Talk:Hentai/Archive 4

Netorare definition
The current netorare definition is incorrect. A significant other does not have to be involved. Cheating does not have to be involved. Netorare is when someone you are in love with, significant other or not, is stolen away. "Kaya no Soto" or in English "Out of the Loop" by Jyura is an example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.5.167 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

“Normal” and “abnormal”
I don’t suppose it would be possible to edit this in such a way to make it clear that “normal” and “abnormal” are only judgments in a certain context for many things in the list. For example, there are many things that are no longer considered “abnormal” in most societies and are not listed as unhealthy or disordered in the standard psychiatric manuals these days. 47.192.70.200 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Bara (Genre) and OR
Whats with Bara, and there is OR at proof 5,6 and 7? The Other Karma (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Caption of above-the-fold-image
But, if you're going to keep this picture [narrator: they are], the caption is wrong. It says

But censorship indicates a request or demand from some external authority -- generally some arm of a government. It is true that "censor" is also used more loosely, like a lot of words, and we aren't bugs about that, and if "censorship" meaning "editorial judgement" is in common use, that's a data point. But here, the term is 1) confusing and 2) inflammatory and polemical. We want to be precise and careful to inform the reader correctly. Unless the Japanese Government or someone like that actually did mandate the original blurring. I doubt that, but if they did we should make that clear:

so the reader understands more precisely who did what. However, I assume that that's not the deal here. I'm not sure what the deal is, if the very first publication of the image had blurring, or if somebody added that later, and who did the unblurring, but if I'm understanding the situation correctly, the caption ought to be something along the lines of

Which, of course, "more explicit", depending on who you talk to, is good or bad. But anyway, either the 2nd (highly unlikely I think) or the 3rd version is preferable to the 1st, n'est-ce pas? Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections, so I've gone ahead and done this. Herostratus (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that this was a legitimate proposal that still stood; otherwise, I would have said something. I personally think any reference to censorship in that caption is odd and a bit off-topic, which is why I removed that reference from the caption in the first place, which I thought resolved the issue. In any case, because of that, I am against referencing censorship (and I also raise an eyebrow at the other part of your edit, which seems obviously aimed at advancing a certain reading of the image). Sandtalon (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What reading? I think if we're presenting an image that we ourselves have modified, we should maybe tell the reader that. Maybe not. But I mean if we modified a photo of the Eiffel Tower to make it look taller and snazzier, on the grounds that the people controlling the article, uh... how to put this nicely... really really like the Eiffel Tower, I think we should say so? Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Picture
The picture is inappropriate and I was trying to teach the topic but this picture was always there 2601:4A:C280:A1A0:0:0:0:B325 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. But you can always hide images. Sandtalon (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should totally and obviously be censored, as it is supposedly a suitable-for-all-ages, educational, informative page. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree and I would add to that argument: is it relevant to show a pornographic hentai picture at all? Are the descriptions not enough for the informative purpose of Wikipedia? More: I would argue that the page about pornography would be enough for the purpose of information to the public and there is no need for there to be individual pages with such extensive descriptions (and with depictions) about the various pornography genres or forms, such as hentai, creampie and bukkake.
 * Luckylemming (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let´s assume, for a moment, that ¨creampie (sexual inter-course)¨ would be important because of the health aspects and ¨bukkake¨ for the sake of explaining the extreme of objectification of women. Even so, a text explanation should be sufficient for this purpose. But then, other articles such as ¨cum shot¨ or ¨facial¨, I would argue are irrelevant (and harmful to the public because of their respective depictions). Luckylemming (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to change the parameters of WP:NOTCENSORED in general...but this talk page may not be the best place to discuss the policy as it is applied in general. Why not discuss it on other talk pages that may be relevant to your more general claim, or write an essay on it like Herostratus has? In any case, I would dispute your claim of "public harm," though I would also not be opposed to a user setting to filter explicit images specifically (tags and filters are not censorship, but curation—and a great way to solve these issues; see the way they've been implemented on fandom platforms, for example). (Though, of course, you could argue that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is different.) Anyway, this discussion has started to get off-topic. Sandtalon (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I still believe I should have written this previous comment about this picture in particular, because it was on the topic of hentai alone. But I value your suggestion about the WP:NOTCENSORED parameters. Luckylemming (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You actually can´t, as of today, block only inappropriate content in Wikipedia. And also, if there was that option, it should be the default and a click should be required to watch the thumbnail.
 * Luckylemming (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As the first image has been "modified to remove censorship", then what is the difference to the original version? This version here is still highly pornographic. Which makes one wonder how "deviant" or "disgusting" the original version is to those who modiefied the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:D830:645F:1:0:8E34:1326 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's nothing that nefarious... (And you're misreading the caption, I think. The original is the one that is censored; this one is uncensored.) The original just uses mosaic censorship on the genitals. Sandtalon (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's plenty nefarious. Good grief, you went out of you way to edit a picture to make it more sexually explicit than the original? Wow.


