Talk:Futanari/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Futanari.png
Very confused about this page. Recently registered because I wanted to improve Wikipedia after a few years of just using it. A friend mentioned this page to me as an example of why he can't take Wikipedia seriously as a reliable source, and I couldn't believe what he was saying until he showed me. What is going on here? I'm not an experienced member of the community but it looks like this image has been removed and replaced for the past two years. This is obviously pornographic material, designed and created as erotica, and has had a single user hovering over it and constantly replacing it as legions of anonymous and registered users remove it. Now the page is locked because the opinions of dozens of random people over years aren't worth anything compared to the efforts of a handful of aggressive proselytizers. This is not a personal attack, it's just common sense. An encyclopedia meant to be the repository of human knowledge for all humanity should not contain this kind of image. A new one could easily be created, but this has become some sort of epic battle where a dedicated core have hijacked this page and decided that their vision for this page is the only vision that will be allowed. Is this what the Wikipedia community is actually like? Should I abandon my editing efforts, only a few days in, because if this is what I'm up against I'll just delete my account and go back to sighing every time I read a shitty sentence or find a page like this. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hello what I suspected is a sock of ProgressionalStandards. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. If you want to find a non-copyrighted image to replace it with, feel free. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a sockpuppet. This is what I mean by wanting to just give up on this. A new editor has a genuine concern and is immediately accused of sockpuppetry, instead of the more reasonable assumption that another individual believes this image should not be here. I've read the not censored page, and this isn't an issue about censorship. I'm not saying this image should be removed because I have a personal moral argument against it, I'm saying this image should be removed because it's amateur pornography where there is no need for it. Again, I'm new to the editing game and maybe missed the policy where every single article needs an image. Look at this objectively. What does having this image add to content of the article? Nothing. This image adds nothing of value to the article. What it does do is turn readers away, shock children and old fashioned individuals and add weight to the argument that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because just look at it. Look at how it's editors defend this insanity. I can't be the only one who can clearly see this is a very simple issue. Niabot could have easily created an image of an underwear clad exemplar and this argument could have ended two years ago. I spent five minutes looking for a replacement, but now my heart is heavy. Why does there need to be an image in the first place? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon my suspicious of socking as this has been an issue on this page. Please do read the WP:NOTCENSORED page. It relates directly to your "moral argument". Wikipedia does not remove images simply because they are pornographic. You are appealing to emotion by suggesting "thing about the children". I suggest you also look at other sex-related pages and you might be equally appalled. There is no reason not to have an image on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I clearly stated in my last comment that "I'm not saying this image should be removed because I have a personal moral argument against it." I'm not offended by the image, just disturbed that this is considered a moot point. There is no reason to have an image, and many reasons why a custom, amateurishly drawn image of two exemplars engaged in mutual masturbation shouldn't be here. It's not think of the children, it's think of Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia articles have images. Yes, they should. Should Wikipedia articles always have images? No, they should only be on the page if it adds something of value to the article, illuminates something important. This image doesn't clarify anything in the article, doesn't add any scholarly content. It's a perfect example of editors pushing their POV. Here are some quotes with some bold I've added. "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy." So what does policy say? Is this image encyclopedic in nature? No. This is a poorly proportioned drawing, focusing on the sexual act not physiology. Would this be considered vulgar or obscene by a typical reader? 100% yes. Does this follow the principle of least astonishment? Does this respect conventional expectations? Hell no, this is two futanari engaged in mutual masturbation, one clearly already having ejaculated. A third of this article is about the concept in historical Japanese society, the rest is about the concept used in art. So, this is an article about a historical and contemporary ideation, and the image you are defending fails to illustrate it in a non vulgar, encyclopedic manner. The image is not a wikipedia image illustrating the concept, it's a piece of pornography that has been used as a header image for TWO YEARS. How has this gone unrectified? Again, words from Wikipedia, not me. ""Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content." Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That last part is the only argument there is to keep the image, but seeing as how it is not an encyclopedic image and having it doesn't cause the article to be more informative, relevant or accurate this should be a simple case. Unless I'm completely off about policy, (like I said, new editor), and my points are refuted in the next day or two, the image is coming down. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I misread the sentence with the "moral argument". My apologies. However, if you know of an image that would be better suited for the article, use it! You are right about Wikipedia's policies, so lets find a non-copyrighted image that would serve just as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Convince me this page needs an image. Explain to me exactly how having an image will improve the quality of this page, and how this article is better with any image, even one as polarizing and vulgar as this, is better then this page with no image at all. I know exactly how to fix this page, and I'm going to fix it by being hell of bold and just removing the image, unless we reach a reasoned consensus here first. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need to convince you. There's an image there now that illustrates what futanari is. You need to convince us why we don't need the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reading long paragraphs may not be your strength, but I've clearly done that. I may not have convinced you, but I've shown the image should go, and you've failed to provide any opposition. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone with a rational defense of this image, please come forward to discus. Otherwise I will assume in good faith that the policies I've quoted indicate I can and should take this image down. Hopefully at some point soon someone will create an image that documents the idea instead of fetishizing it. Then this page can have an image and everyone can be happy. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reading long paragraphs may not be your strength, but I've clearly done that. I may not have convinced you, but I've shown the image should go, and you've failed to provide any opposition. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need to convince you. There's an image there now that illustrates what futanari is. You need to convince us why we don't need the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Convince me this page needs an image. Explain to me exactly how having an image will improve the quality of this page, and how this article is better with any image, even one as polarizing and vulgar as this, is better then this page with no image at all. I know exactly how to fix this page, and I'm going to fix it by being hell of bold and just removing the image, unless we reach a reasoned consensus here first. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I misread the sentence with the "moral argument". My apologies. However, if you know of an image that would be better suited for the article, use it! You are right about Wikipedia's policies, so lets find a non-copyrighted image that would serve just as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I clearly stated in my last comment that "I'm not saying this image should be removed because I have a personal moral argument against it." I'm not offended by the image, just disturbed that this is considered a moot point. There is no reason to have an image, and many reasons why a custom, amateurishly drawn image of two exemplars engaged in mutual masturbation shouldn't be here. It's not think of the children, it's think of Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia articles have images. Yes, they should. Should Wikipedia articles always have images? No, they should only be on the page if it adds something of value to the article, illuminates something important. This image doesn't clarify anything in the article, doesn't add any scholarly content. It's a perfect example of editors pushing their POV. Here are some quotes with some bold I've added. "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy." So what does policy say? Is this image encyclopedic in nature? No. This is a poorly proportioned drawing, focusing on the sexual act not physiology. Would this be considered vulgar or obscene by a typical reader? 100% yes. Does this follow the principle of least astonishment? Does this respect conventional expectations? Hell no, this is two futanari engaged in mutual masturbation, one clearly already having ejaculated. A third of this article is about the concept in historical Japanese society, the rest is about the concept used in art. So, this is an article about a historical and contemporary ideation, and the image you are defending fails to illustrate it in a non vulgar, encyclopedic manner. The image is not a wikipedia image illustrating the concept, it's a piece of pornography that has been used as a header image for TWO YEARS. How has this gone unrectified? Again, words from Wikipedia, not me. ""Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content." Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That last part is the only argument there is to keep the image, but seeing as how it is not an encyclopedic image and having it doesn't cause the article to be more informative, relevant or accurate this should be a simple case. Unless I'm completely off about policy, (like I said, new editor), and my points are refuted in the next day or two, the image is coming down. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon my suspicious of socking as this has been an issue on this page. Please do read the WP:NOTCENSORED page. It relates directly to your "moral argument". Wikipedia does not remove images simply because they are pornographic. You are appealing to emotion by suggesting "thing about the children". I suggest you also look at other sex-related pages and you might be equally appalled. There is no reason not to have an image on this page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a sockpuppet. This is what I mean by wanting to just give up on this. A new editor has a genuine concern and is immediately accused of sockpuppetry, instead of the more reasonable assumption that another individual believes this image should not be here. I've read the not censored page, and this isn't an issue about censorship. I'm not saying this image should be removed because I have a personal moral argument against it, I'm saying this image should be removed because it's amateur pornography where there is no need for it. Again, I'm new to the editing game and maybe missed the policy where every single article needs an image. Look at this objectively. What does having this image add to content of the article? Nothing. This image adds nothing of value to the article. What it does do is turn readers away, shock children and old fashioned individuals and add weight to the argument that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because just look at it. Look at how it's editors defend this insanity. I can't be the only one who can clearly see this is a very simple issue. Niabot could have easily created an image of an underwear clad exemplar and this argument could have ended two years ago. I spent five minutes looking for a replacement, but now my heart is heavy. Why does there need to be an image in the first place? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No WP:CONSENSUS has been reached and you do not have WP:SILENCE. I do not recommend remove the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are the only voice supporting keeping the image, and you have failed to counter a single argument I've made. I'd love for Niabot to come forward and defend this image, because there really has been no debate thus far. I've show repeatedly that the image contradicts policy, repeated the arguments that legions of editors have made before, and all you've done is misread my comments and tell me that you disagree. Tell me why you disagree, someone provide a rational, reasoned argument for keeping this image. (It's going to be tricky because there isn't one) Then we can debate this subject like adults, reach a logical consensus that is within policy, and implement it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and the image will stay. But so far I'm fairly convinced that this image has to be removed. From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So far I've explained how this image is contrary to policy, and you have just linked me to pages that further my arguments. Let me hear a quality argument for this image. Not just for having an image on the page, for Futanari.png to remain the header image. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just some arguments:
- Not everyone is familiar with the style of anime and manga. The image depicts the style.
- Most works depicting futanari are pornographic. It isn't inappropriate to use an pornographic image for this topic. There might be not as "offensive" images around, but there are a whole lot more original examples, that would be even more offending then this one.
- The image depicts the two common variants of futanari and illustrates the fact that it is a fictional topic, featuring a fictional anatomy, where sperm production does not depend on testicles.
- The current futanari genre is closely related to yuri, which is illustrated as well.
- --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just some rebuttals:
- If someone wants to understand the style of anime and manga they are not going to go to the wikipedia page for futanari. The people who end up on this page already know the term, or were linked here by someone who does. This is not a page frequented by people who have never seen an anime image in their life.
- To claim that most works depicting futanari are pornographic only shows what images you are specifically looking at. It's a concept used throughout manga and anime, in works that are completely pornographic - like your drawing, or in more innocuous ways. I read a few issues of Ranma 1/2 in highschool, which is used as an example of the concept in the page. Nowhere in that comic do we see the level of sexual activity that we see in your example. Even in straight up futanari pornographic manga and hentai not every single scene is hardcore sexual activity. I'm not an expert on the subject but I would wager it's less then half hardcore pornography. And the argument that more graphic examples exist doesn't even deserve a response. This is all disregarding it is a poorly constructed image, unless you are going to claim the disregard for basic human proportions and anatomy is simply due to the style.
- This term is not purely a fictional subject, something you fail to realize. The term is used for more then just pornography, even if that is what it generally refers to. The image doesn't depict anatomy in an encyclopedic fashion, it is a needlessly graphic depiction of mutual masturbation. The artistic liscence taken in regards to sperm production is not encyclopedically documented, it's fetishized.
- The page for Yuri is illustrated with covers of mangas and example pages that feature a kiss, nothing beyond. To compare the images on that page to the one here is laughable. Why exactly would a cover of a futanari manga be equally as appropriate for this article, I'm sure you can find one that doesn't involve any extreme sexual activity. Even nudity would be find, just not two of them engaged in a sex act.
- For your sake I hope you have more arguments in your holster Niabot. I'll show what you are stating is untrue, or how it contradicts policy. All the ways this is contrary to policy have been noted above. Do you have any rebuttals whatsoever to my claim that this image directly contradicts basic wikipedia policy? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- First point is speculation. You do not know what kind of people visit this page. To your second point, how to do you suggest we convey the concept visually without showing nudity? To your third point, the image is not unencyclopedic either. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you are going to remove that image, replace it with a better one. Until then, you've not raised sufficient reason for its removal. Again, we are not here to protect your delicate sensibilities. Many other articles contain sexual images: teabagging, yaoi, scrotum, vagina, vulva, ejaculation, fisting, masturbation, shunga, oral sex, anal sex, 69 (sex position), paizuri, and hentai to name a few. PS - you know an awful lot about this page, its history, and wikipedia policy for a new user. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- First point is justified speculation. I don't know what kind of people visit this page but I can infer from the content the likely type of reader who would visit. Second point, as I've repeatedly suggested, an image of a futanari in briefs and a tank top, both tight enough to clearly show all sexual characteristics, or, as per Niabots example page, the cover of a futanari manga, or scan of a page that doesn't contain extreme amounts of graphic sexual content and doesn't violate wikipedia policy. Third point, the image is not encyclopedic. As I have shown with direct quotes from the pages you link to this image fails to meet the standard set, and clearly violates a number of policies. Of the pages you mention scrotum, vagina, vulva, ejaculation all use encyclopedic images that focus on aspects of physiology. Also they are pages about body parts or physical actions. Nothing here is shocking or fetishized. The articles about fisting, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, 69 (sex position), paizuri, teabagging are all descriptions of specific sex acts and have appropriate clinical images or pieces of art from history, especially as header images. The articles on shunga and hentai are about erotic art forms, and have tasteful or historically valuable examples. The image of a sexual act is appropriate for the hentai page because it is about pornography. This is not an article about futanari pornography, it's a page about the historical and contemporary ideation of futanari. Just because you guys can't imagine a futunari that isn't in the middle of some sort of sexual act doesn't mean that the header image for the page should be one. Again, you link to NOTCENSORED but don't quote any of the policy, because the policy clearly states that this image is inappropriate for the page. You've not raised sufficient reason for it to stay. Penultimately, again, I am not opposed to this image due to any moral issue with it. I have been around the internet for many many years, I've seen a lot of stuff that shocked me and I long ago burnt out those receptors. This image doesn't shock me. What does shock me is the ignorance of basic policy that has fueled it's defense. Lastly, in my effort to be a good editor, before I make any significant edit I check the page history and talk page. And if there is anything interesting there, I read it. Maybe my inexperience in editing caused me to make mistakes. Perhaps it is de rigeur for editors to ignore basic policy in simple matters, wikipedia etiquette to never read talk page comments fully or the page history. My bad. Getting a little tired of the baseless sockpuppet accusations. Stick to policy, debate me on that. Stop attempting to call my legitimacy into question, it's a dirty trick. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- First point is speculation. You do not know what kind of people visit this page. To your second point, how to do you suggest we convey the concept visually without showing nudity? To your third point, the image is not unencyclopedic either. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you are going to remove that image, replace it with a better one. Until then, you've not raised sufficient reason for its removal. Again, we are not here to protect your delicate sensibilities. Many other articles contain sexual images: teabagging, yaoi, scrotum, vagina, vulva, ejaculation, fisting, masturbation, shunga, oral sex, anal sex, 69 (sex position), paizuri, and hentai to name a few. PS - you know an awful lot about this page, its history, and wikipedia policy for a new user. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just some rebuttals:
- Just some arguments:
- If someone wants to understand the style of anime and manga they are not going to go to the wikipedia page for futanari. The people who end up on this page already know the term, or were linked here by someone who does. This is not a page frequented by people who have never seen an anime image in their life.
- This is pure speculation. In fact we had questions about the style by readers that came here out of curiosity, not knowing anything about manga or anime in particular. But that is not even the point. The point is to illustrate which kind of drawing style is to be expected in contemporary works featuring futanari.
