Talk:Cartoon pornography

The girl we see in the picture looks underage
We should replace that picture as it may be illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.138.199 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Irony itself: going on a Wikipedia page about the legal status of cartoon pornography... and finding cartoon pornography, possibly cartoon child pornography. As for the laws, it's probably country-dependent. Then again, so are lots of forms of speech that wiki uses. Does Wikipedia have a policy on which countries it must be politically correct/legal in? 207.62.170.217 (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is fine (except for the fact that it's not considered cartoon). The only problem is that it needs to mention that it is Japanese, which is a fact. Sandenig (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And whether that girl looks underage or not is your own opinion, but I don't think she is. Edit: Actually, she does kinda look underaged, now that I think about it. I can see what you guys are saying about the irony now... Sandenig (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem if something like pornography is accessible hire on Wikipedia web coz all in all phonography is phonograph Mhepfa (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Site links
I am wondering why this page has links to pornographic sites. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not a porn directory. If someone wants to find these kind of sites they can use a search engine. And the last link is a pay site, which means that this page is basically advertising for that site. I'm removing the links to the sites containing pornography but leaving the other link since it is informative in nature. TSchellhous 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with your actions. --LeyteWolfer 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I resent having my contribution being labelled as "vandalism", according to an edit from February 3. I was simply adding a section of my own knowledge of the Cartoon pornographic sites I have been forced to censor to avoid my children from seeing. I notice a pattern and decide to let people know about it. Sadly, that word "vandalism" proves that Wikipedia is run by people who are inconsiderate bullies. 71.194.44.46, 17:36, 7 February 2006 (GMT)
 * yeah, um....[Your edit] was no more than removing the entire guts of the article, maybe it was just a mistake, but wholesale removing of sections like that is generaly frowned upon. --CH 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Parody/satire
I fail to see how cartoon pornography can be considered parody or satire.--Orthologist 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy is a pretty good example of how you can combine famous characters with sexual situations.--CH 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is true that most parodies usually are humorous works, a parody dos not necessarily need to be comedic and satirical in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.41.184 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still I removed the statement regarding parody as not being allowed. There are lots of pornographic parody videos out there (see This Ain't Avatar XXX and Pirates). More generally, parody is seen as a fair use so unless you can point to some case law regarding parody in pornography I am inclined to argue that it is legal.129.7.240.199 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Someone has changed the picture... this might be more appropriate.--Orthologist 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The original image that was started with the article featured copyrighted characters and was deemed replacable. I worked with the artist of the original image to make the new image wikipedia friendly. --00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone added a picture below the one already existing. Should we find a replacement? This one uses copyrighted characters and, as far as I know, there are a lot of pictures like this one without copyrighted characters.--Orthologist 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The new image attribution states the image may not be reproduced despite being licensed under CCA2.5, im going to remove it and tag it for speedy deletion, because an unknown artist cannot give permission anyways. --72.67.29.95 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome Mhepfa (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hentai
Regarding the "differences between cartoon pornography and hentai" I fail to see the validity of that article and it's claims that those are two different art forms. Especially as the source seems to be a payable hentai service. It seems obvious to me that hentai (actually called Adult animation or erotic animation by Japanese people) is a form of cartoon pornography, not a completely different art form. It's the same as anime can be called a type of cartoon which emerged in Japan. Hentai is just a type of adult cartoon which is also anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.233.213 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, hentai is certainly a subsect of cartoon pornography, unless of course it covers erotica not considered to be pornography. I think in general terms, pornography covers this but certain definitions of it (like not having artistic merit) make people rightfully not want to call it that. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that hentai seems to be a subset of cartoon porn, and it's unclear to me how they are different. Any objections to me removing "It is distinguished from Hentai", or perhaps even replacing with something like "and also includes genres such as Hentai"? Mdwh (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you as I say, but "distinguish" to me could imply that it's distinct, as opposed to a subset. If we agree that it's a subset, does anyone object to saying this more explicitly? E.g., we could include it in the previous sentence: "Cartoon pornography includes but is not limited to parody renditions of famous cartoons, comics and Hentai."? Mdwh (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence to remove the claim hentai is different from cartoon pornography so it simply explains what hentai is Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rule 34
"Rule 34" directs here. Why, exactly? There's a lot more to Rule 34 than Cartoons. It should have it's own article, or at least be mentioned in the text of this one. XKCD 305 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.252.128 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Regarding Rule 34, I quote from urban dictionary, "[Rule 34 is a] generally accepted internet rule that states that pornography or sexually related material exists for any conceivable subject." A simple Google search should render corroborating evidence.  An addendum to the rule is that if such pornography has not yet been found, it must be made.  A call for Rule 34 on a given subject is generally a request to present pornography of that subject.  Not all instances of Rule 34 are cartoon related, though many calls for Rule 34 are intended as shocking or satirical portrayals of beloved childhood cartoon characters.  Many calls for Rule 34 are intended to ridicule political figures, a given class of people, or simply present an absurd situation for humorous effect.  Some calls for Rule 34 are also made to satisfy a rare sexual fetish, and seeing unusual sexual situations may be a fetish in and of itself. (69.229.196.13 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Redirection Rule 34 to Cartoon pornography is simply ridiculous. It's like redirecting anal sex to fellatio.. --Rmdsc (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Barring the existance of an article for that term, or another more appropriate article, it's better than nothing I'd say. Rule34 is fan-created and thus, pretty much always a cartoon in any way imaginable, unless you count photoshop shoops. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should let Urban Dictionary determine how we craft this encyclopedia... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't at all advocate consulting UD, I'm not sure where you got that. I've researched all major rule 34-oriented things. While 34 can encapsulate real forms of pornography, considering the ease of which it is to draw a picture versus enact something, and how theoretical fictional ideas will always outnumber real possible ones, it's a fair argument to say that 34 is predominantly cartoon. Unless the term has it's own article, where's a better place to redirect it than here? Tyciol (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * pomni 182.2.52.214 (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

discrepancy between US cartoon child porn page and this page
I found that this page says:

"Currently no such laws are in effect in the US, as any laws of this nature have been struck down by the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. However this striking down of the law was not retroactive. Anybody who at the time has been sentenced for such a crime, is still serving their sentence."

while the Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#18_USC_1466A implies that the law is still in effect and actively used to prosecute people (the simpsons case).

I'm not really sure which is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.110.19 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely Limited Article
The article is supposed to be about cartoon pornography, but is almost entirely about illicit cartoon kiddie porn. Presumably the whole world of legal erotic comix ought to be in here -- instead, just this illegal crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrakos (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well cartoon child porn is where there is the most controversy, though you could argue that, that should be dealt with, more in Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors, with this article concentrating more on cartoon porn in general. A worthy topic, on which there should be more written here perhaps, but it would still make for less content, and less notability and importance, than the cartoon child porn topic.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, including the whole range of cartoon pornography would obviously make for more content than artificially limiting the article to a narrow subset of the named topic. If an article on Photography were devoted almost entirely to child porn, would you justify it on the grounds that that's where the controversy is, and argue that if you included the other forms of photography, Matthew Brady, Ansel Adams, Man Ray, etc., this would make for less content, "less notability and importance?" Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to hijack a page for a narrow sub-topic. Mandrakos (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree! ...and I don't really understand what the previous person was thinking, which is weird, given that it was me. However, most cartoon pornography falls prey to child porn laws. Even if it's not meant to be child porn, it may contain adolescents. While adolescents regularly have sex, quite legally (in civilized countries, at least), in real life, they are not allowed in pornography (IMO understandable, when real people are involved, but when it's drawings...), and are counted as children, according to child porn laws. Even without any characters that are meant to be adolescents, it may still fall prey to child porn laws, given the criteria that police, prosecutors and courts will use. None of those criteria are reliable or applicable for the purpose of determining, that a person is under age (and certainly not "beyond reasonable doubt", which is what a court should consider), but when it comes to drawings, there is the artists knowledge of anatomy and stylistic ways of drawing and artistic license to consider, making it even more ridiculous. A character may be meant to be 40, but count as a child in court. Indeed, a real person may count as a child in court, despite being 40. Never the less, cartoon pornography in general, is what this article should be about. That would, however, necessitate removing a lot of notable information from this article. I propose renaming this article as Cartoon pornography depicting minors, and making a new Cartoon pornography article, with a section about child porn (and perceived child porn) linking to this as the main article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most cartoon pornography falls prey to child porn laws." You've got a source for that? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to read what followed that sentence, perhaps? What followed that sentence, explains how it is the case, after all (though I can give a more thorough explanation, if there are any points you do not understand, or think aren't explained clearly enough). ...and when I said "falls prey to", I mean it goes against the law (or can be construed to do so, which is, practically speaking, the same thing). Not that it necessarily gets accused of breaking it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, read that more thoroughly now. Although cartoon porn with adolescents probably could be quite common for instance in some Crumb comics (Honeybunch Kaminski, Joe Blow), alternative comics and the manga and Franco-Belgian scene, such as depictions of sexual awakening in young teens, I still have to hear about real cases taking age into account. Cf. Lost Girls, Georges Lévis, Tijuana bibles etc. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I still have to hear about real cases taking age into account." What do you mean? Cases where they rule it porn, due to the age of the characters, where adult characters are considered under-age, or... I'll gladly answer, as well as I can, if you explain.
 * As to the comics you mention... I'm not familiar with the works of Georges Lévis, nor with Tijuana bibles, but the latter at least, would no doubt have some characters that would be considered as child porn, if police took a look at them. As to Lost Girls... Well that is explicitly child porn. I have been informed(Warning: The video linked is, technically, illegal to watch, for anyone in Sweden) that they are explicitly said to be under 18 in many of the pornographic scenes. In that case, they don't even need to look at the tanner scale (which is ridiculous to apply to drawings, as drawings aren't precise representations, and also the artist's anatomical ignorance or artistic licence, or the particularly stylistic art-form, would make it impossible to determine the maturity of the character by that scale), which isn't really made for that purpose anyway, and is IMO, not particularly scientific anyway (and there have been cases of real life porn, where actual real adult people have been deemed under-age). They could simply state that the book clearly states them to be under-age, and that, if not the book, then certainly the author/artist has clearly stated it to be pornographic, not that that can really be doubted.
 * ...and Bonnier, the former main employers of the Swedish manga translator and expert, now sentenced (though it's to be taken to the Supreme Court, as you might know) by child pornography laws (for doing his job, essentially), sell said comic in Sweden, despite it, and many other comics they (and indeed many others in Sweden) sell, actually being no more legal, in the eyes of the Swedish judicial system (the police's child porn "experts" mainly), than the few pictures he had on his computer. (I am rather certain that he had many more illegal pictures in his bookshelves, but they weren't looked through, for some reason) The reason they haven't gotten into trouble, is that it hasn't been taken to the police, to look at. The only reason that most manga nerds, or indeed most "cultured" people, in Sweden can feel safe from the Swedish child porn laws, is because it's unlikely that the police will search their homes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tijuana Bibles often contain child characters, mostly parodies of popular comics, afaik. And okay, I know about the Swedish case, and I'm skeptical to that case as well, but I cannot say that it's about adolescents without having seen the images. This blog claims that most of them are not: 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, those Tijuana Bibles count as cartoon child porn. I wasn't really talking that much about adolescence. I was talking about how even characters that are supposed to be adult, can count as not having completed puberty (in which case they are assumed to be under-age, though in Sweden, their age wouldn't count, even if it's over 18), which is something that almost everyone does, well before the age of 18. Also, if a character is know to be under 18 (e.g. they are said to be so, in the comic and/or character description), adolescent or otherwise, it's illegal.
 * As to the child pornography case in Sweden, I never claimed that the pictures were of adolescents or adults. Most of the pictures were clearly depictions of children, and most clearly pornographic (though very mildly so, with two or three exceptions), in some cases the age was uncertain, and a few actually looked like adults. Most memorably, there was a picture that the police "expert" was asked to put an age to, in the Court of Appeals. She said the character looked to be around 11 (or was it 10?) years old. The defendant found this rather baffling, as did I (I'd say she looked like someone in her twenties. Certainly no younger than 17, but quite possibly as old as 27) as well as most others who were watching the proceedings. It seems the court found it dubious as well, as most (possibly all, but we're not allowed to know) of the clearly non-child pictures were dropped from the sentence, in the Court of Appeals, as well as some that were deemed "not pornographic".
 * This doesn't take away from the fact that those pictures were deemed as illegal, before the appeal, nor the fact that an intended 40 year old can easily, according to the tanner scale, count as not having completed puberty, and thus count as child porn.
 * As to the blog post... I don't entirely agree with what he says about the pictures. I was really surprised by his sympathy for the "expert". Not only did she use unreliable, arbitrary, and pseudo-scientific methods (but also, in the case of drawings, quite inapplicable) to determine the "maturity" of the characters (mainly, the tanner scale) with bizarre arguments, but she made claims about child pornography that were clearly, and utterly, false (the blogger said he couldn't say, but I can! The burden of proof is on the prosecuting side, and I know that there is absolutely no evidence to back up those claims. I've looked up a lot about this. It's pretty much like the case for violent video games making kids violent. Many claim they do, but you can't determine that it's true, unless you actually have evidence, and no studies support it). How he can say that she was competent, in any way, is beyond me. Oh, and her argument for why the pics where pornographic... with most pics I agreed they were, but her reasons were bizarre (especially the one about the censoring of the vagina, drew attention to it, thus making that pic pornographic). I agree with his disappointment with the attorney, though, but I would add that the prosecutor was quite incompetent, and speaking was clearly not his strong point (he almost made you fall asleep, in his closing arguments).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is that this blogger has a long history in manga fandom and is well versed with the codes. I missed out the last trial, but I looked up the authors of some of the acquitted images, and many or most of them clearly work in the lolikon tradition. The question whether it's helpful to ban fiction still remains, however. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is indeed and I would be rather cross with anyone who would claim otherwise. ...and as I said, most of the pictures were of characters that are genuinely lolis, and genuinely (mildly) pornographic. I totally disagree with his opinion about the "expert", and find it utterly foolish, but that aside, I don't have any great issues (though a few minor) with his blog post. It cannot be denied that, for most of the pictures, the sentence was correct, according to the child pornography law (as many manga nerds and/or defenders and/or friends of the accused have admitted). There are two reasons why the sentence isn't correct, however
 * There are exceptions for, amongst others, "serious research". The reason he had those pictures, was keeping abreast with the current situation of manga and manga fandom in Japan, in his position as manga expert. Why would that not count?
 * The law itself goes against the Constitution of Sweden.
 * There is no legitimate reason, argument or piece of evidence, to defend the position that any form of fictional pornography should be illegal. Whether it include under-age characters, infants, rape, dismemberment or anything else. No logic, reason, argument or evidence, showing their negative effects (be they direct or indirect). None. Only emotion and gut feeling, and it would be insane to let that guide laws. Besides: Free Speech isn't the protection of popular speech. Popular speech has never needed protection. Unpopular speech is what must be protected. We can't curtail another's free speech, just because we don't like it, or that it makes us feel uncomfortable or offended. It may do us good to hear it, and if we curtail the speech of others arbitrarily, one day we'll find that we are the ones curtailed, with no one, and no court, to defend us.
 * There is a good reason, for why there are strict (well not as strict or clear as I'd like) rules for what criteria one may use, to restrict Free Speech, and strict rules for what criteria you may not use, to restrict it.
 * ...oh, and I also don't think the sentences so far, have been valid for one more reason: The burden of proof is supposed to on the prosecuting side, to show that the pictures are of under age "persons" (a drawing isn't a person, but the law disagrees, so...) and that they are pornographic, and they haven't really shown that. Most of the pictures are, as we all agree, but... I can understand how the determination of "pornographic" is a bit arbitrary, but the criteria for determining if a character is under age... Not that the courts would care about that, but the two reasons I stated above, will be taken up in the Supreme Court, and the accused has stated that he will not drop the issue, if he only gets freed, due to an exception of research or something. As long as the law criminalizes fictional porn, he will fight it.
 * If the law were to be removed, and replaced by a similar law, in the proper place for such a law (right not it's under... I guess it'd be "Disorderly conduct" in English [brott mot allmän ordning]), which only criminalizes real child porn, and not fictional such, you'd be hard pressed to find those who would have a problem with the law itself. Well, you'd still hear the argument about why it's legal to have sex at 15, but not to have naked pictures of themselves. For those who are "properly" children, there'd be no argument, however, as long as your average parents' inevitable, and innocent, pictures of their naked babies don't get criminalised. I'd still have major problems with the utterly flawed criteria for determining what is or isn't child porn, but not with the law itself, or at least not it's purpose.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation
We cannot include the name of an alleged cartooner working in porno without a reliable source, otherwise it is a WP:BLP violation and this we take very seriously. Make sure the ref you add is reliable before even thinking about restoring this name, and remeber I dont have to discuss this nor obey WP:3RR as a BLP violation is considered very serious♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have presented evidence, a clear unambiguous and reliable, source that Kevin J. Taylor has made cartoon pornography.
 * First of all, the link i provided (or do you think that Amazon regularly engage in slander?): http://www.amazon.com/Girly-Show-Black-Lace-Studios/dp/B007U9VDAA
 * Look at Kevin Taylor. One of the people mentioned, by that name, is "Kevin J. Taylor, erotic cartoonist of Black Lace Studios"
 * Just try and google "Black Lace Studios". You'll find plenty of pornographic works, with the artists name being "Kevin J. Taylor". Or check their website. Kevin J. Taylor is clearly mentioned as one of their artists, and his work is clearly pornographic.
 * To cite a BLP violation, when I have merely restored something that is factual, and which was removed for no valid reason, is ridiculous. Given the fact that I clearly and explicitly did present evidence, you do have to obey 3RR.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, your "evidence" is meaningless, what is needed is a reliable source inserted into the article itself, I am not willing to argue on this, you either insert a reliable source or you dont add the name. It is not up to me to sort this one out and you can claim the name is factual all you like but without a reliable source we dont add the name because it isnt verifiable. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and follow them. I will add that IMO that Amazon link is in no way a reliable source (if it had been though you would have needed to add it to the article as a properly formatted ref and not merely quote it in an edit summary, that is simply inadequate) but when you do find one you can re-add the name and if as you say it is true it shouldnt be so difficult. We can of course take this to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎ but I dont think you will have a lot of luck there without being willing to add a reliable source as a ref either. What do you mean by "do I think Amazon engage in slander?" What does that mean? What I do believe is that they use bots to create pages like this but as I said this page isn't a reliable source anyway and nor have you shown even any wilingness to add it as a ref even if it were. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazon cite the name of the actual author of the books they sell. Thus they are a reliable source, as to the identity of the book.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that Kevin J. Taylor, the erotic cartoonist, used to have a Wikipedia article. It was deleted, but not due to any inaccuracy, but rather a lack of notability.
 * *does more gooogling*
 * http://www.nbmpub.com/eurotica/etaylor/taylorhom.html (don't trust that it's a genuine publisher? Check NBM Publishing)
 * http://www.comiccollectorlive.com/LiveData/Credit.aspx?id=5945f2b6-34df-4595-97b5-ea0b3922d240
 * http://www.ovguide.com/kevin-j-taylor-9202a8c04000641f800000001d06006f
 * http://www.comics.org/issue/1029130/
 * http://www.booksprice.com/author/Kevin-J.-Taylor.jsp--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that Kevin J. Taylor would be displeased, to see your insistent refusal to acknowledge the very existence of him and his work.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have never for even a second refused to acknowledge the existence of him and his works and I am sure he would actually be pleased that I was willing to defend his reputation as a human being on wikipedia where many people do not want to be mentioned or have an article about them, in some cases bitterly. I come here with no knowledge of cartoon pornography but with a good knowledge of wikipedia editing and policies. It is now clear that this individual is a cartoon pornographer because you have made the effort to verify this fact, neither you nor he can blame me for anything as long as you werent doing this and I trust you will NOT make this mistake again while editing wikipedia. I have removed the red link, if you wish to link to him please create the article, he looks to me notable enough for one as long as said article is reliably sourced and follows our BLP policy, which it sounds like was the problem before, a PROD delete is much easier to restore than an afd delete anyway. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I had proved that he was an erotic cartoonist from the start. Granted, I didn't provide an inline citation, but your complaint wasn't that I didn't use the proper way to cite, but that I hadn't proved that he made cartoon porn. I had. Granted, the source wasn't an ideal source for Wikipedia citation, but it does prove that he does cartoon porn. It certainly is a reliable source, for confirming that fact. Just because you have some paranoid ideas, that Amazon make up non-existent books, by non-existent authors, doesn't make Amazon unreliable.
 * ...now why is it, that you haven't complained about any of the other names, that are mentioned in the same sentence?
 * As to your implication that the article about Kevin J. Taylor was deleted due to BLP problems... That is clearly nonsense. If you follow that red link (really follow it), you'll see that it says, that a page of that title has been previously deleted, and that the reason was "(Expired PROD, concern was: Tagged for notability for over a year)". There is no information that suggests that there were any BLP concerns. If there were, surely that would have been mentioned?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked WP:RSN, just to be sure.
 * Most mentions of Amazon there, are not relevant to this case, but some are. Amazon is not a reliable source for most things, but when it comes to merely confirming that a certain person created a certain product: it is, most certainly, reliable.
 * Please note that, when considering if something is a reliable source or not, it is important to take the context into account: What is it supposed to verify? A source can be reliable for some things, but not for others, and vice versa.
 * When I put Kevin J. Taylor's name back in, the only complaint that you could reasonably make, would be that I only verified it in my edit summary and didn't add an inline citation. Any claim that I hadn't proven him to be a creator of cartoon porn, is nonsense.
 * Instead I was accused of BLP violation in a rather threatening manner ...and I was told that Amazon cannot even be relied upon, to have accurate information on who the author of a book is. You did not "just defend Wikipedia policies". You were overzealous and failed to consider things in a sensible manner. Just because you don't personally like a certain source, or the source doesn't fit your (or indeed Wikipedia's) ideal, doesn't make it invalid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You were accused of a BLP violation because you didnt source. You dont seriously think an edit summary is a way of sourcing? I absolutely was not over zealous but am troubled that you think so. Please take great care to source information about living people correctly in the future and do NOT revert an edit which has been tagged as BLP without sourcing properly. I never accused you of BLP violation for the Amazon source but for your failure to add it. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "I never accused you of BLP violation for the Amazon source but for your failure to add it."?
 * Really? Let's look at what you've written above shall we?
 * "We cannot include the name of an alleged cartooner working in porno without a reliable source"
 * That is not you telling me that I need to provide the source I have shown, in the article itself ..which would be ridiculous, in itself, anyway. If that's your problem, why didn't you just add the source into the article yourself, rather than revert something that is verifiably true? That makes no sense. If you did it to prove a point... That's rather against Wikipedia rules. No, what you say there is a clear statement that you don't think I have shown any sources at all.
 * "I will add that IMO that Amazon link is in no way a reliable source" That's not a statement that I need to properly add the source in the article, either. It's a clear statement that I have no evidence.
 * You try to claim that you haven't accused me of a BLP violation due to using the Amazon source, yet it is abundantly and blatantly clear from your own words, that this is not true.
 * Please stop lying. I abhor dishonesty.


 * Furthermore... You still haven't answered me on several points:
 * Your claims that Amazon has bots to create entries in Amazon, where people are mentioned to have made products that they haven't made.
 * Your, clearly false, claim that Amazon isn't a reliable source. What reason could you possibly have, for such a claim?
 * Your lack of concern about the other names mentioned in the same sentence (double standards? I abhor hypocrisy)
 * ...and also: You said "I was willing to defend his reputation as a human being on wikipedia". From the fact that he has made certain works, which he has openly, publicly and proudly stated to have been made by him?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes well I abhor hypocrisy too, what has that to do with anything? The reason I chose this person alone to focus on is he is the onyl one without an article, I assume the others have verifiable sources in their articles that they are involved in this area, he doesnt, and that is where my BLP hat comes on. Instead of criticizing me for enforcing BLP you should take on board what I say so you can become an even better and more useful editor, one familiar with and always adhering to our BLP policy. I accused you of a BLP violation cos you did not add or attempt to add the Amazon source, you thought it wasnt necessary and now dont want to admit you were wrong. We need to wind this conversation up as it isnt going anywhere, if you need to rant further try my talk page but not here♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yes well I abhor hypocrisy too, what has that to do with anything?"
 * I was pointing at a possible (note: possible. Not a direct accusation) point of hypocrisy and asking for an explanation. Thus it was perfectly relevant.
 * "The reason I chose this person alone to focus on is he is the onyl one without an article"
 * ...which, as you know, had been true of Kevin J. Taylor in the past, when the name was originally included.
 * "I accused you of a BLP violation cos you did not add or attempt to add the Amazon source"
 * That is a lie, pure and simple as your comments here clearly show. Besides: If that was your only complaint, then you had no excuse, whatsoever, for removing it rather than just adding the source yourself.
 * "you thought it wasnt necessary"
 * True ...and why should I consider it necessary? You don't have to cite everything (see WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). Stuff that isn't challenged or likely to be challenged, doesn't really have to have citations. Indeed, to quote directly from WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
 * The inclusion of Kevin J. Taylor's name, hardly counts as "likely to be challenged". Even your challenge wasn't due to any doubt about the veracity of the information, but was merely due to needless pedantry. Hence it doesn't really need any citations. You seem very passionate and strict about upholding Wikipedia rules, but it seems that you fail to understand them. Also, please remember: WP:The rules are principles. Trying to uphold the letter of the law, whilst thus going against the spirit of it, is not proper behaviour on Wikipedia.
 * "and now dont want to admit you were wrong."
 * Oh really? How so? Besides: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. A minor mistake, of not including a source in the article, is nothing compared to a violation of one of the five pillars and WP:point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not wiling to discuss this with you further as BLP vios can be removed without discussion. This issue is now up for discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive193 and you can explain to them why our BLP policy doesnt require references and why it is my responsibility and not yours to look for references♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed that it is your responsibility to look for references. However, when you know of a reference, when the reference has been provided (as with my Amazon link), then there is no excuse for removing the statement, rather than just adding the reference. Frankly neither of us need to provude a reference here, as there is no BLP violation nor any need (per Wikipedia policy) for any references.
 * You've taken it to the BLP noticeboard, have you? I welcome that.
 * As to your reverting of my edits... It seems that, for all your talk of following Wikipedia rules, you don't seem to think much of WP:BRD ...and no BLP doesn't overrule it here, as I've explained that it doesn't state a need for references here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now you can claim there is no BLP vio and no need to source unsourced claims about living people all you like but you restore unsourced material you have been told is a BLP violation and we will need to involve an admin who may decide to block you; otherwise there is nothing for you and I to talk about here, you need to persuade people on the BLP noticeboard that you can reinsert Alazar without sources, you havent done that so far ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. I didn't re-add sources, after the BLP noticeboard. Your threats of blocking, is thus nonsensical. There is no BLP violation, as per what is written in WP:BLP, as I have pointed out in the noticeboard. If you want to argue about that, that is fine. Do it there. Not here. You have not demonstrated, in the noticeboard, that it there is a BLP violation. The issue is not yet resolved there. Hence I would advise you to stop your arrogant posturing here and try to make your case there, instead.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You havent violated BLP since I went to the BLP noticeboard, you did though violate BLP here and were informed about it here but that didnt stop you again violating BLP here so I am serious about reporting you to an admin if you violate the policy a 3rd time. And if you think that these BLPs havent been adequately proven on the BLP noticeboard that is your problem not mine or anyone else's, people there have made their opinions perfectly clear including that of course I have the right to enforce BLP. Indeed you havent even attempted to justify why you think we can re-add Alazar, likely a living person, without a reliable source, as you did. I am scouring hundreds of porn-themed articles in pursuit of BLP violations and calling me arrogant for doing so here isnt going to help you one little bit, indeed the impression I have from the BLP noticeboard is that you dont understand BLP policy but it is your responsibility and not anyone else's to get a grip on that policy or face consequences such as revoking of edit privileges. Just obey the BLP policy and keep your head down and you will be fine♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to report you, for uncivil behaviour ...which I have already been able to demonstrate that you have engaged in (and the amount of violations just keeps growing). Go to the noticeboard! Quit trying to threaten good faith edits, made without any clear violation (even if there is a violation, which there isn't, it would still count as not being entirely clear) with a block! (Also, this is the first time I'm involved with a BLP issue, so you're in conflict with WP:BITE, as well)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means report me wherever you want to, just make sure you inform me of having done so on my talk page promptly. IMO you will not get very far, see WP:BOOMERANG. As far as I am concerned if you dont re-add BLP vios again this discussion is over, there is nothing more to say but obviously were you to be blocked it would (a) be done so by a blocking admin not involved here and (b) would be for repeated insertion of BLP violating material into this article not anything else but I trust you wont allow it to come to that. As for BITE, you have been editing 3 yrs so I dont think you are a newbie and thus it is your responsibility after all this time on the project to know the policies (and it wasnt as if you were new to editing even back in January 2011). I was not happy when you deliberately re-inserted Alazar having been warned about BLP when re-adding Kevin J Taylor so you can hardly claim you havent been warned about breaking our BLP policy by re-inserting living people's names without reliably sourcing them and if you were to do so again you would have no adequate excuses. BLP must always be enforced and the exceptions you claim from BLP policy dont stand up♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG? Oh, the irony...
 * But don't worry. Unlike you, I am not so quick to report people. I like to solve things with dialogue ...and, besides: It is against Wikipedia's principles to be quick to report people. (the way you are)
 * BTW, I'm not complaining about any risk that I get blocked (I'm not worried about being at risk of anything of the kind). I'm complaining about your aggressive threats.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to comment further on this thread, but I think I need to point out your failure to understand WP:BITE:
 * "Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once, and in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers."
 * "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, on the entries that have Wikipedia articles:

Bill Ward: Most of his work is describes as risqué, but...

"Ward dabbled in underground comics, drawing a pornographic "Stella Starlet" story in publisher John A. Mozzer's Weird Smut Comics #1 (1985) and a "Sugar Caine" story in issue #2 (1987); both were written by Dave Goode.[3]

Ward illustrated erotic stories, written by himself, in such men's magazines as Juggs and Leg Show — an article a month for the former in his later years.[7] During this period he also did cover and interior illustrations for various paperback publishers of softcore and hardcore pornography, especially those owned by William Hamling;[8] and illustrations (primarily covers) for Screw.[9]"

John Willie: "He is best known for his comic strip Sweet Gwendoline." Also... He is clearly stated as being an erotic photographer. Why would anyone think that he would shy away from erotica, in his comics?

...yet you claim that there is a need for citations?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Williams and Ward are both dead so they arent covered by BLP but any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. You could add some reliable sources for these 2 dead people and thus guarantee they wont be removed by me or another editor in the future. I look forward to you complaining about my aggressive threats daring to challenge YOU for BLP violations♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why you added "citation needed"-tags on Bill Ward and John Willie, who are both already verified as being authors of cartoon pornography.
 * As to complaints about your threats... That has nothing to do with this discussion thread.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually dont think the articles do verify the fact, the verify these people's notability but not as cartoon pornographers or I would have added the refs from those articles verifying that they were cartoon pornographers and this is why I have added the citation required, see it as a good thing as it encourages others to find and add reliable sources♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that "Ward dabbled in underground comics, drawing a pornographic "Stella Starlet" story in publisher John A. Mozzer's Weird Smut Comics #1 (1985) and a "Sugar Caine" story in issue #2 (1987); both were written by Dave Goode.[3]", verifies that Ward drew a pornographic comic!? Seriously!?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the ref that verifies the information you have just given that interests me, can you please provide it or add it to the article. Otherwise you can search for reliable sources on the world wide web, it would be great to source this info about both individuals. I will add that I did not remove either of these dead individuals after reading their articles so I dont doubt the truth of them being cartoon pornographers (or I would have removed them) but wikipedia needs this information sourced reliably in this article and the cite required are the obvious way for me to achieve that as my editing time is being eaten up currently fixing BLP vios in other porn articles♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is the ref that verifies the information you have just given that interests me, can you please provide it/.../"
 * You're seriously telling me that you can't even manage to go to that section of the Bill Ward article by yourself!?
 * To quote a certain SqueakBox: "The reason I chose this person alone to focus on is he is the onyl one without an article, I assume the others have verifiable sources in their articles that they are involved in this area, he doesnt, and that is where my BLP hat comes on."
 * ...yet now you demand that there be a reference in this article?
 * "as my editing time is being eaten up currently fixing BLP vios in other porn articles"
 * This is an area that you have confessed to be ignorant of... (also, it's spelt "violations", not "vios". Please use proper English. You may also need to consult WP:CRYPTIC)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Either get on and source these or dont, this sint a space for you to rant against me, indeed there are no such spaces on wikipedia. IMO you really need to study the policies a bit better as you seem to have a very weak grasp and then blame others, this is very tedious♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Article still needs to be completely rewritten or else retitled, after four years no change!
As I was saying four years ago, there's a whole world of erotic comics that has nothing to do with illegal child pornography. This article is almost entirely about illegal child pornography, and should be retitled to make that clear, or be rewritten to fill in the all the material currently excluded. Mandrakos (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So get cracking! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, some people do distinguish between pornography and erotica, as noted in the Erotic article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue with the article at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Historical" cartoons
"Historical" cartoon or not, it's still considered an actual cartoon pornography so I don't see why it matters about the article mentioning nothing about it. However, hentai itself is mentioned only once in the lead, despite not appearing anywhere in the article. Furthurmore, some people don't consider anime and cartoons to be the same thing, especially true hardcore anime fans. Sandenig (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your image change of a long standing image of this article is controversial, yet you continue to edit war it back in spite of other editors telling you different. Stop reverting, and get WP:CONSENSUS that this is the right change. I see also that you managed to bury the image that, within the caption itself states that hentai is the most common cartoon pornography and change it to a black and white, 'lighter' image. I see this as a lighter form of WP:CENSOR given that there's little reason to do this otherwise. Also, do not state image changes as 'minor' edits because they are certainly not, or include misleading edit summaries while moving around images. Tutelary (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed my topic of the so-called "historical" cartoon image. Also, it says that hentai one of the most "popular" forms of cartoon pornography, not "common" (not that it matters anyway). Again, most people don't consider anime and cartoons to be the same thing. Objecting to an image because it's "historical" or "black and white, lighter" is not good enough to me. I'm not exactly sure what your objection is. I looked back at the article history and that image has only been there since January 14, 2014, so it's not really that "long-standing" (not like it matters anyway). And furthurmore, I didn't actually "change" the image in the rest of my edits, unless you're actually only trying to deny the undisputable fact that hentai is a form of Japanese artwork (a very good one at that, but still Japanese). Sandenig (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is that you have not gotten consensus to change the image and continued trying to change it, and didn't follow WP:BRD until after your 2nd revert. You still haven't addressed my topic of the so-called "historical" cartoon image. That wasn't my original argument, that was User:Grayfell's and you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Nonetheless, I can see exactly why he reverted it, because the article doesn't mention historical images anywhere, so posting the WP:LEAD image as one is WP:UNDUE weight. Hentai is mentioned as the most 'popular' and hence is reasonable on why it would be the lead image. Objecting to an image because it's "historical" or "black and white, lighter" is not good enough to me. I should have elaborated more. It's an inferior image, given that the current image offers more depth, is more in line with the subject matter, and has appropriate WP:DUE. One thing I do concede on is that it doesn't need to be -this- particular image, it could be another hentai image. But if you want to change the image type entirely, you need to show that it's not WP:UNDUE weight. Tutelary (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hentai" also wasn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article either (until I added the Japan section of course), so that goes both ways. And I have to repeat this again, most people don't consider anime and cartoon to be the same thing. Hardcore anime fans like me would be offended to call them both the same thing. Speaking of which, this whole article also looks like a duplicate of the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors article, although that's going off-topic. Sandenig (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * most people don't consider anime and cartoon to be the same thing: of course not—one is a subset of the other. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy based argument though and garners no weight. My main policy based argument is that on the basis of hentai being the most popular, it garners the most weight and hence should be the WP:LEAD photo. As for the comparison...this article could be expanded. But other than a few sentences, it indeed looks like a duplicate. I would wait for Grayfell's opinion on the images. Tutelary (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is fine, as long as it mentions that it is a Japanese artwork, which it originally did. As for it being the most popular, I can agree, but there is no source saying that here, so that may be an opinion. As for the actual cartoon images, do you also object to them being in the other sections of the article? I tried to check the for other cartoon pornography images that weren't "historical" or "black and white" but couldn't find any. Google is filled with copyrighted cartoon characters, and the best I can find on Commons is this. I would try to expand the article myself, but unfortunately all I have to go on are porn sites. Sandenig (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if they're in other parts of the article, just that they're not the lead image. The lead image should be appropriate for the subject matter, and have a good amount of WP:DUE weight. I don't mind if you can find a section on the article for the other images, just that with the length of this article, it might be too picture-heavy and not enough text heavy...and searching for reliable sources for this is a bit difficult. Tutelary (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Tutelary is right, edit warring and this nonsense with misleading summaries and minor edits has to stop. As for the image itself, the image should be a clear example first and well-drawn second. If a different image can be found in Commons (or properly contributed to Commons from elsewhere), so be it. A poorly-cropped, mediocre still frame from a historical animation, or an even older image that is only partially connected to the topic, don't belong. The later image is so surreal, and Marie Antoinette and the Marquis de Lafayette are so far outside of the scope of this article, that it's distracting and confusing to have them as the lead image. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I only changed the image once. I also didn't make the same change more than once and never clicked the revert button. When I added the Japan section, I actually did added the section, so that wasn't exactly a misleading edit summary and I did not mark that edit as minor. As for the other edits, I think adding an image is indeed minor and the image's caption on the actual hentai page describes the artwork as 'illustration typical for eroge'. So in otherwords, I only changed the image once, I only added the historical picture once, and only added a legit cartoon pornography once. And furthurmore, cartoon and anime are not the same thing, but we already solved that problem. Marie Antoinette and the Marquis de Lafayette could just be deleted from the caption, but other than that, it's still considered a cartoon pornography, historical or not. So historical cartoons are off-limits, actual cartoons are also off-limits, I don't see any possible way this article can be expanded, it's just a duplicate of the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. There was apparently a merge discussion that didn't last long. Other than that, I think all the problems have been resolved here. Sandenig (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have changed the image and also tried to push the image lower in the article twice. Those are possible changes, but the way to do it is get consensus on the talk page. Whether or not you use the revert button or made the exact same change is completely irrelevant, per WP:EDITWAR. Please don't try to game the system. The minor check box isn't as subjective as you make it out to be; the changes to the image are clearly disputable, so they are not Help:Minor edits. Marking edits as minor when they are not is seen by experienced editors as misleading. Saying that you are adding a picture when you are also removing one was also misleading.
 * The image isn't really anime, since it's a static image, and whatever you want to call the style, it's a subset of cartooning. If you think otherwise, you need to find reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find sources that consider them closely related, however, so you would have your work cut out for you. So yeah, the image is a cartoon. Regardless, this isn't really the best place to resolve that debate, and manga and history of comics all treat the style as a form of cartooning, while cartoon says nothing about any East/West distinction, so I can't imagine why this is the place you chose to make that point.
 * Marie Antoinette and the Marquis de Lafayette are depicted in the image, so removing them from the caption would only make the image more confusing. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this has already been resolved. Whether an image is "appropriate" or not is subjective. Adding a so-called "historical" image is by no means inappropriate, and neither is an image that is more commonly considered an actual "cartoon". In any case, "hentai" and "cartoon pornography" are also not really considered the same either, regardless of the opinion that it might be considered "one" of the most, not "the" most, popular. So lets just agree to disagree on that point. Irregardless, your objections make absolutely no sense. I didn't realize that you were against the image being in a more appropriate section of the article, and I'm not sure what difference that makes either. Also, I did not mark the edit minor when I added the Japan section, and making an issue out of that is much too trivial. You still haven't addressed most of my points. And bringing the debate up on manga and history of comics is absolutely counterproductive, as they don't have in issue with this in the way they are worded. There is indeed an East/West distinction between manga and anime in the English language. And as multiple other editors have pointed out in previous discussions here, this entire article is a duplicate of the Legality article on cartoon "child" pornography. I'd say a merge with any of the other articles would be more appropriate. But other than that, the issues should already be resolved. Sandenig (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has contested the addition of the Japan section (although it still needs sources). Saying that anime/manga style art is not part of cartooning is not supported by sources. Above you said that "cartoon and anime are not the same thing", and I was responding with an explanation why the image is not anime (because it is not animated) but is a cartoon (which is, broadly, a category of artistic styles). Sources I am aware of consider hentai to be a subset of both cartoons and pornography. If you know of reliable sources saying otherwise, I would appreciate it if you presented them for discussion, because that is very relevant to this article. As far as I can tell, nobody has said other images are flatly inappropriate. I am okay with the other images being included in the article eventually, but context and placement matter. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, lets just agree to disagree about whether they are actually considered "cartoons". However according to the English language definition of the words, they are considered a form of Japanese animation, which I guess can further be considered a type cartoon or a category of artistic styles depending on a person's position. Hentai itself is a genre which encompasses anime, manga, eroge, futanari, yuri, yaoi, and etc. Anyway, this isn't a debate we should be having here and it seems to be getting off-topic. If this article is to be expanded somehow, we need to attempt to work together. To start off, much of the article still need sources. But as of now, the article mostly discusses child cartoon pornography. Sandenig (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anime implies animation in both English and Japanese. It's sometimes used in English for the associated style, but not universally, so that's needlessly confusing. I wouldn't say that Hentai encompassed anime, because that would imply that all anime is hentai, but we can agree that Genre warriors are not invited to this particular party and leave it at that. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anime is used in English to refer to Japanese animation, which is also the case when you search up "anime definition" in Google. Hentai can encompass a lot of things, of which anime is only a part part of. But yes, talking about genres would be going off-topic here. Sandenig (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The later image is so surreal, and Marie Antoinette and the Marquis de Lafayette are so far outside of the scope of this article: if that's the case, then the article needs to change to accommodate it. I haven't looked at the article in a while, but—whoa! this article's shit from top to bottom.  The obsessive focus on kiddie porn need to be cut way down, and the country-by-country list of laws by country needs to be done away with.  That leaves—well, practically nothing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but until the article is changed, the historical image is making things worse, not better. The historical image isn't typical enough to be useful as an example in the lead. It would be implying that Antoinette and Lafayette are common subjects of cartoon pornography, (doubtful) or that 18th century France was a particularly significant period in cartoon pornography's history (maybe?). Both of those statements need sources. The current image is pretty generic, though, and saying that hentai is a common form of cartoon pornography seems much more reasonable. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be implying that Antoinette and Lafayette are common subjects of cartoon pornography: that's a stretch. It's a pornographic cartoon illustrating an article on pornographic cartoons.  I can't see it doing any sort of damage to the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article? No, not damage. As a lead image? I just don't think it's a good choice. I think it's too obscure and too confusing. Once the article is expanded with more context and more sources, I can very easily see changing my mind, but for now it seems like it's sub-optimal per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Yes, it is cartoon porn, but is it the clearest example? I don't think so. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's too obscure and too confusing: It's a cartoon of a giant penis in an article entitled "Cartoon pornography". If anyone's confused by that then they've got issues that Wikipedia cannot deal with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just a gigantic penis, oh no. It's a gigantic penis with legs being ridden like a horse by a famous military figure below a torch-bearing cherub while the Queen looks on. The current article (which is pathetic) assumes that cartooning is the set of simplified, illustrative art styles widely used in comics, animation, and related pop-culture. In that sense, the image is an odd example. The image is confusing, and its bizarreness makes it very niche pornography. If the article treats the word cartoon as the more specific term related to satirical illustration parallel to editorial cartoon, then the image is a great example (although I admit I don't get exactly what, if anything, is being satirized; were Lafayette and the Queen supposed to be shtupping? Is this a metaphor for the Garde nationale?) Looking for sources for the article, I think the former usage is going to be a lot more common and a lot more sourceable. If we want an older or just more tasteful image in the lead, there are a lot of simpler images at at Commons:Category:Erotic art. Of course, blurring the line between pornography, art, and cartooning is another tedious discussion just waiting to happen, but this is Wikipedia, so let's not let that stop us. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If "cartoon" is not being used to mean "cartooning" in its broad sense, then this article is simply flat-out wrong. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?
