Talk:James Dean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Dean article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Peugeot 905 sports car This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Shortcut:
WP:SCR
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
The references in this article would be clearer with a different and/or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking.

Contents

[edit] 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 factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.


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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Homosexual leanings

  • The sexual orientation of a person is certainly appropiate mention in a WP article. Other articles on historical persons or celebrities mention the heterosexual relationships that they had, so it is only fair to mention their homosexual relationships. The bisexuality of James Dean is well established by several people that were involved in Hollywood at the time and knew him. That is different from a rumor. I have noticed a desire among some people to pretend that all famous people or celerbrites are heterosexual, and that is simply not based on the history.

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)

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)

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)

This is tabloid gossip that belongs on "ET", not in an encyclopedia that claims & hopes to be reputable. All the books that "prove" Dean was gay or bisexual use interviews of people long after the fact who claim to have known someone who knew someone. None have reports of people who actually were his gay or bisexual lovers.--squadfifteen, 15/11/05

It should be removed. Just because a string of books publish varioius accounts of it, it does not mean its fact. Smerk 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole section is biased in its portrayal of Dean as a homosexual or bisexual. Dean had many heterosexual relationships that are well documented including an engagement to actress Pier Angeli, and affairs with starlets such as Ursula Andress, neither of whom are even mentioned in the article. And yet obscure men whom were supposedly lovers of Dean such as a "radio director" and a "motorcycle rider" are identified by name. Not disputing whether or not Dean was or wasn't a homosexual or bisexual, but feel strongly that this section is very poorly written and with a slant and agenda. It should be removed or completely overhauled. 218.102.69.151 02:54, 7 February 2006
I have no problem believing Dean's bisexuality, but Larry Quirk is not a reliable source, and neither is Boze Hadleigh. If you ask Larry Quirk about anyone - and I have done so in my own research - he will tell you the person is gay. He will tell you that Lassie is gay. Ditto Boze. Larry's uncle was a Victorian prude who ran Photoplay and disapproved of everyone.Chandler75
  • When detailing a biography in an encyclopedia article, aspects of the subject's personal life are entirely relevant. It seems there is no problem mentioning Dean's heterosexual liaisons, up to and including the completely ludicrous and irrelevant Seinfeld reference. Why, then, are Dean's homosexual affairs objectionable in the context of Wikipedia? It is not the place of Wikipedia to pass moral judgment. To say that Dean was likely bisexual is not slanderous, it's simply a conclusion to be drawn from numerous sources who claim first-hand knowledge. As to the statement that rumor/hearsay has no place in Wikipedia, there are very important historical events (Salem Witch Trials, McCarthy Hearings) and societal trends (cloistering, illegitimacy) that are entirely based on such rumors and hearsay. As long as we acknowledge the fluidity of their sources, they are worthy of inclusion. Iamvered 01:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

People should accept Dean wasn't straight and move on.

  • There are numerous reliable first-hand sources regarding Dean's bisexuality. Just one recent article by Germaine Greer is a good place to start: [7]

The hell?? To the above poster - great, scholarly source ya got there! Bravo! ~~ unsigned by 67.85.178.227

Quite wrong, 67.85.178.227 - I didn't post that citation, nor have I read it carefully, but Germaine Greer is a well-respected writer, and The Guardian is a well-respected newspaper, so whatever are you talking about? Sources do not have to be scholarly, they have to be reliable. This publication and author are - we're not talking about a tabloid gossip sheet. You may not accept the conclusions that Greer draws, but that is just your opinion. And if you, hypothetically speaking, came here and said you slept with James Dean, therefore you know him to be at least bisexual, that would be OR. So these things are not easliy verified, but articles like Greer's are helpful. This particular piece of information is widely reported, and the source provided is a good one. In fact it should have been added as a citation to the section rather than posted just in talk. I'm too tired to do so now, but maybe someone else will, or I will another day. Tvoz 09:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Naturally, the gay lobby has their large section on James Dean. But, as usual, there were no eye-witnesses to Dean's alleged perversions. Also, Dean, himself, never made any statements regarding this topic. It is the same in many, many other Wikipedia biographical articles.66.82.9.80 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)AubreyAubervilliers
No eyewitnesses? Obviously you haven't read William Bast's recent "Surviving James Dean."

