Talk:Hentai

Edit notice

I've added the {{SexEditNotice}} edit notice, which will display any time someone edits the article. —Farix (t | c) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC re image

Should the image File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg (or a similar image) be in this article? (N.B.: there is some discussion above, at Talk:Hentai#This new picture is worse.)

• No, of course not. We shouldn't illustrate articles on pornography with actual pornography, per WP:HARDCORE. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• No - find a replacement. Although WP is not censored, the goal is to produce a professional-quality encyclopedia, and that means titillation is not suitable. A reader that wants to see hentai illustrations simply has to Google them outside WP. Appropriate illustrations that could be used in this article include any images that give the reader the idea of what hentai is like (theme and style) without getting too explicit. There must be some images available that strike that balance. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Because Hentai is pornography. Any picture that wouldn't go that far, would fall under the term ecchi and would be misleading regarding the subject. Considering the wide variety of Hentai this is an mild to average picture, which shows very typical elements. For example the unknown identity (missing eyes) of the male part. --Niabot (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. The very nature of a pornographic subject means that any accurate illustration will be pornographic. The argument that "You can simply Google it" is preposterous and contrary to trying to produce an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the real world. You can Google most of the information on Wikipedia, text or otherwise and find other sources, which is exactly the point. An encyclopedia is an information aggregate. As to WP:HARDCORE it is simply the opinion of some fellow editors and not an official Wikipedia policy like WP:NOT CENSORED. If we refer to WP:NOT CENSORED "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.". Let us then ask our selves, is it overly vulgar? I would argue, no. Is it trying to be more explicit than necessary? I would argue, no. Is it relevant to the article? Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it depicts precisely what the content of article is describing. I think that what we are seeing is a perfect example of the discussion focusing on the offensiveness of the image as opposed to whether the image is adding value to the article. If you want another "less offensive" image, suggest one, as it stands removing the image is removing relevant informative content that does not violate any Wikipedia policy that I have seen referenced in the discussion. -- Dront (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you un-censor this picture to make it less like real hentai, though? --Reichax (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to see citations before I believe that "real" hentai is always censored. I am yet to see such citations and have requested them before. -- Dront (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was good of you to cite the actual policy, and doing so shows that it's not the issue at hand. At no time did I say that the image was objectionable. Instead, I said that it is 1) objectively harmful to the Wikipedia and 2) objectively harmful to some of our customers. And this is true: it is. And that's an entirely different issue. If you want to claim that we should use it anyway that's your prerogative, and you are probably wanting to cite WP:COMPREHENSIVE rather than any policy. WP:COMPREHENSIVE is just an essay, and it outlines a valid point of view. But it's still just your opinion, not any policy.

