Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

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
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive15
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive16
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive17
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive18

Talent?

Im sorry but my hamster has more talent than Elvis. He didnt have 1/4 the talent of Prince, James Brown, Michael Jackson and the Beatles. Rolling Stones, Madonna, and Dylan are utter garbage too.

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the [Elvis Presley] article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". This appears at the top of all talk pages. Your comment isn't signed. You can put your comments in your own blog, or join a chat room where others have such enlightening observations to share with the world. Don't write them here. Rikstar 11:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Well, you'd have to consider that it was the fifties, and that your opinion matters little to anybody, especially his fans.Punkymonkey987 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Beatles

According to a Bulgarian book about Beatles, Elvis Presley was envious to their success and bought off all tickets for their concert, so no one could enjoy it. Can someone comment on this (I find highly improbable), and would you please enter a short comment on the main page to help shed light on the facts. Thanks, NT

PROJECT CLEAN

Aware of article's length

This article is becoming to long, especially the section 1969-1977 - Elvis's final years. The whole section can exist as an article itself. I estimate the readable prose of the article must be approximately 100KB. I suggest some division. AW 03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Being formely involved in a project to improve this page without much in the way of results - I've been thinking the same myself. This page should include a biography in general terms with seperate articles on "Elvis and relationships", "Elvis and race" etc. being made independent and linked here and there here. So I second your motion. --Northmeister 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Details concerning Elvis's "Top 10 Gold hits" and the selling of his many records in the section, "1969-1977 - Elvis's final years" may be condensed and perhaps put into a table. I do not think that it is necessary to create more separate articles. Onefortyone 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion and due to requests to reduce length to enyclopedic levels together with requests to clean-up various sections I've decided to BE BOLD and lieu of Wikipedia:Article size guidlines and went ahead with an entire re-format of the article in line with other Featured article's. In the course of re-format I've created these other pages:

• Elvis Presley phenomenon
• Elvis Presley's relationships
• Elvis Presley's political beliefs
• Elvis Presley's cultural impact

in the vain of Memphis Mafia which was already created - to facilatate a break-up of article as requested leaving principle biography, discography, and legacy in-tact as is the standard in F.A. articles. There is still much more to be done with what is remaining in the main article and to be debated here as to what can be improved further with syntax, grammar, etc. along with material inclusions. I welcome all comments on the new pages created and all help in sorting this out to a workable arrangement. --Northmeister 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) -Pertaining to the above, I've continued with clean-up, reformating, and additions relevant to encyclopedic article. The four articles created earlier contain much of the information that has been removed; per suggestion - and need help reformating as well. There is still more to do. The Biography (in line with other article approved as Featured articles - which I used as a model for cleanup) is redundant and long on the final years and the 1970s. I left much criticism of Elvis within the text wherever I could if it was well sourced and relevant. Much has been reorganized as well and moved around for chronological reasons. I welcome all constructive help in this regards and any constructive criticism. My hope is for a clean page ready to be featured. --Northmeister 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to the Elvis article?

To my dismay, I have now seen what has happened to the Elvis Presley article a few days ago. User:Northmeister has removed several paragraphs from the article in order to cut it from a very biased point of view. He himself states on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Therefore, he removed most material that included some critical remarks concerning the singer's life. The article now reads as if it has been chiefly written by Elvis fans.

There are still expressions in the article that clearly show the dominance of biased fan views:

• "He remains a pop icon thirty years after his death..."

Query: is this really true? In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, "the multimillion dollar Elvis business will try to connect with a new generation of teenage fans." They endeavor to show up more film clips, photos and other material from the vast Presley archives online. 'We will take our MySpace page and we will focus on expanding our number of friends on MySpace, that kind of thing,' Jankowski said..." However, Baird concludes, "Moving Elvis content online should be easy; making Elvis cool again will be more difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See [1]

• "In a musical career of over two decades, Presley set numerous records including, concert attendance, television ratings, and records sales, while became one of the best-selling artists in music history."
• "His shows in Vegas were known for their highly energetic performances—both vocally and physically—and his trademark jump-suits and capes, which added to the drama. His concert performances were staggering in quantity, numbering 1,145 in the eight years from 1969 to 1977. He continued to perform to sold-out auditoriums around the U.S. until his sudden death in 1977."
• "By 1957 Presley was the most famous entertainer in the world."

Further changes suggest that fans now dominate the article:

• A new section entitled "Southern star" has been created.
• The section concerning the influence of his manager Colonel Tom Parker which was correctly entitled Presley and his manager "Colonel" Tom Parker has been renamed and some critical passages have been removed. For inexplicable reasons, the section is now entitled "American icon".
• There are now two different sections in the article stressing Elvis being a US mega star: "American idol" and "American icon".
• On the other hand, more critical paragraphs such as A danger to American culture?, Political beliefs and The Elvis cult and its critics have been deleted.
• The Death and burial section has been removed.
• The Elvis lives? section is still in the article.
• etc. ELVIS AARON PRESLEY HAS BEING SEEN AND WITNESSED TO THE POLICE OF HIS DEATH. AS HE DIED ON THE LIVINGROOM FLOOR BUT SAID TO HAVE DIED IN AN AMBULANCE. IF YOU HAVE BEING TOLD HE DIED ANYWHERE ELSE BY ANYONE DON'T BELIVE THEM THEY ARE LIEING!

Several well-sourced details have been totally removed from the older version of the article, for instance:

- from the Early life section:

• "Vernon Presley is described as "taciturn to the point of sullenness" and as "a weakling, a malingerer, always averse to work and responsibility," whereas his mother, Gladys, was "voluble, lively, full of spunk." Priscilla Presley describes her as "a surreptitious drinker and alcoholic. When she was angry, "she cussed like a sailor.""
• "Neither Gladys nor Vernon had finished elementary school. The result was one "menial job after another. One run-down apartment after the next, barely enough money to put food on the table for a family of three."
• The little boy "grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother." "Much has been written about the unusually close relationship between Elvis and his mother, often with the suggestion of something unhealthy afoot," because "Elvis, sole survivor of a pair of twins delivered by Gladys, would reap the love and attention normally given two boys." His mother "worshipped 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."
• Interestingly, the following passage is still to be found in the article: "On the evening of April 5, 1936, the Presley's survived the fourth deadliest tornado in US history that took 233 lives."

- from the Death and burial section (which has now been totally removed):

• On August 16, 1977, at his Graceland mansion in Memphis, Tennessee, Presley was found lying on the floor of his bedroom's bathroom by his fiancee, Ginger Alden, who had been asleep. A stain on the bathroom carpeting was found that indicated "where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had 'stumbled or crawled several feet before he died'." (This is now part of another section.)

In the section concerning the influence of Elvis's manager Colonel Parker, which was correctly entitled Presley and his manager "Colonel" Tom Parker but is now wrongly entitled American icon, these well-sourced critical remarks have been removed:

• Parker's success led to Presley expanding the "Colonel's" management contract to an even 50/50 split. Over the years, much has been written about "Colonel" Parker, most of it critical. "Endlessly deferring to his manager," says John Harris, the singer "watched his own career dive first into B-movie schmaltz and thence towards the dead-end that was Las Vegas." Marty Lacker, a lifelong friend and a member of the Memphis Mafia, says he thought of Parker as a "hustler and scam artist" who abused Presley's reliance on him. Priscilla Presley admits that "Elvis detested the business side of his career. He would sign a contract without even reading it." This would explain the strong influence the Colonel had on Presley. Nonetheless, Lacker acknowledged that Parker was a master promoter.

The last passage now reads:

• On September 9, 1956, at his first of three appearances on the Sullivan show, Presley drew an estimated 82.5% percent of the television audience, calculated at between 55-60 million viewers. On his third and final appearance (January 6, 1957) on the The Ed Sullivan Show, Sullivan, apparently very impressed by Presley, pointed to him and told the audience "This is a real decent, fine boy. We've never had a pleasanter experience on our show with a big name than we've had with you ... You're thoroughly all right."

Significantly, this additional remark has been omitted:

• However, it has also been said that Presley's manager orchestrated the compliment in exchange for permitting Presley to appear, after Sullivan had earlier publicly stated his refusal to allow Presley on his program.

I also removed this unreferenced statement that is completely contrary to Sullivan's enthusiastic reactions to Presley during the two of three shows he hosted when Elvis was on the show. My edit was undo with no justification. Steve Pastor 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Drug abuse section is now part of the Controversy surrounding death section, despite the fact that there is no controversy about this abuse of drugs which took place during the singer's lifetime.

References to Elvis's relationships and the Memphis Mafia have been excluded from the text, and the sections on The Elvis cult and its critics and the FBI files on Elvis have been totally removed. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more about the fan element having too much influence in this article. It is however a little ironic, Onefortyone, that some of the contributions you have proposed, like those questioning Presley's sexuality, would cause people like me to ask: "What has happened to this article?" I've read a lot of justifications about contributions being based on recognised publishings or sources, as if this means any such contributions should be included. But I just don't get the bi/homosexuality thing with Elvis. Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift, etc., OK. But Bill Dakota, Albert Goldman, FBI files, etc. just aren't enough to seriously question his sexuality, especially when one can call into question the motivation of those making such claims. I don't give a damn whether he was gay or not, but I do care about this article having an encyclopedic format and content. Some original research by some authors may allude to homosexuality, so let them publish it, but this article isn't the place for relatively unsubstantiated material. I do stress that I agree with you about this looking a bit like a fan site in places at the moment, and I'm glad there is some detail regarding his long-term drug misuse.Rikstar 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Elvis's possible bisexuality, as this was not even mentioned in the long version of the article. I was talking about several other well-sourced paragraphs which have now been removed from the article, for instance, the section on the "Elvis cult and its critics", etc. And why is the material about Elvis's drug abuse now part of a "Controversy" section at the end of the article? As some few of the new edits indeed make sense, I won't touch the article at the moment and just have a look what is going wrong. However, you can be sure that I will return later with several changes. Onefortyone 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why did you delete this quote which was added by Northmeister? Here is Robert Pattison, The Triumph of Vulgarity: Rock Music in the Mirror of Romanticism (Oxford University Press 1987), p.113: "Elvis explained rock's energetic sexuality in defending himself against his refined detractors: 'They all think I'm a sex maniac. They're just frustrated old types, anyway. ...' " Onefortyone 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, I was referring to the Bill Dakota stuff you referenced in this talk page, in which you specifically and unequivocally refer to Presley's possible bisexuality, 'closeness' to Nick Adams, etc. As for deleting this quote which was added by Northmeister - I didn't. Editing the main article is a bit like walking on egg shells; I now wouldn't dare change/delete anything significant without proposing it in the talk pages. I probably won't bother anyway - I think editing should be enjoyable, but the main Elvis article and discussion have been heavy going for a long time.Rikstar 03:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"To my dismay, I have now seen what has happened to the Elvis Presley article a few days ago. User:Northmeister has removed several paragraphs from the article in order to cut it from a very biased point of view. He himself states on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Therefore, he removed most material that included some critical remarks concerning the singer's life. The article now reads as if it has been chiefly written by Elvis fans."