Historical cartoons are off-limits, actual "cartoons" are also off-limits, there is no way this article can be expanded. Searching for sources only brings up a bunch of porn sites. I suggest a merge with the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors or cartoon articles. That is unless someone can help to expand this article. Sandenig (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How could "historical" cartoons possibly be off-limits? One would expect a "History" section in the article as a bare minimum.  How are File:18th Century pornographic cartoon. Marie Antoinette and the great French General and politician Lafayette.jpg and File:Eveready Harton.jpg in the least way inappropriate? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Who said the images are inappropriate? I don't think anyone is saying they are "off limits", and that kind of misrepresentation doesn't assume good faith. There is currently no historical context in the article, so having a cartoon with political and satirical content related to French revolutionary history in an article which only addresses modern cartoons is a confusing mismatch and appears to be veiled censorship. The still from Eveready Harton is likewise mediocre as an example and illustration, and is also lacking in context.
 * Per above, Japanese cartoons are still cartoons. Yes, the article needs work, but the topic has been addressed by academic sources outside of legal issues.
 * To be blunt, I don't think you looked hard enough for sources. Just googling cartoon pornography isn't helpful, but a quick search of Google Books with some related terms suggest there is a wealth of possible sources that could cover this article, and there are already many subsets of this topic covered by Wikipedia, so merging this article is counterproductive. Here are a few for review:
 * Funny Pictures: Animation and Comedy in Studio-Era Hollywood. Chapter 9 discusses the link between cartoon pornography and paraphilia
 * Net.seXXX: Readings on Sex, Pornography, and the Internet contains many references.
 * Beaver Street: A History of Modern Pornography looks promising, although the book isn't searchable.
 * There are many more, and someone with access to academic search engines could very likely find many more on top of that. The images aren't inappropriate, but they are not ideal for the lead. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Curly got that connotation from me, with my phrasing It's an inferior image, given that the current image offers more depth, is more in line with the subject matter, and has appropriate WP:DUE. I said that in reference to it being the lead image. I've no other issue with other images and concur with Grayfell. See dispute above this section for context. Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the article is currently pretty much exclusively about cartoon child pornography, as have already been mentioned in above sections. We need help to work together if the article is to be expanded somehow, and anymore arguing would be counterproductive. In attempting to expand this article, it needs to start somewhere. I have already tried searching cartoon pornography in the news, to see if any reputable media outlets are covering it in any depth. Sandenig (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is 95% redundant to Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. If that sub-sub-topic is removed from this article, the article will be nothing but a stub. And frankly that would be for the best, because then we could start over... such as deciding whether the article is about "animated pornography", "illustrated pornography", or both. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jason's suggestion sounds to me like a practical way of moving forward with this article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
Personally, I feel this article is a bit one-sided. It could do with some criticism. - 2.97.74.198 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Title and topic
Over the years there's been disagreement and confusion about what this article is about. I think the biggest cause for that is the title. "Cartoon" has three different meanings. The original meaning – a sketch made to plan a painting – isn't really used anymore. The two current meanings – a style of comics and a style of animation – are related and overlap in a few areas, but they're really two different topics: books and movies. So I think we're better off covering pornographic comics and pornographic animation separately. The former topic is covered briefly in a section of Adult comics... I'd like to see that expanded into its own article at some point. The latter topic doesn't seem to be covered in any one place.... there's a bit in Adult animation and some in Hentai (one area where comics and animation do overlap significantly). So maybe this article could serve as a place to do that. But if so, I'd suggest that it be titled Animated pornography or Erotic animation, so people don't confuse it with comics. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We should assess what the common name is and go with that, per WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that the policy says to avoid ambiguous names, which "cartoon pornography" is.
 * As one source of data, the number of Google hits for various phrases:
 * Cartoon pornography: 96,000
 * Pornographic cartoons: 38,600
 * Animated pornography: 40,100
 * Pornographic animation: 14,500
 * Erotic animation: 176,000
 * Animated erotica: 44,600
 * Erotic animation seems a clear favorite by this metric. I think it has the added advantage of avoiding the value-judgment implied by calling something "porn", and it also parallels the names of both Adult animation and Category:Erotic comics. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Erotic animation" sounds reasonable. There are also WP articles called Erotic art, Erotic literature and Erotic photography so its seems consistent. In contrast the only WP article beginning "Cartoon..." that refers to a specific genre seems to be this one. Of course, we'll have to trim this stub further to remove its non-animated content. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless there are objections, I'm going to move the article to that name. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have an objection. Erotic animation makes me think about an actual animation, moving pictures, whereas cartoon pornography makes me think of static images. The animation article we have even has it as its lead sentence. is the process of making the illusion of motion and the illusion of change[Note 1] by means of the rapid display of a sequence of images So I think it would be a mistake to move it to that name, given the fact that cartoon pornography is often static images or a comic panel, but not necessary animated. (Though I know there are nuances, since movies are basically just rapidly moving still images.) My point still stands. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion about the confused topic of this article. Animation and static drawings aren't the same topic, and trying to cover them in a single article isn't fair to either topic. I'm working on an article about erotic comics, and I believe this article should be developed into one about erotic animation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not mutually exclusive. Animation and static drawings are indeed not the same topic, but cartoon pornography can arguable be a subset of its own, like you edited into the article. Nonetheless, the google thing can be useful to see which has more reliable sources. I did a google scholar source for "cartoon pornography" and for "erotic animation" and they are nearly identical in the terms of searches. Google itself (not the scholar portion) also includes other blogs, youtube videos, and even news reports about people being prosecuted for underage cartoon pornography, and erotic animation also seems to come up with more porn sites in general, also lending itself to be more popular based on the virtue of that. When I do the search for carton pornography, I see a lot more sources delving into depth about it, rather than giving results for porn sites. Yes, there are more hits for erotic animation, but the quality hits are for cartoon pornography. (ie--a lot of porn sites for erotic animation, which cloud the results). All of this should be considered into the factor to rename the article, but I think the evidence, and the abundance of RS are for cartoon pornography, not for erotic animation. Tutelary (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One is not a subset of the other. They simply are not. And the problem with "cartoon" is that it's a confusing, ambiguous term, and frankly that has led to this article being little more than a magnet for pointless arguments on its Talk page. When you type "cartoon pornography" I honestly don't know which you mean by that. Drawings and animation are not the same topic, and using an ambiguous term that leads people to think that it's about one or the other just adds to the confusion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You initially edited the lead yesterday as if to make it a bit more confusing. The original lead sentence was ) is the portrayal of illustrated or animated fictional cartoon characters in erotic or sexual situations.. You edited it to be: is the portrayal of erotic and sexually explicit scenes or stories using film, video, or digital animation. With that type of sentence, I'm not surprised to see that it was confusing. You also did this to the cartoon article, sticking "animation" in its lead, which doesn't make sense. The original bit about "illustrated or animated fictional cartoon characters" was rather explicit in its definition. Your new definition appears to be blending the line, making it ambiguous as to what sort of action cartoon pornography is referring to, especially with making the animation bit of a bonafide requirement to be cartoon pornography, which is not the case. Especially putting "erotic animation" first, as though they are one in the same, despite no sources. But erotic animation =/= still images, since animation is, well, animated--moving which is my point here. What I think of to be cartoon pornography was the original lead of the article, which you edited to be more vague and based on animation. I would wait on User:Flyer22 Reborn 's take on our arguments before deciding to move the article or not. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make this any more clear: I don't think we should have information about static drawings in this article. That's a whole separate topic from erotic animation, and we now have a separate article started about it: Erotic comics. So now this article can focus on animated porn, and the changes I made (after removing the redundant legal info-dump) were to reflect that, and to get started on making this into a useful article about that subject. Changing the name to something that is unambiguously about movies is an important step in that process. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to make you admit. Static drawings in a sexual manner involving cartoons are cartoon pornography. There is no requirement that cartoon pornography has to be animated, which is what you are trying to subvert this article into. Now, I'm not saying you can't go and create a Erotic animation article to satisfy the apparent need to have that. I'm just saying you don't need to get rid of this article to do it. I also very much don't believe they are separate things. Cartoon porn can be animated, still images, drawings, flash swf, etc. I also don't appreciate you going to other pages (such as the Cartoon article and editing the lead as if to force animation to be included in the definition of a cartoon. I have to go somewhere, so I won't be able to respond promptly. Tutelary (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't just "admit" it; I made the distinction very clearly right up front (and asked you to go back read it, since you didn't seem to have picked up on it). As for "getting rid of this article"... come on: there was never an actual article here to get rid of. Nearly all of it was a duplication of another article, and what was left after removing that was barely a stub. There was no article about porn comics, no article about porn animation... no information. Just a bunch of arguments on the Talk page. Frankly, this stub deserved to be taken to AFD to be deleted. But you're right: I want there to be an actual article about animated porn, and since this article (sort of) existed, I figured it was the place to start for that. But if you insist that I create that article first then then take this to AFD, I can do that instead. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I will admit that this article does qualify as a stub once you remove a large amount of the legal stuff (which indeed is a duplicate of Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors, I wholeheartedly believe the general topic of cartoon pornography is notable. What I believe to have happened here is that no one seemed to delve into the sources, and want to add more to this article in that aspect. It appears there's more than enough sources to actually write a decent article on the subject. What's happened on the talk page is that people argue...that's a fact of life. I'm sure there are some other relatively short pages that have lengths of talk page archives but little to no content. But this is Wikipedia. There is no dead line to complete this stuff. Whether it takes a few days, hours, weeks, or months for a competent editor to actually fill out a complete article on the subject of cartoon pornography. But I believe we wholeheartedly differ on whether this page deserves to exist, or that you believe there should be no information on still images, and instead focus this page on animated pornography, which I think is a mistake in viewpoint--the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm going to revert some of your edits, per WP:BRD The legal status can come back, since there's still a copyright aspect to cartoon pornography as well as intellectual property, and we should at least mention the minor thing, and then just link instead of rehashing what that article states. I also very much disagree with your changes on the lead. You could send it to afd but I think the reliable sources I can find via google and other source functions point to this being a notable subject, which I will argue on said afd if you create one. Tutelary (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, you can WP:OWN this article and apply your own definition of "cartoon" to it (whatever that is... you still haven't articulated it). Since you seem to object to the popular understanding of "cartoon" meaning "animation", I'll go ahead and create an article on that subject. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up this article was commendable, but considering the length of past discussions, rewriting it to be about animation was premature. Sources need to be found first, and the article needs to be built on top of that. I distrust Google hit counts, because, well, they lie, they include blatently unreliable sources, and duplicates, and also because Google really loves sloppy synonyms. Google is trying to provide "useful" results, not specific words, so it will give results for "comics" when searching for "cartoons", and probably "anime" when searching for "manga". I have some reliable books on my shelf which address the topic of adult comics. Flipping around looking for sources, most of them refer to artists as "cartoonists" (Eric Stanton is one historically noteworthy example). This includes artists describing themselves as cartoonists. It's also significant how few of them use "cartoon" when talking specifically about comics. This could be interpreted to mean they do not view them as cartoons, or that they view them as a subset of cartoons, which would mean the exact opposite for our purposes. I think self-describing themselves as "cartoonists" suggests the latter. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The job title "cartoonist" is a linguistic leftover from the time when "cartoon" mostly referred to "comics". There are many cartoonists (myself included) who dislike it because "cartoon" has come to mean "animation" to most people, and they think it means we work on TV shows for children... but we're stuck with it. Our reluctant use of it does not mean that we see comics as a subset of animation. That's the problem with "cartoon": it's unclear and ambiguous what it's supposed to mean, and the entire history of this article is one of people having different definitions in their heads, and fighting over content because of it. WP naming policy says to avoid ambiguous names... this is a textbook example of that. The bottom line here is that this "article" is badly conceived and badly named, and its failure to develop into a real article is a direct consequence of that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't have that much more to state on this topic, but I will state the following: I don't think that "cartoon pornography" is all that ambiguous. And since it seems to be the WP:Common name, I'd stick with that. Differences in terminology can be addressed in a Terminology section, supported by reliable sources of course. And before this article is moved, it should be subject to an official WP:Requested move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire Talk history of this page demonstrates the problem with "cartoon". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted JasonAQuest's recent edit to the article. That definition of the lead was not put in by me, it was the consensus version of the lead that has sustained all the talk page discussion, until you [[WP:BRD|boldly edited it, and I reverted it back. I reverted it because I disagree with the changes in the lead, it removes the bit about Hentai, while the image is still there. I believe the history bit was what was most contentious, so I left that bit out. I hope discussion will ensue, and not just constant reverting. I have since done it again. I don't want to edit war with JasonAQuest so I'm not going to revert anymore, regardless. I do wish JasonAQuest would discuss his edits--which they know will be a little bit controversial on the talk page, before making them. I also did elaborate on my definition of what cartoon pornography could be in a previous edit. cartoon porn can be animated, still images, drawings, flash swf, etc. I don't believe the all of the things I mentioned are mutually exclusive, which is what JasonAQuest is trying to do with the article--make it solely about animated things. Though what could be solved would be to find some reliable sources that define cartoon pornography and use that for the lead, though the lead is defined to summarize the article, so that may be an ill fit. I also did not say that it would exclude animation, I took issue with your viewpoint that cartoon pornography is 'inherently animation, moving images, since that's simply not the case. Tutelary (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, creating erotic animation while this conversation is ongoing seems WP:POINTed. So between erotic comics and that one, where does this article belong? If we make this entirely about one or the other, it becomes completely redundant and should just be redirected or turned into a disambiguation. Just saying here that you were making that article would've made a big difference. Creating an article to make this one redundant while also participating in the discussion about the fate of the article is almost antagonistic.
 * Even if the term "cartoon" is a historical relic (which I accept) that's not the end of it, because there is historical cartoon pornography, such as Tijuana bibles, Eveready Harton, and the image discussed above. The article on cartoon is pretty clear on it's shifting history, and it's really not ideal because of this ambiguity. That said, it's definitely common and "cartoon pornography" is a subject addressed by some reliable sources, and I think we're stuck with it for now. There's a substantial amount of overlap between these two areas, and a disambiguation introduces a risk of information on the commonalities falling in between the cracks. Animation was born from still-image creators, and the connection is still very strong.
 * This is a bit OR, but the commonality seems to be what cartoon describes as a "non-realistic or semi-realistic artistic style". Of course there are edge-cases with this (fumetti, photo-realistic CGI, etc.) but this does seem to be the largest practical umbrella. This focus would include things like Playboy's cartoons (which are a non-contentious use of the term for a non-animated example), as well as animated and comic book usage.
