Talk:Elvis and Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Elvis Presley WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in systematically organizing all the information in Wikipedia related to the "The King of Rock 'n' Roll". This project's focus is to centralize the efforts of many Wikipedians to make Wikipedia the best free resource when it comes to information about the subject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Original research?

This article was created by me exclusively from facts from the book. Ted Wilkes 21:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

As every unbiased reader can see, the original passages from the book certainly prove that Ted Wilkes has included a fabricated version of Elvis's sex-life in the text. Onefortyone 17:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what User:Wyss is doing now. I have used an original passage from a secondary source, Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me (see above), which undoubtedly proves that the paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is wrong, and Wyss has deleted this material, wrongly claiming that what I have corrected is original research. See [1] The words "Pentecostal" and "virginity" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon research proves. See [2] and [3]. I hope that Wyss has now corrected his error. Onefortyone 18:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

141 seems to be misleading readers again. I had corrected my mistake several minutes earlier (he couldn't have commented on it unless he'd already seen the correction). Although TW's references to EP's Pentecostal background are historically supported, until we have a citation showing PP mentioned this in her book it's irrelevant to this article (although I understand why TW put it there and don't think it was abusive). Wyss 20:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There are problems here with the edit(s) by User:Onefortyone.

• "He told her that they had to wait until they were married before having intercourse. He said, "I'm not saying we can't do other things. It's just the actual encounter. I want to save it." " This dialogue is on page 98 of the paperback version seen here while the "Any sexual temptations were against everything he was striving for, and he did not wish to betray me, the girl waiting for him at home who was preparing to be his wife." is on page 206 of the paperback version seen here and here and takes place seven years later when he was following the teachings of an Indian guru as referred to in the section: "The Beatles' shadow, mysticism and drugs." (The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and millions of others went celibate for a time as part of the guru's cleansing process.)

Note too, that Onefortyone deliberately left out the preceding sentence about his "cleansing period" and the subsequent sentence about him being concerned about his womanizing in marriage:

• going through a cleansing period, physically and spiritually . Any sexual temptations were against everything he was striving for, and he did not wish to betray me, the girl waiting for him at home who was preparing ... was his greatest fear when it came to marriage. He loved me and deeply wanted to be faithful to me but never felt certain that he could resist temptation. It was a persistent battle

- Ted Wilkes 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, I do not understand what you are talking about. On 17 September I already cited most passages you claim I deliberately left out. I also said that these are two important quotes from the book. See [4] Onefortyone 03:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As already stated above, inserting selected quotes out of context in order to support an agenda and using terminology with selected quotes out of context to denigrate someone's religious beliefs, is unacceptable. - Ted Wilkes 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that inserting those out-of-context passages in that section is not helpful to the reader and potentially misleading. FCYTravis 19:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The original quotes from the book undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See [5], [6] and [7]. Therefore, I have rewritten the said paragraph. For direct quotes from the book, see [8]. I have also added a new paragraph on Suzanne Finstad's totally different account of Priscilla Presley's life. Onefortyone 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about the BOOK "Elvis and Me" by Priscilla Presley. I moved the details of the book Child Bride: The Untold Story of Priscilla Beaulieu Presley to the author's (Suzanne Finstad) page. - Ted Wilkes 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued fabrications in violation of Wikipedia:Probation?

I removed passages reinserted by Onefortyone that his Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis said were not acceptable (see above) and which violated his Wikipedia:Probation. And I reinserted factual, referenced passages he had deleted because they were incompatable with his out-of-contex and altered text that mislead readers. See also this date Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Ted Wilkes 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, Onefortyone, already placed on Wikipedia:Probation by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for fabricating information and inserting it into articles did the same fraudlent thing here inserting fabricated text as follows:

The article read that the author said:

• "She wrote that she then moved into Graceland bit by bit and at age seventeen she and Elvis were sleeping together every night."

Edited by Onefortyone to clainm that the author said:

• "She wrote that she then moved into Graceland bit by bit and that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her."

- Ted Wilkes 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, Ted, you are the person who has added fabricated passages to the text. Therefore, you may have violated YOUR probation. You have repeatedly included the words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" in the Elvis and Me article, thereby deleting the direct quotes from the book I had inserted (see [9]). The fact is that these words nowhere appear in Priscilla Presley's book, as an Amazon search proves. See [10], [11] and [12]. Therefore, I rewrote the said paragraph which included the correct quotes for many weeks. Now you are continuing edit warring, Ted, as you have reinserted your fabricated version of the text and removed another paragraph including critical remarks by Suzanne Finstad about Prescilla Presley's book (see [13]) which certainly belong to the Elvis and Me article. It seems as if you are trying to suppress critical remarks about one of your favorite books. This is not acceptable and not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the line, "She wrote that she then moved into Graceland bit by bit and at age seventeen she and Elvis were sleeping together every night," this is not a direct quote from the book. The words "bit by bit", "age seventeen" and "sleeping together every night" cannot be found in the original text. See [14], [15] and [16]. That Elvis was not overtly sexual towards Priscilla is proved by the following passage from the book:

Gently and tenderly he began to touch me. He was passionate and again seemed to be making up for lost time. I felt sure the night would end with Elvis finally making love to me. I was drunk with ecstasy. I wanted him. I became bolder, reaching out to him, totally open and honest in my need. Then, as before when we'd reach this point, he stopped and whispered, "Don't get carried away, Baby. Let me decide when it should happen. It's a very sacred thing to me. It always has been. You know that I want it to be something to look forward to. It keeps the desire there. Do you know what I mean?" I sat up in anger. "What about Anita?" I yelled. "You mean you didn't make love to her the whole four years you went with her?" "Just to a point. Then I stopped. It was difficult for her too, but that's just how I feel." "That's how you feel. What about me? How long do you think this can go on? God, Elvis, that takes a lot of willpower. That's asking a lot of another person, one who's in love and has strong, healthy desires." "Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we can't do other things. It's just the actual encounter. I want to save it." Fearful of not pleasing him-of destroying my image as his little girl-I resigned myself to the long wait. Instead of consummating our love in the usual way, he began teaching me other means of pleasing him. We had a strong connection, much of it sexual. The two of us created some exciting and wild times.Onefortyone 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

REPEAT: Onefortyone - your assigned mentor warned you not to insert your "out of context" crap deliberately designed to suit your obsession. Also, Wikipedia does not insert another book into a book article. - Ted Wilkes 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Ted. I did not insert "out of context crap", as you falsely claim. I have included direct quotes from the book to replace your fabricated text. Further, would you please provide evidence that it is not allowed to insert information taken from another book into a book article, especially if the other book includes critical remarks about the book discussed in the book article. Onefortyone 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits by Editor Onefortyone are improper and give a false impression. The same encyclopaedic code applies here as I outlined at Talk:Nick Adams. I am reversing this material pending proper editing and clarification. For the record, Priscilla Presley's book certainly does not convey the idea Elvis Presley was "not overtly sexual towards her" but the opposite. Danny B. 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. You should have read more carefully the direct quotes from the book. Onefortyone 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Danny B. is a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes, who is now banned for one year for violating his probation more than five times. Therefore, I have rewritten parts of Wilkes's fabricated text and included some additional paragraphs. I hope that the version I have written is more NPOV, as it is closer to Priscilla's own words in the book. Onefortyone 22:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Elvisandmebookcoverfront1.jpg

Image:Elvisandmebookcoverfront1.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

Being undesirable trivia (by Wikipedia:Trivia sections) aside, the editor did bring a reliable source that proves Personal Jesus was inspired by the Presley's relationship. However, why should anyone deduce it is also inspired specifically by this book/movie and not by the other endless material based on the aforementioned relationship? Unless there is a source that backs the statement, I suggest removing it. Opinions, anyone?

See also: Talk:Personal Jesus -Lwc4life 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)