![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
|||
---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Hentai Image removed?
Ummm.... I noticed this Image is not in the article anymore. Are we getting rid of the image after nearly 4 years of service? --(B)~(ー.ー)~(Z) (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is an user right now doing major changes unilaterally. After he is done, we can discuss all his changes and restore the image if that's the case. But since he removed the 'under construction' tag, maybe it's safe to discuss it now? pmt7ar (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-
- According to an edit that removed the image by ChrisGualtieri, "now this picture is irrelevant and unencyclopedic other then 'look at this dirty picture'. I'll try to obtain better images, but no image is better then this right now." Personally I would disagree and put it under media and potentially even on the Eroge article as well. I also hold my previous stance that an image is certainly better than no image and that anyone that want to see it replaced should put forth candidates to be discussed before axing the current one. -- Dront (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I haven't been active for two days on this page so I removed the tag for then. And I did restore the image, but at the 'origin of eroge' section in which it properly illustrates. I was trying to add images, but I had trouble with the form and reasoning. I got a picture of the original medical journals Tanaka wrote for, but I didn't get permission yet from the photographer. And it does not illustrate the main point, so I need to make a page for the article before I can use it here. I want at least 4-6 pictures for this article right now. One being a photo of Tanaka, one of the key individuals behind the normalization and professing hentai acts as banal. I'd like to include a cover of Lemon People or the earliest 'adult' ero manga we can find or the cover of the original English release of Bondage Fairies. The anime section being a screenshot of Lolita Anime or Urotsukidōji is also really notable and neither have coverage there. For the Eroge one, I really want a split to match the 'eroge for sex' to 'eroge for story'. My issue with the image is that it is not from an eroge, its just a hentai drawing. We do not even get text to go with it. Perhaps I'll get Kawata Shoujo screenshot as it is BY-NC-ND. Thanks for the input, I do not want to upset anyone with the image removal. So I will wait till I have a better replacement first. Though I was a bit annoyed by having the entire mobile phone window be replaced by the picture upon immediately clicking the article. While it is an adult topic and wikipedia is not censored, the principal of least astonishment applies, a picture that completely fills the screen is a bad choice no matter what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Side note: That's your and your's phone problem, the image was a thumbnail and any thumbnail in the lede would look alike in mobile phones, in this or any other article; don't let it be a factor in deciding using images in the lede.pmt7ar (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wasn't my phone, but least astonishment does not equal not censored. The previous article didn't even mention or discuss eroge, so if you wish, put it back at the top, but the current picture really is better placed where it is now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Side note: That's your and your's phone problem, the image was a thumbnail and any thumbnail in the lede would look alike in mobile phones, in this or any other article; don't let it be a factor in deciding using images in the lede.pmt7ar (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't been active for two days on this page so I removed the tag for then. And I did restore the image, but at the 'origin of eroge' section in which it properly illustrates. I was trying to add images, but I had trouble with the form and reasoning. I got a picture of the original medical journals Tanaka wrote for, but I didn't get permission yet from the photographer. And it does not illustrate the main point, so I need to make a page for the article before I can use it here. I want at least 4-6 pictures for this article right now. One being a photo of Tanaka, one of the key individuals behind the normalization and professing hentai acts as banal. I'd like to include a cover of Lemon People or the earliest 'adult' ero manga we can find or the cover of the original English release of Bondage Fairies. The anime section being a screenshot of Lolita Anime or Urotsukidōji is also really notable and neither have coverage there. For the Eroge one, I really want a split to match the 'eroge for sex' to 'eroge for story'. My issue with the image is that it is not from an eroge, its just a hentai drawing. We do not even get text to go with it. Perhaps I'll get Kawata Shoujo screenshot as it is BY-NC-ND. Thanks for the input, I do not want to upset anyone with the image removal. So I will wait till I have a better replacement first. Though I was a bit annoyed by having the entire mobile phone window be replaced by the picture upon immediately clicking the article. While it is an adult topic and wikipedia is not censored, the principal of least astonishment applies, a picture that completely fills the screen is a bad choice no matter what it is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- Maybe OP should stop propositioning his pet image? Lol.
It is nice to see the image dropped lower than the top of the page after years. Sentakuban (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yaoi and Yuri target-audiences?