 * There's also issues with "pornographic" and "erotic" each being potential euphemisms, which makes this whole thing even more frustrating. These terms are loaded, as each of them implies either artistic merit, or a lack of it. "Adult" lacks this, but is too broad and is already in use anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The Erotic animation article that Jason A. Quest created should be nominated for WP:Deletion, per WP:Content fork (specifically the WP:POVFORK aspect of that guideline). Not to mention...it's mainly unsourced. If no one else nominates it for deletion, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I do agree it does seem to be a POV fork, if he would have done it as a draft, that wouldn't be an issue, and lets us see what he wanted to originally do with this page. Tutelary (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The only differing POV it represents is "erotic animation is a distinct topic from erotic comics". This is not a controversial or fringe view. There are points of crossover between the two media (e.g. Fritz the Cat, anime based on manga) just like there are between comics and animation in general, but that's all they are: crossover. You'd be hard-pressed to find a professional in either comics or animation who considers them the same medium, or that one is a subset of the other... and plenty of hostility to the idea. Big media companies that produce both (e.g. Disney, Warner) even house them in separate divisions of the company. "Animation was born from still-image creators" is an assumption not borne out by history: animation developed in connection to the film industry, and comics were part of newspaper and magazine publishing.
 * Also, I didn't create the animation article underhandedly. I said more than once that I was going to create it if this stub couldn't be developed along those lines, so when it became clear that this was for some kind of multi-media meta-topic instead, I began working on that article. The content of it is about as NPOV as you could ask for, and it's as well-sourced as I've had time for so far. I think it has a lot of potential if it isn't strangled in the crib to make some kind of territorial POINT. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your creation of that article is a POV fork, plain and simple. In fact, it's one of the best examples of a POV fork. And I'm sure that once that article is nominated for deletion, it will be either deleted or merged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * POV-forking is about violating NPOV (hence the name). But the article I began isn't doing any of the things described at WP:POVFORK. It's listing factual examples. The only way in which it might not be in compliance with consensus is whether it's the same topic as this one... but since there's no clear consensus about what the topic of this stub is (or would be, if it was an article), that's debatable at best. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And if we're going to talk about forks, I think it's time we mention the elephant in the room: hentai. Over in the merger discussion, Tutelary has defined "cartoon porn" as any illustrated or animated erotica... which is essentially the slang English usage of "hentai". The only image used in this article is taken from Hentai. The article is a member of category:Anime and manga stubs. The two "see alsos" (other than Portal:Pornography) are Japanese terms related to hentai. I've been researching articles using the phrase "cartoon pornography" and they're usually talking about erotic anime. This article is essentially "Hentai, but not using that name". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:POVFORK specifically states that they "generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." And that is exactly what happened here. You have not shown that erotic animation is any different than cartoon pornography, and the Erotic animation article is essentially an example article. As for hentai, that is a WP:Notable topic that is specific to Japanese animation and comics. It is not a content fork and has no chance of being merged anywhere. Like I stated, I will be nominating the Erotic animation article for deletion. That is, if it's not merged here first. But right now, I am busy with other matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tutelary has argued very strenuously that "cartoon pornography" is not the same topic as "animated erotica". That's been the main point of contention. And I wasn't suggesting that Hentai be merged anywhere. Quite the opposite: I was pointing out that it was the original topic (and obviously notable), but that this article was later created as pretty much just "hentai, but some of it isn't Japanese". You're trying to have it both ways, Flyer: pronouncing one article a fork, in defense of another article which is essentially the same thing. If we're going to go to AFD (I'd prefer a civilized merger discussion to resolve the issue without the use of nukes), the article it should focus on is the one that is lacking content, sources, and consensus on what the topic is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to have anything both ways; I simply noted that the article you crated is a WP:POVFORK, while the Hentai article is not. Cartoon pornography is a wider topic than hentai. So, yes, it makes sense to have both a Cartoon pornography article and a Hentai article. I do not see that it makes sense to have both a Cartoon pornography article and Erotic animation article. I will be reviewing sources using the term cartoon pornography and any using erotic animation (or similar) to see if they differentiate in any way. If they do not, which I suspect that they don't, there is no valid justification for separate articles. As for civilized discussion, WP:AfD discussions can be civil, and they sometimes end in a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the level of civility in your tweets about how the article ban will be enacted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Tweets? I have not been tweeting about this, LOL; I wouldn't risk anyone on Wikipedia learning of my real-life identity. And I did not speak of an article ban. I spoke of the article being deleted. I did not mean to come across as uncivil, but I did mean to come across as stern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a metaphor, comparing your style of brusque, "stern" (I'd call it "imperious") declarations of (alleged) fact to those of a certain American politician. Like the way you declared the existing name the winner of COMMONNAME, even though the stats I reported suggested the opposite. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not dense; I know that you didn't see me tweet anything about this topic. You know, since I haven't tweeted a thing about it and am only talking about it on Wikipedia, not in my personal life. You stated that I "declared the existing name the winner of COMMONNAME." I didn't; you can't find where I did at all above. You know, because I didn't. And whatever "certain American politician" you are comparing me to is off the mark as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But don't you worry. Once I'm through with some other stuff, I will be sure to give this debate my full attention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies for paraphrasing it, but you did. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Stating "seems to be the WP:Common name" is not the same thing as stating "is the WP:Common name." And it's certainly not the same thing as "declaring the existing name the winner of COMMONNAME." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a remarkable bit of semantic hair-splitting. I give up: this is pointless. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's called reading comprehension. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever you need to tell yourself, Flyer 22 Reborn . -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Back at you. As seen here and here, your are idea of what a personal attack is and bullying is are way off the mark (which a report to a noticeboard would clear up for you). So I should not be surprised by your difficulty understanding "seems to be the WP:Common name" vs. "is the WP:Common name." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And this is more of the same. We both know that this is solely or partly about me, because it's pretty much what your email was about. I could challenge that piece on WP:Harassment grounds. I've been clear that your "I edit Wikipedia to fix my problems" assertion is blatantly false. And it is so beyond ludicrous when comparing it to my many years of editing here (meaning my body of work) that I am tempted to report you for WP:Harassment. I am usually not angry when editing Wikipedia. Editing here can make me angry, which is the case for just about all of our editors. It is doubly so for those that work in the fields I work in on Wikipedia. Your interpretations of my talk page and/or user page remarks are part of the problem. It's this type of thing -- this type of harassment -- that makes me dread coming here. You need to reflect on your own issues when it comes to editing here and stop transferring your feelings onto me. If you continue to do so, I will be taking this matter to the broader Wikipedia community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And I do appreciate this confirmation. It's just more evidence for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but that doesn't soften anything. If I were to report this, editors would be able to see that it is made only after my above complaint. Your harassment will be clear to anyone. That stated, I am going to let this slide for now. I've dealt with enough harassers on Wikipedia, and I am not particularly interested in seeing you reprimanded at WP:ANI or WP:AN. So I'm moving on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the title "Drawn and Animated pornography" myself. Or use separate articles for "Dawn pornography" and "animated pornography". Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think separate articles are appropriate, because these really are separate mediums. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am glad to have your second opinion on this article, Harizotoh9. I'm debating that a bit too, if Jason really objects to the term "cartoon" so much, despite it being prominent within the sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute about image
Of course, there's another perennial attempt to remove the image to the lead, based on it being "objectionable", when WP:CENSOR is the guiding policy here. The image has due weight in accordance with the fact that Hentai is the most popular genre of cartoon pornography, and as such, should be given its weight as an image on said page. There has not ever been a policy on here for removing images, solely based on being objectionable. Again, quite the opposite. Tutelary (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a smut store?
Just because wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean it needs to have hentai. It adds nothing to the article other than what is already written. El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will use this headline as it makes clear what your objections about it. Again, as I was saying before, the article outlines Hentai as one of the more popular forms of cartoon pornography out there, and as such, should be given its WP:DUE weight. I however don't agree with User:Usernamekiran's addition of another image, and suggest that they revert it. It's now too much in the opposite direction, and violates a certain text to image ratio, since the article is not that long in itself. Nonetheless, your edit summaries, as well as this inflammatory headline seeks to present me this view that you find it objectionable in a personal way. There are certain ways to hide images on Wikipedia articles if you don't find them fanciful. However, your personal objections to this image should not constitute removal. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tutelary is entirely correct about the original image. It is intended to illustrate and explain the topic of the article, and when the topic is the visual arts, a picture is worth a thousand words of description. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So we include porn in the encyclopedia. Okay. I guess this is just another place in the internet to jerk off. El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We include "porn" as you call it insofar as to provide encyclopedic value. Other stuff exists, but images that also including "offensive" images prominent within their relative articles are Fellatio, Anilingus, Anal Sex, and Gonzo_pornography. We're not doing it to provide "jerk off" material, but to adequately display encylopedic content. Just like the Elephant page includes an image of an elephant, the article about sex acts may very likely include an image of that sex act. Tutelary (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Potential Merger
The merger is being discussed here: Talk:Erotic_animation. Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yield
For the sake of peace, I'm going to plead the debate equivalent of nolo contendere, and redirect the better article title to this one, merging the contents in hopes of finally doing something useful with it. I think it's a mistake, but it isn't worth the kind of emotional distress this seems to be creating. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)