Well I've just looked at the main article again. It does, as I agreed before, have a fan site element to it. But in terms of format and headings, It is better in that it has a more encyclopedic feel to it. Gone are whole sections that emphasised aspects that encyclopedias would not detail or even mention at all. But granted it needs work. There is nothing wrong with this article being chiefly written by Elvis fans, or even looking as if it has, so long as NPOV is maintained. And there is every indication that some editors who happen to be fans are making every effort to recognise their own potential for bias and to seek support in achieving a NPOV. What this article does NOT need is contributions that take it outside of an encyclopedic framework and which do so as if there is a sustained and deliberate attempt to inject a dubious and rather unsavoury negativity disguised as an attempt to restore a NPOV. If all editors had the insight to recognise their own potential for bias and any apparent propensity to stick to dubious agendas, we might get a decent article written soon, instead of about ten years from now. Rikstar 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone [2] (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest. --Timtak 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam Phillips "quote"

There are several versions of this "quote"

Over and over I remember Sam [Phillips] saying, “If i could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars.” (Sun Records co-manager Marion Keisker, citerad i Hopkins 1971: 66)

Marion Keisker ... recalled Sam Phillips saying repeatedly, “If I could find a white boy who could sing like a nigger, I could make a million dollars.” (Goldman 1981a: 129)

If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a million dollars. (Sam Phillips, citerad I Choron & Oskam 1991: 7)[ http://www.netikka.net/sek/docs/elvis-hela_avhandlingen.pdf] Elvis

Note the different words as the "quote" is repeated from text to text. The orginal "quote" is based on a second hand rendering. This is addressed in the following book -

After Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend By Gilbert B. Rodman

page 32 “On more than one occasion, however, Phillips has denied making any such statement (Marcus, 198: 16n; Worth and Tamerius, 1988; 153n) and Keisker is the only source of direct evidence to the contrary.” [3] (emphasis added) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve Pastor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that there are two living eyewitnesses to the event who contradict each other. Even Greil Marcus chooses to give more credence to Keisker's version than to Phillips's. It could well be that nowadays Phillips don't want to compromise himself and therefore denies to have said anything of the kind. Rodman, who discusses in detail the different versions of the story, also says, p. 34, "What Phillips did or didn't really say is almost irrelevant (...); of infinitely greater significance is what people believe he said and the effects of such beliefs." So I think the quote belongs in the article. Onefortyone 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways to present Phillips' philosophy. And there are many, many worthwhile things to add to Presley's music and performances, which in my opinion is somthing that should be a major part of this article. Also, there are many recorded interviews with the principals of this story. We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. He said/she said doesn't rise to my level of verifiablity. Especially when the supposed "quote" has verious permutations. Steve Pastor 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement efforts

I've truncated the Legacy and reformated the article regarding 21st century. Added "Accomplisments and Awards" then changed title to "Commerative measures" but am unsure of sub-header title and what it should be. Tried to reduce the trivial nature of the 21st Century section with new section "Recent Developments" - of course feel free to twik these sections if you feel you can improve them. Trying to get article length within acceptable standards - as earlier complaints of length were lodged by others and in the original Featured article rejection. I am pleased with the efforts of several editors thus far towards making this article acceptable to the "Good" category and someday be a "Featured" piece. --Northmeister 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit shows more than a thousand words which kind of "relevant" and "encyclopedic" information you wish to have included in the article in order to reduce its trivial nature. Onefortyone 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope so! Joan inspired me with her words: [4]. --Northmeister 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say that one of the first things I noticed about this article, in the introduction, is POV. It goes on a lot about how Elvis' voice had a a great "centre of gravity" and the like. Claiming that possibly no one to this day can sing for such a diverse range of music. This is not really factual, more the opinion of someone who liked his music.-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.45.127.83 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, whoever you are. I skirted round those bits when I tried to clean up the intro, but they need to be changedRikstar 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Made above changes - also added reference to pill taking in the army (Military Service section). It seems to have started here and this is widely accepted. It should be mentioned because of it's later significance. Rikstar 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Northmeister 13:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding health and cause of death' - We should shorten this titled for the look of the format. I am open to suggestions - maybe Health and cause of death or Health issues and death or Health and death issues - something overall that is shorter. --Northmeister 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll have a think. It also strikes me that a few comments on his health and cause of death are based on the opinions of people who, as far as I know, aren't or weren't medically qualified e.g. Kathy Westmorland and Sam Phillips. Their inclusion looks a bit desperate, as if in the interests of balance, editors are trying to argue that he wasn't as obese or drug dependent as he actually was. I think comments of this nature should come from a medical source. Rikstar 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

True - I think that would be a good policy to go by with medical questions. --Northmeister 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened the heading. I'm also thinking of changing the word 'abuse' to 'misuse' throughout (except if it's a quote of course): the two words are often seen as synonyms, but they aren't. Elswhere, I think the return to live performance section looks and reads too long. Rikstar 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In regards to 'return to live...' - we should concentrate on the highlights of that decade (mostly the 1970s) rather than all the trivia like stuff of "And he again returned to Las Vegas..." to paraphrase. --Northmeister 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have cut the 'return to live...' section; some of the 'he went here, then there' stuff has gone. Also added a bit about RCA struggling to get Elvis to record as his health deteriorated which I may expand a bit. Rikstar 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Been busy going through all the known articles and putting in the template where it relates. --Northmeister 05:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvement Efforts II

I've added a photo of Elvis from Aloha Hawaii - to see his look at the time. Photo's should show his transformation through the years I think. Not sure if one exists for his last years or not. Also added 1945 fair 'old shep' singing - first time before crowd. --Northmeister 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it all helps. And the 'Aloha' pic makes up for that hideous statue in Memphis... Don't want to tempt fate, but I think this article is getting somewhere. Rikstar 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"In May 2007, the Warner Bros. and Paramount home video units launched a major campaign for 24 Elvis films on DVD. Jailhouse Rock (1957) and Viva Las Vegas (1964) were being released as double-disc collectors editions for the 30th anniversary of his death."

I look at the above as simple advertisement. But I could be wrong. It may belong in the recent developments section. I'll let others decide if that is the case. --Northmeister 05:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the 'Return to live performances' section, but it still comes across like his major chart successes only came as a result of touring post 1968. His major chart impact was in the '50s (though it varied from country to country), but this isn't reflected in earlier sections. I don't think the chart success of 56-59 should be mentioned in great detail; we need to avoid the boring format of the early versions of 'Return to live performances' which listed everything bar what he ate for breakfast on tour. Maybe the 'Return to live performances' section needs cutting even more. Rikstar 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Presley is only one of four artists (Roy Orbison, Guns N' Roses and Nelly being the others) to ever have two top five albums on the charts simultaneously." This is an interesting statistic, but has little to do with 'Commemoration'. More I think, the more these latter sections don't work too well at the moment. The Legacy section looks too short and the sections following it make trivial facts and stats about Elvis seem more important than his legacy. I'll look at expanding the legacy section. Rikstar 08:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same myself. I cut the legacy section down, but maybe to much. See what you can do - I'll be working on the article a little later. --Northmeister 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been busy on all sections, just trying to get everything to gel and look NPOV, and reinstated some of the legacy section. There's also a new section on early TV as this was getting long. Some sections still lack references. I hope people will use the talk page to discuss proposed changes of significance. Rikstar 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hound Dog on the Milton Berle Show

I look forward to the day that we can replace a description of this performance to a clip of it that everyone can see for themselves. Dance is one of my hobbies. Presley's estate sanctioned a line dance to go with "Such a Night". There are, what I thought would be pelvic movements in the dance, so I did big hip/pelvic rolls. Boy was I surprised when I actually saw how Elvis moved. As I wrote originally, the movement he did was in his legs. I have stopped rolling my pelvis in this particular dance, because Elvis was rotating his knee and leg, not his pelvis or hips. There is of course some movement in his hips, but it is incidental. If they had wanted his hips and pelvis to show, he would not have been wearing black pants, coverd in part by a light colored sport coat. When this show was broadcast, his performance was over in little more than 2 minutes. Just as most people believe that they saw someone stabbed in the shower scene in "Psycho" (Hitchcock only shows the knife rising and falling, head shots, and blood going into the drain) people thought they saw Elvis thrust his pelvis. Likewise, people go to salsa lessons expecting to wiggle their hips. Hip motion in salsa comes primarily from stepping onto a straight leg, something Elvis does almost spastically in this preformance, and others. Also, dance for the majority of the population, has come quite a ways since the mid 1950s. Now, Fosse's dancers used their pelvis and hips! Just as I hope that Wikipedia would want to include the fact that a tomato is in fact a fruit, even though everyone calls it a vegetable, I hope we will not perpetuate an inaccurate description of how Elvis moved. If anyone knows where this clip can be found on line, please add a link! Steve Pastor 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't dance, and the description we've got now is better than previous versions. Just glad we managed to avoid using the term 'spastic' and its derivatives in the main article! A link to the Milton Berle clip would be very nice. What d'ya think a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuJnsWRkwE ??Rikstar 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if there is anyway to imbed the clip into the article? --Northmeister 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do this. There may also be other versions of this clip: the link I posted is from the film This is Elvis(I think) and has commentary over the Milton Berle soundtrack... I'd prefer it to be the unadulterated original. What the heck, I'll add a link anyway Rikstar 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"paragraph list" of recordings with RCA

Maybe this will look better after I've seen it for a while, but I doubt it. Emphasizing through the end of the 1950s at this point goes way outside any time line, since the next section is on early TV appearances, all of which were in 1956. There was a synergy between the TV appearances and the 1956 releases. Presley didn’t cut “Hound Dog” until after the Steve Allen show. The post 1956 records can be picked up later. Also, the lengthy list of songs just looks bad, especially the ones in red (Yes, I know, article to come. It still looks bad.) I think we are a bit off track here. Thought I would give whoever added this first crack. Steve Pastor 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See what you can do with it. Maybe it needs to be moved elsewhere or split up into relevant sections. I am open to suggestions. --Northmeister 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) -I've addressed your concerns by reverting my edits with regard to RCA (wheras as a temp fix moved them to Discography) updating links and inline links only. I agree this is a better fit to maintain biography section flow. Let me know what you think. --Northmeister 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Pastor, you're so right. I got so carried away and tired with all my hard work on my edits that I forgot the time line thing, and that post-'56 list looks so bad. I'll do my best to revise this. I think the 'Going national...' section is now unnecessary and can be partly absorbed into the previous section, and then the pre-army RCA hits might need some mention after the 'Controversy king' section, to maintain this time line thing. I say might because it seems inconsistent to not mention the chart hits he was having at this time when there is so much reference to his tour dates and chart hits in the 'return to live performing' section. Personally, I'd like to continue to do as I've done before and cut the "song/album 'x' was released and reached number 'y' in the charts" type stuff 'cos this information is available elsewhere. And apart from that, it's boring as hell, especially to those who are not Elvis fans, or just neutral. While I'm at it, I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their recents efforts in revising this article - it's only polite [User:Rikstar|Rikstar]] 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Northmeister 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Discomboobulation

What's up with that? I want to add an incident about Nat King Cole being beaten up, while at the same time he was a #1 selling artist, as an example of how things were in the 50s. Where did a workable link to that go? Think maybe the rewrite edits are coming to fast? Steve Pastor 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your referencing? --Northmeister 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The last few days, you could click on the Disam link, and find your way to the Cultural Impact, etc sections. Now you just end up back at the Elvis article.???Steve Pastor 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure of what this is. Best thing is to go and fix the link you speak of, so it works right. I would but not sure of where it was. --Northmeister 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances

Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances need some rewriting. Here is Elvis expert Greil Marcus on the Ed Sullivan Shows (see [5]):

• Beginning on September 9, Elvis’s three appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show focused the nation. As if in counterpoint to the contest between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his challenger Adlai Stevenson then just underway, the country tuned in, and suddenly you were on one side or the other. Was Elvis Presley a sexual predator, offering fantasies of ravishment to girls and rape to boys? A black man disguised as a white man? The hood who menaced you for your lunch money on your way to school and your new jacket on the way home? A homosexual in a pink shirt and dripping with make-up? A threat to all rules, of every kind, from every source, family, church, the law? Or was he the most exciting thing you’d ever seen? And was there a difference?
• As you trace Elvis’s journey through the country in 1956, you can feel the tension build. From show to show, month to month, as Berle or Allen or Sullivan flitted around the ever more relaxed, seemingly invulnerable Presley, you enter a queer drama, where legitimate, northern, fully socialized and socializing individuals, great celebrities secure in their belief that they will and deserve to be remembered forever, try eagerly, or desperately, to at once distance themselves from and attach themselves to the Memphis Flash in the pan. It’s a trend, they’re going to ride it out, they were here before he was and they’ll be here when he’s gone, but they’re like moths drawn to his flame. Berle in a skit where girls tear his clothes off, then in another where he presents himself as Elvis’s twin brother, “Melvin,” who “taught Elvis everything he knew” (a sick, if not cruel idea, given the still-birth of Elvis’s real twin brother, Jesse Garon). Allen dressing Elvis in white tie and tails and forcing him to sing “Hound Dog” to a basset hound, and then Sullivan, for Elvis’s second appearance on his show, attempting an Elvis shuffle: “I can’t figure this thing out. He just goes like this—and everybody yells.” They can’t help hinting, all but shouting in their scripted confusion, that they have no idea what’s going on—or what might come next. It was a drama of anxiety, and never so well played as by the British actor Charles Laughton, for Elvis’s first night on The Ed Sullivan Show. ...
• Presley was the headliner, and a Sullivan headliner normally opened the show, but Sullivan was burying him. Laughton had to make the moment invisible: to act as if nobody was actually waiting for anything. He did it instantly, with complete command, with the sort of television presence that some have and some—Steve Allen, or Ed Sullivan himself—don’t. ...
• For the first of his two appearances that night, as a performer Elvis had come on dressed in grandma’s nightgown and nightcap. ...
• Earlier, he stood before the Jordainaires, his vocal backup quartet, his band off-screen. Now they were all there, Elvis, Scotty Moore on guitar, Bill Black on stand-up bass, D. J. Fontana on drums, three Jordanaires on their feet, one at a piano. They were shown from behind; the camera pulled all the way back. They went into “Ready Teddy.” It was Little Richard’s most thrilling record, there was no way Elvis was going to catch him, but he didn’t have to—the song is a wave and he rode it. Compared to moments on the Dorsey shows, on the Berle show, it was ice cream—Elvis’s face unthreatening, his legs as if in casts—but it didn’t matter. ...
• Compared to Elvis’s performances on the first Sullivan show, what happened on the Dorsey shows—Elvis all but bursting out of dark clothes, his eyes almost blackened with shadow, his hair impossibly high, Moore and Black at his sides as if the three were an advance patrol behind enemy lines, the whole performance shot for lights flaring up in gloom—was back-alley noir compared to Sulllivan’s Broadway, less family entertainment than muggings at one end of the street and five-dollar tricks turned against the wall at the other, but the breadth of the moment told its own story. ...
• With Sullivan back to host Elvis’s second and third appearances, story played itself out. On October 28, ... Elvis came out looking pleased, at home. He reprised “Don’t Be Cruel” and “Love Me Tender.” He laughed at himself, burlesqued his performance, as he would throughout the night—except for odd moments, as with “Love Me,” in his second of three segments, when, after “Oh, so lonely,” with the camera in close he simply stopped, and a quiet smile drifted across his face, a moment of beauty and peace, just before he remembered to lift his upper right lip. He closed with “Hound Dog.” ...
• “I SPOKE TO SULLIVAN TODAY AND THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING REGARDING PRESENTATION OF PRESLEY,” Elvis’s manager, Tom Parker, had written in a telegram to his agent, Harry Kaclcheim of the William Morris Agency, on July 12, just after the Elvis-in-tails Steve Allen Show. “I WILL DO WHATEVER IS FAIR BUT MUST INSIST ON COMPLETE CONTROL OF PRESENTATION AS TO SONGS WE HAD TOO MUCH ADVERSE PUBLICITY ON LAST SHOW REGARDNG ELVIS BEING TIED DOWN TOO MUCH AT LEAST TEN TO ONE.” If anyone had tied Elvis down on his first two appearances on the Sullivan Show, it was Elvis himself, but on his third and final appearance, on January 6, 1957, the notorious night when Elvis was shown only from the waist up—not only for “Hound Dog” and “Heartbreak Hotel,” but even for the closing spiritual, “Peace in the Valley”—Elvis did not tie himself down. Leaving behind the bland clothes he had worn on the first two shows, he stepped out in the outlandish costume of a pasha, if not a harem girl. From the make-up over his eyes, the hair falling in his face, the overwhelmingly sexual cast of his mouth, he was playing Rudolph Valentino in The Shiek, with all stops out. That he did so in front of the Jordanaires, who this night appeared as the four squarest-looking men on the planet, made the performance even more potent. Though the self-parody remained, the strangeness was back.
• In a show highlighted by the national television debut of “a very pretty young comedienne,” as Sullivan introduced Carol Burnett, who did a series of impressions of hapless female singers auditioning on Broadway, a breathtaking routine from the British ventriloquist Arthur Worsley, and more than eleven endless minutes devoted to the Broadway musical The Most Happy Fella, Elvis didn’t fit. Every time you looked at him, you wondered who he was, what he was doing there: where, in his heart, he really was. There was a time in the second of his three segments that night, in the midst of “When My Blue Moon Turned to Gold Again,” when a kind of vortex opened up, and there was a moment of suspension. In a close-up, the uniqueness of Elvis’s face escaped from its presentation; for an instant, he was too handsome, and too handsome in too different a way, for the show, for any show, for the spectacle he himself had enacted throughout the previous year, to contain. “May God bless you as he’s blessed me,” Elvis had said with eloquence and feeling as he closed his performance on October 28, but on the last night no words so clear would have done, and so, outside of the eloquence of the Reverend Thomas A. Dorsey’s words in “Peace in the Valley,” there were none. ...

See also the following account taken from Michael David Harris, Always on Sunday: Ed Sullivan, An Inside View (1968), p.116:

• Sullivan signed Presley when the host was having an intense Sunday-night rivalry with Steve Allen. Allen had the singer on July 1 and trounced Sullivan in the ratings. When asked to comment, the CBS star said that he wouldn't consider presenting Presley before a family audience. Less than two weeks later he changed his mind and signed a contract. The newspapers asked him to explain his reversal. "What I said then was off the reports I'd heard. I hadn't even seen the guy. Seeing the kinescopes, I don't know what the fuss was all about. For instance, the business about rubbing the thighs. He rubbed one hand on his hip to dry off the perspiration from playing his guitar." There was a press conference in the studio on the day of Presley's first appearance and Sullivan was impressed by the way the singer handled himself. One reporter asked if he was bothered when silly little girls put their lip imprints all over his new white Cadillac. "I tried to interrupt and help him out, but Elvis disregarded me completely: 'Well, ma'am,' he said politely, 'if it hadn't been for what you call these silly little girls, I wouldn't have had that white Cadillac.' Isn't that a beautiful line for a kid? "Today Elvis' gyrations are strictly old hat," Sullivan says, though he tried to sign the singer up again last year. He phoned Presley's manager, Col. Tom Parker, and asked about a price. Parker came up with a list of instructions and conditions and after hearing the demands Sullivan said, "Give Elvis my best—and my sympathy," and he hung up. Onefortyone 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff and I've got more like it on my book shelves. I'm just not sure what bits you think are significant for inclusion and what can be added without over-extending the TV appearances section. Rikstar 08:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. I would like to see us concentrate on what happened, not an interpretation of it. For instance, we can hear the young women giggling, laughing, etc, when Elvis "gyrates". What does it mean? Someone should write a book where they are free to guess. There is plenty to add about Elvis's breakthrough year 1956. Elvis at the New Frontier in Vegas is coming soon. I agree that we don't want to bloat things up too much. There is an article on the Ed Sullivan Show that is pretty short. Maybe there? Steve Pastor 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rikstar and Pastor here. --Northmeister 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I think there needs to be some detail about the sexual content of Presley's act in the breakthrough year bit, as opposed to just saying it was "controversial". I'll have a look. Also, the bit about Freddie Bell and Hound Dog, which 141, edited at one point, could lose the "a major attraction in town, at the Sands casino hotel" as it just bloats the piece Rikstar 05:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your right here - thanks for all the work. --Northmeister 06:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"At one point during the second, Sullivan stood on stage with Presley. While Sullivan was addressing the audience, Presley, who had been standing quietly, began shaking his legs, eliciting screams from the young girls in the stage audience. Sullivan then looked at Presley, but missed what the singer had done to cause the audience reaction as Presley assumed his former, serious demeanor." I may be wrong, but I think this observation is a bit of a weak example of what the audience saw on set; it's sort of a fan's description and non-fans would probably think: "Eh??" I say we should really be describing the (sexual) nature of the performances as a whole (The descrption of the Berle "Hound Dog" performance is different 'cos it was a sensation and merits some detail - an embedded clip or some stills would be great). By the way, I think the heading change to "Breakthrough year" was a heck of a good move... as was "Awards and recognition" Rikstar 05:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's deleting tactics clearly show that he endeavors to whitewash the article. He did a revert and falsely claimed in the edit summary that my edits are simple revert to earlier version and not improvements. See [6]. This is not acceptable. In fact, I have included additional and well sourced material. Lively descriptions of Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances must be included in the article, especially if the additional material is backed up by authorities on Elvis such as Greil Marcus. The Wikipedia article is not a fan site. Onefortyone 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, it is ironic that I was addressing this very issue when our joint efforts resulted in an editing conflict! I too was going to add some of Marcus's observations. As for "Northmeister's deleting tactics" and "endeavors to whitewash the article", I really think such comments are not fair. If Northmeister wanted to he/she could have attempted a thousand changes to prove they were the no.1 Elvis Fanatic, but they haven't. It's been said before, but we should assume good faith, and work jointly, as I believe you and I were just prior to this talk. Rikstar 13:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this paragraph belong in the opening of the article?

Just a question. The following passage is still to be found in the opening of the article. To my mind, most of this material should be included in the different sections of the article.

After a performance hiatus imposed by movie commitments in the 1960s, Presley re-emerged as a live performer of old and new hit songs, both on tour and in residency at Las Vegas, Nevada. His performances were known for their energetic drive, his karate-influenced stage movements and his elaborate jump-suits and capes. Never venturing to perform abroad, he continued to have sell-out shows in auditoriums around the U.S. until shortly before his sudden death in 1977. Though his appearance had worried many for several years, his death seemed to stun the American nation and shock his fans worldwide. Only in the ensuing years did it emerge that Presley had complex and chronic health problems, perhaps most significantly, severe and enduring prescription drug addiction. His death sparked national mourning, but controversy regarding the circumstances and cause of his death soon followed.

Query: did Elvis's dead actually "stun the American nation"? Which sources say such things? This seems to be wishful thinking of some fans. According to Samuel Roy, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." Except for the fans who held his memory in honor, he was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'" A CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, which "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." See Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173. During the 1970s, frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380´. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116. Significantly, all this material, supported by several independent university studies, has been deleted from the article. Onefortyone 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is every indication that some editors who happen to be fans are making efforts to recognise their own potential for bias and to seek support in achieving a NPOV. What this article does NOT need is contributions that take it outside of an encyclopedic framework and which do so as if there is a sustained and deliberate attempt to inject a dubious and rather unsavoury negativity disguised as an attempt to restore a NPOV. If all editors had the insight to recognise their own potential for bias and any apparent propensity to stick to dubious agendas, we might get a decent article written soon, instead of about ten years from now."

Hello, Onefortyone. Are you alright? I assume you have read the above paragraph. So here we are again, so soon after I first posted it and, to my surprise, we are discussing dubious edits that would take this article way outside what most people would consider an acceptable format. I agree that the intro could be altered, especially the bit about his death 'stunnning' the nation. You could have politely pointed this out, but you had to have a dig at those pesky darn Elvis fans, didn't you? Why you mentioned the Samuel Roy quote: "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." is a mystery; it doesn't back up any claim of yours that isn't covered in the current article. As for the other sources, you don't make a big thing about them being 'Experts On Elvis', as you did with Greil Marcus, but it seems their observations regarding 'drag queens', 'androgyny', 'pancake makeup', etc. should somehow sit undisturbed in what is (and I'm boring myself now) a general encyclopedia article. As you have often said to other editors: "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE"!! Rikstar 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see what I think are some nice improvements in this Elvis page since the last time I was here, including seeing some misleading and totally unsubstantiated garbage by people like Albert Goldman and others, removed, including totally unsubstantiated claims (by people who never even knew him, who clearly didn't like him in Goldman's case, and were only out to smear his name) that Elvis was a "racist" or "bisexual" or committed "suicide", which is all a joke. It's all about "facts", that's all. The guy never gave anyone who knew him even a hint to make them even think for a moment that he was bi, and the guy grew up on and loved "black" music, among other types. He had many black friends throughout his life, and was friends with many black artists and celebrities who were around in his day who have spoken nothing but of missing him and of their fondness for him, and their friendship with him. Not idiot rappers who are racists themselves, who have been fed lies and have no clue about Elvis or who he was, but many black people who actually did know him, what he did for them, and the way he treated them as friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 (talk • contribs).

Well, he only became famous because he stole black music which is in itself racist, he may well have been bisexual, and his death was almost certainly a deliberate overdose. (BillRodgers 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

As for Elvis' death "stunning" the nation, I recall clearly the day he died and the constant television reports throughout the afternoon, evening, and into the late night, and talk on and off television for days afterwards. I remember his death covering the front page in huge print with his picture on every newspaper I saw the next day, as well as a late edition "August 16th" copy out in one of our papers that very night he died.

The general nation and the world were indeed "stunned" by his death, and mail, calls, and flowers were sent from all over the world. While in the months prior to his death there were some rumored reports of him being ill in tabloids and in the occasional concert review, his death was not expected by the masses. With the exception of those close to Elvis in his personal life, the fans or critics who saw him live in concert at that time, and anybody else who happened to see his condition first hand, the rest of the public and the world wasn't aware of how bad off he was or that he had any drug problems like he did. The world at large hadn't seen him since the "Aloha" show four years earlier where he looked great. His "1977" condition wasn't seen by the masses until the "Elvis In Concert" show that was shown after his death.

He looked fat in 1973 and numerous phoographs over the next four years showed the world just how bad he looked. (BillRodgers 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

Maybe it's just me, and I am by no means blind to the "real" and factual negative aspects of Elvis' life and his condition in his last years, but Onefortyone seems to favor a negative light shined on Elvis, first and foremost, including quotes from "books" painting such pictures. He seems to have a problem with positive aspects being pointed out, but not negatives, including totally unconfirmed claims based on heresay and no more.

As Jack Webb used to say, "Just the facts". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 (talk • contribs).

Disruptive behavior of 80.141 or 129.* from Duesburg, Germany also known as Onefortyone

As evidenced above and numerous times in the past (which can be viewed through his edit history) and which includes but is not limited to:

• Sorry, This is not true. There are even some discussions how gay some Elvis lyrics may have been, for example in the song, "Teddy Bear":

Baby let me be, your lovin' Teddy Bear Put a chain around my neck, and lead me anywhere Oh let me be Your teddy bear.

Once the reader gets past the requisite Abu Ghraib reference, it could well be that Elvis is singing about the leather-laded gay bear scene.

As for Abu Ghraib, let us further examine the king's famous "Jailhouse Rock"

The drummer boy from Illinois went crash, boom, bang, the whole rhythm section was the Purple Gang. Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block

was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock.

Number forty-seven said to number three: "You're the cutest jailbird I ever did see. I sure would be delighted with your company, come on and do the Jailhouse Rock with me." Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock. The sad sack was a sittin' on a block of stone way over in the corner weepin' all alone. The warden said, "Hey, buddy, don't you be no square. If you can't find a partner use a wooden chair.

When was the last time you heard of a co-ed prison? There is also the expression "Purple gang". The reader may know that lavender is the official gay color. Number 47 also seems to have something for fellow inmates. In addition, you may try to figure out what two partners might do with a wooden chair. If you have any ideas, let me know. [7]

• Revision as of 00:08, 24 April 2005

80.141.197.110 (Talk) This is what you claim you are. Sorry, it seems more likely that you are a member of the Elvis Mafia who wants to make money selling "girl's guides to Elvis Presley" and all of this stuff and therefore wants to keep alive the story of Elvis the prodigious lover of women. Why are you so keenly interested in suppressing other opinions in this talk on Elvis? According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not allowed to delete contributions by other users on discussion pages. [8]

• 11:01, 24 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Elvis Presley

I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? [9]

THEN HE ADDS ON SAME DAY As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [10]

• Rewrites it to say this on Revision as of 12:50, 24 April 2005 (edit) (undo)

80.141.232.231 (Talk) : I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker, though I would not go so far as to say that those men of the Memphis Mafia who were with Elvis everyday from 1956 on were all gay. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [11]

He then writes on same day: Could this be the normal behavior of a womanizer who slept with hundreds of girls and women?[12]

• Revision as of 14:00, 25 April 2005 (edit) (undo)

80.141.201.224 (Talk) Sorry, but this means nothing as many homosexual men have been wooing and marrying straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation. Many of them may be too ashamed to acknowledge their feelings for fear of reprisal. Even Rock Hudson and Elton John were married and still gay as can be. [13]

• Revision as of 20:40, 26 April 2005 (edit) (undo)

80.141.248.192 (Talk) In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See [14] The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.

Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland."

It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. ~~~~ [15]

• Revision as of 19:14, 27 April 2005 (edit) (undo)

80.141.184.12 (Talk) It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. Therefore, the passage, "just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual", should be included in the Wikipedia article. ~~~~

I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus is more likely that he preferred men.

and on the same day goes to Nick Adams: [16]

• Revision as of 14:53, 3 June 2005 (edit) (undo)

80.141.178.108 (Talk) Significantly, she seems to have been the only woman in the Memphis Mafia, as there were only men around Elvis. You might see some parallels to Andy Warhol's "Factory", but there were more women around Warhol. Very interesting indeed. ~~~~ [17]

and also

As everybody now can see, this user calls me a liar for placing some information taken out of books on Elvis in the article. He may indeed be a member of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King and therefore tries to suppress all other information which is not in line with this media monopoly. ~~~~ [18]

• Revision as of 09:43, 4 June 2005 (edit)

80.141.191.66 (Talk) Note: I have found previous edits (long before I showed up) by the same ANONYMOUS user with a single mission under twenty-three different IPs. Again, all for the exact same Elvis Presley, David Bret issues with no other edits. Like they tried to do to me, this ANONYMOUS user used intimidation and relentless bullying tactics while reverting other User's edits until they drove them away. (SEE LIST AT :Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress) Ted Wilkes 23:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles under a dynamic IP address? Sorry, frequently deleting my comments as you did on the said page is vandalism.

• 129.241.134.241 (Talk)

Older edit Revision as of 05:22, 9 August 2005 (edit) (undo) 129.241.134.241 (Talk) BTW, this sound like a great idea - if Mr. Wilkes continue to insert his ridiculous claims about Sony transistors, maybe I'll start inserting claims about Elvis being gay. Watch out, Teddy Wilkes!(129.241.134.241 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[19]

Further based on this observation by another Editor:

"Ban Lochdale from celebrity articles? What other celebrity articles is this user accused of disrupting? Moreover, 141 has a long history of skillfully baiting enthusiastic editors into zealously over-stepping WP policies only for the well-meant purpose of curbing 141's incredibly adept abuse of scholarship. Lochdale has been baited, provoked and stung. Meanwhile there is zero documented evidence Elvis Presley was gay, only tabloid hearsay which wouldn't hold up under peer review for a day. Even mentioning it in an encyclopedia article throws its weight off beyond all proportion: In a full length biography, sure, deal with it in a few paragraphs maybe. Lochdale has made mistakes, Lochdale should be admonished and strongly warned, maybe even with six months of Elvis-Presley-Only probation subject to an EP ban if he slips up again.

Meanwhile 141, in my humble opinion, should be hard banned from Wikipedia. His single-minded interest in editing exclusively on the subject of "allegations" concerning the gayness of EP clearly indicates motivations which have nothing to do with scholarship or encyclopedias. His constant, calculated accusations of sock-puppetry violate every aspect of Wikipedian good faith and cooperation.

Has anyone ever noticed that 141 almost always responds to complaints by viciously attacking the complainer with accusations of sockpuppetry? Or slapping the complainer with the label of "Elvis Presley fan"?

For example, to take this to its logical extreme (since 141 is indeed an extreme), how do we know 141 is not Ted Wilkes?

Anyway, if there is supportable documented evidence floating around somewhere that Mr Presley was gay (and though I have yet to see any, it wouldn't surprise me if he was- so convince me then), I'm sure other editors will stumble across it one day and get it into the article through WP policy and encyclopedic methodology, not through edit warring and the disruptive attrition tactics used by 141. Wyss 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[20]"

I've made attempts to work with Onefortyone in the past myself: see my contributions in June of 2006 per this user and his refusal to work cordially: [21].

HENCE: I will revert any edits made my onefortyone that are simply rehashing or putting back in what has already been improved by other editors. If either yourself, Steve, or other editors feel I have errored in the process - please correct my actions. If user onefortyone wishes to show his intentions of good faith then I ask he work out his proposed edits here for the community to judge as above. I make this statement, with no malice toward this editor, but based on his past disruptive actions here and with other articles, previous bans from this article, and with other celebrities biographies and not without just cause. We are all here to create a workable, neutral, 'good' and 'featured' article and are working to that end. --Northmeister 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Two examples of rehashed material already edited by other editors for flow and summary style that Onefortyone continues to put into the article without assuming good faith on behalf of those editors:

"Presley was dressed in the white tie and tails of a ´'high-class' musician, the clothes were intentionally made so tight he couldn't move freely."

However, according to Jake Austen, "the way Steve Allen treated Elvis Presley was his federal crime. Allen thought Presley was talentless and absurd, and so he decided to goof on him. Allen set things up so that Presley would show his contrition by appearing in a tuxedo and singing his new song 'Hound Dog' to an elderly basset hound..."

Why has this individual been allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to clearly make a point and cause edit wars with other editors for so long is beyond me. --Northmeister 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply here. I am still of the opinion that Northmeister is identical with my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW. Onefortyone 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with all of this about Onefortyone. It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 (talk • contribs).

