Talk:David Bret

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia hard ban. The passage relating to Bret's book on Elvis may be shortened and changed a little. - User: 80.141.199.119
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. - User: 80.141.255.168

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. - User: 80.141.235.94

This article has now been placed in: Wikipedia: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 [1] 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."

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

You say, " I NEVER removed any link to The Guardian, EVER." The link to the Guardian review is still missing in the version you prefer which is now protected, as everybody can see. So much for the problem of dealing with the truth. - User: 80.141.209.28

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.

I don't know why you did all these reverts in order to support the version originally created by User:JillandJack which seems to have been written in order to cast aspersions on David Bret. DropDeadGorgias supports reversion to the other, revised version I have written, as, in his opinion, "it is far less POV than this current page" and "mentions the controversy surrounding Bret's finding's well enough." Could it be that User:JillandJack is identical with Ted Wilkes? - User: 80.141.209.28

Writer David Bret has zero credibility and for an ANONYMOUS vandal to rewrite a Wikipedia 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.

You are constantly accusing me of vandalism. I would say that I have rewritten the article to make it more neutral. There is enough criticism of Bret's recent writing in my version of the article. - User: 80.141.209.28

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

It is a fact that Bret has written several books on singers and movie stars and also many articles for The Stage. There are many other authors who have no personal web sites. - User: 80.141.209.28

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 Wikipedia cannot be trusted.

"a writer who has been dismissed totally by the literary community?" Sorry, there are positive reviews of the writings of Bret. His book on George Formby was favorably reviewed by The Guardian. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/critic/feature/0,1169,767653,00.html Publishers Weekly says of his 1998 work on Maria Callas that it "retells the story of the overweight girl from Queens who became a glamorous diva, as famous for her temper tantrums and turbulent personal life as for her singing. ... Bret, clearly a Callas aficionado, glosses over the controversial aspects of the voice and emphasizes her total commitment to her art, her brilliant resurrection of nearly forgotten bel canto roles and her extraordinary dramatic skills. He also recounts all the sensational details of Callas's life, the violent temper, the feuds with colleagues, the stormy marriage to a much older man and the many love affairs, including her liaison with Aristotle Onassis, who berated her singing and dumped her for Jackie Kennedy. The emphasis is on scandal rather than music in this racy biography, but it's always entertaining to read about the prima donna who, when presented with a writ in a lawsuit, exclaimed, "I will not be sued! I have the voice of an angel!" and who insulted everyone from the legendary conductor Herbert von Karajan to Winston Churchill, the queen of England and the pope. Appendixes list Callas's concert, radio, television and film appearances, her opera performances and her recordings."
Bret's book on Elvis has also a favorable Dutch review. See http://www.itselvistime.nl/thehollywoodyears.htm - User: 80.141.209.28

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 Wikipedia 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: [2]

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.
You cannot deny that this is true. For lists of famous gay people including Nick Adams, see, for instance, http://www.umsl.edu/~pope/famous.html or http://www.youthfirsttexas.org/famous_gay_people.html For Natalie Wood and the gay men in Hollywood, including Nick Adams, see Gavin Lambert, Natalie Wood: A Life. http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_308/recliminganactress.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_March_16/ai_n6023733
It is also suggested that Adams's friend James Dean was gay. See http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/09/20-pastout.html
Where are your sources which prove that Nick Adams was heterosexual? - User: 80.141.209.28

Also, in an argument with another user (who left Wikipedia 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. - User: 80.141.209.28
For the Memphis Mafia, men such as Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker, Lamar Fike, etc., who were considered to be the closest to Elvis and spent all day and night with him, see http://www.blacksheep.com/portfolio/memphismafia/ - User: 80.141.209.28

This statement confirms what I posted on Wikipedia: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".

Significantly, my response to your accusation on that page was frequently deleted by User:Ted Wilkes. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, history page. Could it be that you are the same User:JillandJack who, from the beginning, wanted to cast aspersions on show business biographer David Bret for his opinion that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been bisexual or gay, an accusation supported by The King's stepmother? This would explain why this user constantly tries to expunge any reference to that claim. - User: 80.141.209.28

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. Wikipedia 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.

Did you mention that there is the same claim in a book written by Dee Presley, Elvis's stepmother? - User: 80.141.209.28

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

There was enough discussion time before reverting to the revised version of the article. It is a pitty that the page now protected is the one of inferior quality. Perhaps somebody else can make something of the article. - User: 80.141.209.28
This discussion isn't going anywhere. I'm unprotecting the page. Just keep in mind that any violations of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule will be enforced from here on out. Also, Ted, in having useful discussions, please don't rely solely on the fact that your adversary is ANONYNMOUS to discredit them. Please stick to the facts. If you insist on removing the guardian link, at least give a reason why. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's only contributions to the Wikipedia are edits to Elvis Presley, David Bret and Nick Adams plus contraventions to Wikipedia official policy with repeated comments placed into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have made a request for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 20:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles? By the way, deleting my comments as you did on the said page is vandalism. As for the present article, it needs rewriting. It is not neutral. - User: 80.141.209.175

[edit] Let us now compare step by step the two versions of the article:

Version 1:

David Bret is a French-born author of celebrity books.

Version 2:

David Bret is a French-born author of celebrity books and one of Britain’s leading show business biographers. He chiefly writes on the private life of movie stars and singers in a somewhat sensationalizing style.
The second version should be preferred to the first, as it includes much more information on Bret and his work in concise form.

Version 1:

Born in Paris, France, Bret now lives in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. He began writing biographies that were published in Britain but without his educational qualifications being provided. After being published in Britain, Bret’s literary agent sold two of his biographies to Carroll & Graf and St. Martin's Press, major publishers in the United States. However, his work had very limited sales and was poorly received in the literary community, panned by critics as lacking in proper research and devoid of factual documentation and substance. In his 1989 book on Edith Piaf the respected reviewers, Publishers Weekly said, "Bret presents little new information" and referred to his publication on the French star Mistinguett as being more about her bizarre lifestyle than about her art. In the 1990s Bret switched to the successful British tabloid style of sensationalizing the narrative.

Version 2:

==Life and work==
Born in Paris, France, Bret now lives in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. He began writing many biographies that were published in Britain. After being published in Britain, Bret’s literary agent sold two of his biographies to Carroll & Graf and St. Martin's Press, major publishers in the United States. Since the late 1980s, several more or less successful biographies appeared, including Morrissey: Landscapes of the Mind (1994), Gracie Fields: The Authorised Biography (1996), George Formby: A Troubled Genius (1999) and Piaf: A Passionate Life (1999). Bret has also written innumerable magazine articles, for instance, for The Stage, and lectured at the University of Chicago.
Why is it necessary to say in the first paragraph that Bret's biographies were published "without his educational qualifications being provided" and that "his work had very limited sales and was poorly received in the literary community, panned by critics as lacking in proper research and devoid of factual documentation and substance"? From the beginning of the article the biased attitude of the writer is clear. Existing positive reviews of Bret's books are not mentioned. It sounds as if Bret has only written junk publications. How should the writer of this passage know whether Bret's work had very limited sales or not? Others say that he has written some successful biographies. Therefore, the second version of the first paragraph is more neutral, as it presents the facts without prejudice and mentions the titles of some of Bret's most important biographies giving the date of publication. It is also mentioned that Bret has written articles for The Stage and lectured at the University of Chicago, which certainly proves his "educational qualifications".

Version 1:

Both major U.S. publishers dropped David Brett after one book. Publishers Weekly stopped reviewing his work after only a few books but agreed to appraise his 1998 work on Maria Callas. Their critique again revealed that the "emphasis is on scandal rather than music in this racy biography." Bret's writings, promoted as biographies, became notorious for dwelling on the homosexual or bisexuality of its subject and for a lack of research that appeared to be limited to little more than cut-and-paste from Internet searches. Critics as well as readers pointed out repeated inaccuracies in the books involving what most people would consider as fundamental such as in his book on Maurice Chevalier where he refers to the mother of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as being Ethel Kennedy.

Version 2:

Billed by his publisher, Robson Books, London, as a show-business biographer, Bret primarily writes about the life of deceased stars. The quality of Bret's biographical writing is different. His book on George Formby was favorably reviewed by The Guardian. Publishers Weekly appraised his 1998 work on Maria Callas though revealing that the "emphasis is on scandal rather than music in this racy biography." In his 1989 book on Edith Piaf, the reviewers of Publishers Weekly said, "Bret presents little new information" and referred to his publication on the French star Mistinguett as being more about her bizarre lifestyle than about her art. Indeed, since that time Bret switched to the successful British tabloid style of sensationalizing the narrative.
Is it really necessary to say that two U.S. publishers published only one of Bret's books and that Publisher's Weekly did not review all of his books? Should we also mention other periodicals which continued reviewing the books? Is it really true that Bret became notorious for a lack of research "that appeared to be limited to little more than cut-and-paste from Internet searches"? Did the writer of this passage read all of Bret's books and all reviews? Isn't it enough merely to say what is essential (as in the second version of the same paragraph), that Bret is a show-business biographer who primarily writes about the life of deceased stars and that the quality of his biographical writing is different? The fact is that there are some favorable reviews and some more critical reviews. Both are mentioned in the second version of the article.

Version 1:

David Bret's writings are sold through Internet book stores, the publishers website provides a link to Amazon.com, plus through outlets that specialize in gay materials. Billed by his publisher, Robson Books of London, England as a show-business biographer, Bret writes almost exclusively about the deceased that allows him and his publisher to avoid any lawsuits for libel. His writing on Freddie Mercury was panned for being mostly about the late singer's supposed sexual excesses as was his book on Rudolf Valentino that dwelled on numerous homosexual affairs as well as the lesbianism of Tallulah Bankhead and Marlene Dietrich in his books on them. In his publication on the late Errol Flynn, Bret provided another rehash of already published writings and continued to dwell on homosexuality and alleged the late actor was a pedophile.

Version 2:

Some critics say that Bret's writings, promoted as biographies, even became notorious for dwelling on the homosexual or bisexuality of its subject. They also pointed out repeated inaccuracies in the books involving what most people would consider as fundamental such as in his book on Maurice Chevalier where he refers to the mother of U.S. President John F. Kennedy as being Ethel Kennedy. His writing on Freddie Mercury was panned for being mostly about the late singer's supposed sexual excesses as was his book on Rudolf Valentino that dwelled on numerous homosexual affairs as well as the lesbianism of Tallulah Bankhead and Marlene Dietrich in his books on them. In his publication on the late Errol Flynn, Bret provided another rehash of already published writings and continued to dwell on homosexuality and alleged the late actor was a pedophile.
What is so important about the selling of Bret's books through Internet book stores, such as Amazon.com, and "through outlets that specialize in gay materials" that it must be mentioned in the Wikipedia article? Most other books are also sold like this. Should we also point out how a Dutch bookseller offers Bret's books in Rotterdam? Again the reader gets the impression that the writer of this paragraph wants to cast aspersions on Bret, as it is said that "Bret writes almost exclusively about the deceased that allows him and his publisher to avoid any lawsuits for libel." This opinion is rather speculative, based only on guesswork, not observable facts. Many other authors are also primarily writing on deceased stars. Once more, the second version is much better, as it centers on the main points of criticism (that Bret's writings became notorious for dwelling on the homosexuality of its subject; that there are repeated inaccuracies in the books, etc.).

Version 1:

Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality and attempt to generate sales resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 then the following year in the U.S. A.. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that the book exposed Presley's homosexuality and that it explores an incestuous relationship Presley had with his mother and more. This is what the publisher's synopsis[3] says about its book:
"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."
Without supplying any proof, the book claimed that Colonel Tom Parker (deceased) had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. The book contained numerous errors, demonstrated very limited research, and lacked interviews or evidence from even one source close to the singer nor any facts about the so-called "secret information". Bret's insinuations that Presley had a homosexual relationship was based solely on his own speculation and gossip without providing verifiable and credible sources, facts, or documented evidence of any kind. In addition, Presley's alleged partner Nick Adams had been dead for more than thirty years and Adams' homosexuality too was based on speculation and gossip with no supporting facts provided. The book generated virtually no sales and was ignored by the mainstream media and even most of the fringe publications never bothered with it. The book was not given any literary critique, not even to pan it. The only source that gave it credence without qualification was the American based Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia advertised as a format that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia article carried things one step further, adding the assertion that: "Many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager." The Wikipedia article did not name any of the "Many journalists."

Version 2:

Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality and attempt to generate sales resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 and then the following year in the USA. This book is a comprehensive guide to Presley's career on film and TV which analyzes the King's every celluloid appearance, including his 33 films, documentaries, TV appearances, tributes, biopics and retrospectives. Accompanying this study is a short biography of the legend and a complete filmography. The book uncovers some previously unpublished material and presents photographs from the author's personal collection. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that the book exposed Presley's homosexuality. It claimed that Elvis had an affair with actor Nick Adams and that Colonel Tom Parker had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. Indeed, this accusation is proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels. In her book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Dee Presley says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and that he had an affair with Nick Adams. Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, also remembers going out with Elvis and his friend Nick Adams.
The first version here is indeed interesting, as it shows the tendency of the article to deprecate the claim that Elvis Presley may have been gay. Too much emphasis is laid on this point which makes up only a small part of Bret's book on Elvis. It is said that the book "demonstrated very limited research, and lacked interviews or evidence from even one source close to the singer nor any facts about the so-called "secret information", and that the author's "insinuations that Presley had a homosexual relationship was based solely on his own speculation and gossip without providing verifiable and credible sources, facts, or documented evidence of any kind." It is not mentioned that these "insinuations" are proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. The next passage wrongly says that the homosexuality of Elvis's friend Nick Adams "was based on speculation and gossip with no supporting facts provided." For sources showing evidence that Adams was gay, see above. In addition, the writer of the Wikipedia article claims that Bret's book generated virtually no sales (how should he know this?) and "was not given any literary critique, not even to pan it." For existing reviews of the book, see above. The next two sentences should be deleted, for they contain totally false information: "The only source that gave it credence without qualification was the American based Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia advertised as a format that anyone can edit. The Wikipedia article carried things one step further, adding the assertion that: "Many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager." By the way, the latter claim is also to be found in Bret's book, which was first published in England and then in the U.S.A. Once again, the second version of this paragraph is the better one, but I have now rewritten the text in order to make it shorter. Here is the new version:

Bret's preoccupation with homosexuality resulted in a book on Elvis Presley released in the U.K. in 2002 and in 2003 in the USA. This 337-page book deals with Presley's career on film and TV and analyzes the King's every celluloid appearance, including his 33 films, documentaries, TV appearances, tributes, biopics and retrospectives. It was launched with an advance publicity notice that "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 further claims that Elvis had an affair with actor Nick Adams and that his manager Parker had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal "secret information" that he was homosexual. Similar accusations are also to be found in a book by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. --- POSTED BY ANONYMOUS User:80.141.209.175 and other IPs.


The ANONYMOUS Vandal inserted deliberately fabricated information into the only three articles they edit. Having been caught, they have repeatedly attempted to provide a distorted view and in the Elvis Presley article used the same abrasive bullying tactics with constant reversals against other users to get their own way. Given this continuing vandalism, I have no choice but to repost this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and take this matter to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Ted Wilkes 16:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. What you are doing now is indeed vandalism. - User: 80.141.193.129

[edit] Protection

I've protected this page from editing, as requested. I hope that something can now be sorted out here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Remarks

Neither Ted's nor 80's use of the term vandal is correct, and both uses are inflammatory. Vandalism would be replacing the page with Billy loves Sue (or maybe Jim loves Bob ;-).

Adding questionable content - such as derogatory info from a source of disputed reliability - is NOT vandalism. It might violate other WP policies, but there's no need to have an edit war over it.

Here are some tips to avoid future, similar problems:

  1. Avoid personal remarks. Don't call anyone a vandal, or what they did vandalism, unless it is simple vandalism (q.v.)
  2. Don't get tangled in an edit war. If someone else keep reverting your reverts, (a) assume that you are in the right but (b) take the moral high road and leave a clean audit trail. Carefully avoid excessive reverts.
  3. Ask for help and wait out the crisis. No one's hero is going to die of a tarnished reputation merely because of an "astonishing new revelation" published in Wikipedia. The world doesn't hate the US any more, because Amnesty International called gitmo a gulag.

Above all, take it easy. There's no rush. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_Bret_e926.html"