Talk:Hentai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.66.188.209 (talk) at 18:39, 2 August 2011 (→‎This Article Does Not Need a Photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Article Does Not Need a Photo

I think most people can put two and two together. Hentai is pornographic anime. The picture is not representative of Hentai.

Hentai is often very sadistic and the girls faces usually border between looking like they are in extreme pain or are extremely ashamed.

Since the pictures causes a lot of controversy why have a picture anyways? There is no drawing for the article on Yaoi. Just a picture of a yaoi section at a comics store. Why not do the same here? take a picture of the adult anime section of a video store in Japan town San Francisco? If anyone wants to see what Hentai looks like they just have to google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.11.51 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that hentai is often "very sadistic", because a lot of it isn't...I do agree that the current image isn't a good representation of hentai in the least, although I disagree that this article shouldn't have an image. I'd rather it have no image than the image it has, but my past attempt to replace it was a failure...The "artist" is just too proud of his/her unauthentic, uninspired work to allow it to be replaced or removed. However, I could talk with some Japanese artists about allowing their work to be displayed on the article when I have the time or search around for some photography of an anime shop selling hentai and ask the photographer to allow it to be used. rzrscm (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The artist(s) would have to do more than allow the image(s) to be displayed in Wikipedia. You would have to get the artist(s) to license their work for free distribution with no commercial restrictions (such as CC-BY-SA) or release it to the public domain. Many artists balk at giving up royalties and/or control over how the images are used. -- Donald Albury 12:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, hentai not sadistic? You obviously haven't seen 99% of the hentai out there. Not ecchi, hentai. Seen guro? Bukkake? Rape? These things, and worse, tend to be a mainstay of the most popular hentai out there. Defending anime by saying it's not all hentai is one thing, but defending hentai by saying a lot of it isn't "sadistic" is pretty misleading to the genre. But it might depend on your opinion of sadism. --198.150.224.3 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're judging all hentai by one standard? Look, some hentai is sadistic, but not all of it. That's like saying that all porn (live action stuff with actual people) is rape or is otherwise violent. There's a lot of hentai that isn't considered to be violent or sadistic by even the most strict of standards. The sadistic stuff exists but it's not the majority of the genre. Believe it or not, that stuff isn't as big of a thing as you think it is. It gets noticed more because it tends to be more extreme, thus getting more attention, but for every violent or otherwise sadistic hentai (video, game, manga, or what have you) there's about 5-10 normal ones (consensual sex). Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
So Japan is very liberal with sex-related topics. They're naturally going to have more BDSM among other kinky fetishes that obviously sells in the market (otherwise, there would be no reason why people see so much of it). Exaggerating with that 99% figure isn't gonna go anywhere. However, the connection between Hentai and BDSM and other kinky fetishes, is like the connection between apples and the color red. Nowhere on an apple does it say that it has to be red, since there are green apples out there. Green apples are still apples despite not being red. They just happen to go together from time to time, so something being both pornographic and in a Japanese art style, doesn't imply anything kinky. There's no implication written anywhere. If for some reason we need a pornographic image to show what hentai is, the current image is just fine, though I'm not a person who's too fond of asburdly large breasts. 24.16.204.246 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does not need an image. It's literally pornography just ofr pornography's sake. And, for reference, the article on pornography itself has six pictures, and not one of show's genitals or breasts. So at least change the picture to something non-explicit. 74.215.29.117 (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something non-explicit would be no hentai and be misleading. In case of an non-explicit image it would be considered ecchi, which is not identical to hentai. --Niabot (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does neet a picture. Why pornography article doesn't have it explicitly? Because all can guess what it is. Everyone can imagine and realize pornography by itself, even looking your own body. But something like Hentai isn't intuitive. I know it because I know people having problems realizing what it really is. While every person on the world knows what a genital is, there are countries for example where cartoon pornography doesn't exist, or even can't imagine what it is. Plus, it's characteristic enough to be notable, it's an enormous industry in Japan and has great controversy overseas. Its graphically different to simple artistic art or cartoon pornography, so an illustration contributes to the information of the article. Non explicit wouldn't be relevant for the article, and being "too explicit" is not a matter for wikipedia. WP is not censored not prepared for minors. pmt7ar (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if it was not explicit it would not be an accurate representation of the subject. It would be like not having a picture of a kiss on the Kiss article because someone did not want to see people kiss. Granted, that is less explicit than this but the point is that neither article would have a picture that properly represents the subject if we did that. Also as mentioned earlier a non-explicit picture would be more relevant for Ecchi than here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may propose a compromise to this, I suggest we move the picture from the header into a part of the article that isn't the first thing people see. I have no problems if the picture stays, but I do believe that it would be shocking for someone who doesn't know what hentai is to open up to this page and be bombarded with the image currently there. It seems to me that the header gives enough of an idea of what it is to sate a casual reader looking for an answer, but if someone truly wanted an example such as this then they can scroll and read the rest of the article and find the more explicit photo. Chris (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need. We already have WP:DISC. There are thousands of articles with pictures on the header that could be more shocking to some than this one. pmt7ar (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see it from both sides to be honest. I think of it as a PR thing, how will someone whose first experience with wikipedia is through this page? They will think we are full of smut and forever have a negative association. I also see it as a free speech issue because I do not believe the internet should be censored. My idea may not be following the norm, but it's simply an idea meant to try and bring the two ends of the argument together. It's out there, do as you all please with it. Chris (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would most people that start out on Wikipedia check out an article on Hentai first? I would think a first time user would more likely look for something more mainstream than hentai. Most likely the vast majority of people looking this up would already have a good idea of what hentai is and would likely have already been exposed to some.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-pornographic picture replacement