I am not sure who/what you are directing you comment at, according to the indentation I have asked Reichax to provide a citation regarding "real hentai" always being censored. Are you replying to my original comment? I'll respond to your statements further down the page. -- Dront (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Feast your eyes. This page is, of course, marred by the general issues all Wikipedia articles have, but at least you'll get a general idea. Doujinshi are, almost as a rule, censored. Hentai videos are pixellated unless they're released in the United States. For somebody who's obviously very interested in the status quo of this article, I'm surprised you know so little about the way the genre exists in Japan. --Reichax (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All commercial pornographic material is partially censored, this is very well know. But this goes as vague as a 1-pixel height censor bar, 30% transparent on the very part that identifies a human genital (be it clitoris or the frenulum). Beast genitals -like on tentacle rape genres- or angles where they're seen can be uncensored perfectly. However, non commercial content is not affected and no records of any conviction afaik. For example internet AV or doujinshi are often uncensored or self-censored, as the censor bar its kind of traditional and even for erotic purposes. In particular, the current image was pixelated in the original, but that was self-censorship from the author, not for any law restrictions. It was taken from pixiv, and there you can find censored and uncensored art in the same proportion. Still, these also are "real hentai" to me. So I wouldn't say its "always" being censored. Just commercial pornography. pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia is WP:COMPREHENSIVE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Given that this is a subgenre of a visual artform, an illustration of some sort is warranted and adds materially to readers' understanding of the topic. Doesn't have to be this exact image though; I would be open to proposals for a different image. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Find replacement I do think that File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg is over the top with its explicitness and that the original image, File:Hadako-tan.png, is better because it still illustrates the subject without it being excessively explicit. While Wikipedia is not censored, that isn't an excuse to use the most shocking and explicit example to illustrate the subject. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Conceivably it can be used later in the article to indicate something specific, but the principle of responsible editing is "least astonishment". Someone might well come to this article for an explanation and be rather surprised at this image. I certainly wouldn't rule out even such fantasized sexual images to illustrate an article on an inherently fantasized sexual art form. But I think the lede can be written without any image; the text makes it clear enough what the rest of the article will be like, and people can either proceed or not according to their wishes. Further, and at least equally important, this image is apparently typical of only one part of the spectrum--the text of the article discusses a much wider range of possibilities, and ideally all the major classes should have an illustrative example. To a considerable extent, it's use as lede biases the article by making it appear as if every variety were like that image. I've been a very strong opponent of the use of any sort of even optional imagine-hiding within Wikipedia as leading inevitably to censorship, but the irresponsible user of images like this will only lend strength to the opposition. We do have a responsibility to readers who might be upset at some of our images, which is not to surprise them with one. Responsible editing sensitive to the genuine concerns of readers is not censorship, but proper mature writing. There are genres in the world where this sort of introductory image is normal and expected, but they do not include encyclopedias. I do not know whether the intention of including this drawing is to test the limits, but the effect of this sort of use will be counterproductive. If it must be tested, it would much better to be with some instance where the use is totally inescapable. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Find a replacement certainly for the lead. I agree with TheFarix that File:Hadako-tan.png, is better because it still illustrates the subject without it being excessively explicit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Because I don't see a definitive reason to change it. It doesn't violate any policies and it serves the purpose of Wikipedia, so evertything else is completely subjective, who draws the line?. You can think its more explicit, and I can think the actual is not explicit at all. And considerating that the image was replaced with another more representative of the art style (same content than the previous image but more hentai-like), wanting to remove an improvement can fall in censorship. There is no need to illustrate everything, that's what there is no pornography on the pornography article, but this subject is not something a regular user could imagine, so IMO a representative illustration is necessary (and the actual being more representative than the previous)pmt7ar ^(talk) 15:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion I'd just like to add that the source of the original image, File:Hadako-tan.png, appears to be a German contributor, and appears to my eyes as more western than Japanese art.82.7.164.136 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

