Talk:Gavin Lambert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 The slang term "chicken hawk" 2 Alleged 3 Editing according to Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines 4 Notice 5 Lambert the insightful chronicler of Hollywood

[edit] The slang term "chicken hawk"

The Anon who wrote this article stated:

- Some critics say that there is a homosexual subtext in this film, as in one scene the actress overhears herself being referred to as a "chicken hawk", a gay slang expression for an adult homosexual who is attracted to much younger men. -- AND -- As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film. -

Chicken Hawk had a different meaning in 1961. The term may have been adopted 20-30 years later, but proof that was a fact in 1961 and documented as to Lambert making such a claim is required before making such a claim. It should be noted at the time, because of the Hollywood blacklist, extremely close monitoring of all scripts was going on by the studios looking for all kinds of "hidden messages." Ted Wilkes 20:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You should not delete relevant information. Bruce Rodgers's The Queen's Vernacular (1972) states,

"Chicken Hawk, older man whose lust peculiarities are shared solely with young boys. (Also called chicken hunter, chicken queen, coke-roller.)"

Certainly, this expression was already in use in 1961.

See also the definitions in Robert Scott's Gay Slang Dictionary (1989, 2001):

chicken hawk:

1. Paedophile one with a sexual attraction, and need for young boys, under the age of consent.

2. an adult homosexual who has a sexual attraction to teenage boys or young men.

3. a sexual molester of children.

4. [late1990s] a man in his '40s that goes for young man eighteen to twenty-four. 80.141.202.86 21:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thats 1972 for men and 1989. However, it was an actress being called a "Chicken Hawk." Ted Wilkes 21:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Were you around (and old enough) in 1972 to know the various expressions in the different parts of the country back then? I was. Chicken Hawk, since my grandfather born in 1873 used it, meant someone who preys on another's young ones - male on female or vice-versa. If in the 70s or 80s, members of the gay community began using this "straight" expression too, then fine. Based on what I've seen of Anon's work, it is obsessed with construing everything and everyone as gay to fit its agenda. And, I will revert this again until Anon provides the proof requested above that Lambert used the term to "express his personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines". Ted Wilkes 21:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. This is hearsay and not a reliable source. Which dictionary says that the expression "chicken hawk" "meant someone who preys on another's young ones - male on female or vice-versa", as you claim? The Urban Dictionary says,

chickenhawk

1. Young male who seeks the company or favours of an older male. The term has homosexual overtones although its etymology most likely goes back to the cartoon characters Foghorn Leghorn and the chickenhawk.

2. A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience.

It is a undeniable fact that the expression "chicken hawk", according to all dictionaries of sexual slang, is only "used to refer to homosexual men who engage in, or seek to engage in, acts of pederasty. In homosexual slang, a "chicken" is a young boy, and since the hawk is a bird of prey, a "chickenhawk" would be a grown man who "preys" on young boys. This use is considered to be vulgar slang." See [1] Sorry, you are wrong again, Ted.

80.141.244.204 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: this is just one example of the repeated nonsense from Anon and why it has no Wikipedia:credibility. From the Talk:Elvis Presley page where he has asserted Presley was homosexual:

So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men. - User: 80.141.178.108

-- Ted Wilkes 22:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of "repeated nonsense"? In the past, you have repeatedly accused me of vandalism. Very interesting. 80.141.244.204 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Some additional information:

Journalist David Lipsky spent nine months traveling the U.S. and interviewing homosexual teenagers about their lifestyles, culminating in an article written for Rolling Stone. Although the tone of Lipsky’s article was sympathetic to homosexual youth, one of the things he found was a fluid interaction between homosexuals of different ages. In Altanta, for example, Lipsky said, “Young gay life functions as a kind of adjunct to adult gay life, with a lot of back-and-forth slippage.” There is even a lexicon of terms that describe the sexual interplay between adults and young homosexuals. One of those terms is “chicken hawk,” which describes adult male homosexuals who try to have sex with teens who have just come out of the closet – who are thus “chickens,” or “fresh meat.”

See [2] Onefortyone 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged

Did Lambert ever say that he had an affair with Nicholas Ray? If he did say this, then would that move beyond the line about their affair being "alleged"? --JamesB3 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lambert himself says in his Wood biography that he was the lover of director Nicholas Ray. I don't know why Ted Wilkes added "allegedly". It is further written in the book: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." So it is clearly said that Wood dated the Hollywood stars. 80.141.244.204 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What one persons says unless corroborated by the other party or indisputable proof is provided, is only an allegation. This issue has been fully discussed on Talk:Natalie Wood and Talk:Nick Adams with the Anon user. Ted Wilkes 00:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

"He named Mart Crowley executor of his estate." - Deleted. Please provide proof from the probated Will. Ted Wilkes 00:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Anon wrote at the top of this page: "gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film." -- Therefore his honestly must be called into question. Ted Wilkes 00:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better in this case to say something like Lambert "claimed"? "Alleged", to me, has more negative connotations.

