Talk:Elvis Presley

Elvis got his first guitar at age 14, according to Red West, Sonny West and Dave Hebler

On page 52 they state that Elvis got his first guitar at age 14; I know that sources differ on whether he wanted a bicycle or a rifle (which I find unbelievable), but this is the first source that I know of that states that he was 14 when he got the guitar (on page 52) - I can't believe that I didn't spot this the first time I read the book "Elvis: What Happened?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Australia site "officially sanctioned"?

I've replaced a number of the Elvis Australia cites with book sources. There are still some remaining. I notice External links contains the following entry:

• Elvis Presley Interviews on officially sanctioned Elvis Australia site

Does anyone have any information about this being "officially sanctioned"? PL290 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean "officially sanctioned" by Elvis Presley Enterprises,yes they are,as is Elvis Information Network,of which a form is sent by Elvis Presley Enterprises each year for them to fill out and sign and return. Which then allows them to use the registered trademark of EPE. Hope this information is what you required. I'll also quickly point out,that those interviews they conduct with various Authors etc, are infact genuine.--Jaye9 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis: Blues and R&B?

This page claims that Elvis did many genres, including Blues and R&B. Well, I've heard almost every Elvis-song, but I've never heard him singing any Blues or R&B. Why are people thinking Elvis did Blues and R&B? Because he covered some Ray Charles-songs? Or because he did LaVern Baker's Saved in the '68 Comeback Special? Well, let me tell you: the original versions are Blues and R&B, but Elvis' versions are Rock And Roll. IGG8998 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the blues, but rhythm and blues is another thing. Elvis himself said, "Rock 'n' roll music is basically gospel or rhythm and blues, or it sprang from that." And R&B is just Gospel (black gospel) with secular lyrics. And I would say that after his comeback, most of his new songs were more R&B than the ones before. I think it's very evident. Musdan77 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke?! I don't believe you heard 10% of the songs Elvis recorded saying such a weird thing. He covered at least four Arthur Crudup songs ( a famous Blues singer from the 30's & 40's before the terminus R&B was invented, not to mentione his famous "own" milk cow blues boogie - a mixture of songs done by Kokomo Arnold and Sleepy John Estes), he not only recorded R&B songs by famous vocal groups of that genre (Coasters "Girls, Girls", "Money Honey" by the Drifters, "Bossa Nova baby" by Tippie & Clovers, "Down in the alley" by the Clovers), he also recorded "Reconsider baby" by Lowell Fulson or "When it rains it really pours" by his ex-stable-mate Billy the KId Emerson from sun records. He did tiger man (Rufus Thomas) another raw 50's blues original released on the sun label. He recorded Big Boss man which was even a bigger hit for Jimmy Reed than for Elvis. I could go on and on but I don't think you meant this seriously - and if you do not know much about music or Elvis at all. He even recorded 3 corn patches - a tune recorded by T-Bone Walker in the early 70's on his last album. You can take every decade from the 50's to 70's and find R&B or blues (Roy Brown, Wynonnie Harris,Ray Charles,Little Willie John,Charles Brown,Lloyd Price,Smiley Lewis).87.162.30.48 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Well, the original versions of Arthur Crudups songs are Delta-Blues, but Elvis' versions are country/rockabilly. Elvis never wrote a song, but he had enough talent to make a new version of a song. He also changed the lyrics a bit. Also, Elvis' version of The Coasters' Girls Girls Girls is not blues. It sounds more like Rock/Pop. I often compare that song with Elton John's I'm Still Standing, a bit the same genre. IGG8998 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Italics for collections/work

How clear can it be? From {{Cite web}}:

work

If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.

publisher

Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website (that is usually the work).

This is because in most citation styles, including the near-APA used by Cite web, a collection of articles, chapters, etc., is italicized. The name of a specific item from within it is in quotes. |publisher= should only be used for the name of a firm in the publishing business. You don't choose what the item is based on whether you think it should be italicized; you choose based on what it is. (Those italics are for emphasis, which is different.) — John Cardinal (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, see WP: ITALICS and every discussion at FAC in the history of mankind. RB88 (T) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If any further discussion is required, may I suggest this matter is now taken up at the WP: ITALICS talk page instead. We should ensure the involvement of all interested parties in any debate and/or change from current general practice that may turn out to be necessary. PL290 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:RB88 and WP: ITALICS: WP:Italics is not the right place to discuss this. Those rules govern the use of italics in article prose. Citation styles are different. In WP, we don't specify names as "last, first", but in citations, we do. In WP prose, we restrict periods to the end of a sentence, but in citations, periods are used as delimiters and are not restricted to the end of a sentence. In WP, we spell out low numbers ("one" vs. "1"), but in citations, page numbers always use digits ("p. 1"). In WP, we don't use bold text very often, but in citations, bold is used for volume numbers. My point is, there is a difference between WP prose styles and citation styles and that distinction is lost on many WP editors. It seems dead-simple to me: citation styles govern text formatting in citations, and the name of a collection of material is italicized in the near-APA style used by {{cite web}}. That's why |work= is italicized by default. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

John, I already realize it seems dead simple to you, but it's equally clear that despite your statements to that effect, the opposite seems dead simple to RB88! Even if the question were resolved here between the two of you (or by other parties who have researched the point weighing in), the fact that the debate here (which began with an exchange of perhaps half a dozen reverting edit summaries citing guidelines/practice) was possible in the first place—between two editors each respected for their experience with different aspects of citations on Wikipedia— shows that at the very least, the guidelines need clarifying. That's why I now ask that this be moved to a guideline talk page, in order that contributions to (and simply awareness of) the debate may be widened appropriately. The first sentence in WP:ITALICS is, "Italic type (text like this) has several uses on Wikipedia." One of those uses is the formatting of citations. WP:ITALICS should make clear its relationship to that latter, and should either include guidelines applicable thereto or provide a link to them. Furthermore, the discussion just above shows that more than mere clarification is needed, i.e., either a change to bring the guidelines in line with agreed practice, or, on the other hand, greater awareness that general practice has been incorrect and should change to conform with the guidelines. Either way, the discussion should now be extended to a wider representation of the WP community than frequent the Elvis Presley article talk page. PL290 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Musician?

Oxford English Dictionary's definition of musician is as follows: One skilled in music, esp. in playing an instrument. Based on this definition, the lead should be changed to read singer and actor rather than the incorrect musician. Elvis was known as a singer, so why not call him that?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Musician is generally used to include singers too. And he wasn't just a singer; he played guitar while performing. However, it's true that he was, mainly, a singer. What do others think? PL290 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He was a musician and arranger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Elvis has been quoted as follows: I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that in articles about other icons including Johnny Cash and Paul McCartney, the lead is much more specific than the vague term "musician", and I recommend using articles like those as a model. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the comparable term in the McCartney infobox is "musician". Not "singer, musician"; not "singer, instrumentalist"; not "singer, bassist". Just "musician". I also note that the present article is featured, while the Cash and McCartney pieces are not. It is not irrelevant that the first sentence of this article is clear and focused, while the McCartney article begins with a laundry list. Hardly an inspiring model. DocKino (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, the first sentence should read, "Elvis Aaron (or Aron^a) Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was an American singer and B movie actor." Elvis didn't write his own songs and he only acted in bad movies. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude seriously? If you don't stop trolling this article I'm going to block you. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your remark, Andy. Elvis was a very good singer. That’s why I included the Henry Pleasants quote in the vocal style section of the article. But it is also a fact that he didn’t write his own songs as Paul McCartney does. To my mind, he was only a singer and should not be called a musician. Furthermore, most critics agree that Elvis’s movies were pretty bad. Significantly, the Wikipedia article says that his movies were "formulaic, modestly budgeted musical-comedies" and that "His films were almost universally panned; one critic dismissed them as a 'pantheon of bad taste.' " Elvis didn't appear on a theater stage, as serious actors do. He branded film producer Hal B. Wallis "a double-dealing sonofabitch" (Wallis both produced Elvis movies and serious films), realizing there had never been any intention to let him develop into a serious actor. See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), p.171. Actress Natalie Wood said about her friend Presley, "He can sing but he can’t do much else." See Peter Harry Brown and Pat H. Broeske, Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley (1997), p. 111. Onefortyone (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. To say one is a musician or an actor is not commenting on their choice of instrument (voice included) or venue or film. Contact any professional singer and suggest they are not a musician—they will receive this as an insult. We do not qualify such comments in the lead. Later in the article we might recount that someone was regarded as a poor actor or an actor in bad movies, with reliable sources. You have on your own user page that we must not insert our own opinions. The majority of your comments here that I've seen seem designed to let us know exactly what you think about Elvis. Alas, no one cares what you think about Elvis. We only care about the article text reflecting what is in reliable sources. Since this article passed FAC, you can assume the community consensus is that it does. For you to continue coming in here and making ridiculous remarks amounts to trolling. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter? As you can see, other users are also of the opinion that Elvis may be called a singer rather than a musician. It is a fact that he primarily was a singer. The first sentence should be as precise as possible. Film experts say he wasn't a serious actor. What about saying, Elvis was a singer and actor in musical comedies? By the way, calling me a troll seems to be a personal attack. We are here earnestly discussing the first sentence of the article. So would you please refrain from making your personal remarks against me. Thank you. Onefortyone (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The featured article on Michael Jackson starts as follows:

Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer-songwriter, dancer, actor, choreographer, businessman, philanthropist and record producer.

Interestingly, it is not mentioned that Jackson was a musician. Another example is the first sentence of the featured article on Bob Dylan:

Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman; May 24, 1941) is an American singer-songwriter and musician.

This means that Dylan not only wrote his own songs but also his own lyrics. The second paragraph additionally states that Dylan performs with guitar, piano and harmonica. This may be the reason why he is also called a musician in the first sentence. The article on Madonna (entertainer) (a former featured article now listed as one of the good articles) says:

Madonna (born Madonna Louise Ciccone; August 16, 1958) is an American recording artist, actress and entrepreneur.

Significantly, she is not called a musician. The good article on Bob Marley reads at the beginning:

Robert Nesta "Bob" Marley (February 6, 1945 – May 11, 1981) was a Jamaican singer-songwriter and musician. He was the lead singer, songwriter and guitarist for the ska, rocksteady and reggae bands The Wailers (1964–1974) and Bob Marley & The Wailers (1974–1981).

In the good article on John Lennon, the star is called “an English rock musician, singer-songwriter, author, and peace activist”. By the way, Paul McCartney is also listed as a good article. Query: what is so different with Presley? He was primarily a singer who also acted in several musical comedies because his manager told him to do so for commercial reasons. Why not call him therefore "a singer and, for some years of his life, an actor in musical-comedies"? This is certainly more precise than simply call him a musician. Onefortyone (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this recently featured article on Elvis Presley describes him as a "musician," which is a matter of fact. Goodbye.—DocKino (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So you prefer the less precise version. As I said above, a featured article should be as precise as possible. Onefortyone (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current version, which passed FAC. There is no consensus to change it. If you perceive it as imprecise, that is your problem. If it pains you, it appears you'll have to live with that ache.—DocKino (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a consensus in favor of the current version, as there are other users who would like to change the first sentence. See above. Onefortyone (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't involve strictly numbers—that would be a vote. Consensus also involves reasoned argument, of which I've seen none. That another article does something is no reason for this article to do it. I find the term "singer" inaccurate, as it in no way encompasses Elvis' role in the musical world. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Musician" is too general. It's like calling Babe Ruth's occupation "athlete" rather than "baseball player". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all an apt comparison. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. And to call the King of Rock and Roll simply a "musician" is inadequate. An organ grinder playing for handouts in a public park is a "musician". Elvis was a guitar player and singer, among other things. Follow the format of the other iconic musicians, and spell out what he was famous for in the lead. That's the point of the lead, to be able to read it alone and have a pretty good sense of what the article is about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley does not meet the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of musician. Furthermore, none of the foreign Wikipedia articles on Elvis describe him as a musician; so why are we making ourselves conspicuous and open to ridicule from critics by being the only Wikipedian article to call him musician when he is known to the world as a singer?!!!! The article should read that he was a singer and actor. Why is there a problem with that?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A singer is a musician. Are you saying he wasn't a skilled singer? --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Musician is too generic a term. Elvis was specifically a singer, which has nothing to do with his skill or talent in that field whatsoever. Singer means a person who sings-full stop.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley played rhythm guitar in virtually all of his recording sessions and concert appearances from his very first in 1954 through 1960, encompassing his most influential work and the period of his greatest fame. Full stop.—DocKino (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. So let's say he was a singer, rhythm guitarist and actor; that way we specify everything about him. The word musician is just too vague!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What about this version:

Elvis Aaron (or Aron^a) Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was one of the most famous popular American singers of the 20th century. He also played rhythm guitar and acted in several musical-comedies.

To my mind, this is the most accurate version of the lead as it says that he was primarily a singer. Onefortyone (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis a musician? The 20th century has seen the emergence of "pop singers", and it seems difficult for some of us to classify them as "musicians". But whether "serious" musicians would consider Elvis a musician in the "classical" sense (are opera singers "musicians"? yes, in my opinion), they may not now, but how will Elvis be remembered a century from now? He played at least one instrument, sang, composed... Music was his whole life. It is difficult to deny him the title of "musician" when the wiki article on that term lists pop singers & song writers as such. There is also this article American Federation of Musicians. Elvis was a unique case and it is difficult to put him in a category, or deny him one.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis was not a composer. He didn't write his own songs. He was primarily a singer and this must be stressed in the lead of the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's one thing to say that anyone involved in making music in any way, shape or form is technically a "musician", but that term tends to have a limited meaning, implying considerable skill on a range of instruments possibly including but not limited to the voice. It does not extend to conductors, or record producers, even though they're just as much part of the music making as the performers are. Would we ever refer to Maria Callas or Vladimir Horowitz as a musician? Hardly. Elvis is the Maria Callas of rock, so he's not a "musician" either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Elvis was a musician. A singer's voice is his instrument. He also played guitar and piano. However that's not to say that he should be described as a musician. He is mostly known as a popular singer, and that would suffice.Musdan77 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And he was an arranger, too. So far, he was a singer, guitar player, piano player, and an arranger. And film actor. And soldier. You don't have to boil it down to one thing. He was many things, so just let it go and get on with his story. Santamoly (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In the strictest sense, what, then, is a "musician"? --Frania W. (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the OED, a musician is somebody who is skilled in music; especially in playing an instrument. By that definition, Elvis Presley cannot be classified as a musician. If we were MCs presenting Presley to the general public, we would be correct in describing him as a singer, film actor and cultural icon. The leading sentence should state this; further down in the article, it can mention that he also played the guitar, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to my old Webster, a "musician" is "one skilled in music"; "a composer or professional performer of music." Please note that the word "instrument" is nowhere to be found in Webster's definition. However, when going to "sing", here is something interesting: "to produce musical tones by means of the voice"; "to utter words in musical tones and with musical inflections and modulations". So, to refuse a singer the quality of "musician" when his/her specialty can be described only in "musical" terms seems to me contradictory.

NOTE: I came here only to discuss the term "musician", and not what should be in the lead of EP's article.

Bonne journée ! --Frania W. (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's says, "musician - 1. a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer on an instrument. 2. a person skilled in playing a musical instrument." Onefortyone (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone: so, according to the definition given by your Webster, was EP a "musician" or not?

