This is my discussion page. Would you be so kind as to leave new messages at the bottom. Thanks.

Going on vacation right before a mediation somewhat complicate matters. However since it is unreasonable to expect you to plan your life around wikipedia I am implementing a truce and suspending mediation for two weeks. The truce will last unitl 6:00 UTC August 6, 20005; if mediation is not resumed within two days of the expiration of the truce I will consider the mediation closed. - JCarriker 02:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss has withdrawn from the mediation process. -JCarriker 02:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, just a quick note to let you know that I am back from vacation. It is a pity that Wyss is not willing to participate in the mediation process. Onefortyone 14:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be inappropriate for me to weigh in on the arguement considring that I briefly mediated the dispute. If you want others involment, try puting the Adams and Elvis pages on request for comment or file an RFC against the users you are having the problem with. I would suggest the former over the latter. -JCarriker 20:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in mediation. Truth be told I wouldn't mind at all if you filed an RfC on any of the articles (Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley and so on). I would, however, strongly urge you not to file an RfC against any users involved in this. I think you're wontedly a helpful and productive contributor to Wikipedia. I see no reason to prolong the dispute.

I don't pretend to understand your reasons for these edits, or why you don't make them under your usual username (which I don't want to make an issue of). I can't speak for Ted Wilkes in any way, but I'm willing to be reasonably flexible about including the content you want into these articles. For me, it's only a matter of how the information is presented (and where it appears in the article). Now that you are using a username, if you are willing to discuss this directly with me, I'm sure we can come to a mutual understanding. Once we have implemented the result in the articles, I'll work with you to protect it. How 'bout it? Wyss 04:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, in my opinion, your strategy to delete everything what I have written and your statement on the Talk:Nick Adams page clearly show that you are not seriously willing to participate in the mediation process. I have cited several independent sources to support my view. You are frequently disparaging these sources. Onefortyone 13:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refusing to participate in mediation? Wyss 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am willing to give mediation a last try. Do you accept that references to my sources (books, articles, etc.) are given on the related pages? If not, then you are not seriously willing to participate in mediation.Onefortyone 14:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes. Look... This whole thing has been a source credibility dispute and we can agree to disagree on that. One way that would work for me, without the need for a blistering disclaimer, would be to put this material into a separate section called Was Nick Adams gay? or Later rumours or whatever we might agree on... and make it interesting for the reader too. We could include your cites of rumours and quotes, Wiki links or external links etc. If there's a single, mild disclaimer of some sort, like "there are no court records, letters from Adams or other documentation from his lifetime to support these stories" (and I'm flexible there too), I'll be comfortable enough and I'll defend the content thereafter. If it's worded right, nobody'll be able to get away with deleting it for long anyway and I want to stabilize this article. Please let me have your thoughts. Wyss 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a "Rumours" section on the Nick Adams page. What's wrong with including the quotes there? The disclaimer that "there are no court records, letters from Adams or other documentation from his lifetime to support these stories" should also be placed at the end of the paragraph. In my opinion, it it not necessary to create a new page. Onefortyone 14:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, 100%. Please feel free to now add your material and please attribute quotes and remarks to the publications etc you got them from. I'll defend them in that section. If called for, I'll tweak the wording for flow and style but if it shifts the meaning you can say, "Hey Wyss, that changed the meaning!" and I'll fix it until you're ok with it. Wyss 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put the Dean/roomate and Spreckles items into the rumours section since I removed them from the main body of the article. I've never seen any evidence (like a statement from Adams or any mention from that period etc) Dean and Adams were actually roomates. Personally I think the Spreckles reference is a real stretch but I know it's part of the "Hollywood gay" canon and if it shows up in the rumours section that's ok with me. Please feel free to discuss this more here if you think we need to. Wyss 06:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting the Nick Adams article. That's fine. I have only added a note on Adams's friendship with Elvis. Sorry for having confused you with Ted Wilkes some time ago. Onefortyone 13:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you have deleted the passage on Adams's friendship with Elvis on the Nick Adams page. Even Ted Wilkes has confirmed that this friendship existed. Red West, member of the Memphis Mafia and himself a close friend to Elvis, says: "...Nick Adams - I don't know if you remember Nick Adams - did a series called "The Rebel". He was a friend of Elvis's and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door..." Onefortyone 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We just had an edit conflict... here's what I wrote...

Thanks 141, I truly have no problem presenting this stuff in the rumours section. My only remaining concern (and I suspect we can work this out one way or another, if it needs to be worked out at all) is using Spreckles as a source that NA and EP were buddies. It was widely known back then that Adams was friends with Presley, even as a paid member of his "entourage" in 57 and there are tons of sources available from which to cite their close social connection. Citing Spreckles is misleading, as if we require her as a source for some sort of hush hush secret they were friends. There was no secret. Spreckles is un-needed to establish a friendship between EP and AN. Wyss 13:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update to your update... these celebrites have tons of social connections which are unnecessary to ever cite in an encyclopedia article. I know you want to mention them because it advances the Nick Adams was gay rumours. I imagine we can get them into the rumours section, because the only significance they have is to the published allegations that he was gay, which we have agreed to relegate to the rumours section. Anyway, let's discuss this as needed. The content you want is no problem for me, it's only the presentation that concerns me and truly, the last thing I want to do is deface the article with scathing disclaimers. Keep in mind, I think the rumours are unfounded, but they exist, so we can (and likely should) report them, as such etc. Wyss 13:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my proposition to you on the Elvis talk page. (129.241.134.241 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)).[reply]

Ok, different subject altogether. If you want to create a section in the Elvis article called Was Elvis gay? and cite the published rumours/gossip nowhere but there, I'll support that approach so long as we can put some sort of disclaimer at the end of the section indicating there is no documented evidence to support them (with whatever wording that might be agreed on). Again, I think those Elvis rumours are unfounded, but the published rumours exist and readers coming to the article looking for that info would at least see it presented in a helpful, encyclopedic context. Wyss 14:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've noticed that a reference to Bret has already appeared in the trivia section of the Elvis article. I think it's helpful there, I support its presence there and while I'm always open to hearing your comments on this if need be, would suggest the trivia section as the appropriate place for unsupported, published gossip and urban legends like this one. Wyss 17:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a new section on "Rumors about Elvis's homosexual leanings". Wyss changed it to "Was Elvis gay?". I hope this will be satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like (and I hope) you and I may have only one minor unresolved disagreement remaining... on how to characterize "the Elvis industry's efforts to overwhelmingly characterize him positively"... let me try one more wording on this... let's discuss as necessary. Wyss 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Revision as of 14:33, 8 August 2005 [1] includes these three statements:

1) "In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..."

I regret, I can't find the direct quote you give. Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it.

This seems to be your personal problem. Lambert writes on page p. 199: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams, whom the publicity department considered a more likely "beau" than Sal Mineo for the New York premiere of Rebel. ... Her next arranged date, after A Cry in the Night, was with Raymond Burr, who played the sophisticated Older Man of the World and escorted her to Romanoff's and La Rue." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert clearly says of Natalie Wood: "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." He also says that her second date was with Raymond Burr. For the exact wording of the passage from Lambert's book, see also [2] and [3] By the way, even User:Wyss has confirmed on the related talk page that "Lambert does make a passing reference to Adams ('Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams...')."

Note that the links are to Amazon.com where you need a credit card to access a part of the book, the contents of which are unknown. Ted Wilkes 22:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a copy of the book in your public library. Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) "David Bret's book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams."

Again I regret, I can't find such a claim by David Bret that "Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams." Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it.

Bret has written on page 19: "That Elvis was obsessed with James Dean during his formative years as an actor cannot be denied. ... He subsequently became involved with two of the late star's friends, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Adams, who since Jimmy's death had admitted that they had been lovers during the shooting of Giant, later claimed that he had had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis had 'agreed to be his date' for a preview performance of his 1956 film, The Last Wagon." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short summary of a Globe review of Bret's book available on the Web. See [4] The Globe reports Elvis may have been gay: In a story titled "Elvis' Gay Secret," we learn that according to a new book by writer David Bret, Col. Tom Parker had such a Svengali-like grip over Elvis because he continually threatened to reveal that Elvis romanced a young actor named Nick Adams. According to the story, "Elvis' sexual experimentation began with a 'teenage crush' on movie star James Dean that grew into an obsession." Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Instead of the page number, what we actually get is an article making fun of a The Globe (tabloid) article about Bret's book. Ted Wilkes 22:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The blurb of the book clearly says that Bret "unearths the truth about the powerful hold exercised over Elvis by 'Colonel' Tom Parker, which revolved around Parker preventing a leak about Presley's relationship with another man from going public and then using this knowledge as a persistent threat to ensure his protégé's loyalty." Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) "That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley."

In accordance with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, would you please cite your source that meets the standards under Wikipedia:Verifiability by giving the publisher's name, exact date of publication, author's name of the book or article, and the title of the book or article that contains the statement by Dee Presley and the proof offered that "the singer had an affair with Adams."

The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, once acquired the worldwide rights to "The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley," a "very private and revealing" manuscript documenting "never-before-released accounts" of Elvis's life, including the said claims. Here is the source which proves that the manuscript exists: [5] The accusations have also been discussed in newspaper articles and by Elvis fan groups. I remember that there was even a statement by Ann-Margaret who refused to believe Dee Presley's claim that Elvis may have been gay. Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with the Wikiquette guidelines, would you kindly advise me of the information requested for these three items on my User talk:Ted Wilkes page or directly cite all three in the Nick Adams article. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 01:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Onefortyone 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits to Gavin Lambert

• You stated that among the Hollywood gays Lambert claims she dated was actor James Dean .
  • I can't find such a claim by Mr. Lambert. Would you kindly supply the page number so I can verify it. Ted Wilkes 19:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

p. 574: "But I'm a Fool (1954), the TV show that introduced her to James Dean, suggests a "new" Natalie, anxious and romantic, ready to emerge when someone gives her the chance.

p. 575: "During her second major scene, with James Dean and Sal Mineo in the deserted mansion at night, Natalie goes through another series of emotional changes." Her comic impersonation of a selfish, uncaring mother is followed by a reversion to childhood in a game of hide-and-seek with Dean, then by sisterly concern for lonely Mineo, and finally by her declaration of love to Dean, surprisingly and effectively chaste. She begins by explaining, half to herself, that she admires Jim as "a man who can be gentle but free." Then she realizes: "All this time I've been looking for somebody to love me, and now I love somebody."

p. 576: "As Natalie later recalled, he [Nick Ray] felt that 'it was important to know a lot personally about the actor ,' and he also felt that the director had to discover as much as he could about himself. When he pointed the finger at absent or inadequate fatherhood in all three families, it pointed at himself as well. He drew on his own life to understand and probe the bisexuality of Dean and Mineo, and as Natalie's lover, he knew the intensity of her need for love." Onefortyone 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excerpt from a review of the book:

"And this in turn brings up the gay angle, for besides Nicholas Ray, Natalie Wood was the "Grace" to an army of Hollywood "Wills," including James Dean, Tab Hunter, Nick Adams, Scott Marlowe, and Raymond Burr. The brilliant but utterly self-loathing Jerome Robbins even asked her to marry him. No fool, she politely declined, preferring to do her part for gay history by supporting Mart Crowley in a manner that made it possible for him to write his seminal The Boys in the Band. He had planned to do something for her by adapting Dorothy Baker's novel about twin sisters. Cassandra at the Wedding, for the screen. But Hollywood wasn't ready for twin Natalie Woods--one of whom would have been a lesbian." See [6]

Once more time, User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 doesn't answer the question. Instead of a page number, we get a comment (hearsay) from a supposed book reviewer. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

For the page numbers, see above. Onefortyone 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you may also have a look at this interview:

"...why did Wood have so many gay men in her life?” ... Lambert ... replied: "I have two answers to that. One is specific to her, and the other is specific to a lot of actresses. Actresses like gay men because they know there’s going to be no problem of them making a pass, and therefore they feel that they are not being used and all that stuff."

"In Natalie’s case," he continued, "she grew up in a drastically dysfunctional family, feeling like an outsider, and she responded across the board not only to gay people as outsiders but to anybody who felt alienated in some way because of their life experiences. She particularly responded to gays because they were very entertaining about it, which some of the others were not. She didn’t like self-pity or anything like that. What she did like were people who would say the unconventional things and be entertaining about it. She was a great shit kicker, and in part, gays tend to be, too, and she liked that." See [7] Onefortyone 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? More delays, more avoiding giving answers to direct questions. Ted Wilkes 22:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In his quest to make Elvis gay,User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. quoted gossip writer Gavin Lambert as referring to Nick Adams as gay in his book on Natalie Wood. Note that The Guardian newspaper also opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. As such no encyclopedia would quote from it but I find it interesting that while there is a direct quote about Nick Adams asserted to be from the book, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. neglected to state the quote was made as offhand gossip without facts of any kind and with respect to Presley, did not mention the following from page 119:

• "Nick Adams, who happened to be in New York that week, had recently managed to ingratiate himself with Elvis Presley. He told Natalie (Wood) that the singer wanted to know if he might ask his favorite actress for a date. "Natalie was all shook up after Presley called and asked her to go out with him when she got back to Los Angeles"

- Ted Wilkes 22:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Please take note that I have filed dispute notices regarding text placed by you in the Elvis Presley and Nick Adams articles. Because your comments in the two articles are interconnected, the reasons for the dispute notices is being stated first on Talk:Elvis Presley# Article dispute notice and will subsequently be dealt with in the Adams article. Ted Wilkes 15:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, my opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss are violating the rule that there should be no personal attacks against other Wikipedia users on discussion pages. Ted Wilkes has even deleted my recent contribution to the [[Talk:Elvis Presley] page. See history. I have only summed up some facts and presented an additional source which proves that the claims by Dee Presley have been discussed by Elvis fan groups. Significantly, when I stated that I was moving on some days ago, my opponents had nothing else to do than immediately hurry to the Nick Adams, Natalie Wood and James Dean pages in order to delete all contributions I have written. I think this is not fair play. Onefortyone 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think 141 is gaming the system with variously fabricated and inappropriate citations in order to sell Bret's book. There are so many WP violations here, I continue to be a bit surprised this wasn't nipped in the bud long ago (worse, I find Presley boring as a subject to begin with :) Finally, although I agree with User:Ted Wilkes' summary of 141's contributions, I'm uncomfortable with some of his arguments and more so with his tactics: He just deleted from the talk page an extensive post by 141. This is a violation of WP policy, never mind it completely distorts the comments I've left in response to 141. I'm rather close to referring the whole thing over to RfC. Wyss 14:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is again an example of a personal attack, as I am frequently citing many independent sources to support my contributions. Here is my contribution which has been deleted by Ted Wilkes: [8] He has also deleted other relevant passages from the Talk:Elvis Presley page, for instance, the excerpts from the critical article by Professor Dr Wall. See [9] Onefortyone 14:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO both 141 and User:Ted Wilkes have strayed so far outside WP policy, nulling the possibility of reasonable consensus discussion, I must defer for now to others less involved. Wyss 15:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not think that I "have strayed outside WP policy" as I always cite the sources (books, articles, reviews, webpages) which support my contributions. Onefortyone 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather plainly established you've been skillfully gaming the system, using both fabricated and worthless citations to seed WP and its mirrors with misleading keywords in order to promote Bret's discredited book. Wyss 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second personal attack. I frequently cite several independent sources. They all support my view. You and Ted Wilkes are the users who, from the beginning, were constantly denigrating these sources. Onefortyone 15:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating WP policies on sources with those regarding personal attacks. Your cites have repeatedly been shown to be worthless, and worthless cites need not be included in an article ("independent", a word you often use in this context, is not enough btw). Wyss 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, it is only your personal opinion that these cites are worthless. Others would say that they are relevant. Onefortyone 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the paragraphs which User:Ted Wilkes has deleted from the Talk:Elvis Presley page:

Just a few remarks as I don't want to waste too much time here. I have a family life that I am happy to put a lot of time into.

1.It is a historical fact that Elvis biographer David Bret has written that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been gay. These claims have also been summarized in some newspaper articles (for instance, in a review in The Globe).

2.It is also a historical fact that a manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, exists (see [10]), in which she claims, among other things, that Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother and sexual relationships with men. It is also a fact that there was a summary of her claims published in the National Enquirer.

So we have two independent published sources including the claims. Some of Dee Presley's accusations have even been discussed in books, articles (for instance, in an article by Professor Dr Wall) and by fans on their websites. Here is one further example:

From a discussion at "TCB-World, where Elvis fans meet":

Why Elvis didn't say bye bye to Colonel???

Look i refuse to believe what i am about to say, plus this is how rumors start, but...According to Dee (and apparently she saw it so she says) that she saw E having affairs with guys...stuned, man i was when i read that, and still i refuse to believe it, but apparently he and Nick Adams had a thing going, and this may be the reason why E never said good bye to the cigar muncher, and the one arm bandit, man has the colonel got a lot to answer for, i am not going to start a bitch here, but i have a lot of resentment for the whole crowd that was around him (although i do have a lot of respect for Red) but who knows, why he did not let the Colonel go, this is what i read on some web site, where Dee had been interviewed, mind you this is like late 90's so a lot of time has gone by, and you can now say what ever you like about the man, he is not here to defend himself, but then again if things had been different he would still be here...What a loss...

Dee Stanley appeared on the Geraldo show in America a few years ago claiming that Elvis and his mother had been lovers. It was the most sickening claim that has ever been made against Elvis. She appeared on the show with the owner of the National Enquirer who had run the story. She stated that the relationship between Elvis and Gladys had been incestuous and talked about Gladys having a drink problem because she couldn`t deal with it. She stated that a member of staff at Graceland had told her that she had seen them getting out of bed and that she knew something had happened and also that Vernon had told her about it and how he had always been an outsider in his own family. ... JD Sumner ... said she even claimed he was gay in the book. ...

These are clear statements by fans who knew that the accusations exist. It should be taken into account that there are different claims by Elvis's stepmother both in her manuscript book and in her article for the National Enquirer. Not all authors are discussing all of these topics, but there is also a webpage summarizing Ann-Margret's statements concerning all the claims by Dee Presley, including the gay accusation. See [11] So it is clear that these accusations really exist and that the topic was widely discussed after Dee Presley's newspaper article was published. It is no wonder, however, that Ann-Margret, who was one of Elvis's girlfriends, and most fans rejected all these claims. Therefore, the following critical note (and it is indeed a critical note) should be included in the article, perhaps in a special "Rumors" section under "Relationships":

Decades after his death, two independent sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2001), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay. Bret (who made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities) said Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ...that is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager.

In an unpublished but often cited manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis and an article in the National Enquirer Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley claims that there was a relationship between Elvis and his mother Gladys and that the singer had sexual encounters with men, particularly with his friend Nick Adams.

However, David Bret has been widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts in his various books about celebrities and Dee Presley has been criticized for having personal and financial motives for her claims. Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, these two are the only known sources of these claims and one of them is unpublished. Supporters of the claims made by David Bret and Dee Presley note that while most authors do describe Elvis as heterosexual, they are writing in the context of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views of the singer. [12] Critics of this view note that it is contradicted by the success of books by authors like Albert Goldman and several members of the Memphis Mafia which have been scathingly critical of Elvis's lifestyle.

It should be again emphasized that this is a very critical discussion of these claims in these paragraphs, as it is clearly said that the accusations are rejected by most others. What should be wrong with including these facts in the article?

Significantly, my opponents have accused me of lots of things, for instance, of "hijacking specific Wikipedia content with an orchestrated violation of precepts and distortion of facts" (see above). As I have frequently cited my sources and only repeatedly reinstated what has been deleted by my opponents, I think this and some additional accusations are personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia discussion boards. It has also been said on this talk page that every contributor should be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the sources used. The only academic, peer-reviewd source on Elvis I know is the critical article by Professor Dr Wall I have cited above. If there are any other sources of this kind, would you please list them below? In my opinion, most stuff written about Elvis in the many books thrown on the market is no more than gossip based only on hearsay and tabloid publications. So if you would like to base this Wikipedia article on peer-reviewed sources alone you must delete most of the so-called details from the article.

I also wonder why my opponents have now deleted all my contributions from other Wikipedia pages, although these contributions were based on several independent sources. See Nick Adams, Natalie Wood, James Dean, etc. My opponents User:Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss only claim that all these sources are not reliable enough, but they are unable to present sources which prove that the authors I have cited are wrong. Very interesting indeed. Onefortyone 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plainly established that the sources you've provided are not encyclopedic and that you're rather adept at gaming the system. Wyss 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wyss, this is only your personal opinion. There are published, and independent, sources supporting my view. Onefortyone 16:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a section entitled "Was Elvis gay?". In view of the critical remarks by Professor Wall (see [13]), the following passage should also be added to the end of this section: "Despite such statements that Presley may have been bisexual or gay, most other authors, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, describe Elvis as heterosexual." Onefortyone 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are again the relevant passages of Professor Dr Wall's critical article:

It is clearly stated 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 poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.

Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland." Onefortyone 14:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look 141, after pondering all this I've decided I'll support restoring the Was Elvis Gay? section. Wyss 17:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I always agree that critical remarks concerning these claims should also be included in the said section. Onefortyone 19:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the problem is that there a two users repeatedly deleting what I have written. I have frequently cited my sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Onefortyone 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a content dispute. However, revert warring is never an acceptable means to deal with content disputes. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked fro twenty-four hours for violating the 3RR at Gavin Lambert. Violating the 3RR isn't acceptable except in cases of vandalism; Ted Wilkes' behaviour is very poor, but it isn't vandalistic (except in the case of Talk:Elvis Presley, for which I've blocked him too). When the block expires, stay within Wikipedia rules; that's no reason to give up trying to make your case, but rather than taking the moral high ground you're all mud-wrestling in the moral Fens... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you vandalize Wikipedia articles you may be banned (you've just come off a 24 hour block for violating 3rr). Please be aware that any ban could include your regular Wikipedia username (and I'm not referring to User:Onefortyone). Finally, you might want to review Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wyss 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that you are unable to provide supported records for every contribution you have made to Wikipedia articles? If so, then you should stop demanding such standards from other editors who frequently cite independent sources supporting their view. Further, you should read the Wikipedia article on double standard. By the way, what do you mean by "regular Wikipedia username"? Onefortyone 21:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. I think you know what I meant by my reference to the username. Wyss 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that? Sorry, Wyss, on the Talk:Gavin Lambert page you have written, "I've removed content from these articles because it is unsupported by the documented record". Remember, the content you have removed was supported by independent sources I have cited on the related talk page. And I don't know what you mean by your reference to a "regular Wikipedia username". Onefortyone 10:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to take a look at a proposed paragraph on the Elvis Presley talk page. I've done so and left my opinion of it there. I'm not sure it's what you were hoping to hear though.

In doing so, I made mention that I felt some of your edits, and the proposed paragraph were POV, biased and so forth. I hope it's clear from the tone of my comment that this wasn't a form of personal attack, but rather my reading of the situation. If there's anything which has crossed the line between assessing the overall situation and making personal comment, then please let me know and I'll apologise as profusely as humanly possible. Sorry not to have been of any actual help, other than weighing in with my opinion. KeithD (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal remarks. I would be grateful if you could explain to me which specific paragraph, from your point of view, is POV and biased and why. Onefortyone 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you proposed on the Elvis talk page is, in my opinion, POV, as I explained there. In addition, the fact that disproportionate weight is being given to what amount to very weak sources is biased (as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley.

As I see it, we're dealing with a situation where the final content, after all the debates, would amount to something along the lines of

"The National Enquirer, an unpublished book, an unnamed scandal mag (which might well have been The National Enquirer), and an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts" say that Elvis Presley had homosexual dalliances. The overwhelming majority of biographical work about Elvis Presley suggests that this isn't true. Professor David S. Wall suggests that works critical of Elvis are suppressed by a blinkered world-wide fan base. Many others say that if the criticisms had more basis in fact, Elvis fans would be less critical of them."

I'm putting words in people's mouths there, and being POV myself, but that made NPOV would be the rub of it. Given the choice between a wishy-washy paragraph like that or nothing, I'd plump for nothing.

Compare that with a possible paragraph saying:

"The National Enquirer, an unpublished book, an unnamed scandal mag, and an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts" say that Elvis is alive and living on the moon. Everyone else says this is nonsense. Professor David S. Wall suggests that criticism is suppressed. There are no facts to suggest that Elvis is living on the moon."

I would imagine that sources with the same credibility could be found for the moon story as have been found for the homosexuality story.

The fact that all this debate is stemming initially from very weak sources makes its lengthy mention disproportionate, and thus pushing a particular POV despite the lack of credible evidence, and thus unencyclopaedic. KeithD (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your example "that Elvis is alive and living on the moon" is striking. The problem is that you are uncritically picking up opinions of my opponents, for instance the denigration of David Bret's writings. They do not like what this author has written and only claim that he was "widely criticized for being careless and even inventive with basic facts." Did you read his publications? There are positive reviews of his books. See, for instance [14]. Indeed, there may be some mistakes in his publications, but you can find such mistakes in every book, particularly in the many gossip books on Elvis my opponents use for their contributions. It should also be taken into account that the same claims that Elvis had some homosexual leanings are to be found in a manuscript book (see [15]) and an article by Dee Presley, Elvis's stepmother. A professor is criticizing the world-wide Elvis industry which suppresses different opinions which are not in line with the view of most fans. Do you really believe that all these sources are weak and what several independent authors say is nonsense? You may also have a look at the Talk:Nick Adams page and the related archive [16], where my opponents frequently denigrated the many independent sources which support the view that Elvis's friend, Nick Adams, was gay. Onefortyone 19:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]