Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Observations by uninvolved editor User:Wizardry_Dragon
At first, I was unsure why this case is being brought forth to the Abitration Comittee. The user in question has been barred from editting the topic, they persisted, and their ban should be renewed. Their behaviour has been conistently destructive to the community and they have been subject to administrative action for it. . The prior arbitration is balanced, and still relevant. I feel the remedies there should be enforced.

That said, User:Lochdale's conduct has not been exemplary either. He has been edit-warring against the reversions and additions of Onefourtyone, and that editor's probationary status is not a ticket to bypass the Three Revert Rule and other rules of Wikipedia. (S)He has been removing content that (s)he does not agree with, which is against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. The edits of Onefourtyone are not the only case where he has done this.

In short, I find there's enough misconduct on both sides to warrant a case - however that descision is not mine to make :)

I did some mining in the edit history of the article. The following edits may be of use to the ArbCom should they accept this case:

Edits by Onefortyone
Possible POV-Pushing:
 * 
 * 

Some edit-warring:
 * 
 * 

Edits by Lochdale
Possible POV-Pushing:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Definetely POV-Pushing:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Some edit-warring:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

This only goes back 150 edits. I didn't want to mine too far in case the case is not heard.

Statement by totally uninvolved editor User:JBKramer

 * Onefourtyone is on probabtion regarding his conduct on bios of celebrities from his prior arbcomm remidy (Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone). He was, in fact, banned from the Elvis article by Jkelly from 27 July to 27 September. . Is this issue ripe for ArbCom, or does the prior remidy suffice? JBKramer 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I am on probation since 2005 for including one or two passages in the Elvis Presley article which were not well sourced, and significantly, it was my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes who took me to arbitration. This user was banned for one year in March, and from that time on all of my contributions were, and are, well sourced. Second, this year I was banned from the Elvis article for some time by an administrator who was part of the edit war. Very interesting indeed, but I didn't take this case to arbitraton. See, . Third, after that ban expired, as a compromise, I did no longer add the controversial material to the article which supports the view that Elvis may have had an affair with Nick Adams, although some sources say that this was the case. Indeed, the last few months I have only contributed well-sourced material to Wikipedia, frequently citing every source I have used. Other users do support these contributions. User:Lochdale seems to be the only user who frequently deletes what I have written. He is the driving force in the edit war. So why should this issue be ripe for arbcom? Because an Elvis fan does not like critical material contributed to the article? Onefortyone 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
I’m not involved directly in this dispute or have even edited on the articles in question, though I came across it when voting in the deletion of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau and also the FA nomination for elvis presley. Unfortunately, my opinion on both resulted in me being accused of being a suckpuppet by this user onefortyone. In light of the FA nomination I decided to have a look at some of the edits that were being made to the elvis article, and it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that Onefortyone has recently violated his/her previous arbiration ruling which I’ve just had a look at. The following statement was added to the elvis article by user onefortyone (followed by others also relating to Elvis' sex-life): “Elvis, according to his own words, didn't make love to [Anita Wood].”, which was claimed to be cited from a book called ‘Elvis and Me’. I checked out the source, and found that not only does the statement in question not exist, but it is directly contradicted by this excerpt from the book itself (p.98) (you can find it using amazon ):

(Priscilla) "You mean you didn't make love to [Anita Wood] the whole four years you went with her?" (elvis) "Just to a point. Then I stopped. It was difficult for her too, but that's just how I feel”.

Maybe instead of starting a new arbitration, the previous one could be properly enforced first. I don’t have time to check and verify – nor do I really want to either – all the other supposedly well sourced information that has been added to articles by this user, but someone should because I suspect that, like the edit I just mentioned, there is some more fabrication going on. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Onefortyone
So your quote proves that Elvis didn't have sexual intercourse (the human form of copulation) with Anita Wood. They stopped before doing that, which was difficult for both. That's what I said in the Elvis Presley article, in shorter form. It is very interesting that a new user, who did not edit on the articles in question and claims to have been uninvolved in the dispute, would have picked up a specific quote from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me. The only other users deeply interested in this book were my opponents in former edit wars, multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes and his supporter, User:Wyss. See. Onefortyone 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by complete stranger blaxthos
Just for S&G's I took a look at a few random edits by Onefortyone, and I have to agree with the other editors -- in almost every edit I randomly selected I found information I can only attribute to WP:OR. Additionally, I was unable to substantiate any of the claims made the few times sources were cited. I noticed consistant violations of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV as well. I haven't bothered to give examples here, as the other editors have done a good job of such already. I have no connection to, involvment with, or have made any contribution to the article in question. /Blaxthos 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Onefortyone
User blaxthos wrote:
 * in almost every edit I randomly selected I found information I can only attribute to WP:OR. Additionally, I was unable to substantiate any of the claims made the few times sources were cited. I noticed consistant violations of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV as well. I haven't bothered to give examples here...

Significantly, this user didn't stick close to the facts and didn't provide evidence for his false claims. As everybody can see, in almost every edit concerning the Elvis Presley article I am accurately attributing my contribution in full to the author and source I have used (incl. the exact page numbers). See, for instance,, , , , , , , , , etc. etc. As far as the Elvis Presley article is concerned, I am the only user doing so. Onefortyone 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First consider the aim of the 'Pedia
(A comment by ex-participant Hoary)

I tried for some time to curb the Hollywood Babylonian/trivia tendencies of the article on Elvis Presley, somebody in whom I had minimal interest. I did this with diminishing enthusiasm. When, back in July,User:Blackfoxt ([Special:Contributions/Blackfoxt|contributions]) suggested that together with Onefortyone and Lochdale I was part of the problem, I gratefully took the invitation to "unwatch" the article, and I don't think I have edited it since.

But perhaps I had been utterly wrongheaded about the whole thing, and was pursuing entirely the wrong goal.

Perhaps ignorantly, I'd thought before reading WP that Presley was sometimes a notable and usually a commercially successful musician, and also a commercially successful if otherwise insignificant film star; and, much less importantly, that he'd had remarkable looks (often unintentionally ludicrous) and distinctive and thankfully rare tastes in interior design, etc. The WP article gave me, and gives me, a different impression. Here's what it served up the last time I looked at it:


 * [intro]
 * Early life
 * Voice characteristics
 * Sun recordings
 * Presley and his manager "Colonel" Tom Parker
 * Cultural impact
 * Presley and African American music
 * "A danger to American culture"
 * American icon
 * Military service
 * 1960s film career
 * 1968 comeback
 * The final years
 * Death and burial
 * Controversy surrounding death
 * Views On Race
 * Political beliefs
 * Relationships
 * Devotion to his mother
 * High school and early stardom
 * The women in his life
 * Anita Wood and Priscilla Beaulieu
 * The Memphis Mafia and other male friends
 * Lasting legacy
 * The Elvis cult and its critics
 * The fans
 * The ritualization of the "Elvis cult"
 * Critical voices
 * Presley in the 21st century
 * Elvis lives?
 * FBI files on Presley
 * Elvis as a victim of blackmail
 * Discography
 * Trivia

(I've cut the nine numbered subsections of acknowledged trivia, and also what one might term essential backmatter.)

To me, the first oddity here is that although Presley is acclaimed as a musician there's neither a long section on the music as a whole nor what appears to be a well thought-out series of sections on the music. Yes, Sun does get a section, but afterward the article seems to lose interest in the music itself, instead largely lingering on aspects of Presley's personal life, reactions of others to Presley, etc.

However unfair this may be to Carl Perkins, Presley is famous for "Blue Suede Shoes". The last time I looked, the article didn't mention this. He's also famous for "Heartbreak Hotel". This is mentioned, but merely for selling a million copies; we learn nothing else about it.

I now turn to the 1986 edition (unfortunately the newest that's accessible to me) of the New Encyclop&aelig;dia Britannica. Presley rates an article in the Microp&aelig;dia. It's not long, and talks of Presley's music, stage performances, record sales, TV appearances, drug-fueled decline, and (with far the greatest emphasis) commercial success. Surprisingly, the entire movie career is reduced to a single clause of a single sentence. Presley's "relationships", his attitude toward Blacks, the FBI, etc etc aren't mentioned. It's obvious that the NEB and WP have very different emphases.

So Presley seems putatively notable as a musician, a film actor, a commodity, and a star. The third and fourth (and probably second too) of these seem epiphenomena of the first two (or just the first). Accordingly, I looked into reference works that promised more detail on the music and film (and their reception and marketing), to see how these dealt with Presley.

Not surprisingly, the main article on Presley in Colin Larkin's huge Encyclopedia of Popular Music (3rd edition, 1998, 8 vols) is much longer than WP's and goes into some detail on the music. (A second, much shorter article, is on Presley's "country career".) The marketing of the music and its commercial success are of course important within the article, a surprising percentage of which is given over to Presley's film appearances; the film career is shown to complement the music career. We learn that he was "devoted to his mother", and that "it was during [Presley's period in Germany] that he first met Priscilla Beaulieu, whom he later married in 1967"; and that's all there is about any of Presley's non-professional "relationships". We learn of his late-60s revival and, in admirably summarized form, his decline into drugs, obesity, and self-delusion at the end. There's also an excellent summary of the competition among discrete posthumous images of Presley, each having some claim to validity. No sensation-mongering about this or that rumor (Did he make such and such a racist comment? Did he die on the throne?): just the music, the films, and the images.

David Shipman's The Great Movie Stars: The International Years (rev. ed., 1995) is a much more compact work but the most ample collection of film actor bios I could find. It has an article on Presley's movies that's surprisingly appreciative of his better work while straightforwardly calling the rest forgettable. There's some talk of his origins and music, but nothing about his "relationships" with other Hollywood figures, etc.

If I were appointed editor-in-chief/autocrat of this article (not a job I covet) I'd scrap it and rebuild it more or less in the mold of the three articles I've cited: as something about (in order of decreasing importance) a prominent musician, commercially notable film star, commodity and idol. I'd deal with Presley's poor white roots in a racist society, his relationship with the "Colonel", with his drug-addled decline, etc., to the extent that a balanced person could plausibly claim that they influenced his output. But the music would come first.

And how blinkered that might be. For perhaps my problem, and perhaps Lochdale's problem too, is my/our lack of understanding that what a singer certainly did with his voicebox (subject of dozens of pages of a good published book-length biography) is of less concern than for example what he just might have done with his dick (subject of a tentative paragraph here and there in a the same work). Perhaps the printed reference books of the last century skip the latter simply because they're old-fashioned and elitist. By contrast, Wikipedia gives voice to the gossip-fascinated masses, and such oddities (to my mind) as the earnest categorization of artists by sexual orientation (see e.g. Category:LGBT visual artists).

Lochdale, my, and others' resistance may be futile. Onefortyone, seemingly the tireless scribe–vanguard of the collective Wikipedia id, rules the Elvis Presley article (etc), and perhaps even fuddy-duddies such as myself shouldn't discourage him, lest he moves to new fields, for example "classical" (art) music, and figures such as Benjamin Britten ("We'll give War Requiem a mention but Britten liked little boys"), Leoš Janáček ("talk of the string quartets is kinda boring but the elderly Janáček had the hots for a much younger woman"); Frederick Delius ("had the pox"); etc. etc. When I want to read about a "classical" musician I'll use both the New Oxford Companion to Music and WP; when I want to look up a pop singer, I'll skip WP completely and instead turn to the library's copy of Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music. But perhaps it's old-fashioned or perverse of me (and Lochdale?) to think that the aspect of a musician that's by far the most notable and most worth reading about is his or her music.

So this RfAr seems an opportunity for arbitrators to consider what kind of work WP should be. If it aims to emulate or even surpass Britannica or other reference books for which money is paid and to which shelf space is devoted, then talk of what people did or didn't do between the sheets is out, unless this talk can be shown to be relevant to their careers (cf Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, etc). If on the other hand WP is to be a distillation/complection of whatever fascinates of the computer-using masses, then, together with its meticulously composed gigabytes about anime episodes, the minutiae of Star Wars and other fiction, WP will have coverage of the real world written by and for the eager consumers of National Enquirer and the Jerry Springer Show.

-- Hoary 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

-- And deleted by Fred Bauder for no apparent reason (by accident?) circa 21:40, 22 November.

-- Readded in slightly tweaked form Hoary 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Onefortyone
The problem is that an Elvis biography can never offer us a life without subjective views and perspectives. Biographic narratives always select and emphasize particular facts from the vast amount of details that constitute the singer's life. All narratives are constructed by their writers and their interests. Authors such as Colin Larkin and others you have mentioned, whose primary focus is on music, would certainly lay much emphasis on Elvis's songs and his musical career. On the other hand, many so-called biographers only want to sell their books by making very strong claims about their link to the subject matter and by dealing with the most sensational aspects of the singer's private life. By the way, you are right that most readers seem to be interested in the latter. On the other hand, it is a historical fact that in 1956 Elvis's manager, Colonel Parker lowered a curtain of silence around his charge. When the singer died in 1977, Radio One director Johnny Beerling found so little information available on Elvis's personality that his unit could not make a planned memorial documentary. Indeed, at the time of his death there were only 4 books on the star in print. Elvis’s private life remained a mystery, but things changed soon after. By 1981 circa 30 paperbacks and 10 hardbacks were available, because fans had started collecting Elvis books. About this time the article for the New Encyclopædia Britannica was written. Most other publications (among them the over 2000 books Lochdale claims to have read) weren't published at that date. There were no books on Elvis's movie career, his attitude toward Blacks, the FBI files etc., only one or two books written by the Memphis Mafia members (or their ghost writers) dealing with Elvis's "non-professional relationships" and his drug abuse from a very biased point of view. The different biographies now available portray Elvis in a wide variety of ways. We cannot separate his life from our knowledge and our personal interests in it. All of these publications take different approaches. And I am of the opinion that a Wikipedia article should endeavor to deal with all of these approaches in order to present a balanced view of the singer's life. The problem is that many publications seem to be "buddy" confessions basically feeding the fans. There are also some "scandal books", but only very few so-called "objective" biographies. See also the critical commentary concerning these sources on my user page. However, you never know what is "objective", as these books also include much hearsay. Since the 1990s, many race and gender studies appeared dealing with Elvis's attitude toward blacks, his androgyny or the actual sexual orientation of the so-called "sex symbol", etc., among them several peer-reviewed university studies. Therefore, you may be right that the printed reference books of the last century you have consulted "skip the latter simply because they're old-fashioned". Be that as it may, if you think "that the aspect of a musician that's by far the most notable and most worth reading about is his or her music," why not writing a substantial paragraph about Elvis's music using the sources you have cited above, instead of criticizing that this topic doesn't come first in the present article? This would certainly improve the quality of the article. Other editors may deal with other aspects of Elvis's life. Even the fans may have their "Trivia" section. By the way, I have not yet seen a significant passage about Elvis's music Lochdale has contributed. He has only included fan stuff (see, for instance,, , , ) or false information in the article, as I have shown elsewhere (see ). What is more, he deleted entire paragraphs he didn't like, admitting that he is quite open about his "lack of knowledge on the area" and saying, "just because I have not added any 'orginal material' to the article is meaningless. ... I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley ..." See ). This is not O.K., and such behavior doesn't improve the quality of the article. Onefortyone 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have entirely missed the point of Hoary's comments. Perhaps you are being intentionally obtuse.  Regardless, the point is that Presley was an entertainer first and foremost and that is what the article should focus on.  You have utterly destroyed that purpose with your single minded obsession.  Of course, the one question you can never answer is why such recognized authors as Peter Guralnik never managed to discover or didn't bother to focus on all of the issues you consider to be so important.  The reality is that better, more accomplished writers who have had direct access to first person sources never saw fit to obsess about these issues.  The fact is, you have an agenda and you have pushed it with a fanatical zeal.  Wikiepedia is the less for it.  Lochdale 05:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Lochdale, I do not think that I have missed the point of Hoary's comments. You are still attacking me, falsely claiming that Guralnick never focused on all of the issues I consider to be important. Indeed, Guralnick intensively deals with Elvis's close relationship with his mother, his relationships with women, his male friendships, his drug abuse, etc. etc. Several university studies and books on the rock'n'roll era I have cited focus on other issues of equal importance to Elvis's biography. Onefortyone 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * if you think "that the aspect of a musician that's by far the most notable and most worth reading about is his or her music," why not writing a substantial paragraph about Elvis's music using the sources you have cited above, instead of criticizing that this topic doesn't come first in the present article? This would certainly improve the quality of the article. The invitation seems sincere and amiable, which is how I'll take it. Thank you. One problem here is shortage of time to spend on WP, shortage of interest in pop music compared with other fields, and shortage of interest in the music of Presley compared with that of other figures in pop music. Another is that the very sight of the Presley article is one I find depressing. It's not that I'm squeamish about sleaze (I've recently enjoyed working on Kroger Babb), it's the apparent doggedness with which the sleazy (and often trivial) elements in Presley's sad life seem to be milked for all they're worth. &para; many race and gender studies appeared dealing with Elvis's attitude toward blacks, his androgyny or the actual sexual orientation of the so-called "sex symbol", etc., among them several peer-reviewed university studies. I'll freely admit to having read none of them, but I would say that I have seen university-press "gender studies" works on other pop culture matters, and that they struck me as near the bottom of the academic barrel: speculative nonsense meets tittle-tattle meets trivia. (Race is rather different, and certainly I have no complaints about the snippets I've seen from Bertrand's book.) &para; Even the fans may have their "Trivia" section. Here we differ again: I'd cut all "trivia" from any article, this one being no exception. -- Hoary 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)