Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Onefortyone

[edit] General statement concerning user Lochdale and user Onefortyone

User:Lochdale seems to be an Elvis Presley fan (see these contributions: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), whose primary aim is to harass me from the beginning of his appearance. His history clearly shows that the majority of his edits deal with my contributions to the Elvis Presley article and the Talk:Elvis Presley page. Significantly, Lochdale has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance to the Elvis article. Instead, he frequently questions the sources I have used. His first edits were attacks against me. Lochdale himself confirms, "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 [16]. What is more, this user frequently deletes my edits if they are not in line with his personal opinion, although these edits are supported by mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. Lochdale even thinks that a "criticism section" isn't warranted (see [17] and this commentary) and removed a "To much trivia tag" that was added to the Presley article by another critical user (see [18]).

I am a regular contributor to the Elvis Presley article. I have also created, or contributed to, several other articles. Concerning the Elvis Presley article, I have added material to the sections on

As I am on probation, all of my contributions are accurately sourced and supported by quotes from many independent books and articles, among them mainstream biographies by Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Greil Marcus, Albert Goldman and many others, books on Priscilla Presley, publications on the rock 'n' roll era, and several peer-reviewed studies published by university pressses.

[edit] Lochdale deleting entire paragraphs written by Onefortyone

27 April 2006 [111] [112] [113] 29 April 2006 [114] [115] [116] [117] 4 May 2006 [118] 5 June 2006 [119] [120] [121] 19 July 2006 [122] 20 July 2006 [123] [124] [125] [126] 22 July 2006 [127] 24 July 2006 [128] 25 July 2006 [129] 28 July 2006 [130] 2 October 2006 [131] [132] [133] 3 October 2006 [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] 16 October 2006 [141] [142] 17 October 2006 [143] 21 October 2006 [144] [145] 22 October 2006 [146] [147] [148] [149] 29 October 2006 [150] [151]

[edit] Lochdale repeatedly deleting contributions by Onefortyone

3 January 2006 [152] 4 January 2006 [153] 2 March 2006 [154] [155] 14 March 2006 [156] 15 March 2006 [157] [158] 17 March 2006 [159] 29 April 2006 [160] 4 May 2006 [161] [162] [163] 19 July 2006 [164] 25 July 2006 [165] 27 July 2006 [166] [167] 28 July 2006 [168] 2 August 2006 [169] [170] [171] 4 October 2006 [172] [173] [174] [175] 5 October 2006 [176] [177] 10 October 2006 [178] 11 October 2006 [179] 12 October 2006 [180] 13 October 2006 [181] [182] [183] 15 October 2006 [184] 16 October 2006 [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] 17 October 2006 [197] [198] [199] 19 October 2006 [200] [201] [202] [203] 20 October 2006 [204] [205] 21 October 2006 [206] 22 October 2006 [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] 23 October 2006 [213] 29 October 2006 [214] [215] [216] [217] 1 November 2006 [218] [219]

[edit] Some examples of Lochdale attacking Onefortyone

Lochdale has claimed, for instance, that most of the stuff Onefortyone added to the Elvis article "is tawdry muck-racking at its worst" (see [220]), that Onefortyone is "being purposefully obtuse" (see [221]), that he has "a baseless agenda" (see [222]), and a "history of misrepresenting sources" (see [223]), that he is using "bullying tactics" to get what he wants (see [224]), that he is "engaging in what I can only describe as a character assassination" (see [225]) etc. etc. Lochdale also says about Onefortyone, "You've made it your Wiki life's work to push your own fringe agenda regarding an entertainer" (see [226]) and "God forbid you ever focused on something important" (see [227]). Lochdale even called the entire "Elvis cult" section, written by Onefortyone and supported by other users, a "mess" (see [228]), although the other users were of the opinion that it includes "a lot of great information" and is "filled with facts" etc. See [229], [230]. See also these statements by Lochdale, which include further attacks and false accusations, for instance, frequent accusations of POV pushing, original research, etc. etc.: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261].

[edit] POV pushing by Lochdale:

[262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307]

[edit] Lochdale disparaging the many independent sources cited by Onefortyone

Lochdale constantly claims, without reason, that all my edits are POV and original research, that I am only citing out of context, pushing a fringe agenda, hijacking the Elvis article, etc. etc, although all of my sources are accurately cited. In my opinion, these claims are only made in order to justify this user's reverting and deleting tactics. As he cannot deny that many independent sources support my contributions, he tries to disparage them. See, for example, [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319]

[edit] Lochdale disparaging peer-reviewed studies cited by Onefortyone

Lochdale even questions the reliability of peer-reviewed university studies I have used, if they are not in line with his personal view. See [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329].

[edit] Questioning the reliability of user Lochdale

Lochdale repeatedly, and intentionally, made false declarations. Some examples:

  • Lochdale claimed that Albert Goldman "made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual." See [330]. In fact, Goldman suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Daniel Rancour-Laferriere, in his peer-reviewed book Self-Analysis in Literary Study: Exploring Hidden Agendas (1994), also mentions that "Albert Goldman (1981) hypothesized about homoeroticism in the gentile male icon Elvis Presley" (p. 160).
  • Although Lochdale frequently claims to have read the mainstream Elvis biographies by Peter Guralnick, he says that he "never heard it suggested that Elvis wanted to ban the Beatles from America." See [331], [332]. In fact, Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick has written on page 426 of his book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley that, according to the contemporaneous memo by Egil "Bud" Krogh, deputy counsel to the President, Presley indicated in a conversation with Nixon that he was "of the opinion that the Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s. He advised that the Smothers Brothers, Jane Fonda, and other persons in the entertainment industry of their ilk have a lot to answer for in the hereafter for the way they have poisoned young minds by disparaging the United States in their public statements and unsavory activities." Interestingly, this passage is frequently deleted by Elvis fans from the article. See, for instance, [333].
  • In his aim to disparage some sources that are not in line with his personal view, Lochdale questioned the reliability of eyewitness Byron Raphael and claimed that his name "just does not appear in any books by the Memphis Mafia" or "has not been mentioned in nearly any book about Elvis." See [334], [335]. In fact, Raphael worked for Presley's manager Tom Parker and is a frequent point of reference in publications by Alanna Nash, an authority on Elvis Presley, his manager and his Memphis Mafia.
  • Lochdale falsely claimed that "Guralnik never suggested that Elvis was a "mamma's boy' ". See [336]. In fact, on page 36 of his Elvis biography, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that Elvis was teased by his fellow classmates who threw "things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy." Furthermore, Guralnick discusses Elvis's close relationship with his mother on many other pages of his book, as most Elvis biographers do.
  • Lochdale further alleged that "Guralnik noted that it was a testament to Presley's character that he was able to overcome such teasing and 50's conventionalism to create rock & roll." See [337]. As an Amazon search proves, Guralnick does not use expressions such as "testament", "teasing" or "conventionalism" in the sense Lochdale implies in books such as Last Train to Memphis.
  • In order to push a personal agenda, Lochdale falsely claimed that Elaine Dundy's book Elvis and Gladys "removed any lingering myths about Presley's relationship with his mother." See [338]. Here is what the book actually says about Gladys's close relationship with her son: "it was agony for her to leave her child even for a moment with anyone else, to let anyone else touch Elvis. Maternal love was not for Gladys a prettily sentimental attachment. Rather it was a passionate concentration which deepened into a painful intensity when her son was not there, directly in her sight. She imagined all sorts of horrors. She imagined he was being tortured and she was not there to stop it. It was physical torment for her to be separated from him. Maternal devotion is constantly misrepresented as either grasping, clinging, stifling or pathetic. It is none of these things. Every mother of a very young child has the primordial conviction, deeper than reason, that as long as her child is within her eyesight she will be able to protect him from all harm. Generally the mother outgrows this as the child grows up but Gladys all her life remained anxious over each one of Elvis' separations from her." (p.71)
  • Lochdale frequently claims that Nick Adams wasn't a close friend to Elvis Presley and that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". See [339], [340]) He even included his false claim concerning Adams in the Elvis Presley article (see [341], [342]). Indeed, Guralnick describes the close friendship between Adams and Presley in his book, Last Train to Memphis, p.336, 339-340, 410, etc. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [343], [344], [345]. Elaine Dundy, another reputable Elvis biographer, also confirms that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale frequently removes the quote from the article. See [346], [347], [348].
  • Lochdale falsely claims that Nick Adams is not mentioned by any of Presley's bodyguards. See [349], [350]. Indeed, in an interview, Elvis's friend and bodyguard Red West confirms that Adams "was a friend of Elvis's and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door ..." West further states that he, Adams and Elvis "played football every Sunday." See Red West Interview .
  • Lochdale added false information to the Elvis Presley article claiming that Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, "never lived with Presley" (see [351]), although it is a historical fact that they lived together at Graceland. See Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.329-330; Robert Segal, Hero Myths: A Reader (2000), p.213.
  • In one of his commentaries Lochdale said that "Marcus does not claim that Presley had an incestous relationship with his mother." See [352]. He also wrote, "You quote Griel Marcus' book (a compelation of articles to be accurate) to support wild notions when Marcus devotes an entire chapter to Evlis' relationship with his mother and never suggests anything unhealthy." See [353]. In fact, on pages 3 and 6 of his book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternativse (2000) Greil Marcus cites some reactions to the "shocking truth" (based on claims by the singer's stepmother, Dee Presley) that Elvis's mother Gladys may have had "years of bliss with Elvis in her bed, or she in his": " 'It makes sense,' said Adrian Sibley of the BBC's The Late Show. 'America has brought Elvis up to date: now he needs therapy just like everybody else. Don't they have twelve-step programs for incest survivors?' 'It makes sense,' said Jip Golsteijn, pop critic for the Amsterdam Telegraaf. 'It's what I heard again and again in Tupelo, years ago. Nobody meant it as a condemnation. Given the way Elvis and Gladys were about each other, it was simply the conclusion everyone drew.' "
  • Lochdale has questioned the reliability of reputable Elvis biographer, Alanna Nash. See [354]. In fact, her book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003) was praised by Billboard Magazine as a "classic of music industry reporting." Other very positive reviews came from The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, Variety magazine, Publisher's Weekly etc. Mojo music magazine said Nash's book was "the most incisive and comprehensive look at the life of the elusive Colonel available" and the reviewer for the The Observer lauded the book as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written".
  • Lochdale falsely claimed that Guralnick makes no mention of Presley's toilet death, "so it might be just conjecture." See [355]. In fact, Guralnick writes on pages 651-652 of his book, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999) that "a stain on the bathroom carpeting" was found "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.' " The author adds, "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 ..."
  • Lochdale didn't read what I had actually written in a specific paragraph added to the Presley article, as he falsely alleged that the section "has returned with such definitive statements such as Presley having homosexual relations with Nick Adams etc." (see [356]) and therefore removed the whole paragraph (see [357]). Here is what was actually written in the said paragraph: "Apart from his relationships with women, Presley reportedly had homosocial [not homosexual!] relationships, as he spent day and night with friends and employees whom the news media affectionately dubbed the Memphis Mafia." Furthermore, the same section dealt with Elvis's friendships with some members of the Memphis Mafia and particularly with Nick Adams, which is supported by many independent sources. The paragraph deleted by Lochdale did not mention that the latter may have had a homosexual relationship with Elvis, although some published sources claim that this was the case. See [358].
  • Lochdale falsely claimed that the FBI files on Elvis Presley "never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort." See [359]. In fact, the FBI files clearly say that a blackmailer named Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau "is alleged to have admitted to Presley that he is bisexual. His first homosexual experiences took place early in his life in the orphanage in which he was brought up. On 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments. At the time that he told Griessel-Landau of this decision he also thoroughly censured Griessel-Landau for embarrassing him..." For the direct quote from the original files and further information, see also Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), 30-34, and the many original documents concerning the case presented in the appendix of this book.
  • Concerning the extortion attempt documented by the FBI files, Lochdale added to the article that an additional amount of 2,000 £ "was never paid." See [360]. This is POV, as the FBI files do not say that this additional amount was never paid.
  • Lochdale alleges that Onefortyone "is unable to quote directily from reputable sources". See [361]. As everybody can see, the opposite is the case, as I am frequently, and directly, quoting from many independent sources, among them mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies.

