Talk:Jim Nabors

[1] describes Jim Nabors as being born in 1933. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before you go adding Nabors to a gay icons list, what evidence do you have as regards Jim Nabor's private life, beyond the usual gossip and speculation? Wahkeenah 23:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. The article points out that being a "gay icon" does not necessarily equate to being gay. I still think, however, that some caution is in order. Is Nabors really a "gay icon"? Is he (or Bob Denver) somebody that gays look up to? Isn't there a huge amount of POV connected with this in any case? And what does it mean anyway? I could say John Wayne is the quintessential "straight icon". But for all I know he could be a "gay icon" as well. It's a matter of taste, likes and dislikes. In other words, major POV. Wahkeenah 23:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

One certainly doesn't need to be gay to be a gay icon. I mean, Judy? Liza? Cher? Definitely. And to some, Eddie Izzard is a gay icon.

Shazam! Since when is Jim Nabors a gay icon? His biggests fans are women in my parents' generation, most of whom are straight. Wahkeenah 08:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Marriage" to Rock Hudson

I think it's not a full aticle, unless coverage is made of the false "marriage" to Rock Hudson. Firstly, that it was key in both actors careers; secondly it was false; thirdly that it broke up a good private friendship; and fourthly that it was the first public hint that Hudson may be gay. I don't think it should be written in the line of "Jim Narbor's is gay" - there is no evidence for that; but not including it is missing a major part of the story. This article seems to give a good retrospective view. Rgds, Trident13 11:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of your supposedly noble intentions, putting that story in the article carries with it an obvious implication about Nabors' private life. I'm assuming that's your real agenda. Wahkeenah 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No - who cares about his orientation, particularly today? But the incident was influential on his career - he found it difficult post that to launch projects via the networks. If that was my intention, I could have just posted it to the article - and secondly, the external article I linked the comment to opens with the statement "Status: FALSE" - which I agree with. Rgds, Trident13 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a documented argument (not just your opinion) that the rumors hurt his career, that's a different story. And if you think nobody cares about sexual orientation today, you must live in California. A large number of Americans care, whether they should or not, and wishing it were the other way don't make it so. Wahkeenah 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I agree, will collect some documentary evidence. Oh, and I choose to live at present in Blairite UK - I think it's the slightly better of two not presently great options! But am aware of the Narbors/Gay issues within the States. Hence discussion rather than article - Rgds, Trident13 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To DREADSTAR [ dishwatery moniker she has...] I don't appreciate the petulant ban-from-edit message. Since when is referring to the Rock Hudson thing vandalism? It actually occurred. You want to hide historical information in an encyclopedia? Its from the Rock Hudson article for Pete's sake. Maybe you'll cruise over to that article, look up the edit history and send more oddball messages to more people... Don't forget to remove the 'Marriage' thing from there, too. You seem awfully sensitive about gay issues, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.180.189 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One wikipedia article can never be a valid source for another wikipedia article. Look up "Jim Nabors" in a real encyclopedia such as Brittanica or Americana and see if Rock Hudson is mentioned. TheScotch (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gay.com doesn't have trouble with the hole Rock 'n Jim thing. "http://www.gay.com/content/slideshow/?coll=221&order=4&navpath=/channels/entertainment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.170.255 (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Health?

How is he doing nowadays? I heard he had a heart attack. Paul, in Saudi 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nabors Is Not Dead

He didn't marry Rock Hudson. Otherwise he, too, would have died of AIDS. But he isn't; he's cultivating nuts in Hawaii. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.172.136 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

He didn;t marry Rock Hudson becuaes gay men didn't marry until the late 1990s and Rock Hudson was dead by then. AIDs has little to do with it. Marriage does not equal AIDs. The whole discussion is ridiculous... and I do mean all of it. Even my response.--Dr who1975 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, wikipedia cultivates plenty of "nuts" also. Most of them are IP addresses. Wahkeenah 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't come up much

I know it doesn't come up much, but Jim Nabors is way cool. (It's on my apron.)