--Frania W. (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, he was primarily a singer. He is not well known as a musician (i.e. a performer on an instrument). Onefortyone (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is not the voice of a singer a "musical instrument"? Just as a pianist (a performer on an instrument) has to practice scales & exercises daily, a singer has to exercise his/her voice daily. Or is it that EP did not practice anything before singing? I also find it strange that Jack of Oz does not consider Horowitz ("classical virtuoso pianist and minor composer", dixit en:wiki) to be a musician.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just that the term "musician" is way too general to apply to people who were highly notable for their skill on a particular instrument or in singing, and a more specific term is used in their cases. We use precisely the same approach in our categorisation protocols. If a subject belongs in a specific lower-level category, they are not also put in higher level categories. Hence Horowitz is called by the specific term "pianist" and appears in pianist categories; he is not referred to as a "musician" and he does not appear in any musician categories. It doesn't deny that he was a musician, because of course he was; but describing him as such in the lede of an encyclopedia article completely misses the point of his notability. Same for Elvis or Callas. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, this may be the best version:

Elvis Aaron (or Aron^a) Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was one of the most popular and controversial American singers of the 20th century.

He was loved by many teens and hated by their parents, and the entire article includes much detail about the controversy. Any comments? Onefortyone (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: not happening. But you enjoy that in your "mind." DocKino (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo Yo Ma doesn't compose any of his own materials either so I guess he isn't a musician either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Egregious edting by Onefortyone continues...

Recent attempts by 141 have paid no attention to how they will improve the article. They have simply been made to add negative content. 141 made attempts to get lurid details about the circumstances in which Presley died shoe horned into a section in which the obesity/ill-health factor was NOT one of the questions over cause of death (it would have been a question if it had NOT been a factor in his demise). It is difficult to see this edit as anything other than an effort to add a detail simply because of its mention of stools, fecal matter, etc. It fits a depressing pattern.

More recently, we have 141 doing a tit for tat removal (three attempts) of the word 'popular' that completely ignores the context in which the word is used both times in the summary. This type of editing is ludicrous and is further evidence that 141 is being deliberately disruptive - a troll. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your double standard is all too transparent, Rikstar, if you compare these two edits: [1], [2]. Double standards like this certainly violate the principle known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all Wikipedians, without regard to subjective bias as in your case. Elvis was one of the most popular and at the same time one of the most controversial singers of the twentieth century. You cannot deny this historical fact. As for Elvis’s well-known death on the toilet, it is well sourced. You cannot omit this fact because Elvis fans don't like it. According to reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick, the singer's "liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition" caused by Elvis's drug abuse. Therefore, Presley had most possibly "been taken while 'straining at stool.' " See Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), p.651-652. This fact is as important as Presley's enlarged heart already mentioned in the section on the cause of Elvis's death. See also these commentaries by user Baseball Bugs: [3], [4]. Interestingly, the first sentence of this revision of the lead has not been removed. So much for your false claims above that I have paid no attention to the improvement of the article and only added negative content. Just the opposite is the case, as the singer/musician discussion above also shows. Onefortyone (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Sadly I must agree with Rikstar's assessment that the edits in question were unconstructive, and in precisely the ways he identifies. PL290 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PL290, as you are still removing several of my well-sourced contributions and were deeply involved in biased discussions concerning the said topic, your view is certainly not a "third opinion". Onefortyone (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are the gory details needed? It's undue weight. And this is Wikipedia, not General Hospital. Yes, everyone knows, "The King died 'on the throne'", or so the saying goes. A sentence or two explaining the facts should be quite sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not even mentioned in the article that Elvis died on the toilet, whereas other details (his enlarged heart, his drug use) are intensively discussed in the section on the cause of his death. Onefortyone (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's exactly how it should be. You call it a problem; I call it a solution. Onefortyone, by your own admission, yours is a minority viewpoint. PL290 (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, the only thing that's known for sure is he died in the bathroom. The 'on the throne' part was mostly a media joke. And it's undue weight to write paragraph after paragraph of speculation about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. It wasn’t simply a media joke. According to Guralnick, Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting indicating "where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet." It is also a fact that Elvis had a longstanding bowel condition because of his heavy drug abuse. Therefore the doctors and Guralnick concluded that it “was certainly possible that he had been taken while 'straining at stool' ". What makes it so difficult to simply cite, perhaps in abridged form, what is written by reputed Elvis biographers? For instance, Greil Marcus precisely writes, "Elvis died on the toilet." See Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (1999), p.154. According to Sandy Carter, "Physically wrecked, 14 different drugs in his system, spiritually empty, Elvis Presley dies in 1977 at the age of 42 while sitting on his toilet, gold pajama bottoms at his ankles." Onefortyone (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And why do all these medical details matter all that much? Why spend more than one sentence on it? No one dies neatly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. We don't need to go into all this lavish detail; one sentence or two will suffice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you would agree to simply cite, for instance, Greil Marcus's short statement that "Elvis died on the toilet." Onefortyone (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. This is voyeurism in all its horror. --Frania W. (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with DocKino and others 141,in saying that this topic receives sufficient coverage as it stands,and if it be and we were to include this extra information you wish to add to the article, then go all way and explain to reader, that as Alanna Nash explains it in her book "Baby Let's Play House", Elvis didn't die on the toilet dear, when they found him,he had crawled several feet away from the toilet and then vomited, his tongue, nearly bitten in half and she further explains, that Elvis's death had not been quick, nor had it been painless. But then if we put that in, the reader my feel empathy towards him and we carn't have that now, can we.--Jaye9 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Guralnick also writes that Elvis had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." However, this fact does not contradict the other fact that he had been taken while straining at stool. Nash's report is of some importance as she was, as far as I can remember, among the first journalists to view the remains of Elvis and contacted several doctors about the case. Therefore, some details from her account could also be used for the article. It may at least be mentioned that his death wasn't painless. Onefortyone (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This toilet and drug obsessed detail is truly morbid, disgusting, and perverse. There is no reason to include such revolting information in a quality biography about a fine and decent person. Out with it. Santamoly (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

End it

I have fed the troll for the last time (feels great!) and I respectfully ask my fellow editors to do the same. When the troll comes around, don't see red, think green. Silence here and reversion where it counts solves the problem with the least waste of energy. DocKino (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion and Spirituality

Elvis fans, who are mostly Christian, are very anxious to delete any mention in this article to Elvis's exploration of, and possible baptism in, the Mormon church. It is well documented that a Book of Mormon extensively marcated by him was found after his death, which he apparently read several times on his death bed, and that he was meeting with Mormon missionaries when he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.182.141 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

The most recent was by Rikstar replacing "popular—and". Normally I would agree with you, Rikstar, but in this case, I believe that the word "popular" is out of place in this sentence. The word "controversial" (or controversy) itself means that there are 2 sides - pro & con, so it's adding a word that's not needed. Now, the other option would be to replace "controversial" with a word that means the opposite of "popular."

The previous revert was on a revision that I had made. And I'd like to ask everyone to look at it (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=cur&oldid=354886007) and say if you agree or disagree with the person who said that it was "terrible writing and bad style." And I ask that person, "Do you really think that every edit that I made was bad? And do you think that it fine to just remove everything that someone painstakingly did to try to improve an article -- especially an intro section that is much to long? An intro with 4 paragraphs is way too long - even for Elvis. It needs to be condensed. Thank you, Musdan77 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that virtually every edit you made was bad. On the one hand, this is a Featured Article, whose lead has received a lot of attention and work. On the other hand, your contribution was marked by awkward constructions such as "the new sound to be called 'rock and roll'" (which is also ungrammatical). You seem to be having difficulty grasping the meaning of "popular" and "controversial" (the latter does not indicate there is a "pro side" in the way that it indicates a "con"). Your mishandling of style included the introduction of an inappropriate ampersand and two improperly spaced em-dashes. The length of the lead, in fact, is perfectly in accord with both our guideline and our custom.

To improve your ability to contribute productively to Wikipedia, consider spending some quality time with our Manual of Style. DocKino (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Musdan77, but I agree it was better as it was, and your analysis above is off the mark. By all means be bold in your Wikipedia editing, but don't be surprised when your edits (by which, incidentally, you too "just remove everything that someone painstakingly did to try to improve an article") are sometimes reverted. PL290 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Musdan77's analysis above is off the mark. Onefortyone (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the above remark should not have been removed. I do encourage you, 141, to redact the bit that is about editors, rather than content.- Sinneed 19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The shot against wikipedia editors needs to go, as it's a scattergun personal attack and could result in a block if it persists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an obvious tendency concerning "recent reverts" (the topic of this section). If anybody really wants to know what a personal attack is, he/she should have a look at this edit. Onefortyone (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, it was archived and it is way too late to fix that. Everyone involved in the personal insults needs to stop. Please all: focus on the content, not the motivations, mental states, intentions, and skills of the editors.- Sinneed 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Double standard concerning Ed Sullivan

On the one hand, DocKino says on Talk:The Ed Sullivan Show that the description of the event [i.e. Elvis’s Ed Sullivan appearance] "by one of the central participants [i.e. Elvis] is absolutely worthy of inclusion. Can we identify the source for the Presley quote? If we can, it should go in." See [5]. Therefore, I have included the full quote in the article on the Ed Sullivan Show. On the other hand, DocKino has removed a very short version of what Sullivan said to Presley from the Elvis Presley article, saying "Revert tendentious, bad faith edit by notorious troll. There is no issue of imbalance here to correct." See [6]. I would call this double standard. If it is only said at the end of the said paragraph that, at the end of the show, Sullivan declared Presley "a real decent, fine boy", the reader may get the impression that Sullivan really liked Elvis, whereby the additional quote clearly shows, for reasons of balance, that Sullivan’s words weren’t sincere. Here is what Elvis himself retrospectively said:

"So they arranged to put me on television. At that particular time there was a lot of controversy -- you didn't see people moving -- out in public. They were gettin' it on in the back rooms, but you didn't see it out in public too much. So there was a lot of controversy ... and I went to the Ed Sullivan Show. They photographed me from the waist up. And Sullivan's standing over there saying, 'Sumbitch.' I said, 'Thank you, Ed, thank you.' I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time. " See "Elvis Talks About His Career," on "Live in Las Vegas" (RCA), cited by Greil Marcus, "Real Life Rock Top 10", Salon.com, August 26, 2002.

Therefore, the following sentence should be reincluded in the Elvis article:

Though Sullivan made a backstage remark calling the singer "Sumbitch", at the end of the show, he declared Presley "a real decent, fine boy".

Wikipedia should tell the whole story, not only what Elvis fans like to read. Onefortyone (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a native New Yorker such as Ed Sullivan would use the expression sumbitch, which is a US southern slang term rarely heard north of the Mason Dixon line.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Elvis himself heard Ed Sullivan using the term. Sullivan certainly knew that Elvis was a poor, rural Southern boy from working-class parents. Perhaps he wanted to tease the singer by using the derogatory term. Onefortyone (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the other way around and it was Elvis who had called Sullivan a sumbitch seeing as Elvis would have known Sullivan was a northern yankee!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Elvis's own words, there can be no doubt that Sullivan was "standing over there saying, 'Sumbitch.'" These are the facts. Significantly, around the same time, Webb Pierce also called Elvis "a son of a bitch". See Howard A. DeWitt, Elvis, the Sun Years: The Story of Elvis Presley in the Fifties (1993), p.105. Onefortyone (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Presley's quote doesn't "clearly show" anything other than Presley's retrospective impression of the event. It is obviously not a "fact" that Sullivan called Presley a "sumbitch", only that Presley later claimed he did. Within the context of the Ed Sullivan article, which can devote a considerable amount of space to that show's most notable episodes, it is appropriate to include the quote. In this article, which must cover a vast amount of ground, it is not appropriate to repeat the entire quote, and the abbreviated version of it that was introduced was obviously misleading about its verifiability. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the professional literature on Presley knows that the Sullivan's famous, public, verifiable, broadcast statement is quoted repeatedly, and that Presley's fascinating but questionable recollection is quoted rarely. The latter simply does not belong in this article. Looks like you need to start a new one: Foul language and toilet activity associated with Elvis Presley. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your argument, DocKino (this time using an IP address from the New York Public Library). If Elvis says that Sullivan called him a "sumbitch", then this must be taken as evidence that Sullivan indeed used this expression. Who else should know about the exact derogatory term actually being used by Sullivan, if not Elvis, the direct ear-witness? Therefore, for reasons of balance, the article must somehow articulate that Sullivan’s words about the "decent, fine boy" Elvis weren’t sincere. There are several further sources supporting this view. TV Guide speaks of a "faint praise", Robert Rodriguez writes that "Elvis’s discomfort at the compliment is evident; he looked as though he’d just received a Judas kiss before being publicly neutered and declared to be safe as milk." It is evident that Sullivan didn’t like Elvis. His reaction to Presley's performance on the Milton Berle Show was, "I thought the whole show was dirty and vulgar." Therefore, it was decided to shoot the singer only from the waist up during his Sullivan performance. According to Tim Parrish, Colonel Parker "had threatened to remove Elvis from the show if Sullivan did not apologize for telling the press that Elvis’s 'gyrations' were immoral." Onefortyone (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

141 Are you aware of the fact that human beings, EP included, do have body parts above the waist, or are you interested only in the lower parts? You're tiresome. --Frania W. (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your remark. We are here discussing Sullivan's view of Elvis. Onefortyone (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some further sources. According to TV Guide, Vol. 47, Sullivan "tried to make peace on the air, calling Presley 'a real decent, fine boy.' The boy just stared past him. It was too late - the battle lines between the rock-and-roll generation and its parents had been drawn on national TV." Eyewitness Jerry Schilling writes, "The way Elvis looked out at us at that moment, I thought I could see a mix of hurt over the attacks he’d been subjected to in the press, and a deep pride in who he was and what he was doing." See Me and a Guy Named Elvis: My Lifelong Friendship with Elvis Presley (2006), p.45. Todd Slaughter and Anne E. Nixon say that Sullivan’s "patronising comments ... surely must have embarrassed Elvis." See The Elvis Archives (2004), p.33. Susan Doll calls Sullivan's remark "a somewhat hypocritical statement considering what the CBS censors had just done to his performance on that show." See Susan Doll, Understanding Elvis: Southern Roots vs. Star Image (1998), p.82. The same author adds on p.85 that, according to David Marsh, Elvis "was seen as a 'barbarian' who was attractive to the television executives and sponsors because he garnered ratings and generated wealth, but he was not welcome by the culture barons." According to Ron Rodman, "Gleason, Allen, and (initially) Sullivan all wanted nothing to do with Presley, viewing him as a vulgar hayseed. Yet Sullivan recognized the popularity that Presley generated ..." See Tuning in: American Narrative Television Music (2010), p.186. There are lots of sources of this kind. Therefore, for reasons of balance, Sullivan's derogatory remark certainly belongs in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, I'm back from the library! (Are you back from the toilet?) And, boy, do I understand Frania W.'s remark. As for "Sullivan's derogatory remark", we can not take Presley's hearsay-based claim made twelve years after the fact on faith. (Yes, hearsay. Presley expressly admitted he was not an "ear-witness", you congenital liar.) Presley's statement has found its proper place on Wikipedia in the Ed Sullivan Show article, where it can be quoted in full and appropriately contextualized. But it's not going in here, where we've already provided considerable information on Sullivan's previously expressed views of Presley and need to keep the narrative moving on to other topics. End of story.—DocKino (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which explicitly says that Presley expressly admitted he was not an "ear-witness"? According to the singer's own words, "Sullivan's standing over there saying, 'Sumbitch.' I said, 'Thank you, Ed, thank you.' I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time." This means that Elvis himself had heard what Sullivan had said. Don't call me a liar. Onefortyone (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The source, as is obvious I'm sure to everyone reading this, is right there in his statement: "I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time."

I'm sorry you didn't like my choice of words. Your record of gross misrepresentation of source material via selective quotation and, as in this case, false characterization, as well as your history of outright fabrication of essential reference information is well documented in our archives. If I can think of a nicer term with which to summarize that mode of contribution, I'll be sure to share it with you. DocKino (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your frequent personal attacks are very interesting. Your last statement sounds as if it has been written by my old opponent, Ted Wilkes. He also falsely accused me of "outright fabrications" and more than once called me a liar. Therefore, he was banned from Wikipedia. Are you identical with Wilkes? Be that as it may, my reading of Elvis’s words is that the singer was not aware of the derogatory meaning of "sumbitch", at the time, and this reading is far more plausible than your’s. Furthermore, and significantly, you do not discuss the many other sources I have provided, which are all in line with Elvis's statement. Onefortyone (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the slightest clue how sad it is that you have a history of "old opponents"? Pathetic. No, I'm not Ted Wilkes. I don't recall ever encountering him, but he sounds like an alright guy. And I'm sure your outright fabrications back then were as verifiable as they are now. As for the idea that Elvis heard "sumbitch" and didn't know it was derogatory? That is funny. DocKino (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed very sad that I have a history of old opponents. Most of them were Elvis fans and several of them sockpuppets of hardbanned users. Perhaps they were part of a fan club. Interestingly, all of these users were attacking me simply because I have a more critical and balanced view of Elvis and his life. As I am frequently citing my sources, my contributions are certainly not fabrications. As Elvis reportedly was still a shy guy at the time, it could well be that he wasn't aware of the meaning of Sullivan's words, especially in view of the fact that he said, "I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time." He didn't say, "I didn't hear what he was calling me." However, more important as this latter detail is that Elvis himself said that Sullivan had used the expression. Interestingly, you have also removed the alternative source I have provided, though the Elvis article doesn't mention that Sullivan's statement was hypocritical. There is certainly not enough information for readers to decide for themselves how "hypocritical" Sullivan's statement was, as you falsely claim. Onefortyone (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit summary of a revert of 141 is worth repeating here, made by DCGeist: "I don't like what I'm seeing here: repeated lone-wolf attempts to introduce material into an already VERY long article without consensus and in the face of well-reasoned opposition" (06:12, 17 April 2010).

I would say that NO ONE in their right mind would like what they are seeing here. And now we've got 141 making tiresome and personal sockpuppet claims in addition to his tactic of simply ignoring reasonable arguments. There's probably no one still around who knows more than me how familiar and predictable 141's arsenal of tactics is. 141 has an answer to most comments: I've responded enough times (as have many others) in over three years to expose his pitiful weaknesses, disturbing predilictions, highly dubious intent and shameless tenacity. Unless someone thinks that it is worth making the effort to get 141 banned for trolling, or something, perhaps we can stick to DocKino's advice:

"... I respectfully ask my fellow editors [not to feed the troll]. When the troll comes around, don't see red, think green. Silence here and reversion where it counts solves the problem with the least waste of energy". Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. As in an earlier discussion DCGeist has called some of my critical remarks about the Elvis article, “dross”, his view is certainly not an uninvolved, and unbiased, opinion regarding the current content dispute. As for the article's length, user DocKino has included lots of additional material (see [7]) and in this case DCGeist didn't protest. Very interesting. Onefortyone (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with editor DCGeist's summary. The article is indeed very long and it contains sufficient information for any reader wishing to learn about the life and career of Elvis Presley. It certainly would not be improved by the trivial anecdote regarding Sullivan having allegedly referred to Elvis as a sumbitch. In point of fact, it would only serve to introduce a frivolous and puerile element into a decent, well-written article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

141's argument that "Because Elvis said Sullivan said it, it must be true" is preposterous. The best that can be said is that Elvis claimed Sullivan said it. But unless someone got it on videotape or kinescope, it's strictly hearsay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We have clips of Dean Martin insulting the Rolling Stones when they performed on his show; there are also clips in which John Lennon refers to his infamous Jesus quote; however, there is nothing which proves that Sullivan called Elvis a sumbitch other than Elvis himself many years after the fact. It's possible Sullivan used the term sonofabitch! as an exclamation of surprise and awe after seeing Elvis' performance and the audience's reaction to it; and Elvis misunderstood the alternative meaning, taking it to be an insult. Anyway, I really cannot picture a native New Yorker in the 1950s using the strictly rural Southern term sumbitch or its kissing cousin summabitch. The world was not as globalised as it is today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne remarks: "It's possible Sullivan used the term sonofabitch! as an exclamation of surprise and awe ...". This is what I have been thinking all along as no one knows the "tone" in which the word was said - if said at all. How often do I hear my American friends use that very expression in "surprise and awe" when watching a spectacular event!

Another thing, if sumbitch is a southern expression, I doubt very much that a guy from Mississippi, namely Elvis Presley, did not know what it meant!

To finish, 141 is having a field day with all this attention paid to him. Is not it time to follow DocKino's advice & ignore him? The tragedy of Poland & Iceland's volcano disrupting life & travel all over the world are, in my opinion, events of more importance that 141's élucubrations.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the recording of this "Sonabitch" comment from Elvis and he clearly isn't saying it in a negative way. The way Elvis says it sounds more like Sullivan was, as said above, surprised and a little in awe of Elvis and his performance. However, I agree it doesn't deserve a place within the article, despite Elvis having actually said it. For anyone interested it's available here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNVu9vd_Pw. It's also on the Live In Las Vegas boxset and probably a few other cd compilations. Make up your own minds, but to me it definitely sounds less negative and more in contemplation. The part about Elvis "not knowing what he was calling me" I think is clearly Elvis just not being within earshot and he was told afterwards, the idea that Elvis, at 21, wouldn't know what "Sonabitch" was is ludicrous. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting recording. And you're right. The way he's citing Sullivan there, it's merely like Sullivan's saying "Wow!" Note that Elvis calls himself "sumbitch" in a gently mocking tone at 3:58. It's clear that the expression is no big deal to him, and he's making jokes throughout this little talk. Lifting the Sullivan portion out and trying to make something serious of it (or something worthy of inclusion here) is a significant distortion of the reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To sum up the above. There can be no doubt that Elvis actually said that Sullivan used the term “sumbitch”. This means that Elvis’s statement is not only hearsay. Yet we do not exactly know if Sullivan’s remark was an exclamation of surprise or a somewhat derogatory dig at the singer and if Elvis, at the time, was aware of what Sullivan actually meant, as the singer replied, “Thank you, Ed, thank you,” and claimed, “I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time.” As Elvis also said that “there was a lot of controversy” and that they photographed him only from the waist up, the context of the quote strongly suggests that, in 1969, Elvis was thinking that Sullivan’s remark wasn’t just made in good humor. Be that as it may, there seems to be no consensus here on including the “sumbitch” remark in the Elvis article. So it should not be included.

However, what about the other sources I have provided? DocKino says that some sources suggest that Sullivan’s patronising remarks about the “fine boy” Elvis were sincere, others clearly suggest that they were hypocritical (see sources cited above). Without additional information, the reader of the Wikipedia article isn’t aware of these different interpretations and of the “sumbitch” expression and may conclude that Sullivan totally changed his mind about the singer and that his remarks at the end of the show were indeed honest. That’s why I have included this well-sourced, additional commentary in the article:

At the end of the show, Sullivan declared Presley "a real decent, fine boy"—a remark that could either be interpreted as a "ringing endorsement" that "legitimized the singer with an adult audience" or as being "somewhat hypocritical."

Unfortunately, this addition has been removed by DCGeist. But to my mind, for reasons of balance, the reader must somehow be informed that Sullivan’s remarks could be interpreted as hypocritical. What about this alternative:

At the end of the show, Sullivan perhaps somewhat hypocritically declared Presley "a real decent, fine boy."

This is a very short addition and in this case the reader who is not aware of the “sumbitch” quote and the other sources will know that Sullivan’s compliment could be interpreted as hypocritical. Otherwise he/she won’t know. Perhaps there are further, and better, alternatives to solving the problem. Anyone got any ideas?

Furthermore, it is very characteristic that no other participant in the current discussion has criticized DocKino and Rikstar for their frequent personal attacks against me. I have been falsely accused of having a “history of outright fabrication of essential reference information” and of “pitiful weaknesses, disturbing predilictions, highly dubious intent and shameless tenacity”, and I have been derogatorily called “buddy”, “boy”, “congenial liar”, “troll”, etc. (see above). See also this attack. According to Wikipedia policies, such recurring attacks and insistences on a confrontational style are unacceptable. Even if there are content disputes, and we may have opposing opinions and wish to have our well-sourced viewpoints included in the Elvis article, annoying personal remarks directed against other Wikipedians should be avoided. Onefortyone (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In my own opinion, I think that most people who see the clip where Sullivan refers to Elvis as a fine boy will know that he is being sincere. I don't see any hypocrisy in it at all. The way I see the whole situation is like this; Sullivan didn't want Elvis on the show, he even went as far as to say it publicly that Elvis would never appear on his show. However, following huge ratings for his rival, and being beaten in the ratings, he decided that it was perhaps a good idea to get Elvis on his show. Despite this, he still had reservations about Elvis because of all the negative press and the things that people around Sullivan were saying about Elvis and his evil ways. You could say that Sullivan had judged the book by the cover. Anyway, after actually meeting Elvis and getting to know him over the course of the few months they worked together, I think that Sullivan realised that Elvis was not the evil character that he was portrayed to be by the media and Sullivan's "henchmen", he was in fact a fine decent boy. Anyone who knows the background of Ed Sullivan will know that he was not one to say positives about people unless he meant it. I believe that Sullivan, after getting to know Elvis, wanted the press to lay off. In 1956, a positive review from a household name such as Ed Sullivan was almost guaranteed to push your profile and make you seem less "dangerous". To imply that Sullivan in any way was being false or backstabbing towards Elvis shows a complete lack of knowledge of the man himself.

As for Elvis' remarks in the recording. We will never know how much of it is actual fact. Just because Elvis said it doesn't make it true. It's possible that he slightly over exaggerated things for "comedy" effect, after all he was talking to the audience and wanted to tell an entertaining account of his career; he was, after all, an entertainer. I have heard Elvis joke many times about all kinds of aspects of his career. He used to come on stage and say "Good evening, folks, I'm Wayne Newton." Does that mean that we should change the title of the article to Wayne Newton because it "must be fact" as Elvis said it? Elvis would often recite stories to other people, including audiences, changing bits each time, adding in some new stuff (NOT necessarily true stuff) and ommitting other information (NOT necessarily false stuff). ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

These are your personal opinions. Some sources may support your view, other written sources think otherwise. Wikipedia should provide a balanced view and let the reader decide. Onefortyone (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication that Elvis' comment about Sullivan allegedly saying "Sumbitch!" was any more than one of the many little jokes Elvis cracked during that talk. Nor that Sullivan's on-stage supportive comments about Elvis were anything else but supportive. As a TV observer, I saw Sullivan's remarks as implying "I was wrong about Elvis - he's a good guy". And in the absence of any other evidence, that's the only way to take it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that these are personal opinions, 141, hence why I said "In my own opinion....", but it's just as equal as your opinions about how Elvis meant what he said. Neither of us know if we are right and so there is no point mentioning any of it in the article. I agree with what Baseball Bugs says, that's all. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, several written sources think otherwise, and for reasons of balance, a Wikipedia article should not omit these sources. Onefortyone (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If those "written sources" are basing their opinions on that same audio clip, they are of no value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You can be sure that all the different opinions to be found in the written sources are not based on that same audio clip. They are also based on eyewitness accounts, etc. Onefortyone (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hearsay, gossipy stuff that is not supported by anything recorded, and doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, but Wikipedia articles are primarily using the material to be found in books, articles, etc. Onefortyone (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We cannot post information that we know to be either false or uncertain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered. Wikipedia articles are based on the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read a book or watched a DVD and interpreted the primary source material for themselves as false or uncertain. Written sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. That’s why I am always citing written sources. Onefortyone (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also the matter of notability, and there's no evidence these little comments by Elvis are notable. Just because something is found in print and allegedly "reliable" doesn't make it notable. And if an alleged fact is clearly false, wikipedia can't use it, regardless of its source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding. We are talking now about the material to be found in books on Elvis or American culture (no longer about Elvis's "little comments" to be found on YouTube and elsewhere, although this material is not unimportant). For instance, Elvis expert Susan Doll calls Sullivan's remark about the "fine boy" Elvis "a somewhat hypocritical statement considering what the CBS censors had just done to his performance on that show." See Susan Doll, Understanding Elvis: Southern Roots vs. Star Image (1998), p.82. This is what Wikipedia calls a "reliable, third-party, published source." Onefortyone (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just some writer's personal opinion, and it has no more validity in a wikipedia article than yours or mine does. By the way, I see you're from Germany. Do you speak English natively? If not, maybe that's the source of some of your confusion on these matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policies, there can be no doubt that such expert opinions are notable. (I have been working for a Dutch company in the USA for some years.) Onefortyone (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. There's no indication that those particular comments have any value whatsoever to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. As the Elvis article contains two sections that comprehensively deal with Elvis's Sullivan appearances, expert comments on these events are important. By the way, according to Wikipedia policy, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Opinions by experts can certainly be cited. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, so that the source directly support the material in question. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. Even minority views can be cited. In the latter case, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, Wikipedia editors should describe both approaches and work for balance. Concerning Sullivan’s statement, there are reliable sources interpreting his words either as sincere or as hypocritical. Therefore, both opinions should be cited, for reasons of balance, in abridged form in the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So-called "verifiability" is irrelevant if it's known to be either false and/or non-notable, which the "sumbitch" stuff is. As far as "interpretations" of Sullivan's supportive comments of Presley, unless someone actually talked to Sullivan directly and he admitted to being two-faced about it, the writers are just playing guessing games and their opinions are not valid for inclusion here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, according to Wikipedia policy, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And we are not talking about the notability of the "sumbitch" stuff, as there is no consensus to include this material in the article. We are talking about the other written sources. From a historical point of view, it is of some importance that Sullivan's remarks about the "nice boy" Elvis were seen as hypocritical. On the other hand, your personal opinion about the "guessing games" of the experts is irrelevant. Wikipedia cites, from a neutral point of view, what is to be found in reliable sources, and the reader may decide. Onefortyone (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading the rule. It doesn't mean that finding a source is license to post it. It simply means you can't post it if you can't find a valid source. Finding an allegedly valid source does not automatically mean you can post it. There are other issues, such as notability; and frankly the credibility of the source. Merely being in print doesn't confer either validity or credibility. And I say again, some writer guessing that Sullivan was being hypocritical don't make it so; nor does it make it notable. All we know for sure is that Sullivan said it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

141, isn't it clear from the article already that Sullivan's views could be viewed as hypocritical? He announced that he would never had Elvis on his show, and within a matter of months he was calling him a fine, decent boy. I think that's enough. Anyway, we don't know that Sullivan's opinions are hypocritical because that would suggest that he didn't like Elvis at the time he said that statement. Do you have evidence to back up the suggestion that Sullivan didn't like Elvis the night he told him he was a fine boy? I think you're mixing up the word "hypocritical" with the words "liar" or "backstabber". People, including Ed Sullivan, are allowed to change their minds about someone, that doesn't make them a hypocrite. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I completely lose the will to live, can I point out that Presley's time on the the Sullivan shows is covered in detail in the Ed Sullivan Show article. Anything about sumbitches, hypocrisy, etc. should be discussed and added there - not in a mainstream biography. Troll feeding time is over. Let's move on. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Just adding a few details and paraphrasing a few others in the lead.Closeminded8 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted. Virtually all the changes lowered the quality of the lede:

• It is clunky and redudant to add "at age 19" when "at the age of 13" appears just a few words before, and 1954 in the same sentence can be compared to his birth year of 1935 given immediately above.
• You eliminated Scotty Moore and Bill Black, whose central roles in Presley's rise to fame and his place in music history figure prominently in the article.
• You ruined the narrative by eliminating the fact that "Heartbreak Hotel" was released in January 1956 and entirely eliminating mention of his film debut in November 1956. Not only is there no good reason for the latter excision, but now it is no longer clear to our readers that what is described in the intervening text—"He became the leading figure of the newly popular sound of rock and roll with a series of network television appearances and chart-topping records. His energized interpretations of songs, many from African American sources, and his uninhibited performance style made him enormously popular—and controversial"—all came to pass within the span of less than a year.
• Replacing "number one" with "#1" violates the consistent style of this article. The number sign violates good style for ordinary prose in general.
• The location in Germany where he served is hardly crucial enough to be mentioned in the lede.
• "Future wife"..."whom he later married" is, of course, redundant.
• "Whom he later married and had a daughter" is, of course, bad English.
• You fundamentally screw with the narrative again when you eliminate "two years later". Now the reader doesn't have a clue when he returned from the army and "relaunched his recording career with some of his most commercially successful work".
• You cut the mention of "soundtrack albums", a central aspect of his career, for no good reason.
• You choose to name one of the films he made during the period—a plausible notion—but you pick Viva Las Vegas, which is seen as one of his better films (though that's not saying much). A completely inappropriate choice when the sentence revolves around critical derision.
• "Succession" is excess verbiage.
• It reflects a poor understanding of focus, emphasis, and narrative flow to introduce the names of three hit songs from a four-year span, when so far the lede has named only one of the dozens of hits he had over the previous thirteen years.
• A date span such as 1969–1972 takes an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• "Drug abuse" is an everyday English term and should not be linked here.
• The weight you wanted to put on Graceland was wildly disproportionate. Its latter-day fame is noteworthy—and the article notes it—but it is hardly key to understanding who Elvis Presley was and what made him significant, which must be the focus of the lede.

The one notion you had that—in very different form—might arguably enhance the lede, is introducing the name of Priscilla Presley (if 'twere be done, I'd do it in 1967, when they married). Given the focus of the article, the editors have so far determined that it is not essential to refer to her in the lede and that is reasonable, as well.

I say this to be encouraging: it would behoove you to gain some more writing experience before your next venture into the realm of the Featured Article.—DCGeist (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I want to add some information to the lead. A little bit about Graceland at the end. I've also noticed on many pages of high-profile celebrities it lists a bit of personal information. That's where Priscilla comes in, she should be mentioned in the sentence about him in the army, and again for her work with EPE and opening Graceland to the public.Closeminded8 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One mention of Priscilla is more than sufficient. I think mentioning her when they marry in 1967, and noting there that they meet when she was 14, better respects the chronology, than mentioning her in 1958 and anticipating the marriage. Flashing back usually feels more natural than flashing forward. In addition, introducing her in the lede in 1958 may suggest they were intimately involved for much or all of the time between then and their marriage. I believe they were not.

At any rate, there are two propositions here:

• A brief mention of Priscilla in the lede.
• A brief mention of Graceland in the lede.

Editors?—DCGeist (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, a brief mention of Priscilla in the lead is sufficient. It could say "from 1967 to 1973 he was married to actress Priscilla Beaulieu". I'm not sure about Gracelands. I suppose the lead could say that "his Memphis home, Gracelands is a tourist attraction which draws many visitors".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

On Graceland, I concur with DCGeist's recent utterance that it has no key significance, per se, in the artist's biography. It is only famous because of who he is. So I think the mention in the primary text is sufficient. On Priscilla, when considering the question a little while back, I looked at some other FA bios of musicians who are/were married. I found there was no mention of spouses in the lead of Bob Dylan or Michael Jackson's articles, while in Frank Zappa's, there was. I don't have too strong a feeling, in principle, about whether we mention her in the lead or not, but I don't think it's essential. The lead was subjected to close scrutiny and polish by editors over a lengthy period prior to the FA nomination, based on our guideline that the lead should summarize the most important aspects of the subject. I think it probably flows best as it is without shoehorning in anything else.PL290 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with PL290's assessment above. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I'm not really that pushed about having either in the lead. If the article received an FA without it, why break up the smooth flow of prose just to add something that is already mentioned in the main body of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jeanne that the lead should be left alone. In fact, the whole article should be left alone, because when an article has received the FA status and is 167,884 bytes=kilometers long, any proposed "improvement" should be top-notch. Articles have lost their FA status because of so-called improvements. New information should be added only if of real importance, such as the discovery that EP was born on the Moon. Otherwise, before it turns into a circus, leave the article alone for a certain period of time. Lock it, even, and throw away the key.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, she has never gone by the name "Beaulieu" professionally or personally since marrying him. If she is mentioned in the lead the article should refer to her as "Priscilla Presley." No reason to compare this page to Michael Jackson's - whose 2 very brief marriages produced no children and neither wives have anything to do with his estate. Priscilla has was the Chairman of the Board for EPE, opened Graceland, mother to Lisa Marie, etc. Someone also said it should not mention about them meeting in Germany in 1959 because they weren't romantically involved then - but they certainly were. In Priscilla's book she states so, and they lived together for years prior to their wedding. How about "They married 8 years later and had a daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, before their divorce in 1973" or somewhere along the lines of that.

It looks out of place to list a 1956 timeline that goes on for nearly an entire paragraph, then list the highlights of the last 20 years of his life in one paragraph. Why not take away the months, and list only the year "1956" and instead of mentioning "Love Me Tender" as his film debut (where he had a support. role) and say he appeared in 33 films mostly during the 60s. Maybe say, "such as Viva Las Vegas".

Graceland should have a place in the paragraph, maybe at the end. I was looking at some other singers pages, but on Elvis' it only lists one song. I think where I mentioned "During 1969-1972 he released a succession of hit singles such as...." because that was his musical comeback. What do you think?Closeminded8 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mention a six-year marriage that ended in divorce, where the spouse had no significant effect on his career, but I wouldn't be vexed by it. Consider me neutral. If there was consensus to include it, I'd do it this way: "In 1967, he married Priscilla Beaulieu, whom he had met during his military service when she was 14. They had one child, Lisa Marie, before their divorce six years later." But don't even add that, unless and until there's clear agreement here to do so.

I wouldn't mind adding to the final paragraph of the lead section, "Memphis's Graceland mansion, Presley's home for most of his adult life, is one of the most popular tourist destinations in America." Consider me mildly supportive--but only for something that length, no longer.

I'm opposed to any of the other additions you suggest. The lead is a good length, clear, and well-focused. It doesn't need tinkering with at this point. DocKino (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but they were still "partners" for 8 years before getting married, making 13 years until the separation and 14 years altogether. That's definately noteworthy. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are both mentioned in each other's leads and they're not married to each other, and have only been together 5 years.Closeminded8 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Awards

Dockino requested: "May we please discuss this in Talk? This is the longest article ever to receive FA status, and we must be VERY wary of any further growth. (Also, the '74 "How Great Thou Art" was not an album.)" Actually, Doc, "How Great Thou Art" WAS an album. Otherwise article's FA status should not be a consideration when the bulk of the article is a disgrace to the memory of an honorable man. I added a little (<1kb) wikitable on Elvis' Grammy Awards to offset some of the sick and perverted content, so there should be no reason to revert it. I'd like to put it back, if only for the reason that the Grammy Award information isn't available anywhere else; it's even hard to find on the Grammy website. Any objections? Santamoly (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I object. It clutters the article unnecessarily—there is no existing section where it belongs and it is hardly substantial enough to warrant a new section. It is redundant—all of the information in the table is already contained in the article. Additionally, DocKino is right and you were wrong to contradict him: Elvis won a Grammy in 1974 for his recording of the song "How Great Thou Art", which appeared on the album Elvis: As Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis. I'd like to think my observations have reached you, but if you honestly consider "the bulk of this article a disgrace" to Presley's memory, I have a feeling the odds of our having a rational discussion about this are slim.—DCGeist (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Presley's Grammy awards and nominations are significant, it is mainly because the awards were all for gospel recordings, AND because he won so few awards and nominations compared to other recording artists. Because of the latter case, I don't think they merit a table of their own. I too wonder what could be usefully gained from exploring the so-called "sick and perverted content" that apparently irks Santamoly. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Elvis' Grammy Awards are important to mention, but why not put it on the discography page? And speaking of... Why is there a discography section when there's a discography page? Musdan77 (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've never quite understood this impulse to create a table for something just cause it'll fit it into a dang table. Is this compulsion peculiar to Wikipedia, or do people do this in other walks of life? "I saw five pretty girls while strolling down the street today. I'm going to go home and make up a chart listing the height, hair color, and skirt length of each. Mmmm-BOY."

As for the actual--you should excuse the expression--topic here... Musdan, I agree, Elvis's Grammy Awards are important to mention. And they are already mentioned. More than once. In the lead section of the article, it says, "Nominated for 14 competitive Grammys, he won three." In the course of the article, we give full information on each of these three Grammys: the name of the record; the year it was released; and in two of three cases, the precise name of the category (it's perfectly clear in the final case that it's a gospel song--as it shares its name with a gospel album he previously won a Grammy for...hey, how's that fact-checking class going, Santamoly, old buddy? Can you spell "F" yet?) And then after we describe that third Grammy win, we actually stop the narrative for this parenthetical special announcement: "All three of his competitive Grammy wins—out of 14 total nominations—were for gospel recordings."

Sorry, Musdan, I'm not going off on you. We've been down this road with Santamoly before, and it got wearisome a long time ago. He knows very well that we detail every Grammy. He knows very well that we make sure to name (and link) not only all three of Presley's gospel albums (even the one that won nothing), but his gospel EP, as well—even while our narrative has no room for the albums Blue Hawaii and Roustabout, which were only number one hits. He knows very well that the number one hit singles "Good Luck Charm" and "Surrender" (secular songs) don't get a single mention in the narrative, but the number three "Crying in the Chapel" (religious) sure does. He knows very well that we devote much more attention to the role gospel played in Presley's life and music than does any other general-interest survey of his career. He knows all this, but he's back, as usual, to maul us with his POV for a while. And, as usual, it will get him absolutely nowhere.

As for your question about the discography section, Musdan, in fact most fully fleshed out articles on pop musicians and groups have a discography section, whether or not they have a separate discography page. This one is somewhat more detailed than most, for well-considered reasons. You can read about the logic behind its particular design here (actually, in the middle of the thread, Santamoly gives a fine introduction to his peculiar perspective). One thing this discography does is it allows us to at least acknowledge and link somewhere on the page those best-selling albums and singles that our narrative just doesn't have room for.

Thanks for your questions. DocKino (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Doc, while we're grateful for the energy that you bring to this article, I still wish that you wouldn't use insults to make your points. It unnecessarily increases the overall shabbiness of the article. And we sure don't need that. Santamoly (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Santa, you really don't get it. You pay lip service to my "energy", but you reek of disrespect for the countless hours of work and care that I, and PL, and Rikstar, and sweet ElvisFan, and many others have put into making this article the best, most comprehensive, most balanced, most accurate, most engaging it can be. You say most of it's a "disgrace". You need say no more. DocKino (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you're so pleased with your own work that you feel a need to defend it against any changes. This is called resting on your laurels. Regardless of your efforts to protect the more scurrilous parts of this article, it will likely stay in its present obsessive and perverse condition because of the huge effort you're making to keep it unchanged. You can never improve an article by simply defending trash and diminishing other editors. The article still remains low-level junk. And try to remember that Talk pages are for improving the article, not controlling it. Santamoly (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, YOU are guilty of diminishing other editors. Please don't imply that DocKino is the only editor defending this featured article. I defend it, and so would many others who had an arduous hand in editing it, and assessing it's FA candidacy. Suggestion: copy and paste from this article - minus the 'trash' and 'junk', of course - into your own sandboxed version. Add your own ingredients, stir well, and then allow your wiki peers to judge the result. If it gets the thumbs down, what will you do then? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go and play in the sand. Don't leave provocative, unfounded remarks here about the real article. Apart from anything else, it does nothing for your credibility. Now that the article's finally made it into mainstream form, minority fringe views at either extreme, or unnecessary bloat, are unlikely to gain consensus here. To ensure you achieve a balanced result, take your "German buddy" with you: it will give him something useful to do. I'm sure the two of you can find plenty to disagree about. PL290 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying watching you guys digging yourselves into a rut trying to barricade a mickey-mouse article. Wikipedia is about constantly improving articles, not slagging potential contributors. The Talk Page, especially, is supposed to be about improving the article - especially a lame-ass and nasty-minded article like this one. Individually, you're all very intelligent types, but somehow when you work together, the result is obsessive trash, sort of like "whats-his-name" on steroids. The puzzle for Wikipedia students is: what causes a group of otherwise intelligent editors to create such a low quality article? Santamoly (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, I'm not enjoying you making non-specific claims, nor your tendency to ignore the responses of others and the whole consensus thing regarding this article that involved many more ascenting voices than just 'us guys'. So, once again, Santamoly: write a version of this article (or parts of it) that YOU approve of. You know, minus all the lame-ass and nasty-minded stuff. If it is so bad, it can't be that difficult to improve it. Then invite others to read it and pass judgement. And, if it is indeed an improvement, there must be droves of intelligent types ready to agree with you. This is a sort of like "put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is" kinda deal. It's not slagging you - it's getting you to offer evidence that it can be improved AND meet wiki guidelines and peer review. After all, you said, " Wikipedia is about constantly improving articles, not slagging potential contributors. The Talk Page, especially, is supposed to be about improving the article". Telling your fellow editors they've created a mickey-mouse bunch of crap and little else doesn't quite meet your own standards, does it? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, perhaps it would be helpful if you mentioned which specific points of the article are trashy (and thus worthy of removal), and what could be added to the article to improve it, and why. Jprw (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Where to begin? The paragraph below this one refers to Elvis' military service, so maybe we can use that as an example. The section is actually titled "Military service and mother's death" as if the two were related. It should correctly be titled "Military service and mother's death and drug abuse and recording while on leave and visiting business people". However, this is not how a Wikipedia section should be structured. If the topic is "Military service", then that is what it should be about, without all the other voyeuristic titillation about amphetamine use. (BTW: all military types use amphetamines while on maneuvers. It's SOP) But, back to the topic: where's the facts about Elvis' service? What was his specialty? How did he get to be sergeant? What did he do on maneuvers? But wait: what is his mom's death doing in this section?? And what is this doing in a section on military service: "... their relationship had remained extremely close—even into his adulthood, they would use baby talk with each other and Presley would address her with pet names ..." This section is so bad it's embarrassing. If you guys want to improve these atrocious bits, you'll have to let other editors contribute and accept their contributions and stop reverting. You're barricading an article without being entitled to do so, thereby preserving its lamentable condition. Santamoly (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Presley became a drug addict, which contributed to his early death. It is thus crucial to his biography to understand how and when he first started taking drugs. I should have thought that this was glaringly obvious. In fact, it is.

