This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is no better demonstration of how some closed-minded 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))
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).
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)
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)
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)
[Note how 141 inserted his comment between the above and my earlier response] Wyss 20:57, 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)
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)
It's easy...
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)
(snip) Wyss 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Onefortyone 22:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
(I have removed a large block of irrelevant text relatng to Maria Callas...) Wyss 23:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
As if I didn't disclose that? As if it had anything to do with EP? As if it proved anything? Wyss
Oh really? I'm sure everyone would be fascinated to know how my gender relates to this discussion. Please tell us. Wyss 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I come in peace. In light of the discussion that is going on in here, the arguments were too long to read, had extended beyond conscious reasoning and strayed far from the main point ( I'm not even sure why this argument started in the first place). But as a third ( or more ) party, I'd like to remind wikipedians to not waste their time in never-ending debates and instead, put their efforts into making wikipedia the best source for information there is. Evidently both parties are good writers, have a good head on their shoulders and is subjecting themselves to blood pressure raising activities which they would normally spare themselves had they calmed down and learn the bliss of ignorance. Wikipedia is a place to provide information to those that need it. Maintaining neutrality is a common goal but it is safe to say that not everyone can do it all the time. Perhaps, a little bit of time and compromise is in need? In the likely event that this does not affect either parties in any way whatsoever, I wish them both the best of luck in surviving the fever that Elvis has left now, the same way he had left buildings with, decades ago. God Bless. -- User:Sylee
1) A book by David Bret
2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother
3) An article in the National Enquirer
4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis' homosexuality.
The more you research, the more sources you will find. Onefortyone 13:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
An overwhelming consensus of editors here ( many of whom really dislike each other ) have agreed that all those sources are worth zero. Onefortyone often tries to make the point that his POV is suppressed because of us and the Elvis community as a whole. This is not true, though: my only contribution to the Elvis article was to mention the wide-spread belief that he died of constipation ( obviously, I'm an Elvis fan ). The fact is most of us don't even like Elvis, but we feel that we have to take a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial purposes ( messing with Google searches ).(
129.241.134.241
01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
Basically, this is my renewed strategy: I'll meet new admins with this text, which I'll copy 6 paste many times over in the future. Every contribution by 141 should be ignored or met with a copy & paste segment of text to minimise the effort of fighting his persistent agenda of inflating Google search results for "Elvis + gay". The only reason I'm writing something meaningful now, is because my fingers yearn for some typing practise....damn it, it feels nice....just typing away some meaningless crap...anyway, don't give up guys!
In her book, Elvis and me, Priscilla Presley relates that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her:
[copyvio material removed] Wyss 03:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this the behavior of a womanizer? In my opinion, these statements by his wife could well support the view that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is basically what's going on: a user called Onefortyone tries to change Google results of "Elvis gay", so that those results lead to a book by David Bret. Bret is a sensationalist writer who is said to be "careless with facts". To support 141's point of view that Elvis was gay, he gives the following sources:
1) A book by David Bret 2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother 3) An article in the National Enquirer 4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis' homosexuality.
An overwhelming consensus of editors here ( many of whom really dislike each other ) have agreed that all those sources are worth zero. Onefortyone often tries to make the point that his POV is suppressed because of us and the Elvis community as a whole. This is not true, though: my only contribution to the Elvis article was to mention the wide-spread belief that he died of constipation ( obviously, I'm not an Elvis fan ). The fact is most of us don't even like Elvis, but we feel that we have to take a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial purposes ( messing with Google searches ).
So far, the argument is still not resolved and the article ought to still be "protected". ( 129.241.134.241 16:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC))
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is no better demonstration of how some closed-minded 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))
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).
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)
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)
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)
[Note how 141 inserted his comment between the above and my earlier response] Wyss 20:57, 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)
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)
It's easy...
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)
(snip) Wyss 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Onefortyone 22:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
(I have removed a large block of irrelevant text relatng to Maria Callas...) Wyss 23:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
As if I didn't disclose that? As if it had anything to do with EP? As if it proved anything? Wyss
Oh really? I'm sure everyone would be fascinated to know how my gender relates to this discussion. Please tell us. Wyss 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I come in peace. In light of the discussion that is going on in here, the arguments were too long to read, had extended beyond conscious reasoning and strayed far from the main point ( I'm not even sure why this argument started in the first place). But as a third ( or more ) party, I'd like to remind wikipedians to not waste their time in never-ending debates and instead, put their efforts into making wikipedia the best source for information there is. Evidently both parties are good writers, have a good head on their shoulders and is subjecting themselves to blood pressure raising activities which they would normally spare themselves had they calmed down and learn the bliss of ignorance. Wikipedia is a place to provide information to those that need it. Maintaining neutrality is a common goal but it is safe to say that not everyone can do it all the time. Perhaps, a little bit of time and compromise is in need? In the likely event that this does not affect either parties in any way whatsoever, I wish them both the best of luck in surviving the fever that Elvis has left now, the same way he had left buildings with, decades ago. God Bless. -- User:Sylee
1) A book by David Bret
2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother
3) An article in the National Enquirer
4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis' homosexuality.
The more you research, the more sources you will find. Onefortyone 13:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
An overwhelming consensus of editors here ( many of whom really dislike each other ) have agreed that all those sources are worth zero. Onefortyone often tries to make the point that his POV is suppressed because of us and the Elvis community as a whole. This is not true, though: my only contribution to the Elvis article was to mention the wide-spread belief that he died of constipation ( obviously, I'm an Elvis fan ). The fact is most of us don't even like Elvis, but we feel that we have to take a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial purposes ( messing with Google searches ).(
129.241.134.241
01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
Basically, this is my renewed strategy: I'll meet new admins with this text, which I'll copy 6 paste many times over in the future. Every contribution by 141 should be ignored or met with a copy & paste segment of text to minimise the effort of fighting his persistent agenda of inflating Google search results for "Elvis + gay". The only reason I'm writing something meaningful now, is because my fingers yearn for some typing practise....damn it, it feels nice....just typing away some meaningless crap...anyway, don't give up guys!
In her book, Elvis and me, Priscilla Presley relates that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her:
[copyvio material removed] Wyss 03:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this the behavior of a womanizer? In my opinion, these statements by his wife could well support the view that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is basically what's going on: a user called Onefortyone tries to change Google results of "Elvis gay", so that those results lead to a book by David Bret. Bret is a sensationalist writer who is said to be "careless with facts". To support 141's point of view that Elvis was gay, he gives the following sources:
1) A book by David Bret 2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother 3) An article in the National Enquirer 4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis' homosexuality.
An overwhelming consensus of editors here ( many of whom really dislike each other ) have agreed that all those sources are worth zero. Onefortyone often tries to make the point that his POV is suppressed because of us and the Elvis community as a whole. This is not true, though: my only contribution to the Elvis article was to mention the wide-spread belief that he died of constipation ( obviously, I'm not an Elvis fan ). The fact is most of us don't even like Elvis, but we feel that we have to take a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial purposes ( messing with Google searches ).
So far, the argument is still not resolved and the article ought to still be "protected". ( 129.241.134.241 16:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC))