Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 23

• 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 (accusations of racism, "stealing black music")
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive12 (Elvis as the second- or third-greatest, etc.)
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive13 (where User:195.93.21.65 and his/her alter ego User:195.93.21.67 can moan about Presley)

Mass deletions

If you're going to delete a wodge from this or any article:

1. Explain yourself in the discussion page
2. Be candid and informative in the edit summary
3. Clear up any mess after yourself (please see the end of the footnotes)

Thank you. -- Hoary 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (Footnote problem fixed Hoary 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

List of controversial subjects

Heh, saw this article on the list of controversial subjects, and wanted to make an offer to be a neutral party here when appropriate. I have never edited this article, nor do I care to. I don't care whether Elvis is gay or straight, Fat Elvis or Skinny Elvis, obsessed or not obsessed with James Dean. I just don't care. For that reason, I can be neutral about whether Wikipedia rules are being applied appropriately here. Why am I interested -- because I DO edit on controverisal 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and know that a neutral would be useful there, but seldom seen. Call it my offer to be a good Wikipedian. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Splendid! Stick around. -- Hoary 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Friendships

I've deleted the last two paragraphs in the male friendships section. This is a discussion that has been done to death and has no real place in an encyclopedia. User Onefortyone has an agenda that he follows with a fanatical zeal. He uses secondary sources that were all published after Presley's death and are of questionable merit. Additionally, he takes pieces from reputable works like Guralnik's to back up his wild claims. For example, in no way, shape or form does Peter Guralnik suggest that Presley was gay or bi-sexual. Guralnik is considered by many to be the ultimate Presley biographer and yet somehow he has missed the incest and homosexual claims? This page should not be used for what is turnin into an out and out slanderous attack on Presley. We have pages and pages on this "debate" all with the same user. We should have higher standards than this.

Further, in the 'Lasting Legacy' section User Onefortyone references obscure plays about Presley and then notes reviews that support his claims that Presley was gay man who had incestous relations with his mother (despite wife, child and numerous girlfriends). I'm sure User Onefortyone can dig up something suggesting Elvis killed Jimmy Hoffa and was secretly a drag-queen! The point is, the man was one of the most documented entertainers in human history. His FBI files fail to mention any of these things. This is an encyclopedia but this entry is so bogged down in innuendo that it's hard to tell he was even a musician.

If I may finish my rant I'll also note that just because User Onefortyone cites to a secondary source it does not mean that said source is valid. He continually abuses the concept of 'peer-reviewed' in an effort to bolster his claims. Moreover, all of his sources are from marginal figures in Presleys life. He is unable to quote directily from reputable sources (other than as a set-up for his more outlandish claims) and he resorts to quoting unpublished manuscripts for support. This is not a historical figure from a bygone age with little contemporary documentation. This is a public figure with over 2,000 books published about him 99% of which offer no support to User Onefortyone's agenda. This article really has become a tribute to one posters fantical agenda. Lochdale

• I have reinstated the deleted paragraphs as they are all supported by several independent sources, among them university studies. As every reader can verify, I have quoted directly from reputable sources. In my opinion, you seem to have an agenda, Lochdale, as you are frequently deleting passages which are not in line with your personal view of Elvis. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are purposefully missing the point. You cite secondary sources and give them credibility despute the dearth of evidence supporting your POV. You are manipulating Wiki rules to suit your agenda. Lochdale

You are wrong, Lochdale. I have included material from publications on Elvis by Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Thomas Fensch, Albert Goldman, Earl Greenwood etc. and from current university studies on race and gender, which extensively deal with the Las Vegas Elvis, such as Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (1997) and Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999). These are all important and reliable sources, not minority views. Onefortyone 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not wrong at all. You include reputable sources only insofar that they support you position by inference. Put another way, you cite Guralnik only so much as you can then use what he wrote as innuenedo for your own point of view, and a warped one at that. It's not a scholarly approach and it's certainly not a NPOV (and it never has been). Lochdale

What I have cited are historical facts supported by most Elvis biographies. Try to find a source that contradicts what I have cited. There is no such source. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this constitute a violation of your probation? --Pcj 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not, as all of my contributions are well sourced. Indeed, they are supported by several independent publications, among them the best Elvis biographies available and some critical university studies. This means what I am inserting is not poorly sourced information or original research. Quite the reverse! Interestingly, as a relatively new contributor to this discussion page, Pcj, you seem to be well informed about matters that took place many months ago ;) Onefortyone 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why that would be particularly interesting. I would rather expect people to be informed in discussions.

As to your sources, I would contest that Guralnick cites Greenwood in his book (granted, among numerous others), whereas Greenwood - from what I can tell - got other facts about Elvis wrong (and his book received generally poor reviews); perhaps Greenwood was not as close of a cousin as he claims to be. I would also say that Playboy is hardly a reputable source, and that the content which was cited earlier in that passage seems to hinge on that interpretation (cited in Playboy) in any case. --Pcj 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Playboy article is certainly a reliable source as it was written by Alanna Nash, a reputable Elvis biographer. For your information, here is an excerpt from the review of Greenwood's book in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):

Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination.

Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Playboy article was written by a reputable Elvis biographer, then why didn't she put it in one of her published works? In any case, her revelation seems to be a result of gossip and rumors, as quoted. Also, for your information, another review of Greenwood's book, this one from Publishers Weekly, reads:

This sensationalized, dull "portrait," written with freelancer Tracy, claims that Elvis's turbulent life and career resulted from his unstable youth. "Glossing over his cousin's professional accomplishments, Greenwood concentrates instead on the juicy details of his bizarre personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters."

What the two reviews both seem to agree on is that the work is very lurid/sensationalized and focuses on juicy bits of gossip about Elvis, much like a tabloid would. --Pcj 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few words about Playboy. It is certainly a good magazine including various articles on fashion, sports, consumer goods, and public figures, all written by reputable authors. It also has short fiction by top literary writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ian Fleming, Vladmir Nabokov, and Margaret Atwood. So why not publishing an article on Elvis's sex life in that magazine? As for Greenwood's book, many readers are interested in Elvis's personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters. By the way, there are also many other topics dealt with in this book. Onefortyone 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, 141, you are interested in Elvis's personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters. -- Hoary 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which university source are you referring to in regards to Elvis's male friendships? --Pcj 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The university sources I have used deal with the allegations of racism, the Las Vegas Elvis and the world-wide Elvis industry. Most Elvis biographers have extensively written about Elvis's male friendships. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are only including sources whose content that you happen to agree with, which is obviously a breach of the NPOV policy here (particulary undue weight). What I see here are secondary sources that support a fringe agenda with an exclusion of the vast majority of sources (including many primary ones) that disagree with this.--58.169.8.139 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them well-known Elvis biographies. Most other editors do not use books on Elvis or university studies on the rock 'n' roll era. If you have additional sources, please feel free to quote them. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, parts of this article are disproportionally weighted toward a fringe agenda which is supported by a mere handful of secondary sources. I'm glad that someone had the sense to remove that stuff, this was beginning to sound more like an essay arguing in favor of a particular agenda than anything resembling an encyclopaedic article.--58.169.8.139 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the passage in question should be reduced to at most a sentence, if it is kept at all. --Pcj 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. None of user Onefortyone's "sources" are reputable. What he has done is to cite from fringe works about Presley. He then adds in general quotes from respected authors to buttress his wild claims. For example, almost not reputable biograper even notes his friendship with Nick Adams much less stating that he was one of Presley's best friends. With over 2,000 books about him and a massive FBI file Onefortyone still has to dredge the very depths of works on Presley to find anything that will support his agenda. I would note that none of these types of salacious "works" were published when Presley was alive. User Onefortyone has an agenda here and it really shouldn't be entertained any longer. Lochdale

So you think that books on Elvis by authors and biographers such as Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Thomas Fensch, Albert Goldman, Earl Greenwood etc. and current university studies on race and gender and the rock 'n' roll era are not reputable, and you are calling these publications "salacious works"? This seems to be your personal problem. Did you read over 2000 books on Elvis? Certainly not. I am frequently citing my sources. Where are your quotes from books on Elvis? You are constantly denigrating reputable publications simply because the content of these sources is not in line with your personal view of Elvis. You should stick to the undisputable facts to be found in books on Elvis. The Wikipedia article is not a fan site which is only singing Elvis's praise. Onefortyone 00:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Goldman's book has been ripped to shreds. Guralnik never suggests in any way, shape or form that Presley was gay or that he had an incestual affair. Greenwood is suddenly considered reputable? There are 2,000 other authors who singularly fail to mention anything you've brought up. As for the studies, they are no Elvis specific insofar as they posit theories and they do not opine on Presley or his actual personal life. Moreover, you say "undisputable facts" when I note nearly 2,000 books who do not support your position. Hundreds of thousands of articles that do not support your position and the fact that the man was a recent historical figure yet there is no proof of any of your allegations nor is there any support for them. And please stop abusing the notion of peer review as it does not mean what you think it means. Lastly, you are the one taking the positions that are simply unsupportable beyond conjecture so it is you who should defend them. Lochdale

All I can say is that I am frequently citing my sources. This is fully in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. All you can do is denigrating these sources and deleting well-sourced paragraphs from the article. I have not yet seen you provide direct quotes from a book on Elvis. I have only seen you adding false information to the article, for instance, that Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley "never lived with Presley". Onefortyone 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the male friendships section because it is fundamentally unsound. For example, Nick Adams isn't noted as a particular close friend of Elvis in Guralnik's book nor is he even mentioned in any book by his ex-wife or any of his bodyguards. I've also removed the reference to Elvis being a homosexual based on the comment that "tongues wagged" mentioned in a Playboy article. Seems a little light and post-dated to be adding to this article. Lochdale

Would you please stick to the facts, Lochdale. In his book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, Peter Guralnick clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis

enjoyed being back in Hollywood. It was good running around with Nick again - there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day. On the weekend Nick called up his friend Russ Tamblyn, who had a small, one-bedroom beach house on the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Topanga Canyon, and asked if he could bring his friend Elvis over. Tamblyn, who at twenty-two had been in the business from early childhood on, both as an actor and as a dancer, and who saw Nick as something of a hustler, said sure, come on out.