KitMarlowe2 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial

Some info taken from book - James Dean, by Sandford Roth and Beulah Roth 1983 ISBN 3822800643, other info abridged from [8]

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)

FCYTravis, there is no evidence James Dean was gay, only lots of opportunistic (book selling) hearsay after he died. If you don't understand encyclopedic sourcing and balance, you don't belong here and you certainly shouldn't be making abusive threats about protecting pages you're involved in, never mind threatening editors of those pages with RfCs. If you want to write a tabloid, why don't you start with a blog somewhere? Wyss 22:48, 14 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)
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)
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)

Out of curiosity, why is it that so many are ardent that any mention of James Dean's possible homosexuality should be removed, when it appears in so many sources. Granted, a biography is not necessarily always completely indisputably true. However, if published, authorised biographies cannot be considered to be fact, and are instead considered "gossip" we are descending to the level where we will have to decide what truth is. Apart from mathematical proofs, it is impossible to verify beyond dispute any statement. Is it really in our interest to descend this far. What can be said is that there are numerous sources of good repute stating that he may have been bisexual. This should certainly warrant mention and discussion in the article. Hinakana 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to find an account of Dean's life without a hopelessly politicized agenda on his sexuality on one side or the other. Both the gay and straight communities want to claim him exclusively to themselves. That said, it's hard to take anyone who claims there is no evidence beyond "tabloid gossip" that he had affairs with men very seriously. It's pretty disappointing wikipedia isn't able to rise above the petty politics involved in this debate. There is pretty sound evidence that he had sexual relationships with both men and women. Trying to pinpoint an identity on the gay-bi-straight spectrum for an individual who died before the age of 25 with next to no autobiographical material behind is nothing more than interesting, open-ended speculation. 24.107.63.252 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest all the above commentators read William Bast's new book "Surviving James Dean" before making any more declarations about Dean's sexuality.

  • I agree that the "gay and straight communities" both may want to claim Dean exclusively (although I find the idea of these cultural groups having actual agendas to be laughable), which is why it is entirely right to say that James Dean was, according to a number of sources, likely bisexual. That way, we have acknowledged that the proof is lacking (there's no film of him in a hot encounter with some dude), but we also don't try to whitewash or deny the fact that several of his contemporaries claim that he did engage in homosexual activities. There's enough Jimmy for both communities to share.Iamvered 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from Val Holley, James Dean: The Biography

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)JamesCounselor

p. 7: Some of its residents condition their cooperation with biographers on a promise not to write about any of his homosexual experiences.

p. 8: Nowadays, the first question asked about James Dean is often "Was he gay?" Recent biographical efforts declared that Dean was in fact gay, but the very source whose homosexual experiences with Dean formed the basis for such an "outing" disputes that conclusion. As Jonathan Gilmore said recently, "I am as opposed to the conclusion that Jimmy was `homosexual' and `a gay man' as I am to the assertions of his being 'trueblue heterosexual.' "I was there," Gilmore continues. "I was involved in it in New York and Hollywood. I knew the people he slept with and I knew who he was not with. Both Jimmy and I had relations with girls. While Jimmy was making Rebel Without a Cause, I introduced him to a Hollywood High School boy, an actor and dancer whom I was quite taken with. Jimmy also found him very attractive, and I know something happened between them that summer. "That's how it was, neither black nor white. Jimmy thought of himself as an explorer, making discoveries in life, things, and sex.

p. 78: Two years later, Dean would discuss the draft with his friend Jonathan Gilmore in New York. "One night in a cafeteria on Broadway," Gilmore reports, "Jimmy said one could get out of being drafted by claiming to have bisexual tendencies-which included having homosexual tendencies, of course, but one was afraid of being branded queer.

p. 80: Although his draft classification would not be official until November 14, rumors of his telling the draft board he was homosexual may already have surfaced.

p. 85: Wilder found Dean engaging. "He was short, physically strong, weak-eyed to the extent that he needed glasses, cheerful, uninformed, a prankster, and most certainly not a reader," Wilder wrote two decades later. "He came from a poor farming family, had no money, but was possessed by the desire to act. He behaved in a very masculine manner, but was homosexual."

p. 94: "I've had letters from crazy people about him. One was from a gay man who asked, `How dare you claim Jimmy? He's ours!' As to the question of whether he was gay, I really don't know. But I can tell you that we very much enjoyed each other when we were together. It was very intense and very heated."

p. 153: Not surprisingly, the homosexual members of this circle took a special interest in Dean. According to Madison Musser, they called him the Marshmallow Brando. Onefortyone 00:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proper sourcing and original research

