Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Elvis is Dead?

I came here surprised to find that this article had absolutely no mention of the widely held belief that Elvis is still alive. Given the widespread nature of this view (even if often referred to jokingly) and what I assume would be a large pool of resources documenting this, wouldn't this merit inclusion? On a slightly tongue-in-cheek note, but strangely halfway seriously, does this article violate WP:BLP as Elvis should be assumed to be living?

"Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise (for example, persons born prior to 1885 can be safely assumed dead)."

Cmiych (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a "widely-held" belief; some crackpots may believe this, but their claims shatter into nothingness when tested. The only "sources" taking this seriously are the usual lunatics and per WP:REDFLAG, we ignore them. Rodhullandemu 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See Elvis Presley phenomenon which documents (albeit relatively poorly) the belief. I know I'm kinda playing devil's advocate with the BLP claim, but do the theories about his death not at least justify inclusion in the main article? Growing up in Memphis, TN I've seen the candlelight vigil's and the belief is more prevalent than you would believe (I know, that original research, just pointing it out). Note: I do not believe Elvis is alive. Cmiych (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul is dead, but Elvis is alive ... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah :)

The Legacy section contains a link to Elvis Presley phenomenon. I'd say the link is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go as far to sugest Elvis Presley IS NOT dead is actually alive and to say this article should be edited accordingly. Also I have strong evidence to suggest that my theory IS NOT original reseach and is reliably sourced. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Present such evidence here for discussion first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my evidence[1] . Jack Quinn UK (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, that "evidence" is the same Wikipedia article that was discussed above. We can't cite our own articles as a reliable source. As to the content, I still don't think it would be appropriate to bloat the main article with any more details about that; the existing link is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PL290 you are correct. Discussion terminated. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discography section

While other editors ably improve the primary text of the article, I thought I'd focus on the ancillary material: images (where I already did a considerable amount of work today), audio samples (the article's crying out for some), and the "Discography" chart, which I'd like to address here. In short, I'd like to radically revise it to cover all of Presley's #1 albums and singles. At some point, it was decided to include chart positions from three charts and I think that choice is worth maintaining: the primary U.S. chart; the U.S. genre chart with which Presley was most identified (country); and the most significant overseas chart (U.K.)--I'd guess a #1 on the U.S. country is roughly equivalent in sales to a #1 on the main U.K. chart, maybe even higher. Anyway, here's my rationale:

(1) Presley is historically--commercially and aesthetically--more important as a singles artist than an album artist. I don't believe any major music historian or critic differs with that basic perspective. To cover albums and not singles in his summary discography is thus historically inappropriate.

(2) While, in terms of albums alone, a focus on official "studio" albums is appropriate in the case of many artists we cover, it's simply not in the case of Presley. For most of the 1960s, he focused on and his recording career was identified with soundtrack albums. For the most part, in the 1970s his biggest, most heavily promoted LP releases were concert, not studio, albums. At a finer level of detail, so-called original studio albums such as the debut actually compile many previously recorded tracks, while for better (never) or worse (usually much worse) several of the soundtrack albums reflect more unified recording efforts. We also avoid in this way such complications as how to classify From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis, whose lead LP is a live album and whose backing, studio LP is a (superb!) collection of B-sides and outtakes. Admittedly, with this approach we lose his three gospel albums from the discography (none hit #1), but perhaps that absence will encourage the greater coverage in the primary text that they deserve. On the other hand, this approach gains us such important releases as Aloha from Hawaii: Via Satellite and ELV1S (appropriately reflecting his exceptional posthumous popularity).

(3) The existing chart is entirely redundant of the lead chart in Elvis Presley discography. There's little point to that.

I'll be interested to hear what people think about my proposal. DocKino (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. In the absence of any objections I suggest you proceed along those lines and see what falls out. PL290 (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I done done it. DocKino (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I suggest we also trim the 4-line "For... see..." to a single "See also" hatnote and I'll do that in a mo. PL290 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that you're glossing over his gospel music. 74 songs and 3 Grammy-winning albums is really significant output. This number doesn't even include his Christmas songs. Plus Amazing Grace after his passing. All his backup groups were gospel singers: The Imperials, the Stamps, The Sweet Inspirations, The Jordannaires. Elvis' whole life was gospel music, the rest was just a depressing job, under the thumb of Col.Parker. Is there any chance we could include the stuff he really liked to do? The article looks really unbalanced without it. Santamoly (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Presley's connection to gospel music is "glossed over". The article currently includes the following:

• The family attended an Assembly of God church where he found his initial musical inspiration.
• The Southern Gospel singer Jake Hess, one of his favorite performers, was a significant influence on his ballad-singing style. He was a regular audience member at the monthly All-Night Singings downtown, where many of the white gospel groups that performed reflected the influence of African American spiritual music. He adored the music of black gospel singer Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
• To close, displaying his range and defying Sullivan's wishes, Presley sang a gentle black spiritual, "Peace in the Valley".
• His first LP of sacred material, His Hand in Mine, followed two months later. It reached number 13 on the U.S. pop chart and number 3 in Great Britain, remarkable figures for a gospel album.
• During a five-year span—1964 through 1968—Presley had only one top ten hit: "Crying in the Chapel" (1965), a gospel number recorded back in 1960.
• Only one LP of new material by Presley was issued: the gospel album How Great Thou Art (1967). It won him his first Grammy Award, for Best Sacred Performance. As described in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, Presley was "arguably the greatest white gospel singer of his time [and] really the last rock & roll artist to make gospel as vital a component of his musical personality as his secular songs."
• His gospel album He Touched Me, released that month, would earn him his second Grammy Award, for Best Inspirational Performance.
• Recorded on March 20, it included a version of "How Great Thou Art" that would win Presley his third and final competitive Grammy Award. (All three of his competitive Grammy wins—out of 14 total nominations—were for gospel recordings.)
• Presley's earliest musical influence came from gospel. His mother recalled that from the age of two, at the Assembly of God church in Tupelo attended by the family, "he would slide down off my lap, run into the aisle and scramble up to the platform. There he would stand looking at the choir and trying to sing with them." Later, the family sang together as a gospel trio. In Memphis, Presley frequently attended all-night gospel singings at the Ellis Auditorium, where groups such as the Statesmen Quartet led the music in a style that, Guralnick suggests, sowed the seeds of Presley's future stage act:

The Statesmen were an electric combination ... featuring some of the most thrillingly emotive singing and daringly unconventional showmanship in the entertainment world ... dressed in suits that might have come out of the window of Lansky's. ... Bass singer Jim Wetherington, known universally as the Big Chief, maintained a steady bottom, ceaselessly jiggling first his left leg, then his right, with the material of the pants leg ballooning out and shimmering. "He went about as far as you could go in gospel music," said Jake Hess. "The women would jump up, just like they do for the pop shows." Preachers frequently objected to the lewd movements ... but audiences reacted with screams and swoons

• In 1957, his first gospel record was released, the four-song EP Peace in the Valley. Certified as a million seller, it became the top-selling gospel EP in recording history. Presley would record gospel periodically for the rest of his life.
• [Caption to audio sample of "Run On":] From How Great Thou Art (1967), a traditional song popular in the black gospel tradition. The arrangement evokes "the percussive style of the 1930's Golden Gate Quartet."
• Presley was always "able to duplicate the open, hoarse, ecstatic, screaming, shouting, wailing, reckless sound of the black rhythm-and-blues and gospel singers".
• Addressing his '68 Comeback Special audience, he said, "Rock 'n' roll music is basically gospel or rhythm and blues, or it sprang from that."

That accounting doesn't even include the references to his Christmas music. So: If this constitutes "glossing over", please tell us exactly what you're looking for, while remaining mindful that length limits mean we can't include everything we might like. DocKino (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis the Pelvis - clarification

I think the quote: "one of the most childish expressions I ever heard" omits the final words he spoke in that sentence, and should read something like: "one of the most childish expressions I ever heard coming from an adult." (my emphasis).

I don't have a cite for the latter version - spoken in an interview I think. Can anyone help with this? I think it's important, because Presley obviously didn't connect the expression with his fans - typically teenaged girls - whom I'm sure he would have forgiven for any light-hearted, if juvenile, expressions. Many thanks for any help - and a happy new year to you all!!Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no doubt in one of the countless books I've rummaged through and I do have the interview on CD somewhere (I think, I'm sure I've heard it?) Anyway, this site here lists a number of quotes including the one that you have above. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, here is a great link to the actual interview praise Youtube! lol I know that youtube isn't a suitable cite, but perhaps with the above link and actual audio evidence to back it up it can be included. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would (and do!) argue that, regardless of current policy, anything on YouTube that is "footage" of an event or a recording of an interview is "archival" in quality. I've made this argument in relation to what we can SEE Elvis doing in his TV appearances vs what people have WRITTEN about what he did. Surely, film, video, or a sound recording is a more primary source than a review or book that was written, in some cases, decades later, and completely misrepresents the actual event. I think it is only a matter of time before Wikipedia changes any policies to reflect the primacy of actual footage, where ever it is available as a "verifiable" source. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I certainly agree with you in theory--I cited a variety of multimedia recordings in the Sex Pistols article for the sourcing of accurate quotes and visual descriptions--but there is a legitimate concern about the stability of many items posted to YouTube. In any case, I found a "hard" source for the full quote, and added the YouTube ref as a supplement. DocKino (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise too. I recently tried to prove a certain actor appeared in a film, but because his role was uncredited, it wasn't mentioned in any reliable source. But of course, if you actually watched the film... Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work all--the full quote is a definite plus, and the YouTube link is the icing on the cake. PL290 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent change

"After the divorce, Presley became increasingly unwell, and prescription drugs exacerbated his health problems as well as affecting his mood and his stage act."

Without any evidence, this well-intentioned revision suggests Presley had underlying health issues that prescription drugs exacerbated. Available evidence suggests his health problems were probably caused by long-term drug abuse - and his bad diet, so this may need reverting or amending. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up--this was my change, and it seems we need to get to the bottom of exactly what is being said here. Previously we had, "After the divorce, Presley became increasingly unwell, with prescription drugs affecting his health and mood, as well as his stage act.". The combination of the linking word "with" with "increasingly" and "affecting" (positively or negatively?) leaves it unclear what effect prescription drugs had at that time, or their part in the overall story. Perhaps we should axe the sentence altogether, unless we can we identify a specific, prescription-drug-related development that occurred at that point. PL290 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Guralnick 1999, Presley was admitted to hospital in a semicomatose condition just 6 days after the divorce. The second half of the sentence under discussion is vague and inconsequential and breaks this immediacy—I've axed it. PL290 (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good move. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 21:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

On August 18 1972 Presley filed for divorce,(Guralnik/Jorgensen Day by Day p.312) but the couple weren't legally divorced until October 9 1973. (Day by Day p.329) PS. Happy New Year! ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will tweak accordingly in conjunction with another change I'm just making to that section. Happy New Year to you too (and everyone else)! PL290 (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of health issues

A good point raised previously by ElvisFan1981 is this line in the intro:

"Weight problems and prescription drug dependence precipitated his death in 1977 at the age of 42."

The question is whether this, especially the specific reference only to weight and drugs, adequately summaries everything that precipitated his death. I have my doubts after previously thinking it was OK, but more details have since been added about other specific health issues: liver damage, enlarged colon, etc. Any thoughts? Also do we need to have "National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences" in the same section, when Grammy links to this? Thanks. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had my eye on that line for a while. It used to say "health problems" and got changed to "weight problems" quite recently. Needs more thought to become comprehensive. PL290 (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a stab at improving it. I judge the word "weight" not to be key here, being an effect rather than a cause. Certainly a vicious circle, in that weight problems exacerbate health problems, but it's clear from the sources I've seen that the extraordinary bloating that occurred was not merely obesity but a severe disorder brought on by the drugs. I know it was recently changed from "health" to "weight" (by a drive-by editor) but I think mentioning weight in the lead misses the point. PL290 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the rockabilly?

The intro states Presley was one of the first performers of rockabilly, but there's no direct reference, or use of the term in relation, to Elvis in the rest of the article. We simply go from 'the sound' Philips was looking for to the actual Sun sessions, and then to 'rock and roll' - and rockabilly doesn't figure. Should this be addressed? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know enough about the history of Rockabilly to properly know the difference between that and all the other forms of music associated with Presley, but I would believe that he was considered Rockabilly early on in his career simply because they didn't know what else to class him. Possible? Of course, Rockabilly is also sometimes used to describe a song that has a very strong reverb effect, something many early Presley songs had at Sun. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember listenting to a couple of Wanda Jackson CD's a couple of years ago. This lady is noted as the "Queen of Rockabilly". The reason for my doing so, was because be were bringing her out for an event we organise each year. One of the CD'S I listened to, was her tribute to Elvis and she gave a brief interview about her involvement with Presley and if my memory serves correctly, she was saying back in 1955, they didn't really have a name for it just yet. I think she described it as Western Bop.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rockabilly article says:

“ When "That's All Right" was played on Memphis radio, listeners called to ask about the song. Nevertheless, from August 18, 1954 through December 8, 1954 "Blue Moon of Kentucky" was consistently charted at a higher position. [50] Nobody was sure what to call this music, so Elvis was described as “The Hillbilly Cat” and “King of Western Bop.” Over the next year, Elvis would record four more singles for Sun. Together, the upbeat numbers can be used as a touchstone for the rockabilly style: “nervously up tempo” (as Peter Guralnick describes it), with slap bass, fancy guitar picking, lots of echo, shouts of encouragement, and vocals full of histrionics such as hiccups, stutters, and swoops from falsetto to bass and back again.[51][52]

By the end of 1954 Elvis asked D.J. Fontana, who was the underutilized drummer for the Louisiana Hayride, "Would you go with us if we got any more dates?" Presley was now using drums,[53] as did many other rockabilly performers; drums were then uncommon in country music. Each of Presley's Sun singles combined a blues song on one side with a country song on the other, but both sung in the same vein.[54]

”

Guralnick mentions Hillbilly a lot and I suspect we need to make more of that, while including perhaps just one definite statement about Rockabilly rather than just mentioning it in passing—if it's to be retained in the lead, that is. As Jaye9 says, Rockabilly, being a fusion of Hillbilly and Rock 'n' Roll, was a fledgling thing in those days. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid (given the article's length, that is), what the article sorely needs is a "Musical style and evolution" section like that in The Beatles (though shorter, I should think) that would summarily explicate rockabilly, the classic rock 'n' roll sound of his early RCA sides, the straight pop that dominated in the 1960s, and the soul/country/rock hybrid of the 1970s. We also need to devote a paragraph to his voice--which is currently relegated to a one-sentence note referring the reader to WikiQuotes. He's now widely recognized as one of the great popular music singers, and we need to explain why. DocKino (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DocKino has, I feel, hit the nail on the head. I suggest a top-down approach whereby we add a stub section and then gradually add detail to it, along with any needed subsections, until it's right. PL290 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This quote, or variations of it, used to figure in the article, regarding his voice and singing ability:

"Elvis Presley has been described variously as a baritone and a tenor. An extraordinary compass - the so-called register - and a very wide range of vocal color have something to do with this divergence of opinion. The voice covers two octaves and a third, from the baritone low-G to the tenor high B, with an upward extension in falsetto to at least a D flat. Presley's best octave is in the middle, D-flat to D-flat, granting an extra full step up or down. Call him a high baritone. In "It's'now or never", (1960), he ends it in a full voice cadence (A, G, F), that has nothing to do with the vocal devices of R&B and Country. That A-note is hit right on the nose, and it is rendered less astonishing only by the number of tracks where he lands easy and accurate B-flats. Moreover, he has not been confined to one type of vocal production. In ballads and country songs he belts out full-voiced high G's and A's that an opera baritone might envy. He is a naturally assimilative stylist with a multiplicity of voices - in fact, Elvis' is an extraordinary voice, or many voices" - Henry Pleasants, "The Great American Popular Singers" (1974) page?

There are other wikiquotes relating to a musicological analysis. eg:

"With the way he was marketed, he didn't even need to be able to sing the way he could. But Elvis had talent, plain and simple. The guy had a variety in his vocal styles and approach, he could make more vocal tones, with just his voice, than a guitar player with 50 pedals and gadgets. If you never even saw the guy, you could plain feel, not just hear, the emotion and passion in his voice, and you are immediately taken in, one hundred percent. On the merit of vocals alone, he had more talent in the barbecue stuck in his teeth than the singers who sell millions of records do today".- Country singer Roger Wallace, in "Soapbox":

"He rarely over-sang when recording, delivering a vocal to suit the song. So, he can rasp and rage for "Jailhouse Rock", loudly accuse in "Hound Dog", bare his soul and beg on "Any Day Now" and sound quietly, sadly, worldly-wise on "Funny How Time Slips Away". This gift may explain why his music endures so powerfully and why his performances remain so easy to hear."- Paul Simpson, in "The rough guide to Elvis" Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Some of that stuff in the Rockabilly article used to be here, too, but has been lost along the way with the countless edits that go on. There is no doubt that the early, Sun phase is considered to be rockabilly. In fact people knowledgeable about the subect use that stuff as a definition of the style. (See Emory Univerity Rockin Country Style site if you are interested) Before going to RCA and "breaking out" Elvis was popular with young southern audiences, partly because he was doing stuff that sounded familiar, but different, than what they already knew. Blue Moon of Kentucky, a hughly popular Bill Monroe tune is a perfect example. By the time he did Hound Dog he had moved away from the style, although the musicologist whom I referred to regarding the "I got it from the blacks" quote wrote that he still influenced people making "rockabilly" songs. (Again, note that he got the idea for Hound Dog Freddie Bell and the Bellboys, a white group that was playing in Vegas when Evlis bombed there.) I intitally came here to try to find out about who did what and influenced whom years ago. I didn't find anything useful, and am still learning about it myself. I'll be sharing, and I think this is a good idea. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve it was interesting to read your comment that Elvis got the idea for Hound Dog Freddie Bell and the Bellboys. I have a CD called "The Complete Million Dollar Quartet" with Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash. When listening to tracks 6,7 & 8 Elvis is talking about this guy he saw in Vegas, he was a member of "Billy Ward & Dominoes". I am assuming that he saw this act when he bombed there in the 50's. Well he goes on and on about this singer and how he sang "Don't Be Cruel" and the guy did it much better then his version and that he could never sing it as well as him and he mentions he went back four times in row to see this group. When listening to these types of recordings, makes you want to send a copy to Mary J Blige and others like her and say LISTEN TO THIS.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I might follow up on that one day since it isn't mentioned in the current Don't Be Cruel article. People have no idea how often songs were "covered" by other musicians. Bill Haley's Comets sometimes performed Hound Dog, for example. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rik, may I respond to the above comment you made on Presley's voice and singing ability etc, I carn't help myself. Over the year's I have been asked this question, what made Presley so unique? I never knew how to respond. Or why are you a fan? I can only say that I am a music fan, who appreciates all types of music, that goes without saying. But what made Elvis unique? You know when you read something and it hits you and say to yourself, that's why. This is what I read many years ago by Kathy Westmorland and she answered my question, this is what she had to say: "When I was working with Elvis, I could not imagine how he could do it. He encouraged me to try it, to sing rock and then the head tones, and to switch vocally. He would use a whole different thought concept and a different set of muscels in the same night. I would compare it to a dancer doing an extremely modern dance, real rock and pop dance, and suddenly attempting to jump into Swan Lake, a ballet. The muscles you use are just different. In one dance you are trying to stretch the muscles out and in the next dance you are contracting those same muscles. Elvis freed me vocally and made me attempt to widen my range of songs, but I don't have a percentile of the versatility that Elvis had. The writer who said that Elvis had a weak voice also had a tin ear.

I happen to have been with the Metropolitan Opera and I have studied voice for 25 years. I know a strong voice when I hear it. Elvis' voice may have been untrained, and sometimes his vibrato would be weak or wobbly in places as any untrained singer's voice would be. But Elvis' voice was so strong and he had such a feeling and natural ability that he was able to do things with his voice that a trained singer could not or would not even try to do. And he did them all the time. He sang a high "B" natural wide open. Most baritones can't even reach a "G" without struggling". Source: "Elvis and Kathy" by Kathy Westmorland p.227 & 228 --Jaye9 (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"others deny it was Denny"

Afterwards, the singer was supposedly told by the Opry's Jim Denny to not give up his day job,[52] though others deny it was Denny who made that statement.[53]

Not sure this speculation deserves space in the article. I think if it's retained, it needs to expand to say what's going on. Currently we're left not knowing who "others" are (nor who they are "other" than), or whether such others attribute the statement to someone else or deny it was ever made. Currently we imply it was indeed made, but it's not clear whether this is really known. I suggest one of three things:

1. Afterwards, the singer was supposedly told by the Opry's Jim Denny to not give up his day job,[52] though others deny it was Denny who made that statement.[53]
2. Axe the sentence
3. Expand to address all the issues.

I don't really have a strong opinion which of these (or other) suggestions should be taken up, but something needs to change. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked this up in three separate books so far, trying to get to the bottom of this for you. Victor Adams' Elvis Encyclopaedia refers to it as a myth, although Presley was not impressed with Denny's insistence that he always liked the singer when they met again years later. Alanna Nash, writing in Elvis and the Memphis Mafia, again states that it has passed into legend as something Denny said, although again there is no concrete evidence to back it up. And thirdly, Elvis: Day by Day by Peter Guralnick and Ernst Jorgensen doesn't even mention it at all, and actually says it was a Bill Denny, manager of the Opry, who arranged the performance, not a Jim Denny. Forgetting the name difference (possibly just a printing mistake? I don't know any Jim or Bill Denny outside of reading about Presley) it seems to me that most are of the impression that Denny never really said any such thing. Possibly it was used by Parker later on for publicity reasons? Sounds great to say that possibly the greatest vocalist of the 20th century was told to go back to driving a truck? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To that end there's a more explicit example earlier, in May 1954; according to Gurlanick 1994 p. 83: after Presley's performance at the Hi Hat club, Eddie Bond told him "that he had better stick to driving a truck 'because you're never going to make it as a singer.'" So another option would be to work that in somewhere instead. PL290 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find, and it led me to this in Guralnick's Day by Day p.15:-

"May 15 1954 - Elvis and Dixie go to the Hi-Hat on South Third. Elvis is wearing his bolero jacket with a pink shirt and accompanies himself on the guitar, singing two songs. The try-out does not get him a job, and in later years Elvis will dramatize the rejection by saying that Eddie Bond told him to go back to driving a truck."

Make of that what you will, makes it even more confusing! lol ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Guralnick 1994 continues, "We were on a train going to Hollywood to make Jailhouse Rock, and Elvis said, 'I wonder what Eddie Bond thinks now. Man, that sonofabitch broke my heart.'" PL290 (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've substituted the Bond utterance. PL290 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This originally got included because it was a (in)famous story about rejecting Elvis. In Clayton & Heard's Elvis. By Those Who Knew Him Best (p. 49): Faron Young said, "I don't know how the hell it got started, [but someone said that Jim Denny told Elvis that he shouldn't give up truck driving]. ... I knew Jim Denny very well, I loved him. ... I'll bet you ten million dollars to a doughnut that Denny never made that remark to Elvis Presley.

The book goes on to quote Denny's son (Bill) and his efforts to establish if his father had said it, and includes Chet Atkins apparent denial that Jim Denny said it. Hence the original edit in the Presley article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks; seems to confirm that the speculation isn't really central to Presley's own story—happy with how it's ended up, with the Bond quote instead? PL290 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Suits me. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Influence of Colonel Parker and others

Looking in detail at this section for the first time, my expectation that it would be an endorsement of Parker's positive contribution was not met! It all seems negative. Perhaps at least some balancing is needed. PL290 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess this section was originally conceived because there seemed to be so many negative influences on Presley. Maybe it should have been titled as such. Having said that, Geller seems to have been a benefit from a spiritual perspective, and Marty Lacker's defense of the Memphis Mafia is included. Also, the Moman paragraph highlights his own (brief) positive influence, as well as the overall banality and grip of RCA's stewardship. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite verification needed to replace last dead link

... Elvis' Christmas Album. The latter would later become the second best selling holiday release of all time, according to the RIAA. ^{(dead link here)}

Best-selling Christmas/Holiday albums in the United States makes the same statement (giving Merry Christmas (Bing Crosby album) as the first best selling). However, the plot then thickens: to back up the statement, that article cites this NYT article which itself says, "The best-selling Christmas album of all time, with nine million sold in 50 years, is Elvis' Christmas Album (1957), by you know who." So, does anyone have a citation that confirms second place? PL290 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the cite is right--Elvis' Christmas Album is number one, by far. Here's a well-researched article posted last year on Elvis Australia: [2]. Der Bingle's "White Christmas" is the top-selling Xmas single of all time, but that's not the issue here. DocKino (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly the Bing Crosby claim doesn't list a citation, and so that in itself may require a cite request and without one I fail to see how it could be considered a bigger seller. The above link to Elvis Australia is a very detailed article from 2008 and claims total sales of over 12 million for Elvis' Christmas Album; 3 million for the original between 1957-1969, and a further 9 million for the budget release from 1970-2008. I can only assume that Bing Crosby's album, if it has sold more than 3 million copies, is being compared to the original release of Elvis' Christmas Album with sales of 3 million. Although, the page for the Crosby album Merry Christmas (Bing Crosby album) doesn't list any citations for the claim of over 15 million sales, either. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the "Best-selling Christmas albums" article. Stand by for any hornets flying out... :) PL290 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The host was actually actor Charles Laughton

We read that for Presley's first Ed Sullivan Show, "(The host was actually actor Charles Laughton.)" Given the involvement of an actor, this presents an ambiguity: does it mean viewers were intended to think it was Sullivan? Or just that it turned out that an alternative presenter, Laughton (who, incidentally, happened to be an actor), hosted the show in his own right that day? PL290 (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actor Charles Laughton served as substitute host the night of Elvis' first appearance because Sullivan was recuperating from a car accident which meant he was unable to present. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, got that much thanks... maybe it's only my imagination that makes the ambiguity possible, but it seems to me that in those circumstances there could have been an attempt to impersonate Sullivan ... Laughton was an actor, after all ... perhaps we can recast to remove the ambiguity for the reader. PL290 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that. Forgot it mentions the reason in the article already, I wrongly thought you were asking why Laughton was the host at all. My mistake. Possible rewrite of the line to include all of the above to explain better what is meant instead of throwing it in brackets? Something along the lines of "Due to Sullivan being injured in a car accident shortly before Presley's first appearance, actor Charles Laughton was invited to host the show in his place."

I also note that the citation for the line about Sullivan's accident in the article states that 72 million people tuned in for the show, not 55-60 million that is currently in the article; Elvis attracted a record-breaking audience of over 72 million people--more than 80% of the television-viewing audience--which equalled one of every third man, woman and child in the U.S. at that time. It may be wrong and another source may be more accurate so it's up to you if you think it's worthwhile altering it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries!—actually I'm feeling bad for dwelling on what may be a trivial question, since I suspect the answer is that impersonation is my own far-fetched idea and was not done! Thanks for the extra info; I'll incorporate it and will probably tweak the wording for the non-impersonating meaning unless someone beats me to it. PL290 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Elvis attracted a record-breaking audience of over 72 million people." Query: was it really Elvis or was it the famous actor Charles Laughton who attracted the record-breaking audience? Both were announced in the newspapers. Onefortyone (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I should start by saying I worship Charles Laughton as the director of the greatest movie in American history. In fact, I introduced the fact that he hosted the first show to the article--only so readers wouldn't reach the mistaken conclusion that Sullivan hosted all of the relevant episodes of his own show. But Laughton did not draw that audience. In the United States, by the 1950s, he was regarded as a well-respected character actor, a "star" only in the most generous terms. Imagine Jeremy Irons filling in for Letterman while Jay-Z and Alicia Keys and Lady Gaga and Britney and the Black Eyed Peas appeared together. Look, it's not easy to find a source that even recognizes Laughton hosted. Does anyone have a source that so much as hints that he might have been the draw? DocKino (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

141, this particular question is actually academic, since that wording is not used in the article--its just in the cite EF gave to confirm the figures. The article states that the show "was seen by more than 72 million viewers" which is all it needs to state. PL290 (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh 141, your so deep--Jaye9 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim about the sleeping habits of Elvis and his mother

A few attempts have been made to introduce the claim that Elvis and his mother shared a bed until he was a young teen. Aside from the point of the claim being redundant (it is otherwise made clear that they were very close), it is dubious as a matter of fact. The source provided is Patrick Humphries' Elvis the #1 Hits: The Secret History of the Classics. This is a poppy book with virtually no original research (yes, we want our scholarly and historical and journalistic sources to conduct "original research") published by a house that is well shy of top-of-the-line. We currently cite it at only one other spot, where it is readily replaceable--and I believe should be replaced--by a higher-quality source.

Here is the cited passage for the bed-sharing claim:

There is a widely held belief among psychologists that the disappearance of Vernon from Elvis' life when the King was three ... had a profound effect upon Elvis's emotional development. At that age a child naturally goes through a separation anxiety from its mother, which fathers can often help with. Elvis only had Gladys. They slept in the same bed until Elvis was a young teen.

There is--big surprise--no referencing of the many psychologists who share this "belief" about Elvis's development. There is a failure to note that Vernon disappeared for only eight months--one is left to infer much longer. Most relevantly, if you're going to announce that a child shared his mother's bed until he was a young teen, you'd think you might take a sentence to explain where the father (whom all agree that Gladys loved) was sleeping all those many years. I have not come across a serious biographer who verifies this claim. If anyone else has, please cite them forthwith. DocKino (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Humphries also says about Elvis and his mother,

When he entered the Army it marked the longest and furthest distance from her that he'd ever been. For a man who'd slept in the same bed as his momma until his early teens, that was a cruel reality. (p.99)

There are even claims that Elvis may have had an incestuous relationship with his mother. Greil Marcus writes in Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000):

Newsbreaks included the National Enquirer's Dee Presley explosion: HIS OWN STEPMOM REVEALS SHOCKING TRUTH AT LAST-ELVIS AND HIS MOM WERE LOVERS. (p.3)

About his mother, it's said"—Gladys Presley, who died in 1958, at forty-six, after, if Dee Presley is right, 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?" (p.6).

There are similar accounts of Elvis's close relationship to his mother in other publications on the singer, for instance, in Earl Greenwood's book, The Boy Who Would Be King. On p.96, the author says,

When he was ... sharing her bed ..., Gladys told him he was her little man. Not only was Elvis Gladys's son, she also made it clear he was her mate.

On another occasion, when they

were ready to walk out the door, Gladys grabbed Elvis and held him close. "Jus' you 'member, nobody loves you like I do. You always got me." Translated to mean: You best not put any girl before your mama again. ... Gladys wanted to be everything to Elvis and wanted more from him than what was right or healthy to expect. (p.116)

Peter Guralnick writes in his book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley (p.13), "Elvis grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother." His father still openly talked about this fact after his son had become famous. Throughout her life, Guralnick writes, "the son would call her by pet names, they would communicate by baby talk, 'she worshiped him,' said a neighbor, 'from the day he was born.' " According to the reputed biographer, Elvis himself said, "My mama never let me out of her sight. I couldn't go down to the creek with the other kids."

Guralnick describes Elvis as a very shy person, as a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years" (p.149) and who was teased by his fellow classmates: "My older brother went to school with him," recalled singer Barbara Pittman, "and he and some of the other boys used to hide behind buildings and throw 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." (p.36) These early experiences had a deep influence on his clumsy advances to girls. According to Guralnick (p.149), he loved playing with the girls and teasing them, but "it didn't go too far. ... In between shows at the auditorium he would peek out from behind the curtain, then, when he spotted someone that he liked, swagger over to the concession stand, place his arm over her shoulder, and drape his other arm around someone else, acting almost like he was drunk, even though everyone knew he didn't drink." Guitarist Scotty Moore attested that Elvis's parents were very protective: "His mama would corner me and say, 'Take care of my boy. Make sure he eats. Make sure he-' You know, whatever. Typical mother stuff." But Elvis "didn't seem to mind; there was nothing phony about it, he truly loved his mother. He was just a typical coddled son, ... very shy – he was more comfortable just sitting there with a guitar than trying to talk to you." Guralnick writes that Gladys was so proud of her boy, that she "would get up early in the morning to run off the fans so Elvis could sleep" (p.280). She was frightened of Elvis even going out of the house: "She knew her boy, and she knew he could take care of himself, but what if some crazy man came after him with a gun? she said ..., tears streaming down her face." (p.346)

In Elvis: The Last 24 Hours, Albert Goldman cites Presley's closest friends and relatives in order to support his view that the star was an undisciplined, self-indulgent hillbilly with a sickly Oedipal relationship with his obese, smothering, mother. Greenwood even suggests (p.245) that "Long-buried Oedipal desires scratched at the surface of his consciousness and threatened to come forth," when Elvis "put Priscilla on a pedestal alongside the gilded image of his deceased mother."

When his mother died, Elvis was "sobbing and crying hysterically", as Guralnick relates (p.478). "He was grieving almost constantly, the papers wrote." According to several eye-witnesses, "He'd cry all day," and when they had get him calmed down, "the next day it would start all over again." (p.480)

Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys, says about Gladys's close relationship with Elvis:

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)

Here are some further sources: On page 19 of their book, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream, Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx refer to the "already common 'mama's boy' teasing he had endured since the first day of school, when Gladys walked him to the door." On page 2 of his book, Rockabilly: A Forty-Year Journey, Billy Poore writes that it is "a fact that in 1953 Elvis was a shy, introverted mama's boy in a town full of bullies." In his book, Elvis After Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend, Gilbert B Rodman calls Elvis "the dutiful mama's boy" (p.104) and mentions, with reference to Guralnick, "the humble modesty of a Dixie-bred mama's boy: In many ways I am sure that the picture is accurate, and it undoubtedly conforms to the image that Elvis Presley had of himself." (p.142) Interestingly, Joe Harrington, on p.166 of his book, Sonic Cool: The Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll calls Elvis's "Kissin' Cousins" an "incestuous Rock n Roll song." According to Jim Green, the record, The King and Eye "incisively portrays Elvis's life and work as a misguided abandonment of innocence in favor of a sad yet comedic Oedipal journey" (quoted in George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37).

Parts of this material may be included in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there's quite enough on the topic as is. Thanks, though. DocKino (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual psychologists say that Presley is a "classic example of the mother/Madonna/whore split." It is said that Elvis never made love to Priscilla again "after the birth of his daughter, and would never have sex with a woman who had had a baby." See Carol Martin-Sperry, Couples and Sex: An Introduction to Relationship Dynamics and Psychosexual Concepts (2004), p.24. Onefortyone (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the length limits and content requirements of an encyclopedia article, we simply can't delve into these issues in the depth they require. This is not the place for psychobiography. Of course, you could create the article Psychobiography of Elvis Presley. It would actually be fascinating. But we can't do it here. DocKino (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to simply reinclude the Humphries passage you have removed? Furthermore, I do not agree with this edit and some other of your edits, though, in general, you are doing an excellent job here. It is of some importance to say that Elvis, the sex symbol, was not primarily interested in sex. Onefortyone (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I absolutely do not agree to reinclude the Humphries passage. I have explained in great detail why his claim is dubious on its face, and why he does not qualify as a high-quality source. (And any Presley expert should already know the same about the notorious Goldman.) The article already states, "He was occasionally bullied by classmates who viewed him as a 'mama's boy'". And as for the linked edit with which you disagree, I address that in the new thread below. DocKino (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the length limits and content requirements of an encyclopedia article, we simply can't delve into these issues in the depth they require. This is not the place for psychobiography. Of course, you could create the article Psychobiography of Elvis Presley. It would actually be fascinating. But we can't do it HERE.

Agree with the above statement 100%. This article, in only the last 6 hours, is in danger of losing hard-earned veracity and focus. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with leaving out the speculative psycho-babble. Elvis was a typical 1950s Christian young man who didn't engage in random sex with casual dates. Hardly anybody did that in the 1950s, and if they did, it definitely wasn't normal dating behavior, even for recording stars. Specious speculation about his sex life only degrades the encyclopedic quality of the article. Santamoly (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Characterization of Presley's dating habits

A few attempts have been made to use Guralnick 1994 to imply that Presley in some lifelong fashion was unusually uninterested in having sex with the young women who were readily available to him. I read Guralnick very differently--to the effect that Presley was uninterested in emotionless, meaningless, soulless sexual activity; that he really enjoyed the company of women; and that he liked to have sex with women whom he could imagine being in love with...all this when he was 22 years old. Here is what Guralnick actually writes (p. 415):

For the most 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—and then in the early-morning hours they would make love. "He had an innocence at that time" [Editorial note: 1957!!], said one of them. "I'm sure it didn't last. But what he really wanted was to have a relationship, to have company."

To cite this passage from Guralnick to support article text hinting that Presley over the course of his life had an unusually low libido, or was sexually repressed, or even dysfunctional, as appears to have been the intent, is perverse. DocKino (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More agreement with DocKino from me here too. There seems to be a rather worrying persistence to such claims on these talk pages, and it's not helping this article to improve. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with DocKino's interpretation of the said paragraph. Guralnick writes that when Elvis "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 most 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. ..." etc. Does this sound as if he was primarily interested in sex? No, he wasn't, as Guralnick also writes that there were other things he wasn't interested in. He was primarily looking for company, not sex. "What he liked to do was to lie in bed and watch television and eat and talk all night" - these are Guralnick's words. And this is also confirmed by the statements of most girls who had dates in the singer's bedroom. Onefortyone (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Do you have some reason to believe he didn't like the part where sexual intercourse occurred in the early-morning hours? Do you have any reason to doubt that he enjoyed sex more having spent a few hours getting to know the person with whom he was having sex? If your answer is yes to either or both of these questions, please explain in detail how you reached your conclusions.

(2) How, in any event, does delving into this private behavior by a 22-year-old Presley significantly further our understanding of the encyclopedic topic of his long-lasting public persona as a sex symbol--especially given our length limits and need to maintain focus? DocKino (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DocKino, reading Gurlanick as I have, I concur with what you have said, and I believe so does everyone else for that matter, all except for this gentleman above. I have spent countless hours, both with my research and discussions with him in the past, all to no avail. In saying that, I've noticed his used Earl Greenwood yet again, and I have brought up with him, I believe were reliable sources as to why one shouldn't. His response to me was, I don't know how reliable he his? Well isn't that terrific and this fellow believes he has such an insight into all things Elvis, he even commented that he thought Gurlanick was naive, at one stage of the game. Quite some time ago, I wrote and complimented the editors for their great work on the John Lennon article, on the Elvis Talk page and that I appreciated how they had structured the article, particulary the relationship side of things, for obvious reasons. I must admit, that I had thought to myself, will this editor, after reading my comments, go over to the Lennon article? Surely not. He did, the very next day. I had noticed that he hadn't been there for a few years prior to that. His comments he made on the Lennon article I had noticed, were a cut and paste job, and yes, he recieved alot of oppostion for these comments, as he does here. Did he stay very long with the Lennon article? No, just a couple of days and you ask yourself these questions, is all this just a game, or is his sole focuss purely on Presley and Presley alone and is it a healthy one.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've had this on going "debate" with one editor for years now. Just weighing in, again, that most editors think that some material does not belong in this article. Engaging in further debate over issues that have been resolved repeatedly does not serve the best interests of wikipdeia, its users, or its editors. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Three quotes on Presley's acting career

A recent attempt was made to add three quotes concerning Presley's acting career to the "History" section--at least two (and I believe all three) of these quotes formerly impacted the article, and were extracted in a successful, painless operation last month. Aside from questions of, yes, length!! and the general desirability of limiting unregurgitated quotes from secondary sources (lively historical quotes from involved figures are g-r-r-r-e-a-t!), here is why I believe these quotes do not belong in the article, either in the "History" section or in the "Acting career" section, where they might also have been placed.

1:

According to John Mundy, these films, "so often criticized for their bland musical and filmic aesthetic, seem the logical outcome of Presley’s assimilation into the dominant commercial mainstream which began with his very first films."

This, like much bland, mainstream film criticism, is both achingly obvious and highly arguable. In other words, there is no need to say it, but it does deserve to be picked apart and challenged in detail. May I point out to anyone who still finds this critical claim about Presley's supposed "assimilation into the dominant commercial mainstream which began with his very first films" worthwhile and finds the homoeroticism of Jailhouse Rock highly significant that there is a rather blatant tension between one and the other. If someone wants to start the article Acting career of Elvis Presley and introduce this quote there, I will be happy to grind it into philosophical dust (employing high-quality sources, of course!) But THERE. Not here. Here, we have already made very clear that the vast majority of Presley's films were bland and formulaic. Mission accomplished.

2:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), "he was definitely not the most talented actor around."

Well, I suppose there's an encyclopedia that might want to use this quote, which appears in a footnote of a book by a writer who's not really a writer (let alone, you know, a critic) ((let alone, you know, a well-respected critic)), but rather a Hollywood interviewer. But that encyclopedia isn't Wikipedia, is it? By the way, the first paragraph of the "Acting career" section already contains a juicy historical quote by an involved party that establishes the conventional view of Presley's acting talent. Mission accomplished. Oh, and this will shock the more sensitive among you, the cited page offers absolutely zero support for the claim about Curtiz. In fact, if we can believe Google Book Search--and I spent a chunk of my life I'll never get back on this--no page in this book supports the claim about Curtiz. But if someone wants to track down support for the claim that Presley was "polite and hardworking" on set, that'll be a genius add to Acting career of Elvis Presley.

Just for your information. The first part of the sentence was not written by me, as far as I can remember; only for the second part the quotation was used. However, I did some further research. Here is another quote: “Presley was the product of a pop music revolution; he was a natural screen personality with a built-in audience. Usually, the quality of the piece he starred in didn't matter...” See Roy Kinnard and R. J. Vitone, The American Films of Michael Curtiz (1986), p.102. Onefortyone (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

3:

Thus, the movies received harsh criticism from professional reviewers. Sight and Sound, for instance, wrote that in his movies "Elvis Presley, aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, [was] acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."

Yep, no one does harsh likes those cruel British critics writing a quarter-century after the fact! Thank God no hound doggin', green-eyed mountain jackin' U.S. male could ever be bothered to understand this!

Kidding aside, "crucified houri" is clever and funny enough that it hardly matters how inaccurate it is, and "singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism" is intriguing enough that it makes me want to read more to figure out if it's the pauncey tripe I bet it is.

POV aside, sadly (weep!) I'll never be able to read more, because, guess what, the "citation" doesn't give me a clue what the title of the article was, or who wrote it, or even in which of the twelve issues of Sight and Sound that were published in 1992 it appeared in.

Nitpicking aside, this is the kind of idiosyncratic, highly subjective, recondite (speaking of recondite!) aesthetic interpretation that we just don't have room for in an encyclopedia article that must efficiently and clearly introduce the reader to the life and career of its subject. May I suggest Acting career of Elvis Presley or Interpretations of Elvis? DocKino (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This quotation from one of the most reputable British film magazines clearly shows that these films were made in order to attract both heterosexual and homosexual audiences and that the songs were all sang in the same surreal manner. A nice quote. Onefortyone (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A worthy dissection of said quotes, one with which I am in full agreement. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 13:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so—and, I might add, most engagingly presented to boot. Thank you, DocKino. PL290 (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but Joe Moscheo, who often performed with Elvis as a member of the gospel group The Imperials, said that Elvis "had a truly gifted memory. [He] was an unbelievably quick study . . . he could learn the script for the day's shooting on the drive to the set." One reason that his backers liked doing movies with Elvis is that they could produce them quickly since Elvis was so fast at learning his roles. Thus, the movies were reliable "money machines" for his producers. Santamoly (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, that often has been said to have been the case with him. His friend Lamar Fike who was on the set with him and sometimes was even an extra in his movies, had said that not only did Presley no his lines, but would memorized everyone else's as well. The sad part about it all, was by the early 60's, he hated doing these pictures, and as Lamar has stated, Presley would suffer from these horredous nose bleeds, brought on by stress.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis hated everything about Col.Parker's agenda, including the rock-n-roll and the films. Elvis mostly wanted to sing gospel with his friends and be married to Priscilla. Even though he was a skilled actor, producer, and arranger, the rest was just an unpleasant job to him. Santamoly (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea in principle, but I'm also aware that there have been issues with archive bots in the past, with the bot effectively trashing the page in one way or another; for instance, producing incorrect behaviour if certain characters are encountered in talk page text, or fishing out only parts of conversations and archiving them away, leaving the residue appearing to any who subsequently come across it to be a complete conversation. The issue was raised here, but there's probably more to be found about it elsewhere. In summary: good idea, but I'd prefer it if we can do a bit of research first and only do it if we can have confidence in the bot not compromising things in any way. OK, you could resort to History (assuming you realized there was a problem, which wouldn't always be the case) but the talk page and its archives are important information not to be placed at risk in my view. PL290 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both bots (MiszaBot and ClueBot) needs to be watched and fish out completed threads (and ClueBot seems to leave talk pages empty). But MiszaBot seems to work quite well elsewhere. If you want to do it manually, you are welcome—currently the page is quite long.--Oneiros (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to leave it for now, particularly if there's no stronger reassurance than "seems to work quite well". I'm not knocking the work bot-writers do (I'm a software developer myself, though not (yet) on WP, and I know the challenges and am aware these editors do a lot of useful work here) but as I said before, I'd prefer not to compromise this information. Let me put it this way, in question-and-answer form, to try and illustrate my point:

• Is it a problem if the page gets long? Well, yes, it would be more convenient for it to be truncated periodically.
• Shall we just delete the old info? No, certainly not (in my view); it may be very useful in the future. That's not to say it will be accessed very often, or even ever, but if and when it is, it may well be exceedingly useful and forms part of the build-up of knowledge behind WP, in relation to the particular area of the article in question.
• Given the previous answer, does it matter that the archive bot might introduce errors and omissions into both the archived data and the current talk page? (That one was rhetorical.)

The talk page has grown a lot recently because there's currently a focus by several editors to overhaul the article. Two things arise from that:

1. The archiving away of conversations applicable to this current phase may be unwelcome;
2. Using the current rate of traffic on the talk page to reach the conclusion that automated archiving should be set up may be misleading.

My £0.02. PL290 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No software is perfect, but errors in these bots seem to be quite rare. I'd say go with it and be bold—or archive manually. But someone should archive.--Oneiros (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some critical remarks about the recent copyedits

It is interesting that mainly critical, well-sourced voices that gave a lively expression of what some critics thought about Elvis, his relationships, his movies etc. have been deleted. Other critical remarks have been toned down, if not mangled, by copyediting. For instance, a previous version of a paragraph read:

According to the FBI files on the singer, Presley was even seen as a "definite danger to the security of the United States." His actions and motions were called "a strip-tease with clothes on" or "sexual self-gratification on stage." They were compared with "masturbation or riding a microphone." Some saw the singer as a sexual pervert, and psychologists feared that teenaged girls and boys could easily be "aroused to sexual indulgence and perversion by certain types of motions and hysteria—the type that was exhibited at the Presley show."

This has now been changed to the following version, thereby misrepresenting much of the harshness of the original accusations:

... an urgent letter to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, warn[ed] that "Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States. When Presley came on the stage, the youngsters almost mobbed him. ... [His] actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth. ... After the show, more than 1,000 teenagers tried to gang into Presley's room at the auditorium. ... Indications of the harm Presley did just in La Crosse were the two high school girls ... whose abdomen and thigh had Presley's autograph."

By way of compromise, the material of both versions should be used for an adequate quotation.

Another example. Why has the following paragraph been removed?

Even Presley’s reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day has been doubted. Though he has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence,^f sociologist Philip Ennis writes, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..."

The Wikipedia article primarily cites statistics from the record industry in order to stress the immense popularity of the singer. However, for reasons of balance, differing voices, in this case from a university study, should not be omitted, especially in view of the fact that Pat Boone was seen by many as the good guy, whereas Elvis was more seen as the bad guy at that time.