I feel I have to take this opportunity to formally register my own dissatisfaction with Onefortyone. However, I will check his proposed edits, a few have been appropriate. Like Northmeister, I make this statement, with no malice toward Onefortyone - it is simply based on his history of disruptive and manipulative actions here and with other articles, his previous bans from this article, and with other celebrities biographies and not without just cause. Rikstar 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with what you propose above and agree that onefortyone's contributions that are summarized, non-trivial in nature - should by right be included. If he would only work with us to improve this article - shorten it (for wiki-standards) and make it NPOV it would be fine. I proposed above and do again that he submit his contributions on the talk page and allow other editors to comment or revise before putting them in - thus showing good faith with us that he wishes to help and not obstruct our intentions - ie. A Good NPOV article that is encyclopedic, pithy or in summary style as much as possible, void of trivial matters, and ready for 'Featured' presentation. --Northmeister 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Further edits

I concur and will scan through the whole thing again to achieve a shorter, pithier article of the type many of us desire. The intro can be cropped, and bits merged into other sections Rikstar 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the third paragraph to the opening but trimmed down for format reasons. Also reformated other parts of the article including a rearrange of the sections. Took out Ancestry and Voice but if editors feel these need to be back in then I am open to that. Feel free to rearrange my rearrangement for format and fit. --Northmeister 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Good idea with Ancestry. I think Voice is important, not sure where it might fit. I still think the following bit about the 2nd Ed Sullivan show is a weak observation: "At one point during the second, Sullivan stood on stage with Presley. While Sullivan was addressing the audience, Presley, who had been standing quietly, began shaking his legs, eliciting screams from the young girls in the stage audience. Sullivan then looked at Presley, but missed what the singer had done to cause the audience reaction as Presley assumed his former, serious demeanor." I'm gonna look for something meatier, more significant, to replace it. I've left this Greil Marcus quote for my reference: "Elvis came out looking pleased, at home. He reprised “Don’t Be Cruel” and “Love Me Tender.” He laughed at himself, burlesqued his performance, as he would throughout the night—except for odd moments, as with “Love Me,” in his second of three segments, when, after “Oh, so lonely,” with the camera in close he simply stopped, and a quiet smile drifted across his face, a moment of beauty and peace, just before he remembered to lift his upper right lip. He closed with “Hound Dog.” He was burned in effigy in Nashville and St. Louis; the ratings were huge." Rikstar 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the high points of the TV shows are covered. "Hound Dog" and "Why Elvis was shot differently on the last Sullivan show" are the two significant events. (I think Elvis's leg shaking while Sullivan was talking was what did it.) Details like he wore a sport coat and sang without a guitar for the first time are important because they establish the general tone of his appearances. Further material, such he sang this, and that, and then he curled his lip, etc, would be overkill. Again, there is an article on the Sullivan show itself, where it may be appropriate. BTW, I'm find out that there are a fair number of people (mostly women) who know that he "shook his leg(s)" rather than his pelvis. Nevertheless, the misrepresentation of what he did is so prevalent, I think it is rightly addressed here by its exclusion. Steve Pastor 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have re-written Hollywood section to reduce its size; hope it's OK. Rikstar 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The middle paragraph seems out of place - and has for sometime to me. I think because we leap from his start of the movies right into why he 'hated' them. I've generally avoided the issue to work on other sections though. --Northmeister 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean... I've had stab at it; it's helped to cut this section as well. Rikstar 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"In August, 1956 in Jacksonville, Florida a local Juvenile Court judge called Presley a "savage" and threatened to arrest him if he shook his body while performing at Jacksonville's Florida Theatre. The judge justified the restrictions by saying Presley's music was undermining the youth of America. Throughout the actual performance, he stood still as ordered, but poked fun at the judge by wiggling a finger. Similar attempts to stop his "sinful gyrations" continued for more than a year, including his often-noted final appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show (during which he performed the spiritual number "Peace in the Valley"), when he was filmed only from the waist up. Due to his choice of songs, controversial style of singing and on-stage movements, municipal politicians throughout the United States began denying permits for Presley appearances. This only caused his fans and others curious about his controversial reputation to travel elsewhere to see him perform. On radio, adult programmers announced they would not play Presley's music, citing their religious convictions that his music was "devil music" and revealing their racist beliefs by openly claiming Presley was peddling "nigger music." Many of his records were condemned as wicked by Pentecostal preachers, warning their congregations to keep 'heathen rock and roll music' out of their homes and away from their children's ears (especially the music of "that backslidden Pentecostal pup.") However, the economic power of Presley's fans became evident when they tuned into alternative radio stations that did play his records. In an era when radio stations were shifting to an all-music format, in reaction to competition from television, profit-conscious broadcasters learned quickly when sponsors bought more advertising time on new 'all rock and roll' stations, some of which reached enormous markets at night with clear channel signals from AM broadcasts."

All is this great but there are no citations. It shouldn't be cut, but we need to traces sources. Rikstar 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Similar attempts to stop his "sinful gyrations" continued for more than a year, including his often-noted final appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show (during which he performed the spiritual number "Peace in the Valley"), when he was filmed only from the waist up." I seem to remember that Presley was not shown exclusivley in a tight shot until he did the leg shaking while Sullivan was talking to the audience. Presley pulled a fast one, and someone decided to not give him that option again. "attempt to stop sinful gyrations"? I found out recently that Presley was in a cowboy comedy skit on the Berle show. This puts the comic aspects of the Hound Dog Steve Allen incident in a different context, in spite of what people have wirtten. P.S. The makers of Elvis '56 think Allen was trying to be funny, too. Any interpretations of what happened are fraught with various influences. As someone wrote earlier... just the facts. Steve Pastor 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "cowboy comedy skit" was on the Steve Allen show. I still say some sources would be good to create a similar paragraph (or two) to the stuff I posted, specially the Jacksonville gig and any 'devil's music' references. Rikstar 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Darn, caught on a detail. Berle did the Evil Twin routine. Nevertheless, in 1956, this was not Elvis the King, it was Elvis the up and coming 21 year old star who wasn't taking himself too seriously. No doubt there are quotes, direct quotes, or newspaper articles that concentrate on what happened, rather than someone's interpretation of what happened, that could be used. Steve Pastor 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Voice section was probably the most interesting part of the article--little known, well sourced information that went a long way toward explaining Elvis' phenomenal success. And you guys took it out. Way to go! --M-K, 25 May 2007

Factual accuracy

I have several books which state Presley's second demo single was "I'll Never Stand In Your Way" and "Casual Love Affair". The article says different. Also, the same sources state that Elvis did play for Humes High Tigers football team, but he reluctantly quit at his mother's request (she worried he'd be injured). He's also said to have worked evenings at the Marl Metal Products Company while at school. Anyone shed any light on this? Rikstar 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And I thought it was because he wouldn't cut his hair. If it's not verifiable... Coach, are you reading this? ... you know what to do. Regarding where he worked, I think that fact that he came from working class poverty tells us a lot more about him than where he may have worked in the evenings. Steve Pastor 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds the "malls and courtyards of the Courts with other local musicians" statement odd? 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, it's odd? Any suggestions? Rikstar 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the need for recent changes. I think there's a bit of a danger that some decent stuff could be deleted and replaced with weaker material, because of there being no quoted source(s) for some of the existing article. New text that is almost word for word the same as its source can introduce a clash of writing styles, but I'll look at this to even things out. Rikstar 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some recent additions to the article are "sketchy". Newsweek wrote that Elvis first met with Scotty Moore, as reported by Scotty, then went to Phillips the next night. Please don't add too much detail. It might be good at this point to only add things that can be found in two independent sources, ones that don't repeat each other. Even with that, too much detail will bloat the article again. One of the reasons this article was left alone until recently was that there was too much stuff to check. Please don't go there again. Steve Pastor 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example - "but was unable to identify the African-American vocalist". How did he know this person was African American? There are at least several examples of "white" people who sang "like African Americans". Pre-Elvis there was Johnny Ray for one. Sketchy. BTW Phillips was constantly looking for new talent, and can be seen giving a candid assessment of his efforts on tape. Steve Pastor 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As I primarily took on this arduous editing job to drastically reduce 'Elvis', I'm hardly likely to bloat it back up. You'll note that recent additions have not lengthened the article because of cuts to the 'controversy' section. I'll only add detail if it provides useful insight and I think it is well sourced. BTW, I'm still not happy with the Ed Sullivan section - the bit about him shaking his legs, girls scream, Ed's clueless, etc. If it is to stay it needs rewriting; it currently looks like a clumsy inclusion by an Elvis fan. The Milton Berle/Hound dog section is a bit like that too. But we are getting somewhere...Rikstar 04:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First let me write that there has been much overall improvement, even with the rewrites of things that I have included, because I think they are important. The "how Elvis got started at Sun" part needs work, as by several accounts Phillips had Scotty Moore check out Elvis before having him come to the studio. Regarding the tv show, please watch the shows before making any changes that are substantial. You may be able to get them through a local library, or Netflix, etc. This is important, in my opinion. Remember, we have had only things that other people have written to go on for nearly 50 years. Now, we can see for ourselves. It's patently obvious that Elvis goofed off while Ed was addressing the audience. It's pretty obvious, too, that it was young women and girls who were screaming. There are no men's voices to be heard. (There were no dubbed in screams or laugh tracks used on Ed's shows, I don't think.) The recordings of the performances are the best "verifiable source" in existence. There is much myth that has sprung up around this man. Partly based on inaccurate descriptions of what he did, what he is supposed to have said, etc. BTW, somewhere, it should be mentioned that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks. I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not. Steve Pastor 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got the TV performances on DVD; I'll check 'em out. I'll also look at the Sun reference (See below). There's a ref. to his youth and good looks in the Legacy section, BTW. Rikstar 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Forward

I would like to applaud the efforts Steve and Rikstar along with others have made thus far with the article. As the article improves I was wondering your thoughts on format. Do you think it is right the way it is or do you think that the structure (sections) should be worded or re-ordered differently? As, to user Onefortyone - any thoughts on his contributions or how we might address them for inclusion if they are not simply trivia? I am not sure of a workable solution here - since much of his material is covered already - just summarized. He was concerned above with a couple of items - do you think we've addressed these? Anyway - keep up the good work. Eventually I would like to have this article submitted for a 'good' candidate in preparation for a 'featured' article. Might do to look at the concerns of those opposed to 'featured' status in the past when this article was nominated. Having done so from the start - I think on length and unsourced statements we've come a long way. --Northmeister 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Northmeister - it's nice to be appreciated. About restructuring, I think this can only be applied in the tail-end sections; the 'time line' factor precludes restructuring without major rewriting. I'm not sure about the Posthumous developments section (or its name), it's slightly in danger of looking like a bunch of trivia (I wonder if articles on other entertainers have similar tail-end sections and how they look). The Legacy section needs more prominence - it's where his life, achievements and influence are summed up. And every time I see the Jaycees acceptance speech, I kinda wonder if it adds anything other than bloat. As for 141..., he can, like anyone, use the talk page to air his opinions and proposals. But having looked more closely at his editing history, I'm amazed he's been allowed to wreak such havoc. I foresee only problems resulting from any involvement on his part. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but if he ever tries to justify the inclusion of any patently inappropriate material by protesting "But it comes from reliable source so it should be included!!!", or accuses the rest of the world of denying unsavoury truths, I'll probably scream and will see about taking the matter furtherRikstar 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I too want to applaud the clean up on this article. It was a mess. As for restructuring I'd suggest moving Posthumous developments down under legacy as it's not actually a part of his biography but occurred after his death. Perhaps moving Health issues and cause of death to make it subsections of his bio instead of a separate section might make it flow better. The controversy surrounding his death is notable but having a separate section seems to give it undue weight in comparison to the rest of his life and legacy. - Maria202 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Maria202. I agree with you, but merging the health and death stuff might be tricky, making other sections overlong, and then someone'll want another section creating... I'll have a look. Rikstar 13:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what your saying and agree. I'm going to just go ahead and change the section heading to what I think will make it better. Change it back if you think I've made it worse. - Maria202 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for a while but have been hesitant to edit it due to the controversy and occasional edit warring. One comment about 141, he needs to understand that whatever he includes should be summarized as this article is still too long and probably needs further shortening. Besides the length, one other comment I have is that the references need to be formatted in a consistent bibliographic style. Good work everyone, keep it up! Howard Cleeves 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved some stuff around regarding the above comments. I think Maria makes a good point about the Controversy section and I like the work done on the subsection title - it seemed long to me originally. In regards to this section - it may need its own article? Not sure. I also agree the legacy section (when I view other artists legacy sections) is lacking. It covers his impact originally in the 1950's but not much else. If anyone has any suggestions on how to address this let us know. Right now the article is about 71kb - not too bad for length - although long it is ok for such a topic. Many featured articles have pictures throughout. Our choices are very limited - but not sure what to do with that. I've kept the quotation from Jaycees as this gives us some impression of Mr. Presley from his words - something 'good' biograhies are now doing - but shortened it. --Northmeister 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still too long, and since you guys have created extensive subpages you're essentially having your cake and eating it too. Howard Cleeves 08:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Elvis is, like it or not, a very prominent figure in popular culture to this day. His music is still being repackaged and sold in high numbers. DVDs with his performances are being sold, as are several to many dvds concentrating on the music he recorded in his early years alone (my favorite part BTW). Once I started talking about this man, I started hearing many stories from older women who cherish their encounters with him, or have memories of their grandmother telling then about meeting Elvis. No one (you and I included) has to go to any of the diambig sections, the best of all solutions. Steve Pastor 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a small hatchet to this article today and, subpages aside, it is another 3kb lighter - now shorter than the Beatles article. Does anyone think that's too long? The subpages probably need similar treatment. Rikstar 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Howard, you mentioned the references needed cleaning up. Could you advise what needs to be cleaned-up so that we may do so or I invite you to take a shot at it yourself. I think the article length is actually fine per wikipedia standards on such a biography - along as we keep in in line with other featured articles in biography I think we're doing fine. --Northmeister 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being like this:

