Jump to content

Talk:Rock Hudson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.202.81.2 (talk) at 18:53, 17 July 2017 (→Fighter Squadron (1948) bit part). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Orphan redirect

Adopted orphan redirects for Google: Roy Harold Scherer Jr., Roy Scherer Jr.

Homosexual

Hudson remained in the closet until his sexual orientation became known towards the end of his life

Well, yeah. I remained a virgin until I had sex. What caused "his sexual orientation [to become] known towards the end of his life"? I have a suspicion, but I'm not sure. --Charles A. L. 18:22, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
His very public admission that he was homosexual, had contracted AIDS by that route, his search for treatment and his subsequent death from AIDS? Cite: http://www.meredy.com/rockhudson/ -- Karada 12:07, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
and most remembered as being a raging homosexual who died of complications due to AIDS
This is not true and is inflammatory. Hudson is best known as an actor who starred as a leading man in numerous films. That he died of AIDS related illness is likely but does not over shadow his career. I removed the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SA Santa (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 October 2006
The word cancer was tossed around, but not, at least by those who had something to lose, was the phrase gay cancer mentioned. - This should be removed as well. --m.g.h.
I think the issue of sexual orientation has been discussed at considerable length in the Orarticle, which is in fact contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia. What is important is Hudson as an actor who arguably remains unparalleled even to this day. Therefore, all references to his personal life and preferences should be very short and crisp, and focus should be given to the huge volume of his performance as an ace actor. - Sourav.sg 06:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)sourav.sg[reply]
His importance to bringing AIDS to the national attention is HUGH. It is almost as important as his acting, and to some more so. Many younger people, those who were teenagers during the 1980s, and subsequently, know him mainly for this topic, and unfortunately not for his acting. The awareness that he brought to AIDS and homosexuality is, also unfortunately, a big part of his life. Many people can not watch one of his films or television show without thinking about his personal life. He came to the attention of many people in foreign nations around the world through his illness near the end of his life, before that, many were unaware of who he was.
Lets look at the movie Giant. From the time it was made until about 1975 it was the un-official state movie of Texas. After 1986, there were people who used to love it that refused to watch it again. The 'Good 'Ole Boys' wouldn't watch Hudson any longer. On the flip side, there arose a new group of people who hadn't watched him prior, but were now checking out his work, it changed the whole dynamic of his fans. But, more importantly is the effect that it went beyond his acting to people concerned about homosexuality and AIDS. The awareness that he had on these two issues was larger than anything he did on movie or television set. IP4240207xx 17:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Many younger people, those who were teenagers during the 1980s, and subsequently, know him mainly for this topic, and unfortunately not for his acting.:
Many persons younger still know him not at all. Should we thus conclude that Rock Hudson is mainly unknown? The answer, of course, is, "No." The job of an encyclopedia is to put information in proper perspective precisely for those who are ignorant. Rock Hudson is notable for his acting, and this, his acting, his professional career, should be the subject and the focus of the article. Editors need to resist the temptation to gossip. TheScotch (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Hudson is notable primarily for his acting that his acting career should be the main focus of the article. However, IP4240207xx's statement was made on a Talk page and is perfectly appropriate if the goal was to discuss improvement of the article, and I believe it was. It is quite acceptable to discuss other aspects of Hudson's life on this Talk page to determine what should be included in the article. I think it is a POV assumption that the statement was intended as gossip. Ward3001 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion here. My comments are intented to support Sourav.sg 's assertion that "Therefore, all references to his [Hudson's] personal life and preferences should be very short and crisp, and focus should be given to the huge volume of his performance as an...actor" which IP4240207xx was ostensibly attempting to refute. I am not particularly concerned about gossiping on a discussion page, and IP4240207xx would seem to be arguing in favor of what I would deem gossip in this article. The wikipedia proscription against "POV", by the way, applies to articles, not to discussion pages--although all discussion, POV or not, should ideally pertain to the appropriate article. TheScotch (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith that you weren't criticising talk page "gossip". I mostly agree that the focus of Hudson's article should be on his acting career. However, his struggle with AIDS and his open secret of homosexuality probably got more press coverage than most actors in similar circumstances, such as Anthony Perkins for example. An exception might be Liberace. I think it deserves more than a few words in the Hudson article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest way I can think of off the top of my head to explain how Hudson died--He died of AIDS--involves four words (if you count AIDS as one word, that is). Since four is the lower limit of several and several is more than a few (a few is two or three), it is not unreasonable for the article to devote, literally speaking, "more than a few words" to the manner of Hudson's death. It is quite another matter for it to expound, as it does, at length on Hudson's sexuality. The article as it currently reads is grotesquely disproportionate. Wikipedia should strive to rise above tabloid and otherwise sensationalistic journalism. TheScotch (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into a debate about how many words, syllables, or letters should be devoted to the issues, I agree that the homosexual and AIDS issues should be shortened. That having been said, I think it should be more than simply "He died of AIDS." First and foremost, I think that would largely ignore Hudson's tremendous courage in going public with his condition at a time when most public figures did not do so and when there was a lot of ignorance and irrational fear of associating with people who had AIDS. He truly contributed tremendously to public awareness of AIDS, and even though his acting career should receive more attention in the article, his celebrity was greatly influenced by the events related to his illness.
I personally think the urban legend about Jim Nabors should be reduced to a few words.
Some day when I have time I may try to rewrite the section about Hudson's AIDS and death, but I invite any editor to try to do so, possibly presenting a version on this talk page before changing the article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be "shortened" either. The Jim Nabors stuff is hardly illuminating, but the number of words is not the problem. As long as it remains relevant it should be fully discussed. The problem as I see it, is that the sections relating to his career need to be greatly expanded. His death from AIDS was notable and highly newsworthy at the time. For a major celebrity to die from it was pretty shocking, and his homosexuality, which had always been kept from the public, was also extensively discussed in the media. There was a huge amount of hysteria around the time of his death. Does anyone recall the sensationalist media ranting about his irresponsibility in agreeing to kiss Linda Evans while filming Dynasty? It was probably the AIDS death that first brought discussion of AIDS into the open. He is seen as a significant figure in the history of AIDS. But, I strongly disagree with your reasoning. It doesn't matter from the point of view of writing an encyclopedia if Hudson's films have dated and he's no longer in vogue. It matters what he actually did during his career and what he achieved. Of course, if someone's stature has grown or diminished notably since their career ended, it should be mentioned, but it also be assumed that in most instances, the stature would have diminished. If we are only to concentrate on how people are perceived now, or whether most people today have heard of a particular person, we could completely avoid writing articles about, for example, Mabel Normand or Clara Bow (just plucking a couple of old-time names at random but the same applies equally to thousands of performers, writers, artists, inventors, scientists..... etc ) Most people would have never heard of them - which is exactly why their encyclopedia article should be complete and comprehensive - and even fewer would have seen one of their films, but they were each in their own time, hugely successful and influential. If we wrote about them only from how they are currently perceived by the majority of the population, we could probably discuss them in one short paragraph. Same with Hudson. The homosexuality and AIDS topics are relevant, but at the moment they dominate the article. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I agreed with you about the AIDS and sexuality section, didn't I? Whether or not he was talented is irrelevant. Perhaps the deaths of Hudson and Liberace were considered more significant than Perkins's or Davis's simply because they were more famous. Hudson was the first major celebrity to reveal that he had AIDS and was the first major celebrity to die from it. That the end of his life contrasted so sharply with his carefully cultivated film image as a robust heterosexual male made it all the more incongruous. It didn't need a political connection for his death to have been noteworthy. It was a huge news story at the time. It's very simple - he was a notable actor with a substantial career. This should be discussed in appropriate detail. His death from AIDS and the revelations that he was homosexual are notable. This also should be discussed in appropriate detail. The article should be balanced. At the moment it's not. The emphasis is currently on the sexuality and AIDS discussion. It needs to be placed into it's proper context without being diminished so that the article fairly represents all the relevant facts relating to his life and to his death. Rossrs (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a POV shouting match , but I must disagree with some of 172.141.240.102's extremist points of view. Freddie Mercury was not the most famous AIDS victim in entertainment. Mercury died 6 years after Hudson, and the public's understanding of AIDS progressed sharply during that time. Hudson's illness and death received substantially more press coverage than Mercury, largely because Hudson was the first major star to go public with his condition. Secondly, Hudson was far from a has-been in his last years. That's absurd. He may not have had the same celebrity status as he had earlier, but he was still considered a major star in both film and TV. Equally absurd is your statement about Arthur Ashe or Robert Reed. Ashe's illness and death did receive a lot of press (for very different reasons), but it likely would have been the same if he had died before Hudson. Reed's lifetime stature as an actor was small compared to Hudson. Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally misunderstanding what I'm saying if you think I'm attempting to "transform Hudson into some kind of hero". All I am saying is that it would be wrong if an encyclopedic entry for a person dealt only with how they are perceived now. You are completely correct in saying that young people don't know about him other than his death from AIDS. So? Everything can't be written from a 2008 perspective. In fact, any biographical article should start at the beginning of the person's life, discuss their accomplishments, and if there is any need for a contemporary summary of that person, it should come at the end. If Hudson exists in the minds of most young people as nothing more than an AIDS victim, and I agree that is probably how he is perceived by most people, an encyclopedic article should fill in the gaps and allow people to understand exactly where he came from before he became the notable AIDS victim. This is a perfect example where both a career summary and a present-day summary is required, but you seem to think that only the present day dissection of his sexuality and death from AIDS is important. You say 'I don't think the article needs changing at all, except we need more details about his private life and sexuality' and I couldn't disagree more. Exactly what kind of details do you think should be added? Rossrs (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If Hudson exists in the minds of most young people as nothing more than an AIDS victim...an encyclopedic article should fill in the gaps and allow people to understand exactly where he came from before he became the notable AIDS victim.":

Or, to put it more generally, if encyclopedias included only information already known to the persons using them, there would be no point whatsoever to encyclopedias. (Very many persons died of AIDS before Hudson did, of course, and it shouldn't be necessary to point out that his death was widely reported precisely because he was a notable actor. The notion that someone could be famous merely for contracting AIDS is patently absurd.) TheScotch (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly simplistic and uninformed conclusion. Read Ryan White's Wikipedia article. It's a bit more than just dying of AIDS. Not to equate White with any other famous person, but would it be accurate to say that Jesus is known only for dying from crucifixion? Or that John F. Kennedy was known only for dying from a gunshot wound? All of these people, including White, are known for more than simply the medical condition that killed them. Ward3001 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Most teenagers today wouldn't know who Jesus was (if he ever existed) and I'm sure they only know Kennedy because of his death": Fortunately, Wikipedia is written for a much broader readership than teenagers. That's very flimsy reasoning. Most people know who Jesus, Kennedy, Ryan White, and Rock Hudson were for a lot more than the manner in which they died. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unsigned editor above is mistaken about precisely how ignorant "most teenagers" are, but it's pretty safe to say that the average teenager is fairly ignorant compared to the average adult--and for two extremely obvious reasons: He hasn't lived long enough to have acquired much second-hand information and he hasn't lived long enough to have experienced much (to to have acquired much first-hand information). Considering that most six-year-olds are more ignorant still, I'm surprised that unsigned editor didn't invoke them instead. It seems to me, however, that when Ward3001 replies, "Fortunately, Wikipedia is written for a much broader readership than teenagers," he is missing the mark: To the extent teenagers are ignorant they make a very appropriate Wikipedia readership (and an inappropriate editorship). An encyclopedia is a thing to tell you what you don't already know, not a thing to affirm what you do already know--or think you know. TheScotch (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I generally agree with TheScotch, please note that I did not say that Wikipedia is not for teenagers. I said it is written for a broader readership than that specific group (or any specific group). Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but this is my point: Suppose Wikipedia were only for teenagers and that teenagers in general were unaware of Rock Hudson's acting career. In this case I think a Rock Hudson article primarily explaining his movie and television roles would be especially appropriate and useful. Someone like me, on the other hand, has much less need of such an article because I already have (and have had) a fair idea of Hudson's significance. (I was still interested to discover here various acting-career details of which I was myself ignorant.)TheScotch (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. But I did not "miss the mark." Ward3001 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I retrack the mark remark. TheScotch (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson and Narbors

What's the point of this sentence?

Hudson was reportedly very good friends with Jim Nabors of television's Gomer Pyle.

In the paragraph's context, it implies that Nabors is homosexual, and unless I completely missed the memo, that is just false. Mike H 06:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Removed this sentence (as this looks like a joke, and I can't find a cite):

The two reportedly adopted a son together and named him Rock Pyle although this is speculation.

It's all the same thing! In the early 70's, a false invitation to a real party was issued, which invited guests to the (false) marriage of Hudson and Narbors - the two were never invited. Before that time, Hudson and Narbor's had been good friends, but after that point they never appeared again in public together - and their friendship died. Rgds, Trident13 08:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Narbors?" Seriously? Try "Nabors." Sd31263 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section. Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#References in Popular Culture Project The JPS 12:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

At one point in the article, we have this statement:

Hudson never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality.

Doesn't this contradict other parts, such as his response to Boze Hadleigh? ~ CZeke 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan

Hudson's death is said to have pushed his long time friend and then Republican President Ronald Reagan to change his tune on efforts to fight and publicize the epidemic, although it would be a further two years before Reagan mentioned the term "AIDS."

This is why it's a good idea to cite sources - the claim that Reagan didn't publicly acknowledge AIDS until 1987 is an urban myth. He mentioned it at least as early as a press conference in September 1985, shortly before Hudson's death[1] and again in a message to Congress in February 1986[2].--Calair 12:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence.'' Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. kedar63
According to his own web site, Waxman's article appeared on September 4th 1985, which doesn't contradict the claim I cited above that Reagan spoke about AIDS at a press conference in that some month (the date given for that conference is September 17th, 1985). Even this commondreams.org article - heavily critical of Reagan's response to AIDS - acknowledges that he was asked about the subject in a press conference on that date and answered it, if unsatisfactorily.
There are plenty of people under the impression that Reagan didn't speak about AIDS until 1987, but besides the September '85 press conference, there's the February '86 message to Congress, and <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE4D71239F935A35751C0A960948260">this NY Times article</a> (Feb 6 1986): "President Reagan announced today that he had asked the Surgeon General of the United States to prepare a major report on AIDS..." --Calair 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AIDS was first reported in 1981. By the time President Reagan brought himself to address the plague there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths.
I have found a bunch of articles on this subject surfing the NET. I am not going to list all of them, not to fall too much into politics, but here are a couple of them. One is here, another one, an extract from a 2006 interview to author and playwright Larry Kramer, I am just going to copy its content and paste it here.
Looking back, do you feel that the Reagan administration abandoned gay men at this point of crisis?
We didn't exist. Ronald Reagan didn't say the word "AIDS" until 1987. I've tried desperately to get a meeting in the White House; Gay Men's Health Crisis is already an established organization. I have a certain presence. You have to realize I came into all this as somebody who had been in my own world a big deal. I had been assistant to the president of Columbia [Pictures and then] the United Artists. I had an Oscar nomination. I had made major movies. I had employed thousands of people. I had spent budgets of millions of dollars for these film companies. I was not a wallflower in the world, and the first time I realized that none of this meant anything was when I had to try and get New York City Mayor, Ed Koch on the telephone to get an office for Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York City, and I was made to feel like, just who the hell are you? It made me very angry, and it was actually that anger that propelled me more than anything. --kedar63
Yes, I am aware that a great many people have repeated the claim that Reagan didn't say 'AIDS' until 1987. On its own, all this proves is that one person said it and plenty of others took it on trust without checking the facts. (And think about the sheer amount of work that would be involved in confirming such a claim, were it true - you'd have to check all Reagan's public utterances between 1981 and 1986 to show it was true.) Snopes is full of examples to show that just because plenty of people repeat a claim doesn't mean it's true.
OTOH, all it takes to disprove the claim is a single documented instance before 1987 when Reagan publicly mentioned AIDS; I've listed three above. How do those who claim he didn't mention AIDS before 1987 reconcile their claims with those documents? --Calair 12:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was obviously speaking figuratively. I doubt that he truly thought that Reagan 'didn't say the word "AIDS" until 1987.' The point is that he, along with a large segment of society in that period, felt that AIDS was a disease that only affected gays, and thus was not a problem that straight society needed to care about.--Subversive Sound (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

More details about his childhood and ancestry are hereWjhonson 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Warning Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

More Wikified ignorance

"Another Hudson biographer, David Bret maintained that the actor, sexually, was invariably the active partner and therefore more than likely contracted AIDS from an infected blood transfusion during open-heart surgery, as he had first explained: the hospital where the procedure took place recorded a number of such cases at the time."

OH I SEE NOW!!! SO EVERYONE WHO ACQUIRED AIDS BY SEXUAL CONTACT DURING THE 80s WAS A FAGGOTY PASSIVE "BOTTOM" HOMOSEXUAL -- PLEASE, SOMEONE, TELL THAT TO MESSRS. FELA KUTI AND ERIC "EAZY-E" WRIGHT!!! In the meantime, I'm going to edit the previous ignorant garbage out of the Rock Hudson page ....

75.36.209.231 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Harold J. Butt-Mann[reply]

Oi! No need to shout, and we do not adopt, we only report. However, it's a limp piece of "information" and should go. --Rodhullandemu 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an exact duplicate Filmography article?

Rock Hudson filmography, which is linked as the "Main article" to the Early Career section in this article, is merely an exact duplicate of the Filmography section in this article. It adds no content and is simply a wasted link. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is an article on an American in British-written English? I'm gonna try and fix as many as I can... PokeHomsar (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before doing this, after reading WP:RETAIN. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it in one sentence and thought the whole article was written that way, but it seems it was only in that one sentence. I fixed the language of just that one sentence. PokeHomsar (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; as long as it uses one style consistently, that's fine. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I'm a bit confused. I'm just watching a documentary where his birth name is specified as Roy Fitzpatrick.--DVD-junkie | talk | 15:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that documentary got it wrong. At last I'm not seeing any meaningful Google hits for "Rock Hudson" and Fitzpatrick to suggest otherwise. --Morn (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd; I found several. Here is an excerpt from the online version of the Encycopædia Britannica [3]: “Rock Hudson, original name Roy Harold Scherer, Jr., later Roy Fitzgerald ...” The Official Website of Rock Hudson explains [4]: “Rock took his stepfather’s name when [Wallace] Fitzgerald adopted him, making his name Roy Fitzgerald.”--DVD-junkie | talk | 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I just found this is already covered under Early life.--DVD-junkie | talk | 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it was never Fitzpatrick, as the question was about, but Fitzgerald, as the links you found show. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His "real name" has been stated to be Fitzgerald in movie trivia contexts for decades, Woody Allen ... Tony Curtis ... Rock Hudson ... where there would be a long list of actors and actresses and an original name.
Varlaam (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is why Wikipedia is a joke

If you think of "gay actor", his name is probably the first people think of. Enjoy playing games, this site is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.73.40 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calm down, it was an accident and I rolled-back my changes, sometimes using an automated tool, you hit the wrong button.  !!!!

Categorisation

There's a key question that needs to be answered before this article can be added to Category:Gay actors: Is there a reliable source affirming that Hudson applied that label to himself? If not, then it is entirely presumptuous for Wikipedia editors to apply it to him, given that they don't know if he considered himself to be bisexual or perhaps used no sexual label at all. MOS:IDENTITY instructs us to use "...the term ... that person uses for himself or herself". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with what you're saying is that it facilitates erasure of sexual orientation as a reality in historical figures. There were many gay actors among the top-drawer Hollywood icons of the twentieth century; for obvious reasons, none publicly identified himself as gay. Keep in mind that WP categories are intended to facilitate easy navigation and make finding articles easier, and should not be taken as definitive labels. The possibility that Hudson was bi, not gay, remains, however, so I have left your category removal as is and added Category:LGBT actors in its place. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rivertorch on this point. I don't think you need to find, in each case, an actual statement by the person "I'm gay." Speaking from a lawyer's perspective, the fact that Hudson's primary sexual outlet appears to have been with men provides strong circumstantial evidence that he recognized himself as having a gay or bi orientation. For people who were alive primarily during times when being closeted was the norm, this should be enough. The word "gay" to denote orientation is also relatively new (20th century). A figure like Henry James -- who was apparently attracted to men but lived celibately -- would seem to me to be an example of someone for whom your point, Miesianiacal, would be well taken. *Maybe* also someone like Gore Vidal, who rejects the idea of sexual orientation as an identity, and uses the terms homosexualist or same-sexualist referring to sexual acts between men -- although he would certainly be thought of by most people other than himself as being gay or bi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.thompson.esq (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I implied that any historical figure's sexuality should be erased; at least, that wasn't what I intended to say. It just seems prudent for us not to presumptuously sexually categorise people for them, especially dead ones who can't speak for themselves anymore. Guidelines seem to align with that.
In the specific case of Hudson, it's pretty evident he engaged in homosexual sex/relationships, but it's uncertain that he did so exclusively, and we simply don't know what he thought or felt. Hence, I left this article in Category:LGBT people from the United States when removing it from Category:Gay actors. I therefore agree that Category:LGBT actors is another appropriate category for this page to be included in. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for clarifying! Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.thompson.esq (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS section too long?

Way too much detail. Compare: Eazy_E#Death And it's widely known that Eazy's death from AIDS had way more impact on society than Rock's, despite the hyperbole of this section of the Hudson article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.171.232 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "widely known", I assume you'll have no trouble providing a reliable source to document it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel like documenting the obvious, and besides sourcing is irrelevant to what I'm saying. While it's clear Eazy-E's death from AIDS had a much more profound and wider-reaching impact than Rock Hudson's, even if it didn't the section in this article is still too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.171.232 (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviousness is a subjective thing, but in a sense you may be on to something: consistency between articles is often less important than getting each article right in absolute, not relative, terms. If you'd care to explain why you think the section of this article is too long, perhaps consensus will develop to support your argument. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a reply earlier but this stupid filter won't let me post it because of the casual swearing so I'll post my sanitized version-- "Rock Hudson was one of the most famous actors of his time, yet more of the article centers around his sexuality and disease than his f***** career. And not just the AIDS section. Look at the "personal life" section and "legacy" section. The personal life section is 100% about him being gay-- now yes that's of major interest, but for chrissakes you read this article and the ONLY thing you'd know about his personal life would revolve around his sexuality. Was he s*cking c*cks 24/7? Could anal sex be listed as his main "hobby"? There are more aspects of someone's personal life than their sexuality. Anything not directly related to his film roles in this article could be summed up by "Homie was a closeted gay, got AIDS and since he was the first big star to get AIDS this was a huge thing", and if that's the only thing you got to say about the guy other than shit directly related to his acting, well, you don't need that many paragraphs/words to f***** do it. Just sayin."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.171.232 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of points. When aids first became known, people were fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes who had it, out of the fear and stigma that attached to the disease. Hudson's disclosure of his infection helped change that. It helped get funding for research that saved people from dying. Even Hudson's best film saved no-one's home, job or life. If you have something to add about his film career, do so in the article. Or restore balance to the wikiverse by expanding the section in the Eazy-E article that deals with AIDS. His personal life section is not about sucking c*cks. That is why sucking c*ck is not mentioned in that section. But a person's personal life is largely about their sexual relationships, children, and friendships. He had no children. His marriage is addressed, as are his sexual relationships. You could add information about his friendships if you have any. David.thompson.esq (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's my sense of it, too. And, as I said above, this article and the other article you mention each stands on its own. Incidentally, while profanity per se doesn't offend me in the least, it rarely helps to illuminate ideas in a discussion. Then again, sanitized isn't necessarily cogent or persuasive either. What does sucking cocks have to do with anything? Does either article mention sex acts? This seems really silly. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Eazy-E's death from AIDS had a much more profound and wider-reaching impact than Rock Hudson"

This is a purely subjective point. Eazy E's death certainly did speak to many young people at the time because he was straight and had a tough guy image. The idea that people like Eazy contracting HIV and ultimately dying of AIDS did not cross a lot of his fans' minds because of that image. Those same people probably couldn't tell you who Rock Hudson was. Does it make Eazy's death "more profound"? Nope. He just reached a different demographic. I'm sure there are a lot of people who were around when Hudson was popular that were shocked that was gay and died of AIDS. Those same people probably couldn't tell you who Eazy E (or NWA for that matter) even was. Again, different demographic. There's not a "more profound" winner between the two. Like it or not, Hudson's sexuality and death remains memorable so it stands to reason that the article is going to cover that. Instead of going off on a homophobic tangent, you could have spent that time expanding Eazy E's article. I find it ironic that you dismiss Hudson's death because he likely contracted AIDS through homosexual sex but you want a detailed section about how profound Eazy E's death was because he contracted AIDS by having unsafe sex with multiple women. Just because Hudson contracted the disease in a way that obviously creeps you out does not mean his life and death was less significant. It's strange that people still think this way. 24.224.43.225 (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the will?

he left money to other actors and friends, who are them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.242.52 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan 2

The section discussing Reagan's involvement privately and publicly with Hudson after his diagnosis was deleted by an anonymous editor who commented that the section was 'politically motivated'. Even assuming that the subjective motivation of the authoring editor was political, the question on Wikipedia is different: whether the material is 1) sourced and 2) expressed with a neutral point of view. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Note that there is already consensus based on prior discussions and edits that Reagan is relevant to the Hudson/AIDs section. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Fighter Squadron (1948) bit part

The filmography on Rock fails to mention his bit part in "Fighter Squadron" (1948) with Robert Stack and Edmond O'Brien. I recall Rock had to have 36 takes for a line he said. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_Hudson&oldid=791038399"