Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 23

Template:WP1.0

Elvis Is Forbes' Richest Dead Celebrity

I ran across this article reading the news this morning and thought I'd pass it along to you all to insert in the article. I would do so, but don't have time right now and didn't want to forget the link. Elvis Presley is still the King.

Anyway, there you have it. --Maniwar (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this information. It's included in the article now, however, it's been attributed to Forbes directly.

I removed the text of the article, connecting the article name to the link. I hope you don't mind that I edited your post, I know it's frowned upon, however, I think it may be a copyvio to paste the whole article here, even on the talk page with the link included. I could be mistaken, but the link is sufficient, and the information has been added to the article. Lara❤Love 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. I wasn't going to do it, but then did, and wondered if I should. :) --Maniwar (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the free pic

I vote for young Elvis, not "Elvis Meets Nixon" Elvis.. Steve Pastor 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Same here - why use the same image twice? Rikstar 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the photo - as I agree with the above two comments. --Northmeister 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edits to shorten this article

I would appreciate it if reverts or other changes were justified on these pages before blanket reverts or are made. I and others have already argued that it should be shorter. I apologize if my edits have removed anyone's precious work, but I've also removed some of my own additions.

This article is too long. I think the Controversy section should contain detail, but details about Ed Sullivan should be in an Ed Sullivan article. The women in his life section could be shorter, or merged - there is a separate article anyway. Rikstar 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your recent edits. You have only removed well-sourced, critical passages from the article. On the other hand, fan-related stuff was not removed from the last sections. This is not NPOV. Onefortyone 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without checking the edit log, I'll point out that we agreed to at least a couple of things that could be removed. Regarding the Sullivan Show, again. I agree that details are not needed. Except that the persistent myth that Elvis was shown only from the waist up should be addressed. I just viewed "Elvis" starring Kurt Russell, and the makers of that film (Dick Clark Productions) use a scene where the director keeps telling the camera man "only from the waist up" as Elvis sings a song that he never did on the show. Apparently, no one really remembered what Elvis had done, or the film makers took a great deal of artistic license to present the commonly accepted view of what had happened. Remember again, that in those days braodcasts came and went, rarely or never to be seen again (until vcrs and dvd players created a market). Let's not let this urban myth be perpeptuated. We had acceptable language at one time, and somewhere along the way it was lost (too many edits).

I can look at the early influences and perfomance sections to nominate more things that might be jettisoned. Onefortyone, do you have any nominations? I'll add, too, that Rikstar has done an excellent job of trying to make this article better, although I don't always agree with all edits. We can have concensus with agreeing on everything. Steve Pastor 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"On the other hand, fan-related stuff was not removed from the last sections. This is not NPOV. Onefortyone"

I also suggest 141 is more specific about this right here, and allows other editors to consider his claims. It is not very constructive to now make old arguments about fan bias and to make wholesale reverts of real attempts to get this article improved to meet GA/FA status. Rikstar 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that bringing up old arguments which were settled long ago, reinserting material that was deleted long ago, information whose relevance is marginal at best and without discussion, reverting edits without discussion, etc, is what is keeping this article at the level of a "Fan" site, or perhaps an anti fan site, rather than something that is well written. Steve Pastor 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Critics making the recent, repeated claim that this article contains "fan-related stuff" and therefore is not NPOV have failed to be specific to justify such claims. Any such claims are welcomed and will be considered. Meanwhile, there is too much editorial (as opposed to encyclopedic) content in the article and I propose to edit accordingly to reduce the length of it. I suggest those disagreeing with said edits should leave them unchanged to allow comments to be made by editors other than themselves. Thank you. Rikstar 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with some of your recent edits and have now removed unimportant material from the last section in order to make it shorter. Onefortyone 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, critic Onefortyone stated earlier there were problems, namely with "whitewashing" (?) i.e. bias. The only example he gave was that he wanted to make it clear Elvis' guitar playing was not well received. As making this point would further lengthen the article, I reluctantly removed the following:

"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.'"[22], "

The remaining text simply stated he got a guitar and he played it. 141 however, still went ahead and added that others were 'more dubious' about his guitar playing, when there is nothing left in that part of the article that remotely praises his guitar skills. This lack of care in editing indicates an enthusiasm to simply add negative content. The early years section is now worse and needs cleaning up because of this. I find this kind of editing unacceptable. Rikstar 04:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given the best source available (Peter Guralnick). His account suggests that the majority of Elvis's fellow classmates didn't like his music. Onefortyone 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No - you have given the best negative sounding source available... Rikstar 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up the early years and find a recent addition is poorly cited. If it isn't corrected, the relevant section should be deleted. I have not re-instated my own Johnny Burnette anecdote - even though I think it is relevant, insightful and well-sourced. I have also edited the article elsewhere in an attempt to cut it down substantially.

The Johnny Bunette quote has now been added to balance the inclusion insisted by 141. I think both edits could go to shorten the article, but 141 has repeatedly disrupted efforts of others to do this. Rikstar 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Ed Sullivan bit, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole at the moment. It still reads like it is the product of edit warring. I suggest it should read as follows:

"Presley's first Ed Sullivan appearance (September 9, 1956) was seen by an estimated 55-60 million viewers. On the third Sullivan show Presley only sang slow paced ballads and a gospel song. The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up during this last broadcast has led to claims that Sullivan had “censored” the singer, or that Colonel Parker had orchestrated the episode to generate publicity. In spite of any misgivings he may have had, Sullivan declared at the end of Presley's final performance that the singer "is a real decent, fine boy" and that they never had "a pleasanter experience" on their show."

If anyone feels differently, let's have it out on these pages to achieve concensus about the 'final' version before the article is changed.

Greil Marcus's account of Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances is still the best. As the author is a reputed Elvis biographer, he must be cited in the article. Onefortyone 20:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one author must be cited. Rikstar 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would point out a comment made by LaraLove: "I'm not spending hours on end cleaning this up for my health." Rikstar 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

141, I find it incredible that you still think Marcus's account is accurate, when there are now photographs of Elvis' contorted face (certainly not impassive) and Elvis' leg mid stride as he moves energetically across the stage (certainly not cast in concrete). Both photos are from Reddy Teddy and are in the Sullivan Show article. How can you possibly believe that his account is accurate? Steve Pastor 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Marcus's account is certainly more accurate than your personal view, as he is a reputed Elvis biographer and has written an essay particularly dealing with Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances. Onefortyone 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Marcus's account, like those of other writers, might be trying to tell it like it really was, but it's still a personal interpretation. Rikstar 04:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions.

My behaviour is certainly not disruptive. You have deleted well-sourced information that was not in line with your personal view of Elvis. I have only reinstated those parts of the text which I found relevant. As a compromise, other parts I didn't reinstate. I have now corrected the "incomplete" citation (although Guralnick said, "more dubiously"). Furthermore, in order to shorten the text I have removed some irrelevant passages from the last section of the article, which were part of the fans' fulsome praise of Elvis. For instance, a previous version of the article said, "Presley has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence." However, contemporary polls contradict this statement. Rock 'n' roll expert Philip Ennis writes: "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls..." See Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), p.251-252. In his article, "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." This suggests that Elvis isn't as popular among the young generation as some fansites believe and EPE endeavored to claim. Significantly, this important information has not yet been mentioned in the recognition section of the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

141 writes: "Significantly, this important information has not yet been mentioned in the recognition section of the Wikipedia article." Hasn't 141 seen the footnotes? There's a footnote referring to the lobbying power of Presley fans, clubs, etc. specifically included to acknowledge this dubious side of the Presley phenomenon and it implies Presley is not as popular as some claim:

"Wall has argued that many Presley authors are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which tends to be biased. He contends that few publications are critical... Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall claims that one of the strategies of fan clubs and appreciation societies is "'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."

I suppose 141 will not think this goes far enough, but this would be in line with his consistent need to include as much negative content as possible, in the false belief that he is making the article neutral. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are any wiki administrators or whatever you call yourselves out there watching this article, I think it's about time this unco-operative, disruptive editing behavior was dealt with in some way. LaraLove has already noted "141 wanting to add everything possible that puts Elvis in a negative light." I am seriously considering withdrawing from this article - and all because of one user, who has a history of disruptive editing in this and other articles. [User:Rikstar|Rikstar]] 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove also says that there are those "wanting to add the information that is well-known of Elvis" (i.e. the fans) and that the article needs to include both negative and positive information. And she adds, "If a reliable source states it as fact, include it." As anyone can see, I have cited reliable sources. Onefortyone 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with a brain and eyes can see there is more than enough negative content in this article and little, if any, fan-based content. What can be wrong about including well-known information beats me - it's an encyclopedic article!!! 141's misuse of the LaraLove quote - if it's a reliable source, include it - is ludicrous. By the same reasoning I could argue that every single one of the thousands of Elvis facts should be included - because they originate from reliable sources (like Byron Raphael and the nobody who "blew" Elvis?). This is just more arguing with little if any attempt at co-operation with other editors. Rikstar 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just shook my head when I saw 141's latest "contributions". 141's history has fallen off of the easily accessible histories (limited to 500 as far as I can tell), but 141 has been involved in this sort of thing before. Let's just say that I am in total agreement that this behavior should be addressed if the Wikipedia community wants high quality articles, rather than endless attempts at creating, and then trying to maintain that quality. To any administrator... I have made a substantial investment of time in enough articles that I would be willing to spend even more time exploring policies aimed at high visibily/high traffic articles such as this one. Steve Pastor 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, we came to an agreement on an earlier version of this article that kept out much of the material you now want for umpteenth time to add into the article. You've heard all the reasons for this and eventually agreed to work in harmony with the rest of the editors here. Why then are we now going through all this again? I suggest to study WP:POINT, as your behavior is disruptive to cordial and consensus editing that is the trademark of Wikipedia. Thus, I've restored the clean-up that was done by Rikstar per our previous agreements with you. Much 'negative material' has been included; our intentions are a good featurable article that is as pithy as possible, in summary style - all agreed to by yourself. Let's please refrain from future disruption; and please for the sake of the community here - post your observations first and discuss them cordially with others; and express how they help the article. --Northmeister 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. My behaviour is not disruptive, as you falsely claim. You and Rikstar are removing well-sourced material which is not in line with your personal view. LaraLove said, "If a reliable source states it as fact, include it." I have quoted from mainstream biographies and university studies. It seems that I am the only editor who frequently cites reliable sources. However, these sources may not represent the opinion of all fans. You further claim that "we came to an agreement on an earlier version of this article that kept out much of the material you now want ... to add into the article." As far as I can see, there was no such agreement. I didn't agree with several removals and some others also didn't. Do you remember what two other users said on the talk page?

• "The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (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."
• "Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys."

These statements speak volumes. See Talk:Elvis Presley/archive21. Onefortyone 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two old quotes speak volumes?? Removing the reference to polls featuring Presley has not been agreed with others. It should not have been removed. 141's reasons for removing it are pitifully inadequate. I wonder what limits 141 would place on the number of negative references he seeks to have included; when would 141 ever judge that this supposedly encyclopedic article had become too negative?? He certainly has extreme limitations on the positive content and labels any such content as if it has been put in by Elvis-worshipping fanatics. Such accusations are tedious and insulting, and further evidence of disruptive intent.

141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions.

Sorry to repeat myself and add emphasis, but apart from correcting the cite, these criticisms remain serious and valid and 141's failure to respond to them really does speak volumes. As for 141's claim that "It seems that I am the only editor who frequently cites reliable sources ", this is as arrogant as it is false. It shows a blatant lack of respect for other editors like myself who have spent ours dilligently researching for this article. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I've just checked and the citation mentioned above has not been corrected. I also see that 141 has gone ahead and reverted changes agreed by the consensus. The disruption continues. By his continued negative editing tactics, 141 has in effect gagged other editors from improving the article. What is the point of making any changes if 141 is willing to simply revert anything HE doesn't like?? Rikstar 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am considering using "helpme" to get the attention of someone one with administrative authority (Norhtmeister? If you can fill this role please speak up.) on this issue, since it seems unlikely that it will be solved here. I will be glad to engage LareLove regarding her "include it" comment. Meanwhile, the discussion should center around "the highest of standards", which I sure hope are higher than "it's verifiable". My only purpose here was to try and find accurate information about Presley's early career. If any ole BS that someone put in a book is acceptable, then this is a sad state of affairs. I hope I'm wrong about this, and that we just haven't found our way forward yet. Steve Pastor 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been given the honor of adminship, so I can't help in this respect. I do approve of your efforts with 'helpme' and will help out where I can. We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Wikipedia, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Wikipedia and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Wikipedia WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This talk page used to refer to "the highest of standards". That was after the article was rated a Good Article. Well, we know what happened next. Since there is not longer a link to that page, I am making it available here. [1] Are we "allowed" to place a banner at the head of the article regarding this? Some editors ignored the statement when it was on the talk page. P.S. I have found (again) other relevant information regarding editing of this and other articles, which will be shared if and when it becomes appropriate. Steve Pastor 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete sandbox?

Hi. I noticed that there is a copy of some version of this article at Talk:Elvis Presley/Sandbox. It doesn't seem that it's been in use for a long time; some discussion of it can be found at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive15. Is this page needed? I don't think it's doing any active harm, but I can't see what's useful about keeping it around either. It may contain some history needed for GFDL reasons, but I'm not sure how I would determine whether that's the case.

Has anyone here got any thoughts on the matter? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a sandbox for this article? If we need to check the revision history, just check the revision history. The sandbox should be deleted. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've killed it. If it ever needs undeleting for any reason, please let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When removing information

Please make sure when you're removing information that you're not removing named refs. For example, ref 8 is now blank. I'll fix it, but if everyone could try to watch out for that, it'd be great. If it's <ref name="whatever">Detailed info.</ref> (base ref), then somewhere else, there's <ref name="whatever"/> (subsequent use) at least once. If the base ref is removed, any subsequent ones produce a blank error. So, do a search, find an instant of a subsequent use, and paste over the base ref you're removing. Does that make sense? I thank you for your consideration with this. Lara❤Love 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Having two seperate types of footnotes and two seperate notes/references sections is confusing and non-standard. Let's discuss the best way of merging these two sections. Shall we change all alphabetic footnotes to numeric? Or shall we change all numeric footnotes to alphabetic? Wjhonson 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood years

Egghead06 has been making edits/reverts regarding one sentence. I have admitted on Egghead06's talk page that I find his original dispute difficult to understand. However, I have not found his edits acceptable (though well-intentioned) so I have rewritten the sentence rather than revert to my original, moving away from the wording/grammar he disputed. I hope he, and others find the change makes sense. Rikstar 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edits to shorten this article II

I have made every effort again to reduce (and thus rewrite parts of) this article and keep it balanced and consistent - and keep the notes and references in order - given its basic structure and format. This reduction has been a major priority for some time but it has been hampered. I have not set about reducing anyone's particular contributions; those editors concerned will see that some previously contentious material still remains. In the spirit of everything that wikipedia is supposed to stand for, please show good faith and address any of my edits on this or my page first. I am always open to reasonable discussion, as are other contributors. Rikstar 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the above polite request for editorial co-operation was posted, Onefortyone has unilaterally made at least 8 major edits. 141 has wilfully and consistently ignored the need to reduce article length; 141's latest edits have added nearly 4Kb. 141 has reinstated (yet again) the same material considered inapropriate/superfluous by others. I note he has bucked a trend and added some positive content; I don't doubt that if these are removed, 141 will be in a position to cry wolf that his 'positive, well-meaning efforts' are being undermined by editors ganging up against him. 141 can also try to use these token editing gestures as evidence that he has no agenda to simply inject negative/critical content (his history suggests the opposite).

This kind of editing is unacceptable and further evidence of a disturbingly persistent need to skew this article. It is part of a history of such behavior:

"Your [141's] conduct on Elvis Presley and Nick Adams has been disruptive, for example this edit is almost a complete reversion across 14 good faith edits by other editors; similarly this edit is an almost complete reversion across 10 other edits. In the future, please use the dispute resolution process such as request for comment or third opinion rather than edit warring and reverting." (Thatcher131, 27/4/07)

I note one of 141's recent edits is a reference to oral sex, again seemingly part of a trend to inject unnecessary, salacious references into this and other articles. This article now requires extensive editing because of 141's disruptive interference. Rikstar 04:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As you don’t like the reference to oral sex which is part of the quote, I have now removed the expression. It isn’t necessary. However, it is important to note that Cybill Shepherd’s claims are viewed with skepticism. Onefortyone 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear. It is not the case that I don't like sexual expressions being in the article; it's the intent to include so many unnecessary sexual references that it skews the article. This is an encyclopedic article, not The Sex Life of EP. I would feel just as strongly about too many references to his over-eating with unecessary references to burgers, and peanut butter and jelly sanwiches - a big aspect of his life, but no one's clamoring to have them included (probably because they recognize it's an encyclopedic article, or they don't have a obsession with food references). Rikstar 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very interesting that Rikstar has used administrator Thatcher’s first edit concerning the harassing activities of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo and his many sockpuppets in order to promote a personal agenda. See [2]. My conduct is certainly not disruptive as I am frequently citing my sources, among them mainstream biographies, university studies and articles by reputed authors. What Rikstar has cited was posted before Thatcher was aware of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo's activities. Administrator Thatcher also wrote,

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He found the above list of confirmed sockpuppets. All are banned, except Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo who was blocked for a week pending review of the situation. Thatcher131 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) See [3].

Therefore, Thatcher immediately lifted all of my bans because they were wrongly set. See [4].

There is much evidence that I am still the target of some few Elvis fans, as I was in the past. See this older statement by administrator Redwolf24 who said that Wilkes and Wyss were harassing me, "and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." The arbcom was of the same opinion. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the same deleting tactics concerning similar topics now continue. The arbcom clearly says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [5]. So why are my edits frequently removed by one or two other users? See also my commentaries here. Onefortyone 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. 141 is one of very few making edits; the reasons for removing some of his edits have been detailed here ad nauseum. If 141's "editing has substantially improved", it has not been enough. Thatcher131 noted that 141 had been edit warring, that's all - I could have quoted some other such reference no doubt. 141 wars now with users he accuses of having a personal 'non-wiki' agenda. If it was personal, I'd be doing something like: violating wiki guidelines to eliminate 141's contributions, getting into arb disputes, not seeking or receiving the approval of other editors who co-operate with each other to achieve FA status... but I don't. Comparing myself and others with Wilkes and Wyss is as unfounded as it is reprehensible. Rikstar 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that this page is locked because I have found incorrections. (MandaPanda1 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Please say what you think is incorrect on this page (and include any citations), then others can discuss them and make any necessary changes. Thanks. Rikstar 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no axe to grind either way as I've no idea if Elvis enjoyed oral sex but surely if someone adds something with citations, that they think is valid that is their right? I read so many times that Wiki is not a democracy! It will be a sad day when individuals 'own' pages - that's just dictatorship.--Egghead06 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is anyone's right to add stuff. That doesn't mean it has the right to stay there when others disagree, and when there is a history of numerous problems with the editor concerned. If you took a look at the kind of sexual content the same editor has tried to include {eg. 'Elvis had sex with his mother'), you too might agree that the oral sex edit was inappropriate, just more of the same, and simply bloated the article (editors have been warned to reduce it). This article isn't owned by anyone; I am always on the lookout for any others' input to improve this article, and if they end up spending more time on it than me, that'll be quite a relief!! BTW, the opportunity to 'hog' this article recently over several days only came about because I am laid up with a spinal injury and a chest infection (no violins, please), otherwise I'd have had better things to do! Rikstar 10:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the curse and blessing of Wiki. Anyone, like yourself, can spend a fantastic amount of time on an article and then someone can trash it by entering 'Elvis had sex with his mother'! Until the day comes when users are veted, forced to sign-up to Wiki (rather than remain as Anons) and banned for entering junk the 'undo' button is your friend - because, afterall, how ya gonna stop'em?.--Egghead06 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right but wish it was that simple! Some editors have a sneaky way of continually making multiple edits that renders the undo button useless... Rikstar 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading that person's (141) userpage suggest there is a POV/Bias war here - enjoy--Egghead06 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edits to shorten this article 3,527 (you gotta have a sense of humor...)

In case some people don't know or care, this article has amongst other things been deemed too long, which may seriously hamper its chances of becoming a Featured Article. I've worked harder than a one-armed cobbler at a world tap dancing contest to shave every single byte off it, by once again condensing sentences, etc., but it still needs to lose more major content. Funnily enough, this was my second time-consuming attempt and was made only in the last 48 hours or so. User 141 was invited to participate in ths effort by using this talk page to discuss/suggest changes, but he has not done so - 141 has merely done exactly what he wants and added nearly 4Kb in the process. According to wikipedia guidelines, this is very naughty. 141 also continues to remain silent about his intentions i.e. that he wants to work with other editors to achieve FA status.

I have only reinstated well-sourced material you have removed because in my opinion this material should not have been removed. There were also many other passages you have removed, and I agree with these edits. Furthermore, I have added some few sentences to different sections of the article. That's all. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

141's edit of 19:59, 14/11 re-instated "well-sourced material" but as has already been explained ad nauseum, just because material is well sourced does not force it to be included. Only 141 wanted the edits included; 141 continues to edit war to simply get his own way, regardless of consensus and wiki guidelines. 141 still remains silent about his intentions i.e. clearly stating that he wants to work with other editors to achieve FA status. That's what is wrong.

141 wrote: "There were also many other passages you have removed, and I agree with these edits."

This implies that many other passages of 141's were removed and he has graciously acceded. To clarify: most of the space-saving edits I made were innocuous deletions and rephrasings. Most of the disputed material that was removed (again, to reduce length) 141 re-instated (N.B. the disputed material was not necessarily critical of Elvis). This has been far from a co-operative editing exercise and no one should be under the impression that it has been otherwise.

What's really sad is that 141's editing has lead to the almost complete absence of "good faith" in exchanges on these pages that deal with 141. I fully expected to have to negotiate hard with both Elvis haters and obssessive fans to clean up the dire FA nominated version (no other celebrity polarizes opinion more). It was also clear that user 141 had the intelligence, communication skills and, above all, the resources to be working with others to quickly create a great article. It is this "working with others" that has been so badly lacking. I, and I am sure others, have felt: Let's be patient. Let's show good faith... if we can just get 141 to play the game like everyone else, we'd have the world's best encyclopedic reference snapshot of Presley's life. But it hasn't happened. It hasn't been a negotiation - it's been a continual struggle with the ingrained and, to me, somewhat disturbing motives of someone who just won't play ball. Wikipedia - and Presley - deserve better. Rikstar 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We now have a depressingly familiar situation: reasonable editors will want to work with each other to amend the article, but will baulk at the prospect of knowing their tireless efforts will inevitably be changed/reverted by one maverick, unco-operative user. Way to go! (I thank the Great Whoever that I'm a little high on painkillers at the moment...) Rikstar 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Status of this article

I'm about to delist the article. It's terribly unstable, first of all. It's too long, far from focused. The images are not all properly tagged. Some lack sources, some lack adequate fair use rationales, the infobox image should not be a fair use image.

As far as the images go, I'm seeing that some of the fair use images are used in various articles and in userboxes. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each articles it is used in, individually. And fair use images are not within WP policy to be used in userboxes or any other templates.

I'm giving one more week on this article. If it's still not up to standards at that time, I'm delisting it. I'll also be deleting the images from any userboxes at that time. Lara❤Love 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm acutely aware of the instability, but any suggestions - at all - on what 'focus' might be needed? (I know you might be repeating youself). I certainly think the women in his life section is unnecessary, given that there is an Elvis' relationship page. But why there still is such a page is part of the problem. Same could be said about the Elvis Cultural Impact link.

There are precious few of us toiling on this; fresh experienced eyes would be welcome, however briefly.Rikstar 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating myself. I saw the changes you were making and thought, "Finally, some trimming." Upon looking at the diffs, I saw you were mainly shortening sentences by removing redundant wording. Not exactly what I meant, but I guess anything is better, at this point. Of course, I realize that pretty much anything you remove will be reverted by 141, so don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing your efforts.