How is it that Yaoi is presented as an exclusively female-oriented genre, while Yuri is presented as being aimed at heterosexual women as well as lesbians and straight men? Even if there's some straight women who like the Yuri genre, they're not the intended audience, or not any more than straight men being the audience of Yaoi. In fact, Yaoi attracts men as well as women, and a big part of those men are actually straight and not gay. (see the Wiki article on "Yaoi")
Hentai (word)
Since the article is mostly about the word and not about a specific topic, I moved it to "Hentai (word)". Bhny (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please move it back; I've shortened the article for readers who do not need need a lot of prose on the history. It is a genre and I was only thorough in its definition because it has a very unique origin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- The lead and the first three sections are only about the word. The lead has to define the topic and the topic of this article is the word. I think that's fine and another article could be written about the genre. Bhny (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fine... the word does probably deserve its own spot. I'll deal with the rest later and clean this up a bit. The original article got too big and I split it off, I can do a better history anyways, so I'll remerge that split content off and expand the rest. Sound good? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The lead and the first three sections are only about the word. The lead has to define the topic and the topic of this article is the word. I think that's fine and another article could be written about the genre. Bhny (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Great! I started the genre page for you- hentai Bhny (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a terrible move, and the issue should have been discussed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga before daring a move. Also, the article was moved without the associated page history. That aside, this is a terrible move because only two sections of the Hentai article were about the word hentai. The other parts of it, now existing in the Hentai (word) article, are more about the concept. The lead was mostly about the word, but that was no reason to move the article. The lead could have been fixed. There is WP:Primary topic and WP:Spinout to think about. "Primary topic" plays into this because people will be looking for the hentai topic under the title Hentai, not Hentai (word). A spinout wasn't needed, and definitions of the concept being in the article about the concept help people understand the concept. Many Wikipedia articles have etymology and/or definition sections, either because the concept cannot be adequately discussed without discussing the definitions or simply so that people can understand the concept better, and there is no good reason that this article shouldn't have the same. C'omn, Bhny, we've discussed this type of stuff before.[1] I'll contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga about this now. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Besides the Hentai article not having its full page history anymore, it also no longer has its talk page (redirects here for now). You did some kind of copy and paste move, which shouldn't be done. This will need to be fixed, via request at WP:Requested moves, if the Hentai/Hentai (word) split remains intact. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Setting aside the fact that there is no need to further disambiguate the article title with "(word)", Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is what Wiktionary is for, so changing Hentai into a dictionary definition of the word, which is just redundant with this article's content, makes no sense and is against policy. Besides, this article already has an entire section about the genre in Hentai (word)#Classification. We don't need to split the article into smaller and smaller subsets of the same subject.--十八 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Bhny often cites WP:NOTADICT. That's why he or she split the article. So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not something you have to tell him or her. However, the WP:NOTADICT policy allows for articles about words, but has guidelines about that. Anyhoo, I obviously agree with you about a split not being needed for the hentai topic. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Setting aside the fact that there is no need to further disambiguate the article title with "(word)", Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is what Wiktionary is for, so changing Hentai into a dictionary definition of the word, which is just redundant with this article's content, makes no sense and is against policy. Besides, this article already has an entire section about the genre in Hentai (word)#Classification. We don't need to split the article into smaller and smaller subsets of the same subject.--十八 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Besides the Hentai article not having its full page history anymore, it also no longer has its talk page (redirects here for now). You did some kind of copy and paste move, which shouldn't be done. This will need to be fixed, via request at WP:Requested moves, if the Hentai/Hentai (word) split remains intact. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is a terrible move, and the issue should have been discussed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga before daring a move. Also, the article was moved without the associated page history. That aside, this is a terrible move because only two sections of the Hentai article were about the word hentai. The other parts of it, now existing in the Hentai (word) article, are more about the concept. The lead was mostly about the word, but that was no reason to move the article. The lead could have been fixed. There is WP:Primary topic and WP:Spinout to think about. "Primary topic" plays into this because people will be looking for the hentai topic under the title Hentai, not Hentai (word). A spinout wasn't needed, and definitions of the concept being in the article about the concept help people understand the concept. Many Wikipedia articles have etymology and/or definition sections, either because the concept cannot be adequately discussed without discussing the definitions or simply so that people can understand the concept better, and there is no good reason that this article shouldn't have the same. C'omn, Bhny, we've discussed this type of stuff before.[1] I'll contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga about this now. 72.216.1.248 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Great! I started the genre page for you- hentai Bhny (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree to move the page back but how? I have tried but it looks like the history has been erased somehow, maybe an admin can assist? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've moved everything back to Hentai because the move was (obviously) not uncontroversial and move-protected the page for 2 weeks, which should grant more than enough time to form consensus on a move request. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Okay. Now I see what is going on. Moving to (word) is to essentially attack the page with the grossly improper and incorrect dictionary def tag.[2] I moved the history off the page, but if this is how someone is going to respond to a proper citation regarding origin and usage and development of the word, I can by all means MAKE a word definition section. I have 3-4x more content including how the term arose in legal usage (thanks to Tanaka) which would further push it into mainstream usage. I'll wait for the review before responding, I personally think that the coverage is pretty fair without breaking it down; I can easily re-add the split section if it is found lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi folks, I do think the current article has some issues that makes the move request somewhat reasonable. There seems to be a very strong emphasis on the word and its history rather than what hentai is. As someone not overly familiar with the term, perhaps this is reasonable. But compare this with Cartoon where the word and where it came from isn't really discussed at all. Heck, even the lede doesn't tell us what the word means in English until the second-to-last sentence--that's highly unusual. Finally, there has to be additional free versions of hentai. Right now there is just one image of a sub-genre. I'd suggest the article should be more about Hentai and less about the history of the word. Hobit (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- Fixed the lede, and honestly, English and Japanese usage are completely different. It is important to present a worldview and that is represented with the first two sections. Granted I may split off the etymology section if I go with a word definition of hentai, but it most definitely not an article on just a word. Now that its fixed, let this debate die. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'm feel this article is trying to do too much. I agree the English and Japanese usages are different. I think the article, being on the English Wikipedia, should focus primarily on the English usage. Right now it's going the other way and spends, IMO, way too much time on where the word comes from. I'd prefer the lede start with the English definition
- Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not just a genre. It is also a term for "sexual perversion", one being medical in nature and the other the popularized fascination which spawned eroguro. The other is the word which underwent numerous alterations including the ecchi/ Hentai / H shift. It is absolutely paramount that the origin, definition and usage of the word be explicit and covered. It gets a little less worse with yaoi and yuri, but this article is about Hentai, not just the word and not just "sexually explicit anime and manga" as defined in English. So it is not correct to start with that definition because it is a naive and incredibly short-sighted sentence. You will not find a "genre" of hentai in Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I get that the English usage and the Japanese usage are quite different. But shouldn't the English use be the primary focus of the topic on the English Wikipedia? I don't know if there is a policy/guideline on this, but I think that is how we generally do things here. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. WP:BIAS covers this. Presenting the original Japanese influence and view is actually more important then the 'English' usage because the English usage is secondary and radically different. It is important to provide a worldview of the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't see how WP:BIAS applies (there may be something on that list that is on-target but it isn't jumping out at me). We don't cover foreign words here in general. Now if Hentai is used in English in both ways (and I don't know that it isn't) then we should cover both ways. But if not, we shouldn't be covering non-English usages as a matter of course. Here, I'd agree the Japanese use should see coverage, but more as an entomology issue than as a focus of the article. Are there other articles that cover dual-use words in the way this article does? I could easily be wrong, but this does feel very non-standard. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- No. WP:BIAS covers this. Presenting the original Japanese influence and view is actually more important then the 'English' usage because the English usage is secondary and radically different. It is important to provide a worldview of the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I get that the English usage and the Japanese usage are quite different. But shouldn't the English use be the primary focus of the topic on the English Wikipedia? I don't know if there is a policy/guideline on this, but I think that is how we generally do things here. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not just a genre. It is also a term for "sexual perversion", one being medical in nature and the other the popularized fascination which spawned eroguro. The other is the word which underwent numerous alterations including the ecchi/ Hentai / H shift. It is absolutely paramount that the origin, definition and usage of the word be explicit and covered. It gets a little less worse with yaoi and yuri, but this article is about Hentai, not just the word and not just "sexually explicit anime and manga" as defined in English. So it is not correct to start with that definition because it is a naive and incredibly short-sighted sentence. You will not find a "genre" of hentai in Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I reject your assessment. This is not about a word and I am not going to cater to your personal preferences. You do not seem to have even read the article because the origin and usage are directly related to this article. I do advance the genre form of English users after dealing with the Japanese usage. This is not an article on a word, period. Your tagging of "dict def" was completely incorrect and petty given the pushback from other editors. Do not move it again, do not tag it again. This is not an article on a word, so stop trying to make it so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite sure where the insults are coming from--I've certainly read the article I just feel that the emphasis of the article isn't where it should be. I understand you disagree. I'm on the road right now (and will be for a week or so). What I'd like to propose is that we wait a week or so for others to chime in and failing that start a RfC or something like it. I'd.not be shocked I'd others agree with you, but I do think it likely that folks would expect the article to focus on the English use of the word. Sound acceptable? Hobit (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: Rewriting the introduction
- Let me go trough the current introduction and give you some of my thoughts and questions about it.
-
- Hentai is a word of Japanese origin which entered usage in Meiji era scientific and psychological journals. While it literally means a change of appearance or strange condition, its association with perversion stems from popular sexology. With the sexualization of Japan, a renewed interest in perverse publications led to normalization of the word in everyday life.
- Why do we start of with the historic origin as the introduction to the topic? Shouldn't we start with the current understanding/meaning of the term, because that would be the actual definition - the current definition?
- What do you mean with "sexualization of Japan"? From a reader perspective i wouldn't know when this did happen or what it means (refers to). Such vague wording should be avoided.
-
- Japanese usage of the term "hentai" is specific to describe sexual perversion of any type and does not define a genre of work; its usage describes a bizarre or unusual sexual desire or nature. The term entered English usage in the 1990s, as a catch-all term to describe erotic anime and manga pornography.
- This is much closer to an actual definition of the term (Japanese+English usage), but it is also partially written like a part of the history section. (History should not be avoided, but it is not essential/helpful for the initial understanding)
-
- Due to its ambiguous and broad attribution, the hentai genre is often superseded by the classification and categorization of specific themes and acts into sub-genres. Among those works natively considered hentai are tentacle erotica, monster sex, futanari, BDSM, bestiality, guro, transformation and fringe paraphilias. Popular western usage refers to any pornographic content or depicted sexual acts as hentai, including including heterosexual, homosexual and masturbation scenes.
- I'm not very happy with this part. It speaks about hentai as a broad genre (western usage), which is correct, but it was never mentioned that it is seen as some kind of genre inside the English language before.
- What do you mean with "natively considered"? I'm not sure if a closed but incomplete list of
sub-genres helps at this place. But it is surely wrong to define them as sub-genres (previous sentence). The listed genres do not necessarily fall under hentai. For example: BDSM is a not uncommon mostly humorous theme in works considered as ecchi. Guro is not considered hentai (after western definition) as long it does not depict sexual themes. - Why do we have a second (repeating) definition of the western at the end of this paragraph?
- What i would expect as a reader inside the introduction. 1) A very exact, not ambiguous, but easy to understand definition of the term/genre in current English language. 2) A clarification that the original (but current) Japanese meaning differs from the English language. (How was the term introduced the English language? What is the current Japanese wording [ero, ...]?) 3) Rough classification of the topic relevance (Market Share, Influence, etc.). 4) Short introduction to "artistic freedom vs law". One of the most interesting and fundamental aspects about this topic. --/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 08:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am bad at writing ledes, go for it. The lede is weaker than I want. And yes... English usage of guro is different than ero-guro. I'll try and tweak the lede a bit, but I wrote it rather quickly in response to the discussion above. Writing and rewriting is how this will get stronger. Thanks for the input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did some work, but I'll have to find more material I guess. Needs some more tinkering as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am bad at writing ledes, go for it. The lede is weaker than I want. And yes... English usage of guro is different than ero-guro. I'll try and tweak the lede a bit, but I wrote it rather quickly in response to the discussion above. Writing and rewriting is how this will get stronger. Thanks for the input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hentai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
-
- This article is going to need substantial expansion and revision before it will meet GA standards. This may take more time than you have right now, so I can fail the article and review it once it is more likely to pass, or I can wait if you think you'll be able to pull it together in a reasonable amount of time. Let me know how you prefer to handle it. I'll go for broad suggestions at this point rather than getting overly specific because the larger issues would need to be addressed before it would be worthwhile to start nitpicking.
