Talk:Natalie Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natalie Wood article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Didn't Natalie have several daughters? Why aren't they mentioned in this article?

Contents

[edit] Anon edits removed

An anon editor slipped in a paragraph about her contact with certain homosexual men in Hollywood. The casual social contacts of Hollywood celebrities are usually considered as gossip, which is not encyclopedic and the edited content demonstrated no relevance to her artistic career. I've removed it, am watching this page and will routinely delete such content until it can be cited from peer-reviewed secondary sources as having anything to do with her career. Note: Gossip may be suitable for an extended, book-length biography, where balance and context can be controlled. A short encyclopedia article, however, can be quickly distorted and overwhelmed with such details (which I suspect the anon already knows). Wyss 1 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Sorry. The information added to the article is taken from a new biography on Natalie Wood by Gavin Lambert. The book clearly is a reliable source. The author coedited the film magazine Sequence with Lindsay Anderson, was the editor of Sight and Sound and wrote film criticism for The Sunday Times and The Guardian. He is the author of four biographies (On Cukor, Norma Shearer, Nazimova and Mainly About Lindsay Anderson) and seven novels. He's known Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner for 40 years. His book, Natalie Wood: A Life includes interviews with the people who knew Wood best, for instance, Robert Wagner, Warren Beatty, Paul Mazursky, and Leslie Caron. The author, himself deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene, writes about the sexual dalliances of Wagner and Wood and their friends, both gay and straight, and clearly says that they "had many gay friends" throughout their life and that Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. Wood even did her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band, which was praised as "the first truly honest portrayal of the lives of contemporary homosexuals". Therefore, the passage you deleted should be reinstalled, as Natalie Wood's contacts to Hollywood gays played a significant part in her life. 80.141.228.219 1 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
Sorry, while I don't question this particular source on this latest edit, you're trying to distort this article in relation to unverified "gay gossip" or whatever which you've been trying to slip into the Nick Adams and Elvis Presley articles. Wyss 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Did you mention that what you call unverified "gay gossip" is part of the reliable source cited above? Why are you so keenly interested to delete this important information? Presumably because you don't like the idea that Nick Adams was gay, which is proved by several independent sources, among them the Wood biography by Gavin Lambert. The fact is that you are deeply involved in an edit war concerning the article on Nick Adams and that your only "contribution" to the Wood article is the removal of what I have written. See also Talk:Nick Adams.

Do you read my posts? Wyss 2 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of user Wyss's offences against Wikipedia guidelines

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." (See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)

User:Wyss repeatedly made a simple revert thereby deleting a whole passage I have added.

Only "Disputed statements for which a credible source has not been provided may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material." (See Wikipedia:Cite sources)

User:Wyss has deleted important additional information that was supported by a reliable source cited on the discussion page.

"Disputed information which, if verified, would remain in an article, should be placed on the article's talk page. Potentially useful information ought to be retained — and by placing disputed information on the talk page, you give other users the opportunity to find sources to support it, in which case the information could be re-inserted into the article proper. This guideline does not endorse or mandate that all unsourced information must be removed: it is recognised that some information is self-evident and that a source for it might not be necessary, or that something may be true and accurate but as-yet unsourced. However, it does make clear that users who, in good faith, dispute information to an article may remove that information and, where, if verified, the material would be suitable for the article, paste it to the talk page." (See Wikipedia:Cite sources)

User:Wyss did not place the disputed passage on the article's talk page. He totally deleted it.

"If you should be inclined to delete something from an entry, consider whether or not it may be profitable to check the facticity of the content first. Of course, if material is factual, i.e. substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is, inter alia, an organized collection of facts, so consider each fact provided as potentially precious. ... If another editor provided a fact, there was probably a reason for it that shouldn't be overlooked. Of course, it is not true that everything an editor adds must be preserved. But be careful about deleting substantiated, relevant material." (See Wikipedia:Check your facts)

User:Wyss deleted material which was substantiated and cited (i.e. proved by a current biography written by a reputed author). He was not extra careful about deleting. His only argument was that "casual social contacts of Hollywood celebrities are usually considered as gossip" and therefore not encyclopedic. In fact, these contacts were not casual.

"Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content." (See Wikipedia:Verifiability)

"For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. ... anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made..." (See Wikipedia:Verifiability)

User:Wyss did not provide references that Natalie Wood's contacts with Hollywood gays were unimportant. Instead, he deleted, without sufficient reason, a substantial paragraph dealing with these important contacts.
User:Wyss should also read what is written on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page:

"When reporting on objective facts, Wikipedia articles should cite primary and secondary sources whenever they exist."

"Editors may only use information that has been published in some form already by a credible publisher, so that we can offer that publication as a citation."

As every reader can see, I have cited an important published secondary source on Natalie Wood's life. There is no need to delete a whole paragraph proving that she frequently dated gay men in Hollywood.


Anon, your only interest in this article is to slip in a mention that Wood hung out with gays now and then (as have countless other people in Hollywood) for the singular purpose of subsequently using her social contact with Nick Adams as a way to infer that Mr Adams was gay. There is zero documented evidence Adams ever demonstrated homosexual behavior. Wyss 2 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

No, this is not the main point. The main point is that Natalie Wood was in close contact with several gay men in Hollywood circles (including Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter, Scott Marlowe, and Nicholas Ray) and that she supported these men which played a significant part in her private life. She even supported gay writers such as Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band (1968). According to reviewer Clive Barnes, this play was the "finest treatment of homosexuality I have ever seen on stage." All this relevant information should be mentioned in the article. 80.141.219.71 2 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
  • Here, the anon uses the standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material which has little or no bearing on this short article. His ultimate goal by the way is to support an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Natalie Wood's relationships with Elvis Presley may indeed be mentioned in the article. As a restless on-screen companion of James Dean and an off-screen date of Elvis, she was much admired and envied by young girls during her lifetime. One of her judgements of Elvis was, "He can sing but he can’t do much else." I think this is also relevant information. 80.141.201.244 2 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
  • Here the Anon in effect concedes his interest in the Presley article. Note that the quote has been carefully selected... presented out of historical context, it contains an inference of impotence. Meanwhile, we're no longer talking about Natalie Wood. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on sources

A similiar issue to this one came up on Abraham Lincoln, when a very recent book came out entitled The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. The problem here is that adding such new and controversial information, which is espoused by one and only one very recent work, tends to be assigned a much higher degree of weight than those sources for which there are multiple sources and verifiability is much higher. I would like to make a suggestion: create a "Natalie Wood: A Life" section of the article. In one or two paragraphs, say what you feel is relevant, and make it clear that these are the contentions of Gavin Lambert. I can see that the alternative here will most likely be an edit war similiar to what happened with Lincoln. It is important to remember official policy: Wikipedia:No original research, and in the same vain, to understand that we can't give undue weight to brand new books that are themselves original research. func(talk) 3 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Sounds helpful to me, although the anon will attempt to link the phrases Nick Adams and gay, since his only interest in this article seems to be promoting a like assertion in the Elvis Presley article. Nick Adams dated Natalie Wood. There is zero documented evidence that Nick Adams was gay. I'd have similar objections if someone was trying to assert Nick Adams was a CIA agent or moonlighting physics professor by citing published hearsay (for example), since there is no documented evidence of those activities either. Balance and context are overwhelmingly important in biographical articles, especially when they're short and even more so when the subjects' personal lifestyle choices are characterized. Wyss 3 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just done some edit history searching. The anon is a POV warrior of the first degree, and does not appear to be editing in good faith. func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

As Wyss responded to my warning about 3RR by bad-temperedly asking why I didn't get involved in "mediating", I've looked at the article, and have decided that the anon's text is perfectly reasonable, and that Wyss's removal of it isn't justified; I've therefore replaced it. If the claim is that one of the people listed as having been gay wasn't, then there'd be reason to remove that name, not the whole paragraph and a bit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

What do you mean by reasonable, Mel? Certainly it's reasonable in the sense of not being nuts, but I see nothing unusual in "being in close contact with several gay men", no reason to describe The Boys in the Band here, and a bizarre lack of informativeness in "supported X in a manner that made it possible for him to write Y" (did she pay him money, let him live in a spare room, or what?). Bored by revert wars, I'm not reverting to Wyss' version (good though I believe it to be); but I am cutting the most absurd addition. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary and thanks Func. Your calm, rational presence reassures me that, at least, this isn't a complete waste of time. Wyss 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary that the anon's addition needed editing — I just don't agree with Wyss's insistence on deleting it wholesale. I don't think that Func's comment helps, being no more than an attack on the anon. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, what about your mistaken remark that I have another WP account? Wyss 4 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
  1. That was made on your Talk page; why are you bringing it up here?
  2. Still, as you want to discuss it, then it does seem to me that the anon is right in thinking that there's a good deal of circumstantial evidence that suggests a strong link between you and Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) — similar styles, even to your user pages, similar aggressive and short-tempered approach to other users, etc., not to mention the very similar comments and editing interests. We could settle it by asking for a sock-puppet check, but so far as I can tell, if you are using both accounts, you haven't used them for nefarious purposes, so I have no desire to bother a developer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

I don't have a second account. If you're still making the accusation, then prove it. Wyss 4 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

You removed the bit where I called you Dearest troll. Please either prove the accusation, or withdraw it. Wyss 4 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Er, the reason you don't want to "bother a developer" is that you probably have a sneaking suspicion that the deeper you look into this, the more you'll be able to clearly confirm I don't have a second account. Please dig deep! Prove it ('cause we both know it'll show your rashness in taking up with the anon so overtly), or withdraw the accusation, which I now sadly interpret as a personal attack. Wyss 4 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
You may know that it's easy to disguise your IP address by using an anonymizer. It's also possible to come in from different IP addresses and post something different at nearly the same time.

