Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:48, 19 August 2005

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

Following the advice of User:DropDeadGorgias, I will reinsert what I already posted here and following the work of User:Wyss prior to the discussion on the First disputed item, I have archieved the too lengthy and now redundant edits. See Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2.

Note

It is very interesting what User:Ted Wilkes is doing here. Once there are critical remarks concerning his own opinions, he either deletes them (see ) or he puts it into a new archive he himself has created in order to place only his own view points on the talk page. See . I would call this unfair, oppressive editing tactics. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes has already been warned by administrator User:Mel Etitis about altering and removing user comments from talk pages. See Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Second disputed item

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "Decades after his death, two published sources claimed that Presley was involved in a homosexual relationship with actor Nick Adams. In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), author David Bret stated that Presley was gay."

- AND –

• "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."

RESPONSE:

First, the book was published in 2001. One of the "two published sources" is Dee Presley as dealt with in the First disputed item above. Anyone coming to Misplaced Pages can insert anything they want into a Misplaced Pages article but must be prepared to establish the academic/journalistic integrity of the source (as previously enunciated on this page by User:DropDeadGorgias) if called upon to do so. User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has never done that, instead he repeatedly reverted others who questioned him and reversed things by demanding whoever disagreed with him to prove his edit wrong.

Sorry. You are the person who has repeatedly reverted what I have written. I frequently cite my sources (books, reviews, articles, webpages) which I have used. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that The Guardian newspaper opens their comments on Gavin Lambert's book on Natalie Wood by reminding readers it is high-class gossip. Newspapers do review gossip books, but no Encyclopedia ever references them. Book reviewers also give warnings about gossip and point out in an example such as this, that the subjects of the book: conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased. Such is the case with Bret's writing in that Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and Colonel Tom Parker are all dead.

This is your personal opinion. Lambert's book on Natalie Wood was highly praised by Wood's daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner. She calls Lambert's book "a wonderful biography on my Mom ... that we are all involved with - everybody that knew my Mom and was close to her - and that will really be the one I hope everyone reads. It will be the definitive biography on my Mother." Michelle Merryweather states, "Drawing exclusively on private papers and interviews with those who knew her best – including her husband Robert Wagner – Lambert presents us with the richest imaginable portrait of this beguiling, tragic woman." As for David Bret's writings, there is a considerable Dutch online review of his book. See . It is also an undisputed fact that The Guardian published a very positive review of Bret's book on George Formby. See . You constantly try to denigrate the sources I have used. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You will note that in this Presley article and the Nick Adams article that when I added important content, I referenced the author such as Alanna Nash, Peter Guralnick and Elaine Dundy. And, for each of these I either created their biography at Misplaced Pages or added to their existing bio, inserting academic credentials and external links so that anyone could easily satisfy themselves as to their academic/journalistic integrity. For quotes by both Elaine Dundy and Priscilla Presley, I did an article on their book using direct quotes and/or page number references.

May I ask you for a short list of the "academic" sources you claim to have used? Perhaps you can also provide the reader with a short list of the academic sources you have used for your contributions to the Elvis article. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have prepared considerable facts on the Bret book issue to insert at anytime. However, a Misplaced Pages policy consensus has already been established on Talk:Abraham Lincoln # Lincoln's sexuality for dealing with similar such issues as Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. For the David Bret writings about Presley that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 wants included in Misplaced Pages, if he or any other Wiki contributor produces David Bret's academic credentials, the specific information on exactly what his book alludes to, proper peer reviews for the book, and then can show that this matter has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major publications such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, then they can place a similar reference in the Presley article and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

- Ted Wilkes 23:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

So you are of the opinion that Bret is wrong in what he has written on Elvis's relationship with Nick Adams in a published biography. Would you please present facts which undoubtedly prove that Bret is wrong. It is a fact that both men were close friends. There are some independent sources which say that Adams was gay, and Bret mentions in his book that Adams had also sexual relationships with other men. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to see someone else asserting that peer review is not only possible, but plainly, a needed characteristic of sources cited on a disputed topic, even when it involves a celebrity. I endorse Ted Wilkes second disputed item too. Although published for the tabloid market, there is zero documented historical support for Bret's specific claims/speculation relating to the sexuality of Elvis Presley. Wyss 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we have yet to see evidence as to what Bret said. We do not know if he made a claim or only alludes to it or what. At Amazon.com in the United Kingdom the Synopsis provided to Amazon UK by the UK publisher's small imprint which does not mentional homosexualty and states:

• "The truth regarding the relationship between Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis is exposed and the controversial allegations that Presley slept with his own mother, raped his wife, held wild sex and drugs parties and left a fan brain-damaged are explored."

The book's blurb says that the author "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 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

At Amazon.com in the United States the Publisher offered nothing as to content.

David Bret's academic credentials are unknown and there is no record that his Presley book has ever been subjected to a Peer review. Kirkus Reviews and the Library Journal have never reviewed any of his books. Publishers Weekly did two or three but after repeated bad reviews they stopped several years ago. An April 4, 2002 article by writer/editor Jennifer Mendelsohn posted at the Washington Post – Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC making fun of Bret's book in a reference to a writeup about the book in The Globe (tabloid).

As I stated above, there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc., who inserted the above text, also substantially modified the Misplaced Pages article on David Bret to remove damaging facts and changed the credential label by inserting the fabrication that David Bret was "one of Britain’s leading show business biographers." When taken to task, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. changed it by deleting the word "leading."

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. names this one gossip book by David Bret but without a direct quote and page number to reference to. At Amazon.com in the United Kingdom the Synopsis provided to Amazon UK by the UK publisher's small imprint which does not mentional homosexualty and states:

• "The truth regarding the relationship between Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis is exposed and the controversial allegations that Presley slept with his own mother, raped his wife, held wild sex and drugs parties and left a fan brain-damaged are explored."

At Amazon.com in the United States, the publisher provided no Synopsis information of any kind and again there is no Peer review. The book was sold on the Internet and not listed by the publisher with leading distributor Baker & Taylor (The #1 book supplier to libraries, B&T distributes books etc. to about 8,000 school, public, and specialty libraries around the world.) and not with Ingram Book Group (the world's largest wholesale distributor of book product). There was no national distribution and as such was not carried in any bookstores or libraries. Any bookstore wanting it has to obtain copies direct from the publisher.

There are booksellers in Rotterdam offering Bret's book. By the way, which books on Elvis have peer reviews? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "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."

• RESPONSE: Bret's writings on Presley are allusions and are not part of "widely circulating stories" by reputable sources other than Internet clones of Misplaced Pages. No other book is known to exist that makes any such similar allusions, claims, or allegations – nothing.

There is a manuscript book written by Elvis Stepmother, Dee Presley, including similar claims. Excerpts from this sources have been published by the National Enquirer. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And no entertainer in history has had more books written about them than Elvis Presley and no other entertainer has had every aspect of their life documented in such infinite detail as Presley via all forms of media. In the Misplaced Pages article are details of Presley's girlfriends and wife and it contains documented statements both in books and in television interviews confirming that Elvis Presley was a womanizer. His most respected biographer, Peter Guralnick, whose education and writing credentials are documented at Misplaced Pages, published two books with more than 1,300 pages on Presley's life. His books received numerous peer reviews and as Amazon.com said:

• "Guralnick's exploration of Elvis's childhood and rise to fame was notable for its factual rigorousness" and
• Publishers Weekly called it: "Guralnick's definitive and scrupulous biography"
• Publishers Weekly also stated: "Guralnick is the first to explain successfully how the Colonel, a one-time carnival huckster, maintained an enduring hold on a man whose genius was beyond his grasp."

Peter Guralnick's book Last Train to Memphis, and another acclaimed book Elvis and Gladys by Hollywood insider Elaine Dundy, gives much detail on Presley's friendship with Nick Adams . Note too that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141., in his quest to make Elvis gay, quoted gossip writer Gavin Lambert as referring to Nick Adams as gay in his book on Natalie Wood and that she dated a gay Elvis. However, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. neglected to state the quote was made as offhand gossip without facts and 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"

In his review of Lambert's book in The Advocate (2004), David Ehrenstein (author of Open secret: gay Hollywood, 1928-1998) writes, "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. ... she ... 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." In an email Ehrenstein sent me, the author emphasizes that Adams was gay. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

However, the last of Guralnick's two volumes was published in 1999. One might be able to say that further exhuastive research two years later by David Bret revealed new information and therefore Bret's book might merit referring to if it contained any reasonable evidence. But, the Bret book provided no facts, only groundless allusions, and is like the majority of Brets tabloid-style writing, ridiculed for the numerous errors and lack of research. The Elvis article states the Bret book was publshed in 2002, it was not. It was published in 2001 (see the Amazon.com UK website) but more importantly, the offical registry of the United States Library of Congress officially registered it 2001.

The book was first published in 2001 in England. The 2002 edition appeared in the USA. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In 2003, journalist Alanna Nash, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Society of Professional Journalists' 1994 National Member of the Year, had her book The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley published. (Simon & Schuster – ISBN 0743213017). This award-winning and highly acclaimed book was subject to much Peer review. In Great Britain, Mojo music magazine said her book was "the most incisive and comprehensive look at the life of the elusive Colonel available" and the respected newspaper, The (London) Observer, lauded the book as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written."

Ms. Nash, had already published a respected but unflattering no-holds-barred book on Presley in 1995 titled Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia that provided what Entertainment Weekly called "stunning allegations." In this book and in "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written," there is no such claim as to homosexualty about Presley or blackmail by Colonel Parker.

This is a gossip book primarily based on statements by three members of the Memphis Mafia. Certainly they do not want to make mention that Elvis may have had any homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

These above mentioned two authors credentials and peer reviews of their work can be found everywhere in reputable magazines, newspapers and book review publications. A third author, Albert Goldman is also documented at Misplaced Pages. He is the most reviled by Presley fans for his harsh criticisms of Presley's lifestyle. If their was dirt of any kind to be uncovered, or allegations of homosexuality, it is likely, based on his track record, that Albert Goldman would have been the one to publish it. He did not, but as evidence of his willingness to do so, in his 1988 biography The Lives of John Lennon he claimed that The Beatles John Lennon had a homosexual relationship with Brian Epstein.