...also, having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARDCORE#The_disclaimer and the linked article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions I find it hard to give a clear objective reason to change the current picture in this article. It is not over-explicit and appears to fall within the boundaries of Wikipedia's disclaimer, so unless there is a dispute over the accuracy of the current image in depiction of Hentai I see no grounds for change. The alternative would be simply to have Hentai as a subsection of the Pornography article (in which case it may not warrant an image), but seeing as Hentai does seem to have a significant cultural effect I cannot see that as a viable solution. There is, at present, no suggested alternative which seems to have greater relevancy besides perhaps simply using an image of Hentai being provided. Due to the fact Hentai is primarily an internet-based cultural phenomenon I don't see how this could be achieved, short of linking or screen-capping a specific website. 82.7.164.136 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes/Find replacement - Since WP:HARDCORE is essay not policy and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, it seems to me that it is permissible. Given that people's reactions to this subject will vary, there's no reason to change it until something like WP:HARDCORE becomes policy. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but not in the lede. It doesn't need to be advertised so prominatly, but it is relevant to the article.
  Any replacement will have to be similar in nature to being as hardcore. I'm not against a replacement as long as its CC-licensed for use here and is of equal or superior quality and depicts the hardcore nature of hentai as opposed to ecchi if it can do it in a slightly less explicit manner. I cannot see that as viable as no decent alternative has come up. The one example used does not really fall within the definition of hentai which is distinctly Japanese, but rather in the broader cartoon pornography subset. The closest would be something like an influenced artstyle, which is not quite the same. File:Hadako-tan.png may be useful for such a section in this article should enough info be found.陣内_Jinnai 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't a picture of the front cover of a hentai book/video would be a more directly relevant and, well, illustrative, illustration? It would show what "hentai", the noun, looks like, rather than a sample of it, and would be in line with the sort of thing you would expect to see in professional publications such as news reports or other encyclopaedias. Incidentally, something like a cover would also probably be less explicit, which would be a neat compromise between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:HARDCORE (but I'm not suggesting that as a primary reason because, rightly, one is a policy and one is an essay). joe•roe^t•c 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • But aren't we supposed to favor freely-licensed images over fair-use images? Just one more factor to consider. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - WP:HARDCORE is not a policy, and this picture illustrates the subject (well, the most bsic variety of it, it should be mentioned somehow). Any image less explicit would be easily ecchi. This image qualifies as "hentai", and personally, I don't think it's that explicit or offensive to anyone, because 1) it is DRAWN, not even photorealistic, 2) it is tame, since hentai can be much, much more explicit and offensive in nature. I don't see why we shouldn't keep this high quality artwork in this article, if it perfectlx illustrates the meaning of "hentai". Now think about it, the image is about normal sexual activity that most average heterosexual couples would do in their average sexual life: a female on top of a male having vaginal intercourse. It is a normal thing in normal life, I can't see it as "hardcore pornography"... --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Argh, WP:NOT CENSORED is not in play here, and there's no sense in citing it. It would come into play if (and only if) I had made the argument "Remove, it's offensive". But I didn't. What I am saying is:
  1. It's objectively harmful to the Wikipedia.
  2. It's objectively harmful to some of our readers.

And those are cogent reasons. The questions that then need to be asked are:

• 1. Is this true?
  2. Even if it is true, does this matter?

I would say "Yes, and yes". Other people might say "Yes, and no" or "No, and moot". They're entitled to their opinions, and if they want can cite WP:COMPREHENSIVE, which is an essay and gives an intellectually respectable opinion. But to to cite WP:NOT CENSORED as if there's some policy argument is off the point and very misleading, one might as well say "Keep image per WP:CIVIL" or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• A depiction of a well known category of drawn/fictional pornography can neither damage the project, nor can it be harmful for the reader, if used in educational context. It serves to illustrate the subject and is not just an unnecessary decoration. It helps the reader not to imagine what hentai might look like, but to see an example by an Japanese artist, with average stylization and a common theme, without going over the board, in the means, that it is "hard" enough to not be considered ecchi, but way below the possible extremes.

  PS: I don't answer to yes/no questions with a prepositional statement. --Niabot (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on how it is objectively harmful? The only thing you have previously stated is "We shouldn't illustrate articles on pornography with actual pornography, per WP:HARDCORE", which is not a policy reference nor sufficient to qualify "objectively". Which policy (or argument) are you basing your removal request on? To me it looks as if someone has simply applied s/offensive/harmful/g and now claim that WP:NOT CENSORED doesn't apply, I am genuinely confused. -- Dront (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Something you should view before commenting any further: Answer to your questions by Philip Pullman --Niabot (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I watched the Pullman piece, and don't really get the connection. He's talking about his legal right to sell a book, and I agree with him, but don't see what that has to do with the matter at hand. I'm not schooled in rhetoric and don't understand the reference to prepositional statements, sorry. As to elaborating on how it is objectively harmful, certainly.

• Regarding "objectively damaging to the Wikipedia", couple points:
  • The Wikipedia (actually the WMF, but the English Wikipedia is the flagship) is a 501(c)(3) charity. Our American 501(c)(3) status is important because, among other things, most organizations aren't allowed (by their own internal rules) to donate to entities that aren't charities, and these donations are important to sustaining the Wikipedia. Essentially the United States government says "You are performing a public good, and so we will support you, indirectly, by reducing the taxes of people who contribute to you. In turn, we will tax our waitresses, cab drivers, and farm workers a little bit more, to make up the difference. But because you benefit the public, this is both good public policy and politically sustainable." However, it's not politically sustainable (nor good public policy, probably) if we host material like this, and our sole and only strategy regarding this is: hope we don't get caught. (If you doubt this, consider whether this article with this image will ever be featured, for instance.) Having "hoping to not get caught" as one's strategy is usually a sign that one might want to re-think what one is doing, and is risky as well.
  • Beyond 501(c)(3) status specifically, general damage to reputation, ability to work with schools, and so forth are in play.
  • Hosting material like this (here the reader may feel free to insert "frat-boy porncruft" etc. as desired) damages our ability to recruit and retain contributors (and readers) with taste, intelligence, and character, and to thrive we need contributors with those qualities. In particular, this creates a hostile environment for women. Why this is so is complicated, but take my word for it, or if you don't want to it's been discussed extensively at various places and identified as a problem. This may be a problem you're not interested in, but it's interested in you (assuming you care whether the Wikipedia succeeds or fails).
• As to "objectively damaging to some readers... this is arguable. If the person was being clearly raped or beheaded or something, yes. But she's not. So I don't know. But let's think about this. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any reasonable person who publishes an encyclopedia will expect that many students will read it, since students are expected to do research (it's their job) and the digest form of an encyclopedia is ideal for persons who are not yet up to reading primary sources or college-level texts. High school students, but also middle school students and down to bright 5th and 6th graders. This is unsurprising and to be expected if one is going to publish an encyclopedia. So, some of our readers are as young as ten, and we cannot claim to not expect this. So... is this sort of thing harmful to those readers? I don't know. I'm not a developmental psychologist. Sexual development is subtle and sensitive, and I would think that's it's a reasonable proposition that it might be harmful. I would certainly say that the proposition that this not harmful is, at best, unproven. I do know that if you babysit your 10 or 11-year-old niece or nephew and show them this image, your sister will be Very Displeased. Would this be unreasonable of her? I don't think so. Do you? If you don't think it would be OK to show this image to your 10 or 11-year-old niece or nephew (for reasons other than just avoiding getting yourself in trouble), then there's no intellectually respectable reason for insisting that it should hosted on a web site designed to attract generic 10 and 11-year-olds. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but i had to laugh the whole time i read you comments. They are way off and contain a whole bunch of biased arguments with no proof, source, whatsoever. If you really did not understand message presented in the video, the correlation between it and this case, then you should watch it again, read your arguments again, read the five pillars again and repeat this cycle until you will find it, this simple but true correlation. --Niabot (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I note you don't address any of my points, possibly because you can't. As to the Philip Pullman video, I watched it again. I'm guessing the salient points you are referencing would be "No one has the right to live without being shocked/offended" and "Nobody has to read this book" and "No one has the right to stop me writing this book". Fine, but we are discussing internal editorial standards here, not the general right of freedom of expression. You are of course entitled to publish whatever you want on your own website.

I'm not claiming shock or offense, I'm claiming material harm disproportionate to any encyclopedic gain, partly to the Wikipedia. I'm not claiming the the right to stop you from reading, drawing, and publishing this material. Just not the right to do it here.

If by "Nobody has to read this book" you mean "Nobody has to read the Wikipedia", this is true, but. This is not a good excuse for poor editorial decisionmaking. It could be applied to any bad edit, e.g. "I claim the right to post my unsourced POV rant in this article and if people don't like this sort of thing they can read another encyclopedia". Functional publications don't make editorial decisions this way.

And a lot of contributors do want the Wikipedia to thrive and succeed. You're interested in cartoon pornography, and fine, but we're a community here. Your interest doesn't trump the interest of the volunteer contributors who build articles on science history and locomotive taxonomy and so on. Our colleagues who work on these subjects want their work to be read, and they expect other members of the community to not sabotage that by egregiously and unnecessarily alienating readers and contributors.