- To claim that most works depicting futanari are pornographic only shows what images you are specifically looking at. It's a concept used throughout manga and anime, in works that are completely pornographic - like your drawing, or in more innocuous ways. I read a few issues of Ranma 1/2 in highschool, which is used as an example of the concept in the page. Nowhere in that comic do we see the level of sexual activity that we see in your example. Even in straight up futanari pornographic manga and hentai not every single scene is hardcore sexual activity. I'm not an expert on the subject but I would wager it's less then half hardcore pornography. And the argument that more graphic examples exist doesn't even deserve a response. This is all disregarding it is a poorly constructed image, unless you are going to claim the disregard for basic human proportions and anatomy is simply due to the style.
- As i said: Not all works containing futanari are pornographic, but the majority goes even further as this image. Starting from over sized penises or tons of sperm, up to anal, rape, scat, and so on. In comparison to the average of works this is a mild example only showing two futanari in the act of mutual masturbation. Should we lie to our readers by showing them a pink bunny on flower field version, while in truce they have to except a wild wolf that rips a dear apart?
- Your example Ranma ½ fails the subject. This work is not about futanari, it is about gender bender, because Ranma Saotome switches between gender roles entirely. He/she is not depicted as a female with additional sexuality related male characteristics.
- This term is not purely a fictional subject, something you fail to realize. The term is used for more then just pornography, even if that is what it generally refers to. The image doesn't depict anatomy in an encyclopedic fashion, it is a needlessly graphic depiction of mutual masturbation. The artistic liscence taken in regards to sperm production is not encyclopedically documented, it's fetishized.
- Maybe you should read my comments again. You missed that i distinguish between the usage of the term. We have the historic/cultural part, the genre and the word in common language. This image is about the genre, which contemporary prominently associated with the term (the word) and also the main subject of the article and is of course fictional. That "sperm production" problem you talk about isn't a problem. Just have a look at the works of well known artists like Osamu Inoue (Venus 5), Hiroyuki Utatane, etc.
- The page for Yuri is illustrated with covers of mangas and example pages that feature a kiss, nothing beyond. To compare the images on that page to the one here is laughable. Why exactly would a cover of a futanari manga be equally as appropriate for this article, I'm sure you can find one that doesn't involve any extreme sexual activity. Even nudity would be find, just not two of them engaged in a sex act.
- You do not understand the difference between yuri and futanari. Yuri is a general term for lesbian love which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a love relationship which may include sexual scenes. But that isn't the main subject. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is pure speculation. In fact we had questions about the style by readers that came here out of curiosity, not knowing anything about manga or anime in particular. But that is not even the point. The point is to illustrate which kind of drawing style is to be expected in contemporary works featuring futanari.
- There is no distinct futanari style, futunari is a concept used within anime and manga styles. The reader could realistically be expected to be familiar with this style. Considering the amateurishness of the image and the clear fetishization of the subjects the reader is not given an accurate impression of the style anyways.
- As i said: Not all works containing futanari are pornographic, but the majority goes even further as this image. Starting from over sized penises or tons of sperm, up to anal, rape, scat, and so on. In comparison to the average of works this is a mild example only showing two futanari in the act of mutual masturbation. Should we lie to our readers by showing them a pink bunny on flower field version, while in truce they have to except a wild wolf that rips a dear apart?
- As I said previously, the existence of material that is even more in violation of policy does not prevent this image, which is milder then your hypothetical examples, from violating policy. This metaphor makes no sense. Maybe it's being lost in translation?
- Maybe you should read my comments again. You missed that i distinguish between the usage of the term. We have the historic/cultural part, the genre and the word in common language. This image is about the genre, which contemporary prominently associated with the term (the word) and also the main subject of the article and is of course fictional. That "sperm production" problem you talk about isn't a problem. Just have a look at the works of well known artists like Osamu Inoue
- Again, this image directly contradicts policy. Read my previous comments, argue policy not semantics.
- You do not understand the difference between yuri and futanari. Yuri is a general term for lesbian love which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a love relationship which may include sexual scenes. But that isn't the main subject
- I am not intimately familiar with subgenres of Japanese pornography. Finally you've said something that is completely true. However I am completely confidant that just as much yuri content is pornographic as futanari. I'm confident there are futunari works which if you broke the action down page by page would be no more graphic sexually then any other erotic manga. Of course there are more graphic examples, but there are also less graphic examples. My argument thus far has been that the current image directly contravenes wikipedia policy as clearly stated on various policy pages. So far none of the defense has been able to show how this image doesn't violate policy and have focused on arguments that completely rely on strong non neutral points of view. Lastly, a closing line from Niabot. "Yuri is a general term for lesbian love which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a love relationship which may include sexual scenes. But that isn't the main subject." Let me try a simple word substitution. "Futanari is a general term for hermaphrodite which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a physical aspect of a character, who may engage in sexual acts. But that isn't the main subject." Niabot, can you not see how logically inconsistent your arguments are? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You always argument that the image is in violation of the policies, but you are wrong in this regard. If the image would depict one of the worst case examples or would be entirely off topic, then we could talk about a conflict with the policy. But it doesn't. It is about lower the average you could expect from works depicting futanari. Maybe you should get an account at Pixiv and see for yourself, to get a grasp of the average (search link for futanari related images) or you should consult Ogi Ogas.
- Regarding your restatement: Futanari is not only the general term for hermaphrodite (see introduction of the article). Futanari is also a commonly pornographic genre, while yuri is not commonly pornographic. ("Yuri focuses on the sexual or the emotional aspects of the relationship, or both, the latter of which sometimes being called shōjo-ai by western fans.") So you can create a work of yuri without showing any primary sexual characteristics. But to call a work a part of the futanari genre you would at least need to clearly show a penis on a female looking character and you have to expect that the majority of works will show much more than that. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 18:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot you don't get to decide how extreme an image is. NOTCENSORED is pretty clear about what shouldn't be censored and what isn't appropriate. Just because more extreme images exist doesn't mean this image doesn't violate policy. Hate to quote myself quoting policy, but clearly you aren't reading my comments. "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy." This image clearly violates policy. Just because there are images that violate policy more doesn't mean that this image is acceptable. Again, if you want to create an image of a Futanari that meets the criteria that wikipedia, not me, has put in place, then fine, go for it. But this image is not appropriate, it violates policy and you have failed, like your friend, to provide any real opposition. You've failed to show this page needs an image, let alone an image that specifically and repeatedly violates basic policy. I'm not going to go to any websites and search for a bunch of weird fetish material, I know more inappropriate images exist. Also, you say that yuri focuses on sexual and emotional aspects of relationships, which means that according to your logic the image for that page should be two teenage girls fisting each other or something. So many logical fallacies and errors in reasoning here. This is giving me a headache. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot, I suggest you brush up on NPOV because as the creator of the image your prejudged bias for keeping this image is preventing rational discussion as to how this image either violates, (which it does), or doesn't violate, (not the case), policy. This is a simple debate. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any policy violation. The subject is a commonly pornographic genre. So there is no good reason why a picture showing the aspects of the genre must not be pornographic. And as you should know. There is no principle of least astonishment on Wikipedia. There is only a failed proposal: Wikipedia:Follow the principle of least astonishment.
- To quote you: "Also, you say that yuri focuses on sexual and emotional aspects of relationships, which means that according to your logic the image for that page should be two teenage girls fisting each other or something." This, right this, is your abstruse logic, not mine. Please consider to read about the terms and genres before writing. Maybe you should have watched the linked discourse by Ogi Ogas. He is not specific about yuri, but you will see the relation while listening.
