Talk:Mata Hari

message: The word "scapegoat" appears ten times in this short article. Throgmo (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias/Poor writing 

message: If I saw as many penises as naked women on wikipedia, it would be one thing, but a lot of these seem to be 'gratuitous' depictions that add nothing to their story. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
While some aspects of ethical photography and publication are controlled by law, there are moral issues too. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:[7]"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law. The extent to which an image might be regarded as "unfairly obtained" or to be "intrusive", for example, is a matter of degree and may depend on the nature of the shot, the location, and the notability of the subject.
The provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. A "downblouse" photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject's face is cropped out. A paparazzi telephoto shot of a naked sunbather does not become acceptable merely by pixelating the face.
In the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test to doubtful images, the degree to which an image meets our educational project scope may also be considered. When in doubt, there is no requirement for Commons to host any image of a person.
The degree to which a subject is identifiable varies. An image that includes a clear view of the face is highly identifiable. Other features of the person's body, clothing or the location may help with identifying the subject. Outside of the image, clues may be obtained from the image title, description, origin, source url, and meta-data including but not limited to the geolocation and date. The greater the privacy issue with an image, the more weight should be given to the risk of identification by non-obvious means. Whether the person is the clear subject of the photograph or a mere bystander or background detail is another important factor.
The risk of identification can be minimised by not including certain information in the image description. However some details regarding the origin of the image (such as source url and author) may be a requirement of the source image licence or Commons policy, so cannot be removed. It may also be possible to shoot the subject from a different angle or frame it differently.
It is better to obtain consent than to attempt to anonymise an image that may require it. Placing a black band over the eyes was historically used to hide patient identity in medical publications but is no longer considered effective.[8] Pixelated features can sometimes be revealed by squinting one's eyes. Certain seemingly irreversible visual alterations such as applying a "twirl" effect over a subject's face may in fact be reversible.[9] These crude attempts to anonymise images may damage the value of an image to Commons to such a degree that it has limited or no realistic chance of being used.
Where the law forbids taking or publishing a photograph of a person without consent, and consent has not been given, then making the subject hard to identify (such as blurring their face) is unethical: the photograph should not be uploaded to Commons.
The following examples typically require consent
A man and woman talking, entitled "A prostitute speaks to her pimp" (possible defamation)
An identifiable child, entitled "An obese girl" (potentially derogatory or demeaning)
Partygoers at a private party, unless press is specifically invited (unreasonable intrusion)
Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place – even if the subject's face is obscured (unreasonable intrusion)
:: Answer. Part of the allure associated with this event was the fact she was a well known (and publicly sexualized) figure. Taking professional photographs in the nude was a defining aspect of the cultural movement for which she was famous.  See "Must we dance naked?": Art, Beauty, and Law in Munich and Paris, 1911–1913 by EDWARD ROSS DICKINSON in Journal of the History of Sexuality Vol. 20, No. 1 (JANUARY 2011), pp. 95-131 (37 pages), Published By: University of Texas Press,  https://www.jstor.org/stable/40986356  
::This was a professionally produced photograph, clearly created for distribution and public viewing, and with her consent. If you look through the gettyimage catalog ( https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/mata-hari?family=editorial&phrase=mata%20hari&sort=mostpopular ) you will notice that she frequently posed for nude photography or artwork.  Similarly, Wall Street Journal (01/16/97, Vol. 229 Issue 11, pA16) describes her as "a notorious nude dancer who was a spy for the Germans during World War I." This was clearly an artform for which she was known.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.82.209 (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the purpose, exactly of the nude photo of this woman? apart from gratuitous porn of a potentially innocent dead person?  

message: Reference 32 "Brieven van Mata Hari (Letters of Mata Hari)." has a dead link  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.190.233 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Zsa Zsa Gabor Played Mata Hari in the Movie Up The Front (1972)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.70.92 (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible edit to Popular Culture 

message: The infobox says: Allegiance France.  Is that correct? Charles Juvon (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegiance France 

message: This article links to a source that claims that Mata Hari’s birth house was destroyed. This claim is factual untrue but newspapers kept on copying each other’s story. 
That fire destroyed two ajactend buildings and the only casualty was in her birth house. However, that person died of smoke inhalation . The fire it self was never in the building. It was just smoke, heat and water damage. The birth house was fully restored in the years after.
Correct Dutch article of regional media outlet (use google translate). 
Could someone please remove that note? Sidebart (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth house was not destroyed 

message: The Espionage Section is written in a manner which appears inconsistent with regard to Mata Hari's guilt or innocence. Was she a spy for France? Germany? Both? Neither? What is the scholarly consensus? The perspective of the writing appears to support all of these premises at varying points, which is contradictory to say the least. The reader is left confused as to what actually occurred and what was merely accusation. Objectivity, clarity, accuracy, and consistency should be prioritized in a revised version of this section. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espionage