 * So, to explain: the Wikipedia, I mean when you're dealing with subjects like this, pretty much mixes a bourgeois white American fratboy vibe with people trying desperately to remain all hip and liberal and all, with assorted libertines, people who play libertines on the internet, porn users, misogynists, and trolls sprinkled on top. The end result is an unsavory stew of pornographers ("One who is involved in the creation or dissemination of pornography", per Wiktionary, the free dictionary; if you don't like the label, don't blame the dictionary) hanging around a publication aimed (to a fair degree) at schoolchildren. Given our editor demographics, you'd expect this.


 * So you're not going to get anywhere with these people, and you might as well save your energy. Of course we shouldn't have hardcore pornography in an encyclopedia. Most normal people know this I think. Even here, most editors -- the editors involved with 18th Century Persian poets and Norwegian rail line etc and aren't into Wikipolitics -- would be appalled I think. Anyway, that is why Britannica and every other encyclopedia or general reference work onthe planet doesn't do this. I wrote WP:HARDCORE about this (and as you'd expect, this made a bunch of people more distressed than I've ever seen here before or since).


 * But, somebody long ago wrote WP:NOTCENSORED, which is too bad because it's a terrible policy, but its policy, so there you have it. It's another excuse for the Foundation to step in and take over deciding this sort of thing, which I suppose will happen eventually, which is unfortunate, but history shows that people unable to govern themselves functionally perforce end up governed by others. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is the principle of non-censorship (which is, I believe, sound in overall terms), but there are also other important principles to take into account here.
 * Say, the principle of relevance. Would it be relevant to create an article for every specific inappropriate practice in the world (I would argue not)? What purpose would that serve? There could perhaps even be someone with the intent of hacking into the non-censorship principle trying to create, out of their deranged mind, inappropriate practices just to get the chance of being part of history in a very bad way.
 * Another principle is respect. I do not believe the (intended or not-intended) promotion of (the information around) all these pornography practices is respectful. For women, for children, adolescents or humanity in general. One sentence in the main article of pornography explaining what the terms consisted of in most cases would be more than enough.
 * So, we have relevancy, respect. And we also could list other moral principles that, I would argue, incite one to make changes (reductions) to the articles I mentioned in my earlier reply: equality, prudence, responsibility, respectability, harmony, modesty, self-control, honor. Luckylemming (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: relevance—articles on porn related topics are held to the exact same standards of inclusion/notability (WP:N) as other articles on Wikipedia are...it would in fact be a kind of censorship to hold them to more stringent standards. And I would argue that articles on porn are in fact important as sex education (a sex-positive education—though of course Wikipedia is neutral and presents all viewpoints). The issue of respect is a cultural and personal thing, and you clearly have strong opinions about it...but I would also argue that you are not being respectful to sexual diversity/a diversity of sexual cultures in your comments. (See the feminist anthropologist Gayle Rubin: "There is systematic mistreatment of individuals and communities on the basis of erotic taste or behaviour...It is up to all of us to try to prevent more barbarism and to encourage erotic creativity. Those who consider themselves progressive need to examine their preconceptions, update their sexual educations, and acquaint themselves with the existence and operation of sexual hierarchy.") Having articles about diverse sexualities on Wikipedia is not a bad thing. Sandtalon (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that hentai and the like constitute a sex-negative education framework (but this is only my opinion, not that it matters too much for an encyclopedia), but then this is especially the case in the way they are presented in Wikipedia right now. One thing is to, and I might agree with this, show information about what kind of realities there are around pornography, specially if there are health, social or otherwise-related issues around it. This is useful for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Another very different thing is to present right after opening the page on hentai the picture you will find in this article which, after opened, has a huge resolution of 2845x2134. This is more like a porn ad (and not only ad, but very real content that could even be printed!) than a sound encyclopedic picture, in my opinion. Perhaps a sufficient illustration could be this image with only the contours, with the reference that the hentai source it was extracted from is colorful and fine-detailed. People would get the idea and wouldn´t need more to understand what hentai represents. (Likewise, no need for such colorful and realistic pictures to illustrate ¨cum shot¨, ¨facial¨ or ¨bukkake¨.)
