|
|
|
Anyone into hairy women? |
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th August 2010, 5:25pm) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (He's a real comedian.) This one could make money for a body-waxing business.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th August 2010, 8:25pm) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (He's a real comedian.) Iranian girlfriend with a wedding ring, no less.
|
|
|
|
Cimorene |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined:
Member No.: 14,655
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 26th August 2010, 3:51am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th August 2010, 8:25pm) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (He's a real comedian.) Iranian girlfriend with a wedding ring, no less. Not necessarily. I have a ring almost identical to hers that I wear on my left hand's ring finger, and I'm not married. Granted, I'm not Iranian, so there may be culture differences that I'm not aware of (though she's posing nude for and supposedly granting consent for photographs of her to be posted on Wikipedia, so that may not be the case).
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 26th August 2010, 1:25am) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) (He's a real comedian.) May have given permission for him to take the picture assuming private use, but the 20 years old comment surely guarantees that she gave no consent for its publication into the public domain in 2008 (though it depends under what laws and what time you judge the issue of ownership of the image and the image rights).
|
|
|
|
Son of a Yeti |
|
High altitude member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 415
Joined:
From: A hiding place in the Himalaya
Member No.: 8,704
|
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 26th August 2010, 2:12pm) The permission of the subject for this use is very, very shaky. The internet wouldn't have been relevant to her then. Very good point. In 1990, it might not even have occurred to her that such a photo would be seen by potentially the whole world, and as the main image on an article about a medical condition that she probably didn't even think of herself as having, if she even knew it was considered a "condition." QUOTE But the elephant in this living room is the original research involved, claiming her as an example, when her hair is just not that extraordinary. It's an excuse to put up porn, that's what I think. I thought that was assumed? QUOTE The woman in the photo does not appear to meet the definition of "hirsutism" at this medical dictionary.Noting, of course, that the topic in an actual medical dictionary (presumably reviewed by medical professionals) contains no naked pictures of women whatsoever. It's almost like they didn't think such images were absolutely essential to ensuring they were providing "adequate coverage"! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
|
|
|
|
ulsterman |
|
Senior Member
Group: Inactive
Posts: 296
Joined:
Member No.: 19,575
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 26th August 2010, 8:24pm) Noting, of course, that the topic in an actual medical dictionary (presumably reviewed by medical professionals) contains no naked pictures of women whatsoever. It's almost like they didn't think such images were absolutely essential to ensuring they were providing "adequate coverage"! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Surely by definition naked pictures of women (or even pictures of naked women) don't provide adequate coverage. They don't even illustrate adequate coverage. Still, I wouldn't say that this example proves a great deal. I've looked at more than one medical dictionary, and they'd all benefit from more illustrations. Not necessarily Shankbone-type ones, of course!
|
|
|
|
nableezy |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined:
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 26th August 2010, 4:57pm) QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 26th August 2010, 4:38pm) Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?
Only if you printed it out, wrapped some hashish in it, and smoked it. (Edit - Oops, too late! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) ) I vaguely recall that they do have stoning in some rural Iranian communities for certain offenses (presumably including porn-related ones) under Sharia law, but I don't believe their society is so far-gone as to automatically assume guilt on the part of someone who simply appears in a photograph with no clothes on. As for the guy who took the photo... maybe, but they'd still have to prove malicious intent for a stoning, wouldn't they? Maybe they'd just give him 50 years and have done with it. The only "crime" stoning is a punishment for under sharia is adultery by a married person, male or female. This post has been edited by nableezy:
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 26th August 2010, 12:25am) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Looking at her left hand, there appears to be a wedding ring on her third finger. However, I am not sure of the Iranian habit in this area. It would seem something is wrong then if it is his "girlfriend". Of course, it is the Wikipedia and so a) it is bogus, b) it is up there for its kinky porn value and c) it is an invasion of the woman's privacy and should be removed.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 26th August 2010, 7:25pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 26th August 2010, 12:25am) I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Looking at her left hand, there appears to be a wedding ring on her third finger. However, I am not sure of the Iranian habit in this area. It would seem something is wrong then if it is his "girlfriend". Of course, it is the Wikipedia and so a) it is bogus, b) it is up there for its kinky porn value and c) it is an invasion of the woman's privacy and should be removed. You're not big on actually reading, are ya. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Thu 26th August 2010, 7:08pm) Thus, is it a candidate for the Tar-pit? It would definitely be a candidate for the tar-pit if WP were to remove the image from the article in question. Given that they probably won't do that, I don't believe our Google-footprint is big enough to make much difference juice-wise in a search for, say, "hairy women," but if someone were to convince us otherwise, I would probably go along with it. I realize that some WP'ers will see this as a form of blackmail, which is fine as far as I'm concerned (though I wouldn't have intended this, and it's a bit of a stretch in any event considering how limited our influence is over there). If they can't independently verify who this person is, and all they have is "I took the picture with the consent of my Iranian girlfriend" from the guy who uploaded it, they shouldn't be running it anywhere on the page, much less at the very top. How do we even know that the statement isn't a dodge? His "Iranian girlfriend" might have "consented" for him to take the photo of a completely different person, who might not even be Iranian!Of course, that's just my opinion, and I can sympathize with the argument that the woman is barely recognizable... but who knows, maybe that's an argument in favor of removal, since people might more easily mistake the subject for someone they know? (Assuming they haven't seen her naked already?)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 26th August 2010, 1:59pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 26th August 2010, 3:12pm) The woman in the photo does not appear to meet the definition of "hirsutism" at this medical dictionary.From the link you gave: " Such male-pattern growth of terminal body hair usually occurs in androgen-stimulated locations, such as the face, chest, and areolae". That actually is what's in the pic, last I looked. She's hairier than I am. By far. The glabrous girl and the hispid boy Made all the flowers mad with joy, While the hispid girl and the glabrous youth Made even roses seem uncouth....
So, to your respective sexes, flee! Hispidity, glabrosity.I don't know who wrote that. Hilaire Belloc, maybe.
|
|
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
I may as well do this here and see if anyone decides to pick it up at Commons. The hairy woman image was originally uploaded by Commons user "The Duke of Geography" on 8 July 2008. The original file name was"IRAN-01.JPG" and a Google search will find copies of it under that name. It is obvious to me from the vertical banding that the source of the image is a printout or older colour photocopy. The cropping of the face has also cropped out a red dot in the upper left hand corner. That red dot is a push pin. This is an photo of a printed image tacked up to something. That may be more apparent when one sees the original uncropped version where part of the surrounding are visible ( not the one that was uploaded to Commons and subsequently cropped to remove the face). While this may not have been known to Commons editors at the time, it should be sufficient now to get the image deleted. Oh wait, this is Commons we're talking about, of course that won't be enough! Let's look at the source, then. The Duke of Geography uploaded a number of copyvio images of American football players, all of which were deleted. Odd that anyone would trust the user's claims on subsequent image upload but again, this is Commons. Over on WP, that same user was blocked briefly (never to return) after this outbursts like this and: QUOTE What the fuck is your fucking problem you damn bitch. The dude is a member of the Chicago Bears roster, he on a professional fucking football team for crying out fucking loud. I'm trying to make the article better. This shit don't happen overnight. Look at the Cody Balogh article. This one is gonna look just like that. I authored both. Give me a fuckin break. I just started editing and you wanna delete it. Damn. --[[User:Duke of Geography|Duke of Geography]] ([[User talk:Duke of Geography|talk]]) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC) So, a valued contributor. What about the user's other uploads of hirsute women? All taken from an article in a dermatological journal. If everything else uploaded by the user is a copyright violation, even Commons admins may be able to overlook the fact that it's an image of a naked woman and bring themselves to delete it. If not, let me know - there's more where that came from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |