Talk:Josh Duhamel

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 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? Body Acceptance 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)