Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 14

message: If you're going to delete a wodge from this or any article:
#Explain yourself in the discussion page
#Be candid and informative in the edit summary
#Clear up any mess after yourself (please see the end of the footnotes)
Thank you. -- Hoary 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass deletions

message: Heh, saw this article on the list of controversial subjects, and wanted to make an offer to be a neutral party here when appropriate.  I have never edited this article, nor do I care to.  I don't care whether Elvis is gay or straight, Fat Elvis or Skinny Elvis, obsessed or not obsessed with James Dean.  I just don't care.  For that reason, I can be neutral about whether Wikipedia rules are being applied appropriately here.  Why am I interested -- because I DO edit on controverisal 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and know that a neutral would be useful there, but seldom seen.  Call it my offer to be a good Wikipedian.  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid! Stick around. -- Hoary 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of controversial subjects

message: I made a slight change to the description of Peter Guralnik in the Further Reading section.  The existing text was not NPOV.  I also edited the text in the Misc. section regarding Groucho Marx as the previous text seemed somewhat biased.--Lochdale 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading and other minor changes

message: A few moments ago I was thinking that we may be able to work out the dispute. You call your contributions "improvements". But now I see that you are totally deleting well-sourced paragraphs I have written which are not in line with your all too positive personal view of Elvis. See, for instance, my contribution concerning Elvis's movies:  or the sections on Elvis's relationships, the FBI files and the allegations of racism: . These paragraphs, which are supported by many independent sources, have all been deleted by you. This is not the way it works here. Therefore, I have decided to revert all of your contributions. Onefortyone 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a criteria or some form of going over each paragraph in the article.  I deleted material from the movies section because it did not fit the timeline and was a repeat of material used earlier.  This article should be straight-forward about his life, that the vast majority of biographies agree on. What you are constantly quoting are fringe views from fringe authors, that although they have a place as a brief mention in criticism; do not warrant as much coverage as you give them.  We come from two sides it seems - however, if your intent is the same as mine, to ensure a fair, accurate, balanced article, that meets wikipedia standards - then lets work out a gameplan from the top down to get the job done.  The first thing I was doing actually was re-organizing this article timeline wise. - I propose we work on the opening paragraph first and move on down from there - you and I can offer improvement to that section - work out any disagreements and produce together a fine article. What do you say to that structure? --Northmeister 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Northmeister, you are wrong. What I am quoting are not "fringe views from fringe authors", as the books and essays I have used are written by reputable Elvis biographers, among them Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Albert Goldman, Greil Marcus and many others. I have also used peer-reviewed studies as the one written by historian Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock and Elvis. As you are repeatedly removing paragraphs which are well sourced, I do not think that it is really your intent to "ensure a fair, accurate, balanced article." However, I will give your proposition a look, and a last try. My first question is: What sources are you using for your improvements? I hope you can provide direct quotes from books and essays on Elvis in order to support all of your contributions. Otherwise your improvements are insignificant. Onefortyone 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good thing Onefortyone, people should remember this is an article about Presley, not a fan page, and therefore all the controversies must be mentioned. Right from the first time I heard "Hound Dog" my father played Big Mama Thornton's version so I could see how Presley just ripped it off black culture and desexualized it. Whatever changes our new guest makes, please revert them at once. (195.93.21.67 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question, 195.93.21.67. Are you an active member of the African American society? Perhaps you may also have a watchful eye over the "improvements" made by user Northmeister. I think it is not acceptable that this user has totally removed several paragraphs from the article, among them the racism section, which seems to be your favorite paragraph. Onefortyone 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article on Thornton says Unfortunately for Thornton, Elvis Presley's smoother and bowdlerized version [of "Hound Dog"] was a major pop hit in 1956 and successfully eclipsed her biggest claim to fame. I'd like to see an explanation of for whom it eclipsed her song and how this was unfortunate. I have Thornton's "Hound Dog" on CD. I have great trouble imagining that it could ever have been a major hit among pale people: it's way too strong and way too good. Was any song as, uh, "nasty" as this a hit among large numbers of pale people in the wholesome 50s? Meanwhile, AOL, if your constant repetition of "steal", "stole" and "stolen" is intended to persuade by some kind of brainwashing, it's failing miserably. Still, thanks for the little joke about Presley getting fat -- in the context of Big Mama Thornton. Hoary 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear AOLuser, your mindless repetition of unexplained claims, together with your mindless repetition of the names of three celebs (none of whom is or was an IP lawyer or similar) is getting extremely boring. Do consider directing your talents elsewhere. Thank you. -- Hoary 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you get an account?  Your comments have been nothing but personal attacks and hysteria. --Northmeister 05:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Onefortyone has been notorious for pushing his fringe agenda into multiple articles across wikipedia, so it is no surprise to see him pushing his pet project here as well.Michael Dorosh 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, Northmeister