User talk:DaveyJones1968

Re your claim that Jeffrey Hunter was bisexual and that he and Sal Mineo were lovers: actor Dick Sargent, who was gay, and who knew Hunter from 1955 until Hunter's death, and who made two pictures with him, wrote in his memoirs that Hunter was straight. Hunter was quite accepting of Sargent's being gay, however, and Hunter's fiancée even lent her New York apartment to Sargent and his partner when they were visiting the city in 1967. — Walloon 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Mineo said Hunter was bisexual, and even John Wayne knew about it when they were making The Searchers in 1955. (DaveyJones1968 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You claimed that Hunter and Mineo were lovers, although Mineo makes no such claim, nor does Mineo say he even knew Hunter, in which case his statement would fall under gossip and hearsay. And Mineo's calling him a "creep" is both unexplained and unlikely — the people who knew Hunter and worked with him have without exception called him a kind and decent person. I have literally never heard a bad word about Hunter from any of his friends or co-workers. The authenticity of Boze Hadleigh's interviews has been widely called into question. In his supposed interview wth Rock Hudson, he has Hudson claiming to have been involved romantically with Liberace. When journalists have asked to hear the tape recordings on which the interviews were based, he has yet to allow verification. You also offer no evidence about the claim above that John Wayne "knew" Hunter was bisexual while they were making The Searchers.

Without a statement by Mineo that he actually knew Hunter, his claim falls under hearsay (if the interview is even real). I think actor Dick Sargent, who was gay and actually knew Hunter for fourteen years and made two pictures with him, is a more reliable source when he states in his memoirs that Hunter was straight. — Walloon 15:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Hunter was as bent as a boomerang and he blew more guys than you have had hot dinners. No wonder the homophobic Wayne hated him and never worked with him ever again. Btw, that interview was published in 1972, four years before the openly gay Mineo was killed, so if it wasn't true he'd have said. (DaveyJones1968 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You have offered no evidence for your claims that "Hunter was as bent as a boomerang," that "Wayne hated him," or that Sal Mineo knew Hunter. You are also incorrect about the alleged interview with Sal Mineo in 1972: it was first published in Boze Hadleigh's book Conversations With My Elders, in 1987, eleven years after Mineo's death. — Walloon 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you might like to see this, from Lee Server's biography of Mitchum: p. 415: (Edward Dmytryk speaking) "The Mitchum I saw in Rome had changed completely. He now had all these very right-wing views."

and

p. 499: (Mitchum's longtime assistant Reva Frederick speaking) "In thirty-odd years that I was with him, I never heard him express an interest or an opinion about politics or a politician.... He never said a word to indicate he was a Democrat, a Republican, Socialist, or what have you. He told me more than once that he had never voted in his life."

So I don't see how it can be said that he was to the far left. Maybe as a youngster, but by the time he was a star, the evidence just doesn't support it. Monkeyzpop 05:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchum was extreme left, as Shirley MacLaine correctly said in that book. He was a big supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, both of whom Wayne hated. Mitchum considered Eisenhower a joke, especially since the elderly Republican kept a mistress yet wouldn't watch any of Mitchum's films. When Mitchum made a few remarks in support of the Vietnam War, he was on the side of the troops, not the politicians - unlike Wayne. Like fellow leftists Errol Flynn and James Caan, Mitchum has often been wrongly described as a Republican. As late as the 1980s he was having a go about the "Moral Majority nuts", and the only time he was ever involved directly with politics was in 1992 when his manager, a diehard Republican, talked the ill and dying 75-year-old into (briefly) joining George Bush Sr on the campaign trail. Mitchum thought it was hilarious how all those elderly GOP supporters were describing the womanizing, alcoholic, left-wing drug addict ACTOR as "the last Gary Cooper we've got".

• Just FYI: The "ill and dying 75-year-old" Mitchum was comparatively robust up until the year of his death nearly five years later, in 1997.

• Actually he wasn't, Mitchum had emphysema for years before he was diagnosed with lung cancer, he lost a great deal of weight as he got older and his last performances were in 1995. He looked incredibly ill in Dead Man and that James Dean TV movie. It is difficult to see how somebody with Mitchum's experiences could ever be a right-winger.

