Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.

• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive1
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive4
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive5
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive6
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive7
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive8
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive9
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive10
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive11
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive12
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive13
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive14

Death and burial section

This section should say "Presley was 42 years old", NOT Presley was "only 42". 42 is middle-aged, not young, and he died a lot older than James Dean, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Brian Jones, River Phoenix, Kurt Cobain, Jonathan Brandis etc etc etc. In any case the autopsy showed Presley had the body of a 70 year old man. (195.93.21.67 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I've no argument with the deletion of "only", Mr/Ms AOL, but your knowledge of the results of the autopsy surprises me. I thought it was unpublished. -- Hoary 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two laboratory reports. According to Peter Guralnick, "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." See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-2, Onefortyone 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A definite suicide, because his career was finished, he was losing his voice, he was going blind due to glaucoma and he had bone cancer. ... contributed at 07:04, 20 June 2006 by 195.93.21.67, who hasn't yet mastered the art of signing his/her comments

"only" is POV and should be removed based on Wikipedia: NPOV in any event.Michael Dorosh 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per request at WP:RfPP, this article has been protected until disputes have been resolved. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have reached an agreement, please let me know or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See [1]. Onefortyone 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To restate my response on my talk page: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please see m:The Wrong Version. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Section One - name and content

We've tackled the opening above, though, Hoary still is to provide his version - thus that is still being hammered out. It looks good though. Now, to tackle section one - what is its name to be and what shall we include? Possibilities are: Early life or Birth and Ancestry - I prefer "Birth and childhood" I think; which can cover everything to the moment before he recored at Sun Records - leaving that for section two. Any comments? Onefortyone, Hoary what do you guys think? What should be the title and content of section one? Here is my version thus far, as an opening to discussion: --Northmeister 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth and childhood

File:Presley Family.jpg

Young Elvis with his Mother Gladys and Father Vernon.

Elvis Aron Presley was born on January 8, 1935 at around 4:13 a.m. in a two-room shotgun house in East Tupelo, Mississippi to Vernon Elvis Presley and Gladys Love Smith, a sewing machine operator and a truck driver. His twin brother, Jesse Garon Presley, was stillborn, thus leaving him to grow up as an only child. The surname Presley was Anglicized from the German name "Pressler" during the Civil War. His ancestor Johann Valentin Pressler emigrated to America in 1710. Elvis was mostly of Scottish and English descent, although his family tree also includes Native American, German roots.

When Elvis was three years old, his father Vernon Presley was convicted of forgery. It seems that Vernon, Travis Smith, and Luther Gable changed the amount of a check from Orville Bean, Vernon's boss, from $3 to $8 and cashed it at a local bank. Vernon pled guilty and was sentenced to three years at Parchment Farms Penitentiary. Vernon's boss, Mr. Bass called in a note that Vernon signed to borrow money to build his family's home forcing Gladys Presely and Elvis to move in with Vernon's parents. After serving eight months Vernon was released. The Presley family lived just above the poverty line during their years in East Tupelo. The Presleys attended the First Assembly of God Church whose Pentecostal were filled with song.

In 1945 Elvis, just ten years old, entered a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show. Decked out in a cowboy outfit, young Elvis had to stand on a chair to reach the microphone singing a rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep." He won second place, a $5 prize and a free ticket to all the rides. On his birthday the following January he received a guitar purchased from Tupelo Hardware Store. Over the next year, Vernon's brother Johnny Smith and Assembly of Good pastor Frank Smith. gave him basic guitar lessons

In 1948 the Presley family left Tupelo, moving 110 miles northwest to Memphis, Tennessee. Here too, the thirteen-year-old Elvis lived in the city's poorer section of town and attended a Pentecostal church. At this time, he was very much influenced by the Memphis blues music and the gospel sung at his church.

Elvis's parents were very protective. He "grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother." His mother Gladys "worshiped him," said a neighbor, "from the day he was born." Elvis himself said, "My mama never let me out of her sight. I couldn't go down to the creek with the other kids."

In his teens, Elvis was still a very shy person, a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years." He was teased by his fellow classmates who threw "things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy."

Elvis entered Humes High School in Memphis taking up work at the school library and after school at Loew's State Theatre. In 1951 enrolled in the school's ROTC unit, tries unsuccessfully to qualify for the high school football team (he's cut by the coach when he won't trim his sideburns and ducktail}, spending his spare time around the African-American section of Memphis, especially on Beale Street. In 1953 Elvis graduated from Humes, majoring in History, English, and Shop.

After graduation Elvis works first at Parker Machinists Shop, and then for the Precision Tool Company with his father, finally working for the Crown Electric Co. driving a truck, where he began wearing his hair the trademarked pompadoure style. --Northmeister 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Take the above and edit it at your will, to include all we should for an encyclopedia, remembering to cover his Birth and growing up til Sun, that should be section two. --Northmeister 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my version of the childhood section, based on the first chapter of Guralnick's book:

Elvis' father Vernon Presley is described as a "taciturn to the point of sullenness," whereas his mother Gladys "was voluble, lively, full of spunk." The family was active in church and community. However, in 1938, when Elvis was three years old, his father was convicted of forgery. Vernon, Gladys's brother Travis Smith, and Luther Gable went to prison for altering a check from Orville Bean, Vernon's boss, from $3 to $8 and then cashing it at a local bank. Vernon was sentenced to three years at Parchment Farms Penitentiary. Though after serving eight months Vernon was released, this event deeply influenced the life of the young family. During her husband's absence, Gladys lost the house and was forced to move in briefly with her in-laws next door. The Presley family lived just above the poverty line during their years in East Tupelo.

In 1941 Elvis started school at the East Tupelo Consolidated. There he seems to have been an outsider. His few friends relate that he was separate from any crowd and did not belong to any "gang", but, according to his teachers, he was a sweet and average student, and he loved comic books. In 1943 Vernon moved to Memphis, where he found work and stayed throughout the war, coming home only on weekends. This certainly strengthened the relationship between mother and boy. According to Guralnick, the common story that the Presleys formed a popular gospel trio who sang in church and travelled about to various revival meetings is not true.

In 1946 Elvis started a new school, Milam, which went from grades 5 through 9, but in 1948 the Presley family left Tupelo, moving 110 miles northwest to Memphis, Tennessee. Here too, the thirteen-year-old Elvis lived in the city's poorer section of town and attended a Pentecostal church. At this time, he was very much influenced by the Memphis blues music and the gospel sung at his church.

Elvis entered Humes High School in Memphis taking up work at the school library and after school at Loew's State Theatre. In 1951 enrolled in the school's ROTC unit, tries unsuccessfully to qualify for the high school football team (he's cut by the coach when he won't trim his sideburns and ducktail}, spending his spare time around the African-American section of Memphis, especially on Beale Street. In 1953 Elvis graduated from Humes, majoring in History, English, and Shop.

After graduation Elvis works first at Parker Machinists Shop, and then for the Precision Tool Company with his father, finally working for the Crown Electric Co. driving a truck, where he began wearing his hair the trademarked pompadoure style.

Elvis's parents were very protective. He "grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother." His mother Gladys "worshiped him," said a neighbor, "from the day he was born." Elvis himself said, "My mama never let me out of her sight. I couldn't go down to the creek with the other kids."

In his teens, Elvis was still a very shy person, a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years." He was teased by his fellow classmates who threw "things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy."

In 1953 Elvis was still "a shy, introverted mama's boy in a town full of bullies". At the start of his fame, guitarist Scotty Moore attested that the singer was a "typical coddled son" and "very shy": "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." Moore adds that Elvis "was more comfortable just sitting there with a guitar than trying to talk to you." 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". She was frightened of Elvis being hurt: "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."

I hope we are able to find a compromise. Onefortyone 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your version is similar to mine, the Scotty Moore stuff, is not right, because that belongs to the next section when he is at Sun Records if at all. You constantly quote needless material, we don't need extensive quote from one author, we need a summary of these things. I'll take a good look at your rendition and offer a solution between the two. Hoary, what do you think or anyone else out there? Maybe we should go paragragh by paragraph here, as you exclude the entire first paragraph on his being born, not standard for an article to do. The second paragraph is similar to mine except (as your first) you again offer a quote that is not helpful or needed at that point. I am unsure of why you added that. Like I said, I will look it over and need others comments on the two versions. --Northmeister 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not excluding the first paragraph. It perhaps needs some rewriting. The fact that Elvis's father was described as a "taciturn to the point of sullenness" is important. It helps to explain the strong influence of his voluble mother. Onefortyone 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox?

I am not sure this procedure is working. My hope was collaboration towards a worthy article by wikipedia standards (see Louis Armstrong or The Beatles. I really do not have any agenda, nor am I in for deleting worthy material. What I am trying to engineer is a credible organization for the article from which we can work. Once we have this we can decide what is worthy to include and what is not. Elvis was a phenomenon by all standards. He changed the way people listened to and looked at music. He made movies, and thus was an actor, whether good or bad is POV is irrelevant. He was both an icon and a man. To a large extent the Colonel controlled his career, for better or worse - but Elvis broke with him in 1968 with his comeback special. His music inspired the Beatles among others. Like other rock stars he had imperfections - weight problems, drug problems, sleeping problems, and marital problems - what belongs depends on what this article is - it is a biography in brief about the man, his life, his music, his impact. It is neither for him or against him but NPOV. It should reflect all the Louis Armstrong and Beatles articles reflect and live up to wikipedia standards. There is no point in quoting directly numerous times from one source or others, but to give summary of the thoughts of authors directly related to the subject matter. If each of us can agree on this criteria, on working in harmony to achieve a balanced NPOV verifiable article, then we can all be proud of our efforts here. It has been noted that I am a fan - that is true. But, I do not think it does Elvis justice to reduce the human side of the man, his flaws for example or to promote an image without the substance. I am not about doing that nor about including material that ignores the recorded history in favor of exaggerated claims. We must be balanced, neutral, and provide an article whose length is appropriate for an encyclopedia. THEREFORE I PROPOSE A SANDBOX, which I think ought to be set up to work on this article. Let us work out disagreements there. If we all can agree that we are here to help out and do worthy job at producing a worthy article then let us begin to build an article up to par with the Louis Armstrong and Beatles article. I ask the one who protected the page to somehow let us set up a sandbox to work with, I'm not sure how exactly. I extend my offer of reconciliation and collaboration to all who can agree with me here. What say the rest of you? Sandbox? --Northmeister 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

HERE IS SOMETHING TEMPORARY TO WORK as a SANDBOX OF SORTS: Talk:Elvis_Presley/Sandbox --Northmeister 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GROUND RULES: Let's stay in the format - if you feel a new header needs creating address the concern below this sentence. Other material you feel needs including, add it and see where it takes us. Don't get offended by other editors re-arranging or taking out material or putting it back in. The purpose is to work on this until we agree. Let's be polite and reasonable and try to collaborate to success. Some material I took out, of other headers. Let's address that material in the the headers already there in context. --Northmeister 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See my new version of the opening above. It is a revision of Hoary's version. Onefortyone 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - work with the sandbox until we flesh out a workable version. Please work within the ground rules. If you feel a new header needs creating, lets address that below. If material deleted needs re-inclusion, add it and see where it gets us. --Northmeister 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Colonel organized the Memphis "comeback" concert in 1968. Presley NEVER broke with the Colonel, as Parker still managed his career in 1977. Elvis didn't change the way we look at music, all he did was copy black performers and thereby appeal to racist Middle America. And I would never, NEVER, call Presley an actor. (195.93.21.67 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Your not being helpful...constantly spout off racist rhetoric...have a flawed view of events (Parker wished for a traditional version of the 68 Xmas special, and Elvis vetoed that) etc. What is your point - if you hate Elvis, then goto My-Space or start a blog and blog away. If you have sourced based information, that is verifiable then offer it. Don't hide behind anonymity...get an account and show us your not just here to disrupt wikipedia with nonsense. --Northmeister 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While working on a "sandbox" draft, please keep the categories inactive - they are only for main namespace articles. -Will Beback 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, wasn't aware that they were active...I see you've deactivated them...thanks. --Northmeister 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection from Editing

"When adult programmers announced they would not play Elvis' music on their radio stations due to religious convinctions that Elvis music was 'devil music' and to racist beliefs that it was "nigger music."

This is a sentence fragment that I'm just dying to fix. If someone has the power to unlock the page, please remove the "when" at the beginning of the sentence! This is nothing controversial, just a scandalous grammatical error ;)Polyhymnia

Done. And while I was about it I fixed "convinctions" for good measure. The page is still protected.

Incidentally, your polite, reasoned, signed request for an uncontroversial fix is very refreshing. Do please stick around. -- Hoary 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, as Northmeister seems to have taken a Wiki-break, you may also include the first paragraphs from the 'Sandbox' in the article:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis and also marketed as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King", was an American singer. He also acted for a period of time in lightweight movies.

Presley started as a singer of rockabilly, borrowing many songs from rhythm and blues numbers and country standards. He was for some time the most commercially successful singer of rock and roll, but he also sang ballads, and then moved toward country music. Personally, gospel was the music he cherished above all. Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He has become one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history.

The young Elvis has become an icon of modern American pop culture, sometimes held to represent the American Dream of rising from rags to riches through talent and hard work, more often representing teen sexuality with a hint of delinquency. During the 1970s, Elvis reemerged as a steady performer of old hits and new songs on tour and particularly in Las Vegas, Nevada, where he, as a nightclub performer, became known for wearing his standard jump-suit costumes. Until the last years of his life, he continued to perform before sell-out audiences around the country. He died, presumably from a heart attack combined with abuse of prescription drugs, in Memphis, Tennessee. As a singer, his popularity survived his death at 42.

Protection removal

Is there an ongoing need for page protection? -Will Beback 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, as the dispute between two registered users has abated. I'll change it to semi-protection, as a truculent and persistent IP insists on reinserting unsourced junk. -- Hoary 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth and ancestry

File:Presley Family.jpg

Young Elvis with his Mother Gladys and Father Vernon.

Elvis Aron Presley was born on January 8, 1935 at around 4:13 a.m. in a two-room shotgun house in East Tupelo, Mississippi to Vernon Elvis Presley and Gladys Love Smith, a sewing machine operator and a truck driver. His twin brother, Jesse Garon Presley, was stillborn, thus leaving him to grow up as an only child. The surname Presley was Anglicized from the German name "Pressler" during the Civil War. His ancestor Johann Valentin Pressler emigrated to America in 1710. Elvis was mostly of Scottish and English descent, although his family tree also includes Native American, German roots.

I could swear Lisa Marie his daughter said they were Irish she would be the definite source. He looks Irish from the west of Ireland racially it is a very distinct type, Pierce Brosnan is an example. I know people who look similiar to Elvis who are irish. I though scottish would be more Scandanavian look like Sting from the band the Police? Being from NY and working for a British company I see people right off the boat and he is too good looking to be english. People( especially some southerners)and people not familiar with people from british Isles forget what english people look like being many generations removed. They have roman blood and aren't as good looking as the welsh and irish. Round roman eyes like Paul Mccartney are prevalent. Good looks from my observations off the boat Irish first then welsh then scottish and English last. English being of upper classes also were most likely to mix with people not indeginous to british isles basically rich people from the continent who were not always the most attractive people hanger ons if you will . It is the Farmer more attractive than the Doctor syndrome which is prevalent in other countries as well British not being the exception.

Very minor edit

Could somebody please change the link to "Chinese people" (second from bottom in "Elvis Trivia") to "People's Republic of China", as Chinese People is a disambiguation page. Thanks. --Daduzi ^talk 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You can do it. The page is only semi-protected. See Template_talk:Sprotected for the ongoing debate on how to identify semi-protected pages. Haukur 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it was fully protected when you made that request. Never mind me, then :) Haukur 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, well thanks for the heads up anyway, I've gone ahead and made the change. One down, only another 300 or so to go. --Daduzi ^talk 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Movies section

I am not happy with your version of the movies section, Northmeister. All critics agree that Elvis' movies are pretty bad. Which source says that it was his lifelong passion to make movies? Most publications dealing with the films say that he didn't like his own movies. See also this website which claims that "Elvis dreamed of being the next Dean or Brando". Are there any Elvis biographies supporting this view? Onefortyone 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes to your last question, Down the End of Lonely Street mentions his tastes in actors and his dreams about movie making. Elvis disliked making movies because they became one and the same to him just different locations and different songs. The version there does not advocate for or against his films, it indicates NPOV statement about them. We must avoid POV expressions either way. When Elvis was young he was a movie usher and dreamed of being on the big screen - therefore once he made it in singing he naturally took an interest in movies and wished to do dramatic roles like James Dean and others. He was offered such roles, but the Colonel vetoed them. Elvis considered King Creole his best movie and the one he like the most. It is not true he disliked all his movies. Further as trivia, his mother did not like the original version of Love Me Tender because she didn't like seeing her son killed on the screen, so they added Elvis singing at the end. Elvis would not watch Loving You because his mother had a cameo role in the audience when he sang Teddy Bear (from which he was sent thousands of teddy bears in the mail) - all this from his official biography at EPE and from Down the End of Lonely Street as well as several documentaries on the man, and Elvis by the Presley's. --Northmeister 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC) -PS> All this is not to say we can't make improvements. I am open to suggestions on the sandbox, which I updated to be like the original is now so far. I think a relationship section belongs, it just needs more summary and less direct quotes and less POV at times - an overall reduction in size. Some of the material from relationships belongs in other headers, like about his mother - but I am curious to your thoughts. --Northmeister 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What I have included in the movies section is well sourced. See the direct quotes from independent books on Elvis. Would you please also provide direct quotes from sources which support your statements above. By the way, Hoary and other editors of the Elvis article are also of the opinion that the singer's movies are pretty bad. Onefortyone 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I included the critics section, just in a different order. I don't see the problem here. It is not whether we believe his movies are bad or not; I personally like Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, King Creole, GI Blues and Change of Heart (and like his tour movies in 70's) but dislike most of his other stuff, but that doesn't matter - it only matters that we record here accurately what fans (who went to see the films making many money winners) and critics stated. That has been done - critics have the same complaints I do and others - lack of depth and plot. Thats included. So again, I don't see the problem here. --Northmeister 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted critical passages which are well sourced. A Wikipedia article should cite what is written in published sources on Elvis, not what you personally like. In his book, 10 Sure Signs a Movie Character is Doomed: And Other Surprising Movie Lists (2003), Richard Roeper writes (p.32), "Sure, Elvis Presley made a lot of movies and he was fairly comfortable onscreen playing a sanitized version of himself — but they were all BAD movies. ... Not only that, but Elvis spent so much time churning out these forgettable B-flicks that he lost his musical way for nearly a decade... Elvis may be the most spectacular failure in the singer-turned-actor category, but he's far from being alone." Onefortyone 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of authors willing to make a buck off the Presley name. We are not obligated to quote them all, but to summarize the generally accepted synthesis of material from well researched authors. Again, what your beef is other than wanting to call his movies 'bad' which is POV. There is already mention of critics not liking the movies. So what is the problem here? --Northmeister 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Film critics say that his movies are bad. That's the difference. I can understand that Elvis fans are not happy with this fact, but a Wikipedia article is not a fan site. It should cite what independent authors have written in published sources. The fact is that you have deleted quotes from books on Elvis and his films. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now included some more quotes from books which prove that the critical remarks in the movies section are well sourced. Furthermore, I have not yet seen direct quotes from independent sources which support the following passages:

Perhaps the biggest letdown of Elvis' film career was when "Colonel" Parker convinced him to give up the lead role in the film version of West Side Story. Elvis was approached at first by the producers, being their favorite choice among several leading men. He originally wanted to play the role, but Parker insisted he pull out to star in the musicals he was accustomed to. From 1960 to 1961, the total box office earnings of his movies were $100 million, but he was upset upon learning that West Side Story was a huge hit and earned ten Academy Awards. Till the end of his life, Presley never forgave the "Colonel" for his loss, and he never watched his films, which were, according to him, travellogue movies with no plot but exotic locales.

Other big disappointments included when the "Colonel" persuaded him not to audition for a main role in The Godfather, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof, The Defiant Ones, Midnight Cowboy, and A Star Is Born with Barbra Streisand. All these roles led to box office success, critical acclaim, and Academy Awards for the actors that took his place. Elvis never really got over these chances, which would have boosted his acting career. He had always wanted to be a serious actor since his boyhood.

Are there any published books which support these claims? If not, all the unproved stories about giving up main roles in West Side Story, The Godfather etc. may be removed. Onefortyone 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All I have been doing is rearranging your text in context and removing overly long quotes that are redundant. I don't understand your problem here. We should summarize with a few quotes (not make this article full of quotes out of books) the material on Elvis - in this section pertaining to his movies. I've not removed criticism but put it into context and worded it in a NPOV way. Again, what is your beef about what I have done? See Sandbox... --Northmeister 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth, Northmeister. What you are doing is not rearranging my text. As everybody can see, you have deliberately deleted well-sourced passages from the movies section which are not in line with your positive view of Elvis as a movie star. See [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. What you are doing is not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You misjudge my motivations here entirely. I don't understand your hostility. Chill out a bit, we are not enemies - but fellow editors trying to get it right (I hope). Provide below what you think I deleted or have cause against and we will work it out. --Northmeister 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the revised paragraph including well-sourced material. Unsourced passages have been deleted:

Elvis was an enthusiastic James Dean fan and returned from the military eager to make a career as a movie star, although "he was definitely not the most talented actor around." According to Tom Lisanti, he "became a film genre of his own, though his hip-swaying, hard-rocking musical style of the fifties was tuned down considerably during the sixties." Pop film staples of the early sixties, such as the Presley musicals and the AlP beach movies were mainly produced for a teenage audience and called "stupid movies" or a "pantheon of bad taste" In the sixties, at Colonel Parker's command, Elvis withdrew from concerts and television appearances, after his final appearance with Frank Sinatra on NBC entitled "Welcome Home Elvis" where he sang "Witchcraft/Love Me Tender" with Sinatra, in order to make "dumb beach and race car movies.". "He blamed his fading popularity on his humdrum movies," Priscilla Presley recalled in her 1985 autobiography, Elvis and Me. "He loathed their stock plots and short shooting schedules. He could have demanded better, more substantial scripts but he didn't." Instead, the singer "continued to make the movies and record the dismal soundtracks, putting forth less effort with each new release. Artistically speaking, no one blamed him. The scripts were all the same, the songs progressively worse." Indeed, the movies-songs were "written on order by men who never really understood Elvis or rock and roll, such as 'Rock-a-Hula Baby', 'Beach Boy Blues,' and 'Ito Eats.' " Significantly, in his book, Elvis in Hollywood, Paul Lichter calls Paradise, Hawaiian Style "a really poor film featuring a very poor soundtrack." For Blue Hawaii and its "soundtrack LP, recorded in Los Angeles before Elvis went to Hawaii for the Arizona benefit, fourteen songs were cut in just three days." Billy Poore confirms that Elvis, in his movies of the early sixties, was "singin' silly songs like 'There's No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car' " Julie Parrish "had the dubious distinction of being serenaded by the King with the infamous song 'It's a Dog's Life' in Paradise, Hawaiian Style. 'Elvis hated this song,' says Julie, chuckling. 'I have the outtakes on a rare bootleg album. He couldn't stop laughing while he was recording it.' "

No wonder that most film critics chastised these movies for their lack of depth, but fans turned out and they managed to be profitable. According to Jerry Hopkins's book, Elvis in Hawaii, Presley's "pretty-as-a-postcard movies" even "boosted the new state's (Hawaii) tourism. Some of his most enduring and popular songs came from those movies." Altogether, Elvis had made 31 movies during the 1960's, "which had grossed about $130 million, and he had sold a hundred million records, which had made $150 million."

I hope this new version of the movies section is now satisfactory to all, as it is supported by many independent sources. This is what the article needs: quotes from published books. I have also rewritten the 1968 comeback section. I think the quotes concerning Elvis's movies should be included in the movies section. I am frequently citing my sources, but I have not yet seen direct quotes from the sources Northmeister claims to have used. Onefortyone 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any critic (let alone scholar) has seriously claimed that Presley's movies were first-rate. When they bother with them at all, most treat them collectively as of little significance, or simply as junk. But I have also read that he's tolerably good in a major role in King Creole, which is a solid film in its modest way (Danny Peary, Guide for the Film Fanatic), and also that two or three of his other movies are watchable even for many people who aren't Presley fans.

Decades ago, a lot of people paid a lot of money to watch these movies, which in toto were immensely successful in business (even if no other) terms. That in itself is significant. So let's say so clearly and without sarcasm.

(Incidentally I've never watched any and never wanted to. I have suffered through some Star Wars movie, which I thought was stunningly moronic at just about every level. Beats me why that stuff is taken seriously....)

As for the quality of the movies, we should cite sources that show an understanding that these were, and should sensibly be rated as, genre products. Anyone is free to loathe the genre, but if somebody loathes the genre then there's no point in citing how he disses individual examples of the genre.

Now please all calm down and proceed in a civilized fashion within the sandbox. Thank you. -- Hoary 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the article that Bing Crosby, the biggest selling recording artist in history, made movies which were of a much higher quality than Presley's, and won an Oscar as Best Actor for "Going My Way" (plus four Oscars for songs), while Presley's movies were not nominated for any awards. ... added at 20:34, 26 June 2006 by 195.93.21.67

If you feel so strongly about this, AOLuser, then join the fun in the sandbox. Do remember, though, that this article is about Presley, not Crosby, Jackson, or any comparison among them. -- Hoary 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, one user has done a good thing and summarised the critical response with sentences like this: 'Most film critics chastised his movies for their lack of depth, but fans turned out and they managed to be profitable'. While the other user insists on inserting a large wad of quotes from various authors (though he/she seems to have only taken sources from authors that hate the movies). Personally, just summarising the critical response is better than a huge wad of quotes that are inproportionally weighted.--58.169.48.128 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's much in what you say. Sourcing is fine, and critical (even hostile) commentary is fine, but comments can usually be summarized and their sources provided in footnotes. (After all, one important aim of an encyclopedia article is concision.) Not being much interested in Presley, I don't have positive commentary to hand; if you do, you are of course free to summarize and cite that too. -- Hoary 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is locked

Because an edit war is going on, I locked the article.

As is normal, I locked the most recent version, without looking to see if it is preferable to the immediately previous or any other version. -- Hoary 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

who locked page in POV

"Lightweight movies"... POV at it's most blatant! Someone should delete! 205.188.116.195 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No ones' done anything. Come on Wiki editor, sort it out!

I locked it, and I did so in view of an edit war.

Please discuss changes here, and make changes in this talk page's sandbox. When you've all calmed down, somebody (perhaps I) will unlock the page.

Incidentally, while full protection may well be removed very soon, semi-protection is likely to stay a little longer. You may wish to get a username. -- Hoary 10:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Offer to assist editor and request to partially protect

I (as my username might suggest) am a psychologist (Ph.D.) who has studied Presley academically for over 3 decades. My minor was English literature and I actually reviewed some of the literature on Presley's cultural impact. I must say, the current lead section in the Wikipedia article is poorly written. "has become one of the biggest selling solo artist?" (sic). Where is the "s"? In addition, the lead section is a very poor and biased summary of the artist and his accomplishments (recordings, etc.) and cultural impact. I would be happy to assist you in editing this particular article, if you like. If this is not assistance you seek, I certainly hope you reduce the level of protection to allow for edits of this. The current version is likely the poorest article, as it stands, I have seen in the past year. It was actually quite good 6 months ago!

On 7 April, at a time when the Elvis page was unprotected, you included only this sentence in the article:

As of 2006, more than a quarter century after his death, Elvis remains the best selling solo artist in U. S. history, accoring to the R.I.A.A.(http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/010804.asp).

See [7]. There are similar contributions to the Garth Brooks and Best-selling music artist articles. See [8] and [9]. This website should not be your only source of information. As you claim to be an Elvis expert, I am sure you can provide dozens of independent sources (books on Elvis, peer-reviewed essays, incl. page numbers) in order to support your view. Onefortyone 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It so happens your Garth Brooks attribution is stale. Garth Brooks was surpassed by Elvis Presley in sales in 2006 according to the RIAA. And, additionally, stating I should "cite lots of other sources" for the claim that Presley is the best selling US (and worldwide) artist, the RIAA IS the authority who determines that!! So, what other sources could be added? Makes no sense at all.

The International Informations Programs of the U. S. GOVERNMENT just issued a June 27 note that stated Elvis Presley was determined to be the BEST SELLING ARTIST IN HISTORY according to the R. I. A. A.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have researched this matter at all and apparently fail to understand that the R. I. A. A. is the only authoritative source for record sales in this country. If you don't "accept" their determinations, whose are you using? Your own? That is not what a Wikipedia article should be based upon. shrink2u Shrink2u 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the RIAA, Elvis may indeed be the best-selling solo artist in US history. Of course, we can mention this in the article if the source is given. However, is it really true? This website says that the Beatles sold more albums in America than Elvis. According to Harold L. Vogel's study, Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis, p. 486, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the Eagles' "Greatest Hits" are the all-time top selling albums. Until Elton John's version of "Candle in the Wind", with sales of 33 million units, Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" had been the best-selling single with 30 million units sold. Elvis records are not listed there, although he may have had the most hit singles on Billboard's Hot 100 and, during the 1950s, "Don't be cruel" (with "Hound Dog") seems to have been the best-selling single. Do you really think that the Recording Industry Association of America, as a trade group that represents the US industry and fosters a business by promoting their members, i.e. record companies and their interests, is a reliable source? Even the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Congress says that this powerful lobbying organization speaks only in behalf of its membership, which is solely composed of the major record companies, and these major labels have always operated in a manner meant to control and manipulate the US market, for instance, by frequently claiming that their all-time stars are breaking new sales records. Significantly, the RIAA has announced that Elvis stands as the best selling solo artist in US history at a ceremony on the grounds of Graceland Mansion in order to make sure that there will be more exciting news about Elvis in the near future (their words). Translated to mean: More fans should buy Elvis CDs published by the major record companies. There are over 25000 independent music publishers in the US alone. How could the RIAA accurately consider all sales? Onefortyone 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone, we must avoid original research. It seems that your doing that above. The RIAA is an authoritative source, lets go with that. --Northmeister 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is really the case. Are there any independent sources supporting this view? Be that as it may, we can mention the RIAA claim in the article if the source is given. Onefortyone 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any editors who wish to help out here. There is presently a sandbox that we are working on, and it needs lots of work as you state. Right now it represents the main article with minor exceptions. I am glad you've studied Elvis and his impact; any help you may need just ask. See above for link to Sandbox under that section. --Northmeister 23:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I have now included a shorter version of the movies section in the sandbox. I have removed words like "stupid", but I think it is important to say that critics called the movies "a pantheon of bad taste" and that Elvis didn't like the songs written for these films. As Elvis already didn't like the movies of the early sixties, I think the quote from Priscilla Presley's book must be included in the movies section. Somebody else may add that Elvis acted well in some of his earlier films. If the editor could provide direct quotes from published books in order to support his/her contribution, this would be fine. I have removed the passages concerning West Side Story, The Godfather etc., as I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting these claims. This stuff has been included by an anonymous IP on 29 March 2006. See [10]. The same user has also included the same nonsense in the Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins articles. See [11] and [12]. See also this contribution by the same editor using a similar IP: [13]. In my opinion, this vandal deliberately added false information to three different Wikipedia articles. I do not think that there is a published source supporting this stuff. Therefore, the whole West Side Story paragraph must be removed.Onefortyone 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will check your recent edits to see how it works and offer my edits if necessary. --Northmeister 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC) -I still think it needs work - but lets move on, as it is better than the longer version.

Thanks. It could well be that I made a mistake concerning the West Side Story stuff, as another user added similar paragraphs to the West Side Story (film) article. See [14]. However, I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting the claims. Onefortyone 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the exact source right in front of me, but I've read somewhere that he was offered the role in West Side Story as well as "A Star is Born". --Northmeister 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What we need are direct quotes from published sources. Onefortyone 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. What's needed are concise summaries scrupulously made from specified, reputable published sources. -- Hoary 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Relationships

I think the relationships part is too long and needs a article all its own. Therefore I move to create an article "Elvis Presley's Relationships" or "Relationships of Elvis Presley" and move that material ther with a brief summary for the main article. --Northmeister 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's much too long and doesn't need an article for itself. Instead, it needs compression and abridgement. Presley's "relationships" (what a coy term!) may be of some tabloidy interest, but what we have here purports to be an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the relationships of a star are merely of tabloidy interest. They are an important part of a celebrity's identity. Relationships can be formal (e.g. Elvis legally owns a house in Graceland, some Memphis Mafia members are employees hired by Elvis) vs. informal (Elvis and Nick Adams are best friends). Relationships can be intimate (Elvis and Priscilla; mother and son), or remote (there may be some distant cousins that haven't met each other). Relationships can be postive (Elvis and Byron Raphael had a strong working relationship) or negative (Elvis divorced Priscilla). All these relationships should be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then, mention them. No need to go on and on about them. -- Hoary 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with your suggestion. Could you take up that challenge to truncate that section in the sandbox first? Mainly we need much less quotation and more summary. --Northmeister 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh . . . can somebody who is interested in this stuff (I'm not!) please do the work of summarizing it? -- Hoary 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

The trivia section seems very poorly organized. Would it be possible to break up the section into at least a couple of subheadings - ie

===Film Career=== ===Singing Career=== ===Personal Appearances===

etc.? As it is, it is hard to wade through.Michael Dorosh 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah give it your best shot. I would suggest the sandbox before the main article (see sandbox above for link). Feel free to edit any portion of the sandbox where you think it needs improvements. --Northmeister 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gave it a start - I'll post it in the Sandbox and others can finalize it.Michael Dorosh 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If something is merely trivial, it should be cut. If it is not merely trivial, it should not be under the title "Trivia". -- Hoary 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that your opinion, or is that a policy? I didn't write the stuff, just noticed how poorly organized it is. I'm not sure why you edited it here when the most recent version is in the Sandbox - I'm going to port it over. Doubtless most of it needs cites, but if accurate some of the stuff is of interest.Michael Dorosh 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for editing the original and not copying over. My mistake; I blame lack of sleep.

My opinion on trivia isn't policy; but do see WP:Trivia. -- Hoary 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers believes Elvis was gay

I found some recent news from ContactMusic currently discussed by many indignant fans:

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is convinced Elvis Presley was homosexual - as he is suspicious of his glitzy wardrobe and maternal attachment. The Irish actor, who played the title role in 2005 TV film Elvis, has branded the Heartbreak Hotel rocker "the gayest f**king thing on two legs" after time spent researching the star yielded truly camp results. He says, "Anyone who lives with their mama that long and dresses up in that much spangly gold with black lacquer on their eyes has definitely got something going on."

Should this curious statement be mentioned in the "Trivia" section of the article? The Irish actor was the Golden Globe winner for his portrayal of Elvis Presley in CBS' mini-series, Elvis. Onefortyone 03:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Meyers' argument seems a bit inane. Presley had lots of money, surely enough to find ways to indulge any gay urge. So anyone concerned about whether he was gay should find out whether he did indulge any of these alleged urges.

It might be of some interest to the TV film if Meyers thought Presley was gay while acting in it. So you might stick it in an article on the TV film (if this merits and gets an article). -- Hoary 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Elvis was too busy with women to be gay. Anyhow, if he was it still doesn't take from the fact he had far more masculinity and testosterone than any other singers. (Maybe that makes him gay too). These things are all that matter to me. This also makes him a superior artist to The Beatles. They sounded gay, acted a lot more gay and lack any masculinuty in their music, singing about lovey dovey nonsense and holding hands. ... added (within another user's comment) at 15:27, 23 July 2006 by 2006already

Elvis left home in his early 20's. Not entirely sure what age Meyers would have liked him to have left. Further, pretty much every performer wears make-up on stage so I guess that means they are all gay. Seems to be a fairly flippant remark made by someone who never met Presley and, other than playing him in a TV-movie, doesn't seem to know much about him. So we should take as gospel the thougts of an actor (who made the comment while saying he wanted more gay roles) who didn't know Presley, has written nothing about him etc.? Hardly a comment worthy of an encyclopedia. Lochdale

Yes, Presley was gay. That's why he had sex with Nick Adams. Added in this edit at 21:42, 3 July 2006 by AOLuser 195.93.21.67 ("contributions"). As always, AOLuser presents no evidence and doesn't sign his handiwork.

Interestingly, Elvis's sexual ambivalence has been the subject of many peer-reviewed studies. This has not yet been sufficiently discussed on the talk page. Some examples:

• On page 553 of their book, Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook (2004), Joyce H. Lowinson, Pedro Ruiz, Robert B. Millman and John G. Langrod mention the "idealization of Elvis as an androgynous culture hero."
• On p.229 of her study, Listening To The Sirens: Musical Technologies of Queer Identity from Homer to Hedwig (University of California Press, 2005), Judith Ann Peraino says, "Beginning with the mascara and pompadours of Little Richard and Elvis Presley in the 1950s, rock musicians have long presented themselves as conundrums of race and gender for adolescent contemplation."
• According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community". (p.20)
• When talking about the "antagonism of males to females' idols" and stars such as Rudolph Valentino and "Johnnie Ray (who also had homosexual connections)", Darden Asbury Pyron, in his book Liberace: An American Boy (University of Chicago Press, 2001), adds that Elvis Presley "possessed a certain early reputation as a sissy." (p.448)

There are many more academic studies of this kind. Therefore, we should add a paragraph on this topic to the article. Onefortyone 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So because some secondary works have suggested that Presley could be seen as an ambigious figure we should add this to an encyclopedia piece? Please see my other points regarding "peer-reviewed" and what that actually means. Not sure any of these articles should trump what we know about the man as a husband, father and womanizer. Lochdale

Japanese Prime Minister Visits Graceland

The Japanese Prime Minster, Junichiro Koizumi, recently visited Gracelandwith President Bush. He can only be described as being in awe of Graceland. Truly extraordinary scenes and perhaps worthy of a mention in the trivia section. At one point Koizumi was imitating Elvis and was clearly enamoured by both Presley's ex-wife and daughter. Lochdale

That seems to assume that "trivia" is worthwhile.

What might be worth mentioning somewhere is that incurious George took someone (as it happens, Japan's big-hair prime minister) there. I hazily think I've read that he hasn't previously taken any foreign guest anywhere, aside from DC and Texas. Don't trust my memory (I don't), and even if it's right here it seems to me to say more about Dubya than about Presley.

Well, any diversion of Koizumi from Yasukuni shrine can't be that bad. -- Hoary 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

From the CBS article I quoted it seems that he has taken others to various spots in the US. I think it's worthwhile trivia to note that an American music-performer can have such an effect on someone such a distance away both geographically and culturally. Evidently, Koizumi has been a popular prime minister who just happens to have somewhat of an obsession with Presley. Given some of the other nonsense that has been discussed on this page it seems almost thoughtful. Lochdale

True, a lot of crap has been written here about Presley. Let's put that aside for a moment. Do you really think that "trivia" can be "worthwhile"? (Perhaps I misunderstand "trivia".) -- Hoary 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I think I've been just "woooshed". Missed your point entirely but you are correct. Lochdale

Yes, provided it isn't just copied from his page on the Internet Movie Database. ... contributed at 13:32, 5 July 2006 by 195.93.21.67

This article is a disgrace to the legacy of elvis, rock n roll and wikipedia

I have removed the implications that Elvis has only been called "the king of rock n roll" for "marketing" reasons. I haven't heard anything more silly ever in my life. I have also removed the sentatce which suggested that in the 1970 his hit making power was gone. Equally ridiclous. 74.65.39.59 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First, who called Presley "the king of rock n roll", and why? Secondly, if you haven't heard anything sillier than the earlier statement in your life, you clearly haven't even glanced at older content in this talk page. Thirdly, his hit making power was considerably dissipated in the 70s, wasn't it? -- Hoary 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Who called Elvis "The King Of Rock N Roll"? Music Crictics and fans! The same people that call any artist their titles. The people that hold them in high regard and with the amount of Elvis tribute acts today and the amount of records he still sells - almost 30 years after his death - it's safe to say he is held in high regard by more people than most musicians and entertainers. And yes, I have seen content of this page, dosen't change a thing, it is complete drivel. Also, there is a diffrence between hit being less than they were and not having any. Presley was still a major force in the music world all throughout the 1970s. Maybe not on the billboard hot 100 charts (charts that were based more on airplay than sales) but his singles did much better on the Cashbox chart (a chart that was 100% SALES based, Billboard didn't have sales charts back then). Also he had a long run of country music hit's in the 1970s -a genre he was moving closer and closer too that decade - so he was still having major hit records. You really should find out what youre talking about before you claim you do! 74.65.39.59 01:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has claimed that Presley is held in high regard by more people than are most musicians and entertainers. -- Hoary 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Either there was a typo in that (the omission of "not" in what should be "is not held in"), or some prankster has removed it. It's obviously faulty, as a comment posted earlier by 74.65.39.59 (regardless of its accuracy) obviously disproves it. -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was basing that assertion on two key factors. The thousands who tour impersonating him and the many records he still sells to this day - he has been far successfull (and therefore has more fans, and therefore "held in high regard") than the vast majority of artists, if not, the most popular artist ever. Your claims, however, are soley based on your own opinion. 74.65.39.59 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're basing what assertion on these two factors? And if by "you" you mean me, what claims have I made that are solely based on my own opinion? -- Hoary 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That Elvis isn't regarded by more people than most singers in high regard, despite the popularity he still has now, 3 decades after his death. That was your claim wasn't it? 74.65.39.59 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't my claim. It's an absurd non-claim that can be inferred from what was probably a typo. -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Presley was given the title after he had succeeded in stealing black music to make himself famous. Most people know that Little Richard is "The Real King of Rock 'n' Roll". By 1970 Presley was at the beginning of the final downward spiral, and nothing he recorded in his gospel-obsessed final years was of any interest. ... Made in two edits circa 5 p.m., 7 July 2006, by 195.93.21.67

Elvis didn't "steal black music". People who say that have no clue. Rock N Roll was only partly influence by black music. Countrymusic played just as vital role (music that also influenced Elvis, Buddy Holly, Bill Haley and The Beatles). Hank Williams was recording rockers in the the early 1950s and he was pure "white music". 74.65.39.59 01:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is odd. I'd thought that rock and roll was the genre epitomized by Wynonie Harris and Roy Brown: both Black. Perhaps it all depends what you mean by rock and roll; without a working definition of this, the question of who was its "king" is particularly silly. -- Hoary 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hank Williams didn't listen to too many of their records. He was a country boy and was influenced by swing music, yet he recorded pure rockers. Country music played as much a vital roll in the formation of rock n roll than black music, no matter how some people wish to deny it. Bill Haley, The Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly and many more of the greatest rockers had their roots in country. Chuck Berry was also influenced by it and , if he had been white, would have probably been seen as Country, rather than R&B. Elvis is allowed to be called "The King", just as much as, say James Brown is allowed to be called "The hardest working man in showbiz", you don't see people who dislike him throwing everything but the kitchen sink in to try and make out it was a "marketing" ploy and their favorite artists worked harder. 74.65.39.59 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that Haley was one of the greatest rockers. (Historically significant, of course.) That aside, yes, rock and roll in your sense was indeed heavily influenced by country music. (It was also heavily influenced by doowop.) Presley outsold everybody else and was the most popular. -- Hoary 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't swallow the pill that Haley was one of history's most important rockers, then you can't know much abour rock n roll. Without Haley there wouldn't have been "Rock around the clock" - regarded by most rock historians as the single most important record in terms of introducing rock n' roll to a global mass audience and rightfully so. Then there's his other hits, such as "See you later alligator" and his version of "Rip It Up", that also played a vital role in Rock N Roll history. 74.65.39.59 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I already conceded that Haley was historically significant. Actually I wouldn't argue that he was "one of history's most important rockers". There's a difference between being historically important and being great. (Dubya is, I fear, a historically important Prez. A great Prez? I don't think so!) -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and both Buddy Holly and Little Richard called Elvis "The King" 74.65.39.59 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To those who are interested in who was "the King", I suppose this has some interest. Do you have any sources for these assertions? -- Hoary 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The Book of Rock Lists by Dave Marsh. You can buy it online (try Ebay) if you really want too. 74.65.39.59 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Such books are more or less reliable compendiums of facts and factoids from elsewhere. According to Marsh, when and where did Holly (less interestingly) and Little Richard (more interestingly) call Presley the King? (NB I'm not claiming that they didn't; I'm merely getting closer to the source of the claim that they did.) -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sources: In From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century (2005), David Mansour states that "Elvis Presley was the dark-haired, lip-sneering, handsome 'King of Rock 'n' Roll' whose blues-inspired music and hip-swiveling stage performances made our mothers overheat from excitement." On p.280 of his book, Sacred Places North America: 108 Destinations (2003), Brad Olsen says about Elvis, "Because of his early contributions to rock music he has been declared 'The King of Rock and Roll.' " Michael T. Bertrand's study, Race, Rock and Elvis includes a chapter on "The King of Rock as Hillbilly Cat". On p.24, the author writes that "by 1958 the media had crowned him the undisputed 'King of Rock 'n' Roll' ". On p.222, it is mentioned that the early rhythm and blues star Wynonie Harris "had apparently grown to appreciate his younger competitor for 'King of Rock 'n' Roll' ". In his book, Rockabilly: A Forty-Year Journey (1998), Billy Poore says on p.765: "When Elvis hit that Vegas stage, he once again proved he was still the King of rock 'n' roll as well as the first King of pop music..." However, on p.146, the same author also writes: "By 1964, Bobby Fuller had become the "Rock n Roll King of the Southwest." On p.156 of Patrick Humphries's book, Elvis The #1 Hits: The Secret History of the Classics (2003) we read, "It must have been midnight when a BBC newsreader announced that Elvis Presley – 'the king of rock'n'roll' as he helpfully reminded us— had died..." In Paul Tomassi's study, Logic (Routledge, 1999), there is an interesting analysis for what is called "Type 2 identity statements". See p.251-253. According to the author, "the expression, 'The King of rock 'n' roll' is not a name but a definite description." The author explains that the eminent classical logician Bertrand Russell argues, "definite descriptions cannot have meaning in virtue of picking out objects just because there need not actually be anything in the world which corresponds to the description. Therefore, it is always possible to deny the existence of anything so described quite meaningfully, e.g., 'The King of rock 'n' roll does not exist'... So, what is Russell's analysis of a sentence such as 'Elvis Presley is the King of rock 'n' roll'? According to Russell, the use of any sentence containing a definite description entails that the described thing exists, i.e. that there exists one and only one such thing. Hence, in the present case, it is entailed that there is exactly one thing in the world which is the King of rock 'n' roll."

On the other hand, there are also many critical voices: On p.26 of Ty Roseynose - A Documentary (2005), Ty Rosenow writes, "I was making a statement throughout the album that Elvis Presley wasn't as good as most people say that he is. To me, he was never the real king of rock and roll." And Reading Attainment System/Book 3 (1987) says about Elvis: "For almost four years he was the King of Rock and Roll. Then he was drafted. Elvis was King. But there were other great rockers too. Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Jerry Lee Lewis were top stars. Their music is still played today. ... From England came new kings of Rock and Roll, the Beatles." (p.13-14) On p.8 of his book, The Truth about Rock Music (2000), Hugh F. Pyle writes that "Elvis Presley was called the King of Rock'n Roll. He managed to live to be forty-two, unusually long for rock musicians. But he was bloated, sick, overweight; and toxicologists found twelve drugs in his ravaged body." Onefortyone 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, quite aside from any other comment I might make later, I'd just like to give 141 the warmest praise for managing to get Bertrand Russell into this talk page and thereby raising the tone considerably. More bonus points for anybody who sensibly cites any (but please no more than one of) Wittgenstein, Ryle, Quine, Ayer, or any other philosopher of the kind dedicated to cutting through fuzzy thinking. (Minus points, of course, for the gratuitous citing of Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, and similar philosophasters.) Incidentally, the comment now immediately some way below ("For those who are new here...") was at first immediately below a comment by a quite unrelated contributor. -- Hoary 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC) slightly revised 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting collection, but most of its contents are of limited value, I think: I fear that most of these people are to a greater or lesser extent repeating what they've read in other books. Bertrand's comments are clearer and of particular interest. -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

He managed to live to be forty-two, unusually long for rock musicians. I wonder. Perhaps that was true in the 70s (Hendrix, Joplin, etc.). But now a lot of rock musicians are rather elderly. -- Hoary 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are always "opposing views" to anything, espically if it is popular, cultural and enjoyed by many. One onyl needs to look at the people who oppose Wal-mart to see that. 74.65.39.59 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For those who are new here, I should perhaps explain that this AOLuser (who seldom remembers to type "~~~~" after his her contributions) is obsessed with a number of notions about Presley, one of them being that he "stole black music". Rather than saying what this means, let alone arguing intelligently for it, he/she prefers just to repeat it ad nauseam. (The junior-high-school-level argument, as I hazily understand it, seems to be that Presley got rich singing music written by Blacks and that most of those Blacks stayed poor, which is obvious; that Presley made racist comments, the evidence for which is extremely tenuous; and that such IP experts as Eminem [huh?!] say he stole black music.) Ideas such as that Presley's success was merely an epiphenomenon of a deeply racist society and culture seem to pass AOLuser by. Here is a conveniently concise summary of AOLuser's view of Presley, and here he/she is on Wikipedia itself. Humor him/her if you wish. -- Hoary 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article is now semi-protected, not fully protected. -- Hoary 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has removed all protection from the article, and, as I had guessed, very silly people have started to meddle. The participation of intelligent, interested, sane people would be appreciated. (I like to think that I'm moderately intelligent and sane; my problem is that I'm very little interested in Presley.) -- Hoary 11:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A question???

I'm looking for video from Elvis named "A little less conversation please", but I wanna watch him. Last day I downloaded a show but it wasn't Elvis and it shows some soccer players in a cage in a ship (like Beckham) and Elvis's song was played. Can anyone help me to find a show that shows the Elvis and not them??? -- MehranVB ^{talk | cont} 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick search on youtube.com didn't yield any results for the original video, but you might try searching there and asking people. -Wikipedia-fan

"ELVIS"

I was wondering , where does the name "elvis" come from ? Some people were named elvis after the big guy , but where does his name come from ? Is it a common name or does it have an obscure origin ?

Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota

On the Talk:Nick Adams page there is a recent statement by Bill Dakota which may be of much interest to Elvis fans. It proves that both Elvis and his friend Nick Adams were bisexual. Onefortyone 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a huge, breathless paragraph (all in bold till I fixed that) of tittle-tattle by somebody who claims to be Bill Dakota. Zzzzz. To put it charitably, it's "original research". -- Hoary 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted to watch for a Elvis Presley spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http://apachelvis tux nu/ Elvis Fan Clubs International]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sales 1 Billion?

Elvis has sold just over 120 million records. Why do you say he has sold over 1 billion. Thats impossible and there's no way anyone can track sales around his time. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Did they not track record sales in the 50's, 60's and 70's? I think singles were more prevelant but I still think they tracked record sales. The RIAA's own website say that he is the biggest selling solo artist in US history [15]. If you add this to his sales in the UK alone then he's clearly over 120 million mark.--Lochdale 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The RIAA sales figures are for the United States only and is limited to statistics on Albums/CDs only. Their figures do not include 45rpm singles which was the bulk of Presleys sales c.1956-1962. It is indeed estimated that Elvis Presley sold more than 1 billion records worldwide as stated by the owners of Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. [16] Ostinato 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fighting the power

Hello,

This message is to Hoary, who I'm assuming is the writer of this article, or the administrator or both.

I added a section in miscellaneous on July 23, stating that Public Enemy mentioned Elvis in their song "Fight the Power". It seemed to be mysteriously deleted.

May I ask why it was deleted? I made the same comment on the John Wayne page, and it is still there, except the actual lyrics were removed (which is understandable as they contained profanity).

I look forward to your response. Thank you.

Almighty2001

I'm a (reluctant) reviser of this article, and an administrator.

Yes, I deleted it. That's not because it was rude. I deleted it primarily because it added nothing to our understanding of Presley. (Admittedly a lot of other stuff in this article adds nothing to our understanding of Presley; time and energy permitting, I'll cut that too.) Secondly, it was copyright, and people holding copyright over song lyrics are particularly humorless and irritable. (You'll notice how the copyright pages of novels and other books thank lyrics publishers for their gracious permission to quote just two or three lines of a song.)

If I remember right, the lyrics assert that Presley ripped off black musicians. That would be an interesting claim if it were made coherently, but it isn't. (Which is hardly surprising: this is, after all, a song lyric.) It also says something like "motherfuck Elvis and John Wayne too". (Apologies if I misquote, as is very likely.) Linguistically, this is most interesting. (It brings to mind Quang Phúc Ðông's essay on "Fuck you", etc.: a pity McCawley is now dead and can't comment on the use of the verb "motherfuck" with an overt [male] object.) If Chuck D says "motherfuck Presley" (and incidentally, says so well after the publicly known deaths of Presley and Presley's mother), precisely what does he mean? (Who is that should do what to whom?) My guess is that he doesn't mean anything in particular; he's merely amusing his audience by intensely but vaguely insulting "icons" of white middle America. Well, good for him. (Incidentally, I like his work: I have two CDs by Public Enemy and none by Presley -- let alone any DVDs of Presley movies.) But again, while it may tell us something about Public Enemy, it tells us nothing about Presley. -- Hoary 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck D was simply letting the younger generations know that Presley only became famous because he stole black music. In 2002 there was a big revival in interest with the 25th anniversary of his suicide. The song was absolutely necessary. ... added at 09:27, 28 July 2006 by AOLuser 195.93.21.67

Ah, AOLuser, I should have guessed you'd pop up. Oh well, you prompted me to look in the archive, and here's the quotation, brought up by you: Elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me you see. A straight up racist that sucker was, simple and plain. Mother fuck him and John Wayne. Right, class, shall we break this down?

1. Elvis was a hero to most — Possibly true but anyway uninteresting.
2. but he never meant shit to me you see — I can relate to that. (He never meant shit to me either.) Again, uninteresting.
3. A straight up racist that sucker was, simple and plain. — This is a very odd way of expressing an assertion that Presley "stole black music". I think it's you, AOLuser, and not Chuck who has this on the brain. He's saying that Presley was a racist. Unfortunately he can't elaborate; the prosodic rules of rap are too constricting to allow it. (Some calypso singer should do Presley.) This issue (or non-issue) is already dealt with in the article.
4. Mother fuck him — A speech act of considerable perlocutionary force but little locutionary value; therefore, unencyclopedic.
5. and John Wayne. — Certainly rhymes better than "simple and plain" than "and Barry Manilow" does.

-- Hoary 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And why does the black community hate Presley? Because he stole black music to become famous. That is what Chuck is saying. As for Presley's friend John Wayne, well, just read his Playboy interview. ... this repetition plonked here at 17:06, 28 July 2006 by AOLuser 195.93.21.67

Mr. Hoary,

I've read your response to my inquiry, and I'm not satisfied with the answer.

I'm quite aware of the racism debate that rages regarding Elvis (and being a musician myself, I have mixed feelings regarding his acknowledgement of the influence that African Americans had on his style), but I'm under the impression that Wikipedia's aim is to state facts.

Although I understand your comment regarding copyright, I feel that you should have at least stated that Elvis was mentioned in the song.

I've asked the administrator of the John Wayne page to read this discussion and comment. I look forward to his response, as well as anyone else who cares to comment. Thank you.

Almighty2001

Yes, I agree that it is a fact that Presley is mentioned in the Public Enemy song. Perhaps you and I disagree over the importance of this fact. To me, it's unimportant, and I've taken the trouble to explain this. If you think it's important, perhaps you'd care to explain. (Incidentally, you seem to be under the impression that every article has an administrator: that I am "the administrator" of this article and that somebody else is "the administrator" of Wayne's article. But that's not so.) -- Hoary 07:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminstration

Would you care to explain how the system works, and who decides which facts are important and which are not?

If you search in Wikipedia for Public Enemy, the mention of their song Fight the Power, and the controversy it caused, is a major part of the article, and there is a link to Elvis.

I think you should include this fact as the administrator of the John Wayne page did (or whoever makes the decisions on that page).

Almighty2001

Avoidance

As I am new to Wikipedia, I took the time to read the 5 pillars. Now I realize that you're just like me - we both have the power to edit as we please. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In the Avoidance section, it states that in the case of a conflict, we should attempt to improve the article, and not simply revert a comment that is made, without contacting the person who edited it.

It appears that you've violated this policy from the start. It also appears that you have a particular bias with Elvis.

If you are so reluctant (as you have stated) to handle the editing of this article, then perhaps you should give the task to someone else.

In any event, I will seek other opinions regarding the ommision of my original edit.

In response to your question of why I think the Public Enemy song is an important fact in this Elvis article: Elvis was active in the middle of last century, but many young music listeners today are unfamiliar with his work. Like it or not, this is the hip hop generation, and when a song such as Fight the Power (which reached millions of listeners) states a lyric about Elvis, regardless of whether you agree with the lyric or not, it affects the thought paterns of this generation and should be stated so that the reader of this article can do his own research.

Therefore I think that fact should be stated in this article, as it is in the John Wayne and Public Enemy articles. Your opinion on whether this fact is important or not is irrelevant - facts are facts, and for better or for worse, facts should be stated.

Almighty2001

Almighty 2001: Would you mind putting your comments in typical Wikipedia format? In other words, address the person to whom you're speaking by name so people understand the context of your comments, and consolidate your successive comments under one heading rather than creating a new heading for each set of comments. At this point, your comments make very little sense as there's no obvious context to them. Also, if you could sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ~ ~ ~) - BUT WITH NO SPACES BETWEEN THEM - the date and time of your comments will appear as well. Thank you. Moncrief 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you've violated this policy from the start. It also appears that you have a particular bias with Elvis. There are well-established channels for making formal complaints about policy violations, and these are of course available to you.

If you are so reluctant (as you have stated) to handle the editing of this article, then perhaps you should give the task to someone else. The task is not exclusively mine (or exclusively yours or anyone else's) to give.

Elvis was active in the middle of last century, but many young music listeners today are unfamiliar with his work. Yes, this article should explain it. (Right now, it does a poor job of this.)

Like it or not, this is the hip hop generation, and when a song such as Fight the Power (which reached millions of listeners) states a lyric about Elvis, regardless of whether you agree with the lyric or not, it affects the thought paterns of this generation and should be stated so that the reader of this article can do his own research. Others would claim that it reflects the thought patterns of the generation of Public Enemy fans (who include myself). Let's agree that it affects them, reflects them, or a bit of both. Regardless, it provides no substantive information about Presley. -- Hoary 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Moncrief - no problem

Almighty2001Almighty2001 22:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hoary, I'm not going to fight you on this one right now, as I see you're engaged in other battles and my time is limited, but I'll be back!!! Almighty2001 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Presley also denounced The Beatles to Nixon... and urged the President to have them deported from the United States"

The problem with this sentence in the article now is that, with the possible exception of John Lennon, the Beatles weren't living in the U.S. at the time, so how could Presley ask to have them deported??

If this unsourced quote has a nugget of truth to it, it's either that:

-- Presley asked Nixon to have Lennon, specifically, deported. Lennon was certainly going through immigration troubles in the early 1970s, so that would be a logical explanation

or

-- Presley wanted the Beatles barred from future U.S. visits, something different from "deported."

I'd change it myself, but I don't know which is accurate. Finding a source for this allegation while you're at it would be nice too. Moncrief 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"I've seen those famous Nixon transcripts where Elvis actually starts to try to shop us - The Beatles! He's in the transcript saying - to Richard Nixon, of all people - 'Well, sir, these Beatles: they're very un-American and they take drugs.' I felt a bit betrayed by that, I must say. The great joke is that we were taking drugs, and look what happened to him. He was caught on the toilet full of them! It was sad; but I still love him, particularly in his early period. He was very influential on me." - Sir Paul McCartney, Beatles Anthology

"The saddest part is that, years and years later, we found out that he tried to have us banished from America, because he was very big with the FBI. That's very sad to me, that he felt so threatened that he thought, like a lot of people, that we were bad for American youth. This is Mr Hips, the man, and he felt we were a danger. I think that the danger was mainly to him and his career." - Ringo Starr, Beatles Anthology

... added at 19:38, 19 July 2006 by 195.93.21.67

This appears very interesting (if hardly authoritative); but, thanks to his/her very many earlier edits here, 195.93.21.67's credibility hovers around the zero level. Perhaps somebody else could check these sources. -- Hoary 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, just buy a copy of "The Beatles Anthology" and read it, as I did. The Beatles have outsold everyone. It's hilarious how conservative Christians were so anti-Presley in the 50s when he turned out to be just as narrow-minded, pro-censorship, fanatically religious and right-wing as they were. ... more by 195.93.21.67

My bookshelves are full; perhaps somebody else hereabouts already has the book. -- Hoary 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New plan for peace

OK, I usually mostly observe and edit the german Wikipedia but since I'm majoring in English, I like to take a look at this version from time to time. I was shocked to see the dispute going on here. I have read all the articles and the entire talk page several times and I have to say that it looks (from my outsider's perspective) as if Onefortyone is causing the most trouble. In any case, he seems to be stirring up most of the heated debates. Different users, mainly Lochdale (although he now seems to be inactive) and Hoary, also appear to be involved very heavily in this debate which is not getting anywhere. For each controversial point solved, several new ones arise.

My proposal would be the following: The article gets locked for a while after which completely new editors start working on it. Onefortyone and Lochdale promise not to edit this article under any circumstances. That way, new people who are not involved in all this can start to clean everything up. I know this sounds hard, but I think it would be best for this article in particular and wikipedia in general. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and I think the consequence of that should be to let other people take over.

Greetings from Germany

Blackfoxt 19:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blackfoxt, I'm not interested in Presley and I'm only here in an effort to keep the silliness from getting out of hand. No, that's not quite right: a few months ago, I felt neutral about Presley; now, just about anything related to him (but especially his "relationships", real and imagined) bores me silly. I'm sorry to hear that I appear to be "involved very heavily in this debate", which is certainly not my intention. Whether or not Onefortyone and Lochdale agree to drop out, why don't you join, and bring some sensible friends with you? Then I'd have a great excuse to "unwatch" this article. -- Hoary 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to a Wikipedia talk page, ever...I can't believe I'm writing about Elvis. (I really care very little about him, but I heard "Suspicious Minds" today and was curious.)Speaking as someone who came across this article just wanting very basic autobiographical information, I've gotta say...in that regard, this is not a good source. However, as is my habit on any article flagged as not neutral, I took a look at the talk page...and couldn't stop cracking up. Hoary, you show great fortitude by trying to moderate this debacle. I don't know how you've stuck to it. As for Elvis information...I think I'll just call my grandmother. But I'd really like to acknowledge all of you editors working so hard to present a concise, neutral and informative article on the man who may (or may not) be King. No, really.-Randomglitter 09:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't dropped out it just gets frustrating dealing with someone who has a fringe agenda. This article on Presley is so riddled with innuendo and out and out deception that I question the value of coming back and editing it. I'm not even much of a Presley fan and have only gotten interested in him after visiting Memphis on business. I will say, however, that he doesn't deserve the treatment he is getting on this page. Lochdale

The question is, who are the contributors to the Elvis article? First, there are the many vandals adding nonsense to the page or deleting the whole content, presumably because Elvis is a well known celebrity and worth poking fun at. Second, there are the fanatic fans who are constantly singing the praise of Elvis emphasizing that he is the world's greatest singer, a mega star who sold billions of records, made the best movies ever, and the like. I am more interested in the personal life of Elvis, the man behind the curtain, the truth behind the common myths. Therefore, I am frequently citing books on Elvis by reputable authors and biographers such as Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Thomas Fensch, Albert Goldman, Earl Greenwood etc. and current university studies on race and gender and the rock 'n' roll era, all of which deal with Elvis under different aspects. To the disappointment of many fans, these publications are not always singing the praise of the star. Where are the quotes from books on Elvis by other contributors? Lochdale, for instance, is constantly denigrating reputable publications simply because the content of these sources is not in line with his personal view of Elvis. Why not sticking close to the facts to be found in books on Elvis instead of repeating just what Elvis fans want to hear? One thing is clear. The Wikipedia article should not only be a fan site, it should give a balanced view of the star, his music, his life, his relationships, and his personal problems which led to drug abuse. This means that critical voices should have an equal place in the article. Onefortyone 01:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Nash a 'reputable author'? You simply cite to sources that support your point of view. Guralnik simply does not suggest Presley was gay or that he had an incestous relationship. Please do not attempt to deflect legitimate criticism about your agenda with my being a 'fan'. Legitimate criticism of Presley is present in abundance in the article including his philandering and his heavy drug use. What is not supportable though is your single-issue agenda. There have been numerous books critical of Presley but your citation to sources are either taken entirely out of context (Guralnik) or have little to no actual value (Nash, Dee Presley). We've had this discussion time and time again yet you continue to bring up issues with marginal support. Presley spawned a virtual industry of books and magazines. 99% of them simply don't agree with you and the ones that do were either unpublished or written by fringe authors long after Presley's death. Lochdale

Nash is certainly a reputable source. She holds a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is the author of several acclaimed books. She was the first journalist authorized to view the remains of Elvis Presley. Her book Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia was published in 1995. Her research into Presley led to a second book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003). Billboard Magazine calls it a "classic of music industry reporting." Other very positive reviews in the U.S. came from The New York Review of Books, Variety magazine and Publisher's Weekly. In Great Britain, Mojo music magazine said her book was "the most incisive and comprehensive look at the life of the elusive Colonel available" and the reviewer for the London Observer lauded the book as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written". Two other reputable authors, Guralnick and Dundy, have written on Elvis's close friendship with Adams. This is an important fact concerning Elvis's personal relationships. There are lots of photographs showing the two men together (see [17], [18],[19]), and there were lots of rumors that Elvis and Adams "were getting it on". Even theatrical plays deal with these rumors. Therefore, they should be mentioned in passing in the article. Further, Lochdale is claiming that 2000 other books do not mention the rumors. How should he know this? Did you read these books, Lochdale? I don't think so. Onefortyone 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Nash has been a reputable author from this time if not earlier. But this is a book about Parker, not Presley; I don't know what reviews her Presley productions got. -- Hoary 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A "balanced view" is hardly one that quotes reports that (unspecified) "tongues wagged" that Presley had done this or that. I know little about the tabloid world that seems to fascinate you, but noting that Alanna Nash wrote a book about Dolly Parton, I decided to look at her article. Her "relationships" are (actually, relationship, singular, is) summed up in two sentences. Which article has the balance wrong, that one or this one? -- Hoary 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I want to apologize for saying that Lochdale was absent; I simply did not know any better. Second, this is clearly still not working. While it is my feeling that Onefortyone keeps saying the sames things over and over (he is citing great university sources and serious books etc.) without really accepting the criticism brought forth by other people in this discusssion, that is not the real issue. The issue is: How can we make this article better? I still propose that Hoary, Lochdale and Onefortyone (listed in alphabetical order) cease editing this article and promise never to do so again, leaving the door open for new editors. BlackfoxT 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. What would be the result? Lots of kids including only fan stuff in the article. As far as I can see, I am the only editor who cites independent sources concerning different topics. Other editors frequently contribute to the article without citing their sources. Onefortyone 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you cite to independent sources does not mean that those sources are valid. Your university studies are simply papers that have been peer-reviewed. That means that they are papers that meet basic academic standards. It does not mean that they are either supported by the university itself or that the university supports the content. Moreover, most of these pieces are not entirely about Presley. Further, you've cited to an unpublished manuscript which really says it all. You have cited to fringe works and then attempted to use more legitimate works to buttress your clear agenda. For example, Guralnik simply does no support any of your notions yet you quote him out of context to support works by people like Nash and Greenwood. Ask yourself this, why did none of these allegations come out while Presley was alive? Why didn't a 600 page FBI file make any mention of them? Why haven't any of his bodyguards (who wrote devastating critiques against Presley) ever mentioned any of it? Your sources trade in innuendo and your valid sources simply don't support your biased POV. Using a NPOV this article should not contain such innuendo. Lochdale

The fact is, Lochdale, that papers that meet academic standards and published biographies are preferred sources for contributions to Wikipedia articles. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There you can read,

• "That a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."
• "Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative."
• "When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources."
• "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link."

As everybody can see, I have cited several independent sources supporting my contributions. Further, you are claiming that "none of these allegations came out while Presley was alive", but you are wrong, Lochdale. There were indeed rumors during Elvis's lifetime. For instance, a source from 1957 says that Elvis may occasionally have had homosexual leanings. The Guardian (certainly a reliable source) writes:

When he brought Priscilla back to the States to live at Graceland, ostensibly under the chaperoning protection of his father Vernon and his new wife Dee, Elvis also brought back a taste for womanising. From now on, the restraints were off. The partying that had, in 1957, drawn thinly-veiled accusations of homosexuality - a scandal mag ran an article with the headline 'Presley's Powder-Puff Pals', showing a picture of Elvis and Liberace with the caption 'Two prominent bachelors' - was now progressing into fully-blown orgies. See [20]

NB: This is undoubtedly a source from Elvis's lifetime. By the way, the Guardian article also proves (as many other sources do) that Vernon and Dee Presley had indeed been living together with Priscilla and Elvis for a considerable period of time at Graceland. You should stick close to the facts to be found in published sources, Lochdale, instead of making false accusations against other contributors. Onefortyone 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(i) The Guardian doesn't write anything. This is merely an article printed by the Guardian. (ii) What's "undoubtedly a source from Elvis's lifetime" is merely a "scandal mag". (iii) The only mention of "Vernon" or "Dee" that I can find in the article is When he brought Priscilla back to the States to live at Graceland, ostensibly under the chaperoning protection of his father Vernon and his new wife Dee (my emphasis). If anything, this hints that there was no "chaperoning protection" (allowing for the possibility that V&D weren't there), and it says nothing about what happened at any other time. -- Hoary 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this is a scandal mag, but it is cited in the Guardian and shows that there were published rumors concerning the star's homosexual leanings as early as in 1957. That was utterly astonishing at that time. For Elvis staying with Vernon and Dee Presley at Graceland, see also Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys (2004), p.329-330. Onefortyone 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I still propose that Hoary, Lochdale and Onefortyone (listed in alphabetical order) cease editing this article and promise never to do so again (emphasis added). Sick as I am of this article, that's a very appealing idea indeed; but it comes as a little of a surprise because I hadn't thought my edits had exacerbated any edit war or made the article significantly worse. (Actually I like to think that they helped, though of course I'm not the best judge.) Could you give me one or two diffs of unfortunate edits by me? -- Hoary 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we're getting nowhere with this. Shall we go for a request for mediation? --Pcj 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a request. The article is fundamentally flawed. --Lochdale 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Hoary 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If every contributor cites his/her sources and sticks close to the facts written in published books, articles, etc., there is no need of mediation. Onefortyone 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. This is obviously going to continue, neither side seems very ready to give it up. Unless you'd like to concede the issue? --Pcj 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the 14+ pages of edits I doubt he is going to concede. At what point can we begin mediation? --Lochdale 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, mediation requires all parties involved to agree to it. Now, if this keeps up, we might have to try arbitration, which is binding. --Pcj 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)