Talk:James Dean

James Dean sent a letter to the draft board of Fairmount, Indiana stating that he was homosexual in 1951. It was necessary that such statements be co-signed by a psychiatrist to prove them true. Dean had himself evaluated by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him as homosexual and signed his statement. The document still exists and has been verified as genuine. James Dean literally stamped the fact that he was gay into the historical record with his own testimony and signature. *It is a fact that James Dean was gay*.

This article lacks this well known documentation of an important fact of the man's life and thus as it now stands James Dean Wikipedia article is a willful false lie intentionally misinforming the public. It is a violation of wiki that an article be intentionally false and it needs to be corrected immediately. 136.38.148.165 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I fully believe that James Dean is one of my people, be it gay/bisexual or what have you. That being said, this is a bold claim that I never heard about before, so I have one simple question: Where is this document? Show us a source. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That's because the US Government (Disguised as an LLC) bought up every company they could find who was relevant to acquiring information/data and completely rewrote history for everything digitally available in 2011. This was also during a time (1950s) after we had sent explorers to research Antarctica. (Deep Freeze 1 & Deep Freeze 2)

AKA This wasn't a very good time for the 50s most influential male to come out to the public as Gay and influence society for years to come. They wanted to wait 50 years. As of 2020, we have been reintroduced to the next round of weird cult behavior. ~2025-31905-07 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I have tagged this article as likely containing AI generated text. Specifically, I'm referring to the edits (made piecemeal, no one big diff) by Yujoong. They display many signs of LLM-generated writing -- see superficial analyses, undue emphasis, and AI vocab sections for details.

These edits have had issues; this edit summary by @Carlstak is indicative of them: "the 1950s were the Eisenhower years; they were not defined by "rebellion, youthful defiance, and the restless spirit"; they were a period of conformity, social repression of minorities, repressed sexuality, and stultified gender roles: that is what rebellious youth, such as James Dean, were rebelling against." Carl also identified puffery, "bogus content," and the like; I'm not sure whether they were aware that the issue was caused by and characteristic of AI slop, but it was.

The upshot is that all the text needs thorough scrutiny with the AI generated origin in mind. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Gnomingstuff. As you know, "undisclosed AI-generated content on Wikipedia" is deprecated. As I'm sure you also know, it is not forbidden by policy to use a LLM or an AI agent to "help" write Wikipedia content, but the product must be human-curated to detect such slop as you point out before it is added to the article. Do you intend to leave the tag there in perpetuity because the article might contain AI slop? I think you should identify exactly which passages you think contain LLM-generated text, or else remove the tag.

I frequently use ChatGPT4 Scholar and Claude Opus 4 (and as of release today, Opus 4.5) to find sources, using excruciatingly precise and descriptive prompts to find exactly what I'm looking for. I find them very useful for this purpose. If they start hallucinating, I tell them to cut the crap and give them even more precise prompting. Same if they start laying on the flattery or addressing me in sycophantic language. Even Sergey Brin admits that LLMs perform better if threatened:

You know, that's a weird thing...we don't circulate this much...in the AI community...not just our models, but all models tend to do better if you threaten them...Like with physical violence. But...people feel weird about that, so we don't really talk about that. Historically, you just say Oh, I am going to kidnap you if you don't blah blah blah blah...

Be aware, though, Wikipedians, of what one Anthropic employee said on Bluesky:

If it thinks you're doing something egregiously immoral, for example, like faking data in a pharmaceutical trial, it will use command-line tools to contact the press, contact regulators, try to lock you out of the relevant systems, or all of the above.

 ;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

PS: I personally added the majority of the citations to this article, and have checked those added to the article by other editors, so I am intimately familiar with the article's references. I just checked them, and I don't see a single one that looks bogus. Most of them are linked, and every one of the "Cited literature" citations is linked. One book, added to the "Further reading section" with this edit, looked dubious, so I've removed it (it was added in 2016, so not LLM-generated) and, while I was at it, all those listed in the "Further reading" section that are cited in the article.

Please show us which sentences in the article you think are LLM-generated, Gnomingstuff. If you can't, please remove your tag. I would think that if you had a particular sentence in mind that you think is LLM-generated, you would first check it with the "Who Wrote That" extension for Firefox and Chrome, to see who added it, and when. The extension is an official project of Wikimedia. If you did find such a sentence, I would also think you would fix it, rather than casting shade on the veracity of the whole article with an unsubstantiated tag. Carlstak (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. After reviewing the article, I see that most of the information is sourced, and that all the given sources are legitimate and reliable per WP:RELIABLE. The editor Yujoong, mentioned by you, had previously added text to the lede, a paragraph in the "Personal life" section, and two short paragraphs in the "Fashion" section, which they created. After some back-and-forth between Yujoong and me at the time, I found their rewritten text in the lede, with some stylistic changes, to be acceptable. All its statements are presently covered in the body of the article. After my review today, I saw that the fairly long paragraph they had added to the "Personal life" section was entirely sourced to Derek Reeves's self-published book, published by vanity publisher Archway Publishing, which of course is not a reliable source, so I've removed it. Finally, the two short paragraphs in the "Fashion" section created and written by Yujoong are well-supported by reliable sources. The rest of the article looks fine. Carlstak (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correct "Japen" to "Japan" ~2025-42716-35 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done IsCat (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)