The background of David Bret and his education credentials are unknown. What he is, is one of the many calling themselves biographers spawned by the Internet. The poor quality of virtually all of his works, most notably their lack of research and sensationalizing by insinuations and allegations without facts, are well known. Note too, that Misplaced Pages User:Wyss did an analysis of Bret's writings and at Talk:Nick Adams came to the conclusion:

• Bret has a reputation for sloppy history, lack of scholarship, being obsessed with sexual topics (almost to the exclusion of other aspects of his subjects' careers and lives) and lastly, making up interviews to sell tabloid-style books to the downmarket. Wyss 2 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

• Bret is widely dismissed by critics as inventing material for his tabloid-oriented, downmarket books. Wyss 5 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Remember that there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

However, as evidenced on both this Talk page (and new archived page) and that of Talk:Nick Adams, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has repeatedly inserted fabications and doctored text into the article. On this Talk:Elvis Presley archived page, it was pointed out that journalist Alanna Nash was a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the Society of Professional Journalists' 1994 National Member of the Year and that her 2003 book was published after Bret's book and that there were no such findings of homosexualty about Presley or blackmail by Colonel Parker in her book that was labeled as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written."

In response, User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. stated (above on the achived section of this page):

• "It should also be taken into account that most parts of Nash's book were written before Dee Presley published her recent accusations." Ted Wilkes 19:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC) 80.141.178.108

Note that this is another fabrication and in the article these alleged Dee Presley "recent accusations" about homsexualty have no date. The 84-year-old Dee Stanley-Presley, in poor health, has given no public interviews for years. Her three sons have and each has written one or more books on Elvis Presley none of which ever claimed, suggested, or insinuated Elvis Presley was gay but in fact all three talked about Presley's notorious womanizing.

You are right. The accusations by Dee Presley must have been published in the National Enquirer in the 1990s, as they have been mentioned in Greil Marcus's book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000). Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATED:

• "According to Bret, journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager"

• This is another demonstration of the reason for Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms and citing sources. This is not a quote from the discredited Bret book, it is only the words of the person who inserted it in the Elvis article. Given the fact that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. has repeatedly inserted lies here in Misplaced Pages as outlined in detail on this Talk page, and has fraudlently doctored text from another website, Wikipedians need to have the source cited in detail with a direct quote in parenthesis so that it can first be verified then secondly, judged on its merits as to proof provided. What page number, please. What jounalists? Who are they? What proof is there that they tried to "out" Presley. In what publications can we verify these alleged writings and what proofs do they offer to support their claim?

The blurb 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 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE FURTHER STATES:

• "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.

This is a summary of unfounded information that uses backhanded references solely to support the unfounded claims and fabrications by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc.. This kind of word playing is not acceptable as stated in Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms.

There is a critical article by Professor Dr David Wall about the strategies of the worldwide Elvis fan groups. As far as I can see, this seems to be the only source on Elvis published in a peer-reviewed periodical. See ] and archive. Most other publications are gossip books. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA CURRENT USE OF ALLEGATIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

• A Misplaced Pages precedent has already been established and adopted on the Abraham Lincoln article for allegations as to someone's sexuality. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is Official Misplaced Pages Policy and must be adhered to. In the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability article it states exactly:
• "One should only write articles which contain information that is verifiable and not original research."
• "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable."

For any insinuation in the David Bret book about Presley to be referenced in Misplaced Pages it will require the author's credentials be clearly established and proof of the information being referenced as required of the C. A. Tripp book on the Abraham Lincoln homosexual issue that requires that the question of the person's sexuality has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major magazines such as Time have addressed the issue.

David Bret has written a substantial book on Elvis's Hollywood years and many other biographies. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of the hundreds of other books written on Elvis Presley and especially those respected authors acclaimed for their meticulous research plus the thousands of articles in reputable magazines and newspapers, not one ever claimed Presley was homosexual. Yet, one person who has repeadtly lied and fabricated external reference quotes has managed to impose his will on Misplaced Pages to have the Presley article devote a full section to it with an inappropriate title and 19 full lines. At the same time, a comment on statistical facts by Billboard magazine's Joel Whitburn, the most respected source for popular music statistics in the United States, is relegated to two lines in a "Trivia" section.

If anyone can show that the David Bret book has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major magazines such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, they he can place a similar reference in the Presley and Adams articles and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

Are there any Time Magazine reviews or "peer reviews" of other books on Elvis? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I will also point out, because User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. inserted into the Presley Talk page that the "accusations have been discussed not only in newspaper articles but also by fan groups." This is just one more of the never-ending misleading and meaningless claims made by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. to cloud the issue and prevent discussion of real facts. Elvis Presley fan groups all contravene Misplaced Pages:No original research and are not usable at Misplaced Pages. This Misplaced Pages Official Policy states: "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."

These fan groups on the Web compete fiercely for attention and in one case where a site (actually based in Australia) claimed they interviewed (under the appearance of a 2002 date) one of Elvis Presley's closest associates about the "new" Dee Presley book in which it was referred to by title. When asked via an e-mail:

• You show an interview with Joe Esposito in which you refer to a book by Dee Presley called "THE INTIMATE LIFE AND DEATH OF ELVIS. " I cannot find this book anywhere (or an ISBN number reference) and the United States Library of Congress has no listing for this title. Can you tell me something about it?”

Here is the reply for the operator of the site signed as Lea Frydman, Content Manger:

• "I do believe that the book by Dee Presley has since been re-printed under the title Elvis, We Love You Tender. Below is a direct link to Amazon where you buy a copy... Lea "

Hmmm… a 2002 interview about a book that has since been re-printed - in 1980!

Sorry, Ted, you cannot deny that there is a manuscript book by Dee Presley and an article published in the National Enquirer. The content has been discussed by fan groups and even by Professor Dr Wall. Onefortyone

NOTE: What has happened here is that User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. one user by himself with a singular agenda has dedicated himself to a few articles all of which lead to his claiming Elvis Preseley being homosexual. This person has caused hundreds of hours of needless debate all because of his unproven and undocumented assertions tied into his outright and repeated fabrications. Those who attempted to correct his false or unsubtatinated claims have been reverted by User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. up to as many as 100 times on the Elvis Presley, Natalie Wood, and Nick Adams articles. He has also drawn User:Wyss and User:Mel Etitis into his heated discussions that led to accusations and counter-accusations and debate that bordered incivility.

Note what User:Wyss said on Talk:Natalie Wood:

• Here, the anon uses the standard tactic of trying to wear me down with repetition of mostly factual but slightly distorted material which has little or no bearing on this short article. His ultimate goal by the way is to support an assertion that Elvis Presley was gay. Wyss 2 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

(NOTE User:Wyss did eventually become worn down and capitulated to everything User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc. demanded.)

That's a misrepresentation. All of 141's edits were followed by scathng disclaimers,or otherwise isolated as being patently suspect, when we were finished. Wyss 19:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. etc.]] lies then forces others to disprove his lies. Once you disprove them, it means nothing, the User just creates another lie and ibncreases the complexity and falsehoods of his edits. This was also said on Talk:Natalie Wood# A comment on sources by Misplaced Pages Administrator User Func:

• Yeah, I've just done some edit history searching. The anon is a POV warrior of the first degree, and does not appear to be editing in good faith. func(talk) 3 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

I think this is a personal attack. Ted Wilkes calls me a liar. He repeatedly did this in the past. Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:credibility is at stake here. For consciencous editors to be harassed for hour after hour when there is no reason only serves to drive away the very people Misplaced Pages needs most. Tolerating this is not only unacceptable, it gives ammunition to Misplaced Pages’s critics such as Encyclopedia Britannica who told the Washington Post that: "The problem with an effort like that is that at other times, it may reflect just the wisdom -- or lack of wisdom -- of the last contributor." In response, Jimmy Wales told the post : "Misplaced Pages is proposing to implement editorial controls soon that Wales thinks will put it on par with Britannica." That was September 8,2004.

So does the Bret cite even exist? Wyss 19:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem to. It seems odd to me that the Amazon review talks about the controversial aspects in the book (incest, rape), and does not mention any allegations of homosexuality, which the text here makes sound central to the book. I now support removal of that section. If 141 cares to write up an article for Elvis: The Hollywood Years, and give undisputed citations where actual claims of homosexuality are made, then we can consider referencing it in the article. As it stands, I don't think there is any support for inclusion of the Bret material. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I just found it. The amazon.co.uk has a searchable text version of the book. Allegations of a relationship with Nick Adams are made: . --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

So, the question now is whether or not the David Bret book is a source worthy of mentioning in the article. "No original research" only applies to research done by an editor of Misplaced Pages. A published source is clearly not original research by this definition. "dubious sources" refers to blogs and tabloids, which a published book still is not. As it is, I think that the article establishes that the book has been discredited by other scholars and no other biographers, even critics of elvis, take the allegations seriously. I'm not sure that any of the policies you've cited yet are grounds for removing the information altogether. Do you have any other specific precedent or policies that show why the citation should be removed? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus as to the credibility level is already here for this at Talk: Abraham Lincoln. As enunciated above, his unproven allusions or possible claims are a contradiction of credible authors. Bret's book has no peer review which is essential to Misplaced Pages and the academic/journalistic integrity of the source as User:DropDeadGorgias stated, is required. Because one book says something doesn't mean it is acceptable to Misplaced Pages. Bret is a tabloid writer, magazine or newspaper or book, there is no difference. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Dubious sources.

- Ted Wilkes 19:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That "No original research" only applies to research done by an editor of Misplaced Pages is incorrect. What is said is that "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." - Ted Wilkes 19:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Referencing gossip books and magazines, tabloids and the like is such a significant shift away from encyclopedia policy that it should not be considered in Misplaced Pages unless it has been fully discussed and accepted by the Misplaced Pages community through a posting at Misplaced Pages:Announcements along with the appropriate notice on Misplaced Pages:Current surveys.