If the "Nobody" who "has to read the Wikipedia" really does turn out to be nobody because the Wikipedia has been withdrawn from schools, suffered justified public condemnation, lost its status as a charity, and consequently entered a death spiral, you may not care. But I do. So do a lot of other members of the community. Not having a stake in the outcome -- not caring whether the Wikipedia as a whole succeeds or fails -- is one important reason that we discount contributions from single-purpose accounts in these sort of discussions, and I call on the person closing this RfC to cogitate on this.

If you claim "material harm" you should proof that it exists. I can't see any harm caused by this image, but instead i see a valuable illustration for the subject. If someone decides to not read Wikipedia because of one image, then it is his decision. You yourself claim that this image is inappropriate, but you did not leave Wikipedia because of this image, but you claim that others would do. This is contradictory and reminds me on a quote from Joseph Henry Jackson: “Did you ever hear anyone say, 'That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me'?”

You made another unjustified claim. That I'm (only) interested in cartoon pornography and would not contribute to the community, since your wording exclude me from "we". This is an obvious attack against myself. Additionally you speak about the other contributers as if all would support your opinion. The current discussion states that this is also not the case. But you continue with the next claim (repeating the first claim), which falls under category: citation needed.

I care about the project. I try to be neutral as far as possible. I don't intend to bend facts. I support it to put the facts on the table. I don't care if all like the facts or are comfortable with them, if they are facts. I don't censor myself. I don't make assumptions about/for others i never heard about. I'm convinced that our success lies in the principles to not censor ourself, to be neutral in judgment and to display the facts. I'm not convinced that censoring our content by ourself is in favor of the project, because someone might not like it. I'm also convinced that your claim, that I use an SPA, is untrue and on the edge of a personal attack. --Niabot (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Niabot, I couldn't have put it better myself. Let's remain civil here and refrain from personal attacks. -- Dront (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, Niabot, there is a good reason why censorship exists in many parts of the world, not just in movies, but also on the internet. If you don't like it, don't ruin it for the rest of us. Unlike you, most of us can live on or deal with censorship in our lives without getting on other people's nerves. By going on this ludicrous tirade against your supposed thought about "censorship", you've done more harm than good. As many people have said it before, just drop it! There's no reason to beat a dead horse with a stick. —stay (sic)! 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how A7x's comment adds anything to the discussion, if you want to debate Niabot's personal opinions and behaviour, fine, but it is simply distracting from what is supposed to be discussed, the merits of the picture. As it stands I am yet to see Herostratu back up his claims that this image is "harmful" to Wikipedia in general, and if we define "harmful" as "less likely to donate to the project" then I feel that I have had some great misconceptions about what Wikipedia is. I thought we were building an encyclopedia for the purpose of capturing human knowledge and culture, not trying to gain as much economic feedback as possible. -- Dront (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A7x's (sig is "stay") comment is not helpful, but User:Niabot and User:Dront shouldn't have started down this path by throwing accusations of uncivility. That is life in the Agora. Actions have consequences. Taking a radical position will generate pushback, did you not expect this?

As to Dront, I've layed on my argument already in tl;dr detail, I'm not sure what more you want me to say. There are none so blind as those will will not see, I guess, and we're not going to convince one another I don't think, so not much point is going on. Let's let others weigh in. I'll try to address your last points and summarize one more time, though.

It's very difficult to prove that this material is harmful to our 10-11-12 year old readers. It's difficult to prove because no one has run a study showing material like this to 10-11-12 year old subjects and then testing for harm. No one has done this because it would be unethical and illegal to do so. However, the fact that it is unethical and illegal to do so indicates that there is a prima facie assumption that it would (or might) be harmful, and this is backed up by simple common sense. The burden would thus be on you to provide material showing that it isn't harmful. You can't do this, because no such material exists.

It's very difficult to prove that this sort of thing drives off contributors. But take a look at the chart here which shows that 90% of our editors are male. This is appalling, and clearly a problem, and a lot people's hair is on fire about this. I think the frat-boy atmosphere that thinks images of women like this are OK is part of the problem. I can't prove it, but a number of people do think it's a problem.

Regarding 501(c)(3) status and general reputation, again, it's impossible to prove before the fact that this is problem. I think it is. I've backed this up with cogent argument. I could be wrong. Do you want to take the risk that I am? I don't.

So to summarize, I think it's fairly clear that is at least a reasonable risk of harm to readers and to the project. You can deny this if you like. If you do, fine, we're done here. Let the person closing the RfC weigh this matter.

Moving on. If you do accept risk of harm to the Wikipedia, then you can still say that it's worth it. There is (I think) two ways that this could be so (perhaps there are others that I haven't thought of):

• 1) The image adds encyclopedicvalue to the Wikipedia
  • To which my rebuttal is: It adds only a very tiny amount of value. It's one image in one obscure article (if you include other images that are strictly pornography, a handful of images in a handful of articles). We can still have the articles discussing the phenomena. In return for this very small increase, a significant risk of harm. We're grownups and we're editors of a great encyclopedia and its incumbent on us to make reasonable risk-benefit decisions.
• 2)To which you can then say, well, risk/benefit ratio be damned, it's a matter of principle. As source of free information we have an obligation to fight against the evils of censorship, and I'm therefore entitled to go out of my way to make a WP:POINT of pushing the boundaries of human freedom forward in this manner.
  • To which my rebuttal is: No we don't. I'm here to make an encyclopedia. I don't appreciate being dragooned into anyone's crusade against the shocking lack of cartoon porn available to children, or whatever your point is. A lot of people who are quietly working on history, science, art, and other subjects and aren't even aware of what you are doing don't appreciate it either. "Don't ruin it for the rest of us" an editor above said.

If you do accept risk of harm to some readers, then you can still cite WP:AMORAL and say that it doesn't matter, it's none of your business. This is a question of moral philosophy on which we may disagree. I find amorality, as regards actively causing harm to persons for no sufficient reason, to be loathsome and evil. So you do, probably, in real life; relatively few sociopaths contribute to the Wikipedia, I think. And if one doesn't behave amorally in real life one isn't entitled to play around with it, to the community's detriment, when one sits down at the computer keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus, you don't have to be so sharp-tongued about it. I was actually supporting your side of the argument. :) But why should we cater to a small group of people, that wants to keep a risky image of hentai on the lead that is definitely not safe for work or in school, and is also something most parents would object their children to view on the internet, let alone Wikipedia, and ignore the objections of other users who do not want the image to be shown? Wikipedia is not a porn website! Even the article about pornography doesn't contain images of actual porn in it to illustrate the topic. IMHO, anyone who wants to view porn, hentai, or whatever they're into, should look it up somewhere else (Google images?), and not infest Wikipedia with grotesque pictures of "cartoon pornography". —stay (sic)! 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some short quotes:

• "small group of people"
• "risky image of hentai"
• "grotesque pictures of "cartoon pornography""

Some questions:

• Would parents be happy about that their children read about hentai and look up the images at Google?
• Since one article does not contain images, other articles should also not contain images?

--Niabot (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If kids decide to look up hentai on Google Images, it's not Wikipedia's fault, it's more of the parents' responsibility, unless you want to blame Google. And as I've said before, Wikipedia is not a porn website! Since when did adding explicit images of genitalia and penetration become acceptable? —stay (sic)! 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Two last question (I'm out. Your aggressive, provocative undertone is not worth a discussion):

• Is it our fault that parents do not monitor children while using Google or Wikipedia to search for Hentai? We are not a children's book.
• We are also not a porn website. One image inside the corresponding article makes us a porn website. Are you really that stupid to believe that nonsense if you read your own words?