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)

I added "research indicates speeding" line, based on a TV documentary I saw about a company that reconstructs accidents. They found Turupseed had been speeding and had not seen the 550; as I recall, they said the Merc hit the 550 as Dean made the turn onto 41. --squadfifteen, 15/11/05


[edit] Section dispute notice

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)

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)

[edit] Porsche 550

I felt it was important to mention the rumors that his Spyder, aka "Little Bastard", was cursed. It seems like a fairly important topic, given how much attention has been given to it in the past, although the rest of the article could use some sprucing up (as in more content). Any objections to the new section about the car? 70.48.111.198 08:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

-I wouldn't exactly describe a tire failure as "miraculous".  ;)
I thought the section on the car was fascinating. Georgeslegloupier 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, fascinating. These curse stories invariably turn out to have endless exagerated and fabricated details. It's likely codswallop, other than to say that a twisted car wreck is not the safest thing to be around. Wyss 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The detail on what cars he owned, which car he ordered when, the exact sequence of events, borders on the obsessional, and, like the entire article, lacks an encyclopedic tone and sounds more like the kind of detail an obsessed fan would write.

[edit] Donald Turnupseed

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)

[edit] Cleanup tag

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)

Putting it mildly. The encyclopedic elements are surrounded by blog drek. Wyss 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

hi honey

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).

[edit] Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota

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)

[edit] TV movie

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)

Why? The TV movie with Franco freely mixed large doses of fiction with fact, namely the protracted beach-house romp with Pier Angeli, the omission of any consideration of Dean's bisexuality, and the utterly unsupported invention by the scriptwriter that Winton Dean was not Dean's father.KitMarlowe2 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality issue

What a dreadfully written article, at times incoherent. Worse, what's with the mention of "premonitions" and "curses"? Never mind the inaccuracies and tabloid gunk.

[edit] Marion, Indiana

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)

[edit] Cruel and Unusual

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)