- My conclusion so far: You failed to convince us (not only me) that the image violates any kind of policy and that the article would be improved by removing the image. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have quoted sections of policy and show clearly how it has been violated. You have cherry picked points to dissect and failed even in that regard. I am not interested in convincing you, Niabot. This is clearly a pet project for you. It's also become a project for me. The difference is I am here trying to build a better encyclopedia, you are here trying to push your point of view. These are not personal attacks, this is clearly documented over the last two years. You've managed to replace this image hundreds of times and somehow found like minded people to support you, but I have policy on my side, and I'm not going to back down, especially when you utterly fail to refute any of my arguments. Saying you disagree and destroying straw men is not debate or discussion, it's childish. Show me how my interpretation is wrong, or at least give me your interpretation of the policies I've quoted so this can actually become a two sided discussion, not me trying to explain policy to a wall. Also, not a personal attack, just a fact - the chance of me clicking a link you have provided, especially a link relating to anime, is infinitesimally small. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with your opinion and see no violation of policy (running in circles...). I'm not pushing any point of view (which view?). I merely adding material from the given sources. The only thing worrying me (no offense) is your attitude. You clearly say that you have no interest in the topic, but you are willing to disrupt the development of the article by making the image the main topic, instead of reading sources (not even willed to do so, despite lacking a lot of knowledge) or improving the article. The only "improvement" you have to offer is to remove the image and that would be your last edit. I seriously don't want to continue this fruitless conversation. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you disagree with my opinion, you have to show how the policy and commentary I've posted are incorrect, which you've failed to do. I have enough interest in the topic to want this article to be the best it can be. Home made pornography contrary to policy does not make this page the best it can be. I'm sure there are other improvements that can be made to this article but it's silly to worry about pimples when there is arterial spray shooting out of the neck. It's possible removing the image would be my last edit on this page, but not wikipedia. Again, your POV is that of the creator of the image, who has a vested interest in keeping this image up. I don't know if it's pride, or some bizarre point you are trying to make, but your interest lies in maintaining the status quo of this page, not in building a better encyclopedia. Niabot, every conversation you have is bound to be fruitless if you engage in them the way you have this one. I'm not intimately familiar with the arbitration policies but I feel like maybe a request for comment or something is in order. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Decided to watch the video by Ogi Ogas you posted but after ten minutes I could tell this wasn't real science, then found this quote on his wiki page "Prior to publication, the book and its authors were criticized for their non-standard research methodology, aspects of their core premise, and lack of institutional review. Two of the most common critiques were that a survey which was to be used for data in the book had been changed while results were still being gathered; and that that same survey included questions about sexual and illegal activities, but that legal minors were able to access and take the survey.[10][11][12][13] Also, none of the research for the book was ever brought before an Institutional Review Board, which would have studied the ethics of the research protocol.[14] The authors addressed this after publication, saying, "IRB oversight applies to human subjects research with federal funding, or that takes place at an institution with federal funding. We intentionally conducted our research outside of academia, without federal funding, in order to remain independent from the fierce tempest of ideological, social, and political pressures that besets the contemporary study of sexuality."[15]" This is the kind of source you reference in an attempt to educate me? That's like me posting Eric Von Danniken videos on the talk pages for archaeology articles. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you disagree with my opinion, you have to show how the policy and commentary I've posted are incorrect, which you've failed to do. I have enough interest in the topic to want this article to be the best it can be. Home made pornography contrary to policy does not make this page the best it can be. I'm sure there are other improvements that can be made to this article but it's silly to worry about pimples when there is arterial spray shooting out of the neck. It's possible removing the image would be my last edit on this page, but not wikipedia. Again, your POV is that of the creator of the image, who has a vested interest in keeping this image up. I don't know if it's pride, or some bizarre point you are trying to make, but your interest lies in maintaining the status quo of this page, not in building a better encyclopedia. Niabot, every conversation you have is bound to be fruitless if you engage in them the way you have this one. I'm not intimately familiar with the arbitration policies but I feel like maybe a request for comment or something is in order. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree with your opinion and see no violation of policy (running in circles...). I'm not pushing any point of view (which view?). I merely adding material from the given sources. The only thing worrying me (no offense) is your attitude. You clearly say that you have no interest in the topic, but you are willing to disrupt the development of the article by making the image the main topic, instead of reading sources (not even willed to do so, despite lacking a lot of knowledge) or improving the article. The only "improvement" you have to offer is to remove the image and that would be your last edit. I seriously don't want to continue this fruitless conversation. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have quoted sections of policy and show clearly how it has been violated. You have cherry picked points to dissect and failed even in that regard. I am not interested in convincing you, Niabot. This is clearly a pet project for you. It's also become a project for me. The difference is I am here trying to build a better encyclopedia, you are here trying to push your point of view. These are not personal attacks, this is clearly documented over the last two years. You've managed to replace this image hundreds of times and somehow found like minded people to support you, but I have policy on my side, and I'm not going to back down, especially when you utterly fail to refute any of my arguments. Saying you disagree and destroying straw men is not debate or discussion, it's childish. Show me how my interpretation is wrong, or at least give me your interpretation of the policies I've quoted so this can actually become a two sided discussion, not me trying to explain policy to a wall. Also, not a personal attack, just a fact - the chance of me clicking a link you have provided, especially a link relating to anime, is infinitesimally small. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot, I suggest you brush up on NPOV because as the creator of the image your prejudged bias for keeping this image is preventing rational discussion as to how this image either violates, (which it does), or doesn't violate, (not the case), policy. This is a simple debate. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot you don't get to decide how extreme an image is. NOTCENSORED is pretty clear about what shouldn't be censored and what isn't appropriate. Just because more extreme images exist doesn't mean this image doesn't violate policy. Hate to quote myself quoting policy, but clearly you aren't reading my comments. "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy." This image clearly violates policy. Just because there are images that violate policy more doesn't mean that this image is acceptable. Again, if you want to create an image of a Futanari that meets the criteria that wikipedia, not me, has put in place, then fine, go for it. But this image is not appropriate, it violates policy and you have failed, like your friend, to provide any real opposition. You've failed to show this page needs an image, let alone an image that specifically and repeatedly violates basic policy. I'm not going to go to any websites and search for a bunch of weird fetish material, I know more inappropriate images exist. Also, you say that yuri focuses on sexual and emotional aspects of relationships, which means that according to your logic the image for that page should be two teenage girls fisting each other or something. So many logical fallacies and errors in reasoning here. This is giving me a headache. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am not intimately familiar with subgenres of Japanese pornography. Finally you've said something that is completely true. However I am completely confidant that just as much yuri content is pornographic as futanari. I'm confident there are futunari works which if you broke the action down page by page would be no more graphic sexually then any other erotic manga. Of course there are more graphic examples, but there are also less graphic examples. My argument thus far has been that the current image directly contravenes wikipedia policy as clearly stated on various policy pages. So far none of the defense has been able to show how this image doesn't violate policy and have focused on arguments that completely rely on strong non neutral points of view. Lastly, a closing line from Niabot. "Yuri is a general term for lesbian love which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a love relationship which may include sexual scenes. But that isn't the main subject." Let me try a simple word substitution. "Futanari is a general term for hermaphrodite which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a physical aspect of a character, who may engage in sexual acts. But that isn't the main subject." Niabot, can you not see how logically inconsistent your arguments are? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is pure speculation. In fact we had questions about the style by readers that came here out of curiosity, not knowing anything about manga or anime in particular. But that is not even the point. The point is to illustrate which kind of drawing style is to be expected in contemporary works featuring futanari.
- You do not understand the difference between yuri and futanari. Yuri is a general term for lesbian love which is not necessarily sexuality related. It is about a love relationship which may include sexual scenes. But that isn't the main subject. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- If someone wants to understand the style of anime and manga they are not going to go to the wikipedia page for futanari. The people who end up on this page already know the term, or were linked here by someone who does. This is not a page frequented by people who have never seen an anime image in their life.
Image
Well it is shite, and more than likely breaks US childporn laws, so why is it even here given it adds fuckall to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed in length previously. It does not break the US child porn laws. Please look up the Dost test. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is shite, and does break several laws, read up on lolicon, the image is obviously of prepubescent girls, having looked at you're editing history you are obviously a SPA with issues, go elsewhere. And given not just that but the consensus above, see here I will remove it again, I am claiming a 3RR exemption under the obvious, IE lolicon is illegal in the US. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong. This image does not fall in the lolicon category in the first place (see definition) and if it would, then it would still not be illegal because of the obviously fictional setting, or do you have some futanari as your neighbor? All you do say is: "Hey this image is 'shite' lets remove it." This is not a valid argument. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Christopher Handley, six months jail tile for buying lolicon, it is illegal in the states, ~IMO that image is lolicon, certainly verging on it, so it is gone, and will stay gone, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with lolicon. Thats all i have to say. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Christopher Handley, six months jail tile for buying lolicon, it is illegal in the states, ~IMO that image is lolicon, certainly verging on it, so it is gone, and will stay gone, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong. This image does not fall in the lolicon category in the first place (see definition) and if it would, then it would still not be illegal because of the obviously fictional setting, or do you have some futanari as your neighbor? All you do say is: "Hey this image is 'shite' lets remove it." This is not a valid argument. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is shite, and does break several laws, read up on lolicon, the image is obviously of prepubescent girls, having looked at you're editing history you are obviously a SPA with issues, go elsewhere. And given not just that but the consensus above, see here I will remove it again, I am claiming a 3RR exemption under the obvious, IE lolicon is illegal in the US. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
How does this image depict children? Do you have any proof/citation it does? If so, it should be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if an indivual thinks this violates child porn laws. As I've already written a boatload of words to show how this image directly contradicts basic wikipedia policy. Niabot, don't forget how you failed to refute any of my policy interpretations and even failed to defeat the straw men you built. This image is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it needs to go. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot, few notes on your recent edit. It's mostly good stuff but you really need more references for some of the claims you're making and you need a bit of help making your english sound a little more natural, but it was a good addition nonetheless. I cleaned up some minor grammatical errors and commented on points where I feel references are needed. At this point more then half the article is about the concept as it was developing throughout history, with a smaller portion on the recent pornographic developments, and as such the header image is even more inappropriate. Perhaps an image of one of the period dancers would suffice? I'm sure there are common domain images already uploaded to wikipedia that would serve quite nicely. Thoughts? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting thought. Do we have such a pic? On a side note, we might want to consider a RfC. Some outside voices might be useful. So far it's just Crimson, Niabot, myself, and recently Darkness Shines (who was banned for a bit along with Niabot for edit warring earlier). See what they say when they come back. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few old japanese woodblock prints on the commons that depict the dancers from Shirabyōshi here. i think this would be a good example? In my opinion the current header image should be removed completely, but maybe when Niabots ban is up we can discus moving it to a different portion of the page or come to a consensus about it being removed altogether. I considered just changing the header image to this picture but finding out Niabot has been banned from editing for a while makes that feel like a dirty trick. At the end of the last talk page topic I wondered if request for comment would be a good idea. I've never had a debate anything like this one regarding any of my other edits, so I've only read policy pages on arbitration, never seen it really in action? I think request for comment makes the most sense though. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I plan to expand all sections. I just started with the history part and will rework the others as well, expanding the article by quite a lot. (You may look at the german article as a reference) We might want to move the current header image to the corresponding section later on. On a personal side: I would not use the Shirabyōshi image as the header image. It is just a corner step to the development and if we used one, then it would be this image, because it shows the entire scene including the reaction from the viewers. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- The larger image is better, but the focus of the image should be how the female character is displaying male characteristics, specifically the typically male headgear and fan. Glad you added refs to your edit, if you`re going to add more text I`d be glad to naturalize the english. Still thinking we should request outside comment as to the futunari.png image and whether or not it breaks policy. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the interest in playing with the gender roles, as stated by Krauss and Leupp, was the most important part, which is suitably reflected in the slightly confused looking audience on the right. I would not crop this part, because it was the interested audience that formed this development, which is also common in current works. Later on (early 16th century) it were the onnagata actors that enjoyed the audience, featuring men dressed like women, so that both forms existed. Except for the years 1642-1644 were female acts by men were forbidden and gay themes dominated. I will go deeper into that within the next additions. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- The larger image is better, but the focus of the image should be how the female character is displaying male characteristics, specifically the typically male headgear and fan. Glad you added refs to your edit, if you`re going to add more text I`d be glad to naturalize the english. Still thinking we should request outside comment as to the futunari.png image and whether or not it breaks policy. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting thought. Do we have such a pic? On a side note, we might want to consider a RfC. Some outside voices might be useful. So far it's just Crimson, Niabot, myself, and recently Darkness Shines (who was banned for a bit along with Niabot for edit warring earlier). See what they say when they come back. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Niabot, few notes on your recent edit. It's mostly good stuff but you really need more references for some of the claims you're making and you need a bit of help making your english sound a little more natural, but it was a good addition nonetheless. I cleaned up some minor grammatical errors and commented on points where I feel references are needed. At this point more then half the article is about the concept as it was developing throughout history, with a smaller portion on the recent pornographic developments, and as such the header image is even more inappropriate. Perhaps an image of one of the period dancers would suffice? I'm sure there are common domain images already uploaded to wikipedia that would serve quite nicely. Thoughts? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if an indivual thinks this violates child porn laws. As I've already written a boatload of words to show how this image directly contradicts basic wikipedia policy. Niabot, don't forget how you failed to refute any of my policy interpretations and even failed to defeat the straw men you built. This image is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it needs to go. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Request for comment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
}}
Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- No Most certainly not in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Image illustrates two types of futanari. Other similar articles related to hentai and sexuality have sexual images, so I see no reason to remove it on those grounds. I am not opposed to finding another image of equal or better quality, but I see no reason to remove the current one if no replacement is proposed. See above talk for more discussion on the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Standard policy (V, RS, DUE, etc.) applies: if the majority of scholarly sources on the article subject lead with an equivalent (but non-free) image, then fine, add corresponding references here, to the image caption; otherwise, out it goes. Aquegg (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- No None of the sources use this manner of image as a lead, most don`t even have images beyond maps and graphs. The articles that have sexualized images have them because the article is specifically about sex acts, or pornography. This page is not about a sex act and only partially about pornography. This image fetishizes the subjects, does not encyclopedically document them. This image needs to go. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Relevant policy excerpt:
Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers.
- The question is: What would the "conventional expectations" of a reader be and might this image seem "offensive or harrassing to readers"? -- John Reaves 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I feel very strongly that the average reader of wikipedia would be offended by this image. Niabot has argued that more offensive images exist and therefor this image is a compromise. This image may not shock a hardened net veteran, or an anime fan, but this is an encyclopedia for all people, not niche fetishists. I'm pretty sure I quoted that same section of policy earlier but the proponents of the image didn't address that quote, or any of the other policies I quoted, or the reasons I gave for how this image contradicts policy. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Copy-paste from above talk page, but relevant: Many other articles contain sexual images: teabagging, yaoi, scrotum, vagina, vulva, ejaculation, fisting, masturbation, shunga, oral sex, anal sex, 69 (sex position), paizuri, omorashi, ero guro, tentacle erotica, bukkake, and hentai to name a few. Crimson noted that some pertain to specific sex acts while others refer to anatomy so it would be expected that explicit images be on those pages, but I expanded the list to include more similar pages to this. Per our discussion above, I would not be opposed to the image's replacement with a historical image or different, better image. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that this particular image has to stay as the header image, but a mere replacement by an historical image would also not be a great solution. The article ranges from the historic origins (the basic concept) up to the current genre and style. This means that the historical part should feature historical images, but the current genre should feature this or a similar image. Anything else would be kind of misleading, because of the big differences. None of the current works look in any way similar to the traditional illustrations. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 04:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as futanari style, just like there is no giant robot style, or magical pixie girl style. It's an element within manga or anime and doesn't have any outstanding individual characteristics that this page mentions. How about a cover of a futunari manga? That would fall under fair use. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Think she meant genre more than style. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, of course not. I meant futanari as the subject/genre depicted in common anime and manga style. ("... up to the current genre and style.") Maybe i need to expand the genre paragraphs first, to help understanding the topic. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as futanari style, just like there is no giant robot style, or magical pixie girl style. It's an element within manga or anime and doesn't have any outstanding individual characteristics that this page mentions. How about a cover of a futunari manga? That would fall under fair use. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that this particular image has to stay as the header image, but a mere replacement by an historical image would also not be a great solution. The article ranges from the historic origins (the basic concept) up to the current genre and style. This means that the historical part should feature historical images, but the current genre should feature this or a similar image. Anything else would be kind of misleading, because of the big differences. None of the current works look in any way similar to the traditional illustrations. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 04:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- No In regards to Crimsonhexagon's comments. Only part of the page deals with pornography so why should the image in the lead reflect only a segment of the page? It needs to be an image that better represents the page and be far less offensive to the reader. Meatsgains (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the image in question here should be present in this article, whether it is in the lede or not. Wikipedia is not censored. However, if there is a better, "less offensive" image out there, then use it as well. Guy1890 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page you just posted. Not Censored does not give preference to obscene images. This image fetishizes the subject and is therefor inappropriate for this article. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- It does not fetishise the subject, because the subject – todays futanari genre – is an fetish itself. Just make an image search at Google for the term ′futanari′ and tell me the difference between the ″fetish″ in common works and this image. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- There has appeared to be a lot of controversy about the image in question here for some time. If it is so "illegal" and "offensive", then just get it deleted from Wikimedia Commons & be done with it. The relevant portion of the Wikipedia guidelines that I originally linked to appears to be: "However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." Guy1890 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- The deletion request at Commons on legal grounds was denied already. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, that discussion appears to be from 2010, and consensus can change. I'm not suggesting that I'd be in favor of deleting the image from the Commons, but that appears to be the best avenue available for many of the arguments that I've seen against this image's inclusion here. Guy1890 (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The deletion request at Commons on legal grounds was denied already. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- There has appeared to be a lot of controversy about the image in question here for some time. If it is so "illegal" and "offensive", then just get it deleted from Wikimedia Commons & be done with it. The relevant portion of the Wikipedia guidelines that I originally linked to appears to be: "However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." Guy1890 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- It does not fetishise the subject, because the subject – todays futanari genre – is an fetish itself. Just make an image search at Google for the term ′futanari′ and tell me the difference between the ″fetish″ in common works and this image. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page you just posted. Not Censored does not give preference to obscene images. This image fetishizes the subject and is therefor inappropriate for this article. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
My argument has never been that the image is illegal or offensive, I've only argued that it is unencyclopedic. The articles for Necrophilia, Coprophilia and Omorashi don't have any image, and the articles for Object sexuality and Exhibitionism have historically relevant encyclopedic images. This foolishness has gone on long enough. If this article needs a header image a new one has to be found. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Omorashi has images... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- "My argument has never been that the image is illegal or offensive"...actually, I've read through a lot of your comments from above, and, in fact, I think one of the core complaints that you've made again & again & again is that the image in question here would be "offensive", "vulgar" or "shocking" to Wikipedia readers. What the articles for Necrophilia & Coprophilia really have in common with this article here is that they don't have an image (as of yet) and are also basically rated "Start-class" (partly) as a result of that. I understand that you are apparently a new Wikipedia editor, but you have to understand that a lot of articles on Wikipedia can't be rated very highly if they don't have images (there are likely some exceptions to this though). Also, Omorashi does, in fact, have images. I also agree that "this foolishness has gone on long enough", and that it really would be better for you to either calm down or step back from this debate for a while here. You've had more than your fair share to make whatever points that you want to, but comments like "I'm not going to back down" & "It's also become a project for me" are disturbing. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work people. Guy1890 (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- If this page can have editors like Niabot hovering over it my monitoring and editing can't be considered disturbing. Again, if it would be shocking or offensive or vulgar to the average reader that seems like a pretty clear violation of policy. I don't care that individuals find this erotic, I care that basic policy is ignored on such a simple matter. I'm calm, and in my fair share of the debate the basic points I've made haven't been refuted. I'm passionate about wikipedia, have been for years before I registered. You are absolutely right about this not being how wikipedia is supposed to work. Parties are supposed to debate points rationally and with reasoned arguments, and policy, when simple and clear, should be enforced. So far dozens of editors have chimed in to say "holy cow, this is wildly inappropriate" but Niabot and his ilk have risen to it's defense with the battlecry of WP:NOTCENSORED, and nothing of value. Niabot could have spent an hour of his life drawing a new, appropriate image, or finding a fair use cover of a manga or promotional shot from a video, but he chose to draw this unencyclopedic examplar and spend countless hours defending it. Unless I am completely wrong about policy, which is totally possible, I feel equally passionate criticism is warranted. Also, I was quickly clicking paraphilia pages and didn't scroll down to see the images on the Omarashi page. It still doesn't have a header image, but I guess you guys managed to half knock down the staw man? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about classic battleground behavior. There's not much else that I can say here about your behavior on this talk page so far "Crimsonhexagon", but you have been warned. Guy1890 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page you linked, but I'm confused as to how this applies to me but not Niabot? If I've been uncivil or made personal attacks I guess I didn't realize, but I don't think that happened. I've quoted loads of policy and how this image fails to meet standards, but instead of people discussing policy I've been accused of sockpuppetry repeatedly and now I'm being accused of turning this into a battleground when this has been Niabots personal Waterloo for years. If there is something obvious about my tone that I'm failing to realize, please comment on my talk page. What exactly are you warning me about? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Simply put: Stop accusing me to have ill intends and that this would me my personal war ground. I'm tired of your overly repeated accusations! --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of anything, Niabot, just describing your actions. How many times have you personally edited this article over the last two years just to reintroduce your image? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Simply put: Stop accusing me to have ill intends and that this would me my personal war ground. I'm tired of your overly repeated accusations! --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page you linked, but I'm confused as to how this applies to me but not Niabot? If I've been uncivil or made personal attacks I guess I didn't realize, but I don't think that happened. I've quoted loads of policy and how this image fails to meet standards, but instead of people discussing policy I've been accused of sockpuppetry repeatedly and now I'm being accused of turning this into a battleground when this has been Niabots personal Waterloo for years. If there is something obvious about my tone that I'm failing to realize, please comment on my talk page. What exactly are you warning me about? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about classic battleground behavior. There's not much else that I can say here about your behavior on this talk page so far "Crimsonhexagon", but you have been warned. Guy1890 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- If this page can have editors like Niabot hovering over it my monitoring and editing can't be considered disturbing. Again, if it would be shocking or offensive or vulgar to the average reader that seems like a pretty clear violation of policy. I don't care that individuals find this erotic, I care that basic policy is ignored on such a simple matter. I'm calm, and in my fair share of the debate the basic points I've made haven't been refuted. I'm passionate about wikipedia, have been for years before I registered. You are absolutely right about this not being how wikipedia is supposed to work. Parties are supposed to debate points rationally and with reasoned arguments, and policy, when simple and clear, should be enforced. So far dozens of editors have chimed in to say "holy cow, this is wildly inappropriate" but Niabot and his ilk have risen to it's defense with the battlecry of WP:NOTCENSORED, and nothing of value. Niabot could have spent an hour of his life drawing a new, appropriate image, or finding a fair use cover of a manga or promotional shot from a video, but he chose to draw this unencyclopedic examplar and spend countless hours defending it. Unless I am completely wrong about policy, which is totally possible, I feel equally passionate criticism is warranted. Also, I was quickly clicking paraphilia pages and didn't scroll down to see the images on the Omarashi page. It still doesn't have a header image, but I guess you guys managed to half knock down the staw man? Crimsonhexagon (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images, which was selectively quoted by User:John Reaves above (inaccurately linked as Pertinence and encyclopedic nature), but it is pertinent to reproduce it in full here for context (emphasis added):
Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers. For example, photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy.
- The policy Wikipedia is not censored is applicable, but does not offer clearer guidance than the above.
- In my view, the image File:Futanari.png is relevant to the article Futanari as it depicts the subject. It is appropriate to show images (whether as photographs, illustrations, cartoons, diagrams, etc.) to illustrate hermaphroditism, particularly in a Japanese context. However, the image is unnecessarily sexualised in nature as the characters are depicted as having erections and touching each other's erect penises; this is not necessary to illustrate the subject and, I think, might be offensive to some readers. This is akin to the example quoted above ("photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy").
- Another image that showed naked futanari in a non-sexualised situation would be more appropriate. —sroc 💬 06:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we had an alternative i would replace it myself. But at the moment we have no suitable alternative. On the other hand: The article Futanari is not simply about Japanese history or the anatomy of futanari. It is about a commonly pornographic or at least erotic genre that features a subset of hermaphrodites (futanari). If we look at typical works, then this image is already at the lower end of the spectrum of possibilities, considering the average and not the worst case scenarios. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- We didn't have the current image until Niabot drew it. A new one could easily be created. Earlier using a historic image was considered but no consensus was reached. How about something like this? Covers can generally be uploaded to the commons under fair use, at least according to my reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Cover_scans. This clearly illustrates the modern concept in a fashion that is much more palatable to the average wikipedia reader. It took me five minutes of searching to find this image, it's dishonest to indicate that there are no other images we could potentially use. Again, Niabot, just because you rank this image on the soft end of the spectrum doesn't make it so? You obviously have a greater then average familiarity with the subject given your page edits. One could argue that I have a less then average familiarty with the subject given that I don't watch anime generally, and have never watched or read any futanari media. The average reader likely lies somewhere in between our levels of familiarity, and it is the average reader we should be editing this article for. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- What does the reader gain from looking at the proposed cover of the first issue from Futabu (ふた部！, aka Futa Club) by artist Bosshi from the dōjin circle AskRay? Can he directly identify two of the characters as futanari and does the cover relate to actual the content? In my opinion it is a typical example why you shouldn't judge a work or it's content by it's cover.
- Im also curious about the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Cover_scans: ″... and is used in an article containing commentary or analysis of the issue or series in question.″ --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The cover makes it quite clear that futanari exhibit both genders sex characteristics. You can see the bulge of an erect penis through the swimsuit and there isn't a hand jerking it off, which makes it infinitely more appropriate. Also it would be a matter of adding a single referance to the series in question in the list of examples and we'd not violate any policy. I had a lovely Christmas visit with family up north, and didn't feel like using my grandmothers computer to visit this page. I'm sure you hoped I was gone for good, sorry to ruin your Christmas present. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- The reader will recognize the penis so "quite clear" that even you didn't notice that it is not erected. ;-) Happy New Year --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not going to debate the levels of anime erection, point is you can clearly see there is a significant penis there. And it is more appropriate than the current header image. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- It might be more appropriate in a sense that it is less "offensive". But it is also close to a worst case scenario for illustrative value. It's like using pictures of a clothed person to illustrate anatomy articles. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a worst case scenario, it is a middle ground compromise. It's nothing like using pictures of a clothed person to illustrate anatomy. Your whole statement is completely disingenuous, for the following obvious reasons.
- This is an article about a concept you have personally stated is mostly found within japanese graphic art forms. Therefor a cover for a manga about the subject of this article is extremely appropriate.
- Other similar pages, including ones you've linked, (the lesbian one, Yuri, i think), use covers of manga as header images.
- This image clearly illustates the difference between a futanari and a standard female.
- A cover of a manga is arguably an encyclopedic image. The current header is not encyclopedic by any standard.
- and most importantly,
- THIS IMAGE WOULD NOT VIOLATE POLICY, would not result in three years of insane editwarring. We could finally free a pile of editors to stop wasting time on this childish example of drawing a line in the sand and saying "here. two futas jerkin it like crazy. no further either way, this is perfect."
- It perfectly illustrates the subject. A futanari at it's most basic level is an individual within Japanese media whom exhibits both male and female sexual characteristics. In this image we see standard females, with a futanari who clearly has a penis and a generally female appearance otherwise. This illustrates the concept simply, relatively tastefully, and couldn't be used as an argument for why wikipedia isn't reliable.
- Wikipedia is a living document, it's time for this page to grow up. If you don't like my compromise, offer another. There isn't a hard consensus to remove the image completely, but my perception of the consensus is that a better header image should be found. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm nearly to bored to reply. You repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and ... again. So a short reply:
- Any work, cover, ... is usable as long it illustrates core elements of the topic. But an image that does not clearly depict the subject is useless for the reader. Hence not every cover of a futanari manga/dōjinshi is suited to illustrate the subject. Your compromise is not acceptable for me, because it fails to deliver the message to reader. One might guess that out of ten people just one will even notice the bulge at first sight. A good illustration would show one or more characters with female looking appearance and a clearly recognizable penis. Here you have an example from the same artist that clearly shows the characteristics and illustrates both common variants (futanari and so called full package futanari) inside the same picture: [1] --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a worst case scenario, it is a middle ground compromise. It's nothing like using pictures of a clothed person to illustrate anatomy. Your whole statement is completely disingenuous, for the following obvious reasons.
- It might be more appropriate in a sense that it is less "offensive". But it is also close to a worst case scenario for illustrative value. It's like using pictures of a clothed person to illustrate anatomy articles. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not going to debate the levels of anime erection, point is you can clearly see there is a significant penis there. And it is more appropriate than the current header image. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reader will recognize the penis so "quite clear" that even you didn't notice that it is not erected. ;-) Happy New Year --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The cover makes it quite clear that futanari exhibit both genders sex characteristics. You can see the bulge of an erect penis through the swimsuit and there isn't a hand jerking it off, which makes it infinitely more appropriate. Also it would be a matter of adding a single referance to the series in question in the list of examples and we'd not violate any policy. I had a lovely Christmas visit with family up north, and didn't feel like using my grandmothers computer to visit this page. I'm sure you hoped I was gone for good, sorry to ruin your Christmas present. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- We didn't have the current image until Niabot drew it. A new one could easily be created. Earlier using a historic image was considered but no consensus was reached. How about something like this? Covers can generally be uploaded to the commons under fair use, at least according to my reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Cover_scans. This clearly illustrates the modern concept in a fashion that is much more palatable to the average wikipedia reader. It took me five minutes of searching to find this image, it's dishonest to indicate that there are no other images we could potentially use. Again, Niabot, just because you rank this image on the soft end of the spectrum doesn't make it so? You obviously have a greater then average familiarity with the subject given your page edits. One could argue that I have a less then average familiarty with the subject given that I don't watch anime generally, and have never watched or read any futanari media. The average reader likely lies somewhere in between our levels of familiarity, and it is the average reader we should be editing this article for. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we had an alternative i would replace it myself. But at the moment we have no suitable alternative. On the other hand: The article Futanari is not simply about Japanese history or the anatomy of futanari. It is about a commonly pornographic or at least erotic genre that features a subset of hermaphrodites (futanari). If we look at typical works, then this image is already at the lower end of the spectrum of possibilities, considering the average and not the worst case scenarios. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
_cover.jpg){kind=link}
- In the article at all, yes, in the lead, no, on the basis solely that it is a distracting picture for the lead, but that it has value for the article itself. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- In lead NO. Further down in article ok.--Andrea edits (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. Invited here via Legobot, not previously involved in this subject. Qualified reasons already adequately supplied by sroc above. Wikipedia policy is quite clear. I'd be willing to swap my vote if it's proven there's no suitable alternative (as mentioned in said policy), but a manga I'm sure would definitely have another image that could be used. GRUcrule (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just for information: As of now we don't have any other free licensed alternative. Thats all we have. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Seems that after a few weeks of comments, "not in the lead" is a clear common opinion of uninvolved editors. This seems like an appropriate compromise to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not see a clear consensus here, removing the image because some think it is distasteful will not improve the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did not said "remove". I said "not in the lead", i.e., move it to an appropriate section of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Misread sorry I struck my comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can dig up a better and more tasteful (the art is hideous) example to end this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC. We have no free licensed alternatives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, per WP:WEIGHT and per MOS:Images#Offensive_images.
This article is about the concept of hermaphoditism in Japanese culture. That is a broad topic, covering several centuries of cultural and artistic tradition, but because of the systemic bias in Wikipedia towards recent topics and popular culture, the article's current content is heavily-weighted towards pornographic anime and magna. That undue prominence of the pornographic aspect of the topic is exacerbated by the use of such a strongly sexually-explicit images, which fails the principle of least astonishment. Readers who were expecting a scholarly article on such a broad topic will not expect to find porn, which should be used only if its "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". That is not the case here; quite the opposite, because the pornographic caricature misleads readers about the nature of hermaphroditism.
A less shocking image would cause less imbalance to the article, and there is no good reason to retain this inappropriate image in the absence of a better one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to say that, but you have made quite an big error in your argument. Futanari is not the common global term for hermaphroditism inside the Japanese language. Given the introduction of the article this might be a bit confusing, since there are at least three major Japanese terms that deal with the same aspect from different viewpoints - but all of them translate to "hermaphroditism". Futanari (ふたなり) is the erotic/fictional viewpoint, Shiyūdōtai (雌雄同体) is the general medical/biological viewpoint and Hanin'yō (半陰陽) is the intersexual/cultural viewpoint. The term futanari aims at the fictional/erotic aspects, starting from historic beliefs, over theatrical plays, poems, up to the current genre. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New Header image
I'm glad to see the previous issue resolved without me having to type any more words. Now that the image has been appropriately buried does anyone have a suggestion for a new header? As said I'm not familiar with the genre so I don't have any particularly good ideas.Crimsonhexagon (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whether you typed more words or not the matter would always have been resolved on consensus. The image is a useful illustration of a section, simply not of the entire article. It has not been buried. Your words lead me to consider re-opening the discussion simply because of the provocative word 'buried'.
- There are a great many images of stated futanari with live models on a number of highly pornographic sites. If they were not subject to copyright might they illustrate the article lead rather better? They are, presumably, heavily edited pictures and they show people equipped with penis and vagina in flagrante delicious.
- Wikipedia bends to consensus, not censorship. It works on editorial decisions, not on covering up images that some might find distasteful lest they frighten the horses. The prior picture was an obvious candidate not to be in the lead because the topic is wider that cartoons. This was an editorial decision.
- Perhaps you should make this your genre and come up with suitable suggestions yourself. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please just drop the WP:STICK already. A consensus has been thought out, I do not know why the article would need a new image header at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I want to make this a better encyclopedia, and I agree that header images are a good idea. This article no longer has one and there hadn't been any discussion about replacing it so I started a new topic. I didn't want to just argue a single point about this page and then abandon it completely as soon as the debate is closed, but perhaps that's what I should do. My energies could be better invested. I'm not wielding a stick, I'm just trying to improve this article. It's so contentious a page I'm not going to edit it without talkpage dialogue first. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Im not sure what adding an image header will do though, the lead is short and adding a third image will make the article look like a photo gallery given it's size. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Quality
This article's quality is terrible, comprised of primarily regurgitating one source from 1997 and full of random notions and OR. It lacks a current scholarly understanding of gender and has a strange focus on a home-brewed "history" of futanari while nearly entirely missing that googling futanari here or on Google books only brings up pornography. It also neglects to clarify the pop Western fetishisation of futanari or to cover the transmisogyny of the genre. In short: a train wreck. Ogress smash! 22:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Six books are cited here, if you wish to expand upon the article to include "Western fetishisation of futanari" feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Um, I am, and I'm trying to point out the flaws here. A 1997 book about homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, repeated seven times. A 1965 book in German. These are not about futanari per se. The apparently salient works are a Portuguese-only article, a 2007 book, and "Sex, Love and Women in Japanese Comics" entry in the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. A book that ranks anime is also relevant. This is hardly sufficient and the article is mixed with tons of OR and highly dated material. Ogress smash! 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think examining the difference between the articles futanari and shemale illustrate the lack of weight and thoroughness at even the most cursory of viewing. Ogress smash! 02:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really know much about the subject here, if you feel the article is a mess I wouldn't oppose a merge to Glossary of anime and manga until more sources can be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think examining the difference between the articles futanari and shemale illustrate the lack of weight and thoroughness at even the most cursory of viewing. Ogress smash! 02:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Um, I am, and I'm trying to point out the flaws here. A 1997 book about homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, repeated seven times. A 1965 book in German. These are not about futanari per se. The apparently salient works are a Portuguese-only article, a 2007 book, and "Sex, Love and Women in Japanese Comics" entry in the International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. A book that ranks anime is also relevant. This is hardly sufficient and the article is mixed with tons of OR and highly dated material. Ogress smash! 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I certainly would oppose a merge. If I were to be frank, Ogress' commentary on the article reeks strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and fails to forward any convincing argument on why the article should be deleted or why an overhaul is even necessary. Claiming a lack of "current scholarly understanding" isn't valid per WP:RECENTISM and despite complaints of OR I see no such thing here, everything is properly cited. The "only brings up pornography" or "Western fetishisation" commentary is puzzling as futanari is, by definition, a pornographic fetish. Claims that content on "scholarly understanding of gender" or "transmisogyny" are relevant or even existent need to be backed up by the claimant and even then I'd be wary of POV-pushing a pro-gender studies, pro-feminist bias into the article as it smacks of violating WP:FRINGE.
So, no expert attention necessary, there's no evidence of OR, or need for additional references to pass WP:GNG. Tags removed. Much ado about nothing imo. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Content and Scope
I do not feel qualified to edit this article, as I have only a superficial acquaintance with actual manga and anime as opposed to pornographic parodies thereof, but I would like to point out that a good chunk of this short article is about cross-dressing and transformation from one biological sex to another, which are not the same thing as futanari. Including examples in this article confuses the issue.
I have a couple questions about both terminology, and about how to properly edit the article:
1) The article says that the term futanari can refer to both full hermaphrodites with functional male and female genitalia, or to persons with a mix of male and female primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is certainly the case for western porn sites labeled "futanari"; can someone confirm or deny that this is how the term is used in Japan?
2) The article says that the term "new half" is used in Japan to refer to transwomen; are there other terms commonly used in hentai to make distinctions between fully functional human hermaphrodites vs. other categories of persons outside the gender binary, real or fictional? The use of proper terms could clear up quite a bit of misunderstanding when discussing this topic both here and elsewhere. In particular, a term specifically referring to the former category, strict fully functional hermaphrodites, would be handy.
3) My knowledge of this subject is derived almost entirely from browsing porn sites featuring futanari artwork. Can these somehow by used as a legitimate "cites", seeing as how the bulk of the material in this genre is pornographic in nature? Flondrix (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Futanari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511005410/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org:80/ccies/jp.php to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php#8d
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure the assertion in the opening is correct.
- "In today's language it refers almost exclusively to characters who have an overall feminine body, but have both female and male genitalia (although testicles are not always present)."
I don't agree with this statement. People today just as commonly use 'futa' to refer to characters with no female genitalia at all (transwomen with breasts and a functional penis), similar to the (usually) pejorative term 'shemale' in porn. And the reference provided for this statement is to something written in German from 1965? Really? TricksterWolf (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)