Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

An event in this article is a April 21 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Answer: On April 21, 1956 "Heartbreak Hotel" becomes Elvis Presley's first song to reach No.1 on the Cash Box magazine music charts.

Cleanup of prose

I've done some badly needed cleanup of the prose throughout the American phenomenon section which was impossible before because of the constant unilateral reversions. The only content I removed was an allusion to the decline of country and western music in the US during this period. While EP certainly brought rockabilly and rock and roll to the white mass youth audience and early rock and roll gradually siphoned listeners away from traditional country music broadcast outlets, it is not appropriate to imply Elvis Presley himself "severely imacted" the country music industry, which had systemic problems related to widely shifting demographics and social mores (the very ones which made the talented Elvis' timing and reception so successful), never mind the arrival of television in the rural US. Much of this was later addressed by the introduction of the so-called "Nashville Sound" and other demographic re-targetings. Indeed, several rockabilly performers stayed with their core country audiences (Conway Twitty is an oft cited example). Wyss 16:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Section under dispute

I've put 141's material in this sub-section. Since there is zero evidence to support Bret's or Dee Presley's claims (which seem motiviated by money more than anything else), I think the title is apt and the hard disclaimer ending the section is called for. However, I support the inclusion of this material. The rumours are widely known and published, and readers coming to WP for information on them are helped by seeing them presented in encyclopedic context with their sources characterized. Unless over-ridden by unambiguous consensus (which I'll watch for), I'll revert any attempts to delete this material. Similarly, I will revert attempts to imply that the Memphis Mafia was Elvis' private gang of "gay fuck buddies" (a wholly unsupported notion), or to divide the relationships section into "straight" and "gay" parts. Wyss 14:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I did a word search of that document and it contains no instances of the words "homosexual" or "heterosexual," only one instance of the term homophobia which is unrelated to any later tabloid claims Elvis was gay. The cite does not support your assertion that authors are specifically supressing claims that EP was gay, therefore I can't agree with the wording you suggest. If you can come up with a cite directly supporting your assertion, I'll support including it. Wyss 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are again the relevant passages of Professor Dr Wall's critical article:

I removed irrelvant "seeding" by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. QUOTE from Dr. Wall's article:

• This article is largely concerned with US intellectual property law, particularly the right of publicity whose origins lie in the right of privacy; however, the discussion has potential significance for European jurisdictions because of the development there of privacy rights under EU law.

Ok, let me have a go at re-wording the line so that it flows with the article but preserves what you're trying to impart. Wyss 14:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. I'll support the section as it is, including the harsh disclaimers, since there is no documented or even credible evidence supporting those tabloid assertions. Readers will benefit from seeing this gossip-fodder presented in a reasonable context IMO. Wyss 15:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may add some additional comments. Suggesting that a "worldwide Elvis" industry prohibited the "truth" about Elvis' sexuality from coming out is bordering on the paranoid. Goldman's book which was scathingly critical about Elvis did exceedingly well. Goldman, however, made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual. Indeed, no credible source has ever made that sort of assertion. The claims that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or that he was gay are without merit and come from a lunatic fringe. Without any legitimate sournce to back them up there is no need to put this manufactured controversy on the page. Why not just detail how Elvis is actually an alien or how he currently lives with JFK? It adds nothing to someone's understanding of Presley as an artist or as an icon so why muckrack? (This was posted by User:Lochdale)

That section is the result of long-running efforts by Onefortyone to enter the material into this article. Most of the editing dispute took place at Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Ultimately, I informally mediated a series of compromises with Onefortyone regarding the conclusion of the tabloid material (for which there is no documented evidence of reality). As I stated above, in absence of editor consensus, I will support the inclusion of citations to published versions of these rumours. If a clear consensus of several registered users emerges to delete the section, I'll defer to consensus. In the meantime, the article has been stabilized in reference to the gay rumours, which do exist, although I believe them to be unfounded. Wyss 15:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to apologize. I deleted the section in its entirety before I went to the discussion page. I made some additional changes to the section which I have just saved. To be frank, I think this is a profoundly unfair discussion. The burden should be on the poster claiming that Elvis was gay. An overwhelming amount of evidence points to the fact that Elvis was neither gay nor bi-sexual. It seems intellectually and morally untenable to accept the claims, made after Presley's death, that the man was gay. There have been over 2,000 books written on the man and only two of them suggest that Elvis may of had a gay affair. Albert Goldman never suggested that Elvis was gay. The two authors in question have a history of muck-racking and deception. Until real evidence is presented I'd argue that the entire section should be deleted. It's akin to using the National Enquirer as a reputable source. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I guess I don't think we should entertain these so of rumors. (This was posted by User:Lochdale)

I agree. If enough registered users post similar comments here we can declare an overwhelming consensus and remove the section entirely. Until and unless that happens, however, it should stay IMHO.Wyss 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, fully support the inclusion of the "Was Elvis Gay" article. And also, there is some truth to the claim that the Elvis community tries to suppress the truth.

In how many of those 2,000 books about Elvis is the word "constipation" mentioned? And why, when I first got here, wasn't it mentioned in this article, despite it's long existence? (129.241.134.241 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC))

I also support the inclusion of the "Was Elvis gay?" section, as the accusations have been discussed not only in newspaper articles but also by fan groups. Onefortyone 12:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Lochdale and everyone else. Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts. This talk page is confusing enough as it is. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll add my signature from now on (I hope!). I guess I'm a little surprised that we would need a consensus when there is so little evidence (read: none) about his alleged homosexuality. Elvis was probably constipated because he was a man in his 40's who did excessive amounts of drugs at at nothing but fried food! That'll do a number on your colon. There have been many scathing books written about him so I just don't see how the Elvis community supresses the truth. Sure, they defend Elvis but that's what people do when they admire someone. This suppression didn't stop the information about his philandering, drug abuse, over-eating, strange sleeping habits and general craziness getting out now did it? Does anyone really think that Albert Goldman would have passed up an opportunity to mention Elvis was gay if there was any truth to that rumor? Why didn't it ever come out when he was alive or right after his death? Would a respected journalist like Peter Guralnik really avoid mentioning this if there were a shred of evidence to support it? It strikes me that one reader has an agenda and is pushing that agenda despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary.Lochdale

I have to agree with Lochdale when he says "Elvis was probably constipated". I'll find a way to include that in the "Death and burial" section, maybe under the section "Did Elvis have constipation

problems?".

I'll try to find literature that supports this claim, because it's much more likely than the homosexuality claim which, after all, got it's own section. Any comments about this? Any suggestions? ::Why don't we all reach a concensus without starting an edit war? (129.241.134.241 04:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

User:Wyss, as soon as you and partner User:129.241.134.241 are done "tweaking," let me know then I'll do a little editing myself accompanied of course, as always, by the documented facts posted here on the Talk page. Take your time, most folks want a little weekend rest so maybe I'll wait until Sunday evening – or maybe Monday.Ted Wilkes 19:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed a personal attack from the above. Wyss 21:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Your charge that my reference to you and User:129.241.134.241 is a personal attack is duly noted. You have recourses if you believe that to be true. However, do not alter my text to hide what was actually said. Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. Ted Wilkes 13:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Ted Wilkes has been blocked at least twice for violations of 3rr and has surreptitiously altered user comments on this talk page. Wyss 22:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss - Please do not alter user comments. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 00:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

WP policy permits the removal of personal attacks on sight. I always taken the additional steps of plainly noting I have done so and signing my change. Wyss 14:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been lurking on this discussion page for a while so I thought it was time to add my two cents. Under any objective criteria, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the notion that Elvis was gay. The published material is so obscure and salacious that it is only reasonable to question its credibility. Noone else has ever suggested that he was gay so it just seems unfair to me (and poor practice) to leave this section in his bio. Steve Grogan

I agree. However, my efforts to keep these rumours out of Elvis Presley, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood have so far come to naught, owing to lack of overwhelming support (consensus in the form of edits) from other editors. Since the rumours have been published they can't be removed as straight vandalism (although they're on the line) and Onefortyone has been single-mindedly persistent about including them. Wyss 02:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We can summarize the section on gay rumors about Elvis as: "Was Elvis gay? There's no good reason to think so." To me, that's analogous to "Was Elvis a birdwatcher/sommelier/flintknapper/archer/stereophotographer/knitter? There's no good reason to think so." I see no reason to include such stuff. It might be worth pointing out that the notion was baseless if the notion were widely believed, but it seems not to be -- I suspect that the appetite for Elvis gossip among the kinds of simple soul to whom National Enquirer (or Hello) appeals has already been glutted by talk of the prodigious input and problematic output of Elvis's digestive tract, of his relationships with young girls with improbable hairdos, his momma, and his "Colonel", etc. (For me, his movies, his outfits, and a lot of his songs are already more grotesque than most sexual allegations could be.) Sorry, Wyss, I'd have helped you out there, providing a little something toward the "overwhelming support" required, but for the last few days I've been connected slowly and expensively via modem (as I shall remain for the next few days).

We have no reason to think that Elvis was gay. But occasionally, since I first became aware of Onefortyone's efforts to persuade me that the American yoof "icons" of the fifties were gay [Wyss, better keep an eye on Marlon Brando], I've tried imagining that he was right and yes, they were all gay. I find myself saying "So what?" Really, I don't see that where celebs either played or hoped to play "hide the salami" matters or even is interesting. Does this disqualify me from editing WP? Should I care? -- Hoary 23:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't care either. However, I do care if an article presents wholly unsupported gossip as either fact or plausible possibility, which defeats everything an encyclopedia would be about. Wyss 11:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely; I totally agree with you there. I was just wondering, though: why would anyone think that Presley's (occasionally alleged) bisexuality would be significant? It's not as if he had been a [publicly] homophobic politician, bible-thumper, etc. -- Hoary 14:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO? Other axes to grind, anything from obsessed jealousy to conflicted homophobia to straight sabotage of the project or all of the above. It plainly has nothing to do with encyclopedic narrative. The only cites are transparently faked tabloid fodder (although the passing reference in the Gavin book, mentioned in Natalie Wood, seems more like Gavin's sloppy research/laziness to me). However, I haven't been supported by a consensus of edits in my efforts to keep that stuff out of the articles so the alternative has been to skive it into separate sections... Was Elvis Gay?, Rumours etc. At least readers who have heard them can see the sources here in all their dodgy context. Wyss 14:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians working together

User:Wyss, I'm truly sorry that you seem to have difficulty in allowing others to edit something you work on. Remember, at the bottom of the page when you edit there is a reminder that says: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Editing is part of the process on the road to achieving Wikipedia:credibility through the combined effort of many contributors creating quality articles. You've been working very hard on articles today with exhaustive edits [1]. Why not take a short break, recharge the batteries and I will welcome you back. I want to extend an olive branch and assure you that I will go out of my way to work with you to achieve the quality and factual encyclopedia all sincere Wikipedians want. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 00:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've had plenty of experience with User:Wyss and she seems like a good Wikipedian, which is more than anyone can say about you, Wilkes. And don't bluff anyone with this "let's take a break" thing, we all know that you're banned. (129.241.134.241 04:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

Tom Parker

Oneforty inserted some stuff about Elvis' "evil" manager Tom Parker, who took a lion's share of Elvis' money and who "forced" Elvis to play in low-budget comedies.