It is rather difficult to establish credibility of something by a single source author, that just comes as almost borderline as original research. It's like having an editor publishing his or her own book then adding some of that material into the Misplaced Pages. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that there are some accusations (in a published book and in an unpublished manuscript by Elvis's stepmother) that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. These facts are critically discussed in the Misplaced Pages article. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 11:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Bret's book (p. 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."

I hope this helps. Onefortyone 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed in loops. The Dee Presley book is of dubious existence and has never been published. Her accusations have been flatly rejected and heavily criticized as spiteful and financially motivated. The Bret book has been published but is not taken seriously by most reviewers. Wyss 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll

Ok, I'll rephrase. I would like to know right here, right now, where everyone stands about all the issues that are, or at some point have been, controversial.

1) The mentioning of "constipation" in the Death and Burial section

For:

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Only in the trivia:

Nowhere at all:

2) The mentioning of transistor radios

Not at all

The way it is now (no "Sony" and "rock music" instead of "Presley")

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The original version (Sony + "teens listened to Elvis")

3) The gay thing

Not at all

Me (129.241.134.241 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The way it is now (without Dee, with the "sword" quote)

The way it once was (shorter, still without Dee, and without the "sword" quote)

4) The Billboard thing (Joel Whitburn or something)

Not at all

Me (129.241.134.241 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

The way it is now ( in the trivia )

In the main article

With all due respect for what 129 is trying to accomplish, I can't vote in his poll because the questions are not worded in a way I could answer them. Wyss 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this poll is overly simplistic. Each of these issues has to be discussed individually. Anyway, no one is contesting the constipation thing or the billboard thing, so why would you even bring them up except to stir up animosity? The only dispute I'm aware of now is the validity of the Bret article as a source; if other debates were still going on they should not have been archived. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that Wilkes said he intented to change several things in the article and STARTED with the "gay thing". He never, not once, said what the "other things" are. I didn't intend to stir animosity, sorry if some people feel that way (129.241.134.241 18:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Who is 141?

I agree with DropDeadGorgias since,

• It's not a violation of WP policy to edit either anonymously or with an anonymized username.

• Using WP for commercial purposes is a violation of policy, but following normal encyclopedic principles tends to eliminate those attempts (and can even turn them back on the promoter).

• 141 may be Bret, or an associate, but he already knows this is suspected. The WP definition of vandalism doesn't cover 141's methods, he doesn't use sockpuppets (contrary to policy anyway) and he otherwise adheres to WP policy more closely than certain other editors on this page, so badgering him about his identity would likely amount to harassment.

• The only remaining issue I see here is whether or not Bret's book can be discredited as a citation. Bret is already widely discredited as a reliable source (never mind it's the only one out of 2000+ works that refers to EP as gay to my knowledge). If 141 weren't so persistant, it wouldn't be in the article and IMO it shouldn't be. If six or seven editors were consistently removing the reference, that would be the end of it. This is what happens with most other articles involving famous people. For whatever reason, this issue hasn't attracted the attention of serious editors to that level, so for now it stays. Wyss 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll 2

Ok, it seems that the issue is this text:

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."

The poll is about whether Bret deserves to have a citation in the Elvis article.

1) Deserves (the way it is now)

2) Doesn't deserve

Me (129.241.134.241 18:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

I'll abstain for now because our friend TW may yet come up with something that could blow the citation out through WP policy, like he did with Dee Presley. Wyss 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I still haven't made up my mind as to whether or not the source merits mention. It's not like the article text gives any credence to the claims, as they are shown to lack credibility in the next line. However, even if they do stay, the section should be changed, as the heading is misleading. Bret does not seem to claim that Elvis is "gay", as he also alleges that Elvis had an incestuous relationship with his mother and raped his wife. Instead, Bret claims that Elvis had at least one homosexual experience. "Was Elvis Gay?" is too suggestive and misleading anyway. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would continue your thought by adding that it's difficult to come up with a section title when its best name might be... Unsupported inuendo published by money-seeking tabloid hacks :) Wyss 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, this artcile says "this is what Bret says", and then "he's a bad source, though". That's a bit inconsistent. (129.241.134.241 18:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm... 129, you are closer to 80.141/Bret than you realize. Maybe a little bit of respect (and I'm saying a little), might be in order. Ted Wilkes 18:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes, I hope you understood my position about the "gay thing" which, I'm surprised to say, coincides with yours. I can't actively edit in your favor, though, because I value the good Wikipedians DropDeadGorgeos and Wyss, who are much, much easier to work with than you. Nevertheless, the case is that the gay allegation has only one main proponent - David Bret, and only one Wikipedian to enforce his opinion here at Misplaced Pages - Onefortyone. That makes me sort of uneasy. (129.241.134.241 18:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

It's all built on a single interview with Sal Mineo back in 1972 that briefly related to Nick Adams. Others have since conflated what may have been a wild exaggeration or tall tale (told by the tale-tale-telling Adams) around his documented friendships and associations with Presley and James Dean. Wyss 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey 129, everybody has to make a living. So Bret and associate do whatever. By the way, if you are ever in Amsterdam, there is an area with really great specialized bookstores. Ted Wilkes 19:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fed up with books for now. I bought "Hotel New Hampshire", read some 50 pages then dropped it. The only reason I bought it, was because I'll soon be writing a book myself and at the time I thought the place of the action would be New England. Well, now I decided on Utah instead, so basically it's 100 Norwegian Kroner down the toilet. I sort of deviated from my own principle of ONLY reading massive bestsellers ( LOTR, Harry Potter, Angels & Demons, Da Vinci Code, Sophie's World, Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy ), and paid a price for that. (129.241.134.241 19:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC))

That's too bad, I think you would really enjoy the special Amsterdam bookstore. Wanted the Da Vinci Code soon, but the Pope said no. Ted Wilkes 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, do you have something to contribute re the Bret citation or can we remove the disputed tag now? Wyss 19:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW: here] are some photos of that dastardly homo, Nick Adams. Ted Wilkes 19:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Shocking stuff. Wyss 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: Please ensure your comments are posted ONLY at the bottom of the page and signed.

User:Onefortyone played his old games by inserting comments into my text, sometimes signed, sometimes not. He was previously told not to do this by Misplaced Pages Mediator JCarriker with respect to discussions on the Nick Adams article. Despite that, User:Onefortyone has done it again with my postings here and on the Adams talk page that are interconnected to this article dispute. Please be advised that if User:Onefortyone uses this tactic again on this page, I will move it to the appropriate place at the end of this statement.

I'm sure it's ok to do that, also to sign the posts for him if he doesn't. Wyss 20:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Before I post further on the disputed issue at hand, if anyone disagrees with working this way please say so along with any suggestions. I'm very flexible, consensus, you know. - Ted Wilkes 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

More facts and info regarding the reinsertion of some of the disputed text:

This statement is for the benefit for all but with specific questions for User:DropDeadGorgias who reinserted the disputed subsection back into the Presley article.

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence states as follows that we are to refer:

• Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:List of controversial issues).

On this controversial issues list is the book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln's sexuality). This is an identical situation that established that the "exceptional evidence" for academic/journalistic integrity required to justify a reference in an article to a book with a link to a separate book article, if so desired. The consensus achieved by Wikipedians was that: "The issue received sufficient press that historians and Time magazine have recently readdressed the issue." Note that this book was also given peer reviews by Washington Post, the New York Times, Publishers Weekly and other reputable critics.

User:DropDeadGorgias, stated above I think that the article establishes that the book (by David Bret) has been discredited by other scholars. That is incorrect – the book has never been deemed worthy of a Peer review by anyone as I had already stated. The consensus that Wikipedians arrived at in the Abraham Lincoln article is based upon Misplaced Pages:Verifiability# Dubious sources which states "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." And that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources# Check multiple independent sources requires a backup to claims. Further, the consensus dealt with Misplaced Pages:No original research that states: "original research that is published or available elsewhere -- may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate."

As to the David Bret gossip book, not only has it not been subject to a peer review, but no musical historians or credible biographers have addressed the issue. As stated by me already, the lack of peer reviews and no library sales or normal bookstore distribution means that without buying it from the Internet, it is exceedingly hard to know what Bret said. And, should anyone take the word of User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141's who Misplaced Pages:Verifiability# Checking verifiability says we should question when: The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information.

At Talk:Nick Adams, two days ago (17th) when I caught User:Onefortyone's little omission in reporting the full facts on Presley in the Gavin Lambert gossip book page 119 on Natalie Wood, you will note I gave the specific page number with my quote (as always). For some strange reason today, User:Onefortyone's has now pasted a bunch of meaningless gossip on my talk page with text purportedly from the Gavin Lambert book that is irrelevant to the issue. However, what appears relevant is that my library copy of Gavin Lambert's gossip book titled Natalie Wood – A Life ends at page 370 of the Index. None of the page numbers match what User:Onefortyone says.

However, if anyone were to consider those unproven quotes by User:Onefortyone on page 19 and 20 supposedly belonging to the Bret gossip book on Presley, which I do not, then it only proves that what Bret wrote is pure unfounded gossip and someone expressing nothing more than a personal opinion which is external writing to be excluded as stated above regarding Misplaced Pages Official Policy Misplaced Pages:No original research. In this day and age, anyone, or any business big or small, can publish a book, or create an imprint to turn a buck and print and bind dirt cheap one copy at a time if they want with a Xerox DocuTech® Production Publisher and other such systems. They can legally say anything in their book they want about dead people. And, Amazon.com will list it. Or go to a Vanity publisher who will list it for you in the USA with Amazon and/or B&N on the internet.

Please note on my talk page, that User:Onefortyone now admits the Colonel Parker reference in the Presley article is another fabrication and is not in the David Bret book. (Note, as User:Onefortyone and as ANON 80.141 etc., he has deleted other Wikipedians' edits dozens of times to reinsert this deception.) His absolutely and positively direct quote from the book in the Presley article has changed completely in this "new" direct quote. After so much of this, it gets quite tiresome.

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE:

• Decades after his death, author David Bret, In Elvis: The Hollywood Years (2002), stated that Presley was gay. Bret 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."

Here is what suddenly was declared by User:Onefortyone today as a "new" direct quote from The blurb – or is it?:

• "In addition, the blurb clearly says that the author "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."

Really? This kind of convoluted text comes from whom? Whoever created it, this text is just more unfounded gossip about dead guys. No facts, just more of David Bret's original research opinions.

Fact: Repeated insertions by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 of fabrications have been, like this one, always asserted as factual. He has deleted other editors trying to rectify them more than a hundred times. User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 history of this is well documented in this Presley article and as I have already shown on the archived talk page, they still get reinserted over and over even when proven false. Without exception, the fabricating of information and distortion has occurred on every one of the few articles User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 has edited, all of which are targeted and interconnected on one homosexual theme to Presley.

Another fact that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 ignores is that there is no evidence existing anywhere that Nick Adams was gay. Note that User:Wyss pointed out at Talk:Nick Adams: here on July 2 AND [here again yesterday (August 18)

• 1) There is zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual, or ever demonstrated such behavior. Wyss 2 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
• 2) Again, you know there are, and you also know there is zero documented evidence that NA was gay. Never mind that, we can keep the gossip in the rumours section as far as I'm concerned or care, it's helpful debunking. Wyss 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Note also in the Talk:Nick Adams page here that User:Onefortyone himself refers to David Bret and the like as "gossip book authors" stating in his edit of 19:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC):

• The only source not written by gossip book authors is the article by Professor Dr Wall, but he has not written about Nick Adams's sexual preferences.

Despite the facts and both User:Wyss and User:Onefortyone's own admissions that there is no evidence Nick Adams was gay, it asserts that as a fact in the Presley article saying: "homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams." And, the Presley article gives a link to the United Kingdom criminal law Professor David S. Wall article about United States intellectual property law that makes no reference to the sexual preferences issue whatsoever as User:Onefortyone himself has declared. And, the text linked to criminal law professor Wall further violates Misplaced Pages policy in that it is cloaked in weasel terms in an attempt to make the statement appear to have credibility.

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "Supporters of the claims made by David Bret 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. "

• Supporters of the claims made by David Bret? - What supporters? Name credible sources who have supported Bret's claims (allusions).
• while most authors do describe - Most? See Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Avoid blanket terms
• which has a tendency towards supporting only favorable views – A tendency? Says who?

The weasel terms used in the article is User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141's personal opinion which infers that academically qualified, peer reviewed, and highly respected authors such as Alanna Nash and Peter Guralnick are part of a worldwide conspiracy to write only favorable views of Presley. Note that next to the illicit weasel terminology is this link to Dr. Wall pretending that this statement is coming from him. The theory paper by UK criminal law professor David S. Wall never said that whatsoever. What professor Wall theorized upon was the Presley fan clubs and appreciation societies (his term) whom he labeled as all being part of the moral majority (his description).

And, in an attempt by User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 to legitimize using his unfounded statement and his misleading attribution to professor Wall, he inserted more weasel terms:

ELVIS PRESLEY ARTICLE QUOTE (weasel terms):

• "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' lifestyle."

This is a backhanded attempt to get the homosexual reference in. Such weasel terms could be used to say anything about anyone. That is why the Misplaced Pages policy exists. Note that in the Nick Adams article it claims Adams was gay because David Bret said so in his book and that it matched similar claims by Elvis's (former) stepmother. What has been created as "sources" are Misplaced Pages articles referencing each other. Further, the Misplaced Pages Presley article quotes one gossip book (Bret's) containing only allusions/hints, and adds: "Out of over 2,000 books published about Elvis Presley, this is the only known published source of these claims." – This exceptional claim requires exceptional evidence and reinforces the obvious that Misplaced Pages should never reference such a gossip book.

In conjunction with the fact that there is a total lack of evidence that Nick Adams was gay, the opposite is stated here in an article on Nick Adams that says "Although Nick was straight, and Dean was bi-sexual." And, there is no evidence from any reputable source that Nick Adams was gay or even a close friend of James (Jimmy) Dean. In fact, author John Gilmore said : "With Nick Adams it had been the same way, even with Natalie Wood—Jimmy (Dean) avoided them. Once off the (movie) set, he went out of his way to go in the opposite direction."

Be reminded, that in the Nick Adams article, (which I have disputed), it claims Adams was gay because David Bret said so in his book and that it matched similar claims by Elvis's (former) stepmother. On the contrary, what has been proven is that Nick Adams had a very intimate relationship with actress Natalie Wood as seen (and written about) here in 4 photos of Nick Adams and Natalie Wood together. Also, that Adams was later married and had two children is a fact. Note how reputable book reviewers like Publishers Weekly here warn readers about gossip writers who write about persons who "conveniently for legal purposes, are deceased." Such gossip writing does not meet Misplaced Pages standards for referencing.

In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, "When communicating on a talk page, answer if somebody asks for further explanation of your edits." Misplaced Pages Administrator DropDeadGorgias never addressed my disputed items in my detailed "Second disputed item" above, one that he requested I provide. As such, in accordance with the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, I am specifically asking Misplaced Pages Administrator DropDeadGorgias the following two simple questions with respect to his edit that reinserted the subsection in dispute:

• are you asserting that Misplaced Pages should not have universal policies and that we therefore should ignore the existing Misplaced Pages requirement for book references that was put into effect by Wikipedians based on consensus achieved for C. A. Tripp and his book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln's sexuality)?
• are you asserting that David Bret and his gossip book on Presley meets the level of Misplaced Pages requirements for academic/journalistic integrity?

Thank you. Misplaced Pages Administrator DropDeadGorgias, I await your answers. - Ted Wilkes 20:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please put comments here

• Ted, first of all, gigantic blocks of text are really difficult to read through, especially when you're referencing lots of other pages. It would most helpful if you could keep your entries short, and to the point. I don't see any reason to bring up the edit histories of Nick Adams and Natalie Wood, but whatever. Also, I don't know why you have to come off so hostile in your edits. We're not all against you, really; when it comes down to it, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a community activity. Finally, my replacement of the text was not in any way meant to condone or validate the statement in any way; but the text had been removed without consensus of its invalidity and the evidence that you had promised to provide on Wednesday. In light of the fact that you disproved the Dee Presley manuscript but did not disprove the Bret book to satisfy consensus yet, the material was replaced. Rather than sniping at the edit histories, comments, whatever, can you please get on with disputing the book, as we are all waiting for you to do? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• User:DropDeadGorgias - I'm sorry you think my edits are even a tiny bit hostile, they are certainly not intended to be. If I have offended you in any way, I most certainly apologize. My comments might be a little dry and reflect a little tiredness of Onefortyone/Anon's continued conduct. The facts are all here, so please answer the two questions. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 20:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • First, I apologize for misreading hostilitiy in your statements. It may be for the overly formal way that you address me as "Misplaced Pages Administrator DropDeadGorgias" constantly. Call me DropDeadGorgias. Misplaced Pages Administrator DropdeadGorgias is my father. Anyway, I answered the two questions above when I said "my replacement of the text was not in any way meant to condone or validate the statement in any way; but the text had been removed without consensus of its invalidity and the evidence that you had promised to provide on Wednesday". I don't assert anything, I merely re-added it because it seemed like that part had been removed without the consensus of the community. Obviously, the consensus is hard to determine, so if we can present the anti-Bret evidence now, it will make the decision a lot easier. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's a docking big block of text. In effect, I think he's saying Bret is wholly lacking in peer review and the book is hard to find in bookstores. He also says 141 misquoted Bret in order to enhance his EP was gay agenda.

I made the lack of peer review argument ages ago in relation to Nick Adams... and was mostly ignored. However I still agree with it. I think there is a consensus of four editors here who recognize one way or another that the Bret cite is worthless. If we would all simply monitor this page and delete 141's attempts to re-insert the material, this issue would dissappear quickly. On the other hand, in absence of active editing support (which is all that really counts) retaining the section with scathing disclaimers (perhaps renamed as DDG suggested) is ok by me too. I think the dispute tag should go now, unless TW has anythng else to dispute. Wyss 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is about Misplaced Pages policy, not peer review. We need to hear from User:DropDeadGorgias. Wyss, you don't speak for him and he did the revert because he believed it was correct. We must respect his opinion, that is part of consensus building. Big text? Infinitesimal compared to Anon's! - Ted Wilkes 21:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm speaking for DDG? Why do you continue being so hostile and confrontational? Why don't you understand that peer review is a matter of WP policy? Wyss 21:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

TO DropDeadGorgias - all the reasons for deleting the entire subsection of Presley's sexuality has been presented by me. If you believe my statements on the matter are insufficent reason, then please state that so that we know your views and I can assist you in any manner in coming to a consensus on an important and fundamental issue. Also, I respectfully request you answer the two questions in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines respecting edits which will go a long way to clarify things as you have stated you want to achieve. Thanks again. I'll do my best to drop the title, but I was raised that way. Cheers, I look forward to your input. - 21:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in the area of Elvis knowledge, so I was hesitant to weigh in on either side. However, it's clear that you, Anon241 and Wyss don't find much credence in the book, while OneFortyOne does. Of the active, regular editors on this page, that seems like a consensus, so I am removing the section for now. OneFortyOne, if you would like to replace the section, you will have to prove on this talk page to the satisfaction of the community the notability of Bret's book; a review from a REPUTABLE source will do (please do not include blogs, or unverifieable sources). If you do prove the notability of the source, we would still have to reword the statement; as I stated before, even the Bret book does not state that Elvis is gay, but that he had a homosexual encounter; the difference is important. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)