Talk:James Dean/Archive 1

message: 1. Reportedly from Gavin Lambert's Natalie Wood biography: (a gossip book reviewed by 
also The Guardian)
p. 168: "Another crosscurrent developed when Sal Mineo echoed the character he played by becoming strongly attracted to Dean. Both Dean and Nick were aware of it; and Nick, who was also aware of Dean's bisexuality, asked him to "use" it in their scenes together. Accordingly, Dean told Mineo "to look at me the way I look at Natalie," and a subtle erotic tension develops when the screen threesome spend a night in the deserted mansion. Mineo's Plato glances longingly at Dean's Jim Stark, who gives him a quick smile with an undercurrent of flirtation, while Natalie's Judy is too involved with Jim to notice."
p. 576: "As Natalie later recalled, he [Nick Ray] felt that "it was important to know a lot personally about the actor ," and he also felt that the director had to discover as much as he could about himself. When he pointed the finger at absent or inadequate fatherhood in all three families, it pointed at himself as well. He drew on his own life to understand and probe the bisexuality of Dean and Mineo, and as Natalie's lover, he knew the intensity of her need for love."
::Please understand that I interpret these carefully worded passages differently, and read them as rumours layered over unfounded assumptions stemming back to that single Mineo interview. Adams was a braggard and an embellisher and now doubt brought all this post mortem inuendo on himself but there is no documented evidence either NA or JD were gay. As for Dean? Clever actor. Anyway this is now covered in the articles. Is something missing? Wyss 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some quotes about Dean's sexuality 

message: User:Ted Wilkes is frequently claiming that the independent sources I have used are gossip books, but he himself is unable to cite a peer-reviewed source which he has used for his own contributions. His only strategy is to disparage my sources. Very interesting indeed. He should read the Wikipedia article on Double standard. Onefortyone 15:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: I don't think the Boze Hadleigh material is acceptable. It is unsubstantiated and as noted in a peer review his writings were critized and called suspect because Hadleigh had no tapes or anything to back up his claims of interviews with the conveniently dead people. This type of reference may be okay in a tabloid, but is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Ted Wilkes 22:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Gavin Lambert, a reputed Hollywood biographer, has also written that Dean was bisexual. There are further sources which support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 23:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lambert was careless. Worse, I think you're aware of that. Wyss 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Lambert was part of the gay Hollywood circles of the sixties. He knew very well that Dean was bisexual. Onefortyone 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever been there? The one does not follow the other. Wyss 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable references 

message: As there are additional facts which support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings, I have now changed the "Rumors" section to this version:
*Rumors about Dean's homosexual leanings
Decades after Dean's death, author Boze Hadleigh published a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo in which the actor said, "Nick (Adams) told me they had a big affair-"  However, seconds later Mineo hinted that many other Hollywood stories about secretly gay actors might be exaggerated or untrue. Adams had died four years earlier and Hadleigh's interviews are sometimes criticized for having often been misleadingly pasted together from other sources or even invented. Moreoever, Adams was well-known in Hollywood for sometimes embellishing or making up stories about his show business experiences (and had long tried to attach himself to the James Dean legend). Later, bit actor and writer John Gilmore, a member of Dean's "Night Watch" motorcyle riders, wrote a book on James Dean claiming they had a homosexual encounter. A more serious source is Gavin Lambert's Natalie Wood biography. In this book, the author, himself homosexual and part of the gay Hollywood circles of the 1950s and 1960s, describes Dean as being bisexual. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, "Dizzy" Sheridan (Jerry Seinfeld's mother to zillions of TV viewers) spoke quite candidly about the fact that she knew Dean had an affair with producer Rogers Brackett, the sophisticated radio director of a prestigious advertising agency, whom Dean met in the summer of 1951 while working as a parking attendant at CBS. In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom. Onefortyone 13:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rumors" section 

message: I don't care what JD did in bed or whatever. I do care about qualifiying assertions as to the reliability of their sources and balancing the article accordingly. Sources not based on documented evidence (verified, personal letters and interviews, court records etc) don't merit "equal space" in a helpfully written article, since that can throw off any sense of balance and hence mislead the reader. I also wonder what any of this has to do with his notability as an actor, rather than as unsupported gossip. Intimate relationships between celebrities and their colleagues are common and not in themselves notable or encyclopedic. Finally, these unsupported assertions 141 has cited about all of these people (Presley, Wood, Adams, Dean) only began to appear after they were long dead. Wyss 01:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't care 

message: Should we take the gay sex rumors to another page? Maybe combine with similar gossip about Elvis Presley and other entertainers who have been "outed" (or slandered). It's not really of general interest. Besides, you guys are alway fighting about it, and I'm getting tired of settling your squabbles. Uncle Ed 02:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Why not? Wyss 03:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: I am inspired by InvisibleSun to propose that we distinguish between reports of same-sex actions and "homosexual orientation". It would be in vain to use the James Dean article to settle the following question:
* If a person has sex with both men and women, does this mean they are "bisexual"?
Moreover, we should not be placing arguments in the article. Just quote the people who make the claims, provide links (or page numbers in books), and let the reader decide for themself.
*James Dean said he way gay [1], or
*James Dean said five mean performed fellatio on him [2], or if you can't find quotes like these,
::Here is one source of this kind of information:
:::The debate about Dean's sexuality rages passionately. He told a friend, "I've had my cock sucked by five of the biggest names in Hollywood...". He also claimed to have worked, with his friend Nick Adams, as a street hustler when he first arrived in Hollywood. When asked if he was gay, he replied, "Well, I'm certainly not going through life with one hand tied behind my back". See http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biod1/dean2.html
My suggestion is:
*James Dean had homosexual roommates, leading some biographers to speculate that he provided them sexual favors in return for help with his acting career (see casting couch). Uncle Ed 10:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hollywood screenwriter Gavin Lambert, himself homosexual, certainly must have known that Dean was bisexual, as he was in close contact to him. The problem is that User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes are frequently denigrating every source which supports my view that James Dean had homosexual leanings and is not in line with their opinion. I think this is not fair play. For instance, referring to Gavin Lambert's Wood biography, they have added, "but this book has been described as 'high class gossip.'" in order to disparage this source which clearly says that Dean was bisexual. Here is the original text from the Guardian review: "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source." This sounds somewhat different. See  It should also be noted that Publishers Weekly has a very positive review of Lambert's Wood biography saying that the author
:follows her (Wood) from such childhood triumphs as Miracle on 34th Street to her breakthrough adult part opposite James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause. ... Lambert reveals deep sensitivity and understanding of her development as an actress, and he's one of the few authors to capture the depth and beauty of her relationship with Robert Wagner. Lambert also effectively highlights Wood's shrewd professional moves, including her pretense to boss Jack Warner that she didn't want to star in Splendor in the Grass ... Lambert eloquently clarifies the self-destructive reasons behind Wood's addictions and insecurities, and in the end, readers will feel they truly know the subject more than they do in most biographies."
The book was also praised by Natalie Wood's daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner, as 
:a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her ... It will be the definitive biography on my Mother. 
Film historian Professor Joseph McBride writes,
:The novelist, screenwriter, and biographer Gavin Lambert, a British expatriate who has lived in Los Angeles since the 1950s, is a keenly observant, wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements. 
If Lambert, himself part of the gay circles in Hollywood at that time, states that James Dean was bisexual, he certainly must be accepted as a first-class source of reference, although Wyss and Ted Wilkes do not like the idea that some Hollywood stars may have had homosexual leanings. I do not understand what should be wrong with this fact.
Wyss has further changed the original text which says, 
:In Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) gay studies scholars will also find rich factual evidence of Dean's homosexual social life, and of the crucial role gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played in Dean's rise to stardom 
to the biased version,
:Val Holley's James Dean: the Biography (1997) also describes purported homosexual encounters and relationships.
Query: if you compare the different versions of the paragraph (see  and ): which one is more POV? If Dean biographer Val Holley is right, Dean's homosexual leanings played an important role in his rise to stardom. This must be mentioned in the article. Perhaps an administrator can rewrite the whole passage. Onefortyone 12:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeds vs. orientation 

message: The following is the rumours section removed by User:Ted Wilkes. I'm neutral as to its inclusion or exclusion in this form, since it's carefully built around citations (even if those cites are worthless): Wyss 10:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed rumours section 

message: This classic English-language Swedish pop song mentions many classic traits of James Dean from the perspective of a love-lorn admirer. It has its own page anyways and was a #1 hit in Sweden for two weeks. I wish to ask: why isn't it listed here under cultural references?Warriorman21 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jimmy Dean" by [[Troll]] 

message: IMDB.COM for her states she had a troubled affair with James Dean. Can any of the Dean scholars here confirm this? and if so, would it not be worth mentioning? --Art 4 Ever 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affair with actress Ursula Andress 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has numerous policies to ensure essential credibility. At Wikipedia:The perfect article it states that all articles must reflect expert knowledge, be fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles. Editors must ensure an article
*...is precise and explicit; free of vague generalities and half-truths that may stem from an imperfect grasp of the subject. 
*...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date. 
*...is very clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. Begins with a definition, and follows a logical structure; uses clearly-worded sentences, grammar, and syntax. 
One of the instruments Wikipedia has created to ensure the factual accuracy of an article is this:
 
The notice says the "article," it does not say  "except for rumors." However, any Wikipedia contributor who wants to change current Official Policy can do so via several established vehicles such as announcing a survey should on Wikipedia:Current surveys or if it is a major survey, then they may also list it on Wikipedia:Announcements. Ted Wilkes 15:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Rumors" section 

message: Why was this link to a well researched Internet biography repeatedly deleted by users Ted Wilkes and Wyss? 
See  and . Onefortyone 18:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of hyperlinks 

message: Some info taken from book - James Dean, by Sandford Roth and Beulah Roth 1983 , other info abridged from 
I reverted User:FCYTravis. The first author cited made a "claim" but without facts and Dean never said he was gay or bixseual "to set the record straight." Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't mean just prove a book by anyone exists, it is just part of providing fact-based quotes from unimpeachable sources. Third party quotes aren't encyclopedic. Comparing unsubstantiated gossip by this author to the qualifications of a trained prosecutor giving a "what-if" scenario about the O.J. Simpson case based on his legal scholarship, is not acceptable. And, Boze Hadleigh is not an acceptable source for Wikipeda, an issue already documented with precise details at Talk:Nick Adams and its Talk archives. - Ted Wilkes 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources cited do not meet WP standards for reliability, they're essentially hearsay, which is especially cheap when it comes to celebrities. Wyss 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting claim. Yet FCYTravis has here explained the sources and referred to them as major biographical works. Please explain your claim to the contrary.  Hinakana 19:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial 

message: p. 6:
"It's my belief," Wilder wrote, "that when Jimmy became a star, he was terrified that his homosexual background might be revealed.
::::::"It's my belief" means "I really don't know. It is only the personal opinion of one individual: me."66.82.9.92 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from Val Holley, ''James Dean: The Biography'' 

message: Coming from RfC, I have this to add: The controversy surrounding Dean's sexuality is absolutely a valid topic to explore. I would say that not only is the idea that such a controversy exists (not that it's true, only that it exists) sourced, but that it is arguably oversourced. There can be no debate about its inclusion, really, it is clearly relevant to popular notions about James Dean. I would also add that the multiple sourcings (and some of these could be moved down to the end of the article, yes?) are not original research. If my next door neighbor tells me he slept with Dean and even has photos to prove it, I include same in this article, then that would be inappropriate, even though I would be providing documentary evidence that Dean was at least bisexual. Which brings me to my next point: barring a picture of Dean in flagrante or a newly-uncovered diary where he admits his "true" sexuality, what would be "verifiable" proof?  IronDuke 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper sourcing and original research 

message: I inserted the notice. Here (above) and on the archive are numerous rebuttals to many of the claims made. It first refers to a book but doesn't say what the book actually states. Boze Hadleigh, as the editor who inserted the reference to him knows, is not an acceptable encyclopedic source. Most of the other references are hearsay: someone saying someone told them something. Too, the John Gilmore reference is deliberately manipulated, omitting extremely relevant facts. And so on and so on. I will do more research and put together facts to deal line by line with the claims. - Ted Wilkes 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read this debate with great interest.  Yes, rumors abound about James Dean. I think he probably experimented sexually. Why anyone makes a big deal of that, I have no idea.  I don't have a problem with what Gilmore said, though I admit I haven't read it in context. The problem with these rumors is that every year, something is added that is more outrageous, more boyfriends surface, and it really becomes tabloid. No one has to verify a thing because Dean is dead and can't sue. I could write a book tomorrow that says I had a love child with Elvis and a very reputable publisher would snap it up in a second. Elvis can't deny it. Reputable and publisher - a contradiction in terms. I've worked in publishing.  People refer to "reputable sources" but many of these reputable sources came from one source (which may be correct or may not be) and that source is repeated and repeated over and over, and statements and names are added to it that weren't there to begin with. Boze Hadleigh is a dreadful source, but it's acceptable because it's in book form, something I have no understanding of - Wikipedia claims not to care about the truth, only that something is verifiable and can be used as a reference.  Fine.  But anyone using Boze Hadleigh as a reference is clearly deluded. A good biographer relies as much as possible on original research, i.e., interviews, letters, photos, and personal papers. A good biographer tries to avoid using other people's books. The biographer I worked for was told by his agent to make things up - he was behind deadline because he was waiting to verify some references. That's how much the literary crowd cares. I think if Wikipedia wants to explore someone's sexuality, fine, but the writer should seek out the earliest source available to see what was actually said, or make the best possible effort to find the best source available - the most highly respected writer, for instance, not just every rumor that comes down the pike.Chandler75 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section dispute notice 

message: I've noticed this here and on other articles, but what's the point of putting a link on Donald Turnupseed if that link only links back to the page it's on?  If it was once a separate page, I understand, but I'm going to remove the link, as it is pointless. Sieckanddestroy 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Turnupseed 