Well, on the surface all this sounds like music to my ears - Elvis is portrayed like a complete idiot. However, is there any truth to this whatsoever, or is this unsupported gossip? (129.241.134.241 15:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I wouldn't say "complete idiot." However, Elvis came from a socio-economic and educational background that made him ripe for a manager like TP (many of Elvis' contemporaries were similarly exploited). Nonetheless, altough Elvis' post-army movies were for the most part dreadful, even with Parker's compensation EP had steady income from them during a time (the 1960s) when his recordings weren't much in demand. 141 has a motive for inserting this material into the article- the unsupported "Elvis was gay" canon includes a spin that TP "knew" EP was gay and thus extorted control and compensation from him. I don't think that's at all supported, however the general context of the new paragraph is widely documented and it wasn't until years after Elvis' death that Parker was finally squeezed out of the equation. Personal managers, however, can play crucial roles in musicians' careers and while one can certainly criticize Parker, it's more than dodgy to speculate on their relationship as an utter scam (or blackmail scheme) based on easy wolf/lamb dynamics. Wyss 19:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In his book, Colonel Tom Parker: The Curious Life of Elvis Presley's Eccentric Manager (2001), James L. Dickerson goes as far as to write, "One thing, however, meets with general agreement: whatever Elvis's other problems may have been, his biggest failing was his utter dependence upon his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. When they inked their first contract, Parker took an unusual 25% commission; by the time of the King's death, three-fourths of Elvis's income went into Parker's pocket, seemingly without Elvis's knowledge. If Elvis was Faust, selling his soul for the riches of the earth, Parker will always be Mephistopheles, paying with a mess of pottage..." Onefortyone 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd never heard it was as high as 75% but wouldn't be surprised if that was at times some sort of net result. Wyss 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Article dispute notice

I have inserted a dispute notice into this article that relates to more than one part but primarily to the sub-Section: Elvis Presley#Was Elvis gay?. I dispute this sub-section in its entirety. However, to keep things straightforward, I am posting each disputed statement below in order of relevance and one at a time along with the reasons for why I have deleted it. Based on comments by all, the statement will either remain deleted or inserted back into the article. After several hours, I will post the next disputed text in a similar fashion. Ted Wilkes 15:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

First disputed item:

THE ARTICLE'S SUB-SECTION STATED:

• "In her unpublished but often cited manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis (and an article in the National Enquirer) Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley also claims Elvis had sexual encounters with men and alleges an affair with his friend Nick Adams."

RESPONSE:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, an Official Wikipedia Policy, requires information that is verifiable and from sources that at are unimpeachable. Note that this had repeatedly been asserted by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. as having been a "published book" until he was called on it as an untrue statement. He then immediately reinserted the same statement but gave it his new designation of "manuscript book." As to the manuscript being "often cited," the contents of an unpublished manuscript cannot be verified and is not an acceptable reference. Dee Stanley-Presley has published only one book 25 years ago, "Elvis, we love you tender" as registered here [2] at the United States Library of Congress.

The broad assertion that there exists a Dee Presley article in an unknown issue of the National Enquirer that "claims Elvis had sexual encounters with men and alleges an affair with his friend Nick Adams" is neither a proper reference or an acceptable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability# Dubious sources. Ted Wilkes 15:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, once acquired the worldwide rights to "The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley," a "very private and revealing manuscript" documenting "never-before-released accounts" of Elvis's life, including the said claims. Here is the source which proves that the manuscript exists: [3] The accusations have also been discussed in newspaper articles and by Elvis fan groups. I remember that there was even a statement by Ann-Margaret who refused to believe Dee Presley's claim that Elvis may have been gay. If David Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker on Elvis. So it is of some importance to have a small, critical section relating to these claims in the Wikipedia article on Elvis. Onefortyone 16:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OneFortyOne, as we are talking about verifiability problems, please refrain from phrases like "I remember that there was even a statement"; please use sources to back up any speculation. Besides that, your link only proves that a manuscript of that name exists. Can you provide evidence of the content, as well as the academic/journalistic integrity of the source? The fact that it was never published speaks very poorly for its suitability as a source. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, there was an interview with Ann-Margret concerning these matters. Sorry that I cannot provide the exact source. As for the manuscript by Dee Presley, its content has been widely discussed. Even Professor Dr Wall is mentioning it in his critical article on the world-wide Elvis industry (see above). The new facts Dee Presley presents have also been discussed by other authors, for instance, Greil Marcus, in the book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000).

1) sign your post. 2) OneFortyOne, I've tried to be neutral here, but your last post is extremely misleading. Dee Presley is only mentioned once in Greil Marcus' book; she is only included in a mention of a "National Enquirer" article in which they claim that Elvis slept with his mom. It doesn't mention homosexuality at all. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It should be taken into account that there are different claims by Elvis's stepmother in her manuscript book. Not all authors are discussing all of these topics. For Greil Marcus discussing accusations by Dee Presley, see [4]. I have now detected a webpage which summarizes the interview with Ann-Margret and her statements concerning all these claims by Dee Presley, including the gay accusation. See [5] So it is clear that these accusations really exist and that the topic was widely discussed, presumably shortly after Dee Presley's newspaper article had appeared. It is no wonder, however, that Ann-Margret rejects all these claims as she was one of Elvis's girlfriends. Onefortyone 18:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 asserted above (and previously on the archived talk page) that "The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company". Note that he didn't insert the (Nasdaq: MADI) –

REALLY?

• Nasdaq: MADI
• Company website: http://www.madisonsystemsinc.com/
• Corporate Offices:

Madison Systems Inc.

750 Oakdale Road, Suite 60

North York, Ontario

M3N 2Z4 Canada

Mail:

P.O. Box 70

Gormley, Ontario

L0H 1G0 Canada

Phone: 905-927-9113

Fax: 905-927-9114

Donald McNally

12275 Woodbine

Gormley, ON L0H 1G0

Phone: 905-927-9113

Fax: 905-927-9114

Email: dmcnally@madisonsystemsinc.com

- Ted Wilkes 17:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the company he's referring to (if that one even existed), this is a different name, different country (physically in Canada)... Madison is a rather common name. Wyss 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

However... Madison Entertainment Group appears also to have been Canadian, and a guy named Louis Dion has run both companies. So... it's not the same company, but looks like the same people (no mentions I can see of them ever having published any EP content btw). Wyss 17:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Go to the link he gave here [6]. The NASDAQ symbol (MADI), as I specified above, is given as part of the name but ANON etc. deliberately left that out. Under U.S. and Canadian law, companies change their name by Supplementary Letters Patent all the time but their NASDAQ trading symbol never changes with it. Ted Wilkes 17:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

