Talk:Elvis Presley

I can't think of anything more disturbing that the thought of Wikipedia bowing to racial prejudice.

If this cant be removed then please shorten the argument, I am not finding any conclusions out of this, if you strongly think this is important then by all means keep it, but this is way too long.--RafiCHAMP¹ 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, but I do not agree with sweeping information under the rug - palatable or not. No clearer justification for this can be shown than racism. The underpinnings of Wikipedia is the improvement of human knowledge. Racism divides us; it limits our thinking.

Besides, if it is controversial, then it is of note. If it is of note, then Wikipedia should include it, and do so proportionally to the importance to the topic (obviously it is extremely important in this case or people would not be so motivated to manipulate it). If it is verifiable information it should be included period. If it is changed 600 times, especially in the case of racial prejudice, then it should be corrected 601 times. Sooner or later somebody will come along and post that information again anyway. Throwing our hands up in disgust or cowering away from facing up to the responsibility of Wikipedia to prevent wrong or biased information from being disseminated in its name shouldn't even be given a second thought. I certainly realize the difficulty, but work important to human progress is rarely easy.

I would suggest putting a disclaimer on the page that information has been removed because it upsets some people, but it would significantly reduce my respect for Wikipedia if that were to occur.

I'll end my rant there, but this greatly troubles me. I won't change the page until I have 100% verifiable, undeniable evidence of everything I post on this page, but assuming I can obtain that proof I will change the page to reflect the facts. I hope and expect that the people most involved with editing this page will jealously guard those facts from being removed, as this is important knowledge for all of us - changing it 601 times if necessary. Webjedi (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Webjedi. Please pardon my ignorance (perhaps you are referring to something that happened or was discussed before I started here) but would you be so kind as to explain in a little more detail what has upset you so much? I'd hate to think something within this article is inaccurate, and I'd be even more horrified if something within this article was offensive to anyone. Also, it would be easier for me to monitor what is upsetting if I knew what it was. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk Archive 23. In July I read this article and saw that the fact that he was Jewish was left out even though other components of his ancestry were listed and yet there was a reference at the bottom of the page Entitled Elvis's Jewish Roots. Furthermore, he was part Native American. A Jewish Native American! In other words, he was a good 'ole American mutt (most of us are). There aren't many people in history that have made such an impact as he did. Few (if any) have the power to contribute to social understanding 30 years post mortem. Certainly there are no other Native American Jews that have fundamentally changed an entire society.

I incorrectly connected the reasoning on that page with the removal of my edit. Going back through, I now see my change was removed due to construction of the article. Nevertheless the original reference was removed for desire to be rid of controversy. Apparently there are still many people that refuse to accept he was not 100% WASP. I don't want to accuse people of being racist but when you have an article being vandalized or edit wars going on there is something behind it. I simply feel Wikipedia has a responsibility to be an engine of social progress, and leaving out the fact that one of the greatest icons in our nation's history was so racially diverse is sidestepping that duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3bj3d1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new reference that backs up the claims he was of Jewish heritage. I noticed in at least one of the previous references it was mentioned, but the one I've added is primarily about that subject. From what I understand, the term "mixed ancestry" was used to remove the listy feel of every nationality and religion Elvis was. There are plenty of references linked to that, however, and each read is quite detailed and informative. Perhaps, if others felt it was a good idea, you could begin a section on his diverse backgrounds? I know that I find it fascinating that Elvis had such a wide and varied ancestry, and must admit that I don't know too much about it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, it should be topic of further exploration. Not just that he was Jewish, but that he was mixed in the true 'melting pot' style of America. If there is anything uniquely American, it is Elvis; and I think for all those who preach against "racial impurity" it goes to show how very wrong they are.

BTW, in order to be considered Jewish a person has to come from an unbroken line of female Jews going back to before the time of the Roman Empire. Jews account for something like .02% of World population. American Indians are about 1/4 that number making up ~.005% of World population. If I'm doing my math right that means he had <1 in 80,000 chance of being included in those two lines of ancestry simultaneously (though that doesn't account for entropy due to the his proximity to the full-blooded Native American lineage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3bj3d1 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the previous editor for summarizing the unbelievable silliness of the "Elvis was Jewish" idea. It's small wonder that this article about a fine American artist, and an honorable military serviceman, was removed from GA status. Large parts of the article are just plain rubbish! Let me point out just one glaring defect: Elvis recorded many Gospel songs, a huge part of his output if you look through the discography - and his faith was a central part of his life (hence the "Graceland" name). But there's hardly a mention of it in the article. How many of you editors have even been to an Elvis concert? If you had attended even one concert, you'd be able to immediately spot the massive disconnect between the reality of Elvis in real life and the silly pointless twaddle in this article. The whole thing reads like it was written by 9/11 truthers. Bushcutter (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually think anywhere in the article that it says Presley was Jewish. There is a link to the heritage part which explains in detail as much about his Jewish heritage as his other heritage, but it doesn't actually state he is Jewish anywhere in the article itself. And this might just be a minor point to some who don't actually know the facts, but Graceland wasn't named by Presley and so his faith has absolutely nothing to do with the name Graceland. It was named after the daughter of the man who built it, S. E. Toof. Care to guess the name of his daughter? Anyone who answered Grace can have a point! Secondly, there is more than enough evidence to back up claims that Presley had Jewish heritage, and there is also enough evidence to suggest that Presley knew of his Jewish roots. To be of Jewish heritage is maternal acquisition because there is no mistaking who is the mother of a child. Because Presley's Jewish heritage ran uninterrupted down through his maternal grandmothers, according to Jewish law Presley would be considered Jewish. He may not have openly advertised the fact he knew of his Jewish roots, and he may not have taken part in any kind of Jewish tradition, but there's no denying that he had Jewish ancestry. He put a Star of David on his mothers grave when she died, so I hardly think we can say that he kept it a complete secret. Please feel free to discuss the article and suggest corrections or improvements, but if you are going to do so at least use information that is accurate in future. I don't mind how many people come here and point out mistakes or improvements, but I do mind people who come here and don't know the facts before attacking other editors for the amount of hard work they have put into an article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you aware that a lot of Christian churches have the Star of David in them? As proof of anything, it fails. Collect (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it proved anything at all. From all I have read it was because of her Jewish roots that he did it. If you have an alternative source that undoubtedly proves it was for other reasons then I'd be very happy to read it. The decision was made by him in honour of his Jewish heritage, something his mother was proud of and acknowledged to Elvis at a very early age. It may very well be used by a lot of Christian Churches, but it is generally recognised as a Jewish symbol, and as Gladys was open with Elvis about their ancestry, I see no reason to doubt that it was placed there for that very reason, especially as her gravestone carries both the Star of David and a Cross. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP requires cites for claims, not proof that the claim was errant. In short - do you have a cite quoting him as saying he did it because she was Jewish? By the way, many Muslims also use the Magen David -- so using it as proof of "Jewishness" is even weaker than you might have thought. Unless you find a reliable source on your claim, it does not belong in the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the article at all. The only part of the article that links to anything about Elvis having Jewish ancestry is in the Early Life section, where a link or two were placed for those who felt it should be mentioned. It doesn't say anywhere that Elvis was, is or thought of himself as Jewish. By all accounts, he didn't think of himself as Jewish, but he did know of his Jewish ancestry. What is wrong with that? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Collect, I think we're just whistling in the wind here. The ensuing discussion shows more than ever that few, if any, here have a clue what Elvis was really about in real life, and clearly none of obsessive types have ever been to an Elvis concert and seen the man in real life and listened to him sing from his heart. The obsession with irrelevant trivia (his "Jewishness", the clueless discussion of his mother's addictions, trying to find evidence of "racial prejudice" in the man, his lack of sexual perversions, the lack of understanding of his annoyance with the Beatles, the low quality discussion of his military service, and the almost total lack of discussion of the most important part of his life: his Christian faith) is what has driven the quality of this article down from "not bad" status, to its present "bloody awful" status. Bushcutter (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem here? This whole section starts with someone complaining about there being no mention of Presley's Jewish roots. So what is done? A link, only a link, no actual mention in the article, about his Jewish ancestry. Now we have people complaining that it mentions it at all? How do we go forward with this? If we remove the link, which is all that it is, then someone will come along and complain about it not being included. If we keep in the link, which is all that it is, then someone will come along and complain about it being included. I for one, don't have any interest either way about Elvis and his Jewish ancestry. It wasn't me that initially brought up the whole Jewish thing, and it wasn't me who put the first link. I only added one extra link for someone who thought it had been missed out. It's what it is, it's suggested in the article, and that's it. If any of you feel you can do a better job of the article then feel free. I'm interested to see how it goes and how well those people deal with free-flowing criticism of nearly everything they've written. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm bemused by Bushcutter's bitter comments here. If he/she wants to, they should post rewrites or edits of the sections that are so disliked (with supporting citations). Bushcutter clearly has little knowledge of how this article has had to evolve to keep various ardent editors happy; several, if not all, currently active editors are less than happy with the article, but it is a lot better than it was before any nominations. It was downgraded to B class because of failure to agree on edits to reduce its length. If Bushcutter is an unhappy reader, can I suggest they make positive suggestions regarding change, and refrain from gratuitously insulting the positive, time-consuming and arduous efforts of editors who could quite easily have kissed this god-forsaken article good bye a long time ago. Rikstar (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As always when this comes up, the most straightforward solution would be the "mixed ancestry" statement followed with the references for all of the "groups" in the mix. This doesn't sweep anything under the rug. It acknowledges it, but in a way that doesn't give it importance out of proportion to the entire man, his life, and his importance. This is more or less what we have now, but someone feels the Cherokee part deserves special mention. Maybe someone would like to start an article on Elvis's Ancestry? As Rikstar points out, we've keep going over the same ground here.Steve Pastor (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cherokee mention is made as the immediate prior mention is about his primarily European ancestry. Most people do not consider Cherokees to be European. Yes, we could have absolutely zero mention of his ancestry. The mention now is far shorter than it had been when the article was most bloated. Collect (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, although many Jewish people came to the US from Europe, the ancestral home of the Jewish people isn't in Europe. So, by the same logic of "the Cherokee aren't from Europe"....you could make a case for Presley's Jewish ancestry being mentioned. I think it's best to have no exceptions to all of the mix being in references. But it's not a big deal.Steve Pastor (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For well over a thousand years, the Ashkenazim (literally "German Jews") have been European. Collect (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully suggest that there's a level of authoritarian ignorance at play here that dooms this article. For instance, the obsession with race, ancestry, and racism completely dishonors Elvis' Christian faith in which the concept of "race" doesn't exist. Amongst Christian believers, there is no color or race. And here's a note from the section below to show an example of an editor gratuitously re-introducing an utterly pointless bit of trivial trash: "I have reincluded the remark relating to Gladys's drinking problem, as it is of some importance." How does this type of scurrilous rubbish - whether it's true or not - contribute to a good quality article? Answer: it doesn't. It belongs in an article about Gladys, not Elvis. The result is an article that is so bad that the reader can't help but feel waves of shame from reading such mean-spirited nastiness. I can only weep at the mean and grinding insults being heaped upon the memory of a fine, gallant, and honorable American man by people who have never met him. It's painful to see it. Bushcutter (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect when I say this, Bushcutter, you clearly sound like an intelligent person who is interested in seeing this article reach its potential, but sadly you are coming across as an obsessive fan who thinks that Presley was a perfect man with no failings. We know that isn't true. He was an adulterer, a liar, a drug user/abuser, and he contemplated murder on at least one occasion. That's just the stuff we know about. It's not things that have been made up by any editor here, it's facts that have been cited and spoken of by the men and women who knew, worked with, loved and lived with Presley for many of his years on this planet. I don't understand your point about "the obsession with race, ancestry, and racism..." as there is no mention in the article about his race or ancestry except for one sentence at the very beginning that links to other sites for the facts. Regarding the racism, I haven't read anywhere in the article that says he was a racist. There are claims that he acted or spoke in a racist manner on occasion, but there is also a counterbalance to suggest that it was taken out of context and he wasn't a racist. You might feel it's not relevant to the article, and that's your prerogative, but as it is a direct attack on Presley, it is only fair for it to be defended against, and again it doesn't go into such great detail that it requires hacking to pieces. You constantly bring up his Christian faith, and it's common knowledge that Presley was a strong believer in God and was a charitable man in many ways, but let us not allow a man's faith to be a cloak of invisibility over the rest of his life. Presley was human. Flesh and blood like any of us, and he had his faults and sins which he couldn't escape. If we were to remove everything in the article that is negative towards this man, then it would genuinely be a "fan shrine" which is something that I personally do not want it to become. It's quite amusing, really, that nearly every regular editor of this article has been accused at some point of being an obsessed Presley fan attempting to build a shrine to his memory, and yet it's those regular editors who are the most fair, balanced and open-minded people working on it. I really cannot understand how this article can be fair and balanced if when it is a little positive we get attacked for it, and if it is a little negative we get attacked for it. As Rikstar has suggested above, if you wish to improve the article, then it would be much more resourceful for you to put your energies into that rather than complaining about the current content. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's the lack of decency in this article that getting to me. There was a time when people would say,"Speak no ill of the departed." The reason for not speaking ill is that it demeans the speaker because the departed has no chance to defend himself. Every one of us has defects and has contemplated murder, but decent people don't go on and on about that fact after the subject is dead and gone. Elvis did his best, yet many here are trying to tear him to shreds. Even if Elvis' defects are worth dragging out of the closet, surely you should have the decency to explain (as rebuttal) why he was in such pain near the end of his life. The article presents him as a demented, immoral pervert (which we all are at heart), and let it go at that. You could make the same case against Abraham Lincoln, or John F Kennedy - but what's the point? They're all dead, and we only need to know how they overcame weakness, not the details of their weaknesses. We don't learn from studying peoples' defects; we learn from studying how they overcame their defects and did something great in the world. To dwell on defects and troubles only shows the editors as mean-minded gossips. Nothing useful is conveyed. As an encyclopedia article, it's nasty and useless.

Now let me suggest another direction: Elvis was born into a troubled and poor family. He overcame these handicaps with a strong faith. He continually acknowledged his faith, and sang publicly about it (why doesn't this article mention that?) He was grateful for his country and was willing to serve it. He was manipulated by clever people who took advantage of him. He found it difficult to live with celebrity isolation from his roots. His troubles culminated in his premature death. No gossipy details about how maybe he's Jewish, or his mother's addictions, or his father's scams, or how he died. Elvis has a heart-rending and sad story to tell, a story that's useful to future generations, but this article isn't even close. We all can learn much from his life story, but this article is simply annoying and mean. Bushcutter (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The myth surrounding his first public performance

In the article, an oft-told story is written as follows:

"On October 3, 1945, at age ten, he made his first public performance in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show at the suggestion of his teacher Mrs. J.C. Grimes. Dressed as a cowboy, the young Presley had to stand on a chair to reach the microphone and sang Red Foley's "Old Shep." He came second, winning $5 and a free ticket to all the Fair rides."

Jaye9 has done some digging amongst some good sources and it seems Elvis did not come second as is commonly believed and accepted. So this may have to be rewritten, or a note added. Rikstar (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for this being replaced if there is a decent enough reference for it. From what I gather, he may have come fifth, and even later on claimed to recall fifth place himself when questioned. I haven't ever seen any evidence to back up this claim, however, and that is perhaps why the myth is that he came second. If there's a good enough reference to back up these claims, then it should be added. If the reference is from a questionable source, however, it should be considered very carefully before being added. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ElvisFan, Thank you so much for your response. I take you've read my comments on Rikstar's talk page and the points you've made are very valid and sensible. Okay here we go: what is cited in the article is from David Stanley? When I brought up the question of the myth of Elvis coming 2nd, it just got me bugged. The few sources I found seemed to show enough evidence for me to question the story, thats all. Granted, Bill Burk's books are self published. I think and alot people quite possibly don't know that out there and the video I saw only was released in 2008. There is the mention on it of Elvis wearing a cowboy outfit on stage, a friend of mind has loaned me boxes of Elvis books (I think my family's getting a little worried). However I have only seen two photo's of Elvis in a Cowboy Outfit, except for Television stint on Steve Allen Show I think by memory. The two photo's are 1.Thirteen-year-old Elvis in cowboy gear, not long before the Presley family moved to memphis (with mountain back drop and fence) prop source: Elvis Handbook by Tara McAdams 2. Photography taken of Elvis in September 1953, captures the young Presley in a moody pose with his cousin Gene Smith, both are dressed as cowboys. Source: The Official Collector's Edition Part 9.

The two photo's of Elvis at that fair show elvis in same trousers with suspenders (that hold the trousers up) and same shirt. It's just that I havn't seen a photo of him in a cowboy outfit when he was ten, not saying there isn't.

In regard to David Stanley :) I'm not saying his lying, far from it, he may be repeating something he has heard like so many others. Peter Gurlanick even says it, he is my favourite author, it has not swayed my opinion of him at all, for reasons I explained above, it just may have got missed. As I said to Rikstar, if anyone here believes there is insufficient evidence to mention this in the article or make a note, we'll just drop it. Thank you--Jaye9 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jaye. I don't think it should be dropped, far from it. I think it's very interesting to find that it may just be a myth. As a fan of Elvis for over twenty years since the age of five myself, and having read many books and collected many films and books on him and I have come across the suggestion that he may have not come second, but I have never seen or read any evidence to properly support the claim. I think the fact there isn't a photograph of him at the fair is interesting too, as you would expect it to have made the local paper. It then raises the question of whether there is a photograph at all, even of the three winners who are supposed to have beaten Elvis? I've never seen such a photograph either. Of course, it must be noted that a lot of material from those days were not kept or archived the way that material today is. The two photo's you speak of, I've seen also, and are obviously not from the fair. I've never heard of the writer you speak of, but that doesn't mean that he isn't a well respected author and should be ignored. I think if he has a valid point to be made then it should possibly be included. I am, however, willing to accept the change because elvis.com states fifth place [1], That is enough for me to be happy for it to be changed. It's from the most reliable source we could possibly have, and therefore must accept it. If no one has any objections, I suggest we change it today. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey E, I shouldn't mention this but I've just come home from a party and I hardy ever drink,but I had a glass of wine with a cork in it,but I still have my facualties. I forgot to mention the Elvis On Tour out takes that Bill Burk talks about where Elvis mentions about possibly coming firth and that he wore glasses for a brief time in the fifth grade, I watched it on tuesday,I tell you this friend of mine has everything on him and it's obviously a bootleg,part of it has no sound,it's distorted in places,but Elvis does say these exact words. I must admit it was a little painfull to watch,as I like things done with quality,but I had to hear it for myself. I think Bill Burk's books are out of print now,I'm not sure and he passed away a little while back. However if you go on the internet you can order the the Elvis On Tour Out Takes and the Video Elvis-Return to Tupelo. The Elvis-Return to Tupelo is well worth watching.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I own the bootlegged Elvis on Tour Special Edition but haven't got round to watching yet. I also watched Return to Tupelo twice and found it fascinating. Will definitely be buying that when I am able to. It's hard to tell how serious Elvis was being without actually having seen him remark on it, but I'll try to have a look over the weekend. I think we should change it to fifth place, as it appears that it's the more accurate telling. Wherever the source for it has come from, it was good enough for EPE to change their records. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen or heard any first or second hand accounts that Elvis came second. Just third hand biographers accounts. From what Jaye9 has shown, some people who were actually there say he was fifth, and I don't think those people have a vested interest in lying about it. If EPE, who are used elsewhere in the article, say it's fifth because of their own research, I agree with ElvisFan that it should be changed, and EPE is cited. Go ahead and change it.Rikstar (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Elvis.com says fifth, so I have no beef there. But the statement by Rikstar that, "...people who were actually there..." would not have a "...vested interest in lying about it..." is troubling. Whether any person would actually lie about anything does not affect the fact that all losers ('also-rans') and their families do have a "vested interest" in lying about it. This is driven by the human spirit of competition and the desire to be 'first' or 'better' than others. This is a human trait. It is the same trait that makes some men stuff a rolled-up sock in the crotch area of their tight jeans. It's the same trait that makes spare-tire guys suck it in as much as possible when a pretty woman walks by. It's the same trait that keeps the falsies, padded bras, and Silicon breast implant businesses in business. Just an observation. . . Joe Hepperle (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rikstar exactly,

I read an interview on Peter Gurlanick and it was interesting, because when Gurlanick was interviewing Sam Phillips he said to him, don't trust anyone, follow your gut instinct and when I watched the Elvis-Return to Tupelo alot them never get interviewed and I carn't image the National Enquirer knocking on their door any time soon. They just seemed genuine, with nothing to gain. I've met DJ Fontana and Red and Pat West,spent a little time with them. I meam it was only a few weeks, you carn't really get to know people that much it that time, but the way they conducted themselves, if Presley was a quarter as a nice as they were, he's alright in my books--Jaye9 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought, Jaye, after reading this, that YOU had met DJ and Red West, but I read it again... Rikstar (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have, Rikstar, it's a vague memory now,it was a few years ago. Very nice regular folks,as they say. Pat West likes the band AC/DC,you won't read that in a Presley book.--Jaye9 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey ElvisFan, Just read elvis.com. Good Job! Gota go and make Christmas Cake and Pudding fun job,not. Will be back tommorrow.--Jaye9 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes

I tried changinging from "commonly called by his first name" to "commonoly called "Elvis" in the lead, and removing his return "with acclaim" to just his return, and the subsequent word "thereafter" as unneeded wordage. It was reverted, but I would like to know actually why "thereafter" and "with acclaim" and the change to actually citing his first name was so quickly opposed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Collect. The main thing I noticed in your minor changes was that it read as follows: 'A cultural icon, he is commonly called "Elvis", and as the "King of Rock and Roll"', which doesn't read well. Presley made bad movies, then returned to good live performing. This is reflected in the article's opening summary by reference to poorly reviewed films and, by contrast, a well-received TV special, ie. the performance was acclaimed, and the citation given supports that view, just as the citation before it supports the fact that his films were badly reviewed. So I guess I reverted it to draw attention to why it was written that way in the first place. "Thereafter" could go arguably: maybe any such proposed minor changes could be posted and discussed here first if they are disputed. Any improvements would be welcome. Rikstar (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider "Commonly called "Elvis" to be pretty straightforward -- reverting it instead of removing "as" is not the way to get an article improved. Adverbial phrases which are not important to the factual content of an article are also quite unimportant. As for "badly reviewed" that is "opinion" and not fact (how are you to know whether the films were simply given their proper reviews, or were unfairly panned, which appears to be the reason for having "badly reviewed" in the text?) As for removing "thereafter" and "however" and the like -- they are non-controversial, and asking for a twenty line explanation for a ten character removal is absurd. I would ask that you do a self-revert and edit, as otherwie it appears you are asserting ownership of the article. Reverting minor edits is not the way to get other editors to assist in fixing an over-long article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith, and as such I will do a self-revert. I do not own this article, and never thought I did. Rikstar (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "commonly referred to by his first name" sounds better. I'll explain why. It's obvious that he was "commonly called Elvis", because that was his name. Also, I think it's interesting that he was one of the first acts in musical history to be recognised simply by his first name. How many others can you name from before or during his early career? I think that the impact of "commonly referred to by his first name only" explains that in a great way, and illustrates how important his name was. Frank? Dean? James? All these names mean nothing without the surnames. Elvis, however, has an immediate impact and I think the article definitely read and sounded better the way it originally was. Supposedly it's been changed because it saves "space" but as it only saves a few words, I don't think it's a dramatic difference. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- last I looked, his first name was "Elvis" -- using the circumlocution of "first name" makes little sense. And he was not the first to be called by his first name, nor will he be the last. Look at "Aretha" and "Madonna" for example. Or "Bing" even. And I know some would like the article to be a paean to Elvis, but the purpose of WP is to make encyclopedia articles, not to have mini-shrines embedded in it <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was the first, I was emphasising how rare it was. There weren't many before his time who could be recognised by their first name in the music business, and I feel that the original sentence was an appropriate way of pointing out that fact. Bing is a good example, but Madonna and Aretha came after. I don't want this article to be a shrine to Elvis, far from it. I hope that it can be a well balanced article with good and bad points about the man. So far, every editor that I have experienced working on it has been open-minded enough to use both good and bad. I'm not going to argue with anyone over the opening paragraph and I am not pushing for it to be changed, I am merely stating my own opinion that I felt the way it was suited the article better. That is the purpose of the discussion page. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Enrico. Actually first names go back a long way for people who have reasonably unusual ones. <g> In any case, the aim is always improving the article, not fighting. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know plenty of 80+ years-olds who love Bing Crosby, and he has always been referred to by both names - rarely just "Bing", but many in the same care home will refer to "Elvis". Local anecdotal evidence maybe, but I don't think it's the exception. I've never heard in discussions about opera singers that someone loves "Enrico"; he's always "Caruso" or his full name is used. Having an unusual name is not the point here. I actually took a lot of stick when I changed "Elvis" (which a lot of editors used) to "Presley" to standardize things throughout this article; clearly a lot of people think he is and should be commonly referred to as Elvis - it is his moniker, not merely his first name. Are there editors of Crosby and Caruso filling their talkpages with requests to have their first names used throughout? A reference to all this was what was intended in the summary - a point made by ElvisFan1981.

The reference to "poorly reviewed" movies IS ambiguous; the majority of Presley films were critically panned, and that is what the summary is supposed to say - not that the reviews were unfair. This should be changed.

It would perhaps be more constructive if points like this were discussed without implying or assuming bias on the part of "Elvis fans": some of us editors have put up with a tiresome number of unfounded accusations of bias, whilst we have shown time and again that we have supported the balanced view, even putting in negative material that would make most "Elvis Worshippers" weep. Challenging an edit is one thing, but accusations, whether direct or implied, are quite another. Please, let's all assume good faith. Thanks in anticipation. Rikstar (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I surely did not mean to imply bias. I did mean to imply that the article is likely too long <g> and that sensible pruning would make it more readable. Collect (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. My sincerest apologies for reverting your first edit; I am sure it was made with the best of intentions. I fully agree that sensible pruning is a real option: it has been attempted by editors before, including myself, but agreement has been difficult to achieve. I live in hope! Many thanks for your involvement with this article. Rikstar (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Songwriter?

Presley didn't write songs. Heslopian's recent edit needs reverting. Rikstar (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this. Presley did co-write at least one song I know of, and was a very good song arranger, but I think that calling him a singer-songwriter is a bit over the top because he's not someone I consider in that genre. The majority of the songs (50's) that Presley was credited with were for publishing reasons, at the recommendation (for want of a better word) of Col. Parker. I think that as an arranger he as far superior, and it's well documented about how much control he took over the production of the majority of his songs. If no one has any objections by the end of the day, or a good reason for why it shouldn't be reverted, then I'll take the step if no one has done so before hand. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for Heslopian asking him to revert his edit, but someone had to do it, so thanks! Rikstar (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize there's only so much room for each artist here, but unlike a lot of other artists here, I find a shameful lack of any real comprehensive analysis of Elvis' work, how massively important and groundbreaking it was, and why. A lack of in-depth look into his most important songs and albums. Elvis wasn't a "songwriter" in the literal sense of the word, but he had an innate and deeply natural musical sense and musical ear. He was a master interpreter of song and a master reinventer of songs. Most of his hits were not covers, but his covers in general were usually so dramtically altered and rearranged by him, they were practically new songs. Once he left Sun Records for RCA where he hit it big, he almost immediately took complete control of most every one of his recording sessions throughout his career, because he was getting none of the help he had had with Sam Phillips at Sun. In those days, especially in pop and rock music, the artist was rarely credited with producing and arranging, but Elvis did both for the large majority of his recordings. Steve Sholes was the RCA Victor A&R man in the 50's and early 60's, and while he was often at the sessions in an official capacity and was labeled the producer, much as Felton Jarvis was later on, it has been very well documented over the decades by countless people who were in the studio with him throughout his career that Elvis was in complete charge and knew exactly what he wanted, from instrumentation, to vocals, to backing vocals, to mixing (particularly the non-movie song mixes) - the entire arranging and production process. He had it all in his head. Elvis never had a George Martin or a Quincy Jones. He did it himself. More than anything, Sholes and Jarvis were there to give him what he wanted, and regardless of what they thought, if Elvis liked or didn't like something, his was the final word. There are accounts of him going ballistic upon hearing a mix that had been changed after he had left the studio. He has never been properly credited with this entire aspect in the mainstream, and if this place is legit, it needs to be corrected here. This "he didn't write songs" crap, mostly brought up in recent years and meant in a negative way usually by people who know nothing about him, is so blatantly ignorant and missing the point with Elvis Presley so badly, it's criminal. I'm pretty sure Aretha Franklin didn't write many songs, but she's still the "Queen of Soul" for a reason. Elvis, especially someone like Elvis, needs to be properly credited in what is supposed to be a proper encyclopedia and bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.15.158 (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sprituality

This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans, including his exploration of Mormonism and possible baptism in the Mormon church, which is well documented in articles and even movies (http://blog.ldspad.com/2007/10/26/elvis-presley-mormon-king-of-rock-and-roll/). It is not not inline with Wikipedia's policies to suppress information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.142.141 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans".

It could just as easily be asserted that edits about Mormonism are an attempt to promote said church by including information in high profile articles from sources with vested interests. Neither argument assumes good faith, which is another wiki policy. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)"

->That's a foolish rebuttal. If something is factual, or debately factual, and releveant to the article, it properly belongs in the article. Material doesn't violate Wikipedia policy simply because one cross-segment of the population is interested in it, promotes it, or appreciates it, while another group is disinterested in it, and wants to suppress it. I propose the following statement be prepended to this article on the topic, which statement I think is fair, "Elvis Presley owned a Book of Mormon which he is known to have read, and which is marcated throughout in his own handwriting. The extent, or nature of, his interest in Mormonism is undetermined and debated."

That statement is bias within itself. Elvis was known, through his interviews and related sources, to have not been associated with the Latter Day Saint movement. Your source is a Blog, blogs are not viable sources at all. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Elvis was affiliated with the Mormon Church and a Book of Mormon with his handwriting expressing belief in the precepts of that church exists. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,650195503,00.html You Elvis fans may not like this fact, but that doesnt' change that it is a fact and should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.147.18 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many headlines

There are way too many useless headlines, therefore I am removing the ones 1. Havent been updated in a long time 2. Useless

You dont like what I am doing please tell me why you think that headline should stay on my talk page.--RafiCHAMP¹ 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

These "useless headlines" form part of every talk page eventually. They are the headings for topics of discussion. They are not to be removed at will, but archived when there are too many on a page, as on this one (they may be needed for future reference, especially regarding disputes). This talkpage already has 7 archives. More of it should be archived, but I'm not sure how to do it. Rikstar (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have archived most of this talkpage - see 'November 2008' in the list above. Rikstar (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's start over - new sandbox version proposed

Due to general feelings of dissatisfaction with the Elvis Presley main article, I have edited it down, but added much needed images, to half the size here: [2].

Everyone please note: this is not what I consider a finished piece; no version of it will please everyone; it has been a sincere attempt to cut bloat and editors should refrain from adding, or re-adding, extraneous stuff; I have not included links to all sub articles; it may contain errors, and anyone is free to suggest corrections.

And please, in the spirit of wikipedia, let's make all comments/criticism helpful, encouraging and positive! Times are hard for many of us and may get worse; if tapping a few keys to improve this article is a welcome source of relief or satisfaction for any of us, please, let's all support it! Happy New year. Rikstar (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think most of this talk page should be archived, but I haven't looked at how to do it yet. If anyone wants to volunteer... Rikstar (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one wholeheartedly support this and reading it recently has given me a much needed boost of renewed enthusiasm and hope of achieving a better understanding of Presley by avoiding the temptation to overhype his achievements or for that matter belittle him for his failings. Either way I believe detracts the reader from what your trying to say.

I recently discussed here on the talk page the myth surrounding his first public appearance. To the editor who corrected it to fifth place thank you,however the bit about the cowboy outfit is still there. I am only mentioning this as it doesn't exactley sit with me very well as the sources I used and the one user: Elvis Fan found with elvis.com all confer with the fifth placing,but mention nothing about the cowboy outfit,makes me wonder if it should stay in the article. Perhaps if we replaced it with "The talent show is broadcast over WELO Radio" Source: elvis.com and the other sources say this a well. Any thoughts? or am I being a little over the top here.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what he wore is at all relevant, even it it is true. If it's not in the source, it should be cut. Rikstar (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have omitted most of the criticism together with the personal life sections, you should rename the current sandbox version of the article. Perhaps "Elvis Presley's step-by-step development into a gospel-minded rock 'n' roll superstar" would now be a more appropriate title. Sorry, but in view of this new, "abridged" version, I am very happy with the long Wikipedia article as it stands. Onefortyone (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, last year there was a kind of consensus in favor of this relatively short version of the article's first section:

Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.

Presley was born in East Tupelo, the second of identical twins (his brother was stillborn). As an only child he was "unusually close to his mother." The family lived in a two room house just above the poverty line.Template:Fn In 1938, Vernon Presley was jailed for a check forgery. The absence of his father "had a profound effect upon Elvis' emotional development".

At age ten, Presley won second prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show for his rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep".

In 1946, Presley got his first guitar. In November 1948, the family moved to Memphis, Tennessee, allegedly because Vernon had to escape the law for transporting bootleg liquor. At school, Presley was bullied for being different, a stutterer and "a mama's boy." At L. C. Humes High School, he was viewed as "a sad, shy, not especially attractive boy"; some students made fun of him for playing "trashy" hillbilly music.

In 1949, the family lived at a public housing development in one of Memphis' poorer sections. Presley practiced playing guitar in a five-piece band with other tenants. He occasionally worked evenings to boost the family income, and began to grow his sideburns and dress in the wild, flashy clothes of Lansky Brothers on Beale Street. He stood out, especially in the conservative Deep South of the 1950s, and he was mocked for it. Despite any unpopularity, Presley won as a contestant in his school's 1952 "Annual Minstrel Show" singing "Cold Cold Icy Fingers" and "Till I Waltz Again With You".

After graduation, Presley was still rather shy and “more comfortable just sitting there with a guitar than trying to talk to you." His third job was driving a truck for the Crown Electric Company. Like his fellow drivers, he began wearing his hair longer with a "ducktail".

I support this version with the first reference provided above to back the statement of her drinking and Rikstar's additional of their elopement. Lara❤Love 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So do I - let's have some clear preferences noted on here!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, absolutely, unequivocally. Except for the omission of the Johnny Burnette quote, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of this article's progress. Rikstar (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

These are clear statements. However, Rikstar may add the Burnette quote as he thinks it is "interesting and relevant."Onefortyone (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

However, nothing has happened. Onefortyone (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, nothing happened, move on.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that 141 rates so highly a 'B' rated article about Presley; I wonder what changes he thinks will improve it. LaraLove bowed out of this discussion noting that 141 seemed to have an agenda; I am certainly not inclined to get involved in 141's established need to add negative content that many other editors have tired of criticizing, going back many months ago. As Jaye9 says: "Been there, done that, nothing happened, move on." Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In order not to confuse issues, I propose that further discussion of the sandbox version should continue only on the talk page of the sandbox article. Thank you. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I complimented you there. The sandbox article is, in my opinion, a superior effort. Collect (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Questioning of sources

I'm questioning a couple of sources that have been used on the Main Page under the title "First recordings and performances". I'll do one at time,wait for a response and then move on to the next one if that's okay.

First being:where is says "(The DJ mispronounced Presley's apparently unusual name as "Elton Preston")[61] Source:Carr and Farren,p.6 My Response: It doesn't make sense to me,when the DJ being Dewey Phillip's could get it wrong, and with such another uncommen name such as Elton and after reading what Jerry Hopkins wrote,who makes no mention of this error, makes it more unbelievable,as Dewey already knew Sam Phillips before he even intervieved Elvis on radio,here's a except from his book about that interview and the playing of the record.(Sorry it's a bit long)

"He was a tall wavy-haired man with a soft voice,a bit of a paunch,a ready grin,and sitting in his shirtsleeved listening to his friend Sam,and then to Elvis's record,he said yes,he liked it too,and he'd sure give it a spin".

"The night Dewey played the record,Elvis tuned the family radio to WHBQ and ran to his favourite escape,the Suzore No.2 theatre. His parents said later he was so nervous,or shy,to be where he might hear his own record. Elvis probably didn't remember which film he was watching that night,because his parents walked the ailes to find him before the movie was over. Dewey had played the record,the listners had began to call in their enthusiastic reaction. Dewey played it again and again,an now he wanted to interview Elvis on the air".

Not long before he died,Dewey told what happened during that interview.

"Elvis arrived out of breath and Dewey said,"Sit down,I'm gone interview you." And according to Dewey,Elvis said, "Mr.Phillips,I don't know nothing about being interviewed."

"Just don't say nothing dirty,'Dewey said back. "He sat down and I said I'd let him know when we were ready to start,' Dewey recalled. "I had a couple of records cued up,and while they played,we talked. I asked him where he went to school and he said Humes" etc etc Source: "Elvis The Biography" by Jerry Hopkins p.47 & p.48--Jaye9 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to lose the "Elton Preston" anecdote; there's already another reference to him having a funny name. I'll remove the Carr & Farren quote. Rikstar (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done so, and I've also rewritten this bit using Hopkins as the main source. Rikstar (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this next one reminds me of how difficult it all is when researching on Presley. On the Main Page Titled:"First recording and performances" were it says. "That's All Right" was aired on July 8,1954,by DJ Dewey Phillips".[61]b Source:Carr and Farren,p6

I checked the date out and got two different ones:

10 July 1954: Dewey Phillips plays That's All Right,Mama on WHBQ radio,Memphis Tennessee. Source:www.elvis.com/topic/deweyphillips

Here's what Elaine Dundy had to say: "On Monday night of 5th July,while fooling aroung during a break in the session,Sam's search for his elusive sound finally came to fruition with Elvis singing "That's All Right{Mama)."

"Just two days after,on Wednesday,Sam's old friend and ex-partner Dewey Phillips played "That's All Right{Mama}'on his popular evening WHBQ radio program. Source: "Elvis and Gladys" by Elaine Dundy p.89

I'm no Elvis expert,but I'd go with Elaine Dundy because of her endepth study on Presley alone.--Jaye9 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So that's July 7? Fine with me. I did check, and July 7 was a Wednesday. I'll change this if no one disagrees. Rikstar (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the sandbox version to included the existing footnotes. Some of these (in red) need reformatting, or removing. The Notes may need amending too. The sandbox article is 100 kilobytes long, the current B-rated article is 142 kilobytes, and contains fewer images. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Made some more changes, generally to shorten it; notable ones are described in history. I'm trying to cut anything, but if it is significant, it can probably go in an existing linked sub article. I know people are reading this, and I am conscious that I don't want to create re-reading work for you all.

I also am not sure where we stand in using this version, even if current editors feel it forms a better article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"I asked him where he went to school and he said Humes" etc etc Source: "Elvis The Biography" by Jerry Hopkins p.47 & p.48" So, did he also say that he asked this question so that people would know Elvis wasn't black? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, see my response to your question above on the Usertalk:Rikstar/Sandbox re:sandbox version,hope this will help you with your question.--Jaye9 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Guralnick (1994), page 373, the first of the two concerts he performed at the 1956 Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show was policed by 40 police and highway patrolmen. 50, not 100, National Guardsmen were added for the evening show. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Elvis art - portrait likeness sculpture, bust, figure of elvis

Welcome to: http://www.elvis-art.spb.ru/Main.html You must see this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElvisSculptureART (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, in that kitchyElvis sort of way, but it doesn't have a whole load to do with how to improve the Presley main article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 16:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism

Should there not be some mention of Elvis's documented racism somewhere in this article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article, notably the fifth paragraph of Controversy and Cultural Impact? Do you have any references to the "documented" racism of Elvis you refer to? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Controversy and Cultural Impact, which I just reviewed... it is significant, I think, that by 1960, Sinatra appeared with Elvis in the Welcome Home special, and should perhaps be added to show how Elvis became accepted over time (and only 4 years at that!). Also, seems to me, and I've brought this up before, whatever black/white confusion there was initially, it didn't keep a number of records from selling well in the South, or Elvis generating large, enthusiastic crowds. ie that is clearly an overstatement of any influence there was. Again, I've brought this up before, don't think it's a big thing, but DO think it would make things more objective to make those changes.Steve Pastor (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the hundred or so books I've read on Elvis, not once did I ever here of Elvis being racist in anyway. The definition of racism is the oppression of someone because of race that is manifested in a physical manner such as, violence, suppression of job and housing availability etc. Elvis is documented in many instances to be just the opposite. And just to clarify, using the word "nigger" may show bigotry or prejudice but it is in no way by definition "racist". If anyone has documented instances of Elvis being "racist", please post it here. Mfbinc (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The above comment has not been made by me,I think someone has forgotten to sign in perhaps. I really don't know how to respond to this,if only to say it's a very touchy subject indeed. Not so much involving Presley,I have my views on that,but the subject itself,if feels like a no win situation indeed.

I do believe however,it is fairly covered in the article as it stands.

If anyone cares to,type in: was elvis a racist? by Lee Dawson,then click on Elvis Presley was no racist. It pretty well sums how I feel about it. Interestingly,you'll notice a really nice photo of Myrna Smith & Elvis Presley and ask yourself,does that look like someone who's racist? If so,he's a better actor then I ever thought he was.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. For relevant quotes, see, for instance Talk:Elvis Presley/archive11. Onefortyone (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's some REALLY relevant quotes: "Elvis was an integrator. Elvis was a blessing." - Little Richard. Or "That's my idol, Elvis Presley" - Eddie Murphy. Or "I wasn't just a fan [of Elvis], I was his brother. I love him and hope to see him in heaven. There'll never be another like that soul brother." James Brown. Does that sound like a racist? I don't think so. Bushcutter (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New video about Elvis

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4101376482992264027

I have put the postcard in this video for sale on Ebay. I think this video by Al Robinson has historic value to Elvis fans. Bobby Walker 64.149.19.105 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interests

It would be real interesting to have a section that describes Elvis's interests and hobbies. We all know that Elvis loved cars and had an interest in comic books. As for sports, Elvis loved football and boxing. Elvis was, in fact, friends with Muhammad Ali. Ali gave Elvis a pair of signed boxing gloves and Elvis gave Ali a boxing robe to walk to the ring with (not sure if he ever wore it though). Here is an example of something that could go in the interest section:

Elvis was a huge football fan and it was his favorite sport. According to childhood friend Jerry Schilling, Elvis would play pickup football games every Sunday at Guthrie Park located in North Memphis, Tennessee during the mid-to-late 1950s until he got too famous to play without attracting a large crowd. Elvis is even said to have brought Natalie Wood to the games on the back of his motorcycle so she could watch. Elvis was a fan of the Cleveland Browns mainly because his favorite player was Browns' Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown. Schilling said Elvis would imitate Jim Brown's walk back to the huddle. Elvis played these pickup football games with the likes of Ricky Nelson, Pat Boone, Johnny Rivers, and Red West. Nelson some Sundays would actually recruit friends from the football teams of the Los Angeles Rams, UCLA Bruins, and USC Trojans to play on his team against Elvis. As for what position Elvis played, Schilling described Elvis as being "more of a quarterback."

Here is my citation:

Schilling, Jerry. Interview. The George Klein Show. Sirius XM Radio. Elvis Radio, Memphis. 30 Jan. 2009. --Akhosrof (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ali did wear the robe that Elvis gave to him, but only once. He lost that fight and saw the robe as a bad omen. I'm not sure if a section about his interests would be right for the article, perhaps it would feel too trivial? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does feel trivial. However, so does Elvis's meeting with the Beatles. That seems a little out of place with the rest of the article as well. These things are all trivial, but interesting nonetheless. I guess the point is, when I come to Wikipedia, I want to have the option of learning as much as possible about a certain topic. Maybe this article is not the best place for Elvis's interests, but it probably should have some place on this site. I do understand though that this is a very low priority in relation to the rest of the work that needs to be done on the article. --Akhosrof (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Beatles bit, like his interests, favorite foods, sexual conquestss, detail about his parents, etc., etc., are of interest, but it is also trivial or less relevant than other information about Presley. I have amended the article accordingly here [3]. There is a good case for including these less serious/relevant aspects of Presley's life in wikipedia, but I think they should be included in existing - or newly created - related articles. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article's ending

Two quotes were chosen to sum up Presley's life to provide a fitting end to the article, namely:

Paul F. Campos has written: "The Elvis cult touches on so many crucial nerves of American popular culture: the ascent of a workingclass boy from the most obscure backwater to international fame and fortune; the white man with the soul of black music in his voice; the performer whose music tied together the main strands of American folk music – country, rhythm and blues, and gospel; and, perhaps most compellingly for a weight-obsessed nation, the sexiest man in America's gradual transformation into a fat, sweating parody of his former self, straining the bounds of a jewel-encrusted bodysuit on a Las Vegas stage. The images of fat Elvis and thin Elvis live together in the popular imagination." The singer continues to be imitated—and parodied—outside the main music industry and Presley songs remain very popular on the karaoke circuit. People from a diversity of cultures and backgrounds work as Elvis impersonators ("the raw 1950s Elvis and the kitschy 1970s Elvis are the favorites.")

In 2002, it was observed:

For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar. All the talentless impersonators and appalling black velvet paintings on display can make him seem little more than a perverse and distant memory. But before Elvis was camp, he was its opposite: a genuine cultural force... Elvis’s breakthroughs are underappreciated because in this rock-and-roll age, his hard-rocking music and sultry style have triumphed so completely.

— The New York Times

The following has now been added:

Also in the same year, rapper Eminem mentioned his name on his song Without Me from The Eminem Show album and the lyrics goes Though I'm not the first king of controversy/I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley/To do Black music so selfishly.

This may warrant a mention, but it does not end the article well, and begs the question: why this song lyric quote? Why not mention that Kirsty McColl wrote there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis? Or that Marc Cohn saw the ghost of Elvis on Union Avenue? If Eminem's quote is just another 'reminder' (yawn) that "Elvis stole Black music", this is already covered in the article. I think it should be deleted or moved elsewhere. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation

I've been racking my brains as to why I think the Presley article remains B class. As I ask myself this question,is it just the length,or are there other issues going on here?

I believe the Elvis sandbox version is heading in a positive direction,as most people seem to be happy with this version as well.

Rikstar has mentioned that he has looked at the Judy Garland article,of which I have since had a look at,as well as the John Lennon article. Judy Garland being a FA article and John Lennon is a GA article.

My interest in these two article was one,to compere them with the Presley article,to see what may be wrong with the Presley article and two ,the fact that my uncle had toured with the Beatles during their Australian and New Zealand Tour back in 1964,as well as Judy Garland. I'm pointing this out,only to say that he never spoke ill of these people,both during and after his association with them. Quite frankly,he never spoke much about them at all.

Getting back to the Presley article,there is an editor who is not happy with the sandbox version,as it omits most of the criticism and the Relationships on Presley.

I for one believe in constructive criticism. Both the Lennon and Garland articles have achieved this quite well. With a better understanding of these two artists. However,I don't feel the same way with the Presley article. When I say some of the criticism are just plain BITCHY.

Next one Relationships. I do like the way the Lennon Relationships is set out,concertrating only on the women who were important to the singer,not one month flings etc as presented in the Presley article.

Joe Espositoe mentions along with other Presley associates,that Presley had many affairs and one night stands,as has been said in books written on Lennon. Do we really need to go on about it,the Lennon article doesn't.

However Espositoe and Presley associates do agree when they say,there were only a few - Anita Wood,Priscilla,Ann Margaret,Linda Thompson,Sheila Ryan and Barbara Leigh - really meant anything to him.

Perhaps,if we do have a relationship section,that we mention these people,much more appropriate for a general encyclopedia type article. Lets leave the Elvis the the nasty with Cybill Shepherd type stories,to the likes of Entertainment Tonight type shows,could we.--Jaye9 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of us who have been kicking around this subject (sometimes only fitfully) agree with you. And we have been agreeing for how long now? couple of years? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

scientology

With the Presleys being a notable Scientology family, i find it interesting that there is no mention of this in the article. If Elvis was a Scientologist then it should be noted, if not then it should at least be mentioned that the family joined the cult^H^H^H^H religion after his death.

You can't mention something his family did AFTER he died? It's got nothing to do with him. Bytebear (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Say what!? Elvis never had anything to do with Scientology. He was a born again, believing, sincere Christian. He never changed, all through his life. Elvis quoted the Bible as he worked, all through the Vegas years. Even when he was despairing in the latter part of his life, he was still calling out to Jesus for help. I don't think he'd be pleased that his daughter is busy giving her inheritance to Scientology! 154.20.131.164 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Elvis wasn't a Scientologist. It's true that he was approached by them, but he didn't take any interest in their "religion" at all because he was aware that they were only after his name and money. There's a quote from one of the Memphis Mafia that says exactly that, for now I can't recall where I read it or heard it but it's out there somewhere. He wasn't a stupid man, and I believe he'd be very upset that Lisa Marie went on to choose it as her religion of choice. As said above, you can't link it to Elvis just because a member of his family chose it after his death. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's your quote: "Lamar Fike, who was part of Elvis' Memphis mafia, says: "He stayed away from Scientology like it was a cobra. He'd s*** a brick if he knew how far Lisa's gotten into it." The Scientologists once tried to recruit Elvis, Fike says. He recalls that Elvis fumed: "The hell with those people. There's no way I'll ever get involved with that s.o.b. group. All they want is my money." (http://lermanet.com/cos/lisamarie.html) Bushcutter (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bushcutter, that's the quote I was thinking about. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Split?

This article is very, very big, so I think splitting may be in order. Comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Greatest rock singer ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.113.130 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No one can say who was the greatest, it's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.111.111 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Native abundance

The article claims that Presley was part Cherokee. This is very probable because many millions of people in the U.S. declare that they are part Cherokee. As a matter of fact, the maternity ward on the Cherokee reservation was a very busy place and experienced more traffic than Times Square in New York. The other tribes across the country were not nearly as fertile. Has it ever been ascertained whether it was Cherokee men or Cherokee women who were more responsible for the population explosion in and around the reservation?Lestrade (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The reason the article "claims" that Presley was part Cherokee is that his Great-great-great-grandmother, Morning Dove White (c. 1800-1835), was a Cherokee.

If you're truly interested, Lestrade (though somehow I doubt it), she married William Mansell (1795-1842), son of Richard Mansell and an unknown partner; their son John Mansell (b. 1828) married Elisabeth Gilmore; John & Elisabeths's daughter Anna Mansell (1854-1935) married Milege Obedia Smith (1837-1909) on 13 Dec 1874, while their son White Mansell (b. 1849) married Martha Tacket (1852-1887) on 22 Jan 1870; Milage & Anna's son Robert Lee Smith (d.1932) married White & Martha's daughter Octavia Mansell (1876-1935), his cousin, on 20 Sep 1903; Robert & Octavia's daughter Gladys Love Smith (1912-1958) married Vernon Presley (1916-1979) on 17 Jun 1933; Gladys & Vernon's sons Jesse Garon Presley and Elvis A[a]ron Presley were born on 8 January 1935 (the former a stillbirth).

No speculative "probabilities" needed. Your question about apparent Cherokee fecundity would be better placed on a more relevant talk page.

(For those with a genuine interest, the above is extracted from a family tree drawn in 1994 by Pete Frame based on information from John Braley, Trevor Cajiao, Spencer Lee, Steve Tamerius, Fred Worth and Elaine Dundy, and published in Frame's More Rock Family Trees, Omnibus Press 1998, ISBN 0-7119-6879-9. Note that all the other "rock family trees" in this and Frame's other 3 similar volumes are of bands, not of individuals.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll baiting

One of the contributors to this article and related talk page has been recently exposed as a sockpuppet and troll. All entries by Bu**cutter are actually from a banned editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Origin?

I have a concern about the box on the right (sorry, I don't know what it's called. Quick facts?) that says his origin is Memphis, TN. He was born in Tupelo, as the main body of the article states. I would have liked to edit it, but I cannot yet. Can someone do that? Unless I'm not understanding the meaning of the word "origin". Tres mal13 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I will change it. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate article about his parents

There is ia wealth of well-sourced material about his parents; I have started a new article about them so the main Presley article can concentrate on his biography and not get bogged down in detail about his parents. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.231.149.33 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the material concerning Elvis's parents should not be separated from the main article, as Gladys and Vernon are not personalities notable on their own, other than being the parents of Presley. Furthermore, in most other biographies, such important information is part of the main article. For instance, there are no separate articles on Paul McCartney's parents, James McCartney and his wife, Mary (née Mahon), or Bob Dylan’s parents, Abram Zimmerman and Beatrice "Beatty" Stone. Onefortyone (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not noteworthy. No article should be made. Bytebear (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lol! Delete, do it quick, (I'm serious). Don't know what I was thinking... Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bytebear (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PUFF THE MAGIC DRAGON

Elvis Presly was the first public singer and the Limeliters to sing this song. It was first songwriten by Michael Holand Shepard in 1963 and no sooner as reported. The songwriter was almost thirteen years old. Because of the playgerism by Peter, Paul and Mary and others and the songwriter still not recieved in moneys and fame, complications exist on its official release. Interferance by Disney and Warner Brothers whom have no claim to rights and copywrights. Why not push for an official release and stop the violance. We can learn from John Lennons assination. Show the love. Michael Holand Shepard 501 W Broadway Ste A San Diego, Ca 92101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael shepard (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add a space after "ducktail". -- 217.230.235.23 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This page violates wiki!

This page violates wiki! - this is all I see on screen when I display the Elvis article. What's up with that? Please fix!!! --78.99.152.93 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: This page violates wiki!

"Elvis Presley From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page violates wiki!"

Why is it that the above is the only writing that i see when viewing the main article? Please fix it as that is the only words that i can see... However, when i click on "View Source", i see the original article in plain text. can someone please fix that? According to the History of this page, it was edited yesterday, on the 8th of May by the username 'Highyack07' and he/she/it seems to have edited it to just "Thispage violates wiki!" This was originally noted by ClueBotw practically straight after it was vandalised. Please fix it!!! 122.104.183.172 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Memphis Mafia

i have added a comment by Marty Lacker to add some balance, as the influence of the MM is generally negative in the article. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Article chron structure

I have one comment about this article. I am confused by the way it moves in and out of chronological order so that it can be organized by topic. I understand that this way of organizing can be efficient and informative, but I feel like the article keeps taking two steps forward and one step back (for example, when it discusses his failing health and the Mafia's influence on him in the mid 70s immediately before the headline "1968 comeback.") 67.171.216.243 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. An alternative, more chronologically structured version can be viewed here [4]. I started it 6 months ago. It was initially discussed above [5], and received very favorable reviews from most people See [6]. It continues to receive support. Your comments would be welcome. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little out of order in places. I'm pleased to say that I tried to tidy up a lot of the 70's content into some kind of chronological order, a lot of which has been kept by Rikstar in his article which I appreciate very much. After having a look at it again, the first in some time, I must congratulate you Rikstar on how great your version is looking. Are there any future plans to replace the current one with it? I would imagine a lot of discussion amongst different editors would perhaps be necessary before such a massive upheaval was finalised, but assuming most people are happy with the reworked version then I see no reason why it should be delayed much further than the end of 2009, and if possible it may be done a lot sooner. :) Excellent work. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ElvisFan. I'm not sure how to go about making this version the main one. There could be more details added to my version, but at least the structure is sorted. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that Rikstar’s version of the article is better than the current one, as several interesting and critical topics have been omitted from the biographical article and some unimportant things added. Furthermore, only the usual Elvis fans seem to prefer Rikstar’s version. Most others seem to be happy with the version as it stands, as there were only a few minor changes since last year. However, some sections may be rewritten. For instance, the “Elvis met the Beatles” section is too long and may get a separate article. And what about this unnecessary insignia stuff included by military fans:

3^rd Armored Division insignia

Rank and Insignia	Date of Rank
Private	Drafted 24 March 1958
Private First-Class	27 November 1958
Specialist 4	1 June 1959
Sergeant	20 January 1960

Let us, therefore, compare the first section of Rikstar’s current version with the relatively short one I wrote last year:

Rikstar’s version:

Early years: Tupelo

Elvis Presley was one of twins born to Vernon Elvis Presley (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) and Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912 – August 14, 1958). Elvis' brother, Jesse Garon, was stillborn.

