Talk:Mata Hari

1985 Film
I came here hoping to find some reference to the 1985 film and its accuracy. Since it stars Sylvia Kristel, famous for her roles in the Emmanuelle series, I have doubt the film's focus was historical accuracy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089565/

There appears to have been several other renditions of Mata Hari throughout cinematic history, which at least merit mention beside Greta Garbo's.

Further, the page herein seems to be overly abundant with video game refernces that either use Mata Hari's name only, or are genericaly derived from her. There are many real world, literary, and cinematic refernces that are probably much more deserving of mention than these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.34.148 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 November 2005

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

Pop culture reference: War in Hell
I remember she is one of the characters in the 'Heroes in Hell' series of books. However, it's a sort of shared world thing and it's a LONG time since I read it, so I don't remember the details well enough to add it sensibly, like in which of the books or which author, which would be necessary for veracity. (Besides being new to this wikipedia edit thing). If someone has the books at hand and can double check this, please do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.95.71 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 September 2006

1970s documents
I just removed the following material:

German documents unsealed in the 1970s proved that Mata Hari truly had been a German agent. In the autumn of 1915, she had entered the German secret service, and on orders of section III B-Chief Walter Nicolai, had been instructed about her duties by Major Roepell during a stay in Cologne. Her reports were to be sent to the Kriegsnachrichtenstelle West (War News Post West) in Düsseldorf under Roepell as well as to the Agent mission in the German embassy in Madrid under Major Arnold Kalle, with her direct handler being Captain Hoffmann, who also gave her the code name H-21.

I removed this because the reference does not support what is started and on at least one point contradicts this material (specifically where she received the code name H-21). If there are other references to the documents released in the 70s feel free to put back in the supported material. I'd love to hear a legitimate summary of what they actually contain. However, until there is a source, given how poor the information is, I'm ready to doubt those documents exist at all, especially since I haven't seen reference to them in other things I've read about Mata Hari.

what is the purpose, exactly of the nude photo of this woman? apart from gratuitous porn of a potentially innocent dead person?
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)

Possible edit to Popular Culture
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)

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

Birth house was not destroyed
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)

Espionage
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)