I removed the personal attack, in accordance with Wikpedia policy. The suggestion that you have a second account isn't an accusation, as it wouldn't be against Wikipedia policy for you to have one — there's only be a problem if you used the two in certain ways. Intriguing though it is that you've brought this irrelevant debate here rather than discussing the article, I must decline to be distracted by it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Dearest troll, you accuse me of being a sock. You have used that accusation to imply I was editing abusively and dishonestly, then leveraged it in your active, PoV editing of these articles. Withdraw the accusation or prove it (I suspect you know that any emperical examination of the two accounts would show they can't belong to the same individual). Wyss 5 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Um...so anyway, about the article: again, I think the example at Abraham Lincoln concerning The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln is a good example of what we should do here. We don't have an article on either Gavin Lambert or Natalie Wood: A Life. I would like to suggest that the anon create an article at either of those red links, where Lambert's POV can be reported on. We can then simply provide a link to that article, with a brief commentary on it here. Look, guys, edit wars just aren't productive, and all of the reverting is just wasting everyone's time. You have to work toward compromise. func(talk) 5 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

I agree with User:Func, but since the admin has brought this discussion down to the level of pre-adolescent boys (no disrespect to the latter intended btw), I have decided to help the anon stand out and shine in his quest to make Elvis Presley gay in the eyes of history. Wyss 5 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Come on, Wyss, Mel didn't do that. (Also, I for one was rather pleasant as a pre-adolescent. It was adolescence when my troubles began.) I dunno, perhaps Mel just likes a whiff of celebrity gossip. After all, he's in Britain and, like it or not, Brits are inundated by it. (George Best! His ex-wife! His ex-wife's new TV show! His ex-wife's ex-dog's new owner's boyfriend's health club's clientele!) It might start to addle the brain. (Nuthin' personal, Mel [smiley]. I was recently in Wivenhoe for a year; I know how it can feel.) Look, would you people mind terribly if I reverted to this version? -- Hoary July 5, 2005 08:33 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go with that... thinking back, it really is unfair to the pre-adolescent boys I've known. Withdrawn. Anyway, given his irresponsible accusations and smears, thinly veiled personal attacks and abuse of his admin status in order to intimidate and actively edit according to a gossipy, tabloid-oriented PoV and agenda obsessed with sexual preference (never mind it disregards any reasonable sense of historical documentation), I humbly suggest he resign as an admin. Wyss 5 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
Done.
And I humbly disagree with your suggestion. Really, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I don't think this is the first time I've disagreed with Mel, and on occasion I've been irritated by what he has said (as no doubt he has been by what I've said) -- sorry, I can't think of examples; I have a short memory for this kind of nonsense -- but Mel's a Good Egg. I basically agree with your edits in this bunch of articles (aside of course from your very recent and now reverted parodic edits) and disagree with his where they disagree with yours. But I haven't seen smears (irresponsible or other), personal attacks (however veiled), etc. There's no big deal here; nothing to lose sleep over.
Have a shufti at his talk page. Wyss 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
Or turn off the 'puter and stick My Man Godfrey into the DVD player. Hmm, I think I'll half take my own advice and go out for a walk in the "real world". -- Hoary July 5, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary. The only true problem is he rashly accused me of being a sock (picking up on the anon's troll tactic). I think he knows I'm not now, but is too embarassed to take it back. Anyway have a nice walk! Wyss 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
  1. I have no interest in celebrity gossip, and little interest in any of the people mentioned in the articles. I was approached by an editor who believed that Wyss had violated 3RR. I checked, and he hadn't, but as he was in danger of doing so I warned him (in accordance with normal Wikipedia procedure). He responded vitriolically, and has kept up the vitriol on my page, on his Talk page, and here, ever since.
  2. Wyss's edits, style (including the vitriol and the short temper), and interests correspond very closely to Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs), and I mentioned that in passing on his Talk page. As with the 3RR business, he's blown it out of proportion, brought discussion of it here (for what reason I can't imagine), and used it as more fuel for his obsessive vendetta.
  3. With regard to the relevant issues – the anon. editor's addition – I held (and still hold) that Wyss's deletion of a large chunk of text was unjustified. In so far as he had a reason to object to the material, it seemed to apply only to a very small part (the inclusion of one name). The material seems to be adequately sourced; Wyss's only reason for deleting it all is aesthetic; that isn't adequate grounds for his behaviour according to Wikipedia policy.
  4. I've thus replaced Hoary's rewrite of the material, and placed this article on RfC; let's get some other opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
As wonted, you continue to abuse your admin status on these articles with your relentless obsession for undocumented, tabloid-quality references to sexual preference. Your summaries tend to be misleadingly inaccurate (for example, Hoary didn't rewrite anything in the article, he reverted to an earlier version). You are disrupting Wikipedia and wasting the time of many contributors. Wyss 5 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
  1. I've not used any admin powers, therefore can't have abused any of them.
  2. I have no interest in the content; the obsession is all in your head (in more ways than one, perhaps). I've madea couple of edits to this one article. Why do you feel the need to go in for this sort of ludicrous exaggeration?
  3. It's standard to name the person whose name is against the last version to which one reverts.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

  • The anon approached and asked for assistance from an admin... you. Therefore your role from the start was not as an editor but as an admin.
  • You used your role as an admin to post the uncalled for 3rr warning on my page, with a threat to block me (which you have the power to do).
  • You, the admin, on your talk page, incorrectly and rashly agreed with the anon's tactical assertion that I am (or have) a sockpuppet. You have not yet retracted the statement (although I've invited you several times to either do so or prove it). You have also consistently avoided discussing this directly with me. The deeper you dig (if you haven't already), the more you'll confirm that I don't use socks.
  • You, an admin, after preparing your entry into the fray with this intimidation, then made edits to the article and later referred it over to RfC.

I think a philosophy tutor at Oxford would have some understanding as to how that might be interpreted as an abuse of authority. Lambert, by the way, is the only credible source the anon has presented. As it turns out, what he's really been offering is a paraphrase of Lambert from the Advocate magazine. I'm now trying to work with the anon in getting the direct quote. Wyss 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

[edit] Wellman Version

I like it for now. Wyss 5 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's material

As I've listed the article on RfC, it would show good faith if editors were to leave the disputed material in place until other editors have had a chance to look at and judge it for themselves. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Yes, that would promote your PoV and give it more time to spew out onto the mirrors, wouldn't it? :) This is further abuse of your authority. As an admin, you have placed the article on RfC, and "suggested" that the "disputed" material (which you have demonstrated personal favouritism for through both direct edits and remarks on talk pages) be preserved for now. Wyss 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Oh good grief.
  1. I don't have a point of view; in fact I have no interest in the lives of a bunch of people that I've never met and whom I'd probably have found vapid and tedious. I especially have no interst in their sexual orientations, or the orientations of their friends. I'm not being a partisan PoV pusher, I'm being a neutral Wikipedia editor, difficult though you find it to grasp that concept. That you seem to define "calm and rational" as "agrees with me" indicates the level of your understanding of neutrality.
  2. Placing an article on RfC isn't the action of an admin, but of an editor; anyone can do it.
  3. My suggestion is equally that of an editor, not of an admin.
  4. If all this thrashing about and flinging of absurd and empty accusations is the best you can do, have you thought of reflecting on the strength of your position? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Codswallop. You entered this discussion after being invited as an admin by the anon. I got here editing via the Picnic (movie) article. Who sounds more like they're here as an editor? I interpret your PoV as, "it's ok for Wikipedia to publish undocoumented gossip, even when its presence in an article might mislead." Your remark on my concept of neutrality amounts to a shallow debating tactic (based on your personal attack in which you said that my idea of "calm and rational" means "agrees with me"). Meanwhile, you're still being evasive: Either retract your statement that I have (or am) a sockpuppet, or prove it.

Now, quoting from your user page...

Being an admin doesn't mean that I'm in any way above Wikipedia policy, and in fact brings with it extra responsbility — so if you think that I've behaved wrongly, let me know — but politely; it's most likely to be inadvertent, as is most wrongdoing here.

You are so informed. ...Politely? You're the one who slapped the uncalled for 3rr warning on my page with a threat to block (also referred to on your talk page). You're the one who sniggered away on your talk page about sockpuppets without taking the trouble to check me out. Yes, it's ok to have sockpuppets, but we all know that using them in the way you, an admin, accused me of is considered bad form and deeply undermines the credibility of anyone who does so never mind I've never used one. By the way, have you noticed all the red links in the disputed paragraph? What does that say about the encyclopedic nature of its content, even if it does accurately reflect Lambert's quote (about which doubt has arisen)? Wyss 5 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

[edit] Lambert references

I've confirmed Lambert does make a passing reference to Adams ("Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..."), but I've also read many reader reviews which describe the book as "boring" and essentially as a puff piece for Robert Wagner, who did invite Lambert to write the book.

How does any such reference to Adams, appearing over 35 years after his death in a book whose credibility has been publicly questioned by many readers, help this article about Natalie Wood? Wyss 5 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

  1. A book's being boring does not constitute its lack of credibility.
  2. Reader reviews are unusable as adequate sources for Wikipedia, unless they're in genuine journals; I take it that these are not.
  3. With reference to your continued bluster, I'll repeat just once more, first, that as i have used no admin powers, I can't have abused any, and secondly, that I've not accused you of being a sock-puppet, I've merely expressed the opinion that you have two accounts. If you insist that I've behaved badly, take it the the administrators' noticeboard; I'm sure they'll be impressed by your claim that providing you with a 3RR warning was vicious harrassment...

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

This is typical of the way you distort, mislead, intimidate and otherwise abuse your admin status.

I never called it "vicious harrasment" (nor did I use the correctly spelled version, either). I did tell you to stop harassing me and in full disclosure, I've also called you Dearest troll two or three times. Your suggestion that the administrators would be "impressed" sounds rather menacing to me, kinda like intimidation :)

So far as the 3rr goes, that alone wasn't the issue, as you know.

This is a talk page, not the article. It's ok to mention "boring". Lots of puff pieces are "boring". It helps characterize the helpfulness of the book... as perhaps being a puff piece for Bob Wagner.

I'm not suggesting using the reader reviews as sources in the article, so your remark regarding sources doesn't seem to apply to anything. Maybe you didn't read my post carefully enough?

Anyway I'm not trying to get elected to anything here, I'm just trying to write an article about Nick Adams (among others) and meanwhile you, an admin, in your capacity as an admin, came to the aid of an anon who wants to litter it and other articles with "gay" inuendo and who knows what else without using reasonably documented secondary sources.

Your remark that you haven't accused me of sockpuppetry is semantics. Whatever. You accused me of using two accounts to edit the talk page of Nick Adams. Prove it, admin, or withdraw the statement. Wyss 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

(Note, I have apologized to Mel for over-reacting Wyss 6 July 2005 08:07 (UTC))

I thought I asked you guys to avoid personal remarks. I want to see discussions between Mel and Wyss focus more than 50 percent on Wikipedia articles - and not on other stuff, like who's politer to whom. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 13:48 (UTC)
 ;) Wyss 6 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

Ok, so notice all the red links in the disputed paragraph. What does that say about the encyclopedic nature of its content, even if it does accurately reflect Lambert's quote? Wyss 6 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

[edit] Lambert quote

Lambert does make a passing reference to Adams...

Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams...

However, some have criticized the book as essentially as a puff piece for Robert Wagner, who did invite Lambert to write the book.

We know that Wood and Adams became fast friends. We don't really know if Adams was gay since there is zero documentation regarding that from the era when he was alive (Lambert is the only credible published source I've seen referring to Adams as such, and the reference seems to be casual, in passing and is unsupported by external evidence). How does this relate to Natalie Wood's career? How would mentioning it in this short article help the reader? Wyss 6 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

More on the disputed paragraph. Why is it significant that some of the people in her social circle were gay? Does this set her apart from other actresses? (It doesn't, btw) What was it about them being gay that makes it important or encyclopedic to mention? Finally, the "Will and Grace" metaphor looks like it comes from an Advocate magazine article, not the Lambert book. What is the purpose of using this metaphor? Was she really a so-called "fag-hag" (zero lack of respect or irony intended)? What documentation aside from Lambert's word do we have for this? Does it matter? Wyss 7 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

It might matter if for example these people were social pariahs (for whatever reason) and NW was thus brave in befriending them. Thus Ada Leverson was (with her husband) notable partly for the way in which she continued to befriend Oscar Wilde after his disgrace and abandonment by virtually all his previous cronies and hangers-on. Were James Dean et al. pariahs? While I'm not well-educated in historical celebrityology, I rather doubt this. -- Hoary July 7, 2005 15:30 (UTC)
I can assure you from my own experiences in Hollywood that they were not (that's personal research, heh heh, but I've no doubt I could scrounge up a few hundred secondary sources to back me up on that one). Anyway, I think the paragraph should be deleted for now. My only hesitation is maybe leaving in her support of that playwrite (who wrote Boys in the Band). That's kind of interesting as an insight into her character and contribution to culture. I wish I knew what sort of support she gave him though. Wyss 7 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

I've put the Cowley bit into a new trivia section (it seems encyclopedic and interesting there). Wyss 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

[edit] Gay stuff

I really have no problem with Cowley in the trivia section. However, to additional "...which was praised as "the first truly honest portrayal of the lives of contemporary homosexuals" sounds like someone's trying to sell a PoV too stridently.

I don't like the list of gay men friends / fag hag item. Even using the word "gay" is a stretch for me, just as I'd have a problem saying "Gwen Stefani's social circle includes many straight men..." It infers. What does this sort of strained characterization have to do with anything? When documented evidence of a particular sexual preference exists and relates to a public career, it's usually unnecessary to use adjectives like gay,, homosexual, straight, lesbian or whatever. Instead, we'll see words and phrases like partner, girlfriend, outed... I'd appreciate comment on this. Not to be overly confrontational, I still think the anon is trying to establish a basis for asserting Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 8 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Wouldn't the use of words like "partner", etc., be expected only in cases where the subject is gay or straight? I agree that too much shouldn't be made of this business, but the only good (Wiki-)reason that I can think of for omitting mention of a verifiable fact is that it's insignificant — in this case because a large circle of gay friends was reasonably common among female Hollywood actresses. Was it? I'd be surprised by neither a yes nor a no. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Yes, and that's my point. In articles where the documentation of the subject's lifestyle is strong and relevant, those are the words we see... there's seldom a need to describe the preferences as "homosexual", "heteresexual" etc.

Now, truth be told, I have issues with the lack of verification (Lambert's the strongest he's got and that seems a bit on the edge but we've included it). I don't know where he got Crawley and his play - it works fine for me in a trivia section if worded professionally which brings me to your last point. It is insignificant. Almost any successful actress in Hollywood, then or now, has had gays and lesbians in her social circle. It's like breathing. There's nothing unusual or significant about it in that culture. Ok, I know that from personal experience but it's not hard to document. So why even bring it up? What is the anon trying to sell? Is he really interested in lending a balanced portrayal of Natalie Wood? His editing pattern (limited to "gay" content, weakly sourced, in three or four articles) further indicates an agenda at odds against objectivity, balance and NPoV. (Thanks for this wonderful opportunity to vent, Mel! Blowers off ;) Wyss 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, from the beginning, it was your personal interest to suppress any reference to the fact that Natalie Wood dated gay men in Hollywood circles. To my mind, it is a very important fact concerning her life and social amibitions that she was in close contact with these people and even supported them (for instance, homosexual playwright Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band, see above), at a time when many homosexual Hollywood stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation. During the 50s and 60s, many of them were too ashamed to acknowledge their feelings for fear of reprisal. See, for example, the marriage of Rock Hudson and Phyllis Gates in 1955. Certainly the studio used this sham marriage in order to cover Hudson's homosexuality. Years earlier, during the 1930s, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio chief Louis B. Mayer forced actor William "Billy" Haines to choose between his film career and his homosexual lifestyle. There are further examples of this kind. Because of this background, I think Natalie Wood's fundamental sympathy for Hollywood's homosexuals and their problems is a very important aspect of her life and must be included in the article. 80.141.228.79 9 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

Anon, Rock Hudson is another article. His homosexuality is now well documented and its impact on his acting career had a widely-described (and arguably fascinating) cultural significance. Many actors (female and male) have been privately and otherwise tolerant and sympathetic towards their colleagues. I reject your assertion that my edits to this article have been "personal". I do assert that your known edits to Wikipedia have been limited to three or four articles, Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, James Dean and Elvis Presley, all people who passed through the same social circle during the mid and late 1950s and who died young. Your edits in these articles have exclusively been references to male-male homosexual behavior and you have restored them time and again, even after reversions by multiple editors, even after it has been pointed out repeatedly that your sources are for the most part drawn from invented and otherwise unreliable accounts. In my opinion, you are persistently attempting to establish (undocumented) support for an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay and had an affair with Nick Adams when there is zero documented evidence to support the assertion. I don't accept your arguments and am awaiting a consensus either way. Wyss 9 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)


[edit] Referencing books

The following was posted by me (User:Ted Wilkes) on User talk:Ed Poor:

According to User talk:Mel Etitis you advised contributors to: "just say that X wrote a book which claims Y is homosexual / bisexual / whatever. One or two lines ought to be enough."

I must say that this was a surprise coming from someone who has stated that Wikipedia does not yet have credibility. To me, your statement will counteract any effort to attain credibility and actually will open the door to a flood of conspiracy theorists, religious zealots, terrorists - you name it - with an agenda who can easily (and anonymously if they like) overwhelm Wikipedia articles with tens of thousands of such references to a book. There are a large number of new publishing houses, quick-buck imprints, self-published authors, and self-published authors who create a publishing house name (who can easily be listed on Amazon.com) that have sprung up with the advent of the PC. Added to this, there are numerous printing companies such as TK Printing in Indonesia who will print 5.5 x 8.5 paperback books of up to 200 pages for 78¢ per copy (seventy-eight cents: printed, bound, color cover). As a result, there are now millions of so-called books worldwide that people could quote.

Note too, when quoting any book, even by a supposed highly respected source, it can often be meaningless. A great many legitimate writers refer to things as they see or believe them to be. If called upon, they can properly say it was a minor reference and done based on the best available information at the time and said without malice. No encyclopedia quotes these opinions or references unless they were documented with proofs and then the encyclopedia requires a minimum of one other verifiable supporting source for that documentation. Wikipedia, by its openess to editing by anyone, in fact needs to set a higher standard if it wants credibility. Let anyone quote any book they please that is no more than the author's passing comment, opinion, or allegation, and there will be such a volume of "book" references inserted into articles justifying the contributors assertions that Wikipedians won't be able to undo.

Pehaps you might want to take a second look at your suggestion. In fact, why not use your position and experience at Wikipedia to actually get the ball rolling on a formula for establishing real credibilty. - Ted Wilkes July 9, 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Regarding your statement will counteract any effort to attain credibility: It was not my intention to reduce Wikipedia's credibility. Contrariwise, I feel that not taking sides on controversial or poorly researched matters is essential to maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. Look at the mess Newsweek got into about Koran desecration at gitmo. I think Wikipedia shouldn't try to aid any particular cause by throwin its weight behind an endorsement of a particular charge, assertion, statement or point of view. Please read Wikipedia:POV carefully. Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 16:14 (UTC)
No one said it was your intention. - I'm saying it will be the effect and it already has. You in fact took sides and sanctioned the insertion of anything anyone wants so long as they quote the name of the book and author. A contributor has already used your assertion to place input in the Natalie Wood article that is neither factual nor substantiated. That now leads to a series of counter quotes by other books that too are nothing but unsubstantiated opinions, allegations and the like. That is called an edit war. And yes, I have read Wikipedia:POV -- very carefully. Ted Wilkes July 9, 2005 17:14 (UTC)


[edit] Further comment:

In addition to the above, knowingly and deliberately inserting falsified information in Wikipedia is an act of sabotage and that person can be banned for such conduct. That person has no credibility and their edits will be reverted. In the case of ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc., they have repeatedly inserted information that they have taken elsewhere and falsified. Example:

  • Revision to David Bret article [1] as of 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 80.141.206.211
    • Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his boyfriend Nick Adams.
  • Please note what the article actually states as to what Ms. Speckels said on the website:
    • [2] - "In Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend, actor Nick Adams."

ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc., has also knowingly and repeatedly inserted false statements, that only get changed after he/she wages an unrelenting edit war. You will see that USER: 80.141.etc.etc. inserted a deliberate falsification stating: " Lesbian actress Natalie Wood says that she dated gay men in Hollywood circles …"

[3] as of 21:17, June 1, 2005 80.141.197.237

ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc. has bullied several other contributors. Their favorite is to insert unsigned comments into passages like this so that a) few if any bother to read them, and b) are nothing more than unfounded assertions that cause more wasted time for others to respond. Their fabrications cause other sincere Wikipedians to waste countless hours trying to overcome them. More than one attempt to Wikipedia:Mediation the edits of ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc. have proven fruitless. As such, given the failure of arbitration to end this abuse, if ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc. reinstates one more of their fabrications or unfounded statements, I will take this straight to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - Ted Wilkes July 9, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, from the beginning, the Talk:Nick Adams page alone proves that you are wrong. 80.141.204.9 00:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Removed references that refer to opinions expressed by a third party"

References to what third parties have written is central to (indeed, it might be said, constitutive of) Wikipedia policy. We don't do original research, we report on other people's research. That's what the excised material does, hence my revert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Regardless of the technical context, the information inserted into the article by the anon is not sufficiently sourced and of dubious relevance. In my opinion, the anon's edits are in bad faith. Please see lengthy discussion above. Wyss 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

I have read the discussion (disregarding the anonymous message complaining about anonymous messages), but the fact remains that removing material because it describes what is said in a book about the subject isn't unacceptable on that basis. The material in question needed editing, which I've done: I've added provisos and qualification, and excised one vague and unsupported claim. Given that this is in the Trivia section, and given the changes I've made, I can't see the objection to including it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
REPEAT: Encyclopedias do not reference gossip or unsubtantiated opinions. Removing unfounded material is in fact the job of Wikipedians. Ted Wilkes 20:04, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Mel Etitis' justification for including unsubstantiated gossip in the article (however I do agree that the trivia section is appropriate for it if it was substantiated). Wyss 20:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


Note the comment by ANONYMOUS USER: 80.141.etc.etc. at Talk:Nick Adams (Revision as of 18:59, 7 July 2005):

  • "What has been published on Adams should be mentioned. That some of these sources may be unreliable is said in the article. Let the reader decide which argument to accept. 80.141.220.73"

This is precisely what destroys Wikipedia credibility. Ted Wilkes 20:44, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore an encyclopedia has a responsibility to present its readers with credible information from secondary sources, not any information from secondary sources and Wikipedia is not a data dump. Yes, this sort of erosion and gaming of the system is exactly what ruins Wikipedia's credibility. Wyss 21:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The above is all personal judgement. What isn't personal judgement is that a published work has included certain claims. The article reports that that work has made those claims. That is what NPoV means. I've compromised somewhat in dubbing the book "controversial" (when my own knowledge is only that two editors on this page deem it so).
Unsubstantiated gossip would be if I made these claims; that the book makes them makes it substantiated from the point of view of Wikipedia. It may be weakly substantiated (though as I say, I don't know that directly), but then we explain this, and the reader has to make up her own mind.
Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by a number of things (countless articles on comic-book, fantasy, and computer-game characters, countries, equipment, etc.; articles that have been hijacked by religious or political extremists; articles that are simply poorly written and grossly inaccurate). That an article accurately reports what a writer says about a group of dead Hollywood celebrities is highly unlikely to contribute substantially to that, if at all. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I flatly disagree with Mel that this is personal judgement. Documentation is quantitative (it's either there or not). Critical review is either accepting of an account or dismissive, quantifiable, unambiguous, not subjective. While poor (or what in this case I would characterize more as deliberately muddied) writing can distract from clarity and objectivity, the sources behind it are always quantifiable and checkable. Wyss 23:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


Please note that [User:Mel Etitis]] has reverted the same text in this article three times. The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule is now in effect. Ted Wilkes 23:15, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Significantly, Wyss and Ted Wilkes seem to be the only users keenly interested to suppress what I have added to the article (see their contributions to the talk page and the repeated reverts they did). On the other hand, they have included other material in the Trivia section and other parts of the article, which is also neither factual nor substantiated by credible sources. In fact, they did not even cite their sources. Just because THEY included this material, it is O.K. This is what I call unfairly applying double standards. As everybody can see, I have cited several independent sources on the discussion pages to support my view. See also Talk:Nick Adams. My opponent(s) claim that all these sources are not reliable enough. I say that this is not true and only the personal opinion of these users. From the beginning of the dispute, their only aim was, and still is, to disparage what I have written, as the facts I want to add to the articles are not in line with their personal views. This is totally unacceptable. 80.141.215.104 00:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Keenly interested to suppress is an odd choice of language; I'd say "happy to remove the strange addition of". Anyway (i) I hereby assert that I'm not Ted Wilkes (of whom I'd never heard till recently) or Wyss, and (ii) I'm against the addition of tattle about people's sexual preferences and activities, let alone that about the sexual whatnots of their chums, unless this is shown to illuminate something else. The matter of verifiability aside for a moment, in what way, O Mr/Ms IP Number, do you think that this stuff is significant or interesting? -- Hoary 00:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not include tattle about people's sexual preferences. I included an additional note that, according to a reliable source, Natalie Wood dated many gay men in Hollywood circles. To my mind, it is a very important fact concerning her life and social amibitions that she was in close contact with these people and even supported them (for instance, homosexual playwright Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band, see above), at a time when many homosexual Hollywood stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation. During the 50s and 60s, many of them were too ashamed to acknowledge their feelings for fear of reprisal. See, for example, the marriage of Rock Hudson and Phyllis Gates in 1955. Certainly the studio used this sham marriage in order to cover Hudson's homosexuality. Years earlier, during the 1930s, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio chief Louis B. Mayer forced actor William "Billy" Haines to choose between his film career and his homosexual lifestyle. Because of this background, I think Natalie Wood's fundamental sympathy for Hollywood's homosexuals and their problems is a very important aspect of her life and must be included in the article. 80.141.204.9 01:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to get clear about this. Verifiability is indeed objective and quantitative, and the paragraph in question is objectively and quantifiably verifiable. The text says that a certain author makes certain claims in a certain book (it even points out that the author and book are controversial; no citation has been given for this claim, but let it pass); it can be verified that that author makes those claims in that book. The question of verifiability therefore doesn't arise.

It is not acceptable for an editor to insist on removing material because she believes it to be uninteresting; that's a straightforward case of PoV editing. That another editor inserted the material indicates that there are two points of view. The criterion that can be appealed to for refusing to admit text is lack of verifiability — but this text is adequately cited. Referring to material as "tattle" isn't helpful (any more than are terms like "gossip"); this is just a way of stating one's lack of interest in an emotive way.

In other words, whether information is interesting is subjective. I don't find this information very interesting —but then I don't find the article interesting; I'm not interested in any "tittle tattle" or "gossip" about Hollywood actors and actresses. I don't care that when Wood died she was filming Brainstorm, or that she drowned after an argument, or that she was admired by young girls, or that she was married twice to Robert Wagner, etc. I don't therefore think that the article shouldn't appear, or that all that information should be excised. My concern is that, by parity of reasoning, other editors seem to think that I should. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To be plain... I interpret Mel's take on this as follows... "If some supermarket publisher decided to release a book by a tabloid writer saying Einstein, after a torrid and dissapointing homosexual affair with Max Planck, was captured by aliens in 1900 while working in the Swiss patent office, then taken to Jupiter and lectured by the pre-incarnate soul of Elvis Presley on the theoretical parametres of Special Relativity as they related to the Calvinistic determinism operating on Nick Adams' future life," it would be ok to mention in the article (even if Mel didn't care Einstein married his cousin, which he did by the bye). I disagree. My example is only a bit more extreme than what we have here (with the Nick Adams and Wood articles) IMO. Wyss 11:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you really believe that what you have written is a relevant argument to exclude the material I have included in the Trivia section of the article? Gavin Lambert's book was not published by a supermarket publisher. It clearly is a reliable source. The author is not a tabloid writer. He coedited the film magazine Sequence with Lindsay Anderson, was the editor of Sight and Sound and wrote film criticism for The Sunday Times and The Guardian. He is the author of four biographies (On Cukor, Norma Shearer, Nazimova and Mainly About Lindsay Anderson) and seven novels. He's known Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner for 40 years. His book, Natalie Wood: A Life includes interviews with the people who knew Wood best, for instance, Robert Wagner, Warren Beatty, Paul Mazursky, and Leslie Caron. The reputed author clearly says that Natalie Wood "had many gay friends" throughout her life and that she frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. Wood even did her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his play, The Boys in the Band, which was praised as "the first truly honest portrayal of the lives of contemporary homosexuals". Therefore, the passage you deleted must be reinstated, as Natalie Wood's contacts to Hollywood gays played a significant part in her life. 80.141.215.243 12:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Any repetition on my part is in response to that. Please re-read this talk page if you have further questions about why your edits are not encyclopedic while we wait for consensus to emerge. Wyss 12:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you please cite a relevant source which proves that the facts presented in Gavin Lambert's book are wrong. Are you able to cite such a source? No, of course not. 80.141.189.105 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
If you have further questions about why your edits are not encyclopedic, please re-read this talk page while we wait for consensus to emerge. Wyss 13:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

But consensus won't just emerge of its own accord; editors have to work at it, by listening to and taking seriously each other's arguments. I don't think that you've done that with what I said, though. As the anon points out (I do wish that he'd open an account, if only as a courtesy to those wanting to refer to him), the analogy that you used wasn't "only a bit more extreme" than the passage in question, and thus failed to be analogous. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed that section that quotes an individual's opinion who in fact was not a studio executive and therefore had only hearsay knowledge. And, the context posted here is in fact a total distortion. No encyclopedia quotes gossip or hearsay nor some magazine's description of her. If we condone such policies, then the books and magazines with descriptions of George W. Bush and others in Wikipedia would be a mile long . Ted Wilkes 15:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

