Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry

The following critical paragraph should be included in the Elvis article in this form or another:

==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."

User:Hoary said that the "first effort at adding a section inspired by Wall's allegations struck me as very dubious. ... I do think that there could well be something in it that's worth saying. Actually when I look at the latest arguments ..., presented by 141 and TW, I'm happier with 141's than with TW's." Onefortyone 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone asked me to have a look at this paragraph and see if I could help with it. I have to say, I don't see much encyclopaedic merit in it. The first thing that strikes me - and I hope this isn't construed as a personal attack, but simply as frankness - is that Onefortyone appears to have a rather singular focus on particular aspects of celebrity gossip. Whilst there's nothing wrong with 'specialising' in something with regards Wikipedia edits, it appears to me from the little that I've seen that it's spilling over into adding a certian bias and POV to the articles and this proposed paragraph.

As I say, the paragraph doesn't strike me as having much encylopaedic merit. It implies an unspoken conspiracy for writers to talk up Elvis, thereby giving disproportionate credibility to those who are more scathing of him.

The reality (at least as it appears to me, someone who doesn't really pay any attention to Elvis, other than the one or two songs of his that I like), is that the scathing books are probably being written and are being bought because they're laced with tabloid scandal and gossip, rather than being truthful. They're as much a part of the 'Elivs industry' as the positive books. It's perfectly possible that Elvis fans who write books about him are more likely to display a positive bias, but there's no reason why all Elvis fans would always show bias. As for a world-wide movement (however organised or unspoken it's suggested it may be) to keep suppressed those who 'speak out' against Elvis, simply strikes me as nonsense. (I'm afraid I don't have the interest in the subject to find and cite any sources to support my POV. I've even less interest in unpicking my POV to make it NPOV with regards this article. Sorry).

The paragraph, if it were to have any encyclopaedic merit at all would be something along the lines of "So and so suggests that the large number of Elvis fans world-wide keep suppressed those works that are critical of the singer. However, so and so says that these criticisms are made to lend weight to books that would otherwise be classed as trading in gossip." I certainly don't think it's worthy (in encyclopaedic terms) of any more than a sentence on each side, and quite frankly, I don't think it's even worthy of that. The article in its current state seems (at a cursory glance) to be appropriately encyclopaedic and NPOV. The inclusion of (what appears to me to be) a weak conspiracy theory, and the necessary subsequent debunking wouldn't do anything to improve an article about Elvis Presley, or by association Wikipedia.

I'm not sure that's what you wanted to hear when you asked me to take a look at it, but that's my take on it. And I did manage to use a disproportionate amount of parentheses, so that's got to be good. KeithD (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. The problem is that there are no critical voices in the whole article, except for the paragraph on the influence of Colonel Tom Parker which was written by me. What do you think about the endless passages written by user Ted Wilkes on Elvis's relationships with women? Or what about this passage:

In 1956 America, birthday and Christmas gifts were often music or even Elvis related. A girl might get a pink portable 45 rpm record player for her bedroom. Meanwhile American teenagers began buying newly available portable transistor radios and listened to rock 'n' roll on them (helping to propel that fledgling industry from an estimated 100,000 units sold in 1955 to 5,000,000 units by the end of 1958).

Are they really encyclopaedic and NPOV? Just a question. To my mind, there are several other paragraphs based only on gossip and hearsay which need rewriting. And I am very astonished that you think that "The article in its current state seems (at a cursory glance) to be appropriately encyclopaedic and NPOV." See also [1] Onefortyone 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

At the time of my previous comment, I'd only skimmed through the article. I've just read the entire article. Firstly, I'm not going to search through the history to see who wrote which passages. A Wikipedia article should be spoken with one voice, in reporting the encylopaedic facts about its subject.

I think there's plenty of reporting of criticism in the article. His early television appearances, and all the Elvis the Pelvis stuff, reports criticism. There's a mention of John Lennon being critical of him. The section on relationships doesn't present him in a favourable light. There wasn't anything that struck me as a lack of reporting of criticism.