In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Guralnick writes: "Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time." So it is quite clear that Elvis spent most of his time with Nick Adams. Interestingly, on p.347-348 of his book, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that June Juanico didn't doubt that Elvis loved her, but "she didn't know if she could ever get him back. Elvis told her he had just heard from Nick and that Nick was coming to town tomorrow or the next day. He started telling her all about Nick and Nick's friends and Jimmy Dean, but she didn't want to hear." This statement certainly proves that June was jealous of Elvis's friendship with Nick Adams. Guralnick even cites Nick Adams's "charming account of his friendship with Elvis" which was published in May 1957. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [1], [2],[3]. You cannot deny the historical fact that Nick Adams was Elvis's best friend. Onefortyone 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also question the value of quoting Earl Greenwood who was Presley's second cousin. Greenwood never lived with Presley and wasn't part of his inner circle. Is this what we now consider reputable? --Lochdale 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most good biographies aren't written by people in the "inner circle" of the subject. Opinions seem to differ about Greenwood's book (which I haven't read, don't much want to read, and certainly don't want to buy), but I haven't yet read any unfavorable review that's lucid and persuasive. Here's a generally favorable review from the NYT, not the best source of reviews, but also far from the worst. Just how bad is this book? -- Hoary 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting review of the book [4] which is from an admittedly biased site. That said, the site tears the book apart and suggests that Greendwood wasn't even a cousin of Presley. Griel Marcus, however, pretty much dismissed Greenwood and he wasn't seen as an important figure either of Guralnik's books. This is the fundamental problem though isn't it, there have been so many books written about Presley that a certain poster has to focus on the very few the support his position (even if somewhat tenously). The legitimate bios, such as Guralniks, simply don't support the contentions in any way. --Lochdale 03:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that a fan site is a reliable source? I don't think so. Such sites are frequently casting aspersions on publications which are not in line with the positive view the fans have of their mega star. So what. More important to me is that you have included false information in the Wikipedia article. This disqualifies you from being a good editor. Onefortyone 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the reviewer, Bill Burk, has written more than 12 books on Presley. Using your standards when it comes to the quality of sources he is as legitimate a source as any you have cited. As such, his review and critique of Greendwood is more than valid. Indeed, his criticism suggests that Greendwood's book is fatally flawed meaning we should not reference it in this article. --Lochdale 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Bill Burk was once a reporter on the local paper, The Memphis Press-Scimitar. He claims to have been a close friend of Elvis (see [5]), though he is not mentioned as such in the major Elvis biographies. He makes talks at Elvis conventions and wrote books such as Elvis Through My Eyes, Soldier Boy Elvis or Elvis Aaron Presley: A Candle in the Wind, primarily puffed on fan sites. Significantly, he calls Elvis "a very, very wonderful person" and his books on Elvis "appreciate Elvis Presley" and "trace the dreams of this young man who one would become the personification of the American Dream". We read that the author became "privy to Elvis' battles against hunger and poverty, his dreams ... to one day become a star", etc. etc., and he predicted, "When Graceland swings its doors open ..., it will be like the founding of a new industry in Memphis". As a fan site enthusiastically exclaims,

Thank God for the continued publication of Bill Burk's "Elvis World" and Darwin Lamm's "Elvis International." Thank God for the Elvis Presley fan clubs, still faithfully in operation today, twenty five years after The King left us. And finally, thank God for the many Presley sites now in operation throughout this new medium we call the world wide web. His legacy is unsurpassed by any entertainer in our lifetime.

However, if you have a published source (not a fan site) which confirms the claims by this author, then cite it. Otherwise, it seems to be fan stuff in no small degree. Onefortyone 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clearly written by the author of 12 books on Presley. The website is the author's own website. Based on that review, the credibilty of Greenwood's book must be called into question. Are you even begining to see that just because something is published it does not mean it is a credible source? Given the vast amount of information published on Presley and the actual information we know about the man does it not strike you as both unfair and biased to include every allegation from less than credible sources? Put another way, just because it is in print does not make it credible or correct. I find it laugable that you, who would cite to an unpublished manuscript, suddenly are deciding what is and is not a credible source. This goes to the fundamental dishonesty of your position and your agenda --Lochdale 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That the author has written 12 books on Elvis, all including surprisingly new information on the mega star, suggests that he is endeavouring to make money with Elvis's name. However, as I said, if you have a published source which confirms his claims, then cite it. As for Dee Presley's manuscript, it has been cited by reputable authors in published sources, that's the difference. She has also written a summary of her accusations for a newspaper. Onefortyone 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some further information: Bill Burk's books are all published either by Burk Enterprises, Memphis, TN, or by a Memphis publisher called "Propwash", formerly affiliated with Red Oak Press. Propwash seems to be Burk's own publishing company, as it only publishes books and magazines about Elvis Presley and reaches the market primarily through direct mail and fan sites. Burk's recent book, Elvis Aaron Presley: A Candle In The Wind (2005), for instance, is illustrated with many attractive full-page photographs of Elvis in order to feed the fans' ravenous appetites for anything related to the perfect image of their mega star. It is on Elvis's generosity to others, includes "first hand accounts" of his relationships with early girlfriends and relates what the singer's female co-stars thought about the nice guy Elvis. Other topics include: Elvis with the King and Queen of Thailand, Elvis with three Scandanavian princesses, Elvis's first four-wheeler, the day young Tanya Leny met Elvis, etc. etc. There are no critical voices to be found in this and the other books. So much for the quality of Burk's writings. Onefortyone 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

All this talk of Dee Presley made me start to wonder who (aside from stepmother from hell) she was (is), anyway. So I googled, and one of the top hits for her is this illuminating page, which in turn brought me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. It makes interesting reading. -- Hoary 08:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, on these pages you can find all the misinformation produced by Ted Wilkes last year, who (thank heavens!) is now banned for one year. However, I am wondering whether one or two of the relatively new editors who are now frequently deleting paragraphs I have written, may be new sockpuppets of my old "friend". As for Dee Presley, it is a historical fact that Vernon Presley, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him." See also the account in Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys (2004), where the author relates (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." This was too much for Elvis who still loved his mother. One afternoon, "a van arrived ... and all Dee's household's goods, clothes, 'improvements,' and her own menagerie of pets, were loaded on ... while Vernon, Dee and her three children went by car to a nearby house on Hermitage until they finally settled into a house on Dolan Drive which ran alongside Elvis's estate." For some websites dealing with Dee Presley, see [6], [7], [8], [9]. However, these seem to be fan sites which may not be reliable enough. There is also a website providing the content page of Dee Presley's unpublished book. Unfortunately, it is nearly unreadable. Perhaps somebody is able to decipher what is written on this sheet of paper. Onefortyone

14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Burk has published more than 12 books on Presley. Using your standards, he is as a legitimate of a source as any you have quoted. His factual deconstruction of Greenwood's book means we should discount Greenwood's book as being unsound. Also, just so everyone is clear, the "newspaper" that published excerpts from Dee Presley's unpublished manuscript was the National Enquirer. Once again user Onefortyone reaches new lows in credible editing. --Lochdale 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find it insulting that user Onefortyone feels free to quote from an unpublished manuscript but then have the gall to critique works from authors who disagree with you. I am more than happy to stick with reputable secondary works and the actual facts of what we know about Presley. If we did that, however, pretty much every single one of user Onefortyone's edits would be deleted. Since he has thrown credible research under the bus I don't think it is entirely fair to quote the likes of Burk as reason enough to remove any reference to Greendwood's book. --Lochdale 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors much work

Elvis Presley, for all his flaws as a human being, deserves better than to keep putting material refuted by himself, Jet magazine, and others into this article - it does not belong - it gives the apparence of a false notion - it is non-notable (ie. racism allegations). Further, I would like to find editors who wish to help improve this article and do right by this man, to make is biography accurate, non-POV and worthy of such an American legend. --Northmeister 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Critical remarks on the singer and his audiences should not be deleted. They are part of Elvis's history, especially in view of the fact that they were widely discussed. In his peer-reviewed study, Race, Rock, and Elvis (University of Illinois Press, 2000), Michael Bertrand, for instance, says that "no subject associated with Presley causes greater controversy and conflict than that of race". See above.Onefortyone 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User Onefortyone seems to be confused as to what 'peer-reviewed' actually means. It means that a particular piece of work has met minimum standards of academic credibility. It does not mean that the reviewers agree with the content of the work. Put another way, there have been peer reviewed works on UFOs but that does not mean those works are accurate or credible. So saying that there was a paper about Elvis that mentioned race (though did not mention that Elvis was a racist) and that said paper was peer reviewed is simply not relevant and is an attempt at distortion. Lochdale

What are you talking about? Did you read the positive reviews of Race, Rock and Elvis I have cited below? Of course, you didn't read them. Otherwise you would not have written such things. Instead of constantly denigrating peer-reviewed studies and other books on Elvis, you should provide direct quotes from books you have used. That would be more helpful. Onefortyone 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about your use of the term 'peer-review'. Just because something is peer-review it is not a reflection on the premise of the work itself. You seem to be confused by this concept. Lochdale

That is in your fantasy. They were refuted and should not be in this encyclopedic article. If you wish to pronosticate then do so elsewhere, maybe on myspace. --Northmeister 05:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Northmeister, my contributions are based on several independent books written on Elvis. On your user page, you are admitting that you are "an American by heart (and birth)" and that you have been "a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Could it therefore be that you endeavor to remove critical voices from the article which put Elvis in a negative light, although these voices are based on several independent sources, among them Elvis biographies by reputable authors and a critical study on Elvis's alleged racism published by a university press? Onefortyone 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is reorganize this article to be presentable. I would like to see this page reduced in size, and to cover what an encyclopedia should cover, this is not a book to cover everything about Elvis, if there is to much information, then sub-articles are needed on that stuff. I am a fan, that is true, although I am young (was three when he passed), so I accept your balance here. The racism cruft, needs to be notable, and since the actual source provided actually refutes the claim of racism, it does not warrant a header, nor as much coverage as it gets. I can work on language and where some of it might belong. I am not your adversary here - I liked some of the edits you just made. But, we must discuss what is controversial here, and gather a consensus before it makes the page. Working together, a proper article can be completed. What do you say? --Northmeister 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can work it out. However, I am not of the opinion that the page must be reduced in size, as Elvis is one of the most popular musicians of the twentieth century and therefore needs a thorough article on the man, his life, his music, his personal relationships and his audiences. Many people are interested in details concerning his life. Unfortunately, there are too many low-quality websites run by Elvis fans available on the Internet which have a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Most of these fans endeavour to suppress critical, unfavorable voices. To my mind, Wikipedia should give a balanced survey of all the diverse viewpoints discussed in books and essays on the star. Onefortyone 13:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a launching ground for any viewpoints that are not credible enough for inclusion or for a vast array of information unrelated to Elvis life and times. Much of the material is repetitious; and extensive quotes from books, that are unverifiable and do not pertain to the header are not acceptable. We are interested only in what can meet Wikipedia standards - SURVEY is right however. Any criticism of Elvis, ought to be in a part of the article labeled as such, not strung throughout the article. Than man is dead, he can't defend himself - all we have is the facts, and we must present them accurately in encyclopedia form. Further we should stay within Wikipedia guidlines for article length - much of the information you keep throwing in belongs in a separate article about the books and their criticism, with a brief synopsis of this material here. --Northmeister 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stick close to the facts. All of my contributions are supported by Elvis biographies, many of which written by reputable authors, and by peer-rewiewed studies. They are not "unverifiable," as you falsely claim. Did you read the books I have cited? Where are the sources you have used? In my opinion, you are trying to push an agenda here. Onefortyone 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because Presley denied making those remarks doesn't mean he didn't say them. Just as his critics cannot prove he said those things, his defenders cannot prove he didn't. They can only say it seems unlikely or would have been out of character. Presley has long been accused of making racist remarks, and he was strongly mistrusted by the black community because he was a white singer who became famous by singing black music. The article must mention these controversies, otherwise it is not balanced. (195.93.21.67 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Those statements above need sources, when sources that I can check are provided, then we can consider a section on this. Jet magazine - refuted these claims. The statement, that blacks didn't trust hims because he was a 'white singer' is itself racist - judging someone based on their skin color or race. The article should mention controversy when it is real, this one is not. If so, lets have the evidence for it being a real allegation with real evidence. --Northmeister 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written above? I have quoted from Michael T. Bertrand's peer-reviewed study, Race, Rock, and Elvis (University of Illinois Press, 2000), which is certainly a reliable source. See [10]. Onefortyone 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read, or even read reviews of, Race, Rock, and Elvis. That it was published by a university press strongly suggests (but alas does not prove) that it is a sound work. That it's sound of course does not disable people from mischaracterizing what it says. Onefortyone and I agree on rather little, but I think he will agree with me when I say that he and I have had strenuous (and tiresome) disagreements in the past. (They'll probably continue in the future, too.) I am open to claims that the book he cites is unreliable in whole or part, and to claims that he has mischaracterized the book. But until I see those claims, I tend to give more weight to what he says the book says than to what anyone says an unspecified article in Jet says. Meanwhile, to say The statement, that blacks didn't trust hims because he was a 'white singer' is itself racist - judging someone based on their skin color or race seems absurd to me. Whether you like it or not (and I don't like it at all), a large percentage identify themselves as "black" or "white"; for "blacks" to distrust somebody because he was a "white" singer does indeed seem racist; to state that "blacks" (in context obviously meaning "a substantial majority of blacks") distrusted him for this reason may or may not be true, but it does not seem racist at all. Meanwhile, I fully agree that the article shouldn't waste bytes on any fictitious "controversy". -- Hoary 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reviews of Bertrand's peer-reviewed study, Race, Rock, and Elvis:

• "Michael T. Bertrand has managed to argue more cogently and with more evidential authority than any previous commentator that the music that Elvis Presley and his rockabilly cousins fashioned in the South in the 1950s represented a serious threat to various national and regional social conventions, particularly those relating to race, class, and gender." (Brian Ward, Journal of American History)
• "With his meticulous research and elegant, concise prose, Bertrand explains the class and racial origins of rock 'n' roll, situates the music within the larger context of the turbulent 1950s South, and explores the firestorm of debate that swirled around the music and its chief promoter, the hip-swiveling Elvis." (Patrick Huber, History: Reviews of New Books)
• "Convincingly argues that the black-and-white character of the sound, as well as Elvis's own persona, helped to relax the rigid color line and thereby fed the fires of the civil rights movement." (Karal Ann Marling, American Historical Review)
• "A major contribution to our knowledge of the cultural importance of early rock and roll." (Craig Morrison, Journal of American Folklore)

Bertrand teaches history at Tennessee State University. His book was the winner of the annual Book and Essay Award given by the Shelby County Historical Commission (Memphis, TN), 2001. Onefortyone 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt Presley was racist. Stealing black music and showing support for Nixon was the height of racism. No wonder he was so close to John Wayne. The fact is most black people today hate him, the racist quotes were widely reported and may well be true, and his entire career was created from stealing black culture. The racist section must be restored now and the article should be protected so no more Elvis obsessed freaks can remove well known facts.(195.93.21.67 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Mr/Mrs AOL IP, we have heard all this from you before. Until you have evidence, do please shut up about it. Many thanks. -- Hoary 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, you said it well. --Northmeister 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Marlon Brando, Michael Jackson, Chuck D, Eminem and many others are on record as hating Presley because he only became famous as a white singer who stole black music. Most of the black community in America today hate his overblown legacy. Apparently Jackson wanted to buy Graceland so he could destroy it. ... This nugget contributed by Mr/Ms AOL IP

You're repeating yourself, AOL. And you're still providing no evidence that Presley "stole black music" (whatever that might mean), or that "most of the black community in America today" have any opinion about Presley. As for your statement about Jackson's purposes for Graceland, even if they were true they'd probably say less about his opinion of Presley than about his own megalomania. -- Hoary 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another peer-reviewed source dealing with the allegations of racism

There is another peer-reviewed study dealing with the allegations of racism: Richard Iton, Solidarity Blues: Race, Culture, and the American Left (University of North Carolina Press, 2000). The author says on p. 218-219, "A certain ambivalence existed in the responses of blacks to Presley and rock and roll which reflected the different economic, gender, generational, and political concerns brought to the table by different constituencies." According to Iton, there were some African American youths who "responded enthusiastically to the new culture" and some others who "also read rock and roll's emergence as supportive of the integrationist movement, therefore viewing the form's dependence on black music as something to be publicized and celebrated. ... On the other hand, there was resentment, particularly on the part of those in the black music industry who felt their work was being exploited..." In view of the fact that there are at least two independent peer-reviewed studies dealing with the controversial topic, a somewhat revised version of the "allegatios of racism" section should be reinstated. Onefortyone 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither paper (again, please see my point on what 'peer-review' actually means) suggest that Presley is a racist. They discuss the effects of rock & roll and the cultural forces at play. They do not, however, say that Presley was a racist. Please stop distorting these articles. Lochdale

Sorry, two books significantly entitled Solidarity Blues: Race, Culture, and the American Left and Race, Rock and Elvis and published by two different university presses are clearly discussing the allegations of racism. The authors are not explicitly saying that Elvis was a racist. They are dealing with African American resentment against Elvis and his music. These are historical facts that must be mentioned in the article. Would you please stick close to the facts. Onefortyone 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What relevance do these allegations of racism, even if true, have to the article? It's supposed to be a brief summary of the man's life and notability, not an in-depth biography. Michael Dorosh 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Such allegations are part of the singer's history and, according to the authors and several other sources, they were widely discussed. Therefore, some critical remarks concerning this topic must be in the article. Onefortyone 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These works speak to the notions of racism in rock music as well as Preleys'perception in the black community. The do not, however, say that he is a racist. Moreover, when you have magazines like Jet and website like snopes dismissing the claims that Elvis made racist remarks then we should be comfortable not including them in this article. Lochdale

Sorry, Northmeister

A few moments ago I was thinking that we may be able to work out the dispute. You call your contributions "improvements". But now I see that you are totally deleting well-sourced paragraphs I have written which are not in line with your all too positive personal view of Elvis. See, for instance, my contribution concerning Elvis's movies: [11] or the sections on Elvis's relationships, the FBI files and the allegations of racism: [12]. These paragraphs, which are supported by many independent sources, have all been deleted by you. This is not the way it works here. Therefore, I have decided to revert all of your contributions. Onefortyone 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We need a criteria or some form of going over each paragraph in the article. I deleted material from the movies section because it did not fit the timeline and was a repeat of material used earlier. This article should be straight-forward about his life, that the vast majority of biographies agree on. What you are constantly quoting are fringe views from fringe authors, that although they have a place as a brief mention in criticism; do not warrant as much coverage as you give them. We come from two sides it seems - however, if your intent is the same as mine, to ensure a fair, accurate, balanced article, that meets wikipedia standards - then lets work out a gameplan from the top down to get the job done. The first thing I was doing actually was re-organizing this article timeline wise. - I propose we work on the opening paragraph first and move on down from there - you and I can offer improvement to that section - work out any disagreements and produce together a fine article. What do you say to that structure? --Northmeister 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Northmeister, you are wrong. What I am quoting are not "fringe views from fringe authors", as the books and essays I have used are written by reputable Elvis biographers, among them Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Albert Goldman, Greil Marcus and many others. I have also used peer-reviewed studies as the one written by historian Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock and Elvis. As you are repeatedly removing paragraphs which are well sourced, I do not think that it is really your intent to "ensure a fair, accurate, balanced article." However, I will give your proposition a look, and a last try. My first question is: What sources are you using for your improvements? I hope you can provide direct quotes from books and essays on Elvis in order to support all of your contributions. Otherwise your improvements are insignificant. Onefortyone 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thing Onefortyone, people should remember this is an article about Presley, not a fan page, and therefore all the controversies must be mentioned. Right from the first time I heard "Hound Dog" my father played Big Mama Thornton's version so I could see how Presley just ripped it off black culture and desexualized it. Whatever changes our new guest makes, please revert them at once. (195.93.21.67 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Just a question, 195.93.21.67. Are you an active member of the African American society? Perhaps you may also have a watchful eye over the "improvements" made by user Northmeister. I think it is not acceptable that this user has totally removed several paragraphs from the article, among them the racism section, which seems to be your favorite paragraph. Onefortyone 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am, what difference does it make? Presley's version prevented Thornton from becoming a major star, and she lived in poverty while he got fat on the profits of his stolen music. (195.93.21.67 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

The article on Thornton says Unfortunately for Thornton, Elvis Presley's smoother and bowdlerized version [of "Hound Dog"] was a major pop hit in 1956 and successfully eclipsed her biggest claim to fame. I'd like to see an explanation of for whom it eclipsed her song and how this was unfortunate. I have Thornton's "Hound Dog" on CD. I have great trouble imagining that it could ever have been a major hit among pale people: it's way too strong and way too good. Was any song as, uh, "nasty" as this a hit among large numbers of pale people in the wholesome 50s? Meanwhile, AOL, if your constant repetition of "steal", "stole" and "stolen" is intended to persuade by some kind of brainwashing, it's failing miserably. Still, thanks for the little joke about Presley getting fat -- in the context of Big Mama Thornton. Hoary 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Brainwashing? Not hardly. It is a fact that Presley stole black music to become famous, and even many of his fans are able to acknowledge that truth. That is why he is so hated to this day, as shown by the words of Eminem, Marlon Brando, Chuck D etc. This contribution made at 20:28, 23 June 2006 by our rather repetitive AOLusing chum 195.93.21.67

Dear AOLuser, your mindless repetition of unexplained claims, together with your mindless repetition of the names of three celebs (none of whom is or was an IP lawyer or similar) is getting extremely boring. Do consider directing your talents elsewhere. Thank you. -- Hoary 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

These are no "unexplained" claimst at all. Presley stole black music, he made stupid movies, he made a brief comeback and then gave a series of obese performances in Las Vegas wearing gay clothes before dying on the can. All of this is fact, and YOU can't argue with it.

Some troll removed the Accusations of racism section. I suggest it is restored and the article protected. (195.93.21.67 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Why don't you get an account? Your comments have been nothing but personal attacks and hysteria. --Northmeister 05:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone has been notorious for pushing his fringe agenda into multiple articles across wikipedia, so it is no surprise to see him pushing his pet project here as well.Michael Dorosh 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My Proposal (accepted above by Onefortyone)

Thank you for accepting my proposal to work on this article, section to section. The first section to work on and come to agreement, is the opening. I will post the original as it exists per my last post. Let's work from my last reversion, and go from there. I am open to inclusion of material relevant and sourced then onward, in the proper context and section. My main objections on viewing this page originally was the way it was formatted and all scattered about. So, my first efforts have been towards format, some material deleted, not to take it out in the long run, but to help in this organization I was doing. I am glad Onefortyone has decided to hop on board and help out. Together a fair, accurate, and well-sourced article can emerge that is neither an attack piece (which it was) or a fan-appreciation piece. Let us begin with the opening below. --Northmeister 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Northmeister, you have again deleted nearly two-thirds of the Elvis Presley article, including passages and paragraphs on Elvis's youth, his movies, his relationships, the FBI files and the allegations of racism. See [13]. Before we can start the process of working on the article the content of all these well-sourced sections which have been removed by you should first be restored. Furthermore, you have not yet answered my question above: What sources are you using for your improvements? Onefortyone 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in an opening for collaboration, we will work from the version you reverted to, which needs a great deal of work. First, I am using Elvis by the Presley's, Elvis.com official website on the man (for balance and fairness), and then a book I read "Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley" which I found was one of the best bio's on his life and relatively balanced. Like I've stated often, everything that book covers needs not be covered here, nor from your sources. What is important is an overall survey of this man, his music, and his affect on rock n roll and America in general. We don't need every fact about his sex life, or every facet of speculation thereof (which most of it is hearsay evidence by fringe authors). What we need is clear evidence, conclusive about the man's: BIRTH, RISE, MUSIC and MOVIES, LAST YEARS, and LEGACY. That is the format I was working out when you reverted. That is the format I will accept (VOICE CHARACTERISTICS included), no further headers to start with. I will make such changes in 24hrs, keeping your material in the appropriate place for now. We will start with the OPENING, offered below, which you as yet have failed to comment on or offer improvement to, I am waiting your response..lack of response indicates an approval for restoring my efforts thus far as a breaking of our agreement. You have 24hrs to respond, otherwise our agreement is broken and your seriousness towards an accurate article is highly suspect. --Northmeister 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) -SEE BELOW, AFTER READING THIS USERS TALK PAGE, HISTORY OF ABUSE, CONSTANT INSERTION OF FALSE MATERIAL from BOOKS, and non-relevant material REFUTED by the actual source (ie. Racism section) in a personal agenda to smear not only Elvis but other celebrities and to accuse them of a number of things, including homosexuality on numerous occasions. I think Arbcom should seriously look into this users behavior past and PRESENT. --Northmeister 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been in a serious attempt to work with you, not knowing your history of abuse and constant stalking of other users, making information up, use of poor sources, getting into constant personal attacks on those who disagree with you and more. My attempts to placate you have failed, as you do not wish to work in collaboration, but as evidenced above wish to use wikipedia as constant source of false, badly sourced, agenda driven - material on Elvis and other celebrities. You were both blocked and brought to the attention of mediation and arbcom in the past. I highly recommend you update your sources, learn to use wikipedia properly, and learn what collaboration means. You were also banned from the Elvis page this year, and I can see why. You are a disruptive user who is pushing an agenda with FALSE, MADE UP, and MISLEADING quotations from FRINGE books. The sources I listed above, including many others available, some you CLAIM to use, will be used to fix this article. I am asking all credible editors to censor this individual for the disharmony and use of false material he is engaged in now and in the past. Read the commentary here and on his talk page. --Northmeister 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

These last statements, which seem to be personal attacks, clearly indicate that it was not your intent to work with me on the Elvis article. Your deleting tactics were all too transparent. Onefortyone 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a fair chance, and all you can do is make remarks like above rather than respond to the below opening and work from my truncated organized version, which in the end may have included much of what you thought belonged if sourced. You inherently charged that I was not well sourced and reverted to your version I have repeatedly stated was lacking in organization was not up to wikipedia standards....so I checked your user history and I see what you've been up to here and elsewhere. I don't play with facts, sir, I simply report them. --Northmeister 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are not well sourced. You are using information from a fan site, a book written by Priscilla Presley, who has been accused by another biographer of having created a "web of lies" in her publications, and a flimsy pro-Elvis book by Peter Harry Brown and Pat H. Broeske, which includes little new and undoubtedly is too kind to Dr. Nick and Priscilla. It seems as if you are not familiar with the most important Elvis biographies written by Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Albert Goldman, and others. Onefortyone 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to post disruptive comments as you have in the past - even though I have continued to state that if you use information from the sources you say you use, I will accept it in context and if it is proper to include for an encyclopedia, especially in summary of literary criticism. What you give is long-winded quotes (highly circumspect I might add) in personal essays, that are out of order, and not well written - then you ask that sections like homosexuality in the past and racism be included when sources refute those things. You are not attempting to do a fair and balanced article to wikipedia standards, your attempting to smear celebrities across wikipedia with false information or use of information in misleading way. This has been your continued editing pattern, even before I arrived at this article. My attempts to clean-up this article where fromt he beginning challenged by you (even with my overtures to you!) in the harshest terms - thats not giving me the benefit of the doubt or following the wikipedia standard of Assuming Good Faith - which I gave to you and you broke our arrangement - I still gave it, and you continued your personal attacks and assumptions on your talk page. Enough is enough - someone should ban you from editing celebrity pages as your only here to be disruptive and add misleading and false material - not to work in harmony towards a well sourced and accurate article up to wikipedia standards. --Northmeister 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, Northmeister, you are the person who has repeatedly deleted nearly two-thirds of the article, including well-sourced paragraphs. It seems as if I am the only contributor who frequently provides direct quotes from Elvis biographies written by reputable authors. Do you really think that the text you are presenting in the "opening" section is a clean-up of the article? In my opinion, this is only what an enthusiastic Elvis fan wants to read. Onefortyone 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Once, again, I gave an opening below for your version to the OPENING. Once again you provide the above comments. Can anyone see anything wrong with this? Look at the Louis Armstrong page, it is a wiki-standard page, and was a featured article. That is the model I have for this page and that is how this page should be. You've made it a personal essay for every crackpot theory about Elvis - you do this on other celebrity pages as well. Please stop the insanity and work to make this a credible article with relevant material. I did not write the opening as it exists now, another accusation you make which is false - it was already there. It needs improvement, thus my overture to you originally. It should be more like the Beatles opening or Louis Armstrong opening. Give us your version, AGF towards others, and stop the negative attacks on other editors who challenge your editing. --Northmeister 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can see is that you continue to post disruptive comments. You are repeatedly deleting my well-sourced contributions which include relevant material supported by reputable Elvis biographers, and you are calling these contributions "insanity". Onefortyone 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your comments are not well-sourced. You've used comments from an unpublished manuscript (that clearly no publisher wants to touch) and a book by a cousin who never lived with Presley and barely knew him. You fail to mention that the 600 plus page FBI file makes no mention of any of your allegations. That in the more than 2,000 books on Presley all you have is an unpublished manuscript and not much else. You quote Griel Marcus' book (a compelation of articles to be accurate) to support wild notions when Marcus devotes an entire chapter to Evlis' relationship with his mother and never suggests anything unhealthy. You do not mention Marcus' utter dismissal of Goldman's work or the fact that he lauds Guralnik as the only definitive biographer of Presley (note, Guralnik makes no mention of racism or incest in either one of his books). You selectively use sources to push your own agenda and it just does not belong here. Lochdale

You are constantly repeating yourself, Lochdale, once again endeavoring to denigrate my sources. But this tactic is all too transparent. Truth be told, Lochdale, you are falsely claiming that the FBI file makes no mention of any of my allegations. Would you please provide evidence for this false statement. Did you read what Thomas Fensch has written in his book, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001) ? I don't think so. Otherwise you would not have written such things. For Fensch's book, see [14]. The FBI files are now also available on the Internet. See [15]. For your information: we are currently talking about the first paragraphs of the article and the movies section. Onefortyone 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself because you continue to push a fringe agenda. I have read the FBI files and they do not suggest any sort of incestual relationship. Lochdale

I'm tempted to protect the page. Please don't strip out the {{citation needed}} tags when revert-warring; some of this stuff really does need citing. Jkelly 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Northmeister 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Opening

THE ORIGINAL:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis, and also known as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or just "The King" was an American singer, music producer and actor. Elvis was a giant in the modern entertainment industry and of American culture. His image is iconic.

Graceland, the estate in Memphis, Tennessee where he lived for 20 years, and died, was designated a National Historic Landmark on March 27, 2006..

Long after his death at age 42, Presley remains a popular and enigmatic star. Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. According to the RIAA, Presley remains the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history in 2006, more than a quarter of a century after his death. He had 104 singles in the US top 40, almost twice as many as the runner-up, with 17 of these reaching number one according to Billboard's 2005 revised methodology. Presley's continuing worldwide popularity has resulted in his global sales reaching an estimated one billion records to date.

The opening is above, feel free to make any edits to it, until we get it right, after my sentence here. I'll let you start Onefortyone. Once we agree with the content we will move on to the next section, and one by one, tackle each issue. --Northmeister 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This opening section sounds as if it is constantly singing the praise of Elvis:

• giant in the modern entertainment industry
• His image is iconic
• enigmatic star
• biggest selling solo artist ... more than a quarter of a century after his death
• continuing worldwide popularity
• global sales reaching an estimated one billion records

Is this really encyclopedic? Onefortyone 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that is better, but you criticize without your version, give us your version below. Although our heated exchange above, if you are willing to work on this hereon-out I am still willing to work with you as one last chance of AGF on your part. Give us your version, and we will work with it. Make no further edits to the article...until we come to agreement. --Northmeister 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my version of the opening:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis, and also known as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or just "The King" was an American singer, music producer and actor.

Elvis was one of the most successful singers of the twentieth century entertainment industry and remained a popular star long after his death at age 42. Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He is certainly one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history. He had 104 singles in the US top 40, almost twice as many as the runner-up, with 17 of these reaching number one according to Billboard's 2005 revised methodology. It is said that Presley's global sales are reaching an estimated one billion records to date.

Graceland, the estate in Memphis, Tennessee where he lived for 20 years, and died, has become a Mecca for fans.

I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done, My version is below, which is very similar to yours:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 - August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis (also known by the nickname "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or The King ) was an American singer, music producer, and actor. Elvis was a giant in the modern entertainment industry, an icon of modern American culture, and represented the American Dream of rising from rags to riches through talent and hardwork. Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Elvis set records for concert attendance, television ratings, and record sales. He had 104 singles in the US top 40, with 17 of these reaching number one. Elvis' material continues to sell worldwide resulting in global sales reaching an estimated one billion records to date.

Graceland, Elvis' estate in Memphis, Tennessee where he lived for twenty years, was designated a National Historic Landmark on March 27, 2006..

I actually like your version better...I think we should include the part about rising from rags to riches, which is a big part of his biography - he was born in poverty and rose with his talent to stardom - thus the American Dream. With that sentence we can add your version to the article. Thus my copy-edit of your version below, if you concur, lets move to make it THE version for the article.

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis, and also known as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or just "The King" was an American singer, music producer and actor.

Elvis was one of the most successful singers of the twentieth century entertainment industry and remained a popular star long after his death at age 42. Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He is certainly one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history. He had 104 singles in the US top 40, almost twice as many as the runner-up, with 17 of these reaching number one according to Billboard's 2005 revised methodology. It is said that Presley's global sales are reaching an estimated one billion records to date.

Elvis has become an icon of modern American culture representing the American Dream of "rising from rags to riches" through talent and hardwork. As a result, Graceland, the estate in Memphis, Tennessee where he lived for 20 years, and died, was designated a National Historic Landmark on March 27, 2006.. It has been a Mecca for fans since his death. --Northmeister 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on this. First, "icon" does not seem meaningful to me. Secondly, the claim that Presley sold a billion records is from a company making money off Presley-related merchandise: hardly a disinterested source. Thus "it is said that" here seems worse than merely vague. Thirdly, the photos I've seen of Graceland and what I've read of it make the "Mecca" comparison seem hyperbolic -- and for what it's worth the sole truly dedicated Presley fan among my acquaintances (who may of course be atypical) does not regard Graceland with anything like religious fervor. Lastly, we don't read in this preamble anything about the kind of music or movies that he made; isn't this important? -- Hoary 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it is important (Mecca might be replaced with another word or taken out, I see your point, I don't think that was his intention of meaning, the billion quote can be checked, and isn't absolutely necessary) to mention something of his music style or whatnot. The opening should be a brief summary of the articles content, it should not be overly long. Please offer us your version below my statement based on the latest version above, so we can work out a good opening. --Northmeister 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Hoary is right here. Passages such as "Elvis has become an icon of modern American culture representing the American Dream of 'rising from rags to riches' through talent and hardwork" and that Graceland "was designated a National Historic Landmark" should be removed. This is the same old fan stuff we already had in the article. Therefore, here is a shorter version:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis, and also known as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or just "The King" was an American singer, music producer and actor.

Elvis was one of the most successful singers of the twentieth century entertainment industry and remained a popular star long after his death at age 42. He had 104 singles in the US top 40, almost twice as many as the runner-up, with 17 of these reaching number one according to Billboard's 2005 revised methodology.

Do we need more text in the opening section? I don't think so. Onefortyone 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Now your shortening our agreed to version, rather than work out the one problem sentence and to include what Hoary wishes, and is right about, some comments on his music? Also - It is a fact Graceland was designated as a National Historic Landmark, and that should be included. The icon statement is also correct per President Jimmy Carter's statement upon his death and people recognize this - Graceland is visited by more people outside of the White House than any other place - these are all facts - not fan stuff - actual facts that an encylopedic article should contain. He rose from poverty to wealth, which is a part of the America Dream and many biographies comment on this. Maybe the sentence needs re-wording but to discount it because you feel it is "old fan stuff" is wrong. Maybe it doesn't belong, but let's argue the merits of its inclusion in the opening, not continue attacks on material as "fan stuff". What you are doing is denying President Carter said what he said about Elvis' place in Americana, and to deny that he represented the rags to riches story. The later is a major theme of his life - as so many other successful people in America - like Sam Walton for instance. Give us good reasons to oppose its inclusion. I've accepted your version as well done - AGF on my one sentence or structure it anew if you think it is worded wrong or offer a good reason for not including the material or do you think it is false; if so why? Or do you think it doesn't merit inclusion in the opening - if so why? I am open to your suggestions, that is all collaboration is about - to work together, as I've stated I am not opposing your efforts so much as trying to work with you and others for a better article that meets wikipedia standards in length and content. --Northmeister 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a reference to Graceland in the opening section. References to people visiting Graceland may be included in the "Lasting legacy" section, together with a discussion of the parallel industry, mostly kitsch, that continues to grow around the singer's memory. Onefortyone 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure - the opening is a summary of the article (brief summary) - which is about his life, music, and impact. It should have three paragraphs. The first paragraph: "a summary of his birth, titles, role". Second paragraph on his impact and music. The last paragraph: "about his legacy and graceland declared by US government a national historic site." Don't you agree that is the best format for an opening summary of the article? I think the last sentence to my re-edit to your original version should be taken out and some more about his music included in paragraph two, like Hoary notes, and the word icon taken out and possible first part of that sentence. --Northmeister 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the opening shouldn't have three paragraphs. We don't need a passage about Elvis's legacy here, as it is already said that he was a very popular singer who had many number-one hits and that he remained a popular star long after his death. Instead of referring to Graceland we need some information about the kind of music Elvis made in the opening. Hoary seems to be of similar opinion. Onefortyone 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, yes. On the other hand (and to turn devil's advocate for a moment) I suppose it could be argued that Presley is now primarily a dead celeb, and what celebs actually did is less important than how they are marketed. According to this argument, Presley resembles Carl Perkins less than he resembles Hello Kitty. Still, if this were indeed so (and I wonder), it would say more about present-day society/marketing than about Presley. Hoary 05:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sketch:

Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis and also marketed as "The King" was an American singer, actor, and music producer.

Presley started as a singer of rockabilly and ballads, was for some time the most commercially successful singer of rock and roll, and then moved toward country music. He was also the lead in a large number of lightweight movies, most now largely forgotten. As a singer, his popularity survived his death at 42.

Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He is certainly one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history.

The young, lean Elvis has become an icon of modern American culture, sometimes held to represent the American Dream of rising from rags to riches through talent and hard work, more often representing teen sexuality with a hint of delinquency. The older, heavier Elvis

blah blah blah. I'm not sure how to put that last part fairly.

Yes, I'm not necessarily against the more or less metaphorical use of the word "icon". I just think the word is meaningless (or PR gush) unless readers are told what the icon is of. We read that he was an icon of rags-to-riches success and I wouldn't deny this, but I think this was minor in comparison with the (probably commercially devised and honed) image of rebel, menace, etc. As for the older Presley, of course to non-fans such as myself he was grotesque at times, but I have an uneducated hunch that to fans he was more avuncular -- at least if uncles can wear rhinestone-encrusted capes.

Note that I haven't deleted the stuff about the number of his top 40 (etc.) singles; I've simply chucked it into the footnote.

Was he ever actually called "the King of Rock 'n' Roll? Guessing that he wasn't, I deleted that bit. -- Hoary 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Query: the first sentence claims that Elvis was a "music producer". I don't think that this was the case. He was a singer, he didn't write songs and he wasn't a professional producer. And should we call him an actor? Onefortyone 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is ridiculous, it shows one thing - your not here to help out - your here to promote an agenda. To even consider not calling Elvis Presley an actor? What nonsense, whether you like his acting, I thought he had bad roles, is irrelevant and POV, he was in fact for a period in his life an actor. There is no sense trying to work things out with you if you are only here to disrupt the editing process. You ought to be banned from any celebrity articles for the nonsense you cause editors, over and over again. --Northmeister 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stick close to the facts without personal attacks. Why not saying, "He also acted for a period of time in B-movies"? Onefortyone 23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. I am not working with you any longer. You are here to promote a POV agenda and have been abusive of wikipedia in the past. Enough said and no more needed beyond that. Your edits will not be accepted here. --Northmeister 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. You are not the only editor, Northmeister. As you can see, User:Hoary partly seems to be of similar opinion. Parts of his version of the opening sound O.K. to me. In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Screenwriting (2004), Skip Press says, "When rock 'n' roll exploded mid-decade, ... it was inevitable that music stars such as Elvis Presley would appear in films..." (p.56) The author does not say that Elvis was a serious actor. You can say that Frank Sinatra was a singer and an actor, but Elvis was a rock 'n' roll singer who for a period of time also appeared in some movies. Elvis was an enthusiastic James Dean fan and returned from the military eager to make a career as a movie star, but he had limited talents as an actor. Pop film staples of the late fifties and early sixties, such as the Presley musicals and the AlP beach movies were mainly produced for a teenage audience and called a "pantheon of bad taste" (Andrew Caine, Interpreting Rock Movies: The Pop Film and Its Critics in Britain, p. 21). In the sixties, at Colonel Parker's command, the singer withdrew from concerts and television appearances in order to make such movies. "He blamed his fading popularity on his humdrum movies," Priscilla Presley recalled in her 1985 autobiography, Elvis and Me. "He loathed their stock plots and short shooting schedules. He could have demanded better, more substantial scripts but he didn't." Instead, the singer "continued to make the movies and record the dismal soundtracks, putting forth less effort with each new release. Artistically speaking, no one blamed him. The scripts were all the same, the songs progressively worse." (Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendrickx, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream, 1999, p.67.) Indeed, the movies-songs were "written on order by men who never really understood Elvis or rock and roll, such as 'Rock-a-Hula Baby', 'Beach Boy Blues,' and 'Ito Eats.' " (Jerry Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, 2002, p.32.) It must be admitted, however, that, although Elvis was definitely not the most talented actor around and most film critics chastised these B-movies for their lack of depth, they managed to be profitable all the way. Many of the fans loved them. You seem to be one of these fans, but a Wikipedia article is not your personal fan site. Onefortyone 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you like Presley's movies then you're stupid. Btw, "Wild in the Country" flopped. 195.93.21.67

What is your opinion, AOL user? Should Elvis be called an "actor" and a "music producer" in the opening? What we need is some kind of consensus here. Onefortyone 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As there is no consensus concerning the very short version of the opening section above, what about this version (mainly borrowed from User:Hoary):

The Opening

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

Presley started as a singer of rockabilly, borrowing many songs from rhythm and blues numbers by black bluesmen. He was for some time the most commercially successful singer of rock and roll, but he also sang ballads, and then moved toward country music. Personally, gospel was the music he cherished above all.

Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He is certainly one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history.

The young, lean Elvis has become an icon of modern American pop culture, sometimes held to represent the American Dream of rising from rags to riches through talent and hard work, more often representing teen sexuality with a hint of delinquency. During the 1970s, when his taste had drifted away from rock, Elvis reemerged as a somewhat androgynous nightclub performer in Las Vegas, Nevada, wearing bizarre, elaborate costumes. As he got heavier, his shows were less successful. He died, presumably from a heart attack combined with drug abuse, at Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee. As a singer, his popularity survived his death at 42.

I hope this balanced version of the opening is now satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. By 1977 Presley's career was finished, he was dying and only had $5 million in his bank account. His death at 42 saved his career and ensured he would not be forgotten like Bing Crosby, who died two months later at 74. Presley should be referred to as a "movie star" because he certainly starred in 31 dreadful stupid movies, but couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. ...contributed by AOLuser 195.93.21.67, who apparently can't find the "~" key on his or her keyboard

I think the opening is far too narrow. For example, Presley had significant success with country tunes that the "rockified". Moroever, Peter Guralnik amongst others notes the significant influnence white country musicians and pentacostalist preachers had on Presley. It's both too simple and too narrow to say Presley was merely a white man playing black music. Here's an interesting cite to a summary of Presley at Allmusic.com [16] It really gives a deeper and more detailed discussion of Presley's career and influences. Lochdale

Would you please provide direct quotes from Guralnick's book so that we can include a new passage concerning the influence of white country musicians etc. in the opening of the article. Thanks. Onefortyone 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale, I welcome your input. There is a sandbox for this page, and any improvements you can make would be helpful. Thanks for the information on the FBI. Is there a source online we can check this? Maybe the Black Vault? --Northmeister 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Northmeister, what Lochdale says isn't true. I have cited my source. Would you please read what is written in Thomas Fensch's book, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001) before deleting a whole paragraph. Onefortyone 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, user Onefortyone is pushing his agenda. You cited to an amazon.com link. We can read the files and they say nothing of an incestuous relationship. Furhter, you and I have discussed the extortion attempt before on this page and you were wrong then just as you are wrong now. Lochdale

Death and burial section

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

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

There are two laboratory reports. According to Peter Guralnick, "the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity." See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-2, Onefortyone 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Protected

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

Unfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See [17]. Onefortyone 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Section One - name and content

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

Birth and childhood

File:Presley Family.jpg

Young Elvis with his Mother Gladys and Father Vernon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1953 Elvis was still "a shy, introverted mama's boy in a town full of bullies". At the start of his fame, guitarist Scotty Moore attested that the singer was a "typical coddled son" and "very shy": "His mama would corner me and say, 'Take care of my boy. Make sure he eats. Make sure he -' You know, whatever. Typical mother stuff." But Elvis "didn't seem to mind; there was nothing phony about it, he truly loved his mother." Moore adds that Elvis "was more comfortable just sitting there with a guitar than trying to talk to you." Gladys was so proud of her boy, that she "would get up early in the morning to run off the fans so Elvis could sleep". She was frightened of Elvis being hurt: "She knew her boy, and she knew he could take care of himself, but what if some crazy man came after him with a gun? she said...tears streaming down her face."

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

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

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

Sandbox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection from Editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection removal

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

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

Birth and ancestry

File:Presley Family.jpg

Young Elvis with his Mother Gladys and Father Vernon.

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

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

Parents, childhood and youth

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his teens, Elvis was still a very shy person, a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years." He was teased by his fellow classmates who threw "things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy." Gladys was so proud of her boy, that, years later, she "would get up early in the morning to run off the fans so Elvis could sleep". She was frightened of Elvis being hurt: "She knew her boy, and she knew he could take care of himself, but what if some crazy man came after him with a gun? she said...tears streaming down her face."

I think these paragraphs are well sourced, but you may change or rearrange some parts of the text before including it in the article, if you like. Onefortyone 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I am going to include the above paragraph in the actual article - I'll let you work on talk as I stated on your talk page for another day - then we'll see where we can arrange items and agree. --Northmeister 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - PS. I see it is already added. Looks good. --Northmeister 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Very minor edit

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

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

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

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

Movies section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are not telling the truth, Northmeister. What you are doing is not rearranging my text. As everybody can see, you have deliberately deleted well-sourced passages from the movies section which are not in line with your positive view of Elvis as a movie star. See [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. What you are doing is not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article is locked

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

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

who locked page in POV

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

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

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

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

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

Offer to assist editor and request to partially protect

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

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

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

See [23]. There are similar contributions to the Garth Brooks and Best-selling music artist articles. See [24] and [25]. This website should not be your only source of information. As you claim to be an Elvis expert, I am sure you can provide dozens of independent sources (books on Elvis, peer-reviewed essays, incl. page numbers) in order to support your view. Onefortyone 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise

I have now included a shorter version of the movies section in the sandbox. I have removed words like "stupid", but I think it is important to say that critics called the movies "a pantheon of bad taste" and that Elvis didn't like the songs written for these films. As Elvis already didn't like the movies of the early sixties, I think the quote from Priscilla Presley's book must be included in the movies section. Somebody else may add that Elvis acted well in some of his earlier films. If the editor could provide direct quotes from published books in order to support his/her contribution, this would be fine. I have removed the passages concerning West Side Story, The Godfather etc., as I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting these claims. This stuff has been included by an anonymous IP on 29 March 2006. See [26]. The same user has also included the same nonsense in the Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins articles. See [27] and [28]. See also this contribution by the same editor using a similar IP: [29]. In my opinion, this vandal deliberately added false information to three different Wikipedia articles. I do not think that there is a published source supporting this stuff. Therefore, the whole West Side Story paragraph must be removed.Onefortyone 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks. It could well be that I made a mistake concerning the West Side Story stuff, as another user added similar paragraphs to the West Side Story (film) article. See [30]. However, I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting the claims. Onefortyone 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relationships

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trivia Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protection

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

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

Just a spelling nit

RE: the first sentence —

"Elvis Aron Presley (1935-01-08 – 1977-08-16), known simply as Elvis and also marketed as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King", was an American singer and actor."

The King's full name is Elvis Aaron Presley. --Chris 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. At birth, his name was Elvis Aron Presley[31]. He used both spellings throughout his life and apparently considered officially changing the spelling to Aaron, but never did. The Aaron spelling does appear on his gravestone.Shsilver 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to change it in the article. Seems like some of the "regular sources" aren't clued in about this either... --Chris 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers believes Elvis was gay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese Prime Minister Visits Graceland

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

That seems to assume that "trivia" is worthwhile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question???

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

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

"ELVIS"

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

Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota

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

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

Help wanted to watch for a Elvis Presley spammer

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

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

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

For more info, see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of racism

A new version of this section has replaced the former one. The old version ("Version 1") was well sourced, as there were many quotes from university studies. Therefore, I have reinstated this version. But we should discuss those parts of the new version that sound reasonable. Are there any sources that support the allegations of the new version ("Version 2") ? Significantly, Elvis counted no blacks among his closest friends from the Memphis Mafia. Far from it, most of these friends were southern white boys from Mississippi. This fact, for instance, is not mentioned in Version 2.

Version 1

As Elvis's star rose controversy seemed to follow. Sam Phillips' idea of the "white negro" was born of racism. "Racists attacked rock and roll because of the mingling of black and white people it implied and achieved, and because of what they saw as black music's power to corrupt through vulgar and animalistic rhythms. ... The popularity of Elvis Presley was similarly founded on his transgressive position with respect to racial and sexual boundaries. ... White cover versions of hits by black musicians ... often outsold the originals; it seems that many Americans wanted black music without the black people in it," and Elvis had undoubtedly "derived his style from the Negro rhythm-and-blues performers of the late 1940's." "Many White people would be surprised to learn that Elvis Presley's hit 'Hound Dog' was first popularized by a Black woman, Big Mama Thornton. Elvis and his music live on the collective memory of Whites, yet Little Richard, some of whose work Elvis borrowed, has been forgotten." A southern background combined with a performing style largely associated with African Americans had led to "bitter criticism by those who feel he stole a good thing," as Tan magazine surmised. No wonder that Elvis became "a symbol of all that was oppressive to the black experience in the Western Hemisphere". What is more, Presley was widely believed to have said, "The only thing black people can do for me is shine my shoes and buy my records." It was claimed that the alleged comment was been made either in Boston or on Edward R. Murrow's Person to Person. A black southerner in the late 1980s even captured that sentiment: "To talk to Presley about blacks was like talking to Adolph Hitler about the Jews."

In 1957, the African-American magazine Jet looked into the allegations that Elvis was a racist who was stealing black music. The magazine found no proof that Elvis Presley was a racist or had made any statements indicating racism repudiating the charges. Elvis himself claimed that quotes attributed to him that were racist were fabricated and that he was not a racist. The fact that Presley was "a white performer whose financial success rested upon the songs and styles of black artists historically excluded from the popular music marketplace", together with other factors that would have made him highly suspect in the eyes of blacks, namely his poor, white origins in the then deeply racist Mississippi, his purchase of an old Memphis mansion, or his association with racially conservative politicians such as George Wallace and Richard Nixon has often been used to chastise him. Whether or not it was justified, the fact remains that distrust of Presley was common amongst the general African-American population after the allegations were made public. According to George Plasketes, several songs came out after the singer's death which are a part of a "démystification process as they portray Elvis as a racist." In his book, Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past, David Roediger considers contemporary "wiggers" (white kids "acting Black") in light of the tensions in racial impersonation embodied by Elvis Presley.

Controversy remains as to Presley's political beliefs, if any. In the early 1960s he described himself as an admirer of the Democratic President John F. Kennedy. In 1970 however he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover requesting to join the FBI at the height of its campaign against political activism. In December of that year he met with President Richard Nixon in what was widely seen as a show of support at a time when most artists in the music industry were highly critical of the Nixon administration. Presley told the President he was a huge admirer of everything he was doing, and asked to be made a "Federal Agent at Large" in order to help get the country off drugs. Presley also denounced The Beatles to Nixon, describing their left-wing political beliefs as "very anti-American." Many fans maintain Presley was non-partisan as he never attended fundraisers or donated money to any candidates, and that his infamous conversation with Nixon was caused by jealousy of The Beatles' success and concern for his own future in the recording industry.

Version 2

Although there had been allegations of racism on Elvis Presley's behalf there is abolutely no shred of evidence to support this. There is, however, evidence to support how friendly and appreciative he was of fellow human beings who happened to be black. Such examples are as follows:

Elvis was a white country boy brought up in an area and time of total racism and legal segregation. However, he was drawn to the music many black performers sang. White racists only scorned anything connected to "black" culture. Elvis met and became friends with B.B. King and other such black musicians. He was only a teenager then and "black" music was not commercially popular. Elvis recorded blues music with a country and gospel blend at a time which there was no thought of making big money from. This makes the idea of "stealing" black music for financial reasons void. (Music can not be stolen as it is a natural emotion).

