Talk:Josh Duhamel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Nude picture

Someone added the nude coffee table picture. Are we sure it's appropriate? JackO'Lantern 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, there must be a better photo out there.

I second that, why is IT so hard to find a promotional shot of him clothed. He is known msotly for his ACTING not nude modelling he did years ago. --SarahJessicaBarker 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't what he is most known for. The issue is that this is a perfectly fine picture that illustrates an aspect of the article. The picture is not pornography. It is not graphic. All your argument basically comes down to is that you don't want to see his penis. If you don't want to see his penis, then there's a very simple solution: don't look at it. But if you want the picture removed, you should find a better reason than that you don't like looking at it, because all that amounts to is censorship. Bottom line is that the picture is not pornography; it is correctly labeled; its source is identified; it is authentic, and it illustrates the text. It follows all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Body Acceptance 07:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all DONT ASSUME i dont like it, i think it is a very nice picture. If anything, I THINK PEOPLE WILL BE OFFENDED by the picture, which is why i dont think it should be displayed. Im not actually being selfish, im thinking about other people. The truth is, alot of people aren't against nudity in general they are against nudity in public, and this site is public. If this werent the case, why are there laws against nudity and why do sites with nudity have warnings about "mature content" and why was Ms Janet Jacksons frigging breast such the center of controversy? If you want to see his penis, then there's a simple solution: look at it elsewhere, thats what i'd be doing. BUT out of respect for others who are not warned about this article, it is best if we don't have it here displayed. If you wanted to address that he was in this book and illustrated text, there are two other pictures which arent as graphic and more suitable to a site like this. --SarahJessicaBarker 10:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the picture for fear that it might offend some people is not justification for removing or altering the picture; all it ultimately boils down to is you being a censor. You do not run Wikipedia and you do not write Wikipedia policy. If you want familiarize to yourself with Wikipedia policy, read this page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And then you might want to look at this page, which will help you realize that on the scale of what else is allowed on Wikipedia, this picture of Josh Duhamel is quite tame and few would bat an eye at it: User:Markaci/Nudity.

Your argument about the Janet Jackson controversy does not stand, because that was specifically a US controversy and Wikipedia is an international site. People in other nations laughed at that controversy, and most in other nations would not be shocked by the site of Josh Duhamel's penis. And if you look at the Wikipedia article about the Janet Jackson controversy, you will see that, unlike television news censors when they replayed the clip over and over for ratings, Wikipedia allows an uncensored picture of Janet Jackson with her nipple exposed.

Before you get all bent out of shape about the depiction of a man's penis, you might want to educate yourself as to the aims, goals, priorities, and procedures of Wikipedia. And please stop altering the picture of Josh Duhamel. Until you stop altering it, it will just be an endless back-and-forth of you altering it and me unaltering it. And I have better things to do, and I think you probably do as well. Body Acceptance 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your refereal of [[1]] except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links....this is understandable, BUT you also seemed to forget that Josh posed for two other pictures [2] and [3]... that are also suitable and also directly pertain to the text. [[4]] says Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. Generally, people are going to be less offended by the other two pictures mentioned which also still relate to the text, the two original posts indicated that yes believe it or not it has been deemed inappropriate by people other than me, considering there are alternatives that would still relate to the article. Why is it that not posting the frontal picture would be less informative, relevant or accurate to the text? If you can give me a logical explanation i'll leave, to be honest i don't care how this situation ends up and as you have stated, we do have better things to do than bitch over this. --SarahJessicaBarker 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to upload those other pictures, then by all means feel free. If you find a nude picture of Josh Duhamel to be something that falls under the category of "offensive, profane, or obscene", then I think you have some self-examination to do. If you find that picture offensive, profane, and obscene, then you also either need to read the text that describes the picture, or you need to edit it. In case you haven't read the portion of the text that describes the picture, here it is:

"Duhamel's first acting role was in 1999, starring in the independent film The Picture of Dorian Gray as the title character. ABC then called him to test for the soap opera All My Children; ABC executives wanted him for the role so much that they postponed the character's first air date by more than a month to accommodate his schedule. Duhamel played the role between 1999 and 2002; while appearing on the show, it was revealed that he had posed nude for a performance art coffee table book a couple of years before. The book was re-published and sold many more copies."

For the umpteenth time, that paragraph defines the picture as "art". If you believe that this picture is offensive, profane, and obscene, then apparently you disagree with the article's assertion that it is art. If this is the case, then you had better edit the text to say, "While on the show, it was revealed that he had posed for offensive, profane, and obscene pictures." Are you prepared to make that edit?

As to your assertion that people would be "less offended" by "the other two pictures", you should reconsult the portion of the text that says that this book sold "many more copies" when people found that this nude picture of Josh Duhamel is in it. Would people buy something they are offended by? Are you prepared to edit the text to say something like, "Despite being offended by these pictures, many people bought many more copies"? Body Acceptance 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with the patronising? I never directly stated the picture was "obscene, offensive or profrane" however i do believe people will be "less offended" (in reference to the 'offensive' bit) with one of the other two being posted instead of this frontal. I SAID it would be "less offensive" to show one of the other two. The case in general is that people are less likely to be offended by a picture of just his butt, rather than his penis. You never gave me a logical explanation as to why the picture currently posted is more deserving than the other two, which i have agreed to is more appropritate as it not only will refer to the text in the article, but in general it will not cause much of a controversy the current one has already. I ask, would it be okay to swap the current picture for the one i have suggested, if so then i will replace it, if not than please tell me why and as i said if its within good reason i will leave, i mean ive left the picture you wanted there, and what you come back with is that it "sold alot more copies" "would people buy something that would offend them".......SOOOO? There is a reason why people BOUGHT THAT BOOK it was because they obviously WERE NOT offended by the nudity. On the other hand, people are not EXPECTING to see full frontal nudity when they visit this page. Unlike you, i am trying to see this from two points of view, you just seem to be under the impression that the world revolves around your ideals....I am just saying that there are varying shades of grey and not black and white. I did not say i didnt consider the work ART, this has nothing to do with just MY own opinion, i am trying to see it from another point of view. Believe me, if it was up to me and i was the only one who would be able to see this photo than i would not mind at all. So please, consider my request to change the picture to the other two or at least tell me why this should stay, until then ill leave your picture withstanding. Just how is the current picture more relevant, informative or accurate to the other two or was it pure coincdence you wanted the frontal on there? --SarahJessicaBarker 07:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any more time for this discussion. I've said all I have to say. If you want to add another picture, go for it. But the question of why I think the picture is relevant and should remain has already been addressed. What you haven't addressed is why you are obsessed with removing the picture. Or, rather, you have addressed that, and I have found your argument to be weak and tedious. I just don't have any more time for this. But I will keep restoring the picture if you keep messing with it. Maybe at some point you'll realize that when you refer to "some people" who would be offended by the picture, you are actually talking about yourself. You are a prude. There's no more polite way to state it. Sorry. And good-bye. Body Acceptance 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My proposition was not to remove the picture but to change the picture to one of the other two that was in the book."let's find a better photo" "removed unacceptable photo" "let's get a better second photo for this page" "anyone got a better photo?) " Here are quotes from users OTHER THAN MYSELF [5] who have a problem with the photo, which is evidence THAT the photo is actually controversial, the only other stuff that is defending it is you or at least i am assuming that is you since you seem to be using the same arguments. . If you desperately want the photo to be placed, why not just make an article on the book itself. You seriously need to think about other people than yourself. Do i have to clarify that there were already two people who wanted the picture REMOVED as stated before this argument started? It already goes to show the picture WOULD actually be a problem to people other than yourself. I understand fully why you want the picture to stay and i have stated i have no problem with the picture staying THAT IS WHY i have actually let the picture there, if i was so offended by the picture i would be removing the picture everytime i came onto the page. I never stated that i was OFFENDED by the picture, the whole assumption of that has obviously crossed your mind too much and that is the only thing you are willing to say to back up your argument. I frankly don't care for this anymore, and i'll leave you to it. If this picture does what i am thinking and causes more arguments in the future, than it will be only your problem to deal with and just further proof of what i have stated. Thank you and Goodbye. --SarahJessicaBarker 03:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors.

—This unsigned comment was added by Body Acceptance (talk • contribs) .

That doesn't mean we have to have a nude photo when a normal one will suffice, AND be more representative of his acting. --Rory096 04:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added because I think it is not bad, he made the art, so why can't it be in his wiki page?

What exactly does this picture look like?? Can someone post a link to it?? I want to see if it is appropriate. Lil Flip246 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)