| Revision as of 17:09, 14 September 2005 editWyss (talk | contribs)13,475 edits →Notice← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:16, 14 September 2005 edit undoWyss (talk | contribs)13,475 edits →Talk page usageNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Wikipedians established proper procedure for section headings at ]. Be it the article or its Talk page, they appear on Internet search engines such as ] and those who come here can promote their agenda on the Talk page even if it is not in the article. ] states that contributors are to "Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a ] for ]." Further, such abuses may be corrected in accordance with ]. As such, removing advocacy writing and amending improper headings that were on this and previous pages is proper and essential to so that they meet Misplaced Pages standards and maintain credibility. ] 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | Wikipedians established proper procedure for section headings at ]. Be it the article or its Talk page, they appear on Internet search engines such as ] and those who come here can promote their agenda on the Talk page even if it is not in the article. ] states that contributors are to "Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a ] for ]." Further, such abuses may be corrected in accordance with ]. As such, removing advocacy writing and amending improper headings that were on this and previous pages is proper and essential to so that they meet Misplaced Pages standards and maintain credibility. ] 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I suggest that, rather than archiving the same recurrent discussion over again, we create a dedicated sub-page for the debate, like ], or something. That way, the discussion can rage on without cluttering the talk space and precluding any other discussion. --] ] 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | :I suggest that, rather than archiving the same recurrent discussion over again, we create a dedicated sub-page for the debate, like ], or something. That way, the discussion can rage on without cluttering the talk space and precluding any other discussion. --] ] 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Under normal circumstance that might be a helpful idea but with all due respect this might be a dis-incentive for readers to read archives 3 & 4, and an opportunity for 141 to re-paste the same assertions (which have already been responded to as to appropriateness and reliability of source) onto yet another page for a "fresh" rundle of editors to start from scratch with. I humbly suggest that the discussion remain on this talk page and (very broadly speaking) only "new" commentary from editors, including 141, be accepted. ] 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:16, 14 September 2005
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elvis Presley/Archive 23 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive1
- Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2
- Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3
- Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4
If you're here to have a look because of the RfC, please read archives 3 and 4 first, thank you. Wyss 10:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Notice
There is no better demonstration of how some Misplaced Pages users, who are presumably part of the world-wide Elvis industry (User:Wyss himself recently claimed to have had contact with the managers), are trying to suppress opinions which are not in line with their personal view, although several independent sources (published books, reviews, articles, websites) say that there is some evidence that Elvis may have had homosexual affairs with men and that some Hollywood actors, such as Elvis's friend Nick Adams, were gay. The more I think about their biased statements (see, for instance, and ) the more I think Professor David S. Wall is right when he says that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power." Now these people are acting against different opinions in Misplaced Pages articles which do not support a favorable view of the singer. I do not think that this is a neutral point of view according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Onefortyone 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
# # # # WIKIPEDIA CONSENSUS # # # #
By a majority of users of this forum, we find the behaviour of user Onefortyone disruptive, his contributions single-minded, his tactics dishonest. As shown in the plentiful replies to his edits and posts on the talk page, we have adressed all his contributions, yet he repackages his ideas into new forms using the same tactics as before.
We choose not to address his post/edit in an intelligent manner, which we have done a multitude of times in the past, but rather to place this segment of text to show other WP users and administrators that it is not the case that Onefortyone is being discriminated against. It is not the case that NPOV is threatened. It is the case that we have run out of resources to continue our battle with him and resort to a new measure.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
(129.241.134.241 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC))
- As I have said here I don't feel User:129.241.134.241's way of dealing with this situation is appropriate. Taking it to WP:RFC is the appropriate step. I've posted this article at Articles for Comment to get some more feedback. If you feel that Onefortyone's actions are inappropriate, then you should follow accepted procedure, rather than making what amount to arbitrary rulings.
- As I have also said, I have no connection with Elvis Presley. I'm not much of a fan of his at all, beyond one or two songs. My objection is that the sources for the rumours are entirely without credibility (as I have stated when the sources were presented), and that new sources are being sought out to support Onefortyone's established point of view that Elvis was gay, rather than assessing the strength of all the evidence. KeithD (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I should add that I have no connection with Elvis Presley, his family or his management and never have, nor have I ever even been a fan (except for a couple of his earliest Sun rockabilly recordings I guess).
- I could care less about his bedroom forays, or "preserving" his memory- I think EP was a drug-adled mess truth be told... what I do care about is the appropriate sourcing and building a reliable, helpful and reasonably accurate, balanced encyclopedia from the documented record.
- Disclosure (since as wonted, 141 is trying to twist something I wrote): The only personal connection I may have with the story has to do with some pictures 141 mentioned since I do have a long ago connection with Liberace's management, whose article I have worked on extensively by the bye and who was unambiguously gay (although this was publicly denied during his lifetime) and which is plainly reflected, through references to the widely documented public record, in Lee's article. Moreoever I'm no "fan" of Lee in any esthetic or musical sense, other than to say he was among the nicest people I ever met (and I'd say what they call a "true show business professional"), which made a big impression on me as a little girl when he was on the periphery of my life before he tragically died.
- Readers are invited to take this as an indication I'm more than willing to characterize someone's lifestyle in an article when the historical record supports it and any mention of it is handled in an encyclopedic way. Wyss 09:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
In order to avoid endless repetition of previous discussions, I have deleted a large block of repetitive, copied material posted here by 141. Please see Talk:Elvis Presley/archive4 to read his proposed contributions in context, with editor responses as to the reliability of his sources and conclusions. Wyss 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Wyss - You have deleted another contributor's comments? It's interesting that that is the exact opposite of what you stated at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive3#Deleting other editors' comments or headings. Nonetheless, I am glad you have now examined Misplaced Pages policy enough to realize I was right. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMO the context and circumstances are starkly different and have much to do with the sheer volume and repetition of the material involved. However, the superficial irony is noted :) Wyss 17:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk page usage
Wikipedians established proper procedure for section headings at Talk:Abraham Lincoln. Be it the article or its Talk page, they appear on Internet search engines such as Google and those who come here can promote their agenda on the Talk page even if it is not in the article. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette states that contributors are to "Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy." Further, such abuses may be corrected in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Refactoring. As such, removing advocacy writing and amending improper headings that were on this and previous pages is proper and essential to so that they meet Misplaced Pages standards and maintain credibility. Ted Wilkes 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that, rather than archiving the same recurrent discussion over again, we create a dedicated sub-page for the debate, like Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality, or something. That way, the discussion can rage on without cluttering the talk space and precluding any other discussion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Under normal circumstance that might be a helpful idea but with all due respect this might be a dis-incentive for readers to read archives 3 & 4, and an opportunity for 141 to re-paste the same assertions (which have already been responded to as to appropriateness and reliability of source) onto yet another page for a "fresh" rundle of editors to start from scratch with. I humbly suggest that the discussion remain on this talk page and (very broadly speaking) only "new" commentary from editors, including 141, be accepted. Wyss 17:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)