Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 3

message: 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  ) 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 . 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  Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Who is 141?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Shocking stuff. Wyss 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Poll 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Shocking stuff. Wyss 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Nationmaster

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You other guys are doing the same, from your point of view. So what. Onefortyone 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we've reached a consensus that your sources are worthless (unreliable) as cites for this article. Wyss 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Compromise

message: 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)
thread_title: Some further questions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Violation of 3rr by Onefortyone 

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

text: Who is he talking to? Does anyone know? Crazy, crazy guy (129.241.134.241 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did try to assume good faith for as long as possible ;) Wyss 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting other editors' comments or headings

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry