Talk:Nick Adams (actor, born 1931): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:20, 2 July 2005 editWyss (talk \| contribs)13,475 edits →Peer review required ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:47, 7 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,788,430 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: auto.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(891 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	By whom, exactly, was his homosexuality unacknowledged? ] 08:31, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|living=no\|listas=Adams, Nick\|1=
			{{WikiProject Pennsylvania\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Biography\|filmbio-work-group=yes}}
			{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
			}}
			{{archivebox\|auto=yes\|search=yes}}

			== Change Title and Give this Title to Dab page? ==
	I reverted unfounded statements and <s>outright fabrication</s> by an anonymous user who also has attempted similar distortions to the article on ]. ] 17:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			"Hollywood" and "gay" are words to conjure with, as the voluminous discussion here and in the existing archive proves. Nevertheless,
			: "Nick Adams stories"
			has 25K Ghits, all of which may be presumed to focus on ] while
			: "nick adams " Rebel OR dean
			(which differs by about 2% from e.g.
			: "nick adams " Rebel OR dean OR Hondo OR "wild wild west"
			and thus can be presumably be counted on to capture virtually all of the pages that would focus on the actor) has only 46K. Perhaps someone who's read the actor's bio thru can construct a more compelling G-srch, but barring that, IMO the actor and the Hemingway stories are close enuf in significance that readers would be better served by more equal Dab'n than by letting the actor keep the unsuffixed title.<br>--]•] 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)<br>
			::]. ] 11:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

			==Shall we rename the article ]?==
	:My statements in the article are not "unfounded." For lists of famous gay people including Nick Adams, see, for instance, http://www.umsl.edu/~pope/famous.html or http://www.youthfirsttexas.org/famous_gay_people.html - ''']'''
			In , demurely summarized as ''some minor changes and additions'', ] adds about three kilobytes, notably a lengthy section on "Adams's sexuality" and another on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses". In other words, stonking great bucket-loads of steaming tittle-tattle. Mmm, fragrant!

			But I'm disappointed by ''megastars such as ] (a cultural icon who also died tragically young)''. For one thing, the word ''legendary'' is missing, yet the article needs that to satisfy the '']-''consuming "demographic". Can't we rephrase this bit as ''gigastars such as ] (a legendary cultural icon who also died tragically young)''? (Though actually I've always thought that for Dean, as for Mr Vicious, early death was a sage career move.) -- ] (]) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	:For Natalie Wood and the gay men in Hollywood, including Nick Adams, see Gavin Lambert, ''Natalie Wood: A Life''. http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_308/recliminganactress.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_March_16/ai_n6023733 - ''']'''
			:I do not think that we should rename the article "Nick Adams (hustler)", though a special subsection concerning Adams's and Dean's activities as street hustlers may be included in the Hollywood section. As for the Sexuality section, it was already there but wrongly entitled. The other interesting section on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses" had been removed by ]. I only reincluded it, as it throws much light on the studio-arranged dates of the time, of which Nick Adams was part of. By the way, I am happy with most of Gwen's recent edits, as they are indeed improvements. ] (]) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
			:::Hey ], on this topic, I think it's more than ok to mention these tabloid sources about Nick Adams but since a) they're all 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay with no confirmation and b) they have little or nothing to do with his notability as an actor, I am going to put them back into their own section at the end of the article, citing context worries which would be more or less covered by ] along with ]. I do strongly support the inclusion of this published material in the article and will help you in any way I can to keep it there, in its own section. I would also support a new article called ] but dealing with these sources in their own section here is, IMHO, as helpful. Please feel free to bring up anything meaningful to you about all this here on the talk page and all the best to you! ] (]) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
			:::], when I much expanded and rewrote the article a few weeks ago, I mistakenly rm'd the Natalie Wood text. I've rs'd this to the gossip section (since it's supported by citations of gossip/tabloid sources), thanks for bringing it up. ] (]) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
			::::Wow, Gwen, I hadn't realized this -- are you saying it's really OK to write "encyclopedia" articles out of "gossip/tabloid sources"? I may have to rethink my approach here. I mean, my assiduous reading of the "Street of Shame" and other pages within ''Private Eye'' had given me the impression that the British tabloids (or redtops, as the Brits call them) were only suitable for amusement, and that their respect for facts was close to zero. Am I wrong? Or is this tattlopedia we're writing here? -- ] (]) 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

			Haha! Thanks for putting it that way! I do so thoroughly agree with the spirit of how you put it.
	:In ''Hollywood Gays'', author Boze Hadleigh writes that the diminutive yet reputedly well-hung actor Nick Adams may have "hustled while looking for acting jobs in the 1950s." See http://www.weekender.co.jp/new/021206/behind_the_scenes-021206.html - ''']'''

			Not that we as editors care at all about what he did along these lines, but the article must follow Misplaced Pages sourcing policies, first because that's how this wiki is meant to work and second, so readers will not be misled a) into thinking these rumours have anything to do with ''verfiable'' information about Nick Adams (unlike say, ], ] or ] or whomever) or b) that there are no rumours.
	:It is also suggested that Adams's friend ] was gay. See http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/09/20-pastout.html - ''']'''

			Now, the thing is (as you imply), these tabloid sources only barely meet ] if at all, given ] (which says sources which "rely heavily on rumors... should only be used in articles about themselves") and do not meet ]. As it happens ] also has something to say about how we might deal with this.
	This article has been placed on ]. ] 21:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Meanwhile these rumours are widely published on the Internet and elsewhere, so the article would be very lacking not to address them somehow.
	See comments about Nick Adams and Elvis Presley on ] and ]. ] 23:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			A wholly separate section called ''Later gossip'' is more or less as much about the sources "themselves" as it would be about Nick Adams, following ] above, which makes their inclusion ok under WP policy (while the policy specifies these sources can only be cited in "articles about themselves" I think it's ok to apply this as "wholly separate section about themselves" if other editors are ok with it too) and moreover (IMHO), encyclopedic since the sources themselves are being discussed separately as a cultural thing which has shown up decades after his death. Hence, I think editors can be a bit more open-minded with ] about what kinds of sources he wants to put there and I mean it when I say I strongly support the inclusion of this stuff, in its own section.
	Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's '''only contributions''' to the Misplaced Pages are edits to ], ] and ] plus contraventions to Misplaced Pages official policy with repeated comments placed into ]. I have made a request for ''']'''. ] 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			Lastly, if a consensus of editors were to show up and rm these sources altogether from the article (I don't think this will happen) it looks to me like ] would be wholly supported by WP policy if he put these sources in a new article called ] and linked it back to the "see also" section of this one. ] (]) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Sorry. Adding some comment on such a page is not vandalism. But constantly deleting these comments, as you did, IS vandalism. - ''']'''

