Talk:Hikari Hino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hikari Hino article.
Article policies

[edit] Unsectionalized

This article has survived one AfD with the result of Keep. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about this one. Looks like it's only purpose is to link to the guy's blog? Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to add content to the Japanese pornstars category. im adding picture and info

On second thought . . . . Article looks fine to me. :) Dlohcierekim 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

[edit] Censorship of picture

Yes, "Fair use" (not "unnecessary nudity") is the Wiki-censor's excuse of choice. Got to do these things right, you know. Too bad the real reason for removing the picture was stated up front though. Dekkappai 16:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not throw loaded words like "censorship" around. Remember to assume that other editors are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia. While you are correct that (for example) articles on porn stars should not be removed just because some people disapprove of pornography, it is also the case that Wikipedia should not set out to shock, and the use of pictures containing nudity should be carefully considered to ensure that it is appropriate. I will point you to our image use policy, which states: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." (I haven't seen the picture in question, so I don't know how explicit it was; I am merely pointing out that there actually is a policy that does provide for "censoring" pictures in certain limited cases.)
Either way, it seems that the image in question violated our fair-use policy, so the question of whether its content was acceptable is irrelevant. Rather than griping that it has been removed, your time would be better spent looking for an image that we can legally use. If the woman is a notable performer, there must surely be publicity photos around that we actually can use to illustrate her under our fair use policies. — Haeleth Talk 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Haeleth. Editing in this category does make me a bit cranky sometimes because of the constant battle just to keep these articles online. I think that an informative, subjective, well-sourced resource on this subject (Japanese erotic cinema) is a valid goal, and that Wikipedia is well qualified to provide that kind of reference. I do try to assume good faith from other editors. (However, my experiences with the editor who has just nominated this article for deletion has strained my assumption of "good faith" beyond the breaking point.) If memory serves, the picture was a simple nude, offensive only to someone who would be offended by the breast of the statue of the "Spirit of Justice," but then I guess we do have people who cover that up too... Removal over concerns of Fair-use, I can understand, even if it seems to be applied more strictly to one subject than another. However, the original reason given for removal of the picture was "unnecessary nudity." My reversion reflected my belief that (inoffensive) nudity is not unnecessary in this subject. My snide comment above was because of the almost edit-war like way in which it was immediately again removed without discussion. It gave me the impression that the editor wanted to remove the image, and fished around for justification. I also feel that removing an image in an article on an actress/model is to remove real information. When I've uploaded images on similar models in the past, I've always made an effort to be inoffensive. However, with the current overzealous inforcement of "Fair use," policy, and the headache involved in determining what is Fair use, I am just playing it safe and assuming that Wikipedia does not allow images. (Except for film posters in articles on films, which, as far as I can tell, are still allowed). Regards. Dekkappai 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out, that without some "18+ years old" kind of warning, it may be illegal in certain places to show nudity on WP. WP users are not all consenting adults. It is often used by under-aged minors for school work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody in those jurisdictions decides to look up Woman. Neier 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer The above user has repeatedly expressed hostility to this entire subject, has mass-nominated articles in this subject for deletion often using dishonest means to obtain their deletion, and expresses disagreement with Wikipedia's policy of not being censored. Dekkappai 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with your bad-faith assumption here. Every article I've nominated for deletion or tagged for speedy delete, I've thought of as either not notable or in some other way not deserving to exist, in accordance to WP guidelines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As the initial submitter of this article and original removed pic, i believe apropiate to submit a new non nude pic. CuerposDigitales

  • Be my guest. But you can't use a DVD cover to illustrate the actress. As WP:FU says within its counterexamples section: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply", and a DVD cover in this context is no different from a magazine cover. Sorry... try again. Tabercil 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

no thanks i will not participate anymore... im leaving this site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CuerposDigitales (talk • contribs) 20:08, December 28, 2006 (UTC)