Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley
Note
 * I have now provided some additional sources supporting the content of the article. See below and Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone 00:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Rumours not encyclopedic Lee Hunter 15:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: some items in the article are sourced; perhaps they could be merged with Elvis Presley if not already mentioned there? &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sourced rumours are still rumours and not encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 20:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Caution. this article is part of a single issue agenda by User:Onefortyone to seed the Elvis Presley article and Wikipedia with misleading content in order to trigger Google keyword searches pointing readers to books by David Bret. Wyss 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what this user constantly claims in order to denigrate my contributions. As everybody can see, I frequently cite my sources. Administrator Ed Poor, who knows that there is an edit war going on, has recommended to create a new article on the gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. Perhaps an administrator could add a link to this new page in the "Relationships" section of the article on Elvis Presley which is still protected. Thank you. Onefortyone 17:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say gay sex rumors and I didn't say only Elvis Presley. I was thinking primarily of James Dean.
 * Anyway, I think a collection of Celebrity rumors or Gossip about actors would make a more entertaining and informative article. Uncle Ed 13:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You said,
 * Should we take the gay sex rumors to another page? Maybe combine with similar gossip about Elvis Presley and other entertainers who have been "outed" (or slandered). It's not really of general interest. Besides, you guys are alway fighting about it, and I'm getting tired of settling your squabbles. Uncle Ed 02:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? Wyss 03:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See
 * O.K., you are right that you were not primarily thinking of Elvis, and I still think it is a good idea to have Wikipedia articles of this kind. There is one important point. When I explained to gay historian David Ehrenstein the problem that some contributors to Wikipedia try to suppress every reference that some Hollywood stars were gay, as everybody can see from the Talk:Nick Adams page and the related archives, the Talk:James Dean page, etc., he answered,
 * The problem is cultural. Heterosexuality is regarded as universal and a self-evident truth. Everyone is supposed to be heterosexual, therefore "proof" of same-sexuality is required. Standards of "proof" change constantly. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, "Dizzy" Sheridan (Jerry Seinfeld's mother to zillions of TV viewers) spoke quite candidly about the fact that she knew Dean had an affair with producer Rogers Brackett. [I have used this sentence for the James Dean article.] Gavin Lambert has spoken of Sal Mineo's affair with Nicholas Ray (with whom he had had an affair as well) and Gore Vidal made mention of the Ray-Mineo affair too. Gavin Lambert makes mention of Nick Adams' gayness in his biography of Natalie Wood -- who had a great many gay friends. In sort there is nothing unusual about being gay or bisexual particularly in Hollywood. It's the Heterosexual Dictatorship (Christopher Isherwood's useful term) that can't handle the truth.
 * These are wise words indeed. Query: do you really have problems with the fact that there are some authors who say that some Hollywood stars were gay or may have had homosexual leanings? You may think about this, instead of condemning my article and rashly saying "delete". Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat off-topic, but I'm not sure that the idea of Celebrity rumours, or Gossip about actors articles, as mentioned above are a particularly good idea. Firstly, I imagine libel laws would be an issue. Secondly, rumours can be indiscriminate, baseless, unsourced, and all the things which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Perhaps this argument is best saved for when those articles come to AfD themselves though, as this debate is already fairly convoluted as it is! KeithD (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that my remarks are off-topic, as the suppression of different opinions which are not in line with the opinion of some fans is a real Wikipedia problem. Perhaps "rumors" is not the right word, as the claims are supported by several independent sources, among them books and articles. Onefortyone 01:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant what I was about to say was somewhat off-topic. Sorry for the confusion. KeithD (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Move to something like Elvis Presely and homosexuality, but keep, seems well sourced. Sdedeo 20:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep, reluctant because I'm opposed to the continual assumption that every famous male is gay. However as noted above this does appear to be well-sourced although I personally would delete the Guardian quote as being taken out of context since it, in turn, references a scandal mag and therefore weakens the thesis. Also the last paragraph, despite the sourcing, needs to be recast for NPOV. I agree it needs a better title. 23skidoo 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there should be a better title. Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of the articles seems to be innuendo with little in the way of fact. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is important to discourage people like Onefortyone from using Wikipedia for financial gain by improving Google results. (129.241.134.241 01:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC))
 * You have repeatedly accused me of using Wikipedia for financial gain. I do not understand what you mean by that. Perhaps it is a strategy to disparage opinions which are not in line with your personal view. Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia should not be used to spread rumors. --rob 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per rob abakharev 05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 'sources' for this are a scandal mag, an unpublished manuscript, the National Enquirer, and a book by an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts". Given the National Enquirer being a source can we expect an article on Living on the moon rumours about Elvis Presley? If the article is being used, as alleged above, to promote a book, then it skirts dangerously close to being personal research. The article is inherently POV, and would most likely remain so even with a name change. Given that the article cites its very weak sources at length, I see nothing to suggest that it could be expanded further with the addition of new information. I see nothing to suggest it could ever be an encylopaedic article. KeithD (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are some contributors dominating the Elvis Presley article who try to suppress every critical voice. They even deleted a critical paragraph based on essays by Professor David S. Wall, who discusses the fact that Elvis fan groups denigrate the content of the manuscript by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. See Talk:Elvis Presley and related archives. Onefortyone 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I read the archives prior to casting my vote (or whatever we call it now that VfD has become AfD). I didn't 'rashly' vote delete. I'm not part of a 'heterosexual dictatorship'. I'm not a rabid Elvis Presley fan, or a rabid homophobe, or a rabid rabbit. As far as I remember, I came across the article via AfD, rather than searching for it. I have no agenda here with regards either sexuality, Elvis Presley, Hollywood, or anything. My only agenda here is to contribute to an encyclopaedia to make it as good as it can be, which is what I feel I did with my vote and stating my reasoning. KeithD (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you are part of the contributors dominating the Elvis article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. As you are an unbiased Wikipedia user, you may have a look at the Talk:Elvis Presley page and help to rewrite the critical paragraph concerning the world-wide Elvis industry. Thanks in anticipation. Onefortyone 20:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are multitude of various rumors about all the famous people there is. Elvis is hardly the only one. I doubt we want similar, separate articles about all that are even marginally famous. Or does somebody want to create, for example, categories like "homosexuality rumors about celebrities", "alien rumors about celebrities", "conspiracy theories about celebrities" or "hate group allegations about celebrities" Skysmith 12:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Trim greatly, then Merge into Elvis Presley. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:04, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
 * Delete. I must be a masochist for getting involved with this s***storm again.  141 was unable to establish credibility for the Bret book on Talk:Elvis Presley, and this article is his way around it.  Unless he can convince a consensus here or on Talk:Elvis Presley that the book is notable and abides by the wikipedia policy for Verifiability, then this information should remain out of Wikipedia articles.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Verifiability page says,
 * "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."
 * "Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information."
 * In the meantime, I have detected two additional sources which prove that there were claims about Elvis's homosexual relationships, one of which is from Elvis's lifetime. Nick Adams himself said that he had an affair with Elvis. There is a positive Dutch review of Bret's book. So I have presented at least half a dozen independent sources (published and unpublished books, reviews, articles, plays) which deal with the topic. The article is a compromise in order to exclude the material from the main article, as many Elvis fans do not like the rumors about the singer's homosexual leanings. Perhaps the title of the article may be changed. It should also be taken into account that there are several critical remarks in my article concering the claims. Onefortyone 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From a review of David Bret's book:

March 30, 2002

Elvis Presley's Gay Secret

by (RGS/TG/BRC)

ELVIS PRESLEY's HOLLYWOOD YEARS

According to BRET, the legendary rocker's "greedy" manager COLONEL TOM PARKER blackmailed him into virtual slavery by threatening to leak reports of the romance. Bret says, "Parker held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor NICK ADAMS over his head like a sword. He made it clear that... if Elvis didn't toe the line, he'd let it get out. At that time, it could well have ruined his career. That's why Parker had so much control over him." Presley's sexual experimentation began with a "teenage crush" on actor JAMES DEAN that grew into an obsession, says the book. The star saw REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE 44 times and eventually became close pals with Dean's Rebel co-star Nick Adams. Bret says, "Adams claimed that he had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis 'agreed to be his date' for a preview of Nick's 1956 film THE LAST WAGON." Presley, by then a sex symbol sending legions of women swooning, became smitten with Adams and even tried unsuccessfully to get him a part in his first movie LOVE ME TENDER, says Bret. In 1958, "Nick Adams and Elvis stayed in the same room of the same hotel in New Orleans while Elvis was filming KING CREOLE there," the author reveals. Many journalists' attempts to 'out' the star in the past were thwarted by his manager.

(World Entertainment News Network) (Unsigned comment by User:Onefortyone).


 * It's not a review. It doesn't either praise or criticise the book. It just reports what David Bret says. It does nothing to prove or disprove the credibility of the author. KeithD (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I found an interesting discussion concerning Elvis's sex life and his homosexual leanings. The author says,
 * an additional source
 * The excitement about rumors about Prince Charles opened up in Europe the discussion about the sex-lives of other prominent personalities. To them belongs the unforgettable Elvis Presley, who was stationed as a young soldier in Germany. Up to now it has been a tabu to publicly speculate about the sexual predisposition of Elvis Presley. While the "King of Rock" has been spared by the media, other prominent personalities were forced to come out of the closet. ...
 * In order to bring light on the private secrets of deceased Hollywood stars, a team of experts in Europe is collecting information also about Elvis Presley. One source are eyewitnesses, who have been privately associated as friends and acquaintances with Elvis Presley.

One of the sources they present is this personal photograph, presumably taken by a gay friend, from the beginning of Presley's military service showing Elvis half naked with one of his male friends: The author adds,
 * The question is already now: how will the Elvis fans take the possible bisexuality of their idol? Will it bring protests and denials, or rather tolerance and understanding for the great singers? A sensitive side of Presley could even increase people's affection for him, according to the opinion of some Presley fans.

I think this is another independent source supporting the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 10:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Onefortyone has submitted the exact same thoughts about this source at Talk:Elvis_Presley. I've explained there why I feel it's yet another very weak source. It seems more sensible to provide a link to my reply, rather than just copy and paste what I said. KeithD (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams.
 * Another published book claiming that Elvis had a homosexual affair
 * From the review in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):
 * Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 5/15/90.
 * Onefortyone 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided the relevant passage from Earl Greenwood's book. KeithD (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.