[edit] The sexuality section is too long

This violates NPOV undue weight guidelines. He wasn't known as "James Dean the gay actor", so the longest section in this article shouldn't be about his sexuality. There probably shouldn't even be a section about his sexuality just mention of this in his private life. Either way most of it gets the axe by this weekend if it's not edited down. Thanks. Quadzilla99 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But, but, but, you must be a homophobe to criticize the length of that section. You are out of step with world culture, which sees the normalization of homosexuality as its Number One Goal. All of the other Wikipedia biographies have large sections on the homosexuality of all famous people. Why should James Dean be different?66.82.9.85 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ProgressiveThinker
Done. See NPOV undue weight, Progressive Thinker and please don't try to intimidate people with personal attacks and insults like calling someone a "homophobe". Quadzilla99 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I might whittle it down further in the next week or so. If you are a big proponent of the section just read WP:Summary style and try to get all the pertinent info into the section in as brief and concise a manner as possible. Quadzilla99 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reinstated some paragraphs, as Dean is widely discussed as a gay icon and biographers such as Val Holley have written, "Nowadays, the first question asked about James Dean is often 'Was he gay?' " (see Val Holley, James Dean: The Biography, p.8). This means that the well-sourced section on Dean's sexuality is of much importance to many readers. It should not be condensed, especially since many independent sources are given in the text and the notes. Onefortyone 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't with the sources it's with the prominence in the article, the section was by far the longest in the article. Read summary style and try to keep the size of it down. Read the undue weight policy again. The section should not be longest section (by far) in the article. Quadzilla99 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement. If biographers are of the opinion that the first question asked about Dean is "Was he gay?", this question must be discussed exhaustively. Therefore, the sexuality section should certainly be one of the longest in the article. See also this online biography. It gives the debate about Dean's sexuality much importance at the beginning and the end. If you think that other sections of the Wikipedia article should be extended, you may include additional information in the "Childhood and education", "Acting career" and "Death" sections, etc. Onefortyone 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Quadzilla, the section grossly violates undue weight guidelines. Theres no need to have an absurdly long section discussing rumors about the sexuality of an individual, lets leave that for gossip magazines and other people who have nothing better to do with their time.--MachoMax 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The basic question, and it shouldn't really be a matter of opinion, is if History had to describe the person James Dean in 5 words or less, would it be-James Dean the Movie Star? or James Dean the Gay Actor? Wikipedia is not for reporting about what we think should be the important things about a subject, but what are generally considered the most important things about a subject. Quadzilla99 12:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have rearranged parts of the text and included some more details concerning Dean's life. The sexuality section (newly entitled "Debate about Dean's sexuality") is much shorter now. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Much better, thank you.--MachoMax 08:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The sexuality section has been made smaller, onefortyone tried to keep the sexuality info it in the sexuality section. This article's main focus is not his alleged homosexuality and I will not allow you to make it the focus. Please stop, this is nearing blatant vandalism. Quadzilla99 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Will not allow it??! As James Dean has become one of THE gay movie icons of the new millenium, whether you like it or not, Quadzilla99, don't you thing we are stuck with having to deal with his perceived androgyneity as an essential part of his fame?KitMarlowe2 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Dean's bisexuality is indeed an essential part of his short life and acting style. This means that this topic must be comprehensively discussed in the Wikipedia article, especially since all biographies and several university studies deal with it in detail. See the many independent sources I have cited Onefortyone 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes will not allow it. Dean is best known for being a movie star not being a gay movie star. Sorry, but his sexuality is mentioned in fine detail in the sexuality section. There's no need to make the main focus of this article the fact that he is gay or bi-sexual. Quadzilla99 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dean is well known as a gay icon. Most biographies and many university studies deal with his bisexuality as an essential part of his life and career. It certainly must be one of the main focuses of the article. Onefortyone 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading through this article, I realized you haven't really trimmed anything. All you've done is the dump this - useless - information in another section. His sexuality would only be the main focus for either desperate gay people looking for an icon to worship, or people who think gossip magazines are actually worth reading.--MachoMax 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you realize that I have quoted from major Dean biographies and university studies? The other user may be right in saying that "you must be a homophobe to criticize the length of that section" (see above). Onefortyone 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
However, while information about Dean's sexuality is vital to an understanding of his acting and his appeal, unfortunately the article does now appear garbled and overweighted, reading like an amateurish glbt diatribe, a terrible mishmash of purported academic "experts" saying this and that and the other thing, all mixed up with reams of gossip and hearsay. Can't we just concentrate on the firsthand accounts like those of Bast and Sheridan, and then fill in later (with appropriate caveats) with the hearsay and analysis? As it stands now, I'm afraid most folk are just going to dismiss the article as badly written gay propaganda. KitMarlowe2 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. My contributions do not "appear garbled ... reading like an amateurish glbt diatribe". I have quoted from many modern gender studies published by university presses and from Dean biographies. All these publications discuss intensively Dean's androgyny and bisexuality. This material must be exhaustively considered in the article. You may cite other sources contradicting the statements by these many independent authors, if there are any, but as far as I can see, there are no such publications. My viewpoint is certainly not in the minority. The Wikipedia guidelines say, "A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source." I have cited many independent sources supporting my viewpoint. Onefortyone 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is all that you have to add that he was gay or bisexual? If Dean was some completely unknown actor who became a gay icon then the article would currently focus appropriately on his sexuality.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs).

I have also added material to the article concerning other topics. See, for instance, [9], [10]. As most biographers show, Dean's career as an actor certainly depended on his connections to gay people. Even Rebel director Nicholas Ray was gay or bisexual. Screenwriter Gavin Lambert had a homosexual relationship with him. Onefortyone 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the gay population makes up approximately 5% of the current U.S. population. Dean is mega famous for his acting ability and his status as a symbol of teen angst in the 1950's, not for being a gay actor. As a matter of fact most encyclopedia articles and articles in general on him don't mention his sexuality (see Britannica and Encarta), which while admittedly incorrect, shows that he wasn't known for being gay. Wikipedia is not for writing about what you think is important it's for writing about what is important. He was/is known mainly for his acting ability and his status as an icon of the 1950's. Again see undue weight. Also please don't resort to personal attacks and call people homophobes, just because you now realize that the fact that Dean was gay or bisexual shouldn't be mentioned in every section of the article. We can't even get through a section describing Rebel without a Cause without you mentioning his sex life.Quadzilla99 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Biographer Val Holley says, "Nowadays, the first question asked about James Dean is often 'Was he gay?' " (James Dean: The Biography, p.8). All current Dean biographies and several modern gender studies deal with Dean's bisexuality as an important topic. You cannot deny that these sources exist. They are fundamental for the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone 14:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Again no one is saying you can't have several paragraphs of the article, just please do not try to dominate the entire article with the issue. Looking at it when I arrived today nearly 50% of the article is devoted to discussing his sexuality. Quadzilla99 13:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Other topics still dominate the article. See the sections on Dean's childhood, his acting career, his racing career, his death, his memorial, his legacy, etc. Even the section on his personal relationships deals intensively with his alleged affairs with women. I do not understand what you are talking about. Onefortyone 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is very little about his acting technique, critical comments regarding his acting or social commentary about why he is such an iconic figure. If these areas were beefed up, some of the other sections would not appear to dominate so strongly. I think the discussion of his sexuality is relevant and important and you've done a much better job sourcing and attributing it than has been done in the rest of the article, but it is too wordy. By that I mean that it is discussed in sufficient depth but that the writing style could be made more concise. I also think that it contains too much editorial content which reads as POV on the part of Wikipedia. We should be quoting sources and people where necessary, but there seems to be a number of side comments which suggest a POV not entirely supported or attributed to source material. I also think there are problems with the sections on his death, the "curse" and the very lengthy and trivia based "legacy" section, so I'm not just picking the sexuality section and targetting it. I think the entire article needs a lot of work. Some specific points relating to what I think could be worked on regarding the sexuality section(s):
Thank you for your third party statement. I have to agree with much of what you say. Onefortyone 15:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • why is there a "personal relationships" and a "sexual orientation" section? Are the two not linked? Both sections discuss his bisexuality and both sections discuss Pier Angeli. One section covering everything would better.
  • The Pier Angeli discussion in "personal relationships" is too lengthy and has a gossipy tone. As for the section following Elia Kazan's comments - ("although how he alone could have been aware of this while the rest of the staff at Warner Brothers remained in ignorance of this noisy turmoil is a mystery".) It's not our job to second guess Elia Kazan. He said what he said. Quote him if necessary, but don't question his credibility and keep the POV out of it.
  • Under "sexual orientation" - "of varying degrees of credulousness and credibility" - is inappropriate. Once again, quote from sources if necessary, but keep the POV out of it. It's not up to Wikipedia to categorise these sources, and we're on very shaky ground if we try to do so. We should say what has been said, and be careful that the sources we attribute are as credible as possible.
  • The Lawrence J. Quirk quote is confusing. It looks like maybe there should be close quotation marks before "Quirk said there was rampant gossip" because that part is obviously not a quote. The use of words is POV and kind of salacious. "rampant gossip", "escapades" - surely there is a more neutral way to convey the same information. What is "noteworthy" about the pornography collection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossrs (talk • contribs).
The quote is from Val Holley's book, Mike Connolly and the Manly Art of Hollywood Gossip (2003), p.22. It is accurately cited. Holley's statement is based on reports by Hollywood biographer Quirk. I have rewritten the passage. It now reads: 'Val Holley says that, according to Hollywood biographer Lawrence J. Quirk, gay Hollywood columnist Mike Connolly "would put the make on the most prominent young actors, including Robert Francis, Guy Madison, Anthony Perkins, Nick Adams and James Dean. Quirk said there was rampant gossip at gay parties regarding not only Connolly's escapades with these actors but also a noteworthy pornography collection he would display to those he favored." ' I hope this is much clearer than before. Onefortyone 15:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Perhaps seeking to squash any rumours" - this paragraph does not make it clear who is drawing the conclusion. Does the source material raise this as a scenario and question the motives of the studio? Are they saying "Perhaps this is what happened"? If so it should be made clearer. If this is not the case, and it is an editorial conclusion being drawn from the fact that Dean was written about in the same context as Rock Hudson and Tab Hunter, then the entire paragraph should go. The way it's written it hints at saying something but doesn't actually say it, and Wikipedia should not be hedging its bets. If it can't be attributed in an unambiguous manner, and conveyed in a straight forward manner, then it shouldn't be reported. To me it says the studios wrote about Dean, Hudson and Hunter in the same context, and because Hudson and Hunter turned out to be gay, it supports the belief that Dean was also gay/bisexual. This is how I interpret that paragraph based on the way it is written.
  • "Gossip columnists kept the myth of the Dean-Angeli Eternal Romance churning" - this is badly written. There's nothing wrong with the idea it's conveying but it needs to be written in a more straightforward manner.
  • "he also presents what appears to be a far-fetched account" - who says it appears far-fetched? Is this a conclusion we are drawing from the source material? If so, we should not be saying it. If someone else is saying it's far-fetched - who?
  • "undeniably shrewd Dean" is this being said by Hyams? If so, it should be reworded to make that clearer. Or are we saying it? We should not be, of course.
  • "a notion that may be partially true" - as above. Who says it may be partially true? Us? We should not be. Just the facts, and let people reading it come to their own conclusion. Rossrs 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, most of the material which does not make it clear who is drawing the conclusions has been included by the other users. Perhaps the other contributors should also provide direct quotes from the sources they have used, as I am frequently doing. Onefortyone 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have now deleted the sexuality section and rewritten the relationships section. See [11]. I hope other users will improve the quality of the other sections. Onefortyone 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the edits you made improved it a lot but it's changed a lot since I last looked at it. I'll wait until it settles down a bit and then have another look. I think there is a very fine line between covering a subject concisely but sufficiently and dissecting it in too much detail. Every subsequent edit now seems to be steering it towards the latter rather than the former. Like you, I hope the other sections are fleshed out a bit as that would certainly help to balance the article. Rossrs 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There's still way too much mention of his sexuality, for instance why in the description of Rebel without a Cause is his sex life mentioned? If he was sleeping with men when the movie was made how does that affect the movie in any way? How is that possibly relevant to the movie? For the hundredth time biographical articles here on Wikipedia focus on what people are known for, not what we think they should be known for. Look at the Marlon Brando and Rock Hudson articles. They were well known gay/bisexual actors and their articles spend much less time focusing on the actors sex life and focus on what they were known for. Quadzilla99 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As, from the 1920s through the late 1960s, homosexuality was rarely portrayed on the screen, gay or bisexual screenwriters and directors learned to express their personal sensibilities discreetly between the lines of a film. "The important thing to remember about 'gay influence' in movies," observed Nicholas Ray's lover Gavin Lambert, "is that it was obviously never direct. It was all subliminal." The fact that both Dean and director Ray were bisexual and Mineo gay is of much importance to the understanding of specific scenes of Rebel Without a Cause. According to Garry Wotherspoon and Robert F. Aldrich, Dean's "loving tenderness towards the besotted Sal Mineo in Rebel Without a Cause continues to touch and excite gay audiences by its honesty. The Gay Times Readers' Awards cited him as the male gay icon of all time..." See Garry Wotherspoon and Robert F. Aldrich, Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: from Antiquity to World War II, p.105. To give you an impression of what was going on during the filming of Rebel Without a Cause, here is Darwin Porter: Carlo Fiore remembered attending a screening of Rebel Without a Cause with Marlon Brando in 1955. He asked Brando, "Well, what do you think of Dean? That kid is definitely living in your shadow." Brando first told him that he planned to have sex with Natalie Wood. "She's now the first on my list of possible conquests in Hollywood." "You've already fucked Dean," Fiore chided him. "Why not Sal Mineo? I hear he's gay as a goose." Yeah, that Mineo boy might get lucky too." See Darwin Porter, Brando Unzipped (2005), p.194. However, I do not think that this quote belongs in the article. Onefortyone 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this gentleman's sexual orientation and activities the longest section of the article?

I could care less whether James Dean was gay or straight or bi or metrosexual. I could care less about any of that. What is interesting to me is information concerning his direct contributions to American culture and society.

If information concerning his private and personal activities does not directly impact on his contributions to American culture and society, then perhaps they do not need to clutter up the article? They certainly do not need to dominate the article.

Just a regular person looking for information about an actor who made some good films. Veriss1 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dean's "private and personal activities" as you choose to call them, i.e. his known bisexuality, was fully put to use by Nicholas Ray in "Rebel Without a Cause", and was in large part instrumental in Dean becoming the lasting international major movie icon that he did. Ironically, this image of unmacho "cool" that Dean portrayed impacted enormously the then square and straight-laced American culture and society.
(Whether you as a reader could "care less" and are just a "regular person" [?] is really beside the point.) KitMarlowe2 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Dean has been called "the male gay icon of all time". Furthermore, most Dean biographies and several modern gender studies publshed by university presses extensively deal with his bisexuality. This means that his sexual orientation is an important topic for most readers interested in the life and acting career of Dean. Onefortyone 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
However, I do have to challenge the statement up front in the article that Dean had an affair with Marlon Brando, plus its citation of a book dealing with the most outrageous scandal sheet nonsense. If you baldly state such info without the necessary caveats and qualifications, you lose any shred of credibility. Can we lose this? KitMarlowe2 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation-lacking opinions running rampant

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_Dean_cee1.html"