Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

• 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

If you're here to have a look because of the RfC, please read archives 3, 4 and 5 first, thank you.

Arguements

Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages states:

• Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.

Repeating the same arguments over and over are pointless as this matter is now in the hands of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee where it will be resolved. - Ted Wilkes 17:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I endorse Ted Wilkes' interpretation of soapbox. 141's most recent contributions have been an unabated continuation of the same repeated and wholly unsupported (either by WP consensus or the documented historical record) tabloid-style assertions which have already been very lengthily discussed and rejected by every editor who looked into them. Readers can follow the entire discussion in the archives. Wyss 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. Would you please discuss these passages from Priscilla Presley's book, a source you seem to have accepted as most reliable:

Paragraph deleted by Ted Wilkes: [1]

Seriously, 141, is English your native language? Wyss 18:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but when I was younger I have travelled extensively, living in the USA for some years. Do you have problems with this fact? Onefortyone 18:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought so. Although your (very limited and somewhat stilted) usage of English grammar is nominally correct, you make syntax errors (as I have bolded above in your latest reply) and IMHO you do seem to encounter steep challenges when trying to interpret (much less twist) the nuances of English language text. Wyss 18:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of people from foreign countries contributing relevant material to innumerable Wikipedia articles, and there are many native speakers here who are able to correct grammatical or syntax errors as the one above, etc. I do not think that this is of much importance to the present discussion concerning the claims that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings. ;) Onefortyone 19:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about fixing up grammar and syntax mistakes in articles at all, but I guess your response does show the troubles you seem to have comprehending English text and sources (along with the many other issues now being discussed in the arbitration concerning you). Wyss 19:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that I have trouble as you suggest. Most sources which support the view that Elvis had affairs with men are written by English and American writers. Their texts usually do not include grammar or syntax errors. Onefortyone 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, that's not at all what I'm talking about. You might try re-reading my posts in this thread. I do understand that your limitations in comprehending written English might make this difficult for you, especially when combined with the narrow focus of your agenda here. Wyss 20:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? I think so. Onefortyone 21:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you think what I said was a personal attack, that's only another example of your problems reading written English. So far as I can see, your contributions are a result of either lack of comprehension, willful distortion and fabrication, or both. Let's let the arbitration settle it. Wyss 21:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Weeks ago you accused me of being David Bret. Last week you said that I am the sockpuppet of a Wikipedia administrator. Now you seem to have changed your tactics in order to denigrate my contributions. These strategies are all too transparent to every unbiased reader. Onefortyone 09:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no tactics other than to comment on the malicious effects of your edits. IMHO only money could motivate anyone to spend so much time on such unsupportable edits and this has made others ponder the possibility you're David Bret. Your adroitness in following (and your familiarity with) WP policy, which you use to mock and abuse the encyclopedia, along with other stuff I won't mention here, indicate you have a regular WP username (that of an admin, as it happens), ironic since you tend to accuse people who don't accept your sources of being sockpuppets of others who don't accept your sources. Finally, you do seem to have subtle problems with the comprehension of nuance in written English. My remarks have been consistent. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 15:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of the argument for newcomers

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: [2], [3]

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))

As I've said repeatedly, "independent" is not relevant to "credible," "reliable" or "encyclopedic." Wyss 16:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Paragraphs deleted by Ted Wilkes

See [4]

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)

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)

Verification of assertion(s) made by User:Onefortyone:

I, User:Ted Wilkes, left the following message on User Talk:Onefortyone:

To User:Onefortyone/Anon 80,141. et al:

• You inserted on the Talk:Elvis Presley page this edit that stated as fact the following:
  • "In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams."

- I decided to invest a $1.15, and ordered a copy of "The Boy Who Would Be King : An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley By His Cousin" by Earl Greenwood from here. Would you please provide the direct quote from the book and the page number so I can verify your assertion. Thank you.

- Ted Wilkes 17:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

See below [5]

Aaron

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

As has been noted several times, his father put that spelling on the marker because EP had been planning on having his middle name legally changed to Aaron. Wyss 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I moved the Bye Bye Birdie thing from his Military Service section to Trivia as it is unrelated to him or his military service, and as the article itself says, it was a superstar "akin" to Presley. Also, I will again remove the Teen idol reference. No such terminology existed or was applied to Presley. It was created by agents to promote their clients when Presley was already called the King of Rock and Roll. It began c. 1958 after Ricky Nelson had become a successful singer then others like Fabian and Frankie Avalon followed. - Ted Wilkes 22:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The King

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)

His fans widely refer to him as The King, I've read and heard this many times. Wyss 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. As long as it is emphasized that Elvis Presley is not "the King", he is the "King of Rock and Roll" (arguably). Street walker 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hillbilly Cat

Does anybody know about him being called "The Hillbilly Cat?" I never heard of it before. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[6] Seems to be true. KeithD (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I question that internet article as being authorative. I do know that many years later in 2001, a CD was released with the title "Elvis Presley - The Hillbilly Cat" which was a collection of his Louisiana Hayride songs. I actually think this comes from Peter Guralnick referring to him as that, not Presley. His appearance on the Grand Ole Opry, and all his early touring was as The Blue Moon Boys". - Ted Wilkes 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This one [7] says they were billed as The Hillbilly Cat and the Blue Moon Boys. Wyss 16:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Also this Google search seems (to me) to point at lots of support. Wyss 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm saying is that it appears they have picked up this label from Guarlnick's book section title about that time (1955) and quote it. See the L.A. Times Weekly reprint & label - 16:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has gone back and forth (with me) about the reception Presley got at the Grand Ole Opry. Here is Guralnick's account, which, as his most respected biographer, I think is suitable for the article. Note that I also removed: "however one of the show's executives reportedly told Presley he would be better off resuming his truck driving work, causing Presley to make a vow to never return there, a promise he kept" as Guralnick gives a very different account of what Grand Ole Opry head Jim Denny said. - Ted Wilkes 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "Hillbilly Cat" reference. He never billed himself as that, the name was just one of many given to him by others in 1955 when the "Blue Moon Boys" toured. That reference probably was first used by Waylon Jennings as described here at Random House for the Guralnick book. This Blue Moon Boys article website appears to document it well about the early names attributed by fans, DJ's etc that says: "During these early years, both the media and fans scrambled for words to describe Elvis and his music. Monikers included the Hillbilly Cat, the Folk Music Fireball, and the Nation’s Only Atomic Powered Singer." Also in this article, Guarlnick mentions he has no stage name and refers to the various ones given by others and in a reported interview Presley was asked what he called himself to which Presley said: "Well I never have given myself a name but a lot of disc jockeys call me Boppin’ Hillbilly and Bebop" - Ted Wilkes 18:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can use a reference that supports it as a means to remove it. Wyss 18:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It says (I repeat) the fans, DJs and others gave him that name amongst several others. Elvis Presley said he didn't use any name. Should we insert all the various names every fan, DJ, etc. gives to performers, politicans, and the like? - Ted Wilkes 18:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously not, but Hillbilly Cat was plainly used widely as billing during his first year or so of fame. This is so heavily supported by the web cites above I don't see why we can't confirm it for readers. As for the celebrity himself saying he didn't have a nickname, lots of them resist nicknames but still get them. Wyss 19:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... since his music was rather rockabilly at first, the nickname Hillbilly Cat may resonate more with me, I guess. I'd prefer keeping it in the header. Why do you find it distracting (or whatever) there? (btw I didn't put it there originally, it's been there since the first time I saw the article) Wyss 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No. I removed it (again), simply because we then would have to allow every other person to insert any of the other names given him (or an person in a Wiki article) by fans etc. Hillbilly Cat is in fact not widely referred to. It was, as I pointed out earlier, picked up because of the section title used in Guarlnick's book. It was never used in any TV/film bio etc. All of these website are copying Guarlnick, note one Wyss linked to even declared that was how he billed himself. - Ted Wilkes 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect I think you've misinterpreted the sources and are also conflating a concern about "allowing any possible nickname" with one clearly used early in his career. Wyss 19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wyss. Whilst "any possible nickname" wouldn't be allowed, this one seems verifiable. It's not setting a precedent, it's making a judgement on this specific example. KeithD (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me explain it again: While on tour in 1955, Waylon Jennings referred to Presley as a "hillbilly cat." (Small capitals). Someone, a DJ or someone introducing him on stage picked up on it and at least once more called him that. However, another DJ/emcee also called him the "Folk Music Fireball", and another called him the "Nation’s Only Atomic Powered Singer" (see above and read article) and as Presley said, other names too like "Boppin’ Hillbilly." User:Wyss said "Hillbilly Cat" was "one clearly used early in his career." It was not. "Hillbilly Cat" was not common whatsoever, it was just ONE of a few given to him once or twice while on tour in four southern states while still unknown in the rest of the U.S. Every town he performed in, the emcee had his own label. These various nicknames were forgotten because they were never in use more than once or twice until 39 years later in 1994 when Presley biographer Peter Guralnick used one of them for a section title in the article in the L.A. Weekly. It is not in Guralnick's book. (See the Scotty Moore website here. In this article it says Guarlnick spoke about the various names given to Presley during this short period in 1955. None were a Presley common attribution, he had no commonly used name attribution of any kind. "Hillbilly Cat" was just one insignificant label given Presley once or twice out of several attributions. The only reason that it comes up on the Internet sites today is because Peter Guarlnick is the most quoted of any Presley biographer and the "cut and pasters" use it. Had Guralnick used the "Nation's Only Atomic Powered Singer" or the "Boppin’ Hillbilly" as the section title, then that is what would be on the Internet today. Quoting one moniker out of several given by a few people and used one or two times only in the space of a few months 1955 is not like The "King of Rock and Roll" that millions of people have used since c.1958. - Ted Wilkes 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

When they first hit the Southern circuit, they were billed as the Hillbilly Cat and the Blue Moon Boys. [8] Wyss 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Wyss, you already used this link earlier. Deal with the facts, not the words of a 2004 website run by who knows that are doing as I said they do fifty years later using Guralnick's article header? This link doesn't meet Wiklipedia requirements. Most likely, they copied it from Wikipedia or one of the many Wiki mirrors you have referred to. Or, are you stating that whatever is on this site is fully acceptable to Wikipedia? Strange though, because earlier on these Talk pages you denounced the use of both Rolling Stone magazine and Billboard magazine as a reference. - Ted Wilkes 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you can repeat, but I can't. Anyway you're mistaken but I'm not inclined to discuss stuff with someone so quick to descend into arrogant legalistic attacks and disruptive conflation of past discussions. Either way, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds to me as though you read Hillbilly as an insult to EP and have decided to back-build a "case" for removing the reference. Wyss 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Hey, let's play nice: we're all each other's sockpuppets here, remember? ;-) Hillbilly Cat seems to be in current use much more than the other monikers that Ted Wilkes has mentioned (using Google hits as a very rough judge). Would a possible comprimise be to leave Hillbilly Cat out of the introduction (as a non-fan, I'd never heard him called Hillbilly Cat, so it probably doesn't warrant being one of the first things people read about him), but expand the section on the early part of his career to briefly include all these names, explaining their origins, and explain why Hillbilly Cat has become more widely used than the others, even if they were originally on a par with regards usage? It may prove to be unnecessary detail, and after being written it may not actually warrant inclusion, but it can't hurt to try. KeithD (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, Ted and I are only having a friendly talk about the esthetics of Hillbilly Cat. I think it's cool and supported, he thinks it's insulting and weakly supported enough that he can get away with skiving it out of the intro. Sigh. That was one of my favourite bits in the writing :) Wyss 23:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

First, Wyss knows I love her dearly. Secondly for Keith, "Current use" is the point. This is really a non-issue. It's non-encyclopedic to say someone in their early career was known as soandso when in fact it was once or twice they were called this as one of several names during a period of a few weeks. I don't even like the King of Rock and Roll on the intro line, to me, it is out of place there. Then again, like all people trained in banking, I tend to be a bit more exacting in terms of detail relevant to essentials. These things are wasting Wikipedia space that could be used for important biographical information like his drug problems that affected his health and sometimes erratic behavior 1972-1977. - Ted Wilkes 23:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Those are all WP mirrors with scattered versions. Elvis is boring :) Wyss 23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone

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)

For the quote, see [9]

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)

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))

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))

Was Elvis Part Indian/Native American?

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)

• I've never heard that reference before, but as far as I know, he had no American Indian blood in him. I hope you're not confusing his movie "Stay Away Joe" with this question. Good luck! User: Tlincoln 7 Oct. 05

I have read one book and several magazine articles that said Elvis Presley was partly Jewish. .... Cynthia B.

Oops! I just found the reference to his Jewish roots in the biography. I also noticed that someome wrote in the biography that -- "When Elvis died in 1977, fourteen drugs were found in his body during the autopsy, including toxic or near toxic levels of four. -- I don’t understand this because a few lines further down at the end of the Death and Burial chapter someone wrote -- "the autopsy records will not be in the public domain until 2027." Can anyone shed some light on which is accurate? .... Cynthia B.

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 [10] Onefortyone 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to this WP article on a hyper-celebrity :) Wyss 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can't believe I'm the only one who has heard this about Elvis. Dancemaster 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Second request for Verification of Onefortyone's assertion(s):

I, Ted Wilkes, posted the following to User talk:Onefortyone:

• I am posting this now because I see you are online. I have now received the book "The Boy Who Would Be King : An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by His Cousin" by Earl Greenwood AND Kathleen Tracy (hardcover or paperback – I bought both for $3.00). You never replied to my September 19th request on this page (above) that you to provide me with the direct quote from the book and the page number. To save me wasting my weekend reading something I have zero interest in, please give me the page number so I can immediately verify your absolute statement that:
• "In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had a affair with Nick Adams."

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late, but I found the information on an Elvis fan site and was unable to provide the exact page numbers. But last week I also bought a copy of the book, as it was very cheap, and I read it.

On pages 284-86 you will find the information you need. It is clearly said that Nick Adams was Elvis's "persistent friend." They "shared a mutual enjoyment of prescription drugs," and "Nick became a regular at whatever house Elvis was renting." "Elvis still hated sleeping alone, and he grew close enough to Nick to ask him to stay over on nights he was feeling particularly blue but not up to a sexual confrontation with a woman." When he heard that his friend had died, "Elvis's immediate reaction was to sit on the steps, frozen and mute, then his eyes welled with tears and his body shook, as he rocked himself back and forth, arms clutching his sides. Elvis was devastated and suffered through it for days. He sequestered himself upstairs and could be heard crying through the closed door. ... Elvis talked about how close they had been, particularly after a couple of foursomes, and admitted he had 'spurned' Nick's friendship later, saying he had needed 'room to breathe,' because Nick had wanted 'too much, ya know?'..." The author adds that "some pointed comments were made about the two of them years later by a disgruntled hand Elvis just fired..." "Regardless of any intimacies, Nick didn't kill himself over Elvis - it turned out he had a lot of demons haunting him. But Elvis beat himself over Nick's death for a long time."

Interestingly, on page 165, there are some further remarks about the fact that Colonel Parker had told young Elvis "he needed to sharpen his stage presence and develop an image, and to play up his sexuality and make both men and women in the audience want him. ... The idea that he could control men ... had never occurred to him, until Parker brought it up. Not by sleeping with them but by daring them not to notice his sexual smolder. And he found the thought of being wanted by a man oddly erotic, and it made him feel powerful and superior." Onefortyone 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Constipation

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))

Yeah, it's diverticulated :) Wyss 01:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Constipation has zero effects and is easily treated with over-the-counter drugs or in extended cases by a clyster. A comment on such a minor thing is not warranted in an encyclopedia or any biography. The description of Presley's gastro-intestinal disorders are consistent with inflammation of a diverticulum in the digestive tract (especially the colon); characterized by painful abdominal cramping and fever and constipation. His massive abuse of prescription drugs would have affected his intestinal tract etc., actually eating away at the tract membrane. Eliminating the constipation does not end the problem. Note too, that the only witness, Ginger Alden, did not say he was on the john. Ted Wilkes 16:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Re the "Consumption of drugs" section created by Onefortyone. There are deliberate omissions and distortions inserted. He uses the word drugs, not prescription drugs and narcotics. Plus the alleged heroin quote is in fact irrelevant but set up to give a certain impression. He takes things out of context such as leaving out the introductory line for the Cliff Gleaves quote that says: "I was aware that the prescriptions that Elvis was taking …" I will edit this a bit now and clean up the rest shortly. - Ted Wilkes 17:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

I read the above about the autopsy statement and removed:

• When Elvis died in 1977, fourteen drugs were found in his body during the autopsy, including toxic or near toxic levels of four. The use of different types of central nervous system depressants ("downers") must have had depressed his heart and lungs. [11]

Crime Library is not an acceptable source and as Onefortyone admits above, there was no "autopsy" revelations. - Ted Wilkes 17:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Wilkes: in this Wikipedia article ( which I have never edited ), it says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constipation) "it may be extremely painful, and in extreme cases (fecal impaction) lead to symptoms of bowel obstruction."

In the Wikipedia article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowel_obstruction", which I also have never edited, it says "It can occur at any level in the digestive tract, and is a medical emergency".

A "medical emergency" is, as I interpret it, "something that can kill you".

And, if you have a week heart and are doing something which requires effort like pressing poo out, having sex or whatever, you can die from a heart attack. Of course, it will be difficult to say that you died from "sex" or from "constipation", but these activities can lead to death if and only if you have a week heart.

Certainly, if Elvis dies while working out ( lifting some heavy weighs ), no one would object to an article that says he died while working out. Of course, "constipation" is more problematic because it is a taboo. Yet, it should be protected by NPOV.

Here is an example of someone who died of constipation: "http://www.detnews.com/2000/oakland/0004/29/d04-45360.htm"

Some statistics: "http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/constipation/deaths.htm"

(129.241.134.241 00:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

This is simply weird! - Ted Wilkes 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What about your novel, 129? Banging away at it yet? - Ted Wilkes 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The novel will wait for now :-) Now what I find weird is that whenever someone writes something "bad" about Elvis ( be it drug abuse, derogatory nicknames, sexual orientation or the way he died ), somehow the "system" prevents those things from staying there for too long. I'm sure it's the same with other articles about famous stars as well. But it's not what NPOV is about.

P.S: Note that I'm not promoting any books about Elvis and constipation. I'm simply defending the NPOVness ( nice word! ) of Wikipedia as perceived by users. Whenever someone reads the Elvis article, he may get the impression that it is written by his fans. However: one word, just one word "constipation" will prove to that someone and to any future Onefortyones that the article is written by many writers who don't necessarily like Elvis. And, as far as I understood you, we don't really contradict each other, it's just that you feel that the word "constipation" is superfluous. To me, it's a word that proves the neutrality of the article. Of course, I may very well end up losing this battle and be forced to admit to myself that NPOV is an unreachable ideal.

(129.241.134.241 02:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

I don't think it's a question of "bad" or "good." Loosely documented tabloid gossip is usually unhelpful. So far has the "constipation" tale goes, are there any reliable citations which would support including it in the text of the article, or is it only an urban legend ("EP died under, uhm, ironic circumstances but he didn't die! He lives!")? Wyss 11:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what you want. For which of these assertments do you want more documentation?

1) Elvis was obese 2) Elvis had an enlarged colon 3) Diverticulitis often coincides with enlarged colon

  (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/diverticulosis/)

4) Constipation coincides even more with enlarged colons 5) Constipation can be deadly

(129.241.134.241 11:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC))

Variety Magazine...

In the Scotsman today [12]

"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)

Lennon 4ever!!!! (129.241.134.241 11:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

What Variety magazine actually said was: While it goes without saying that the greatest entertainer in world history was him, amongst the wannabes are The Beatles.... - Ted Wilkes 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

posting removed

[repetitive, abusive copy-pasting by Onefortyone 13:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) has been removed - see page history to verify]

All of this has been discussed many, many times. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Wyss 14:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your post is more suited to the Nick Adams talk page than the Elvis Presley talk page. You're discussing the credibility of sources relating to Nick Adams primarily, not Elvis Presley. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on moving/deleting content from talk pages, so I won't move/delete it myself, although someone probably should.. (Although, of course, as Wyss says, you've raised this on a number of occasions, both here and on the Nick Adams page, and it's been discussed on a number of occasions in exactly the same manner, so it may warrant just being deleted, rather than being moved). KeithD (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

With that, I have removed it (although it's still available through the page history). Wyss 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss has deleted [this paragraph] including references to additional sources from this discussion page. 80.141.201.67 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

User:Wyss's removal of duplicated writings followed proper Wikipedia:policy. As noted at Wikipedia:Talk page, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and repeating the same thing over and over must be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy as stated at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. It is my intention, after doing a few other articles as a badly needed "Presley et al break," to refactor all of the pages relative to this issue with Anon:80.141/Onefortyone. - Ted Wilkes 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV under attack

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))

......and a suggestion ( to Ted Wilkes )

Would you support if , at the end of the "Death and Burial" section, there was something like "the death of Elvis is a topic often parodied by contemporary culture like Eminem's music video "Without Me" and an episode of "Married With Children". Those parodies reflect the wide popular belief that Elvis died of constipation whilst on the toilet"?

In that case I'll agree to removing the "duplicated" term "constipation" from the sentence. However, this is an essential part of Elvis's death, and it does NOT belong in the trivia section. This is like Newton and the apple and Caesar and "et tu, Brut".

I'm trying to reach consensus here (129.241.134.241 18:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC))

Posted to User talk:Violetriga

• Re your Elvis Presley edit: "It is a lasting belief, though never confirmed, that he died on the toilet." - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a purveyor of gossip or speculation. Please demonstrate how your edit is 1) encyclopedic, and 2) relevant to his biography. As well, the police and medical reports, plus ALL those who actually were a witness to his corpse, state he died in the bathroom. Please provide a Wikipedia:Reliable sources who states he died on the toilet and document exactly who, and their number so as to warrant consideration, that have this "lasting belief." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

2) Relevant to his biography. If someone watches Eminem's music video "Without Me", how can that person understand what Eminem was referring to if there is nothing in the Elvis article about it?

1) Encyclopedic. There are numerous precedents about "unsupported gossip" in Wikipedia, such as "Et tu Brute" - Caesar's supposed last words. Who, but his assasins, know exactly what he said or didn't say? Are assasins trustworthy individuals? (129.241.134.241 15:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

Ted Wilkes continues to miss the point that I'm trying to make ( and refuses to answer my posts about it ). Wikipedia = encyclopedia + NPOV. There is no NPOV without mentioning that Elvis died on the toilet in the relevant section, which is the "Death and Burial" section. (129.241.134.241 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

Warning to Ted Wilkes

Don't revert stuff without debating them here first, Wilkes. Still, my posts about NPOV are unanswered. I interpret it as admitting "he's right but....screw this whole NPOV thing, it's not important"(129.241.134.241 14:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

No. Reread his response dated 15:41, 30 October 2005, (This is only slightly above your "warning" message.) -- Hoary 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on guys. One of the most famous things about Elvis is that he (supposedly) died on the toilet. It is something that "everyone knows", and whether or not it is true, it should be included in an article about him, because it's such a commonly held view. XYaAsehShalomX 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an elvis fan really, but I don't realy recall hearing this, and it's not covered at snopes.com. Can you provide a citation of it being mentioned in conversation in a film or book? That might be notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the man either, but the rumor that "the King died on the throne" is pretty widespread, and one I've heard several times over. Apparently [13], there's a strain of marijuana called "The shit that killed Elvis". My opinion, is that since it's something that many people (like me, until earlier today) hold as fact, the WP article on the man should really clarify what is known about Presley's death. That's what's consistent with NPOV. And really, what harm is done by a sentence or two stating what precisely is known about the location of his death? RMoloney (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To DropDeadG and Ted Wilkes => http://www.triste.co.uk/bcheevers.htm

This is an interview with some musician called Bob Cheevers. He repeatedly says

that Elvis died on the toilet. Now, this is not meant as proof that Elvis died on the toilet, it is just a demonstration of just how pupular that belief is. (129.241.134.241 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

Sources about Elvis's death

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))

Please show through any other legitimate encyclopedia the reference to anyone dying while on the toilet. Such references are not (as I stated above) encyclopedic. - Ted Wilkes 00:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about the singer's death:

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)

Onefortyone, you rule!!!! Nice job indeed!! (129.241.134.241 10:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

To Hoary: I strongly disagree with Ted Wilkes' POV, which is "anything about people dying on toilets is uncyclopedic". To him, including the sentence "There is a popular rumour Elvis died on the toilet" is gossip and should not be included in the Death and Burial section. My question to you is: are there any ways of including that sentence in the Death and Burial section, which will satisfy you and make you stick to that version regardless of what Wilkes thinks is encyclopedic or not? (129.241.134.241 11:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

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)

Wikipedia Consensus

I want to how many people are principally against including the words "died on the toilet" ( with a link to the toilet-injury page ) in the Death and Burial section - regardless of what the context and the wording is.

Totally Against:

For (in the present form):

(129.241.134.241 11:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

With the links that people have provided, I think that it's fair to say that it is notable at least as a popular urban legend. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For (in a modified form, give suggestions):

I have added the following paragraph, based on Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick:

According to Peter Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999) and Charles C. Thompson II and James P. Cole's authoritative study, The Death of Elvis, Presley had a book in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. A stain on the bathroom carpeting indicated where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, presumably while seated on the toilet. During the autopsy the singer's heart was found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary arteriosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. It seems plausible that he had been taken while "straining at stool" and that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease. The laboratory analyses indicated the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis's 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. Onefortyone 21:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

All this additional information about the book he had in the bathroom and direct quotes (of copyright) about specific medical cinditions is -- again -- non-encyclopedic. It is a waste of time and must be edited down to a simple proper context. And to Unanimously convicted Wikipedia Abuser Onefortyone, inserting objectionable material is a violation of your probation so I suggest you conduct yourself accordingly and edit in good faith without attempts to directly or subtley denigrate anyone in any article. As to the toilet reference/link, Presley did not receive an injury from using the toliet and, again, a reference to that rumor is non-encyclopedic. Grow up and make valid contributions, not play games on a few articles. - Ted Wilkes 13:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, Ted Wilkes. In reputed Elvis biographies, there are several references saying that there is much evidence that Elvis died on the toilet. By the way, the Wikipedia:Probation page states: "A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is entitled to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation." In addition, arbitrator Fred Bauder clearly says, "We assume you are a good editor who sometimes goes too far." That's all. As I am able to cite valuable secondary sources, I will continue to contribute to the Elvis article. Onefortyone 14:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I'm gonna do: Obviously, we can't let convicted Wikipedians edit articles they are forbidden from editing. I'll revert back to Onebravemonkey, and as a sign of goodwill to Ted Wilkes, I will not object if he removes the word "constipation" after "diverticulitis".

However, by doing so and leaving the "died on the toilet" phrase as it is, Ted Wilkes will indicate that he is OK what the "Death and Burial" section and we can stop the endless reverting game which does not benefit anyone. (129.241.134.241 14:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I made some minor changes (we cannot read the mind of the doctor) but will do more. I also removed the Sam Phillips quote as irrelevant as he is not a doctor and relegated the "Memphis Mafia" and link to trivia as it has its own article. As I said earlier, there is far too much text on this small aspect that is non-encyclopedic and uses way too much space. Similarly, I will be editing much of the "Relationships" section (which I wrote) because at the time I felt it necessary due to the repeated fabrications by User:Onefortyone. I will, unless someone else does, provide more on his music, which is the reason this Memphis truck driver is in Wikipedia. - Ted Wilkes 16:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted all your changes because you removed a sentence ( "It is a lasting belief, though never confirmed, that he died on the toilet." ) which was inserted there by administrator Violetriga and whose presence is supported by at least 5 other users, myself included. Furthermore, you have not responded to any of my posts, which I interpret as an admission that from an NPOV perspective, I'm right and you're wrong. However, you don't value NPOV as much as I do, although I have provided a similar precedent ( Julius Caesar ), where "gossip" is included right in the section dealing with his death. You have not responded to that either. So be it then. Until you stop disregarding my posts, I will revert your edits on sight. (129.241.134.241 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

You (User:129.241.134.241) have supplied enough history of threats to "revert", personal attacks, and other disruptive conduct that I will without hesitation refer any such further misconduct to the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee for adjudication. - Ted Wilkes 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand. Most editors feel that the toilet legend, whether true or not, is sufficiently widespread to deserve mention in the article. Which is common practice on Wikipedia - to clarify what is known about such rumors and conjectures (e.g. Clint Eastwood#The "Stan Laurel" myth). And please don't dismiss the arguments of anon129 and other editors as "nonsense". RMoloney (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Memphis Mafia were not part of "Relationships" - and does not warrant a full section header. That is why it was relocated (despite an existing link) to the Trivia section. I repeat, Anon129 has posted sheer nonsense and I will revert his nonsense every time. And, "Consensus" doesn't overide Wikipedia:Policy. Please read it carefully and Wikipedia:Perfect article that says, amongst other things: "reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles." And the Stan Laurel myth has no correlation to a toilet myth. - Ted Wilkes 20:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And, User:RMoloney, if I may, I also suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research. Posting the opinion of a few individuals or Internet gossip sites is "Original Research." If you or anyone has a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this supposition that Presley died on the toilet, please quote it and by all means reinsert it. In the meantime, I repeat official policy, Wikipedia is not a tabloid gossip sheet. - Ted Wilkes 20:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes - the Stan Laurel myth is demonstrably untrue, whereas the toilet myth has a decent likelihood of truth. As to Policy and Perfect Article, I can find nothing in either to support the opinion that we refrain from discussing widely-believed rumors. In fact WP:NPOV dictates the opposite. Regarding sources, Onefortyone provided a source in the Guralnick biography. I notice that you seem to be obsessing about the fact that a toilet is involved - are you concerned with attempting to preserve the dignity of Elvis? RMoloney (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't print myths with "a decent likelihood of truth." However, even this is your Original Opinion. Discussion of NPOV is irrelevant here, it is an automatic. A wikipedia artcle (as stated above) must : "reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles." I never obsess on anything and I never jump into any article/debate and/or edit without taking the time to learn the facts. It is not the dignity of Elvis I am concerned about, it is the dignity of Wikipedia in its attempt to gain credibility (I assume you have read the disaster with the Washington Post last year and recently the Bill Gates & Jane Fonda mess.) Why would I (or anyone) make 500+ articles if the effort is denigrated through association? And the Gates/Fonda article dismissed Wikipedia in its entirety. Beyond being non-encyclopedic, there is a reason that a "rumor" here in the Presley article must be elimated and that is so that it does not mislead sincere contributors into believing it is acceptable (as you apparently mistakenly have) to insert such things in other articles, such as Clint Eastwood. And, Peter Guralnick NEVER stated Presley died on the toilet. Then too, (as I stated above) whatever other information inserted in any article must be relevant. Speculation as to whether Presley died on the toilet or while reaching for more pills in the medicine chest, is not relevant. His abuse of prescription drugs that led to an early death, is. - Ted Wilkes 21:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

TO: User:RMoloney - I just noticed that you ignored Wikipedia policy and reinserted a rumor. I will in fact revert it. And no, I have not exceeded the three revert rule as I have been doing much editing in the EXACT SAME pattern as I have on hundreds of others including numerous articles today. However, your joining with Anon129 to revert more than three times, does. If you disagree with me, please take the appropriate action and I will gladly respond as I plan to formally request the establishing of a Policy Reference Committee anyway. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

With the risk of wasting my time getting no replies as usual.....Two questions for you, Wilkes: 1) Give me some examples when NPOV IS relevant 2) Is it completely impossible that different Wikipedia guidelines (such as "fact-based and rooted in....." and NPOV) might, in fact, at times be contradictory to each other (like all laws)? (129.241.134.241 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

NPOV is always relevant and is automatic to all edits. There is no contradiction whatsoever. Inserting speculation, rumors, gossip and the like has nothing to do with NPOV. - Ted Wilkes 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not "inserting" speculation, rumors, etc. into the article. We are reporting on them. In the spirit of NPOV, will you not agree to some neutral reporting of the existence of this rumor? I mean, if an Eminem video references it, and the audience is expected to understand what is being referred to, it must be believed by a number of people. Does that not merit even one sentence? And surely Wikipedia should clarify that what so many people believe to be fact is uncertain?

I don't want an edit war. We should try to find some compromise on thiss issue. RMoloney (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If Ted Wilkes is such an expert in Wikipedia policy, how come he repeatedly violates a simple rule like the Three Revert Rule? I think he's just confused over the multitude of Wikipedia policies and should take a vacation from this article instead of adding personal attacks and violating Wikipedia rules (129.241.134.241 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Triple 3rr violation by Ted Wilkes

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))

User:129.241.134.241 - keep inserting rumors and fabrication and we will go to Arbitration. But then again, you already bragged that you are a troll. - Ted Wilkes 00:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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))

User:RMoloney - I repeat, a few people forming a consensus on one article's Talk page does not overide Wikipedia Official Policy. However, I will be glad to help resolve the matter and prepare a submission so that the Arbitration committee can rule on this. - Ted Wilkes 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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))

WARNING TO Unanimously convicted Wikipedia Abuser Onefortyone. I removed your game-playing edit about the Memphis Mafia that was part of your fraudlent campaign for which you were censured. If you post this again, I will immediately refer your conduct to arbitration. Further, you have been repeatedly warned about posting copyright violations and continue to do it. And, your fraudlent assertions continue unabated, making more unsubstantiated claims. - Ted Wilkes 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have also removed your direct exact quote that you attributed to two different books which, one way or the other, was also a copyright violation. As well, you inserted another fabrication:

• "Based on the police reports, Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick regarded this as probable."

- Ted Wilkes 15:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Further, the article it links to has zero to do with Presley. The article is about "Toilet-related injury", Presley wasn't injured by a toilet. His place of death was already mentioned in the article See: Talk:Toilet-related injury#Unrelated references to article on injuries. - Ted Wilkes 18:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

User:Violetriga: I'm glad to see you finally agree. Thank you. Please change this from a link to Toilet-related injury to List of people who died in the bathroom. - Ted Wilkes 23:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another 3rr violation by Ted Wilkes

Ted Wilkes has violated 3rr once again- only one day after the previous violation

1. 00:12, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
2. 00:41, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
3. 00:57, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes
4. 15:48, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

(129.241.134.241 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

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)

Readability

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))

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)

My standpoint

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))

Still the same problem

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 [14]

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 [15]. 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 [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. 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)

---

While the Guralnck quotes about Presley are worthy in part, Onefortyone continues to play games with his quotes out of context. Guralnick also (and immediately) stated: "Almost inexplicably, Dr. Francisco and the medical examiner's office would stick to their original diagnosis, and the debate over Elvis' death would rage for over twenty years, through lawsuits and legislative actions, medical disbarment and reinstatement , and attempts at blame, denial, and reconsideration too numerous..."

This of course was published by Guralnick in 1999 and the Thompson/ Cole reference which Onefortyone falsely called "authorative" in 2005 was written in 1990 and based on Geraldo Rivera investigations.

The drug situation with Presley, as I stated months ago, needs to be properly documented but not as a POV diatribe such as Onefortyone constantly uses. - Ted Wilkes 18:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'd be glad to do that except I now have to waste time preparing a charge against Onefortyone for the ArbCom. Note too, I still plan to refer the "toilet" issue to the ArbCom as rumor or an opinon in passing by Guralnick (for whom I have great respect) was not written by him to be quoted in an Encyclopedia. (I'm making the reference so as to clarify the issue for all other articles, because Wikipedia is loaded with rumors and other phrasing that gives the same result.) He (Guralnick) would be the first to remind anyone that to begin with he is not a doctor etc. On top of that, I don't actually have a great deal of interest in Presley and writing on him is boring. After relaxing doing simple actor bios etc. I'm doing financial stuff (Wall Street) for which I am eminently qualified and to my surprise, am enjoying as I have deliberately avoided it. - Ted Wilkes

Violation of probation by User:Onefortyone

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)

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)

Edits by Anonymous User:165.98.188.2

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)

Hi!! I am the anonymous user who edited the section on Elvis` legacy, which you then deleted. My point was that, just like it was in the fifties, a fantastic, innovative performer who was already a legend in his own time, has made it into the next level, that of an icon, partly BECAUSE he drew, draws, and will continue to draw tremendous controversy.

Since Albert Golman`s biography of Elvis, which was I believe the 37th biograph of him(LOL), a further 1,000 plus books have been written about his life, or even portions of it. There are more TV movies, and mini series, about him, than of any other entartainer. Want proof that the more Elvis is knocked, mercilessly, by the press, the more he draws people of all ages to him? With, inter alia, 1,150 biographies of him in print, with 600 million stamps sold, with 13 million internet hits, at the touch of any search engine, and with with close to 14 million paying customers to Graceland, how is it that you find it difficult to grasp that there is convincing evidence that this massive attention he continues to draw is in direct proportion to three things, which no other entertainer has been able to fully sustain.

One is the huge talent he possesed, as a singer. Many have that kind of talent, or even more of it, I grant you that. The second was the tremendous ability he had to draw and keep, for close to fifty years, a huge fan base. Only a handful have managed in this department. And the third, without which the latter two would have only allowed him to be, say, a legend but no more, is precisely the controversy he keeps drawing, for close to fifty years. He is alone, amongst the entertainers, in this category.

Not that you would have the time to even go along with what will follow, but please contemplate this theoretical "exercise". Place, say, a 1,000 people in a gym, and do an experiment. To start with, make it in the USA, using an equal number (200 each) of children, teenagers, older youngsters, middle aged persons, and people in the third age. Then add a demographic variable, gender, race, income included. Then make them listen, and watch, the best of what you consider the biggest nineentertainers of the last century had, or have to offer, including a couple from this century, if you so wish. Then, for the sake of this exercise, include Elvis in this list, making it a round of 10 entertainers. Finally, ask them what they think, and have a debate on the entire exercise.

I am willing to bet that the only person who will score high marks, across the demographic divide, whilst simultaneosuly drawing a high level of controversy, even amongst people in the same age brackets, as well as become, from that day onward, the subject of sustained interest for many years to come, is Elvis Presley. The emphasis being on the sustained interest, and on the controversy. We all love the Beatles, or the great majority of us do. In Elvis` case, many also do like him but, for some still "unexplained" reason, many simply do not. In fact, the heated discussion on him continues to grow, unhindered, as if he were still alive. Let us examine, first, why he is such a likable a personality to his huge following. With facts. For starters, let`s take the King of Rock controversy. Elvis never liked the title of "King of Rock and Roll". That was given to him courtesy of "Variety", which run it across its headline, in November of 1956. Seventeen years later, at the Aloha concert, and in front of a huge global audience, a crown can be seen to be given to him by a fan, just as he is to leave the stage, with the person who had handed it to him actually shouting for him to put it on. He just carried it with him. A year later, in the fall of 1974, at Notre Dame University, he stopped one of his two concerts there, right in the middle of a song, to request that a huge banner calling him "The King" be taken out of his sight. He did not resume the concert until it was , adding that the "only King was the Lord, Jesus Christ".

Another example, he never said that "african americans were good to him because they could buy his records, and shine his shoes", even "Jet" magazine made that clear, after interviewing him in 1957, yet he is STILL called a racist by some african americans today, just like he was called an "african american lover" by racists, and white supremacists in the South, in the 1950`s, for loving the blues, black gospel, and everything he held dear from a a very early age.

In the final analysis, Presley was such a consumate entertainer, singer, vocalist, and showman ( at his best, mind you...), that it will not matter, to the majority of people in that mythical gym, with a couple of ears and a couple of eyes and a viscera, that he did not write a single song, or that both his guitar and piano playing were, at best, just passable.

In short, his legacy will continue to grow, as I mentioned in the paragraphs you deleted, inspite, or perhaps I should say, because of anything and everything that is surely to written about him, particularly if there is, as I am sure will be the case, a massive following to defend him with enough visual, and audio ammunition, to back it ALL up.

page protection

This page has been protected to stop the far-overblown edit war between Ted, an IP and (sort of) Onefortyone. Ted, that's an impressive five reverts in four hours! If you'd run across an admin with a conservative view of "vandalism", you'd be finding yourself blocked by now.

If there's some sort of compromise possible between you and the anon, Ted, now's your chance to try to work it out. If not, well, edit warring over it won't do you any good. Why don't you try to wait it out? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I am taking this matter back to the Arbitration Committee for violatons of probation and personal attacks. - Ted Wilkes 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuddlemark, I thought more about what you said with respect to waiting it out and went back to the mailing list in search of a comment or two I had seen a few weeks ago. Whether one is an Elvis Presley fan or a critic, or neither as I am, he is an extremely important American icon. Article integrity is an absolute and that is the reason I don't give up, and won't allow someone to deliberately denigrate the article, particularly when they target only a few articles with massive edits. Waiting to sort them out can becme an even bigger task. My belief was reinforced after reading about the justified criticism of Wikipedia quality, in particular, after reading what Stan Shebs had to say about editing for quality and supported by Jimmy Wales regarding the quality of biographical articles for someone of far less stature than Presley like Jane Fonda on the Wikipedia mailing list here and Mr. Wales suggestions here. - Ted Wilkes 20:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

By "wait it out", I meant that IP editors tend to be transient. If he has something worthwhile to contribute, you two should work together. If he doesn't, he probably won't still be around when the page is unprotected. I'm sorry if I'm unclear.

I agree that looking after articles like this can be important. When someone seems to be harming a page, even if it's not technically vandalism, it can be hard to resist reverting them (I ran afoul of this on Chalmette, Louisiana, a small while ago). I think in cases like this page protection is much more effective than constantly reverting; especially since you might find yourself violating the 3 rv rule. When I saw this article popping up on RC patrol I asked mindspillage to take a look at it with a view to protecting the page; you should probably thank her, if you haven't already.

(By the way, I've taken the liberty of indenting your comments with a colon ':' to simulate threading. I hope you don't mind.) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

MarkGallagher, I already thanked Mindspillage who said to thank you, too. Actually, I would certainly be glad to not be in this edit war but as I say, it is a matter of Wikipedia integrity. If someone outside can upset Mr. Wales over an article on Jane Fonda, then it would be just our luck to have the garbage still in the Presley article when it too gets looked at by someone outside and torn apart for its quality. I've been fortunate not getting involved in edit wars until Onefortyone (and Anonymous "friends") started with his agenda that focused on Presley so if I have to take the time to deal with it then maybe its not so bad. By the way, I'm completely dumb on computer technical things so maybe you would clue me in on "simulating threading?" Thanks again for your help. - Ted Wilkes 23:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A "thread" in this context means "a conversation", basically. What putting a colon in front of every paragraph does is give it a certain indent. So a statement on a talkpage would have no colon, the reply would have one, the reply to the reply gets two, and so on, so that it's clear who said what and in reply to whom. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I read every word what Jimmy Wales said myself, and as far as I understood him correctly, he complained about poor readability of articles. Therefore I supported the removal of Guralnick and the mention of drugs - in order to shorten the article and make it more readable. However, I'm greatly worried when you say POV things like "he is an extremely important American icon" and that you won't allow anyone to "denigrate the article". I will mention those two sentences in your case against me as proof that you won't let anyone write anything "bad" about him - whether his old nickname "Hillbilly Cat", the fact that he didn't write his own songs, the fact that almost everyone either thinks he died on the toilet or at least has heard that theory. The greatest irony is that the article has just been frozen, the "died on the toilet" is still there and YOU were the last person to edit before it was frozen. Congratulations! (129.241.134.241 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

I see you've already got an account – good, that's what I was going to suggest first up. Do you think you might be able to post a list of problems you have with the article as it stands, and what you suggest for fixing it up? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll think about it. The reason why I became interested in this article in the first place, was because I wanted to see if there was anything there about Elvis dying on the toilet or having constipation, and there was nothing about it in Wikipedia, which is contrary to the spirit of NPOV. NPOV is supposed to protect unpopular / politically incorrect views. (129.241.134.241 14:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

"NPOV is supposed to protect unpopular / politically incorrect views." - It is? - Ted Wilkes 15:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Morally_offensive_views.

So, once again, I'm asking you: is there any difference between the unsupported rumor that Julius Caesar's last words were "You too, Brute" and the rumor that Elvis died on the toilet, besides the latter being offensive to some people (for instance, yourself)? (Wet Dilkes 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Proof that Ted Wilkes finds the rumor offensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElvis_Presley&diff=27852202&oldid=27845641

"he is an extremely important American icon. Article integrity is an absolute and that is the reason I don't give up, and won't allow someone to deliberately denigrate the article"

(Wet Dilkes 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

My new identity

Just so that everyone knows, the person previously knows as 129.241.134.241 (that is, me ) is now "Wet Dilkes" (Wet Dilkes 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for the heads up. Other identities appear to include:

• 129.241.134.241 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)
• 151.203.194.75 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)
• 151.203.204.117 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) — blocked 9 November 2005
• 141.149.123.103 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)
• 141.153.113.129 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)
• 141.154.202.41 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)

Please make a note of it. Hall Monitor 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Our student town has the IP address 129.241.* The other you mentioned have nothing to do with me. Is it really so hard to believe that many other people think that "Elvis died on the toilet" should be included in the article? (Wet Dilkes 16:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Photo claiming EP had homesexual leanings.Elvis Archive 6

[23]

In the video,"Elvis 1958 Army physical" Elvis and 8 to 10 recruits are lined up against the wall with their hands up.Some wearing briefs and some wearing boxers.A majority of the guys are looking in the same directio as Elvis is, The Instructor.ZOOM in on Elvis and can see he's not looking at the guy next to him Elvis is looking in the direction of the Instructor talking.