File talk:Prostitute tj.jpg

How are we sure this is actually a prostitute? Would hate to have some poor girl be featured on the prostitute page just because she dresses skimpy.Leonffs (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is potential libel. It's not like she has a sign advertising sex, she's a girl at a phone booth. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously she's a prostitute because she's A DIRTY MEXICAN! In all seriousness, this photo is not factual in ANY sense and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It offers no verifiable, informational value and is potentially slanderous. 132.216.59.40 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is correct to show a girl wearing shorts and portait her as a prostitute.. T-oliveira (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you make the same argument for basically any picture on wikipedia? How do we really know anything pictured is what the photographer claims it is? In this case we have a woman dressed as a prostitute photographed in an area well known for legal prostitution. It doesn't show her face so it would be very difficult to identify her. This picture is perfectly acceptable for wikipedia by any standard. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is she "dressed as a prostitute"? Is there a manual or guidelines on how to dress like a prostitute? I mean, she's just wearing high heels, short shorts, and a top of some sort. As far as I can tell, she's dressed like the average female young adult. Go to the mall and you'll see high schoolers and adults dressed the same, maybe even less conservatively. 66.170.43.128 (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]