Talk:Nick Adams (actor, born 1931)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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 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 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 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 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 ensure 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 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 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 ensure 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 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 [sic] 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)