Elvis Presley B‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Image:Elvispriscillalisa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Search this page for "Matthew Verbin" and search the whole of Wikipedia and Google for the same name. He has posted on many wikis a bunch of nonsense, none of which, I suspect, is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.227.222 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How would she know that Elvis would soil himself in bed, or try to have sex with groupies? How is that supported by earlier testaments that state Elvis "may" have never have had sex again due to his nature? I don't believe such content to be viable, seeing that it's entirely different than stating an author of a book called him a pervert, as opposed to saying he actually is one. It's a direct contradiction of the statement beforehand, in which it shouldn't be proposed as viable.
The next thing is the homosexual relationships, in which there's not a single shred of evidence, aside from authors/journalists with no citations. The article is worded as speculation of a homosexual relationship, but isn't outwardly defined as speculation in itself. It subtly shifts from being regarded as speculation to being claimed as factual. None of those sources are reliable in the slightest, seeing that they're all rumors or assumptions being covered without actual citations from the authors. Calling Elvis a homosexual in drag is a completely ridiculous statement, and subjective at that. He looks nothing like a man or homosexual, or even a metrosexual in drag. The homosexual claims from Darwin Porter and former New York Times reporter Danforth Prince and actor Sal Mineo are basing their evidence entirely on rumors, which hold no weight whatsoever. Mineo was a homosexual himself, a very peculiar one, one that was likely attracted to Presley, granted I have no evidence for that, but neither does Mineo's claim, therefore my word on that shouldn't be added int he article any more than his.
The homosexual allegations shouldn't be rewritten in a similar mannerism as the Michael Jackson child molestation allegations, treated for what they are, allegations. Only presentable facts should be added to the article, all of which following Wikipedia's guidelines. Stating that unreliable sources state Presley and Adams had some form of sex, is clearly not fit for this article, because they're allegations being presented as fact. I've edited out these claims for just those reasons, feel free to rewrite them to the wiki's standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Adams_(actor)#Elvis_Presley Follow this article as an example on how to present the allegations. HCYS (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
A gossip columnist is not a highly reliable source, regardless; James Dean and Nick Adam's articles should be set as examples. There's a sure fire difference in stating an author claims something and blatantly implying something. Also note Nash's blunt contradiction in her own work, surely you jest. Furthermore, the aforementioned should be treated as allegations, just like the Michael Jackson molestation article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Nash's contradicting statements are among Elvis being one to shy away from sexual affairs, but having sex with groupies and soiling himself. That's a blatant contradiction, seeing if Elvis wouldn't have sex with anyone, then why would he be having sex with groupies while not having sex? My issue isn't with claims of Elvis being bisexual, but in the way it's written. Again, allegations should be treated for what they are, allegations. The article demeans itself in a way that proclaims such as fact, when clearly allegations are not facts. Nick Adam's article and James Dean's article, both treat the allegations as allegations, much like the Michael Jackson child molestation allegations. This article however gives lead to assert it as factual. There's a surefire way to distinguish between fact and claim in reading, surely you possess this skill. Also for the record, Goldman has no credibly in comparison to other authors, namely Guralnick. However that's neither here nor there. The issue at hand is the way it's written, feel free to propose a new way to implement the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should learn what "impotence" means. That's a sexual dysfunction, not the will to not have sex because of personal choices; or simply not having a libido. Nash states Elvis slept with groupies and soiled himself in bed with them, but yet she contradicts herself by saying that Elvis never slept with groupies. That's a very blatant contraction. If you can't understand that Goldman isn't the most reliable source in the world, that's your problem. I've stated credible authors and why allegations don't work unless they're treated as allegations. You also state all these people apparently praise this credibility, when it has nothing to do with his reliability on the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Nah, you're wrong. Impotent =/= the will to deny sexual encounters or willfully not have a libido. The article does not specify that Elvis would have women over to cuddle and such, if that's to be added, then great, no issue or contradiction. That's just a poorly worded part on the editor. Secondly, how can this even be proved? It can't, therefore it's an allegation, much like the Michael Jackson molestation charges, and that's how they should be treated, much like the homosexual allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, like usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what an allegation versus a claim and factual evidence is. You're not getting your way, you've lost this argument. I'm finished textually debating this, due to you utter incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Finstad is certainly a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. ElvisFan1981 has falsely claimed that Priscilla successfully sued Finstad over several accounts in her book, Child Bride, making it a very unreliable source. This is not true. Priscilla did not successfully sue Finstad, as the author was not part of the lawsuit. Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. However, in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny." Onefortyone (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Then why am I not the only one who thinks it's unreliable? You very rarely provide "evidence" of anything except rumours, most of which are heavily denied and all but proven to be false by the actual "evidence". I am also not constantly singing the praises of Elvis. I have many times made edits to articles that have included negative comment, sometimes to actually balance out an over-the-top praising of the subject. I believe in fairness and facts, not psychobabble that really has only one person's interest at heart; the author of the piece. I don't think I've ever seen you add anything positive about Elvis or a subject related to him, either for the sake of it or to balance an article. It's always negative rumour or opinion that doesn't actually prove anything. I have praised your ability to edit in the past, I have told you that you have an excellent ability to search for and find almost anything you want to, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with your constant bashing of someone who is no longer able to defend themselves, especially when it's all based on rumour. Perhaps if you had more of an interest in other articles and subjects instead of just Elvis, I might accept that you are just "more critical" of Elvis than most editors appear to be, but your almost absolute focus on one subject makes your intentions quite obvious, in my opinion. I no longer believe that you are interested in "truth" or, as you've just claimed, Elvis' "personal life and the problems he had from a psychological point of view". Other editors in the past have suggested that you start to focus on other subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with Elvis, because they too found your focus and intentions to be questionable. The fact that you fail to drop something after it's been discussed to death also suggests you have ulterior motives, or it could at least look that way to some. The fact that you bounce from one accusation to another, almost on a constant shuffle/repeat mode, also makes it very suspicious to some. I've seen you deny accusations by other editors that you are simply a "troll" or "baiting" people, but I sometimes wonder what else it could be. For the record, I'm not accusing you of it myself, I'm just pointing out that it sometimes does appear to be your main intention, whether you intend it to look that way or not. Now, why don't you do some excellent research on some other people who were interested in "younger women", "drugs", "were close to their mothers", or were "rumoured to be gay" to help improve those articles and make them more neutral? My main edits have been on Elvis, simply because it's the subject I know the most about and have sources for, but I don't limit it solely to that subject. I attempt to expand some, improve them, add citations and content that is able to give a reader as much of the true facts as possible, but I also find improving other articles to be worthwhile and necessary to improve my experience on wikipedia. I think it would do you good, and wikipedia good, for you to try the same. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
Interestingly, that makes large chunks of this article liable for deletion. After all, we have to stick to Wikipedia Standards. I'm sure I'll find some time soon to get around to cleaning the article up to meet the standards required. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it's mainly "rumors and personal opinions" from those she interviewed. "Eyewitness accounts"? Really? So people witnessed Priscilla's virginity being lost, or any of her sexual encounters? People actually witnessed every sexual encounter, or not, that Elvis had? People witnessed the homosexual encounters that he supposedly had? There are many parts of this article that rely heavily on "rumors and personal opinions" about "persons living or dead". It's quite clear what has to be done. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, why are all of his male friends grouped together? What about his father, or other friends? What about the relationship he had with his stillborn brother, that he'd talk to as a kid? Why is it acceptable for each woman (which is heavily incomplete as it is) to have their own part in the article, but when it comes to the males, it's all grouped together? This article needs a heavy reform, as it certainly isn't B-quality. I'd like to reform it, but I have a few other Wiki projects going on at the moment. KirbyPresley (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary to have Goldman in every section as if he was the guru. The Goldman book is a shameless "tell-all" and should not be taken seriously as a source. Most of the book itself consists of Goldman's jealous opinions of Presley that have little basis in reality. If you read the book you'll notice he didn't cite much of it. Also, I don't think Goldman's sl
Albert Goldman's book was am journalism was even taken seriously. If there's no problem with it I may remove a couple of the more speculative quotes. I think "According to Albert Goldman, Elvis looked like "a homosexual in drag" and may have been "a latent or active homosexual." really does not belong and is a display of ignorance and hatred moreso than an encyclopedic entry. UselessToRemain (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Albert Goldman wrote trash about Elvis and John Lennon. He was not anything remotely a reliable source for an article. He had no reputation as a reputable biographer, and his books were panned at the time and thereafter. Goldman, as noted by others, tried to invalidate Elvis's real contributions to American culture by trying to slime him at every opportunity, and accusing him of the slimiest thing when Elvis was no longer around to contradict them. He truly was envious of Elvis because Elvis, without even trying, influenced American culture in such a profound way, and this ousted former academic couldn't cut the mustard. Goldman mercifully died of a heart attack while on an airplane while researching for material for a Jim Morrison biography. No doubt Morrison would have gotten the same treatment as Lennon and Presley had Goldman lived.--sn 4 September 2014
Too much of this Wikipedia article is full of garbage by Nash and Finstad. Remember, Priscilla Presley--her name was NOT Priscilla Wagner when she met Elvis and she did NOT co-author her autobiography as "Priscilla Ann Wagner" but as Priscilla Beaulieu Presley--sued Currie Grant. Take any of Finstad's claims with a giant grain of salt. sn 06/04/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.53.64 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The Book are "You Lonesome Tonight" by Lucy de Barbin detailing her lifelong and secret relationship with Elvis Presley since 1953 is well researched and much was confirmed by those that knew Elvis in his younger years in Memphis and Lucy de Barbin in Monroe, Louisiana. All the readers who actually read the book and who published reviews on Amazon about the book thought it fully believable,or when they disagreed, they still stated it seemed possible. The only attacks on the book I saw were from people who clearly did not read the book. It is amazing that such a compelling book has caused no mention about a relationship between Lucy and Elvis and the birth of her daughter Desiree Romaine Presley in this section. It seems that no mention of it makes the section very incomplete. There are many entries in the section that are much more hearsay than that of the Lucy de Barbin Elvis saga. This includes sordid and unverified allegations. These should be deleted. The book was written in collaboration with Dary Matera, a accomplished author of many books, a journalist and reporter for The Miami News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.125.229 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
That's because the book was hogwash. sn 06/04/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.53.64 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)