You've also just reverted five times within twenty-four hours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I'm not expecting you to be convinced by anything I say about source credibility. However, I am a bit alarmed when you imply that I'm either passively awaiting consensus, or that consensus is somehow not the point. Please clarify, ok? Wyss 17:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. It was only that you wrote: "while we wait for consensus to emerge".
  2. It's not that I won't accept anything you say about source credibility; rather, all that anyone here has said is that the source isn't credible. The only reason seems to be that the author says something with which people disagree; that, of course, is circular. If there is some other, independent ground for dismissing the book and/or the author, I'd be happy to take it into account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I said that Lambert is the only source, that the remark is made in passing and that Lambert's book has been criticized on a number of levels. I have also repeatedly said that the anon's other published sources are widely regarded to contain interviews and other material invented from whole cloth. This is not a question of belief. I have never said, "I believe this," or "I believe that." It's about the documented evidence and credible secondary sources. Wyss 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've doubtless missed something (it's a long and convoluted page), but the only reference that I could find you making to the Lambert book above was: "I don't question this particular source". Who has criticised Lambert's book, and at what levels? So far as I can see, based on the uncontested claims of the anon, Lambert is a respected music-journalist (yes, I know, an oxymoron, but let's overlook that), who's written a book that's been published by a reputable publisher. What makes it non-credible? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do question it... at first I thought it was ok but after later checking I found the anon had pulled the 'Grace to an army of Wills' line not from Lambert, but from a review of Lambert in the Advocate magazine. The industry reviews of Lambert's Wood bio tend to be glowing. Reader reviews tend to characterize the book as boring, unbalanced and a "puff piece" for Robert Wagner. Nick Adams (who was one of Wood's best friends) is hardly mentioned in the book... one quote from the book, which I found at Amazon, characterized him as the "first gay actor" the studio had set Wood up with. That's it. Decades after he died, that's the only reference to Nick Adams being gay that I can find apart from a few downmarket books published decades later which have been ripped to shreds by critics for their complete lack of credibility. Some web sites have picked up on the references, but never to any depth. Anyone can publish made-up gossip for the purpose of getting sales in supermarkets. Many do. This stuff isn't credible enough to mention in a general reference encyclopedia. There is no documented evidence Nick Adams was gay. Wyss 19:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wholly convinced (as I think I've said before, being boring and a puff-piece don't imply unreliability regarding factual claims), but forget that; why not just excise the reference to Adams' being gay from the piece? After all, this is an article about Wood, not Adams; most of the paragraph has nothing to do with Adams. I realise that this will have no effect in TedWilkes, who seems to be intent simply on revert-warring, but couldn't you, I, and the anon. agree to this compromise? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that you'd adopted his approach — and in the process have reverted such things as my correction of "disappointmented", etc. I had thought that three of the four editors involved would be prepared to be reasonable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'l go currekt the typoz now :) Wyss 19:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to revert unsubstantiated gossip and misleading inneundo posted by a persistent anon who's focused only on inserting the term "homosexual" into a handful of related celebrity articles. Wyss 19:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

But you in fact reverted me — after I'd spent some time trying to find a compromise, in an attempt to reach consensus. On the one hand perhaps the anon is merely desperate to get mentions of homsexuality into the article; on the other, Ted Wilkes seems merely to be desperate to remove any mention of homosexuality from it. Rather than choosing sides, it's surely better to find middle ground. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've already tried limiting this to mention of the Crawley tidbit in the trivia section. That's sort of interesting, is attributed to Lambert by the anon and does provide some saucy innuendo. I'm still willing to accept that middle ground. :) Wyss 21:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, today I ran across the following remark... In the July/August 2005 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Massimo Pigliucci argues that the historical sciences are indeed science. I respectfully file that under my assertion that sourcing an encyclopedia is a quantitative activity. Documentation cited by a credible secondary source matters. Wyss 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with this if the aanon. is. Incidentally, as I said above, I'm at one with you concerning the objective and quantitative nature of providing sources (though I disagree with Pigliucci concerning history).
Changing the subject: I subscribed to the Skeptical Inquirer for a year (I was teaching a course on the philosophy of parapsychology at the time, and I thought that it might be useful). I didn't renew my subscription because I found so much of it was sloppily written and full of journalistic prejudice. (I'm not talking about the general thrust of the magazine, whose basic position I share.) Do you find the same? It's a few years, now, so I suppose that it might have changed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I've read maybe 100 of their articles via the Internet over the last few years. The writing and organisational quality seems to vary from no better than average to fluid and pleasing... I usually like the content and the thesis (though sometimes I might not agree with how the author got there ;). Wyss 09:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not satisfied with the now totally mutilated information which misses the main point, i.e. Natalie Wood's social engagement concerning the problems of Hollywood's gays. As her contacts with these people, among them many later stars, were very close, their names should be mentioned, as they do not appear elsewhere in the article. Here is my new version of the said paragraph:

In a 2004 biography of Wood, Gavin Lambert emphasizes that Wood was in close contact with many gay men in Hollywood circles, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. The author also claims that she supported homosexual playwright Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his groundbreaking Broadway play The Boys in the Band (1968). Wood's fundamental sympathy for, and support of, gay people in Hollywood, at a time when many homosexual stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation, is a very important aspect of her life and demonstrates her social engagement for minorities.

By the way, Natasha Gregson Wagner, daughter of Natalie Wood, calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." Michelle Merryweather states, "Drawing exclusively on private papers and interviews with those who knew her best – including her husband Robert Wagner – Lambert presents us with the richest imaginable portrait of this beguiling, tragic woman." In addition, Suzanne Finstad, author of Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (2001), who received the Frank Wardlaw Prize for literary excellence for her first book, says that Mart Crowley "worked for them for many years, many years. She also hired his boyfriend." Finstad also says that Raymond Burr enhanced Natalie’s life and that he loved Natalie. "When I was talking to Dennis Hopper about that, he was saying I just cant wrap my mind around that one. But you know, I saw them together. They were definitely a couple. Who knows what was going on there."

...added at 00:56, 11 July 11 2005 by 80.141.227.119

First, I have to say how impressed I am to see all this argumentation over the weekend. (And I'd thought I had no free time!) Right then, a couple of points. First, Mel: It is not acceptable for an editor to insist on removing material because she believes it to be uninteresting; that's a straightforward case of PoV editing, and he argues (you argue) this rather persuasively. (Second person is easier.) So who is of interest to you, Mel? I looked through half a dozen or so of the articles listed on your user page (and incidentally was delighted to see you'd started an article on Ian Carr), and couldn't find a single article that mentioned the friends (as opposed to colleagues, collaborators or partners) of the person covered. Of course this could be because these articles aren't particularly long. But, while I'm sure they exist, I'm hard pressed to come up with any bio article that talks about who was befriended by the subject of the article. Secondly: In a 2004 biography of Wood, Gavin Lambert emphasizes that Wood was in close contact with many gay men in Hollywood circles, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. . . . This is unclear: it could easily be taken to mean that these six people are acknowledged to be gay. Instead, if this stuff is worth saying at all, it should be made clear that the gayness (?!) of all of them (as opposed to just one or two) is something that Lambert is claiming: "In a 2004 biography of Wood, Gavin Lambert emphasizes that she was in close contact with many men in Hollywood circles who he claims were gay. . . ." -- Hoary 02:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've read Natasha's review. Sounds to me like, for whatever reason, the Wagners are happy with it. That's ok. Reader reviews are generally less than kind. The Lambert quotes are generally taken out of context by the anon. For some time the anon was asserting Lambert had said something, when actually it was from the Advocate magazine. I don't trust the anon's sourcing methods. Inserting the word homosexual into every sentence possible undermines the anon's credibility. Placing them in the article throws it so off balance as to likely be misleading. Lambert's reference to Adams is unsubstantiated by the documented record (and published bio-authors do make mistakes). I'm fine with mentioning "Boys in the Band", it relates to her acting career even if tangentally (although if Lambert's the only source...).
I've another objection to this use of the term homosexual. Secondary sources would back me up on the following... I know people who have had same-sex experiences but who don't see themselves as bi or gay. I've known a few utterly HS people who said they went for years without a same sex experience. So even if Adams did have any of these experiences, we wouldn't know if we could characterize him as hetereo, bi, gay or whatever (not that it even matters). Characterizing these people like this is speculative and open to docking errors. Wyss 10:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Declare consensus?

I think it's time to declare a consensus that published but undocumented gossip is not helpful in this article and specifically, that the anon's edits referring to gays in Wood's social circle are particularly unhelpful, misleading and potentially inaccurate (since the people involved are directly characterized as to sexual preference, sometimes with no existing documentation in the historical record, as with Nick Adams and possibly others, a discussed above). Wyss 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would however urge the anon to write articles about these tabloid books if he likes (the Bret books, specifically, which have been widely discredited). Although I wouldn't characterize Lambert as tabloid, it may be flawed and in any case the anon has been placing material into the article far out of proportion to its importance in her biographical history. Finally, I think we do need to see a direct quote (from Lambert?) about Boys in the Band. No Amazon links please, a direct quote, a page number would help, thanks. Wyss 14:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is some further information:

