Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 2

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

message: User:Wyss, I'm truly sorry that you seem to have difficulty in allowing others to edit something you work on. Remember, at the bottom of the page when you edit there is a reminder that says: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Editing is part of the process on the road to achieving Wikipedia:credibility through the combined effort of many contributors creating quality articles. You've been working very hard on articles today with exhaustive edits  . Why not take a short break, recharge the batteries and I will welcome you back. I want to extend an olive branch and assure you that I will go out of my way to work with you to achieve the quality and factual encyclopedia all sincere Wikipedians want. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 00:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
::I've had plenty of experience with User:Wyss and she seems like a good Wikipedian, which is more than anyone can say about you, Wilkes. And don't bluff anyone with this "let's take a break" thing, we all know that you're banned. (129.241.134.241 04:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians working together

message: Oneforty inserted some stuff about Elvis' "evil" manager Tom Parker, who took a lion's
share of Elvis' money and who "forced" Elvis to play in low-budget comedies. 
Well, on the surface all this sounds like music to my ears - Elvis is portrayed like
a complete idiot. However, is there any truth to this whatsoever, or is this unsupported
gossip? (129.241.134.241 15:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In his book, Colonel Tom Parker: The Curious Life of Elvis Presley's Eccentric Manager (2001), James L. Dickerson goes as far as to write, "One thing, however, meets with general agreement: whatever Elvis's other problems may have been, his biggest failing was his utter dependence upon his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. When they inked their first contract, Parker took an unusual 25% commission; by the time of the King's death, three-fourths of Elvis's income went into Parker's pocket, seemingly without Elvis's knowledge. If Elvis was Faust, selling his soul for the riches of the earth, Parker will always be Mephistopheles, paying with a mess of pottage..." Onefortyone 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never heard it was as high as 75% but wouldn't be surprised if that was at times some sort of net result. Wyss 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Parker 

message: THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:
*"Decades after his death, two published sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay."
- AND –
*"Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him."
RESPONSE: 
First, the book was published in 2001. One of the "two published sources" is Dee Presley as dealt with in the First disputed item above. Anyone coming to Wikipedia can insert anything they want into a Wikipedia article but must be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the source (as previously enunciated on this page by User:DropDeadGorgias) if called upon to do so. User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has never done that, instead he repeatedly reverted others who questioned him and reversed things by demanding whoever disagreed with him to prove his edit wrong.
Note that The Guardian newspaper  opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. Newspapers do review gossip books, but no Encyclopedia ever references them. Book reviewers also give warnings about gossip and point out in an example such as this, that the subjects of the book: conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased.  Such is the case with Bret's writing in that Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and Colonel Tom Parker are all dead.
You will note that in this Presley article and the Nick Adams article that when I added important content, I referenced the author such as Alanna Nash, Peter Guralnick and Elaine Dundy. And, for each of these I either created their biography at Wikipedia or added to their existing bio, inserting academic credentials and external links so that anyone could easily satisfy themselves as to their academic/journalistic integrity. For quotes by both Elaine Dundy and Priscilla Presley, I did an article on their book using direct quotes and/or page number references.
I have prepared considerable facts on the Bret book issue to insert at anytime. However, a Wikipedia policy consensus has already been established on Talk:Abraham Lincoln # Lincoln's sexuality for dealing with similar such issues as Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. For the David Bret writings about Presley that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 wants included in Wikipedia, if he or any other Wiki contributor produces David Bret's academic credentials, the specific information on exactly what his book alludes to, proper peer reviews for the book, and then can show that this matter has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major publications such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, then they can place a similar reference in the Presley article and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book,  The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. 
- Ted Wilkes 23:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm happy to see someone else asserting that peer review is not only possible, but plainly, a needed characteristic of sources cited on a disputed topic, even when it involves a celebrity. I endorse Ted Wilkes second disputed item too. Although published for the tabloid market, there is zero documented historical support for Bret's specific claims/speculation relating to the sexuality of Elvis Presley. Wyss 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Second disputed item

message: User:Ted Wilkes has deleted  extensive commentary by 141 from this talk page. This is in violation of WP policy. His arguments supporting deletion of 141's comments are mistaken. Please restore 141's comments. Wyss 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I totally disagree with some of User:Ted Wilkes' tactics on this page and believe they delay and undermine consensus resolution, I agree with his summary of the problem. Wyss 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there's no need to point out that he repeatedly inserts fabricated text right there. Just dispute each instance individually, and there's no problem. If you have a problem with his repeated editing pattern, the proper channel is an RFC. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
This has already been done exhaustively and repeatedly. The discussion is spinning in circles. Yep, RfC may be the only path. Wyss 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an example of the problems a determined and clever editor can create with worthless sources and assertions. Part of this is caused by the lack of people caring much about whether or not the content appears in the article as it did in the Was Elvis Gay? section. I do understand that, it bores me to tears ;) Wyss 16:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting user comments

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

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