1.[22]

The web refs should be like this:

1. Jubak, Jim. China's Olympian stock-market sprint, msn.com, May 29, 2007. Retrieved on May 31, 2007.

Or something like it. Howard Cleeves 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what web references "should" look like, but I sure like it when I can see that it IS a web reference, and I can just click on it, and I go to that site. This to me, is more akin to the concept of a "hyperlink", rather than having to click, go to the references page, then, click again. Steve Pastor 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CITE/ES or any featured article. The featured articles that passed more recently are a better guide; the older ones are normally not up to current standards. Howard Cleeves 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First recordings at Sun Studios

Been doin' some snoopin' around... According to Carr & Farren, and the Elvis Presley's Sun recordings article, "Blue Moon of Kentucky" (BMOK) was recorded July 5/6. Carr & Farren state that Dewey Phillips first played "That's All Right" on radio Saturday evening, July 10. Furthermore, they state that Sam Phillips took 3 acetates for Dewey to listen to/air: including fast and slow tempo versions of BMOK. So it seems the bit in the article about Phillips and the boys rushing to record (or even re-record??) a flip side might not be true. Earlier versions of the Elvis article say BMOK was recorded 10 days after "That's All Right", which might be wrong. Sources with this possible kind of innaccuracy (The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday??) are questionable. The Carr & Farren book is a detailed account that took (they say) 7 years to research. If no objections, I'll do a rewrite - and folks can pick at the result, as they see fit. It'll probably lengthen the section, but I think that's warranted. Rikstar 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IF BMOK was indeed recorded the same day as TAR, it means that one source is right, and a whole bunch of other ones are wrong. Frustrating, unproductive day of recording, with Phillips getting more and more frustrated. Elvis just starting to sing TAR to release nervous energy. And Dewey Phillips didn't play TAR until 5 days later? Can we put so much faith in one source? Or are there more that tell this same story? I know there are at least several that agreed with the "current" version in the article. PS Newsweek used the word "rushed". But then, they also wrote that the boys worked on a version of Chuck Berry's Maybelline, which is a neat trick because he didn't write and record it until 1955. I have yet to find an article that is 100% accurate. Steve Pastor 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that BMOK was recorded at the same session as TAR; I've got 3 sources, including the Sun recordings article. If there is doubt, it is if the actual version on sun 209 was done at the time, or sometime between July 11 and the 19th (but where is the evidence?). As for the Dewey Phillips show, Red Hot and Blue, it was a Saturday only show, so the earliest Saturday after July 5/6 (definitely a Monday/Tuesday) is the soonest Sam could get the record played i.e. the 10th. The best way around any doubts is to phrase the article in such a way that it has minimal detail without being innacurate - which I hope I have done. "I have yet to find an article that is 100% accurate". I couldn't agree more... Rikstar 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please post anything that says otherwise, but I get the impression that early apocryphal tales of what happened are doing the rounds again. Maybe this is to do with the way internet data just keeps on growing. Rikstar 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotty Moore tells the story of setting up the first? session with Elvis on camera in the "Rockabilly Legends..." DVD. Moore is clear that Phillips asked him to call Elvis and assess his abilities, and that he met with both Elvis and Bill Black before going to Phillip's studio. Regarding BMOK, he states that it was Bill Black who started singing the song, just goofing off as Elvis had done with TAM. Regarding the date it was recorded, he says only that, "when we got back to work". Steve Pastor 18:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently in article - (His Saturday night Red, Hot And Blue show was devoted exclusively to 'black' music). Although this may be true, it way over emphasizes the race aspect of what he played, based on the following: "Phillips was the first to play Elvis on local radio, and the station championed the rockabilly sound coming from Sun Records." [23] His Red, Hot and Blue show went out on WHBQ in Memphis six nights a week from 9pm to midnight, and from 1949 he played a hitherto unheard mix of R'n' B, blues and country that was shortly to mutate into rock'n'roll. [24] Also, if his show wasn't only on Saturday in July 1954, this frees up any of the six nights for him to play TAM. And I promised myself that I was only interested in Elvis's music! Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that Dewey Phillips didn't ONLY play "black" music, and it is importnat to not write things that lead people to that conclusion. Steve Pastor 19:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I heard a Scotty Moore statement regarding this. Maybe I'll get back with it. Steve Pastor 19:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree about Moore's account of their first meeting - I just don't think going into "I called him then he came round to mine and then x turned up and we rehearsed," etc, etc. is going to add anything significant except bloat the article. The fact is they got together and that's good enough for me. I'm not sure which version of BMOK Scotty is referring to - there are two studio versions I know of.

The Red Hot and Blue stuff is really interesting; I've taken out the bit about it only playing black music. The main point still holds that Presley and Dewey had to convince listeners that he was white. If we cannot get confirmation for TAR being first aired - and I hope we can - then the date can be dropped. Louis Cantor has written a book (University of Illinois press) called "Dewey and Elvis"; I wish I could get my hands on a copy...Rikstar 08:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

http://oldies.about.com/od/elvis/a/elvis1954_2.htm has timeline lists of Elvis's gigs, etc. and gives July 7 as the day Dewey played TAR Rikstar 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotty says, on camera, "We heard it (TAM) on the radio, but then we had to go back in and he said "OK, we got to have a B side. I can't put out a one sided record." We were going through the same process. This time it was Bill...." The text in the book that accompanies the dvd supplies the "ten days" detail. Scotty Moore on camera is pretty persuasive stuff, but, who knows. Jerry Nayler, the lead author of "Rockabilly Legends..." was lead singer for the Crickets after Buddy died. And, holy cow, "Rag Mop"? I know that one. (I'm sorry!) Anyhow, I agree that we don't need too much detail. People who write books need detail, and sometimes.... Steve Pastor 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the uncertainty over dates... "Following Elvis' early sessions, solo visits to the Memphis Recording Service, to cut two personal acetates, Sam had Scotty arrange for the young singer to come over to his home for a try-out session. Scotty also had Bill come by later in the session, which is said to have taken place on Sunday afternoon, 27th June 1954" [25] Most accounts say they went right in to the studio the next day, meaning... Maybe no one knows for sure. Steve Pastor 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're dead right Steve, no one knows for sure. Read so much about actual first early live gig dates, but discrepancies abound. I've been tyin' myself in knots runnin' after 'facts' and claims 'x' did this, then 'y' did that... I apologise - to you and anybody else - for any claims of certainty I made regarding facts or sources. Stuff this recent in history shouldn't be such a mine field. Long as we stick to the 'known' facts, though, this could be that elusive featured article. Rikstar 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've felt obliged to broaden this, having re-read a lot of source material. Presley's impact was substantial in different ways and it needs to be reflected in the main article. Rikstar 09:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can deal with the problem BetacommandBot's mentioned above, please do. Rikstar 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

I think this needs to mention and quote from significant names in music influenced by Presley eg. Springsteen, Dylan, etc. Currently, the section just mentions contemporaries of Elvis and tails off into stuff about impersonators. Rikstar 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The photo stuff is made by a overzealous bot and is in my opinion harmful to wikipedia. But, that said, I will do what I can. I see no reason why this photo violates fair use - as it is used in an article about Elvis and near a section that includes the album covers topic - further it is used in an article about the album itself. --Northmeister 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was reading about the bot's activities on a speedway site. I'm looking into updating the Legacy section with suitable citations. Rikstar 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

I think this is too long and looks like a list of trivia. The stuff about him being first, in the top ten, etc. of various polls, should be summarised with appropriate links/citations. Hall of fame induction, etc. should predominate. Rikstar 07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GIBluesElvis.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for image updated. --Northmeister 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Northmeister, on both accounts. Rikstar 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured or Good Article status

I think the article is getting near at least a 'good article nomination' if not featured status. I think getting the good tag first is the appropriate step to take. This is, if the editors feel we are at that point as I do. If we can get consensus on this we should nominate it for a community response. At the very least, guidance can be given; at the most it would get 'good nomination' advancing to 'featured status' thereafter. --Northmeister 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. We still need to look at formatting the references consistently... Anyone want to help?? Rikstar 05:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the Elvis Lives? section. This might merit a sentence in the Legacy section, but it looks extremely weak on its own. Rikstar 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And finally...

I'm about through with this (I know: famous last words...). There are bits that need tweaking/checking (cost of Elvis Sun demo's?, etc). Maybe Controversy over his death could be really paired down and added to Final year and death - I'll try this. But, we've got the bare bones of a decent article (comments above aside, too). I've been consistently ruthless editing down every little byte, if only because I think there's probably additional significant things that can be added and we've now got a few bytes to play with (and I'm really glad there's been a partial lockdown to help me GET STUFF DONE). Any additions are gonna have to be good though, and may need to be re-written to maintain style (which I'm happy to try, if no one else is). I apologize if I've been a bit over-zealous (like dumpin' the Elvis Lives??? and Controversy over death bits), but things can be put right. Northmeister, I'm OK about this being reviewed for its status as it is, 'good nomination' or whatever (and my fingertips are numb). The feedback's got to be useful, and hopefully, encouraging. Thanks BTW to every polite, sane, knowledgeable editor out there who has taken the plunge, and especially to Northmeister for twistin' my arm to get involved in what looked like a nightmare (I know, it may become one again...). I'm kinda looking forward to reverting back to being an "ELVIS FAN" (but am I really??) instead of being an objective/fact freak. Rikstar 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you are fan or not is unimportant - objectivity is the key and you've shown that quite well. Anyway, if Pastor can agree I think we should move forward with the 'good' nomination and look from there. --Northmeister 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1961 Concert in Memphis

I see no mention of a live concert in 1961 in Memphis, Tenn. I was a 19 year old, stationed just outside Memphis at the time and attended Elvis's concert there. As I recall, it was his first concert after his discharge from the Army. The current entry says his only concert was for charity in Hawaii. That is incorrect. RlpowelsonRlpowelson 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... just give more details and some other sources that mention it, and it would be considered for inclusion. Rikstar 04:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found a reference to this charity concert in Peter Guralnick's book - Ellis Auditorium, February 25, 1961. I'll amend the text. Rikstar 11:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As a songwriter

Anyone know if, and to which extent if so, he had songs written for him? 67.68.31.35 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Click on the various links in the article. For instance, the Elvis Presley album article has a list of who wrote all of the songs. The Sun Recordings article has similar information. Once RCA picked him up, he had the benefit of a major label that received many songs from song writers. A better trivia question would be, did he write ANY songs. Steve Pastor 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"I've never written a song in my life. It's all a big hoax." Elvis Presley [26]Steve Pastor 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with father and stepmother

Elvis's stepmother of 17 years Dee Stanley is not mentioned yet in this article. His father Vernon is mentioned once. They lived with him at Graceland for a while and he obviously had some sort of a relationship with both of them. Rick Stanley (step-brother) is mentioned however. More on stepsiblings might be of interest.
User:Brenont 05:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is tricky; there are lots of people in Presley's life who have not been mentioned. The question has always been: who do we include/leave out, to keep the article to a reasonable length, and to reflect the significant people who had an influence on him. it could be argued that, for example, Chet Atkins, Bill Black, Bones Howe, Boots Randolph, Larry Geller and a whole string of songwriters deserve more of a mention than they've got - and deserve it more than his stepmother. Additions need to be significant and should fit into the article so it still appears balanced. Rikstar 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

After hearing Elvis mention Carl Perkins on tape after recording Blue Moon of Kentucky (you can hear it on the Elvis '56 DVD), and reviewing the article, I see only one sentence about the music he grew up with. Nevertheless, Rikstar put one heck of a lot of effort into getting this down to an acceptabe size. So, as he writes, there is much that has to be left out. Steve Pastor 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of anything much about early music influences is a good point; I've amended the Early years section to include stuff about this. Rikstar 11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The government references I've used from other Elvis links about his musical influences need to be checked; they may not be accurate, but I'll check the original source and change them accordingly. Rikstar 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss new edits here

Adding stuff that is more than a minor edit is fine, but it needs to be significant. A recent editor (Intersting) has added a whole paragraph - details a fight Presley broke up in 1977. I'd argue this is less significant than other material that could be included, and Elvis was involved in a similar, more newsworthy incident in 1956, which resulted in a court appearance. But that has been left out. There are hundreds of anecdotes like these, but we can't add 'em all, so it might be best not to add any, and leave all that stuff for other publications, documentaries, fan sites etc. Rikstar 07:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, there is very little about where Elvis got the hillbilly sound. Obviously, he listened to "hillbilly" music. He also hung around people who were playing rockabilly before Sam Phillips began recording it. Not including the country influences in discussions, and reporting only the blues and gospel influences is common. As is the ignoring of the fact that the majority of his early recordings were of country tunes. Rikstar, will you be addressing this? If not, I will attempt to. But the shear volume of recent additions will make that difficult. Steve Pastor 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be mentioning the white country influences. The Dept. of Interior quotes are suspect so I'll change that, and I think I've got some suitable sources to replace them. Rikstar 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As we could use the extra space, I am afraid I will be removing the 'fight' paragraph added by Intersting, for the reasons given above in this section. Rikstar 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Have made a few changes to Legacy - to reflect the breadth of his influence. Also added to Musical influences, regarding country/hillbilly influences. Will make a few minor edits to achieve better accuracy and to maintain balance. Rikstar 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla narrated a televised biography on Elvis and talked about his charitable contributions. None of that has been addressed and I don't know enough about it to write anything. Maybe one of you more familiar with his work in that area might want to address this. - Maria202 17:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We have got mentioned two charity concerts he did in 1961. This at least indicates he was charitably minded to those who know nothing about him. I think expanding on this might make the article look biased -and it will make it overlong. Rikstar 23:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in "Legacy"

In 1992 it was observed: "For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar." 1992 was the 15th anniversary; the 25th anniversary of his death was in 2002. This needs a fix.

Done. Thank you. Rikstar 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article submission

I think Elvis Presley is almost due for re-submission. The references need work however, which is a tedious job (See Moving Forward, above). They need standardizing and inline additions are need to title/explain sources. If online sources are still up to date, a retrieval date needs to be added to each. I'll start, but help would be appreciated. Rikstar 08:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The book references are more or less done, but some publishing names and years are missing. Web links still look poor. I've also added to the Early years to balance his initial impact with his later decline. I think this gives the Legacy section more meaning to the uninitiated. Rikstar 10:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

?!?!

DUDE!! How do you edit this thing?? Some of this is so unbelievably wrong!! Like, they spelled his middle name wrong...It's Aron...with ONE "A". It's spelled wrong on his gravestone too, but they did that in honor of the fact that before Elvis died, he was going to change his middle name to have to "A"'s. And Elvis didn't WANT a guitar for Christmas. He wanted a bike, but they couldn't afford one so his mum bought him a guitar instead, and things just took off from there.

MAN!! Have you read the 'Aaron' issue notes? The reasons for it being 'Aaron' are clearly stated. If they are "so unbelievably wrong!!" (which is not impossible), then simply use this talk page to list the sources that back up your claims. Your say so, or mine, isn't good enough on its own. These new sources can then be discussed amongst other editors. We can't change things unless they are backed up with evidence that is generally deemed reliable. As for the birthday present, nowhere in the article does it say he WANTED a guitar. The article specifically says he was "given" a guitar, which is perfectly accurate. An earlier version did indeed mentioned that he wanted a bike (which is also accurate), but because the article was way too long and had other problems, serious edits, even of accurate details, had to take place. Only in the last week or so has the stripped down article been fleshed out with stuff, including additional details (and had its notes and citations improved)to bring it up to Featured Article status. This article is partially locked because of serious editing issues that have prevented the article's improvement since it failed to achieve FA status. Rikstar 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the bicycle (rifle??) thing has been added. Rikstar 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Article length

Although growing, the pared down version of about 68Kb was missing a few important bits, e.g. about Tom Parker. I've also noted the length of other biographies, like Bob Dylan's, and these are substantially longer, yet have Featured article status. As long as Presley's article contains only significant content (of an encyclopedic nature), I think its limited expansion is OK. Rikstar 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have added a 'References' section - FA biogs, like Dylan's, have one. Includes works that are referenced more than once in the main text and Notes. 'Further reading' section, formerly 'Bibliography', can be trimmed. Notes need to be formatted as Author, short title, page no. - this is as per wiki footnotes guide. Are there any other editors out there to help with this??? I'm feeling like Robinson Crusoe at the moment... Rikstar 06:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The End is Nigh!...

Artice probably near its "maximum" in length - less than 80kb - Dylan's is 100kb or so (FA status - I thought it was a decent one to emulate). Have seriously wanted to maintain NPOV: hard given controversy about Presley on many levels. I believe there is plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him - and what will the die-hard fans think?!?! - will a 50/50 division of disapproval = NPOV??. I think any encycopedia entry would have to be somewhat on the positive side about his contribution, impact and influence. Notes are extensive, but necessarily so, given the subject. Web notes need work. I would still urge all editors to discuss major changes/comments on this page. I admit to not being so fastidious in that regard, but I hope the end result is something approaching Featured Article standard. Rikstar 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that several paragraphs have now been improved and I am happy that the "Elvis lives?" section has been removed. However, the Elvis article is far from FA status. It still requires a lot of cleanup. Significant details concerning the singer's personal life are still missing. There isn't "plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him", as you claim. Just one example from the "Early life" section. Concerning the singer's first guitar, the article states,

• In 1946, Presley was taken to Tupelo Hardware where he was bought a guitar - a $7.90 birthday present (He had wanted a rifle). Three years later, the Presleys moved to Lauderdale Courts public housing development in one of Memphis, Tennessee's poorer sections. He practiced guitar playing in the basement laundry room and also played in a five-piece band with other tenants.Another resident, Johnny Burnette, recalled: "Wherever Elvis went he'd have his guitar slung across his back... He used to go down to the fire station and sing to the boys there... [H]e'd go in to one of the cafes or bars... Then some folks would say: 'Let's hear you sing, boy,'"

This paragraph says nothing about the distaste with which Elvis's guitar playing was called trash or hillbilly music by his fellow students. Here are two quotes from Peter Guralnick's book:

• It was in his seventh-grade year that Elvis started taking his guitar to school every day. Although teachers in later years would recall the early manifestations of a child prodigy, many students viewed his playing more dubiously, dismissing it with the same faint wrinkle of distaste with which they would greet déclassé fare of any sort ("hillbilly" music and "race" music probably fell into the same category in this regard).
• A classmate, Shirley Lumpkin, told Elaine Dundy, author of Elvis and Gladys, "The nicest thing I can say about him was that he was a loner," and another classmate, Kenneth Holditch, recalled him to Dundy as "a sad, shy, not especially attractive boy" whose guitar playing was not likely to win any prizes. Many of the other children made fun of him as a "trashy" kind of boy playing trashy "hillbilly" music, but Elvis stuck to his guns.

The following details concerning Elvis's parents have been totally removed:

• Vernon Presley is described as "taciturn to the point of sullenness" and as "a weakling, a malingerer, always averse to work and responsibility," whereas his mother, Gladys, was "voluble, lively, full of spunk." Priscilla Presley describes her as "a surreptitious drinker and alcoholic." When she was angry, "she cussed like a sailor."
• Neither Gladys nor Vernon had finished elementary school. The result was one "menial job after another. One run-down apartment after the next, barely enough money to put food on the table for a family of three."
• In 1938, when Presley 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 Mississippi State Penitentiary. Though Vernon was released after serving eight months, 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.

These are important facts. Why are they omitted? On the other hand, the "Awards and recognition" section has still the following, totally irrelevant quote included by Northmeister:

"...When I was a child, ladies and gentlemen, I was a dreamer. I read comic books, and I was the hero of the comic book. I saw movies, and I was the hero in the movie. So every dream I ever dreamed, has come true a hundred times...I'd like to say that I learned very early in life that 'Without a song, the day would never end; without a song, a man ain't got a friend; without a song, the road would never bend - without a song.' So I keep singing a song..."

Elvis Presley, Jaycees acceptance speech (January 16th, 1971).

Many more points of criticism could be made. Interestingly, another user said on this talk page (see above):

The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone [27] (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest. --Timtak 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This should make you think. I will watch the article and return later. Onefortyone 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it does make me think - about the "Many more points of criticism [that you think] could be made." Be interesting to read what they are. I agree with you about the Jaycees speech quote - I don't like it - but I don't think it is "totally irrelevant". The stuff on his parents... a lot was removed to simply reduce the article's length (the article's about Elvis - not his parents). His mother's alcohol misuse is already mentioned in the 'Army' section - there's no point in repetition. I think Vernon's prison stint and its impact is important and should be included. Rikstar 10:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have added account of meeting with Pres. Nixon, a sufficiently bizarre episode that does not exactly enhance Presley's reputation. Rikstar 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have added new section "Sex symbol..." detailing stuff about his looks, sex life, etc. An important inclusion. Rikstar 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also added Mike Stone incident.Rikstar 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What has happened to the Elvis article? II

141- It seems to me that a good deal of the objections to edits you listed under this heading on this page have been addressed: The biased prose (multiple references to him being 'iconic', 'staggering', etc.), being a mama's boy, his father's laziness, Gladys's booze problem, Parker's influence and reputation, Presley's sex life (or lack of it), his adultery, etc. Other points not flattering Presley have also been included: the Nixon meeting and his intent to have Mike Stone killed. In the absence of further details from you, your (talk page) assertion that the article "still requires a lot of clean up" does seem a bit gratuitous. Rikstar 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the above issues have been addressed by a new 'Sex Symbol' section. I felt this was an obvious addition, especially having read a lot of evidence which does support the idea that he wanted female company, but not always for sexual gratification. Its specific content might not be final. Any comments welcome. Rikstar 07:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Early life

In the last sentence of the first paragraph of Early Life there is an occurance of 'the the'.

Good catch. Fixed it. Maria202 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: YG

2. Factually accurate?: Y

3. Broad in coverage?: Y

4. Neutral point of view?: Y

5. Article stability? Y

6. Images?: WP:FURG - [28] [29] [30]

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy _U^CP 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is still too fan-oriented. A recent book, Elvis Presley: A Penguin Life by Bobbie Ann Mason (Penguin, 2003) reveals another Elvis, a somewhat tragic life filled with strife. The author depicts Elvis's relationship with his mother in ways that demonstrate close mother-child bonds. It is shown how Elvis clung to his mother as a small child and remained close to her throughout her life. Authors such as Peter Guralnick reveal that he was seen by many as a mama's boy, even in his twenties. Material more specifically referring to these important facts has been removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago. Even after his mother's death, Elvis craved maternal care, a need that often influenced his relationships.

Mason suggests that the two incidents that most affected Elvis were the death of his twin brother at birth and the death of his mother. Events that deeply influenced Elvis's childhood also include the poverty of his parents, the alcoholism of his mother and his move to Memphis at thirteen. There is no reference to the alcoholism of Elvis's mother in the "Early life" section. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article does not mention Elvis's feelings of inferiority, which complicated his personal and professional relationships, most markedly his attitude toward his manager Colonel Parker, his often complicated romances with women and his extravagant spending habits. All this is thoroughly discussed in Mason's book.

There is nothing on the unhealthful influence of the Memphis Mafia on Elvis in the article, although it is a fact that Elvis spent day and night with these guys.

Mason also points out the interesting irony of Elvis's beginning his career by cultivating an image as a threatening rebel, while actually living as an innocent young man devoted to his mother and eager to please friends and business associates. Yet when Elvis returned from the Army his manager Parker transformed him into a mainstream boy. With similar insights, Mason reveals other facets of Elvis's life, including the paranoia that overcame him later in life. A special section on Colonel Parker's negative influence on Elvis has been removed from the Wikipedia article some months ago. I don't know why. Instead of discussing such important points in an additional section, the Wikipedia article still includes much fan-oriented stuff in the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and Elvis in the 21st century" sections.

A long critical discussion of the Elvis cult has been deleted. Instead of this comprehensive discussion, there is now only a very brief section on the "Elvis religion".

There are indeed several improvements. However, the totally irrelevant passage on Elvis's trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" in which he says that he was a dreamer and the hero of comic books, has only recently been removed. (In stumbling across such trivia, the reader would only have been surprised at the singer's naiveté.)

There are many more questions. Why is the section about Elvis's misuse of drugs now entitled "Post mortem"? Wasn't he alive when he took drugs? Why is a section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era still missing, which, according to current academic research, has feminized Elvis?

Furthermore, why does the "recognition" section omit any critical voices? It is said in this section that "Presley has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence." But nobody questions whether he is still popular among the younger generation. In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, "the multimillion dollar Elvis business will try to connect with a new generation of teenage fans." They endeavor to show up more film clips, photos and other material from the vast Presley archives online. 'We will take our MySpace page and we will focus on expanding our number of friends on MySpace, that kind of thing,' Jankowski said..." However, Baird concludes, "Moving Elvis content online should be easy; making Elvis cool again will be more difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See [31] Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed? I don't think so. So why is it not mentioned in the "recognition" section that most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music?

There are many more questions of this kind. I am happy to see that the passage on Presley's voice including the Henry Pleasants quote which I contributed last year, withstanded the whitewashing and is still to be found in the article. But does it belong in the "Legacy" section? Significantly, the "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century." But a David Bowie quote about Presley has been removed: "There was so little of it that was actually good." "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.

As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed. In that era, which was much criticized by critics and musicians, Presley was distanced from his roots. This is an important biographical fact. However, the most frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley, when the singer excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. According to Professor Garber, the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had presented "variations of the drag queen figure" (see Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116) and appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich" (see Garber, p.368). Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it in his study, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127. No wonder that "white drag kings tend to pick on icons like Elvis Presley." See Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999), p. 248.

All this well-sourced material was removed from the article presumably because it was not in line with the opinion of some Elvis fans who endeavored to "improve" the Wikipedia article some months ago. So I would say that the article is still far from GA status. Onefortyone 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been noted. I will respond more fully in due course. Rikstar 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Presley was unusually close to his mother - a "momma's boy". This is already mentioned; why does it need more specific referencing? Unless you wish to explore an issue in detail beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article... like Mason's, and other's, books.

Presley's later paranoia is mentioned in a reference to similarities to Howard Hughes. Parker's negative influence is referred to in the the Hollywood section. Intelligent/interested readers can find out more if they want to; the main article is about Presley - not his manager, his ma and pa, Tom Jones, the Memphis Mafia nor the guy he paid to clean his windows.

The trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" was removed. Now you criticize the timing of its removal. I don't know why - it's gone, end of story. Funnily enough, I thought of keeping it, exactly because it was an embarrassing indication of his naiveté - and his drug-addled state at that time (much as it pained me to do so - as an 'Elvis Fan').

Presley's drug misuse is mentioned elsewhere outside the Post mortem section (err... because he was alive when he took drugs); said section is not a re-titling of a drug misuse section.

'Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed?'. This quote isn't in the main article. Are we going to stick with suggestions to do specifically with the main article content here or keep going to unrelated matters when it suits us? "Most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music". There are a million things kids nowadays have no interest in; the main article makes no reference to kids liking Presley's music.

'The "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century."' It's a quote - it's someone opinion regarding his legacy. David Bowie's quote, and a million others that agree with him that they didn't really rate his later music, necessarily exclude themselves from inclusion because they say nothing about his legacy.

"As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed." Suppressed? Nonsense. Presley's incoherent, drug-addled appearances of the 70s are mentioned. Critics' quotes are included (Shame the embarrassing Jaycee's speech was removed...)

The rest of your suggested additions cover very old ground and you cite the usual justifications of them all being "well-sourced". They are not worthy of inclusion in a main article on Presley, in my humble opinion. Rikstar 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that Giggy is responsible for assessing this article? Steve Pastor 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Rikstar 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know, I'm "responsible" for it. And the stuff I requested hasn't been done yet, so... Giggy _U^CP 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the said photos were deleted from the article? Rikstar 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That would work, but a FURG isn't really that hard. In fact, I'll just add one myself, and if nobody else has objections to this being a GA, I'll pass it. Giggy _U^CP 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the copyright information for two of the photos. Not sure of the copyright information for the Funeral procession yet. Working on obtaining this. I couldn't find anything else wrong besides the above with the photos. Giggy - let me know your criteria here or what you found wrong with the photos (if anything) beyond copyright lack thereof. As soon as I get the info on the third photo I will update it. I suggest taking it out and replacing it with the meditation gardens one if that meets criteria. --Northmeister 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My criteria is that of WP:NONFREE. Anyway, everything is ok, so I'm passing the article now. Giggy _U^CP 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit about the 'memphis mafia' has been added; it was going to be an extended Note, but has been included in the Hollywood section. N.B. 'Elvis Presley' is now deemed a Good Article! Well done to all concerned. Rikstar 08:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with most of your arguments above. There is not enough material on the Memphis Mafia in the article, as these guys played such an important role in Elvis's life. Lots of books deal with them. A biography must lay more emphasis on these facts. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not entitled "Elvis's music". So details from the personal life of the singer must also be appropriately discussed, as in all other biographies. There should be a special chapter on the influence of Colonel Parker in the article, not only some few remarks in the Hollywood section, as this man had so much influence on the career of the star. And critical sections on Elvis's drug abuse and his jumpsuit era in Las Vegas are necessary, as most biographers critically deal with these important details. That the younger generation isn't interested in Elvis and his music is also important, as the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and "Elvis in the 21st century" sections, which are primarily talking in superlatives and include so much fan stuff, may suggest otherwise. One further example may show why the article is still not "good" enough in several sections: Concerning the Steve Allen Show, it is said,

• Allen announced: "... We want to do a show the whole family can watch and enjoy. And that’s what we always do." After Allen introduced "the new Elvis" (in white bow tie and black tails), he remarked: "You are certainly being a good sport about the whole thing."

This is clearly whitewashing historical facts. An earlier version of the same paragraph was much different (and well sourced):

• Steve Allen, who was a jazz devotee and hated rock 'n' roll, booked him for one appearance, which took place early on July 1, 1956. "Presley was dressed in the white tie and tails of a ´'high-class' musician, the clothes were intentionally made so tight he couldn't move freely." See Roger Beebe, Denise Fulbrook and Ben Saunders, Rock over the Edge: Transformations in Popular Music Culture (Duke University Press, 2002), p.97. According to Jake Austen, "the way Steve Allen treated Elvis Presley was his federal crime. Allen thought Presley was talentless and absurd, and so he decided to goof on him. Allen set things up so that Presley would show his contrition by appearing in a tuxedo and singing his new song 'Hound Dog' to an elderly basset hound..." See Jake Austen, TV-A-Go-Go: Rock on TV from American Bandstand to American Idol (2005), p.13. See also Beebe, Fulbrook and Saunders, Rock over the Edge, p.97.

The earlier version is the better one. Otherwise the next passage in the article doesn't make sense:

• Scotty Moore later said they were "all angry about their treatment the previous night". Presley often referred to the Allen show as the most ridiculous performance of his career.

There is even wrong information to be found in the article. It is said that Elvis had a relationship with Natalie Wood. Here are the facts according to Wood expert Gavin Lambert:

• Between 1954 and 1956, when his stardom began to rise, Presley became the subject of adulation and adoration of young Hollywood starlets such as Natalie Wood. His mother believed that Wood was a schemer who hoped to "snare" the singer only "for publicity purposes." See Gavin Lambert, Natalie Wood: A Life, p.205. When a columnist wanted to know if the romance with Presley was "serious," Natalie's cool answer was, "Not right now." "But who knows what will happen?" See Lambert, p.206. The author adds, "By this time, Natalie had learned an important lesson in handling the press. Titillating curiosity without satisfying it was always more effective than the standard denial of 'We're just good friends.' " One of her judgments of Elvis was, "He can sing but he can't do much else." See Lana Wood, Natalie – A Memoir by Her Sister (1984).

The article is still not neutral enough, as several crtical voices on the Elvis cult are missing. Onefortyone 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words it's a Good Article worthy of featured status. I suggest you try WP:NOT and read the seperate article on the Memphis Mafia, although be careful that article has not been perused by other editors for neutrality and your liable to find yourself saying "huh" and moving on to other things - for further information on that subject - there is a link provided in the article anyway. Again, WP:NOT will enlighten you. I also suggest you peruse other featured articles on singers and the like for further instruction. On another note - Awesome job editors who have contributed to this article thus far in a postive manner. Hopefully by August 17th we might have a swing at featured status. --Northmeister 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, you do not discuss my critical remarks above. Query: is it really a good article?

2. Factually accurate?: No.

4. Neutral point of view?: No.

Significantly, you re-added the Elvis quote in context of Jaycees speech without discussing it. Onefortyone 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 141 - I note your critiquing tactics are unchanged: you make some useful and interesting points, but these are almost buried in your apparent contempt for the current state of this article, for it's 'fan' editors and by extension the administrator who had the 'temerity' to judge it a Good Article. Perhaps - and I'm guessing here - that's why Northmeister felt unable (and he undoubtably has the ability) to discuss your criticism. I will respond more specifically in due course. Rikstar 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

After due consideration, I have decided not to responded specifically to your criticism, but please feel free to monitor further edits to the Elvis Presley article. Rikstar 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New edits

Additions have been made to the '1956' section, specifically the Steve Allen episode. N.B. these changes have NOT been made because the earlier version was a clear "whitewashing [of] historical facts", nor because the earlier version didn't "make sense". Rikstar 07:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have also expanded a note in Legacy regarding the continuing lobbying power of his fans. Rikstar 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)