Actually, I think I did at first change it to "claim" but Anon didn't like it and reverted it. Alleged is, however, the proper term for both referencing and legal verification. Ted Wilkes 01:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Was I wrong about Crowley being executor of Lambert's estate? --JamesB3 00:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, but any claim by Wikipedia about a legal document such as a Will that is obtainable from the public record should be referenced to avoid accusations (repeated ones) that we aren't reliable. Even the tabloids do that much. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 01:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes states that he has "no idea" whether user JamesB3 was wrong or not. But he deleted his contribution. Very interesting indeed. 80.141.191.39 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Anon has now reverted or amended through substantial reedits three times in 24 hours. Its next such edit/revert will violate the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Ted Wilkes 01:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing according to Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines

The following passage "Some critics say" is not acceptable as constituted in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and the entire statement is Wikipedia:No original research. I have left it in for now, but unless the editor who inserted it cite the sources that are non-original, it will have to be removed.

• Some critics say that there is a homosexual subtext in this film, as in one scene the actress overhears herself being referred to as a "chicken hawk", a gay slang expression for an adult homosexual who is attracted to much younger men. As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film.

Here are two sources which prove that some critics indeed saw a gay subtext in the film: [3] and [4] Onefortyone 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed labels attributed to Norma Schearer and Alla Nazimova. Labels such as "gay icon" and "great Hollywood lesbian" are subjective and also are inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia:The perfect article. Ted Wilkes 12:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I removed violation of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms:

• "Some critics say that there is a homosexual subtext in this film, as in one scene the actress overhears herself being referred to as a "chicken hawk", a gay slang expression for an adult homosexual who is attracted to much younger men."

-AND-

I removed a personal opinion which needs documenting with an acceptable source but as is is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research:

• "As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film."

- Ted Wilkes 18:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked that I have cited two sources which support my contribution: [5] and [6]

Here is an additional quote:

"The important thing to remember about 'gay influence' in movies," observed Gavin Lambert, "is that it was obviously never direct. It was all subliminal. It couldn't be direct because the mass audience would say, Hey, no way." (William J. Mann, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, p. 170) Onefortyone 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly, and biasedly, included references in the article that Lambert's biography on Natalie Wood is a gossip book in order to denigrate this source which has lots of positive reviews. Publishers Weekly says:

Lambert 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. Wood's overlapping affairs with Rebel director Nicholas Ray and cast member Dennis Hopper, and brief romance with Elvis Presley, will be familiar material to aficionados. But 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, because she knew he would refuse to let her appear in it if she displayed enthusiasm. The shooting of Wood's film with Robert Redford, Inside Daisy Clover, has special authenticity, since Lambert wrote the screenplay and witnessed her frustrations after several crucial voice-overs were cut from the final print. Details regarding Wood's tragic drowning are inevitably speculative and vital questions remain unanswered. But 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.

It seems as if this user's constant aim is to delete my contributions and denigrate my sources. See [7] He has also deleted the passage that there is a homosexual subtext in one of Lambert's films, although I have cited two sources on this discussion page which support my contribution that critics indeed saw this subtext. See [8] For the sources I have used, see above. I do not understand the aggressive editing tactics of this user. Onefortyone 19:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I touched this up to remove non-encyclopedic language. I also removed a minor passing reference to Nick Adams which is non-encyclopedic gossip deliberated highlited by User:Onefotyone in a book that is about Natalie Wood. 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lambert the insightful chronicler of Hollywood

Query: What is wrong with the passage that Lambert was an insightful chronicler of Hollywood? I do not understand why Ted Wilkes and Wyss are deleting this sentence. In a review of Lambert's biography on George Cukor, 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. His fiction — such as The Slide Area: Scenes of Hollywood Life, Inside Daisy Clover, and The Goodby People — and his biographies of the actresses Norma Shearer and Alla Nazimova are marked by a compassion toward his dreamstruck characters and an unsentimental shrewdness in examining the processes through which they court or surmount self-destruction. As an interviewer, Lambert is subtle and discreet. See [9]

The central issue is that you have lost most of your credibility. Your edits mostly seem to be a matrix of support for inserting the words homosexual and gay into the Elvis Presley article as often as possible, in order to drive Google keyword searches to mentions of your book. As a result, any even slightly PoV citation from you may seem abusive to some editors. Wyss 18:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This commentary only shows that you have a very biased view of the contributions by other editors. It is no answer to my question. I have cited a reputable source supporting my contribution. Why did you remove the important sentence from the article?

By other editors? This is typical of the way you twist your responses to give casual readers the impression you're a victim of bias, when in truth you're disrupting Wikipedia with deliberate, repetitive efforts to sell your tabloid books (which are widely discredited). Wyss 18:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My tabloid books? I'm sorry, what are you talking about? Would you please answer my question: why did you repeatedly remove an important sentence from the article? You and Ted Wilkes also removed other relevant passages from the article, although they were based on two independent sources (see above) and Lambert's original writings.

I've answered your questions, you know what books I'm talking about and you know why your contributions have been removed. Wyss 19:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, you have not answered my question. And I don't understand what you are talking about. I do not write tabloid books on stars, etc. Could it be that such accusations are part of a new strategy to denigrate the sources I am citing?