- It is not adequately comprehensive in its broader scope or the level of detail. The Russian and Chinese versions are at FA and I've provided a translation of the Chinese TOC so you can see what kind of material is covered (the Russian is basically the same).
-
-
- An you should realize they are not even one article. They are a basic copy and paste of several English Wikipedia's articles run through Google Translate. Notably on yaoi and yuri. Hentai has to be broad, not comprehensive and definitely not splitting up entire works. I already believe this article to be longer than it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wish we could talk about this instead of writing, because I feel like we're miscommunicating here. Any article, as it improves in quality, improves in comprehensiveness. That's a criteria for GA and FA. But what does comprehensive mean? Obviously it shouldn't include every detail about every element of every subtopic - that's what we create other articles for. So the Hentai article doesn't need to copy, paste and contain every bit of what's in the main Yaoi article for example, but it does need to briefly summarize the key information (think 4-5 sentences) in the genres discussion. This is like a top-level article that people will visit to get a broad overview of the most important aspects of hentai. There are important aspects like particular genres and themes that are missing here. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 10,000 sexual kinks that hentai has been written about. But if there's an entire extensive article written about a genre, it should be paraphrased in this article too. Does that help clarify the level of detail and comprehensiveness I'm looking for? Part of the problem now is the coverage of topics is too light. You feel the article is too long, but I don't agree. Take as long as you need to do the topic justice. As it's written now, it's a bit fragmented and hard for a casual reader to get a sense of the full extent of what hentai means as a genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurbaby (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- To briefly summarise that: Notability.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wish we could talk about this instead of writing, because I feel like we're miscommunicating here. Any article, as it improves in quality, improves in comprehensiveness. That's a criteria for GA and FA. But what does comprehensive mean? Obviously it shouldn't include every detail about every element of every subtopic - that's what we create other articles for. So the Hentai article doesn't need to copy, paste and contain every bit of what's in the main Yaoi article for example, but it does need to briefly summarize the key information (think 4-5 sentences) in the genres discussion. This is like a top-level article that people will visit to get a broad overview of the most important aspects of hentai. There are important aspects like particular genres and themes that are missing here. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 10,000 sexual kinks that hentai has been written about. But if there's an entire extensive article written about a genre, it should be paraphrased in this article too. Does that help clarify the level of detail and comprehensiveness I'm looking for? Part of the problem now is the coverage of topics is too light. You feel the article is too long, but I don't agree. Take as long as you need to do the topic justice. As it's written now, it's a bit fragmented and hard for a casual reader to get a sense of the full extent of what hentai means as a genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurbaby (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- An you should realize they are not even one article. They are a basic copy and paste of several English Wikipedia's articles run through Google Translate. Notably on yaoi and yuri. Hentai has to be broad, not comprehensive and definitely not splitting up entire works. I already believe this article to be longer than it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sections missing in this English version are (1) a discussion of the industry itself, to include production, and (2) a discussion on controversy and criticism.
-
- Fair point on #1. #2, did I not cover it adequately?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Once the section on the industry is created, here are some images to potentially include: pic of Eroge shop File:A eroge shop in Akihabara.jpg, pic of manga in a store File:Yaoi Books by miyagawa.jpg, pic of hentai videos for sale File:Hentai manga in Japan 002.jpg, pic of production studio File:Nitroplus Office Tour (8).jpg
-
- Alright... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- It makes more sense to combine the Term and Etymology sections under the Etymology heading.
-
- I guess, but the words origin is different then its usage. I prefer to be specific for this, but it is an editorial decision is all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The history section needs to be significantly expanded to better trace the emergence, rise in popularity, internationalization and diversification of hentai across genres and formats.
