Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 23

• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive1
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4

If you're here to have a look because of the RfC, please read archives 3 and 4 first, thank you. Wyss 10:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice

There is no better demonstration of how some Wikipedia users, who are presumably part of the world-wide Elvis industry (User:Wyss himself recently claimed to have had contact with the managers), are trying to suppress opinions which are not in line with their personal view, although several independent sources (published books, reviews, articles, websites) say that there is some evidence that Elvis may have had homosexual affairs with men and that some Hollywood actors, such as Elvis's friend Nick Adams, were gay. The more I think about their biased statements (see, for instance, [1] and [2]) the more I think Professor David S. Wall is right when he says 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." Now these people are acting against different opinions in Wikipedia articles which do not support a favorable view of the singer. I do not think that this is a neutral point of view according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Onefortyone 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

                     # # # # WIKIPEDIA CONSENSUS # # # # 

By a majority of users of this forum, we find the behaviour of user Onefortyone disruptive, his contributions single-minded, his tactics dishonest. As shown in the plentiful replies to his edits and posts on the talk page, we have adressed all his contributions, yet he repackages his ideas into new forms using the same tactics as before.

We choose not to address his post/edit in an intelligent manner, which we have done a multitude of times in the past, but rather to place this segment of text to show other WP users and administrators that it is not the case that Onefortyone is being discriminated against. It is not the case that NPOV is threatened. It is the case that we have run out of resources to continue our battle with him and resort to a new measure.

                  # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 

(129.241.134.241 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

As I have said here I don't feel User:129.241.134.241's way of dealing with this situation is appropriate. Taking it to WP:RFC is the appropriate step. I've posted this article at Articles for Comment to get some more feedback. If you feel that Onefortyone's actions are inappropriate, then you should follow accepted procedure, rather than making what amount to arbitrary rulings.

As I have also said, I have no connection with Elvis Presley. I'm not much of a fan of his at all, beyond one or two songs. My objection is that the sources for the rumours are entirely without credibility (as I have stated when the sources were presented), and that new sources are being sought out to support Onefortyone's established point of view that Elvis was gay, rather than assessing the strength of all the evidence. KeithD (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I have no connection with Elvis Presley, his family or his management and never have, nor have I ever even been a fan (except for a couple of his earliest Sun rockabilly recordings I guess).

• I could care less about his bedroom forays, or "preserving" his memory- I think EP was a drug-adled mess truth be told... what I do care about is the appropriate sourcing and building a reliable, helpful and reasonably accurate, balanced encyclopedia from the documented record.

• Disclosure (since as wonted, 141 is trying to twist something I wrote): The only personal connection I may have with the story has to do with some pictures 141 mentioned since I do have a long ago connection with Liberace's management, whose article I have worked on extensively by the bye and who was unambiguously gay (although this was publicly denied during his lifetime) and which is plainly reflected, through references to the widely documented public record, in Lee's article. Moreoever I'm no "fan" of Lee in any esthetic or musical sense, other than to say he was among the nicest people I ever met (and I'd say what they call a "true show business professional"), which made a big impression on me as a little girl when he was on the periphery of my life before he tragically died.

• Readers are invited to take this as an indication I'm more than willing to characterize someone's lifestyle in an article when the historical record supports it and any mention of it is handled in an encyclopedic way. Wyss 09:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In order to avoid endless repetition of previous discussions, I have deleted a large block of repetitive, copied material posted here by 141. Please see Talk:Elvis Presley/archive4 to read his proposed contributions in context, with editor responses as to the reliability of his sources and conclusions. Wyss 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Significantly, you have deleted from this talk page a substantial paragraph I have written. See [3]. This was a summary of the claims including additional material supporting the view that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. I do not understand your behavior. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, you are not allowed to delete paragraphs written by other users from talk pages. Onefortyone 21:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss - You have deleted another contributor's comments? It's interesting that that is the exact opposite of what you stated at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive3#Deleting other editors' comments or headings. Nonetheless, I am glad you have now examined Wikipedia policy enough to realize I was right. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO the context and circumstances are starkly different and have much to do with the sheer volume and repetition of the material involved. However, the superficial irony is noted :) Wyss 17:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk page usage

Wikipedians established proper procedure for section headings at Talk:Abraham Lincoln. Be it the article or its Talk page, they appear on Internet search engines such as Google and those who come here can promote their agenda on the Talk page even if it is not in the article. Wikipedia:Wikiquette states that contributors are to "Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy." Further, such abuses may be corrected in accordance with Wikipedia:Refactoring. As such, removing advocacy writing and amending improper headings that were on this and previous pages is proper and essential to so that they meet Wikipedia standards and maintain credibility. Ted Wilkes 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that, rather than archiving the same recurrent discussion over again, we create a dedicated sub-page for the debate, like "Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality," or something. That way, the discussion can rage on without cluttering the talk space and precluding any other discussion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea, as users Wyss and Ted Wilkes have repeatedly deleted my contributions concerning this matter which are supported by several independent sources they wish to suppress. See Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality. Onefortyone 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[Note how 141 inserted his comment between the above and my earlier response] Wyss 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course 141 likes that idea, since he wishes to endlessly re-paste the same material over and over until he can find an admin who is lazy, ignorant and reactionary enough not to read the background and do something ill-advised and drastic in the name of "compromise." Fortunately, such admins seem to be far and few between, if they are active (or interested) at all.

Anyway we're writing an encylcopedia here, not a tabloid. Nothing by 141 has been "suppressed", or "censored." His sources have been rejected as unreliable and unencyclopedic in strict accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please see Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3 Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4 for the full discussion. Wyss 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you mention that I have provided additional sources that are certainly reliable and encyclopedic. Onefortyone 21:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Under normal circumstance that might be a helpful idea but with all due respect this might be a dis-incentive for readers to read archives 3 & 4, and an opportunity for 141 to re-paste the same assertions (which have already been responded to as to appropriateness and reliability of source) onto yet another page for a "fresh" rundle of editors to start from scratch with. I humbly suggest that the discussion remain on this talk page and (very broadly speaking) only "new" commentary from editors, including 141, be accepted. Wyss 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at DropDeadGorgias' remarks. (Note I removed the link so it is not highlighted in bright red as Onefortyone likes.) We already dismissed David Bret's writings as not suitable for an encyclopedia so what new facts have been provided that warrants continuing a discussion on the topic? Earl Greenwood's book? What does it really say? Onefortyone has repeatedly lied and inserted fabrications into this and every other article he has been involved with. Wyss was right about what creating such a Talk article would do. Why on earth would Wikipedia want to give a proven liar and major disruptive force at Wikipedia another platform for them to spew out more fabrications in aid of their agenda? Ted Wilkes 18:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I wouldn't say it as bluntly as Ted Wilkes does, but I agree with him 100% on this. We're waiting for comment now and I strongly suggest the only appropriate way to do that is to point intersted editors to Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3, Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4 and wait for their comments on this page. If 141 has a new source to vet I guess he can do it on this page but endlessly re-pasting and re-discussing these same non-existant and blatantly made-up tabloid sources would be nothing short of abuse (User:KeithD recently said something similar on 141's talk page). Wyss 20:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Augh, I am not endorsing either POV, I am merely stating that as an alternative to repeating the same discussion, if the discussion is to continue, rather than archive it and have 141 paste it back here, it should be moved into a sub talk page; particularly if the material is still important in regards to an ongoing RFC; rather than force new editors to troll through the archives (which are going to be pretty much incomprehensible to new reviewers, due to the constant refactoring and interjections made by 141 during regular discussions). I am not suggesting reopening debate- I am suggesting that the relevant sections to the RFC be put on a sub-page. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolling?! Not endorsing either PoV?! I am strongly against this idea. If an editor wishes to participate in this RfC, the editor shouldn't have any trouble reading the background in the archives. Insisting that we repeat all these arguments is, in my respectful and humble opinion, utterly abusive and a complete waste of time. Allowing 141 to again paste his unsupported and already discredited assertions (which have already been characterised as such by at least six editors) would be in itself a clear and unambiguous support of 141's disruptive and anti-encyclopedic "PoV."

Finally, I guess I have to say it again: I am absolutely convinced 141 wishes to insert the words homosexual and gay into the Elvis Presley and Nick Adams articles as often as syntactically possible in order to skew Google keyword searches for the purpose of driving readers to tabloid books written by (the widely discredited author) David Bret. Wyss 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what this user constantly claims in order to denigrate my contributions. It is a fact that there are several independent sources supporting my view, as every unbiased reader can see. My opponents wish to suppress these sources. Onefortyone 21:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See? More repetition. Endlessly. 141 has said this at least a dozen times (likely a lot more). There is a stark difference between "independent" and reliable or encyclopedic sources. I have mentioned this to him every time he's brought it up and he has never once responded to it. Wyss 21:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's easy...

• Look at Onefortyone's contrib history.
• Read Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3 and Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4. Wyss 21:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify something above. A comment of Wyss' a few posts up could be read to suggest that I left a comment on Onefortyone's talk page saying that his comments were abusive, which is not what I said. It could also be read (in the correct manner) to suggest that as those editors who were active on this talk page at the time when an RfC was filed (on the article, not on any particular user) had reached an impasse, I was looking for a solution to that impasse. My suggestion was that those editors (Onefortyone, Wyss, and myself) hang back for a week, and see what other editors have to say about the issue. Onefortyone's reply suggests that he thinks the best option is this subpage, and thus presumably not holding fire for a week, although I don't see that this will address the impasse, rather it's just moving it to somewhere else.

As for whether the subpage is a good idea, or whether the archives suffice, I'm in two minds. It seems sensible to have all the information relating to a single topic in one place, and summarising the whole debate can be very helpful in assessing its merits (and regardless of whether the subpage is kept or not, I'd like to see someone collate the debunking of the various sources that have been cited, for the record). However, I also think that understanding the nature of the debate is, in this case, as important as understanding the content of the debate. I don't think that having a subpage is going to actually help or improve the debate. It's not the case that there are other issues being drowned by the volume of discussion about the homosexuality rumours, there just simply isn't any other discussion relating to Elvis Presley at the moment. On balance, I think the subpage is probably not beneficial at this point in time.

At the moment, I think the most important thing is for other editors to pass their unbiased eye over the whole debate, and assess the strength of the sources that have been cited. Whether that comes with Onefortyone, Wyss and myself hanging back or not, I don't know. KeithD (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea to have a Wikipedia talk page of this kind, as the claims that Elvis had homosexual leanings exist. There is one important point. When I explained to gay historian David Ehrenstein the problem that some contributors to Wikipedia try to suppress every reference that some Hollywood stars were gay, as everybody can see from the Talk:Nick Adams page and the related archives, the Talk:James Dean page, etc., he answered,

The problem is cultural. Heterosexuality is regarded as universal and a self-evident truth. Everyone is supposed to be heterosexual, therefore "proof" of same-sexuality is required. Standards of "proof" change constantly. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, "Dizzy" Sheridan (Jerry Seinfeld's mother to zillions of TV viewers) spoke quite candidly about the fact that she knew Dean had an affair with producer Rogers Brackett. [I have used this sentence for the James Dean article.] Gavin Lambert has spoken of Sal Mineo's affair with Nicholas Ray (with whom he had had an affair as well) and Gore Vidal made mention of the Ray-Mineo affair too. Gavin Lambert makes mention of Nick Adams' gayness in his biography of Natalie Wood -- who had a great many gay friends. In sort there is nothing unusual about being gay or bisexual particularly in Hollywood. It's the Heterosexual Dictatorship (Christopher Isherwood's useful term) that can't handle the truth.

These are wise words indeed. Query: does anybody really have problems with the fact that there are some authors who say that some Hollywood stars were gay or may have had homosexual leanings? You may think about this. Onefortyone 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Codswallop, 141. You are trying to conflate cultural bias with unencyclopedic citations. WP has plenty of articles about gay celebrities. Wyss 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I said some Hollywood stars. Don't you remember that you and Ted Wilkes are the only Wikipedia users who frequently deleted passages concerning the fact that Elvis's friend, actor Nick Adams was gay? Onefortyone 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone being gay, and no problem with Wikipedia articles saying that anyone is gay provided that there are credible sources to support that. I've not seen any credible sources thus far to suggest that Elvis was gay. Were I to see such a source, I would have no objection whatsoever to that being mentioned in the article. KeithD (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the several independent sources I have cited are reliable enough. Onefortyone 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Independent"? Sigh. Wyss 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have nominated Talk:Elvis_Presley/Homosexuality for deletion. Wyss 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we're at an impasse, Onefortyone: you think they're reliable enough, whereas I feel that, as I've said, a scandal mag, an unpublished manuscript, the National Enquirer, and a book by an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts" are about as non-credible as could be found. The photo is speculative and perhaps even less credible. This impasse is exactly why we should be seeking input from other editors, rather than repeating the exact same points over and over. KeithD (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not see that Bret's book on Elvis has been widely criticized. There is a positive Dutch review. There are two further sources, an unpublished manuscript book written by Elvis's stepmother and a published book by his second cousin, which include similar claims. Onefortyone 22:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's sad. I was going to provide a Google link so readers could see multiple reviews of Bret's book, but his keyword seeding on WP has now fanned out onto the mirrors, and the search mostly brings back copies of the disputed references on Wikipedia. This is exactly why 141's activities are, IMHO, so abusive and unhelpful. [4] Wyss 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that, on another talk page, you or Ted Wilkes claimed that the book has been dismissed totally by the literary community. Now you claim that there were multiple reviews. For the positive Dutch review, see [[5]] The World Entertainment News Network, March 30, 2002, includes the following summary:

(snip) Wyss 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that user Wyss has again deleted a paragraph I have written. See [6]. Onefortyone 23:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone 22:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice 141's tactic of both twisting my remarks out of recognition (bad faith) and then pasting massive amounts of partially repetitive text onto the talk page in order to obfuscate and deter any attempt at reasonable discussion. Wyss 22:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We've had this exact same discussion before, Onefortyone. It goes like this: I say that I don't speak Dutch, and that the summary doesn't say one way or another whether the claims have any verifiability, it just reports what Bret says. I then provide the link to a review of Bret's book about Errol Flynn, which picks it apart mercilessly and at length. [7]

That you are unable to read Dutch texts, does not mean that this review is unimportant. By the way, the review by an Errol Flynn fan you are mentioning was not published in a reputed journal such as The Guardian, Publishers Weekly or The Library Journal. Onefortyone 23:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We're talking in circles. We're having the exact same conversations that can be found in the archives. How do you suggest we move on, and get past this impasse? KeithD (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you mention that there are also positive reviews of Bret's books? See, for instance [8].

(I have removed a large block of irrelevant text relatng to Maria Callas...) Wyss 23:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone 23:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)