message: After doing some clean up of my own, I added a cleanup tag. I hate to be too critical... but this article is terrible! It is filled with hearsay and sentences that don't really go anywhere or add anything. Some of it is just stupid: "It is noted by all James Dean fans that although his character grows old in Giant, Dean himself will forever be young."
This article might also be an NPOV violation.  2-bits 03:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting it mildly. The encyclopedic elements are surrounded by blog drek. Wyss 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could someone with a rational mind take the time to do a throughout cleanup of this article. This article belongs in Heat Magazine. It is overly emotional, often trite. It goes into the sort of minute detail that belong in a biography, not in an encyclopedic reference article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: On the Talk:Nick Adams page there is a recent statement by Bill Dakota which may be of much interest to James Dean fans. It proves that Dean was bisexual. Onefortyone 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota 

message: Why aren't there any mention of the 2002 TV movie? James Franco won a Golden Globe for it. Soshesaid 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV movie 

message: James Dean is NOT from Marion, Indiana.
He is, in fact, from Fairmount, Indiana.  Fairmount, Indiana is a town in southern Grant County, Indiana.
-In that case, some citation can be provided and the appropriate edits made. 
--Gautam3 00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marion, Indiana 

message: The first paragraph notes something to the effect that Dean is a legend because he died young. This is radically perverse and degrades Dean as a marvelous actor he was, and that most people agree with. This really needs to be removed.
--Gautam3 00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruel and Unusual 

message: Unfortunately this page has recently been deluged by a flood of uninformed, gossip driven, citation-free, off-the-top of the head "opinions". Whether this is a calculated form of homophobic vandalism, I can't tell. In any case, could a knowledgeable Wikipedia editor please help sort this mess out? As it stands now, the article is worse than uselessKitMarlowe2 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation-lacking opinions running rampant 

message: "a pay-off for reportedly servicing as James Dean's live-in-boyfriend." Shouldn't this be serving? Clarityfiend 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebel misquote? 

message: I've heard this was his last Broadway play; what role was it?  Roger Ebert 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immoralist?

message: :Image:Rebel Without a Cause screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Rebel Without a Cause screenshot.jpg 

message: I am proposing moving the overly long section on James Dean's personal liaisons to James Dean (sexuality).  All of the original information and citations were moved intact.  I do not think the information in the current section of the article needs to be there for general reference.  Additionally, moving the discussion about his sexuality to a seperate article will permit those interested in that topic to address it in more detail with less controversy then has been generated by including it here.  Veriss 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of moving that section out. The section is not taking an absurd amount of space here and it's probably info that people would like to read about when they read the current article. If any space is to be saved here it should be concerning the long bulleted list of pop-culture references to James Dean. Now I'll abide by a consensual decision to spin the content off to a different article but if this is to be successful, this should be done simultaneously with a shortening of the section of this article to a summary of the long one. 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with the above and am very much against a move at the time being.  I will also add that the subsection article's name goes against naming conventions; for most articles, parentheses are used for biographies as "Individual (occupation)".  If there were enough reason to split the section into a sub-article, which I don't believe there is, shouldn't it be named something like "James Dean's sexuality"? María (críticame) 12:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not taking one side or the other about the debate over his sexuality.  I was simply trying to provide a solution to a long debate about it being in the main article at all.  I provided a link, left all references and the text intact and made no malicious edits.  I don't really have a dog in the fight though I'm personally not fully convinced it really needs to be in the main article.  I proposed breaking it out into a seperate article in hopes that those who found the subject compelling would contribute to it and flesh it out into a full fledged article that would be useful for those with interest in that aspect of his life without worrying about constant criticsm for including it in the main article.  The proposal was killed...that's fine. Veriss 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Dean (Sexuality) Section 

message: I have taken the liberty of trying to clean up the prose, add requested citations, and get rid of some of the repetition. KitMarlowe3 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's well-appreciated, KitMarlowe3. Your edits are right on-point concerning this matter. Flyer22 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Editing 

message: I have added  tags to the citations of William Russo's book "Dean Clones, etc", which appears to be self-published and has been critically dismissed as historically worthless. I think a better, more reliable source could be found, if the material quoted is deemed particularly valuable.KitMarlowe3 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed how you had that placed throughout the sections in which that book is cited. This tag, about an article needing additional references, should only be placed once within an article, and that's at the top, which is where I placed it. If this tag mentioned something about this "article or section"...then I would have been a little more okay with it being placed more than once within this article. Flyer22 07:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a different tag than the one that was changed. The one I put in is the unreliablesource tag which calls to point references within both an article and a section and refers the reader to the talk page. Wildhartlivie 10:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Wildhartlivie. Flyer22 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can an editor please make sure that the section on "Giant" and the material that follows is placed in its correct sequence, after the section on "Rebel Without a Cause". Thanks. KitMarlowe3 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undid my attempted revision, as it seemed to make hash out of the text as it appeared in the actual article. Apologies.KitMarlowe3 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Successfully completed the revision KitMarlowe3 06:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious References 

message: Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment