Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

THIS PAGE IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS

Following the advice of User:DropDeadGorgias, I will reinsert what I already posted here and following the work of User:Wyss prior to the discussion on the First disputed item, I have archieved the too lengthy and now redundant edits. See Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2.

Note

It is very interesting what User:Ted Wilkes is doing here. Once there are critical remarks concerning his own opinions, he either deletes them (see [1]) or he puts it into a new archive he himself has created in order to place only his own view points on the talk page. See [2]. I would call this unfair, oppressive editing tactics. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes has already been warned by administrator User:Mel Etitis about altering and removing user comments from talk pages. See [3] Onefortyone 11:14, 19 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.

Sorry. You are the person who has repeatedly reverted what I have written. I frequently cite my sources (books, reviews, articles, webpages) which I have used. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that The Guardian newspaper [4] 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.

This is your personal opinion. Lambert's book on Natalie Wood was highly praised by Wood's daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner. She calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." Michelle Merryweather states, "Drawing exclusively on private papers and interviews with those who knew her best – including her husband Robert Wagner – Lambert presents us with the richest imaginable portrait of this beguiling, tragic woman." As for David Bret's writings, there is a considerable Dutch online review of his book. See [5]. It is also an undisputed fact that The Guardian published a very positive review of Bret's book on George Formby. See [6]. You constantly try to denigrate the sources I have used. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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.

May I ask you for a short list of the "academic" sources you claim to have used? Perhaps you can also provide the reader with a short list of the academic sources you have used for your contributions to the Elvis article. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

So you are of the opinion that Bret is wrong in what he has written on Elvis's relationship with Nick Adams in a published biography. Would you please present facts which undoubtedly prove that Bret is wrong. It is a fact that both men were close friends. There are some independent sources which say that Adams was gay, and Bret mentions in his book that Adams had also sexual relationships with other men. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 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 [7] 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."

The book's blurb says that the author "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

At Amazon.com [8] in the United States the Publisher offered nothing as to content.

David Bret's academic credentials are unknown and there is no record that his Presley book has ever been subjected to a Peer review. Kirkus Reviews and the Library Journal have never reviewed any of his books. Publishers Weekly did two or three but after repeated bad reviews they stopped several years ago. An April 4, 2002 article by writer/editor Jennifer Mendelsohn [9] posted at the Washington Post – Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC [10] making fun of Bret's book in a reference to a writeup about the book in The Globe (tabloid).

As I stated above, there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc., who inserted the above text, also substantially modified the Wikipedia article on David Bret to remove damaging facts and changed the credential label by inserting [11] the fabrication that David Bret was "one of Britain’s leading show business biographers." When taken to task, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. changed it [12] by deleting the word "leading."

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. names this one gossip book by David Bret but without a direct quote and page number to reference to. At Amazon.com [13] 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 [14] in the United States, the publisher provided no Synopsis information of any kind and again there is no Peer review. The book was sold on the Internet and not listed by the publisher with leading distributor Baker & Taylor (The #1 book supplier to libraries, B&T distributes books etc. to about 8,000 school, public, and specialty libraries around the world.) and not with Ingram Book Group (the world's largest wholesale distributor of book product). There was no national distribution and as such was not carried in any bookstores or libraries. Any bookstore wanting it has to obtain copies direct from the publisher.

There are booksellers in Rotterdam offering Bret's book. By the way, which books on Elvis have peer reviews? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "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: Bret's writings on Presley are allusions and are not part of "widely circulating stories" by reputable sources other than Internet clones of Wikipedia. No other book is known to exist that makes any such similar allusions, claims, or allegations – nothing.

There is a manuscript book written by Elvis Stepmother, Dee Presley, including similar claims. Excerpts from this sources have been published by the National Enquirer. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And no entertainer in history has had more books written about them than Elvis Presley and no other entertainer has had every aspect of their life documented in such infinite detail as Presley via all forms of media. In the Wikipedia article are details of Presley's girlfriends and wife and it contains documented statements both in books and in television interviews confirming that Elvis Presley was a womanizer. His most respected biographer, Peter Guralnick, whose education and writing credentials are documented at Wikipedia, published two books with more than 1,300 pages on Presley's life. His books received numerous peer reviews and as Amazon.com said:

• "Guralnick's exploration of Elvis's childhood and rise to fame was notable for its factual rigorousness" and
• Publishers Weekly called it: "Guralnick's definitive and scrupulous biography"
• Publishers Weekly also stated: "Guralnick is the first to explain successfully how the Colonel, a one-time carnival huckster, maintained an enduring hold on a man whose genius was beyond his grasp."

Peter Guralnick's book Last Train to Memphis, and another acclaimed book Elvis and Gladys by Hollywood insider Elaine Dundy, gives much detail on Presley's friendship with Nick Adams [15] . Note too that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141., in his quest to make Elvis gay, quoted gossip writer Gavin Lambert as referring to Nick Adams as gay in his book on Natalie Wood and that she dated a gay Elvis. However, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. neglected to state the quote was made as offhand gossip without facts and 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"

In his review of Lambert's book in The Advocate (2004), David Ehrenstein (author of Open secret: gay Hollywood, 1928-1998) writes, "And this in turn brings up the gay angle, for besides Nicholas Ray, Natalie Wood was the "Grace" to an army of Hollywood "Wills," including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr. ... she ... preferring to do her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his seminal The Boys in the Band. He had planned to do something for her by adapting Dorothy Baker's novel about twin sisters, Cassandra at the Wedding, for the screen. But Hollywood wasn't ready for twin Natalie Woods--one of whom would have been a lesbian." In an email Ehrenstein sent me, the author emphasizes that Adams was gay. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

However, the last of Guralnick's two volumes was published in 1999. One might be able to say that further exhuastive research two years later by David Bret revealed new information and therefore Bret's book might merit referring to if it contained any reasonable evidence. But, the Bret book provided no facts, only groundless allusions, and is like the majority of Brets tabloid-style writing, ridiculed for the numerous errors and lack of research. The Elvis article states the Bret book was publshed in 2002, it was not. It was published in 2001 (see the Amazon.com UK website) but more importantly, the offical registry of the United States Library of Congress [16] officially registered it 2001.

The book was first published in 2001 in England. The 2002 edition appeared in the USA. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In 2003, journalist Alanna Nash, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Society of Professional Journalists' 1994 National Member of the Year, had her book The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley published. (Simon & Schuster – ISBN 0743213017). This award-winning and highly acclaimed book was subject to much Peer review. In Great Britain, Mojo music magazine said her book was "the most incisive and comprehensive look at the life of the elusive Colonel available" and the respected newspaper, The (London) Observer, lauded the book as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written."

Ms. Nash, had already published a respected but unflattering no-holds-barred book on Presley in 1995 titled Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia that provided what Entertainment Weekly called "stunning allegations." In this book and in "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written," there is no such claim as to homosexualty about Presley or blackmail by Colonel Parker.

This is a gossip book primarily based on statements by three members of the Memphis Mafia. Certainly they do not want to make mention that Elvis may have had any homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

These above mentioned two authors credentials and peer reviews of their work can be found everywhere in reputable magazines, newspapers and book review publications. A third author, Albert Goldman is also documented at Wikipedia. He is the most reviled by Presley fans for his harsh criticisms of Presley's lifestyle. If their was dirt of any kind to be uncovered, or allegations of homosexuality, it is likely, based on his track record, that Albert Goldman would have been the one to publish it. He did not, but as evidence of his willingness to do so, in his 1988 biography The Lives of John Lennon he claimed that The Beatles John Lennon had a homosexual relationship with Brian Epstein.

The background of David Bret and his education credentials are unknown. What he is, is one of the many calling themselves biographers spawned by the Internet. The poor quality of virtually all of his works, most notably their lack of research and sensationalizing by insinuations and allegations without facts, are well known. Note too, that Wikipedia User:Wyss did an analysis of Bret's writings and at Talk:Nick Adams came to the conclusion:

• Bret has a reputation for sloppy history, lack of scholarship, being obsessed with sexual topics (almost to the exclusion of other aspects of his subjects' careers and lives) and lastly, making up interviews to sell tabloid-style books to the downmarket. Wyss 2 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

• Bret is widely dismissed by critics as inventing material for his tabloid-oriented, downmarket books. Wyss 5 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Remember that there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

However, as evidenced on both this Talk page (and new archived page) and that of Talk:Nick Adams, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has repeatedly inserted fabications and doctored text into the article. On this Talk:Elvis Presley archived page, it was pointed out that journalist Alanna Nash was a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Society of Professional Journalists' 1994 National Member of the Year and that her 2003 book was published after Bret's book and that there were no such findings of homosexualty about Presley or blackmail by Colonel Parker in her book that was labeled as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written."

In response, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. stated (above on the achived section of this page):

• "It should also be taken into account that most parts of Nash's book were written before Dee Presley published her recent accusations." Ted Wilkes 19:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC) 80.141.178.108

Note that this is another fabrication and in the article these alleged Dee Presley "recent accusations" about homsexualty have no date. The 84-year-old Dee Stanley-Presley, in poor health, has given no public interviews for years. Her three sons have and each has written one or more books on Elvis Presley none of which ever claimed, suggested, or insinuated Elvis Presley was gay but in fact all three talked about Presley's notorious womanizing.

You are right. The accusations by Dee Presley must have been published in the National Enquirer in the 1990s, as they have been mentioned in Greil Marcus's book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000). Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager"

• This is another demonstration of the reason for Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and citing sources. This is not a quote from the discredited Bret book, it is only the words of the person who inserted it in the Elvis article. Given the fact that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has repeatedly inserted lies here in Wikipedia as outlined in detail on this Talk page, and has fraudlently doctored text from another website, Wikipedians need to have the source cited in detail with a direct quote in parenthesis so that it can first be verified then secondly, judged on its merits as to proof provided. What page number, please. What jounalists? Who are they? What proof is there that they tried to "out" Presley. In what publications can we verify these alleged writings and what proofs do they offer to support their claim?

The blurb says that Bret "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATES:

• "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.

This is a summary of unfounded information that uses backhanded references solely to support the unfounded claims and fabrications by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc.. This kind of word playing is not acceptable as stated in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

There is a critical article by Professor Dr David Wall about the strategies of the worldwide Elvis fan groups. As far as I can see, this seems to be the only source on Elvis published in a peer-reviewed periodical. See [[17]] and archive. Most other publications are gossip books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA CURRENT USE OF ALLEGATIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

• A Wikipedia precedent has already been established and adopted on the Abraham Lincoln article for allegations as to someone's sexuality. Wikipedia:Verifiability is Official Wikipedia Policy and must be adhered to. In the Wikipedia:Verifiability article it states exactly:
• "One should only write articles which contain information that is verifiable and not original research."
• "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable."

For any insinuation in the David Bret book about Presley to be referenced in Wikipedia it will require the author's credentials be clearly established and proof of the information being referenced as required of the C. A. Tripp book on the Abraham Lincoln homosexual issue that requires that the question of the person's sexuality has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major magazines such as Time have addressed the issue.

David Bret has written a substantial book on Elvis's Hollywood years and many other biographies. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of the hundreds of other books written on Elvis Presley and especially those respected authors acclaimed for their meticulous research plus the thousands of articles in reputable magazines and newspapers, not one ever claimed Presley was homosexual. Yet, one person who has repeadtly lied and fabricated external reference quotes has managed to impose his will on Wikipedia to have the Presley article devote a full section to it with an inappropriate title and 19 full lines. At the same time, a comment on statistical facts by Billboard magazine's Joel Whitburn, the most respected source for popular music statistics in the United States, is relegated to two lines in a "Trivia" section.

If anyone can show that the David Bret book has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major magazines such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, they he can place a similar reference in the Presley and Adams articles 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.

Are there any Time Magazine reviews or "peer reviews" of other books on Elvis? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I will also point out, because User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. inserted into the Presley Talk page [18] that the "accusations have been discussed not only in newspaper articles but also by fan groups." This is just one more of the never-ending misleading and meaningless claims made by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. to cloud the issue and prevent discussion of real facts. Elvis Presley fan groups all contravene Wikipedia:No original research and are not usable at Wikipedia. This Wikipedia Official Policy states: "Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group," "human rights group", church, or other type of association."

These fan groups on the Web compete fiercely for attention and in one case where a site (actually based in Australia) claimed they interviewed (under the appearance of a 2002 date) one of Elvis Presley's closest associates about the "new" Dee Presley book in which it was referred to by title. When asked via an e-mail:

• You show an interview with Joe Esposito in which you refer to a book by Dee Presley called "THE INTIMATE LIFE AND DEATH OF ELVIS. " I cannot find this book anywhere (or an ISBN number reference) and the United States Library of Congress has no listing for this title. Can you tell me something about it?”

Here is the reply for the operator of the site signed as Lea Frydman, Content Manger:

• "I do believe that the book by Dee Presley has since been re-printed under the title Elvis, We Love You Tender. Below is a direct link to Amazon where you buy a copy... Lea "

Hmmm… a 2002 interview about a book that has since been re-printed - in 1980!

Sorry, Ted, you cannot deny that there is a manuscript book by Dee Presley and an article published in the National Enquirer. The content has been discussed by fan groups and even by Professor Dr Wall. Onefortyone

NOTE: What has happened here is that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. one user by himself with a singular agenda has dedicated himself to a few articles all of which lead to his claiming Elvis Preseley being homosexual. This person has caused hundreds of hours of needless debate all because of his unproven and undocumented assertions tied into his outright and repeated fabrications. Those who attempted to correct his false or unsubtatinated claims have been reverted by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. up to as many as 100 times on the Elvis Presley, Natalie Wood, and Nick Adams articles. He has also drawn User:Wyss and User:Mel Etitis into his heated discussions that led to accusations and counter-accusations and debate that bordered incivility.

Note what User:Wyss said on Talk:Natalie Wood:

• Here, the anon uses the standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material which has little or no bearing on this short article. His ultimate goal by the way is to support an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

(NOTE User:Wyss did eventually become worn down and capitulated to everything User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. demanded.)

That's a misrepresentation. All of 141's edits were followed by scathng disclaimers,or otherwise isolated as being patently suspect, when we were finished. Wyss 19:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc.]] lies then forces others to disprove his lies. Once you disprove them, it means nothing, the User just creates another lie and ibncreases the complexity and falsehoods of his edits. This was also said on Talk:Natalie Wood# A comment on sources by Wikipedia Administrator User Func:

• Yeah, I've just done some edit history searching. The anon is a POV warrior of the first degree, and does not appear to be editing in good faith. func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

I think this is a personal attack. Ted Wilkes calls me a liar. He repeatedly did this in the past. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:credibility is at stake here. For consciencous editors to be harassed for hour after hour when there is no reason only serves to drive away the very people Wikipedia needs most. Tolerating this is not only unacceptable, it gives ammunition to Wikipedia’s critics such as Encyclopedia Britannica who told the Washington Post that: "The problem with an effort like that is that at other times, it may reflect just the wisdom -- or lack of wisdom -- of the last contributor." In response, Jimmy Wales told the post : "Wikipedia is proposing to implement editorial controls soon that Wales thinks will put it on par with Britannica." That was September 8,2004.

So does the Bret cite even exist? Wyss 19:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem to. It seems odd to me that the Amazon review talks about the controversial aspects in the book (incest, rape), and does not mention any allegations of homosexuality, which the text here makes sound central to the book. I now support removal of that section. If 141 cares to write up an article for Elvis: The Hollywood Years, and give undisputed citations where actual claims of homosexuality are made, then we can consider referencing it in the article. As it stands, I don't think there is any support for inclusion of the Bret material. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I just found it. The amazon.co.uk has a searchable text version of the book. Allegations of a relationship with Nick Adams are made: [19]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

So, the question now is whether or not the David Bret book is a source worthy of mentioning in the article. "No original research" only applies to research done by an editor of Wikipedia. A published source is clearly not original research by this definition. "dubious sources" refers to blogs and tabloids, which a published book still is not. As it is, I think that the article establishes that the book has been discredited by other scholars and no other biographers, even critics of elvis, take the allegations seriously. I'm not sure that any of the policies you've cited yet are grounds for removing the information altogether. Do you have any other specific precedent or policies that show why the citation should be removed? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus as to the credibility level is already here for this at Talk: Abraham Lincoln. As enunciated above, his unproven allusions or possible claims are a contradiction of credible authors. Bret's book has no peer review which is essential to Wikipedia and the academic/journalistic integrity of the source as User:DropDeadGorgias stated, is required. Because one book says something doesn't mean it is acceptable to Wikipedia. Bret is a tabloid writer, magazine or newspaper or book, there is no difference. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources.

- Ted Wilkes 19:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That "No original research" only applies to research done by an editor of Wikipedia is incorrect. What is said is that "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." - Ted Wilkes 19:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Referencing gossip books and magazines, tabloids and the like is such a significant shift away from encyclopedia policy that it should not be considered in Wikipedia unless it has been fully discussed and accepted by the Wikipedia community through a posting at Wikipedia:Announcements along with the appropriate notice on Wikipedia:Current surveys.

It is rather difficult to establish credibility of something by a single source author, that just comes as almost borderline as original research. It's like having an editor publishing his or her own book then adding some of that material into the Wikipedia. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that there are some accusations (in a published book and in an unpublished manuscript by Elvis's stepmother) that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. These facts are critically discussed in the Wikipedia article. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Bret's book (p. 19):

"That Elvis was obsessed with James Dean during his formative years as an actor cannot be denied. ... He subsequently became involved with two of the late star's friends, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon."

I hope this helps. Onefortyone 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed in loops. The Dee Presley book is of dubious existence and has never been published. Her accusations have been flatly rejected and heavily criticized as spiteful and financially motivated. The Bret book has been published but is not taken seriously by most reviewers. Wyss 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Ok, I'll rephrase. I would like to know right here, right now, where everyone stands about all the issues that are, or at some point have been, controversial.

1) The mentioning of "constipation" in the Death and Burial section

For:

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Only in the trivia:

Nowhere at all:

2) The mentioning of transistor radios

Not at all

The way it is now (no "Sony" and "rock music" instead of "Presley")

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The original version (Sony + "teens listened to Elvis")

3) The gay thing

Not at all

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The way it is now (without Dee, with the "sword" quote)

The way it once was (shorter, still without Dee, and without the "sword" quote)

4) The Billboard thing (Joel Whitburn or something)

Not at all

Me (129.241.134.241 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The way it is now ( in the trivia )

In the main article

With all due respect for what 129 is trying to accomplish, I can't vote in his poll because the questions are not worded in a way I could answer them. Wyss 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this poll is overly simplistic. Each of these issues has to be discussed individually. Anyway, no one is contesting the constipation thing or the billboard thing, so why would you even bring them up except to stir up animosity? The only dispute I'm aware of now is the validity of the Bret article as a source; if other debates were still going on they should not have been archived. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that Wilkes said he intented to change several things in the article and STARTED with the "gay thing". He never, not once, said what the "other things" are. I didn't intend to stir animosity, sorry if some people feel that way (129.241.134.241 18:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Who is 141?

I agree with DropDeadGorgias since,

• It's not a violation of WP policy to edit either anonymously or with an anonymized username.

• Using WP for commercial purposes is a violation of policy, but following normal encyclopedic principles tends to eliminate those attempts (and can even turn them back on the promoter).

• 141 may be Bret, or an associate, but he already knows this is suspected. The WP definition of vandalism doesn't cover 141's methods, he doesn't use sockpuppets (contrary to policy anyway) and he otherwise adheres to WP policy more closely than certain other editors on this page, so badgering him about his identity would likely amount to harassment.

"141 may be Bret." This makes me laugh. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• The only remaining issue I see here is whether or not Bret's book can be discredited as a citation. Bret is already widely discredited as a reliable source (never mind it's the only one out of 2000+ works that refers to EP as gay to my knowledge). If 141 weren't so persistant, it wouldn't be in the article and IMO it shouldn't be. If six or seven editors were consistently removing the reference, that would be the end of it. This is what happens with most other articles involving famous people. For whatever reason, this issue hasn't attracted the attention of serious editors to that level, so for now it stays. Wyss 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether Bret is really "widely discredited as a reliable source", as you claim. There is a positive Dutch review of his book on Elvis. There are positive reviews of some other books he wrote. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll 2

Ok, it seems that the issue is this text:

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."

The poll is about whether Bret deserves to have a citation in the Elvis article.

1) Deserves (the way it is now)

2) Doesn't deserve

Me (129.241.134.241 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

I'll abstain for now because our friend TW may yet come up with something that could blow the citation out through WP policy, like he did with Dee Presley. Wyss 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I still haven't made up my mind as to whether or not the source merits mention. It's not like the article text gives any credence to the claims, as they are shown to lack credibility in the next line. However, even if they do stay, the section should be changed, as the heading is misleading. Bret does not seem to claim that Elvis is "gay", as he also alleges that Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother and raped his wife. Instead, Bret claims that Elvis had at least one homosexual experience. "Was Elvis Gay?" is too suggestive and misleading anyway. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed an important point. It was Wyss who titled the said section "Was Elvis gay?". I would prefer to title it, "Rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings". Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I would continue your thought by adding that it's difficult to come up with a section title when its best name might be... Unsupported inuendo published by money-seeking tabloid hacks :) Wyss 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, this artcile says "this is what Bret says", and then "he's a bad source, though". That's a bit inconsistent. (129.241.134.241 18:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm... 129, you are closer to 80.141/Bret than you realize. Maybe a little bit of respect (and I'm saying a little), might be in order. Ted Wilkes 18:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes, I hope you understood my position about the "gay thing" which, I'm surprised to say, coincides with yours. I can't actively edit in your favor, though, because I value the good Wikipedians DropDeadGorgeos and Wyss, who are much, much easier to work with than you. Nevertheless, the case is that the gay allegation has only one main proponent - David Bret, and only one Wikipedian to enforce his opinion here at Wikipedia - Onefortyone. That makes me sort of uneasy. (129.241.134.241 18:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

It's all built on a single interview with Sal Mineo back in 1972 that briefly related to Nick Adams. Others have since conflated what may have been a wild exaggeration or tall tale (told by the tale-tale-telling Adams) around his documented friendships and associations with Presley and James Dean. Wyss 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is your speculation. I don't think that you are right. Bret says that Adams himself claimed he had a sexual relationship with Elvis. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey 129, everybody has to make a living. So Bret and associate do whatever. By the way, if you are ever in Amsterdam, there is an area with really great specialized bookstores. Ted Wilkes 19:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fed up with books for now. I bought "Hotel New Hampshire", read some 50 pages then dropped it. The only reason I bought it, was because I'll soon be writing a book myself and at the time I thought the place of the action would be New England. Well, now I decided on Utah instead, so basically it's 100 Norwegian Kroner down the toilet. I sort of deviated from my own principle of ONLY reading massive bestsellers ( LOTR, Harry Potter, Angels & Demons, Da Vinci Code, Sophie's World, Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy ), and paid a price for that. (129.241.134.241 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Hotel New Hampshire is very big and sold a lot of copies; doesn't this make it a "massive best seller"? And do you actually enjoy those other airport novels that you list? My own favorite massive bestseller (which I actually bought in an airport) is Guns, Germs and Steel, very highly recommended. For fiction, try Lolita. -- Hoary 13:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's too bad, I think you would really enjoy the special Amsterdam bookstore. Wanted the Da Vinci Code soon, but the Pope said no. Ted Wilkes 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do you have something to contribute re the Bret citation or can we remove the disputed tag now? Wyss 19:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

---

BTW: here] are some photos of that dastardly homo, Nick Adams. Ted Wilkes 19:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Shocking stuff. Wyss 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Even Bret confirms that Natalie Wood and Nick Adams were friends. Many homosexuals have relationships with women. Gavin Lambert has pointed out that Wood dated several Hollywood gays and mentions her "romance activity with Nick Adams, Tab Hunter, Raymond Burr and heaven knows who else." Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: Please ensure your comments are posted ONLY at the bottom of the page and signed.

User:Onefortyone played his old games by inserting comments into my text, sometimes signed, sometimes not. He was previously told not to do this by Wikipedia Mediator JCarriker with respect to discussions on the Nick Adams article. Despite that, User:Onefortyone has done it again with my postings here and on the Adams talk page that are interconnected to this article dispute. Please be advised that if User:Onefortyone uses this tactic again on this page, I will move it to the appropriate place at the end of this statement.

I'm sure it's ok to do that, also to sign the posts for him if he doesn't. Wyss 20:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Before I post further on the disputed issue at hand, if anyone disagrees with working this way please say so along with any suggestions. I'm very flexible, consensus, you know. - Ted Wilkes 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

More facts and info regarding the reinsertion of some of the disputed text:

This statement is for the benefit for all but with specific questions for User:DropDeadGorgias who reinserted the disputed subsection back into the Presley article.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence states as follows that we are to refer:

• Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

On this controversial issues list is the book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln's sexuality). This is an identical situation that established that the "exceptional evidence" for academic/journalistic integrity required to justify a reference in an article to a book with a link to a separate book article, if so desired. The consensus achieved by Wikipedians was that: "The issue received sufficient press that historians and Time magazine have recently readdressed the issue." Note that this book was also given peer reviews by Washington Post, the New York Times, Publishers Weekly and other reputable critics.

User:DropDeadGorgias, stated above I think that the article establishes that the book (by David Bret) has been discredited by other scholars. That is incorrect – the book has never been deemed worthy of a Peer review by anyone as I had already stated. The consensus that Wikipedians arrived at in the Abraham Lincoln article is based upon Wikipedia:Verifiability# Dubious sources which states "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." And that Wikipedia:Reliable sources# Check multiple independent sources requires a backup to claims. Further, the consensus dealt with Wikipedia:No original research that states: "original research that is published or available elsewhere -- may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate."

As to the David Bret gossip book, not only has it not been subject to a peer review, but no musical historians or credible biographers have addressed the issue. As stated by me already, the lack of peer reviews and no library sales or normal bookstore distribution means that without buying it from the Internet, it is exceedingly hard to know what Bret said. And, should anyone take the word of User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141's who Wikipedia:Verifiability# Checking verifiability says we should question when: The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information.

At Talk:Nick Adams, two days ago (17th) when I caught User:Onefortyone's little omission in reporting the full facts on Presley in the Gavin Lambert gossip book page 119 on Natalie Wood, you will note I gave the specific page number with my quote (as always). For some strange reason today, User:Onefortyone's has now pasted a bunch of meaningless gossip on my talk page with text purportedly from the Gavin Lambert book that is irrelevant to the issue. However, what appears relevant is that my library copy of Gavin Lambert's gossip book titled Natalie Wood – A Life ends at page 370 of the Index. None of the page numbers match what User:Onefortyone says.

However, if anyone were to consider those unproven quotes by User:Onefortyone on page 19 and 20 supposedly belonging to the Bret gossip book on Presley, which I do not, then it only proves that what Bret wrote is pure unfounded gossip and someone expressing nothing more than a personal opinion which is external writing to be excluded as stated above regarding Wikipedia Official Policy Wikipedia:No original research. In this day and age, anyone, or any business big or small, can publish a book, or create an imprint to turn a buck and print and bind dirt cheap one copy at a time if they want with a Xerox DocuTech® Production Publisher and other such systems. They can legally say anything in their book they want about dead people. And, Amazon.com will list it. Or go to a Vanity publisher who will list it for you in the USA with Amazon and/or B&N on the internet.

Please note on my talk page, that User:Onefortyone now admits the Colonel Parker reference in the Presley article is another fabrication and is not in the David Bret book. (Note, as User:Onefortyone and as ANON 80.141 etc., he has deleted other Wikipedians' edits dozens of times to reinsert this deception.) His absolutely and positively direct quote from the book in the Presley article has changed completely in this "new" direct quote. After so much of this, it gets quite tiresome.

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE:

• Decades after his death, author David Bret, In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), stated that Presley was gay. Bret 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."

Here is what suddenly was declared by User:Onefortyone today as a "new" direct quote from The blurb – or is it?:

• "In addition, the blurb clearly says that the author "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty."

Really? This kind of convoluted text comes from whom? Whoever created it, this text is just more unfounded gossip about dead guys. No facts, just more of David Bret's original research opinions.

Fact: Repeated insertions by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 of fabrications have been, like this one, always asserted as factual. He has deleted other editors trying to rectify them more than a hundred times. User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 history of this is well documented in this Presley article and as I have already shown on the archived talk page, they still get reinserted over and over even when proven false. Without exception, the fabricating of information and distortion has occurred on every one of the few articles User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 has edited, all of which are targeted and interconnected on one homosexual theme to Presley.

Another fact that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 ignores is that there is no evidence existing anywhere that Nick Adams was gay. Note that User:Wyss pointed out at Talk:Nick Adams: here on July 2 AND [here again yesterday (August 18)

• 1) There is zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual, or ever demonstrated such behavior. Wyss 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
• 2) Again, you know there are, and you also know there is zero documented evidence that NA was gay. Never mind that, we can keep the gossip in the rumours section as far as I'm concerned or care, it's helpful debunking. Wyss 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Note also in the Talk:Nick Adams page here that User:Onefortyone himself refers to David Bret and the like as "gossip book authors" stating in his edit of 19:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC):

• The only source not written by gossip book authors is the article by Professor Dr Wall, but he has not written about Nick Adams's sexual preferences.

Despite the facts and both User:Wyss and User:Onefortyone's own admissions that there is no evidence Nick Adams was gay, it asserts that as a fact in the Presley article saying: "homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams." And, the Presley article gives a link to the United Kingdom criminal law Professor David S. Wall article about United States intellectual property law that makes no reference to the sexual preferences issue whatsoever as User:Onefortyone himself has declared. And, the text linked to criminal law professor Wall further violates Wikipedia policy in that it is cloaked in weasel terms in an attempt to make the statement appear to have credibility.

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "Supporters of the claims made by David Bret 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. [4]"

• Supporters of the claims made by David Bret? - What supporters? Name credible sources who have supported Bret's claims (allusions).
• while most authors do describe - Most? See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Avoid blanket terms
• which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views – A tendency? Says who?

The weasel terms used in the article is User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141's personal opinion which infers that academically qualified, peer reviewed, and highly respected authors such as Alanna Nash and Peter Guralnick are part of a worldwide conspiracy to write only favorable views of Presley. Note that next to the illicit weasel terminology is this link [20] to Dr. Wall pretending that this statement is coming from him. The theory paper by UK criminal law professor David S. Wall never said that whatsoever. What professor Wall theorized upon was the Presley fan clubs and appreciation societies (his term) whom he labeled as all being part of the moral majority (his description).

And, in an attempt by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 to legitimize using his unfounded statement and his misleading attribution to professor Wall, he inserted more weasel terms:

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "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' lifestyle."

This is a backhanded attempt to get the homosexual reference in. Such weasel terms could be used to say anything about anyone. That is why the Wikipedia policy exists. Note that in the Nick Adams article it claims Adams was gay because David Bret said so in his book and that it matched similar claims by Elvis's (former) stepmother. What has been created as "sources" are Wikipedia articles referencing each other. Further, the Wikipedia Presley article quotes one gossip book (Bret's) containing only allusions/hints, and adds: "Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, this is the only known published source of these claims." – This exceptional claim requires exceptional evidence and reinforces the obvious that Wikipedia should never reference such a gossip book.

In conjunction with the fact that there is a total lack of evidence that Nick Adams was gay, the opposite is stated here in an article on Nick Adams that says "Although Nick was straight, and Dean was bi-sexual." And, there is no evidence from any reputable source that Nick Adams was gay or even a close friend of James (Jimmy) Dean. In fact, author John Gilmore said [21]: "With Nick Adams it had been the same way, even with Natalie Wood—Jimmy (Dean) avoided them. Once off the (movie) set, he went out of his way to go in the opposite direction."

Be reminded, that in the Nick Adams article, (which I have disputed), it claims Adams was gay because David Bret said so in his book and that it matched similar claims by Elvis's (former) stepmother. On the contrary, what has been proven is that Nick Adams had a very intimate relationship with actress Natalie Wood as seen (and written about) here in 4 photos of Nick Adams and Natalie Wood together. Also, that Adams was later married and had two children is a fact. Note how reputable book reviewers like Publishers Weekly here warn readers about gossip writers who write about persons who "conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased." Such gossip writing does not meet Wikipedia standards for referencing.

In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "When communicating on a talk page, answer if somebody asks for further explanation of your edits." Wikipedia Administrator DropDeadGorgias never addressed my disputed items in my detailed "Second disputed item" above, one that he requested I provide. As such, in accordance with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I am specifically asking Wikipedia Administrator DropDeadGorgias the following two simple questions with respect to his edit that reinserted the subsection in dispute:

• are you asserting that Wikipedia should not have universal policies and that we therefore should ignore the existing Wikipedia requirement for book references that was put into effect by Wikipedians based on consensus achieved for C. A. Tripp and his book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln's sexuality)?
• are you asserting that David Bret and his gossip book on Presley meets the level of Wikipedia requirements for academic/journalistic integrity?

Thank you. Wikipedia Administrator DropDeadGorgias, I await your answers. - Ted Wilkes 20:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please put comments here:

• Ted, first of all, gigantic blocks of text are really difficult to read through, especially when you're referencing lots of other pages. It would most helpful if you could keep your entries short, and to the point. I don't see any reason to bring up the edit histories of Nick Adams and Natalie Wood, but whatever. Also, I don't know why you have to come off so hostile in your edits. We're not all against you, really; when it comes down to it, Wikipedia is supposed to be a community activity. Finally, my replacement of the text was not in any way meant to condone or validate the statement in any way; but the text had been removed without consensus of its invalidity and the evidence that you had promised to provide on Wednesday. In light of the fact that you disproved the Dee Presley manuscript but did not disprove the Bret book to satisfy consensus yet, the material was replaced. Rather than sniping at the edit histories, comments, whatever, can you please get on with disputing the book, as we are all waiting for you to do? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• User:DropDeadGorgias - I'm sorry you think my edits are even a tiny bit hostile, they are certainly not intended to be. If I have offended you in any way, I most certainly apologize. My comments might be a little dry and reflect a little tiredness of Onefortyone/Anon's continued conduct. The facts are all here, so please answer the two questions. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 20:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • First, I apologize for misreading hostilitiy in your statements. It may be for the overly formal way that you address me as "Wikipedia Administrator DropDeadGorgias" constantly. Call me DropDeadGorgias. Wikipedia Administrator DropdeadGorgias is my father. Anyway, I answered the two questions above when I said "my replacement of the text was not in any way meant to condone or validate the statement in any way; but the text had been removed without consensus of its invalidity and the evidence that you had promised to provide on Wednesday". I don't assert anything, I merely re-added it because it seemed like that part had been removed without the consensus of the community. Obviously, the consensus is hard to determine, so if we can present the anti-Bret evidence now, it will make the decision a lot easier. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's a docking big block of text. In effect, I think he's saying Bret is wholly lacking in peer review and the book is hard to find in bookstores. He also says 141 misquoted Bret in order to enhance his EP was gay agenda.

I made the lack of peer review argument ages ago in relation to Nick Adams... and was mostly ignored. However I still agree with it. I think there is a consensus of four editors here who recognize one way or another that the Bret cite is worthless. If we would all simply monitor this page and delete 141's attempts to re-insert the material, this issue would dissappear quickly. On the other hand, in absence of active editing support (which is all that really counts) retaining the section with scathing disclaimers (perhaps renamed as DDG suggested) is ok by me too. I think the dispute tag should go now, unless TW has anythng else to dispute. Wyss 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia policy, not peer review. We need to hear from User:DropDeadGorgias. Wyss, you don't speak for him and he did the revert because he believed it was correct. We must respect his opinion, that is part of consensus building. Big text? Infinitesimal compared to Anon's! - Ted Wilkes 21:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm speaking for DDG? Why do you continue being so hostile and confrontational? Why don't you understand that peer review is a matter of WP policy? Wyss 21:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

TO DropDeadGorgias - all the reasons for deleting the entire subsection of Presley's sexuality has been presented by me. If you believe my statements on the matter are insufficent reason, then please state that so that we know your views and I can assist you in any manner in coming to a consensus on an important and fundamental issue. Also, I respectfully request you answer the two questions in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines respecting edits which will go a long way to clarify things as you have stated you want to achieve. Thanks again. I'll do my best to drop the title, but I was raised that way. Cheers, I look forward to your input. - 21:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in the area of Elvis knowledge, so I was hesitant to weigh in on either side. However, it's clear that you, Anon241 and Wyss don't find much credence in the book, while OneFortyOne does. Of the active, regular editors on this page, that seems like a consensus, so I am removing the section for now. OneFortyOne, if you would like to replace the section, you will have to prove on this talk page to the satisfaction of the community the notability of Bret's book; a review from a REPUTABLE source will do (please do not include blogs, or unverifieable sources). If you do prove the notability of the source, we would still have to reword the statement; as I stated before, even the Bret book does not state that Elvis is gay, but that he had a homosexual encounter; the difference is important. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, the said section should be titled, "Rumors on Elvis's homosexual leanings". . Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To: DropDeadGorgias - Note that I stated above in bold quotes that Onefortyone has admitted his statement in the article as to a homosexual encounter between Elvis and Nick Adams was a total fabrication as was the attribution he made to Colonel Parker.

Sorry, Ted, you are wrong. Bret writes: "Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon." The book's blurb clearly says that Bret "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty."

Expertise on Elvis is not necessary to respond to my two questions. Your resinserting of the delted subsection was based on your stated policy view, not on Elvis Presley. So, if I may ask again, would you kindly answer the two questions in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines respecting edits. I fixed this section header to its original so others at Wikipedia who might be interested in such important policy matters could see it. Thanks again, your input and experience is greatly appreciated. - Ted Wilkes 22:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which two questions you're referring to. If you're talking about "* are you asserting that Wikipedia should not have universal policies and that we therefore should ignore the existing Wikipedia requirement for book references that was put into effect by Wikipedians based on consensus achieved for C. A. Tripp and his book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln's sexuality)? * are you asserting that David Bret and his gossip book on Presley meets the level of Wikipedia requirements for academic/journalistic integrity?", then I tried to answer that twice now. No, and no. For the life of me I can't figure out what you're still angry about, so if there are more specific questions let me know. I don't edit wikipedia too much on the weekend, so it might take me til Monday to get back to you. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

TO: DropDeadGorgias - My sincerest thanks for answering my two questions. I agree with your wisdom completely and believe other sincere contributors to this article will be in total accord. I'll try to resolve the other minor things in the Presley article tomorrow and if I get a chance, I'll do my best to work with others on the Nick Adams article. Please relax and enjoy your weekend. And thank you again for your even-handed insight into a difficult but important issue. - Ted Wilkes 22:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If only all of you had spent all this time on something more useful!!!!! One could write a master thesis about Wikipedia policy and the gayness of Elvis based on the contents of this talk page!!!! Anyway, let's not let 141 spend one more second of our time. Enough is enough. I'll k*** this f**** whenever I'll see him change anything in any article in Wikipedia. (129.241.134.241 22:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

I take k*** this f**** to mean keep this faith :) Wyss 22:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nationmaster

Check out this site: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Elvis-Presley Someone copied the contents of the entire Wikipedia. No editing is possible. It says the article was updated a couple of hours ago. It's a great idea for a site btw. (129.241.134.241 22:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

That's one of many WP mirrors, which is a reason why getting key articles accurate is helpful... the info spews across the Internet rather quickly (and since some mirrors don't update often, weak edits have the potential to bring up search engine hits for some time). Wyss 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Further comments

Ted Wilkes said:

User:DropDeadGorgias, stated above I think that the article establishes that the book (by David Bret) has been discredited by other scholars. That is incorrect – the book has never been deemed worthy of a Peer review by anyone as I had already stated.

As to the David Bret gossip book, not only has it not been subject to a peer review, but no musical historians or credible biographers have addressed the issue.

The book has a considerable Dutch review and some newspaper reviews. The problem is that all other books on Elvis are also gossip books not worthy of a peer review. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: For some strange reason today, User:Onefortyone's has now pasted a bunch of meaningless gossip on my talk page with text purportedly from the Gavin Lambert book that is irrelevant to the issue. However, what appears relevant is that my library copy of Gavin Lambert's gossip book titled Natalie Wood – A Life ends at page 370 of the Index. None of the page numbers match what User:Onefortyone says.

According to the Index to be seen at Amazon, there are many more pages. Everybody can read it on the screen. Perhaps there are different versions of the book. All quotes are from the Amazon version of the book. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: However, if anyone were to consider those unproven quotes by User:Onefortyone on page 19 and 20 supposedly belonging to the Bret gossip book on Presley, which I do not, then it only proves that what Bret wrote is pure unfounded gossip and someone expressing nothing more than a personal opinion which is external writing to be excluded as stated above regarding Wikipedia Official Policy Wikipedia:No original research.

Sorry Ted, this is only your personal opinion. It should be mentioned again that most other books on Elvis are gossip publications. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: Please note on my talk page, that User:Onefortyone now admits the Colonel Parker reference in the Presley article is another fabrication and is not in the David Bret book.

Here is what the blurb of the book says: Bret "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." The Amazon webpage allows you to read this text on the screen. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: Without exception, the fabricating of information and distortion has occurred on every one of the few articles User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 has edited, all of which are targeted and interconnected on one homosexual theme to Presley.

Sorry Ted, you are wrong. I have also written on other topics. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: Another fact that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 ignores is that there is no evidence existing anywhere that Nick Adams was gay.

There is much evidence that Adams was gay. Several independent sources support this view. Gavin Lambert, a reputed biographer and himself a homosexual who knew Adams well, says in his Wood biography, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel."

Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: And, the Presley article gives a link to the United Kingdom criminal law Professor David S. Wall article about United States intellectual property law that makes no reference to the sexual preferences issue whatsoever as User:Onefortyone himself has declared. And, the text linked to criminal law professor Wall further violates Wikipedia policy in that it is cloaked in weasel terms in an attempt to make the statement appear to have credibility.

The article clearly refers to the strategies of the worldwide Elvis fan groups to suppress every opinion which is not in line with their view. It also makes mention of the accusations by Dee Presley. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "Supporters of the claims made by David Bret 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. [4]"

This passage was partly written by Wyss or somebody else. It indeed needs rewording. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: ... User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 ... inserted more weasel terms:

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "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' lifestyle."

Sorry, this was not inserted by me. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes said: In conjunction with the fact that there is a total lack of evidence that Nick Adams was gay, the opposite is stated here in an article on Nick Adams that says "Although Nick was straight, and Dean was bi-sexual." And, there is no evidence from any reputable source that Nick Adams was gay or even a close friend of James (Jimmy) Dean.

In his Wood biography, Gavin Lambert states that Adams was gay. Sal Mineo says that Adams and James Dean had an affair. David Ehrenstein, author of a book on Hollywood gays, and other experts also support the view that Adams was homosexual. Onefortyone 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't hear any mention of Elvis Presley there. Meanwhile, as I've posted earlier, the Nick Adams rumours all trace back to the 1972 Mineo interview published by Hadleigh, and there are loads of problems with it. Wyss 04:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Bret says, "That Elvis was obsessed with James Dean during his formative years as an actor cannot be denied. ... He subsequently became involved with two of the late star's friends, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon." There seems to be another, earlier source, Bret must have used. NB: Adams himself says that he had an affair with Elvis. Onefortyone 04:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

By a consensus of active editors, Bret has been discredited as a source, so I'm afraid you can't cite him. Dee Presley, too. Do you have any other (published) sources to cite for your assertion? Wyss 04:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that Bret has been discredited as a source. This is what you and Ted Wilkes claim. Onefortyone 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, you're only repeating the same cites and assertions over and over. If you'll look just above, I mentioned that the NA rumours all seem to devolve from the problematic Mineo interview in 1972. Wyss 04:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You other guys are doing the same, from your point of view. So what. Onefortyone 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, we've reached a consensus that your sources are worthless (unreliable) as cites for this article. Wyss 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

As the "gay" paragraph has been totally removed, I think it is a fair compromise to add the following passage to the "Colonel Parker" section:

There is much speculation as to why Colonel Parker had such a powerful influence on Elvis and the singer did not fire his manager. According to David Bret, the Colonel prevented a leak about Presley's affair with another man from going public and then uses this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty.

This is not very much but gives some credit to a published source. Further speculations may be added to the same section. Onefortyone 10:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

David Bret has been discretdited as a source by a broad concensus of regular editors of this article.

Stop wasting everyone's time and come up with a new source (129.241.134.241 13:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Wikipeduia:No wesasel terms applies as fully documented and discussed here. David Bret and his gossip book on Presley does not meet the established level of Wikipedia requirements for academic/journalistic integrity. Period. Ted Wilkes 13:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some further questions

Which "academic" publications do you use for your contributions to the article on Elvis? Are there any "peer-reviewed" sources on Elvis's private life? If so, would you please list them below. Onefortyone 11:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

New paragraph

I have now created a new paragraph based on a peer-reviewed source, the article by Professor Dr David S. Wall:

==The world-wide Elvis industry==

Most authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Many of the stories about Elvis are written in order to feed the fans and to sell records or CDs. More than 2000 books have been published and the content of the majority of them could be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprizing details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life. Some unfavorable voices sensationally claiming that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or another man, that he raped his wife or had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer may have been motivated by money. All such publications are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Dr David S. Wall has shown 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 ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."

To my mind, these critical remarks must also be included in the article. You may add some further details. Onefortyone 12:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm charmed by your "Professor Dr David S. Wall": in English, this is a new usage for me; are you adopting it from German, perhaps? Anyway, you say, or cite the good Doc/Prof as saying There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. I take your/his word for this. Well, there are various imaginable explanations. First, perhaps Elvis was a pleasant (if somewhat naive) fellow. Secondly, perhaps he wasn't, but aside from Elvis fans (I'm not a fan, at least of his post-Sun years) and a few wallowers in deceased celebrity, perhaps there just aren't that many people who are interested. Or perhaps those who are interested are satisfied by Goldman's book.

Whatever "endorse" means, why might fan clubs be expected to "endorse the book" (manuscript) allegedly written by a "former step-mother"? (Incidentally, I'm not even sure I understand what a "former step-mother" is.) And if one publisher backs out of publishing a book, it's normal for another -- perhaps a smaller one -- to take its place. Do we have reason to believe that this manuscript exists and is any good?

Incidentally, thank you for posting this notice of your addition here on the talk page, but you should also use edit summaries. -- Hoary 13:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have now changed the wording and written, "David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology", but I think the other version is shorter. ;-) Significantly, another user has totally deleted the new critical paragraph. The whole article on Elvis seems to be dominated by Elvis fans, which certainly proves that Professor Wall is right. And yes, the Dee Presley manuscript exists. See [22] There is also a summary of the claims in the National Enquirer. This has already been discussed. Onefortyone 13:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It absolutely does not. I personally can't stand Elvis, and neither Wyss nor Ted Wilkes are fans of him. (129.241.134.241 15:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Query: why did you delete the whole paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry? Onefortyone 16:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, Ted Wilkes has now also removed the Memphis Mafia paragraph from the article. These men played a signicant part in Elvis's life. Therefore, they should be mentioned in the article's "Relationships" section, especially in view of the fact that Wllkes has written many gossip paragraphs on the singer's relationships with women. Should they also be removed? It seems as if Ted Wilkes is now trying to delete everything I have written. Onefortyone 14:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Memphis Mafia

• No, I did not remove it. Check the edit. I placed it in the Trivia section with a link a note that there is a full article on the Memphis Mafia. Ted Wilkes 15:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, you did remove it from the "Relationships" section. Then you have included only a short note in the "Trivia" section at the end of the article. As these men played an important role in Elvis's life, this is not O.K. They must be mentioned in the "Relationships" section. Onefortyone 16:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To:User Hoary

• Re Professor David S. Wall article reference. I'm tempted to e-mail the professor to point out that he stated a Dee Presley book was published then withdrawn. It never happened and professor Wall should have simply gone to the United States Library of Congress online database here (on the web since 1993) and searched: Presley, Dee for this supposed book. All published books are registered at the Library of Congress. If it is published and withdrawn as this claims, it still had to be registered and given an ISBN number to be sold. Had professor Wall looked on the web, and his article says he did Web research, it would show Dee Stanley-Presley only published one book and that was in 1980 (released January 1, 1981) sold here. It is strange that a university professor didn’t do that basic research, after all, his own books are registered there as required by law. (See Library of Congress Wall, David = Wall, David, 1956-). Next, for UK professor Wall to say that an American publisher would withdraw an Elvis book from the market is absurd. Every publisher dreams of getting that kind of controversial publicity for their books. Today authors spend big money for press agents to drum up publicity for new releases and many plant controversial stories to generate publicity. The good UK professor was writing a legal article as a Criminal Law Professor and diverted a small bit into American religion and American book publishing where he has no personal knowledge/experience and academic training. He called all the fan clubs part of the Moral Majority – I'm sure Jerry Falwell loved that. Note that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority refers to Ph.D’s straying into areas where they have no expertise.

I do not think that it is of much importance that Professor Wall wasn't right in believing that the book by Dee Presley had been published, as Dee has written an article summarizing her claims for the National Enquirer. Other authors also mentioned what she stated, and it seems as if all these writers didn't knew that there was only a manuscript of the book. Even Elvis fans were of the opinion that a published book exists. More important is the fact that Ted Wilkes has deleted the whole critical paragraph I have written. It seems as if he wants to suppress every critical remark in the article. I think this is not O.K. To my mind, it proves that Professor Wall is right. Onefortyone 16:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. – The reason Dee Presley is an ex-stepmother is that they legally separated in 1974 and the final divorce decree was granted in 1977. According to Priscilla Presley's book, Vernon Presley was engaged to someone named Sandy Miller at the time of Elvis's death. – God, I was never a Presley fan (except for In The Ghetto) but with all this stuff at Wikipedia, I'm tired of having to read and reseach stuff about him just to disprove fabrications. - Ted Wilkes 15:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

All the edits that User:Onefortyone is now inserting are variations of the same exact issues that has already been fully discussed here and removed by consensus, said consensus in compliance with existing Wikipedia Official Policy. Ted Wilkes 15:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, this is a totally new paragraph concerning the world-wide Elvis industry. I think critical remarks on the activities of fan groups should not be excluded from the article. Onefortyone 16:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

A reply to both of youse.

Sorry but I'm still connected via modem and thus am unwilling to spend a lot of time online, looking at various pages. I do have the quotation by Wall in front of me, though -- in this version, in which we aren't told which of Wall's papers the quote was taken from). This says nothing about the rightist US "Moral Majority" [capitalized] and nothing about American (or other) religion. Meanwhile, it's probably not true to say that Wall "was writing a legal article"; it's clear from his CV that he has sidelines in popular culture and the sociology of law. Neither is it fair to throw "Beware false authority" at his writings: first, the quotation does not claim to present an authoritative judgement but rather seems to be presenting a more or less academic argument; secondly, Wall's explorations of Elvis are in no way analogous to, say, senescent gabbling about "racial differences" delivered by somebody who'd made his mark somewhere in the natural sciences decades previously; rather, they are published in what appear to be peer-reviewed academic journals.

I'm still very puzzled by this bit: 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 ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. Perhaps Wall explains what it means for a fan club to "refuse to endorse" a book, and what the "economic action" might be.

I haven't read any of Wall's articles and now find myself wanting to do so. (I'm sure I'd find them more compelling than, say, Elvis's movies.) Without reading any of it, yes, I find it easy to imagine that fan groupls might indirectly exert some sort of restraining effect. Further, it's clear that Elvis has a particularly large fanbase, or anyway one that has a particularly large number of elderly gents who'd have the time necessary to orchestrate campaigns, etc., if they wished to do so. But I wonder if the fanbase or fan pressure is unusual in other ways. My uneducated guess is that Wall is writing less about postmortem Elvis than about postmortem celebrity as exemplified by Elvis.

Biographical books that write unfavorable things certainly can be suppressed at one stage or other before publication. Surely the main reason is fear of litigation. It's simplistic to claim the commercial success of some scurrilous works shows that publishers are looking for the scurrilous: their sense of responsibility (etc.) aside, they have to balance what's likely to sell and what's likely to have them taken to court. My second uneducated guess is that the Elvis fan clubs work to present an airbrushed version of their hero in their own publications (well, no surprise there) and also might in some way aid libel lawsuits about other publications.

Meanwhile, as for the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life, while the costumes (and to a lesser degree the weight) are abundantly photographed and widely available for the unintended hilarity of all, I don't know what "excessive sex life" means. Excessive demands for sex? Unusual promiscuity? -- Hoary 02:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Violation of 3rr by Onefortyone

See for yourselves:

16:54, 20 August 2005 Onefortyone
13:47, 20 August 2005 Onefortyone
12:46, 20 August 2005 Onefortyone
10:39, 20 August 2005 Onefortyone

Onefortyone is asked to adhere to Wikipedia policy from now on (129.241.134.241 17:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

129 - Just revert him (He did this to try and trap me because I've used my limit). I've prepared a notice for the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR to have him blocked if he tries again. Ted Wilkes 17:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Critical paragraph concerning the world-wide Elvis industry

My opponents are frequently deleting the whole critical paragraph. As far as I can see, there is no consensus to exclude the whole thing from the Elvis article, as has been claimed by Wyss. The paragraph may be rewritten. Somebody else may add more details. But I think it is important to have a critical voice in the article. Wikipedia is no fan site. There is enough gossip stuff in the article. Onefortyone 17:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

He won't go away unless we all ignore him. I know, I know, I'm not supposed to say that, I'm just giving an idea to the other regulars. We all know 141 spent lots of our time on rubbish. He also has a complete lack of respect for Wikipedia rules. Let's not FEED THE TROLL. He ought to take a break now and come back after we've had some rest (129.241.134.241 22:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC))

129.241.134.241, yes, I know that Onefortyone has spent a lot of people's time with his introductions here and there of talk that this or that person was bisexual or (unusually) "gay-friendly". Moreover, his first effort at adding a section inspired by Wall's allegations struck me as very dubious. I'm not happy with his latest version, either, but I do think that there could well be something in it that's worth saying. Actually when I look at the latest arguments above, both primarily addressed to me, presented by 141 and TW, I'm happier with 141's than with TW's. I don't think that this means that I have "switched sides" from that of TW to that of 141; on the contrary, I think (and like to think) that I was never on any contributor's "side" and have -- only sporadically, as "real-world" activities have often been more demanding and, frankly, more interesting and enjoyable -- been trying to evaluate arguments on their merits. I strongly encourage you to do the same. But if you want some rest, by all means take it. At the least, I'd thank you for taking a permanent break from talk of factions and of ganging up on this or that contributor (cf this subthread. -- Hoary 03:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A para on the world-wide Elvis industry would be helpful and I'm willing to work with 141 on developing one but as it stands it's not IMO notable and truth be told, still seems like an effort on 141's part to insert his singleminded agenda somehow, some way into the article. Using that para to insinuate that 141's unsupported agenda is being suppressed by that industry would not be so helpful. Readers should see 141's contribution history for further context on this. Finally, 141 is amiably reminded that my post here only applies to this article. Wyss 06:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Response re "A reply to both of youse.":

User:Hoary - In the United Kingom where Professor Wall is from, they generally spell Moral Majority without capitals (it's a European French and other language influence) as seen here in the very proper Brit newspaper The Guardian. As to your statement: Meanwhile, it's probably not true to say that Wall "was writing a legal article". I never make a statement unless I can back it up with facts. And, because User:Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 has a history of systematically inserting numerous fabrications, I tend to download articles and read them in full before commenting. When I referred to professor Wall's article as a legal article it was accompanied by my reciting the statement of fact from his article introduction as seen Section under dispute here but I will print it a second time as follows:

• 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.

You also said: Neither is it fair to throw "Beware false authority" at his writings: first, the quotation does not claim to present an authoritative judgement but rather seems to be presenting a more or less academic argument.

A "more or less" academic argument is not encyclopedic. And, as I stated above, the Wikipedia warning (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority) specifically refers to Ph.D's writing about matters where they have no expertise. Given the significant errors and misconcepts pointed out in the professors assertions, it is obvious Wikipedia policy is right. One of professor Wall's suggestions, which you referred to previously, defies logic and seems to clearly advocate the concept that no one should disagree with the contents of any book being published. In this regard, the good professor has no expertise in economics (I do) and doesn't understand the basic concept of free enterprise that drives competition for headlines between all celebrity fanclubs. (Note how they show up on celebrity articles throughout Wikipedia. Take a look at the External Links in this [23] version of the Presley article to see the fanclub links – that I deleted. (Note, another one got stuck in yesterday.) However, beyond this, my objection to a mention of professor Wall's broad generalizing exhortation is that it is not relevant to anything about the Presley article. User:Onefortyone tried to use it (as I stated above), to infer that acclaimed authors such as Alanna Nash (Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Society of Professional Journalists' National Member of the Year are part of a worldwide conspiracy to write only favorable views of Presley. This is sheer and utter nonsense. (see precise comments enunciated above). What User:Onefortyone wants is to get this into the Presley article so he can then insist on inserting the "other view" being his mission to give credence to David Bret and his discredited gossip book.

And this version inserted by User:Onefortyone that you pointed out with the comment: This says nothing about the rightist US "Moral Majority" [capitalized] and nothing about American (or other) religion.

I never said the Wikipedia article did. What I said was about the reference, exactly as follows: The good UK professor was writing a legal article as a Criminal Law Professor and diverted a small bit into American religion and American book publishing where he has no personal knowledge/experience and academic training. Nevertheless, as to the section you pointed out inserted by User:Onefortyone, read it and you will see that it epitomizes Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:No original research.

You also said: Biographical books that write unfavorable things certainly can be suppressed at one stage or other before publication. Surely the main reason is fear of litigation.

No, they certainly cannot be suppressed in the USA and this article is referring to an American book publication. The U.S. First Amendment guarantees Freedom of speech in the United States and Freedom of the press. The only restriction is the publishing of hate literature or yelling "fire" in a packed movie theatre etc., which is not litigation, but a criminal offense. The fear of litigation only arises for libel and the USA has the most liberal libel laws in the democratic world. However, libel is irrelevant in this Presley article reference because, as I pointed out above in detail as well as on another related article: Talk:Nick Adams#Disputed text: that reputable:

• Book reviewers also give warnings about gossip and point out in an example such as this (Publishers Weekly) that the subjects of the book: conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased.

Once dead, you can say anything you want about someone. Hence, trash writers have a field day with accusations about deceased personalities because they are free from any form of litigation. Encyclopedias don't quote from these kinds of gossip books.

You stated: Further, it's clear that Elvis has a particularly large fanbase, or anyway one that has a particularly large number of elderly gents who'd have the time necessary to orchestrate campaigns, etc., if they wished to do so. I'm sorry that I cannot see how your opinion relates to the encyclopedic issues at hand. Perhaps you could explain, I'm sure "elderly" music contributors like User:Ortolan88 (whose history shows to be one of Wikipedia's first editors and most respected on music articles) would like to know.

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc relies on repeated insertions of the same text, or slight variations, over and over plus inundating both article talk pages and User pages with his ranting. He relies on the fact that people of good will such as yourself, cannot possibly read and absorb his massive insertions and tend to comment on the last bit he writes. Someone commenting without having read the complete statements and seen the proofs given by everyone involved in the Talk page discussions can result in well-meaning people unwittingly become User:Onefortyone's advocate. As an example of this person's disruption, look at my user page and see the large number of articles I created, most of which are sizeable in content. Check the dates of each to see the time/volume ratio and you will find few other contributors, if any, who surpass it. However, in the past two months, this POV pusher (see the case of: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber), who has repeatedly fabricated text, has disrupted (Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption) myself, and massively so with User:Wyss, plus others to the point where he has wasted virtually all of our time and energies simply trying to stop his personal agenda of distortions and fabrications. User:Onefortyone's tactics work in part because he takes advantage of honorable people trying to work in a spirit of cooperation. One must ask why User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc would go to such lengths?

Whether any Wikipedia contributor likes some, all, or none of Presley's music is immaterial. The fact is, Elvis Presley is an extremely important figure in the history of American culture and for all persons of that stature, Wikipedia articles reflect that. (Funny though, that his Wikipedia article is smaller than that of Madonna (entertainer).

The issue is not Elvis Presley, it is solely about the integrity of Wikipedia articles. I care about Wikipedia's reputation -- someone who repeatedly inserts fabricated text, does not.

Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 13:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I'm amazed at how well you are able to articulate yourself. I read your entire post, I liked the facts that you pointed out about the 1st Amendement and the libel laws in America etc. The only thing I don't understand is why everyone plays along at Onefortyone's terms. All he wants to do is to tire us into submission. Why are you playing along? There is concensus against 141, I myself have started to revert him. As long as his name keeps getting mentioned in this talk page, he will not go away. Trust me, I used to be a troll on a forum, and I certainly didn't go away. The best thing is to ignore him. Use your articulate skills and write a book instead or a good Master Thesis on a subject of your choice. (129.241.134.241 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm connected via modem right now and thus shall limit comments to what I can say off the top of my head.

In the UK people can and do distinguish between "conservative" and "Conservative", "republican" and "Republican", and (so far as they are aware of the baleful concept and organization respectively) "moral majority" and "Moral Majority". Meanwhile, the Guardian, like every publication working to meet tight deadlines, sometimes makes orthographic slips. (Er, you do as well. And I probably do too.)

You're welcome to point out what you see as "significant errors and [misconceptions]" by Wall, but to extrapolate from these to a claim that he has no expertise in the field whereof he writes is quite a jump: you thereby seem to be rating your own expertise in that field higher than the expertise of those that edit the journal. You may be justified in this, of course.

Of The good UK professor was writing a legal article as a Criminal Law Professor and diverted a small bit into American religion and American book publishing where he has no personal knowledge/experience and academic training: I still don't see anything about American religion, at least in the part quoted before -- unless of course you insist that "moral majority" refers to the particular outfit headed by Falwell.

What the First Amendment allows and what is actually allowed are somewhat different. I think you'll find that Fortunate Son, a work about the present "Leader of the Free World", was in effect suppressed, later emerging from another publisher. (By suppression of course I do not mean instructions from any organ of the state.)

"Elderly" was hyperbolic; I meant retirees.

I have occasionally wondered why 141 goes to such extremes to add far-fetched talk of bisexuality to the bios of US yoof stars of the 50s, but I really don't care. Also, I'm no long-distance psychiatrist. I just hope he tires of it.

Elvis's Wikipedia article isn't merely shorter than Madonna's; I think it's shorter than that for The Emancipation of Mimi, merely the most recent CD by the ghastly Mariah Carey -- an article that I rather enjoyed cleaning up a bit (I've no idea why; amateur psychiatrists are welcome to discuss this interesting case). -- Hoary 15:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting. Ted Wilkes is frequently including gossip stuff in this and related articles based on publications such as Priscilla Presley's book which was written by ghostwriters. On the other hand, he repeatedly accused me of not having cited peer-reviewed sources. Now I have written a new paragraph based on a peer-reviewed source and he again says it is not O.K. I think Ted Wilkes should carefully read what is written in the Wikipedia article on double standards. NB: You may rewrite parts of the new paragraph, but the whole thing should not be deleted.

By the way, here are some further publications by Professor Wall:

• Wall, D.S. (1995) Reconstructing Elvis, Refereed Working Papers in Law and Popular Culture, Series Two, Number 2. Manchester: Manchester Institute for Popular Culture
• Wall, D.S. (1996) 'Reconstructing the Soul of Elvis: The social development and legal maintenance of Elvis Presley as intellectual property,' International Journal of the Sociology of Law, vol. 24, pp. 117-143.
• Wall, D.S. (1997) 'Taking Care of Business: Trade marking the soul of Elvis', New Law Journal, vol. 147, pp. 540-541. Onefortyone 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A published and widely distributed book written by his ex-wife assisted by professional writers sounds like an encyclopedic source to me. No double standards there, 141. Meanwhile David Bret and Dee Presley have been discredited, here on this talk page, as sources. So in truth I don't find it very interesting, as you're wont to put. Given the single-minded nature of your edits and your endless wiki-lawyering (I'll stop there), your credibility even regarding the "Elvis industry cabal" is wearing rather thin. Wyss 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you really of the opinion that Priscilla Presley's gossip book is a reliable source? Sorry, Wyss, you should also read the Wikipedia article on double standard. 80.141.238.225 18:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

TO User:129.241.134.241 - Your advice is well taken and I agree with your comment (above) to not FEED THE TROLL. As to writing a book, I already have a published book but it would bore (....zzzzzzz) most folks to tears because it is about finance. Ted Wilkes 20:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I reported three reverts in 24 hours by Onefortyone in my edit comments. There are Four reverts in total by User:Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.etc.

1. 13:19, August 22, 2005 Onefortyone
2. 14:08, August 22, 2005 Onefortyone
3. 14:44, August 22, 2005 80.141.205.6
4. 20:17, August 22, 2005 Onefortyone

The world-wide Elvis industry

My opponents are frequently deleting the whole critical paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry. As far as I can see, there is no consensus to exclude the whole thing from the Elvis article, as has been claimed by Wyss. The paragraph may be rewritten. Somebody else may add more details. But I think it is important to have a critical voice in the article. Here is again the disputed paragraph:

==The world-wide Elvis industry==

Most authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Many of the stories about Elvis are written in order to feed the fans and to sell records or CDs. More than 2000 books have been published and the content of the majority of them could be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprizing details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life. Some unfavorable voices sensationally claiming that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or another man, that he raped his wife or had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer may have been motivated by money. All such publications are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology, has shown 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 ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."

I do not understand what should be wrong with this paragraph which is based on a peer-reviewed source. Onefortyone 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now added some new passages on Elvis's death. These have also been deleted by User:Wyss without commentary:

There was much discussion about the exact cause of Presley's death. When he died, his system contained traces of ten different drugs, including morphine and codeine. However, the doctors determined that "hypertensive heart disease" had caused the death. It should be pointed out that from late 1973 until his death, Elvis was in and out of hospitals, officially for treatment of pneumonia, exhaustion and other ailments. In truth, he was battling a long term dependence on prescription drugs, as well as weight problems. During 1975 and 1976 his performances were increasingly erratic. One Las Vegas engagement was canceled when he collapsed, in tears, on stage. Certainly drugs and gluttony contributed to his downward spiral.

Indeed, Presley stands as a preeminent example of the dangers of excess. Onefortyone 18:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary contained zero commentary and I suspect you entered the new content in the hopes of entrapping someone. Given the endlessly repetitive and discredited quality of your past edits, I would strongly suggest that if you have new content to insert, that you plainly specify what you have done in the edit comment line. I may otherwise revert you without checking. Wyss 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wyss comments and based on the conduct of User:Onefortyone, only an immediate reversal can apply. His latest diatrible is in fact important, but couched in weasel terms, and non-encyclopedic terminology with unsourced references, it is far from acceptable. I still have some minor fixing to do on this article re disputed items and will also write something on this c.1975 period when it appears the prescription drugs were taking its toll. I believe Kathy Westmorland, a Presley back up vocalist with whom he had an affair, wrote about it in her book. I think she was part of the group that is rumored to have walked off stage during a performance. Ted Wilkes 18:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

Two points:

1) No entertainer has ever had their life and intimate relationships examined in as much detail as has Elvis Presley. Even the FBI had a file on him of more than 600 pages. This is not good style for an encyclopedic article, is it? I mean, an enthusiastic, unverifiable affirmation...

While plausible, it is a bit over the top. Is there a citation for this? Wyss 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Over the top? I wrote that statement based on the number of 1) books written about him, including those specifically about relationships or by the women he was involved with 2) the number of television documentaries on his life, etc. No other entertainer comes close. As to the FBI claim, I put back the External link. Ted Wilkes 21:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What about Michael Jackson? And what are those 600 FBI pages compared to the data compiled on him prior to his trial? We know exactly what porn magazines he likes, for Christ's sake ( Club, nude boys etc ). (129.241.57.142 07:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm not sure that's enough to solidly back the sweeping assertion but I'd say he must be in the top three or four and don't see much need to dispute it. Wyss 21:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. It is not a sweeping statement but is based on facts that I don't think need detailing because the evidence is overwhelming and would be a waste of space. We have a link to the 370+ plus books (note I never claimed the 2,000 but it may in fact be valid). Do a search for any other entertainer or check the Library of Congress keyword search and the closest to him is less than 1/10 of that total. Go to IMDB and check the number of films about Presley and do a similar search for any other entertainer. Again only a tiny fraction. etc. etc. 23:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

2) In the trivia:

• His given middle name at birth was Aron ([5]), however Aaron was placed on his gravestone by his father because Elvis preferred that biblical spelling and planned on legally changing it.
• According to another, more widespread urban legend, Elvis did not die in 1977, and may be alive today (see Elvis sightings).

What is the other, more widespread legend refered to? The previous (and first) item in the trivia is not presented as a urban legend...

The trivia section constantly gets messed up by editors who enthusiastically add stuff but don't pay attention to context or flow. Wyss 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His middle name is not "urban legend", it comes from the Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. website owned by Lisa Marie Presley and new partners. Ted Wilkes 21:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

A source from 1957 which claims that Elvis may occasionally have had homosexual leanings

NOTE: The rules for titling of Sections are universal, be they the article or the article's Talk page. False and inappropriate headings designed will be amended or deleted. Ted Wilkes 22:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The heading, "A source from 1957 which claims that Elvis may occasionally have had homosexual leanings" is neither false nor inappropriate. Onefortyone 22:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from his relationships with women, there is some evidence that Elvis may occasionally have had sexual relationships with men. The Guardian writes:

When he brought Priscilla back to the States to live at Graceland, ostensibly under the chaperoning protection of his father Vernon and his new wife Dee, Elvis also brought back a taste for womanising. From now on, the restraints were off. The partying that had, in 1957, drawn thinly-veiled accusations of homosexuality - a scandal mag ran an article with the headline 'Presley's Powder-Puff Pals', showing a picture of Elvis and Liberace with the caption 'Two prominent bachelors' - was now progressing into fully-blown orgies. See [24]

NB: This is undoubtedly a source from Elvis's lifetime. David Bret's book, Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2001) and Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley (in a manuscript book and an article in the National Enquirer) also claim that Elvis had some homosexual leanings at about the same time. These are three independent sources. So it should be mentioned somehow in the article that there are accusations of this kind, especially in view of the fact that Ted Wilkes has filled the "Relationships" section with so much gossip relating to Elvis's affairs with women. Onefortyone 13:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Lee's manager, Seymour Heller, and EP's manager, Tom Parker, were friends and also business associates in a "national conference of personal managers." Liberace and EP's vectors of fame were crossing at the time, Heller and Parker thought it would be a good idea to shoot the pair together for some free publicity, so they set it up. That's it. The photos are well-known. Dee Presley has already been discussed here.

141 keeps talking about "independent" sources. That is meaningless. What WP policy refers to are reliable secondary sources, which are rather different. Wyss 13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you mention that it is well known that Liberace was gay? Onefortyone 19:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Oh. Ok, yeah... Brian Epstein was gay too. Does that mean all the Beatles were gay? Get real. Wyss 19:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In his 1988 book on The Lives of John Lennon, Albert Goldman indeed claims that John Lennon had a homosexual relationship with his manager Epstein. Onefortyone 19:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that story's been around longer than that. Nobody knows what happened that weekend in Spain but that's not what I asked. Were all the Beatles gay? There's zero evidence to support such speculation but one thing's for sure... if they had all died by 1970, it's sure there'd be tabloid books saying the four of them had flamin', frickin' orgies with Elvis, Liberace and Nick Adams in Hollywood, and you'd be trying to post it here in order to drive readers to your books. Got any other new content to propose? Wyss 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other editors' comments or headings

Unless they offend against Wikipedia policy (by including personal attacks) this is not allowed. I've warned Ted Wilkes about this already, but as this is a heading rather than a comment I'll give him one more chance. The next such deletion, and he's blocked for twenty-four hours. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages have no special status when it comes to the rules for Wikipedia articles and inappropriate and/or false headings are covered in Wikipedia:Civility. Ted Wilkes 23:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

TO: User:Mel Etitis

• Inappropriate and false headings contravene Wikipedia editing policy. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

NB: The heading, "A source from 1957 which claims that Elvis may occasionally have had homosexual leanings" is neither false nor inappropriate. Onefortyone 23:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, trying to use WP as a platform to sell books is not appropriate. Wyss 00:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

But deleting other editors' comments and headings is against policy; adding irrelevant claims about incivility doesn't help. I've blocked User:Ted Wilkes from editing for a short period in an attempt to get him to see that his behaviour is unacceptable. Now that the article has been protected, it would seem that the combatants have become even more frenetic and out of control here. That's not acceptable, and is likely to leave the article in its protected state indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you did the right things, Mel Etitis. Wyss 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully support Mel Etitis in freezing the article. Unfreezing it in the next few days would be a very unwise thing to do, concidering all the edit wars etc.

I also support the blocking of Ted Wilkes, that guy is totally out of control. And also, I'm glad Wyss came to realise my theories about 141's identity were not that far-fetched as they first seemed :-) (129.241.134.241 15:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC))

Please note the following with respect to this issue: User talk:Mel Etitis#To User:Mel Etitis: Your 3 hour block - Ted Wilkes 16:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Who is he talking to? Does anyone know? Crazy, crazy guy (129.241.134.241 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC))

I did try to assume good faith for as long as possible ;) Wyss 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[sr:Елвис Присли]]. Thanks. --Dungo (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry

Is anybody able to rewrite this paragraph in order to include it in the article?

==The world-wide Elvis industry==

Most authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Many of the stories about Elvis are written in order to feed the fans and to sell records or CDs. More than 2000 books have been published and the content of the majority of them could be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprizing details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life. Some unfavorable voices sensationally claiming that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or another man, that he raped his wife or had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer may have been motivated by money. All such publications are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology, has shown 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 ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." Onefortyone 22:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't let him tire you into submission. No-one forces you to even read what he's writing. (129.241.134.241 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC))