Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 3 June 2005

Anonymous users removed relevant information and distorted the article in order to support their claim that Elvis Presley was gay. The last of these, from 80.141.206.211, copied from another website interview with Judy Spreckels, deliberately distorted what she said by inserting the word "boyfriend." Too many people work hard to make Misplaced Pages reliable and credible but it is conduct like this from people who hide behind the cloak of anonymity that gives credence to those who claim Misplaced Pages is unreliable and a place frequented by those with an agenda. Ted Wilkes 16:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now had to repeatedly change the reversions made by these anonymous users. Given that they acted almost immediately, it would seem likely that whoever is doing this is a regular logged in user switching to hide behind an IP address. Ted Wilkes 16:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems as if the text you prefer is primarily an attempt to cast aspersions on the show business biographer, David Bret. The other version is more neutral. It could well be that the author of the first version of this Misplaced Pages article is a competitor or opponent of Bret as only negative comments on his writings are to be found in this version. It is further conceivable that the whole article was written by an Elvis Presley fan in order to denigrate Bret for his claiming that Elvis may have been gay. See also Talk:Elvis Presley which includes similar statements against Bret by a user who is still under a Misplaced Pages hard ban. The passage relating to Bret's book on Elvis may be shortened and changed a little.

It seems to me that the old version of the page is far less POV than this current page. 1) The old version mentions the controversy surrounding Bret's finding's well enough, and 2) why did the new editors remove a perfectly fine Guardian link? I support reversion to the old version. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

As nobody else seems to be interested in this discussion, I have now reverted to the other, much better, version.

I reverted unfounded statements and outright fabrication by the anonymous user who also has attempted similar distortions to the article on Nick Adams. Ted Wilkes 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two independent statements that the other version of the article is much better.

This article has now been placed in: Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Ted Wilkes 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See comments about David Bret and his book about Elvis Presley on Talk:Elvis Presley. Ted Wilkes 23:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is what the publisher's synopsis says about David Bret's "seriously written new biography" (as it is called by our ANONYMOUS user): "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."

Protection

I have protected this page at the request of several users. Please resolve this dispute here on the talk page.

1. Why did the anon user continually revert other useful edits on the other side, without comment?
2. Why were relevant links from fairly notable sources (The Guardian) removed by User:Ted Wilkes?

I personally think that both parties need to move a little here. Please settle the contentious points here before the page is unprotected. I am not going to be here that much for the next few days, but I'll check in over the weekend. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

From User Ted wilkes

I am the one who requested this page be protected. For the record, I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER. Before making such a statement, it is best to check the facts. Ted Wilkes 16:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I never made "useful edits" in this article until yesterday (June 2) and then only to insert two external references. And, I did it ONLY AFTER a dozen or so reverts by this ANONYMOUS user back to his falsified rewrite. All I did was revert to the last edit by User:Bearcat and then when ANONYMOUS kept reverting, I posted the TWO VERSIONS notice.

Writer David Bret has zero credibility and for an ANONYMOUS vandal to rewrite a Misplaced Pages article and insert outright fabrications is an insult to the multitude of honorable people who come here and work hard to make sincere contributions. Read the David Bret article then look at the doctored version by this ANONYMOUS user.

To quote David Bret as a responsible source is an insult. His publisher provides no biography and his background and whatever education information is withheld. Bret has no personal website. Qualified biographers proudly declare their credentials such as Leonie Frieda, (2004). Catherine de Medici - A biography. ISBN 1-84212-725-X - Website

To quote allegations in a book from a writer who has been dismissed totally by the literary community gives validation to the criticisms of Encyclopedia Britannica and others that the factual accuracy of Misplaced Pages cannot be trusted.

All of my contributions are open to scrutiny and editing by anyone. My sincere effort to provide factual information speaks for itself. Why should users at Misplaced Pages have to put up with an ANONYMOUS vandal whose sole contributions are the repeated fabrication of facts into the same three articles?

For facts on Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley, instead of Bret's wild unfounded accusations please see what a real biographer publishes and what qualified critics say about their work. *The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley - Alanna Nash (2003) (Simon & Schuster - ISBN: 0743213017) - Award winning story noted for its meticulous research. Website:

I refer to my comments on this matter at Talk:Elvis Presley . I note this ANONYMOUS vandal has inserted his own Encyclopedic-quality facts such as:

• Most people in Hollywood knew that Nick Adams was gay.

Also, in an argument with another user (who left Misplaced Pages after this abuse) on the Elvis Presley talk page (14:45, 3 Jun 2005 80.141.178.108) our ANONYMOUS user gave another Encyclopedic-quality fact:

• I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men.

This statement confirms what I posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. It appears this ANONYMOUS user may be part of the gay-bashers who try to alienate straight people against members of the gay community by deliberating targeting popular personalities so as to make it appear that the gay community condones and practises "gay by association".

The bottom line is that the allegations by David Bret that Elvis was gay, had an incestuous relationship with his mother, and left a fan brain damaged are beyond consideration. Misplaced Pages is not the place to give recognition to wild allegations. If we do, the floodgates will open to more of the same and all the hard work in this valuable place will be in vain.

Ted Wilkes 16:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)