directly with the copyright holder and have enough evidence to verify it. If you want, you can request OTRS team to verify it again. Everything was done according to policies and in order to improve wikipedia. If you think the original author actually is a scam and he redrawn it from other source and lied about its ownership (everything is posible), please do the same and follow the procedures to do so (hint: find the original ownership and request OTRS to review the licensing of the image). If not don't waste our time.

We all know what you mean, but we have evidence and an explicit licensing by the copyright owner, reviewed by the team in charge to keep everything according to laws and policies; and then you claiming that the artist copy it from other place. We won't take down a collaboration that passed a protocol for its inclusion based just on a once banned user' unsourced claim. pmt7ar ^(talk) 03:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would LOVE to see the proof that shows the copyright holder(which is the company that made the game). I have seen the pic and the orgional from the game. It is no redraw. As for being "civil" I am not launching a single personal attack against anybody and if I read that banner correctly, "Wikipedia is uncensored"(unless that is a ploy to upload porn). False claims that the Japanese copyright holder gave the ok to use the picture is not something this person, who is not gullible) will believe. We shall just see how long Wikipedia keeps it up before the owner files a DMCA. I've said what I need to say. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS has the proof archived. Again, follow the procedures and request them to review the licensing. Go to the OTRS noticeboard to do so, and state the work in question. Here, the OTRS ticket number is #2011063010011597. I would also want to see your proof. You need to back up your statement somehow. All you've said is that you have seen that image in a game, well, where's your proof? Please give us something more tangible than a vague memory. Give the name of the game, or at least the company, I'll gladly check all the software from a company and search for its characters to find any resemblance. pmt7ar ^(talk) 04:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that in Japan, the copyright holder of the image is verly likely the artist and not the company. Artists are generally contracted out and rarely not relinquish their rights.∞陣内Jinnai 05:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Even so, we would still need some evidence that it was actually published as part of a game (which game?) and that the initial OTRS ticket provider isn't the actual copyright holder. Looking at the other contributions at Pixiv and the published dōjinshi I'm very confident that this images are all from the same author. They share the same style (shading, eye design, etc.). So we have no evidence for copyright infringement but many hints that support the current view that the copyright holder released it the right way. --Niabot (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW: This is the artists blog. --Niabot (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Akemi, you are a god among men. Is this really the easiest way to circumvent all copyright protection -- simply uncensor, or re-censor something? Or just color on top? OMG I'm gonna steal A Scanner Darkly by making it look photorealistic now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.179 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive. Have some common sense. You are claiming a verified rights licensing is invalid. Its time to have some proof. Point us where the original work is, who is the rightful owner, so we all can see. No way we will delete effort and value from the project by an unsourced claim. If you don't know it, then go and do your homework, make some research and find the base of your claim. Only when we all can see what you see, then we can get some conclusions. Until then, get off. pmt7ar ^(talk) 07:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The big problem with the last anology is that someone wanting to challenge the altered Scanner Darkly image could have identified that the image came from that movie so the image and the movie can be directly compared and any violation should be easy to spot. In that hypothetical case we would not delete the image simply because the person claimed to see it in a unsepcified movie but we would give it much more consideration if they directly identified a Scanner Darkly as the movie from which the image was stolen so a comparesion can be made. In this case the game the image was said to originate from has yet to be identified. To be perfectly clear we need more than a hypothetical possibility that the original uploader could have faked the image we need some evidence that the uploader actually did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.215.154 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

thumb Nominated for deletion Perhaps it should be removed or replaced? Also, it is on the bad image list. 68.195.21.220 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be renamed? After a quick look i can ensure you that less then 5% of the works would fall under lolicon. Lolicon isn't even illegal in itself. But regarding the deletion request: I can't see any good reason for a deletion. It isn't a copyright violation since every part is de minimis. This also concludes that there isn't any good reason to remove it from the article. --Niabot (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Except nobody CARES about the bad image list. The only thing that makes Wikipedia churn is the idea they can use this stuff without getting the banhammer thrown at them by the FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.179 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody at the FBI would have a problem with this image, because it is perfectly legal. I took my time and was going through all the covers. There is only a few small covers, which are barely identifiable, which could be considered to meat the criteria of lolicon. But since none of this images shows actual sexual intercourse they aren't even to be considered pornography and would additionally fall under artistic artworks. --Niabot (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead image is shocking -- remove

"Sometimes it is impossible to avoid the use of a lead image with perceived shock value if the topic itself is of that nature, for example in articles on various parts of human genitalia. It should be anticipated, through Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers will be aware they will be exposed to potentially shocking images when navigating to articles on such topics." --Wikipedia:Images

It is possible to avoid the use of a lead image with shock value. Readers may not be aware they will be exposed to potentially shocking images when navigating to this article. Wikipedia Manual of Style frowns on this page. Even futanari doesn't show a lead image of anime girls with penises mutually masturbating until readers indulge themselves in the fascinating lead text, although we are certain God kills two kittens after they DO scroll down.

Shame on whoever cannot un-shock viewers. It's not that hard to move your (surprisingly un-censored) porn down on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.179 (talk • contribs)

Don't know your res, but the image in futanari shows up in the upper half of my screen, no need to scroll down. Don't remember a guideline of guessing readers screen resolution and auto censor style to decide where is the best place to place a sensitive image. pmt7ar ^(talk) 07:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a hard time accepting the shock argument since the image is a common for hentai and I doubt that most people would come here by mistake so it seems unlikely that most people would be shocked.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever seen this?

If you aren't comfortable with mature content maybe you shouldn't be visiting articles like this. People can Google much worse, a picture of cartoon characters having sex is lightweight to what one could find. Valce Talk 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying only people who think you are right should be viewing this article? Your attitude sounds mighty standoffish. And as to people not coming here by accident, that's a pretty broad claim given Wikipedia's pretense of being a good source of information. "Hentai" is not a universally understood word for "pornography," so its very name, in English-speaking society, is very misleading. Thus, shock value sets in.

Wikipedia is not censored, I know. But it also doesn't have to go this far to prove its point. I (and others) have cited article after article that could have penises and vaginas galore, but do not. Why? They weren't necessary. This image is not the cover of "eroge" because it wasn't necessary to convey the idea. I doubt it's really necessary here. --Reichax (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that any English language defination of Hentai that does not involve sexual activity or pornography because without that the shock value argument would fall flat since there would be no proof of confusion.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is pornography's image pornographic? Nope. --209.94.191.126 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it support the reader in knowing what actual pornography looks like, or better said: Is it a valuable addition to the article to improve the readers understanding of the topic? Nope. --Niabot (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tako to ama Image

As Niabot requested, let's continue here the discussion. I don't think File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg is hentai. Hentai =/= porn =/= sexual images. Not in the japanese meaning, less in the english meaning. Nudity and erotic art doesn't fall of hentai. Not even heard of 官能小説 ever called hentai. There was a mention before, now in archive 2 [3]. Not because its old its wrong. A better image was needed and now was provided. With the same criteria we removed the Hadako-tan picture. Hadako didn't reflect the style of hentai. And this picture in question is even less hentai-style than Hadako-tan. pmt7ar ^(talk) 12:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Niabot just wants his/her porn on Wikipedia ;) Isn't that what HentaiFoundry is for? --Reichax (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be rude. That's not the case. pmt7ar ^(talk) 01:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)