This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elvis Presley/Archive 6 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
If you're here to have a look because of the RfC, please read archives 3, 4 and 5 first, thank you.
Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages states:
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)
Seriously, 141, is English your native language? Wyss 18:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
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1) A book by David Bret 2) An unpublished manuscript by Elvis' stepmother 3) An article in the National Enquirer 4) A photograph of Elvis and some famous gay guy, which supposedly demonstrates Elvis'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.
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))
See [4]
I, User:Ted Wilkes, left the following message on User Talk:Onefortyone:
To User:Onefortyone/Anon 80,141. et al:
- 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)
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)
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.
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)
Does anybody know about him being called "The Hillbilly Cat?" I never heard of it before. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 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)
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)
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 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)
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.:
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)
( 129.241.134.241 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
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 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.
Welcome to this WP article on a hyper-celebrity :) Wyss 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I, Ted Wilkes, posted the following to User talk:Onefortyone:
Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I read the above about the autopsy statement and removed:
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))
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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))
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
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))
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))
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)
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))
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)
Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about the singer's death:
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))
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):
For (in a modified form, give suggestions):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- Ted Wilkes 15:50, 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)
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)
Ted Wilkes has violated 3rr once again- only one day after the previous violation
( 129.241.134.241 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
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))
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/?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))
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,
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,
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)
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
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)
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:
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.
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)
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))
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))
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Elvis Archive 6In 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.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elvis Presley/Archive 6 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
If you're here to have a look because of the RfC, please read archives 3, 4 and 5 first, thank you.
Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages states:
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)
Seriously, 141, is English your native language? Wyss 18:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
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.
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))
See [4]
I, User:Ted Wilkes, left the following message on User Talk:Onefortyone:
To User:Onefortyone/Anon 80,141. et al:
- 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)
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)
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.
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)
Does anybody know about him being called "The Hillbilly Cat?" I never heard of it before. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 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)
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)
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 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)
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.:
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)
( 129.241.134.241 00:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
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 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.
Welcome to this WP article on a hyper-celebrity :) Wyss 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I, Ted Wilkes, posted the following to User talk:Onefortyone:
Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I read the above about the autopsy statement and removed:
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))
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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))
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
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))
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))
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)
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))
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)
Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about the singer's death:
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))
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):
For (in a modified form, give suggestions):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- Ted Wilkes 15:50, 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)
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)
Ted Wilkes has violated 3rr once again- only one day after the previous violation
( 129.241.134.241 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
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))
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/?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))
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,
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,
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)
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
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)
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:
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.
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)
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))
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))
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Elvis Archive 6In 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.