Talk:David Bret

Personal info.

I have personally updated my personal information, which as the information is about myself, I do feel qualified to add. Somehow I never seem to get things right with Wikipedia. David Bret (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from subject

Comment by David Bret: I am very flattered that my books have attracted such attention, which begs the question: If some people consider me so bad at my job and so unqualified to write about my subjects, then why do these people bother discussing me at all? The answer to this is basically two-fold. One, the more overzealous fanatics of my subjects, in particular those of Morrissey and George Formby, and to a lesser degree those of Maria Callas, look upon these people in the way THEY want them to be--as few as possible faults, perfect in every way. If a fanatic is homophobic, then then will not accept the fact that their idol may have been gay. If they are racist, as happens with many members of The George Formby Society, they will not accept the fact that the Formbys loved performing to black audiences and denounced apartheid. If they are out and out snobs,as happens with Callas, they will not accept the fact that she did "common" things such as washing her hair in the bath, or swear! These fanatics want their stars to be how THEY think they should be and tend to forget that we human beings come in all shapes and sizes, sexualities, and that so few of us are perfect. I recently gave an interview with the gay activist Michelangelo Signorele, regarding an article in the New York Times by Ada Calhoun, a self-confessed "sex addict" who dissed my biography of Clark Gable, condemning the sexual aspect of this as mostly unrepeatable, yet reminding her readers of every so called "prurient" anecdote. Mike agreed that, had I been writing about Gable's exploits with women so openly, Ada would not have been quite so bitchy. Conclusion: homophobia! The second reason for antagonism towards me, which I share with other author friends, is jealousy pure and simple. There are a lot of failed journalists and would-be authors out there who have not had their work published, mostly for one reason only. They do not have any talent! David Bret, 11 May 2008

Anonymous users

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."

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)

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

"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

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

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:

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.

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.

Note from David Bret: Though I am in favour of freedom of speech, I do object to defamatory remarks which have been posted here about myself and others. These will be removed as and when they appear. I also draw attention to my NEW website:

www.davidbret.co.uk

unsigned comment added by 86.133.58.167 (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

Unsourced

This entire article is unsourced. I started trimming, then realized there would be only a name and a bibliography. I will do what I can in the near future; meanwhile I urge anyone who has sources available to copyedit and source this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I have updated my personal information here. Of course it is unsourced. What proof does one need of when I got married, when my son was born--birth certificates? And don't I have a right to correct the titles of my books and their dates? Also, I never saw the "signature" thing I was supposed to press. David Bret (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) To Chihuahua my apologies for adding biographical details--I thought this was allowed. Can you tell me who to write to to do this: this is just to bring what I have done up to date.Many thanks. David Bret (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015

As far as I can tell, the only source for Bret lecturing at the University of Chicago is the blurb on the back of his own books. 128.135.100.115 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I've taken this article to AFD in response to your edit request, as I could not find any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is David Bret. Why would you wish to delete this article about me? I did not say that I lectured at Chicago University, and I did not open this article. Obviously, as stated in your summary, there has been prejudice against me from some sources and I cannot understand why. I agree that the Talk Page should be trimmed or removed because most of it is nonsense--disputes over where I was norn and my career, etc. It's all rather silly and, as I say, extremely prejudiced just because I have a different opinion sometimes about the subjects of my books than less successful rivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally know nothing about you or your books, David, and hold no view whatsoever about your opinions. I only visited this article in response to the open edit request. Wikipedia is governed by policies such as WP:N and WP:V. For articles to exist, they need to demonstrate notability, which must be backed by reliable third party sources. Facts that cannot be verified by a reliable source have to be removed. Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a directory, but to cover notable topics as an encyclopedia. I cannot find sources to verify notability or satisfy the general notability guidelines, so I sent the article to AFD, as is proper. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

David Bret: Thank you. I did not open this Wikipedia entry. Someone else did. You are punishing me for what someone else wrote. This is prejudice. Just close the entry and be done with it, and I will take whatever legal action I can. I am disgusted by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.165.58 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

David, it doesn't matter who made the article, and I've never claimed you created it. All that matters is whether or not the subject matter passes the general notability guidelines. You have been warned in the past about threatening legal action against Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

There's an entire blog "boycotting" him. <redacting non-reliable source> His works (though as reliable and shamelessly sensationalistic as many other celebrity "biographers") seem to attract particular ridicule, and his vexatious litigiousness is infamous. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Notable?