Also, Mitchum once claimed to have belonged to the Communist Party and he was very pro-union, hardly a Republican stance. (DaveyJones1968 12:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please watch out for what you say in Wikipedia. Personal attacks, both against the subject of the article and other users, are strictly prohibited. I have deleted several of your comments in the talk page of the Michael Jackson article because they were far too vicious and discordant. Try to stick to the issues at hand and avoid calling people names. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I've taken a look at your edit history and it appears that you have quite a knack for becoming involved with conflicts in talk pages or in adding ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims to whatever articles earn your interest. You've consistently made other personal attacks against various individuals. Going from both personal experience and the actual policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, this is not the best way to become a productive editor. Becoming less confrontational will make it easier for you to be a better contributor. I also notice that much of the recent conversation between you and myself in the Michael Jackson talk page does not involve anything about improving the article. We're just going back and forth about what people have sold, which is something I really don't want to do because it has no significance in this context. I was once haggling with another person over similar issues in that same talk page and it really did not turn out well. Focus on making improvements to the article, or suggestions for how to improve it, rather than starting paltry debates.UberCryxic 18:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-insert unsourced derogatory material to biographies of living people. Repeated additions of such material may lead to this account being blocked. Please see WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not deregatory at all and James Garner, his best friend, has confirmed the story. (DaveyJones1968 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Much of the tendentious information that you are adding is, in fact, derogatory and above all unsourced.UberCryxic 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In interviews with James Garner, Garner has talked about Tom Atkins bringing his male lovers on the set of the Rockford Files many times. Tom Atkins is an openly gay man, get over it. (DaveyJones1968 10:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Atkins has not publicly come out as gay doesn't make him straight. I think you need to get over it. (DaveyJones1968 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

your statistic has been deleted it has no citacion, although from looking at your past record that doesnt really concern you in the least. you are more than welcome to re debate the issue on the editing section ( minus swearing, abusive behaviour and homophobia) although from what I can see from uber he has little interest with this topic any longer as it doesnt improve the article in the least. your sincerally . Realist2 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does because we all know Wacko was lying when he more than doubled his sales. (DaveyJones1968 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

oh my god thats irrelevant you MUST source your claims. If they are true thats fair enough but you cant go around saying things without citation otherwise its classed as pov and deleted,wiether it be true or not. try to be constructive or you will be blocked eventually which is a shame on SOME level because you do seem to discuss a wide rang of topics. Your contributions could be usful if you are prepaired to change the way you express yourself. Realist2 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I do believe you were the one doing the swearing, but since your self-proclaimed King of Pop swears all the time, doesn't like being black and hates Jews just like Brando and Price before him then I guess that is all right. (DaveyJones1968 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you just hate all famous people or something?Realist2 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just washed up overrated gay pedophiles like Wacko Jacko. (DaveyJones1968 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have left a message in the discussion area, I want to draw a line under all this, it has become a terrible issue, uncomfortable for all I think. Please take this as a serious apology and lets forget the issue entirely. Im sure both of us want to avoid conflict, we both understand the importance of wikipedia and that children could be reading this, I dont want this to carry on its such a shame. Realist2 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the truth about your pedophile hero harms children more than his pedophilia? Whatever. (DaveyJones1968 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ok thats your opinion you are welcome to it, I am just trying to be mature about it all. Realist2 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A complaint has been lodged on the WP:ANI (Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents) for uncivil comments on talk pages. At the very least, this one is in violation of WP:CIVIL and other user policies on Wikipedia.

Please edit and comment in a more civil manner in the future. You can discuss and argue without insulting. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of assertions in your edits but readers have no way of knowing if these as your own point of view or have some basis in verifiable sources. Could you please supply references for your claims. In view of the controversy that currently surrounds your edits I have reverted edits you have made today. If you are unsure about how to add a footnote/reference then please have a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes

GoldenMeadows 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this edit along with some of your earlier edits and warnings, I get the distinct impression that you are not here to add anything of value to Wikipedia. I've blocked this account from editing for the forseeable future. I'd be willing to consider an unblock if you commit to reading and following WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP. Otherwise I invite you to find another way to spend your time on the internet.--Isotope23 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]