Gavin Lambert, 80, was a Wood friend for 16 years. She starred in a film adaptation of his novel Inside Daisy Clover - and he clearly adores her. For his Wood biography, he has had access both to official papers and to Natalie's own writings including her day book and has interviewed members of her family and her husband, Robert Wagner. Certainly the biography supplies an insider's look at Wood and chronicles everything concerning her life. Wagner gave Lambert full cooperation for the book, telling his friends to share their memories as well. Without that help, the book would not have been complete, the author concedes. Lambert's relationship with his subject gives this biography a special poignancy. He first met Natalie Wood when he came to Hollywood as an assistant to director Nicholas Ray, after making his mark as a film critic in England. He has remained here, writing biographies, screenplays and novels. Lambert's book on Natalie Wood examines her first hit as a mature actress -- 1955's "Rebel Without a Cause." Contrary to popular notion, the author reports her casting did not lead to a romance with co-star James Dean. "Like many people, she was fascinated by his charm; he had this magnetic quality on the screen and in life," Lambert says. "They got on very well, they liked each other a lot." He added that both Dean and "Rebel" director Nicholas Ray, with whom Wood had an affair, were instrumental in renewing her passion for acting after a diet of meaningless roles in such mindless movies as Chicken Every Sunday, Dear Brat and Father Was a Fullback. If the author states that Natalie Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles, the first of which was Nick Adams, this is first-hand information. By the way, Mary F. Pols also says that Natalie Wood went on studio-arranged dates throughout her early years as a starlet, often with closeted gay actors. According to the International Herald Tribune, Tab Hunter said he was a frequent companion of Natalie Wood at the request of Warner Brothers, which had both stars under contract. They would attend parties to promote films like The Burning Hills even though he was gay - not publicly at the time - and she was still in her teens, he said. In his review of Lambert's book in The Advocate (2004), David Ehrenstein (author of Open secret: gay Hollywood, 1928-1998) writes, "And this in turn brings up the gay angle, for besides Nicholas Ray, Natalie Wood was the "Grace" to an army of Hollywood "Wills," including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr. ... she ... preferring to do her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his seminal The Boys in the Band. He had planned to do something for her by adapting Dorothy Baker's novel about twin sisters, Cassandra at the Wedding, for the screen. But Hollywood wasn't ready for twin Natalie Woods--one of whom would have been a lesbian." 80.141.190.141 19:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. The problem with USER: 80.141.etc.etc. is simple and perfectly clear. None of its edits have credibilty because it has fabricated information and inserted "fraudulently doctored text" into more than one article. Ted Wilkes 20:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Is this all you have to say? 80.141.204.148 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The anon now confirms the "Grace" quote is from the Advocate (which I had to uncover on my own a few days back). The anon originally claimed it was from Lambert. For more information on this (including the anon's admitted interest in seeding misleading keywords into Google), please see user:Mel Etitis's talk page. Wyss 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What is your argument? I didn't state that the quote is from Lambert. I only said, 'She was called "the "Grace" to an army of Hollywood 'Wills'.' By the way, I have already cited from the Advocate review on the Talk:Nick Adams page some weeks ago, long before your claim that you had to uncover this source. But this shows how carefully you are reading the discussion pages. Such reviews are indeed valuable sources. Many Wikipedia editors regularly use reviews for their contributions. If you do not agree with the facts I am presenting you must support this with evidence. I am frequently citing my sources. 80.141.204.148 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The Advocate was not mentioned in the article, the "Grace" analogy was, and the writing led one to the inescapable conclusion it was aid by Lambert. The anon's sources are mostly discredited by reviewers as containing made up interviews and other fictional content.
Do you remember that we are currently talking about Lambert's Wood biography? 80.141.255.106 00:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The anon is trying to place as many instances of the terms homosexual and gay as possible into these four articles, I speculate in order to trigger misleading keyword search results in Google, which is significantly influenced by Wikipedia and its mirrors. Wyss 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You are indeed joking around. 80.141.255.106 00:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel has understandably archived his talk page but for an example, see this small posting pattern by the anon: Special:Contributions/80.141.249.246 Wyss 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I only discovered the somewhat hectic discussion when I began to archive the page — I'd only noticed that it was getting rather long... The orange warning was appearing, but there was always another new message at the bottom of the page to explain it, and I didn't think to check the history. It's not the first time, and though I keep making firm resolutions to check, time is always too short. I actually found time to work on my next book today, but the backlog waiting on my Watchlist was absurd. I've tried to reduce it, and it has actually got longer. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the trouble. I have now cited further sources on the discussion pages (see also Talk:Nick Adams), but User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes still continue to disparage all of them and delete what I have written. Significantly, Wyss has also deleted the following passage in the Sal Mineo article which was not written by me:
"While explicit mention of homosexuality was not permissible in Hollywood movies at the time, the reportedly bisexual James Dean dared Mineo to let his real-life desires for Dean shine through considerably in the scenes between them." See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sal_Mineo&diff=18122625&oldid=18085677
This certainly supports my suspicion that Wyss tries to suppress specific references to homosexuality in some articles on Hollywood's gays. This would also explain why this user is frequently reverting the articles on Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, etc. to the version he likes. I have cited several independent sources supporting my view on the discussion pages. I don't know what else I can do. 80.141.255.106 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Responding to RfC... right now, I am leaning towards leaving out the paragraph in question, simply because I fail to understand what information it is supposed to impart to us about Wood. If Wood were a gay icon a la Judy Garland, then I could understand why it would be relevant to discuss her involvement with the gay community, since it would likely help explain why she is that sort of icon. I don't believe that Wood is in that category, however; we have one article about her in the Advocate apparently, but, no other objective evidence that her relationship with the gay community is a significant part of her life story. So right now, I don't know why that info should be there. Dcarrano 02:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Investigation? Inquest?

Tattle about chumminess with the allegedly gay aside, there are other oddities here. For example, we read: The circumstances of her death remained the subject of speculation even after Los Angeles coroner Thomas Noguchi pressed for an investigation. Why the "even"? (I see nothing odd about the a request by the famed coroner to the stars for an investigation leading to increased speculation.) If this were, say, "even after [the coroner to the stars] completed an inquest without reaching a conclusion", it would be a bit easier to understand -- but NB this "improvement" is merely a product of my imagination; I know nothing of the facts. -- Hoary 03:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the meaning... the even after expresses that speculation and doubt continued, somewhat extraordinarily, after the official investigation. However it's interesting you don't find it clear, others may too. Reword it? Wyss 10:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. I guess that "investigation" means "inquest". (If it doesn't, what does it mean?) And I'll also guess wildly that the result was "accident". So "The circumstances of her death remained the subject of speculation even after Los Angeles coroner Thomas Noguchi concluded that it was an accident." But really, my guesses are all over the place: I haven't a clue about what happened in this (quasi?) legal process, what role Noguchi played in it, what he said, etc. etc. (Was Noguchi called as a witness, or did he preside? Do these affairs rule that deaths are accidental, or do they merely not conclude that deaths are other than accidental? Etc.) Thus I'm certainly not going to attempt a rewrite.
PS I vaguely remember seeing this Brainstorm, which I thought was moderately good. However, I didn't know till I recently read Nicholas Christopher's slightly overrich but fascinating Somewhere in the Night that there's also a 1965 movie with the same title; this earlier one sounds very interesting. -- Hoary 11:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't like the later Brainstorm :) Haven't seen the earlier. Inquests in the USA are usually based on the Anglo-Saxon common law system: Basically they do specifically rule whether a death is "natural", "accidental", "suicide", "homocide" or "unknown cause". With Wood, the cause of death was definitely ruled as accidental. This didn't sit well with celebrity bugs who like murder with their daily dose of tabloid, or those who have trouble accepting that people die pointless, accidental deaths. Wyss 11:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. ("Homocide": ouch!) -- Hoary 14:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Note to readers, Homocide is an ironic term from the movie L.A. Confidential which I've used recently somewhere on these pages, and accidently introduced as a mispelling of homicide above. Apologies to all. :) Wyss 15:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some additional information which should be included in the article

User Wyss has repeatedly deleted additional material I have included in the article, also material which has nothing to do with the claims of homosexuality. I think the following facts, supported by Wood biographers such as Gavin Lambert (2004) and Suzanne Finstad (2001), should be added to the article:

  • 1. Natalie Wood's mother controlled the young girl's career and personal life from her start in films at the age of five. Natalie's father is described as a passive alcoholic who went along with whatever his wife demanded.
  • 2. At the age of 16 she celebrated her release from child-star status by sleeping with her director on Rebel Without a Cause, Nicholas Ray, and her co-star Dennis Hopper. This is indeed confirmed by the biographers.
  • 3. Natalie Wood certainly was in close contact with many men in Hollywood circles who biographer Gavin Lambert emphasizes were gay, including director Nicholas Ray and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter, Scott Marlowe and playwright Mart Crowley. All their names should be mentioned, as these men played an important role in her life. Her contacts with Raymond Burr and Tab Hunter, for instance, have not yet been mentioned in the article. Tab Hunter himself said he was a frequent companion of Natalie Wood at the request of Warner Brothers, which had both stars under contract. They would attend parties to promote films like The Burning Hills even though he was gay - not publicly at the time - and she was still in her teens. Suzanne Finstad, author of Natasha: The Biography of Natalie Wood (2001) who received the Frank Wardlaw Prize for literary excellence for her first book, says that Mart Crowley "worked for them for many years, many years. She also hired his boyfriend." Finstad also says that Raymond Burr enhanced Natalie’s life and that he loved Natalie. "When I was talking to Dennis Hopper about that, he was saying I just cant wrap my mind around that one. But you know, I saw them together. They were definitely a couple. Who knows what was going on there." That most of these men were gay, is a sigificant fact which should be mentioned in the article. Wood's fundamental sympathy for, and support of, gay people in Hollywood, at a time when many homosexual stars were forced to marry straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation, is a very important aspect of her life and demonstrates her social engagement for minorities.
    • I think your points there are nicely listed in order of biographic significance. #1 is definitely notable; unusual relationships with parents are a standard part of biographies, and I'd imagine even more so for child stars, where one's parents often also manage one's career. #2 is questionable. In a biography of this length (as opposed to a book), one normally doesn't list every boyfriend/girlfriend/fling a famous person had. However, Hopper is a well-known star, and I guess one could add the argument (albeit a stretch IMO) that the item says something about Wood's rebellion against child stardom. So not sure how to call that one, though leaning towards leaving it out. But #3, as per my earlier point... you might admire her "social engagement for minorities", and indeed, it sounds like a thing I would admire as well. But... is it an essential part of her life story? I think your arguments need to address that point. Even if you feel her social work has been unfairly overlooked and should be known more... unless it actually is a part of her biography known to be significant, it can't be included here IMO. WP compiles existing information, rather than reinterpreting it. I also think that if her work towards gay rights consisted solely of tolerating homosexuality amongst her friends, that is not really significant "social engagement" on a biographic scale, even though it beats being a bigot. Dcarrano 20:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Homosexual playwright Mart Crowley worked for Wagner and Wood for many years. According to Suzanne Finstad's biography, Crowley met Wood while working as a production assistant on Splendor in the Grass and became a longtime assistant and friend to her and Wagner. Natalie Wood certainly did her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his Broadway play, The Boys in the Band (1968), which, for the first time, intensively and unbiassedly dealt with the life of contemporary gay men. She also hired Crowley's boyfriend. I tink these are important details which should be mentioned in the article. In his biography, Lambert remembers Wood as "a stronger personality than almost any other movie star, someone who worked hard on her craft. She loved contact with people and had the ability to attract them. She was magnetic, accessible. It was reassuring to her that people cared about her. She also had a great sense of humor." He adds that "her childhood horrors could have turned her into a monster, but she was a warm, generous person. Her mother was like a guard dog. That made her sensitive to betrayal of any kind. The result is that she was both strong and fragile." 80.141.245.50 13:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
What exactly does "supporting him in a manner that made it possible for him to write" (a phrase I'll note you've used word-for-word eight times on this page -- can we get some variety here?) the play mean? That is potentially biographic, if it has any real meaning, which I'm not convinced yet it does. Stuff about her being a nice person to know generally is not. Dcarrano 21:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

ANON inserted a link to someone's personal website. Such sites are not credible sources for Wikipedia because of the verfication needed for its content and purported clips (copyright violations) from other media sources. Ted Wilkes 13:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. Ted Wilkes has now deleted this link which I have added to the Natalie Wood page: http-//www.arlindo-correia.com/141204.html I don't know why this relevant link was removed by this user, but there seems to be a frequent tendency to revert everything I have contributed. Significantly, Ted Wilkes's arguments are nearly the same as those repeatedly used by his alter ego, user Wyss, to disparage what I have written. 80.141.252.38 14:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I've pretty well given up on the anon., because of his refusal to compromise — but in this he's right. Wikipedia is full of perfectly acceptable links to personal Websites, especially in this type of article. I doubt that there's a single major entertainment figure whose article doesn't contain links to personal Websites. The anon. and Ted Wilkes seem to be mirror-images: neither is prepared to give way, neither is prepared to compromise, both seem to be acting in accordance with a non-Wikipedia, PoV agenda. The anon is calmer, more rational, and less aggressive, but the similarities are nevertheless striking. Has anyone seen them together? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

  • Please note the general consensus (above) of at least five editors regarding the "unhelpfulness" of most of the anon's edits.
  • We have compromised by inserting a reference to Boys in the Band in the trivia section. I'm not so sure about the reference, but I think the compromise is ok and I'll watch the item in order to preserve it. The anon is enthusiastically urged to write an article about Boys in the Band (a culturally notable play), which will link automatically from this article.
  • Ted Wilkes clearly noted that the anon's link was to a personal website, which he cited as not credible according to Wikipedia policy. This is open to discussion, but he did give his reason. To me, that site appears to be a copy-paste copyvio of gossipy book reviews published in newspapers. I'm mostly indifferent to a link, although it would be more appropriate to provide links to the original articles if they're available online.
  • The anon's repeated, unrelenting use of the term alter-ego is a personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy. I request that the anon be warned by an admin about this.
  • Unless requested otherwise by an admin, I'll routinely revert further attempts by the anon to restore the above-discussed material as vandalism or sabotage (lined out by me Wyss 21:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)), as appropriate. I do apologize if these adjectives sound severe, but a casual reading of the lengthy discussions on this talk page will show that my use of them is at least somewhat reasonable, given the consensus that has emerged. Wyss 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. I agree that the compromise has all been on one side, and that consensus is against the anon.
I am not convinced because I am not sure how many different users were actually discussing my contributions on this Talk page, as, to my mind, user Ted Wilkes seems to have several different Wikipedia accounts. See also User:NightCrawler and what has been said about user Elliot on the User:Elliot page: "Isn't it amazing how much Elliot's contributions mirror DW's and Ron Davis's. Same refusal to answer questions. Same insistence that he is always right. Same vicious rudeness to anyone who dares to question his judgment. Maybe we could call them the Blessed Trinity, or maybe 'The Popes', given they seem to believe in their own infallibility." This sounds as if it was written to characterize user Ted Wilkes. ;) 80.141.255.202 23:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Ted Wilkes' behaviour, however, has been as bad (actually, consiiderably worse) than that of the anon., in that he's been just as inflexible, but far more aggressive. The reasons that he's given for his deletions of the anon's edits have had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and normal usage, and have sometimes been flatly against it.
  2. The anon. is irritating at times, and his edits go against consensus, but they don't come close to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Normal rules (such as 3RR) therefore still apply. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me (the affirmation of consensus), I'll edit according to the consensus then. I do encourage the anon to write articles on Boys in the Band along with the Hadleigh and Bret books he's cited re this and other articles. Wyss 21:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Webster's Dictionary vandalism is the "Willful wanton and malicious destruction of property". I completely disagree that deliberately fabricating text in order to make a false presentation of a Wikipedia article is only irritating. It is sabotage, which in fact is the worse form of vandalism. I will certainly have this clarified. Ted Wilkes 23:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for articles

Administrator Ed Poor says on another Talk page:

I don't mean to pick on you, but:
Please note how the anon demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how Wikipedia and the historical sciences work. Only the anon's assertion requires proof (or at least some sort of primary source documentation cited by a secondary source). As an editor I don't need to prove anything (never mind prove a negative).
I expect a bit more from signed in users. Is that fair? Maybe not, but I've leaned that way these past few years.
Anyway, unless an assertion is utterly uncontroversial, it's going to need some back-up. Especially, if one of more contributors challenge the assertion. Then, it's better to move the disputed passage to the article's associated talk page.
A good way to deal with disputed ideas is to attribute an assertion to a source. Like:
  • Nick Adams says James Dean screwed Natalie Wood while Elvis watched (note: this is a made-up example); or,
  • Nick Adams says Elvis Presley paid X to cover up his homosexual affairs with Y and Z (another made-up example)
Note the common theme here. Wikipedia is not saying Adams [in the made-up example] is right, it's merely passing along his claims clearly attributed to him. Uncle Ed 18:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

These remarks are easily applicable to this Talk page and my contributions to the Natalie Wood article. 80.141.233.210 16:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel says that I have refused to compromise, but this is not true, as we have now found an acceptable version for the Nick Adams article, though I am not quite happy with this rather short paragraph on the assertion that Adams was gay. There is an interesting statement by Administrator User:Ed Poor:

insertion of anything anyone wants so long as they quote the name of the book and author

This is not something I agree with. First of all, it should be obvious that not all insertions are relevant to any particular article. Secondly, how one mentions an idea is of crucial importance.

We can't simply say "X is gay" with a citation. Use some editorial judgment, man! Something like,

  • Rumors have swirled around the issue of X's sexuality for decades, and a recent tell-all book by Q claims that X had sex with R, S & T.

Anyway, there's also the important question of:

  • How important is the personal life of a celebrity? If a closet homosexual contributed to the world of mathematics, computer engineering, music or sports or entertainment ... does this mean we must dig up all we can and parade it for the world to see? Is that the proper role of Wikipedia?

Some of this is not specific to ... Natalie Wood but requires a policy decision. Uncle Ed 15:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yep! Although I must say that much of the material cited by the anon wasn't "dug up", it was made up from whole cloth and published for the tabloid/gossip market. Wyss 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley for a current example of what happens to editors who fight too aggressively for quantitative objectivity, then are invited to be voted on for admin status. Wyss 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it is of much importance and specific enough that there were many gay people around Natalie Wood. Tab Hunter and Raymond Burr, for instance, who played an important role in Wood's life, have not yet been mentioned in the article. I don't know why. It is also a fact that she supported several homosexuals, for instance, the then unknown playwright Mart Crowley and his boyfriend, as she and her husband Wagner gave them employment. It surely is worth mentioning that Crowley's Broadway play, The Boys in the Band (1968) for the first time intensively and unbiassedly dealt with the life of contemporary gay men. Without Wood's help this play would never have been written and successfully performed in New York City. User Wyss has also deleted other facts I have included, for example, that Natalie's mother controlled the young girl's career and personal life from her start in films at the age of five and that Natalie's father is described as a passive alcoholic who went along with whatever his wife demanded. At the age of 16 she celebrated her release from child-star status by sleeping with her director on Rebel Without a Cause, Nicholas Ray, and her co-star Dennis Hopper. Is this really unimportant? I don't think so. Not to mention the deletion of an important link I have inserted. Maybe somebody else can explain to me why user Wyss accused me of vandalism in a similar way as his alter ego Ted Wilkes frequently did some weeks ago. 80.141.196.238 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to explain as you requested. For now I'll give just one, but I'm working on a full list for arbitration to have you banned. It's pretty easy by the way, there are so many. Ted Wilkes 00:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • ANON: 80.141.etc.etc. fabricated information and inserted "fraudulently doctored text" into the David Bret article as follows:
  • Revision to David Bret article [4] as of 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 80.141.206.211
    • Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his boyfriend Nick Adams.
  • Please note what the article actually states as to what Ms. Speckels said on the website:
    • [5] - "In Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend, actor Nick Adams."

This is called fraud and is deliberate sabotage of Wikipedia Ted Wilkes 00:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have already strongly urged the anon to write an article on Boys in the Band. Wyss 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I do think Mel's characterization of Ted Wilke's behavior as "considerably worse" than the anon's is over the top. There is a difference between snappy, open impatience with damaging edits and the skillful, patient, calm and ruthless aggression displayed by the anon, copy pasting the same text over and over onto the talk pages of articles and admins, adroitly following the cultural mores of Wikipedia, all the while working to subvert it in order to trigger some misleading keyword searches on Google related to Elvis Presley. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives knowledgeable and scholastically rigorous editors away from WP. Wyss 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Significantly, users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are not discussing my questions concerning the additional content which should be included in the Natalie Wood article. 80.141.184.2 22:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Significantly, the anon seems to be ignoring the explanations provided here as to why his edits are not encyclopedic. Lambert wrote a long book. I'm sure we could discuss citing hundreds of items from it, for years. Meanwhile I encourage the anon to write an article about Boys in the Band. Wyss 23:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
See The Boys in the Band (play)
That's a helpful addition to Wikipedia IMHO. I've added the standard WP plot spoiler warning. Two other articles that might help readers get things in context would be a bio on Gavin Lambert along with one on his book, Natalie Wood: A Life... any chance? :) Wyss 00:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from an interview:

"...why did Wood have so many gay men in her life?” ... Lambert ... replied: "I have two answers to that. One is specific to her, and the other is specific to a lot of actresses. Actresses like gay men because they know there’s going to be no problem of them making a pass, and therefore they feel that they are not being used and all that stuff."
"In Natalie’s case," he continued, "she grew up in a drastically dysfunctional family, feeling like an outsider, and she responded across the board not only to gay people as outsiders but to anybody who felt alienated in some way because of their life experiences. She particularly responded to gays because they were very entertaining about it, which some of the others were not. She didn’t like self-pity or anything like that. What she did like were people who would say the unconventional things and be entertaining about it. She was a great shit kicker, and in part, gays tend to be, too, and she liked that." See [6] Onefortyone 15:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some quotes from Gavin Lambert's Wood biography

p. 199: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel."

p. 199: "Her next arranged date, after A Cry in the Night, was with Raymond Burr, who played the sophisticated Older Man of the World and escorted her to Romanoff's and La Rue."

p. 205: "On the third day, Natalie invented an urgent reason for returning to Los Angeles, where she assured Maria that "nothing happened," then braced herself for Louella Parsons, who demanded and got an interview on the Elvis situation. Parsons began by reminding Natalie that she'd "taken her to task" more than once for "cheapening herself with all this romance activity with Nick Adams, Tab Hunter, Raymond Burr and heaven knows who else."

p. 574: "But I'm a Fool (1954), the TV show that introduced her to James Dean, suggests a "new" Natalie, anxious and romantic, ready to emerge when someone gives her the chance.

p. 575: "During her second major scene, with James Dean and Sal Mineo in the deserted mansion at night, Natalie goes through another series of emotional changes. Her comic impersonation of a selfish, uncaring mother is followed by a reversion to childhood in a game of hide-and-seek with Dean, then by sisterly concern for lonely Mineo, and finally by her declaration of love to Dean, surprisingly and effectively chaste. She begins by explaining, half to herself, that she admires Jim as "a man who can be gentle but free." Then she realizes: "All this time I've been looking for somebody to love me, and now I love somebody."