There are a couple of changes I'd like to see in the article. The Colonel Tom Parker paragraph says "some low-budget standard musical comedies" which loosely implies that the films weren't very good. The Movies section seems to report that they were fairly well received. There's an imbalance between those two passages, which should be addressed with the citing of cinema attendances and reviews from the likes of Siskel and Ebert or similarly respected reviewers.

Elvis himself did not like these low-budget films. Film critics criticized these movies, although many fans may have liked them. The Movies section indeed needs rewriting. It is not critical enough. Onefortyone 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the section on relationships was too long, and could be comfortably edited down by a half without losing anything vital. As it stands, it feels like we hear more about Elvis' relationships than we do about his music.

Finally, I thought there wasn't sufficient mention of his drug use. His last years, isolation, and so forth, don't get much mention in the article. It's a section that's likely to have rumours rather than facts as its sources, so I'd suggest treading carefully. With some common sense, it should be able to be expanded appropriately.

As for the specific paragraph you asked my opinion on, I'd say that one sentence is speculation and should be removed. ("A girl might get a pink portable 45 rpm record player for her bedroom.") With that sentence going, I'd probably remove the preceding sentence too, leaving it with just the statement of fact about the number of transistor radios vastly increasing.

All in all though, I think it's a pretty good article overall. Sorry to astonish you. KeithD (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it is "a pretty good article overall" as you claim. I still believe that less than 5% of the whole article is critical. In my opinion, the general tone of it is uncritical. Perhaps you may be able to rewrite some passages, for instance the "Relationships" section, and add a critical paragraph on Elvis's consumption of drugs, etc. Onefortyone 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should an encylopaedia article be primarily critical? An encylopaedic article should be factual, with a neutral point of view. It should report criticism if such criticism has been leveled against its subject from reliable sources (as the article does in its current state), but its main focus shouldn't be criticism. I may have a look at rewriting the Relationships secion at some point. I don't know enough about his drug use to add to the article about that. KeithD (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Cooking with Elvis - a play by Lee Hall

There should be a theater section in the article where plays relating to Elvis are discussed. One of these theatrical performances is Cooking With Elvis. According to reviewer Rich See, this play

is a production where every scene is filled with both pathos and humor. It's a dark comedy with a light heart and flows well except when there is a sudden change in Elvis' monologues. It's at this point when Singing Elvis becomes Reverend Elvis and starts making bizarre speeches about sodomites that the play begins to wear thin. While this is probably in reference to the gay rumors that continue to swirl around the King of Rock and Roll -- his obsession with James Dean and an alleged affair with actor Nick Adams -- unless you are an Elvis aficionado or gay man, you probably won't know anything about this part of the Elvis mystique. All in all, Cooking With Elvis is a three or four joke comedy that's very dark and exceedingly funny but 30 minutes too long.

See [2] Are there any other plays relating to Elvis? These could also be listed in this new paragraph. - Onefortyone 12:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Claims concerning Elvis's homosexual leanings

On another talk page, administrator Ed Poor says,

Should we take the gay sex rumors to another page? Maybe combine with similar gossip about Elvis Presley and other entertainers who have been "outed" (or slandered). It's not really of general interest. Besides, you guys are alway fighting about it, and I'm getting tired of settling your squabbles. Uncle Ed 02:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to place a link in the "Relationships" section on the Elvis page, for instance entitled, Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley Onefortyone 12:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we're winning. Onefortyone is on the defensive. But we mustn't stop. No concessions here. It is important to make a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial gains. (129.241.134.241 01:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

Would you please refrain from personal attacks of this kind. Thank you. Onefortyone 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please update interlang

Please add hu:Elvis Presley to the interlanguage links. (If you care, you may update using the robot-refreshed interlangs in the hu article, too.) Thanks. --grin ✎ 13:37, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

David Bret

Personal note from David Bret I discovered this page today quite by accident. I am not 141, though I guess this can be proved if whoever has the power to check. I never even suggested that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother, and I do say in the book that his relationship with Nick Adams was a one-off. Neither do I say that they have sex--I was not there! For many years now I have come across fans of various icons who, blinded by admiration for these icons, refuse to believe that they were anything less than perfect. Currently I am getting this from Mario Lanza fans. No doubt it will persist in the future. I love all the stars that I write about, my singers in particular are sacred to me, so I would never write stuff to harm them. I just present them exacly as they were--human beings with qualities and faults in equal measure. Many thanks. David Bret www.davidbret.co.uk

David Bret's credibility as a source has already been discussed (and shown to be "worthless") on this talk page. Another editor recently gave this link [3] as an example of his opinion of Mr Bret's research methods and published work. I agree with it. Among other things, the reviewer charaterizes Bret as an "amateurish hack." Wyss 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You should also mention that, apart from this biased review which was obviously written by an Errol Flynn fan, there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. See, for instance [4] and [5]. Onefortyone 00:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said there wasn't a market for sloppy, inventive gossip. Wyss 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you and Ted Wilkes seem to be part of this market, as everybody can see from your Wikipedia contributions. Query: is there a source you have used for the Elvis article which is peer-reviewed, such as the article by Professor David S. Wall I have cited above? Onefortyone 00:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, if you vandalize WP you could be blocked. Wyss 00:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is no answer to my question. Would you please be so kind as to list on this page or your talk page all the peer-reviewed publications you are using, so that every reader may convince himself or herself of the quality of your sources. Thank you. Onefortyone 01:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, 141 (we've been through this clumsy tactic of yours before, you know). Wyss 01:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are unable to present peer-reviewed sources you have used for your contributions? As you are a Wikipedia user who was awarded the barnstar of diligence for tireless devotion to accuracy, it must be easy for you to list the most important sources you have used on this page, especially in view of the fact that you frequently accused me of not citing peer-reviewed sources. Onefortyone 01:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First, if you're targeting only me (which is likely a violation of WP policy), I think you'll have to go through the whole history of the article and identify my content contributions (please don't muddle these with the re-wordings and flows I've done). Then, if you have any specific items to dispute, bring them up here. But don't you remember trying to use this sweeping, retaliatory tactic on me before on another article, then quickly dropping it when you understood it could get you blocked or banned? Wyss 02:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'positive' reviews are very weak sources. The Guardian book review actually only has one single word on the quality of the book or the author ("thoughtful"). The rest is about George Formby. "Thoughtful" is certainly a positive word, but it doesn't qualify its praise, as the Errol Flynn book review does qualify its criticism. If it's noted that the critical review is from an Errol Flynn fan, then it should be noted that the George Formby review is from a George Formby fan. The second review is in what appears to be Dutch, and as such can not be verified.

Could you both please do all you can to keep this discussion civil? Thanks. KeithD (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm being civil. Readers who have questions about my replies to 141 might wish to read the last three months of this talk page, the last three months of talk for Nick Adams and 141's contribution history. Wyss 10:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you don't even have to reply to this guy. For all we know, he could be a Chinese or Indian guy hired by David Bret to do his job. So you're not wasting Bret's precious time, you're competing against a guy who's earning 1$ per hour or something. Think about that. Do you honestly think you can out-debate him? (129.241.134.241 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

I think you have them confused is all. User:KeithD has also expressed his opinion that Bret is an unencyclopedic source (whereupon 141 immediately used his standard tactic of accusing User:KeithD of being a sockpuppet). Meantime, User:KeithD was only gently reminding everyone to try and be civil (and for whatever reason at the time I couldn't resist saying I was being so). Wyss 15:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't I be 141's and Wyss' sockpuppets? Or better still, can they be my sockpuppets? Oh yeah, that Jimbo Wales guy is a sockpuppet of mine too. KeithD (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, 141 himself seems to be the sockpuppet of an admin who has made vast and positive contributions to this encyclopedia. Wyss 16:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Btw, somehow people interpreted my message as an insuniation that KeithD is a sockpuppet. I was of course still talking about 141, not anyone else. By Allah's mercy there will be yet another archive soon (I'm not muslim), but none of you have to respond to anything 141 says. It's like in that Star Trek episode where they keep firing at something, but it feeds off the energy and grows stronger ( I don't like Star Trek ). Anyway, that's 141 in a nutshell....or 141 in a nuthouse....anyway, he's a nut, and it's not a personal attack whatsoever (die, b****, die!) (129.241.134.241 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

Let's return to the topic

From another review of David Bret's book:

March 30, 2002

Elvis Presley's Gay Secret

by (RGS/TG/BRC)

ELVIS PRESLEY's HOLLYWOOD YEARS

According to BRET, the legendary rocker's "greedy" manager COLONEL TOM PARKER blackmailed him into virtual slavery by threatening to leak reports of the romance. Bret says, "Parker held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor NICK ADAMS over his head like a sword. He made it clear that... if Elvis didn't toe the line, he'd let it get out. At that time, it could well have ruined his career. That's why Parker had so much control over him." Presley's sexual experimentation began with a "teenage crush" on actor JAMES DEAN that grew into an obsession, says the book. The star saw REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE 44 times and eventually became close pals with Dean's Rebel co-star Nick Adams. Bret says, "Adams claimed that he had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis 'agreed to be his date' for a preview of Nick's 1956 film THE LAST WAGON." Presley, by then a sex symbol sending legions of women swooning, became smitten with Adams and even tried unsuccessfully to get him a part in his first movie LOVE ME TENDER, says Bret. In 1958, "Nick Adams and Elvis stayed in the same room of the same hotel in New Orleans while Elvis was filming KING CREOLE there," the author reveals. Many journalists' attempts to 'out' the star in the past were thwarted by his manager.

(World Entertainment News Network)

That's not a review, that's a synopsis, maybe verbatim copy from the publisher. Wyss 01:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. This summary of Bret's statements was not written by the publisher. Onefortyone 10:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sorry?" I didn't say it was "written by the publisher." Wyss 19:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal photo supporting view EP had homosexual leanings?

I found an interesting discussion concerning Elvis's sex life and his homosexual leanings. The author says,

The excitement about rumors about Prince Charles opened up in Europe the discussion about the sex-lives of other prominent personalities. To them belongs the unforgettable Elvis Presley, who was stationed as a young soldier in Germany. Up to now it has been a tabu to publicly speculate about the sexual predisposition of Elvis Presley. While the "King of Rock" has been spared by the media, other prominent personalities were forced to come out of the closet. ...

In order to bring light on the private secrets of deceased Hollywood stars, a team of experts in Europe is collecting information also about Elvis Presley. One source are eyewitnesses, who have been privately associated as friends and acquaintances with Elvis Presley.

One of the sources they present is this personal photograph, presumably taken by a gay friend, from the beginning of Presley's military service showing Elvis half naked with one of his male friends: [6] The author adds,

The question is already now: how will the Elvis fans take the possible bisexuality of their idol? Will it bring protests and denials, or rather tolerance and understanding for the great singers? A sensitive side of Presley could even increase people's affection for him, according to the opinion of some Presley fans.

I think this is another independent source supporting the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 10:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources

"Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. Thus, one must assess whether the source is reliable.

"In the case of a source of facts: is the source a noted expert in the area? Does the source write blatant errors? Has the source followed journalistic or academic standards of ethical investigation? In the case of a source of opinion: is the source notable? Does it stand for a large group of people?"

This latest source (which is http://www.meaus.com/elvis-presley-sexlife.htm by the way) doesn't do this. In addition, it doesn't actually do anything other than report (incredibly vaguely) about there being rumours. No facts are presented or even reported. The more sources that you present, the weaker they're shown to be.

The picture is simply laughable. It shows Elvis and some other person taking part in typical army physical training. That Elvis happens to be looking towards the person is no proof of homosexuality. He may be looking at something out of view. Even if he is looking at the other man, it doesn't mean he's gay - people look at people all the time without necessarily wanting to make love to them. By that rationale, you might well say that in this picture [7] Romano Prodi is attracted to both George Bush and Bertie Ahern - which is totally untrue, of course. KeithD (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Physical training wearing underpants? Do you really think that another person would have taken a photograph at such an occasion? Sorry, this is certainly a personal photograph supporting the view that Elvis had affairs with men. Onefortyone 13:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(I moved your reply from in between my previous comment, to the end of it, so it would be clear which bit I'd signed). Yes, physical training wearing underpants; it can happen. Or maybe they're being punished for poor performance, and having to stand there in their pants with their hands in the air. There's no context given to the photo. There's certainly no proof of homosexual activity. They're two men standing next to each other with their hands in the air. Where's the sexual aspect? Are you suggesting that they're playing a role-playing game where they both pretend to be half-naked umpires announcing a touchdown? KeithD (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, Onefortyone's erotic-obsessive "assertions" have become patently disruptive and more than a little creepy. Wyss 16:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

May he become a victim for the next Bin Laden undertaking :-) (not to be taken literally, and btw it's not a personal attack whatsoever). On a more serious note, WHY do you allow this person to continue to waste your time? Don't you in fact encourage him to continue? Have you got any idea how LONG he's going to be doing this? I mean, he can come back in October, November, next year etc... He'll never stop. He'll tire you into submission, when a compromise that seems unacceptable now will seem sweet then. (129.241.134.241 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

Patience ;) Wyss 17:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources supporting a relationship between Elvis and gay entertainer Liberace

Gay entertainer Liberace was eulogized in Time magazine as "a synonym for glorious excess." The writer went on to say, "Liberace was a visual, rather than an acoustic phenomenon. He charted a path followed by the unlikeliest of proteges, from Elvis Presley to Elton John and Boy George: the sex idol as peacock androgyne." Significantly, Elton John and Boy George are gay. In 1957, an article appeared with the headline 'Presley's Powder-Puff Pals', showing a picture of Elvis and Liberace with the caption 'Two prominent bachelors'. This may support the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings and an affair with Liberace. Onefortyone 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained the origins of that photo, which came from a group of publicity shots arranged by their managers Tom Parker and Seymour Heller, who were associates. Lee's homosexuality is documented and historically accepted. As we have discussed endlesly, there is zero documented evidence along these lines relating to EP, only wholly unsupported tabloid material. Wyss 19:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what you claim. May I ask you to cite a peer-reviewed source supporting your statement? Onefortyone 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Codswallop, it's your sources that have been shown to be lacking. Please stop these rundling tactics of distraction and attrition. Wyss 21:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss. You are claiming that you have a source relating to the origins of that photograph. Would you please cite the source you have used. Or are you unable to cite a source? I am frequently citing my sources. Onefortyone 22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the managers involved personally told me the story. Wyss 22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody told you the story? Sorry, Wyss, this is hearsay and not a secondary source. Onefortyone 22:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. You brought them up and have failed to provide cites backing your assertions they prove anything. Wyss 23:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have cited my source, the Guardian article which proves that there were claims in 1957 concerning Elvis's homosexuality (see above). You failed to provide a reliable secondary source supporting your claim. Onefortyone 23:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't make any claims, you did. Wyss 23:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you have claimed that you have a source concerning the origins of that photograph, but you are unable to provide a source. The claims concerning Elvis's homosexual leanings are supported by several independent sources I have cited. That's the difference. Onefortyone 23:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'Presley's Powder-Puff Pals' headline has been previously mentioned by you somewhere or other. According to the source you gave for it, the headline was in an unnamed scandal mag [8]. Not a reliable source.

Time magazine is a reliable source, however androgyny is not synonymous with homosexuality, nor does being mentioned alongside homosexual people make someone a homosexual. As an example, the Wikipedia article on androgyny mentions Annie Lennox alongside Boy George, David Bowie (whom I believe is bisexual), and k.d. lang. Annie Lennox has said that she is "terribly heterosexual" here [9]. KeithD (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Further sources claiming that Elvis was gay or bisexual

In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams.

It has already been demonstrated that the Nick Adams rumours are all related to a single, dodgy quote from a 1972 interview with Sal Mineo published by Hadleigh, who is widely discredited (nothing new there). Wyss 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, this interview only proves that Elvis's friend, Nick Adams, was gay and that Adams had an affair with James Dean. Onefortyone 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As you know it's discredited hearsay which proves nothing. Wyss 23:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

From the review in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):

Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 5/15/90.

I don't see any mention of your assertions there. Wyss 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say that this review undoubtedly proves that the book is a reliable secondary source written by an eyewitness who must have known that Elvis had an affair with Adams. Onefortyone 22:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No, all it proves is that someone asserts they read the book and wrote a somewhat positive review about it. Wyss 22:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

From the Guardian:

"We next met with B-actor turned (almost) A-director Bryan Forbes, took tea and lusted after his missus, Nanette Newman. All I remember Forbes asking was whether Mick [Jagger] or I could confirm whether Elvis was gay. The final pit-stop was a dark mews house off Marble Arch where we met with Rebel Without a Cause director Nicholas Ray. Little did we know it then, but 55 Days at Peking (1963) was to be Ray's last film. He was only in his mid-50s but looked a bad 80 and a day. I can still recall the unnerving silence as we sat there with the ghost of James Dean past hovering over the gloom. As we walked away from this encounter, Jagger had me promise never to put him through that hell again. I didn't."

See "A day in the life", Guardian, Friday April 6, 2001 [10]

Yeah and there's no mention that Jagger confirmed anything, so even as unsupported hearsay this tidbit says nothing. What are you doing, Googling the keywords Elvis Presley gay and pasting stuff on this page without even reading it? Wyss 21:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am only collecting material that supports my view, and I am sure that there are many more sources. What should be wrong with this? By the way, where is your list of peer-reviewed sources you frequently use? Onefortyone 22:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, 141, it's your sources which have been shown to be utterly lacking and unsupportive of your assertions. Wyss 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

NB: Here is one of the sources Wyss frequently uses to support his claims: "One of the managers involved personally told me the story." See his own statement above. He is unable to provide a single peer-reviewed source for his contributions. So much for the credibility of this user. Onefortyone 23:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope 141 and again, it's your contributions we're discussing here, not mine. Btw you are mistaken. I have never before mentioned my source for that information. Why are you mistaken? Wyss 23:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. This was my mistake. You never before mentioned this source which is based only on hearsay. You are unable to provide secondary sources for your contributions. Onefortyone 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What contributions? As you know, we're discussing your contributions here, not mine. Wyss 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What contributions? For instance, your claim concerning the photograph (see above) and your many other contributions to the Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, James Dean, etc. pages, which are frequently unsupported by peer-reviewed, or other, secondary, sources. Onefortyone 00:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You're making the claims about that stuff, not me. All I've asked for are encyclopedic citations backing those claims, which you have never provided (although you have offered lots of misleading, non-existent or tabloid junk cites). Wyss 00:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what you constantly claim in order to denigrate all the sources I am providing. I have now cited another published book, which is certainly a secondary source according to the Wikipedia guidelines and supports the rumors about Elvis's homosexual relationships. Onefortyone 00:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've commented on that cite elsewhere. Wyss 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There are even cartoons alluding to Elvis being gay: [11] Onefortyone 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You say "cartoons," but the link points to a single cartoon which starkly mentions other celebrities and "issues" without even an inkling of inference that EP was gay. Wyss 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The cartoon ironically refers to Elvis's morality and "gay marriage". Onefortyone 22:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told it says morality died with Elvis, which is rather the opposite of what you cited it for. I should add that I don't agree with the cartoonist, but this cite is typical of your misleading and disruptive edits. Wyss 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not a correct quote. I do not think that your interpretation is right. Onefortyone 22:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't quote anything. Wyss 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

So we see that 141...

• Offers false citations

• Offers third and fourth-hand quotes of unsupported tabloid hearsay

• Posts pictures of people in their underwear as "proof" they're gay

• Accuses anyone who doesn't agree with him of being a sockpuppet

• Misquotes and twists the remarks of other editors for the purpose of wearing everyone down and editing by attrition

• Fills talk pages with novel-length, repetitive and hollow posts which contain zero encyclopedic or citable assertions.Wyss 23:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

NB: Such accusations seem to be part of a strategy repeatedly used by Wyss in order to denigrate my contributions. He is unable to provide a single source which proves his claims. I am frequently citing several independent sources to support my view, as everybody can see from this discussion page. That's the difference between us. Onefortyone 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• As I have said many times, "independent" sources are not necessarily reliable.

• 141 has made the claims (not me) which he cannot support with encyclopedic citations.

Sorry. I have now mentioned another book which states that Elvis had a homosexual affair with another man. This certainly supports David Bret's and Dee Presley's similar claims in their books. Onefortyone 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's funny how you're back to starting all your posts with "sorry"! Anyway I think you missed my comment (above) about that citation. I also think you should be blocked for disruptive behavior. You're very adept I must say, but that only causes all the more ruin and waste. Wyss 00:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You must be joking. Should I be blocked for providing additional sources which are not in line with your personal view? Onefortyone 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you should be blocked for disrupting WP as above which includes accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet. Wyss 00:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding a novels' worth of material to these talk pages with none of it being accepted by consensus for inclusion in this article is IMO starkly disruptive, which is a violation of WP policy. Wyss 23:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere up there Onefortyone said "I am only collecting material that supports my view, and I am sure that there are many more sources. What should be wrong with this?"

What's wrong with that is that Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. If you're looking for material that supports your view, then by its very nature, your edits to Wikipedia are going to be non-neutral and biased. From what I've seen of your edit history, every single one of your contributions to Wikipedia has been related one way or another to homosexuality rumours concerning actors.

This is not true, as I contributed to several other topics since 2003 using my dynamic IP address. I have even written a new paragraph on Colonel Parker for the Elvis article and started a new article on the Memphis Mafia. Further, I do not think that collecting material (published sources such as books, reviews and articles) supporting a specific point of view is non-neutral or biased, as I have always agreed that others may add some critical remarks concerning this material. Onefortyone 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst my opinion is that Elvis probably wasn't gay or bisexual, my edits relating to this issue have been about the credibility of sources, rather than seeking out sources that support my point of view. Even more importantly, if there were credible evidence that Elvis was gay or bisexual, my point of view would change. That's what neutrality should be about: judging the strength of sources, rather than hunting for the few (almost entirely non-credible) sources that support your point of view.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to resolve this issue, rather than having it run and run with us all talking in circles? KeithD (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have some suggestions. First, you should have a look what Wyss has written above. When I asked him to present a source for his claims concerning the origin of the photograph showing gay entertainer Liberace and Elvis, he says, "One of the managers involved personally told me the story." It is very interesting that you, as an impartial person, are not questioning the reliability of such statements. It is also of much importance that I have found additional sources which support the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings, among them a book by Elvis's second cousin which has positive reviews in reputed journals. Onefortyone 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The first step would be a thorough sockpuppet check on Onefortyone. This is an experienced WP user who knows spot on how to skirt and game the rules and shows no sign of abating his disruptive behavior. Wyss 07:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a mud-flinging exercise. I didn't like it when I was accused by Onefortyone of being your sockpuppet, and I'm sure you didn't like it when he accused you of being someone else's sockpuppet. Whilst I see a single agenda with non-credible sources being disproportionately pushed, I haven't seen evidence of sockpuppetism. However, I seem to recall you've said that you believe him to be the sockpuppet of an admin (a particular admin, or not?), so maybe you do have some evidence. I don't know how a sockpuppet check would be done, so if you feel it's the way forward, and you know how to do it, then perhaps you should go for it.

Such reflections on me make me smile, and I still think that the sources I have cited include much evidence that Elvis had homosexual leanings, especially in view of the fact that I found additional sources supporting this view. Onefortyone 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remind us all again to be civil (and I'm reminding myself as much as anyone else). This debate seems to be getting more heated, and if a sockpuppet check is going to be done, then it's likely to get even more heated still. There's always room to be more polite, however polite we are in the first place. KeithD (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD of related article

Please note that a related article has recently been deleted after a broad consensus was reached over its lack of suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley for further details. KeithD (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that there was a broad consensus, as there were some voices which said, "keep" or "move", etc. Furthermore, most voters didn't know that there are additional sources supporting my view. Onefortyone 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

One other person clearly said keep (with moving it to a more appropriate title), one person said reluctant keep, and one said trim greatly and merge (which is neither keep nor delete). Eight people said delete. In Wikipedia terms that's a consensus.

I don't think you can claim that most voters didn't know about the additional sources. (Anyway, the additional sources are now listed here. I don't see anyone supporting them yet). The AfD was there for a week or so. Anyone who saw it couldn't fail to have seen the long running debate here and on other pages. If anyone felt moved to change their vote based on additional sources, they had the opportunity to do so. By that rationale, one could say that those who said it should be kept should have their votes annulled because I pointed out how weak the sources were after they'd had their say. It doesn't work like that. If people had wanted to alter their input, they would have done. KeithD (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a wonted WP tactic for some folks to mistakenly insist, in effect, that broad consensus exists only in unanimity, knowing how rare unanimity is. Wyss 08:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

New theory

You know, my main theory is that 141 is David Bret trying to promote his book. I just had a brilliant idea: what if he's an investigative journalist trying to point out flaws of this new hot Internet phenomenon - Wikipedia - by showing that the most persistent users get to write whatever they want to?

Furthermore, no-one should get blocked here. This article is more significant than I at first thought - after all, it made into the 50 or so "protected" pages. That's gotta be difficult - out of 650,000 or so article 50 are so disputed that administrators have to freeze their content. I'm proud to participate in an event like this. I think precedents are being set and lessons learned. No-one is getting banned. As you pointed out, Wyss, 141 is an "adept" WP user, and he knows the rules very well.

I don't know the rules to such an extent as 141 does, but here is my solution for the problem: we should make a few points about 141's general behaviour, and respond to each new post of his by copy-and paste that segment, whithout further commentaries. We'll take turns. It's important not to respond in an intelligent way, but to show consensus.

Suggestion to that text segment, with which to reply to ANY post by 141:

• • • • 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 02:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC))

I agree with the general spirit (if not the wording) of your thoughts... people are watching and I think there is a general consensus developing about the inclusion of unsupported (or truly trivial) tabloid rumours in celebrity articles. Wyss 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with either the spirit or the wording. There are clear places on Wikipedia to get input from the community as a whole, such as WP:RFC. Whilst almost everyone who's come across the Elvis Presley rumours on this talk page, and on related articles, has felt they're unencylopaedic, that can't be claimed as a Wikipedia consensus, as it's only a small number of people out of thousands. Because of that, content or personal disputes should go through the correct process, so that anyone has the opportunity to find them and contribute their point of view. Us responding with the equivalent of "Don't feed the trolls" would be no more than a kangaroo court, with us being judge, jury and executioner.

I've added an entry at Articles for Comment, so that we can get further input from other Wikipedians as to the merits of the homosexuality rumours. It seems the most appropriate and non-confrontational step. KeithD (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's ok! :) All I meant was I thought the anon meant well, and in trying to be polite I guess I wasn't clear that I didn't think his proposal fit WP policy. Truth be told I've been waiting for someone more recently involved to take this to the next step. Wyss 09:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)