Talk:David Bret

message: I have personally updated my personal information, which as the information is about myself, I do feel qualified to add. Somehow I never seem to get things right with Wikipedia. David Bret (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal info.

message: Version 1: 
:David Bret is a French-born author of celebrity books.
Version 2: 
:David Bret is a French-born author of celebrity books and one of Britain’s leading show business biographers. He chiefly writes on the private life of movie stars and singers in a somewhat sensationalizing style.
::The second version should be preferred to the first, as it includes much more information on Bret and his work in concise form.
----
Version 1: 
:Born in Paris, France, Bret now lives in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. He began writing biographies that were published in Britain but without his educational qualifications being provided. After being published in Britain, Bret’s literary agent sold two of his biographies to Carroll & Graf and St. Martin's Press, major publishers in the United States. However, his work had very limited sales and was poorly received in the literary community, panned by critics as lacking in proper research and devoid of  factual documentation and substance. In his 1989 book on Edith Piaf the respected reviewers, Publishers Weekly said, "Bret presents little new information" and referred to his publication on the French star Mistinguett as being more about her bizarre lifestyle than about her art. In the 1990s Bret switched to the successful British tabloid style of sensationalizing the narrative. 
Version 2: 
: ==Life and work==
:Born in Paris, France, Bret now lives in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. He began writing many biographies that were published in Britain. After being published in Britain, Bret’s literary agent sold two of his biographies to Carroll & Graf and St. Martin's Press, major publishers in the United States. Since the late 1980s, several more or less successful biographies appeared, including Morrissey: Landscapes of the Mind (1994), Gracie Fields: The Authorised Biography (1996), George Formby: A Troubled Genius (1999) and Piaf: A Passionate Life (1999). Bret has also written innumerable magazine articles, for instance, for The Stage, and lectured at the University of Chicago.
::Why is it necessary to say in the first paragraph that Bret's biographies were published "without his educational qualifications being provided" and that "his work had very limited sales and was poorly received in the literary community, panned by critics as lacking in proper research and devoid of factual documentation and substance"? From the beginning of the article the biased attitude of the writer is clear. Existing positive reviews of Bret's books are not mentioned. It sounds as if Bret has only written junk publications. How should the writer of this passage know whether Bret's work had very limited sales or not? Others say that he has written some successful biographies. Therefore, the second version of the first paragraph is more neutral, as it presents the facts without prejudice and mentions the titles of some of Bret's most important biographies giving the date of publication. It is also mentioned that Bret has written articles for The Stage and lectured at the University of Chicago, which certainly proves his "educational qualifications". 
----
Version 1:
:David Bret's writings are sold through Internet book stores, the publishers website provides a link to Amazon.com, plus through outlets that specialize in gay materials. Billed by his publisher, Robson Books of London, England as a show-business biographer, Bret writes almost exclusively about the deceased that allows him and his publisher to avoid any lawsuits for libel. His writing on Freddie Mercury was panned for being mostly about the late singer's supposed sexual excesses as was his book on Rudolf Valentino that dwelled on numerous homosexual affairs as well as the lesbianism of Tallulah Bankhead and Marlene Dietrich in his books on them. In his publication on the late Errol Flynn, Bret provided another rehash of already published writings and continued to dwell on homosexuality. 
Version 2:
:Some critics say that Bret's writings, promoted as biographies, even became notorious for dwelling on the homosexual or bisexuality of its subject. They also pointed out repeated inaccuracies in the books involving what most people would consider as fundamental such as in his book on Maurice Chevalier where he refers to the mother of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as being Ethel Kennedy. His writing on Freddie Mercury was panned for being mostly about the late singer's supposed sexual excesses as was his book on Rudolf Valentino that dwelled on numerous homosexual affairs as well as the lesbianism of Tallulah Bankhead and Marlene Dietrich in his books on them. In his publication on the late Errol Flynn, Bret provided another rehash of already published writings and continued to dwell on homosexuality and alleged the late actor was a pedophile.
::What is so important about the selling of Bret's books through Internet book stores, such as Amazon.com, and "through outlets that specialize in gay materials" that it must be mentioned in the Wikipedia article? Most other books are also sold like this. Should we also point out how a Dutch bookseller offers Bret's books in Rotterdam? Again the reader gets the impression that the writer of this paragraph wants to cast aspersions on Bret, as it is said that "Bret writes almost exclusively about the deceased that allows him and his publisher to avoid any lawsuits for libel." This opinion is rather speculative, based only on guesswork, not observable facts. Many other authors are also primarily writing on deceased stars. Once more, the second version is much better, as it centers on the main points of criticism (that Bret's writings became notorious for dwelling on the homosexuality of its subject; that there are repeated inaccuracies in the books, etc.). 
----
Version 1:
:Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality and attempt to generate sales resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 then the following year in the U.S. A.. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that the book exposed Presley's homosexuality and that it explores an incestuous relationship Presley had with his mother and more. This is what the publisher's synopsis says about its book: 
::"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." 
:Without supplying any proof, the book claimed that Colonel Tom Parker (deceased) had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. The book contained numerous errors, demonstrated very limited research, and lacked interviews or evidence from even one source close to the singer nor any facts about the so-called "secret information". Bret's insinuations that Presley had a homosexual relationship was based solely on his own speculation and gossip without providing verifiable and credible sources, facts, or documented evidence of any kind. In addition, Presley's alleged partner Nick Adams had been dead for more than thirty years and Adams' homosexuality too was based on speculation and gossip with no supporting facts provided. The book generated  virtually no sales and was ignored by the mainstream media and even most of the fringe publications never bothered with it. The book was not given any literary critique, not even to pan it. The only source that gave it credence without qualification was the American based Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia advertised as a format that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia article carried things one step further, adding the assertion that: "Many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager." The Wikipedia article did not name any of the "Many journalists."
Version 2:
:Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality and attempt to generate sales resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 and then the following year in the USA. This book is a comprehensive guide to Presley's career on film and TV which analyzes the King's every celluloid appearance, including his 33 films, documentaries, TV appearances, tributes, biopics and retrospectives. Accompanying this study is a short biography of the legend and a complete filmography. The book uncovers some previously unpublished material and presents photographs from the author's personal collection. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that the book exposed Presley's homosexuality. It claimed that Elvis had an affair with actor Nick Adams and that Colonel Tom Parker had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. Indeed, this accusation is proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels. In her book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Dee Presley says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and that he had an affair with Nick Adams. Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his friend Nick Adams. 
::The first version here is indeed interesting, as it shows the tendency of the article to deprecate the claim that Elvis Presley may have been gay. Too much emphasis is laid on this point which makes up only a small part of Bret's book on Elvis. It is said that the book "demonstrated very limited research, and lacked interviews or evidence from even one source close to the singer nor any facts about the so-called "secret information", and that the author's "insinuations that Presley had a homosexual relationship was based solely on his own speculation and gossip without providing verifiable and credible sources, facts, or documented evidence of any kind." It is not mentioned that these "insinuations" are proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. The next passage wrongly says that the homosexuality of Elvis's friend Nick Adams "was based on speculation and gossip with no supporting facts provided." For sources showing evidence that Adams was gay, see above. In addition, the writer of the Wikipedia article claims that Bret's book generated virtually no sales (how should he know this?) and "was not given any literary critique, not even to pan it." For existing reviews of the book, see above. The next two sentences should be deleted, for they contain totally false information: "The only source that gave it credence without qualification was the American based Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia advertised as a format that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia article carried things one step further, adding the assertion that: "Many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager." By the way, the latter claim is also to be found in Bret's book, which was first published in England and then in the U.S.A. Once again, the second version of this paragraph is the better one, but I have now rewritten the text in order to make it shorter. Here is the new version:
Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 and in 2003 in the USA. This 337-page book deals with Presley's career on film and TV and analyzes the King's every celluloid appearance, including his 33 films, documentaries, TV appearances, tributes, biopics and retrospectives. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that "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 further claims that Elvis had an affair with actor Nick Adams and that his manager Parker had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. Similar accusations are also to be found in a book by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. --- POSTED BY ANONYMOUS User:80.141.209.175 and other IPs.
Note from David Bret: Though I am in favour of freedom of speech, I do object to defamatory remarks which have been posted here about myself and others. These will be removed as and when they appear. I also draw attention to my NEW website:
 www.davidbret.co.uk
 unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.167 (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Let us now compare step by step the two versions of the article:

message: This entire article is unsourced. I started trimming, then realized there would be only a name and a bibliography. I will do what I can in the near future; meanwhile I urge anyone who has sources available to copyedit and source this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: As far as I can tell, the only source for Bret lecturing at the University of Chicago is the blurb on the back of his own books.
128.135.100.115 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: I've taken this article to AFD in response to your edit request, as I could not find any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I personally know nothing about you or your books, David, and hold no view whatsoever about your opinions. I only visited this article in response to the open edit request. Wikipedia is governed by policies such as WP:N and WP:V. For articles to exist, they need to demonstrate notability, which must be backed by reliable third party sources. Facts that cannot be verified by a reliable source have to be removed. Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a directory, but to cover notable topics as an encyclopedia. I cannot find sources to verify notability or satisfy the general notability guidelines, so I sent the article to AFD, as is proper. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

text: David, it doesn't matter who made the article, and I've never claimed you created it. All that matters is whether or not the subject matter passes the general notability guidelines. You have been warned in the past about threatening legal action against Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015 

message: OK, this needs to stop. from now on, this page must stick to discussing Content, not Contributors.  
Stick to: What content should be added?- based on what sources? What content should be removed? Does it not have appropriate sourcing? or does it misrepresent what the mainstream opinion is by giving too much weight to a minority view? If you have an issue with an editor, go to their talk page and explain what is wrong and ask for an appropriate correction or acknowledgement. If that doesn't settle the difference, then either go to the administrators board for action or the dispute resolution notice board. The constant pot shots have to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with  here. Indeed I'll go a bit further, from now on I will apply WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:CIVIL  and other relevant polices quite strictly on this talk page (which is on my watchlist), and will be ready to block if they are violated. DES (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, once a comment has been replied to, it may not normally be removed. If there are any comments you wish to withdraw, you can strike them to indicate this. Once all have agreed that they will focus on content not contributors going forward, this thread can be closed and archived so it is out of immediate view. DES (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I pulled the collapse before all the parties had weighed in. For those who are not familiar, This is what it might look like for a short while, then it would be moved off this page to back page as an archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  do you understand my warning above? Will you agree to focus on the content, not the personalities, from now on? , I take your post above to be such agreement, but if you have any problems with this, please say so. Everyone has their full legal rights off-wiki, of course,but per the no legal threats policy, threats or implications of legal action may not be made on-wiki, and anyone activly engaged in a legal action over Wikipedia content may not edit while it is in progress. And both of you, per the civility policy name calling and personal attacks are not allowed. Civility is not always as strictly enforced as it might be, but for the time being, on this page, it will be. If anyone thinks my statements and possible actions here are improper, post on my talk page, or on WP:ANI to get other admins involved, if you think that is needed, but not here, please. DES (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: DES, just chipping in very briefly. I have been mentoring M.M for some time now, with some success. I am sure M.M fully gets this now. Don't you ? Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um... what the hell did I do wrong? Besides not reporting a slew of personal attacks and litigious threats?  --Monochrome_Monitor 20:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, you said, and I quote:  "let's hope he doesn't threaten to kill me or something". This type baseless and inflammatory commentary about other editors is the type that must stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear god, that was addressed earlier. By me. And him. Repeatedly. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear god, the question is, are you going to commit to stop those actions and focus on content and sourcing ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  My content was sourced, with numerous links. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: As a neutral third party, I reviewed the section in question and determined a number of sources were not directly supporting the tone or sentences being applied. WP:SYNTH must be avoided as was the case with the Rotten Tomatoes review. Other sources were stretching their context and sentences following were not being supported. If the sentences removed, by me, are to be reintroduced, they will need better citations. I have also placed a  template that will be in place for 48 hours. If it is not replaced with a valid context accurate citation, it will be removed under our WP:BLP policy. Mkdwtalk 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also unlocked the article to implement pending changes after 7 years of the article being semi-protected. Will see how it goes before deciding if further semi-protection or a full unlock is required. Mkdwtalk 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break