Talk:Personal relationships of Elvis Presley

Fair use rationale for Image:Elvispriscillalisa.jpg

Image:Elvispriscillalisa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Matthew Verbin"

Search this page for "Matthew Verbin" and search the whole of Wikipedia and Google for the same name. He has posted on many wikis a bunch of nonsense, none of which, I suspect, is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.227.222 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the name "Matthew Verbin" from the article. Onefortyone (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Alanna Nash and homosexual relationships"

How would she know that Elvis would soil himself in bed, or try to have sex with groupies? How is that supported by earlier testaments that state Elvis "may" have never have had sex again due to his nature? I don't believe such content to be viable, seeing that it's entirely different than stating an author of a book called him a pervert, as opposed to saying he actually is one. It's a direct contradiction of the statement beforehand, in which it shouldn't be proposed as viable.

The next thing is the homosexual relationships, in which there's not a single shred of evidence, aside from authors/journalists with no citations. The article is worded as speculation of a homosexual relationship, but isn't outwardly defined as speculation in itself. It subtly shifts from being regarded as speculation to being claimed as factual. None of those sources are reliable in the slightest, seeing that they're all rumors or assumptions being covered without actual citations from the authors. Calling Elvis a homosexual in drag is a completely ridiculous statement, and subjective at that. He looks nothing like a man or homosexual, or even a metrosexual in drag. The homosexual claims from Darwin Porter and former New York Times reporter Danforth Prince and actor Sal Mineo are basing their evidence entirely on rumors, which hold no weight whatsoever. Mineo was a homosexual himself, a very peculiar one, one that was likely attracted to Presley, granted I have no evidence for that, but neither does Mineo's claim, therefore my word on that shouldn't be added int he article any more than his.

The homosexual allegations shouldn't be rewritten in a similar mannerism as the Michael Jackson child molestation allegations, treated for what they are, allegations. Only presentable facts should be added to the article, all of which following Wikipedia's guidelines. Stating that unreliable sources state Presley and Adams had some form of sex, is clearly not fit for this article, because they're allegations being presented as fact. I've edited out these claims for just those reasons, feel free to rewrite them to the wiki's standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Adams_(actor)#Elvis_Presley Follow this article as an example on how to present the allegations. HCYS (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraphs you have removed are well sourced. Concerning Elvis's supposed bisexuality, there is an additional source: William Dakota, The Gossip Columnist (2010). Dakota worked as a fan mail secretary for Elvis's best friend, Nick Adams. On Adams and Elvis, see also Randall Riese, The Unabridged James Dean: His Life and Legacy from A to Z (1991), p.11 and 401. Onefortyone (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A gossip columnist is not a highly reliable source, regardless; James Dean and Nick Adam's articles should be set as examples. There's a sure fire difference in stating an author claims something and blatantly implying something. Also note Nash's blunt contradiction in her own work, surely you jest. Furthermore, the aforementioned should be treated as allegations, just like the Michael Jackson molestation article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be an exercise in WP:I just don’t like it. We should base our arguments upon what independent sources say, not upon our personal likes and dislikes. Nash is certainly a reliable source. Her study is based on accounts of various friends and acquaintances of Elvis, among them the Memphis Mafia members, who indeed have witnessed that Elvis soiled himself in bed when he had girls in his bedroom and that eager groupies expected a hot night with the sex symbol but found instead that he was unable to perform sexually. This does not mean that Elvis actually tried to have sex with these girls. Several sources say they were only talking or, according to Alan Fortas, "they would all lie down together and cuddle. But what went on was horseplay, not foreplay." So I do not see that there is "blunt contradiction" in Nash's work.

According to Wikipedia policies, sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. William Dakota is a reliable source because he is an eyewitness who worked for Elvis's best friend, Nick Adams. He has recently published a book of more than 500 pages including a big chapter on Nick Adams in which he states that Elvis was bisexual.

If you disagree with some points of view expressed in the article, don't just delete it, especially in view of the fact that what you have removed are direct quotes from published sources such as Nash and Goldman - sources that are supported by academics such as Marjorie Garber. Rather, try to find another source that explicitly contradicts the cited sources. Note that Wikipedia has a policy on Verifiability.

I have now rewritten and rearranged some parts of the paragraphs discussed. Onefortyone (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nash's contradicting statements are among Elvis being one to shy away from sexual affairs, but having sex with groupies and soiling himself. That's a blatant contradiction, seeing if Elvis wouldn't have sex with anyone, then why would he be having sex with groupies while not having sex? My issue isn't with claims of Elvis being bisexual, but in the way it's written. Again, allegations should be treated for what they are, allegations. The article demeans itself in a way that proclaims such as fact, when clearly allegations are not facts. Nick Adam's article and James Dean's article, both treat the allegations as allegations, much like the Michael Jackson child molestation allegations. This article however gives lead to assert it as factual. There's a surefire way to distinguish between fact and claim in reading, surely you possess this skill. Also for the record, Goldman has no credibly in comparison to other authors, namely Guralnick. However that's neither here nor there. The issue at hand is the way it's written, feel free to propose a new way to implement the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nash's statements do not contradict each other as she only says that some groupies wanted to have sex with Elvis but the singer wasn't willing to have sex with them because of his impotence. All other statements in the text are also well sourced. Goldman's Elvis is certainly a reliable source. According to a review in the Rolling Stone magazine of October 21, 1981, it is "a poignant book, the result of Goldman's winning the trust and confidence of hundreds of sources, including many of Elvis' closest friends. It is also an intimate look at a side of Elvis that few even suspected existed. Many people will find some of the revelations unpleasant and view them as a needless and harmful invasion of privacy. Yet, such revelations comprise a truth about modern American heroism and success. The fact is that somehow inherent in Elvis' great fame as an American ideal and idol is a contradiction that was the seed of destruction." Even Greil Marcus, in his more critical review of the book, admits that Goldman has significantly shown that "Elvis Presley built his own world...where the promise was that every fear, pain, doubt, and wish could be washed away with money, sex, drugs, and the bought approval of yes-men..." And Marcus further admits that the book "has been taken seriously. Despite some partially negative or carping notices, the reviewing media have accepted the book as it presents itself—as the last book we will need about Elvis Presley." This means that Professor Goldman's opinion can be cited in the Wikipedia article, especially in view of the fact that academics such as Marjorie Garber support his view. Onefortyone (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn what "impotence" means. That's a sexual dysfunction, not the will to not have sex because of personal choices; or simply not having a libido. Nash states Elvis slept with groupies and soiled himself in bed with them, but yet she contradicts herself by saying that Elvis never slept with groupies. That's a very blatant contraction. If you can't understand that Goldman isn't the most reliable source in the world, that's your problem. I've stated credible authors and why allegations don't work unless they're treated as allegations. You also state all these people apparently praise this credibility, when it has nothing to do with his reliability on the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Nash says in her essay that some groupies wanted to have sex with Elvis, but the singer, who knew that he was impotent at that time, wasn't willing to have sex with them. She didn't say that he slept with these groupies, but she says that he soiled himself in bed and that the groupies (who were in his bedroom talking and cuddling with him the whole night and afterwards nodded in his bed) noticed this. Nash is here dealing with the later Elvis of the 70s. In his younger years, he may occasionally have had sex with groupies, as Nash points out in her book that Elvis separated his women: the girls at home (virginal innocents to be protected and molded into his ideal of young womanhood), and the girls on the road (sexually eager fans, showgirls, and strippers). However, many of these girls were disappointed with what happened in Elvis's bedroom. As Guralnick writes: 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. What he liked to do was to lie in bed and watch television and eat and talk all night..." In the current version of the article it is clearly said who made the statements: "According to Alanna Nash (or Albert Goldman)...", "Professor Goldman has suggested...", "William Dakota claims...", etc. This is fully in line Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Onefortyone (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you're wrong. Impotent =/= the will to deny sexual encounters or willfully not have a libido. The article does not specify that Elvis would have women over to cuddle and such, if that's to be added, then great, no issue or contradiction. That's just a poorly worded part on the editor. Secondly, how can this even be proved? It can't, therefore it's an allegation, much like the Michael Jackson molestation charges, and that's how they should be treated, much like the homosexual allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is indeed an exercise in "Wikipedia:I just don’t like it." Therefore, you are frequently removing well-sourced information. According to eyewitness Alan Fortas, some of the girls slipped into Elvis's bedroom "for rambunctious pillow fights. Sometimes they would all sit cross-legged with him on the bed, flipping through his fan magazines or admiring his stuffed-animal collection. Often they would all lie down together and cuddle. But what went on was horseplay, not foreplay." Interestingly, according to Billy Smith, Dr Nick, Elvis's personal physician for the last 10 years of his life, "hinted to an editor at one of the tabloids that Elvis was gay." See Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995), p.752. Smith is of the opinion that the doctor thought this information would sell his story. However, Dr Nick certainly knew a lot of things that were going on behind closed doors. Onefortyone (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, like usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what an allegation versus a claim and factual evidence is. You're not getting your way, you've lost this argument. I'm finished textually debating this, due to you utter incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Finstad's Child Bride