You are evidently oblivious to the fact that the "History" section is organized chronologically, and that all of the subsection titles highlight facts selected from wide-ranging content. I should have thought that this too was glaringly obvious. In fact, it is.

You are also evidently oblivious to the fact that this encyclopedia article does not have the space to indulge in the exploration of matters like what Presley did on maneuvers that are relatively insignificant to his career, his character, and his persona. I should have thought, given the history of this article's discussion—including the process that recently elevated it to Featured Article status—that this was glaringly obvious, as well. In fact, it is.

It is because you are oblivious to these obvious facts that your comments are so puerile. I would call them embarrassing, but you are clearly too witless to be embarrassed. I'll make it simple for you: No. DocKino (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, he already has, numerous times: the article must stop spouting this nonsense about some "King of Rock 'n' Roll", and state the plain truth: the fellow was just a shy gospel singer and retired army sergeant, and the 'bad boy rockabilly' image was created by his handlers for marketing. PL290 (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes this article an incredible embarrassment to all those who contribute is that several editors (as you see above) resort to insults and name-calling to try to get their way. The result is an infantile and toilet-minded article reflecting the obsessive character of the editors who spend most of their waking hours trying to barricade their juvenile efforts. DocKino, PL290, and 141, for example, are locked into a infantile name-calling spat with each other and all other editors, such that they have lost sight of the need to clean up all the garbage that their spat has allowed to proliferate. If you don't mind, we'll just sit and wait while you exhaust yourselves from your name-calling tantrums. Then maybe we can get back to cleaning up this article, maybe finally getting to the bottom of how he died on the toilet, for example. Just kidding about the toilet, but you know what I mean.

BTW, I'm curious: has anyone here ever been to an Elvis concert, or seen any of his movies in a cinema? Or even met Elvis in person? I'm curious where the twisted attitudes are coming from in several cases. Santamoly (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution to the process of maintaining and improving this article is consistently negative and virtually without redeeming quality, as evidenced perfectly by this latest embarrassing dump. In fact, you are the mirror image of 141.—DCGeist (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, DCGeist. I'm pleased to be seen as an opposite image of 141. Does that mean you're part of the "how Elvis died on the toilet" group? I was kind of hoping we could get away from the obsession with Elvis' final "dump", but it looks like there's still some enthusiasm for this endlessly fascinating historical bowel movement. One day we'll get past it. Santamoly (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, you criticize other editors whilst you yourself indulge in similar, non-profitable sparring with editors. If you want to improve this article, do it in a sandbox and let your peers judge the results. Third time of suggesting this, by the way. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Elvis' military service...

The section on Elvis' service in the Army is quite interesting. When my Dad was sent to Germany in the early sixties, he was assigned to Elvis' old outfit. Elvis was out of the Army by that time, but Dad said several of the guys in the outfit remembered him, and they said he was a good soldier.

Are there any (reliable) books that would give more details about this chapter in Presley's life?76.4.66.91 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So pleased that you found the section on Elvis' service in the army interesting. I beleive that certain editors have worked very hard to interpret information that they have read from books, back into this article correctly. This is what the article should be about.

For further reading may I suggest: "Sergeant Presley: Our Untold Story of Elvis' Missing Years" by Rex Mansfield: "Private Presley: The Missing Years---Elvis in Germany" by Andreas Schroer, hope this will be of help to you.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncertainty about actual cause of death

(Older conversation predating the above clarification)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Questions over cause of death

The first paragraph of this section reads:

"Drug use was heavily implicated" in Presley's death, writes Guralnick. "No one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills ... to which he was known to have had a mild allergy." A pair of lab reports filed two months later each strongly suggested that polypharmacy was the primary cause of death; one reported "fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity." Forensic historian and pathologist Michael Baden views the situation as complicated: "Elvis had had an enlarged heart for a long time. That, together with his drug habit, caused his death. But he was difficult to diagnose; it was a judgment call."

I have included some additional, well-sourced information:

"Drug use was heavily implicated" in Presley's death, writes Guralnick. "No one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills ... to which he was known to have had a mild allergy." A pair of lab reports filed two months later each strongly suggested that polypharmacy was the primary cause of death; one reported "fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity." Moreover, "the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition." Therefore, Presley had most possibly "been taken while 'straining at stool.' " Forensic historian and pathologist Michael Baden views the situation as complicated: "Elvis had had an enlarged heart for a long time. That, together with his drug habit, caused his death. But he was difficult to diagnose; it was a judgment call."

This information has been deleted by user DocKino who claimed that it was a “bad faith edit“. Could it be that DocKino’s removals of well-sourced contributions by other users are made in bad faith? Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about Presley's death:

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

This means that my addition is well sourced, and it is certainly of much importance in a section dealing with questions concerning the actual cause of Elvis’s death. Onefortyone (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the topic receives sufficient coverage as is. I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you, 141. I hope that someday you find the help you badly need. DocKino (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New disclosure about cause of death

The source is questionable, but his doctor now claims chronic constipation from an abnormally sized colon killed him. [8] -64.85.214.178 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.61.236.106, 8 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

To whom it may concern: I have found new information on Elvis' death, and would like to submit it for inclusion on this page. Here is the link to the news article. http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1253045 This should be included because it was discovered that this is the true reason that Elvis died, not from drugs or a heart attack. It was posted about 2 days ago, so it should be there for quite some time. Thank you for your consideration. I would add this myself were the article not protected. This information is indeed true as reported by the Boston Herald of Boston, MA. Elvis' personal physician reported this finding to FOX News.

24.61.236.106 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• The article does not state that Presley died of a heart attack. It says that the Coroner concluded that "everything points to a sudden, violent heart attack" - and the fact that the Coroner thought that is true.

• It explains that there were multiple conditions - he suffered from multiple ailments—glaucoma, high blood pressure, liver damage, and an enlarged colon, each aggravated, and possibly caused, by drug abuse.

• If you think that this could be clarified with additional material, then please make a specific request - ie specify exactly what should be changed, with references.

• The above tabloidesque source must be taken in context with other sources - see WP:UNDUE.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

This interesting article says that Elvis

succumbed, on the toilet, to chronic constipation. ... “We didn’t realize until the autopsy that his constipation was as bad,” Nichopoulos, author of the new book “The King and Dr. Nick,” told Fox News. “We found stool in his colon which had been there for four or five months because of the poor motility of the bowel.” Elvis suffered from a hereditary condition called bowel paralysis, Nichopoulos said. Presley’s colon was 5 to 6 inches in diameter, which is about twice the size of the average person’s. It was 8 to 9 feet long, where a normal one is 4 to 5 feet, the doctor said. ... “He’d have accidents onstage. He’d have to change clothes and come back because of the way we were trying to treat his constipation.”

These are important details and parts of this material should be included in the article, especially in view of the fact that these details are to be found in a new book written by Presley’s personal physician and friend, George C. Nichopoulos, and entitled The King and Dr. Nick: What Really Happened to Elvis and Me (2010).

However, there are some additional facts. The book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, was “a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs.” See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), p.651. Could it be therefore that Elvis died from excessive masturbation? It is well known that Presley seemed to prefer masturbation to normal sexual intercourse. He was also a voyeur who installed one-way mirrors. Be that as it may, Guralnick further writes that

the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool", and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing.

Additional material about Elvis’s death is to be found in Alanna Nash’s recent book, Baby Let's Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him (2010). Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tabloid toss. It's all too easy to defame the dead, because they can't answer back. On the other hand, if these authors justify their claims, using reliable sources, as we are required to do, fine. Until then, forget it. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tabloid toss? Sorry, Nichopoulos was Elvis's personal physician. Guralnick and Nash are authors of mainstream biographies of the singer. These are all reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. Onefortyone (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I remain to be convinced that these authors have not an axe to grind, and are dedicated to the truth, as opposed to their own particular interpretations of events. We're talking about facts versus opinions, and by any analysis, facts trump opinions from day 1 to day 999. I repeat; where did these authors get their information, and if it doesn't meet our standards, we should treat it as unreliable. End of. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

These authors got their informatiom from the nine pathologists who were part of the autopsy. Furthermore, Alanna Nash was among the first journalists to view the remains of Elvis and she contacted several doctors about the case shortly after the singer’s death. You can be sure that these mainstream authors based their accounts on reliable sources that meet our standards. Onefortyone (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then provide the sources; until them, it ain't gonna happen. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. This means that Wikipedians do not need to cite primary sources such as Dr Francisco and the other doctors (used, for instance, by Guralnick) if there are mainstream secondary sources summarizing the facts, such as the books by Guralnick, Nash and Nichopoulos. Onefortyone (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not with the authors,it has to do with the media,like the Herald and how they run with a small portion of information and twist it, purely for titillation, that's all. If anyone cares to read the interview with Elvis Information Network and Dr. Nichopoulos, he discusses that very thing. I'll also point out, that Guralnick, Nash and Nichopoulos never mention anything about Elvis masturbating to porno material. Get a job with the Herald and like 141,it's write up your alley. May I add one more thing, I suppose the constipation theory, which I might add, has more credibility, than Albert Goldman's, Elvis Committed Suicide. Give me a break!--Jaye9 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bore you with this folks, but I really would like to say something else, especially after reading once again partly what 141 wrote above. This is precisely what certain parts of the media do every day, but not all thankfully, just the tabloids and lazy journalists. It's called misleading the reading into thinking a certain way, for his or her own agenda, mind you it's quite a skill when you think about it. 141 has shown a great example of this very thing,this is just a sample on how he does it. Firstly he writes that Guralnick states about Elvis reading a certain book, which is correct, but then 141 goes on to say, could it be that Elvis died from excessive masturbation and then you couldn't stop yourself 141 and then we get the one way mirror bit etc etc. Over the years I've read from reliable sources mind you, that Elvis masturbated, liked to watch women together, was a compulsive womaniser and slept with 100's of women, video taped women, had a bad temper at times, was generous, mean, kind, cruel = human and I believe these stories. Why is then that I still respect Presley and not you. Why is that I don't believe Elvis was a pervert, but I find you quite perverse. WHY? because I'm a fan, horseshit!--Jaye9 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I agree with Jaye. How someone can go from a fact about a person reading a book on sexual positions to then suggest they were masturbating is beyond me. There is absolutely no evidence that Elvis was masturbating, not one single thing that could make any sane person even think it at all. I've never in my life even heard another human being suggest it for a moment, even as a joke. Until now. For over 30 years we've been told that Elvis died on the toilet during a bowel movement, a fact that has entertained and encouraged his detractors for just as long making him a laughing stock to some, and now we are expected to seriously entertain the idea that he actually died while getting "All Shook Up" in the trouser department? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all you good folks out there. On April 17, Frania W said, "...141 is having a field day with all this attention paid to him. Is not it time to follow DocKino's advice & ignore him?" That advice was, "... I respectfully ask my fellow editors [not to feed the troll]. When the troll comes around, don't see red, think green. Silence here and reversion where it counts solves the problem with the least waste of energy". Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As we've since seen, that sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work. If we ignore him, he claims that silence amounts to "consensus", and adds it back,[9][10] thus resuming the edit war again, and the consequent attention upon himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncertainty about actual cause of death

With the recent revelation about constipation, should Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction be removed? __meco (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make the effort to read the well-sourced article before starting a thread of this kind. Whatever the nature of Presley's condition in his final days, "everything points to a sudden, violent heart attack" as the immediate cause of death.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Several Wikipedians are of the opinion that this well-sourced detail concerning chronic constipation as the cause of Elvis's death should be included in the article (see above). Even Elvis fan, Jaye9, says, "I suppose the constipation theory, which I might add, has more credibility, than Albert Goldman's, Elvis Committed Suicide." And indeed, for reasons of balance, Dr Nichopoulos's view must be added according to Wikipedia policy. Onefortyone (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, a doctor whose license to practice was revoked by a state board due to multiple misdeeds offers "shocking" revelations about an autopsy 33 years after the fact to help hawk his new tell-all. This can safely be ignored, and should be, unless and until it is confirmed by responsible medical professionals.—DCGeist (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Elvis biographer, Peter Guralnick, who contacted the responsible medical professionals, writes that "the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been 'mobile and functional within eight hours of his death.' It was certainly possible that he had been taken while 'straining at stool'..." According to a recent book by Presley's main physician, Dr Nichopoulos, the singer "succumbed, on the toilet, to chronic constipation." I do not understand why this information should be omitted. Onefortyone (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1. In his final years, Presley's general health severely deteriorated, largely due to drug abuse, and he suffered a variety of ailments. The article mentions "glaucoma, high blood pressure, liver damage, and an enlarged colon."
2. The immediate cause of his death was a heart attack. The article makes this clear.
3. The etiology of the heart attack involved polypharmacy to a significant degree. The article makes this clear.

I don't see anything that needs to be added on the matter of his ill health and death. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book.—DCGeist (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that you are addressing Onefortyone's argument in a rational manner. Clearly they have a point. I'm not going to argue the issue myself, despite being the one who initiated this thread simply because I haven't studied the facts sufficiently. __meco (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

141's argument is that one guy's word should be taken over the preponderance of sources, and DC's argument is that that one guy is not a reliable source in any case. So this nonsense about Elvis "dying from constipation" doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to the Constipation article, the worst effect that can happen is hemmorhoids. Hey! Maybe he died from hemmorhoids! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco, I accept that you say you haven't studied the facts sufficiently, but you're perhaps not aware of the chronic issue that has afflicted this article for so long, namely, one editor trying to push a minority fringe perspective. I must choose my words carefully to avoid any personal attack (and indeed, although I admit Onefortyone mystifies me, I have nothing personal against him, just a slight dislike of what is surely just a silly game that wastes the time of all the editors trying to build an encyclopedia). Long before this latest "news" broke, sourced from the dubious doctor whose licence was revoked, Presley's bowel condition has been widely known, and is already covered adequately in the article. The painful and longstanding congestion of more immediate concern is the one afflicting this talk page, just as it has done for years. It seems that one editor will never be happy until the article reads as follows: Elvis Presley was an unpopular American singer, full of shit, who died on the toilet. The end. If you think I exaggerate, please see the archives and ask the administrators who have found it necessary to discipline the editor in the past over this issue. PL290 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know we are not really supposed to compliment other editors as a rule, but I have to say that upon reading User: DCGeist comments on the Elvis Talk page and what he had written when the article was being reviewed for FA and I think he write beautifully, something of which I'm not good at, so for that reason I will put down Mr Brown's comments that he made on May 9th 2010 in the Telegraph.co.uk, which pretty well sums up, on how I feel about this discussion.

"The latest claim to emerge from Dr George Nichopolous, Elvis Presley's personal physician, is that the King died of constipation, or so the Mail reports.

But why wait until now to produce this theory? Well, the claims surface just as Dr Nick, as he's been known since Elvis's time, comes out with a new book. So that's part of it, I expect. But also the 83-year-old doctor has spent the last 33 years trying to persuade the Elvis fans that he was not responsible for the King's death through the massive doses of lethal painkillers and sleeping pills he prescribed. The constipation theory is his latest attempt to exculpate himself.

I don't think it's very likely, though. No one is disputing that Elvis suffered from blocked bowels and a distended colon. There's ample evidence from testimony of witnesses - people involved in the post mortem, associates of Elvis who got to know his personal habits. The King resorted to drastic measures to try to mobilise his gut in the later years.

And it's no wonder his bowels were sluggish. He subsisted on the kind of Southern working-class diet - high-volume, low-fibre, high-fat - that was calculated to slow things up. Added to which - and this is the key thing - Elvis took huge doses of opioids. They're drugs which exert a "bowel-freezing" effect.

The idea that his constipation killed Elvis is not new. For years the theory has done the rounds that he died as a result of the Valsalva manoeuvre. He strains at the abdominal region, and by a complex sequence of events this causes a fatal heart attack. That's the idea anyway. And of course he did die on the lavatory.

I still don't really buy it. I think Elvis did die of a "heart attack". But it stricks me as willfully abtuse to ignore the evidence of multiple drugs in his system. Elvis had nearly died from accidental overdoses in the past. Why not now? Barbiturates, especially, killed thousands of people either by accident or on purpose (in suicides) in those days, before they were phased out. Plus he used plenty of other now-obsolete hypnotics (sleeping pills) which can kill, such as methaqualone (Quaalude), ethchiorvynol (Placidyl) and ethinamate (Valmid). And on top of those there were opioids, codeine and stronger compounds.

There was a cover-up at the time, that is now accepted, when Baptist Memorial determined publicly that the cause of death was the nebulous condition "cardiac arrythmia". It was a cover-up of sorts, at any rate: they wanted to protect the reputation of a noble son of Memphis for a degree of obfuscation if not outright dishonesty.

As far a Dr Nick, as I explained at length in January, I think he was a good man, a bit out of his depth. Perhaps he was starstruck. And Elvis was a headstrong client who would have gone elsewhere for his medication and often did, if Dr Nick has said "no". I doubt constipation killed Elvis. But, to be sure, it would have made him extremely uncomfortable."

Source: Andrew M Brown, writer who specialises in mental health and in the influence of addiction and substance abuse on culture

So you see this is the long version of what is already covered aptly in the aritcle as it stands.--Jaye9 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nichopoulos as a reliable source

DC Geist wrote above, commendably in my view: "So, a doctor whose license to practice was revoked by a state board due to multiple misdeeds offers "shocking" revelations about an autopsy 33 years after the fact to help hawk his new tell-all. This can safely be ignored, and should be, unless and until it is confirmed by responsible medical professionals."

In the article, we have approved the following: "After re-examining Presley's X-rays in the 1990s, Nichopoulos concluded that he was probably also suffering from degenerative arthritis, fueling his addiction to painkillers."

Given that Nichopoulos's pronouncements since Presley's death often seem to be self-serving (and the above arthritis claim can be interpreted that way), I wonder if we should have his comments on Presley's claimed arthritis in the article, unless that too can be "confirmed by responsible medical professionals." Any thoughts? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good point, imo. On the subject of the possible self-serving aspect of any Nichopoulos influence on published material, he could of course be identical with ... a Wikipedia editor. Particularly a Wikipedia editor demonstrating an obsessive desire to smear the singer, reduce his worth, deny his popularity, or, for that matter, repeatedly attempt to prove constipation was the cause of death. Anyway, that's an aside ... yes, I suggest we remove the statement you've highlighted, unless others have more to say on that. PL290 (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nichopoulos earned his B.S. degree from the University of the South and then received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University Medical School in Nashville. He spent a decade with Elvis on the road and at Graceland, trying to maintain the precarious health of the singer. On August 16, 1977, he found himself in the ambulance with Elvis and he signed the death certificate. In his book, Nichopoulos reveals interesting background information about the relationship between the coroner's team led by Dr. Francisco and the pathologists at Baptist Memorial Hospital led by Dr. Muirhead. He thoroughly explains why the autopsy was private and how the toxicology reports were interpreted so differently by the parties. The reader gets a good idea what went wrong with the autopsy from the start, how Dr. Francisco annoyed the pathologists around Muirhead by not simply stating at the first press conference that they haven't found the cause of death yet but giving the media the information of "cardiac arrhythmia caused by undetermined heartbeat". The outcome of these investigations were three lab reports, none of them convincingly stating that there had been a drug overdose or a polypharmacy case (two of the reports didn't even assume such a thing). The Bioscience report published in the book The Death of Elvis by Thompson & Cole (1991) does not come up with even one drug dosage in the lethal range, only two in the minor areas of a toxic and the rest in the therapeutical range. It was only suggested that these dosages may have worked together to have caused Elvis’s death. However, at the time of his death it was widely reported in the media that the singer had died from cardiac arrhythmia, an irregular heartbeat brought on by drug addiction, obesity and a bum ticker. But were these reports true? Dr. Davis, a pathologist of the Miami School of Medicine and former chief examiner of Dade County, was asked in 1994 by the state of Tennessee to look once again into all the findings of the autopsy and the Bioscience toxicology report and he was of the opinion that drugs did not kill the singer. Many of the drugs found in his body were psychoinactive metabolites which means that Presley's drug level was considerably lower than originally interpreted in 1977. Therefore, Nichopoulos comes to the conclusion that Elvis may have used too many medications and may have abused some of them during his lifetime but that he didn't die of it. The book presents a lot of information for and against Nichopoulos being a "pill pusher" and the man who killed Elvis. It contains a detailed toxicology report and there is an extensive list of source data in the back of the book that includes legal documents, court records, articles, interviews, etc. According to Nichopoulos, after Elvis "died, we weren't sure (the exact cause of death) so I continued to do some research and I had some doctors call me from different places and different med schools that were doing research on constipation and different problems you can get into with it." According to the physician, now retired, the autopsy revealed Presley's colon was 5 to 6 inches in diameter (the normal width is usually 2 to 3 inches) and instead of being 4 to 5 feet in length, his colon was 8 to 9 feet in length. "We didn't' realize until the autopsy that his constipation was as bad - we knew it was bad because it was hard for us to treat, but we didn't realize what it had done. We just assumed that the constipation was secondary to the meds that he was taking for his arthritic pain and for his insomnia." In 1975, the primary treatment was a colostomy, the removal of the colon, but according to the book, Presley's "ego" got in the way. "He was embarrassed. ... He'd have accidents onstage. He'd have to change clothes and come back because of the way we were trying to treat his constipation." "If they had done the colostomy then, he'd probably still be here," Nichopoulos said. That Elvis "succumbed, on the toilet, to chronic constipation" sounds as reasonable as any other theory about the singer’s death. I do not understand why some Wikipedians think that this book is not a reliable source. Onefortyone (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just move along, folks. Please don't gawk at the tragic accident. DocKino (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, officer—you people do a wonderful job. Now, could you please direct me to the nearest, er, toilet? I think I feel a little sick. PL290 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

141's singular obsession with this topic reminds me of the school principal in National Lampoon's High School Yearbook Parody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User meco has stated above, "I don't see that you are addressing Onefortyone's argument in a rational manner," and this user is certainly right in his opinion that the other users do not adequately discuss the sources and argument I have provided. Their attitude clearly violates Wikipedia policy. Onefortyone (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't die from constipation. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Nichopoulos and other physicians are of a different opinion. For reasons of balance, their statement should be included in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, right now that guy's no more a doctor than I am. However, if you could find any other humans in history that died from constipation, that might bolster the ex-doctor's case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nichopoulos earned his B.S. degree from the University of the South and then received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University Medical School in Nashville. At the time of Elvis's death, he was still a practicing doctor. "We found stool in his colon which had been there for four or five months because of the poor motility of the bowel," he said. According to Nichopoulos, doctors from different places and different med schools that were doing research on constipation and different problems you can get into with it, support his theory. Onefortyone (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously a good reason he's no longer a doctor. And the constipation article gives no indication that it can be fatal. But if you can find any other historical figures who allegedly died of constipation, I'd sure like to know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just some examples. The Texas State Journal of Medicine, Volume 10, writes about a woman who is reported to have died of constipation. The Retrospect of Practical Medicine and Surgery, Parts 86-87, includes the case of an individual (Charles C.) who actually died of fatal constipation without any indication of obstruction before his death. In her study, A Tropical Dependency: An Outline of the Ancient History of the Western Soudan, Flora Louisa Shaw writes that Al Far died of constipation. Onefortyone (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In what years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

These are late-nineteenth and twentieth-century cases. Here is another example: The New York State Journal of Medicine 66 (1966) writes that Horace Fletcher, a well-to-do businessman who adored good food, died of constipation. Onefortyone (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have studied this a great deal. I don't want to know why. But I wouldn't consider something from the 19th century to be necessarily valid. And I wonder if there are any since 1966. More to the point, how can constipation kill? It doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, constipation related deaths are very low, and less than 17.4% of the reported causes of death. However, they do occur. See also How many days will it take to die of constipation? By the way, it has even been suggested that the decline of ferns changed the diets of herbivorous dinosaurs so that they died of constipation! Onefortyone (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That says you'd be dead in 3 weeks from toxin buildup. So what's with the "4 or 5 months" claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And were there any toxicology tests done that would support the ex-doctor's claim, or is it like the boxed section says, that he's cooked up this theory to try to deflect the blame resulting from all the drugs he was giving Elvis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not a physician. According to his autopsy, Elvis's colon was 5 to 6 inches in diameter, nearly twice the size of the average person. It was also 8 to 9 feet long, compared with the normal 4 to 5 feet. Perhaps this has something to do with the "4 or 5 months" claim. However, more important is that Elvis's personal physician has written that, according to his view, the singer died of constipation. For reasons of balance, this theory should be mentioned in the article, as other theories are also mentioned there. Wikipedia should summarize what the different sources say, and let the reader decide. Onefortyone (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But he's a biased source. It's a conflict of interest on his part. So you can't put that in the article unless you also point out what other sources have said, that in their opinion this ex-doctor has invented this theory in order to deflect attention from his own possible malpractice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be your personal opinion that Nichopoulos is a biased source. However, he was Elvis's personal physician for several years. Therefore, what he has written in his recent book is as important as the opinion of the other doctors. If there are any reliable sources supporting your view that he has invented his theory in order to deflect attention from his own possible malpractice, they may also be cited in the article for reasons of balance. Onefortyone (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He was banned from being a doctor, and that's not just my personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Constipation may easily become life-threatening when it causes bowel obstruction. For a recent source, please see David Cline, Latha G. Stead, "ch. 8 - Constipation", Abdominal Emergencies which states, "autopsy studies continue to reveal missed bowel obstruction as an unexpected cause of death". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Applying that general theory to Elvis is synthesis, which is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling?

These are recent:
Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.255.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These are just some from around July of 2005, when Onefortyone first became active. In fairness, his Deutschland-based IP is probably dynamic, and his IP contribs tapered off once he got the Onefortyone ID, although they didn't stop, as a look at Elvis' history from August 2005 onward will attest:
80.141.180.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.224.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.219.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.249.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.249.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.185.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.252.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.209.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.249.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.175.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.241.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.245.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.197.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.234.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.248.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.209.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.141.205.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A reminder: It is well established that Onefortyone is a troll with a special interest in the naughty bits of Elvis Presley. An unusually clever and maniacally persistent troll, but nothing other than a troll. The evidence that he is a troll is voluminous and stretches back for years. There is no official designation of trollhood on Wikipedia, but we recently came as close as possible: this article was awarded Featured Article status despite Onefortyone's vehement and extensive objections, 90 percent of which were simply dismissed. Such an action is unheard of, except in those rare cases when the objector is an obvious sociopath and/or troll.

We are long past the point where anyone should feel the need to engage this troll in debate. Simply revert his periodic attempts to poison the article. DocKino (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All you can do is removing my edits and frequently making personal attacks, for instance, falsely claiming that I am a troll. See also [11]. This means that you are the person who violates Wikipedia policy. As has been shown by another editor, you are not earnestly discussing my arguments. See [12]. By the way, what should be wrong with having used a dynamic IP address for some time in the past? The user name I have chosen is even part of this IP. Furthermore, you have also recently used an IP from the New York Public Library, DocKino. Does this mean that you are a troll? Onefortyone (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A timely and apposite reminder Doc... you beat me to it. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure deletion is appropriate, in that it can fan the flames. Maybe simply not responding is the best solution. I can't think of anything else to say to that guy, so I'll try to stop: The self-serving opinion of that doctor is not eligible for including in the article, and dat's dat. If he tries to add it in defiance of consensus, we'll have to take him to WP:ANI. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few links up top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

His particular obsession early on was the notion that Elvis was gay:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Think it should be clarified that reverting actual edits is being suggested as an appropriate response, as opposed to deleting stuff on these pages or elsewhere. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. So what would be an appropriate generic edit summary for such reversion? I do NOT recommend using "rollback", nor necessarily "undo", as I take this guy as well-intentioned but just dead wrong in his approach. The fact his registered ID is still around after 5 years indicates he's not been taken to the cleaners yet, at least not permanently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this item - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone - is of some interest as a possible precedent. However, he would likely beat it to death with the same arguments he's using here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to pose this at WP:ANI and see what the experts think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a generic edit summary should be a concern; it must be better, and fairer, simply to consider the merits of each edit — whether it's been discussed on these pages, etc. Bad editors can make good edits, after all. It's on the talk pages that we get the real problems, hence we shouldn't be feeding trolls. Many thanks for tackling this issue though: hope something comes from your efforts to clarify what has been a very murky area for too long. Sorry, but I lost the heart to re-involve myself more fully in these matters when I developed a stammer and a facial tic... :) Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying all edits would automatically be banned, like for example if he corrected an obvious spelling error... UNLESS he's banned from the articles. One opinion on ANI is that while he's not currently banned from any articles, the decision is still good, and that he could be RE-banned from Elvis-related articles. It's just a question of who exactly is supposed to do that task. Which hopefully someone at ANI can answer. Meanwhile, a generic edit summary like "No consensus - see talk page" would probably cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. For what specific reason should I be banned from any Wikipedia articles? For adding or discussing well-sourced information some editors do not like, although some other Wikipedians are of the opinion that this well-sourced detail concerning chronic constipation as the possible cause of Elvis's death should be included in the article (see above)? Onefortyone (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For constant edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is poisoned

And I see several editors pointing there angry finger's in the direction of one editor: 141. However, from my perspective, not having studied the article's editing history and previous content conflicts, merely having watched how different editors choose to express their positions and opinions on other users, my impression is that 141 certainly isn't the only problem around here. I would go on to contend that they aren't the biggest problem either. In fact, I'd even be open to the belief that they are right and that a vociferous pack of entrenched editors have assumed ownership of this article and are actively attempting to malign and shut this user out of the would-be consensus-building effort which article editing on Wikipedia is supposed to be. As for 141's behavior in this particular discussion, it has been exemplary as far as I can evaluate. In order to corroborate my opinion I'd like to offer an analysis of the discussion which was initiated by myself in the above section (now containing two additional sub-section) #Uncertainty about actual cause of death:

1. 141 in their first entry ("Several Wikipedians...") references other Wikipedia editors supporting the inclusion of Dr Nichopoulos's theory and also establishes that there exists ample reliable sourcing for this theory.
   • My comment: This is highly relevant and very much in accordance with Wikipedia practice, policies and guidelines which deem that we should base our writing on the existence of reliable sources, and if such outlets have deemed an issue newsworthy or notable, it is not up to Wikipedia editors (not even if they have formed a pack to defend such a position) to reevaluate the notability of primary sources which have been deemed notable in reliable secondary sources. We may clearly comment on their trustworthiness and credibility backed up by other reliable sources (as opposed to our own profuse rhetoric) though, but we should stay short of outright ignoring any widely discussed theories unless there exists such a profusion of wild fringy theories that their inclusion could only serve to clutter the article. Were that the case though, we'd probably already have a separate article, "Conspiracy theories about [subject]".
2. Responding to 141 ("So, a doctor whose license...") DCGeist scornfully marginalizes the authority of Dr Nichopoulos basically asserting he's a self-serving charlatan and that being the end of it.
   • I find the logic of that missing. True, he has had his license revoked. Does that mean he's a notorious liar and incompetent in his examinations and opinions? I don't see that it does. At all. DCGeist asserts that the opinions of Dr Nichopoulos should be discarded unless corroborated by colleagues in better standing than himself. I don't see the necessity for this. Obviously such support would strengthen the likelihood of his claims being true, but as long as we present the reader with the requisite caveats I see no reason, based on DCGeist's arguments, that Dr Nichopoulos' opinion should be excluded.
3. 141 then references such colleagues of Dr Nichopoulos in good standing (albeit not by name) that had been solicited for their opinions on Dr Nichopoulos' constipation theory by Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick. The conclusion of Guralnick certainly appears to give credence to Dr Nichopoulos if he had none before.
   • This is sound reasoning based on facts presented.
4. DCGeist retorts ("In his final years...") by listing how the article mentions Elvis' pathological bowel condition ("an enlarged colon"), then lists the conditions believed to be related to the singer's death according to the article, which do not include his pathological bowel condition. Then the argument for not including it is given as being that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a book.
   • This is completely non-sequiturial arguing. The "Wikipedia is not a book" argument appears to be a variation of the generic "not encyclopedic" argument when used as a guise for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The best I can do in terms of interpreting DCGeist's opinion when offering this argument is that adding lots of trivia or writing in excruciating detail might be acceptable when writing an exhaustive tome on a subject or a book focusing on only selected aspects of a subject and thus missing the oject of an encyclopedia to make a representative survey of all information pertaining to a subject.
5. Then I make an entry asserting that 141 clearly has a point and that DCGeist falls short of addressing it.
6. Baseball Bugs then makes their first entry ("141's argument is that one guy's word...") by paraphrasing 141's position as being that Dr Nichopoulos' word should be taken over the "preponderance of sources" and DCGeist's as being that Dr Nichopoulos is not a reliable source. Baseball Bugs then concludes that "Elvis 'dying from constipation'" is nonsense which should not be included.
   • This is a fairly accurate representation of DCGeist's position, however it is a misrepresentation of 141's posts. And blatantly so. It is very easy to fight straw men, but it is totally discrediting if one wants to be taken seriously as a debater and as someone acting with intellectual integrity.
7. Baseball Bugs then makes a second post ("Also, according to the...") making the point that according to the constipation article "the worst effect that can happen is hemmorhoids" and then concludes "Hey! Maybe he died from hemmorhoids!".
   • Again, Baseball Bugs resorts to demagoguery and shows themselves as a discussion participant who will not shy away from employing the bag of dirty tricks in order to get rid of a vexing opponent, as opposed to actually refuting their material argument.
8. Then PL290 posts a response to my first post. In it I am informed that this issue has a pre-history with editor 141 consistently "trying to push a minority fringe perspective" for a long time. PL290 then expresses the need for expressing themselves delicately in order to avoid personal attack. They profess no personal animosity towards 141, and then continues to interpret 141's behavior as "surely just a silly game that wastes the time of all the editors trying to build an encyclopedia". PL290 goes on to assert that Elvis' bowel condition is appropriately and adequately discussed in the article, at the same time making their own assessment of Dr Nichopoulos known ("this latest 'news' [...] sourced from the dubious doctor"). The post then eloquently segues ("The painful and longstanding congestion of more immediate concern is the one afflicting this talk page, just as it has done for years.") into a characterization of 141, making an apparently light-hearted hyperbole of their asserted position and aim with contributing to the editing of the article ("Elvis Presley was an unpopular American singer, full of shit, who died on the toilet. The end"). Then they emphasize that this paraphrase is no exaggeration with unspecific reference to the article's archives as well as to the fact that 141 has been disciplined in the past (2006 and 2007) for disruptive editing.
   • Again I cannot comment on anything except what I see in the present. My investigations into the pre-history of this issue will have to be piecemeal achievements, if they should at all occur. Still, my analysis of the behavior and arguments presented by sundry editors in the discussion at hand loses no validity on the lack of an integration with its pre-history. This fact merely needs to be taken into consideration for those who are going to decide on a course of action should such action be requested by the involved parties. Then, back to PL290's entry. Although their use of humor appears innocuous, and is certainly skillfully employed, I still find the tone insidious and that it does contain an attack on 141, which may not primarily be ad hominem in nature but which nonetheless falls completely short of addressing the question of whether or not to include the cause of death theory presented by Dr Nichopoulos. I would also like to point out that in the recent posts from 141 that I have read, I have seen nothing, bar nothing, which could corroborate the claims regarding 141's aims with this article. Perhaps it is time to discuss this issue on the merits of the facts themselves as long as 141 presents themselves in a succinct and reasonable manner and not make perfectly neutral arguments on a new matter get tainted by past history. Obviously this is a classic principle of conflict resolution, but I just thought I'd mention it here for consideration.
9. A post from Jaye9 follows which to large extent consists of a newspaper commentary written in The Daily Telegraph's by a specialist on mental health and substance abuse which basically disagrees with the theory that Elvis died from constipation, and Jaye9 thus thinks the issue at hand is satisfactorily presented in the article currently.
10. Then a new section is established. a sub-section of the original, with the initial post making it clear that its focus is on whether some material currently in the article based on statements by Dr Nichopoulos. This entry, written by Rikstar is based on agreement with DCGeist's discarding of Dr Nichopoulos as an applicable source to be referenced in the article (made in numbered point 2 above). Rikstar also adds to DCGeist's opinion his own that Dr Nichopoulos' statement from 1990 that Elvis was "probably also suffering from degenerative arthritis, fueling his addiction to painkillers" could be seen as self-serving. Rikstar then requests comments on his thought on this being the case.
    • I assume that Rikstar by self-serving means that it could be made in an attempt by Dr Nichopoulos to clear himself of allegations of wring-doing or negligence. With regards to the subject of this post Rikstar's post is unproblematic.
11. 141 responds to Rikstar, and by reference also to DCGeist who made the initial critical characterization of Dr Nichopoulos. 141 makes a rundown of Dr Nichopoulos medical training and his involvement with Elvis as his physician and subsequently in the autopsy and later three investigations into the cause of Elvis' death. Some significant findings in these procedings are also presented. This is somewhat, but not overly, lengthy, but succinct and readily accessible. 141 concludes: "That Elvis 'succumbed, on the toilet, to chronic constipation' sounds as reasonable as any other theory about the singer’s death". 141 also makes the personal comment: "I do not understand why some Wikipedians think that this book is not a reliable source."

    Indeed, what 141 writes makes good sense to me. I am not in a position to be able to catch 141 in blatantly making up facts in his rundown, but based on the premises this argument appears soundly to support the conclusion. I must also concur with 141 about why other editors have a hard time accepting "this book". Obviously admitting it as applicable as a source for this article does not clear it or its author of any criticism, it merely concedes to the fact that this is a relevant voice that should be presented along with other sources which meet a set minimum standard. Curiously, there are NO REPLIES to this post.

12. DocKino responding to Rikstar ostentatiously ignores the topic of the entire thread making an appeal to editors to abstain from further discussion.
    • Based on the conduct of editors in the above posts, 141 in particular who is the apparent source of DocKino's reaction, I do not find this to be a rational initiative. I find it disruptive.
13. PL290 gives kudos to DocKino and says they're going to be sick and asks for directions to the nearest toilet.
    • I find this post highly revealing as to the true attitude of PL290 towards other editors, and it clearly belies their initial gesture of assuming good faith towards 141. I used the term insidious in a previous bullet point characterizing PL290's style of writing and way of expressing their true feelings. Here I'll add to that coy and sly.
14. Baseball Bugs adds to PL290's post "141's singular obsession with this topic reminds me of the school principal in National Lampoon's High School Yearbook Parody".
    • As I have no knowledge of this reference I cannot comment specifically. It does however appear that a group effort is building to make a mockery of any earnest attempts at discussing the substantive issue raised by two editors (myself and Rikstar). DocKing, PL290 and finally Baseball Bugs placing the scoring hit. Slam dunk. All hands high five. I find this sort of pack behavior utterly deplorable.
15. 141 takes issue with the disruptive display from the three mentioned users pointing to my previous post which makes this point. 141 states that "Their attitude clearly violates Wikipedia policy".
    • I have nothing to add to that. From what I can observe, 141 is being abused through malicious gang editing employing the most despicable means.
16. Baseball Bugs responds "You don't die from constipation. End of story.#
    • Again, Baseball Bugs shows behavior that others ought to have reacted to. It is detrimental to Wikipedia that such behavior is tolerated and condoned when it ought to have been brusquely reprimended.
17. 141, maintaining focus (and composure), points to the fact that there are several physicians, not only Dr Nichopoulos who share a differing opinion.
    • Again, clear and to the point in the face of raucous provocations from several editors.
18. Baseball Bugs asserts that "Technically, right now that guy's no more a doctor than I am." Baseball Bugs states that Dr Nichopoulos' case might be bolstered if it could be found "any other humans in history that died from constipation".
    • As Baseball Bugs' be-all and end-all to the possibility of constipation as a contributing cause of death (I haven't seen anyone asserting the only) seems to be the Wikipedia article on constipation it seems prudent (although it should not be necessary) to point out that our own articles are disallowed as sources for each other for a good reason. Need I spell out what that reason is?
19. 141 retorts ("Nichopoulos earned his B.S. degree ...") with relevant fact to support the constipation theory. This included the assertion that other physicians have supported him.
    • I don't know to which extent it has been documented that other doctors do support him. I've seen no names mentioned, but then again, if this was a real discussion other editors would surely call out if this is incorrect.
20. Baseball Bugs asserts that "There's obviously a good reason he's no longer a doctor." They then go on to restate their previous post that constipation cannot be a cause of death.
    • I have already commented on the second part. As for the first it's only an innuendo and needs no further commenting.
21. 141 gives three referenced examples of people who have died from constipation, two of the references being medical publications.
    • Very good.
22. Baseball Bugs wants to know in which years these deaths occurred.
23. 141 responds and adds a fourth example. this also from a medical publication.
    • Also very good.
24. I shall quote Baseball Bugs' response because I think it is priceless:

    You seem to have studied this a great deal. I don't want to know why. But I wouldn't consider something from the 19th century to be necessarily valid. And I wonder if there are any since 1966. More to the point, how can constipation kill? It doesn't make sense.

• Having been utterly defeated the only response Baseball Bugs is able to provide is a confused "It doesn't make sense". Well, perhaps that has taught you a lesson about not being so cocksure and arrogant towards other people

25. Ever so gently 141 patiently responds to Baseball Bugs' question also providing government statistics and a gratuitous theory on the extinction of the dinosaurs
• No gloating. None whatsoever. Just the facts, ma'am.
26. Baseball Bugs wants to know the reason for discrepant timeframes and the effect of toxins in the presented information specifically with reference to the commentary in The Daily Telegraph by Mr Brown.
• This was what it took to establish a serious dialog on the actual issue, no less. I would say this is comparable to someone banging you on the head with a blunt object in order to get your attention. It oughtn't be that difficult.
27. 141 cannot give answers to Baseball Bugs' questions, not being a physician but offers some thought. 141 however restates that point is that constipation as a cause of death has been put forward by Elvis's personal physician and should be included in the article on that merit along with other theories that already are included.
• Sounds quite reasonable.
28. Baseball Bugs contends that a) Dr Nichopoulos is a biased source and that b) it's a conflict of interest on his part and that his theory cannot be included into the article without at the same time including the views of his detractors who believe he "has invented this theory in order to deflect attention from his own possible malpractice".
• That's presently the end of the first subsection. I think it points towards a solution that 141 would agree with. On the other hand, others may join in and restart the battle. One such attempt could possibly be seen in the second sub-section.
29. Opening up a second sub-section DocKino starts up with the ominous {{user}} templates, first reminding everyone that "It is well established that Onefortyone is a troll with a special interest in the naughty bits of Elvis Presley. An unusually clever and maniacally persistent troll, but nothing other than a troll. The evidence that he is a troll is voluminous and stretches back for years." DocKing admits the problematic application of using a term which is not formally defined. Then DocKing points to the fact that the article has received Featured Article status against 141 vehement opposition and this connection could be deemed sufficient to justify that 141 is a troll. DocKino mentions that only 10% of 141's objections were taken into account. DocKing then asserts that "[s]uch an action is unheard of, except in those rare cases when the objector is an obvious sociopath and/or troll." And then states that "We are long past the point where anyone should feel the need to engage this troll in debate". DocKing then encourages other editors to summarily revert 141's edits to the article.
• To me who hasn't seen the beginning of this this is very strong language. If there is merit to what DocKing writes it is terribly unfortunate that 141 in the present discussion has presetned themselves nothing but exemplary when it comes to adhering to netiquette as well as being to the point and factual concise with regards to the subject matter at hand. I should also point out that none of 141's detractors has accused them of presenting false bits of information, although the information wheich has been presented (in some cases obviously dug up) by 141 has been voluminous and detailed. I am surprised by the reference to the recent successful FA process. If 141 had any objections that were taken into account, this does seem to suggest, if nothing else, that this individual is not a troll. I would thus conclude to the opposite of DocKing which takes this to supprt the contention that 141 should be regarded as, and treated as, a troll.
30. Rikstar adds a supportive response to DocKing's initative stating that they were going to make the same initative.
31. Baseball Bugs has no objection to the notion that 141 should be seen as a troll but questions whether it would serve the article better simply to ignore 141's initatives as deleting (reverting) could "fan the flames". Not surprisingly Baseball Bugs appears to rescind at what could be seen as an invitation to a compromise in their conclusive post in the sub-section above writing that "The self-serving opinion of that doctor is not eligible for including in the article, and dat's dat."
• Personally I saw this u-turn coming and with it assuredly a complete ignore of how the user was completely demolished in the discussion in the previous sub-section were 141's tempered ripostes and adherence to civility and the facts utterly prevailed.

And just to reiterate. I have done an analysis of one section and its two subsections, and that's it. If these impressions significantly contrast previous experiences of behavior of the mentioned parties, then that would have to be taken into account by those who should wish to act on it. I have however witnessed some behavior which I have characterized as utterly deplorable. Indeed I would find censure against several of the editors who claim to represent the consensus segment of editors for this article appropriate. And I also cannot free myself of acknowledging the similarities I have witnessed on the discussion pages of other articles where controversy has been rampant, namely that the party which assert to represent consensus are fighting other editors labeling them disruptive and trolls and using strong arm methods such as what are known as master suppression techniques. Instinctively this makes me tentatively believe that the "trolls" are in fact the level-headed and sane editors of these articles wanting to present perspectives that for a number of reason may be uncomfortable, politically incorrect or ultimately compromising to vested interest groups, even if they are true. Whether or not that is the case here, others who find interest in making more than a brief stopover at this article and its talk page must find out for themselves. __meco (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's astonishing that you would go to these lengths, yet not bother to spend any time at all examining Onefortyone's track record of trolling, which stretches back years and includes blatant misrepresentation of sources and deliberately falsified citations. Suit yourself. DocKino (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We all have different fortes. I'm not good at what you suggest. As I also explained above, I'm not really that interested in the topic to be willing to invest prolonged time here. What I could do is an analysis with a limited perspective, including the caveats I have mentioned as well. You can use it as a tool to assist you in cleaning up working conditions for all editors who care more deeply about this article and the related subjects than I do. I see editors who have gotten themselves into a cul-de-sac and I do this. I hope you all succeed in untangling yourselves. __meco (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And Meco, I hope you succeed in getting "good at what DocKino suggests", i.e., finding out the facts before assembling an incredible array of information and then stating, "of course, I don't know the full story". Best wishes for your progress with that. You have badly missed the point here. PL290 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll be filing it under TLDR. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

These comments by DocKino, PL290 and Baseball Bugs clearly show that these users are not willing to earnestly discuss the questions raised above. Onefortyone (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're on the verge of being indef'd. I suggest you focus on that issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is poisoned alright. For years it's been plagued by ever-so politely and patiently put forward suggestions of 141, that Presley was bi/homosexual; that he had a sexual relationship with actor Nick Adams - and perhaps with some of the members of the suspiciously cosy Memphis Mafia; that Elvis was given a blow job by a man in the 1950's: that because he slept in the same bed as his mother as a child they must have had sex together, and more besides. And more recently, we have the suggestion that Presley masturbated himself to death. Some of these claims have been put forward so incessantly, despite ignoring them, reasonable objections, consensus, requests to desist, etc.

If user Meco had been involved just a fraction of time that I've been - having to respond to this unremitting stream of egregious submissions, I suspect they'd have been slightly less inclined to dissect some of the recent posts here in 141's favor. They might also have concluded that there's a pattern here, a disturbing pattern that points to the said editor being more interested in disrupting these pages than improving the article (would that qualify as a troll?). They might also understand how difficult it is to keep responding perfectly according to all those rules of netiquette; 141 has an arsenal of ways of pushing editors to their breaking points, but, it's OK, because 141's individual posts are SO polite and patiently detailed - a classic example of his defenders not seeing the wood because of all those trees. But hey, if Meco or anyone else wants to pore over the details of our indiscretions, then please slap our wrists for being naughty. But PLEASE — don't ignore the elephant trampling us all in the room while we become increasingly desperate as we protest. 141 is playing Wikipedia and some of it's editors like a fiddle, and now once again, we're all agog at yet another waste of time instigated by, and I no doubt hugely enjoyed by, one particular editor. It stinks. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 16:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification

To prevent further misunderstandings, I have made the above clarification. I have added the same box to the talk page header, to ensure the clarification remains after eventual archiving of the related conversations. EDIT: I've also now wikfied Questions over cause of death in the box above and in the talk page header, to explicate that that's the section of this article dealing with the topic. PL290 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Elvis concerts outside of US

Do you think it significant that a star like Elvis only ever performed three concerts outside the US (all in 1957)? I thought, perhaps, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but didn't want to throw my 2 cents in and edit the article myself since a lot of people have spent a lot of time making this a very good one. Just a thought. Ccrashh (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a mention of this at one point, and I thought it was still in the article, but I can't see it (it is a long article). It's a fact that ties in with the travel restrictions of Col. Parker. Perhaps there's something to be said for saying something like: "He played three gigs in Canada — the only times he ever performed outside of the US." Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The following is in Parker and the Aberbachs:

In 1974, rumors that Presley would play overseas for the first time were fueled by a million-dollar bid for an Australian tour. Parker was uncharacteristically reluctant, prompting those close to Presley to speculate about the manager's past and the reasons for his apparent unwillingness to apply for a passport. Parker ultimately squelched any notions Presley had of working abroad, claiming that foreign security was poor and venues unsuitable for a star of his magnitude.

Might be worth expanding the start of that paragraph, along the lines of:

Throughout his entire career, Presley gave only three performances outside the U.S.—all of them in Canada, in 1957. Rumors that he would play overseas for the first time were fueled in 1974 by a million-dollar bid ...

PL290 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I will add this presently if there are no further comments. PL290 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. DocKino (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done PL290 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, great addition that informs the reader of these. Although it's true he performed in only 3 cities outside of the US, I think he gave 5 "performances" - 2 in Toronto, 2 in Ottawa (both April 1957), and 1 in Vancouver (August 1957). Might be wrong, though, so if anyone can back that up it would be easy to alter. Minor concern, I know, but I'm embarrassingly pedantic like that lol ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, EF. I'ts important that we get these details right. After considering what you said, I think the emphasis should be on "only three venues outside the US", rather than the article getting bogged down in two concerts here, two there and so forth, so I've tweaked the wording to permit that:

Throughout his entire career, Presley performed in only three venues outside the U.S.—all of them in Canada, during brief tours there in 1957.

PL290 (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex symbol

A couple of recent edits have added a growing list of additional names to those already mentioned as examples of Presley's dalliances. There are a number of issues with these edits:

• The section provides an overview of different aspects of the topic of Presley as a sex symbol, and the phraseology of the sentence in question exhibits a chronological thread identifying examples of his dalliances. Inserting a growing list of further examples is neither necessary nor an enhancement to the prose, particularly in what is already a very long article that must summarize the singer's entire history.
• The references added produced several problems:
  • A reference "<ref name = "yahoomovies"/>" was added. No such ref name was defined, so this action left a glaring red error in the footnotes: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named yahoomovies; see Help:Cite error."
  • The use of ref names is anyway at odds with the {{sfn}} template system the article uses.
  • Several of the sources added appear not to be reliable, third-party sources, including www.elvis.com.au (proscribed during the FA candidacy), http://www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com/ and http://www.barbaraleigh.com/index.htm).
  • The citations added ignored the article's existing citation system, disfiguring the short footnote list with long notes cluttered with citation detail.

I've reverted the latest edit because of these problems. I suggest no further individuals' names are added to the example dalliances without discussion here. PL290 (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link to yahoo movies. All of the present sources are reliable, including Barbara Leigh's official website and autobiography.

The way it was before was too vague and poorly written. If you want a timeline I suggest "Natalie Wood in 1956, Ann-Margret in 1963, Cybill Shepherd in 1974, etc" instead of listing mere decades. Also, the only starlet at the time was Wood, who was 17-18 when they dated. The other women were already established when he dated them.

I don't think listing the decades is necessary though, since the timeline for his relationships can be found at Relationships of Elvis Presley.Closeminded8 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again. You continue to disregard the issues caused by your edit, even though they are specifically identified above. You again introduced an inconsistent citation format. You again used primary sources instead of secondary sources. You again deleted the chronological thread from the narrative. All for the dubious purpose of expanding the list of example dalliances, apparently without any good reason, and to the detriment of the prose in this overview article. Please desist. For such details, the reader may read Personal relationships of Elvis Presley. PL290 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Main photograph

The current image is flawed. The shot is too wide - you barely see Elvis' face - and most of the photos like this are cropped into headshots. The black and white, and the fact that it is a promotional shot, just doesn't look that great. I realize the rules that apply to living persons aren't the same as those that apply to dead persons, but I think File:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg would be much more appropriate for use as the main photo. Thoughs?Closeminded8 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is meritless. While fair use images that meet policy can and should be employed to accompany the main text of articles when they enhance its quality and readers' understanding, when free images of satisfactory quality—which this one most certainly is—are available, a free image must be used for the infobox. I disagree completely with your assessment, as well. The image looks great. Your finding fault with it because it is black-and-white is simply bizarre, and betrays a deep obliviousness of visual imagery. Your disdain for its promotional origin is similarly strange—it is of professional quality, and the image you suggest in its place is also promotional.—DCGeist (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The photo is simply, better. You can barely see his face in the current image.Closeminded8 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation?

In the last paragraph of the 'Crazed crowds and movie debut' section, should "Million Dollar Recordings" be italicized, since it's a collection of songs (it's italicized in its own article)? Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more subtle than it at first appears. Having looked at that article, I conclude that its lead is misleading when it states

• Million Dollar Quartet is the name given to recordings made on Tuesday December 4, 1956

because the article then goes on to identify

• "Charly/Sun" LP #1006 The Million Dollar Quartet
• "Charly/Sun" 2 LP set #CDX 20 The Complete Million Dollar Session
• Elvis Presley - The Million Dollar Quartet (RCA CD # 2023-2-R)
• The stage musical Million Dollar Quartet
• Members of the "Million Dollar Quartet"

I would keep it as it is ('The results became legendary as the "Million Dollar Quartet" recordings', i.e, the recordings made by the "Million Dollar Quartet"). The recordings then went on to be published (or, in the case of the stage musical, the event celebrated) under those other title variants, and it would be correct to italicize those when referring to one of them. It's a fine line though. PL290 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's exactly right. A parallel case would be collections of Presley's Sun recordings. The first serious attempt to present them as a coherent body of work--as far as I know--was an RCA album called The Sun Sessions first issued in 1976. That's the record that (years later) introduced me and I imagine many others to that body of work. I still think of his recordings from that period as The Sun Sessions, but that's not how we would refer to them generically here. Like the Million Dollar Quartet recordings of 1956, the Sun recordings, or sessions, of 1954-55 have yielded many albums, and only specific references to those should be italicized. I have eliminated the lead italicization in the MDQ article per this analysis. DocKino (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks very much. RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please 141, stop being so flippant

Upon reading Wikipedia: Admimistrator's noticeboard/Incidents, Statement by Onefortyone: You state: "Wilkes was banned from Wikipedia by arbcon decison and more recent publications by respected Elvis biographers Alanna Nash and Kathlean Tracy seem to support the claim of bisexuality". I havn't read Kathlean Tracy's book 141, but have just finished reading Alanna Nash's book. "Baby Let's Play House". I don't know where you got you information from or care for that matter, but what she states in her recent book, seems to conflick with you ideals. Here's what she had to say: "Deke's mascared eyeliner lent Elvis's character an air of gay desire, but no stories of homosexual dalliance or acting out ever surfaced about Elvis himself. In Hollywood, he invarible worked with actors, stagehands, and dancers who were gay, and when hed' had to be carried or lifted up overhead, occasionally one of them groped him. He didn't spark his temper either. Mostly he checkled." Source: "Baby Let's Play House p. 214

"Whether, Gladys introduced him to makeup ("You're the prettiest thing o the face of the earth - put a little eye color on") Elvis wasn't homosexual. His testosteroun levels, coupled with his groundings in the importance of the southern male, never tempted him to act out sexually with another man". p.24 Source: "Baby Let's Play House"

Let me say a couple of things to the above: In no way do I wish to offend any reader who is homosexual or bisexual, quite the opposite actually, as my sister is gay and on of my closest friends is bisexual. Please, do not use this term, as a means to belittle someone, that's all. All I ask is to take the time and read books, instead of of resorting to the quick way and taking information purely from the internet alone.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As you are the person who brings this topic up again on this talk page, Jaye9, here are some sources supporting the view that Elvis may have been bisexual:

In a Playboy article of November 2005, Colonel Parker’s assistant, Byron Raphael, and biographer Alanna Nash write that Elvis’s friend, actor Nick Adams, may have "swung both ways" like "Adams' good pal (and Elvis' idol) James Dean. Tongues wagged that Elvis and Adams were getting it on."

According to Alanna Nash's Baby, Let's Play House (2010), one of Presley's most bizarre relationships involved Adams and Natalie Wood. "When Nick took Elvis to a hotel in Malibu where Natalie was spending the weekend with her bisexual boyfriend, actor Scott Marlowe, Natalie got along well with Elvis - and Marlowe was soon out of the equation," says the source. "Nick, who was also rumored to be bisexual, Natalie and Elvis became a hot threesome, having a lot of fun together."

In her Elvis biography, Kathleen Tracy writes that Adams was Elvis's regular friend and often met the singer backstage or at Graceland. "He and Elvis would go motorcycle riding late at night and stay up until all hours talking about the pain of celebrity." Both men also enjoyed prescription drugs, and Elvis often asked Adams "to stay over on nights." The author adds that it "has since been speculated in Hollywood gossip that Presley and Adams may have shared some sort of intimate encounter." However, she also admits that, according to her view, "there's no definitive evidence one way or another."

However, the most detailed account of the supposed sexual relationship between Adams and Elvis is to be found in Hollywood Babylon, It's Back (2008). In this book, Hollywood celebrity biographer Darwin Porter and former New York Times reporter Danforth Prince write that Elvis wanted to hang out with Nick Adams. Within a week, gay actor Sal Mineo said, "Nick told me, he and Elvis were having oral sex and mutual masturbation." The authors further reveal that, when Presley and Adams shared hotel suites, the singer insisted that Nick walk around in a pair of tight-fitting white jockey shorts, arranged so his pubic hairs would peep out, and he confessed to Nick that this was his ultimate turn-on. The book also says that, whenever Adams flew to Graceland, he brought a stash of gay pornography in order to use it as a stimulus for masturbation.

According to Albert Goldman, Elvis looked like "a homosexual in drag" and may have been "a latent or active homosexual." In his view, the singer's alleged promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. "What Elvis projected through his epoch-making act," the author writes, "was not just the enormous sexual excitement of puberty but its androgynous quality. Much of Elvis' power over young girls came not just from the act that he embodied their erotic fantasies but that he likewise projected frankly feminine traits with which they could identify. ... When you dig down to the sexual roots of an Elvis Presley, you sense a profound sexual ambivalence."

Not to worry, however, you can be certain that I do not intend to include this material in the Elvis Presley article. In order to calm down the recent emotions, I would like to have a personal break from editing Wikipedia for some weeks. So during the next weeks the fans may add to the Elvis article several details that stress the megastar image of the singer, if they will be allowed to do so by PL209, DocKino and Rikstar. Onefortyone (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that these sources combined would suffice to justify including into the article that some of Elvis' acquaintances and friends have provided information to suggest that Elvis was bisexual. __meco (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen equally good sources that Elvis didn't die, he just went back to his home planet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco, it looks mostly like a hotch-potch of different gossip to me; there's a difference between "sources combined" all agreeing on specific facts, and a synthesis of ideas from different sources. The latter would constitute original research. If you think otherwise, though, I suggest proposing some wording here for the regulars to consider, showing the citations to be used. Too bad 141 won't be able to contribute to the discussion, since he terminated a conversation at AN/I by announcing a month-long break around 30 hrs ago now. :) PL290 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out to you 141, that you on occassions tend to fabricate the truth somewhat.

In her book, which of have recently read, Alanna Nash, at no time ever states that Presley had ever been bisexual or homosexual, quite the opposite in fact and her use of the word threesome, was not meant in the sexual content. As we see above you at times have a somewhat tabliod mentality. As far as your last statement goes, when you say: "So during the next weeks the fans may add to the Elvis article several details that stress the megastar image of the singer, if they will be allowed to do so PL209, DocKino and Rikstar."

All I can say is that it was an unessary snide remark on you behalf, but atleast these threee editors do try to stick to protocal.

To Meco, I have never read at any time, any acquaitances or friends state that Elvis was bisexual. May I politely suggest that you go out and buy yourself some good reliable Elvis books, say for starters, "Last Train To Memphis" & "Careless Love" both by Peter Guralnick and "Revelations by the Memphis Mafia" by Alanna Nash. Sorry, but you clearly don't know what you talking about, in regard to all things Elvis.--Jaye9 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)