Talk:Hentai

"Lemon (anime)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lemon (anime) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 19 § Lemon (anime) until a consensus is reached. Qwv (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead image censorship removal

Why should a version of the image that "has been modified to remove censorship that was present in the original artwork" be preferred instead of the original? If such (minor) censorship has become an integral part of the genre to the degree that it was included part of the original work, shouldn't that be faithfully depicted instead of a modification that deviates from it? (Pardon if this has been discussed, but the talk archives are filled with arguments over the existence of the image, which is not what I'm talking about.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Just noticed it's in the short exchange between Justanotherguy54 and Sandtalon at the bottom of the #Picture section above. I echo the sentiment; we should just use the original picture. This would also solve the concerns Herostratus raised regarding the caption. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'll expound, but collapse it. But it explains why I came to the conclusion at the end (fair use image). In excrutiating detail (that's me all over). Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Several paragraphs of detailed argument

So,but wait, the caption now says "the image has been modified to remove censorship that was present in the original artwork" (this is on the current, explicit picture). So, the blurring was in the original artwork? (Or possibly the first published version, which a guess would qualify as the original? So then who modified it? If it was us (or the uploading editor), then we have the same problem. It's not "An example of a heterosexual hentai illustration" since it's never been published as such (if I'm sussing what we are saying correctly; if not, I'm willing to be educated). Rather it is "An example of a heterosexual hentai illustration as we" (or the uploader) wish had been drawn". Are you following me?

So the solution would be to use the blurred version. But I'm probably wrong, and we've just gotten mixed up, anyway that's contentious.

But, since we're mixed up, and in addition the image seems to be contentious (see also WP:HARDCORE), let's use a different image. But even more important, the image is not a example of a typical hentai image. I know this because I looked, and most hentai is stories (or videos), not single images. And the most common panels in these stories, which while often (but less than 50% I think) showing naked people, rarely show penetration. So, why cherry-pick to put up the most offensive picture (to a typical reader) as possible? Per WP:SURPRISE we should not. We're not in the business of selecting out and presenting "money shots" as typical of a genre I would think, if that's the reason for using the current image.

Commons has some images, look at their Hentai. Some of them are in this article, but not typical of hentai. Several seem to be not actually free. The only one I could find in Commons that might do is File:Hadako-tan.png. It's not really hardcore as it doesn't seem that penetration is involved (quite), and it does show tits the size of basketballs and eyes the size of tea saucers, which might be common in hentai. It's not a panel, and tho the artist says it's a good example (and it looks to be), that's just him. It's also in color -- not typical? (I don't know.)

FWIWI think the current picture is free, but there's chance it might not be, some looking into would tell.

Per above, best would be a fair-use use of an actual typical page from a real hentai, I think. I grabbed this one (at left) as an example. Another could be found and used, as long as a couple-few sentences of exposition are written to make it be fair use. (I put some in as an example, could be changed for the actual article). [Here is the source]. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The concern of whether available free images can serve as a typical example is one inherent to practically any depiction of a media genre or concept, and I'm sure has been discussed many, many times. But I think the WP:NFCC is pretty clear on this: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). As long as someone could plausibly create an illustration that accurately and typically depicts the genre (and that can't be disproved), fair use is not allowed for this specific purpose. So we're stuck with what's freely available. This isn't a topic that I'm familiar with, so I can't comment on which of the available images works best as an example. But I understand that, while it's not optimal, you'd agree that File:Hentai - yuuree.jpg would still be an improvement over the current (modified) image? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes fair point there. It's a winning point I'd have to say.

Buuuut... the provenance of our current picture is a little odd. The source given Pixel, which requires registration, But the author is given as one ゆーれ (Yu ̄re, or Yure). Pixiv is an entity. A corporation or a collective, profit or non-profit, I don't know. But not a person. But, you can get to the page for the person Yure, it is here. That pasge says "© pixiv" and not "© ゆーれ". And, it all has a similar style, which looks to be a a bit different from our picture in some ways. But the thing is, none of Yure's work is explicit, at all. All of his girls are fully clothed, cute and demure and innocent, and not even in suggestive poses. That's really different from our picture.