Also, I don't understand why the decision was to keep. Darwin Porter has also written a ton of books of similar reliability (none) on similar subjects (dead celebrities) with similar content (lurid sexual detail). Both write some amusing fan fiction. Of course, I only know this from reading google book previews and reviews. It's hilarious! Anyway... let's hope he doesn't threaten to kill me or something. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That others have taken note of him enough to want to 'boycott' his works only increases the case for his notability. That many major publications have reviewed multiple works by this author pretty well establishes his notability, whatever their conclusions on the quality of his work. Both positive and negative reviews are and should be included in the article. DES ^(talk) 18:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Now what I'm not clear about is how, even if his books are not the most highly reputed for their research methodology, how much of the detractors are rabid fans. Any fan community established around a person decades after their death is bound to be particularly passionate. I'm a casual film buff, not a dead celebrity worshiper (I reserve that honor for the legitimate theater, thank you), so my main complaint against any of these biographers is that I'm annoyed when I feel like my facts aren't straight. Of course, the field of celebrity biography in general has lower standards then other biographies simply due to the appeal of camp. Anyway... --Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I agree about notability though. Infamous is a kind of famous. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough Monochrome Monitor, we can agree on that much. My commetns were basically in response to your statement: "Also, I don't understand why the decision was to keep." earlier in this thread. Wikipedia's role is not to judge the quality of Bret's work (or anyone else's) but to report what others have said about it.

By the way, please do include as much citation metadata as you can when you make a cite, and please reuse cites so the same source does not appear more than once in the notes. See WP:REFNAME if you are not familiar with this technique. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with the technique, but I don't use it much considering how many pages are sullied by "citation invoked but not defined" and the like in garish red letters. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How would you know? (sorry, couldn't resist) -- Willondon (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you won't use the technique, then don't reuse a citation. (Use Harvard style when you start an article if you like, it also handles the problem.) Those warnings only appear when the technique has been misused, often by someone deleting the primary citation, without realizing it was begin reused. They are generally easy to fix. Fixing other citation warnings generally improves the article. The use of citation templates provides COinS metadata. In any case, please don't use bare URLs as cites. DES ^(talk) 23:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I usually fix them when I see them, it's just a pain. Apologies about for bare urls.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bret writes: I would like this criticism section posted by Monochrome_monitor to be removed by Wikipedia, from the main page and from here. The comments and the fact that this person suggests that I might try and kill her and in her link connects me with crimes I have never committed is flagrantly litigious and illegal. Maria Riva was well aware of my friendship with Marlene Dietrich and has never denied this. Indeed, she issued legal proceedings against me to get the Bret-Dietrich conversation tapes and the photos back, and dropped her lawsuit upon reading the script, part of which had already been sent to her by Dietrich herself in 1991: 86.151.163.198 (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.163.198 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bret (assuming that you are in fact both User:David Bret and th4e subject of this article), it appears that these criticisms of your work have in fact been made and are covered in reliable sources. Therefore they are going to be in the article in some form. The wording might be changed, and they might be distributed over the various sections about specific books, rather than being gathered together, but they won't just be deleted.

By the way, it is very much against Wikipedia policies to try to expose someone's identity as you did in the post above, by combining records of posting to different articles or sites, or indeed by any analysis at all, if the poster does not choose to identify him- or herself. The posts are to be judged on their own merits, or lack thereof.

Also, since you have an account, I urge you to use it. This permits your various posts and contributions to be seen together, and avoids any questions as to whether a given post is really yours. It makes it much easier for other editors to communicate with you. It also does not display your IP address, if you care about that. You are not required to use an account, but I do think it is a good idea.

If there are reliable sources not yet cited that take a more positive view of your work, they could also be included, and a more balanced section perhaps written. Can you suggest any such independent sources, preferably with links?

I hope you will see that I, at least, am not in any way hostile to you -- have a look at my edits to this article, and my comments on the recent deletion discussion of this article. I am not a particular fan -- in fact I had never heard of you or your work one way or the other before this article was brought to my attention via a post an WP:ANI. My interest here is to improve Wikipedia and its articles, and to make sure that its policies are carried out. DES ^(talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I never insinuated you would kill me. I was expressing a fear that you would issue litigious threats, ie "threaten to kill me" in common melodramatic parlance. My own anxieties cannot be considered libelous in a court of law, and should certainly not be your concern, especially since I'm clinically depressed. If you are trying to connect me to any "conspiracy" I haven't some sort of long-standing grudge against you, in fact I just encountered your work while doing a bit of research for an essay for a film class. I wanted to see if it was reliable, found many reviews saying that it wasn't, and decided to add that to wikipedia for benefit those genuinely interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Now why you see this as a personal insult is beyond me, you are bound to encounter criticism in your profession, and you must have better things to do. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

strikeWhereas I welcome freedom of speech, I object to some of the "Criticsm" above, particularly the start of this where a link is provided which connects to a Blog accusing me of very serious and false criminal activities. May I please point out, regarding "Criticisms" on my main page, that Dietrich's daughter, Maria Riva, was aware of my friendship with her mother. She commenced action against me to recover our taped conversations, but dropped her case after reading my completed script, much of which she had already read while Dietrich was alive Thus the statement that I did not know Dietrich is false, and should be removed. Also I feel that Monochrome Monitor's statement that I might kill him/her is litigious David Bret (biographer) (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)David Bret strike

I deleted that statement. I believe you mean libelous, not litigious? I never said you might kill me. I said, and I quote "let's hope he doesn't threaten to kill me or something". That's not libel. It's libel if I said "he threatened to kill me" and I can't prove it legally. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the page history, I deleted my comments out of concern this very situation would occur, but they were reinstated despite my efforts to avoid a conflict. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor (I refrain from using your name now that you have identified yourself), why make the statement in the first place, and why attempt to make an excuse for you harassment by stating that you are clinically depressed? If you are saying that nothing you say will stand up in a court of law because of your clinical depression, then why say anything at all? Of course you are part of a conspiracy, and I know very well who you are, but will show courtesy in not naming you here. Your "I hope he doesn't kill me or something" comment has been used by you elsewhere, remember? So please let this end here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret (biographer) (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bret (biographer), the article does not state that you were not a friend of Marlene Dietrich. It does say that you claimed that Dietrich appeared in the film Joyless Street and that this statement was inaccurate. Is either part of that statement incorrect? It also says that people have called you or your work controversial, and have compared it with some other controversial biographers, such as Charles Higham and Kenneth Anger. Is that incorrect? Are such statements minority views, such that to mention them gives them undue weight? If so, can you point to sources that express a more appropriate view? DES ^(talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

strike:DES The original "Criticism" on the main Wikipedia page stated that Maria Riva said that I was not a friend of her mother. I accept the other criticism which you refer to, but do not accept the inclusion of a link to a Blog which accuses me of being a criminal, or the reference that they hope I am not going to kill them. This was not intended as a joke and the poster knows it. The poster has removed the Dietrich and blog link, but not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret (biographer) (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC) strike

When exactly did I "identify myself"? You're creeping me out. I mentioned the depression not as an excuse, considering there is no behavior towards you I need to excuse for, but to humanize me in your eyes from "person who says things I don't like on the internet". No, I don't "remember". I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're frightening me. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you know what. Do say "my name". This will be amusing. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, David Bret (biographer), could we please drop the personal exchanges and concentrate on how to improve the articel? that is, after all, what an article talk page is supposed to be for. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DES: She has removed much of the erroneous Dietrich article and the Blog link, but the hint and the name is still there. And what is so important about the Dietrich film? This has been argued about for years and the truth is, no one will ever know if it was Marlene or not. She said it was, so I go with this. I don't think there's need to make such a fuss about it. My honest opinion is that both Marlene and the other actress was in it, as you can see two different faces. But whether she was or not will not stop the world from turning! David Bret (biographer) (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret

This is his wikipedia article in the public domain, I'm not making a personal exchange. By making cryptic references to knowing me (laughable) he's making a personal exchange. It's a breach of basic social and wikipedia ettiquite. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're paranoid. My name is not nor has it even been "Jade Evans". I have had this account for a year or so and for you to assume I've been a sleeper agent since then to better go around posting libels about you is absolute narcissistic drivel. I found the blog because like most Americans, I know how to use a search engine. And I linked to the blog on the talk page because like some Americans, I have a wikipedia account. And if you'll note I balanced the hyperlink with a disclaimer that I didn't know how credible it was. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My good man @Irondome:, is my name Jane Evans? (don't tell him my name) --Monochrome_Monitor 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dammit he hasn't edited in a month. Who else had emailed me? Maybe @Nishidani:? Dear god this is ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell is Jade Evans? I know M.M's " real name" from off wp communication, and it sure is not that. What's going on here M.M? Irondome (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Woh! You're back. To explain in brief: Persecutory delusions. To explain in full, email me. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That will not be necessary M.M. I have read the thread and picked up background. I would suggest all parties calm themselves. Irondome (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you read my email? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I have Irondome (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you have. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

talk DES: PS, would you or someone please kindly add my new website address? I shall be closing davidbret.co.uk shortly, and my new one, opened recently, is www.davidbretindependent.co.uk Many thanks! David Bret (biographer) I have added this, but it may have been removed(talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret

Done. Note I toned down the criticism section to leave more to the imagination. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, to be compared with Charles Higham and Kenneth Anger is a great honour. These were not merely writers and authorities, but absolute legends, Anger in particular! As for my books being "lurid". I often wonder how man people making such statements have actually read them! They are not pornographic. But, the public at large like to read sensationalism. We have moved a long way since Queen Victoria! David Bret (biographer) (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)David Bret I had a feeling you would say that. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

strikeAfter very careful consideration, I have taken screenshots of the entire original "Criticism" section posted by Monochrome Monitor. The comments made by her in this original posting, along with others made elsewhere, have been profoundly disturbing, along with her admission that she suffers from clinical depression. Her posting was entirely unnecessary and meant only to be harmful. I find it disturbing that someone clearly with no knowledge of me or my work should wish to compose such an inordinately long feature which links me to criminal activities. It is not a critique against my work. The poster admits in one (removed) section that she was only made aware of me days ago. How then can anyone like this be justifiably qualified to make such disparaging comments on a page which is seen worldwide, solely by basing what she reads on Google and Amazon reviews? One only has to read these reviews to determine that they are not such, but personal attacks as part of a long-standing vendetta against me. I acknowledge that none of this is Wikipedia's fault, other than her original very litigious comments were left here until she removed them. This is by no means a threat. I have no problem with others criticizing my work, but when personal comments are made about me, linking me to criminal activities, then whether these comments have been removed or not does not alter the fact that they were there in the first place, posted by someone who confesses that she has issues with depression. Her issues are never more clear with her swathe of hysterical responses and in drawing others into this matter. Particularly harmful is her claim that I am a vexatious litigant. This statement alone reveals her identity to us. I am not getting into any further discussion over this with Wikipedia, or her. The fact that she knows that is well aware of her actions is evident in the way she keeps changing the two "Criticsm" sections so as not to possibly incriminate herself. David Bret (biographer) (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bretstrike

Technical note (I have no intention of stepping into this argument myself): There is, at present, no need for screenshots. All past states of this talk page, and of the article itself, are accessible to the world, by clicking "View History" and selecting the version of interest. The page histories also show what account (or IP address) made what changes, and when. However, if there is any blatantly libellous or otherwise illegal material in a previous version of the article or talk page, it could be "oversighted" by a Wikipedia administrator, so that no-one can access it. If this ever happens, you may need your screenshots as evidence. If you can convince an administrator that the material is sufficiently damaging, you could request oversighting yourself. Maproom (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Technical note: All discussion regarding "my lawyers" needs to STOP NOW. @David Bret (biographer): It would behoove you to assure those involved that it was not your intention to violate the policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is NOT my intention to violate this policy, and I apologise. strikebut to protect myself from from such remarks as were made. I will try and remove this phrase, and keep such actions extant of this page, though I am sure that someone will put it back on. David Bret (biographer) (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret strike PS to Maproom I can see by checking out Monochrome Monitor where are other instances on Wikipedia where she has been incautious and told about this. The fact that comments which have been removed, linking me to criminal activities, but are still listed in your History, is disturbing. And yet, if the subject of the page complains, such is the arrogance by some admins (not all) that the subject is usually to the one to be disciplined, when in fact the subject is the only one to use a real name in the face of criticism by anonymous persons. I find this intimidating. Organisations such as Wikipendia, Amazon, etc are invaluable to us, but they can sometimes be a hotbed for breeding hate and spite which might not be so forthcoming if the contributor were forced to use his/her real name. Just an observation! Below is but part of your criticism regarding the postings of Monochrome Monitor. I find it sad that so many people have little more to do than sit in front of their computers and persistently denounce and denigrate others. I achieve some comfort in knowing that I am not her only victim, yet I do not doubt that the way some Wikipedia admins work, I shall be perceived as the villain. David Bret (biographer) (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret strike David Bret (biographer) (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret to be struck out if possible, pleasestrike strikeOlivier edits (yet again)[edit source]strike

You have been asked to discuss this matter on the talk page, but you appear to prefer to engage in a slow-burn edit war. This is disruptive and not a constructive course of action. The consensus of the two community processes this article has gone through was that the text should remain. Unless you can change that consensus on the article's talk page, I strongly suggest you do not delete it again. If you continue to remove the text, the matter will be raised in an appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I didn't intend a slow-burn edit war. Rather I just edit impulsively, sometimes returning to old haunts. Though I do try to space it out, my sense of timing is not particularly keen. But thanks for taking it here. It's not that I'm trying to be disruptive, I just don't like confrontation. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) There wouldn't be confrontation Monochrome Monitor if you had initiated a talk page discussion; that's what the talk page is for. The way to introduce hostility and confrontation is to stick two fingers up to everyone who disagrees with you. By refusing to discuss and implementing your preferred version is, ironically, doing the very thing you didn't wish to achieve. CassiantoTalk 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I would call that unfortunate, not ironic. But I'll initiate a discussion in a bit.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)David Bret (biographer) (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret

Stop

OK, this needs to stop. from now on, this page must stick to discussing Content, not Contributors.

Stick to: What content should be added?- based on what sources? What content should be removed? Does it not have appropriate sourcing? or does it misrepresent what the mainstream opinion is by giving too much weight to a minority view? If you have an issue with an editor, go to their talk page and explain what is wrong and ask for an appropriate correction or acknowledgement. If that doesn't settle the difference, then either go to the administrators board for action or the dispute resolution notice board. The constant pot shots have to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with TheRedPenOfDoom here. Indeed I'll go a bit further, from now on I will apply WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:CIVIL and other relevant polices quite strictly on this talk page (which is on my watchlist), and will be ready to block if they are violated. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

strike :I am content that Monochrome Monitor has now removed the offensive material, and would like to now remove all of my comments here to clean this page up. May I do this? Many thanks, and my apologies of I have cause problems for various admins. strikeDavid Bret (biographer) (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC) David Bret

No, once a comment has been replied to, it may not normally be removed. If there are any comments you wish to withdraw, you can strike them to indicate this. Once all have agreed that they will focus on content not contributors going forward, this thread can be closed and archived so it is out of immediate view. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I pulled the collapse before all the parties had weighed in. For those who are not familiar, This is what it might look like for a short while, then it would be moved off this page to back page as an archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor do you understand my warning above? Will you agree to focus on the content, not the personalities, from now on? David Bret (biographer), I take your post above to be such agreement, but if you have any problems with this, please say so. Everyone has their full legal rights off-wiki, of course,but per the no legal threats policy, threats or implications of legal action may not be made on-wiki, and anyone activly engaged in a legal action over Wikipedia content may not edit while it is in progress. And both of you, per the civility policy name calling and personal attacks are not allowed. Civility is not always as strictly enforced as it might be, but for the time being, on this page, it will be. If anyone thinks my statements and possible actions here are improper, post on my talk page, or on WP:ANI to get other admins involved, if you think that is needed, but not here, please. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

DES, just chipping in very briefly. I have been mentoring M.M for some time now, with some success. I am sure M.M fully gets this now. Don't you Monochrome Monitor? Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... what the hell did I do wrong? Besides not reporting a slew of personal attacks and litigious threats? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, you said, and I quote: "let's hope he doesn't threaten to kill me or something". This type baseless and inflammatory commentary about other editors is the type that must stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear god, that was addressed earlier. By me. And him. Repeatedly. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear god, the question is, are you going to commit to stop those actions and focus on content and sourcing ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My content was sourced, with numerous links. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As a neutral third party, I reviewed the section in question and determined a number of sources were not directly supporting the tone or sentences being applied. WP:SYNTH must be avoided as was the case with the Rotten Tomatoes review. Other sources were stretching their context and sentences following were not being supported. If the sentences removed, by me, are to be reintroduced, they will need better citations. I have also placed a {{cn}} template that will be in place for 48 hours. If it is not replaced with a valid context accurate citation, it will be removed under our WP:BLP policy. Mkdw^talk 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also unlocked the article to implement pending changes after 7 years of the article being semi-protected. Will see how it goes before deciding if further semi-protection or a full unlock is required. Mkdw^talk 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is in violation of rules

This article is in violation of several rules, including WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This article needs to be about the author and not about each book he has written. Please see the pages of notable authors as an example.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

the above is quite mistaken, and I have undone the edits removing sourced critical comments about the various books, This is very much a case where the listing of specific works and the critical responses to them is the heart of the article, and the thing that makes the subject notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would request that this entire "Talk" page, or at least large sections of it, be removed. The comments serve no purpose. They are mostly a succession of unwarranted criticisms, mostly one cancelling out the other. They serve no purpose other than to offend not just myself, but one another. I see that large chunks have already been removed. I refer to the above comment:

This article is in violation of several rules, including WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This article needs to be about the author and not about each book he has written. Please see the pages of notable authors as an example.

Many thanks. David Bret WGA. 81.141.29.32 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask, what is the point/aim of these thousands of words of nonsense? They benefit no one! David Bret. 81.141.30.102 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)