[edit] Possible connection between Lochdale and multiple hardbanned user Ted Wilkes

Although Lochdale denies that there is, and ever has been, a connection between him and multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (see [362], [363], there is no denying the fact that Lochdale clearly did support Wilkes's opinions, as the following edits show: [364], [365], [366]. Despite of this evidence, Lochdale has claimed, "I don't give a sugar about your dispute with Wilkes. Other than the one note he posted in my Talk Page i've never communicated with Wilkes." See [367].

The claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings is a red rag to Lochdale, as it formerly was to Ted Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss, who both were banned from editing articles relating to homosexuality. See [368], [369], [370], [371], [372], [373], [374], [375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390], [391], [392].

Significantly, Lochdale's first edits were on Elvis's possible homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a user who apparently appeared on Wikipedia for the first time. Therefore, there was some suspicion that Lochdale may be identical or somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, my opponent in former edit wars. See [393].

Lochdale repeatedly claimed that "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" allegedly contradict my edits. See [394], [395], [396], [397] [398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403].Some IPs used by Wilkes alias NightCrawler claimed similar things. IP 24.165.212.202 said, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay." See [404]. See also this statement by IP 66.61.69.65. Lochdale claims that his "use of the phrase 2000 books probably comes from reading Wilkes' edits/comments." See [405]. But it seems unlikely that a new user would have stumbled across these old edits by Wilkes's IPs.

However, checkuser said that Lochdale's and Wilkes's IPs are not identical. Interestingly, Lochdale himself had asked for a checkuser search run. See [406]. Notwithstanding, there is still the possibility of meatpuppetry.

[edit] Evidence presented by {Lochdale}

[edit] Consistent Agenda Pushing

This initial request for arbitration is as a result of one user Oneforyone's obsession with the Presley article. This obsession (there isn't any other word for it) has manifested itself in almost [two] years of edit wars regarding the Presley article. The Users sole contribution to Wikipedia appears to involve Presley and any and all salacious materials regarding Presley.

He has created other pages simply to continue to push his agenda [see here] and [here] and [here where the user has significant edits to the article on Graceland]. Once he has created an side article he will then do whatever he can to ensure that said article is referenced in the main Presley page. Put another way, he will endeavor to use any and all means to reference his side projects on the Presley page as he knows that this is the only way that they will get 'traffic'. Many of the problems comes from his selective use of quotation. That is, he will use a quotation from one source out of context in order to justify his position. For example, he quotes Peter Guralnik [thusly] yet he fails to put the quote in context. Guralnik goes into tremendous detail about Presleys many sexual liasons with numerous women but he also notes how drugs and exhaustion curbed that libido. Onefortyone takes these things out of context in order to push his overt agenda. By not putting comments in context and by overly relying on his interpretation of secondary sources he has basically poisoned the article.

Moreover, his favorite tactic is to quote from an obscure [source (most of this section)] and then claim that it is well sourced. There is very little that another editor can do other than to try and sift through the the volumes that he has quoted many of them fairly obscure academic studies. As has been pointed out before, he has been banned from all biographies for fraudulent citations. For example, he stopped citing to Michael T. Bertrand's book Race, Rock, and Elvis when another user pointed out to him that the book didn't say what he claimed it said [here] and [[407]]. So when he is challenged he tends to back away from his latest 'source'. He has tried to incoporate an unpublished manuscript as one of his many 'well sourced edits'. THe user will also attempt to use the fact that an issue has been [mentioned ]by a reputable biographer to butrress his blowing up the issue to make it more important than it actually was. The user's entire [talk page] is a testament to his fixation on this issue.

He has created a culture of fear and hostility (that I detail below)around this article. When compared to other articles of a similar vein such as John Lennon the Presley article lacks credibility and lends weight to criticisms of Wikipedia itself. There have been thousands of articles and books written about Presley and he may be one of the most(if not the most) publicized and written about celebrities ever. It's not like we are talking about an obscure, ancient figure here. Presley's life was well documented so it doesn't make sense to delve into any and all secondary sources, to selective quote from them and then to highlight only the most salacious sources in an encyclopeida. He was an odd guy but it's not our role to delve so deeply into his life such that we resort to conjecture.

Another favoured tactic of User Onefortyone is to take an obscure secondary source (or just add his own conjecture) and then buttress it with quotes from a reputable source such as Guralnik (See [here]. It's a platant attempt to cover orginal research/dubious content with reputable research and content. A great example of this would be his additions regarding Nick Adams. Despite the fact that Guralnik never even suggests that Adams and Preley were anything other than friends, Onefortyone will add a salacious comments on the Nick Adams page (see [here]and then do his best to support all mentions of Adams by credible sources such as Guralnik's. So a topic that perhaps takes up .0001% in a reputable biography of Presley will suddenly account for a disproportionate percentage of the article (for example, there are people mentioned more often than Adams in Guralnik's books who do not even appear in the article. Further, the "blackmail attempt" is merely one page out of 663 in the FBI files of Presley and is briefly referenced in Guralnik's two books yet it warrants it's own [section] per User Onefortyone. So he lends disproportionate weight to secondary sources that support his position or that he can twist into supporting his position. Looking at the actual FBI files, for example, the blackmail attempt is a minor issue (at best) and is treated as such (when treated at all) by reputable biographers. With Onefortyone's agenda, however, it becomes a major issue. As I noted, when compared to other biographies it really does a disservice to Wikipedia.

I've tried to be as concise as possible because this really is a re-tread insofar as Onefortyone has been banned before for the very same antics that have led to this arbitration. Whilst he may have gotten cleverer with his edits the end result is still the same.

[edit] Onefortyone as a bully

One of the more sinister methods employed by this user is his bullying of other users who dare to question his edits. Put simply, he is a bully another example of an editor who actually tried to work with him. A user who suggested that he had breached his arbcom block was, naturally enough, accused of being another sock puppet whereas another user was also instantly accused of being yet another sock puppet. These actions go against a central theme of Wikipeida which is to assume good faith.

He has been roundly criticzed by his own mentor (who was finally fed up with his antics and by another Editor here. His mentor pointed out that there no internation Elvis cabal and/or cult (an issue that appears to occupy Onefortyone intensely) removing his edits. He is overly aggressive with anyone who [questions]his edits. I myself suffered similar treatment at his hands. The ban was lifted but it was not a fun experience.

I am more than willing to back away from this article but it appears that bullying tactics have allowed a user to dominate an article simply to push his own agenda.

[edit] Further evidence/reply by Onefortyone

[edit] Other false claims by Lochdale

There is another false claim made by Lochdale. In one of his statements above, he alleges that Onefortyone

stopped citing to Michael T. Bertrand's book Race, Rock, and Elvis when another user pointed out to him that the book didn't say what he claimed it said.

Truth be told, I didn't stop citing from that book. See this edit, this discussion or this one, and this contribution. Significantly, this other user mentioned by Lochdale is IP 207.67.145.214 alias [BookMind], who only appeared on the Wikipedia scene for a short time in order to delete passages written by Onefortyone from the Elvis Presley article (see [408]) and to add some material to the same page. What is more, IP 207.67.145.214 alias BookMind falsely claimed to have found a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth page which was created by me (see [409] and [410]). Very interesting indeed for a new user. Thus, there is much suspicion that this user may be identical with Ted Wilkes, who also contributed at that time to Elvis-related topics under the name of User:Duisburg Dude in order to circumvent his ban. See [411]. Be that as it may, concerning the race controversy, IP 207.67.145.214 has only mentioned a website by the University of Illinois Press. This means that this user didn't read Bertrand's book, Race, Rock and Elvis, whereas I have directly quoted from the book and another source to show that there were indeed accusations by American black people that Elvis allegedly said, "All I want from blacks is for them to buy my records and shine my shoes." These accusations and the subsequent controversies are well documented in Bertrand's book. It should be noted that I further added that Bertrand is of the opinion "that the racial aspersion was fabricated" and, on the other hand, "also documents black enthusiasm for Elvis and cites the racially mixed audiences that flocked to the new music at a time when adults expected separate performances for black and white audiences." See [412].

