Anyone into hairy women? Options

[CharlotteWebb]

Could this kind of thing get you stoned in Iran?

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.

To be fair, he may be asking about the hirsutism itself, not than the photo of it.

[Somey]

To be fair, he may be asking about the hirsutism itself, not than the photo of it.

Naah, Mr. Emperor isn't that ignorant of Persian culture. If Iranians started stoning each other just for being hirsute... well, I could make a joke about this, but that would be highly inappropriate for an occasionally family-friendly website.

[CharlotteWebb]

To be fair, he may be asking about the hirsutism itself, not than the photo of it.

Naah, Mr. Emperor isn't that ignorant of Persian culture. If Iranians started stoning each other just for being hirsute... well, I could make a joke about this, but that would be highly inappropriate for an occasionally family-friendly website.

Hairy Iranian Women #12 & 35?

Where's Moulton?

[EricBarbour]

Hairy Iranian Women #12 & 35?
Where's Moulton?

NO!! NO!!! DON'T PUT THAT THING ON ME!!!!

AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

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]

I have to wonder if he obtained the permission of his Iranian-girlfriend-back-in-1989.

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.

[LessHorrid vanU]

... But the elephant in this living room is...

A mammoth?

Thus, is it a candidate for the Tar-pit?

[Somey]

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?)

[gomi]

Thus, is it a candidate for the Tar-pit?

Perhaps we need a BLY(*) forum.

(*) Biographies of Living Yetis

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

His "Iranian girlfriend" might have "consented" for him to take the photo of a completely different person, who might not even be Iranian!

This is true ... it might just be a racist stab. Whatever it is, it is all wrong and should be deleted.

If they need illustrations, they should be akin to medical journals and not pornographically posed.

[EricBarbour]

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.

Tried Google--this thread has no visibility that I can find.
It did get posted on Reddit yesterday.....and that DID end up on the Google hit-parade.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 27th August 2010, 2:10am

[Anonymous editor]

surely we have readers who can do something about this.

[Somey]

surely we have readers who can do something about this.

Maybe the thread title is preventing people from reading any of it? After all, hardly anybody these days is really "into hairy women," and those who are... well, less said the better, I suppose. (No offense to any women reading this who might consider themselves "hairy," of course.)

Now, back in the 15th Century... things was different.

[Milton Roe]

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.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

surely we have readers who can do something about this.

Rename to 'Anyone into getting hairy women out of the Wikipedia?'

[EricBarbour]

15 months later, and the photo is still on Commons.

[carbuncle]

15 months later, and the photo is still on Commons.

What were you expecting? I can make something happen, if you like, but did you really expect anyone at Commons to act on their own?

[SB_Johnny]

15 months later, and the photo is still on Commons.

What were you expecting? I can make something happen, if you like, but did you really expect anyone at Commons to act on their own?

Actually, it seems they cropped the face out a few months ago (look at the file history).

[Michaeldsuarez]

Actually, it seems they cropped the face out a few months ago (look at the file history).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...h_hirsutism.jpg

They uploaded a cropped version and deleted the old file history with "privacy issue" as the stated reason due to the following deletion discussion:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...h_hirsutism.jpg

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Mon 28th November 2011, 2:22pm

[carbuncle]

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:

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.