I don't know what's worse: the fact it's explicit, probably isn't Japanese, probably doesn't define the genre well as a whole, or is self-advertisement. If the picture discussion is to be believed then people are just jacking off to it and wondering who drew it.

Last time I checked this was an encyclopedia, not an artwhore show -- Primetech

There's no pornographic content on the pornography section. Why don't we just upload a non-pornographic cover here? -- 198.150.224.3 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The picture has already been extensively discussed, please see the discussions in the archive. The consensus was largely that it is the best we have at this time and that it is better to have some picture rather than no picture. If you or anyone else can produce/find an/multiple alternative that can be distributed under the GFDL or a compatible license I am certain that it will be considered.
For now "crap", "artwhore show" and all the other opinions that you have stated are subjective and your own. Do refrain from removing material without checking previous discussions to determine the status of the article content. -- Dront (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
alright, here's an objective truth. People are jacking off to it. Read the image history. Which means the only purpose of the picture is to offend and cause controversy. -- 66.87.17.159 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone find something sexually arousing (which is what you are essentially saying) it is offensive and meant to cause controversy. I am not sure that I can follow your logic. -- Dront (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As Offkilter said above, 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pornographic magazine.' The examples before were good enough examples for the purposes of Wikipedia. If someone wants to see the explicit images, all they have to do is search Google."

This is a source that many teachers recommend, and many schools keep open, for learning, not for pornographic content. I find the image used tasteless, but more important, inappropriate for an encyclopedia that should pride itself on content, not porn. Heck, there isn't even a way around seeing it!

-- 198.150.224.3 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! If you don't like the image in this article, then I certainly don't want to point you to some of our other articles. The only way you are going to replace that image is to offer a 'free' image that a consensus of interested editors can agree is better. -- Donald Albury 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Image Use Policy and the discussion you point at, it's a controversial and sensationalized image. Smack-dab on the front of an article of an encyclopedia that prides itself in being what, offensive? This isn't Dramatica here. -- 198.150.224.3 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question out of curiosity: In which way is this image "sesationalized" (main point) or "controversial" (second point)? Please exaplain it to me in clear words. (Im from germany and not an native English speaker. Just to avoid misunderstandings.) --Niabot (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, "sensationalized" meaning it's too... shiny for public viewing, I suppose. There's nudity or even explicit material here, but it's done in either historical context, or in very toned-down, clinical illustrations when entirely unavoidable (like pictures of different kinds of sexual intercourse: One would only expect a picture.
The second, "Controversial," in regards to how many people have talked about getting a proper image, have been offended by this one and have requested a better one, how many people want more pornographic pictures (for dubious reasons), and how universally, immediately accessible the image is. Due to its quality, content blockers almost never so much as brush Wikipedia, sometimes to the blockers' willing users' detriment. --198.150.224.111 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, being offended is not an argument against inclusion. Wikipedia provides voluntary censorship to remove offensive pictures. The bottom line is that we can not deem what others will find offensive and we shall not censor. If content blockers are inadequate it is hardly our job to improve them. Let me again link to WP:CENSOR, this is the main reason why I am even active in this discussion. -- Dront (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading, Dront. Sexual content (in this case, a pornographic picture) must be notable. WP:NOT
Also, "Multiplication of images and informational content beyond a rational need for information is inappropriate."
"Wikipedia is not an amateur pornography site." Wikipedia:Sexual contentI believe this says it best; again, Wikipedia is not a place to sensationalize with pornography. That's what sites like, well... I suppose I can't post them here, but that's why those sites exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.224.3 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sexual content is neither policy or a guideline and given the comments on its talk page, it is unlike to to gain a consensus to become either. It probably should be tagged with {{Rejected}}. —Farix (t | c) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about mature/pornographic things that don't have porn on them:

I imagine that's because Wikipedia editors have the power to exercise couth. 198.150.224.3 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, what the Image use policy states is "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article". This is an article on an explicit subject, just like the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is controversial due to the very fact that the article exist, this article is going to be somewhat sexually explicit due to the very nature of the article. This is not because of the picture itself trying to be more explicit or more controversial or attract more attention to the article.
It is simply as we have re-iterated "The best that we have got", I for one would whole-heartedly support a merely suggestive picture (perhaps less controversial than our current picture which involves a sexual act) similar to the ones for Pornography but we do not have such a picture and from what I understand you (or anyone else) is not suggesting or have not been able to suggest another picture. As it stands, a picture, even if it is "too" explicit or controversial beats no picture and this will always be the case.
Also, allow me to remind you that we need an image which also satisfies the requirements of the GFDL, this is a huge problem since most Hentai material is commercial, thus no one has simply walked down to a porn shop and taken a picture of a suggestive cover. If you want to try digging for a new picture there are links in the previous discussions (now archived) and also suggestions on where we may find an artist that can produce a more "suitable" image (or preferably a range of them to put up for discussion). -- Dront (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention some further things: Most available works aren't even legal itself, even if (wrongly) licensed under CC-BY. The reason for this is simple: Most of this images are Dōjinshi, that are already violating copyright laws (even if mostly not persucated). Just walking to an manga-shop is also not possible. The author or licence holder itself has to publish this image. A permission by the store owner would not be sufficent. --Niabot (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is doujinshi really copyright-violating if it's a parody? Oh well, that's a totally different discussion. But there are several hentai that are both well-known and have clean(er) covers than the picture that's on the homepage right now. Mezzo Forte would be one example: It's an original hentai, with enough storyline to exist in two forms, pornographic and public-release. The DVD cover is already available on Wikipedia so it probably conforms to the requirements already. --198.150.224.111 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, because it is available due to fair use, which has it's tight restrictions. --Niabot (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking, given that some consider it too western-styled, and that most commercial content is out of limits, how about a japanese fanart? I could look trough japanese imagesites like pixiv for a similar image (original, no parody from (c) works) and get permission directly from the user or ask him to release it as CCBY. pmt7ar (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on several things. For example, the quality of the fan art you find, if correct licencing exists, and whether or not it is a better representation of the subject than the current picture. It would probably be best to wait until a potential replacement is available before any judgement is made because bad fan art or fan art that is actually more relevant to other genres such as ecchi etc would probably be rejected whereas good quality fan art that is an accurate representation of the subject may be accepted.--76.66.180.175 (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but if you describe me some rules I could find a suitable artwork. For example, I tried searching pixiv for an image alike to the current and filtered to clean stereotyped styles, no parodies and excluding explicit variations (furs, loli, gang, sm). We obviously need to choose something representative and not a specific (and over explicit) subgenre. I do think that the article needs an image since hentai is a genre characteristic of asian culture, and if the visitor doesn't have previous knowledge it would be much guess without an image. IMHO the current image is descriptive and quite modest, but it's too westernized (It's just my style appreciation). That's my idea, if its ok with you and you can narrow the type of image adecuated, I could search a dozen or two of pictures whose authors agreed to release it under CC to use in commons. IMO these kind of images (their styles) are similar to the current but represent more the asian manga style: [1] (the first, framed in red, I already got a response from the author willing to release it under BY-SA) pmt7ar (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the images 4 and 5 (both bottom) would be the most suitable. You don't see the style of the first image very frequently. But its always good to have some variety, since hentai has a wide variety in style. But be carefull that they are own works and not fan art from copyrighted characters. --Niabot (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, those are the most produced ones (CG-like style, like commercial VN). I know a wide range of works to recognize the characters, but just in case I only search entries tagged as オリジナル (original by the authors). I'll start searching and contacting the authors (got response from #5', he's willing to release it under BY-SA too)pmt7ar (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I applaud your work finding it and gladly support using the picture for the article. Just make sure we somehow formally get his/her permission so that we won't have any trouble down the road, perhaps by asking the artist to upload the image to commons. -- Dront (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the #5 too, so I managed licensing with the author and got it uploaded to commons. File:Hentai - yuuree.jpg. We are free to use it on the article now. pmt7ar (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture controversy

Wikipedia's images aren't supposed to be controversial for controversy's sake, but as you can see here there's plenty of controversy going into a purportedly un-controversial picture. --198.150.224.3 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One person who refuses to put down the stick is not a controversy, Primetech. And you are not hiding your identity by switching between your account and your IP address. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The people asking for more pictures, or no picture, aren't me. Sorry I move around a private network. A bunch of fappers isn't a democracy either. We all have our faults. --Primetech 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You've been the only one who has been asking for the remove of the current image and wanting to add a bunch of non-free images. As for your "fappers" comment, I'll remind you that we take WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL very seriously and that you refrain from such comments in the future. —Farix (t | c) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

srs bsns guise

becuz it's okay to offend people as long as it's not a user. Lol hypocrisy? But I get you, as long as people nod their heads (sic) up and down to what you want done, it's all well and good. Because I'm sure the only people who edit this page, already have a strong obsession with hentai anyway. Sorry to try to bring a little evenness on this in a so-called improper way. I'll be more... helpful in the near future. Primetech 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia has a policy that editors should not engage in personal attacks on other editors. Calling other editors "flappers" and claiming they have a "strong obsession with hentai" because they support the existing image are a personal attacks. This has nothing to do with offense. —Farix (t | c) 13:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, the term was "fappers," meaning people who enjoy masturbating to said material. Flappers would suggest you're a bit dated and twenties-ish. Maybe instead I should say that undue bias is given to those who aren't offended by pornographic material to begin with. Showing this page to the "average person" generally elicits either offense or a general "I can't believe Wikipedia..." in most of the cases I show it to someone else. --Primetech 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)
The image is no more offensive than those on sexual intercourse and other topics relating to sex and pornography. It should not be any surprise that articles in this subject area will contain images that some may find offensive because of the prudish viewpoints. —Farix (t | c) 14:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • gasp* Was that a personal attack? Again though, in order to find that you'd have to float through "sex" first and realize it's not dirty enough for you before continuing on to that. Either way, even the un-prudish see this article to be a joke (unargued by you). So your refusal to change the article even though change has been requested and controversy continuously raised (before me, see the archives), means the page stagnates at its low status. Primetech 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)

Something like this

File:Wikipe-tan hentai.png

If the current picture is considered "good" a "great" version would be of Wikipe-tan herself, preferably in some sexual relationship with Jimbo Wales. Heck, it doesn't even have to be dirty, just a pretty good idea of what a cheap doujin (hentai) would look like if you saw one on a shelf in Japan.

Also, inb4 "your drawing sucks." I did it with a mouse in like a minute. Rather be that than some German laboring for hours with expensive CG programs to produce something equally bad. Not that I know anyone that would apply to, I'm just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this image illustrate anything about hentai? The image itself should be moved to another name, since there is not any direct relation between this scribble and hentai at all. By the way: Some German authors, like myself, utilizing free software. For example GIMP, Inkscape, Karbon, synfig, Blender, etc.
The only things that disturbs me: Why does it need to be Wikipe-tan or Jimbo? And why should this qualify as a cheap dōjinshi? This is way below any artistic mean. --Niabot (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use those, thanks. And his is more of a... prototype, lol. A good hentai example should have Wikipe-tan and Jimbo because it's more patriotic, of course. -- Primetech 13:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The image doesn't even illustrate the subject. But an hentai image of Wikipe-tan will likely be deleted for trolling, especially since we already have a preexisting image illustrating the subject. —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically defending a DeviantArt-quality artist in favor of maintaining the status quo? Now you're the one being backwards. This can fill the criterion of unoffending the conservative and illustrating a more common variation at the same time. And yes, I can draw better than that, thank you very much. --Primetech 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, oh wait, even better yet: Touting your own art on this site is "good practice" but adding pictures of your sacred symbols is "trolling." What in the hell. They're both art. --Primetech 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)
Again, you image doesn't even illustrate the subject of the article in any way. So using it to illustrate the article is a complete misrepresentation. As for Wikpe-tan, many editors have attempted to upload sexual images of her, only to be deleted because the uploaders were clearly attempting to troll the community. Even Jimbo has deleted some images that portray Wikipe-tan in an overtly sexual way under WP:OFFICE. —Farix (t | c) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Farix is resigned to defend this article to the death, because the status quo (making this article essentially worse than any other US-based article about similar material, at least at the very beginning before going onward) means that Farix is able to engage in a personal act of trolling. It offends immediately, at the very top, with no indication the article may be offensive beforehand, such as the classic example of "tentacle porn" has done before this page was...changed. --Primetech 14:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)

File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been kept.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hentai&oldid=442716529"