Talk:Hentai/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recent definition change

Anon editor (139.55.232.124) changed

words, "hen" meaning unusual or strange and "tai" meaning desire or wish.

kanji characters "hen" meaning unusual or strange and "tai" meaning form or object.

I reverted this, but let me make it clear why I did so, so that we can discuss. I'm not claiming to be certain of the correctness of the definition, and I won't block consensus.

As per my edit summary when I put that text in:

This meaning info is based on my reading of "A Japanese and English Dictionary With an English and Japanese Index" , Hepburn, 1983. If you disagree, please cite a source.

The definitions that I used are directly from that source.

As for "word" vs "kanji", the english word is based on the Japanese words, not on the kanji characters for those words, so I would think that we separate discussion of kanji from the words they represent, no? -Harmil 12:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

-tai does mean 'want to' when attached to the end of a verb, and this particular meaning has no kanji associated with it. Japanese is notorious for having homonyms (words that sound the same but have different meanings). This is one such word. The particular kanji in question has as its core meaning 'appearance'. My source is the freely available kanjinfo.dat file, maintained by professor Jim Breen of Monash University. Of course, all this is pretty hokey anyway, as kanji compound words often have meanings unrelated to the individual kanji. Rhialto

I reverted the last change of "tai" meaning "desire or wish" to the correct meaning: "attitude or appearance". The kanji for "hentai" are 変態, and 態 does not mean "desire or wish". You can check it out at WWWJDIC: [1]. nihon 16:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good, and thank you for clearing this up. As I said when I reverted you, I don't disagree (hey, I'm just a guy with a copy of Hepburn, not a language expert), but unless people cite their sources, there's no way to distinguish trolls injecting random noise from folks who are trying to contribute real information. -Harmil 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I never troll. It's a waste of time. (^_^) nihon 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the changes by anonymous user "130.232.31.109" because they were incorrect information. The user indicated that sources should be cited, so I'm citing them: me. I lived in Japan for several years, and am very familiar with how these words are and were used there. To user "130.232.31.109": please don't change things unless you can provide good reasons for the change. It's also recommended that you register and create a username. You will be taken much more seriously if you aren't hiding behind an anonymous IP address. nihon 21:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I again reverted the changes by anonymous user "130.232.85.15" (who I think is the same as the anonymous user in the paragraph above) because s/he changed it back again. This is almost becoming vandalism by someone who refuses to register as a regular user. I don't know of any dictionaries that even have the word. As I lived in Japan for several years, I think I have a pretty good idea of the meaning of this word. As "erotic" means "1. Of or concerning sexual love and desire; amatory. 2. Tending to arouse sexual desire. 3. Dominated by sexual love or desire.", using "erotic" instead of "porn" is a more precise definition of the meaning of エロアニメ in my humble opinion. All porn is erotic in nature. --nihon 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Silly arguments about anonymity aside (is "130.232.31.109" any more or less anonymous than "Nihonjoe"?), please provide a single reference that supports your assertion that the word "hentai" has ever been used to mean "anime porn". I have never seen one, and I have seen plenty of support for the fact that it never has. For instance, [2], which is linked from the article itself.

"Hentai" is used to refer to anything "perverse" or "perverted," including anime porn. However, the word has come to be used less and less as a noun, and is currently used mostly as an adjective (i.e., "Kono hentai jiji"). That's why it should remain "rarely" instead of "never" in the first paragraph. --nihon 16:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I said, show a single example where it's used like that. Here are lots of examples of Japanese people who don't think it makes any sense to call anime porn "hentai": [3]

As I already said multiple times, I'm going by my experience while living in Japan. How do you propose I show you that? Also, I said: "Hentai" is used to refer to anything "perverse" or "perverted," including anime porn. However, the word has come to be used less and less as a noun, and is currently used mostly as an adjective (i.e., "Kono hentai jiji"). That's why it should remain "rarely" instead of "never" in the first paragraph." --nihon 15:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Your experience while living in Japan" is not exactly something to base an encyclopedic entry on, is it? We have no idea what you experienced there, and how representative it was of anything. You're also referring to events that obviously happened outside your stay there. You say "has come to be used less and less as a noun", but I don't really think this happened while you were there, did it? In fact, I've been saying from the start that "hentai" was never used as a noun referring to anime porn, which is what this article is about. I never said it wasn't used as an adjective to call something perverted, but that has no bearing on whether it was ever used as a noun, which is what this article is about.--130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, what use is citing the english definition for "erotic" when we're talking about Japanese words? The Japanese usage does not reflect the English one - in English, "erotica" is mostly used to refer to something more tasteful and refined than "porn", but in Japanese, it does not have this connotations at all - a porn mag is "erohon", a porn site is "erosaito". Nobody but the biggest prudes would call those "erotic magazine" or "erotic website" in English. For all intents and purposes "ero" is directly translatable to "porn", but NOT to "erotica".

That's why I'm using the word "erotic" as opposed to "erotica". There is a difference. I haven't once used "erotica" in that paragraph. "Porn" is erotic, however, and therefore the use of erotic in the description is very accurate. Also, if you go look up the prefix "ero" in WWWJDIC, you'll get the following: "エロ (adj-na,n) erotic; eroticism." Directly below it is a definition for eroanime: "エロアニメ (n) (abbr) erotic animation; pornographic animation; animation containing explicit sexual content." Use the "Word Search" page [4] and make sure you check the "Check if the keyword is romanized Japanese" box. --nihon 16:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that "erotic" is literally correct. I mean that it has the wrong connotations, and is an awkward translation. It's technically correct to talk about "erotic magazines" and "erotic websites", but nobody calls them that. Calling it "erotic anime" also sounds stilted and unnatural, when "porn" is the word most people would use.

How can it have the wrong connotations, based on the definitions I gave you? Porn is, by definition, erotic. I even gave you the "It's not erotica" argument, even though that's just semantics. If some people want to think there's such a thing as "high class" porn, and call it "erotica," more power to them. But that doesn't change the fact that it's porn, and porn, by definition, is erotic. "Erotic" is a more precise definition. Check out the link I gave you:[5] and search for エロアニメ. --nihon 15:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my previous replies, which address your points. Summary: "Erotic anime" is not incorrect, but "porn anime" is much closer to how the Japanese use the word "ero". --130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Some comments from a third party:

Requesting people to log in is not silly. We can reasonably assume that all edits by Nihonjoe were made by the same editor, but all bets are off in the case of IP addresses, where multiple editors may share an address, or one editor may use multiple addresses. That's why it's helpful to log in. Also, please sign all your comments, regardless of whether you're logged in or not.
The anonymous user asks for 'a single reference that supports [the] assertion that the word "hentai" has ever been used to mean "anime porn"'. By itself, of course, it doesn't, and I don't see Nihonjoe claiming that, either. Meanwhile, Google shows 26,700 hits[6] for the phrase 変態アニメ. Yes, the range of things described as 変態 is smaller than the range of things described as エロ; but 変態 is "rarely used", not "never".

If you add a -"変態アニメの世界" (to remove "hentai anime society", which seems to be a site a lot of pages mention or link to) to that search, it seems nearly every page is a list of keywords to lure in search engines. I suspect this is to lure in westerners who try to translate "hentai anime" into Japanese, but that's just speculation. --130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user argues that English definitions are useless in determining the meaning of エロ. He is correct. How about Japanese definitions, then? 大辞林 simply refers the reader to エロチック and エロチシズム.

To my eye, those definitions are closer to the English definition of "erotic" than to "porn", but I can see how some might disagree.

Neither of those words are the short-hand "ero", which is much more slangy, and therefore a dictionary is not a good source for insight into its meaning. Sadly I can't give any better references myself, except for the usage examples mentioned earlier.--130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In conclusion:

It is misleading to say that hentai is "never" used to talk about pornographic anime in Japan. It might, possibly, be correct to say that it is "never used as a noun" (though it's really very hard to prove a negative), but it's surely simpler for everyone involved if we just say that it is "rarely used".

And I think it's misleading to imply it has ever been used to as a noun referring to pornographic anime, when as far as I know this is not the case, and furthermore, the Japanese (well, those Japanese who'd spend any time thinking about pornographic anime) dislike this usage. I think it is better to clearly state that it should never be used this way in actual Japanese, if nothing else then as a warning for those who will ever discuss these matters with a native speaker. --130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether to translate エロ as "erotic" or "porn" is largely subjective. Given that the nature of the product can easily be determined from the rest of the article, I see no reason to use "porn" when the Japanese themselves have decided to say エロ rather than ポルノ. If the anonymous user is genuinely unhappy with this, there are compromises: for example, we could say "eroanime (エロアニメ; an abbreviation of erotic animation)" instead, as this is an indisputable fact.

Haeleth 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it to be "eroanime (エロアニメ; an abbreviation of erotic animation)." --nihon 20:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a better formulation, yes. I'd maybe say "derived from" instead of "for" or something, though, but that's a pretty minor detail. --130.232.31.109 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "very rarely," since even if they are using it to lure in westerners looking for Japanese sites, it's still used, so "never" should not be used when describing it. "Very rarely" gives enough indication that it's not even remotely common. I also added the "derived from" to the description of エロアニメ. --nihon 19:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then at least remove the "anymore", because that still makes no sense. Porn sites importing "hentai" from English is a very recent occurance. --130.232.31.109 01:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the first paragraph to incorporate all of the previous content, but presenting it in a much more concise manner. I moved a couple of the links to the "See also" section. --nihon 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's much better, except for the "seinen" bit. "Seinen" is used to refer to manga published for an older audience, and it may very well contain sexually explicity material, but that is not what the term refers to. It simply means "published for an older audience". A lot of seinen manga is not sexual in nature at all. --130.232.31.109 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please go read the entry for Seinen. The first sentence will explain the difference between 青年 and 成年. They are both said "seinen" but have completely different meanings. --nihon 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right, missed the kanji. Might want to put in a note about that for everyone else, too. --130.232.85.15 10:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

HENTAI!!!>:D

this is a good article for Hentai, but TOO MANY DAMN INFORMATION! Why is there so many information on "Meaning of the word", just 2 or 3 paragraphs are enough, and why so many big deal on Background? i know you all work hard on them both come on,.. some one will enter wiki and read this article, just to find A LOT OF info on Background Meaning of the word

Yes this article needs PICTURES! to stand out

and i swear there was some links to some hentai pages, for example there was a link to Hentia Lovers Club, WHAT HAPPEN TO IT!?,

There should be a header on "Differences of Hentai" it suppose to be about, hentai found on Interent and the Home Video, the differences about them

by the way, there was some more info on this Hentai page, WHAT HAPPEN TO THEM!? lets get to work><ino 03:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. You may wish to read What Wikipedia Is Not. -Harmil 10:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

read em,...you said it is an encyclopedia, and at the What Wiki Is Not, it says Wikipedia isn't an encyclopeida... anyway that talk i did,....and the one you just gave me has nothing to do with it>:(

all i am just asking is...if people come in and read Hentai article, they will see to many information, and they won't be botherd to read it...havn't you heard of persentations? do not pack to many information on one page...expend them

><ino 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Hentai Link

Wether or not this was intent of vandilism or wrong assumption, there should not be links to hentai. --FlareNUKE 08:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

? wats going on? everytime i check this Hentai article page, information are aways gone and changed, why?

can someone put the changes they will do here before actually doing it!

thanks
yes there shouldn't be a link to Hentai, only links that are not acctaully ment for porn, for example a H-anime/Hentai review wesbite, can be acceptd, but ones that actually shows movies, pictures, links to other hardcore are not accepted! >x<ino 13:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, lol I remember when there was a hentai link on this page before, but I dont remember when lol, I was doing a school report when i got bored and asked myself "I wonder if.... they have concise information of...." and I got side tracked. I do agree that there shouldn't be any hentai links, bad for children's minds. But the theory that a link could used to lure people to the site as an "advertisment" is incredibly insidious and very evasive... poor sick little minds :P. --------Reeves 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Image needed

Image added. --nihon 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images. --nihon 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I am a photographer in Currently in Japan with some free time. Is there any specific suggestions as to what photographs would suit the page without being deemed as pornographic. If anyone has any other image requests that they wish to me to fulfill while in Japan (time will be limited) let me know.

Mark 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Get a pic, with a woman, blending over, and her thong showing JOKING! Get a pic, with ...hmmm..lets see... with a pervet man taking pics of girls in a beach, but girls not naked

>x<ino 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion, and why they are not needed

Though hentai is a form of pornography, this does not give wikipedia a license to post pornographic images when other images are available. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a pornographic site.When I edit wikipedia, I always think of the seventh grader whose doing a research report (though I understand that a research report on hentai is unlikely) and images that are not safe for work/school/parental consent should not be placed on the article. If you have to place an image, make sure it is appropriate and not overly explicit. I know that there are images that fit this category, people. (For example, the second image, the Ren'ai Consultant one, is fine.) --Offkilter 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. But nonetheless I agree we don't need any pictures of hentai itself. Pornography doesn't have any, for example, except a few mild ancient examples. Anyone who wants to know what a naked body looks like can either go to nudity or vulva, penis etc. Besides, I bet the images that have been posted aren't uncopyrighted or fair use. --Malthusian (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically most articles DO have genitalia pictures and such... I think pornography is bit un-needed though, so that "seventh-grader" should look at a more minor-safe site for info --FlareNUKE 11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do need pictures, to show and support the information for the article. But we don't really need a nudity picture.

2 images are enough, but they seem old.

We need one more picture, which is quite modern, like new, from 2000-2005, I suggest we need an image of Black Bible, the most famous and know Hentia, but no nudity picture

">x<ino and out!" >x<ino 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pornographic magazine. If someone wants to look up anatomy, let them look up that respective article and not have to see blatant nudity. I don't think that censorship is as much an issue here as appropriateness. The pictures that are up right now are good examples of what is good for the article.--Offkilter 19:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Offkilter speaks! By the way we still need a picture of Bible Black:P Best HENTAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(but no nude)

"xINO OVER!" >x<ino 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added another pic that's not "old". --nihon 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What Pic!?

I don't see any pic, accept for the same two

I told you weaklings to get a picture of Bible Black >:@

>x<ino 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason it didn't take the first time. It's there now. --nihon 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

lol on the pic:P

Where is the Bible Black!?

>x<ino 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The pic I added makes the article more balanced, showing another side of hentai. Bible Black is hardly the most well known hentai anime ever. --nihon 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Something

- Type EPs Year Award Rating Revs - Akiko OVA 2 1996 - 5.99 (83) - - (0) - - Angelium OVA 2 2004 - 6.91 (204) - - (0) - - Bakunyuu Shimai OVA 2 2005 - - (0) - - (0) - - Bible Black OVA 6 2001-2003 - 7.90 (865) - 8.08 (2) - - Bible Black Gaiden OVA 2 2002 - 7.61 (500) - 7.16 (2) - - Bishoujo Comic Lolikon Angel ~Mitsu no Aji~ OVA 1 1985 - 5.26 (43) - - (0) - - Black Gate OVA 2 2004 - 6.78 (84) - 4.50 (1) - - Blood Royal OVA 2 2002 - 6.42 (153) - - (0) - - Bondage Game - Shinsou no Reijoutachi OVA 2 2003 - 6.27 (118) - 7.91 (2) - - Call Me Tonight OVA 1 1986 - 6.10 (22) - 7.00 (1) - - Cambrian OVA - 2005 - - (0) - - (0) - - Choukou Tenshi Escalayer OVA 3 2002-2003 - 7.57 (254) - - (0) - - Cool Devices OVA 11 1995-1997 - 6.44 (253) - 4.50 (1) - - Dorei Kaigo OVA 3 2003 - 7.12 (113) - 7.00 (1) - - Ebenbourg no Kaze OVA 2 2003 - 6.39 (108) - 5.50 (1) - - El OVA 2 2001 - 6.26 (98) - - (0) - - Elfen Lied TV 13 2004 8.61 (4409) - 7.77 (40) - - Enzai OVA 2 2004 - 5.89 (50) - 5.49 (2) - - Flashback Game OVA 3 2001-2002 - 6.27 (92) - - (0) - - Futago no Haha Seihonnou OVA 2 2005 - 7.94 (15) - - (0) - - Gibomai OVA 2 2002-2003 - 7.12 (213) - 7.66 (1) - - Gravitation (2000) TV 13 2000-2001 - 7.63 (354) - 7.49 (6) - - Hana Dorei OVA 2 2001 - 6.25 (57) - - (0) - - Heisa Byouin OVA 2 2003-2004 - 6.62 (63) - 6.16 (1) - - Henbou Moral Hazard OVA 1 2001 - 4.36 (43) - - (0) - - Hinadori no Saezuri OVA 2 2000-2001 - 6.34 (52) - - (0) - - Hitozuma Ryoujoku Sankanbi OVA 2 2005 - 7.45 (33) - - (0) - - Hyakki OVA 3 2003 - 6.64 (64) - - (0) - - Ima, Soko ni Iru Boku TV 13 1999-2000 - 8.18 (928) - 7.89 (10) - - Ingoku Byoutou - Type EPs Year Award Rating Revs - Injuu Alien OVA 1 1997 - 5.59 (101) - - (0) - - Injuu Gakuen La Blue Girl OVA 6 1992-1993 - 6.40 (184) - - (0) - - Injuu vs Onna Spy OVA 1 1997 - 6.38 (48) - 4.83 (1) - - Inmu OVA 2 2000 - 5.95 (36) - - (0) - - Kanariya wa Kago no Naka OVA 2 2003-2004 - 6.93 (72) - - (0) - - Keraku-no-oh OVA 3 2002 - 5.95 (72) - - (0) - - Kininaru Kimochi OVA 3 2004 - 6.82 (14) - - (0) - - Kisaku OVA 6 2002-2003 - 7.89 (77) - - (0) - - Kite OVA 2 1998 - 7.01 (657) - 8.00 (2) - - Korashime OVA 2 2001 - 6.81 (90) - - (0) - - Kunoichi Bakumatsu Kitan OVA 2 2003-2004 - 7.58 (25) - - (0) - - Kurohime OVA 2 2002-2003 - 6.43 (122) - - (0) - - Luv Wave OVA 3 2000 - 6.46 (81) - - (0) - - Mahou Shoujo Ai OVA 5 2003-2005 - 8.68 (115) - 8.00 (1) - - Makai Tenshi Jibril OVA 4 2004-2005 - 7.47 (103) - 7.16 (1) - - Mi-da-ra OVA 3 2002 - 7.02 (43) - - (0) - - Miboujin OVA 2 2004 - 6.90 (59) - 5.16 (1) - - Moke Moke Taishou Dendo Musume Arisa OVA 2 2005 - 6.48 (51) - - (0) - - Mugen no Kyokai OVA 4 2000-2001 - 6.11 (66) - - (0) - - Narutaru TV 13 2003 - 7.01 (518) - 7.64 (9) - - Ningyo Tsukai OVA 1 1996 - 6.08 (31) - - (0) - - Pure Mail OVA 2 2001 - 6.89 (115) - - (0) - - Rejuvenation OVA 2 2000 - 5.66 (49) - - (0) - - SEXFRIEND OVA 2 2004 - 7.44 (517) - 7.24 (2) - - Shintaisou (Kari) The Animation ~Yousei-tachi no Rondo~ OVA 4 2002-2003 - 6.94 (179) - 8.00 (1) - - Shokuzai no Kyoushitsu OVA 2 2002 - 5.93 (81) - - (0) - - Shuukaku no Yoru OVA 2 2002 - 6.47 (92) - 8.50 (1) - - Stainless Night OVA 2 1995-1996 - 6.52 (156) - - (0) - - Stratosphera no Yousei OVA 3 2002 - 6.03 (113) - 7.16 (2) - - Utsukushiki Emono-tachi no Gakuen —This unsigned comment was added by 138.89.97.102 (talk • contribs) .

What da hell is this!?

>x<ino 04:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my question. I deleted it once as patent nonsense, but the anon editor added it back, still without an explanation. I posted a warning to the anon editor's talk page. --日本穣 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It suppose to be some ceremony thing, where they rated all some known Hentai movies. Apparently those ratings are stupid, 6.52/10!?
That annon suker, copied & pasted the notes...anon did not add the star (*)

Anyway...we really don't need a rating system in this article...

>x<ino 06:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Pornographic images

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. --日本穣 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

These are drawings, not photographs. grow upKaraveks voice 00:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawings can be pornographic just as easily as a photo. Please keep a civil tone when making comments here. There's no need to be rude. --日本穣 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

good point, but no one ever said wiki needs a censor.Karaveks voice 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. This is about whether or not the images add anything of value to the article. I don't believe they add anything other than eye candy to the article, and are therefore not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. --日本穣 01:10-ish, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, censoring the images will make the article dishonest , in spirit, and in fact, peole will geth e wrong idea, hence, the images HAVE value.Karaveks voice 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. This is about whether or not the images add anything of value to the article. I don't believe they add anything other than eye candy to the article, and are therefore not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. --日本穣 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

im sorry, but if its eye candy your looking for, there are MANY MUCH worse things to put there then such rather mild images. serieously, check out legend of hte overfiend and youll see what i mean. hence, since they are true to form and NOT excessive, they belong. btw, repeating youreslf and bolding statements doenst make your argument any better.Karaveks voice 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I only did that because you were ignoring what I said and using the same "That's censorship!" argument. Nothing about the previous three images was dishonest in the least. You don't need explicit images in the article in order to explain the topic. If people want explicit images, there are plenty of sources for them available by using a simple Google search. The article is not dishonest if it doesn't use explicit images. In fact, it would likely get more respect from the academic side of things (which is more what Wikipedia is aiming to be, rather than a resource for salaciously-minded individuals) if it didn't use explicit images when discussing it.

Not using explicit images is not censorship. Rather, it's a carefully thought out choice that makes the article more accessible so anyone interested in learning exactly what hentai is can do so without being driven away by explicit images. Whether you believe it or not, not everyone who would be interested in reading the article is interested in viewing such images. The whole point of Wikipedia is to help as many people as possible learn about as much as they want to, and adding those images hinders that goal. I'll say again: those images have no place on Wikipedia as they serve no other purpose than titilation. They do not improve the article, or make it more relevant. --日本穣 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you have made your case, but frankly its not good enough, you come off as sounding, no matter how much you say otherwise , as someone whos offended and wants the offense to go away, most other people arent nearly so sensitive.Karaveks voice 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you've only recently started doing anything with this article, I'd prefer to hear the opinions of others first (outside of you and SlashDot, who has only had an account for 3 days (compared to your 5 or 6 days of existence)—are you the same person using two accounts?). --日本穣 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

when ive been editing the article and my opinions are unrelated. you dont seem to like losing arguments. oh and feel free to check for socks or whatever, but i still think youll find yourself red faced.Karaveks voice 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other, though I do have my opinion on the matter (as I've expressed above). If the interested editors decide that explicit images are fine for the article, I'll go along with that. I don't think, however, that you or I should be making that decision based only on our two opinions. We need others to offer input on the matter as well. Some opinions on the matter have already been expressed in another section, above, but we need more opinions on the matter. --日本穣 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else is going to have to deal with this, at least until tomorrow as I don't want to violate WP:3RR. I do not think the articel needs explicit pictures in order to explain about hentai. The text does that perfectly well, and the previous pictures illustrated the article well enough. --日本穣 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

there are explicit images all over the site. this is no differentKaraveks voice 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate when jokers like this add images for simple shock value, then argue some anti-censorship thing when you try to tell them it hurts the article more than it helps. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Before it's even determined if the images should be there, they require a source. Do not include images until proper source information is stated on the images' pages. This is not optional. -- Ned Scott 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just realized something else, fair use can only be used when a free alternative is not available. There are plenty of alternative hentai images to illustrate the topic at hand. Even with source information, these images might not qualify as fair use. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I should note the discussion of images being used on Lolicon, on Talk:Lolicon, a similar, more extreme situation to the one happening now. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

its still just easily offended people trying to get thier way.Karaveks voice 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

An issue is an issue, no matter how you spin it, we have to deal with this issue. This isn't us vs you, this is all of us trying to make articles better. Please keep that in mind. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see that, and thanks for not assuming me to be a vandal. but my point above about how those images, if sourced will be fine is this. there are much, much worse images out there in the hentai field. just look at legend of the overfiend to see what i mean, these imges in question are actually quite tame. Thus i would thik they would be preferable, in thier honest, but tame state, too images that are , well, rather loathesome in compairison.Karaveks voice 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The only one of those images that could be considered "tame" is Image:Boku 83.jpg. Image:Yuna q28.jpg is suggestive, but would likely be fine as it isn't explicit. Image:Fuusen q21.jpg is unecessarily explicit for the article. As there are plenty of images (such as the three that were previously used) that can be used to illustrate the article without being explicit, this one should not be used. Articles on Wikipedia need to be written for the widest possible audience, and that one image will keep quite a few people away from the article due to its graphic nature. Wikipedia should be a resource that anyone can use, and illustrations and photos used in other sex-related articles are generally academic in nature (designed to academically illustrate the point rather than be pornographic). There is no need to break the accepted norm with this article. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

if you think that the pictures that were there arent tame, then you dont really know anything about the gendre. seriouslyKaraveks voice 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Locked!?

I don't know why this article is locked!?
Why did you lock my Hentai article:P

I understand you fools are arguging about the pictures.

WHy was the old picture deleted!? They were better, not like this new one. Where the girl is nearly naked, we/I can see her nipple!

Please change the picture!

>x<ino 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

you can also see nipple at Nipples SlashDot 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is locked because two editors were trying to force pictures into the article without consulting the rest of us. It will remain locked until this mess is sorted out. We requested that the picture be removed while we discuss this, but that request has not yet been granted. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not be dishonest, the only one trying to force the edit, which in this case was away from mild, reasonabe images (especially since the subject CAN be used to make very nasty images appear) is you, nihonjoe. heres a thought, if other people revert your edits, and in this case it is multiple editors, why not try having a real discussion, instead of just stating your viewpoint over and over without any room for negociation.... otherwise youll just get reverted some more, everyone gets three, remember? and if more then two people arein a coflict, then the one who has less supporters( sides of an issue, not users) will lose. so far it looks like, as the content issue goes, your side lost.Karaveks voice 02:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on...this is not about 3>2 or who is around to "out-revert" the other side. This needs to be worked out on this talk page. If you guys can't agree, consider WP:DR to solve the issue. Perhaps the image can be like the one at autofellatio, where it is a link and does not show imediatly. I do see a problem with its copyrights in that the "no other adequate and free image can be found" clause certainly is questionable here. It certainly is not the worst of henatai, so it does not look like a "shock" attempt though. I don't know, but try to work out something and use dispute resoluton if that fails.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn how to count. But it still doesn't matter because voting is evil on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask of Mr Karaveks voice, please don't be a dick. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Karaveks voice, would you please quit stating your viewpoints over and over? The images you and SlashDot are trying to work into the page are unsourced and not really necessary. Second, Nihonjoe has been posting on this article a little longer than you have; indeed, he was the one who first added the images. Perhaps if you had come to disscuss first, you would have had a better reception. As it is... you've been called a dick. -- David Souther

Looking through the history, it seems that none of the images are overly "Pornographic" in nature; the problem to me is a. the... overabundance and b. the lack of sources for many of the images. Karaveks voice, you yourself were trying to force your and SlashDot's pictures in to the article. I don't see them as being necessarily required; the point of an encyclopedia is to provide textual information that is accented or higlighted with pictures. More than one picture/page (of browser, not page of HTML) is in my opinion excessive, unless it has good reason. The current image is in my opinion tasteful of hentai, both capturing the art and the stereotypical image. While the previous yaoi/yuri images also accented the page, together they were too much and one alone would rather slant the perceived view of the article. I believe the best example for photos would be the current image (Fuusen q21.jpg) in it's current place, and perhaps a SOURCED alternative image for the Hentai Media section (CG render, picture of a carving...). -- David Souther

New images for article

Clearly we need new images we can all agree on. Something that is more hentai than the old ones, but maybe not as in your face.

In all honesty this is not about shocking, or what is tame, since those are both just POV. But there is something to be said about this article's usefulness going down if as soon as you see it you have to close the window so grandma doesn't see it. Or the poor soul who gets kicked out of the public library because he pulled this article up, and they thought he was downloading porn. This is not a case of saying "tough luck, buddy, deal with it". This is a situation in which we can accommodate, reasonably, and we should. There is a major difference in censorship and accommodation.

We want this article to be the best it can be; to be useful to as many as it can be. But I do understand that the previous images really didn't represent hentai. (That being said, I only felt Image:Boku_83.jpg came close to an average representation. The other ones weren't even good hentai.) I suggest external links for our "candidates" before uploading new images to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The only image I have any major objection to (as far as being in the article) is Image:Fuusen q21.jpg. The others (including the original three) would be fine and give a decent range of styles and content, IMHO. I included Image:CreamLemonMakoSexySymphonyPart1manga.jpg because Cream Lemon is arguably the most famous hentai anime series ever (and apparently has something for everyone in one episode or another); Image:LevelC-DVDcover.jpg to give representation to the shōnen-ai sub-genre; and Image:RenaiConsultant.jpg because it shows the "cute" side of some hentai manga, and gives some representation to the shōjo-ai sub-genre. As I said above, I'm fine with Image:Boku_83.jpg and Image:Yuna q28.jpg being used, too. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have only an objection with Image:Fuusen q21.jpg as well. I agree that the line between censorship and accomodation is not fine, but I don't believe that that image accommodates that much. There are other images that fit the profile while still being SFW (Image:Boku_83.jpg is an excellent example). In my opinion, this isn't a matter of censorship as it is a matter of making the article being used for research rather than a pornographic website. (There is a big, big difference between art and pornography. A look at a Rennaissance Art gallery proves it.) You could very well give external links to NSFW images at the bottom, or at the very least add a NSFW tag at the top if needed. The end goal is an article that is used for research on the subject, and I think that that image isn't necessary for that purpose.--Offkilter 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but nor is it a shock site. There are many, many people who enjoy reading/watching hentai products regularly and never once look at badly-drawn pictures of women writhing about smeared with semen. Therefore, there is no need to include an image like Image:Fuusen q21.jpg simply to be "representative", because it is only representative of one narrow corner of a very broad genre.
And since the covers of so many hentai products are largely worksafe, it doesn't even seem to be a given that we need to include any non-worksafe images. Of my own collection of erogames, I estimate that only about a quarter have anything on their covers that I wouldn't be comfortable with a minor seeing, and scarcely any have anything more explicit than a nipple - regardless of the content of the game itself. (I'm not claiming these figures can be extended to the genre as a whole, merely pointing out that a lack of pornographic content would not in and of itself make the article inaccurate or unrepresentative.)
Therefore, I concur with the posters who propose removing Image:Fuusen q21.jpg: since there are alternatives which a wider range of users find acceptable and which are no less representative of the genre, I don't see that there's any reason not to use those alternatives. Avoiding censorship is a noble cause, but we should avoid censorship by ensuring that we describe things accurately, not by actively trying to offend people.
BTW, WP:NPA please. Some of the comments in the discussions above, particularly the constantly aggressive and insulting tone adopted by one of the people arguing in favour of the contentious images, are totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Amen to that.--Offkilter 01:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. An image that is not poorly drawn (proportions and shading) and less extreme might be better. While hentai can get worse, this is still too one-sided. Hentai may just be two anime characters having sex, as opposed to one character being raped/and or humiliated.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Whoaaa...bukakke is even worse...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave my Hentai alone! >:@
And Image:Boku 83.jpg seem to be alright:P

>x<ino 23:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That image is still unsourced, meaning that it can't use in the article until SlashDot says where it came from. But judging from the watermark, it probably came off of the J-List website. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source. Kotepho 09:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, all this hentai talks and imagery, is making me want to go back to watching Hentai again:P When I have stopped:)

>x<ino 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

BOKUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU:P

>x<ino 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd still rather not use something that was just taken off jlist.com. -- Ned Scott 00:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I Agree that we need to get a new flippin picture. And to whoever posted the image titled boku, you got the Dokuro-chan theme stuck in my head. (Vance Clarend 10:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Same here! The person that posted that image, got that name "BOKU" stuck in my head. >:@
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!:P

>x<ino 15:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break

Exactly, its just like alll other anime. Its YOUR choice to watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.227.20.67 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hentai, is for all intents and purposes- first and foremost, art. It should be allowed to a certain extent (the pictures now are fine and not too overly graphic). I vote it stays. --PiOfFive 14:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No! Too open wided
I say those other pictures should stay! Although even if they are weak images and old pictures!
Also I vote Boku image should say!

>x<ino 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already been agreed by most to not include the current picture (Image:Fuusen q21.jpg). Not sure if you're another sock puppet or not, but I find it odd your only contribution is that previous statement. -- Ned Scott 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

you mean Suker:P...sn00p d0g says suker duker:). Image:Fuusen q21.jpg is just dumb...I was raped and I fainted!?

>x<ino 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fuusen q21.jpg is a fine image. The Psycho 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this probably isn't fair, but I'm really finding it hard to take any pro-Fuusen q21.jpg argument seriously because they're all from users less than a month old. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think that Image:Fuusen q21.jpg should be replaced with a more tasteful image, one that isn't take from JList. It shouldn't be that hard to find an image that isn't as overt as Image:Fuusen q21.jpg. Why use this tantalizing image when a a tamer image can illustrate the article just as well? --TheFarix (Talk) 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I really don't care much what the image for this article is. It's just not that important. If anyone types 'hentai' into Google they'll find plenty. That aside, I feel that Fuusen is a good image because it is representative of the vast majority of hentai without being extremely shocking. Also, I have been a user for more than 1 month.

Re: Farix: "a more tasteful image"

I wouldn't call hentai itself "tasteful" by Protestant-cultural standards. Just thinking about all the hentai images I've seen in my life...can't really think of a tasteful one that doesn't have nudity. Hentai denotes sex, not just nudes. Otherwise it'd just be an ecchi picture, like the cover of a doujinshi, women in swimsuits or something (Would that be "tasteful"?). However, women in swimsuits is not hentai. I feel that the image should be a real hentai image...readers of the article should get a full introduction to the subject, and not have to do research for themselves elsewhere or be misled by the article. Otherwise, if people just feel porn is bad(and most people here seem to), then I'd say, better get rid of the image altogether than have a misleading one.

The trend on wikipedia seems to tend not to have images of explicit sex acts, or even half-nudes by themselves. If anyone here followed the debate at lolicon, the page was only unprotected after an image with no nipples/genitals/bare butts was chosen...in that case I'd say the "representativeness" of the image might have suffered, but hey, it's not locked anymore. :|

So I would argue for (1) Fuusen, (2) no image, (3) an image without sex acts/fluids depicted.

In any case, we should unprotect the article. I feel that the article could be made clearer and more grammatically precise, and that has nothing to do with the picture. I'm interested in helping fix the article up. I don't feel that choosing an image is such a huge problem that the entire article has to be locked.

--Zaorish 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)--Zaorish 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Number 3!:P

>x<ino 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

3, Man. I agree that fluids are graphic. We could just use an image of a popular hentai girl w/o shirt (bra on) and a skirt on....--70.248.115.42 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been many types of hentai. For example. Tentacles, Rape, and even animal hentai. There have even been hentai from anime shows you see every day such as pokemon, digimon, gundam, sailor moon, full metal alchemist, and many others. I have seen them for myself of course but thats not the point in some cases whether or not if anyone has seen them or not. lol. They even have hentai flash games on websites as well such as, http://www.funny-base.com, http://www.top-game.net. These two sites are very well known. Especially http://www.newgrounds.com. Newgrounds is a major site on the net that millions of people go on just about every day. There are some positive sides to these three websites. These websites have comedy videos full of entertainment that can last for hours on end. Male_Renamon 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sufficiently Representative?