And... the reference above given by 141 is PR Newswire, which accepts virtually any press release and distributes it as is, with little or no editorial selectivity. Wyss 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And, by the way, a great many Canadian companies are listed exclusively on the NYSE or NASDAQ or simultaneously with the TSX etc. Ted Wilkes 17:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That press release is ten years old and I can find no sign the manuscript (if it even existed) was ever published. The only references are in WP and its mirrors btw. Wyss 18:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand this discussion. There is an article by Dee Presley in the National Enquirer which summarizes most of the claims in her manuscript book. See the critical statements by Ann-Margret: [7] Onefortyone 18:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I only posted this to add to my long list of deceptions by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141. The issue is, no one knows what is in an manuscript. It is not, by any standard, a source for Wikipedia. It is about as farfetched as it gets. See Wikipedia:Verifiability# Dubious sources. I too can claim to have a copy of all or part of it. In fact, I'm certain somewhere in my desk drawer is a page or two from that unpublished manuscript that says Elvis Presley is working at a Burger King. Ted Wilkes 18:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was a basis (however dodgy) for inclusion based on 141's claim an excerpt had been published in a tabloid. Now that we seem to have only the single, solitary citation for Bret, who plainly made stuff up as he went along (according to most reviewers), what sort of consensus do we have here for removing the Was Elvis Gay? section entirely from the article? Wyss 18:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As stated above, there is Dee Presley's newspaper article and a comment by Ann-Margret. Onefortyone 18:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, in the cite 141 provided above, Ann-Margret says of Dee Presley: All her claims are lies and based on hearsay. Wyss 19:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide the date of the National Enquirer article and if possible, a quote from that article containing Dee Presley's assertion that Presley and Adams had an affair. Wyss 19:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss. This is too much of a good thing. I am not a subscriber to the National Enquirer. The sources I have cited already show that the claims exist. Life is just worth living without Wikipedia and the Internet. I have definitely wasted too much time on this site. Onefortyone 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

He can't provide the source but it does not matter. Neither the National Enquirer or a fan website is an acceptable Wikipedia source. (See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources). Sorry too, but let's not get sidetracked. That has been User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141's game to never answer direct questions but to keep raising new unfounded issues every time he gets caught in a lie. User: DropDeadGorgias asked him already above to "provide evidence of the content, as well as the academic/journalistic integrity of the source? " Ted Wilkes 19:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, but as he just stated above that he's moving on, and was the only editor pushing for inclusion of the Dee Presley material, I think it's safe to say that consensus has been reached to discount the manuscript as non-verifiable. The trickier material is the Bret book; though it may be considered poor journalism, it was at least published. Right now, the article acknowledges Bret's claims and then notes that the claims are unlikely and not taken seriously by historians. Are people ok with the status of that section now? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Bret book reference is not acceptable. As stated at the outset of my dispute notice, I intend to deal with all matters in that sub-section which I stated I disagreed with in its entirety. Ted Wilkes 19:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've removed the Was Elvis Gay? section. Bret is widely discredited and out of over 2000 authors who have published material on EP, giving space to this single assertion of Bret's in the article is inherently misleading. Does this article have any remaining items in sufficient dispute to keep the dispute tag up? Wyss 19:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to be dealt with in full. There is nothing to prevent User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. from coming back and reinserting the Bret stuff. Ted Wilkes 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, then dispute it. The form you used above for the Dee manuscript was quite effective, if you can prepare something similar for the Bret book, and show that it doesn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines, then that would be fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, DropDeadGorgias. I will do the second disputed issue a little later today. In the meantime, I think it extremely important to deal with every disputed item because User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 has an unacceptable POV history and of reinserting his text at Wikipedia and I want to put an end to it once and for all. As noted at User talk:Trey Stone#Mail:

• "Our current thinking is that we will ban aggressive POV editors from the articles which they impact. This policy has been refined somewhat from our former general bans and includes Wikipedia:Probation. – Wikipedia:Arbitrator Fred Bauder"

What has happened here is that one person alone has hijacked specific Wikipedia content with an orchestrated violation of precepts and distortion of facts. User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc., with his singular agenda, has dedicated himself to a few articles all of which lead to his claiming Elvis Preseley was homosexual and seeding pages with key words to show up in Google seaches that lead to David Bret and his book. This person has caused hundreds of hours of needless debate all because of his unproven and non-encyclopedic assertions tied into his outright and repeated fabrications. Those who attempted to correct his false or unsubstantiated claims have been reverted by him as many as 100 times or more on the Elvis Presley, Natalie Wood, and Nick Adams articles. On these three articles, the talk page on this subject alone as of two days ago (14.25 UTC) amounted to more than 71,000 words -- that is a full sized book.

And, I am not the only one who thinks that is a fact. Take note what User:Wyss stated on Talk:Natalie Wood concerning the edits of User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141:

1) The anon is trying to place as many instances of the terms homosexual and gay as possible into these four articles, I speculate in order to trigger misleading keyword search results in Google, which is significantly influenced by Wikipedia and its mirrors. Wyss 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

2) adroitly following the cultural mores of Wikipedia, all the while working to subvert it in order to trigger some misleading keyword searches on Google related to Elvis Presley. This is exactly the sort of thing that drives knowledgeable and scholastically rigorous editors away from WP. Wyss 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

- Ted Wilkes 20:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I totally endorse his use of my quotes on this. Wyss 20:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Re the "dispute" tag. Note that at the beginning of this I stated: I have inserted a dispute notice into this article that relates to more than one part but primarily to the sub-Section: Elvis Presley#Was Elvis gay?. I will work on these other much small matters later, once the Bret book refrence is dealt with fully. Ted Wilkes 20:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: - In his quest to make Elvis gay,User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. quoted gossip writer Gavin Lambert as referring to Nick Adams as gay in his book on Natalie Wood. Note that The Guardian newspaper also opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. As such no encyclopedia would quote from it but I find it interesting that while there is a direct quote about Nick Adams asserted to be from the book, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. neglected to state the quote was made as offhand gossip without facts of any kind and with respect to Presley, did not mention the following from page 119:

• "Nick Adams, who happened to be in New York that week, had recently managed to ingratiate himself with Elvis Presley. He told Natalie (Wood) that the singer wanted to know if he might ask his favorite actress for a date. "Natalie was all shook up after Presley called and asked her to go out with him when she got back to Los Angeles"

- Ted Wilkes 22:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please take note:

• At Talk:Nick Adams#Disputed text: I have inserted information on disputed text involving fabrications and the quoting of unreliable sources and the value of peer review. This disputed text in the Nick Adams article is interconnected to the Elvis Presley article and is important. Ted Wilkes 15:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Again, only to make this plain as possible, it's important because the anon/141 was seeding several articles with the singleminded purpose of including in this article an (amazingly stretched and in truth unsupported) assertion that Elvis was gay etc. He seems to have been doing this in order to distort keyword searches on Google (given WP's many mirrors), apparently to direct readers to Bret's tabloid book. Wyss 17:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Second disputed item

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "Decades after his death, two published sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay."

- AND –

• "Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him."

RESPONSE:

First, the book was published in 2001. One of the "two published sources" is Dee Presley as dealt with in the First disputed item above. Anyone coming to Wikipedia can insert anything they want into a Wikipedia article but must be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the source (as previously enunciated on this page by User:DropDeadGorgias) if called upon to do so. User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has never done that, instead he repeatedly reverted others who questioned him and reversed things by demanding whoever disagreed with him to prove his edit wrong.

Note that The Guardian newspaper [8] opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. Newspapers do review gossip books, but no Encyclopedia ever references them. Book reviewers also give warnings about gossip and point out in an example such as this, that the subjects of the book: conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased. Such is the case with Bret's writing in that Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and Colonel Tom Parker are all dead.

You will note that in this Presley article and the Nick Adams article that when I added important content, I referenced the author such as Alanna Nash, Peter Guralnick and Elaine Dundy. And, for each of these I either created their biography at Wikipedia or added to their existing bio, inserting academic credentials and external links so that anyone could easily satisfy themselves as to their academic/journalistic integrity. For quotes by both Elaine Dundy and Priscilla Presley, I did an article on their book using direct quotes and/or page number references.

I have prepared considerable facts on the Bret book issue to insert at anytime. However, a Wikipedia policy consensus has already been established on Talk:Abraham Lincoln # Lincoln's sexuality for dealing with similar such issues as Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. For the David Bret writings about Presley that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 wants included in Wikipedia, if he or any other Wiki contributor produces David Bret's academic credentials, the specific information on exactly what his book alludes to, proper peer reviews for the book, and then can show that this matter has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major publications such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, then they can place a similar reference in the Presley article and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

- Ted Wilkes 23:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to see someone else asserting that peer review is not only possible, but plainly, a needed characteristic of sources cited on a disputed topic, even when it involves a celebrity. I endorse Ted Wilkes second disputed item too. Although published for the tabloid market, there is zero documented historical support for Bret's specific claims/speculation relating to the sexuality of Elvis Presley. Wyss 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we have yet to see evidence as to what Bret said. We do not know if he made a claim or only alludes to it or what. At Amazon.com [9] in the United Kingdom the Synopsis provided to Amazon UK by the UK publisher's small imprint which does not mentional homosexualty and states:

• "The truth regarding the relationship between Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis is exposed and the controversial allegations that Presley slept with his own mother, raped his wife, held wild sex and drugs parties and left a fan brain-damaged are explored."

At Amazon.com [10] in the United States the Publisher offered nothing as to content.

- Ted Wilkes 13:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

To Ted Wilkes

"I have inserted a dispute notice into this article that relates to more than one part but primarily to the sub-Section: Elvis Presley#Was Elvis gay?"

Which other parts are you unsatisfied with? I want to know if anything related to "constipation" is in danger. If not, I'll gladly support the community against 141's efforts. Otherwise, I might actually join 141, because I would be convinced that his view about the Elvis community suppressing unpleasant details about their hero is correct.

Let's just say this: if any mentioning of "constipation" is removed from "Death and Burial", then one of two things:

1) Transistor radios go out (plus maybe also other things that excessively glorify Elvis)
2) David Bret goes back in

(129.241.134.241 07:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC))

While acknowledging respect for the PoVs and concerns of both 129.241.134.241 and User:Ted Wilkes I humbly suggest that inclusion of content in this article not result from "tit for tat" negotiation but from cites of secondary sources drawn from solid primary source material. Now, from my perspective, I've little problem with the word "constipation" appearing somewhere in the article, but have serious issues with any mention of the Bret book, for reasons outlined above.

Btw, TCM in Europe ran at least three Elvis movies last night, including Elvis on Tour and Double Trouble. I truly tried to watch but personally found each far too boring to bear... eyes glazed, jaw hangin' open, staring around the room, the whole bit. Also saw a Larry King special on EP the other day on CNN, one of the guests insisted EP did "everything for his mother." I mention this only to alert readers that aside from maybe liking a few of his earliest rockabilly recordings, I don't think I'm much of an Elvis fan. Wyss 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, you can't use those as "hostages" to push your data in. Also, no one was talking about removing the constipation stuff, so chill. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed one Elvis movie on TCM. He was singing, so I quickly changed the channel. And CNN we don't have anymore, they replaced it with BBC World. Didn't see any Elvis there, fortunately :-)

Only Elvis fanatics could think of celebrating a 28-year anniversary. Of course, I'm an expert in math tricks so I understand the significance of 28 ( whenever you go 28 years backward or forward in time the weekdays are exactly the same as now - 17th of August will also be a Wednesday 28 years from now ). Maybe they should do an exact re-enactment of Elvis's death.
20:39 "uh man, I had too much of those banana sandwiches today, I gotta take a dump".
20:45 "come on....come on...."
20:46 "so this is what purgatory looks like".

