:The article seems to me to cover the fact that Elvis was a controversial figure. His unhealthy closeness to his mother, her alcoholism, his father's indolence, his disreputable image amongst blacks, whites, parents, church, his drug taking, his crap films, acting, songs, guitar playing; his divorce, unbalanced mind, embarrassing stage appearances, eating disorders etc. are all mentioned. Uncritical and manipulative fans and the fact that he was overweight and died on the toilet are mentioned. There are other references to him being a sexual pervert and that people just took the piss out of him in later life, that he's parodied, that he had reached the point where he was forgotten by society.  

 :Let's be clear: I don't want to remove any of this; it's essential content. But I don't want to add anything else that is positive, or that can be seen as a fan's biased contribution. This article IS a compromise because it does show both sides - and it has to be a decent read. It's got tons of suitable references (too many, some say) because every damn itty bitty fact or claim was jumped on by someone demanding verification or it might be dumped. What more of "both sides" can be included in a short, encyclopedic article?? If Elvis haters wrote a biased article, and the fans did likewise, I'd predict the neutral reader would learn precious little about the man that is reflected in the current article. Only the more extreme and dubious claims have been left out, like Dee Presley's claim he f**ked his mother, or some guy saying "I gave Elvis a blow job!!" or "Elvis is living by a swamp in Georgia". There is little mileage in allowing voices who say "I think Elvis was crap/overrated" or "I think he is a god". Both of these kind of opinions can be inferred from the current article. It will only "fall into further disrepute" if the current problem editor is allowed to give his "side", because of his history of disruption.