Talk:Nicole, Erica and Jaclyn Dahm

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
This article is imported from Everything2.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=669790

"but twins appeared three times:


 * Mary and Madeleine Collinson (October 1970)
 * Karin and Mirjam van Breeschooten a.k.a. Dutch Twins (September 1989)
 * Darlene and Carol Bernaola (January 2000)
 * Daisy and Sarah Teles (December 2003)

It must be noted, that triplets are quite well represented in Playboy, since they have appeared in 1 out of 672 issues (0.15%), compared with 0.18% triplet birth rate. Twins, on the other hand, have appeared only in four issues (0.6%), five times less than the 2.9% rate of twin births."

Cut because it doesn't have to be noted: one appearance has no statistical significance. The info on twins is irrelevant to this article; it could go in a "Twins in Playboy" article if anyone's bored. Markalexander100 13:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not actually the only or even the first...
...if you include international editions of Playboy. The Brazilian edition featured a set of Brazilian triplets named Marilise, Lilian and Renata Porto on the October 1992 issue. The photographer was Pedro Martinelli. Apparently the pictorial was published in the American November 1993 issue -- not as Playmates to be sure, BUT they were featured on the cover. MCBastos 06:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Father Suggestion
"Their father was aware of the triplets' potential and encouraged them to try for Play..boy 's Girls of the Big Ten issue. They were selected for this pictorial in October 1997." 

Necessary?
Is this picture in the article really necessary?Surely someone can find a non-pornographical picture of Erica Dahn.


 * ??? If it isn't a hardcore video...is it even really "porn" in the modern era? They're just nude models.


 * It's more that it depicts what they're famous for; and doesn't display frontal nudity. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If he thinks that's porn, he needs to get out more often. Besides, it serves an educational purpose, as it allows scientific study comparing the attributes of triplets. :) Wahkeenah 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nude photos of porn models, I think probably qualifies as porn. You don't think? Spottacus 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, where's your evidence that they are "porn models"? Centerfolds in Playboy do not qualify as porn. And nude posing, by itself, is not porn, no matter who's doing the posing. Wahkeenah 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Our real problem here is that you've disonnected from reality. Playboy is a publication which distributes pornography. The photographs of naked women in Playboy are pornography. And the nude photograph included in this article is no different. Spottacus 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are lots of commercial pictures, a number of personal ones, but they're neither free nor would qualify as Fair use, so we can't put them in our article. We will obviously never get a release for commercial photos. But in the interests of compromise, I'll write a couple of people who put up personal photos and will ask them if they'll release them under full creative commons.    I've had a moderate amount of success with that - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If they release, we'll put up one of those. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair. Call me a prude, but having three little boys will do that to you. Also, I really think it's fair to expect Wikipedia articles to be scholarly in their content and character, and reproducing images from Playboy doesn't meet that standard. Spottacus 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The second one I linked seems the best candidate, since it doesn't include anyone else and is already under CC-with-no-derivative license, so at least the photographer knows what CC means, so hopefully won't be too averse to reducing to solely CC. I wrote there, and will wait a few days before trying the others. Fair warning about the boys, though - in 10-15 years, they'll have plenty of Playboy images, the only question is will they be taped up on their walls or hidden in their sock drawers... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. Heck, I checked out Playboy myself as a kid. But to borrow a metaphor, you don't feed steak to a baby, and you don't give porn to a little kid if you can help it. Wait until he's old enough to interpret what he's seeing according to the training he's received from you. That's part of the reason I think it's so important for Wikipedia articles to have high standards. I'd like my boys to be able to use Wikipedia as an educational tool without being exposed to questionable images and content. Spottacus 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, people who say "I'm not a prude", usually are. Nudity does not equate to pornography. Playboy is not pornographic. Penthouse and Hustler are. However, if someone can find a free photo, then this fair-use photo could be replaced as per wiki guidelines. As far as your kids go, wikipedia is relatively uncensored, and any foul-mouthed fool can edit it, so your kids shouldn't be using it. Wahkeenah 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response is entertaining, Wahkeenah. Read carefully - I didn't say I'm not a prude. I said you can call me one. And you did. Congratulations. As far as whether Playboy is pornographic, I think society has determined that it is, and that's why children aren't permitted to buy it, adults are supposed to show ID to purchase it, and it's required to be displayed in a plastic sheath with the cover obscured. That seems pretty conclusive to me.Spottacus 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not pornographic, nor has society determined any such thing, and how would you know an ID is required? Covering it is "erring on the side of caution", as the cover is typically no more risque than the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, which some folks also find pornographic, but that don't make it so. And you didn't respond to my main point, so I'll make it again: your kids should not be reading wikipedia. It allows anyone to edit; thus, despite its pretentions, and with or without risque photos, it is not worthy of the term "encyclopedia". My advice to you is to stick with Britannica. Wahkeenah 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I don't think it is covered. It's merely sealed in plastic... erring on the side of caution. Wahkeenah 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org and I noticed your Flickr photo of the Dahm triplets, "echoes", at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nolimits/33476420/. We have an article on them which could use a more appropriate image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole%2C_Erica_and_Jaclyn_Dahm I noticed your photo is under the Creative Commons license, which we can use, but with the "no derivative works" restriction, which we aren't allowed to use (since arguably just reducing it or including it in the article is a derivative work).  Could I ask that you change its license to straight Creative Commons/Attribution? We'll gladly give you credit as the photographer, and then we will be able to display it in the article for many people to see. (Currently the Wikipedia as a whole is the 11th most popular site in the world. http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=Wikipedia.org )  If you agree, just change the license tag on that Flickr image page, and reply to this mail. Thanks!  An Anon E Mouse Wikipedia editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnonEMouse --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bzzt! Fifteen yards - unnecessary roughness! No benefit from calling people names. The photographer for the image linked to above agreed to change the license to allow it on Wikipedia, and it will be changed in just a few minutes. (I think that makes 3 agreements out of 5 requests for me, pretty good!) Here, instead of 15 yards, or 15 pushups, can I assign the penalty of finding another completely free image for an article? Example requests for permission has more formal requests, here's what I wrote that worked this time:


 * Excellent. Although I almost didn't recognize them with their clothes on. >:) Wahkeenah 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to see my point of view, Mouse. And seeing an improvement to Wikipedia is worth it, even if I had to put up with some name calling. Thanks, all. Spottacus 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody called you any names. And I said that if a free image could be found, that would be fine, and there was one found, and that's fine. Wahkeenah 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)