Finstad is certainly a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. ElvisFan1981 has falsely claimed that Priscilla successfully sued Finstad over several accounts in her book, Child Bride, making it a very unreliable source. This is not true. Priscilla did not successfully sue Finstad, as the author was not part of the lawsuit. Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. However, in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny." Onefortyone (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And you know what went on in this room until 1am because you were there? Finstad was there? Currie Grant was there? I don't think so, as none of us were there. For all we know they played scrabble. Finstad may not have been part of the lawsuit, but the information in her book was questioned and that makes the entire source questionable. It doesn't excuse the fact, also, that you fail to provide page numbers. It's not good enough to just say it's included in the book, as no one has the time to read an entire book to find one word/sentence/paragraph relating to the supposed information placed within the article. I've also seen in the past, and in this article, that you have a very, very worrying way of taking something from a book and twisting it to make it appear to mean something else. We've discussed the Finstad book before and this case, and if I recall correctly I told you that you had to provide evidence that the content hadn't been removed from the book after the court case. The quote about Finstad and her publishers standing by the information in the book is from a press release before the case was finished.

This entire article is filled with rumour, tabloid-style accusations, and very questionable information from some very unreliable and untrustworthy sources. It's not so much an article about Presley's personal relationships, it's more like a "The Gay Life of Elvis Presley" article, where absolutely none of the information actually proves he had a homosexual bone in his body. You change your arguments constantly to fit in with your current state of attack... one moment he's a gay man, the next he's only into teenage girls, the next he was having sex with his mother, then all of a sudden he isn't at all interested in sex with anyone. But wait, he does love sex it just doesn't include intercourse. Oh no, wait again, he does love intercourse, just not with women who have had children. Oh no, wait a minute, he did have sex with a few women who had had children. Oh, but wait again, he was obviously gay because there are rumours from the 1950s. Oh no, wait a second, he was actually prejudiced against homosexuals, and he hated being touched by men in any way. What will it be tomorrow? That he had an interest in Alien sex? Wikipedia, as someone else has stated in the past, is not a tabloid newspaper. It's an encyclopaedia, and should be presented as such. The absolute fact of the matter is that, ironically, there are no facts about Elvis' alleged homosexuality, only rumour and accusations. That is just not good enough, Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip site and should not be treated as such. In the interest of neutrality I am willing to accept that these rumours might have a place here to balance out the article, but that does not give you, or anyone, the right to word things in your own POV and purposely cherry pick wording to suggest something that a source does not actually state, nor the right to hide the full disclosure in the notes section. This is not the first time your actions and intentions have been questioned, and I'm fairly certain it won't be the last. From what I've known of you over the last few years you have a very clear agenda, and it very rarely involves facts. NNTSM. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, I am frequently citing what the sources say. Sometimes, these sources may contradict each other. Therefore, in the interest of neutrality, the article cites these different opinions. You are the person who made the false claim that Priscilla successfully sued Finstad over several accounts in her book (see above), and in some cases, you also do not tell the full story. So what is your problem? By the way, rumors and accusations are also part of a celebrity's history, especially in view of the fact that they are dealt with by many different authors in books and even academic studies on Elvis, not only in tabloid newspapers. Onefortyone (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You are frequently citing from sources and on many occasions picking parts that are out of context without the rest of what the sources say. Did you see the Elvis Talk Page tonight? I'm not the only one who thinks that Finstad is unreliable. I didn't make "false claims", I made a mistake about the fact that Finstad was part of the lawsuit, something I realised after I'd written it. As you know I can't alter something I've written in the comment box once it's there. The point is, her whole book is questionable and is therefore not reliable. I always tell the full story, making sure that if a source provides both sides of an argument that I use both sides, usually with the word "However....." to bridge the gap. How many times have I noticed you put a sentence or part of a sentence from a source that has failed to fully emphasise the real point? Far too many to mention, including in this article yesterday. I own the sources, I can read the whole thing. I don't rely on a "snippet view" from Google books which limits my overall understanding of the source. Can you say the same? I'm fully aware that rumours and accusations are part of an entertainers history. I accept that Elvis had his flaws. I'm a fan, not a psycho-fan. I accept that he was a human being, that he made many mistakes in his life and career, and that he was the subject of many, many rumours and accusations. However, when these rumours and accusations are absolutely considered false by those who were actually there, knew the entertainer in question, and have no real evidence except hearsay to back them up, it's important to realise whether or not they are worth spending time on. I am not interested in painting Elvis in the best possible light, but I am also not interested in bashing him at every turn. You, on the other hand, appear to only be interested in one thing, as pointed out by many other editors over the years. What is your problem? For someone who appears to have a huge dislike for the subject, you spend an awful lot of time on it. You claim it's because you want to point out the truth, yet you very rarely provide anything that is actual "truth". Interesting. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"her whole book is questionable and is therefore not reliable"? This is again a false statement, as Finstad has interviewed many people who knew Priscilla and Elvis well, not only Currie Grant, whose statements may also be true, as Alanna Nash has recently shown. Finstad has written a well-researched study questioning many accounts to be found in Priscilla's book. Therefore, her publication is important. Concerning my contributions, there is only one problem for Elvis fans: I am not constantly singing the praise of the megastar because I have a more critical view of the singer, and I am more interested in his personal life and the problems he had from a psychological point of view - a possible view supported by several modern gender studies. As for my intention to point out the truth, I have provided many sources supporting the view that Elvis was not the originator of Rockabilly. See Talk:Elvis Presley. However, it seems that some Wikipedians do not like the evidence I have presented. Onefortyone (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why am I not the only one who thinks it's unreliable? You very rarely provide "evidence" of anything except rumours, most of which are heavily denied and all but proven to be false by the actual "evidence". I am also not constantly singing the praises of Elvis. I have many times made edits to articles that have included negative comment, sometimes to actually balance out an over-the-top praising of the subject. I believe in fairness and facts, not psychobabble that really has only one person's interest at heart; the author of the piece. I don't think I've ever seen you add anything positive about Elvis or a subject related to him, either for the sake of it or to balance an article. It's always negative rumour or opinion that doesn't actually prove anything. I have praised your ability to edit in the past, I have told you that you have an excellent ability to search for and find almost anything you want to, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with your constant bashing of someone who is no longer able to defend themselves, especially when it's all based on rumour. Perhaps if you had more of an interest in other articles and subjects instead of just Elvis, I might accept that you are just "more critical" of Elvis than most editors appear to be, but your almost absolute focus on one subject makes your intentions quite obvious, in my opinion. I no longer believe that you are interested in "truth" or, as you've just claimed, Elvis' "personal life and the problems he had from a psychological point of view". Other editors in the past have suggested that you start to focus on other subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with Elvis, because they too found your focus and intentions to be questionable. The fact that you fail to drop something after it's been discussed to death also suggests you have ulterior motives, or it could at least look that way to some. The fact that you bounce from one accusation to another, almost on a constant shuffle/repeat mode, also makes it very suspicious to some. I've seen you deny accusations by other editors that you are simply a "troll" or "baiting" people, but I sometimes wonder what else it could be. For the record, I'm not accusing you of it myself, I'm just pointing out that it sometimes does appear to be your main intention, whether you intend it to look that way or not. Now, why don't you do some excellent research on some other people who were interested in "younger women", "drugs", "were close to their mothers", or were "rumoured to be gay" to help improve those articles and make them more neutral? My main edits have been on Elvis, simply because it's the subject I know the most about and have sources for, but I don't limit it solely to that subject. I attempt to expand some, improve them, add citations and content that is able to give a reader as much of the true facts as possible, but I also find improving other articles to be worthwhile and necessary to improve my experience on wikipedia. I think it would do you good, and wikipedia good, for you to try the same. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good idea, as I am too deeply interested in Elvis's personal life and in providing information or other help that may be important for improving the Elvis articles. And you may not believe it: I like the singer and his problems. However, as you may have seen, I am not constantly editing Elvis pages, as I have also other things to do. ;-) Onefortyone (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We all have other things to do, this is just a hobby to pass the time. It's your own personal choice what you do, and therefore you deserve everything you get, positive/negative, as we all do. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Interestingly, that makes large chunks of this article liable for deletion. After all, we have to stick to Wikipedia Standards. I'm sure I'll find some time soon to get around to cleaning the article up to meet the standards required. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

According to these standards, Finstad’s book is a reliable source. It is written by a reputable biographer, journalist and lawyer who has received the Frank Wardlaw Prize in 1984 for literary excellence for her first book. The book is well sourced, as the author spent three years researching and writing the first biography of Priscilla Presley, thereby providing a detailed account of Priscilla’s childhood, including Priscilla’s discovery of her true father at eleven, her courtship by Elvis when she was 14 years old, their marriage, and her management of Elvis Presley Enterprises after their divorce and his death. The study is based on extensive interviews with Priscilla herself, her family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis’s circle in Memphis and in Germany. Harmony Books, which is part of The Crown Publishing Group, a subsidiary of Random House (the world's largest book publisher publishing across several categories including fiction, non-fiction, biography, autobiography and memoir, cooking, health, business, and lifestyle) published Child Bride in 1997; Century London, a successful publisher of bestselling authors, published the book in the U.K. There can be no doubt that Finstad's book is a reliable source. Onefortyone (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The book relies "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" about a person or "persons living or dead". I think that's quite clear. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The book is well researched and based on many eyewitness accounts, including Priscilla's own statements. Onefortyone (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's mainly "rumors and personal opinions" from those she interviewed. "Eyewitness accounts"? Really? So people witnessed Priscilla's virginity being lost, or any of her sexual encounters? People actually witnessed every sexual encounter, or not, that Elvis had? People witnessed the homosexual encounters that he supposedly had? There are many parts of this article that rely heavily on "rumors and personal opinions" about "persons living or dead". It's quite clear what has to be done. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What you have deleted is well sourced, as it has been published by reputable authors. You have even removed Priscilla's own statement (which was quoted by Finstad) from the article: "At first I took this personally, but even the relationships he had after me ... were not consummated. Long-term relationships. Like the relationship with Ginger ... there really wasn't sex involved." This is a clear statement concerning Priscilla's relationship with Elvis that should not be removed! Onefortyone (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I deleted information that came from a questionable source that relies "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" about "persons living or dead". The source as a whole is questionable, not just parts of it. Therefore, it's not suitable for the article. Several other sources within the article will also be removed for the same reasons. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reform needed?

On a side note, why are all of his male friends grouped together? What about his father, or other friends? What about the relationship he had with his stillborn brother, that he'd talk to as a kid? Why is it acceptable for each woman (which is heavily incomplete as it is) to have their own part in the article, but when it comes to the males, it's all grouped together? This article needs a heavy reform, as it certainly isn't B-quality. I'd like to reform it, but I have a few other Wiki projects going on at the moment. KirbyPresley (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Goldman quotes in every section?

I don't think that is necessary to have Goldman in every section as if he was the guru. The Goldman book is a shameless "tell-all" and should not be taken seriously as a source. Most of the book itself consists of Goldman's jealous opinions of Presley that have little basis in reality. If you read the book you'll notice he didn't cite much of it. Also, I don't think Goldman's slam journalism was even taken seriously. If there's no problem with it I may remove a couple of the more speculative quotes. I think "According to Albert Goldman, Elvis looked like "a homosexual in drag" and may have been "a latent or active homosexual." really does not belong and is a display of ignorance and hatred moreso than an encyclopedic entry. UselessToRemain (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)