-
- Are you serious? I not only covered it, but gave each major milestone in its development including the first stylistically anime pornographic "hentai" and the originator of all "true" hentai. Hentai is not merely vanilla sex, its original definition is perverse and I doubt that Wikipedia needs another 30k on the development of tentacle sex when that article already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Hentai is not merely vanilla sex"? Not in Japan, certainly, but according to the western usage (which is what the Hentai article on the English Wikipedia must cover) does include vanilla sex. If you wish to cover the Japanese term, rather than the English one, then you are not writing about what the article is supposed to cover. You are instead pushing your own, personal, point of view.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Are you serious? I not only covered it, but gave each major milestone in its development including the first stylistically anime pornographic "hentai" and the originator of all "true" hentai. Hentai is not merely vanilla sex, its original definition is perverse and I doubt that Wikipedia needs another 30k on the development of tentacle sex when that article already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Check for internal consistency - the lead paragraph suggests hentai emerged in the 1970s, and then the next section on manga suggests erotic art goes back to the Heian period. Although these things are distinct, the article doesn't make the distinction clear to the reader so it calls the 1970s assertion into question to a certain extent. A more complete explanation of the history and evolution of erotic art becoming hentai will help clear this up.
-
- That would be pushing my opinion of the matter; your definition is the lens upon which you want to attribute. Scholars have attributed Shunga as the precursor or the start of hentai, where Azuma and others point to the penning of Cybele as the "Tezuka-style" is the iconic anime traits, but the erogekiga and even pre-war eroguro works are retroactively hentai. No clear explanation is going to come on this page unless someone decides to establish a strong POV. I can address wording; but I am not going to be pushing my stance or research on it here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- You cannot just have the article say one thing somewhere, and something else, in another place. If there are differing views, these should be mentioned and explained. From WP:VERIFY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would be pushing my opinion of the matter; your definition is the lens upon which you want to attribute. Scholars have attributed Shunga as the precursor or the start of hentai, where Azuma and others point to the penning of Cybele as the "Tezuka-style" is the iconic anime traits, but the erogekiga and even pre-war eroguro works are retroactively hentai. No clear explanation is going to come on this page unless someone decides to establish a strong POV. I can address wording; but I am not going to be pushing my stance or research on it here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The classification section needs to be expanded to cover all the subsets of hentai and basically provide a summary of the key information about each of them that can be found in their respective main articles (terminology and defining characteristics, origin and spread, author and reader demographic, revenues etc).
-
- This would push into OR and worse very quickly. Consider it a courtesy we are dealing with the definition and not explaining the finer points of how perverse and niche it can be. Not only have I never seen a single "reliable source" on those parts of subject matter, but I'd be hard pressed to find even questionable sources. It is hard to be really fair or present a valid view when the only coverage amounts to "... is a repellent piece of shit concocted by the worse degenerates our society has ever produced". I'd take a failure over even attempting to detail half the niche stuff in hentai... I can't stomach it. NOTCENSORED is one thing, but mere descriptions are stomach churning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Lemurbaby covers this pretty well, in the above comments on being comprehensive. Also, what you personally can stomach, has no relevance whatsoever. If it's notable and relevant enough, it needs to be included. If you, personally, can't stomach it... Fine. Let someone else do so. You are not the only editor of wikipedia, after all. You are not the sole person responsible for the Hentai article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- This would push into OR and worse very quickly. Consider it a courtesy we are dealing with the definition and not explaining the finer points of how perverse and niche it can be. Not only have I never seen a single "reliable source" on those parts of subject matter, but I'd be hard pressed to find even questionable sources. It is hard to be really fair or present a valid view when the only coverage amounts to "... is a repellent piece of shit concocted by the worse degenerates our society has ever produced". I'd take a failure over even attempting to detail half the niche stuff in hentai... I can't stomach it. NOTCENSORED is one thing, but mere descriptions are stomach churning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The section on Censorship can be expanded to include "Censorship and legislation" to discuss laws pertaining to age restrictions, labeling, packaging, distribution etc.
