Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 6

message: Here is basically what's going on: a user called Onefortyone tries to change Google results of "Elvis gay", so that those results lead to a book by David Bret. Bret is a sensationalist writer who is said to be "careless with facts". To support 141's point of view that Elvis was gay, he gives the following sources:
1) A book by David Bret 2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother 3) An article in the National Enquirer 4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis' homosexuality.
::Paragraph deleted by Wyss and Ted Wilkes: , 
An overwhelming consensus of editors here ( many of whom really dislike each other ) have agreed that all those sources are worth zero. Onefortyone often tries to make the point that his POV is suppressed because of us and the Elvis community as a whole. This is not true, though: my only contribution to the Elvis article was to mention the wide-spread belief that he died of constipation ( obviously, I'm not an Elvis fan ). The fact is most of us don't even like Elvis, but we feel that we have to take a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial purposes ( messing with Google searches ).
So far, the argument is still not resolved and the article ought to still be "protected". (129.241.134.241 16:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said repeatedly, "independent" is not relevant to "credible," "reliable" or "encyclopedic." Wyss 16:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the argument for newcomers 

message: See 
:Please note that 141's references to James Dean and Nick Adams, even in the context of this single play, appear to be unsupported PoV. Wyss 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dee Presley material is thoroughly discussed (as discredited and in some senses non-existent) in the talk archives. The rumours about EP and his mother are unsubstantiated so I don't see how they could be helpful in an encyclopedia article. Wyss 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraphs deleted by Ted Wilkes

message: As far as I know, his name is really Elvis Aaron, not Aron. Look here. --CodeMonk 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron 

message: Please don't refer to Elvis Presley as simply, "The King". His record company labelled him as "the King of Rock 'n' Roll". Fans have since shortened it the "The King" but it is unrealistic to label any artist as "the King". Who've got Ray Charles the "Genius Of Soul", James Brown the "Godfather of Soul", Michael Jackson the "King of Pop" and then ofcourse who've got Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis who have both been called the "King of Rock n Roll" from time to time. Out of all these artists it is impossible to label one of them as simply "the King". It's disputable as to whether or not Elvis really is the "King of Rock n Roll" anyway, so calling him "the King" is a stretch.
:If fans refer to him as The King, then that should be noted in the article. We should be reporting what goes on, not what should go on. KeithD (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His fans widely refer to him as The King, I've read and heard this many times. Wyss 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King 

message: Does anybody know about him being called "The Hillbilly Cat?" I never heard of it before. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be true. KeithD (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the bye, I still think those RS references are fawning PoV but it's a music article and most prose about music is hopelessly slanted and sentimental. I don't care ;) Wyss 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm all for drug problems and erratic behavious 72-77. Let the truth about Elvis come out! Btw, good luck with our case against 141, plaintiff Wilkes!
Just for fun, look at these sites, one is Dr. John Grohol. Is he another wise Ph.D.?
this, or here, or Dr. John Grohols site here - Ted Wilkes 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hillbilly Cat

message: Onefortyone continues to make controversial edits to the article by claiming literary sources, but he still has not addressed TedWilkes early call for a citation given from an Ed Greenwood book.  I suggest that he first address the existing concerns to his credibility before starting new debates.  Otherwise, the RFA committee should seriously look at these additional edits as evidence in his RFA. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the quote, see 
I have removed and/or reverted some of Onefortyone's continued diatribe. I have also renamed the section header to his prescription drug use and removed the following text inserted by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141 et al.:
*He began using amphetamines and Benzedrine to give him a lift in the first half of the 1950s. According to Albert Goldman, they were first given to him by Memphis disc jockey Dewey Phillips who played his music repeatedly. The drugs "transformed the shy, mute, passive 'Baby Elvis' of those years into the Hillbilly Cat.' " Elvis occasionally used marijuana and took LSD at least once. In her book Elvis and Me, his wife Priscilla writes that Elvis used drugs heavily by 1960 and that his personality changed dramatically. After the breakup of his marriage in 1973, Elvis "was hopelessly drug-dependent." He abused barbiturates and narcotics so heavily that he destroyed himself. When he died in 1977, it was reported that fourteen drugs were found in his body during the autopsy, including toxic or near toxic levels of four. According to Goldman, Elvis spent at least $1 million per year on drugs and drug prescribing doctors.
I suggested this section, but not written as a mass of personal opinions, snide or derogatory allusions, innuendo, quotes out of context etc. I will gladly do research on this and rewrite it ASAP however in the meantime if someone wants to work on doing a proper job on this, it would be appreciated as it is important but not the end all to an encyclopedic article. - Ted Wilkes 21:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Basically, it's uncyclopedic but I would also appretiate if someone wrote a proper section on Elvis's drug problems. This time, it has nothing to do with David Bret and Google results, and including a section with similar statements would definitely prove that no one here is part of the "international Elvis community" (129.241.134.241 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's very strange that 141 sabotages his own case in the Supreme Court by writing a section like that while the case is still not finished. Maybe he's not an experienced Wikipedian after all. Or maybe he just made a mistake. He probably thought he'd provoke Wilkes into doing something stupid and then using it against him.
(129.241.134.241 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onefortyone 

message: Elvis is often referred to as a "white" performer who brought black music to the masses. But for years I have been hearing that he in fact had a large degree, as much as a quarter perhaps, of Native American ancestry. I came to this page hoping to settle this once and for all, and I saw no mention of it. Does anyone know for sure? Dancemaster 11:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Jerry Francisco said that Presley's heart had stopped, possibly from cardiovascular disease. When asked if there were drugs involved, Francisco stated quite definitively that "drugs played no role in Elvis Presley's death." Later, the autopsy had been done at Baptist Hospital in Memphis by their pathologists. They contradicted Francisco when they said they believed drugs were responsible for Presley's death. Francisco held a press conference in response and once more denied that drugs were involved. Cyril Wecht studied the documents and realized that Baptist Hospital had made separate identical samples of specimens, sending one set to Dr. Francisco and the other to Bio-Sciences Laboratory in California, a highly respected private toxicology lab.  Townsend gave him a copy of the Bio-Sciences lab report and he was astonished by what he saw.  He concluded that Presley had indeed died as a result of a combined drug effect.  The use of different types of central nervous system depressants, or "downers," had depressed his heart and lungs.  See  Onefortyone 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my humble, speculative opinion, I think you may have heard a conflated rumour that got started from a movie in which he played someone with native-american ancestry. You might be surprised how many rumours get started based on fictional plot lines from movies :) Wyss 16:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Elvis Part Indian/Native American?

message: Certain parts of the article have been intact for several months. Someone ( possibly an Elvis fan ) changed the word "constiptaion" to Diverticulosis. I realise that the word "constipation" in an article about Elvis Presley might offend some fans, but it is the only way NPOV can prevail. The mere fact that that sentence remained unchanged for several months despite multiple edit wars about Sony radios, nicknames, gayness etc, speaks for itself. (129.241.134.241 01:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I forget somehow this wasn't in the trvia section? I suggest putting it there as an urban legend. Wyss 17:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly Elvis was awash in drugs but I agree the innuendo and spin in the new material reads more like a smear than an encyclopedic account which for some readers could even reduce the credibility of the accurate info it contains... Wyss 17:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constipation 

message: In the Scotsman today 
"THE Beatles' enduring appeal was confirmed today when they were named the most important entertainers of the past 100 years.
John, Paul, George and Ringo beat the challenge of stars ranging from Elvis to Lassie to be crowned Icons of the Century by entertainment bible Variety."
Wyss 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variety Magazine...

message: [repetitive, abusive copy-pasting by Onefortyone 13:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With that, I have removed it (although it's still available through the page history). Wyss 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the paragraph 141 has linked to contains no sources which haven't already been mentioned and discussed. Wyss 18:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: posting removed

message: Once again the word "constipation" was removed by Ted Wilkes, although he didn't address my post about the importance of keeping the word there as "proof" that the article is not a product of Elvis supporters as claimed by Onefortyone, in order words as NPOVness of the article as perceived by users. For instance, when I myself first ( almost accidentally ) visited the Elvis article ( mind you, Ted, I have no interest in him whatsoever ), I noticed that despite the length of it, there was no mention of "constipation". How can a person of this or future generations know what shows like "Married With Children" or Eminems music video "Without Me" are referrring to if this word is deleted?
Wilkes, I'm not saying there's something wrong with your skills of writing an encyclopedic article. I agree with your arguments. It's just that Wikipedia is not a *normal* encyclopedia, there is whole NPOV thing, which 1) protects articles from endless disputes 2) creates affection / willingness to edit by showing everyone that their points of view are respected - especially when backed by such a wide popular belief as in this case.
Also I can't believe Onefortyone's point of view is strengthened by actions of his fiercest opponent.
(129.241.134.241 18:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV under attack 

message: First, I found this (rather unserious) article: http://www.poopreport.com/Intellectual/Content/Elvis/elvis.html
However, I soon noticed that it gave a link to an author who claims that
"it was certainly possible that (Elvis) had been taken while straining at stool".
The author's name is Peter Guralnick, and the book is called " Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis"
Here is the book itself:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316332224/qid=1092411031/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9154422-7965440?v=glance&s=books
************
Also, there are a few parodies of Elvis's lyrics on the net. Just search for "A Little Less Constipation" and "Suspicious Turds" 
************
And finally, for the 1000th time, Eminem has a music video, Without Me, where he makes fun of Elvis and the toilet. Furthermore, a Married With Children episode, I'm going to Sweatland does the same thing.
(129.241.134.241 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we be limited to what other encyclopedias do? They don't have articles on Inherently funny words, or Toilet-related injury. Besides, what is fundamentally unencyclopedic about a toilet, as opposed to a horse, or a car, or a battlefield? All we want is to state the facts: that's this encyclopedia's mandate.  RMoloney (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that there's no evidence for the claim that he died on the toilet, whereas there is evidence that he didn't. There's nothing unencyclopedic about toilets, there is something unencyclopedic about recycling groundless rumors. On the other hand, it's indeed a fact that the rumor that he died on the toilet is widespread. Indeed, it's so widespread that people might want to look it up. I'd be happy with a statement that such an allegation has no evidence. I'm distinctly unhappy with any rather sniggering account of how he allegedly had defecatory problems, followed up with a token note that the evidence for this claim is unfortunately (and only temporarily?) lacking. (Incidentally, my views have nothing to do with any particular respect for Elvis: I can't stand most of his later work and I'm not all that thrilled by most of his earlier work either. It's a matter of respect for the truth, or the best possible attempt at the truth.) Oh, and here is an inspirational photo for you. (NB I didn't take it -- it's by one Bob Atkins -- and it's neither GFDL nor PD, so don't recycle it.) -- Hoary 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp. 651-652.
The whole paragraph on Elvis's death must be rewritten. Onefortyone 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems I was wrong and there is reason to believe that the King did indeed die on his Throne. OK, leave it in. I'm too sleepy to think of a good way, though I must say that the version suggested by 141 below seems bizarre. This is an article on somebody notable as a singer, actor (maybe), and "icon" (of some kind); it's not a coroner's report, and the choice of the book he is said to have been reading when he died seems no more notable than that of any book he read at any time. (Perhaps it has a certain value: "You occasionally think Wikipedia is daft? Look at what Elvis thought worth reading!") -- Hoary 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources about Elvis's death 

message: 22:12, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
 21:57, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
 20:39, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
19:42, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
 18:44, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
 16:46, 3 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
Ted Wilkes is hereby asked to stop vandalising Wikipedia, have some patience with other people's POV and stop violating 3rr rule.(129.241.134.241 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a troll, please stop personal attack. Please provide a link to where I supposedly claimed or bragged I was a troll. This is unheard of! (129.241.134.241 13:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And, once again, no policy is violated by reporting a rumor or conjecture (as opposed to asserting it). There is nothing unfactual about violetriga's / anon129's /my edits. RMoloney (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll gladly argue this case before the Arbitration Committee, because it deals with principal matters regarding the scope of NPOV. (129.241.134.241 13:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was me who added that, and if User:Onefortyone is accurately quoting Guralnick above then it's not a fabrication. About the drugs - there is no discussion of drug use being a possible factor in his death, so I've reinstated an edited version of that.  RMoloney (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I'm removing it, again. Your or Onefortyone's words that: "Based on the police reports, Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick regarded this as probable." - I repeat, encyclopedia's do not quote speculation. Encyclopedias are ONLY fact-based, which is why I said I would refer this to Arbitration. Guranlnick make a speculative comment which is fine in a 400 page book. But this is an encyclopedia and speculation is a false presentation. As to Presley's prescription drug abuse possibly causing his death, it most certainly should be included in the section labeled as such. It is an extremely important matter. - Ted Wilkes 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't need to be an injury caused by the toilet, but who can rule that out?  The death was toilet-related.  I'm sorry, but you are pushing your POV here and continually removing that reference is not the correct thing to do.  violet/riga (t) 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple 3rr violation by Ted Wilkes 

message: Ted Wilkes has violated 3rr once again- only one day after the previous violation
#00:12, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
#00:41, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
#00:57, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
#15:48, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
(129.241.134.241 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That final one does not revert the toilet entry and thus doesn't qualify as an actual breech of the 3RR rule.  The idea of the rule has been broken, however, and I must therefore warn Ted not to continue with this revert war.  violet/riga (t) 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another 3rr violation by Ted Wilkes 

message: I recently read an article where Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, complained about the poor readability of Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I support keeping things short and simple ( as does Jimmy ). I don't even mind if Peter Guralnick is completely removed from the article, together with the drugs. In such a case, I believe I will be able to defeat Ted Wilkes before the upcoming arbitration ( if he's serious about it ), because I will just stick to one sentence - ".....died on the toilet", and I'll destroy Wilkes' "gossip doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" defence easily.
But of course, we can debate things first before being too rash. One more thing: it is NOT Ted Wilkes' job to revert Onefortyone. Ted Wilkes should just report directly on the Vandalism page and let administrators handle it. Even when Wilkes reverts Onefortyone, it still counts in the 3rr count.
(129.241.134.241 18:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, and Guralnick could go, but I would like some mention of what, if any, role drugs had in his death, if we have such info.  RMoloney (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: Since Ted Wilkes will probably go to court with me, I'd like to have a record of NOT being a supporter of Guralnick, drugs etc (I want to keep things simple or else he'll drown me). I will therefore remove them, but I won't revert anyone who reinserts them, unless that person removes the "....died on the toilet" sentence or "constipation". 
Proof of my edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=27500789&oldid=27460695
I suggest we debate the drugs here on the talk page before (re)inserting them into the article. (129.241.134.241 03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My standpoint 

message: The problem is that Ted Wilkes does not like information and contributions which are not in line with his personal opinion. Therefore, he frequently deletes such information and accuses other users of fabricating texts, being a liar or vandal, etc. See, for instance, Talk:Nick_Adams/Archive_1#Discussion_of_sources and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Deleting_other_users.27_comments. He even goes to Arbitration, but I hope that the arbitrators will not support his gaming of the system in the future. For example, he deleted a short note concerning the Memphis Mafia from the article, though on their own homepage, the Memphis Mafia members say,
:Elvis and the guys usually stayed at The Sahara Hotel. Their normal routine for Las Vegas was to stay up all night and sleep during the day. Elvis and the guys normally started their day about 5 p.m. See 
Significantly, Ted Wilkes also deleted an external link to this Memphis Mafia page from the Memphis Mafia article. My corrections to an unsupported text placed by Ted Wilkes on the Elvis and Me page were also reverted. See . Indeed, users Ted Wilkes and Wyss repeatedly deleted my quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me, which prove that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards Priscilla. See , , , , , , . It seems as if these users wish to suppress any critical voices from the Elvis-related articles. My critical paragraph on the world-wide Elvis industry, based on studies by Professor David S. Wall, has also been deleted from the Elvis article, though User:Hoary supports a paragraph of this kind saying,
:... I do think that there could well be something in it that's worth saying. Actually when I look at the latest arguments above, both primarily addressed to me, presented by 141 and TW, I'm happier with 141's than with TW's. See Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3#Critical_paragraph_concerning_the_world-wide_Elvis_industry. 
Onefortyone 13:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, you and I agree on the drugs issue. Would you provide a draft of what you would consider to be an NPOV treatment of it?  RMoloney (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still the same problem

message: To User:Onefortyone - I removed your improper edit regarding the Memphis Mafia. Your actions here and fabrication at User talk:Fred Bauder are unacceptable. As such, I am preparing a refererral to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for a violation of your probation. -  Ted Wilkes 18:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. It is to be hoped that the arbitration committee will criticize you for your false accusations and personal attacks against me and other users. Onefortyone 22:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of probation by User:Onefortyone

message: While I think some sort of reasonable command of the English language is a good idea before editing the English Wikipedia, nevertheless this mass of edits is filled with personal opinions and unsubstantiated statements such as:
*In spite of his massive following and undeniable talent, a small, but quite outspoken percentage of both the american and, to a lesser extent, non american public with interest in, and access to, the Presley phenomenon have tried, unsuccesfully, to minimize his contributions. According to some, the fact that he did not write his songs 
*Books containing brief, yet wholly unprovable references about, say, his having been gay, or not the kind of potent sexual animal which he was suppossed to have been, have become the norm, rather than the exception, inspite of quantifiable, and readily available evidence to the contrary.
*As a result of his large legacy, both in terms of recordings, filmed accounts, and as mentined earlier, his large following, the attacks on his singing, stage presence, personality, habits, and character have for the most past, just as it happened when he first arrived on the music scene, increased his notoriority and ulterior command on the public`s counsciousness, rather than decrease it. Named the most controversial music personality of the 1950`s because of the changes he brought forward,
*who, single handedly, fused albeit inadvertantly the two most important music idioms in America into a third, entirely different one, rockabilly.
I have reversed this, however there might be some tidbits salvageable from this personal statement if Anonymous User:165.98.188.2 or someone else wishes to try. 
- Ted Wilkes 14:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Anonymous User:165.98.188.2