Even the “critical voices” section I had created, as a kind of compromise, two weeks ago has been completely removed. Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life to be heard. Some examples.

• During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis.
• According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis.
• "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years."
• According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy, who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'"
• When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse."
• In his study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll.

Everybody knows that I have a more critical view of the singer (seeing him as a star who had immense personal problems) than those Wikipedians who lay more emphasis on the superstar image of Presley. As so many sections of the Elvis article are mainly talking in superlatives about the singer, the many critical voices that exist should also be heard and must not be omitted.

By way of comparison, it is also interesting to note that the early years and Beatlemania sections of the Beatles article, also heavily copyedited by the same users who recently started to copyedit the Presley article, do not include any critical voices, as far as I can see, though there were many at the beginning of the band’s career. For instance, a Life article of September 13, 1968, reports, p.105, that, when Epstein first visited the Beatles, “They were not very tidy and not very clean. They smoked as they played and they ate and talked and turned their backs on the audience and laughed at their private jokes.” According to Ian Inglis, The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices (2000), “the Beatles found the US press less positive: The music was ridiculed along with the haircuts.” (p.144) See also the attacks in the New Statesman concerning the group and their negative influence on the fans cited in the same volume, p. 145. Furthermore, “the Beatles' accent was often ridiculed and regarded as a kind of impenetrable gobbledygook, especially by the southerners.” See Janne Mäkelä, John Lennon Imagined: Cultural History of a Rock Star (2004), p.45. The Beatles have also been accused of overtly shunning “adult values and adult behavior.” See Carl Belz, The Story of Rock (1969), p.128. It has even been said that, while “touring in the 1960s, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones constantly contracted venereal diseases.” See Theodore Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock (1996), p. 190. Does the Wikipedia article make mention of these or similar details? No, it doesn’t. It only mentions in passing that Paul McCartney and Pete Best were arrested for arson in 1960, that there was “riotous enthusiasm by screaming fans” and that the group’s “mop-top” hairstyle, unusually long for the era, was “still mocked by many adults.” It is to be hoped therefore that the copyeditors may change their mind as far as the critical voices about the Beatles or Elvis Presley are concerned.

Some general questions concerning the article's content

1) Why isn’t there a special section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era in the article? Could it be that details about this era have been omitted so far as there was so much ridicule concerning the feminisation of Elvis during these years? In that era, Presley was distanced from the main currents of rock 'n' roll, which were seized by groups such as The Beatles and the Rolling Stones during the 1960s. This moving away from his roots was much criticized by critics and other rock musicians. "There was so little of it that was actually good," David Bowie says. "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." One of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich." Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it.

2) Why is there so little on Elvis’s personal life? A section dealing with his male friends is missing. It is known that he spent more time with these friends than with the girls he dated. The problems he had with his stepmother are not even mentioned.

3) Where is the paragraph about his violent behavior and his predilection for guns? Where are the paragraphs about his personal habits? For instance, Anna Paterson writes about the singer’s eating habits, "binge eating led him to gain large amounts of weight. It wasn't just the quantity of food that he was eating which caused the problems. Elvis frequently consumed very high fat foods. His favourite meal was reportedly peanut butter and banana sandwiches grilled in butter. Another famous meal he enjoyed was 'Fool's Gold Loaf'. This was a hollowed out white loaf, drenched in butter and then stuffed with peanut butter, jam and bacon." This harmful behavior was "coupled with a heavy prescription drug problem."

4) We have a “first movies and draft notice” section including almost nothing about the content and crticism of the first movies.

5) Where are the critical remarks about the world-wide Elvis industry and the Elvis cult at Graceland? There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod." Some further suggestions.

• "An excessive enterprise, empire and entity, Elvis appears on memorabilia and merchandise, in roadside relics and Graceland's gift shops; at fast food chains, in front yard flea markets and backyard shrines; World-Wide Web sites in cyberspace and sporting events; at parties and parades or as part of promotions, protests and pranks."
• The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators. According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult."
• David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. "With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."
• According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage." "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult." A collector in Newark, New Jersey "paid nearly a billion dollars for a messy nap-kin said to have been used once by Elvis Presley." Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult."
• Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977. In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture.
• Neal and Janice Gregory critically discuss the media attention on the subsequent Elvis religion as a means to discredit his fans. Indeed, after his death, Presley had been seen by fans as "Other Jesus" or "Saint Elvis".
• In his book Elvis Religion: The Cult of the King (2006), Gregory L. Reece describes the presence of Presley in books, songs, art, movies and on the Internet. The author sets out to appraise the religious significance of the star for popular culture. For instance, Paul Simon's 1986 song "Graceland" presents Graceland as a holy place. Movies like "Finding Graceland" and "Mystery Train" have Presley as the central character, bearing spiritual messages. In Portland, Oregon, a woman opened the so-called Twenty-Four Hour Church of Elvis. There, visitors could slip a quarter into a machine, — The Mystery of the Spinning Elvis — to supposedly contact the spirit of Presley. Some Internet sites even invite people to post accounts of their spiritual encounters with the singer. Several artists use Presley as a recurring theme because he is such an icon of pop culture. The Naked Art Studio in Birmingham had a showing of Elvis art. A mosaic entitled "The Last Supper (Elvis)," shows Presley enjoying a turkey leg at a table littered with pill bottles — allusions to Presley's religion and drug abuse. However, "Elvis stands for violence, uncertainty and loss," says Reece. "Elvis is the apocalyptic messenger. One doesn't seek him out for spiritual advice, but shudders at his presence." The author concludes that Presley is the sort of god the public wants today. Elvis was overweight, he dressed out of date and he took too many prescription drugs, just like us.

There are many more questions of this kind. 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 whose primary focus is on music would certainly lay much emphasis on Elvis's songs and his musical career. Fans focus on superlatives concerning the million sellers of their star. 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. There are the 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. 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 university studies. A Wikipedia article must deal with all the different aspects of Elvis's life. As not all of these aspects are covered by the current version of the article, it may be entitled, "Elvis's career as a multi-million selling superstar". Onefortyone (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Elvis was a "multi-million selling superstar"; there's no escaping that. With so many contending sources, and so many aspects to be considered, it seems to me that if this article, or parts of it, can be split into notable sub-articles, that should be done within the normal process for discussion. This article can be a broad overview, with important sub-topics dealt with in more appropriate detail in those articles. I don't understand why this is an issue. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the general focus of the entire article. Several critical voices that were part of previous versions have been removed. The Legacy section, for instance, includes only positive voices, though Elvis is also one of the most ridiculed stars. Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you start Ridicule of Elvis Presley? DocKino (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical voices are not needed in an encyclopedic article about a deceased person. He's not a living politician, he's a dead singer. There is nothing to be gained by being critical of a deceased person. If you really wish to go on and on about his weaknesses, you might want to start a separate article such as Elvis Presley: Speculation on his Various Character Flaws. Santamoly (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a truly wonderful idea User: DocKino and Santamoly have suggested and you can use it to release all the pent up frustration you must be feeling within. May I suggest also you put up an Elvis Fan Free Zone Banner on the top of the article and you can write all the secret squirrel shit you care to add and read it back to yourself with pride, but while doing so, don't forget to grab on to your nuts.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Although individual edit suggestions can be judged on merit, this tired yet persistent overall agenda to drive home nails of criticism with a sledgehammer is not what wikipedia is about. Moreover, in 2) above for example, we have yet another attempt by 141 to concentrate on 'male relationships'. Previously, this has led 141 to list the usual reams of quotes attempting to show that Presley was bi/homosexual, that he had a sexual relationship with Nick Adams, and which culminated in asking us to attach credence to an isolated, tawdry chat show claim by a man who says he 'gave oral sex' to Presley. Based on the evidence of these talk pages, no one should be under any illusions about where, and how far, 141 would like to push and skew this article. It has been and is being made clear that this is not a psychobiography, that many claimed aspects of Presley life can be written about elswhere and, just because they can be written about, does not mean they constitute ommissions in a general biography. How many more ways can this be said? Pass me a sledgehammer...Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is very interesting that you are not earnestly dealing with the questions raised above. Just the same kind of biased accusation. And of course, some psychological aspects are part of every biography, as well as sociological and other aspects. Onefortyone (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If I agreed with you about the questions raised, you'd know about it. Any accusations I make are based on my experience of dealing with your suggestions and accusations and the talk page archives prove their own point. I have stated on a number of occasions that you seem to have the ability, sources, etc. to move this article towards FA status. Unfortunately, this has never seemed to be your aim. I refer you once again to my last post. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 05:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1970s studio sessions

I have a couple concerns about the following paragraph, which currently ends our "Medical crises and last studio sessions" subsection:

For much of the 1970s, Presley's recording company had been increasingly concerned about making money from Presley material: RCA often had to rely on live recordings because of problems getting him to attend studio sessions. Once in a studio, he could lack interest or be easily distracted, which was often linked to his health and drug problems. A mobile studio was occasionally sent to Graceland in the hope of capturing an inspired vocal performance.

First concern: The citation is to "Guralnick 1999, passim". We can't simply do passim for a 500-page book. We need specific pages or page ranges that support this. Rikstar, I see you added the material back in May 2007: [3]. I know it's been a while, but do you think you could track down the passages that you summarized here?

Second concern: Accuracy and balance. We're just looking at the period between March 1973, when the historical subsection begins, through his death, right? During this period he recorded two concert albums: Elvis: As Recorded Live On Stage In Memphis and Elvis in Concert (yes, yes, and the ludicrous Having Fun with Elvis on Stage--37 minutes of Elvis cracking jokes and humming, and it still charted). At the same time, during those four-and-a-half years, Presley recorded six studio albums:

• Raised on Rock/For Ol' Times Sake
• Good Times
• Promised Land (#1 country)
• Today
• From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee (#1 country)
• Moody Blue (#1 country)

While this period produced no major pop hits, of the singles he recorded in the studio during this period eleven became Top 10 country or Adult Contemporary hits: ""I've Got a Thing About You Baby", ""If You Talk in Your Sleep", "Help Me", "It's Midnight", "My Boy" (#1 AC), "Hurt", "Moody Blue" (#1 country/#2 AC), "Way Down" (#1 country), "Are You Sincere", "There's a Honky Tonk Angel", and "Loving Arms" (the last three posthumously). How many recording artists would kill to have these sorts of problems in the studio? DocKino (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig around and see what I can find. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 05:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My shovel's turned up this for starters: "Elvis had failed to deliver a single studio cut in 1974. ... there was little question of RCA's anxiety about their longtime star." (Guralnick, 1994 p.560). Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Anxiety yes, but what I'm seeing is that we need to bring in the fact that this was alongside significant continuing commercial success. PL290 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And good quote, Rikstar. Yes, I can see from the material I have access to that there was a gap between a studio session in December 1973 and one in March 1975.

But mind you, that week-long December 1973 session produced 18 songs--almost all of the Good Times album (released March 1974) and almost all of the Promised Land album (released January 1975). (And in between those there was a concert album release.) So, yes, RCA might have been experiencing some anxiety; now, can we find a source suggesting that maybe a label would tend to feel anxiety in such a production context only if they'd gotten using to riding Presley like a mule through the 1960s? .... But, really, any specifics like the one you've provided are great. So far, we still have no support for the following explicit or implicit claims in the paragraph as currently phrased:

• "For much of the 1970s...RCA...had...problems getting him to attend studio sessions." Maybe they did in 1974. What, if anything, does Guralnick say about they actually did to get him to attend a studio session that year? Or their failed attempts to do so at any other time?
• "Once in a studio, he could lack interest or be easily distracted." Any evidence for this? You might think it might be true toward the end of his life, but his final studio session in October 1976 produced "Way Down" and "Pledging My Love", two classics. Or were they wanting more, but he lost interest when Hill and Range ran out of decent songs for him?
• "A mobile studio was occasionally sent to Graceland in the hope of capturing an inspired vocal performance." The phrasing makes these sound like they were off-the-cuff events. I find two Graceland sessions: the one in October 1976 and one in February 1976 that lasted 6 days and yielded 12 songs--all of From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee, plus "Moody Blue" and its B-side. Aside from Presley, over a dozen professional musicians were present at each. Are these the "mobile studio" sessions? If they are, they don't sound like "hope", but serious business with strong returns. I also see a small-group session at "Elvis's home in Palm Springs" in September 1973. Does Gurlanick explain the circumstances?

My resource, by the way, is the book--"booklet" doesn't fairly capture this foot-high, 90-page entity--that accompanies Walk A Mile In My Shoes, the 1970s box set. Among other things, it gives extremely detailed recording and release data for all of his official recording sessions, studio and concert. DocKino (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DocKino, here is a little of what Marty Lacker and Billy Smith had to say about two goups of recording sessions, of which RCA pulled two albums out of them - being the From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee album and the Moody Blue Album.

Marty Lacker: "At the end of '75, and all through January of 76. RCA tried to get Elvis to record another album. But he just didn't want to fool with it. Finally, somebody suggested bringing the portable recording truck to Graceland. The first week of February, the truck rolled in, and Billy, and Earl Pritchett, and Mike McGregor and Ricky Stanley turned the den into a recording studio. There were two groups of sessions, one in February and another in October. RCA pulled two albums out of them-the From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis Tennessee album and the Moody Blue album, although Felton pieced the Moody Blue album together from various recordings, because Elvis wouldn't give him any more studio time. The song "Moody Blue" came from the February sessions. And "Way Down," where J.D. hits that really low note, came from the October sessions. From listening, it's obvious how sick Elvis was. And how tired."

Billy Smith: For some reason, Elvis played bass guitar on "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain." Felton bragged on him, I remember. He had fun on those sessions. When J.D. hit that real low note on "Way Down," Elvis just fell out laughing. He walked over to J.D. and put his arm on his shoulder and said J.D. that's lower than whale shit." Souce: "Elvis and the Memphis Mafia" by Alanna Nash p.661--Jaye9 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So these are mobile studio sessions, it's just that the implication of "occasionally sent" is off. Turning to the opinionated part of the first quote, I don't believe Lacker's claim that Presley sounds "sick" and "tired" reflects the general view. "Hurt" is pretty widely considered one of Presley's great recordings, and again, "Moody Blue" and "Way Down" were number one country hits. As we all know, it's not that hard to bring soulless pap and outright crap to number one, but "sick" and "tired"? DocKino (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this dissection is all very embarrassing, coming back from my naive efforts of three years ago to bite me in the ass! Let's try:

Now both Colonel and RCA were in full agreement: they needed to obtain product from an artist who appeared to have developed an almost pathological aversion to the recording studio. (Guralnick, 1994 p. 593)

"A mobile studio was occasionally sent to Graceland in the hope of capturing an inspired vocal performance.":

Felton was confident the [temporary home studio setup, which included the mobile studio) would ... allow them to catch Elvis whenever the mood happened to strike him. Elvis seemed enthusiastic about [home recording] ... But then he left just days before the session was scheduled to start. (Same)

"Once in a studio, he could lack interest or be easily distracted." Ok, he could be distracted in his own studio:

They got three cuts on the first night, though Elvis' lack of focus and energy was evident to all. ...On the second night [he recorded only one song]. ... spending most of the time trying to avoid accomplishing even that. ... The third night was no better; most of the time Elvis appeared to be struggling just to wake up, even when he was cutting "Moody Blue". (same book, p. 595)

"For much of the 1970s...RCA...had...problems getting him to attend studio sessions."

Ok some examples, Guralnick again (there may be more). A Jan. 20, 1977 studio session was planned in Nashville. Everything arranged, booked, everyone turned up, except Elvis who brooded in his Nashville hotel before going home. (p.621) Jorgensen covers it on p. 402 of his book too;

September, 1975: Guralnick writes: The Colonel had been doing his best since the beginning of September to get Elvis Back into the recording studio ... [and he didn't succeed]. (584-5);

The Colonel had scheduled a recording session for March 10 [1975], ... but Elvis was determined to stick around Memphis ... (Guralnick 1994, p. 559), and;

The tour ended in Memphis, where the Colonel, no doubt recognizing the problems of getting Elvis back into the studio again without a struggle, had sold RCA on yet another live recording ... (Same, p. 528)

If the mobile studio wasn't despatched 'occasionally', let's ditch it. I think the general point of the disputed paragraph is valid - but my bad efforts at summarizing Guralnick needs addressing. If the whole thing is ditched, that's fine by me. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rikstar, please don't beat yourself up here. Given the evidence you've adduced, it looks like your summation of Guralnick is well supported and entirely fair. The facts I've presented tend to suggest that it's Guralnick's perspective that is a bit skewed, not yours at all. Look I respect the hell out of what Guralnick has done for Presley historiography, but the fact is this is a man who has written a two-volume biography on Presley: the first book covers the first 4.5 years of Presley's professional life, the second book covers the last 19. I'm not surprised to discover that his focus strays a bit from what Presely actually accomplished in the 1970s. DocKino (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

'Preciate your comments - just annoyed that it was pain digging around for pages I shoulda cited properly. I admire the way this article is being modified, although the rapidity of editing leaves me a bit dizzy at times! No complaints though... Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim verification request

Discussing 1974, we currently have this without a source:

In April, rumors spread that he would play overseas after years of offers. A $1,000,000 bid came in from a source in Australia for him to tour there, but Parker was uncharacteristically reluctant, prompting those closest to Presley to speculate about Parker's past and the reasons for his apparent unwillingness to apply for a passport. Parker ultimately squelched any notions Presley had of overseas work by citing poor security in other countries and the lack of suitable venues for a star of his status.

I see in edit history that a citation used to trail this after an intervening phrase that was trimmed: Stanley and Coffey, The Elvis Encyclopedia (1998 edition), p. 123. Does anyone happen to have that volume? In Google Book Search, I can also see a snippet of something that may be relevant in Guralnick, Careless Love, p. 523: "Well, Elvis laughed, but then he started talking about going to England and Australia, and he said, 'I really want to go, but Colonel doesn't want to do it.'" But I've exhausted my page views... DocKino (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Stanley & Coffey source mentions about the rumours and the $1million bid from Australia and about Parker turning it down with "insiders speculating why". For the Guralnick part I have this from p.523;

Quote from Prelsey's bass player, Norbert Putnam, jokingly commenting on Presley being the reason he got into music because Blue Moon of Kentucky only had three chords. "We were having lunch as usual around midnight, and just by accident we were sitting together on a riser that had been pushed over in a corner. I remember I said, 'Elvis, I've got to tell you something. If it hadn't been for you, I wouldn't be here. I mean, thank God Blue Moon of Kentucky only had three chords in it!' Well, Elvis laughed, but then he started talking about going to England and Australia, and he said, 'I really want to go, but the Colonel doesn't want to do it. He thinks if we put them off, that will just keep their interest up.' I said, 'What are you going to do?' He said, 'Put, I'm thinking about pulling away from the Colonel.'" It was as if, Norbert thought, he was trying out an idea he couldn't voice to any of the others, covered by a cloak of anonymity. And when the brief interlude was over, he simply said, "Okay, I guess it's time to go back to being Elvis."

Hope that helps. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrific. Thanks. DocKino (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Online citation update request

The citation at the end of the "Since 1977" subsection, currently #232, references a Forbes article on the "Top-Earning Dead Celebrities" from 2007. I can see there's a 2009 version of this piece, but Forbes.com repeatedly and without fail crashes my apparently hardcore Communist/redistributionist browser. Could someone check this and update the data and cite info? Thanks. DocKino (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Forbes site won't open for me, strangely, but I've found this on NME which is a report on the Forbes article; NME link

I don't know if NME counts as a reliable source or not. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Forbes let me in, so I've now added it to the article. (Ranked 4th in 2009, so I've left the 2007 #1 ranking for info too.) PL290 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just Keep's Right on a Coming

If anyone's interested in taking a look or purchasing these newly released or soon to released books on Elvis Presley, they are: "The King and Dr. Nick: What Really Happened to Elvis and Me" by Dr. George Nichopoulos; "Baby, Let's Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him" by Alanna Nash; "An Uncommon Journey" by Lamar Fike.

Thought they may be helpful with confirming or improving what has been written in the Elvis Article, as in presently stands.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. One of the most important of all recent publications about Elvis is certainly Alanna Nash’s well-researched study, Baby, Let's Play House.

Nash reports the book is the first comprehensive look at Elvis purely from the female prospective. 'For all his maleness, Elvis was a very woman-centered man, because of his closeness with his mother', she says. 'It was women he could really talk with, and from whom he drew much of his strength. The book looks at a number of his relationships, both platonic and romantic. And part of it will consider how his status as one of the greatest sex symbols of the 20th century informed his stage act and his interactions with the opposite sex'.

According to Philip Norman, New York Times, bestselling author of John Lennon and Shout!, Nash's book is “by far the best study of Elvis Presley I have read. 'The King' emerges more clearly from this mosaic of his troubled love life than from any linear biography to date ... Impressively researched, written - and felt.”

Nash says about her book,

*“I wanted to know how a man who genuinely loved and revered women and who sought their company, could not find a single long-lasting romantic relationship.”

*“In terms of emotional maturity, Elvis never really got past the age of 15 to 18,” Nash says. “He never quite grew up. That’s part of his charm. But that’s also part of his tragedy with women. When he does find a grown-up woman — an Ann-Margret or a Linda Thompson — he doesn’t really know how to relate to them. Instead he keeps picking young girls who can’t give him what he really needs...”

In Baby, Let's Play House, the author presents Elvis in a new light: a charming but wounded Lothario who bedded scores of women but seemed unable to maintain a lasting romantic and sexual relationship. His problems, rooted first in the death, at birth, of his twin brother and his unhealthily close relationship with his mother, and later in his reliance on prescription drugs, drove him to channel much of his emotional and sexual energy into his performances which defined the erotic dreams of his generation. While fully exploring the most famous romantic idol of the twentieth century, Baby, Let's Play House pulls back the covers on what Elvis really wanted in a woman, and was tragically never able to find.

The most important woman in the book turns out to be Presley's mother, Gladys, who influenced every relationship of Presley's life.

The book presents, in a bombshell of reporting, never-before-published legal information about Priscilla Presley's lawsuit against Currie Grant, the man who introduced her to Elvis. Grant challenged the fairytale myth Priscilla cultivated; he has claimed that Priscilla (at fourteen) set out to meet, bed, and marry Elvis, and he dispels the myth of Priscilla as the virgin bride. His claims were met with Priscilla's allegations that Grant tried to force himself on her. Nash examines both sides of the story and the subsequent legal settlement.

The book deals with the two categories into which 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). "Elvis separated sex and love. He had good girls at home and whores on the road,” Nash says. She further reveals a need in Elvis to play Pygmalion and father to very young girls, whom he delighted in making over. A late-blooming "Mama's boy," young Elvis was a flop with girls and super-religious. Because of a fear of sexually transmitted diseases he wouldn't actually go "inside" women, never undressed, and was more into watching elaborate tableaux, often involving feet.

Nash also writes that "Elvis had a two-way mirror that he used to spy on his band and their dates when they were in the den,” supporting Goldman's view that Elvis was a voyeur.

According to the author, one of Presley's most bizarre relationships involved stars Natalie Wood and Nick Adams. "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," said the source. "Nick, who was also rumored to be bisexual, Natalie and Elvis became a hot threesome, having a lot of fun together."

Winner of the 2004 Country Music Association Media Achievement Award, Alanna Nash is the author of six books, including The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (winner of the 2004 Belmont Award for the best book in music), Dolly: The Biography, Behind Closed Doors: Talking With The Legends Of Country Music, and Elvis and the Memphis Mafia. She also co-edited Will the Circle Be Unbroken: Country Music in America, for which she won another Belmont Award. She has written about music for such publications as Vanity Fair, People, The New York Times, USA Weekend, TV Guide, Playboy, Entertainment Weekly, Ladies Home Journal, and Reader's Digest, where she was a contributing editor from 2004 to 2008. By the way, Nash, whom Esquire magazine named one of the "Heavy 100 of Country Music", was the first journalist to see Elvis Presley in his casket.

For some, Nash's book will be viewed as a sad and poignant portrait of Elvis’ emotional fracture and decline. For others, it will be a unique gateway to Elvis’ inner feelings, his thoughts, desires and reaction to handling fame. However, you can be sure that most Elvis fans will hate the book because of its unpleasant truths. Onefortyone (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just clear up one thing: He impregnated Priscilla with his foot, or hers? DocKino (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor with a sense of humour, love it.--Jaye9 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it just keeps right on coming... More fascinating content for the Psychosexuality of the King article, one to which I won't be making any contributions - there's a mainstream encyclopedic biography to write, dammit! Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay where do we start, firstly my intention was not to cause any problems here, quite the contray. I havn't as yet read this book, but I have read two interviews by Elvis Information Network with Alanna Nash, part 1 & part 2, three is on it's way, re: about her new book. Reading those interviews so far, I have found nothing offensive by what the lady has said at this stage and I was told that the gentleman who runs that website has received and read the advance copy of this book and enjoyed it, except 4 pages, that are pretty expliciate details of Shelia Ryan and Elvis' lovemaking. Yet, you go over to elvis.com and the person who has also receive an advance copy and read it, didn't give it a favourable review, but to say most elvis fans 141 will hate it, at this stage, is a pretty premature statemant to make. Okay, I'll cut to chase and yes, it is a personal opinion sorry, but it is my view that we have a problem here with this article and I thought by reading this book, people could appreciate how complicated relationships can be, one that can be identified not just with Elvis, but with all of us, this bit of information here and bit there that's put into this article, to be fair on it's subject, I believe deserves more explanation, but unfortunately how interesting it may be, the article can not cater to it, we don't have the space. As Alanna Nash has interviewed many women who knew Elvis, both in a romantic and platonic relationship, we could then decipher who was important to him, and give a brief discription of each women and what that intailed, that to me is much more suitable for an encyclopedia article and I final note, Rikstar I appriciate what you have said 100 percent.--Jaye9 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has improved

For the first time in quite awhile, I read the whole main page of this article tonight, what an improvement, though we've got quite a little ways to go, for someone who has been watching and commenting on the talk in regard to the main article, for just over three years now and sadly more times then I care to admit, had the opinion we were going around in circles, let me say this in encouraging.--Jaye9 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Parker & Aberbachs

According to Mike Stoller, interviewed in 2008 [4], his working relationship ended as follows:

"We went up to the Hill & Range office 'cause Elvis Presley's music was co-owned by Elvis and the Aberbachs. Jean was there, and Julian came in. The Colonel was somewhere else. The whole thing was laid out for them. They said, 'We will have to speak to The Colonel. Can you wait outside?' So we waited outside and we figured The Colonel would be over the moon about this. We waited a long time, and we were summoned in by Jean and he said [adopts Viennese accent], 'The Colonel says if you ever dare try and interfere in the career of Elvis Presley again you will never work in New York, Hollywood, London or anywhere else in the world'. That was it."

Point being, Jean said it was Parker who disapproved of their 'interference' - not Jean Aberbach himself. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The version currently quoted is Jerry Leiber's version--originally quoted in Guralnick--where it's implicit that Aberbach is speaking on behalf of Hill and Range as well as Parker. The Stoller quote is great; in this case, I think the Leiber quote is more pertinent, because it focuses more on the Parker/Aberbach view of Presley. DocKino (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's implicit if you look carefully, but I also agree it needs bringing out more that the comment (allegedly) wasn't independent of Parker. I've tweaked the wording to this effect. PL290 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building

I'd say Happy 75th, though hopefully you're Eternally Happy up there with all those other greats in Superstar Heaven! Best, --Discographer (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to the King!!! Thank you for your contribution to music. A Star Is Here (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Matters of length

A bit more on my rationale for cutting the Rubin and Melnick quote:

First off, Prelsey's debt to African American music is already made clear and specifically detailed throughout, including in this subsection (though I added a phrase to further emphasize it). I'm not sure that a philosophical "influence" passage about (a) something that's already well-established factually and that (b) references musicians who made their first recordings after Presley made his (Berry, Diddley) has a place in a biographical article. In a history of American popular music, certainly, but here...? If we're going to have a philosophical/historical passage about a decades-long tradition of African American music, then we'd need to have one as well about how the country and hillbilly music he also knew and loved is rooted in a centuries-long tradition of Appalachian folk/old time music, which itself is rooted among Prelsey's Scots-Irish forbears...but we don't want to head down that road, right? And why not? Because...

This article is just about ready for an FA nomination. There's only one significant issue at this point. It's too long, yes? And I'm as responsible as anyone for that. I think we've all been driven by a desire to make sure the essentials are all here, and I believe they pretty much are now. Which also means, unless I'm mistaken about the amount of readable text at this point, we may need to make a few tough decisions in the direction of paring down, not adding. DocKino (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Influences

I've just read the comment about further paring down, and will give consideration to that and respond separately if necessary. Re. the Rubin and Melnick quote: as the person who added it I want to respond a bit about that. First off, I have no particular attachment to that quote--it was rather long-winded--, and the purpose of this response is just to ask that we consider the Influences section and whether it still needs a bit more. Yes, the A-A influence is abundantly clear from the main History section (though perhaps that's not in itself a reason not to mention it again in a section devoted to Influences, so I'm happy to see that's now been done). But the point that I want to make is: clearly Presley was influenced by specific artists (as witness, for instance, his "No, that's the real king of rock and roll" remark about Fats Domino we report). Having said that, I had difficulty finding a definitive list of such influences. It seems to me the section should mention at least a key selection of those artists--hence the Rubin and Melnick quote. So, thoughts on whether this is in fact the case and, if so, who it should mention? PL290 (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

From what i see PL290 you have made the right decision at all turns is this article....I would say fell free to do what you think is best...having someone like you take interest in this article is a godsense..... DO WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST !!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Length

How about more or less moving the Acting career section to Elvis filmography?

I think the On tour and meeting Nixon section could go too, with just basic references to its main contents added to the rest of the article (much like the efficient reference to the Beatles-Elvis meeting became part of the Nixon section. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked over the article with this question in mind: my initial reaction is that there's now no discrete part remaining that should go. I think even the two sections Rikstar mentions are needed, and anyway they're both comparatively small so their removal wouldn't contribute a great deal. This leads me to conclude that what's now needed is further condensing to reduce what's there to a terser form--i.e., more of the same working away at the prose that's been going on already. Ultimately, if done with care, this enhances the quality of the prose as well as reducing its size, so readability gets a double boost. For the record, I just did a rough check of readable prose size per WP:SIZE, for both this article and the quite large The Beatles. Guess what folks: The Beatles 80K, Elvis Presley 120K. DocKino was not wrong... PL290 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work. From that analysis, my first thought is that the section that could stand the most trimming--given its length relative to what makes Prelsey significant--is "Health deterioration and death".

On the earlier point, I agree that the Nixon section is necessary--that is a very well known incident. Where I would think to vastly condense, or maybe eliminate entirely, are the sort of anecdotes that however fascinating, are not part of the general discourse about Presley: the kidnapping threat (just before Nixon), the rushing of the stage and the consideration to murdering Stone (in the next subsection). On those specifics, I'd advocate simply cutting the first and reducing the second by a half to two-thirds.

Then there is a category of lengthy detail sentences that don't really contribute to the narrative. I'm thinking of something like this from his last benefit concert in 1961: "The event was held at Bloch Arena in aid of the USS Arizona Memorial Fund, which was $50,000 short of its target: the concert raised over $62,000." Nice, but entirely unnecessary to understanding Presley, his music, or the arc of his career. Even something like this, from the International debut: "[Parker] intended to make Presley's return the show business event of the year. For his part, hotel owner Kirk Kerkorian arranged to send his own plane to New York to fly in rock journalists for the debut performance." Again, nice, but we already know Parker was a promoter and we just read the facts of his promotion, and the Kerkorian detail is secondary to the actual reviews by the rock press quoted in the next paragraph. What do you think about those as examples of "unnecessary detail"? DocKino (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another thing: Having busted my ass to create the revised discography focusing on number one records, let me ask, How useful do people find it in the article? If there's a consensus that it's not crucial, I--deep breath--am prepared to move the whole thing to a new Elvis Prelsey number one records article. That would leave us with a Discography section that was purely links, like Filmography. Or we could do a half measure--a much simpler (i.e., non-table) listing of U.S. pop chart number one albums and singles (there are 10 of the former and 18 of the latter)...though I'm not sure how much readable text that would actually save us. Interested to hear what people think. DocKino (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't even think of axing the revised discography--it's a nice touch here, and anyway, per WP:SIZE#What is and is not included as "readable prose", tables and lists are not counted as readable prose. As to your other suggestions, yes, I suspect those are the kind of things that will be, if not the first, at least among those up against the wall when the "unnecessary detail" revolution comes; but let's try and keep the best till last, so to speak. PL290 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I now think Rikstar's suggestion of moving Acting career out to the filmography is a good one. Focus on movies in the chronology does a good job of informing the reader about Presley's acting involvement at that time. As no one else has spoken out in support of keeping it here, I'll intend to move it out shortly. PL290 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. After some condensing and trimming and the removal of the 5K Acting career, readable prose is now down from 120K to 105K. I would think we ought to have the 80K Beatles figure in mind as a ball-park target. We've made a fair jump towards that already. PL290 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A further update after more trimming today: still a long way to go. The current approx figure is still 104K. It seems to me we are going to have to look at those tough decisions after all. Two thoughts currently: (1) Breakout is huge (17-19K), and relates only to the year 1956-57... (2) We may need to drastically summarize some of the post-History sections, such as Influence of Colonel Parker and others, Sex Symbol, Racial Issues. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be away and won't be back untill Friday,but when I return,I'll be your huckleberry.--Jaye9 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a whacking to "Sex Symbol". I'm not sure that the other post-"History" sections can bear similarly deep cuts. DocKino (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally support taking the weed-wacker to "Racial Issues" and "Sex Symbol". Neither add anything useful to the article. That would yield a haircut of about 10kb. At the same time it would be nice if we could add a little more info on "The Gospel Side of Elvis" as per Joe Moscheo's recent book. Joe (of the Imperials) actually performed with Elvis. Three of Elvis' gospel albums were Grammy winners, a serious accomplishment. Santamoly (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Santamoly,do you know I couldn't agree with you more,as I believe "The Gospel Side of Elvis" and the fact that this was the only music by which he received 3 Grammy's for,yes was a serious accomplishment and by rights,deserves more information,however may I say and also point out to you, that I also love his gospel,and blues,his sense of humour,fashion sense and at times for his occassional eccentricities,the whole box and dice. But if I am to ask certain editors,to cut back somewhat on what appears to be his or her interest,for sake of length etc and then over emphasis on subjects that interest me,I would come across as pretty hypercritical wouldn't you say. What I'm trying to bring across,is would should touch on different subjects,but not to much emphasis on subjects that say interest us,let the reader make up there mind as to whether they wish to look into it more. I hope I'm making some kind of sense here,as I don't wish to offend.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree that "Racial issues" section adds nothing to the article. Presley brought the topic of race and all that entailed into a sharp focus. It would be crazy not to emphasize the effect his music, performance style and attitudes had on the course of popular music for blacks and whites alike. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, respectfully, but strongly disagree. And, having devoted a fair amount of my energies the past couple of weeks to ensuring this article pays appropriate attention to Presley's gospel roots and recordings, I feel perfectly comfortable doing so.

As for why I disagree, there are two main reasons:

• At this point, we already give considerably more weight to the gospel side of Elvis than does any other general interest survey of his career. If anyone doubts this, just compare the Rolling Stone bio. See how many times the words "gospel" and "spiritual" turn up there. Let me tell you: 3 times. Our article's a bit over three times as long, so we might expect "gospel" and "spiritual" to turn up 10 times. In, fact, they turn up 36 times. In addition, we make sure to name (and link) not only all three of his gospel albums, but his gospel EP, as well. We now give this topic the coverage it deserve, folks. No more is necessary.
• Given the structure of our encyclopedia, more--much more--can be learned about Presley's gospel recordings via distinct articles devoted to them. However, there is no other article suitable for surveying the racial issues raised by his career. The topic is absolutely crucial, but it is not of the nature--and certainly not of the length, at this point--to warrant its own article. It's exactly the sort of thing that merits a topical section in a biographical article. The notion that it does not add "anything useful to the article" is simply misinformed. DocKino (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Rikstar and DocKino on this one--the remaining sections don't "add nothing" (though I suspect that was not meant literally), and we give gospel good coverage. I think the point here is, how much (if at all) can we condense the remaining sections, i.e., shrink their size but retain their message. While I've yet to look at it in detail, I see DocKino's already performed a good Sex act along these lines. PL290 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Sinatra quote and seeing four things: (1) it's trenchant and striking and nice to have in the article, (2) it's long, (3) it's off topic in this section, leading to (4) that section would be more coherent and a more manageable size without the paragraph this quote takes up. Can we countenance dropping that quote from the article? PL290 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's famous, it's juicy, it's certainly on-topic in terms of the broader "1956–58: Commercial breakout and controversy" section, and it's integral to our narrative via its relation to the later discussion of the Sinatra-Timex Special. I trimmed the fat from it. DocKino (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stats

I've now done a quick check of the approx readable prose size of each section (no, that wasn't "approx readable", btw!), and I can report that 110K of the 120K quoted is made up as follows:

79K:   1
6K:    1.1 1935–53: Early years
13K:   1.2 1953–55: First recordings
17K:   1.3 1956–57: Commercial breakout and controversy
5K:    1.4 1958–60: Military service and mother's death
7K:    1.5 1960–67: Focus on movies
16K:   1.6 1968–73: Comeback
13K:   1.7 1973–77: Health deterioration and death
2K:    1.8 Since 1977

31K: sections 2-8:
7K:  2 Musical style and evolution
2K:  3 Questions over cause of death
4K:  4 Racial issues
6K:  5 Influence of Colonel Parker and others
3K:  6 Sex symbol
5K:  7 Acting career
4K:  8 Legacy

Hopefully this breakdown will help us to see which sections to tackle if we want to make a meaningful impact by removing unnecessary detail. PL290 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Background info: the breakdown is indicative only--the figures were obtained by using the method given at WP:SIZE, then deleting a section at a time and noting the size reported in Preview. From doing similar things again subsequently, I have the impression that due to rounding etc. the figure reported is not exact and so different figures are obtained by deleting in a different order etc. So far I'm only excluding infobox, TOC, and everything from Discography table to the end--I am not bothering to remove alt text and the like--so the actual figure will be a bit lower than the one I'm reporting. PL290 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Current readable prose stats using Doc PDA's brilliant device:

• Elvis Presley: 91 KB
• Ketuanan Melayu (longest FA): 88 KB
• Star Trek: The Motion Picture (most recently promoted giant FA): 78 KB
• Punk rock (longest music FA): 74 KB
• The Beatles: 71 KB

In other words, we're getting there. DocKino (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great find! (Certainly is "brilliant"--I needed sunglasses!) That tool is a weapon of heroic proportions. Took my own copy and made it silver. I've updated WP:SIZE to give it a mention. PL290 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The tool reports we're now down to 87K (which is, I note, less than the "longest FA" 88K DocKino cites above). Hard to see what else should go. Are we there? PL290 (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work. I feel like we're there. It'll be interesting to hear what others think. DocKino (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Common sense

Maybe its wiki, maybe its the editors, but to believe that Elvis sold one billion records is downright nonsensical. There is no evidence beside bad circulated media reports given to hype up his estate. Im a Elvis fan too but there is no official worldwide sales figure for Elvis/Beatles/Jackson. This debate spilled over from months back from list of best selling artist. The beatles/Jackson has changed there sentencing to add estimated sales or one of the best. Allowing Elvis to say the best selling ever is kinda of forgeting about that discussion. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bad circulated media reports given to hype up his estate." Huh? You've got three (3) sources backing up the "approximately 1 billion" figure, and one of them is the Associated Press (via CBS). Time magazine is a perfectly acceptable source as well. It's best to read the sources carefully before deciding to revert as "nonsensical""... Doc9871 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They are an acceptable source. Do you really beleive that Elvis sold a billion or the beatles or Jackson at 750 million? There terrible estimates.

The other Doc paid a house call first! Here's the medicine I was preparing to apply...

This is the article on Elvis Presley, not the Elvis wing of the Fab Four/King of Pop/King of Rock 'n' Roll fansite. We have a 2002 article from Time magazine that states, "He's sold more records (1 billion worldwide) than any other artist in history". We have a 2002 Associated Press article that states, "His worldwide album sales are estimated to top 1 billion". We have a well-researched article from 2008, published under the aegis of Elvis Presley Enterprises--admittedly a biased source--but with transparent research sourcing and methodology that supports the claim and to which the well-respected Ernst Jorgensen has leant his name. In addition, (a) we do not claim, even at this point, that Presley has surpassed 1 billion in sales, merely that he has approximated that figure; (b) we make no claim relevant to The Beatles; (c) Presley indisputably has higher certified sales than Jackson (see List of best-selling music artists), and all the evidence indicates that Presley's uncertified sales are much higher than Jackson's. I see no reason at all to change the current wording of the lead section.

All

P.S. If it's any consolation to you, Star, some measurable percentage of Presley's sales are of his epochal 1964 single "Do the Clam" (no, not from Clambake, but Girl Happy). MJ had to sing about a rat once (and hit number one!), but never a bivalve. DocKino (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is as smart as logic for believing in the billion figure. Maybe its ignorance or pure obsession but there is no official body that has complete record sales of Elvis/beatles/Jackson. Keep in mind that Ernst Jorgensen is a huge Elvis fan but common sense should tell you Elvis did not sell a billion but I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I see that the sales stayed at 600 million to one billion for a while yet it was changed. Thats fine. As for he's uncertified sales what do expect every album not certified to be around 1 million? Elvis management has a history of overhyping numbers. Do you believe he sold 300 million in between 1977 and 1981 but no proof on the charts. Just say yes lol. Keep in mind that Elvis is not the only artist with uncertified sales but I bet there tally doesnt end up being 2.5 billion or 1.5 billion. I have seen the List of best-selling music artists and keep in mind its Harouts individual research and he is a huge Elvis fan. I wont win this battle so no need to continue writing on this discussion but when I find Sources that says "one of the best" it will be all in my right to bring in the source in. I will keep my eye on this page as I have been doing. Good day A Star Is Here (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for more cuts

A few crucial quotations appear in this article, but I think some could be shortened, paraphrased or cut. e.g.:

1)The Sinatra quote regarding rock and roll and cretinous goons could be severely shortened and still convey his feelings;

2)The quotes about Presley's decline by Tony Brown and John Wilkinson could be paraphrased, and/or maybe one of them deleted, as they both say similar things.

And there may be others. Not major reductions to article length, but every little helps. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but as I mentioned earlier, let's try and keep the best till last, as it were. It would be a shame to lose/dilute quotes and then find there hadn't been many and it had made no significant impact. PL290 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another quote that looks lame is Julie Parrish's: "couldn't stop laughing while he was recording" one of the songs for Paradise, Hawaiian Style. I've listened to the out-takes, of "Datin'", and others. The overwhelming impression is that Presley is laughing maniacally and inappropriately primarily because he was high as a kite on drugs. I think a more suitable quote should be found regarding his hatred/boredom, or lose the quote altogether? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I substituted a more encompassing observation from the Jordanaires' Gordon Stoker. DocKino (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good spot, and good replacement--a vast improvement. Well done both. PL290 (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question on lead

PL did well to bring Sam Phillips and the Colonel into the lead. I'm wondering if Scotty and Bill belong there as well. It would involve changing this:

Presley was one of the first performers of rockabilly, an uptempo, backbeat-driven fusion of country and rhythm and blues.

to this:

Accompanied by guitarist Scotty Moore and bassist Bill Black, Presley was one of the originators of rockabilly, an uptempo, backbeat-driven fusion of country and rhythm and blues.

Aye or nay? DocKino (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an "aye" from me. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And me, so I've added it. PL290 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Black, Moore and Phillips were important contributors to his early recordings and performances, but the article is about Elvis. Also, again, Elvis can be heard mentioning Carl Perkins in one of the out takes for one of the first two songs these guys made. And there were many others who did similar things before these guys did. Again, consult the Rockabilly article. Give credit where it is due, but don't overdo. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see, by your next remark, you already have. Too bad. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is "too bad"? There's no claim that Presley "invented" rockabilly. He's identified as "one of the originators". That's well-supported by published sources in the field. In fact, many texts go farther than we do. Paul Friedlander, for instance, in Rock and Roll: A Social History, published by the very respectable Westview Press: "Following high school graduation, Elvis began to mold elements from these roots of blues, R&B, gospel, and country into the style known as rockabilly" (p. 43). Or simply read page 1 of Craig Morrison's Go Cat Go!: Rockabilly Music and Its Makers, probably the best known history of the form and again from a very respectable publisher--the University of Illinois Press. I believe referring to him as "one of the originators" is well within the bounds of both verifiability and truth. DocKino (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to argue that someone is an originator of rockabilly, but "There's no claim that Presley "invented" rockabilly." Is it possible to originate but not invent? A search of the url and book you list for words such as "origin" "originate", etc. as well as a reading of the initial pages reveals no statement that Elvis originated the style. The only occurance of the word "originator" has nothing to do with Elvis. This url will show MANY songs in the style that Elvis made famous, a full year before he recorded his first published songs in the style [5]. Although you posted this for "Discussion", the change was implemented within a day. Three of you have agreed to this change. Nevertheless, I will again urge a revision back to the more neutral wording. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between these two claims:

Presley invented rockabilly.

Presley was one of the originators of rockabilly.

The current language (a) allows that there were other originators of the form and (b) is a responsible paraphrase and accurate summary of the sources I have just cited for your benefit, along with many others. One might observe that it is disingenuous of you not to acknowledge those facts. Again, if anything, the claim is restrained, compared to those of available sources. To wit: "Elvis, Scotty Moore, Bill Black, and Sam Phillips somehow created rockabilly music in Memphis in 1954" (Stephen Tucker, "Rethinking Elvis and the Rockabilly Moment", in Chadwick, In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion, p. 21); "Elvis all but created rockabilly style"—and yes, they're referring to the music, not just the clothing (Michael Campbell and James Brody, Rock and Roll: An Introduction, p. 87). Et cetera. Now, shall we discuss the propriety of accusing your fellow editors of being "disingenuous"? DocKino (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I'm trying to see your point here; mainly this was about ensuring the key actors are covered by the lead, which should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. On the rockabilly concern, did you look at the link to Go cat go!: rockabilly music and its makers by Craig Morrison? On the very first page, of a book whose subject is "rockabilly music and its makers", Morrison emphasizes Presley, Presley, Presley. On that page, to introduce the whole book, he refers to "Elvis" twice, "Presley" another twice, and "Elvis Presley" once--and no other artist. He states that "With a little help, Presley showed the way out of the old and into the new." I would concur that referring to Presley as "one of the originators" accurately reflects the cited source, and does not imply he is the sole "inventor" whether or not that is considered synonymous. PL290 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sight and Sound

Assuming a Sight and Sound critic did describe Presley's screen persona as "aggressively bisexual" back in 1959, I actually think that's worthy of note. However, our contributor does not seem to realize that the citations in this article are now being held to Featured Article (i.e., ethical and scholarly) standards. If you're going to quote this phrase from Sight and Sound, you need to actually be able to access the original source. We need the name of the author. We need the title of the article. And we need to know in which of the four issues of the periodical published in 1959 that article appeared in. If you can't provide that information, then you're not legitimately citing the quote, and we can't use it. DocKino (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate the point made in edit summary: We are not going to accept grossly inadequate citations, and now a completely fabricated attribution. It's terribly, terribly sad for couch potato scholarship, but sometimes Google Book doesn't come through with proper citation and attribution info, especially for periodicals. (Penelope Houston edited Sight and Sound, but she didn't write the article in question. If you really knew how to manipulate Google Book snippet view, you could at least have come up with the correct attribution, and not shamed yourself.) There is an institution available to most English-speaking inhabitants of the free world known as the library. I've used it often to improve articles on Wikipedia. Tell us, 141, have you? DocKino (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, because some of us actually care about doing proper research, I can confirm that in 1959 a Sight and Sound critic described Presley's screen persona as "aggressively bisexual in appeal". I can provide complete citation information—including the proper attribution. Do we think this should be added to (or substituted for one of) the two existing quotes in the second paragraph of "Sex symbol"? (Your opinion on this, 141, will be given precisely the weight it deserves.) DocKino (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that a quote from 1959 is of historical importance. It should be included in the said paragraph. Onefortyone (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if it can be fully sourced, I think it's a good addition right as you had it last time. PL290 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1959 it's likely that "bisexual in appeal" meant that he appealed to both males and females. The world wasn't doing modern bisexual back then, and Elvis had likely never even heard the term. If anyone's going to quote this, then he should be prepared to explain convincingly that it means what he thinks it means, and not what us old-timers know it really means. Santamoly (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls

The "Legacy" section says, “In polls and surveys, he is recognized as one of the most important popular music artists and influential Americans.” The same section includes similar superlatives of this kind. Other opinions have been removed, for instance, sociologist Philip Ennis has written, "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252. This is an independent source that has not been manipulated by the record industry, and it strongly suggests that Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth. For reasons of balance, this information should be reincluded in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. A poll of high schoolers in 1957? Really? Pray tell us, what respected polling firm conducted this poll? What was their sample size and methodology? And what the hell does this have to do with Presley's legacy? Get real. DocKino (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The source is a university study partly dealing with statistics. It shows that Elvis's reputation as the most successful popular singer of his day has been doubted. Onefortyone (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any of that belongs in Legacy. 141, would you please explain, in terms that involve the word "legacy", the relevance? PL290 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also 141, you didn't answer the question: What organization conducted this poll? Oh, and how did you determine the economic class distribution of the high schoolers polled? I have to assume that you just made it up, like you did with your false attribution of the "aggressively bisexual" quotation (a "fumble", I notice, for which you have yet to apologize).

Do you really think that a university study would cite an unimportant poll? As for the Sight and Sound quote, you are right in suggesting that I discovered the source on the internet. I simply was of the opinion that the editor of the journal has written the article. That’s all. Sorry for the mistake. However, I still do not think that the author’s name is of much importance, as the passage was accurately cited, but I take your note that his name might be necessary in a featured article. Thanks again for adding it. Query: as a film expert, you seem to have access to specific resources. So why did you remove my contribution? Instead of removing it you could also have added the correct author’s name. In many other cases, you are also simply adding what is missing. Onefortyone (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as a deep believer in balance for balance's sake, you must be appalled at how we fail to properly express the magnitude of Presley's success. It's safe to assume you also want us to include this passage from his Rolling Stone bio, yes?

The RIAA has awarded Presley the largest number of gold, platinum, and multiplatinum certifications of any artist in history; as of early 2001, 131. His chart performance, as tracked by Billboard, is also unmatched, with 149 charting pop singles: 114 Top 40, 40 Top 10, and 18 #1s.

If an editor is of the opinion that this quote is of some importance, I have no problem with this. Usually, I do not delete what others have written. However, for reasons of balance, other voices must also be added. Onefortyone (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are once again being disingenuous; you have a track record covering this and other articles that shows your idea of 'balance' is grossly at odds with others. You also "do not delete what others have written" to achieve your idea of balance not out of agreement and magnanimity, but so you can stamp your feet when others have the temerity to legitimately delete your own edits. Not a mature or desirable approach to editing. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So tell us, how's that balancing act goin'? DocKino (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, several critical voices have recently been deleted. For instance, John Lennon, who had once been famously quoted to the effect that "before Elvis, there was nothing", opined in 1980 that Presley "died when he went into the army...that's when they killed him, that's when they castrated him, the rest of it was just a living death." See Lennon, Ono, and Peebles 1981, p. 74. Music critic and Presley biographer Dave Marsh says about the singer's fans: "There are people in places that count in the world, and people in places that don't. He is the son of the people who don't count, and their shining star. That's what makes him unique and what people still respond to." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. This quote certainly supports the view that Elvis’s music wasn’t favored by the middle and upper-class youth, as the opinion poll also shows. And it is a fact that “In general, the press has been critical, clueless, or contemptuous when writing about Elvis Presley.” See Doll, Susan, Elvis for Dummies, p.260. Indeed, many critics were not impressed—very few authoritative voices were complimentary. For instance, in August 1978, The New York Times remarked, “Which will seem more absurd to students of our time, the nation-wide flap in the 1950’s that kept Elvis Presley’s gyrating hips from being televised or the hysteria with which his fans ... commemorated the first anniversary of his death?” Cited in Doll, Elvis for Dummies, p.253. It has also been stated that while "Elvis’s success as a singer and movie star dramatically increased his economic capital, his cultural capital never expanded enough for him to transcend the stigma of his background as a truck driver from the rural South... 'No matter how successful Elvis became... he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans... He was the sharecropper’s son in the big house, and it always showed.'" See Linda Ray Pratt, "Elvis, or the Ironies of a Southern Identity," pp.43, 45, cited in Rodman, Elvis after Elvis, p.78, and Marcus, Dead Elvis, p.156. Query: why are sources like these not mentioned in the article? Not to mention that there is a star cult manipulated by the Elvis industry uncritically feeding the fans with information they like. Onefortyone (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Millions of people have said millions of different things about Elvis Aaron Prelsey. Essential to the art of encyclopedia writing is choosing what to cite out of the vast universe of what might possibly be cited. I'd say the wide variety of viewpoints on the man are already fairly well represented in this article. "If we had but world enough and time", eh, friend? Thanks for your input, though. DocKino (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if there is the opinion cited in the Legacy section that "at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television", Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world" (by the way, a questionable opinion as far as the mainstream views of 1956 are concerned), another opinion that contradicts such a quote must also be cited for reasons of balance. And there are many different voices. You cannot select only positive ones. Onefortyone (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Um...are we discussing the same article here? What information have you presented that contradicts the claim that Presley was arguably the most famous person on Earth by the end of 1956? Your beloved poll addresses the question of whom high-schoolers regarded as their favorite. Do you understand the difference between favorite and famous? Do you understand the difference between the U.S. secondary school system and the planet Earth? I know you don't understand what the word "positive" means, because it's impossible that anyone could read the article and sensibly claim that only "positive" voices have been presented. DocKino (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the quotations being used in the Legacy section. Do you really think that in 1956 most adult people believed that Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world"? I have additionally shown that in 1957, Pat Boone was favored by high-school students. I am just arguing that for reasons of balance, other voices must be added. Here is another source dealing with today's views. In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, "the multimillion dollar Elvis business will try to connect with a new generation of teenage fans." They endeavor to show up more film clips, photos and other material from the vast Presley archives online. 'We will take our MySpace page and we will focus on expanding our number of friends on MySpace, that kind of thing,' Jankowski said..." However, Baird concludes, "Moving Elvis content online should be easy; making Elvis cool again will be more difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See Woody Baird, “Getting todays teens all shook up over Elvis”, The Plain Dealer, Saturday, December 30, 2006. So why is it not mentioned in the "Legacy" section that most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music? Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason it is not mentioned in the articles on Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven that most teens nowadays have no interest in their music: it's not particularly relevant to an assessment of their legacies. And you still have yet to explain what high-schoolers' presumed love for Pat Boone in 1957 has to do with Presley's legacy. Waiting...waiting...waiting... DocKino (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant in your opinion, but other polls and views are relevant, I see. Perhaps we should rename the Legacy section. What about saying, "Legacy for Elvis fans". This would be more accurate. You still have yet to explain what the opinion that "at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television", Elvis "was arguably the most famous person in the world" has to do with Presley's legacy, especially in view of the fact that other sources contradict this opinion. I would agree that the Pat Boone quote may indeed be cited in another section of the article because the same author who has cited the poll has also shown that Boone was seen by many as the good guy and Elvis as the bad guy. As an alternative for the Legacy section, here is the opinion of David Bowie: "There was so little of it that was actually good." "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. I simply argue, if the opinion that Elvis in 1956 was "the most famous person in the world" is cited in the Legacy section, then a different voice must also be heard, since there are lots of sources seeing the singer in another light. Onefortyone (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As is your wont, you have blithely misrepresented the article's content. The passage in question reads, "Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world." That is relevant to the question of legacy. Most of what fascinates you is not. Furthermore, you are still confusing favorite (i.e., especially liked or loved) with famous (i.e., widely known). You still have failed to explain what Boone love has to do with Presley's legacy—indeed, you appear not to understand what constitutes a legacy. You continue to ignore the wealth of quotation and description already incorporated in the article demonstrating that many Americans regarded Presley as "the bad guy" during his first era of fame. And you appear, as always, to be entirely oblivious to the questions of length and focus. In sum, you have suggested nothing that will add to the quality of the article and much that will detract from it. I believe I've articulated these matters clearly and that there is no need to engage in further discussion. Hail and farewell. DocKino (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section claims that in polls and surveys, Elvis "is recognized as one of the most important popular music artists and influential Americans." The Boone quote would have slightly contradicted this view. That's why it is of some importance to mention it here. However, as you do not accept the addition of any critical voices, the section should indeed be renamed, "Positive legacy." I see that you and a few other editors seem primarily to be interested in stressing the mega-star image within the said section, but I still do not think that this is O.K. "No matter how successful Elvis became... he remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans." This opinion has been cited by reputable Elvis biographers such as Greil Marcus. It has not been cited in the Legacy section of the Wikipedia article. Just one further example. If you are looking at the many different impersonators, Elvis is certainly one of the most ridiculed 20th-century celebrities, but of course, this is also not mentioned in the Legacy section. Onefortyone (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Irrelevant where it was placed. Redundant where it might have been. Oh, and Marcus does not cite the observation--not in Dead Elvis anyway. I have the book in my lap. Do you? DocKino (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Marcus has cited another paragraph from the same source, Rodman was the Elvis expert who cited the said passage. The opinion that Elvis "remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans" can also be found in Janet Podell's Rock Music in America (1987) and other sources. This fact is certainly not irrelevant, but the tendency to omit such quotes from reputable sources in order to stress the mega-star image is very characteristic of some contributors here. Onefortyone (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like all editors to know that this is the umpteenth such thread, over more than three years, in which 141 has doggedly pursued his agenda to have 'balance' given to this article. I agree with DocKino's responses; it is both infuriating and disturbing to see that 141 continues to unilaterally argue points that have been dealt with time and time again, and that a consensus of opinion is against many of his edits, actual and proposed. And once again, I note that 141 has avoided expressly stating that he has any intention of making this a Featured Article. This kind of impediment and nuisance cannot be tolerated. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking, Rikstar. You can be sure that I'm interested in making "Elvis Presley" a featured Wikipedia article. Many of the current edits are indeed improvements. There is only one problem: the recent removal of more critical voices. Onefortyone (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

From time to time my eye alights on the "ancestry" sentence in Early years. It strikes me as a little long-winded, with talk of his mother's great-grandmothers and great-great-grandmothers. There's also the question of what we mean by Jewish in this context. The source just says that according to a cousin, "Nancy [the ancestor] was Jewish. She and Abner had met as schoolmates in Tenessee." All of which said, no obvious improvement jumps out at me. It gives good background information, is only a short sentence, and may be adequate exactly as it is. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... the ancestry! This has been a problem for a couple of years. At one time, everyone with a national or racial claim wanted there tuppence-worth included, and the article read like a boring shopping list before it had even got going. If there's a single good source that discusses this, I'd like the article to say he was "of mixed ancestry", add the citation, and leave it at that. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The passage offers a bit more detail than we might usually expect, but I think it offers good value to the reader, given that one is likely to come across claims that "Elvis was part Cherokee" or "Elvis was really Jewish". Dundy has established as precisely as seems possible the extent to which this is true (1/32 Cherokee) or might be true (1/16 Jewish [ethnically], if the verbal but otherwise unevidenced family accounts are accurate). DocKino (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the proof/link that his great-great-grandmother or whatever was Jewish? I've looked but I see no evidence. If I say my great great grandmother was a Martian, does that make me a Martian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.172.235 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Please head over to the mirror and report. Antennae? Head shaped like a top (or, you know, a dreidl)? Epidermis a fetching shade of green? Yep, you could be on to something! DocKino (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it state elsewhere in wikipedia quite unequivocally that Presley was of English Romany ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.114.164 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Because mistakes sometimes appear even on Wikipedia. DocKino (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost in Hollywood

Regardless of the songs' quality, it has been argued that Presley generally sang them well, with commitment. Rock critic Dave Marsh heard the opposite: "Presley isn't trying, probably the wisest course in the face of material like 'No Room to Rumba in a Sports Car' and 'Rock-a-Hula Baby.'"

The Matthew-Walker citation actually says Presley "songs are sung well and played by the distinguished musicians assembled." However, this is only in reference to the (poor) material for the Paradise, Hawaiian Style soundtrack recording session, and is not about his film recordings generally. In my opinion, the Marsh quote implies that "Presley isn't trying" in any of his soundtrack recordings. Matthew-Walker certainly cites cases where he thinks Presley not only tries, but achieves, good performances of some soundtrack songs, even if some are sub-standard compositions (I'm sure Jorgensen, et al give similar examples). Personally, it's hard to listen to film songs like I Need Somebody To Lean On, and They Remind Me Too Much Of You and not think Presley was committed and singing well. So, I'm wondering if there's anything to address here. May be one such movie song could be embedded in this section. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say, the Marsh quote does indeed imply Dave Marsh thinks "Presley isn't trying" in any of his soundtrack recordings. Therefore I suggest the first thing we need to do is to establish is whether that implication accurately reflects Marsh's overall position. (Can someone with the source confirm?) If it is indeed an accurate reflection, meaning there is a disagreement of opinion among WP:RSs, we should try to present a balanced mix of WP:RS opinion per WP:UNDUE. If Marsh simply said that about one or more specific recordings, then that is the statement we should make. PL290 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis' movie soundtracks from the Sixties are routinely written off as filler by many but there were some gems that deserve further investigation.

The Viva Las Vegas material is good. It was better than so many of the other soundtracks. It's a shame that it wasn't recorded in proper stereo. I'ts recorded in this funny three track way of having Elvis on one channel,the backup singer's on another one and then the whole band on another track. That band that's playing on that material,especially the title song,is really cookin' there. That's a fantastic track. If I were to look for gems on the movie soundtracks of the Sixties I'd cite 'Doin'The Best I Can,the doo-wop song that Elvis sings on GI Blues. It's a fantastic recording. The lyric is full of self pity but he sings it incredible well. But there are great songs of Girls,Girls,Girls. There are good songs on almost every soundtrack album but there are also bad songs on most of the soundtrack albums as well. The strongest Sixties soundtrack is Blue Hawaii,there's nothing that even comes close." Source: ElvisPresley.com.au interview with Ernst Jorgensen,September 8, 2006

I've also remember reading comments made by Peter Gurlanick,in pretty much in the same line. It's also interesting to note the songs "No More" and "Hawaiian Wedding Song", both from the movie Blue Hawaii were really liked by Presley. He was also very fond of "You Don't Know Me" from the movie Clambake,of which was his least favourite of his 31 films. "Suppose" was another he liked,which was originally intended for use in Easy Come,Easy Go,but was eventually recorded for inclusion in Clambake. However,it didn't make it into that one either and was cut before the film was finished. Overall,even though there are some good ones like the "Live A Little,Love A Little" soundtrack and various other songs. I think it's fair to say that the quality of the songs started to decline after Viva Las Vegas,and Presley's interest in his film songs fell as well over the following five years.--Jaye9 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Added to "Also known as"

I added some names that he was known as. "Ellie", "The Prez", The Atomic Powered Singer, E.P., The Hillbilly Cat, Elvis the Pelvis, Tiger (which was his Karate nickname). My uncle was a PFC and KP in the army and knew Elvis well, and they all called him "Ellie", as well as "The Prez". All the guys in his unit called him "Ellie and "The Prez". They were affectionate nicknames. Other guys in his unit, my uncle said, had some less than affectionate nicknames, which would be inappropriate for Wikipedia's high standards because they would be considered obscene. One time, one of my father's friends, who was also a PFC, called Presley one of these names. They fought it out, and my father's friend won the fight EASILY, my father said. My father said that Presley fought like a sissy. Now, my father told me this, and it's most likely true. If you'd like verification, my fathr gave me authorization to give out his phone number if Wikipedia.com needs a reliable reference regarding this. So if you want his phone number, just ask. Runt (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Runt (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the field is not for nicknames (see {{Infobox_musical_artist}}). Regarding those very early names, "Hillbilly Cat" and so forth, the infobox should summarize main aspects about the artist, and Presley isn't "also known as" those things any more. IMO "Elvis" is self-evident so not worth listing. I've taken them all out. PL290 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he IS "also known as" those things any more. He IS. I hear lots of my friends and some people down my block and also this guy who owns an ice cream stand in our town. They refer to Elvis Presley as these things. Just ask ANYBODY. Runt (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Runt, I appreciate your information; I still don't think those things belong in the infobx (did you look at the guideline?), but that's just me; let's see what other editors who regularly work on the article say. About your father's phone number, by the way, you should not give that out on a talk page, and in fact it would not help in the way you hoped because it would not count as a reliable source. PL290 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know it's funny,when reading your comments Runt,I recall the "Memphis Mafia" his closest circle of friends stating that Presley would allow them to call him and only them by they way,nick names like "E" and ah "El" but never "Ellie" and the "The Prez",that's a newy. I'm afraid if a relative I've mine told me that little story,I'd tell to cut back on the "Rough Red" a little bit,if you know what I mean. Here's one for you "Welvis Himselvis", do you like that one,as amusing as it all maybe,get real,were trying our hardest to do a serous article here,okay.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I went down to the ice cream stand to double-check with that guy. Turns out he was talking about Elvis Costello. And those people down the block loving on "Ellie"? De Generes. Yep. Trust me. I asked them. DocKino (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this information?

The section entitled “Back on tour and meeting Nixon” states,

The U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce named Presley "One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation for 1970" on January 16, 1971.

Query: do we need this detail, especially in view of the fact that there are so many other superlatives mentioned in the article and several more critical voices omitted? Here is the "List of the Ten Outstanding Young Americans" for 1970:

• Atkins, Thomas I., 31 - Municipal Affairs
• Bucha, Paul W., 27 - Military Service
• Capecchi, Mario R., 32 - Biological Research
• Cherry, Harry W., 35 – Business
• Coll, Edward T., 30 - Voluntary Service
• Goetz, James B., 34 - State Affairs
• Humann, Walter J., 33 – Business
• Presley, Elvis, 35 – Entertainment
• Todaro, Dr. George, 33 – Medicine
• Ziegler, Ronald L., 31 - National Affairs

What is so important about this list that it is mentioned in the said section? Onefortyone (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a citation, so you can read up about it, friend.

As for balance, I know. All the hard-earned superlatives about Presley's amazing number of multiplatinum albums and Top 40 hits, nowhere to be found. All the countless accolades describing him as the greatest rock 'n' roll star ever, gone. How did we ever let the nattering nabobs of negativism take over this article?! Oh, woe... DocKino (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Our source for the Jaycee award does not indicate that "of 1970" was part of the title. The issue of Presley's historical disreputability in mainstream culture is already very well covered at the appropriate point in the article. Our closing quotes in the "Legacy" section more than sufficiently indicate some of the negative views that might still be held by some. It looks like it's time for someone to get to work on Slammin' the King. DocKino (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Even fan books such as Denard McClairne, Tupac and Elvis: Inevitably Restless (2006), p.46, mention that the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce named Presley one of the Ten Most Outstanding Young Men of the Nation for 1970. It's a historical fact your version suppresses. In 1969 and 1971 other names appeared on the list of the Most Outstanding Young Men of the Nation. And it is also very interesting that you more than once have removed a well-sourced critical remark which says that Elvis "remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans." Onefortyone (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the point is not so much the list per se as its part in the picture. Up to this point in the story we've heard plenty about Elvis the bad guy, the threat to the nation's security, his brutal, vicious influence evoking almost totally negative and destructive reactions in young people; the one who incited riots during which people destroyed the stage; the one unfit for family viewing, burned in effigy, performing in a manner suggestive and vulgar, tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos--to pick out but a few examples from a quick glance at the article. But at this point in the story the picture changes: he approaches the President, tells him "I'm on your side" and asks for a badge to signify official sanction of his patriotic efforts. However bizarre this was, and however complicated and compromised, it signifies a change in Presley at that time, alongside which the national recognition he received during that same period belongs. PL290 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis " remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans." This is a clear statement that should be included in the Legacy section. Otherwise you may get the impression that Elvis is now seen by most people as the nice guy. Onefortyone (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, 141, but you have zero credibility as a researcher. Pratt's article was published in 1979 and its perspective was primarily historical. Your track record of misrepresenting sources grows longer and more dismal by the day. DocKino (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you realize that later authors such as Rodman (Elvis after Elvis, 1996, p.78) and Janet Podell (Rock Music in America, 1987, p.26) have used the same quote for their argument? Onefortyone (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AH! You want to use it on behalf of an argument you wish to make. Got it. We're all looking forward to reading that in Slammin' the King. DocKino (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, on behalf of an argument some reputable authors made, just in line with Wikipedia policies, for reasons of balance in the Legacy section. But I see, you don't like this well-sourced, critical remark. Onefortyone (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to love the comment. If only you knew how to read it, you'd know it doesn't belong in the "Legacy" section. If it had a place anywhere, it would be the "History" section, but it would be very much redundant there. This has been explained clearly to you. And you haven't convinced a single soul that this quote should go in. Guess how this ends up, buddy. DocKino (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly belongs in the Legacy section, as it says that Elvis remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans. This means, not only during the sixties and early seventies, but also after his death. Onefortyone (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment already rebutted--see above. Unless someone else weighs in in support of your argument, I'll consider this matter closed. Further redundant comments of yours will be ignored and further attempts to insert the quote in the article in the absence of supporting consensus will be summarily reverted and referenced to this thread. DocKino (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis apotheosized

I know we're all concerned about how overcritical this article has become. In order to restore much needed balance, here are some quotes we should consider adding:

"Americans do indeed have great respect for wealth, but Elvis is revered not just because he had it, but because he was so lavishly generous with it." (John Srausbaugh, E: Reflections on the Birth of the Elvis Faith, p. 71)

"Across middle America, Elvis is worshipped with a fervor akin to fundamentalist fanaticism. Overseas, in Europe, the Far East, Australia, his popularity is at times even greater." (Steve Zmijewsky and Boris Zmijewsky, Elvis: The Films and Career of Elvis Presley, p. 98)

"Elvis is God!" (quoted in George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977–1997: The Mystery Terrain, p. 227) DocKino (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If somebody is interested in including these quotes, I have no problem with this. However, such quotes must be counterbalanced by others:

John Lennon: "Elvis died when he went into the army. That's when they killed him, that's when they castrated him." (Lennon, Ono, and Peebles 1981, p. 74.)

David Bowie: "There was so little of it that was actually good." "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." ("How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.)

In a poll conducted by VH1 on the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock’n’Roll, David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley. (Billboard 110, March 21, 1998, p.10ff.)

Acknowledgment of Elvis’s vocal style had been reduced to mocking the hiccuping, vocalese tricks that he had used on some early recordings—and to the way he said "Thankyouverymuch" after songs during live shows. (Associated Press (2002-08-07). How big was the king? CBS News).

On June 11, 1956, Time magazine ironically referred to the singer as "dreamboat Groaner Elvis ("Hi luh-huh-huh-huv-huv yew-hew") Presley".

Natalie Wood: "God it was awful." ... "He can sing but he can’t do much else." (Brown and Broeske 1997, p. 111.)

His latter-day song choices had been seen as poor; many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs. Such criticism of Presley continues. (Cook, p. 20; Sinclair, Tom (August 9, 2002), "Elvis Presley is overrated". CNN.com)

"Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." (Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music, Wesleyan University Press, 1992, pp. 251-252.)

When Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost." (Jorgensen, p. 4.)

"Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." (Roy, p. 173.)

"Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years' “ (Woody Baird, “Getting todays teens all shook up over Elvis”, The Plain Dealer, Saturday, December 30, 2006.)

Interestingly, many of these more critical quotes that were part of previous versions of the article have recently been deleted. So much for the tendency of the current version. Onefortyone (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

141, no one takes your or your complaints seriously for a very good reason. There is no article on any other figure of popular culture that includes a comparable density of critical voices and unpleasant facts. Here's a sampling from the current version:

• "trashy"
• received a C in music in eighth grade.
• his music teacher told him he had no aptitude for singing
• "she didn't appreciate his kind of singing."
• "mama's boy".
• he failed an audition for a local vocal quartet, the Songfellows.
• "They told me I couldn't sing."
• Bond rejected him after a tryout, advising Presley to stick to truck driving "because you're never going to make it as a singer."
• Presley came by the studio, but was unable to do justice to it.
• nervousness at playing before a large crowd led Presley to shake his legs as he performed
• Presley made his lone appearance on Nashville's Grand Ole Opry on October 2, eliciting only a mild response.
• Presley had another attack of nerves during the first set, which drew a muted reaction.
• "It was almost frightening, the reaction that came to Elvis from the teenaged boys. So many of them, through some sort of jealousy, would practically hate him. There were occasions in some towns in Texas when we'd have to be sure to have a police guard because somebody'd always try to take a crack at him. They'd get a gang and try to waylay him or something."
• the shows were badly received by critics and the conservative, middle-aged hotel guests
• "Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States. ... [His] actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth. ... After the show, more than 1,000 teenagers tried to gang into Presley's room at the auditorium. ... Indications of the harm Presley did just in La Crosse were the two high school girls ... whose abdomen and thigh had Presley's autograph."
• Presley's gyrations created a storm of controversy. Television critics were outraged
• "Mr. Presley has no discernible singing ability. ... His phrasing, if it can be called that, consists of the stereotyped variations that go with a beginner's aria in a bathtub. ... His one specialty is an accented movement of the body ... primarily identified with the repertoire of the blond bombshells of the burlesque runway."
• popular music "has reached its lowest depths in the 'grunt and groin' antics of one Elvis Presley. ... Elvis, who rotates his pelvis ... gave an exhibition that was suggestive and vulgar, tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos".
• "unfit for family viewing"
• To Presley's displeasure, he soon found himself being referred to as "Elvis the Pelvis"
• "Allen thought Presley was talentless and absurd... [he] set things up so that Presley would show his contrition"
• the criticism to which he was being subjected
• a judge in Jacksonville, Florida, ordered Presley to tame his act
• "We just can't have this on a Sunday night. This is a family show!"
• Crowds in Nashville and St. Louis burned Presley in effigy.
• The movie was panned by the critics
• "the trouble with going to see Elvis Presley is that you're liable to get killed."
• Villanova students pelted him with eggs.
• Frank Sinatra [...] condemned the new musical phenomenon. In a magazine article, he decried rock and roll as "brutal, ugly, degenerate, vicious. ... It fosters almost totally negative and destructive reactions in young people. It smells phoney and false. It is sung, played and written, for the most part, by cretinous goons. ... This rancid-smelling aphrodisiac I deplore."
• Moore and Black—drawing only modest weekly salaries, sharing in none of Presley's massive financial success—resigned.
• His films were almost universally panned; one critic dismissed them as a "pantheon of bad taste."
• the quality of the soundtrack songs grew "progressively worse".
• "The material was so bad that he felt like he couldn't sing it."
• the numbers seemed to be "written on order by men who never really understood Elvis or rock and roll."
• "Presley isn't trying"
• as with artistic merit, the commercial returns steadily diminished.
• The flow of formulaic movies and assembly-line soundtracks rolled on.
• the Clambake soundtrack LP registered record low sales for a new Presley album
• "Elvis was viewed as a joke by serious music lovers and a has-been to all but his most loyal fans."
• Of the eight Presley singles released between January 1967 and May 1968, only two charted in the top 40, and none higher than number 28. His forthcoming soundtrack album, Speedway, would die at number 82 on the Billboard chart.
• he was nervous: his only previous Las Vegas engagement, in 1956, had been a disaster.
• Paul McCartney later said that he "felt a bit betrayed. ... The great joke was that we were taking [illegal] drugs, and look what happened to him", a reference to Presley's death, hastened by prescription drug abuse.
• "ten painfully genteel Christmas songs, every one sung with appalling sincerity and humility"
• "[Presley's] sin was his lifelessness"
• Presley and his wife, meanwhile, had become increasingly distant, barely cohabiting.
• an affair he had with Joyce Bova resulted—unbeknownst to him—in her pregnancy and an abortion.
• Priscilla relates that when she told him, Presley "grabbed ... and forcefully made love to" her, declaring, "This is how a real man makes love to his woman."
• he became obsessed with the idea that the men had been sent by Stone to kill him. Though they were shown to have been only overexuberant fans, he raged, "There's too much pain in me ... Stone [must] die." His outbursts continued with such intensity that a physician was unable to calm him, despite administering large doses of medication. After another two full days of raging, Red West, his friend and bodyguard, felt compelled to get a price for a contract killing
• Presley was becoming increasingly unwell. Twice during the year he overdosed on barbiturates, spending three days in a coma in his hotel suite after the first incident. Toward the end of 1973, he was hospitalized, semicomatose from the side effects of Demerol addiction. According to his main physician, Dr. George C. Nichopoulos, Presley "felt that by getting [pills] from a doctor, he wasn't the common everyday junkie getting something off the street. He ... thought that as far as medications and drugs went, there was something for everything."
• his failing health
• Presley's condition seems to have declined precipitously.
• "He fell out of the limousine, to his knees. People jumped to help, and he pushed them away like, 'Don't help me.' He walked on stage and held onto the mike for the first thirty minutes like it was a post. Everybody's looking at each other like, Is the tour gonna happen?"
• "He was all gut. He was slurring. He was so fucked up. ... It was obvious he was drugged. It was obvious there was something terribly wrong with his body. It was so bad the words to the songs were barely intelligible. ... I remember crying. He could barely get through the introductions"
• "I watched him in his dressing room, just draped over a chair, unable to move. So often I thought, 'Boss, why don't you just cancel this tour and take a year off...?' I mentioned something once in a guarded moment. He patted me on the back and said, 'It'll be all right. Don't you worry about it.'"
• he was now widely seen as a garish pop crooner: "in effect he had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers."
• some suggest the singer was too cowardly to face the three himself.
• Presley's drug dependency
• his interest in spending time in the studio waned
• the recording process was now a struggle for him
• "If he felt the way he sounded", Dave Marsh wrote of Presley's performance, "the wonder isn't that he had only a year left to live but that he managed to survive that long."
• "Elvis Presley had become a grotesque caricature of his sleek, energetic former self. Hugely overweight, his mind dulled by the pharmacopoeia he daily ingested, he was barely able to pull himself through his abbreviated concerts."
• In Alexandria, Louisiana, the singer was on stage for less than an hour and "was impossible to understand".
• In Baton Rouge, Presley failed to appear: he was unable to get out of his hotel bed, and the rest of the tour was cancelled.
• accelerating deterioration of his health
• In Rapid City, South Dakota, "he was so nervous on stage that he could hardly talk", according to Presley historian Samuel Roy. "He was undoubtedly painfully aware of how he looked, and [that he] could not perform any significant movement."
• fans "were becoming increasingly voluble about their disappointment, but it all seemed to go right past Elvis, whose world was now confined almost entirely to his room and his spiritualism books."
• gripped by paranoid obsessions that reminded Smith of Howard Hughes
• the first exposé to detail Presley's years of drug misuse
• he "was devastated by the book. Here were his close friends who had written serious stuff that would affect his life. He felt betrayed. [But] what they wrote was true."
• he suffered from multiple ailments—glaucoma, high blood pressure, liver damage, and an enlarged colon, each aggravated, and possibly caused, by drug abuse
• addiction to painkillers
• his voice was "variable and unpredictable" at the bottom
• "Drug use was heavily implicated" in Presley's death
• 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."
• "In the first eight months of 1977 alone, he had [prescribed] more than 10,000 doses of sedatives, amphetamines and narcotics: all in Elvis's name."
• there is little doubt that polypharmacy contributed significantly to Presley's premature death.
• many white adults, according to Billboard's Arnold Shaw, "did not like him, and condemned him as depraved. Anti-negro prejudice doubtless figured in adult antagonism. Regardless of whether parents were aware of the Negro sexual origins of the phrase 'rock 'n' roll', Presley impressed them as the visual and aural embodiment of sex."
• a rumor spread in mid-1957 that he had at some point announced, "The only thing Negroes can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes."
• Though the rumored remark was wholly discredited at the time, it was still being used against Presley decades later.
• The identification of Presley with racism—either personally or symbolically—was expressed most famously in the lyrics of the 1989 rap hit "Fight the Power", by Public Enemy: "Elvis was a hero to most / But he never meant shit to me / Straight-up racist that sucker was / Simple and plain."
• resentment over the fact that Presley, whose musical and visual performance idiom owed much to African American sources, achieved the cultural acknowledgment and commercial success largely denied his black peers.
• Respected songwriters lost interest in or simply avoided writing for Presley because of the requirement that they surrender a third of their usual royalties.
• "Elvis detested the business side of his career. He would sign a contract without even reading it."
• Presley had no feel for business
• any ambitions the singer may have had to play such parts were thwarted by his manager's negotiating demands or flat refusals
• "the process known as Elvis Presley"
• "Surrounded by the[ir] parasitic presence", as journalist John Harris puts it, "it was no wonder that as he slid into addiction and torpor, no-one raised the alarm: to them, Elvis was the bank, and it had to remain open."
• "But we all knew it was hopeless because Elvis was surrounded by that little circle of people ... all those so-called friends".
• "If we hadn't been around, he would have been dead a lot earlier."
• "no one knows how lonely I get. And how empty I really feel."
• "rumor had it that into his skin-tight jeans was sewn a lead bar to suggest a weapon of heroic proportions.'"
• a boyhood friend of Presley's who claims the singer used a cardboard toilet roll tube to make it "look to the girls up front like he had one helluva thing there inside his pants."
• Ed Sullivan's declaration that he perceived a soda bottle in Presley's trousers during his earlier television appearances
• "a peculiar feminised, objectifying version of white working-class masculinity as aggressive sexual display.”
• choose his dating partners with publicity in mind
• most of these relationships were insubstantial
• "All the talentless impersonators and appalling black velvet paintings on display can make him seem little more than a perverse and distant memory."
• "Elvis was camp"
• "how banal or predictable"
• "a great purveyor of schlock"
• "a great bore"
• "a great ham"

Your attempts to add to this litany? Ain't happening, my friend. DocKino (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As Elvis was such a controversial figure in popular music history during his lifetime and after his death, his biography must emphasize this fact. Furthermore, you have claimed, "There is no article on any other figure of popular culture that includes a comparable density of critical voices and unpleasant facts." What about Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Marlon Brando and others? Onefortyone (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated that the article provides exactly the emphasis you demand. Readers interested in examining the most significant of this material in context are directed to the sections "1956–58: Commercial breakout and controversy" and "Racial issues". DocKino (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the historical fact is still not mentioned in the Legacy section that Elvis "remained fundamentally disreputable in the minds of many Americans." On the other hand, the following, questionable claim is cited:

"Presley also heralded the vastly expanded reach of celebrity in the era of mass communication: at the age of 21, within a year of his first appearance on American network television, he was arguably the most famous person in the world."

And you said that this is relevant to the question of legacy. “...the most famous person in the world?” That's just fans' wishful thinking. Sorry, in 1956, Elvis was much loved and hated in several parts of the USA, that’s true, but Charles Laughton didn’t even know the correct name of Elvis when he introduced him in the Sullivan Show. The most famous person in the world at that time may have been Mao Zedong, if you count all the Chinese people whose hero Mao was and who had never heard of Elvis. And you can be sure that many Americans hated him at that time. As a celebrity, Marilyn Monroe was surely more famous for marrying Arthur Miller than Elvis for his gyrations. More famous than Elvis in the minds of many American adults were also Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev (the latter for his de-Stalinization policy). So much for the claim that Elvis, at the age of 21, was “the most famous person in the world” and for DocKino’s opinion that this “fact” is relevant to the question of Elvis’s legacy. Onefortyone (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of the Pratt quotation has been addressed above. It can no longer be assumed that you are raising this in good faith.

And your sourcing for these new claims...? DocKino (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are still of the opinion that the questionable quote is relevant? It's incredible. We are here talking of the most famous person in the world. Onefortyone (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

<<Cough!>> And your sourcing for your counterargument...? DocKino (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you really asking me for a source that says that Elvis was not the most famous person in the world in 1956. You must be joking. Onefortyone (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the article asserts that he was the famous person in the world in 1956? You must be a joke. DocKino (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The source claims, "at the age of 21", i.e. in 1956, "he was arguably the most famous person in the world." Onefortyone (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick nack paddywack, give a dog a bone... 141 it's time to drop it. Your persistence is doing you no favors. YET AGAIN, I note you seem not to be working with others to achieve Featured Article status, Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mental case alert

Something awful has happened. A deeply mentally disturbed person has usurped our friend 141's account and made this mad, pathetic edit to the article: [6]. I believe I know who this sorry individual is, but without definite proof, I won't share my suspicions. At any rate, let us hope that 141 regains control of his account. If he is unable to do so, and there are more such crazed assaults on the article, they should, of course, be reverted without comment. We want our trolls to receive the psychiatric help they so desperately need, but it's not necessary to feed them. DocKino (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your commentary clearly shows your biased attitude towards other users who would like to add some more details concerning Elvis's death. Did you realize that this "mad, pathetic edit to the article" (your words) was a direct quote from Peter Guralnick's well-researched book on Elvis? So you think that a Wikipedian who has cited Guralnick is a "deeply mentally disturbed person" and a "sorry individual?" Just for the record, according to this well known Presley biographer, Elvis Presley "had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had 'suffered constipation before he died.' " The author adds that "drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease...no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist." See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), p.651-652. Onefortyone (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Guralnick wrote a biography 141,that information you wish to include,as we all know is from his book "Careless Love",it has 661 pages. Giving a detailed account is necessary for a book of that type,this article is not a biography. Guralnick writes these accounts with respect and much more detail. My question is,are your reasons for wanting to include this information into this article quite as amicable?--Jaye9 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My addition more precisely describes the exact cause of Elvis's death. What should be wrong with this? More significant, however, are DocKino's gross insults against me and my well-sourced contribution. Onefortyone (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, outrageous personal attacks, based on nothing that I'm seeing offhand. Maybe he's unaware of the "folk wisdom" expressed below. The point being, you're not making this stuff up. The question is whether this much detail belongs in the article. That question doesn't justify the OP's comments, unless he's a mental health professional and can cite some evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

141, constipation is a common condition. That part of the quote does not mean constipation was "the exact cause of Elvis's death", as you put it. It's an incidental detail that's not at all appropriate in a summary article of this kind. And if DocKino has resorted to a facetious remark, in his latest attempt to drive home a point which editors have tried many times to make concerning your persistently disruptive behaviour, I think that is entirely understandable. PL290 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Constipation was certainly part of the cause of Elvis's death. However, the paragraph concerning Elvis's death may be extended. Here is what Guralnick says about Elvis 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. Onefortyone (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of someone's point of view, calling them mentally ill is not appropriate, and if not retracted, could result in a block. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling some editors idiots. That didn't necessarily change my opinion of those editors, but it did convince me not to call editors idiots anymore unless I could prove it. That guy should argue the merits of the information and stay away from personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a commentary by another user not previously involved in the current content dispute:

If it doesn't already, maybe the Elvis article should come out and say what I've often heard: "The King died on the throne!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, here's another fine mess we've gotten into - again. As I see things, based on a long memory of 141, he lost a round with DocKino and those of us who agreed with Doc, so 141 then switched to another weapon in his arsenal, and made the completely unrelated 'toilet' edit, in a move deliberately calculated to piss off everyone who is trying to edit down this article's size and get it up to FA status (He'll deny that of course).

A completely unrelated 'toilet' edit? Sorry, Rikstar, in previous versions of the article, you accepted more detailed information about Elvis’s death in the said section. You even corrected the Guralnick quote. See [7]. This version was part of the article for one or two years, including the well-sourced information that Elvis died on the toilet. Onefortyone (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr... completely unrelated to your earlier discussion in 'Do we really need this information?' actually. Toilets, puke or constipation not mentioned there. It can't be that difficult can it? And I really like the way you think editors can't change their minds about what is or is not included. I guess some editors have such a pathological agenda that they just can't understand that. Also, I stated, "Whether we have any reference to the john or not", which means I don't give two hoots whether the toilet gets mentioned, regardless of whether it has been before - aside from article length, which happens to be an issue right now. But I do note your response side steps the main point I was making, pretty much as I predicted. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether we have any reference to the john or not, HELLOOO!... there's a not-so-hidden agenda being pursued here, and, as is patently obvious, it is a serious hinderance and riling decent, hard-working editors to their limits (I'm OK, I've had my shots). And now 141 can play the 'poor me, I'm a victim' card now to unsuspecting new editors or admins on their talk pages. Can we give 141 a ginormous barnstar for creating so much disruption? And here's that link again to persistently disruptive behaviour. By the way, I have at least 12 years experience working in adult mental health. I certainly have my own opinions regarding the motivations of some editors, but I will not be sharing them on these pages, much as I might want to. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating this new section and writing that "I believe I know who this sorry individual is, but without definite proof, I won't share my suspicions." after mentioning 141 is, as far as I can tell, a personal attack. I don't know how anyone could come to a different conclusion. I have been becoming increasingly concerned with the increasingly strident edits, lack of true discussion, and dismisals of other viewpoints. Let me make it clear that I have probably never agreed with 141s edits or arguments. Still, that editor should be treated with at least modicum of civility, as should all editors. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should be treated with a modicum of civility. But I'd like to know how occasions of incivility, prompted, it seems, by sheer frustration with 141, weigh against 141's apparent total lack of respect for the collaborative process and the disruption associated with him. His tireless tactics are something I feel personally insulted by, but who cares about that? So we all soldier on, grinding our way through problems, most of them associated with one editor. But it's other poor saps who get caught in the searchlights.Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you realize that I am of the opinion that many of the recent edits are indeed improvements to the article? Notwithstanding, some nice quotes and critical remarks have been removed. You and some other users (chiefly Elvis fans) feel personally insulted by my edits simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. That's the only problem. However, there are users such as Baseball Bugs who think that perhaps the Elvis article should come out and say what is often to be heard: "The King died on the throne!" (see above) See also this opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you collaborate with others only when it suits you. Yes, to improve the article. No I don't - why am I and all those 'Elvis fans' not then clamoring to have more critical remarks removed? Oh, no it isn't!. Once more: don't care either way - but article length? I like the single user link - weighty ammunition for you there. There; direct answers to issues raised. No side-stepping. Thoroughly recommended - you should try it some time. :) Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan and those pesky pants

Back in 2008, I summarized a comment by Marlo Lewis (Sullivan show director) and it was included thus:

Ed Sullivan had apparently heard similar rumors and instructed his director Marlo Lewis to film only Presley's chest and head for his final Sullivan appearance. However, Lewis was skeptical about Presley wearing such a device and says simply: "It wasn't there".

The Marlo Lewis quotation, in full, is on pages 117 and 118 of Clayton & Heard's book: It partly reads:

So when we shot the show, I took camera two and I said, 'Dolly into a chest shot and stay there.' And for that entire six minutes we only saw Elvis from his chest to his head. We never revealed the rest of him, nor did anyone ever see this 'implement' between his legs. And I'll tell you a secret: it wasn't there.

We currently have claims - in two separate sections - that there was, or must have been, some kind of 'device' in his pants. But Marlo Lewis is the only person I know who was told about it, was watching, and was then able to declare that he saw no evidence of it. I wonder if this should be included, or whether Lewis's comment simply indicates there's undue emphasis on this topic in the article. Any thoughts? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Ed Sullivan’s co-producer Marlo Lewis, the rumor had it that "Elvis has been hanging a small soft-drink bottle from his groin underneath his pants, and when he wiggles his leg it looks as though his pecker reaches down to his knee!" See Marlo Lewis and Mina Bess Lewis, Prime Time (1979), p.146. This is what Lewis himself says in his own book.

More precisely, Peter H. Brown and Pat H. Broeske relate that

Ed, always suspicious and temperamental, had received a confidential call from an RCA publicist: "I shouldn't be saying this, but you had better watch Elvis closely." "What does he do," said Sullivan, "unzip his pants during the show?" "Everything but," the tipster warned. The television impresario immediately watched clips of the Steve Allen and Milton Berle shows. After viewing the segments twice he pointed to Presley's crotch. "Look at that," he told producer Marlo Lewis. "He's got some kind of device hanging down below the crotch of his pants — so when he moves his legs back and forth you can see the outline of his cock." He shook his head, then added, "I think it's a Coke bottle." He was troubled. "We just can't have this on a Sunday night. This is a family show!" He turned to Lewis and ordered, "Do what you have to do in order to fix this." See Peter H. Brown and Pat H. Broeske, Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley (1997), p.93.

In Clayton & Heard's book, Lewis is only cited saying that they didn’t see this "implement" between Elvis’s legs when they shot the Sullivan Show. But the other source says it was clearly visible on the Steve Allen and Milton Berle shows. Therefore, it was decided to shoot the singer primarily from the waist up during his performance in the Sullivan Show. This is of much interest, as it demonstrates that the star was indeed censored by the media.

By the way, a source Jaye9 cited some time ago, has Elvis himself say,

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 on the Ed Sullivan Show. They photographed me from the waist up. And Sullivan 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 also supports the view that Elvis was censored because of the said problems. Onefortyone (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a clip (maybe from the same show, maybe a different show) where Sullivan told the audience afterward, "This is a decent young man." Kind of like apologizing for mistrusting him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan's words are to be found in the Wikipedia article. However, the following additional note has been removed by DocKino: “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.” (Rodriguez, p.84.). See [8]. Onefortyone (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that it's one guy's interpretation of what he saw on Elvis' face. Maybe Elvis was just tired. Sullivan's words are verifiable. Elvis' true feelings on the subject are not, unless he commented on it later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sullivan's words are indeed verifiable, but the correctness of his belief about the contents of Presley's pants is not. I think Rikstar's right: Lewis's comment indicates there's undue emphasis--or in fact, undue weight. Currently we present the impression that there was indeed such a device. In the grand scheme of things, Sullivan's observation adds to the engaging read but is not, I would think, an essential part of the article. I would have no strong feelings about removing it. If we do keep it, I think it does indeed need balancing with the doubting view. That in turn might bloat the passage disproportionately, which should be borne in mind when considering whether to keep it. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources say that they saw such a device on the Steve Allen and Milton Berle shows and that therefore Elvis was censored on the Sullivan show. As Sullivan says, "We just can't have this on a Sunday night. This is a family show!" Onefortyone (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody really take Sullivan's observation as plausibly accurate? Surely not. Its importance lies in its demonstration that such wild and erotically focused ideas about Presley were in circulation. It hardly requires "balance" (i.e., bloat) from Lewis or anyone else--I should think its ridiculousness is fairly self-evident from our historical remove. That is, I don't believe it actually leaves our present-day readers with the impression that there really was such a fantastical device. But it is important and fairly well-known evidence of the social reaction to Presley's emergence on the scene. I think it serves its informative purpose most effectively as is. DocKino (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I still feel it was unbalanced. I had a go at involving Lewis's utterance as discreetly as possible, but hadn't noticed at first that that was on a later date. I concluded that making the facts clear would indeed bloat the passage disproportionately, so I now don't propose we try and do that. But I think the small change I made in the process has made the difference: Sullivan and Lewis were watching the clips together, during which Sullivan opined thus to Lewis. Nuff said, IMO. PL290 (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No Use Nor Ornament

"rumor had it that into his skin-tight jeans was sewn a lead bar to suggest a weapon of heroic proportions"

Do we really have to include these pointless silly rumors into the article? It is a well known fact that Presley did not wear jeans of any kind after he became famous,because it reminded him of when he was poor. There you go,rumor squashed.--Jaye9 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As above, there's no attempt to lend credence to such fantastical rumors, but their existence, in multiple forms, is historically significant. That said, they were overemphasized, via quotations that added little value. I've reworked the relevant paragraph (in "Sex symbol") to provide more appropriate focus and balance. DocKino (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at the "Sex Symbol" section after reading your reply. Point taken,appreciate what you've done with it,and yes much more appropriate,thank you.--Jaye9 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs more audio samples

This article does not have enough audio samples via the concurrent artist Elvis Presley. It needs more. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind WP:NFCC, this may be difficult. Perhaps you could indicate which further samples you would suggest, and what justification for each you would give. PL290 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious Minds, Burning Love, Way Down? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:43, 21

January 2010 (UTC)

Aloha From Hawaii NOT seen by a billion

1 billion people had acces to the show, that's something else than "1 billion people are watching." I think the show is seen by 10 or 20 million people. IGG8998 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement is cited to a reliable source, and I see that another one, Guralnick (1999), agrees on page 475 that the satellite transmission reached an estimated 1.5 billion viewers worldwide. What's your source? PL290 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis does not have 1 billion fans, so an Elvis tv-special reaching one billion people is impossible. None of Elvis' albums or singles (except It's Now Or Never) sold more than 10 million copies, that's why I think Elvis has not more than 10 million fans, and that's why I think that Aloha From Hawaii is seen by 10 million people. The only reason why people think it's seen by a billion is because 1 billion people HAD ACCES to the show, but no one was watching. Most people in Asia don't know who Elvis is so they don't go watching an Elvis-show. Don't get me wrong: I'm a big Elvis-fan, I just know that it's not seen by a billion. IGG8998 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No one was watching! ;( If only he'd known that... Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. PL290 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The one billion-claim really need to be removed from Wikipedia. A lot of people are thinking Elvis is something famous because they think he reached one billion people. The are overrating Elvis' fame. FACT is that no one in Asia, Africa or India knows who Elvis is (he only had hits in USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan). IGG8998 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Japan is not in Asia? That's a revelation! How about the Philippines? Is that in Asia? The Manila broadcast of Aloha in Hawaii attracted 91.8% of the viewing audience (Billboard front page, January 27, 1973). But you're right. Nobody in Asia knows who Elvis is--they just forgot to turn off their TV sets. DocKino (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is your proof that the Manila broadcast of Aloha in Hawaii attracted 91.8% of the viewing audience? Of course Colonel Parker claimed it, but he is not a credible source. People need to know the truth about Elvis. They are thinking he is the most famous thing that happened in the world and that his fame reached a billion people, but in fact he is not even the most famous thing that happened in the USA and his "fame" did not even reach 10 million people. Most people in Asia would say: "Elvis who?" I think you can compare Elvis with people like Trini Lopez and Billy Joel. They had a bit succes, but never became a big superstar. IGG8998 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about everything. Thanks for schooling us. Buh-bye now. DocKino (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me, but why is no one listening to me? Why is the one billion-claim still not removed? I don't want people to overrate Elvis. IGG8998 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You see, the fact is, as you've so ably pointed out, no one really cares about Elvis. No one really reads this article or notices that little factoid. But if we suddenly REMOVE IT after this conversation, that will attract attention. We'll have all sorts of people who think Elvis is significant going, "Hey! But this high-quality source says 1.5 billion watched it!" "And wait!! This other high-quality source says exactly the same thing!!" "OMG!!! So does this other one!!!" Not good, right? We do not want people quoting sources at us. So, here's the plan: I'll eliminate this ridiculous detail, which no one cares about anyway, when no one's looking or thinking about it. So you just keep an eye on things quietly, and when you least expect it--poof!--there will be nothing left to worry about. DocKino (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but as an Elvis-fan, I kinda felt angry about it all. You know, I used to believe Elvis was something big until I found out some facts. IGG8998 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not going to be removed. You cannot cite your personal opinion or your original research for any of your claims. The fact of the matter is that you will have to find a reliable source supporting your opinion, or nothing is going to happen.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a source: The Dutch Wikipedia. But I don't want to translate it all. IGG8998 (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The dutch wikipedia is a tertiary source and thus cannot be used. List a secondary source, please, and be sure to read WP:SYN before providing it. You cannot reach your own conclusions regarding material from several different sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Speculation

There is so much irrelevant speculation and opinion in this article that there's not much room left for credibility. Elvis didn't perform with a crow-bar in his trousers, or spend all his time being a pervert in a hotel room. He wasn't stealing "black peoples' music." He was a an army veteran and a shy gospel singer. To everyone he worked with, that was #1. The rest of his 'bad boy rockabilly' image was created by his handlers for marketing. This is apparent when hearing the stories of those who worked with Elvis and sang with him. They loved Elvis as a hard-working composer, arranger, and gospel singer. Elvis clearly didn't like the image forced upon him by management. He didn't even like being called "The King". According the Joe Moscheo, who sang, jammed, and performed with Elvis, Elvis would always reject being introduced as "The King", saying "Jesus is the only King around here." Yet this article keeps referring to Elvis as "The King". What's with that? Elvis really ran into trouble when Priscilla left him, but the result wasn't a nasty-minded, strutting pervert with a pipe in his pants. The result was a broken-hearted gospel singer, not a depraved pervert. This article really suffers when it wanders around looking for a focus, grasping at irrelevant gossip, bogus stats, and idle speculation. Santamoly (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Exactly who claims that Presley "spent all his time being a pervert in a hotel room"? What are you talking about?

Some "article keeps referring to Elvis as "The King""? Maybe, but this article certainly doesn't. If you disagree, please cite us every single instance in which the article "refers to" Presley as the King.

"Bogus stats"? Really? It looks to me like every single statistic in the article is very strongly sourced. If you disagree, please specify the stat and explain exactly why the source is "bogus".

In the end, I guess your big point is that he was nothing more than a "'shy' gospel singer". I feel sorry for you. Because you could believe it was that simple to explain him only if you'd never listened to and appreciated "Tryin' To Get To You" and "Hound Dog" and "Santa Claus Is Back in Town" and "One Night" and "Power of My Love" and "Burning Love". I feel sorry for you, because you really don't know or appreciate Elvis at all. But guess what, there's hope for you yet. There's this great website called Wikipedia that has a superb article on him. Read it, while you listen to the songs I mentioned above. There's a revelation awaiting you. DocKino (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis may not have liked being called "The King", but that's what the media grew to call him. And with good reason. Not just because he was such a huge hit with a wide audience, but also because he could and did sing gospel, blues, rockabilly, rock and roll, country, ballads, most anything in pop culture. One of the greatest entertainers we've ever had. And certainly a flawed individual, but you have to take the bad with the good where humans are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis is on record as continually denying that he was "The King". So why does it appear on the second line of the article? This article is about the man, not what people wanted him to be. Only about 3 feet up above this section, an editor says "the rumor had it that "Elvis has been hanging a small soft-drink bottle from his groin underneath his pants, and when he wiggles his leg it looks as though his pecker reaches down to his knee!" It's a rumor, so why is someone pushing a rumor? A little further up he says,"When Nick took Elvis to a hotel in Malibu . . . Nick, who was also rumored to be bisexual, Natalie and Elvis became a hot threesome, having a lot of fun together." Hotel room rumors. The article has such wild stats as "1.5 billion viewers . . ." This stat includes reruns! Elvis hated the hillbilly music, yet some editors think it's reason enough to call him King. The King of what? Hillbilly music? Elvis hated being called "The King". Isn't it truly disrespectful to keep bringing it back up? The article states,"a rumor spread in mid-1957 that he had at some point announced, 'The only thing Negroes can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes.'" More rumors. This entire article, and the discussion, appears to be the result of editors with a bucket of rumors and an agenda, creating constant pressure to recast Elvis as something that he wasn't. Where is the mention that Elvis was primarily a gospel singer who sang rock-n-roll as his day job? Who recorded over 70 gospel singles. Whose only Grammys were for gospel music? Who prayed on his knees before every concert, and sang hymns afterward? It appears that some of the editors pushing this false image of Elvis are perversely obsessive about the man, and have likely never met Elvis in real life, making wild guesses on the basis of rumors. The result is a deceitful and manipulative article. Don't shoot me, though. I'm just suggesting that the result is this article suffers - deeply. And I'd love to see the article improved. Nothing more. Santamoly (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If his supposed dislike of being called "The King" can be sourced, it could be noted. But he was still widely known in the media as "The King". The pop bottle stuff seems absurd, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Santamoly, do you hear that broken record? It's on your turntable. We've already been around and around on this.

Rumors: Certain rumors are historically significant as rumors. Do you understand that? The existence of famous, widespread rumors constitute important historical facts. Is that clear to you? The ugly rumor that Presley said, "The only thing Negroes can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes", was considered important enough that a national magazine investigated it; important enough that Presley himself addressed it. Do you understand that? Though the rumor was manifestly false--as the article makes very clear--it is still used against Presley despite its falsehood, which is a significant fact. Is that clear to you? Of course no one now believes that Presley performed with devices in his pants. But it was widely rumored in the 1950s that he did. That constitutes an important fact about how Presley was perceived and judged by the society of his time. Do you understand that? The sort of high-quality sources we rely on discuss these rumors because they do much to inform us about the impact Presley had on popular culture and the reactions he provoked among those confused, made uncomfortable, or distressed by that impact. Is that clear to you?

Aloha: We cite three high-quality sources--one in the lead, two in the primary text--asserting that the program was seen by 1.5 billion viewers. You have yet to adduce a contradictory source.

Gospel: The fact is--as I have made clear before--we already give considerably more weight to the gospel side of Elvis than does any other general interest survey of his career. Just compare the Rolling Stone bio. See how many times the words "gospel" and "spiritual" turn up there. Let me tell you: 3 times. Our article's a bit over three times as long, so we might expect "gospel" and "spiritual" to turn up 10 times. In, fact, they turn up 36 times. In addition, we make sure to name (and link) not only all three of his gospel albums, but his gospel EP, as well. You have already made the ridiculous claim, in a previous thread, that Presley's gospel connections have been "glossed over". Your claims are simply false, as I have demonstrated. Once again, for the benefit of our other readers and editors, here's what the article actually says on this topic:

• The family attended an Assembly of God church where he found his initial musical inspiration.
• The Southern Gospel singer Jake Hess, one of his favorite performers, was a significant influence on his ballad-singing style. He was a regular audience member at the monthly All-Night Singings downtown, where many of the white gospel groups that performed reflected the influence of African American spiritual music. He adored the music of black gospel singer Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
• To close, displaying his range and defying Sullivan's wishes, Presley sang a gentle black spiritual, "Peace in the Valley".
• His first LP of sacred material, His Hand in Mine, followed two months later. It reached number 13 on the U.S. pop chart and number 3 in Great Britain, remarkable figures for a gospel album.
• During a five-year span—1964 through 1968—Presley had only one top ten hit: "Crying in the Chapel" (1965), a gospel number recorded back in 1960.
• Only one LP of new material by Presley was issued: the gospel album How Great Thou Art (1967). It won him his first Grammy Award, for Best Sacred Performance. As described in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, Presley was "arguably the greatest white gospel singer of his time [and] really the last rock & roll artist to make gospel as vital a component of his musical personality as his secular songs."
• His gospel album He Touched Me, released that month, would earn him his second Grammy Award, for Best Inspirational Performance.
• Recorded on March 20, it included a version of "How Great Thou Art" that would win Presley his third and final competitive Grammy Award. (All three of his competitive Grammy wins—out of 14 total nominations—were for gospel recordings.)
• Presley's earliest musical influence came from gospel. His mother recalled that from the age of two, at the Assembly of God church in Tupelo attended by the family, "he would slide down off my lap, run into the aisle and scramble up to the platform. There he would stand looking at the choir and trying to sing with them." Later, the family sang together as a gospel trio. In Memphis, Presley frequently attended all-night gospel singings at the Ellis Auditorium, where groups such as the Statesmen Quartet led the music in a style that, Guralnick suggests, sowed the seeds of Presley's future stage act:

The Statesmen were an electric combination ... featuring some of the most thrillingly emotive singing and daringly unconventional showmanship in the entertainment world ... dressed in suits that might have come out of the window of Lansky's. ... Bass singer Jim Wetherington, known universally as the Big Chief, maintained a steady bottom, ceaselessly jiggling first his left leg, then his right, with the material of the pants leg ballooning out and shimmering. "He went about as far as you could go in gospel music," said Jake Hess. "The women would jump up, just like they do for the pop shows." Preachers frequently objected to the lewd movements ... but audiences reacted with screams and swoons

• In 1957, his first gospel record was released, the four-song EP Peace in the Valley. Certified as a million seller, it became the top-selling gospel EP in recording history. Presley would record gospel periodically for the rest of his life.
• [Caption to audio sample of "Run On":] From How Great Thou Art (1967), a traditional song popular in the black gospel tradition. The arrangement evokes "the percussive style of the 1930's Golden Gate Quartet."
• Presley was always "able to duplicate the open, hoarse, ecstatic, screaming, shouting, wailing, reckless sound of the black rhythm-and-blues and gospel singers".
• Addressing his '68 Comeback Special audience, he said, "Rock 'n' roll music is basically gospel or rhythm and blues, or it sprang from that."

Now, is there is a specific, verifiable fact--and when I say "verifiable", I mean from a high-quality source, with full bibliographic information, including page number--that you believe needs to be added to all that? DocKino (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, Doc, that's a lot of work to reply to my simple query. I wasn't disputing any of this, just observing that the entire article is mean-spirited and nasty, and could use serious pruning in some areas to restore some balance. I guess the observation that the term "gospel" turns up 36 times expresses the mean-ness of the article more than any other observation. It says right there in the middle of the article that The New Rolling Stone Album Guide said that Elvis was the last rock & roll artist to make gospel as vital a component of his musical personality as his secular songs. So the article should reasonably be as much about his gospel music as his secular music. Don't you think? Yet there isn't even a gospel discography in the article. Is that mean-spirited, or what?

Doc, I'm not blaming you for the poor quality of this article, and I appreciate what you're saying. Regardless, this article is dominated by some churlish, obsessive, rumor-mongers. And it shows. You've pointed out some of the positive elements, but the article still needs a good haircut to bring it up to the level of a reasonably good article. My first vote would be to get rid of the stupid rumors (true or not) and to add a gospel discography, but I'm sure not going to try it on my own. Who knows, maybe nobody's interested and the article is doomed to stay stuck in the rancid swamp of rumors and gossip forever. Regardless, discussion's about ideas for improving the article, so what do you say? Santamoly (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If others had their way, this article would include a helluva lot more 'stupid, churlish, rancid, obsessive rumors and irrelevant speculation'. Some editors have had a very hard time trying to keep these from being endlessly put forward for discussion, or actually included. At the other end of the spectrum are views like your own. What to do? How about striking a compromise? And may I volunteer a worthy candidate - the Presley article we currently have? It's easy for anyone to say they'd like it this way or that, but given the torrid history of this article, I think the current result is acceptable, and worthy of a FA nomination. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Important? Don't Think So...

This page says: "Presley is regarded as one of the most important figures of 20th-century popular culture." This need to be removed, because it's not true. Elvis did not invent Rock And Roll. Also a title like "the guy who made Rock And Roll being famous" is not true, that title goes to Bill Haley. Haley is much more famous than Elvis and made a much bigger impact. So why are they calling Elvis important? He was not more than just a singer and a actor... IGG8998 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please create the article Haley is much more famous than Elvis, fill it with high-quality sources supporting your unique view, and we'll merge it with this one. Thanks so much for sharing. DocKino (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we need a source to see that Elvis did not have influence on music? Rock And Roll WOULD have excisted without Elvis. I'm a big Elvis-fan, I just know some shocking facts about him. IGG8998 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.19.109 (talk)

"Facts"? Fantastic! Of course, I'm sure you know that Wikipedia can't include facts that aren't well sourced. So, p-l-e-a-s-e, start the article IGG's Shocking Facts About Elvis so we can learn from you. DocKino (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Do you have proof that Elvis was famous and important? IGG8998 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the article. It's a good start. Rodhullandemu 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have proof Bill Haley is more famous than Elvis. Rock Around The Clock sold 25 million copies and Hound Dog/Don't Be Cruel sold 9 million copies. Bill Haley has 25 million fans and Elvis has 9 million fans.IGG8998 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Selective use of statistics is not proof. It's what we call "misleading". Rodhullandemu 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked IGG8998 to disengage, and I humbly offer a suggestion that others follow suit. If he doesn't have an audience for this type of discourse, he'll be motivated to bring his comments in line with core policies and guidelines. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remind the other editors of the fact that there are indeed some sources suggesting that it may be "an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load" because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Ennis, Philip H., The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), pp. 251-252. Onefortyone (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

and nothing else in the intervening 52 years? Rodhullandemu 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For a brief account of the fame of other rock’n’roll musicians besides Presley, including Bill Haley, see Piero Scaruffi’s History of Rock Music: 1951-2000 (2003), p.9-14. Later rock musicians are also discussed in this book. “In general, the press has been critical, clueless, or contemptuous when writing about Elvis Presley.” See Doll, Susan, Elvis for Dummies, p.260. In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, Baird concludes, "making Elvis cool again will be ... difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See Woody Baird, “Getting todays teens all shook up over Elvis”, The Plain Dealer, Saturday, December 30, 2006. Onefortyone (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaruffi is a self-published source and is not necessarily regarded as reliable; there have been numerous previous discussions on Wikipedia about this. Rodhullandemu 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how reliable Scaruffi's account is (he is a lecturer at the California Institute of Technology), but there are other sources written by academics. For instance, in his study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll. See Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004). The problem is that most publications on Elvis are controlled by the world-wide Elvis industry, as Professor Wall has shown. Therefore, it is not easy to publish more critical material on the singer. Onefortyone (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photo

It's awful. It's a publicity photo, but not even a up-close digital photo --thinking of a 2-D image of Elvis, or less...! Please don't trash his article with such an introduction. Surely the last photo was much better. If that isn't an option, there have GOT to be some free use photos out there, but this is really terrible. I've been under the impression that the most recent photo of any artist on a biography page is the one we use unless it's too blurry, a copyright violation or some other negative problem. Imagine a photo of The Rolling Stones performing in 1963 as the opening photograph. Please! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Awful? A good, clear publicity photo from possibly the peak of his career, that doesn't violate copyright? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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: [9], [10]. 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: [11], [12]. 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/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 [13]. 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 [14]. 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 [15]) 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)

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)

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. [16] -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,[17][18] 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 [19]. 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 [20]. 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:[21] ←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). DocKino, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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." DocKino admits the problematic application of using a term which is not formally defined. Then DocKino 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. DocKino 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". DocKino 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 DocKino 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 DocKino which takes this to supprt the contention that 141 should be regarded as, and treated as, a troll.

Rikstar adds a supportive response to DocKino's initative stating that they were going to make the same initative.

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)

Nice job. I can see it's a nice job, and I've just unhid those threads in the talk page and checked them out. But oh dear, 141 is seriously claiming at WP:ANI#Onefortyone that the same threads are no longer part of the talk page, like they've been deleted. Heaven help us all... Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job? Sorry, the so-called "clarification" falsely claims that there was a kind of "consensus among regular editors … that the discredited doctor's opinions, such as those published in his 2010 book, and including his attempt to emphasize constipation as the likely cause of death, should not be propagated by Wikipedia." Other users such as 24.61.236.106 (who detected the source), Onefortyone, Meco and Colonel Warden are of a different opinion. Furthermore, the threads including the discussion are no longer visible on this talk page and some links leading to the original threads do not work any more. I would call this manipulating the Elvis talk page in order to promote a personal agenda. Onefortyone (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's "regular editors..." Apart from your good self, 24.61.236.106, Meco and Colonel Warden are not regular editors, so the claim is not false. Furthermore, the threads are in this talk page. Can't you click on the [show] link? I'm reluctantly engaging in this response simply to spell out to others just how you operate when trying to defend yourself. It isn't pretty, and to my mind does you no favours regarding current proceedings against you. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:09, 25 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)

What has caused me to stay here a bit longer has primarily been one thing: your recent massive "refactoring" of this talk page which is against Wikipedia policy. However, you can be certain that I won’t include any additional content in the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 12:08, 25 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)

Just for the record, I do not "fabricate the truth somewhat", as you have claimed above, Jaye9. In her book, Baby Let's Play House, Alanna Nash indeed says that Elvis, according to her view, wasn’t homosexual. However, does she explicitly say that he wasn’t bisexual? According to my reading, the expression "hot threesome" was certainly meant in a sexual context, as in the same sentence it is mentioned that Elvis’s friend Nick Adams was rumored to be bisexual. Be that as it may, in the Playboy article published 4 years earlier Nash has written about Adams's sexual relationships that he may have "swung both ways" like his "good pal (and Elvis' idol) James Dean" and that "tongues wagged that Elvis and Adams were getting it on." Furthermore, Jaye9, you said that you "have never read at any time, any acquaintances or friends state that Elvis was bisexual." Bill Dakota, author of Hollywood star magazines of the 1970s, who, in the 1960s, worked as Nick Adams’s fan mail secretary for a period of time, was acquainted with Elvis. He claims that Elvis was bisexual and that Adams and Elvis were closet lovers. See [22], [23]. However, tabloid magazines and websites such as these cannot be used as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and I do not want to go into more details concerning the said topic. You are the person who brought this topic up again. Onefortyone (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I must admit, I was just about to respond with...But then I read your closing bit, about tabliod magazines and the like. I couldn't agree with you more, let's go one better and keep this trash out of Talk Page as well. Enjoy your break!--Jaye9 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring is not meant for censoring

Will the person who kindly refactored the thread This talk page is poisoned into oblivion kindly and immediately "refactor" it back into existence. __meco (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still on this page, it's just collapsed, along with several other discussions. You've been here 3 or 4 years, yet you seem to know very little. I'm starting to wonder about your competence level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Several threads are no longer directly visible on the talk page. According to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." This is a very clear statement. As for the current dispute, at least two editors who have extensively contributed to the talk page, Onefortyone and Meco, object to the changes being made by user PL290. Onefortyone (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Having scrolled across this page three times now I cannot see the collapsed section. Where is it? __meco (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here,[24] just under the big yellow box about 3/4 of the way down the page. Click where it says "[show]" on the right-hand side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! So you think people are going to find and notice what's in there? Hardly! Which was probably the exact motivation for making it so utterly inaccessible. I have seen collapsed sections and templates for such before, but this contraption is ridiculous. __meco (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I found it right away. The big yellow sign helps. Boxing up stuff that's basically an endless loop is standard procedure. You've been here like 4 or 5 years and you don't know that? You're aiding and abetting 141's trolling behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you find it quite apt and sufficient for its purpose. I have reported PL290 at WP:ANI. __meco (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (updated link to target archived discussion. __meco (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

...and PL290's actions were deemed perfectly acceptable by disinterested parties at WP:ANI. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A more fair representation, I would say, would be that it garnered few comments and no discussion. Also, I just noticed that PL290 when hiding all four posts by me into a custom-made collapsed page section also added a guideline box among the talk page headers[25]. I have never seen such idiosyncratically creative devices applied to a talk page before. It does make this particular discussion page stand out and hopefully will function as a heads-up to visitors. __meco (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A possible compromise?

The ex-doctor's self-serving opinion on Elvis' death could be considered for the article, provided it's balanced with sources making the ex-doctor's checkered situation crystal clear, so that the readers won't place undue weight on the ex-doctor's opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just read parts of Dr Nick's book, only flicking through it, and he actually says that he believes Elvis died of valsalva maneuver. (P.137)

I haven't found any evidence in the book to suggest that Dr Nick believes Elvis died of constipation. Indeed, there is no mention at all of "constipation", or "constipated" (A quick google book search proves this). He does say that Elvis should have had surgery on his colon, and that his colon was three times the size of a regular colon, and that there was evidence of a clogged colon, but at no time does he suggest any of that caused the death. The only time he does mention it is when he says this exact line.... "We [Dr Nick & Dan Warlick] believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought into play called "Valsalva maneuver. "This Valsalva maneuver caused the heart to stop when the body strained."

With this information being made available to myself for the first time, and no doubt to many other editors, I don't agree that "constipation" should be seriously considered as a cause of death. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I myself havn't read Dr. Nick's book as yet, but in saying that, I have read the interview that EIN had with the Doctor, about his book. In part of that interview, Dr. Nick points out his frustration with the media and how he has been misquoted by the media before. As user: EF has pointed out by viewing his book, had found no edidence in the book to suggest that Dr. Nick believes Elvis died of constipation. Could it be that the Doctor has been misquoted by the media, yet again? It appears that way. So for this reason and I say this for myself also, it is imperative that we as editors of this article, should not take the media on face value alone. We have got to read the books. Particularly when concerning someone like Elvis Presley.--Jaye9 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue you could run into is different editors interpreting the book different ways. But if what the editor EF says is correct, then this entire so-called theory is rendered pretty much irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more Baseball Bugs.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

According to his own words, ElvisFan1981 "just read parts of Dr Nick's book, only flicking through it." Could it be that there are different theories to be found in the book? The media are primarily talking of "constipation," citing some quotations from the book. See [26], [27], [28]. Onefortyone (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to read the book yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It should indeed be read very carefully. Here is another source. As early as 1980, Robert Lawrence Holt wrote, "Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis Presley's private physician, revealed that his patient had suffered from chronic constipation and further stated, 'I felt it probably related to a long history of laxative abuse.' " See Hemorrhoids: A Cure and Preventive, p.116. Onefortyone (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he died from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the EIN interview mentioned above by Jaye9, Nichopoulos says, among other things, that his "concerns were basically for his (Elvis's) colon problems." He is also talking about "Intestinal problems basically from a diseased colon" and he concludes by saying, "Elvis’s death could not have been prevented in 1977. As one of the specialists we interviewed for my book put it, 'He was a walking time bomb.' Nowadays there is a procedure that can correct a colon condition like Elvis’s. I hope when people who suffer as he did read this book, they will realize they don’t have to live with the condition and will get help. That possibility is one big reason I wanted my book written." Onefortyone (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're excerpting. Where does he say specifically that colon problems caused Elvis' death? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that Nichopoulos is of the opinion that Elvis’s long-standing colon condition was responsible for his straining at stool at the time of his death and "Valsalva maneuver" caused the heart to stop when the body strained? This would make sense. Onefortyone (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if you have to ask what he's saying, the answer to that is "original research". In any case, that's like saying running killed Jim Fixx. He had a heart attack while running. It was the heart attack that killed him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pausing for a brief, and happy, public service announcement: No trolls or vandals have tried to mess with the article in over 2 days! DocKino (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Or the playing with words. When I read that interview with Dr. Nick and EIN, at no time did the doctor state, that constipation killed Elvis. What he is saying, is he believes that constipation,attributed to Elvis's heart failure. The botton line is that Elvis's heart gave way, that is what killed Elvis. The doctor has also stated, that he also believes that if Elvis had the operation on his colon, of which he states Elvis didn't want to have done, the doctor believes that Elvis would still be alive today. All very nice in theory. What about Elvis's drug addiction?. In the end, it was his heart that gave way, that's what killed Elvis. An article such as Wikipedia, should leave out, the could of, would of, should of theories. We don't have the room for it. --Jaye9 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, as you would expect from a book that sets out to explore how Elvis died and to remove guilt from one man, there are a number of theories discussed including drug abuse, suicide, murder, and diseases inherited from his mother. However, each one of them is thrown aside by experts who either did the autopsy on Elvis or who have had access to the results of the autopsy on Elvis.

So it begs the question; how does Dr Nick think Elvis died? And more importantly, is there anyone who agrees with him? Well, in a little more detail, here is the exact paragraph in whole.

After reviewing my personal autopsy notes, I settled on what I considered the most plausible theory of Elvis's death, one on which Dan Warlick and I agree. Because Warlick was the investigator for the coroner's office and also examined Elvis's body at autopsy, I had the highest regard for his opinion. We believe Elvis died from a normal physiological event brought inot play called "Valsalva maneuver." This valsalva maneuver caused the heart to stop when the body strained.

So, it's clear to me that Dr Nick doesn't state that Elvis died from constipation, his theory is supported not only by another person, but another person who actually examined Elvis's body at the autopsy. In a court of law the official cause of death would therefore be listed as valsalva maneuver, not constipation. Did the media take the talk about Elvis's colon and blow it out of all proportion for effect? Unsurprisingly, yes. Oh, and it's also important to note that at the very end of the book Dr Nick still states that he believes Elvis died of valsalva maneuver, so it's very clear to me that he believes that is the most plausible cause of death, not constipation. Admit it 141, you don't have enough evidence to argue against this, regardless of how many news outlets and blogsites misquote or misinterpret Dr Nick and his book. Why don't you go out and buy a book instead of relying on Fox News and Billy The Blogger whose only interests are financial? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to present the theory of the Valsalva maneuver as a possible trigger of a heart attack without discussing the upstream argument why Elvis would employ the Valsalva maneuver (perhaps particularly forcefully) we will run into another problem. The Valsalva maneuver Wikipedia article currently does not discuss the relation between this maneuver and constipation, in fact it mentions it only tangentially (it has discussed the relationship in the past but that has been removed). Being a nurse myself I have been firmly taught that this relation is very real, and I had never before seen it being questioned before I read some discussion on that talk page, particularly statements made by a physician editor back in 2005. I have asked this editor (who was last active about half a year ago) to clarify their position. As that article currently reads, however, no matter how we introduce any mention of the Valsalva maneuver into this article that is liable to cause some confusion on the part of those readers who also read that article and try to make sense of the information. __meco (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He died from a heart attack. Heart attacks can be triggered by any number of things, generally by overexertion. If it hadn't happened that particular day, it might have happened the next day when Elvis was sprinting too quickly towards his favorite greasy spoon. If you want to get into the gory details of his overexertion, that's one thing. But he died from a heart attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From a medical point of view, there can be no doubt that, in the case of Elvis, the Valsalva maneuver is clearly related to constipation. According to Barry B. White, the main causes of Valsalva Maneuver are: 1. Straining at stool due to constipation. 2. Straining to urinate. 3. Straining to raise up in bed or to get in or out of bed... See Barry B. White, Therapy in Acute Coronary Care (1971), p.65. According to Sharon Mantik Lewis, Margaret McLean Heitkemper and Shannon Ruff Dirksen, “Valsalva maneuver … occurs during straining to pass a hardened stool.” “If defecation is suppressed over long periods, problems can occur, such as constipation or stool impaction. Defecation can be facilitated by the Valsalva maneuver. This maneuver involves contraction of the chest muscles on a closed glottis with simultaneous contraction of the abdominal muscles.” See Sharon Mantik Lewis, Margaret McLean Heitkemper, Shannon Ruff Dirksen, eds., Medical-Surgical Nursing: Assessment and Management of Clinical Problems, 6th edition, Volume 2 (2004), p.951. Gladys Nite and Frank Neal Willis write that it has been pointed out “that the danger of a Valsalva maneuver is increased by constipation.” See Gladys Nite and Frank Neal Willis, The Coronary Patient: Hospital Care and Rehabilitation (1964), p.164. As Nichopoulos, in his book, extensively writes about Elvis’s colon condition, and that there was evidence of a clogged colon, concluding that Elvis died of Valsalva maneuver that “caused the heart to stop when the body strained”, the singer’s death on the toilet is clearly related to constipation, and that’s why most media interpreted it in this way. Onefortyone (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is pure synthesis, and therefore impermissible. End. Of. We are not here to create, interpret, promulgate fringe theories or rewrite history. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, if that material could go into the Valsalva maneuver article, my concern would be a lot smaller. __meco (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss other articles, please reply to the relevant post or start a new thread—on the relevant article talk page. PL290 (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you had been more focused on developing an editing environment conducive to constructive dialog as opposed to attempting cheap-shot score points you'd have realized that what you comment on is not a digression at all but in fact dovetails with my previous post in this thread problematizing the shortcomings of the Valsalva maneuver article, should it be decided to give a mention to the constipation cause of death theory as Baseball Bugs opened up this section by suggesting. __meco (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments Meco, being that you are a nurse and with that, would have medical knowledge. But in saying that, you know what got to me the most, about this whole discussion, on what may or not have aided to Presley's demise. Is what User: 141 stated, when he said: "Perhaps it was exsessive masturbation, that caused Elvis to have a heart attack." Something to that effect. It is well documented in many reliable books on Elvis, that he was impotent in the last year or so, of his life. Now for an editor, who apparently comes across as seemingly intelligent, would say something like that. Now that's what I call confusing. Your the nurse, you explain it to me. Oh and while your there, it may pay you to look up amazon and do some reading, on what that book was about. In my opinion, hardly what you'd call porno material, by any stretch of the imagination.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that excessive masturbation can lead to a heart attack. Sex in general can, because one often exerts a lot of energy when engaged in it. It's hardly common to exert very much physical energy masturbating. I don't know what book you are referring to (the one not containing porno material), and I haven't read that particular comment by 141 in its original context. __meco (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to see a diff for the comment that Jaye9 is referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For all the world to see again, [29] is the moment someone seriously suggested that Elvis Presley could have died from excessive masturbation. It may have been a joke, who knows, but to me it reads as a serious suggestion because of the following sentences. Either way it's in the past and I do hope that 141 doesn't still entertain such an idea. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that book could not have been masturbation material, and why 141 apparently thought that it could I think 141 is the best to give an answer to. __meco (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

141's primary purpose here, for the last 5 years or more, has been to try and post tabloid, below-the-belt stuff in the Elvis article. EF, thanks for the link, as it's very revealing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My primary purpose here is to improve the Elvis article, Baseball Bugs, and I am rather amused that one of my light-hearted remarks made quite a stir. I just remembered Guralnick mentioning that curious book in connection to Elvis’s death and thought what might be so important about it, as there are so many different theories about Elvis’s death, that’s all. You can be certain that I did not intend to include it in the article. However, it seems to be a fact that Elvis "played all sorts of masturbation games — a form of sex Presley preferred over consummation." See Peter H. Brown and Pat H. Broeske, Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley (1997), p.208. By the way, the current discussion about the constipation theory may be compared with this one of 2005. Interestingly, at that time there were many different opinions concerning the topic, including the usual personal attacks by Ted Wilkes alias User:DW. Onefortyone (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A penchant for "masturbation games" would be more consistent with literature such as “a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs.” This would strongly suggest an interest not in traditional sex for the sake of an overwhelming orgasm, but sex as a technique to be mastered in the esoteric traditions of Eastern tantra and Western traditions such as sex magic and alchemical Rosicrucianism. As such Elvis may have been (I'm merely speculating) searching for ways to tap into the kundalini power so sought after by artists and creative people. Indeed, his unrivaled success particularly during the early stages of his career at stirring sexual responses in his concert audiences would suggest that he already then had unlocked some of its secrets. If this was a spontaneous release it would be a matter of natural progression that would wane over the years unless he could nurture and develop it adequately, an almost insurmountable task. If, in his later years, he was experimenting to regain his former sexual-creative powers, both these tidbits of information would easily conform with that theory. __meco (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On another note, some interesting points you raised above, Meco. Good points. I don't think anyone disputes there may be a possible connection between VM and constipation, but we don't know for sure that Elvis suffered either of these conditions the moment he died. They are theories. As such, they shouldn't be included in the article, I don't think, because they aren't supported well enough to be included. There are theories that suggest Elvis faked his death, some think he was abducted by aliens, others seriously believe he was murdered by either the Mafia or his own friends and family. Whatever the theory, it is only that; a theory. Perhaps all these theories could have their own page, "Theories surrounding the death of Elvis Presley" or something, but I don't think they belong in this particular article. Others may disagree, but that's for either the majority, or a group of editors not involved in this article, to decide. I seriously have a problem with the idea that the line "Elvis died from constipation" should be included in the article. Perhaps he died from complications due to constipation, but even that is not verifiable. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The proper article already exists. It's called Elvis Presley phenomenon. 141 could post all his crazy theories in that article. They don't belong in the main article by any stretch. (I found that by searching for "Elvis lives". It has several other redirects also.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, just had a quick glimpse at that Wikipedia Article (Elvis Presley phenomenon), all I can say is, thank god Wikipedia has a main article on the man. Otherwise people may get the impression, that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of crazy people.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from 141: "My primary purpose here is to improve the Elvis article, Baseball Bugs, and I am rather amused that one of my light-hearted remarks made quite a stir." This strikes me as being completely disingenuous. 141 is not given to such humour, as his record shows, but he is quick in this case to make such excuses in an attempt to withdraw from such a ridiculous claim. In the process, he makes the rest of us feel a bit silly for 'taking him seriously'. Too many similar claims and comments have been made by 141, and the "stir" these have caused has been simple disruption. This kind of manipulation is as obvious as it is reprehensible. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 03:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In most cases, Rikstar, I have to bear your and DocKino's frequent personal attacks with a good deal of good humour ;) Onefortyone (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you should give 141 the benefit of the doubt and not promptly attribute what you perceive as an out-of-character display of humor as evidence of duplicity. I myself will usually stay very focused on being factual. That doesn't mean I do not have a sense of humor, and if someone who has been observing me over a period of time without seeing any displays of lightheartedness on my part suddenly beholds this, I'd be disappointed to see that this was taken as a sign of hypocrisy or deceptiveness on my part. __meco (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing 'prompt' about my attribution - it's based on a lot more experience of 141's comment tactics than you've had. If you're so focussed on what's factual, can you please confirm that you do not give 141 the benefit of any doubt regarding his claims that Presley was bi/homosexual? (see last archived talk page section). 141's claims were dismissed as a synthesis which amounted to original research (by PL290), and I don't know any other editor who disagrees. I have been concerned that you have made no comment on this response, after you initially concluded in 141's defense that such claims deserved mentioning in the article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you. I was only taking issue with your taking 141's use of humor as evidence of their duplicity. __meco (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what there's not to follow Meco. I gave my response to the issue you raised, and asked you to state whether you still maintain that Presley's claimed bi/homosexuality deserves mention in the article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I raised in the post to which you are responding was your insinuation of duplicity on the part of 141 for out-of-character use of humor. If you wish to discuss other issues please reply to the relevant post or start a new thread. __meco (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Rikstar pointed out that it seemed disingenuous to claim it had been an attempt at humour. I agree with Rikstar. EF has already pointed out (if it needed pointing out) that "it reads as a serious suggestion because of the following sentences", and I don't suppose anyone familiar with this sorry tale, including the perpetrator, interprets it any differently. We are asked to believe that "one of my light-hearted remarks made quite a stir"? That is the joke, and it's a bad joke. The best jokes are those that are funny, not depressing. Once again Meco, please look beyond the surface; it's hardly reasonable to lecture Rikstar with a trail of patronizing edit summaries about "AGF" and so forth when he has had to put up with this kind of thing for years. PL290 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this silliness has had a very salutary side-effect. Since Meco and The Troll...sorry, the Troll...found each other here on "Toilet Talk", the incidence of trolling and vandalism seems to have gone way down on the article itself. There have been a couple very minor, good-faith orthographical edits that needed to be reverted in the past week, but there has been no trolling since May 22--which has reverted with admirable alacrity by Moxy. So, I say keep the commode convo flowing, boys. "Meco and the Troll". It's got a ring, don't it? Play your cards right, fellas, and I can see you scoring a late-night show on FX. Cheers, DocKino (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

141, so your here to improve the article, pleased to hear it, ain't we all. But may I suggest in the future, that when you grace us with another one of your light hearted comments. if you could close it with say a ha ha, or just kidding. If only to prevent people from taking you the wrong way, yet again.

I see you've read the book by authors Brown and Broeske, so have I. But I must say, a little to much emphasis on his conquests and not enough about his music for my liking, that's why I borrowed it from a friend, of which I've since returned. But overall, not a bad book, especially for people new to Elvis. However I do remember remember reading that bit about that Elvis preferred masturbation over intercourse, of which of read the same thing in many other reliable books on him. That was his kick, so what, what's your point? They also said that Elvis wasn't homosexual or bisexual either. Again I say so what, just thought I'd throw that one in for your benifit, in cased you missed it.

My point I'm trying to make to you 141, and yes I must admit with a tad of sarcasm. Is here I was thinking all these years in dealing with you, that you had some sort of personnel agenda towards this entertainer and at times appeared to be selective with your referencing. Hmmm.

No doubt you will reply with the predictable twisting of my words and as tempting as it is to go back and forth and back and forth with you, yet again. Sadly I carn't, this time, as I've got a retro festival to run for next 10 days, starting tommorrow. Got to do a little twisting of my own, baby! --Jaye9 (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the "Memphis Mafia" section, the word defense is misspelled "defence." Sabrefencer9 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done PL290 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I assume that no one will take issue with me adding the {{American English}} template to this article? __meco (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What About Information on His Family?

Shouldn't there be a small section--or at least a listing--of who he was married to and his child? How about right under his picture like in other entries? I see Priscilla Presely listed in the article, but this took some reading to find. Just saying that, from the POV of ppl using Wikipedia as a quick source of info, such basic information like who a person's spouses and children were should be very easy to find. This sort of info is listed right under the Entry Picture for ppl like Monarchs, etc., but why isn't this done for celebrities? Such consistency would be appreciated.99.96.38.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Consistency isn't really the point here: it depends on the subject. In this case, like singer, like article: a helluva lot else to fit in, so they get marginalized. PL290 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis full name

Aron....Not aaron....he is also buried between his dad and grandmother... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.162.184 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the explanation in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible contributory factor to Elvis's illness and death

Has anyone come across a suggestion from a reputable medical source that Chagas disease may have contributed to Elvis's ill-health and death? I note that its effects often include a greatly enlarged colon and damage to the heart, that it can remain dormant and asymptomatic for many years, and that, although principally endemic to South America, it does occur (and may in the past have been under-detected) in the Southern United States. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Presley'

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I have often heard his surname pronounced 'Prezzley', whilst on various recordings the man himself says "Pressley". I'm all for pronouncing it the way he did and perhaps this should be reflected in the article. Thangyaverymuch... Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 03:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That sometimes happens. I've heard "Leslie" pronounced "Lezlie", for example. If you want to make it totally clear, feel free to construct the appropriate IPA for it (don't ask me, though, as I haven't a clue how IPA works, but it's the wikipedia standard). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Before grappling with IPAs, don't forget a WP:RS... :) PL290 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't intended to put anyone off, btw—source, anyone? Of interest, also, is this current discussion concerning placement of the pronunciation, e.g., whether it's best in the lead or the infobox. PL290 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It never even occurred to me that this would be an issue. Presumably he would know how to pronounce his own name. Anyway, here's an amusing Youtube from long ago, with Steve Allen, Andy Griffith, Imogene Coca, and Elvis, who Steve introduces with a made-up nickname and last name pronounced "press-lee".[30] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To complicate matters, here's Ted Koppel talking to Colonel Tom Parker in 1987 and calling him "prezz-lee". However, at about 3:15 and 4:25, Parker (who should know) calls him "press-lee".[31] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is an issue! But if we can source it, that will serve to forestall the otherwise presumably numerous and constant challenges from those who think it's "prez" (which hitherto included me, to my, I assume, shame!). (Youtube won't really do, I suspect; I'm hoping someone has a book that mentions it.) PL290 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to find a clip of he himself saying it. The Koppel thing tells me that more people might have said "prezz-lee" than I had realized. But Elvis (and for that matter, Priscilla and Lisa Marie) ought to know how their own name is pronounced. Failing that, maybe there's a "Dictionary of American Biography" online which would have it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this is a "reliable" source or not: [32] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it matters. It's a personal choice how people pronounce it. "Prezz-lee" or "Press-lee" are both correct, in my opinion. It's like "Engel-bert" and "Engel-burt". I say it "Prezz-lay", and most people I've heard on documentaries say it as "Prezz-lay" too, although some do say it as "Press-lee". I always assumed it was "Prezz-lay" to alter it slightly from the original spelling of "Pressley", and also (probably wrongly) assumed that the other spelling (Pressley) emphasised the two S's to make it clear it was "Press-Lay". Having said all that, however, this site may be of use to put the correct pronunciation as "Press-lee" (I don't know if it's acceptable, I just googled it). Either way, as a featured article it should contain the info if needs be. Hope everyone is well. :) EDIT: The above site from Bugs lists both as acceptable pronunciations. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In my part of the world "Bert" and "Burt" are homophones. And I never heard anyone say "prez-lay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth—this is becoming something of an education for us all! PL290 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I agree it may be a matter of personal choice, but that don't mean there's not a definitive pronunciation. Words in wiki seem to get the pronunciation spelled out, even when there's no variation in pronunciation e.g. the English town of Preston. So I would say it was even more important to have it listed in contentious cases. Sorry, ElvisFan - never heard it pronounced "Prezz-lay; always Prez-li, Prezlee, to my ears! If anyone has the chit-chat between Milton Berle and Elvis prior to him singing Hound Dog (June 5, 1956), you can hear Elvis say "Pressley". I think he does the same on the fan disc, "The Truth About Me", if memory serves me. I think the inogolo site has it right. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 11:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no reason not to go for it; one person's "don't matter" + another's "would be nice" = "no conflict". I do think we need to cite a written source, though: hearing is somewhat subjective. (Personally I still think Neil Armstrong really did say "small step for a man", it was just the elision and the American accent that took the emphasis off the word "a". It still boggles my mind to think of that guy going all the way to the moon and back for the first time, only to be told he'd got his words wrong!) PL290 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is included and a written source is required I recommend this book. It clearly states that Graceland uses "Pres-lee", that those in the south use "Pres-lee", and it goes on to mention that Elvis himself used "Pres-lee" on the Milton Berle show.. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find—that tells it pretty comprehensively ... as far as the surname's concerned. I guess if we were to put IPAs in the lead, we would need all three names (cf George W. Bush). But given that no one's expressed a preference about IPAs, I thought a bit about this, and I'm interested to know what folks think about the following suggestion, which ties it in with a tweak to how we present the Aron/Aaron discussion. We make clear in note (a) that there has long been debate over that spelling, concluding, "Aaron is the spelling his father chose for Presley's tombstone, and it is the spelling his estate has designated as official." My suggestion, then, is firstly to remove "(or Aron)" from the lead sentence (since the other spelling has been designated the official one, and note (a) provides ample explanation), and secondly to use note (a) to additionally mention the surname pronunciation. This would result in the following:

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

.
.
.

• ^ Note a: Although some pronounce his surname "PREZ-lee", Presley himself used the pronunciation of the American South, "PRESS-lee", as did his family and those who worked with him. The correct spelling of his middle name has long been a matter of debate. The physician who delivered him ...
  

.
.
.

References

PL290 (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a terrific way to handle this. And for those who follow it to the source, there's the side benefit of Elster's wonderful description of his exemplary research into the matter. We may get some pushback on removing "Aron" from the lead sentence...but let's see. DocKino (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Great solution. Thank you to everyone for digging into this. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done PL290 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Forrest Gump

I think it should be noted somewhere in the article that he was referenced (and an actor appeared as him) in the 1994 movie Forrest Gump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.40.19 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Presley has been featured, impersonated or referenced in many films, books and plays. If Gump was mentioned, I think the others would have to be as well. Overall, it would be pretty trivial stuff, even if it did reflect his influence. Anyway, it is mentioned in another article about Presley [33] Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 9 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Music videos

Year	Video	Director
2008	"Blue Christmas"(w/ Martina McBride)	Deaton-Flanigen/Les Umberger

75.118.38.203 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not convinced that this is to be regarded as part of the Presely recorded works canon, which is established by the lead section of Elvis Presley discography and only includes releases of which Presley was aware at the time of his death. For example, we don't include Elvis vs JXL as a hit single, and by extension, I don't think this is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion. Other editors may disagree, however. Rodhullandemu 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)