So, you've got a for-profit corporation (probably) that copyrights all its stuff, but they gave away this one pic. By an artist who went way outside their comfort zone. So that's odd.

But, there's a ticket attached to it. So that's it, for now. But I'm going to look at that ticket, maybe it's not legit, we'll see. So yes, for now our current pic trumps my suggestion, and thanks for pointing that out. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus

Japanese here.

As in the article, hentai can cover multiple kinds of media, from single images to manga to video games.

In addition, as the caption says example of a hentai "illustration", I believe the image can stay as is because it is a perfectly fine representation of a hentai image. Manga like the one you posted are a story, and displaying a single page from a hentai manga would be a poor representation.

And that's not to mention your anecdotal experience with hentai does not necessarily reflect the entirety of it. In my own experience, images are more common than manga. This would make more sense; single images are easier to create as a work than an entire manga, which while they may be composed of several dozen pages, only become complete when presented together and so I would count as a single work.

And I think your last paragraph delves more into societal norms than it does into hentai as a form of expression.

Yutah¹²³|UPage|(talk)✶ 05:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Yutah¹²³|UPage|(talk)✶ 05:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It does! And that'd be reasonable enlargement of the scope of the article I'd have to say. Seems almost misleading to expound on a phenomena which prima facie is pretty outré and not mention that, or some of the societal effects and implications and discussions of that. Or some of the other aspects of the phenomena, such as as adult-child sex, or implied adult-child sex anyway. Don't want to sweep that under the rug! Of course we will need good refs for all that. I would be surprised if they are not out there.

Alright, so, I'm learning here, and thank you. I get the difference. We should make this explicit in the article I think. Altho the article does talk about "erotic manga" so", I guess it is complicated. If the illustration I picked (at random) is not hentai, it might well be worthwhile to still present it with a caption to the genera effect of "The above image might be mistaken for hentai, but it is not, it is erotic manga which is a different thing. Hentai illustrations are one-offs, not part of stories" or something. I mean, if I got confused other readers probably are too.

Altho when I google "hentai" the top results were mostly erotic manga, and erotic anime, so I don't know. Sometimes words shift their meanings over time.

But yes, there are many rooms in the mansion of hentai, I have learned (good article!), and we do discuss all that in the article; there are a couple of images from the 19th century for example. So I'm not saying the image we're talking about shouldn't (necessarily) not be in in the article somewhere (altho there are reasonable arguments against even that, but that's a different conversation). Just not as the above-the-fold introductory image. It's hard to get a single image that serves for this sprawling subject it seems. That being so, maybe no picture at the top would be best. Or possibly an amalgam of several representative images, such is done for many city articles. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the preview image

while keeping the "PREVIEW" image in the page, it should be changed with less explicit one. There should be no censoring. But there should be no porn while someone is sharing the link too. Please check "pornography" page. Its preview is XXX. This is not hard to achieve and will increase the pages content quality. My suggestion is adding a book/manga stores adult parts image as a first image. Foeux (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Foeux 100% agree. 2600:100F:B1BA:5B2A:CEC0:8403:2B0D:5713 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Justanotherguy54 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not put the old preview image under the "Censorship" heading? That's where the new image is originally from. Put the old image there would solve the problem of having duplicate images, and since the old image is censored itself, it is relevant to the content. 2600:1005:B186:29A0:5B87:7AC6:665C:E12C (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"There should be no porn while someone is sharing the link too" Baseless argument. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to put the most fitting image of the subject regardless of it being "acceptable" or not to you or any reader, and the previous picture is infinitely more fitting for a "Hentai" page lead over a picture of bookstore shelves. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 10:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hentai "censored" photo

The hentai "censored" photo (under the section about Japanese censorship) might be censored to Japanese standards, but still overtly appeals to the prurient interest. I don't think this is the appropriate image to use; I think it should be removed. If replaced, the image should not needlessly depict sexual intercourse and shock unsuspecting viewers. Other images in this article and written descriptions already adequately describe various forms of hentai. Doveintime (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Doveintime:: please see Help:Options to hide an image. Lectonar (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED and all my comments below Rynoip (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. --TrulyShruti ^{talk • sign} 20:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED same with above