END OF DISCUSSION (EOD) --Niabot (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough, I have had it up to here with personal accusations, remarks regarding my own personal character and claiming that some category of articles are inherently less worthy of inclusion than others. I have stated my own position which I do not consider to be controversial, I have even stated that I am willing to consider alternative images and relocating the image from the top of the article. Count me out of this line of the discussion and kudos to Niabot for putting up with Herostratus's remarks and to stay for currently sticking to the high road. -- Dront (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you have "had it up to here with... [other editors] claiming that some category of articles are inherently less worthy of inclusion than others", but, um, we king of are allowed to discuss what material should or should not be included in the Wikipedia, I think... that is kind of of what talk pages are for, IIRC... For the rest, well, as you do not consider your position to be controversial, I suppose it must be a bit of a shock to discover that this is not so, so I understand your other remarks in light of this. I agree, nothing much more to do here, let's move on and let other colleague weigh in. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• You know, people coming to this page to complain about the content of this article are akin to dropping a small squad of Americans in the middle of North Korea and expecting them to win. (Hollywood scenario aside, they don't.) The people who are offended by this material are underrepresented because it is moderated almost exclusively by people who are unoffended by it, which leads to inherent bias as to its content. Most people who would say otherwise leave or laugh and then leave.

I've noticed others say above that "nothing less of a penis going into a vagina" would classify as a display of hentai, although instead the Pornography page offers just a seductive-looking teacher. We have a whole H-game (or is it just a randomly chosen H-scene?) that's open-source. Great. Include its cover or something, put the porno pictures farther down in the article, which might at least give this article the credibility of pornography etc. --Reichax (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• • No one forced you to come read this article. As for the chance of any children reading it, that's a risk, but its not enough as it doesn't violate any laws. Since it adds to the article, even somewhat, it is relevant.
  • Now, could another image be used to replace it that wasn't quite as obscene (in someone's eyes). Yes, but no one has proposed a suitable alternative.∞陣内Jinnai 04:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "a cover of..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reichax (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. It should not be changed. (talk) 9:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.38.127 (talk)

• Read wikipedia disclaimers. Wikipedia is not meant for minors nor censored for sensible adults. So could we stop talking about children and offended readers? A wikipedia editor should not care at all for childrens reading or moral of small groups. We only care for encyclopedic content. That's the risk-benefit. Even if the addition is tiny, but it would imply a big risk for those groups, we ought to still add it, since we care for the content, no for childrens. If you are concerned about the content being safe for those people, then wikipedia is not your place. pmt7ar ^(talk) 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• This sort of mentality is what causes the decadence of Wikipedia. I'm afraid that is not what the founder(s) of Wikipedia had in mind when they created this website. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not some damn cartoon porn collection. I hope this makes my message crystal clear. Goodbye. —stay (sic)! 05:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but that "mentality" is not the decadence of, its the foundation of Wikipedia. Please check the links ToS and Disclaimers on the bottom of every Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a collaborative illustrated encyclopedia. And for your information, traditional encyclopedias, the ones written on paper, aren't children safe either. Encyclopedias pursue knowledge. Wikipedia pursues sharing knowledge. Making things " "-safe only restricts it, so its completely against Wikipedia objectives. WP:NOT pmt7ar ^(talk) 06:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes: WP:HARDCORE is an essay, and is not policy. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. If the local baptist church or Catholic school doesn't want their kids to see penises and vaginas, there are many alternatives to Wikipedia, Encarta and Britannica being two. Are people going to call for the removal of images from Anus, Penis, Vagina and Hypospadias next? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument has fallacy of going to extremes to observe your point. We aren't talking about actual scientific information, just an article that makes Wikipedia look farcical. On the other hand, other articles of similar content (like, hmm, pornography), aren't as explicit as this one. Why? Possibly because penis going into vagina isn't necessary to showcase what hentai looks like on the street. (Indeed, there's an extremely small chance anyone would run into a picture like this while looking for it in Japan or even adult stores in the United States.) So yes, the picture has issues. --Reichax (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• No/change: While people are right about wikipedia not being restricted to hardcore images, this one in particular doesn't seem to add anything to the subject. It doesn't help to the article being understood better, as matter of facts it might lead to confusion (since Hentai is much broader than simply hardcore penetration). The image it's just there, making the article NSFW for no good reason.190.247.32.76 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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.

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)