Anyway, I'm glad that you have little or no problem with constipation (no pun intended), therefore I'll prevent Onefortyone from inserting any gay stuff. And I would like to remind everyone, including Wilkes, that Wikipedia is a special encyclopedia and special rules apply. NPOV has precedence over good documentation, because otherwise there will be endless edit wars or many people will just stop engaging in Wikipedia whatsoever. (129.241.134.241 13:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC))

Do Pentacostals have purgatory? Wyss 18:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Rumors

Just a few remarks as I don't want to waste too much time here. I have a family life that I am happy to put a lot of time into.

1.It is a historical fact that Elvis biographer David Bret has written that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been gay. These claims have also been summarized in some newspaper articles (for instance, in a review in The Globe).

Onefortyone 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We have never seen anything to show what is in the book. An April 4, 2002 article by writer/editor Jennifer Mendelsohn [11] posted at the Washington Post – Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC [12] making fun of Bret's book in a reference to a writeup about the book in The Globe (tabloid). - Ted Wilkes 14:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is credibilty of the source. Period. Ted Wilkes 14:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

(Reference to deleted "seeding" ):

I suggest that the above argument (by 141/anon) qualifies as "gaming the system" and contributes nothing towards supporting the inclusion of wholly unsupported and distracting tabloid rumours in Wikipedia. If there was a shred of historical evidence EP was gay I'd insist on its inclusion in the article but there is none, only isolated remarks published by a single discredited author, and perhaps unpublished ones made by a disgruntled step-mother who was written out of Vernon Presley's will. All of this traces back to a single interview given by actor Sal Mineo in 1972, when he was led into a question that had nothing to do with Elvis Presley, and didn't mention EP, gave a brief hearsay answer relating to Nick Adams, a known embellisher of the truth, then went on to strongly hint that most "Hollywood gay" rumours were likely exaggerated or made up anyway. Meanwhile, all these people are conveniently dead. Wyss 13:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc., every one of your fabrications has been proven such and your quotes from non-existent sources or gossip magazines don't belong here. All User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc., does (as stated above and on the archive page, is repeat the same fabrications over and over in order to help sell his book. Any futher repeats of the same fabrications posted by User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. will be deleted. Ted Wilkes 13:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago I came to the same conclusion as to the possible identity of 141, as hinted at above by TW. If true, this raises a third problem, that an editor is deliberately seeding a WP article for his own commercial ends. Wyss 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Take note I have changed the Section title that User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. inserted as more seed for Google searches and to promote his fraudlent statements in order to increase book sales. I have deleted all of User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc.'s personal opinions, and repeats of his previous statements that have been dealt with, all of which were inserted as part of "seeding." Any further such "seeding" abuse of Wikipedia will be deleted. Ted Wilkes 13:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting user comments

User:Ted Wilkes has deleted [13] extensive commentary by 141 from this talk page. This is in violation of WP policy. His arguments supporting deletion of 141's comments are mistaken. Please restore 141's comments. Wyss 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeating the same fabrications and unfounded statements over and over by User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. is one of his tactics done to avoid answering the specific questions posed. Deleting repeated statements that have already been fully discussed and have been re-inserted to distract from the precise points raised, is perfectly appropriate. If User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. disagrees with me, it is up to him to take me to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Ted Wilkes 14:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree with your summary of 141's worthless edits and bad-faith intent, I think you're both breaking the rules and hindering consensus discussion. Wyss 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss - Your view is noted. But I believe it is proper to do so given the FACTS that this repeated action is an abuse of Wikipedia. It is up to User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. to take the issue to Arbitration. Ted Wilkes 15:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think User:Ted Wilkes and 141 are both so out of bounds as to various Wikipedia policies that for the moment, reasoned consensus discussion on this article is at best problematic. Perhaps RfC is an answer but for now I'll defer to others less involved. Wyss 15:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, kids. We were playing so nicely on this page, don't mess it up now. Just keep the following policies in mind.

1. Don't edit other people's comments. If you want a personal attack censored, place a comment on my talk page and I'll look into it.
2. No personal attacks. Several people here have an unnecessary habit of bundling accusations in with your suggestions for the article. Keep your comments relevant to the edits you propose. There is no need to speculate about the motivations, potential alliances of other editors.

None of these tactics are necessary to fix the problems with this article. If people continue to violate these policies I'll block them myself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You are right about working properly exactly as I have done. I initiated that process here to avoid edit wars. I made no personal attack whatsoever. I only pointed out that it is a fact that User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. has repeatedly inserted fabricated text, which fact has been documented on this talk page previously. (Another example of his fabrications was posted today on Talk:Nick Adams.) After stating he was leaving Wikipedia, User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. has come back again using tactics to disrupt the orderly process that I initiated and that others had been adhereing to completely. - Ted Wilkes 16:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

While I totally disagree with some of User:Ted Wilkes' tactics on this page and believe they delay and undermine consensus resolution, I agree with his summary of the problem. Wyss 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

See, there's no need to point out that he repeatedly inserts fabricated text right there. Just dispute each instance individually, and there's no problem. If you have a problem with his repeated editing pattern, the proper channel is an RFC. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This has already been done exhaustively and repeatedly. The discussion is spinning in circles. Yep, RfC may be the only path. Wyss 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, there is a need to point out that User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. repeatedly inserts the same text over and over even after it has been proven to be a fabrication. Is anyone suggesting consensus means that everyone should be obliged to answer the same thing ad infinitum? Ted Wilkes 16:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's an example of the problems a determined and clever editor can create with worthless sources and assertions. Part of this is caused by the lack of people caring much about whether or not the content appears in the article as it did in the Was Elvis Gay? section. I do understand that, it bores me to tears ;) Wyss 16:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Passages deleted by Ted Wilkes

Violating Wikipedia rules

To my mind, my opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are violating the rule that there should be no personal attacks against other Wikipedia users on discussion pages. Ted Wilkes has even deleted my recent contribution to this talk page. See history. I have only summed up some facts and presented an additional source which proves that the claims by Dee Presley have been discussed by Elvis fan groups. Significantly, when I stated that I was moving on some days ago, my opponents had nothing else to do than immediately hurry to the Nick Adams, Natalie Wood and James Dean pages in order to delete all contributions I have written. I think this is not fair play. Onefortyone 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are again the passages deleted by Ted Wilkes:

Rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings

Just a few remarks as I don't want to waste too much time here. I have a family life that I am happy to put a lot of time into.

1.It is a historical fact that Elvis biographer David Bret has written that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been gay. These claims have also been summarized in some newspaper articles (for instance, in a review in The Globe).

2.It is also a historical fact that a manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, exists (see [14]), in which she claims, among other things, that Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother and sexual relationships with men. It is also a fact that there was a summary of her claims published in the National Enquirer.

So we have two independent published sources including the claims. Some of Dee Presley's accusations have even been discussed in books, articles (for instance, in an article by Professor Dr Wall) and by fans on their websites. Here is one further example:

From a discussion at "TCB-World, where Elvis fans meet":

Why Elvis didn't say bye bye to Colonel???

Look i refuse to believe what i am about to say, plus this is how rumors start, but...According to Dee (and apparently she saw it so she says) that she saw E having affairs with guys...stuned, man i was when i read that, and still i refuse to believe it, but apparently he and Nick Adams had a thing going, and this may be the reason why E never said good bye to the cigar muncher, and the one arm bandit, man has the colonel got a lot to answer for, i am not going to start a bitch here, but i have a lot of resentment for the whole crowd that was around him (although i do have a lot of respect for Red) but who knows, why he did not let the Colonel go, this is what i read on some web site, where Dee had been interviewed, mind you this is like late 90's so a lot of time has gone by, and you can now say what ever you like about the man, he is not here to defend himself, but then again if things had been different he would still be here...What a loss...

Dee Stanley appeared on the Geraldo show in America a few years ago claiming that Elvis and his mother had been lovers. It was the most sickening claim that has ever been made against Elvis. She appeared on the show with the owner of the National Enquirer who had run the story. She stated that the relationship between Elvis and Gladys had been incestuous and talked about Gladys having a drink problem because she couldn`t deal with it. She stated that a member of staff at Graceland had told her that she had seen them getting out of bed and that she knew something had happened and also that Vernon had told her about it and how he had always been an outsider in his own family. ... JD Sumner ... said she even claimed he was gay in the book. ...

These are clear statements by fans who knew that the accusations exist. It should be taken into account that there are different claims by Elvis's stepmother both in her manuscript book and in her article for the National Enquirer. Not all authors are discussing all of these topics, but there is also a webpage summarizing Ann-Margret's statements concerning all the claims by Dee Presley, including the gay accusation. See [15] So it is clear that these accusations really exist and that the topic was widely discussed after Dee Presley's newspaper article was published. It is no wonder, however, that Ann-Margret, who was one of Elvis's girlfriends, and most fans rejected all these claims. Therefore, the following critical note (and it is indeed a critical note) should be included in the article, perhaps in a special "Rumors" section under "Relationships":

Decades after his death, two independent sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2001), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay. Bret (who made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities) said Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager.

In an unpublished but often cited manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis and an article in the National Enquirer Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley claims that there was a relationship between Elvis and his mother Gladys and that the singer had sexual encounters with men, particularly with his friend Nick Adams.

However, David Bret has been widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts in his various books about celebrities and Dee Presley has been criticized for having personal and financial motives for her claims. Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, these two are the only known sources of these claims and one of them is unpublished. Supporters of the claims made by David Bret and Dee Presley note that while most authors do describe Elvis as heterosexual, they are writing in the context of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views of the singer. [16] Critics of this view note that it is contradicted by the success of books by authors like Albert Goldman and several members of the Memphis Mafia which have been scathingly critical of Elvis's lifestyle.

It should be again emphasized that this is a very critical discussion of these claims in these paragraphs, as it is clearly said that the accusations are rejected by most others. What should be wrong with including these facts in the article?

Significantly, my opponents have accused me of lots of things, for instance, of "hijacking specific Wikipedia content with an orchestrated violation of precepts and distortion of facts" (see above). As I have frequently cited my sources and only repeatedly reinstated what has been deleted by my opponents, I think this and some additional accusations are personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia discussion boards. It has also been said on this talk page that every contributor should be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the sources used. The only academic, peer-reviewd source on Elvis I know is the critical article by Professor Dr Wall I have cited above. If there are any other sources of this kind, would you please list them below? In my opinion, most stuff written about Elvis in the many books thrown on the market is no more than gossip based only on hearsay and tabloid publications. So if you would like to base this Wikipedia article on peer-reviewed sources alone you must delete most of the so-called details from the article.

I also wonder why my opponents have now deleted all my contributions from other Wikipedia pages, although these contributions were based on several independent sources. See Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, James Dean, etc. My opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss only claim that all these sources are not reliable enough, but they are unable to present sources which prove that the authors I have cited are wrong. Very interesting indeed. Onefortyone 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Other paragraphs which have been removed from this page by Ted Wilkes:

There is now a section entitled "Was Elvis gay?". In view of the critical remarks by Professor Wall (see [17]), the following passage should also be added to the end of this section: "Despite such statements that Presley may have been bisexual or gay, most other authors, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, describe Elvis as heterosexual." Onefortyone 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are again the relevant passages of Professor Dr Wall's critical article:

It is clearly stated that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.

Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland." Onefortyone 14:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone, we already had a discussion about the Dee Presley manuscript, which you chose to recuse yourself from. However, you are now again bringing up the same questionable sources (the link maybe proves that the manuscript exists; it does not account for any of its contents). Also, are you actually presenting content from an Elvis fan message board as a verifiable and non-dubious source? Ted has the right idea in addressing each of these issues one at a time; once a source has been discredited it should stay so, unless new evidence comes to light. 141, if you are not satisfied with the analysis of the Dee Presley manuscript, we can reopen that debate. Please try to keep these discussion focused. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

To my view, the content from the fan discussion board undoubtedly proves that the claims by Dee Presley exist and that they were discussed by Elvis fans. One fan also says that there was a public event on which the claims were discussed. I didn't know that there was such an event. Interestingly, David Bret's book is not even mentioned by the Elvis fans, they are only discussing the accusations by Dee Presley. So I think we have two independent sources - Dee Presley's claims in her manuscript book (partly published by the National Enquirer) and Bret's book. So it is a fact that there are sources which claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. These sources should be mentioned somehow in the article, as they exist. Please note that I think that there should also be a critical remark in the article concerning this matter. Onefortyone 17:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The policy for notability is well established. Unpublished manuscripts and fan message boards are definitely not verifiable enough for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Onefortyone, I think it's great that you're so dedicated to this idea, and if you can present valid sources for it, I'll be right there with you to fight back the Elvis fan cabal, but so far I don't think any of the sources you've presented are notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Elvis fan cabal? Please explain. Ted Wilkes 17:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. Only for the record, let me say I think Elvis is way boring and don't personally care about what he did in bed. I do care about WP articles carrying content from reliable sources or if need be, characterizing dodgy sources as unreliable and unsupported. How did I get into this? Clicking on the Nick Adams link from Picnic.

Finally, in retrospect, although I meant what I said about 141, I've found him easier to negotiate with than Ted Wilkes... 141 did permit the inclusion of scathing disclaimers and source characterizations which would lead most readers to dismiss the Bret rumours out of hand. Wyss 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

And User:Wyss - please take the issue to Rfc but need I remind you that you tried Wikipedia:Mediation and User:Onefortyone aka Anon 80.141. etc. suddenly had to go away. Note too that Anon 80.141. etc. already filed an RFC against me (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes) but it was invalid and did not gain the necessary endorsement within two days and User:Radiant! unlisted it. (See: User Talk:Ted Wilkes#RFC - Ted Wilkes 16:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think I'd rather restore the Was Elvis Gay? section (maybe without the Dee Presley stuff, which is beyond weak). I think readers should know how wholly unsupported and unfounded the rumours are. If overwhelming editor consensus subsequently calls for it to removed, that's ok by me too. Wyss 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted the dispute notice and removed the disputed text in accordance with Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. I then followed exact procedure and brought it to the Talk page in a clear and concise manner to be dealt with. Further, I must question User:Wyss and her reasoning for suddenly wanting to reinsert the section she created the header for and helped edit in conjunction with User:Onefortyone considering the following statement she made at Talk:Natalie Wood:

• "I agree with User:Func, but since the admin (User:Mel Etitis) has brought this discussion down to the level of pre-adolescent boys (no disrespect to the latter intended btw), I have decided to help the anon stand out and shine in his quest to make Elvis Presley gay in the eyes of history. Wyss 5 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)"

- Ted Wilkes 17:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Fine, so the section will stand as is until Ted Wilkes or someone else provides reasoning to discredit it or remove it, in the same manner that the Dee Presley material was discredited. OK? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re TW's question, that was obviously intended ironically. Anyway I have restored the Was Elvis Gay? section. IMO it thoroughly debunks Bret and at least is a helpful reader service. If overwhelming user consensus, in the form of edits to the article, mandates its removal that's ok by me too. Wyss 17:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia policy please. It does not get reinserted until the dispute is resolved. The onus is on the person who inserted it to prove it is factual, not me to disprove it. I followed procedure and removed it and have already given a statement for my reasons on this above in the Second disputed item section. Nothing has been provided by anyone to substantiate that unfounded gossip being included. Ted Wilkes 18:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You helpfully deconstructed the Dee Presley cite. The reference to the Bret cite already carries a massive disclaimer as to its worthlessness. If you can establish that it doesn't exist at all, please do. Otherwise, short of overwhelming editor consensus calling for the sBret information, andection's removal (in the form of edits), I think keeping the section in its current form is the most apt interpretation of WP policy and whatever consensus has been expressed here. Wyss 18:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I'm going to agree with Wyss here. You said that you were going to dispute the Bret information yesterday, but you still haven't presented anything there. I'm going to replace it, and add the dispute tag again. Then we can discuss it here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, it should not get reinserted until the dispute is resolved. The onus is on the person who inserted it to prove it is factual, not me to disprove it. I followed procedure and removed it and have already given a clear statement for my reasons on this above in the Second disputed item section. Nothing has been provided by anyone to substantiate that unfounded gossip being included. Are you stating anything can be inserted in Wikipedia and must remain there until proven false? The issue here, as you, User:DropDeadGorgias, stated above is the academic/journalistic integrity of the source. Please remove this so I do not get trapped into a 3-revert edit block. You, as a Wikipedia:Administrator are obliged to follow policy:

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute:

If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
• paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning.

- Ted Wilkes 18:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note, that was my first revert, not my third. I'm tiring of seeing Ted Wilkes misrepresent revert histories in his edit summaries and would like to remind him that he is the one who has been blocked twice in the past for violations of 3rr. Wyss 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1st revert: 09:34, August 18, 2005 Wyss (rv to last by Hall Monitor, see talk page, rumours without historical support have no place in this article)

2nd revert: 14:00, August 18, 2005 Wyss (rv#1 to last by me, as per DDG's and my comments on talk page, pending proper discrediting of Bret , who, sadly, is a published source)

3rd revert: 14:00, August 18, 2005 Wyss (rv#1 to last by me, as per DDG's and my comments on talk page, pending proper discrediting of Bret , who, sadly, is a published source)

- Ted Wilkes 18:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I only see one revert at 14:00. Anyway, this is immaterial. If you want to report a 3RR violation, put it on my talk page or at WP:AN/I. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

(To TW) Uhm, I don't know how to say this, but the last two items you list are the same single edit (rv#1), and the first was a completely unrelated revert, with opposite effect. Are you being careless? I'll assume so. Please pay more attention, I reverted once, not thrice. Wyss 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Last note, just to clarify and we're done with this topic. Wyss, the 3RR refers to any reverts; it doesn't have to be reverts of the same material. Can we drop this now and get to discussing the disputed material? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ted, that rule you cited applies to something that is obviously inaccurate or unsupported. As it is a cited reference to a published source, you have to discredit the source. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)