Talk:David Hamilton (photographer)

Medications
There seems to be some discrepancy regarding the exact placement of the medication. The last reversion stated that they were located in the bathroom; however the references were not quoted in English within the reference. A simple google search: "David Hamilton Photographer Medications" renders placement "nearby", "near", "by" the/his body with most dates accessed: Nov. 26, 2016 on first 3 pages alone. What is the consensus for this wording within the article? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more specific to indicate that the medications were found in the bathroom, then indicating that the medications were nearby, near or by the body. I believe no articles indicated in which room the body was found. Google search engine gave me only the article of La Parisienne writing that "médicaments été retrouvée dans sa salle de bain". A search using "David Hamilton" and "medications" or "drugs" did not give any result. I don't see why the Wikipedia-article should mention that medication was found near the body given the fact that it is unknown what kind of medication this was, and it is unknown if he actually ingested medication during the evening of his death. Moreover, the autopsy revealed that the medications were not the cause of his death. Wvdpanhuysen (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I am in agreement here in a sort of "what does it really matter" if the form of suicide was asphyxiation? First, I stated that a google search of "David Hamilton Photographer Medications" revealed the claims; not "David Hamilton Medications". You'll find 5 pages (plus) deep of "nearby", "near", "by" the/his body with most dates accessed: Nov. 26, 2016 (the same as yours cited). The two references on this talk page alone contradict one another. (Translated) #1: "His death was discovered around 9:30 pm and drugs were discovered near the body." #3: According to another source close to the investigation, the photographer allegedly ingested alcohol and drugs were found in his bathroom. No where in the article section does it mention "alcohol" in his system, so why the importance of medication if they were merely in his bathroom? Doesn't everyone have medication in their bathroom? I am in agreement: "why even mention the medications?" are you willing to remove the statement? Maineartists (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can remove the statement in the article about the medications. Wvdpanhuysen (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusations
It should be noted that Flavie Flament only remembered having been raped about 30 years later after hypnotherapy revealed a repressed memory and that hypnotherapy has a spurious record of recovering false memories. Also the 3 other accusers only spoke to Flament and she would not reveal their names making the existence of the other accusers questionable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TA4352 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Flavie_Flament#%E2%80%9DFaire_entrer_dans_la_loi_l%E2%80%99amn%C3%A9sie_traumatique_serait_dangereux%E2%80%9D
 * They were discussing this same topic. 2804:14C:21:5105:B401:1CB2:56F5:154C (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

How did Hamilton achieve his soft focus?
I suggest deleting the reference to how Hamilton NOT achieved the soft focus effect (Vaseline), especially as the way he DID achieve it is not provided. Ho Bo Woods (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusations
Why place controversial and unproved facts right at the beginning of the photographer's biography page to cause unnecessary fear mongering and practically brand his name as a rapist instead of a great photographer?

He was 83, he was at the end of his life, and I'm not making conjectures here, but his family would have to live with the stigma for many years to come. Not to mention that at that age you have little will to fight left, even if you're on the right.

Let me guess, you have special rights to edit articles and apply censorship to others who may know even more about the article's subject because you have a special account of X years old here? It is a shame that wikipedia is supposed to be the first biographical article to show up on search engines. This article, in special, was possibly edited by individuals who may or may not have a political agenda behind them and who probably never even touched Hamilton's Oeuvre. Who really knows? Absolutely insane. Do what you will, I won't even bother anymore, to the detriment of researchers of his art.

Quite honestly, this whole article sounds extremely shady and manipulated to be something far lesser than it should be. It does not reflect David Hamilton or his Art and Oeuvre.

The English Article is a cheap and even worst copy of the French one, because they don't even know how to buy or pirate the book by Flavie Flament to read the damn source of controversy. Absolutely hilarious.

At least the article in German (and some other languages) is more succint and comprehensive. But hey, let's start with rape accusations and some irrelevant fact about 'vaseline' on the English one. Absolute horror. I wonder if you can drag wikipedia articles to court for the way in which they were written, even if this is a collective effort.

I will just link this discussion from 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Hamilton_(photographer)/Archive_1 Even before David Hamilton was dead, individuals were apparently already making erroneous and extravagant descriptions out of his rape accusations. This whole article is a mess and it should be created one individual section for all the controversies instead of highlighting all the scandals right at the beginning or throughout the whole article. Instead, this biography should have more focus on Hamilton's life. I feel like the German Article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hamilton was trying to achieve this. This article seems to make a monster out of David Hamilton and other photographers due to the excessive scandals and baseless allegations out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14c:21:5105:5d7:c1b1:b6f4:5ba1 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * " Wikipedia has a strict privacy policy that specifies that we only allow edits or logs, once they are suppressed, to be viewed by a small, vetted, and identified team of highly-trusted users ("Oversighters"). " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight
 * " How to mediate [...] Editors enter into mediation voluntarily and may withdraw from mediation at any time "
 * " Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
 * No one even answers the questions and it is very likely that the editors themselves don't know how to handle (or what even is) a clearly biased article with almost libellous allegations and a short and butchered lifestory section since 2016.
 * A woman writes a book, with David Hamilton's photograph on the cover, claims that she was raped by the photographer and suddenly multiple media sources embrace the news and even a series is advertised. Subsequently, Hamilton apparently commits suicide.
 * No one even cares to cite the passages or the pages of the book in the english article, and if the english article is bad, others in other languages will follow to be even worst. Curiously, they take care to mention this fact after the brief summary of Hamilton's titles, disregarding completely his oeuvre or any work of art made by him in long years of work. Apparently, a trusted source in wikipedia is: a website with HTTPS enabled visited by a large enough amount of users and a few academic archives in pdf if the "editors" are stupid enough to not find the subject's material directly related to the topic.
 * Again, a website visited by hundreds and thousands, and this is a 'low-importance' article in the hands of a few "editors". No one knows who they are and no one knows if they have knowledge about the article's subject. The "editors" (cunts with a login username and password) always hold the upper-hand of the last changed piece and can apply censorship at free-will and even send (really scary!) warnings to other users IPs. Every time that you start to change the article, even to delete irrelevant or duplicate pieces of information about the accusation that is already there, you need to reach a "Consensus" with the "Editors" who did not even bother to read the literature or even the short poems inside Hamilton's photographic books or about the alleged raped woman Flavie Flament.
 * What is the result ? A butchered piece of trash article about the "life" of a man from the 20th century written by a bunch of internet rats
 * If such things are possible, to defame (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:David_Hamilton) a recently dead person against their will in a widely visited website, is this because the readers are completely doped or illiterate?
 * Hell, I am leaving here, waste of life-time. 2804:14C:21:5105:890E:4BC8:60C0:1AC9 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)