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." Onefortyone 13:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Lambert had access to the diaries of Wood. Onefortyone 14:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect 141, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. The personal relationships and dating habits of celebrities are not inherently encyclopedic: Wood has an article here because of her work in films, not because she knew EP socially. Marriages, significant life partners etc generally are worth a brief mention. Dates usually aren't. Wyss 14:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I think these personal relationships are also part of her life. Onefortyone 14:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course it was part of her life. I said it wasn't encyclopedic. Wyss 15:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


I left the following at User talk:ChuckS

  • At Natalie Wood you asked why was a specific external link deleted. The reason is multiple, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as well as User:Jdavidb/Linkspam. Basically, any article with a link to one fan website means Wikipedia would have to link to every other fan site and for many stars, the number could be very substantial. Ted Wilkes 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Ted Wilkes indicated that he deleted the external links that I had added for this reason: "Basically, any article with a link to one fan website means Wikipedia would have to link to every other fan site and for many stars, the number could be very substantial. Ted Wilkes 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)"

The reason I was baffled originally, is that he left one of the links that I had added, but discarded the others. I assumed that he had looked through the content and made some decision about what was acceptable and what was not, and I wanted to know his reasoning.

I don't agree with Ted Wilkes decision. I'm one of the moderators of what is probably the largest and most active Natalie Wood fan group in the world. Many of our members have come to this site and have reported back to our group about the apparent inaccuracies and misleading slant of the page, which is when I took an interest in what was posted here. There is so much bickering here about issues irrelevant to Natalie Wood's life, or some of the items posted have escalated minor activities of Natalie's, or trivial matters totally out of proportion.

I posted the select group of external websites that I know have worthwhile and accurate content, run by people who have been involved with celebrating and preserving Natalie Wood's Memory on the web for at least six years, and in some case longer. I posted these particular sites because they each provide substantial amounts of accurate information, and are excellent points for continued research, and not just fluff. As Natalie Wood passed away more than 20 years ago, there isn't likely going to be an 'Official' Natalie Wood site to refer people to. IMDB is good, but only a starting point.

It is perfectly consistent for an online encyclopedia to cite references where users can link immediately to furthur their interests about the subject matter.

I've reposted the links - I think Ted should look more carefully at them and see why they are valuable for their information content. Perhaps we shall also submit changes for other aspects of this page in the future. They are especially necessary to counterbalance the impressions currently left about Natalie Wood's life on this Wiki site. ChuckS 17:13, September 25, 2005


I respectfully suggest that no encyclopedia refers to "fan" websites and while I might understand the comments by ChuckS, the reasons I stated above remain true as part of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If user ChuckS or some of his fanclub "members" don't like what he called the "apparent inaccuracies and misleading slant of the page," then please feel free to edit the article. After all, that is what Wikipedia is all about. - Ted Wilkes 22:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do edit the article if you feel there's imbalance or lack. Wyss 23:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well, We'll go that route.

[edit] Birth name moved to secondary position in opening

I have changed the opening to reflect the fact that the name of the subject is "Natalie Wood" for all purposes, public, private, and legal. Refer to these links for images of contracts and other official legal documents signed "Natalie Wood". Many other actors changed their names; this is a clear standard. --Tysto 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age is WRONG in one place or the other...

This bio says Natalie was born in 1938 and died in 1981. The goes on to say "In 1981, at the age of fifty-three,"

She would have been FOURTY THREE if those dates were correct.

64.26.95.178 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) tom luffman

[edit] religion?

Did she convert to Judaism? I heard this somewhere

[edit] Former Child Actors Nominated for Oscars

The Trivia section notes that "Along with Tatum O'Neal, Haley Joel Osment, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Anna Paquin, Dean Stockwell, Ben Affleck and Jodie Foster she is one of only nine former child actors to have been nominated for an Oscar."

This list seems incomplete, as it excludes, for example, Linda Blair (who was nominated the same year as Tatum O'Neal), as well as Ron Howard (who has actually won the award for Best Director). Additionally, Patty Duke won an Oscar for The Miracle Worker, and her son Sean Astin was nominated for producing the documentary Kangaroo Court. Oscar-nominee Jeff Bridges could also be identified as a former child actor, since he appeared as a boy on his father's series Sea Hunt. Best Actor nominee Laurence Fishburne started acting on One Life to Live when he was only twelve. And Best Actress winner Helen Hunt was the same age when she starred in The Swiss Family Robinson TV series. Research should be conducted to create a more complete list, or else the phrasing should be changed to something less definite like "she is one of a handful of former child actors."

It's also worth noting that for a number of years the Academy would sometimes present an Academy Juvenile Award to young actors, such as Shirley Temple, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, and Hayley Mills. Mickey Rooney also won an Academy Honorary Award as an adult. To distinguish awards voted upon by Academy members from these types of honorary awards, it might be clearer to specify "an Oscar in a competitive category" or "an Oscar for a specific film" or just "a competitive Oscar."

76.168.253.250 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)F Smith

You make a very good point, but I think it would be going too far to do further research on this matter because it has very little to do with Natalie Wood, and any point made on this article would then need to be made on the article for each of the actors identified. I think it would be far more relevant on the article about child actors for example, than for any particular actor. I think it would be good to just say "Wood was one of a handful of former child actors to be nominated for an Academy Award", and this should be in the article rather than in the trivia section. Rossrs 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. It's worth noting that since this discussion began, someone has tried to remedy the situation by removing "former," eliminating Ben Affleck (who was nominated as an adult, and not for an acting award), and adding Quinn Cummings and Justin Henry, both nominated as children. It currently reads, "Along with Tatum O'Neal, Haley Joel Osment, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Anna Paquin, Quinn Cummings, Dean Stockwell, Justin Henry and Jodie Foster she is one of only ten child actors to have been nominated for an Oscar."

Ultimately, though it's nice to see names like Cummings and Henry yielded by more research, the list still seems possibly incomplete. Additionally, the elimination of the word "former" probably causes more confusion, since Taylor, Garland, and Stockwell were all nominated as adults.

I agree that it would be best to simply delete the piece of trivia. It seems more relevant to the child actor article and could potentially be relocated there.

I also like your phrasing of that addition to the main body of the article (as an alternative to a note in the trivia section); although upon a second review it seems the point has been nicely made already by the existing lines, "Indeed, she was one of the relative few who made a successful transition to adult stardom. By the time she was 28, she was already a three-time Oscar nominee, with nominations for Rebel Without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass and Love With the Proper Stranger."

I will go ahead and delete the line in the trivia section.

76.168.253.250 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)F Smith

addition: someone replaced the line. It read: She is one of A HANDFUL OF child actors... (caps mine) then goes on to name 10 plus an unnamed "few others". This is hardly a handful. I changed it to "several". Really, I agree with the above assessment: the line is meaningless. Its not an unusual thing for a child actor to become successful in adulthood. It doesn't always happen, but it happens too often to be remarkable. However, in respect to the feelings of the person who seems to want it in I left it, but made it more accurate.

I'd ask the Admins to review this piece of "trivia" for permanent removal, its not very informative nor relevant. Raphaelaarchon 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lana Wood

The article originally stated that Lana Wood was a "Playboy playmate." She did appear in her own pictorial in Playboy, but was never Playmate of the Month. I've made this correction. DerbertBeak 07:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rebel Without a Cause screenshot.jpg

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)

[edit] Conflict in Dates

Natalie wood Died in 1981

The filmography section says that a movie featuring her released in 1983. two years is a long time. Did the shootig take place before 1981. Odd for a movie not to have been released for two years after having been shot.

Anyone can verify the dates?

The shooting of Brainstorm (film) took place in 1980-81. The movie was put in production limbo after her untimely death. So the movie company used Natalie Wood look-alikes and sound-a-likes to completes the 25% that needed to be completed. This process took about a year or two. Yoda317 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Natalie's fear of water

Natalie always had a fear of water because before Natalie was born, a gypsy told her mother that her second child would be a world famous beauty and that she should also fear deep water. It's in the miniseries about Natalie. 121.44.212.119 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This new edit may contain original research (the editor's own original thoughts and conclusions). Text such as...

Few writers emphasize that this alleged behavior had to have happened within 36 hours of her death and that the DVD of Brainstorm stands as evidence of her long days of shooting an erudite science-fiction film (in which Wood's character is a scientist who plays classical piano) for almost three months until Thanksgiving week. A positive story from the Saturday-afternoon restaurant meal was published immediately after her death in a supermarket tabloid and then forgotten.

...reads like a personal essay and is wholly uncited hence, I've added an OR tag to give the editor time to provide citations for these assertions and conclusions. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How much time are you allowing ? Like many people, I'm on vacation until January 4. I can't access my library until then.

I can cite the supermarket tabloid that reported Natalie's encounter with the little girl in the Catalina Island restaurant. As for Natalie's character playing piano in the movie, you can learn that by renting the DVD. What else is wrong ? Debbiesvoucher (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The time you have depends on other editors but they'll likely see this and hold off. Tabloids don't meet WP:RS. Also, in short, a performance on a DVD is not in itself evidence of anything except that she made a performance. Some DVDs have audio commentary though and you can cite that if someone says she worked hard and so on but you can't come to this conclusion yourself and put it here, even if it's true and reasonable. Either way, you can't span citations and draw your own original conclusions from them. If you want the article to say she had gone through "long days of shooting an erudite science-fiction film (in which Wood's character is a scientist who plays classical piano) for almost three months until Thanksgiving week," you'll have to cite sources which clearly back up the statement. WP is a tertiary source built only on verifiable citations from verifiable and reliable secondary and primary sources. Please do read WP:OR and WP:V. It's ok though, sometimes it takes awhile for newer editors to get the hang of WP's OR and sourcing policies and your efforts are appreciated! Meanwhile this article has been lacking for a long time and needs all the help it can get. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Over the last week or so I've done lots of cleanup, rm'ing unsupported stuff and cite spanning, OR and so on. The article needs more about her career after 1972. I now see the article as a steady skeleton upon which editors can build a thorough narrative. Please provide citations for additions, since her death at a young age has stirred up lots of unsupported codswallop, gossip and meaningless speculation about her. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)