			Unsubstantiated gossip, especially about Elvis Presley, who was NOT gay or bi. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	-------------------------------------------------------------
			:::::I just can't believe a Misplaced Pages article would have anything in it by Larry Quirk or Albert Goldman. ] (]) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg==
	===For ], ] and ] member.===
			]
			''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].
			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
			If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
			] (]) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
			::I've replied on the image page. ] (]) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg==
	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' (hereinafter sometimes respectfully referred to as "it" or "its" or "they" because of unknown gender) has deliberately inserted misinformation into this ] article and this Talk page in order to support their ] campaign in the ] article so as to ultimately give credence to their misinformation and distortions in their target: the ] article. In the Presley article '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' refused to allow other attempts to edit their misinformation and '''reverted several Users 22 times''' including deleting the Automatic Section information (/* Relationships */) on the "Edit Summary" so that it might go undetected or raise a flag on the "Recent Changes" board. All this took place before I (] got involved and who was then reverted by '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' 25 more times.
			]
			''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].
			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
			If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
			] (]) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
			::I've replied on the image page. ] (]) 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg==
	:Sorry. You are the only person saying that what I have contributed to the article is misinformation. Everybody can see that it is not misinformation as I have cited my sources. See above. – 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]
			]
			''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].
			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
			If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
			] (]) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
			::I believe this notice is mistaken. Rationale has been provided and I believe it is wholly in compliance, please restate the objection with more specificity relating to Nick Adams, if need be, thanks. ] (]) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

			==Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg==
	In the Nick Adams stub article I expanded it with basic biographical information plus the following statement:
			]
	*He married actress ] with whom he had two children.
			''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].
			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
			If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
			] (]) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
			::The objection seemed to related to the image being linked to multiple articles, which was inaccurate, the image is linked only to this article and a full fair use rationale was already provided. However, please restate the objection if need be, thanks. ] (]) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

			==Unsourced episode description==
	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' made edits to this single line by adding '''deliberate misinformation''', an act that constitutes vandalism in accordance with ].
			This was added by an IP, it's a plot synopsis which in this form is inappropriate for this biographical article. ] (]) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

			===''Fun and Games''===
	:Sorry. What's wrong with adding some additional facts, for example, that most people in Hollywood knew that Adams was gay. This is relevant information which has repeatedly been deleted by user Ted Wilkes. For sources proving this fact, see above. – 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]
			In March of 1964, viewers of the innovative (and short-lived) dark science fiction anthology series '']'' witnessed one of Adams' most affecting performances. In the episode '']'', Adams portrays Mike Benson, an emotionally wounded ex-boxer, conditioned to expect the worst from life. He is offered a chance for redemption: he can save Earth from being destroyed-- cataclysmically over a period of several years -- for the entertainment of a jaded extraterrestrial audience, but only if he will provide alternative entertainment by joining a female human in battling to the death two primitive aliens, who are likewise fighting to save their own distant world. Benson is a character whose best impulses lie buried beneath layers of fear and defensive cynicism, and Adams persuasively brings him to life. Initially refusing to take up the alien's challenge, Benson revels in the possibilities of hedonism open to a man who knows that the world is just a few years from utter destruction, noting that there would be "enough time" for "just about everything a man ''could'' enjoy". When Laura (]), the other human facing the aliens, bitterly asks him if that includes raising a child, Adams lends understated emotional conviction to Benson's distant reply: "I don't think I'd enjoy that...my Dad always said it was a lot of trouble." Fun and Games is, as critic David Schow notes "in terms of emotional impact and existential honesty, one of The Outer Limits finest hours." ref: http://www.davidjschow.com/limits/ol_episodes2.html#fun This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization.

			Having read the ''Outer Limits'' review at the URL in the text, the IP's phrase "This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization," is placed to imply that it is supported by the linked review but it is not, it's ]. However, I have added two sentences to the text which are supported by the review. ] (]) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	Further, this user (here and in the other two connected articles) not only inserts fabrications but also makes edits and other sensible-appearing substitutions that too is described as vanadalism in Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. And, even when challenged, they repeatedly contravene ] that requires a contributor to ] and to quote ].

			==Removal of "verifiable content" (or just tittle-tattle and trivia)==
	:You are the only person who thinks that this is vandalism. The fact is that there is an edit war going on and you are deeply involved in this war. – 80.141.xxx.xxx ]
			Gwen : ''please don't remove verifiable content without first discussing it on the talk page.''

			Allow me to open the discussion.
	Note that the edits of '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' detailed below show that when their deliberate fabrication is firmly reverted, they then reword it all the while continuing to use ] tactics. Reversing your own deliberate falsehood is an admission of vandalism.

			I find the splendidly named Red Pen of Doom's deletions to be very well thought out, because — ''pace'' one of the most vigorous writers of this article (and I do ''not'' have Gwen in mind) — WP purports to be a general purpose encyclopedia rather than a compendium of tittle-tattle and trivia. Here's just one part of Red Pen's version:
	:Note that including additional information is not vandalism. You frequently deleted this information and I reinstalled it. – 80.141.xxx.xxx ]
			:''On the night of ] ] his lawyer and friend, ex-] officer Erwin Roeder, drove to the actor's house in Beverly Hills to check on him after a missed dinner appointment. Seeing a light on and his car in the garage, Roeder broke through a window and discovered Adams in his upstairs bedroom.''

			Version after restoration of "verifiable content":
	First edit by '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''':
			:''On the night of ] ] his lawyer and friend, ex-] officer Erwin Roeder, drove to the actor's house '''at 2126 El Roble Lane''' in Beverly Hills to check on him after a missed dinner appointment. Seeing a light on and his car in the garage, Roeder broke through a window and discovered Adams in his upstairs bedroom''', slumped against a wall and wearing a shirt, blue jeans and boots, his eyes open in a blank stare, dead. He was 36 years old'''.''
	*17:17, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.197.237 –
	**Though Adams married actress ] with whom he had two children, he regularly appears in lists of famous ] people. Before he got into acting, Adams was known as a "Hollywood hustler" who had a reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town. ] actress ] says that she dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and director ]. ] too romanced young Nick. After his "teenage crush" on movie star ] The King is said to have seen ''Rebel Without a Cause'' some 44 times and ultimately had an affair with Adams who was the roommate of Dean.

			Whether he was wearing blue jeans, green jeans, or ] seems immaterial. That his eyes were open does too: while I'm no coroner, I'd have thought that any implication that open eyes might have would have been pointed out by the "]". If the stiff's eyes were open they'd presumably be motionless; how could they be in other than a blank stare?
	I (]) reverted these fabricated assertions.

			All of this may suit the kind of paperback whose tackily designed cover says it has spent so many weeks on the "''New York Times'' bestseller list" (battling the latest fad diet books or whatever) but it has no place here that I can see. (And as it happens the example above isn't sourced either.) -- ] (]) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Note that I have included relevant additional information. See sources quoted above. – 80.141.xxx.xxx ]
			:And from the lede we also have "]".-- ] 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
			::Oh but that could have been "untimely ''passing''". (Incidentally, if you want to see some crap WP bios, try searching for such golden cliches as "tender age". I think I once even came across "for all intention purposes".)
			::Anyone care to defend the stuff that Red Pen deleted? -- ] (]) 04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

			Why is there a WHOLE section of speculation? None of these are even reliable source. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' then reverted me. . But, knowing they had been caught ], they reworded it slightly to remove the fabrication: "''] actress ]''" TO state that "''Actress Natalie Wood says that she dated gay men''." However, even with the reversal of the falsehood, where is the ] and supporting ]s that she said she dated gay men? And, despite admitting he had lied about Natalie Wood being a lesbian, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' still kept their fabrication about Nick Adams and Elvis Presley in their text. This is the "wear them down" tactic that they have successfully used over and over with others who objected to false and unfounded claims on the Presley page, doing it so many times that the other users eventually gave up. Here is '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' revised text:

			== Your Nick Addams Bio is too negative ==
	*'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' - revised text: 17:34, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.235.94 -
			I never cared for Addams, I'm not a fan. But I feel your bio of him is too negative. Even if all the negative input is 100% true, its irrelevant. The man is long dead, what matters is his career, his legacy as an actor, not that Elvis Presley's mother didn't like him, or that he was a pool hustler.
	**Though Adams married actress Carol Nugent with whom he had two children, he regularly appears in lists of famous gay people. Before he got into acting, Adams was known as a "Hollywood hustler" who had a reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town. Actress Natalie Wood says that she dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and director Nicholas Ray. Elvis Presley too romanced young Nick. After his "teenage crush" on movie star James Dean The King is said to have seen Rebel Without a Cause some 44 times and ultimately had an affair with Adams who was the roommate of Dean.
			He only has a biography because of his movie and television career, without that he would be long forgotten. I'm gay, and I don't care if Addams was gay, bi, or whatever. The time when it was headline news if a celebrity was gay is long past. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:I agree that the section on his sexuality is excessively large, and is undue emphasis. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::There are indeed some accusations that Natalie Wood may have been bisexual because of her contacts to many Hollywood gays, but this is only hearsay. Therefore I have revised the text. ]

			==Article issues and classification==
	::::Note ]'s diversionary tactic in the words in the first line, an irrelevant sentence telling us they don't quote hearsay! The "revised text" was done after they were caught, and their revision was to remove their absolute falsehood from the article where they said: "] actress ] says that she dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and director ]." ] 11:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			:I think this article was prematurely -- or -- bot wrongly-assessed. There is a multitude of "unsourced statements" (citation needed) from 2011, 2014, 2019, and July and August 2022, as well as ] issues
			:The ] #1 states; {{tq\|The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.}}, and #4, {{tq\|The article is reasonably well-written.}}
			:Reassess the article to C-class. -- ] (]) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

			==This article is so bizarre==
	:::In his review of Gavin Lambert's ''Natalie Wood: A Life'' 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.xxx.xxx ]
			This is so bizarre. It seems to belong to something like Cracked.com rather than in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 05:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

	I (]) reverted these continued fabricated assertions.

	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' reverted me again but knowing they had to do something about the fabrications, they reworded it a second time to remove the fabrication: "''Elvis Presley too romanced young Nick''", changing it TO: "''There is also the claim that Elvis Presley romanced young Nick.''" This is the second admission of a fabrication and the second act of ]. But once again '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' doesn't tell us who it is that makes such a claim and continue with their "wear them down" tactic and keep most of the unfounded text. Here is their next revision:

	*'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' - revised text: (21:39, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.193.103) -
	**Though Adams married actress ] with whom he had two children, he regularly appears in lists of famous ] people. Before he got into acting, Adams was known as a "Hollywood hustler" who had a reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town. Actress ] frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and director ]. There is also the claim that ] romanced young Nick. After his "teenage crush" on movie star ] The King is said to have seen ''Rebel Without a Cause'' some 44 times and ultimately had an affair with Adams who was the roommate of Dean.

	I (]) reverted these continued fabricated assertions. After five reverts by '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' I then posted the following notice into the article: ''Note: This article has now been placed in: ].''

	As part of the tactics to turn the tables on anyone who reverts their fabrications and as a continuation of the "wear them down" tactic, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' comes to this Talk Page (and they did it elsewhere to others) and inserts meaningless comments and/or cites Internet articles that do not even come close to meeting ] policy.

