![]() | Indiana Unassessed | ||||||||||||||
|
- Archive: Talk:James Dean /archive1
Removal of "Rumors" section
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)
Note too, that Wikipedians established proper procedure for section headings at Talk:Abraham Lincoln. Be it the article or its Talk page, they appear on Internet search engines such as Google and those who come here can promote their agenda on the Talk page even if it is not in the article. Wikipedia:Wikiquette states that contributors are to " Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy." Further, such abuses may be corrected in accordance with Wikipedia:Refactoring. As such, I have amended some of the improper headings that were on this page so that they meet Wikipedia standards. - Ted Wilkes 15:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Removal of hyperlinks
Why was this link to a well researched Internet biography repeatedly deleted by users Ted Wilkes and Wyss? [1] See [2] and [3]. Onefortyone 18:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Homosexual leanings
There is a new source which says that Dean had homosexual leanings. Live Fast, Die Young – The Wild Ride of Making Rebel Without a Cause, a recent book by Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel, says that Rebel director Nicholas Ray knew Dean to be bisexual. I have therefore reinstated the "Rumors" section, but Wyss and Ted Wilkes have completely deleted this paragraph. See [4] and [5]. It is a historical fact that Dean's homosexual social life and gay patrons like Rogers Brackett played an important role in Dean's rise to stardom. See also Talk:James_Dean_/archive1. Onefortyone 18:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- WP is not a tabloid. Wyss 15:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Therefore I made references to several published books which all prove that Dean was bisexual. What should be wrong with the following paragraph:
- ===Rumors about homosexual leanings===
- Decades after Dean's death, author Boze Hadleigh, an expert on Hollywood gays, published a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo in which the actor said, "Nick (Adams) told me they had a big affair-" [6] However, 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). Further sources support the view that Dean had homosexual leanings. 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. In his Natalie Wood biography, the reputed Hollywood expert Gavin Lambert describes Dean as being bisexual. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, actress Dizzy Sheridan claimed Dean had an affair with Rogers Brackett, a radio director for an 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. Last not least, Live Fast, Die Young – The Wild Ride of Making Rebel Without a Cause, a recent book by Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel, says that Rebel director Nicholas Ray knew Dean to be bisexual. Onefortyone 10:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Therefore I made references to several published books which all prove that Dean was bisexual. What should be wrong with the following paragraph:
Tabloid gossip accounts like this are not encyclopedic. Wyss 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is not tabloid gossip to report published, sourced accounts. There are 446,000 Google hits for "James Dean" gay, which supports the idea that this is a subject of debate, contention and discussion. At the very least, it does our readers a disservice to pretend that somehow there is no discussion of the matter. At worst, it is a homophobic whitewash. In this particular instance, I believe onefortyone's passage to be proper. I note that the arbcom ruling focuses solely on the Elvis Presley article - about which I agree there is not sufficient sourced evidence to discuss the Memphis Mafia. Here, however, I note several cited discussions. Particularly compelling is the Holley biography, which seems to be considered a definitive work on the man, and was read and signed at the James Dean Gallery - along with Live Fast, Die Young. This is a subject that deserves mention. FCYTravis 06:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is tabloid gossip and tabloid gossip about James Dean attracts attention which is why there are so many hits about it. Please use some scholarship. All sources are not equal and Google is a wonderful search engine, not an edited bibliography. James Dean may have been bisexual but there is no documented evidence (other than dubious hearsay most of which began after he died) to support it. Wyss 06:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- There is plenty of scholarship. With that many clearly basic sources, it must be at least considered. I invite you to find and place sources which tend to refute the claims. I will do some searching myself. But you're claiming that major biographies by people close to him and other biographers are not "scholarship?" Please. If you don't believe it's true, the way to refute it is to find sources which do so. FCYTravis 07:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is tabloid gossip and tabloid gossip about James Dean attracts attention which is why there are so many hits about it. Please use some scholarship. All sources are not equal and Google is a wonderful search engine, not an edited bibliography. James Dean may have been bisexual but there is no documented evidence (other than dubious hearsay most of which began after he died) to support it. Wyss 06:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
You have it backwards. The assertion requires support. Support doesn't include gossip. There is no evidence to support the assertion. There is no need to refute an unsupported assertion, although 141 is rather adept at tricking well-meaning but confused editors into thinking unfounded assertions must be refuted in order to be excluded from Wikipedia. Even admins get muddled by this. 141, using his single-topic user account, is skilled at what he does. Wyss 08:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The assertion *is* supported by the statements in the book. A published, referenced biography is not a Weekly World News article. These are not self-published screeds. These are biographical works which assert their veracity. If we cannot verify the veracity of their claims, we can verify that the claim has been made. The mere claim would not be encyclopedic if it came from a single source, such as the issue revolving around Elvis Presley. There, there is precious published. Here, we have no such issue. There are clearly many works from many authors and many statements from many people which tend to support the idea that Dean was, at the least, bisexual. At this point, we have an obligation to report the controversy. I note that there has not been a single source presented which refutes the claims.