Early in his career Elvis embraced songs from black singers such as Little Richard and Ray Charles and this helped catapult their fame.

Elvis broke segregation laws by attending functions for black people in the 1950's so he could meet his black musician friends. At an earlier stage he also attended black church services as he found their spirituality more uplifting.

Every single black person who met Elvis found him generous, mannerly and respectful towards them, such as Ivory Joe Hunter, BB King, James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Muhammad Ali.

Elvis met James Brown on several occasions. He is known for not having much time for The Beatles but he had no trouble meeting James Brown when he was just as much a success in the 1960's.

Elvis had a backing group for his 1968 comeback special called "The Blossoms". It was a black female trio, including Darelene Love (star of Lethal Weapon movies). She has since expressed a great deal of respect for Elvis.

Elvis had a backing group from 1969 until his death known as "The Sweet Inspirations". This was a female quartet. In 1970 Elvis Presley refused to play Texas as he was asked to leave the black girls at home. When the show officials accepted the fact he was bringing the black girls the show went ahead.

Myrna Smith, one of the black members of "the sweet inspirations" has recalled a night she had a passionate kiss with Elvis.

Elvis invited black boxer Muhammad Ali to his suite in 1973 where they chatted and joked. Ali later said "Elvis is the greatest".

Elvis paid the hospital bills of black singer Jackie Wilson in 1975 when he had a stroke.

Elvis met Nixon because he was pursuing his hobby of collecting law enforcement badges. Elvis had recently received death threats so this made him more anxious to have the help of powerful forces. Elvis meeting Nixon is just an extreme rock 'n' roll moment. On medciation, wearing liberal clothing, carrying a gun and asking for a narcotics badge. This only makes Elvis stand tall as a rock 'n' roll giant. Who since has done anything as daring. The only president Elvis is known to have respected is JFK, an Irish blooded democrat.

Elvis broke down in tears when Martin Luther King was murdered. He often recited "I had a dream" to friends. Elvis soon after recorded the song "If I Can Dream" as a mark of respect for King. Such a song was completely out of character for Elvis as it was political. He felt he had to pay some respects to Martin Luther King, a man he deeply admired.

In 1969 he recored a moving song, sympathetic to poor black neighbourhoods called "In The Ghetto". Again a song totally out of character for a southern white performer.

In 1969, Elvis broke production on his film "Change Of Habit" so he could meet the black soul singer Mahalia Jackson, who was in the studio that day.

A black Memphis blues singer and radio presenter named Rufus Thomas explained that Elvis did far more for the ressurection of blues music than anybody else has ever done. He also compared Elvis to Martin Luther King.

Black comedian, Eddie Murphy, who never met Elvis considers him "the greatest entertainer of all time".

BB King stated, "They didn't make a mistake when they called him The King".

In over 50 years since Elvis became internationally famous not one black person who met or worked him has ever revealed signs of racism on his behalf. They have all found him a decent person who was polite and kind. The idea of Elvis being racist was fabricated by black racists who don't accept how a white boy helped a part of their culture. These black racists also lack the the education or natural common sense to make the transition between race and support. Elvis supported black people. He is a hero to black people but a great deal of black people are not attempting to look beneath the surface or find some depth in the actions that took place. As Little Richard said, "Elvis opened the door for black people".

Besides all this, Elvis could not be stereotyped as a typical white American. Elvis had the blood of several races. These include the Irish, the Jewish and most of all, the Native Americans which can be argued are the most victimised race in America's history.

To my mind, the second version indicates a rather uncritical and idealized view (quotes: "Every single black person who met Elvis found him generous, mannerly and respectful towards them" -- "Elvis meeting Nixon is just an extreme rock 'n' roll moment. On medciation, wearing liberal clothing, carrying a gun and asking for a narcotics badge. This only makes Elvis stand tall as a rock 'n' roll giant"). We should discuss the two versions. Onefortyone 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is nothing to discuss. The second version is too POV and isn't even worthy of discussion.

"I" in "I'm sorry" is AOLuser, who appears to have learning difficulties concerning the "~" key.

One thing to say about both versions is that they are ludicrously prolix. -- Hoary 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now reinstated your short version of the "Male relationships" section. Perhaps you could also write a shorter version of the "Allegations of racism" section. Onefortyone 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you mention his affairs with Nick and Gladys. ... posted at 03:37, 23 July 2006 by Wikipedia's very "special" 195.93.21.67

The second version looks at Elvis from inside his life, not some cowboy attempting to sound academic. "Elvis was jealous of the beatles" from the 1st version is a completely off the cuff remark. The 2nd version states fact and rarely goes into any personal opinion. It also counter acts comments made in the 1st version, helping to blaance the whole issue. Despite all this, If any black person who met Elvis had expierence of Elvis being racist, let them come forward and balance it with all the other black people who met him and their feelings towards him. Then this issue may start to posess some merit. As of now it is a totally pointless issue and completely worthless of discussion. ... added in two edits on 24 July 2006 by 2006already.

No. The second version is so subjective and heavily biased in his favor that it is unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. It is a fact that Presley became famous because he stole black music and he was frequently accused of racism, also he did indeed try to ban The Beatles from America. Any article must show both sides of the argument. One must wonder why it all went wrong. ... added at 08:18, 24 July 2006 by 195.93.21.67

AOLuser, your constant repetition of the claim that "Presley stole black music" does zero to make it credible; it just makes you more obviously a troll. Your only "evidence" so far is what you presented here: Chuck D (not an IP lawyer) saying nothing about Presley stealing anything; Marlon Brando (not an IP lawyer) saying that Presley took and copied black music (of course he did; it's normal for people of any pigment in the US to take and copy the music of others); and Eminem (not an IP lawyer) saying something obscure but apparently blaming himself for it almost as much as he blames Presley. Please run away and play somewhere else. Thank you. -- Hoary 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

There was a very interesting question posted on the King of Rock and Roll talk page on what the agreed-upon convention for using Elvis's name is in Wikipedia. Here is the reproduced question

I changed a couple instances of "Elvis" to "Presley" in the belief that this conforms with encyclopedic style. This might be a special case though, since Elvis was well-known under simply his first name. I checked the Elvis Presley article to see if there's any preference there, but there is no consistent convention. (It uses "Presley", "Elvis", and "Elvis Presley" interchangeably.) Is there an agreed-upon convention for Elvis's name in Wikipedia? Honestly, I didn't want to shift through the entire Presley discussion haystack to find that needle, so I decided to go with his last name simply to make it consistent with references to Chuck Berry as "Berry" in this article.

Has this issue been decided in the past before? and if not, should we establish some guidelines? Geedubber 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

• After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only.

That's the standard. -Will Beback 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the article to reflect that then? Geedubber 01:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. The only exceptions would be where more than one Presley is being discussed, in which case "Elvis", "Priscilla", etc would be appropriate to distinguish between them. -Will Beback 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Will Beback. Indeed, a look through the page history shows edits such as this one in which I've replaced "Elvis" by "Presley"; these rewritings of mine (and others) have been effectively reverted by other editors, for whatever reasons. -- Hoary 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There was even a time when he was referred to as "The King" several places throughout the article.[32] We're making progress. -Will Beback 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

New plan for peace

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

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

Greetings from Germany

Blackfoxt 19:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Nash is certainly a reputable source. She holds a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is the author of several acclaimed books. She was the first journalist authorized to view the remains of Elvis Presley. Her book Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia was published in 1995. Her research into Presley led to a second book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003). Billboard Magazine calls it a "classic of music industry reporting." Other very positive reviews in the U.S. came from The New York Review of Books, Variety magazine and Publisher's Weekly. In Great Britain, Mojo music magazine said her book was "the most incisive and comprehensive look at the life of the elusive Colonel available" and the reviewer for the London Observer lauded the book as "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written". Two other reputable authors, Guralnick and Dundy, have written on Elvis's close friendship with Adams. This is an important fact concerning Elvis's personal relationships. There are lots of photographs showing the two men together (see [33], [34],[35]), and there were lots of rumors that Elvis and Adams "were getting it on". Even theatrical plays deal with these rumors. Therefore, they should be mentioned in passing in the article. Further, Lochdale is claiming that 2000 other books do not mention the rumors. How should he know this? Did you read these books, Lochdale? I don't think so. Onefortyone 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When he brought Priscilla back to the States to live at Graceland, ostensibly under the chaperoning protection of his father Vernon and his new wife Dee, Elvis also brought back a taste for womanising. From now on, the restraints were off. The partying that had, in 1957, drawn thinly-veiled accusations of homosexuality - a scandal mag ran an article with the headline 'Presley's Powder-Puff Pals', showing a picture of Elvis and Liberace with the caption 'Two prominent bachelors' - was now progressing into fully-blown orgies. See [36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sales 1 Billion?

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

Did they not track record sales in the 50's, 60's and 70's? I think singles were more prevelant but I still think they tracked record sales. The RIAA's own website say that he is the biggest selling solo artist in US history [37]. If you add this to his sales in the UK alone then he's clearly over 120 million mark.--Lochdale 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)