	:I have quoted several sources stating that Nick Adams was gay. Where are your sources which prove that Nick Adams wasn't gay? Another user has also asked at the beginning of this talk page, "By whom, exactly, was his homosexuality unacknowledged?" – 80.141.xxx.xxx ]

	They then revert the article repeatedly with the Edit Summary that says (''See discussion'') . Too, they don't identify the comments on the Talk Page as coming from them so that anyone trying to assess the information has no idea how many people are actually commenting against what the one identified user is saying about improper edits. As an example on ], using the confusion they have created by lack of identity, they make it appear that reverting to their fabricated text is proper by asserting: "''There are two ''independent'' statements that the other version of the article is much better''."

	:Sorry. Everybody can see that I am the anonymous editor '''80.141.xxx.xxx''' using a dynamic IP address. What's wrong with this fact? As for the two independent statements, see what administator ] has written on the said discussion page. ] He says, "It seems to me that the old version of the page is far less POV than this current page. 1) The old version mentions the controversy surrounding Bret's finding's well enough, and 2) why did the new editors remove a perfectly fine ] link? I support reversion to the old version." -- 80.141.xxx.xxx ]

	Note too that not only does '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' not quote reliable resources, but in the ] article and then again on the ] page they stated about Presley:
	*"''that he was homosexual. Indeed, this accusation (''by Bret's book'') is '''proved''' by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels''."

	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' reiterated this "'''proven fact'''" repeatedly including in the actual Presley article stating unequivocally that proof is in a book by Dee Presley called '']''. But before discussing the merits of "''proof ''" from any such book by Dee Presley, we need first to ] and determine that such a book exists so that it can be examined for its veracity. So, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' can first provide the ] number for ''The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis'', the publishing house name, and the dated this supposed book was published. Misplaced Pages articles do not assert that rumors by someone who reported she at some point in time told a tabloid she was writing such a book and the tabloid quoted supposed excerpts from the purported manuscript that was then passed around as being part of her "new book." But, with the ISBN number as External link, anyone can buy this supposed book if they want.

	:In my opinion, this is your first relevant contribution to this discussion page. I don't know whether this book has been published or not. All I know is that the Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, once acquired the worldwide rights to "The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley," a "very private and revealing" manuscript documenting "never-before-released accounts" of Elvis's life. So it is clear that a manuscript of the book exists. But I don't think that it is of much importance if you are right that the book has not yet been published, as the manuscript exists and seems to have circulated in many copies. More important is that it was written by Devada "Dee" Presley, Elvis' stepmother who lived at Graceland with Elvis for over ten years. There is a short summary of her accusations in an article written by Dee Presley for the ''National Enquirer''. The new facts she presents have been discussed by other authors, for instance, Greil Marcus, in the book, ''Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives'' (2000).

	As to the second part of the so-called "''proof''" from Judy Spreckels, see below the details on the "'''''fraudulently doctored text'''''" inserted by '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.'''

	The diversionary tactics of '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' continued following my posting the notice ] with them going to that page and in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy, used the page to attack my credibility. As a result, I (User:Ted Wilkes) was the one blocked from editing and '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''', having been given a free license, immediately headed to the Elvis Presley article and added a great more misleading information to enhance their existing deception . When ] attempted to remove just a tiny portion of the misinformation, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' started the same reverting tactics again. A discouraged User:Equintan gave up trying to do what was right. Was it not Misplaced Pages co-founder ] who has publicly stated: "if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other list members will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll."

	:Did you read what I have written on the related discussion page? – 80.141.xxx.xxx ]

	While Mr. Sanger has a point, one of the problems in dealing with people such as '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' is that they '''overpower''' the talk page to the point where any other Wiki User trying to bring peace cannot be expected to read and analyze the massive writings and as such cannot deal with the issue properly.

	On just this small ] article alone, after inserting their fabrications, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' did '''14 more reverts'''. Note that their tactics succeeded in having the page protected with their fabrications and unfounded information still in place. This is how the article section currently reads as a result of the last edit by : ]. I have inserted my comments in Italics.

	*Though Adams married actress Carol Nugent with whom he had two children, he regularly appears in lists of famous gay people. -- ''What lists? Such a statement requires ] acceptable to an Encyclopedia and supported by documented facts?''

	:::For such lists including Nick Adams, see, for instance, http://www.umsl.edu/~pope/famous.html or http://www.youthfirsttexas.org/famous_gay_people.html – 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]

	* -- Before he got into acting, Adams was known as a "Hollywood hustler" who had a reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town. -- ''Who specifically knew him as a Hollywood Huster and what reliable source provides proof that he was so labelled? Please explain what is meant by "''pieces''" and how this terminology is 1) relevant to the biography and 2) is acceptable language in Misplaced Pages.''

	:::Nick Adams is mentioned in Boze Hadleigh's book ''Hollywood Gays''. The author writes that the diminutive yet reputedly well-hung actor Nick Adams may have "hustled while looking for acting jobs in the 1950s." I would agree to rewrite the passage relating to Adams's "reputation for having one of the biggest pieces in town". However, this information is taken from an internet source announcing the birthday of Adams. – 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]

	* -- Actress Natalie Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood circles including Nick Adams and director Nicholas Ray. -- ''Provide proof from credible sources acceptable for an Encyclopedia that these were romantic dates and not just a friend she worked on a film with and that she spent free time with during film production and proof that the men she dated romantically were "Gay".''

	:::In his review of ''Natalie Wood: A Life'', Brandon Judell writes, "Wood's insecurities led her later to date bisexual and gay men including director Nicholas Ray and actor Nick Adams." See http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_308/recliminganactress.html – 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]

	* -- There is also the claim that Elvis Presley romanced young Nick. -- ''What credible source made this claim and what proof did that source provide?'' -- After his "teenage crush" on movie star James Dean The King is said to have seen Rebel Without a Cause some 44 times and ultimately had an affair with Adams who was the roommate of Dean. -- ''Who said it? And, are they a credible source and what proof was provided that The King (assume this refers to Elvis Presley) had a "teenage crush" on movie star James Dean and that "The King" had an affair with Adams.''

	:::This has been written by David Bret in his book, ''Elvis: The Hollywood Years'', an author you are constantly casting aspersions on. See ]

	Beyond all of the above, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' fabricated information and inserted "'''''fraudulently doctored text'''''" into the David Bret article as follows:
	*Revision to ] article 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:
	** - "In Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his '''friend''', actor Nick Adams."