Image:Awalcott.jpg Is used on the playboy page. Without being graphic it clearly demonstrates the erotic aspect of the magazine. Why not try and find a similar image for use here? Carterhawk

LOL at that playboy cheap image:P
Yea...we might need an image similar to that! Because who da hell wants to look at fuusu image, seeing a woman being cummed all over. >:@

>x<ino 15:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"seeing a woman being cummed all over" is very, very, common in hentai.

I feel that Fuusen, or a similar image, is a good compromise between representation and explicitness.

--Zaorish 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

yea...it may be common, but come on! That just looks nasty! that doesn't even look like the cum i have seen in certain hentai:P
By the way..you need to fix that thing blocking your Babel, in your cheap profile:P

>x<ino 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have found one that is not too overtly sexual, but it's rather small.

(Click at own risk) --PiOfFive 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the kind of picture we need! but too small! >:@

>x<ino 14:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

ja interwiki

ja:18禁アニメ is the equivalent article in the Japanese wiki. The linked article is about cartoon porn, for those unable to read Japanese; would a kind admin please amend the article? And hadn't anyone noticed that an article named after a Japanese term doesn't have an interwiki to jp? :) --Sam Pointon United FC 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Very weird --Haham hanuka 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Meaning

Shouldn't there be a note near the top about Hentai's alternate meaning of metemorphasis (As used in the gamecube game Cubivore)? It's entirely possible that someone might come here trying to find information about that after playing Cubivore or seeing/reading/etc. something else about the metamorphasis meaning. --the_suicide_forest 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I put it in earlier, but someone changed it. 変態 does not mean "strange appearance". Those are the individual meanings of the kanji in the compound. The collective meaning of a compound is generally different from the individual meanings put together; in this case, it means "transformation" or "abberation", and is used in biology to mean "metamorphosis". Note that on interwiki, ja:変態 links to Metamorphosis_(biology). --Grenadier 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Japanese, live in Japan. I agree with all of Grenadier's explanation. In Japan, we don't use 変態(hentai) to mean "strange appearance". I try to look up 変態(hentai) in my all Japanese dictionaries, but I can't found that kind of meaning. In Japanese dictionary, 変態(hentai) is explained only two meanings, "metamorphosis" as a word of biology, or "perverted/pervert (person)". Note that on interwiki, also ja:変態 (曖昧さ回避) links to Metamorphosis (disambiguation).--60.39.13.3 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added some time later: hentai indeed means "metamorphosis." For example, in the film of Rveolutionary Girl Utena there's a scene early on where Touga and Shiori are talking, and the scene shifts to a cabbage butterfly emerging from a cabbage in a field. In a few moments, the butterfly turns into Shiori with wings. To many of my anime-naive friends, the scene is not merely weird, it's absolutely incomprehensible-weird. But not in Japanese: the butterfly is undergoing/has undergone insect metamorphosis (a technical concept in biology) and so Shiori is hentai -- meaning "perverted." It's a visual pun and very effective if you know what hentai actually means. Timothy Perper 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pic

Can some admin add this picture to this article. I can't because page is locked. --Haham hanuka 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg

Hentai magazines being sold in Japan

Hmmm...That's a nice picture, we can explain how hentai is really into Japan.

>x<ino 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The image seems acceptable at that size, as a thumbnail you can't really see anything too "shocking", but it is there in the image and gives the reader the option of clicking on it and seeing the full sized image. I would also like to show support for this image being used in it's current form. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I propose: Hentai article via User:Ned Scott/sandbox -- Ned Scott 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ned you are overreacting! The picture doesn't have to be that big so the user can see it. The picture is just there to give an example. If its too small for the user, the user can click on the image. Linking the user to another site, in wikipedia, but showing the picture in a larger image!

>x<ino 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would propose that this image be used to replace the current one up. The thumbnail itself is much less offensive than the current one, however clicking on still gives an accurate if slightly less graphic representation of the genre. The current picture just seems too overly graphic. (More so than many mainstream hentai publications, at least except for a few panels usually located near the middle to end). I think this would allow us to show what hentai is without being overly perverted about it. The suicide forest 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we just please add the picture of boku!. I hate fuusu, it's too nasty! And we can keep this picture. Tash of p0rn/hentai:P

>x<ino 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we really have such a crude image here? I understan that this is the hentai article, but doesn't Wiki have rules about such content? Shouldn't te picture bing used here at least be censored? --67.169.202.48 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Netbug009

why should it have to be cencored? it's too small to asee anything unless the person looking at it chooses to enlarge it. 68.39.179.135 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Issues

The uploader of CreamLemonMakoSexySymphonyPart1manga.jpg did not specify where he got the image. Androson 04:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a scan of the manga cover, that is the source. Sources are not always URLs. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image is unsourced.Androson 05:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you even talking about this here? Put a fair use disputed template on the image if you feel so strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image is sourced now. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You people are starting to piss me off now! Where is my boku picture >:@

>x<ino 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It got deleted. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:(

>x<ino 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

H-Anime/Hentai

You know, the first few days and months I was at Wiki. This article was called H-Anime. What gives changing the name to Hentai!? Now the H-Anime article is for listing. >x<ino 02:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

...I don't know how long you've been here, but according to the history this page was created under this title in 2001. There was a seperate H anime article which now redirects to List of H anime, but it never contained anything other than a short list of titles. Shiroi Hane 09:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So...there were 2 different articles before...no wonder, cuz before I used to call it Hentai. After seeing that article, I later refere it to H-Anime.

>x<ino 14:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, H-Anime is seperate due to the fact that you can split hentai into a ton of different sections. On wikipedia alone there is eroge (some people call them hentai games), H manga and then go further (when describing web comics etc). Then you also have the different niches, such as bishojo, yaoi,yuri, shota, panchira,lolicon and futanari(spelling may be off), etc. The main hentai page is more of a landing page to describe and explain the concepts, then you have the seperate pages off of that which go more into detail about the different types that are made today and were made in the past.Steve355 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Browsing this article... It seems there is a discontinuity in that the article "skips" from the term Hentai to H-Anime with no explanation.
--Just a reader, 15 June 2007

Hentai and Japanese Tradition

As non-japanese, I find it pretty hard to understand how a very socially-conservative population like Japan's accept such severely explicit pornography, and even in public. The article doesn't tell much on how such thing is taken normally in Japan. I think a sufficient explanation is needed.-- Haisook 22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, maybe they're not as "socially conservative" as you think? Some are, some aren't. Just like any other country.--68.227.68.36 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hentai really isn't accepted in public. The only people who do flip through pornographic material in public are socially-ignorant otaku, not necessarily because it is socially acceptable, but because they are so tuned out of the real world.--69.141.190.230 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly untrue. I have observed Japaneses salarymen doing just this, dressed in nice business suits in two Japanese bookstores in midtown Manhattan. --Uncle Ed 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Manhattan wasn't in Japan. People do lots of things when they're out of town on business that they wouldn't do at home. (One American city even has built a marketing campaign around that fact.) --FOo 08:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were a Japanese and in a Japanese bookstore in Japan, and you looked at what someone else was reading, you would be rude. Hopefully this will explain something to somebody. One thing you must already know about Japan is that rudeness is bad and personal privacy is respected. "In public" would mean on a train or some other commons. Many people read manga, but not hentai manga, unless they are otaku (in the bad sense of the word). And by the way...Japanese H magazines are sealed in plastic, in Japan and America, although pulp magazines (manga) are not.

Vendrov 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hentai Article Link

I added a link on the Hentai page to an article I wrote, and it was later removed. (This) I consulted the editor who removed the link, and he said to post about it here and see what the rest of the editors think about it.

I have been in the business for over six years and I think my writing is useful and on-topic. If it is against your policies to have my article listed then that is fine, but otherwise I would like it to be included.

Thanks for your consideration. I will stay tuned to see what you decide.

It has been quite a while; no editors have an opinion on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.159.173 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Back again, and still no one has anything to say about this after several weeks. Quite a contrast to what happened before; I added a link to my hentai article and it was removed within two hours. I have been waiting patiently but it seems as if nothing is happening. Here is what the removing editor said on his Talk page:

"The linked web page wasn't necessarily bad, but in general we try to limit the amount of external links on an article. (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY) People are also discouraged from adding links to their own web sites due to possible issues like conflict of interest, spam, etc. (Wikipedia:External links) I would suggest that you post your link on Talk:Hentai and see what the editors generally feel about it, rather than adding it yourself. Nothing personal, but with some high traffic articles such as Hentai the external links section can easily get out of hand pretty quickly." -- Ned Scott 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would really like my article to be included. Would some of the other editors please look into this and let me know what you think? --74.101.159.173 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 74.101.159.173. Definite "no" to keeping the link, it's a "look at our pr0ns!". The links go to a NSFW teaser page, then another NSFW teaser requiring a pay age verification service. Wikipedia is not free advertising. - Jaguara 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FMA vandalism.

I still haven't sifugred out how to get rid of it all...... Zazaban 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

:/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.199.173 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection

I requested semi-protection to limit editing to registered users because of the anonymice blanking or nonsense editing this article. - Jaguara 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection again, IP anon vandalroaches are back. Lather, rinse, repeat...man, people need to get a hobby that takes them away from the keyboard! Jaguara 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese self-concept

In my studies of Japanese language and culture, I have found a strong trend of denial about Japan's cultural flaws and historical excesses. It is well-known in the West that Japan downplays the comfort women episode; that eupmemistic term refers to foreign girls and women enslaved and raped by the Japanese military in WW2.

Less known is the connection between rape and Geishas: each geisha is raped upon beginning service, I've heard, with her "virginity sold" at a high price. Japanese don't like to talk about this.

Japanese are reluctant to teach Westerners any of their swear words. But I checked a few choice terms with Christian missionaries who are native speakers of Japanese. Yep, Japanese people have words for cunt and cock, et al., with the same connotations that the English terms have.

Hentai is by no means a Western phenomena. It came to the U.S. from Japan, which has a 'rich' history of pornographic 'art'. Also, the classic Tale of Genji (which I read in translation, sorry, I never mastered kanji) involves a prince named Genji who can rape women with impunity and even kidnaps a little girl and has her raised to become his concubine.

Let's not censor any of this. --Uncle Ed 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. We in the West get to see the best face of Japan. Everyone adores My Neighbor Totoro with the mild, kindly professor and the friendly neighbor lady who took care of the house. But the grittier, more realistic Sen to Chihiro showed the 'fallen nature' of Japanese people in pre-modern times. Is it just me, or did all the female staff in the bath house have slutty expressions on their faces? Anyway, many of the customers were monsters whose excesses were tolerated, and this cartoon movie became the top-grossing film ever in Japan. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that my changes were reverted on the grounds that they were "original research" and did not contain sources. I will obtain sources and try again later. --Uncle Ed 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As a conservative, perhaps you've mostly socialized with likewise conservative Japanese people and heard and read about Japan from other conservatives? If you want to bring up the WW2 Japanese military's comfort women issue, remember (or learn for the first time), that Japanese women were in employment as comfort women just as much as natives in colonized territories. And labor conditions aside, they were paid for their work. But this is discussion for another article.

I appreciate how the Japanese audience immediately and intuitively knew the all customers at the bathhouse in Spirited Away as gods, while you perceived them as fanciful monsters. While that's not a bad thing, it does show you have a very big cultural gap to cross before you can claim an understanding about something that's inherently Japanese culture. Another background point you missed is that there's a three-way standoff between frogs, slugs, and snakes in Japanese folklore. All the female employees in the Spirited Away bathhouse are anthropomorphized slug spirits. The males are frog spirits. In fact, the only human there is the girl Chihiro. But Miyazaki anime is as far away as you can get from hentai. Why does this even have to come up.

Anyway, expats don't tend to talk badly about their home country, so what you may perceive as denial likely isn't so in the minds of any Japanese you may socialize with. But anyway, since you like to contribute to this article, I also take it you enjoy the subject matter, as I do too. Nothing said here should take away from that, so enjoy.--24.5.184.255 07:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing of the Japanese culture or people Uncle Ed. 220.253.22.120 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the term

The intro states:

However, in slang situations it often means "perverted" and is subsequently used in many other countries to refer to anime, manga and computer games with explicit sexual or pornographic content (see Japanese pornography). The word is never used this way in Japanese ... [cut for discussion purposes by Ed Poor]

It only took me a few seconds of googling to discover a bilingual discussion of the Japanese language use of hentai with the same meaning as the English language usage. Apparently it is a double loanword. [7]

Moreover, there is no source for the claim that "The word is never used this way in Japanese".

Since (1) the claim is unsourced and (2) it is incorrect, I really should just cut it from the intro. But since I was reverted and accused of OR less than 24 hours ago, I invite discussion of this matter first. --Uncle Ed 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Apparently it is a loanword.

Main Entry: hentai
Part of Speech: n
Definition: sexually explicit animation or comics
Etymology: Japanese 'perverted, perversion' [8]

I'm still not sure whether the article intro should describe the original Japanese meaning, or should go right into the new English meaning. If it's the latter, we could create a short "Etymology" section somewhere, lest people think the word means precisely the same in both languages.

There are other loanwords which English has taken from Japan, and usage and definition do tend to vary. Some that don't vary significantly include kamikaze, harakiri, geisha, judo, karate, sakura (cherry blossoms), etc.

Interestingly, ecchi is a Japanese word based on the English letter H. --Uncle Ed 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Use and meaning of "hentai" and "ecchi"

Hentai is slang for "perverted" (connoting "strange-desire") meaning any paraphilia. Ecchi is indeed the letter "H" which stands for the American slang "horny". If Britain had occupied Japan the word would probably be "R" instead.

As applied to manga and anime, "hentai" still generally refers to types of sexual fantasy which are difficult or impossible to portray with live actors. Thus, a pin-up magazine in Japan is not considered "hentai" but might be "ecchi."

IMO, traditional Japanese culture did not by our standards overly sensationalize or repress eroticism, leaving sexuality to the realm of the private and individual. In late modern times these Western categories offered a new exoticism and prurience, as descriptions of foreign sexuality. The re-exported applications of both of these new concepts are close enough to their original imported meanings. Vendrov 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality.

I understand that the users most responsible for fleshing out this topic would more than likely be fans of the genre. However, there is a quote in the abstract for the article that states, "Hentai is a beautiful art."

I, too, believe it is a beautiful art. I don't find the pictures too grafic and the videos are hott! =) People need to be more open minded. Everyone always think hentai is so controversal when buying PlayBoy is not. Just because it is now a drawling of sexual intercourse doesn't mean it is any different. Everyone should give hentai a chance, if you don't like it move on. And if you happen to like it, good for you! Chairman B. 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You marked this article? >.> Allen649 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this quote or whatever any where, so I presume it was removed (?.. "abstract"?).

Are there any more POV issues or should we remove the tag?

And can we please just stick to the point and refrain from creepy ranting?

..Please?.. Repku 10:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So uh, since it seems Chairman B. was the one who tagged this randomly with the NPOV, and he doesn't really state a good reason for it, AND I haven't found anything to suggest NPOV violation, I will remove the tag. :] CanadaAotS 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been back to check on my observation. It seems my original talk entry was edited to make it look like I was supporting a non-neutral point of view. My original comments in their entirety were:

I understand that the users most responsible for fleshing out this topic would more than likely be fans of the genre. However, there is a quote in the abstract for the article that states, "Hentai is a beautiful art."
Since, as almost anyone will tell you, "beauty" is purely subjective, the statement quoted contravenes the guidelines on neutrality. The phrase should be stricken from the entry. Chairman B. 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't read the entire article I no longer see the phrase that originally caught my attention. I have no objection to the neutrality tag being lifted, though that seems to have been done already. --Chairman B. (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

I suggest semiprotection for this page. It's vandalised almost daily and often more than once a day. And the topic it discusses is prone to vandalism anyway. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. // DecaimientoPoético 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A source of references

I was looking for some references in the ELs and sure enough, at the end of this link, under "Footnotes", there are a bunch of references we can use. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's are some references if you want them.

First, the Japan entry in Robert Francoeur and Raymond Noonan's International Encyclopedia of Sexuality.

Yoshiro Hatano and Tsuguo Shimazaki, with updates and comments by Yoshimi Kaji, M.A., Timothy Perper, Ph.D., Martha Cornog, M.S., M.A., and Robert T. Francoeur, Ph.D. 2004 Japan (Nippon). The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. New York: Continuum.

The preceding section is available at http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php#8a

The subsection on manga is Section D in the following: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php#unconvent

That section, which my wife Martha Cornog and I wrote, is very detailed. The entire article is quite scholarly and may give many more details than you want.

Second, for a scholarly monograph, again perhaps much more detailed than you want, see

Perper, Timothy and Martha Cornog 2002 Eroticism for the masses: Japanese manga comics and their assimilation into the U.S. Sexuality & Culture Volume 6, Number 1, pages 3-126.

As you may know, I'm working with a number of other Wikipedians on a major revision of the manga article (some of the new material has already been put up -- see the entry for manga and the talk pages for manga and on the manga/anime project page). We will discuss a number of these issues, including rape, when we get to the sexuality section in the manga entry. If you'd like to help us, you are more than welcome!

BTW, the issue of rape in manga is much more complicated than it seems. If you're interested in my credentials for saying any of this, visit my user page.

Timothy Perper 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this article?

Can someone make a list or people stop complaining about things that were deleted long ago? Allen649 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what fact's currently presented are being disputed. Also, since the fact tag is the only one there (I removed NPOV as there was no NPOV dispute as far as I could tell), I'll remove the "multiple cleanup" tag. Really, it's a lot nicer viewing this article with a million tags up top. lol. (especially when they don't apply to the article in question...)

CanadaAotS 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I say there's nothing wrong with this article. There was maybe 2-3 people that disliked it. So they complained like crazy, then left without helping. Allen649 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove the last tag

The people who bitched about this article are gone, and no one is "disputing" it. Allen649 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll dispute that it's accurate. No references provided for anything, even. Valrith 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no website that just has a history of Hentai... Other than here, and everyone who is complaining has never actually found anything worthwhile. Allen649 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"History of Hentai

The history of what us Westerners are commonly calling Hentai starts way back during the 1500s during the Edo Period of Japan with the popularity of wood block prints that eventually took not only a sexual turn but another turn depicting surreal sexual fantasies. This was not called Hentai, the wood blocks depicting sex were called ukiyo-e and the wood blocks depicting surreal or fantasy were called shunga. Originating from two words combined, hen meaning strange or unusual and tai meaning attitude or appearance. The modern definition of Hentai in Japanese is pervert and is used to describe a person or individual and not magazines or movies with sexual content. The word pervert has a different meaning in Japan than it does in the West, you have to remember that there is a huge culture difference between East and West. While the Western definition of pervert provokes a negative stereotype way out of the accepted social mainstream to the point of criminal, the definition is not anywhere near as negative in the East. It appears to describe an individual with different tastes with a slightly negative connotation, but not as far out of the mainstream.

The animated or artistic sexual material we are referring to as Hentai is referred to as anime or manga in Japan. H anime is considered the animated or artistic expression with adult or sexual content. H manga is usually the adult orientated printed version in books or comic book style magazines. Because of Western influence the H represents the rating of adult content much like our R, M, or X. Originally however, this was not the case and H anime had variables such as ecchi which may have softer versions of Hentai showing nothing more than a woman’s breasts. Even the word ecchi has many various spellings describing milder, or less strong language or actions.

Since Hentai, or H anime, or H manga is considered artistic the full use of the imagination is acceptable, almost encouraged, including depictions that run against the grain of accepted society and culture, much like the Western worlds acceptability of controversial art. This could easily include bukkake or group sex, bukkake being the depicting of a female used to service as many males as possible who then ejaculate on her. This usually occurs in public or in an area with a large number of males either present or available. Much like our shock jocks, extreme sexual fantasies can be the norm, depending on the taste. Some Hentai will concentrate on character development or plot with sex during the story while other variations cater to fetishes up to and including sexual encounters with aliens. The genre of Hentai alone is as diverse as the shelves in any bookstore. "

http://hentaihostess.com/Hentai_History.html

Allen649 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See? NO HELP. Allen649 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bishi

The description in yaoi and yuri could confuse the reader into thinking that bishōnen and Bishōjo are contextual to those forms of hentai only and are not just general terms used to describe the sterotype. Jinnai (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References

References need to be added to this article. Currently, there are none. I have flagged the article as such. --Vashir (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You will not find sources for hentai!

If you want to add sources then please do so, don't just tag this article and go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen649 (talk • contribs)

http://www.yuribou.net/blog/hentaidic/hentaidic2.htm

There is a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen649 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You still need to provide them in the context of the page. Re-tagging article until this condition is met. Please discuss and reach a consensus BEFORE removing the tag. --Vashir (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at least help. Allen649 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

both sides of the issue

anyone want to mention how some people (and by that, I mean, the majority) think hentai is really, really fucked up? If you really want to be comprehensive, that's fine, but this article gives the illusion that hentai is perfectly socially accetpable. (The one reference to Japan is not adequate.) And it's not generally considered socially acceptable.

At all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimmC (talk • contribs)

Do you know of any reliable published sources that support that view? If so, you can add information with citations to such sources. -- Donald Albury 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway while its not considered normal by some people there isnt really much harm in it, its probably less shocking than porn to most and if anyone comments on it being weird you just say 'its japanese' and people just nod ang go 'aaah, i see' because foreigners are allowed to be weird 172.142.250.251 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I wonder... Is there any porn material "socially acceptable" by "the majority"??? And what do you mean by "fucked up", and how we'd put it in the article? Sspecter (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All these terms that he uses mean nothing, I'm guessing it is his uninformed, inaccurate veiwpoint. Some people (Mostly idiots on forums in my experience, who have little of no idea what they are on about) think it is unnatural, because it's not a real person. They ignore the fact that (apologies for being crude) it doesn't really matter what you jack off to at the end of the day, it doesn't make your hand into whatever you are looking at. and also, it's not really an issue, is it? TheDarkFlame (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sites and Censorship

I noticed that some external links leading to actual hentai sites were removed. While I personally think that wikipedia should 'NOT' link to sites like those as they contain no real value for wikipedia, I question if removing them would constitue as censorship. They may contrubute a little (they let an unfammilure person see for themselves what hentai really is) but is there not a better site that may explain a little about hentai unstead of just pics. If I were to see links like this in the future what should be done about them?New Order (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're still in highschool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen649 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

what? New Order (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I really don't like this part:

This may include portrayals of sexual acts which are unacceptable in society, dangerous, physically harmful or realistically impossible (whether because of anatomical extremes or due to the participation of aliens, monsters, and other creatures of fantasy). Examples include extreme bondage, creatures with tentacles, and other fetishes. Shunga artists like Yoshitoshi and Kuniyoshi showed gang rape, erotic crucifixion, and even forced late third-trimester abortions by a "cannibal witch".

It's only that in there, and it's one sided text. Also, there are no references, indicating Original Research? I'm gonna remove it until some more fit description is found. bladez (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Add examples to Classification section

I feel that somewhere in this section, links should be posted that lead to a list containing every hentai of that sub-genre.

Oh, and since I'm here... well I know this is not a forum but,... are there any hentai with mermaids? Superjustinbros. (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What is Hentai

Recently I was listing to the local radio and two people were trying to find out what hentai was, so the first thing they tried to do was look it up on wikipedia. Because the first two paragraphs didn't even say anything about pornographic animation and talk more about what it means in Japan they couldn't understand what it means from the wikipedia page. In fact if the entire article was read from the prospective of someone who has no previous knowledge of what hentai is I would say that a number of people would not be able to understand what it means in America. Considering that this is the English version of wikipedia I think that the article should be focused on what it does mean in America, pornographic animation. I would like to hear what other people think.New Order 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that English is spoken by more countries than America, I'd say it should be written on what is means in the English-speaking west rather than just the States. But besides that, I'd wholley recommend the rewriting. 24.86.59.67 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i agree. we should also change the main image. First it is already used in the article "tenticle rape" and it doesn't represent modern American Hentai. (Textmaker2000 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Just found an image at wikimedia commons. Its called "foxie with player". Would this be a good title image or is it a little too much of furry sex (Textmaker2000 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I agree we need a new image! but not the fox shit. We need a hardcore porn image that clearly tells what hentai is. we should get a screen shot of la blue girl or something. we could use that hot image from the "black bible" article! (Hentai-lover1000 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

IMAGE

That image is NOT HENTAI. I will quote the article itself "Hentai is a Japanese word that, in the West, is used when referring to sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation, particularly Japanese anime, manga and computer games." The image is of a WATER-COLOR PAINTING. The only reason the votes are in favor of it staying is due to perversion.24.184.206.83 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

you need an image as an example. a subject like this may seem inapropriate, but if you find a picture you think is suitable, but is still hentai (good luck) put it here for desicion making. --Ratstail91 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We should have an image to explain Hentai. We are allowed to use nudity on Wikipedia, as long as it is mainstream with the topic.--F-22 Raptored (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with nudity. Hentai is anime/manga that is sexual. That image was just a water color painting and had nothing to do with hentai at all. 24.184.206.83 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

H means ecchi?

Tohobbes (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I thought so to, but my girlfriend said that wasn't true, but she never said where their word "ecchi" came from, maybe she didn't know. Anyway, it could be misinformation so I think that fact should be removed from the article until it can be sourced. Anyone agree?

I marginally recall a trend phrase among 70's Japanese children saying "letch skectch, blah blah", and others saying "ecchi sketch, blah blah" to tease lechy boys by girls. The word "letch" was so unknown to Japanese. As for H as "ecchi", Japanese schools has always taught H as (pronounced /eɪtʃ/), thus there was no clear relation between H and "ecchi". I think TV shows started to use H to pronounce as "ecchi". Worldwidewaffle (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What the heck?

Somebody's put HENTAI IS THE BEST FUCKING SHIT IN THE WORLD in the article! I'm going to change it, don't worry.

Dibship (I don't have a tilde key)

You can use the sig button which appears above every edit box. It looks like this:

···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Source

Good information source for this article : A Short History of 'Hentai ' http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue12/mclelland.html --Gdore (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New Category

Why not Paizuri? That's the commonly known form of hentai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master Dogma (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Master Dogma (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it then == Allen75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen750 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Images needed

Per WP:Not Censored, we could really use an image in this article. Aren't there any good artists out there willing to draw just *one* explicitly hentai image to post freely? :P Shrumster (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't require an explicit image for illustration, though. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but it also doesn't go out of its way to find explicit images to use to illustrate articles just for the sake of using an explicit image. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems really odd that an article about a visual art form (albeit an explicit one) does not have at least one example. As an example, if we removed the pictures from Cubism, Surrealism, and Erotic art, would they be as good as articles as they are now? Perhaps a good middle ground would be an example that isn't particularily explicit or objectionable (e.g. softcore).Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Softcore hentai artwork = ecchi, which has an entire different wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.53.228 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Images are always helpful, even more so for visual art forms, as Surv1v411st stated. The trouble here is finding something that isn't copyrighted, which would be slightly difficult considering this type of thing is usually (if not always) created for commercial purposes. Other than that, there is absolutely no reason anyone should feel squeamish about posting an image to illustrate the topic. If you still need persuading, go ahead and check out WP:Not Censored and the article for Penis. Thanks, Aaron ► 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This picture on Commons might be a good addition to the article. It appears to be free of copyright issues and isn't particularly explicit. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image be original of an actual japanese artist? From that image's summary, it seems that the pic in question was made by a german user, which kinda defeats the point of illustrating artwork of japanese style/origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.53.228 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the image for being German-made (and terrible quality). Hentai image used should definitely be of Japanese origin.--Remurmur (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the image was re-added (a proud artist, perhaps?). Removed. Neither necessary (the two pictures we already have give a good idea) or appropriate, and, worst of all, not actually representative of the Japanese art (as mentioned above). User below who mentions that people will sometimes want to research a topic without being exposed to it has a very good point, and their suggestion of a "show/hide image" button would be fantastic addition to this site. Sam250 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the image. I also disagree with the notion that the two images now on the page gives a good idea. It is a store and a picture showing an old art-form. In what way is this even close to what you would encounter anywhere where the actual thing is presented? Wikipedia is not and shall not be censored, this is an explicit subject and should be treated as such. For those that are sensitive to materials like this there are guides on how to remove explicit images for their browsers. I vote to re-add the image, it is not good, but it is a lot better than nothing. -- Dront (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The image needs to be on topic. That is, Hentai. Hentai does not need to be produced by a Japanese artist in order to be Hentai. Does surrealistic art need to be produced by a spanish artist? Must pointilist work be from a French artist? The point is the image adds to the article and makes it much better. If you have other public domain work that would illustrate the tpoic better, then lets discuss it. Atom (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the clientele. Someone's online and they see the word henti, 'What does this mean? I get the feeling it's NSFW so I better not just Google it'. People often come to Wikipedia when they don't know what a word means, Wikipedia should be a place where you can learn about something graphic without being exposed to it. Can't we settle for some sort of hide spoiler like feature? "Double click for to de-censor" Or maybe a redirect page that says something like "Warning NSFW, click here if you wish to continue".Fema5 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting official Wikipe-tan hentai to be produced for this page. For example purposes, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.25.245 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that isn't ever going to happen. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Wikipedia is not censored. No one has suggested that Wikipedia is, or should be NSFW. The image is licensed for use on Wikipedia, and is not a copyvio. The image is directly related to the topic of the article. The image is of good quality. It adds to the quality of the article. An article with no lede image would be of diminished quality in my opinion. The image does not violate the law in the state of Florida (where the Wikipedia servers are located. It is not pornographic in nature, even if explicit. Hiding images behind a link is considered to be censorship. Wikipedia has a policy of no censorship. (see disclaimers at the top of the talk page.) Users of Wikipedia have an option of not displaying images, or of not looking up sexually oriented topics, or to not use Wikipedia at all.

I have returned the image to the page. It should remain unless someone feels that there is a better image available and can propose that. Atom (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been some dispute over the image I did a dive to see if I could find some alternatives under creative commons or another nice license. I came up with the following after struggling for a few minutes over at deviantArt.com since they require you to sign up for pretty much any feature they offer. I also could not search by license. A pretty generic one, a less generic one and same artist as the second one. If anyone enjoys digging around the dA search trying to punch in the right keywords, go ahead and dive in. I bet you can even find a lot of the hentai sub-genres. This is the best I could find quickly and they are all CC, although we should of course give a message to the artist with thanks if we decide to use it. -- Dront (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All three of those are CC-by-NC-ND or CC-by-NC-SA, meaning they can not be used on Wikipedia because of the non-commercial (NC) part of their license. In addition, the second two are fan art of Code Geass, so definitely can't be used. If you can convince the first artist to either change the license to CC-by-SA or to do another one specifically for Wikipedia to use, then it could be used here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was un-aware of the NC issue, but now that you mention it is it more limited than the GFDL. Thank you for pointing that out. -- Dront (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

People can't get to any of these without logging in to their site. Aren't there any image son the commons site? If the current image is CC, and these are CC, what are the advantages to using any of them?

The pretty generic one is framed poorly for the lede. (very wide and narrow) It probably is not suitable for that reason. Also, it may be too generic to be characteristic of Hentai.

The second one -- less generic -- is not bad. It is not as visually interesting as the current lede.

The third one -- same artist -- is also not bad -- probably not as good as the second.

I like the current one being used of the girl with pink hair the best. It looks like Hentai, for one. Atom (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I was unable to find anything better. Initially I tried the CC search engine but ended up with nothing. After 日本穣 pointed out the licensing issues I guess the ones I posted will fall even more short of the goal. I guess the commercial nature of all pornographic material will make it even harder to present something "real". Looking at pornography the best they have come up with are magazines on display. -- Dront (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked elpinoy on deviantArt (the creator of the first image you linked to) if he's willing relicense an image or create a new one. We'll see what happens. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bring this back up but do you REALLY need a picture? All I need is for one person at my school (teacher filters out all games) or local library to bring this page up and have an admin see it. There goes access to Wikipedia. I just thought of something that might work though, maybe the image is hidden until you scroll over/click it, would that work? -Ghoohg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoohg (talk • contribs) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

where's the IPA?

With so much kanji and etymology littered all over this article, you'd think there'd be at least one IPA pronunciation listed... 76.67.110.24 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mania link

Scratching Your H-Itch Mania article on Hentai. 211.30.12.191 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

The word Hentai is dead

No one in Japan even uses the word Hentai anymore. Here, I'll let you check out this link someone wrote on the newer word - 'Eroge' http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=500383&postcount=5 --Furude (talk) 12:58, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

Eroge refers specifically to "erotic games" and to nothing else. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe is right and please have a look at the actual Wiki page first since it pretty much refutes your criticism.

"Hentai is a Japanese word that, in the West, is used when referring to sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation"
"In Japan it can be used to mean "metamorphosis" or "abnormality". The word "hentai" has a negative connotation to the Japanese and is commonly used to mean "sexually perverted""
"'In slang, hentai is used as an insult meaning roughly "pervert" or "weirdo""
"The term is not often applied to pornography in Japan" and "The English use of "hentai" is more similar to the way the Japanese use the slang term エッチ (H, or ecchi)"

Can we leave it here? And you already have the Eroge page anyway. -- Dront (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is on the English language Wikipedia, and is encyclopedic regarding the term used in that language. Changes in the article should reflect changes in usage of the term in the English language. Since the historic origin of the word is from Japanese, this should be indicated in the article (it is). If the usage in Japanese changes, that is of interest, and could be mentioned in the article, but does not change our description of the usage in English. Atom (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I have never seen or heard anyone refer to Eroge as Hentai ゲーム. All sources I have encountered claim that this is a strictly a western phenomena. If someone can find even more information and history on the term usage in Japan and that indeed there was some sort of change from the 60;s, I will be happy to see it added. -- Dront (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I believe a section on criticism and controversy related to hentai would be a good addition. Here's a story related to pornographic depictions of young children in manga. It's interesting to note that Japan enjoys a low per-capita rate of rape. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think such a section would be valuable. The problem I see after reading the Economist article is that they discuss "Manga" and they discuss "Child Pornography". As the topic of this article is Hentai, it would not be useful to use that reference in this article. I think anyone who has seen Hentai would say that there are a proliferation of youngish looking females to be found, but calling anything I have seen "child pornography" would be a stretch. I have no doubt that someone out there has probably created Graphic images that fits into that category. But -- I would not call such things Hentai. Atom (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hentaims, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This article about hentai is too short, there needs to be more information. For example there needs to be a more detail explanations of how hentai is produced and display. Threw games, videos, manga, doujins and images. Many don't know the difference between a "doujin" and "manga" when referring to hentai, they both depict hentai. There are so many more categories that can been added when talking about hentai, mainly on the series associated with hentai and their artist. Just to name a few artist: amatarou, celluloid acme, digital accel, freaks, gunma kisaragi, hellabunna, inu, kensoh ogawa, naruho, nekomataya, shiwasu no. Adding examples of their work to see the different "hentai styles" they use would be more informative. Hentaims (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Hentaims (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We would be very happy to add to the article, but for these 'edit semiprotected' requests, you'd need to tell us exactly what to add - and provide appropriate reliable sources to support the facts. You might want to work on something in a user-space draft and point us to that.

You could also just make suggestions right here, in the hope that other editors will read them and either change the article themself, or they could add a specific edit request.

However, I cannot process the above as a request, because it is not specific, so I'm marking this as 'not done'; it's more of a comment than a specific request to make an edit. Hope that makes sense.

For more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Chzz ► 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done

I also wanted to add that hentai is just the general term, yaoi is homosexual boys, and yuri is homosexual girls. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADHD420 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Image is too explicit

God Loves You!

Do we really need this image as the main Hentai image?

. It just seems to me that someone wanted to fulfil their own fantasy. A non-explicit non-nude image will work just fine. If Hentai meant "nude sex in cartoons", then yes, but this is just "sexually explicit" which doesnt necessary mean we have to show this image. But whatever people want to do I dont care. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that the current photo represents the topic well? Does it, at a glance, give a reader a good idea of what Hentai may be? Do you have suggestions or recommendations for other images that are not copyrighted, or are licensed for free use that we could use? If we have alternatives, we can evaluate them all to determine which image represents the topic the best.