-
- All of one case in Japan? I dunno, I suppose I could throw Honey Room into it, but aside from the whole "demonic phalluses" and one issue of rape in the book it is actually really borderline in Japan... even by its definition. I could go into Rapelay though...— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Both the Russian and Chinese versions dedicate a section to doujinshi, which should probably be added here, too.
-
- Yeah... they just copied and merged the articles together. I don't like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- The prose needs to be revised for clarity, conciseness and correctness of grammar. I'd recommend a copy edit either by you or a third party after you've made your expansions and content revisions.
- The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the content in the article.
- There are quite a few statements that lack references, and some referenced statements that are of questionable accuracy as identified by other editors below (but the Naruto one was my mistake - I was trying to revise the sentence so it made sense and that was the conclusion I came to, evidence of the need for the prose to be copy edited for clarity!)
-
-
- Please point them out with tags, most are cited at the end of the paragraph or section and I can just pop the inline citation to them. I didn't want citation overkill, I was told one per paragraph or section was enough when I was doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then you were massively misinformed. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:When to cite and WP:BURDEN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please point them out with tags, most are cited at the end of the paragraph or section and I can just pop the inline citation to them. I didn't want citation overkill, I was told one per paragraph or section was enough when I was doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- Need for consistency in the formatting of references, in terms of date formatting, where the page numbers are (in-line or under References section), completeness of citation information etc like in the other anime articles we're tackling
-
-
- Not a GA criteria, but this won't pass I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- Remove periods at the end of incomplete sentences in image captions
- I removed the Futumari Ecchi image because the copyright allows it (as a non-free work) to be used in the article about the specific manga only. We can replace this with an uncopyrighted work. I've added some, and you can tweak the captions to make best use of them to illustrate points in the article. Otherwise image copyrights check out.
End review until these changes are made. The translated table of contents are below.
- There are more problems than that. The article contains unverified statements:
- It is claimed that Yuri is defined as referring exclusively to pornographic lesbian works, in Japan. This is unverified, and runs counter to the verified information in Yuri.
-
- Was this for over two decades. I am not going to deal with that editor's issue here - surely there is a language barrier, but the last 5 years are a bit much to discount its 90%+ usage just because some erotic magazines run softer content as well and a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues really doesn't impact the whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- If what you say is true... Please verify it, using reliable sources. Reliable sources which actually say what you claim. So far you have failed to provide any sources, which anyone sees as backing you position ...and what is this talk about a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues? I don't remember there being any mention of any such magazine (if you mean Yuri Shimai, that was almost immediately replaced by Comic Yuri Hime, so...)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Was this for over two decades. I am not going to deal with that editor's issue here - surely there is a language barrier, but the last 5 years are a bit much to discount its 90%+ usage just because some erotic magazines run softer content as well and a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues really doesn't impact the whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is claimed that the genres that contain homosexual acts, are Yaoi and Yuri ...which ignores Bara (works containing male homosexuality, which is directed at gay men).
-
- Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's not an answer. That doesn't say or communicate anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any and all mentions of the demographics of said genres.
- I have only read a few bits of the article, so I may have missed a lot more problems, but... A Good Article needs "Citation of reliable sources where necessary", and these are clear examples where it lacks them. Thus making it unworthy, in its current state. Oh, and the article claims that Naruto is female, which is clearly wrong (just check the article about him ...or read the manga. He's a boy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- That was not me. The reviewer made that mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, Lemurbaby already admitted to that mistake. There is no need for you to repeat it ...but more importantly: Why did you assume that you were blamed for it? You do realise that you aren't the sole editor of wikipedia, I hope? Wikipedia articles are not made by one person.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- That was not me. The reviewer made that mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-
- The very first sentence of the lede is incorrect - The negation term "not" is missing from the second part of the statement and is confusing.
-
-
- Unless I am going crazy... what happened to the lede? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Extended content |
---|
Table of Contents - Chinese version
Table of Contents - Russian version
|
It has been two weeks. Has a decision been reached? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It has been another month: in that time, there have been no edits here, and only one minor edit to the article by someone not involved in this review. Given over six weeks of complete inaction while this has been on hold, and the many issues raised with breadth of coverage, it's time to close this review. Once the article has been given the work and attention it needs, it can be resubmitted to GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Popular heroine Naruto?
Come on guys, Naruto isn't that androgynous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.216.48 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Vandalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Child Pornography in hentai
Article makes no mention of child pornography in hentai, although I have seen many claims that it exists. In the US, people are apparently sentenced, at times, due to possessing anime depicting child porn. Looking through the archives, I found a user directing to this link: http://www.economist.com/node/15731382. The user was told it could not be included in the article because 'I have not seen child porn in anime' which seems like a greatly biased statement. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Dream of the Fisherman's Wife
An editor deleted this image (along with a paragraph of related material) with an edit summary of
- This has been discussed several times in the talkpage's history. The image was found quite a few times not to belong on the article.
I don't recall that, and a search through the the archives only shows me a couple of references to the image, and those are in passing when talking about something else.
I don't have much an opinion on this either way, but the image has been in in the article for a while and since the edit summary seems not to be accurate, I rolled this back, subject to someone point out where this image has been discussed and found to not belong, or absent that a cogent argument to that effect. Herostratus (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Huh; my lurking must be betraying me. My apologies. I swore it was discussed a few times, with no one contesting the argument that since it wasn't anime, it really had no place in the article (only being included because it happened to be Japanese). We could use this as a conduit for that discussion, perhaps. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- WOW... Going way back unexpectedly
- Image first considered to be deleted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#IMAGE
- No one retorted that anon's complaint. It was deleted for some time.
- Randomly readded later.
- After a while, another points out it is impertinent to hentai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#Image_doesn.27t_even_really_demonstrate_hentai
- Included in massive discussion about impertinent images here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hentai/Archive_2#Image_is_too_explicit
- This seems to be a case of "at first glance, it appears to be pertinent to hentai, so no one really gives it thought." With that, the image has been on the article for quite sometime (despite repeatedly being deleted well before our time's on Wikipedia). Those repeated deletions seem to come when someone gives it a little more thought. It's then readded when someone who's seen the article before but didn't check the talkpage thought "oh, that must have been a mistake" - and the last time that happened seems to be years ago. Indeed, they were not quite as thoughtful as you bringing this up on the talkpage (and even if we conclude the image not to belong here, it wouldn't surprise me if it just pops back up again on the page later by someone with said thought). I suppose I'm about four years late to point it out, but indeed, I am in agreement with the few that have given it a little consideration in the past: it's not germane to the article as a watercolor image that happens to be Japanese and have tentacle erotica (which is erroneously over-associated with hentai). Perhaps a mention suffices, but I don't think the image itself belongs here. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK. What you say makes sense. I guess the counterargument would be "here's some of the backstory of Hentai... " You know, like for such-and-such architecture style or whatever we might have "Here's a picture of building X, it's not in the style of such-and-such architecture but you can see how it people who makde such-and-such architecture a century later maybe drew some inspiration from this sort of thing" or whatever. Whether there's anything to this I don't know... why did Hentai arise in Japan and not France? Does the cultural attitude exemplified by the fact that Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is Japanese (and it's hard to imaging something like that being made in France at that time) mean much of anything? Does Dream of the Fisherman's Wife exemplify the sort of thing that at least a few Japanese artists were drawing (and that may have continued down through the years to find a later expression in Hentai) or is it just a one-off weird picture?
-
- Not knowing the answers to these question I'm not able to judge whether or not the picture belongs. Herostratus (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- After i read the words from Arisedrew i had more or less the same questions in mind. But at first i looked up the work named The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, which was drawn by the well known artist Hokusai. Most of his works are related to the genre Ukiyo-e. Like many other artists in the Meiji era he also published Shunga artworks, and this image is of them. But it is also evident that shunga artworks were an inspiration for modern hentai. The article Shunga: Japan’s Ancient Erotica (including sources) gives a good overview about this relation.
- Overall i see a close relationship between hentai and this artwork. But if it has to be this particular artwork or another shunga is a different question.
- Facts in favor of this image are:
- Well known, sourced artwork
- Shows close relationship to the hentai genre Tentacle erotica
- Sexually explicit
- Facts against this image are:
- Might favor the tentacle cliché of hentai (like if any hentai has something to do with tentacles)
- Might be considered bestiality
- Sexually explicit
- --/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ 署名の宣言 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
-