Basically, the sections that have their own articles need to be trimmed. You could take the lead from those articles and paste it to this one, for all I care. But that goes for absolutely every section with a main article. I've been watching this article for months, and the content dispute is not getting any better. If this can't be improved, mediation may be required because it's adversely affecting the article. Lara❤Love 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it did need repeating... I've transferred the whole Sun recordings section to its main article, and left a shorter version. -- Rikstar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also tackling other sections with main links in a similar way. This is as advised by Lara❤Love. -- Rikstar (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This situation is in my opinion beyond mediation. Several editors have directly asked for input on issues repeatedly. Those requests for input and discussion have been ignored. Or, we get the same broken record of "it's verifiable". What we also see is the continual reinsertion of material that has been previously rejected by other editors. When you ask someone for input, and ask them to discuss something being added to an article that has repeatedly been labeled too long, etc., what you have is a rejection of the idea of woking with others. I believe the mediation effort should be skipped on the basis of events documented in these talk pages. I have stated repeatedly my main interest in this article, and it should be obvious that most of what I have contributed has been either mangled or removed completely. Right now my main interest is in seeing if this community has adequate resources to deal with individuals who do not seem capable of working as part of a group to achieve a fairly nuanced goal. Rikstar is not alone, in his opinions of the situation. A review of this page, and previous talk pages confirms that. Frankly, I would have given up a long time ago in the face of behavior by you know who. So, again, I strongly favor arbitration. -- Steve Pastor (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My sympathies. I will say little more, less others use it against me. -- Rikstar (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex symbol: Cybill Disobedience

A previous entry read:

Other women, like Cybill Shepherd, have said they had full sex with the singer. However, "Shepherd's much-quoted claims that she taught him the joys of oral sex is viewed with skepticism by other lovers of the King."

This infers that other lovers were skeptical about Shepherd teaching Presley about oral sex. It was then changed to:

Other women, like Cybill Shepherd, have said they had full sex with the singer. However, Shepherd's much-quoted claims are "viewed with skepticism by other lovers of the King."

This rewording now suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley, something not even hinted at earlier. I think this issue needs clarifying. If that means longer text, I think we should revert to the simple claim by Shepherd that she had full sex with the singer, period. This would be simpler and, more importantly, it will allow the article to be shortened. Any discussion about this would be appreciated. Thanks. Rikstar 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the "full sex" be changed to something else? Is that even a real term for it? I mean, what's the difference between sex and full sex? Lara❤Love 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Rikstar (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just look it up in the dictionary: "Full sex" is how some people incorrectly refer to intercourse, thereby incorrectly concluding that "sex" includes low-level blow jobs. Most dictionaries correctly describe anything less than intercourse as non-sex. Bill Clinton was legally correct when he said that "I did not have sex with that woman"; in other words he did not have sex (i.e. "full sex") - he only had a blow job. Hoserjoe (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 17: continuation of disruption ?

I was startled (just kidding) to discover that at 03.06, user 141 had actually added nearly 4Kb of material removed only a couple hours earlier. This was in spite of the reasons explicitly given and discussed with and by other users. Notable was the guidance offered by Lara❤Love, who will imminently (and quite rightly) "delist the article. It's terribly unstable... It's too long, far from focused." She also observed: "Of course, I realize that pretty much anything you remove will be reverted by 141".

141's thoughts and intentions behind his latest edits are notable only because of their complete absence on this talk page. 141 is, amongst other things, still adding unnecessaily negative content. Example, from The Hollywood years:

As well as the formulaic movie songs of the 1960s, Presley did make noteworthy studio recordings, including "Suspicion," [etc., etc.]. However, "during the Beatles era (1963-70), only six Elvis singles reached number ten or better. 'Suspicious Minds' was the lone number one." (emphasis added).

To loosely paraphrase this entry, Elvis made some admittedly crap movie songs, but he made some better ones, but the crap ones were really crap 'cos they did badly in the charts and he only had one #1.

If anyone is interested in balance, NPOV, etc., I don't see how a negative comment, followed by a positive, followed by a negative, is balanced. I think this is more evidence of 141's bias and his sheer inability to see that his edits are not in line with creating a listed article. I've lost count, but some of 141's changes are being reinstated by him alone for the fourth or fifth time - completely without consultation with others and with a total disregard for wiki standards of quality and conduct.

A few observations have been made elsewhere about the reserves editors need to combat 141's kind of aggravating interference. All I can say is that peoples' resources are finite - mine are dwindling. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia if able editors are provoked beyond endurance and end up withdrawing; even more tragic are those reasonable editors who may take regrettable and uncharacteristic actions because such provocation is unimpeded. Rikstar (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth here's my view. Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. He is dead and people will continue to write with bias and an agenda. To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide. Unfortunately brevity and balance appear to be mutually exclusive but until both sides are allowed their say this article will fall further into disrepute.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in spades: Elvis was and is a controversial figure. This article lists his unhealthy closeness to his mother, her alcoholism, his father's indolence, his disreputable image amongst blacks, whites, parents, church, his drug taking, his poor handling of his affairs (business and others) and his manager, his crap films, acting, songs, song choice, guitar playing; his divorce, unbalanced mind, jealousy, naivety, embarrassing stage appearances, eating disorders etc. are all mentioned. Uncritical and manipulative fans and the fact that he was overweight and died on the toilet are mentioned. There are other references to him being a sexual pervert and that people just took the piss out of him in later life, that he's parodied, that he had reached the point where he was forgotten by society.

Let's be clear: I don't want to remove any of this; most of it's essential content, but parts may go (and no doubt reappear) because of space limitations. I don't want to add anything else that is positive, or that can be seen as a fan's biased contribution, because I'm not a fan i.e. 'fanatic'. What the existing article does try to say in spite of all the negatives outlined above, is that there must have been some merit Presley had to achieve the positive standing he has, or has had, in popular music and culture - aside from good looks and a "master promoter" as a manager. And I'm not going to apologize for that; it would be ludicrous if it didn't.

Bits may also have to go that others think put Presley in a good light. I've cut some already. This article IS a compromise because it does show both sides - and it has to be a decent read. I'm no writer, but I've bent over backwards accommodating others, being self-critical, etc. - in trying to achieve a FAR. It's got tons of suitable references (too many, some say) because every damn itty bitty fact or claim was jumped on by someone demanding verification or it might be dumped - a reflection of Presley's controversial status. What more of "both sides" can be included in a short, encyclopedic article?? I'm still open to offers 'cos my brain is getting frazzled. If Elvis haters wrote a biased article, and the fans did likewise, I'd predict the neutral reader would learn precious little about the man that is reflected in the current article. Only the more extreme and dubious claims have been left out, like Dee Presley's claim he f**ked his mother, or some guy saying "I gave Elvis a blow job!!" or "Elvis is living by a swamp in Georgia".

There is little mileage in allowing voices who say "I think Elvis was crap/overrated" or "I think he is a god". 141 wanted to include a David Bowie quote saying in effect, "He didn't inspire me" as a rejoinder to the fact Presley did inspire many other rock stars. If this kind of tit-for-tat editing was allowed, almost every single wiki biog would be overwhelmed with such meaningless caveats. All of these kind of opinions can be inferred without being spelled out in the current article. It will only "fall into further disrepute" if the current problem editor is allowed to go on giving his "side", or - Heaven forbid - somebody else starts. Apologies if needed - I had to get this off my chest if only to fend off a nervous breakdown... Rikstar (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, you claim that I cannot work positively with other editors on the Presley article. Did you realize that I do agree with many of your edits, as they indeed improve the article. May I thank you for your effort in making the article better and shorter in places. I only disagree with some of your edits, as you have totally deleted critical material that I think is important. Therefore, I have reinstated in an abridged form those parts of the text that I find relevant. Interestingly, the parts that you think should "go (and no doubt reappear) because of space limitations" are in most cases well-sourced, critical commentaries on Elvis, his career and his life. I have quoted from mainstream biographies, university studies and other reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policies. LaraLove says, "If a reliable source states it as fact, include it." Timtak wishes "that some of the input by Onefortyone (...) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest." Egghead06 says, "this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide". Onefortyone (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to amend or clarify the comment that 141 has quoted me on here a time or two. Not everything that is sourced needs to be included. The article is too long. If this reliably sourced information is going into a section that has a main article, take it to the main article. If it is not for a section with a main article, but whatever it is has already been covered, then it doesn't need to be included. Pretty much every aspect of his life that is encyclopedic has been included already. We don't have to expand on everything. Write it out in a NPOV and move on to the next thing. If it's important enough that it warrants details of every possible point of view, create a main article for it and link it in this one. This constant bickering and reversions against consensus are most likely just going to result in a RfC, which will just waste valuable editing time. So, to avoid such a waste of time and drain on the system, can everyone just try to understand this on important thing: I'm going to delist the article if it doesn't stabilize and shrink.

Also, when adding this controversial information, like he gave some guy a BJ (I hope that's been removed), such things need to be backed up by multiple sources. One biographer, regardless of his reputation, is not sufficient. Keep that in mind when reverting changes against consensus and when adding such information to the article. Lara❤Love 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The information that Elvis gave some guy a BJ has never been included in the article. There seems to be a dispute as to whether an information is important or not. Just some examples of Rikstar's removals. A former paragraph of the article ran as follows:

• As Presley's fame grew, his mother continued to drink excessively and began to gain weight. She had wanted her son to succeed, "but not so that he would be apart from her. The hysteria of the crowd frightened her." Doctors had diagnosed hepatitis and her condition worsened. Presley was granted emergency leave to visit her in August 1958, but shortly afterwards his mother died, aged forty-six. Presley was distraught, "crying hysterically" and "grieving almost constantly" for days. Her favorite gospel group, The Blackwood Brothers, performed at her funeral. The singer's best friends at that time, Judy Spreckels and actor Nick Adams, attempted to comfort him.

In order to shorten this paragraph, Rikstar deleted some parts of the text:

• She had wanted her son to succeed, "but not so that he would be apart from her. The hysteria of the crowd frightened her."
• "crying hysterically" and
• The singer's best friends at that time, Judy Spreckels and actor Nick Adams, attempted to comfort him.

See [6]. The first quote removed by Rikstar explains why Elvis's mother drank excessively: because her son was apart from her. The second quote demonstrates how close Elvis was to his mother. The third information shows that the singer needed to be comforted by his friends. Otherwise he wouldn't have got over the lost of his beloved mother. Query: why didn't Rikstar delete

• Her favorite gospel group, The Blackwood Brothers, performed at her funeral.

Is this information more important than the other ones? I don't think so. Onefortyone (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(N.B. The "BJ" claim was not in the article, but the claim was introduced by 141 on this page, and was stoutly defended (along with it dubious source) by 141. This was supposed to be yet more 'evidence' for 141's continual assertions that Presley was gay or at least bisexual. 141 has often argued that such claims should be included, presumably in the name of 141's idea of balanced content. Rikstar (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Personally, I would keep the first part (about how she wanted him to succeed, but not the point that he was apart from her) and remove the rest. It can be stated without examples. It can be explained that he was distraught without specifying that he cried hysterically. The article is about him, not his mother, so we don't need to list who her fave group was. And we don't need specific examples of who consoled him. We also can't assume that he would not have been able to deal with her death without them. This is a good example of what I'm talking about, however. We don't need specifics on absolutely everything. State the facts and source it. If the details are in the refs, fantastic, but we don't need everything detailed in the article. Lara❤Love 18:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: a talk page involving the relevant parties. I agree with LaraLove's comments. I would only add as an aside that I think there was once mention of the fact that Presley regularly saw the Blackwood brothers in the "gospels sings" in Memphis and was a friend of James Blackwood, so there is or should be an Elvis tie-in here; the group wasn't any old fave group. But hey, it means diddly squat... I would be interested to know if 141 agrees with LaraLove's common sense analysis... Rikstar (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I only partly agree. I think it is important to mention that Elvis's mother wanted her son to succeed, "but not so that he would be apart from her." This shows how close their personal relationship was. Onefortyone (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the above part, following LaraLove's advice. Rikstar (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The hassle'ment of it all: last statement until repetitive problem dealt with

The fact that this discussion is repeating itself speaks volumes. Instead of article improvement, we're forced to deal with uncordial and nonconsensus based, disruptions; repetitive and relentless. I've tried to get third parties, good at editing tasks, involved in this article to help improve it; but repeatedly they say the same thing to paraphrase: "I don't want the hassle". The hassle of what you ask? Take a look at the latest round of lets disrupt editing to prove a point. You wonder why this article can't move forward. Who the heck wants the hassle of it all? The worse part is despite numerous evidence to the contrary and despite past prohibitions on editing this article, the same said personage wishes to play innocent as if there is no history of inflicting the 'hassle' that keeps people away. When will WP:Point violation, due to the history here, become quite clear enough, to enforce a previous Arbcom case involving this editors editorial 'hassle'ment of others? I wonder. This is the last statement I make on this page until this situation is resolved, although I'll monitor the page and help where I can from time to time. What the 'hassle' is the point of editing if all your work and the work of others is disrupted by a broken record playing over and over that which was dealt with before. Rikstar thanks for all the effort, Laralove great work, StevePastor the same, and other productive editors, thanks all. Best of luck and I hope this article achieves feature status as I hoped it would. --Northmeister (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, says it all really. I note from 141's posts above that his "thank you" for my efforts is a little late and a rather empty gesture, given that he could have engaged with other users in discussing/praising edits when it had been repeatedly requested. 141 continues to ignore specific arguments patiently detailed against him, and then muddies the waters with fresh arguments/accusations to throw people off. This is part of an arsenal of tactics used by 141, which includes his 'broken record' rejoinders; repeatedly quoting the same phrases from other users (ignoring or simply disagreeing when their use/validity is challenged); always using the "it's well sourced" ploy to justify actual or proposed inclusion - however bizarre or inappropriate. Rikstar (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The editing has gone quiet I see. It starts and then stops with 141's involvement. What a deeply dissatifactory situation this is. Is this a regular occurrence in wikipedia? Are there many articles where good, third party editors run a mile to avoid getting embroiled? How are those situations resolved? Rikstar (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found the answers to be yes, many and they are not. Many Wiki entries are not projects as such. They are working to a design that no one knows with an infinite timescale, no managers, many experts and any members (and non members) are free to add their tuppence (or 2 cents!) worth. See The holocaust, Michael Jackson, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, 9/11, JFK etc etc to understand that each one is endlessly fluid and you will never be able to say 'project done'! The most stable appear to be things such as chemical, engineering ,scientific subjects or sports statistics where the facts are not disputable - would that were so for Elvis!--Egghead06 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew as much really. I think the point I was making was that the problem is isolated and specific at this point with Presley. The remedy is equally specific, regardless of what other demons this article develops in the future. Rikstar (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex symbol

Here we go again. This section is too long... it has its own main article. I've re-read it. 141 has added stuff that was cut... He's added oral to the sex... It needs changing again... blahdy, blah... I give up, don't care, lost the will to live... Send in the cavalry. Rikstar (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough already. I will put in a call to the cavalry today. Don't have any idea how long it will be before they ride over the hill. Circle the wagons, and keep your head down, Pilgrim. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Cybill Shepherd's relationship with Elvis, I did some further research. The problem is that there are too many different accounts about this relationship contradicting each other. According to Boze Hadleigh, she said,

• "Elvis liked them young. I was very attracted to him – what a package! It was the drugs and the entourage that ended it for me." See Boze Hadleigh, Celebrity Diss and Tell: Stars Talk about Each Other (2005), p.119.

Here is what some reports say:

• Hollywood Actress Reveals Her Elvis Sex Secrets

26 April 2000 (WENN)

Sexy MOONLIGHTING actress Cybill Shepherd has revealed that Elvis Presley kissed her all over her naked body - but refused to have oral sex with her. Blonde sex-bomb Shepherd was invited back to Elvis' GRACELAND bedroom after the King of rock 'n' roll had seen her first big film The Last Picture Show (1971). But his slow tender kisses ended at her bellybutton. Elvis explained to her, "Me and the guys talk and, well, white boys don't eat p***y." According to British newspaper THE DAILY SPORT, Shepherd reveals this stunning information in a new kiss-and-tell autobiography which includes a chapter where she compares the size of Bruce Willis and Don Johnson's manhoods.

(This suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley.)

• Cybil On Elvis

31 October 2001 (WENN)

Hollywood star Cybill Shepherd dated Elvis Presley in her youth - but she always knew their relationship was doomed. The King romanced the blonde actress in the '70s, when he was 42 and she was 27. And although Cybil bedded the legend she knew they wouldn't last as a couple. She says, "The fact is, Elvis got hooked on speed in the army. It was issued to soldiers on night maneuvers, but it also helped him keep his weight down. Then it got out of control. Did I want to be with someone who would have dragged me down? The only way to have stayed with Elvis was by doing drugs. Elvis died in his early 40s, which seems more and more shocking to me now."

See [7]

In her book, Cybill Disobedience: How I Survived Beauty Pageants, Elvis, Sex, Bruce Willis, Lies, Marriage, Motherhood, Hollywood, and the Irrepressible Urge to Say What I Think (2000), Shepherd talks about her affair with Elvis who "charmed" her by telling her in one of his pill-popping hazes about the time a doctor gave him an injection directly into the pupil of his eye. Shepherd is also claimed to have said, "I did the nasty with Elvis. This man loved to eat. But there was one thing he wouldn't eat . . . 'til he met me." See [8]

Here are some excerpts from Larry King Live:

Cybill Shepherd Discusses `Cybill Disobedience'

Aired April 6, 2000 - 9:03 p.m. ET

KING: How did the relationship between you and Elvis begin? You never worked together, did you?

SHEPHERD: No, we never worked together. George Klein, who had been the moderator at the Miss Teenage Memphis Pageant, called me up -- he was a friend of Elvis' -- one day, and said Elvis would like to meet you. And I said, OK, but he has to call me, and he has to pick me up. And later on -- actually, I just went to a movie theater to meet him. I said, can I bring my girlfriend, my best girlfriend, and he said sure.

KING: Where'd you go? Memphis?

SHEPHERD: Oh yes, I was in Memphis. See, Elvis never did have a problem with two girls.

KING: No, I heard.

And so what was that first night like?

SHEPHERD: Well, we got there and they wouldn't let us sit down in the theater, and we were, like, really bored standing around the theater, and finally they let us in, and we sat down, and we waited and waited.

KING: You mean, they were holding him on the side, like...

SHEPHERD: Yes, they wouldn't let -- like when you meet the queen of England, they always, like, bring the queen in and then everybody else is allowed to sit there or something, but you're not allowed to go in until the queen arrives. Well, this is sort of like the king, so finally we went in and we sat down and they lowered those lights, and I thought, well, I guess he's a no show, because the movie's going to start because it dark. But instead, everybody in the row to my right got up and moved one seat over. And I saw him coming in. And I couldn't see him, because it was still pretty dark. And I could smell him before I could see him. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what that cologne was. Maybe it just Ode to Elvis.

KING: Did you hit it off right away?

SHEPHERD: Yes. He's a tremendously sexy man, person, wonderful, delightful.

KING: Did you ever think something serious would come of the relationship?

SHEPHERD: Well, the Elvis that I got to know in Memphis was very different than the Elvis that I got to know later, like in Las Vegas. I think that the pressure of performing, as much as he loved it and as brilliant as he was at it, increased his drug use would be my guess. I'll never know for sure. But I felt that...

KING: He was a good friend while he was using?

SHEPHERD: I think he was probably using all the time, but maybe he was using -- I don't know, but my guess would be that performing, he was probably using more. And I just noticed that he was unavailable in a way. And then later on, years, years later, I would read and find out that he had, like, two other women there at the same time. Elvis always had like three or four women.

KING: In the hotel?

SHEPHERD: Oh yes, like on different floors, maybe on the same floor.

KING: You mean, he'd be with you and then be with another one, and that didn't bother...

SHEPHERD: He'd wedged me in between, I think it Linda Thompson and some other...

KING: That didn't bother you when you learned...

SHEPHERD: I didn't -- did it bother me?

KING: You didn't know at the time.

SHEPHERD: It made more sense, I guess, that he was sort of less available. But that -- even though I didn't know then at the time, it could never have worked with Elvis and I, because I saw the drug use in Las Vegas.

KING: I have never heard a bad word about him. In other words, I never heard anyone in show business who said he was a bad guy.

Did you? Have you ever heard bad words about him?

SHEPHERD: Not too much.

KING: I mean, he was pretty much known as a good guy, right?

SHEPHERD: Yes, he was a very sweet person.

KING: Did you love him?

SHEPHERD: Yes, I think I did.

KING: Been in love a lot, Cybill?

SHEPHERD: Yes. I think I've been in love a lot. I am not sure.

KING: Every time when that happens, do you think this is it? Like this last guy who just dumped you, was he going to be it?

SHEPHERD: I thought so, yes.

See [9]

It seems as if most of these stories are only told for publicity reasons. Therefore, I have now changed the text, saying that Cybill Shepherd has revealed that Presley kissed her all over her naked body - but refused to have oral sex with her. See Hollywood Actress Reveals Her Elvis Sex Secrets. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now created a new subsection entitled "Wife and daughter". I think this makes sense. Onefortyone (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Fix?

Why is this occurring? the_undertow ^talk 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Without looking into it too much... With the volume of edits in this article (a source of much discussion) material is added (usually without discussion or coordination with other editors), then it is removed (since usually it has been previously decided that it it not appropriate for an article this long, is a questionable or obviously incorrect source, etc Knock yourself out learning the history of this article. If the reference is also not removed, you end up with what you see. (I think.)Steve Pastor (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

This article is too long and most sections are filled with irrelevant, undocumented, and/or disparaging material that has nothing to do with a proper encyclopedic reference. For example, there was far too much speculation about Elvis' family tree, the behaviour of his father, his sex life, and how some people in the audience felt about his performances. Since this article is spinning off in so many irrelevant directions, much can be removed to shorten up the article and make it more coherent. I intend to clean up most of the other sections in this same manner and hope that other contributors will refrain from including reams of rubbish about his sex life, random thoughts of his friends, and taste in food. Hoserjoe (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Undocumented? You removed whole sections that were completely referenced. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And when he removed even more content I reverted it. Please discuss such massive changes on the talk page before you rampage through the article, destroying many editor's contributions. Jeffpw (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the article. However, Hoserjoe seems to continue to remove well-sourced material. Onefortyone (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page. Let's hope it helps. Jeffpw (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also hope it helps. If not, we can forget the GA status of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is far too big, and WP automatically claims that the size is far beyond reasonable. Since much of it is so badly written and irrelevant, I have proceeded to trim it down to a more moderate size, and in the process removed heaps of irrelevant or disparaging material. Please don't complain about this cleanup, because it only encourages more, and excessive, bad style and tedious, small-minded speculation. What is really offensive about much of the material in the article is that so much salacious and evil-minded speculation has squeezed out any useful and respectful material. It'll never achieve GA status with so much trashy gossip and irrelevant rubbish. Even if it's referenced, irrelevant trash (such as his mother's drinking habits) doesn't belong here. Hoserjoe (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have primarily removed critical material from the article that was well sourced. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "critical material". Most of it is nauseating and disrepectful gossip, just irrelevant trash. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for lowering this article to such depths of nastiness. 66.183.87.254 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll see what the wider community thinks of your edits. I've placed this on ANI discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means! This article has been a mess since several partisans have tried pounding their respective views onto each other, and the entire article has been suffering as a result. Look UP, and you will see reams of complaints about undisciplined editing. It's very obvious to most of us here, that there has been a long-standing 3-way editing war, and we're tired of being set upon by the various partisans (who delete our honest and capable submissions, too, by the way). So now, instead of quietly sitting by while the various factions continue to desecrate this article, we're going to take the bull by the horns and clean it up. You're on notice now, that we've had enough of your sleazy gossip, scandal, and rumor-mongering. 66.183.87.254 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the wrong version of this page for a week, or until you guys can decide what needs to be "cleaned up" here. --Haemo (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo. Jeffpw (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Onefortyone (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)