If you say you're not an author of tabloid books, I won't bring it up on talk pages again, though the only reason anyone would pursue such a single-minded agenda would seemingly be related to money. I've removed content from these articles because it is unsupported by the documented record. I've said that countless times, that's the answer to your question. When you respond by saying the information is from "independent" sources, you are conflating "independent" with "reliable, secondary source." You know the difference, but for whatever reason your desire to seed these articles with keywords beneficial to Bret's books supercedes any desire to even acknowledge what a "reliable secondary source" is, never mind work towards ensuring reasonable accuracy and balance in an article. Meanwhile, you are not a victim of bias or any "hidden strategies" and you've wasted countless hours of editors' time. Wyss 19:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it is your biased opinion that the sources I am citing are not reliable enough. Do you really think that Professor McBride is not a reliable source? On the Elvis page I have cited passages from an important, critical essay by Professor Wall on the world-wide Elvis industry. You have also deleted these passages. I do not think that your editing tactics are fair.

Please sign your comments with four tildes, thanks. Wyss 19:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you please explain which of the passages you have deleted from the Gavin Lambert page are unsupported by relevant sources. 80.141.234.25 19:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

All of this has been thoroughly explained on the talk pages for Elvis Presley, Nick Adams and Gavin Lambert. Wyss 20:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, it hasn't been explained on this and the other pages. Here are again the diputed passages you have deleted:

1. Hence he became an insightful chronicler of Hollywood.

This sentence is supported by Professor McBride (see above).

2. Some critics say that there is a homosexual subtext in this film, as in one scene the actress overhears herself being referred to as a "chicken hawk", a gay slang expression for an adult homosexual who is attracted to much younger men. As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay screenwriters like Lambert learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film.

This passage is based on two independent sources. See [10] and [11]

"The important thing to remember about 'gay influence' in movies," observed Gavin Lambert, "is that it was obviously never direct. It was all subliminal. It couldn't be direct because the mass audience would say, Hey, no way." (William J. Mann, Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, p. 170) Onefortyone 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

3. He states that "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams" and her second with Raymond Burr.

This is a quote from Lambert's book. It should be mentioned that Lambert himself was part of the gay circles in Hollywood during the 1950s and 60s. Onefortyone 21:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed. Both Lambert's work and your interpretations of it are sloppy. Lambert is noted as an author of "high class gossip," not as an etymologist or film historian. Wyss 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, this is only your personal opinion. Did you read what Professor McBride has written? There are many positive reviews of Lambert's Wood biography. You should also cite the full statement by the Guardian reviewer. The Guardian says, "For bitchy, witty and perceptive high-class gossip about Hollywood, there was no better source than the critic, screenwriter, novelist and biographer Gavin Lambert." So this quote supports the interpretation that Lambert is an insightful chronicler of Hollywood. You are again trying to denigrate what I have written. Onefortyone 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling something my personal opinion does not make it so. As for the Guardian quote, it supports my assertion, and certainly does not describe Mr Lambert as an etymologist or film historian. . Wyss 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, this IS your personal interpretation of the quote. Together with the statement by Professor McBride, who said that Lambert is a "wryly witty chronicler of Hollywood's social mores and artistic achievements", the Guardian quote supports my contribution, as every unbiased reader will confirm.

So let them decide :) Wyss 23:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What about the other passages? It is an important fact that Gavin Lambert, himself a homosexual, has primarily written on gay and lesbian Hollywood stars, and he was also in close contact to many of these stars. This must be emphasized in the article. As a gay screenwriter, he even learned, during the 1950s and 1960s, when homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, to express his personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film. I don't understand why you have repeatedly removed references to these important facts from the article. Onefortyone 10:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Last I heard, sexual preference was not a qualification for an historian or journalist. Wyss 19:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sexual preference is not a qualification for an historian. Indeed, some scholars might suggest that being to close to a subject could cause bias and sloppy research. Wyss 22:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Without commenting on the overall disagreement, I wanted to raise a point: The term sexual preference can be interpreted as an offensive term, in that it implies that it is merely a preference. In fact, the use of "sexual preference" is specifically deprecated in the AP Stylebook in favor of "sexual orientation." I see you as a careful editor, and I don't think the choice of language is deliberate. I think you're making valid points, but I don't want to see them get lost in the language used. --Ssbohio 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are repeatedly deleting relevant, supported content. For the sources I have used, see, for instance, the Lambert quote from William J. Mann's book above. User:80.141.236.184 19:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Onefortyone because he inserted his personal opinion in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research. Despite being told of this repeatedly, Onefortyone has reinserted it over and over. - Ted Wilkes 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted FYCTravis. All the issues that he reinserted were already discussed in detail on this talk page and the interconnected ones. Wikipedia:Verifiability states "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable" and Wikipedia:The perfect article says that an article: "reflects expert knowledge; fact-based. As noted above, The Guardian here warned readers the Natalie Wood book was "gossip" and gossip is most certainly non-encyclopedic. - Ted Wilkes 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)