 * Also:
 * ¨Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal¨
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * I would argue that one thing is to explain the phenomenon of pornography and another very different one is to be a manual or guidebook for how to deliver it. As people know how to copy it (digitally or by hand-drawing it), these depictions are more like a manual/guidebook than an information means. Again, contours should be enough for this purpose.
 * Luckylemming (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ...that argument is a bit of a stretch. Sure, somebody could theoretically trace an image, but does that mean that the image is there as a manual or guidebook? No. Context matters, and the context here is that it is an illustrative image, not an image meant to serve as a guide. "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" (MOS:LEADIMAGE), and a drawing of just the contours of the image is not a natural representation of the topic. Sandtalon (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let´s assume the contours would not be a good solution. I could argue that the choice of the image itself could have been, for whatever reason, a bit of a stretch too (to take your expression). There are lots of black and white original hentai pictures (with no shades of grey that would highlight depth to make it more eye-catching). Any of those should be a good enough illustration of the concept of hentai.
 * Luckylemming (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And what difference does it make? It still shows a sexual picture of an intercourse, I don't see how it makes it any better or any worse, the idea of doing contours and the similar is just silly, either put the picture as it is or don't have it at all, and we should have it, it helps to quickly explain the nature of hentai with one quick glance, the artstyle etc.
 * Once more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored, just suck it up, if you don't like it then discuss the policy on its own page and not here. 31.60.23.48 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you’ve said here Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I have to ask, why was it made more sexually explicit? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That would be a question for User:Niabot. For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to using the original [[File:Hentai - yuuree.jpg]]; I just fail to see how it makes much difference either way, as it's still explicit. (I'm reminded of something that Tamaki Saitō writes in Beautiful Fighting Girl: "Censors in Japanese space seem for the most part uninterested in the symbolic value of what they are censoring. As long as the genitals are not portrayed explicitly, they will allow even the most depraved images to be shown. In Western space, however, images are censored according to their symbolic value. The censors are not interested in the trivial question of whether or not the genitals are visible, but reserve their strictest scrutiny for obscenity and perverse content." This statement does not always hold true, and in any case I wouldn't consider this image "depraved," but my point is that the "symbolic value" of the image is the same whichever version is used, so I don't see that there's much difference in changing it.) Sandtalon (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

neutrality
This article doesn't show the negative sides of hentai,like its effects on brain etc. भारत्पराक्रमि (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, if there's been any research specifically about hentai in that context in reliable sources, feel free to add them...but my guess is that you're not going to find them. (I've only seen like one or two psychological studies relating to hentai, and they weren't exactly negative.) Otherwise, wouldn't Effects of pornography be a better article for that kind of thing rather than hentai? Though that article has issues. Incidentally, a recent massive and comprehensive review of porn effects literature found...that there are no conclusive conclusions either way, and that much of the studies relating to it are poorly designed. Sandtalon (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Terminology Table
@Sandtalon I disagree with your assessment, I think the section makes it easier and clearer to understand the terminology, and there are aspects to it that are not in the section above, such as the years, or that the meaning at the beginning, hysteria. The Other Karma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Since Sandtalon has not replied, I will reset his reset. I someone dosnt agree pls conntact me. The Other Karma (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)