- Why is it so hard for you to believe that a popular actor might have been gay? You are faced with a mountain of published evidence from many sources that states he may have been. Where, sir, is your evidence? If you are arguing that somehow there is not enough - well sir, on that point we shall have to disagree, because in my judgement there are plenty of verifiable sources to support the inclusion of the debate. We are not a court of law. One is not "hetero until proven gay." There is a two-prong standard - encyclopedicity and verifiability. Clearly, the sexuality of a film star is encyclopedic. Secondly, that a wide-ranging group of biographers, friends and alleged lovers have made statements to the effect that Dean was bisexual is verifiable. We have a verified encyclopedic issue. FCYTravis 09:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I point you to O. J. Simpson - a Wikipedia article full of what-ifs. In it, Wikipedia encyclopedically discusses a book written by a former prosecutor which details some of those what-ifs. It's a verifiable source, even if not all of the claims it makes are verifiable - specifically, the claim that OJ "got away with murder!" The fact that the claim has been made by a verifiable, credible source (in this case, a former prosecutor) makes it encyclopedic. So it goes with James Dean. FCYTravis 10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Memorial
Some info taken from book - James Dean, by Sandford Roth and Beulah Roth 1983 ISBN 3822800643, other info abridged from [7]
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)
- Dean doesn't have to say anything regarding the subject "to set the record straight." Third party quotes are encyclopedic, and it is not unsubstantiated gossip to report what HIS ALLEGED LOVER said. If you continue reverting, I will protect the page and file an RfC. The ArbCom ruling speaks SPECIFICALLY about Elvis Presley and makes NO statements about the arguments here. You clearly have a POV that requires NOTHING be mentioned that would even possibly think these people could be gay. I think you need to step back from this issue and realize that you are going way too far. FCYTravis 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed text concerning rumors. again - The Arbitration Committee hearings and ruling included James Dean and others with respect to Official policy to Verifiability of article content and of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources as well as Wikipedia:No original research. - Ted Wilkes 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- There is *no* original research contained within. Everything is sourced. Every bit of text is verifiable. Major biographies are considered reliable sources. This is *not* Elvis Presley. I have no idea why you insist on removing all sorts of valid information that presents an argument that Wikipedia must include. I call on you again to find your own reliable sources which refute the assertions. In fact, you are the one who is doing "original research" by insisting that everything presented within is wrong. "We report what reliable publications publish. We do not investigate whether they are right or wrong." The fact that several major biographies and publications have included it make it original research to claim it's all wrong by deleting it. FCYTravis 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Our ruling does not mean that no person may add verifiable information about James Dean's alleged homosexuality to this article. Reverting FCYTravis' additions on the basis of the ArbCom ruling would be an inappropriate use of that ruling. That said, 3RR still applies; do not edit war. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)