Furthermore, there is also the accusation that I fail to put quotes in context. For instance, Lochdale falsely claims,

Guralnik goes into tremendous detail about Presleys many sexual liasons with numerous women but he also notes how drugs and exhaustion curbed that libido. Onefortyone takes these things out of context in order to push his overt agenda. By not putting comments in context and by overly relying on his interpretation of secondary sources he has basically poisoned the article.

In fact, I have included the following quote from Guralnick's Elvis biography in the "Relationships" section of the Elvis Presley article:

Guralnick writes that for "the more experienced girls it wasn't like with other Hollywood stars or even with other more sophisticated boys they knew." Although they offered to do things for Presley, "he wasn't really interested."

Here is a fuller quote from page 415 of Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis: after saying that "Elvis loved the entourage" and that the singer and his guys "went out to Russ' beach house one or two more times...", Guralnick writes,

He was still seeing Yvonne Lime occasionally, but he was dating Anne Neyland, a former Miss Texas whom he had met on the MGM lot, and Venetia Stevenson, too, when a rumor that he was about to marry Yvonne in Acapulco broke at the end of May. "When I get married," he told the press, after the Colonel 's official denials, "it'll be no secret. I'll get married in my hometown of Memphis, and the whole town'll be there." He wasn't really serious about anyone for the time being, though. He was enjoying the single life, and when he got bored he just had to tell the guys to hunt up some girls in the lobby of the hotel. He would have them brought up to the suite, offered one observer, "and Elvis would go in the other room, he'd go in the bedroom or somewhere, and then when they came back with the girls, the girls would sit there for maybe ten or fifteen minutes, and finally one of the cousins would go in the bedroom and come out himself and another ten minutes would go by - and then in would come Elvis. And there would be like a silence, and then the cousins would say, 'Oh, Mary Jane, this is Elvis,' and the girls would be totally gone." For the more experienced girls it wasn't like with other Hollywood stars or even with other more sophisticated boys they knew. They offered to do things for him, but he wasn't really interested. What he liked to do was to lie in bed and watch television and eat and talk all night - the companionship seemed as important for him as the sex ...

So the short quote I have given is a good summary of what actually happened, as we don't need to go into all the details in the Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, Lochdale falsely claims that "the 'blackmail attempt' is merely one page out of 663 in the FBI files of Presley." In fact, the "major extortion attempt", as Thomas Fensch calls it, gets more than a dozen pages in the FBI files. See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), p.30-34, and the many original documents concerning the case presented in the appendix of this book

So much for the false statements by Lochdale above. Onefortyone 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Further Evidence/Reply by Lochdale

[edit] Example of User Onefortyone's "selective" quotation

Not to belabour the point as I don't want this to turn into a screed but Onefortyone mentions the following:

"Lochdale frequently claims that Nick Adams wasn't a close friend to Elvis Presley and that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together"."

I made that point as a refutation to Onefortyone's assertion that Adams and Presley were lovers not that they were never actually friends. By together it was patently clear that I meant sexual relations. Again, he has a knack of taking things out of context and using them against people.

I think that regardless of how this arbitration goes I just don't think that issue is going to go away. I think that other editors have had the same problems with this User and I doubt it is going to go away. For the record, I'm not even that much of a Presley fan! Lochdale 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the Presley article was proposed as a featured article and I believe the multiple-users responses sum up the general consensus on the quality of the article. Lochdale 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Onefortyone

These diffs clearly contradict the above statement by Lochdale concerning Presley's friendship with Nick Adams: [413]), [414], [415], [416]. Onefortyone 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Elvis_Evidence_099a.html"