	*(More comments on the disnformation in the Elvis Presley article by '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' to follow shortly with User:Ted Wilkes comments to be placed on the Presley talk page.)


	'''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' <s>represents the most dangerous sort of vandal</s> whose actions provide ] and other legitimate information sources with the precise ammunition needed to condemn Misplaced Pages as unreliable and show its inability to monitor itself properly. They have wasted the time honorable contributors would normally devote to creating good articles and doing valuable editing. These people can't get a legitimate platform anywhere else so they come to Misplaced Pages to push their agenda. They are here on a mission, and as seen on this small article they will make dozens of reverts and write endless words on the talk page as well as con others into believing that they are legitimate.

	Signed and certified as factual: ] 00:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


	NOTE: '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' continues with their tactics "wear them down" tactics by masive insertions of text into my statement of ]s which is nothing but ramblings and with zero defense of their vandalism and "'''''fraudulently doctored text'''''". Note that like before, when caught in a lie, '''USER: 80.141.etc.etc.''' changed their fabricated text about Dee Presley's book on the David Bret talk page that they asserted had the title '']''. They stated that the book was "''proof''":

	From: ] :
	*''this accusation is '''proved''' by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels. In her book ] Dee Presley says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and that he had an affair with Nick Adams.

	After I (User:Ted Wilkes) called them on their fraud by asking for the ] number, they admit it doesn't exist but have now "''introduced''" a new "proof" they call a '''manuscript'''. Give me a break!

	:Sorry. I didn't know that the book may not yet have been published, as it was mentioned in several articles and in Greil Marcus's book, ''Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives'' (2000). Here is the source which proves that a manuscript written by Dee Presley exists: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:16884628 I think it is of little importance whether the book has been published or not. More important is that most Elvis fan clubs condemned the accusations to be found in it, although it was written by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. See also ]. To my mind, it is to be supposed that Ted Wilkes may be one of those people writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of Elvis and therefore tries to suppress the opinion that Elvis may have been bisexual or gay. This would explain why he is constantly accusing me of "vandalism", "deliberate misinformation", "outright fabrication", etc. -- 80.141.xxx.xxx - ]

	Please note, I will refrain from further comments on this page pending insertion of my other '''facts''' on this matter on the David Bret and Elvis Presley talk pages and then will wait for the review by the ]s. ] 15:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


	Sorry, I can't help but insert another comment even though it aids their "wear them down" and overwhelm them with writings tactic. What we have here is another admission of a lie by ''Anonymous''' who knew all along no book was ever published and after being caught fabricates a second lie that a maunscript says what he claimed was in a book. The link our '''anonymous user''' inserted to prove such a manuscript exists is a great joke. Look at it! Just how stupid does this person think Wikipedians are? This link to the PR Newswire is a '''1995''' story. In the '''ten years''' since, no such book was ever published and its contents are unknown. 99.9% of all the Elvis books claim ''astonishing new information never before revealed''. Yeah, right. But ] first inserted his outright '''falsehood''' that the book existed and that it was '''proof''' Elvis was gay. Caught in their lie, they then asserted this so-called '''manuscript''' was proof. And now they claim that book publishers revealed the content to Elvis fans before they published it? What utter nonsense. Repeated lies and distortions go nowhere at Misplaced Pages, they just dig a deeper hole. ] 17:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	:Sorry. Did you mention that there are newspaper articles summarizing the new facts included in Dee Presley's book? The contents of the manuscript are well known and the details were even discussed by several members of the world wide Elvis fan clubs. Information from the manuscript was also used for Greil Marcus's book, ''Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives'' (2000). David S. Wall has also written an article in which he states that Dee Presley "wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years" and that "The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials". So it is of little importance whether the book has been published or not. You cannot deny that the manuscript exists and its content is known. Don't call me a liar! ] 18:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


	Nick, do you still want my help? If so, let me know. ] ] 19:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

	:'''Ed Poor:''' Your help is greatly appreciated and I look forward to your report on the matter. ] 15:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	=={{tl\|disambig}}==
	Can I remove it? It's not a disambiguation page after all. -- User:Docu

	==The following information should be added to the article==

	- the names of his children: Allyson Lee Adams, born in 1960, and Jeb Stewart Adams, 1962.

	- his divorce from actress Carol Nugent. Adams won the case, since it was proved that his wife had an affair with another man.

	- that Adams lived a reckless life and was arrested for speeding nine times in one year. He was placed on probation, but the larger studios ignored the young actor.

	== Removed tag ==

	I've tried to resolve this by presenting the information in a more encyclopedic manner. Never mind the controversy, let readers and viewers of his movies decide as they wish. ] 29 June 2005 10:21 (UTC)

	==Stabilizing?==
	I'm pleased with the article now and only tweaked the most recent edits for syntax and pitchy adjectives (understandable when someone edits with strong belief in a PoV, but not encyclopedic). There is no documented evidence Nick Adams was gay (but mentioning kiss-and-tell gossip books is acceptable as long as the context is clear). I must say that the logic of the Natalie Wood assertion is amazingly weak... should one therefore infer that any male she hung out with was gay? (I only put it that way to make a point) The Elvis rumour is ok to note as a rumour, the "Hollywood hustler"/"pool hustler" thing works as interesting trivia and regardless of one's interpretation, communicates a bit of insight into his character. ] 30 June 2005 04:42 (UTC)

	::Sorry, the book Hollywood Gays (mentioned in the article) which states that Adams was gay is based on interviews with gay Hollywood stars. So it is based on primary sources. I don't think that the Natalie Wood assertion is amazingly weak, as she was primarily interested in Hollywood's gay scene. 80.141.219.175 30 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

	:::Sorry, none of your edits are supported by documented evidence cited in peer-reviewed, secondary sources (please see the next section). ] 1 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

	::::Gavin Lambert, a reputed biographer who also coedited the film magazine ''Sequence'' with Lindsay Anderson, edited ''Sight and Sound'' and wrote film criticism for ''The Sunday Times'' and ''The Guardian'', has known Nathalie 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 writes about the sexual dalliances of the actors and their friends, both gay and straight, and clearly says that Wood frequently dated gay men in Hollywood including director ] and actors Nick Adams, Raymond Burr, James Dean, Tab Hunter and Scott Marlowe. There are further statements by biographer David Bret and Elvis Presley's stepmother, Dee Presley, that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams. As several other sources prove, the whole gay scene of Hollywood seems to have known that Nick Adams was gay. Therefore, I have reinstated a revised version of the deleted passage. ] 1 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

	==Peer review required==

	*Misplaced Pages doesn't build articles from primary sources, but from peer reviewed secondary sources: ''Hollywood Gays'' is a secondary source lacking in scholarly ]. Most reviewers bluntly accuse Hadleigh of inventing much of his material and the book is not accepted as credible history. Citations from it don't qualify for this article.

	:Are you sure? Here are some reviews of Hadleigh's book:

	::"A series of 10 interviews with dramatic actors, romantic heros, comedians, and performers, three of whom died of AIDS; all prominent in the Hollywood/entertainment scene. The interviews are by turns frank, and depending on the comfort level of the interviewee, evasive and suggestive. Prominent features of the interviews include Hollywood's various constructions of masculinity, efforts to mask gay realities, studio response to homosexuality, and discussion of gay relationships. Many interviews include commentary on Hollywood figures not themselves in this collection. Each interview is preceded by a biographical sketch including relationship information and usually comments by friends and acquaintances. Index to persons mentioned in the interviews concludes the work." (''Gays and Lesbians: Reference and Bibliographical Resources Annotated")

	:::That's not a review, that's an ad. ] 2 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

	::::Are you sure? See http://faculty.washington.edu/alvin/gayref.htm ] 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

	::"In this collection of interviews, each preceded by a chatty introduction, that Hadleigh has conducted over the years with 10 Hollywood stars, the author continues his probing of the ever-popular topic of the sexual proclivities of Hollywood actors. There's nothing very surprising about his choice of subjects--Paul Lynde, Liberace, Randolph Scott, et al.--all of whom, conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased. And though hearing about these stars in their own words often proves entertaining, most of the book's gay readership will find little here they haven't heard before. Two exceptions are the touching interview with producer David Lewis, who talks freely about his longtime companion, James Whale (director of the classic 1931 Frankenstein and of The Invisible Man), who committed suicide in 1957; and the talk with William Haines, whose career was destroyed by Louis B. Mayer after he was caught with another man in his cot at a YMCA. The book's style is suitably straightforward, though Hadleigh's banter often verges on the cute or leering. Readers will find much cocktail-party repartee here and will relish the references to other stars of dubious sexual orientation." (''Publishers Weekly'')

	:::Hadleigh's been accused of making up most of those "interviews".] 2 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

	::::Where is the reviewer accusing the author of making up most of those interviews? ] 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

	::"Hadleigh ... seeks to provide firsthand reports. An entertainment journalist since the 1960s, he conducted volumes of off-the-record interviews with celebrities reputed to be gay or bisexual such as Cary Grant, Paul Lynde, and Anthony Perkins, as well as less well-remembered actors like Randolph Scott and William Haines. In these interviews, often given only with the understanding that they would not be published during the star's life, Hadleigh attempts to get normally secretive actors to speak about their sexual lives. .... Cary Grant and Anthony Perkins ... proffer revelations about co-workers and peers. Like his earlier volumes ''Conversations with My Elders'' (St. Martin's, 1988) and ''Lesbians in Hollywood'' (Baricade, 1994), Hadleigh's work is somewhat suspect. He claims that for most of these interviews, he was not allowed to tape record or take notes, and frequently the questions seem stiltedly reconstructed. Still, the interviews are highly entertaining and provide an important, mostly undocumented view of the film industry's social history. Recommended for both general readers looking for dish and scholars of gay history and film studies." (''Library Journal'')

	::"Boze Hadleigh has been publishing gossipy books about gay celebrity and cinema for nearly two decades. Two of his best-known books, ''Hollywood Gays'' and ''Hollywood Lesbians'' are collections of his interviews with gay and bisexual stars in which they basically out themselves and others in their circle. Some have questioned the accuracy of his printed transcripts, but there's no denying they're impossible to put down..." (''Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide'')

	:::Note that this one questions the veracity of the interviews. ] 2 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

	::::The reviewer only says that '''some''' have questioned the accuracy of the interviews. This means that many others think that Hadleigh's interviews are accurate. ] 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

	::Last not least, here is an excerpt from the book: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/7537/gay.htm
	::] 2 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

	:::Significantly, ] has again deleted my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and ] without discussing the additional sources I have quoted. His only argument seems to be that reviews in ''Publishers Weekly'', the ''Library Journal'' and other journals are no peer-reviewed sources and not in accordance with WP policy. ] 2 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

	::Significantly? Sigh. The issue here is ''Hollywood Gays'', which is not a reliable source of anything. Those "reviews" are blurbs. The actual reviews are uniformly horrid. ] 2 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

	:::So you think that reviews in ''Publishers Weekly'' or the ''Library Journal'' are blurbs? Very interesting indeed. ] 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

	Therefore, I have deleted all content in the article derived from non-peer reviewed publications, in accordance with WP policy.

	Because widespread rumours do affect the legacy of a public figure, I have retained a summary of them as such in a ''Rumours'' section.

	None of this has anything to do with "defending" Adams. For all I know, rumours of gay liaisons with Elvis Presley may have generated more interest in his filmed work and had a positive effect on the value of his estate, which could be financially advantageous to his children, whom he obviously cared about. My posts here only relate to writing the article according to WP policy and encyclopedic principles. ] 1 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

	To clarify, I looked into the source for that Elvis rumour. It arose from a single story in the Globe tabloid, which is not a peer-reviewed historical publication. ] 1 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

	:The source for the Elvis rumour is David Bret's book, ''Elvis: The Hollywood Years'' (2002). The ''Globe'' article only published some details from this book.

	:::Thanks for clarifying that. Bret has a reputation for sloppy history, lack of scholarship, being obsessed with sexual topics (almost to the exclusion of other aspects of his subjects' careers and lives) and lastly, making up interviews to sell tabloid-style books to the downmarket. ] 2 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

	I've put some time into researching this and have found zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual, or ever demonstrated such behavior. Furthermore, all of the edits on this subject in the article seem to have been made by a single persistent anon editor. For these reasons I have deleted all references to the rumours, have placed the article on my watchlist, and will routinely delete any such references unless documented evidence cited by peer-reviewed sources emerges. ] 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

	:Peer reviewed? How many peer reviewed sources are there for minor Hollywood actors? The only sources that I know of that are "]ed" are academic journals and books. Misplaced Pages does ''not'' require peer reviewed sources. Misplaced Pages is dedicated to fairly summarizing with a neutral point of view whatever verifiable sources are available. Certainly unpublished manuscripts do not qualify. But printed books that are in libraries or on the internet are verifiable, secondary sources, whether peer-reviewed or not. See ]. Cheers, -] July 1, 2005 10:20 (UTC)

	::You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new ]? Anyway the book cited by the anon has not been verified by the sort of peer review one would apply to entertainment oriented biographies and journalistic reports. ] 1 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

	:::Thanks for the (not so gentle) correction. That should have been ]. Now then can you please give some examples of "peer-reviewed" sources for information on the personal lives of minor Hollywood actors? Thanks, -] July 1, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

	::''Hollywood Gays'' is not among them. ] 2 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

	:::Did you read the reviews quoted above? I have cited my sources according to the Misplaced Pages quidelines. Where are your "peer-reviewed" sources proving that Adams wasn't gay? ] 2 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

	::::The documented evidence provides overwhelming consensus that your source in this case is not reliable. ] 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

	:::::This is your personal opinion. I think that all sources I have quoted are reliable enough to be used to support the fact that Nick Adams was gay. They should be mentioned in the article. ] 2 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

	::There is zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual, or ever demonstrated such behavior. ] 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:47, 7 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nick Adams (actor, born 1931) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Archives

1, 2

Change Title and Give this Title to Dab page?

"Hollywood" and "gay" are words to conjure with, as the voluminous discussion here and in the existing archive proves. Nevertheless,

"Nick Adams stories"

has 25K Ghits, all of which may be presumed to focus on Nick Adams (character) while

"nick adams " Rebel OR dean

(which differs by about 2% from e.g.

"nick adams " Rebel OR dean OR Hondo OR "wild wild west"

and thus can be presumably be counted on to capture virtually all of the pages that would focus on the actor) has only 46K. Perhaps someone who's read the actor's bio thru can construct a more compelling G-srch, but barring that, IMO the actor and the Hemingway stories are close enuf in significance that readers would be better served by more equal Dab'n than by letting the actor keep the unsuffixed title.
--Jerzy•t 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale 11:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we rename the article Nick Adams (hustler)?

In this edit, demurely summarized as some minor changes and additions, User:Onefortyone adds about three kilobytes, notably a lengthy section on "Adams's sexuality" and another on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses". In other words, stonking great bucket-loads of steaming tittle-tattle. Mmm, fragrant!

But I'm disappointed by megastars such as James Dean (a cultural icon who also died tragically young). For one thing, the word legendary is missing, yet the article needs that to satisfy the Hello!-consuming "demographic". Can't we rephrase this bit as gigastars such as James Dean (a legendary cultural icon who also died tragically young)? (Though actually I've always thought that for Dean, as for Mr Vicious, early death was a sage career move.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that we should rename the article "Nick Adams (hustler)", though a special subsection concerning Adams's and Dean's activities as street hustlers may be included in the Hollywood section. As for the Sexuality section, it was already there but wrongly entitled. The other interesting section on "Adams's off-screen dates with actresses" had been removed by User:Gwen Gale. I only reincluded it, as it throws much light on the studio-arranged dates of the time, of which Nick Adams was part of. By the way, I am happy with most of Gwen's recent edits, as they are indeed improvements. Onefortyone (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Onefortyone, on this topic, I think it's more than ok to mention these tabloid sources about Nick Adams but since a) they're all 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay with no confirmation and b) they have little or nothing to do with his notability as an actor, I am going to put them back into their own section at the end of the article, citing context worries which would be more or less covered by WP:WEIGHT along with WP:RS. I do strongly support the inclusion of this published material in the article and will help you in any way I can to keep it there, in its own section. I would also support a new article called Nick Adams (sexuality) but dealing with these sources in their own section here is, IMHO, as helpful. Please feel free to bring up anything meaningful to you about all this here on the talk page and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, when I much expanded and rewrote the article a few weeks ago, I mistakenly rm'd the Natalie Wood text. I've rs'd this to the gossip section (since it's supported by citations of gossip/tabloid sources), thanks for bringing it up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Gwen, I hadn't realized this -- are you saying it's really OK to write "encyclopedia" articles out of "gossip/tabloid sources"? I may have to rethink my approach here. I mean, my assiduous reading of the "Street of Shame" and other pages within Private Eye had given me the impression that the British tabloids (or redtops, as the Brits call them) were only suitable for amusement, and that their respect for facts was close to zero. Am I wrong? Or is this tattlopedia we're writing here? -- Hoary (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks for putting it that way! I do so thoroughly agree with the spirit of how you put it.

Not that we as editors care at all about what he did along these lines, but the article must follow Misplaced Pages sourcing policies, first because that's how this wiki is meant to work and second, so readers will not be misled a) into thinking these rumours have anything to do with verfiable information about Nick Adams (unlike say, Liberace, Rock Hudson or Sir Derek George Jacobi or whomever) or b) that there are no rumours.

Now, the thing is (as you imply), these tabloid sources only barely meet WP:V if at all, given WP:V#Questionable_sources (which says sources which "rely heavily on rumors... should only be used in articles about themselves") and do not meet WP:RS. As it happens WP:WEIGHT also has something to say about how we might deal with this.

Meanwhile these rumours are widely published on the Internet and elsewhere, so the article would be very lacking not to address them somehow.

A wholly separate section called Later gossip is more or less as much about the sources "themselves" as it would be about Nick Adams, following WP:V#Questionable_sources above, which makes their inclusion ok under WP policy (while the policy specifies these sources can only be cited in "articles about themselves" I think it's ok to apply this as "wholly separate section about themselves" if other editors are ok with it too) and moreover (IMHO), encyclopedic since the sources themselves are being discussed separately as a cultural thing which has shown up decades after his death. Hence, I think editors can be a bit more open-minded with Onefortyone about what kinds of sources he wants to put there and I mean it when I say I strongly support the inclusion of this stuff, in its own section.

Lastly, if a consensus of editors were to show up and rm these sources altogether from the article (I don't think this will happen) it looks to me like Onefortyone would be wholly supported by WP policy if he put these sources in a new article called Nick Adams (sexuality rumours) and linked it back to the "see also" section of this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated gossip, especially about Elvis Presley, who was NOT gay or bi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.37.137 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I just can't believe a Misplaced Pages article would have anything in it by Larry Quirk or Albert Goldman. Chandler75 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg

Image:Nickadamsmars.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg

Image:Nickadamsrebel.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsmars.jpg

Image:Nickadamsmars.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this notice is mistaken. Rationale has been provided and I believe it is wholly in compliance, please restate the objection with more specificity relating to Nick Adams, if need be, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickadamsrebel.jpg

Image:Nickadamsrebel.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The objection seemed to related to the image being linked to multiple articles, which was inaccurate, the image is linked only to this article and a full fair use rationale was already provided. However, please restate the objection if need be, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced episode description

This was added by an IP, it's a plot synopsis which in this form is inappropriate for this biographical article. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun and Games

In March of 1964, viewers of the innovative (and short-lived) dark science fiction anthology series The Outer Limits witnessed one of Adams' most affecting performances. In the episode Fun and Games, Adams portrays Mike Benson, an emotionally wounded ex-boxer, conditioned to expect the worst from life. He is offered a chance for redemption: he can save Earth from being destroyed-- cataclysmically over a period of several years -- for the entertainment of a jaded extraterrestrial audience, but only if he will provide alternative entertainment by joining a female human in battling to the death two primitive aliens, who are likewise fighting to save their own distant world. Benson is a character whose best impulses lie buried beneath layers of fear and defensive cynicism, and Adams persuasively brings him to life. Initially refusing to take up the alien's challenge, Benson revels in the possibilities of hedonism open to a man who knows that the world is just a few years from utter destruction, noting that there would be "enough time" for "just about everything a man could enjoy". When Laura (Nancy Malone), the other human facing the aliens, bitterly asks him if that includes raising a child, Adams lends understated emotional conviction to Benson's distant reply: "I don't think I'd enjoy that...my Dad always said it was a lot of trouble." Fun and Games is, as critic David Schow notes "in terms of emotional impact and existential honesty, one of The Outer Limits finest hours." ref: http://www.davidjschow.com/limits/ol_episodes2.html#fun This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization.

Having read the Outer Limits review at the URL in the text, the IP's phrase "This is due, in no small part, to the depth of Adams' characterization," is placed to imply that it is supported by the linked review but it is not, it's WP:OR. However, I have added two sentences to the text which are supported by the review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "verifiable content" (or just tittle-tattle and trivia)

Gwen sez: please don't remove verifiable content without first discussing it on the talk page.

Allow me to open the discussion.

I find the splendidly named Red Pen of Doom's deletions to be very well thought out, because — pace one of the most vigorous writers of this article (and I do not have Gwen in mind) — WP purports to be a general purpose encyclopedia rather than a compendium of tittle-tattle and trivia. Here's just one part of Red Pen's version:

On the night of February 7 1968 his lawyer and friend, ex-LAPD officer Erwin Roeder, drove to the actor's house in Beverly Hills to check on him after a missed dinner appointment. Seeing a light on and his car in the garage, Roeder broke through a window and discovered Adams in his upstairs bedroom.

Version after restoration of "verifiable content":

On the night of February 7 1968 his lawyer and friend, ex-LAPD officer Erwin Roeder, drove to the actor's house at 2126 El Roble Lane in Beverly Hills to check on him after a missed dinner appointment. Seeing a light on and his car in the garage, Roeder broke through a window and discovered Adams in his upstairs bedroom, slumped against a wall and wearing a shirt, blue jeans and boots, his eyes open in a blank stare, dead. He was 36 years old.

Whether he was wearing blue jeans, green jeans, or women's panties seems immaterial. That his eyes were open does too: while I'm no coroner, I'd have thought that any implication that open eyes might have would have been pointed out by the "Coroner to the Stars". If the stiff's eyes were open they'd presumably be motionless; how could they be in other than a blank stare?

All of this may suit the kind of paperback whose tackily designed cover says it has spent so many weeks on the "New York Times bestseller list" (battling the latest fad diet books or whatever) but it has no place here that I can see. (And as it happens the example above isn't sourced either.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And from the lede we also have "Adams' untimely death".-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh but that could have been "untimely passing". (Incidentally, if you want to see some crap WP bios, try searching for such golden cliches as "tender age". I think I once even came across "for all intention purposes".)

Anyone care to defend the stuff that Red Pen deleted? -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a WHOLE section of speculation? None of these are even reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golly58 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Nick Addams Bio is too negative

I never cared for Addams, I'm not a fan. But I feel your bio of him is too negative. Even if all the negative input is 100% true, its irrelevant. The man is long dead, what matters is his career, his legacy as an actor, not that Elvis Presley's mother didn't like him, or that he was a pool hustler. He only has a biography because of his movie and television career, without that he would be long forgotten. I'm gay, and I don't care if Addams was gay, bi, or whatever. The time when it was headline news if a celebrity was gay is long past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:924F:8300:BCBD:7A2D:DFCF:EC81 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the section on his sexuality is excessively large, and is undue emphasis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

I think this article was prematurely -- or -- bot wrongly-assessed. There is a multitude of "unsourced statements" (citation needed) from 2011, 2014, 2019, and July and August 2022, as well as balance issues

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.

Reassess the article to C-class. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is so bizarre

This is so bizarre. It seems to belong to something like Cracked.com rather than in an encyclopedia. Montju (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: