Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.

• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive1
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive5
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive6
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive7
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive8
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive9
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive10
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive11
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive12
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive13
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive14
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive15
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive16

"Presley" versus "Elvis"

Naming conventions

There was a very interesting question posted on the King of Rock and Roll talk page on what the agreed-upon convention for using Elvis's name is in Wikipedia. Here is the reproduced question

I changed a couple instances of "Elvis" to "Presley" in the belief that this conforms with encyclopedic style. This might be a special case though, since Elvis was well-known under simply his first name. I checked the Elvis Presley article to see if there's any preference there, but there is no consistent convention. (It uses "Presley", "Elvis", and "Elvis Presley" interchangeably.) Is there an agreed-upon convention for Elvis's name in Wikipedia? Honestly, I didn't want to shift through the entire Presley discussion haystack to find that needle, so I decided to go with his last name simply to make it consistent with references to Chuck Berry as "Berry" in this article.

Has this issue been decided in the past before? and if not, should we establish some guidelines? Geedubber 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

• After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only.

That's the standard. -Will Beback 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the article to reflect that then? Geedubber 01:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. The only exceptions would be where more than one Presley is being discussed, in which case "Elvis", "Priscilla", etc would be appropriate to distinguish between them. -Will Beback 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Will Beback. Indeed, a look through the page history shows edits such as this one in which I've replaced "Elvis" by "Presley"; these rewritings of mine (and others) have been effectively reverted by other editors, for whatever reasons. -- Hoary 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There was even a time when he was referred to as "The King" several places throughout the article.[1] We're making progress. -Will Beback 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LAST name on second and later references

This is Wikipedia policy, yet throughout and inconsistently in this article, Presley is referred to by his first name. That makes the article look shoddy and unprofessional, and puts it at variance with Wikipedia policy. Moncrief 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and that's why, some months ago, I went through the entire article making all possible conversions. My good work was undone. Recently I've redone bits and pieces. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to this (boring) work. -- Hoary 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just "Wikipedia policy" -- it's the general policy of every scholarly publication in the English language. -- Odinson777 22:57, 16 August 2006 (EST)

We should change 'Madonna' to 'Ciccone' on the Madonna page as well!

Er, no we shouldn't. She specifically calls herself "Madonna" with no last-name reference. Elvis had a last name, and he used it throughout his professional life. Why is this even a discussion? Of course all references after the first one should be "Presley." This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Moncrief 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality (in particular, allegations of racism)

I had added the NPOV boilerplate when the 'Male Friendships' debate was brewing. Now that that's effectively over with, is there any other reason to keep the boilerplate?

--Pcj 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's OK to remove it. -- Hoary 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the discussion on the "Allegations of Racism" and the "Other Relationships" sections? I am hoping to put together new drafts and run them by User Hoary before making any edits. Until then, perhaps we can keep the neutrality tag? --Lochdale 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of racism" - I came to this Page after finding a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth article that should never have occurred and whose author had numerous edits to this Talk Page and to the Elvis Presley article itself. I have examined the "Allegations of racism" section in detail but have only skimmed through the rest of the article. I was going to correct what I perceive to be the problems in the writing on racism but am a little reluctant to get involved as I see this subject has been a source for much discussion and at times, rancor. I checked the edit history for the Elvis Presley article but could not determine who originally wrote the "Allegations of racism" section. However, the same author of the Patricia Bosworth article did make numerous comments on this matter and on this Talk Page said:

• • "Could it therefore be that you endeavor to remove critical voices from the article which put Elvis in a negative light, although these voices are based on several independent sources, among them Elvis biographies by reputable authors and a critical study on Elvis's alleged racism published by a university press? Onefortyone 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) "

This Wikipedia editor asserts the information comes from independent sources and reputable authors which is true. However, the entire "Allegations of racism" section certainly appears to be a title with text misrepresentation intended to create the Editor's desired "negative light." Whoever the Wikipedia editor actually was, they used text taken out of context in the statement attributed to George Plasketes then added their own words to intentionally misrepresent the actual facts by adding: "in light of the tensions in racial impersonation embodied by Elvis Presley."

Worse though, is that by design the Wikipedia editor in question quoted out of context in order to corrupt the writings of Tennessee State University professor, Michael T. Bertrand from his book Race, Rock, and Elvis. This scholarly work is a study of the relationship between popular culture and social change in America and in is not claiming that Presley was racist, but the opposite. Professor Bertrand postulates that Presley's rock and roll music brought an unprecedented access to African American culture that challenged that 1950s segregated generation to reassess ingrained segregationist stereotypes. Professor Bertrand demonstrates how Elvis Presley was a primary catalyst in helping African Americans move forward. One of the most, if not the most, prestigious source for book reviews is the American Historical Review who wrote: "(Michael T. Bertrand) convincingly argues that the black-and-white character of the sound, as well as Elvis's own persona, helped to relax the rigid color line and thereby fed the fires of the civil rights movement." The "Allegations of racism" section also mentions Professor Bertrand writing about Presley's "association with racially conservative politicians such as George Wallace." A true statement, but again, this is deliberately taken out of context.

I also see that the Jet Magazine conclusion is mentioned in the "Allegations of racism" section of the article but in reality it has been watered down so as to have little or no meaning. What Presley biographer Peter Guralnick wrote in his book "Last Train to Memphis" (p.426) actually stated was:

• "To Elvis," Jet concluded in its Aug. 1, 1957, issue, "people are people regardless of race, color or creed."

Next, there is a quote concerning Little Richard that was presented within a context deliberately adding to the desired "negative light." Little Richard's career blossomed because of Presley and his fading career had to do with personal demons, not Presley.

As to race and Presley's attitude, an impeccable source wrote:

• After he became famous, Presley often cited his debt to African American music, pointing to artists such as B. B. King, Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, Jackie Wilson, Ivory Joe Hunter, and Fats Domino. The reporter who conducted Presley's first interview in New York City in 1956 noted that he named blues singers who "obviously meant a lot to him. I was very surprised to hear him talk about the black performers down there and about how he tried to carry on their music."

• Later that year in Charlotte, North Carolina, Presley was quoted more specifically: "The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I’m doin' now, man, for more years than I know. They played it like that in their shanties and in their juke joints and nobody paid it no mind 'til I goosed it up. I got it from them. Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now and I said if I ever got to a place I could feel all old Arthur felt, I’d be a music man like nobody ever saw. "

Further, there are writings about Presley's race relations within Wikipedia itself. The biographic article on the African American performer Ivory Joe Hunter states:

• "While visiting Memphis in the spring of 1957, Hunter was invited by Elvis Presley to visit Graceland. The two spent the day together, singing "I Almost Lost My Mind" and other songs together. Hunter commented, "He showed me every courtesy, and I think he's one of the greatest.")

Elvis Presley was no racist. On the contrary, he honored, respected and publicly praised black musicians and their extraordinary talent, doing so at a time in the 1950s when racism was an entrenched way of life in the U.S. South and black artists sold miniscule amounts of their recorded music. Presley stood up to the racist comments made by die-hard segregationists and their labeling of his sound and style as "nigger music". His "Gladys Music" company hired talented black songwriter Claude Demetrius (and others) and made him a rich talented songwriter at a time in the mid 1950s when Demetrius and other black songwriters had mostly limited horizons and pitiful incomes.

As B.B. King, James Brown and others have acknowledged, Elvis Presley opened the door for them. And, oh yes, contrary to the impression created in this article, Little Richard is quoted as saying (by the same unimpeachable source mentioned previously):

"He was an integrator. Elvis was a blessing. They wouldn’t let black music through. He opened the door for black music."

--207.67.145.214 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I . . . am a little reluctant to get involved as I see this subject has been a source for much discussion and at times, rancor. I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you should say that. Well, I urge you to forget your qualms and jump in and start editing (judiciously). There seems to be a bit of a lull now, which of course is conducive to constructive editing, and if things ever get bad later you will be able to drop out. Anyway, this article badly needs input of people who are interested and open-minded.

Do please also consider getting and using a username rather than an IP number. -- Hoary 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FBI Files

I removed a portion of the FBI files section as it didn't seem to be particularly relevant. Also, I have had problems locating the specific details of the alleged blackmailing attempt as described in the actual files as described in the previous text.--Lochdale 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I altered the sented after Alanna Nash to note that she wrote her book on Presley a year after being named the Society of Professional Journalists' National Member of the Year in 1994. I also noted that Goldman's book was harshly criticized by literary and rock critics. --Lochdale 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lasting Legacy

I removed the reference to the Lee Hall play specifically due to the reference to the critic Rich See. It appears that Mr.See may not exactly be a mainstream critic. I believe the play itself is interesting enough and should be referenced but a specific quote from one person solely for the reason of beating the gay-Elvis dead horse isn't really warranted. The actual review from See. I also removed the section regarding a rock critique of an albulm mentioning Presley. The albulm should stand on it's own without reference to a criticism one way or the other.--Lochdale 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This section also seems to reference fairly obscure songs by fairly obscure artists while ignoring more mainstream tributes/critiques of Presley. Again, it seems to go to an agenda of tossing as wide a net as possible to catch every tawdry factoid possible. This appears to have been done at the expense of other references such as references to the number of books and TV movies about Presley. Fairly major motion films such as Bubba Hotep, True Romance, 3000 Miles to Graceland etc. are excluded (if we assume that they should be included) in favor of obscure references. --Lochdale 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Devotion to his Mother

I removed the references to Greenwood given the criticism of his book noted above. I'd also question the selective quotation methodology used in this section. For example, the fact that he grieved for days after his mother's death is not particularly unusual given that one would expect a son to grieve for his mother. --Lochdale 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding death

The reference that drug paraphenalia was removed from the death scene should either be referenced or removed entirely. Wasn't Presley's doctor investigated after Presley's death? Given the sheer volume of prescription drugs Presley was ingesting perhaps this section could flesh this out a little noting that he clearly had a problem with prescription narcotics? --Lochdale 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup notice

This article is convoluted, to say the least, and needs a rewrite from top to bottom. I eliminated some of the redundant material but because it is so extensive it is too much for one person to tackle. Maybe volunteers can coordinate efforts on the various sections. Duisburg Dude 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work condensing the relationships section, it looks much better now without all the gossip-like details--58.169.44.235 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some material on the racism issue plus background. Please edit to improve. BookMind 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs a little clean-up but it's a much better examination of the issue than had been there previously. Well done. --Lochdale 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two references to first guitar. One says Jan.1945, the other Jan.1946.

Last Will and Testament of Elvis Presley

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Elvis Presley. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Elvis Presley. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted this, an anonymous IP has added your links to this and many other articles. That's not an acceptable way to get around the requirement that you have support here, so I'm removing the link for now. Wmahan. 06:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Elvis and Polio

I removed the polio reference on Elvis military section because I felt it sounds really corny and lack feels a little over-exxagerated . It said he got vaccined while in military, but he got vaccinated in 1956 (elvis joined the amry in 1958) and recieved huge publicity. I felt iyt needs better info was needed on Elvis fight against polio.

Removed Phenominal succes and its content was moved into American Icon section because i felt its related. I just re-name "American Soldier" to "military service" and add more info about his military draft (in fact I could have gone to elvis mothers death but its getting too long). American Icon and Danger to American culture was moved into "Cultural impact", I am streamlining the article Jbrian80 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Critisism

Ok here some article that align with Chuck D and Johnny Rotten... this guy named Tom Sinclar (ok elvis fan mail bomb him now)

Elvis is Overrated

the reason?

• He can't write song
• He barely play musiclal instrument
• Fall short of artistry and creativity.

This Sinclair guy born in the 60's and by the time he gained "consiousness" err I mean he is old enough to remember craps, all he can see are some pile of 3rd rate Elvis movies in the 60's and that build up his opinion why elvis "sucked"

Well Tom is right, somewhat, Elvis can't write his own music or play his own instrument and by today standard he is more like the Backstreetboys (popular, but its all style and no "art" as Tom claims). The only thing I stronly disagree trhe fact Elvis served as catylist or insperation for other pop group and rock bands like the Beatles.

BTW Chuck D and Johnny Rotten....F--- You! (parody of tupac "Hit em up" song)They makes Courtney Love hopping with coke too tolerable. and off course I love to diss these big mouthed people with irrational opinion based on their culture of rage. Jbrian80 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, the nonsense spouted here is amazing: "He can't write song" -- Could Caruso "write song"? Pavarotti? Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra? Singers are performers; songwriters write songs. "He barely play musiclal instrument" -- Presley could play several musical instruments. He wasn't a stunning talent, but "barely play" is not true. Besides, he was a singer. His voice was his instrument. "Fall short of artistry and creativity." -- Anyone who can say this after listening to a wide range of Presley's recordings is a tasteless fool. -- M-K, 23 August 2006

While I agree with some of your comments I wonder if a criticism section is not warranted? Do other rock star bios have a criticism section? Also, please sign your name by hitting the four tildes button down below. Thanks. Lochdale 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the fuzz with NPOV? I thought its fairly pro elvis and the same time adressing the critisim by some minority Elvis naysayers. The only reason I put this critisim section so to let other people know there are some people who didnt like him.

Presley in the 21st century

To be honest, this section blows (vomit). Compare to other section, this one needs some help because the section was essentially some piles of trivia disguised as paragraphs. It started well then it all goes down to trivia banality.Jbrian80 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't banal trivia aptly describe the industry that developed after Presley's death though? Lochdale 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The section feels like a pile of trivia and some of them should be moved to trivia section. The only way to fix it to re-write. The JXL and okenfold remix are good but the rest are fragmented and really really lame. Since I dont have the time and capability to write huger chunks of words...Jbrian80 06:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some merit to what you are saying but there is a huge kitsch industry surrounding Presley so it makes sense to note that and to give a little flavor of what it is like. For example, the Koizumi visit to Graceland is hysterical. Sitting Prime Minister of Japan who is nigh-obsessed with Presley (including building a statue to him and recording an albulm of his favourite Presley songs). Still, I'm sure whatever edits you make will be grand.Lochdale 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Toilet Death

I was told recently that Elvis Presley died on the toilet. My first thought was to check on Wikipedia to see whether this was true and I was suprised to find there was no mention of this whatever whether it be to confirm, deny or even mention that it might be a rumour. I had to find this information elsewhere.

Even if it is not true I think it should be mentioned somewhere as it is a widespread belief and has a place in an encyclopedia. I can't help but think maybe that the removal of the statement was a biased decision by Elvis fans. Libd 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the article mentions that he was found dead on the floor of his bathroom. I think that's probably good enough.Lochdale 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. Elvis' "toilet" death is a common question in trivia quizes and the topic of general conversation because of it's very nature. People would use Wikipedia to specifically look for the answer to whether he died on the toilet, not the bathroom. Libd

Well I supposed it's not something I would be interested in but perhaps it is a big trivia question? Iguess the answer is is there any proof he died on the toilet? Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture. I'm not sure as I must admit it's nothing I've every researched. Lochdale 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was just pointed out (and I checked it in Guralnik's Careless Whisper)that Presley did indeed die whilst on the toilet. If you feel it's important then add away. Lochdale 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Richard

I removed a phrase describing Little Richard as "the first African American musical artist to break through on the pop charts". This is certainly not so-- a number of African American artists (eg Louis Armstrong, the Mills Brothers) did so earlier, and even if we limit the list to rock & roll, Little Richard was preceeded in crossover hits by Fats Domino. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems right to me. Good edit. Lochdale 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sun Recordings

I have removed the sentence that attributed early resistance to the playing of Elvis's music in the South to "hillbilly DJs" not wanting to play "darky music". Characterizing all DJs in the South as racist hillbillies is pejorative and inaccurate, and is a vast oversimplification of the very real issue of race in early rock & roll. It does nothing for the discussion other than reveal the author's prejudice against Southerners. [User:Guest] 0352, 22 August 2006

One Night Stands

I think it's fairly evident that Presley had a litany of one night stands, affairs etc. etc. As it stands, this current entry is little more than innuendo and conjecture. Lochdale 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says that this is "fairly evident"? Are there some direct quotes from reputable sources? As you seem to be of the opinion that hundreds of books on Elvis claim that Elvis "had a litany of one-night stands" you may be able to cite a few of these sources. I have now cited two sources in the opening of this section, which I have rewritten. But these are not "mainstream" publications on Elvis. However, I hope that this new version is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FBI Files

Again, this issue has been debated to death. Looking at the FBI files themselves there is nothing to back up this assertion (sort of extraordinary that such a massive claim against one of the biggest stars at the time would be settled for such a paltry amount). Lochdale 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the files never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort. The entire basis for the section I removed is a seconday source.

You are wrong. I have quoted directly from Thomas Fensch's book on the FBI files which cites the original text of the files. Onefortyone 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, in his book The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), Thomas Fensch reproduces actual texts from numerous FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981, and in the appendix, the author reprints 36 pages of original documents as full-page illustrations, showing exactly how the FBI handled these cases. Pages 30-34 deal with one of the best documented accounts, concerning Elvis being the victim of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau of Johannesburg. This man represented himself to be a doctor specialist in the field of dermatology. When Presley was in the military service in Germany, he hired this man "proported to be a medical doctor and a skin specialist." Among the documents the author provides are copies of letters from Griessel-Landau to Elvis and one of his secretaries. There can be no doubt that Griessel-Landau made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. According to the FBI files cited in the book, Griessel-Landau had

admitted to Presley that he is bisexual. His first homosexual experiences took place early in his life in the orphanage in which he was brought up. On 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments. At the time that he told Griessel-Landau of this decision he also thoroughly censured Griessel-Landau for embarrassing him...

This made Griessel-Landau angry and he decided to extort sums of money from the singer. Elvis "was interviewed on 28 December 1959 concerning his complaint that he was the victim of blackmail..." The case was referred to the FBI. According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau "threatened to expose Presley by photographs and tape recordings which are alleged to present Presley in compromising situations." An investigation determined that Griessel Landau was not a medical doctor. Finally, "By negotiation, Presley agreed to pay Griessel-Landau $200.00 for treatments received and also to furnish him with a $315.00 plane fare to London, England." After having "demanded an additional $250.00, which Presley paid," a day later Griessel-Landau made another "telephonic demand for £2,000 for the loss of his practice in Johannesburg." Then the blackmailer departed to England. This is what the FBI files and Fensch's book say. So much for Lochdale's false statement above that the FBI files "never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort." Onefortyone 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note here that Lochdale continues deleting the well-sourced passage I have written, falsely claiming in the edit summary that the "Actual files do not support allegation". See [2]. He certainly did not read the original text of the FBI files. Onefortyone 16:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do the files mention anything about Presley being a homosexual? They don't. Isn't it amazing that these pictures have never shown up and Griessel-Landau was paid off for such a paltry amount? Again, it goes to your agenda and your need to spin quotes etc. to push that agenda. Lochdale 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stick close to the facts. You said that "the files never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort." Certainly the FBI files do mention the homosexual leanings of Griessel-Landau. So what is your problem? My edit didn't say that Elvis was homosexual, it only says that he was the victim of a bisexual blackmailer. This is documented by the FBI files. Onefortyone 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't how the piece is written though. The files never suggest that Presley was a homosexual or even the alleged pictures (that have never actually been proven to have existed) were homosexual in nature. Moreover, the point of the section is just to show that there were FBI files on Presley rather than to focus on any particular issue. Lochdale 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The files clearly show that Adams was the victim of a bisexual blackmailer. As the Griessel-Landau case is the best documented account, it should be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The files say nothing of the sort. They mention numerous things such as paternity suits, break-ins etc. etc. This is an encyclopedia so it makes no sense to pick and choose what we want to include. What we should mention is that the files exist. That's what we do so it should be left at that. Lochdale 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have now created a new article on Griessel-Landau. I hope this is satisfactory to all. You may feel free to start further articles on the other important cases documented by the FBI. Onefortyone 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of "The Elvis Cult and its Critics"

The "Elvis Cult and its Critics" need to be cleaned up. There's a lot of great information there but it is worded poorly and it's one very, very, very large wall of text. Aserty 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc. which seems to be a little too specific for an encyclopedia entry. That said, I have avoided editing it (other than the first sentence) as I'd like to actually read it in some detail. Thanks for the clean up. Lochdale 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So you think university studies are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles? This statement speaks volumes. Onefortyone 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As does yours as it is indicative of your favorite pastime: taking things out of context. You've gotten in trouble before for doing that. My point was, you actively seek out any and all works that could be construed in anyway to support your POV. Your entire methodology is POV. Further, I genuinely question the validity of Your quoting of anything because you consistently take things out of context or twist things for your own ends. Lochdale 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your argument? Would you please provide evidence that I have taken things out of context, as you falsely claim. Where are your sources saying that my contributions are wrong? All you can do is removing content I have written, simply because it's not fan stuff and not always singing the praise of Elvis, but based on reliable sources. Onefortyone 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, you take a questionable source and then use a more reputable source in an effort to bolster it. For example, citing one author saying that "tongues wagged" that Presley and Adams were "getting it on" and then using a quote from Guralnik (a reputable biographer) to note that Adams and Presley were friends. Of course, you fail to mention that Guralnik NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together nor do the hundreds and perhaps thousands of other books on Presley. I think it's time this went to arbitration as I am tired of going back and forth with you. Lochdale 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you realize that I did not include the passage "that 'tongues wagged' that Presley and Adams were 'getting it on' " in the said paragraph you are constantly deleting? See [3]. By the way, this is a quote from an article by the pen of Alanna Nash, certainly a reputable Elvis biographer such as Guralnick. And you falsely claim that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". Indeed, this author describes their close friendship in his book. Red West, another of Elvis's friends, also mentions this friendship in one of his interviews. Elaine Dundy, also a reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend. So what is your argument? Is there a source which denies that Adams and Presley were close friends? Of course not. Onefortyone 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Elaine Dundy says, "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." (Elvis and Gladys, p.250) In an interview, Red West confirms that Adams "was a friend of Elvis’s and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door and then Robert Conrad who did "Hawaiian Eye" and "Wild Wild West", we played football every Sunday when Elvis got back and all those people would come out..." See [4]. Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." (Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.336, 339) During the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric" (Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.339-340). According to the same author, in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day" (Last Train to Memphis, p.410). Are there any sources which say that these authors are wrong? Onefortyone 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is with your selective use of quotes. For example, Guralnik never suggests at any time that Presley's relationship with Adams or anything else was anything other than friendly (In fact, Guralnik doesn't give that much space to Adams at all). So by using a quote from Guralnik saying that Presley and Adams were friends to support unsubstantiated allegations made by one author (out of hundreds if not thousands of books on Prelsey) is a distortion. As such, your selective use of quotes to, in essence, build a case is POV and unencyclopedic. Lochdale 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source which proves that Adams wasn't one of Elvis's best friends? There is no such source, as it is well known that Adams was Presley's friend, and there are lots of photographs showing them together. See, for instance, [5], [6],[7]. You cannot deny the historical fact that Nick Adams was Elvis's best friend, and this should be mentioned in a biographical article. Onefortyone 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never denied that they weren't friends. That said, Guralnik doesn't spend that much time on Adams. Further, he never suggests that they were lovers or that they were anything other than friends. Lochdale 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So it should be mentioned in the article that they were friends. The rumors about their possible homosexual relationship are not mentioned in the paragraph I have written. Why did you delete this section? Here is the well-sourced paragraph you have removed:

Apart from his relationships with women, Presley lived a homosocial life, as he spent day and night with many male friends and employees whom the news media affectionately dubbed the Memphis Mafia. Among them were Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker and Lamar Fike. Gerald Marzorati says that Elvis "couldn't go anywhere else without a phalanx of boyhood friends." According to Peter Guralnick, for Elvis and the guys "Hollywood was just an open invitation to party all night long. Sometimes they would hang out with Sammy Davis, Jr., or check out Bobby Darin at the Cloister. Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy ..." Samuel Roy says that "Elvis' bodyguards, Red and Sonny West and Dave Hebler, apparently loved Elvis—especially Red ... ; these bodyguards showed loyalty to Elvis and demonstrated it in the ultimate test. When bullets were apparently fired at Elvis in Las Vegas, the bodyguards threw themselves in front of Elvis, forming a shield to protect him." "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." In an interview, Red West confirms that Adams "was a friend of Elvis’s and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door and then Robert Conrad who did "Hawaiian Eye" and "Wild Wild West", we played football every Sunday when Elvis got back and all those people would come out..." Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." During the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric," According to Guaralnick, in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day."

What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is a mess and should be removed until it is cleaned up. It's basically been supported by one user who has a particularly agenda that has permeatd this article for years. For example, his own mentor and another editor have pointed out that Wikipedia is not the place for original research or wild speculation [[8]] and [[9]]. To wit, it has been pointed out that: Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter: — Justbecause something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim. — Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. — This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia. — I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation.

Emphasis is not mine. This aticle is a disjointed mess and this section just adds to the problem. I am happy to discuss this further though I think it may be time to go to arbitration. Lochdale 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted material concerning the Elvis cult, the FBI files on Elvis, etc., all of which is well sourced. Another user said on this page that the paragraph on the "Elvis Cult and its Critics" includes "a lot of great information" but needs some rewording. So other users think that the paragraph should not be removed. By the way, you should also have mentioned what administrator NicholasTurnbull said on August 4, 2006:

Lochdale:, it does ... seem some of the edits (but not all) that you have made are not strictly in line with WP:NPOV, which I hope you will work on satisfying in the future. I might also ask whether you would be willing to enter into a voluntary hiatus from editing the article for a period of time until the dispute has settled a little.

In my opinion, Lochdale, you are part of an Elvis fan group that endeavors to suppress well-sourced information from the article which is not in line with the positive view you have of your favorite star. The fact is that you seem to push an agenda, as you are the person who is frequently deleting whole paragraphs I have written. These paragraphs are well sourced and include relevant information. As for your relevant edits, here is one of your recent contributions to the Elvis talk page which shows your interests: the Elvis shrine Onefortyone 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been banned from this article numerous times. You have pushed your fringe agenda and have been told by two seperate editors that you are way out of bounds. Administrator Turnbull said in no uncertatin terms that you should cease with your edits. Further, your edits are not well sourced but selectively sourced. You are trying to build this non-existent conspiracy in order to push your fringe point of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for your personal agenda. With regard to the Elvis shrine you'll note how I thought it should be removed. The "Elvis Cult" piece was entirely point of view and based mostly on original research. This is an encyclopedia. Again, you have been banned before for the very same behaviour your are currently exhibiting. Lochdale 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking, Lochdale. As everybody can see, all of my recent edits are well sourced, particularly the "Elvis Cult" section. Did you notice that this is a critical paragraph concerning Elvis? Therefore it is entitled "The Elvis Cult and its critics." Did you further notice that another user was of the opinion that this section includes "a lot of great information," but only needs some rewording, presumably because of the many quotes from several independent sources I have given. The whole article should be well balanced, and as there is still much nonsensical stuff in it written by Elvis fans who are always singing the praise of the megastar, some critical voices may also be included. I have not yet seen one contribution by Lochdale which is well sourced or critical of Elvis. By the way, all critical passages of the article, for instance the section on Elvis's consumption of drugs, were started by me. Onefortyone 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is choc full of orinal research. It's an amalagamation of anything and everything, the veracity of which is dependent on one editor's view of mostly obscure papers and other research. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic. Lochdale 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis was a Vegetarian

I spotted some PETA type bullcrap when I was looking through the article at the introduction. The line, 'Elvis was a vegetarian!!!' I tried to edit it out but the line was not on the editing box. Can someone remove it please?

This line has already been removed by the AntiVandalBot. Onefortyone 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Shrine Page

I guess I don't have any major issue with adding a link to Bill Slater's Elivs Shrine page though I'm not sure it is needed and I am a little uncomfortable with the self-promotion which appears to be a violation of Wiki rules. Lochdale 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

"His popularity as a singer has survived his death and continues to confound his strongest critics." The bias shines through...

Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. The problem with the article currently is that it contains so much lurid and often times ridiculous information that it raises a credibility issue for the entire article. Pretty much no other rock star bio is quite as infected as this one is. The entire "Elvis cult" is so POV as to be laughable.Lochdale 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I created the proposed list page? Durova 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs and passages removed by Lochdale

The problem is that User:Lochdale, who seems to be an enthusiastic Elvis fan (see this contribution or this discussion), is frequently deleting passages and paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley article which are not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. See, for instance, [10], [11], [12], [13]. I don't think that this is O.K. I do not understand what should be wrong with my edits, as all of them are well sourced and I have quoted from mainstream biographies, publications on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. Other users are also of the opinion that the critical section on the 'The Elvis Cult and its Critics' includes "a lot of great information " but needs some rewording. See this discussion. However, Lochdale totally deleted the whole paragraph. Here is the original text I have written:

There is a star cult surrounding the singer uncritically feeding the fans with information they like. It has been claimed that there are over 500 US fan clubs and that they exist in every state except three: North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming. According to the American Demographics magazine, 84% of the US people say that their lives have been touched by Elvis Presley in some way, 70% have watched a movie starring Presley, 44% have danced to one of his songs, 31% have bought an Elvis record, CD or video, 10% have visited Graceland, 9% have bought Elvis memorabilia, 9% have read a book about Presley, and 5% have seen the singer in concert. Not all of these people are Elvis fans. A collection of essays entitled The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media critically examines what distinguishes fans from general audiences and explores the relationship between fans and their adored media products. Part of this volume is the article, "Fandom and Gender" which includes an examination of female fantasies of Presley. To many of his female fans, the songs Presley sang "were secondary to his personality and the way he performed them," evoking the well-known emotional responses. In her autobiographical article, "Sexing Elvis" (1984), Sue Wise even describes "how she came to terms with her lesbianism through a close identification with the feminine side of the King." "Elvis's 'effect' on young girls threatened those men who assumed that young girls needed to be protected both from sex in general and from its expression in questionable characters like Elvis in particular." However, there were not only female fantasies directed at the star. According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community." "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls"; yet, Presley "clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon." There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod." On August 16, thousands of die-hard Elvis fans travel to Graceland every year in order to celebrate the anniversary of Presley's death. The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators. According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult. What is more, David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. "With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage." "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult." Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult." Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977 (see the "Elvis lives?" section of this article). In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture. This Presley cult has been much criticized. "As one reader complained: I was really surprised that you used that article about the boring Elvis cult! You would use one on McDonald's?" Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life. During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis. According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis. "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years." According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'" When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." In a recent study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll. However, one of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jewelled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich." Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it. Thus, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." He was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'"

Perhaps somebody is able to rewrite this paragraph, but it should not be deleted. As a second example, here is the original section concerning the FBI files on Presley which has also been removed by User:Lochdale:

As Presley was a very popular star, the FBI had files on him of more than 600 pages. According to Thomas Fensch, the texts from the FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981 represent a "microcosm [of Presley's] behind-the-scenes life." For instance, the FBI was interested in death threats made against the singer, the likelihood of Presley being the victim of blackmail and particularly a major extortion attempt by Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau while the star was in the Army in Germany, complaints about his public performances, a paternity suit, the theft by larceny of an executive jet which he owned and the alleged fraud surrounding a 1955 Corvette which he owned, and similar things.

I don't understand why this passage which includes useful information has been removed. The same paragraph now reads: [14]. The following passage was removed from the "male friendships" section:

Presley expert Elaine Dundy says that "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." All of the singer's friendships are documented by many photographs.

This is a short quote from a mainstream biography on Presley. Dundy's book Elvis and Gladys was called by the Boston Globe "Nothing less than the best Elvis book yet" and by Kirkus Reviews "The most fine-grained Elvis bio ever." Many photographs exist showing Elvis together with his friends. See, for instance, these photographs showing Elvis together with Nick Adams: [15], [16],[17]. I don't know what should be wrong with these historical facts. Other users may add details relating to other friends of the singer. Where are your contributions concerning the other friends, Lochdale? As you constantly claim to have read lots of books on Elvis, it must be very easy for you to add further material to the article. But all I can see is that you are only removing paragraphs I have written instead of improving the article.

Just three examples. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the passages cited above, nor are they POV, as all sources are cited. Interestingly, all material I have added was removed by only one and the same user: Lochdale. All other users who recently contributed to the article did not remove passages written by me. Perhaps some unbiased third-party users can have a look at all of these paragraphs and help to solve the dispute. Onefortyone 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been down this road before. You have been banned from this article several times before for your behaviour. Firstly, Adams died 10 years before Presley did and the Memphis Mafia continued long after Adams. He had many friends and Adams was necessarilly his best (West, Schilling etc.). So rather than take a POV we should leave it as is as many could claim to be Presley's best friend. In addition, the FBI files should be referenced and that is about it. The files NEVER say that there was a homosexual blackmail attempt and if it were such an attempt then it was the worst ever given the small dollar amount the alleged blackmailer received. so why focus on that one issue? We should just reference the files and leave it at that. One need only look at the articles on John Lennon or Buddy Holly to see what a disgrace this article is. Lochdale 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement clearly shows that you are endeavoring to suppress well-sourced information from the Elvis Presley article. I would say that you are pushing an agenda. Significantly, you are not discussing the well-sourced content of the said paragraphs which is supported by many quotes from mainstream biographies, publications on the rock 'n' roll era, universitiy studies, etc. This speaks volumes. Onefortyone 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And as for all your "well researched" edits, I think your own mentor put it best (and paraphrased what many others have been trying to tell you) when he said: Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter: — Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim. — Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. — This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia. — I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation. Perhaps that is clearer. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Bold textLochdale 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. You know that these remarks were made on the assumption that there are only one or two sources supporting my edits, as you have falsely claimed, but this is not the case. And these remarks were made with reference to contributions concerning Elvis's sex life. We are here talking about edits on other topics which are indeed well sourced, as everybody can see. Why are you so keenly interested in removing material from the article which is not in line with your personal view? Onefortyone 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not repeating myself at all the quote is just an excellent indicator of your agenda. Pretty much all you do on Wikipedia is focus on taking extreme views about Presley and those who may or may not be tangentially connected to him. This is an encyclopedia and is not a forum for your personal agenda. The article in question has no place on a general bio about a long-dead rock star. Again, look at other bios of other rock stars. It is edits like yours that affect Wikipedia's credibility as an information source. Lochdale 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So you think information on Elvis and his personal friends or critical remarks on the Elvis Cult, all supported by the mainstream biographies and peer-reviewed studies should be suppressed? I see. What do you prefer? Fan stuff? Onefortyone 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan stuff? Heh, I'm not really a Presley fan. For example, I have no problem with the drug references because they are supported by massive amounts of evidence. All I want is a fair, accurate and non-agenda driven article. One that looks like other Wiki articles like the ones I referenced above. You are obsessed with this article to the article's (and I am guessing your own) detriment. Also, peer-reviewed does not mean that they support the contention(s) mentioned in any work. We've been down this road before. Why not go to arbitration (again) about this issue rather than beating a dead-horse? Lochdale 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One of your major edits shows that your favorite topic seems to be the "Koizumi visit to Graceland" You said on this talk page that the former Prime Minister of Japan "is nigh-obsessed with Presley (including building a statue to him and recording an albulm of his favourite Presley songs)." I have not yet seen a critical contribution from your pen which is supported by quotes from one of the mainstream biographies. Onefortyone 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So what? My understanding was that we were to avoid POV and not make every effort to inject our own theories or biases into an article. Given your multiple bannings, it is clearly a concept you have difficulty with. As for Kozumi, well he was the prime minster of the world's second largest economy and had made an albulm of Presley songs. I tend not to go near the drug references as I think they are well-sourced and go to the singer's death. Beyond that, most of the stuff you add is tawdry muck-racking at its worst. Lochdale 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The best way to avoid POV is to cite sources (biographies, books and articles dealing with Elvis). I have cited my sources. Onefortyone 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you selectively cite sources or you use sources that suit your agenda no matter how vague or questionable. Again, this has been pointed out to you before via bans, other admins and even your own mentor. There are many, many books etc. on Presley. Quoting everything and anything just so it suits your agenda is not "citing sources". You should really take a step back from this article as it seems to be a genuine obsession for you. Lochdale 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. As everybody can see, you are not willing to discuss, step by step and sentence by sentence, the content of my well-sourced contributions. This also speaks volumes. Onefortyone 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people have gone over this with you. You just keep missing the point or being purposefully obtuse. All any one has to do is to check the archives to see just how long you have dragged this issue out. I'm comfortable with my edits though I would be willing to look into the arbitration proceeding. Lochdale 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Lochdale (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Elvis#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
• Onefortyone (talk · contribs) remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation.

For the Arbitration committee. Cowman109^Talk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)