Yutah123 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED isn't a justification for the image remaining there. To me, it seems like one can perfectly understand the subject matter without needing to see that image. It simply shocks the unsuspecting viewer, as @Doveintime said. I think it should be removed due to the little value it brings to the article. 21fafs (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the user would search up hentai and assuming they would know what it is they wouldnt be shocked would they? Also if we just describe hentai without a picture it wouldnt be very helpful would it? also WP:NOTCENSORED by your logic many articles containing more "shocking" images would be deleted? Rynoip (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"Also if we just describe hentai without a picture it wouldnt [sic] be very helpful would it?"

By this logic, we should add shocking images to every article that discusses potentially shocking content. There are all sorts of Wikipedia articles about various things, and the fact that Wikipedia is blind to objections about what should and shouldn't be discussed -- that is the true representation of what WP:NOTCENSORED is. It's not an excuse to put porn on an encyclopedia. There's a Wikipedia page for child pornography. Need we put in an image depicting child pornography? Oh, now you start to feel uncomfortable. Now you start to have reservations about what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Whatever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED? Oh, is it because child pornography is illegal? So what you're saying is, if child pornography happened not to be illegal, you would have no discomfort or nausea about placing child pornography on Wikipedia? Surely not, because I don't doubt that you have some atom's weight of morality in you.

So please, let's keep Wikipedia a dignified, self-respecting resource -- not a teenager's masturbation aid. 21fafs (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also here is WP:NOTCENSORED

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted).

In CP it clearly violates the law of the United States however a hentai picture does not. Rynoip (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that in my original comment. I was pointing out how that doesn't matter.

If CP was not illegal, would that change anything about the presence of child pornography on Wikipedia? Do you honestly think that child pornography has any place whatsoever in the world, let alone on Wikipedia? If you honestly think that the only thing preventing placement of CP on Wikipedia is the US law, then I don't respect you at all. But I have no doubt that you would also be against that.

So whether you like it or not, morality does play a part in what content gets to be on here and what doesn't. And arbitrarily drawing the line at child pornography makes no sense -- who are you to decide what is and isn't moral? 21fafs (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Well, the user would search up hentai and assuming they would know what it is they wouldnt be shocked would they?"

This makes no sense. A visitor to Wikipedia comes hoping to learn about a subject, not to look at images of what he already knows -- that's what Bing is for. And as has been said, one does not at all need a depiction for encyclopedia-level understandings of "art" genres. 21fafs (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"So please, let's keep Wikipedia a dignified, self-respecting resource -- not a teenager's masturbation aid"

Who would masturbate using wikipedia? I guess the whole of wikipedia is now a porn site because we have a single image describing censored hentai? I guess people with gore addictions now use this as a gore site because of the images in many articles? If also a user comes to learn a subject wouldn’t they would want to see the subject itself? If you think WP:NOTCENSORED is wrong you can take it up to the people that made that rule. Rynoip (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said here, I do not disagree with WP:NOTCENSORED in any way. The point of WP:NOTCENSORED is not to put porn on Wikipedia, it's about free speech. For example, Baidu Baike, the Chinese equivalent of Wikipedia, has no article on the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is heavily censored even to the point of inaccuracy by the Chinese government, despite being a collaborative effort like Wikipedia.

That's what WP:NOTCENSORED is about -- standing up against things like that. On Wikipedia, information will be presented about any topic, no matter how inconvenient that is for the powers that be. What WP:NOTCENSORED is not is an excuse to put pornography on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with censorship. I am simply expressing my view, as a Wikipedian, on how an article should best be presented. If I am a censor, then anyone who deletes anything from Wikipedia is a censor. Let's say I go on the article for Netanyahu and put a giant turd in place of his picture. Then, naturally someone removes that. Is it fair for me to then cry about "WP:NOTCENSORED" and how actually, I'm allowed to put pictures of turds in place of people's faces (even if in that case, it is completely accurate)? Of course not. Use the intellect that I know you have. 21fafs (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure how is "Let's say I go on the article for Netanyahu and put a giant turd in place of his picture." is relevant to this article. Putting a turd instead a picture of Netanyahu isnt relevant and is just straight up vandalism instead of this picture which is actually relevant and not vandalism. If you wanna express your views better please find a better example instead of putting turd picture. Rynoip (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

But don't you see, my point is that no sole user of Wikipedia can decide what is and isn't right according to their own opinions -- their must be an objective standard. By my standard, there's nothing wrong with putting a giant turd on Netanyahu's article because Netanyahu is a giant turd. By your standard, that is wrong.

In the same way -- by your standard, it's okay to have a hardcore pornographic image on a Wikipedia article, by my standard it is not.

Who decides who's right? 21fafs (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Who would masturbate using Wikipedia?"

This is a very ignorant question. Wikipedia is well known as one of the most frustrating sites for parents to work around because most filtering software do not block it, despite the abundance of pornography present. Teenagers whose parents have Internet restrictions set up on their devices regularly use Wikimedia sites as masturbation aids. There are dozens of Reddit threads about this, and if you've been a teenager at all since 2006 you'd know about the popularity of the technique. 21fafs (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not sure why child pornography was brought up here as absolutely no context is given regarding an age from the artist who drew it. Artwork is subjective, we can't draw our own conclusions in this case unless more context is given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read carefully. I never mentioned that the image in question is child pornography. I was simply using an analogy to counter @Rynoip's comment "If we just describe hentai without a picture it wouldn't be very helpful would it?" -- I pointed out how by that logic, describing child pornography without a picture of child pornography wouldn't be helpful either. Which is obviously nonsensical, so the line of reasoning doesn't work. 21fafs (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you have got it wrong, we can put up a picture of hentai because it does not violate US law and it is relevant to the article however CP is not legal in the US. Rynoip (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If CP was legal, would you want to see CP on Wikipedia? 21fafs (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now.... This image though has been targeted from the very moment it was placed. It used to be the lead image where it was shown uncensored which described the type of artwork Hentai is. I still think the image should be kept, but with the nipples were removed as that seems to be a breaking point for most manga publisher "One compromise is to show breasts without nipples, like a body stocking" [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Same I dont know why he mentioned "Let's say I go on the article for Netanyahu and put a giant turd in place of his picture." as it is not related at all to this picture Rynoip (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I was making a point. Please read, don't skim. And if you struggle with reading comprehension, perhaps use ChatGPT to assist you? Tell it, "Can you please put this in terms that a five-year old could understand?" and then paste my comment. 21fafs (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I put that comment in ChatGPT for you. Its output is exactly what I was trying to communicate. Read this and let me know if you disagree:

Imagine you have a big book where everyone can write and share information, but we have rules to make sure it stays helpful and clean. One rule says we should share true things, even if some people don’t like it. For example, in another book from a faraway place, they don’t talk about something very important because they don’t want people to know about it. But our book wants to tell the truth about everything, even if it's not always easy.

However, this rule doesn’t mean we can put anything silly or inappropriate in our book, like pictures of poop instead of a person's face. That’s not what this rule is for. It's about sharing useful and true information, not making the book messy. 21fafs (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting a poop instead of someones face is definitely silly as you said, However this isn’t the circumstances. In this case the person is the the poop so it isn’t silly at all and it would be appropriate to put the picture of the poop if the person is the poop wouldn’t it? Rynoip (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. See my other comments on this thread. 21fafs (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Adult anime" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Adult anime has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 2 § Adult anime until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire "etymology" section is unnecessary and confusing

We don't need paragraphs on the etymology of the Japanese word "hentai", because it's irrelevant to the actual subject of the article which is only called "hentai" outside Japan. Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Still, imagining myself in the shoes of an average reader not knowledgeable about the topic, and I had just followed a link from another article to this page here, would not know that this is called hentai only outside of Japan. And as the article title is indeed Hentai, information about its etymology is imho pertinent to the article subject. Lectonar (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the "terminology" section, I'm talking about the "etymology" section.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, me too. I for one like to know where words which designate things come from. Lectonar (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Most articles don't have six paragraphs and a table on the etymology of a foreign loanword.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

See Wiktionary. 21fafs (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)