It seems to me that one could properly represent Manga in a "non-explicit" manner. But, how would one represent Hentai in a non-explicit way? Keep in mind also, that Wikipedia is not censored, and the given image does not violate Wikipedia rules. (it is, after all, a drawing, and also, only shows nudity.) If you feel that the image is "explicit" (and I gather than you mean that the frank nature could offend some readers) we certainly are open to alternatives that would be less likely to do so. But, if given a choice between an image that expresses the topic well, but is "explicit" versus an image that does not represent the topic well, but is "non-explicit". The image that represents the topic the best will always win. For instance a copyright free image from Manga would not be a good replacement for the current image. Atom (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't find the illustration particularly characteristic of actual Japanese ero-manga or ero-anime; it's merely a sexual image in a stereotypically Western-imitation-anime style that does not correspond to any established Japanese style. More to the point, I don't know if a single image serves this article well, regardless of content. As used in the West, "hentai" covers an extremely broad range of material, and while there is a certain preferred style for men's general ero-manga (which the illustration does not particularly represent), that is not the sole focus of the article. - JRBrown (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is on Hentai, and particularly, from the western perspective on the English Wikipedia. The purpose of a lede image is to try and have someone, at a glance, identify roughly what the topic is. The image does not have to represent all aspects of the topic (but the wider the range, the better)

These are images used on other language versions of the article. If you can recommend other images that could be included here, that would be great! Atom (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused by the "Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 002.jpg" filename, since of the 15 or so books whose cover is visible, maybe one or two are lolicon... :D Perhaps a crop of the right-hand middle portion of that one? - JRBrown (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Atom, I apologize I don't have any suggestions. I was just saying. From dictionary.com it says "sexually explicit animation or comics" so we should make the article work-friendly. Maybe a picture of them having sex from the back or something. Or the picture could be "boxed". Here the tits are just BAM, coming out like that. But ok it might be hard to find a non-explicit free image. I guess its ok.

JBrown, I was thinking the same - a crop from the right one with the two girls in bikinis could be OK too. Its up to you guys. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To anyone who thinks this is a tad over-the-top, I would have to agree. Surely you can read the article to find out what it is. You don't need a hardcore image to do that. Something like some of the pictures I have below would suggest the idea well enough.

http://apmhostedgalleries.com/newpics/cco/Hentai_G/Hent13.jpg http://www.wildsexygames.com/hent223.jpg

Do we really need hardcore to communicate the message of "sexually enticing"? For a younger audience, perhaps, but I don't think we really need to teach children that sex is exciting - at least, not until they're older.

There is a line between informative pictures and turning WikiP into a smut show.

EDIT: That, of course, is not to say that some images, like Atom's image on the far left, cannot be contained, because they are a historical or antiquated example of what hentai used to look like. It has tenure and acceptability as insight into the past. Modern pornography - except perhaps a standard-setting pornographic show, if there were such a thing - should not be acceptable because that would basically allow this page to degenerate into a porno image page as opposed to a properly informative article on hentai. Chargee (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, its over the top. The ones you gave would work great and would make the article work-friendly. I hope a free image can be found. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the images from the web sites you suggested, as they are copyrighted. Also, one is a teenager in a nurses uniform and the other a teenager sitting on a blanket. Both of them could probably be characterized as erotic poses. Neither is Hentai really, but might be called Manga, or maybe Ecchi.

The images shown here aren't "hard core". The one in lede might be called "sexually explicit", and if it were photography and showed genitals would qualify by some to be called hard core, so it approaches that definition. That is sort of the point. Hentai, by its nature is sexually explicit and even pornographic. If you had an image on the page that was not sexually explicit, it would not be a good example of Hentai.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it has a wide range of topics. I doubt that a few images on a few articles amongst millions of articles would qualify it as a "smut show". In this case, the topic is Hentai. We should have images that represent Hentai. We should not have images that do not represent Hentai.

We do not set as a goal to make Wikipedia safe for work. Of course we should not try to shock or offend anyone, but neither should we sensor an image just because someone may be embarrassed to look it up at work. If someone chooses to search for breast, or penis they will find images of those topics too. If one is at work and using Wikipedia, they can choose to turn off images to avoid potential problems.

No one is trying to enforce use of this specific image. It is only the best available on the topic at this point in time. The other images I found did not seem to be better. Atom (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the views of Atom, the current image is the best we currently have to offer and in relation to the topic it has to be considered rather "clean". Asking to tone it down to just a sexual pose has to be seen as arguing that the Hardcore pornography should avoid showing sexual intercourse.

It also worries me that I have seen arguments along the line "What message are we sending?". Our mission is not to form a message or pass on morals, we are to present an accurate description of reality and as such the current picture is superior to any alternative presented here. -- Dront (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the top image of Hardcore pornography is LESS explicit than the one current at the top of this article. Not to mention the fact that, as previously pointed out, the current picture doesn't even really describe the topic, and would be better suited for an article about Westerners obsessed with imitating Japanese art style. Further, the meaning of "hardcore pornography" is far more likely to already be known by someone visiting that page than the meaning of "hentai", at least among native English speakers. "Hentai" is not a word of English origin and people visiting this page may genuinely not know the meaning of the word beforehand and may not be in a place appropriate for that image being displayed when visiting the page. The argument you've been trying to make is basically that the image makes the article "more useful" by giving the user a visual to instantly identify the topic. Well, it also makes the article "more useful" if someone doesn't feel the need to instantly close it because they just unknowingly brought up a pornographic image in a location where such a thing might not be kosher. 97.102.221.16 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As we have previously tried on this talkpage, we are yet to find a better more Japanese picture that we can use. If you have one, just upload it and it will be much appreciated. My argument is not about usefulness (although pictures on pages which are concerning something which is indeed "art" are useful) it is that it is not our duty to reduce the impact on the viewer. Our duty is to objectively present a topic, in this case one which is graphic and no some offensive. The bottom line is, we do not censor and this picture is not one which goes out of its way to offend people. Is it perfect, no. But so far there has not been a single image proposed that does the job better. -- Dront (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that this picture is misleading because, as stated, it's not really even drawn by an artist from Japan but by a westerner imitating the art style (poorly, in my opinion). 72.189.202.28 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it from your context that you think Hentai is "art drawn from an artist in Japan"? The article describes it as "a Japanese word that, in the West, is used when referring to sexually explicit or pornographic comics and animation" It is an art style, and not restricted to Japanese artists. The image you point at is, in fact Hentai, even though the artist is not Japanese. And, again, do you have an example of Hentai that we may freely use without copyright restrictions that represents the topic better than the image currently in the article? Are you saying that because Westerns use the word Hentai, and the origin of the word was Japanese, that the Artwork should be from a Japanese artist? Does that mean Shibari must be performed by a person of Japanese decent? Pointillists must be from France? Surrealists must be from Spain? Atom (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... why not just use a softcore image? It's still part of hentai, but a more "all audience" friendly one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.74.157 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out having softcore lolicon on here is really creepy, guys. CUT IT OUT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.29.82 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just your opinion...It's not against policy, so there's nothing wrong with it. rzrscm (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a reminder: [Wikipedia is NOT censored] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.198.158 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

History?

Why isn't there any kind of history of hentai in the article that mentions important hentai such as Lolita Anime, Cream Lemon, and Urotsukidōji? I'll write it myself, but I'd have to do the research first...I'm just kind of puzzled as to why there would be absolutely no history on the subject. rzrscm (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Finished...Tell me what you think and suggest additions. rzrscm (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture replacement

right|200px I'd like to propose that we change the picture to a picture that actually represents the hentai genre, such as a picture from an actual hentai series. As I see it, the picture that's there is ugly and isn't a good representation of the genre...It's like crudely drawing an album cover and using it on the band's article. I'd like to propose using the image on the right because we know that it's fair use, and it's from one of the first and most influential hentai series, so it's a good representation the genre.

I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with the current image being "too explicit". I don't believe in censorship in any form, and the image really isn't very explicit or offensive (then again, nothing really offends me)...Any 12 year old could draw it in his bedroom after his parents go to bed. It's simply an ugly image that poorly represents the genre. rzrscm (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's no objection. rzrscm (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One question: How is this image able to illustrate what hentai is about? It's an mere cover of an hentai, but it doesn't illustrate the term itself. As an picture itself it would be much more suitable for Shōjo. If my picture is good or bad shouldn't be the question, sice everyone can have its interpretation if something is visualy appeling to him or not. --Niabot (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) PS: If you rely on fair use, then there are much more suitable illustrations available, then this one.

I've removed the image as it is in violation of Wikipeida's Non-free content policy. A free image can be created (in fact on already exits) to illustrate the subject of the article, thus casing the non-free image to fail point #1 of the policy. —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright...I found the image on another article and checked the license, and it looked okay, so I used it. This article seems to have an issue with being merely a definition of hentai as a form of pornography, although it's more than that...I've fixed it a little by adding a history section, but I still believe that we need to find a better image to use, and I will continue to look for one. rzrscm (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: distinction between yaoi and yuri

The following paragraph under the 'Classification' section should be modified:

"Hentai that features mainly heterosexual interactions are known as yaoi, and those that feature mainly homosexual interactions are known as yuri. Both yaoi and, to a lesser extent, yuri are generally aimed at members of the opposite sex from the persons depicted."

Both yaoi and yuri depict HOMOsexual interactions, between men and between women, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Morris (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I think someone was trying to condense the section and got confused. - JRBrown (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seinen manga

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention the ambiguity of the term "seinen manga" somewhere? The term can be used to mean either pornographic or non-pornographic comics, depending on the characters used to writing the term (ja:青年漫画/ja:成年漫画). The term is usually only used in one way outside Japan, but both usages are common in Japan. For example, the bookshop BK1 uses the term "seinen comics" (青年コミックス/成年コミックス) for both genres.[9][10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hentai in English

The article states “[t]he term is not often applied to pornography in Japan,” but in the History section doesn’t go on to explain how it came to be used that way in English. —Wiki Wikardo 15:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to find some sources...The term they use in Japan is "adult anime". rzrscm (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a new photo, and more of them

We really need a lot more naked photos, the one we have now is ok' but there are a lot hotter ones out there with no copyright on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

In accordance with Japanese copyright law, no, I suspect the same is true for the US but I am not an expert. Now, that cover from Mezzo Forte is exactly what I have been asking for, an alternative, reading up on fair use it is at least my impression that we can use covers like that.

Mining the List of hentai anime I have found:

All of these articles have images that could be used in the Hentai article. Now, I suggest picking a few of these from various time periods (the earliest I saw I think was early 80;s) and try to get a spread over sub-categories, formats (game, video, etc.), maybe even some of them are more famous (I am in no position to judge that), etc. Judging by the size of the article we should have room for a few, if necessary we should maybe have an image block at the bottom if we really can't provide a coverage by in-lining images.

I want to point out that I still would prefer an artist to try to produce an image somehow encompassing the whole genre, this is due to copyright concerns and not all countries have fair use policies. For these versions of Wikipedia they will be unable to do what we are suggesting here and properly licensed content should if of equal and/or comparable quality and relevance be preferred over what can be provided by arguing for fair-use. -- Dront (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

None of these images can be used in the article as they would violate WP:NFCC #1. They are all fair-use images and a free image is either available or can be created. —Farix (t | c) 11:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, why does Pornography not have a free equivalent? I'm betting there are plenty of people with video cameras more than willing to offer some; it's due to accuracy. Hentai is, in its barest form, non-parody video. It's an encompassing term but each subcategory has its own name: (H-)CG, Doujinshi, ecchi, etc. --198.150.224.3 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why it is handled this way inside Pornography. In comparison to other languages it looks way different (de:Pornographie, ru:Порнография, ...) and there would be absolutly no reason to use images by fair use. --Niabot (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the description pages of File:AN Penny Flame 1.jpg and File:Holly Sampson - My First Sex Teacher Vol. 18 cover original.jpg, both have been released under CCA-SA 3.0 with c:COM:OTRS checked out, so they are free images. It's a rare case and one that the article takes advantage of. However, that is not the case for the DVD and manga covers listed above. —Farix (t | c) 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Offered alternative

Oh why not. High-resolution, well-sourced, infamous anime. Here ya go.

File:Bible Black Volume 4 DVD Cover.jpg

--Primetech 20:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is under the fair use rational, and so far, as i understand the rules, (WP:NFCC #1) not usable for anything else, then the article for Bible Black itself. Hentai images can be created by everyone. That way it would be possible to get an free alternative. --Niabot (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hentai = not HCG --Primetech 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trying to drag out non-free images. If it is not a free images, it can't be used in this article per WP:NFCC #1. —Farix (t | c) 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no free equivalent available. See my above comment for a brief reason why....

An actual hentai would be a screenshot or cover of animated pornography, per anime style, from Japan, since anime by definition has to be Japanese in origin. Makes it kinda hard to get a free image for something of that importance. --Primetech 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Any Japanese artist can create a hentai image and release it under a free license. So a non-free image cannot be used to illustrate the article. —Farix (t | c) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not amateur pornography. ^[1] --198.150.224.3 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You entirely missed the point of the Commons' policy, but it also only applies to Commons. The policy deals with poor quality images that are not used for an encyclopedic purpose. —Farix (t | c) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't. Any Japanese could create Hentai, which is not limited to animations (anime), since it is the overall description for such "material". To be considered typical it should of course follow the usual style/style elements. Even if we limit the source to only japanese people, we would have to consider that alternative images could be created easily and be published under a free license. --Niabot (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of quality and taste. Any Japanese person can draw porn. I can draw porn. But this isn't a porn site, if you want to show off your stuff to go HentaiFoundry where everybody else does and post it there. The fact that this website contains an image that looks like it's smack-dab out of an amateur porno place, probably means amateur porn is what it is. --Primetech 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)

As I've said before, an article on a pornographic subject is going to contain pornographic illustrations to help convey the meaning of the topic. And one pornographic image on one article will not make Wikipedia a porno site. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Pornography
Sasha Grey
Snuff Film
Rape pornography (Can we get a picture of that?)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [11] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It has already been kept.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 and not accidentally stumble into this article with no idea of what to expect. 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 previously. I don't think this is a significant enough problem to warrant removal of the picture.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the OP's comment, Yaoi doesn't have an image depicting Yaoi because no one has uploaded a free image for it. If someone did upload an image, and it was under a free license (Creative Commons, PD, etc), it would be displayed within the article, simple as that. Correlation does not imply causation, and what is the case at the Yaoi article is irrelevant here. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I actually went to that article, and it does have imagery of Yaoi. Nevertheless, I'd still like to stand by the argument that what happens at Yaoi happens at Yaoi, and has no place here. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This new picture is worse

Porn for porns sake. Completely inappropriate. Anyone who really really wants to know what Hentai is can just google it. This site is used by children and is not censored by parental control software and shouldn't be. Come on. The picture is just ridiculously explicit for no good reason. (Considering that most hentai is censored with mosaics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.148.182 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussions regarding the new picture and how it came about, there are plenty of justifications for it and you are as always welcome to raise concerns but as it stands I personally see no reason to revert it. Also, keep in mind WP:CENSOR, removing content by justifying that it can be found elsewhere is hardly a stance when constructing an encyclopedia, which by its very nature is an aggregate of knowledge. Also, do you have a source on your statement regarding the mosaic? -- Dront (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The mosaic thing is true, is a law in japan. The original picture I submitted included them, but Niabot modified it and removed it. Still it managed to reach QI status. So the image per se is good, and the reasons to illustrate it were already discussed. Personally I prefer with mosaics, but have no problems with how it is now. pmt7ar ^(talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should be removed. It's pornographic !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.35.99 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Most companies create the original work without any mosaic. It added in a later step to confirm with the law. After that it is buyed its given to some guy which decensors it and put it inside the WWW. Because censoring is easier then decensoring i decided to upload an decensored version. If you want a censored image or a comparison of the two, then this would be the easy way. --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the old image was better because it wasn't as explicit and still got the point across. —Farix (t | c) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There were extensive debates over the old image and it was largely agreed upon that it was not a fair representation of what you would expect to find elsewhere being described as hentai. Whether or not it is less or more explicit should not be something we should consider if it is obvious that one is better for the purpose of creating an encyclopedia accurately describing the world which was the consensus of the previous discussions. -- Dront (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey look, more people who think this picture goes over the top... I agree heartily, if something is causing this much controversy then just get rid of it. Or at least add it to the "bad images list" to allow people with taste or children to remove it. Pictures like this are the reason people cannot take Wikipedia seriously. (edit) If yaoi, yuri don't have pornographic images I don't think this one does. Unless "open" really is more important than "non-controversial". Just my opinion, apparently those pages' editors agree. --Reichax (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It already is on the bad image page so there is no way for a child to find this on Wikipedia unless they went to this page. Also Yaoi covers men who are romatacally linked with men and unlike hentai sex is not a defining characteristic so I don't think that a good compareason.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You both misunderstand what the bad image list is. It doesn't prevent anyone from seeing the image here. It only prevents editors from trolling by putting it in other articles. No way for a child to find this? This article is directly linked from the article Anime. No chance a kid would be interested in that, I suppose, eh? It's also linked directly from the articles Pop art, Motion picture rating system, Pubic hair, and NTR, which is the disambiguation page for the National Transcontinental Railway among other entities. It's two clicks away from a great many articles, of course, a random sample being Emoticon, History of film, Greyhound, Animation, Belle & Sebastian (why?), Art, Hairstyle, Pop music, Harry Potter fandom, and, of course, Erik Satie and Figwit. And a bunch more like that. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it could be blocked specifically (I stumbled across some information like that on Wikipedia), and I agree, it is absurdly easy to jump across this. There was a "classic" example of hentai before, which featured a little nudity but was in no way nearly as pornographic as it is/has been recently.

Heck, readers don't even have a chance to wonder "Should I be here?" They get a full frontal view right away. Even the "porn" article lets you think twice before you scroll down. Would the team that works on this page add offensive content for other articles? A picture of goatse for 4chan, for example? Maybe a rotoscoped drawing of an actual rape? Sure, this article has to be "accurate" but it can at least contain a little more tact, and thus draw less controversy. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. --Reichax (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to the identity of the members of this discussion. There are multiple IP;s floating around, please use an account or sign your replies with some sort of ID.

"There was a "classic" example of hentai before, which featured a little nudity but was in no way nearly as pornographic as it is/has been recently." Care to link it?

What is the proposal being made here? The picture is inappropriate? The picture should be moved further down the article? As it currently stands I am just getting a general opinion that several anonymous users dislike the picture. Suggesting that we simply remove it with no replacement is in my opinion not a serious suggestion, it is a graphic subject and we must allow the illustration to reflect this. Reverting it back to the previous one seems like a bad choice since we have already gone through extensive discussion as to why the old one was not representative. Moving it further down the page, sure, I can't see any objection to that. The layout is a bit poor as it is. Replacing it, then we need concrete suggestions. -- Dront (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm just trying to sockpuppet myself around. I would suggest no picture at all, but a decent alternative would be having it under the list of categories. This picture is from a hentai game, am I right? Although it would probably be better to censor it like it was before. Or just retain the original version of the picture. For accuracy's sake. --Reichax (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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" ^{[citation needed]}
"risky image of hentai" ^{[citation needed]}
"grotesque pictures of "cartoon pornography"" ^{[citation needed]}

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: [12] (you will need to login first). They are all drawn in the same style. For example: [13] 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 comicbooks sold in Japan 002.jpg 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)

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 [14]. 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)

The image is, however, a notable early appearance of tentacle sex which is an element often use in Hentai. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is like wanting to add a picture of a school uniform or a college campus, as those are elements often used in Hentai, even more than tentacles. It doesn't add value to the article. Shunga is not hentai nor any form of it. pmt7ar ^(talk) 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, that from my experience shunga can very well be described as hentai. I took a quick look at the article for shunga and it states in its caption that shunga aren't to be considered medieval pornography. So i picked up the source for this claim and had a good read. Curiously it doesn't state anything like that it has nothing to do with hentai. It defines them as pornography with a closer scope. "The English ‘pornography’ will do as well, although it may carry baggage that is not entirely helpfull." [15] On the other hand we have a lot of literature which sees shunga as a predecessor to modern hentai, which seams only natural to me. [16] [17]

So we can be sure that shunga are seen as a predecessor to hentai. More precisely, they evolved over time until it became the modern hentai as we know it. So i don't know why it should be a mistake to include an illustration for shunga in the article to show it's evolution over time. Even today you will find the typical elements. May it be simplification or exaggeration. The terms have changed, but not the subject in itself. --Niabot (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

" Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being 'censored', I'd say the issue is less 'art' and more 'lets see who we can shock and/or piss off.' " -- http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t33716.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.224.3 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I just want to have good talk if we did a mistake or not. --Niabot (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (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?

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

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)

Regardless, there has yet to be a reasonable argument in defense of using File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg as the top image. The folks who are arguing that this image is appropriate for the topic are disregarding the fact that this page is explicitly designed for people who are *not* familiar with the topic. Any person in the world should be able to visit this page to learn what "Hentai" is without being forced to view cartoon images of hardcore child pornography. If this page is truly meant to educate visitors, it should use an image that represents the topic without shocking people away from the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_(genre) is a good example of an adult article with a relevant image. The folks crying "censorship!" just to stop this image from being moved down the page is a sad and tragic abuse of the freedom and trust that wikipedia has given us. --Elbuod (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And in articles like this there is no screen position (at 1280p) with less than 2 explicit images at all times, no matter how you scroll, from the very top of it. Again, that criteria is of absolutely no value as per policies and WP disclaimer. Being appropriate or not, offensive to others or not, may be seen by children or not, should have absolutely no importance for us editors. Thus, there is no reason to move it. If you feel it shouldn't be there, try looking from a different angle because those arguments are irrelevant. Also avoid bias ("hardcore child pornography"?) interfering your motives. pmt7ar ^(talk) 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"The folks crying "censorship!" just to stop this image from being moved down the page is a sad and tragic abuse of the freedom and trust that wikipedia has given us.", this is nothing but a gross misrepresentation of those who defend the current status quo. Those "defending" the image, I among one of them, has been nothing but willing to consider other suggestions if they are under a free license and representative of the genre (something which the old image wasn't). Now, moving the picture further down is another matter, I would be very much willing to support this if there is still some sort of image near the top of the page considering that this after all is an "artistic" article. But I fear that we will not reach any conclusions as long as members of both sides try to imply murky motives or bad faith of the other side of the discussion. -- Dront (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a pornography/sexuality article too, not just one about art. (If it was purely in the field of art, I'm sure something artistic would be a lot easier to agree on). There are plenty of good articles on Wikipedia without images at the very top, pornographic or otherwise. In regards to the "child pornography" comment, it seems a legitimate concern, especially in light of the lolicon article here, and even more because in anime it's very hard to tell how old characters are (e.g. the highschoolers in Lucky Star vs the middle-schoolers in Madoka). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.224.3 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that image is OK because people won't come here by mistake?

I came here by mistake.

Now I'm rummaging the kitchen for brain bleach. Stop kidding yourselves that this image is "necessary" or that moving it down the page is "censorship". I came here looking for a definition for a term I had never heard before - there's no way I needed to see that image and I had no choice in seeing it.

Oh, and thanks for the warning about "objectional images", Wikipedia - the warning that I don't get to see unless I click into the Talk page, AFTER I've seen the image. "Options not to see an image", indeed? Thanks Wikipedia, but even you can't make me unsee an image!

The header image is EXTREMELY explicit and a complete ambush on the unsuspecting. Get that warning onto the article, not just the Talk section, and move the image down the page. Otherwise you're not respecting people's choices.

46.208.21.184 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

At least no genitalia is seen. Though it is gross, Wikipedia is not censored, and images can be hidden. Also, disclaimers are not to be used, so you should not be expecting a content disclaimer. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

^ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site

Archives