The Presley family attended the Assembly of God church which exposed the young Elvis to his earliest musical influences: "Since I was two years old, all I knew was gospel music. That music became such a part of my life it was as natural as dancing. A way to escape from the problems. And my way of release."

On October 3, 1945, at age ten, he made his first public performance in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show at the suggestion of his teacher, Mrs. Grimes. The young Presley had to stand on a chair to reach the microphone and sang Red Foley's "Old Shep." He came fifth, winning $5 and a free ticket to all the Fair rides.

In 1946, for his eleventh birthday, Presley received his first guitar. Vernon's brother, Vester, gave Elvis basic guitar lessons.

The young Presley frequently listened to local radio; his first musical hero was family friend Mississippi Slim, a hillbilly singer with a radio show on Tupelo’s WELO. Presley performed occasionally on Slim’s Saturday morning show, Singin’ and Pickin’ Hillbilly. "He was crazy about music... That’s all he talked about," recalls his sixth grade friend, James Ausborn, Slim’s younger brother. Before he was a teenager, music was already Presley’s "consuming passion". J. R. Snow, son of 1940s country superstar Hank Snow, recalls that even as a young man Presley knew all of Hank Snow’s songs, "even the most obscure". Presley himself said he also loved records by Sister Rosetta Thorpe, Roy Acuff, Ernest Tubbs, Ted Daffan, Jimmie Rodgers, Jimmy Davis and Bob Wills.

Onefortyone’s version (already covering material dealt with in Rikstar's second section):

Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility. He had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver. His mother, Gladys Love Smith (April 25, 1912–August 14, 1958), was "voluble, lively, full of spunk," and had alcohol problems. She worked as a sewing machine operator. They met in Tupelo, Mississippi, and were married in Pontotoc County on June 17,1933.

Presley was born in East Tupelo, the second of identical twins (his brother was stillborn). As an only child he was "unusually close to his mother." The family lived in a two room house just above the poverty line.Template:Fn In 1938, Vernon Presley was jailed for a check forgery. The absence of his father "had a profound effect upon Elvis' emotional development".

At age ten, Presley won fifth prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show for his rendition of Red Foley's "Old Shep".

In 1946, Presley got his first guitar. In November 1948, the family moved to Memphis, Tennessee, allegedly because Vernon had to escape the law for transporting bootleg liquor. At school, Presley was bullied for being different, a stutterer and "a mama's boy." At L. C. Humes High School, he was viewed as "a sad, shy, not especially attractive boy"; some students made fun of him for playing "trashy" hillbilly music.

In 1949, the family lived at a public housing development in one of Memphis' poorer sections. Presley practiced playing guitar in a five-piece band with other tenants. He occasionally worked evenings to boost the family income, and began to grow his sideburns and dress in the wild, flashy clothes of Lansky Brothers on Beale Street. He stood out, especially in the conservative Deep South of the 1950s, and he was mocked for it. Despite any unpopularity, Presley won as a contestant in his school's 1952 "Annual Minstrel Show" singing "Cold Cold Icy Fingers" and "Till I Waltz Again With You".

After graduation, Presley was still rather shy and “more comfortable just sitting there with a guitar than trying to talk to you." His third job was driving a truck for the Crown Electric Company. Like his fellow drivers, he began wearing his hair longer with a "ducktail".

Here is a comparison of the content of the first paragraphs:

• Rikstar: no specific information about Elvis’s parents / Onefortyone: some details concerning his parents
• Rikstar: nothing about the influence of his mother / Onefortyone: their unusually close relationship is mentioned
• Rikstar: It is said that Elvis was deeply influenced by gospel music which he also used to escape problems (which problems?) / Onefortyone: some background information about the poverty of his family and the absence of his father (a short note on gospel music may be added)
• Rikstar: too much information about a relatively unimportant singing contest where Elvis came fifth, winning a free ticket to the Fair rides / Onefortyone: a shorter, more encyclopedic remark upon the same performance
• Rikstar: Elvis receiving his first guitar and guitar lessons from his uncle / first guitar plus background information about the family’s movement to Memphis and Elvis being bullied at school
• Rikstar: young Elvis frequently listening to Mississippi Slim’s radio show, Elvis’s craze about music plus information concerning his favorite singers and records / Onefortyone: family living in one of Memphis's poorer sections, Elvis’s early steps in music (here indeed Mississippi Slim’s influence etc. could be added), his dress habits, shyness and job
• Rikstar’s next section, entitled “Move to Memphis”, mentions the poverty of the Presley family, deals with Elvis’s dress habits and job (remember that Onefortyone has it much shorter in the last paragraph of the preceding section) but is again on his favorite music, his predilection for gospel songs etc. and you may get the impression that, from the beginning, everyone liked his music, which was not the case.

Query: which sections are more encyclopedic in a biographical article? By the way, a strict chronological order would be tedious and would not allow laying more stress on more important points of the singer’s life and the people around him. Onefortyone (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some very good points, Onefortyone. Personally I have never had a problem with the current article, but other editors have made very public their dislike of the length, and the size of the article. Some editors have even suggested the reason it was downgraded is because it was far too large and mentioned far too much information that wasn't necessary. Rikstar's version has attempted to keep as much of the information from the current version as possible, whilst also attempting to remove any unnecessary parts. Obviously each individual editor is going to have problems with parts either being included or removed dependant on their own personal opinions, after all you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. However, as a seriously cut back version I think that Rikstar's article is a good place to start again. From there information can be re-added as seen fit, or removed. This is why I said above that a lot of discussion is needed between editors before anything definite is done, and this is the place for that to happen before things can really move on. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The length and size is not the problem of a good or featured article. You should compare the current size of the Elvis page (144 kb, because of the long “Elvis met the Beatles” section added some months ago) with Wikipedia pages on other important figures in popular music, for instance, the good article on Paul McCartney (144 kb), or the featured articles on Bob Dylan (141 kb) and Michael Jackson (117 kb). Elvis is a cultural phenomenon. He was not only a Rock’n’Roll singer, but also a B-movie actor, a sex symbol, a victim of drug abuse, head of the so-called Memphis Mafia, etc. etc. Though his star is sinking, he is still part of a world-wide Elvis industry, including impersonators and the cult practiced for commercial reasons at Graceland. All of these different facets of the singer’s life, career and "afterlive" must somehow be part of a long Wikipedia article. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not necessary to reduce the article’s length. Rikstar's version has omitted some of the more critical information concerning Elvis's private life and added other things stressing the singer's development as a megastar. Some of this additional material is fine and can be merged in the current article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The length and size of this particular article was a problem for a few people; [7]. I completely agree that the article should include the negative with the positive. The article was de-listed because its length was seen as a problem, and also the amount of information that some people felt was not necessary. Negative and positive must both be included, but not just for the sake of it, it has to add some proper value to the article without going over the top with information. As I said above I think Rikstar's version is more of a back to basics version that can be updated and re-added to over time. Rik has only removed things from the article because of the fears it was too long and included too much unnecessary information, not because there was some kind of an agenda to it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Onefortyone,I have read the above comments and there are a couple of things that make me question whether there is any point of me remaining with this article. Firstly,my being an ELVIS FAN FOR ONE. My question to you is can you see you're way to working in with an Elvis Fan or not. Are you saying that someone who is a fan cannot possibly handle any negative comments about the star,you tell me, but that's the message I'm getting. Please allow me to say something here, I have spent two years with this article and in that time have spent many hours cross checking sources,reading what authors have said about other authors,checking their reputations and the people they interview,not an easy task I might add,but I have enjoyed doing so,because simply I want to know more about this entertainer,only reading positive things isn't going to achieve that,I was fully aware or accepting that he had his flaws fifteen years ago and in an odd way I liked him even more for it and there are certain things I don't relate with the man,but that's not for me to judge.

But the bottom line for me is to try and acheive an article that people can ralate to. I have in the past helped student from grade 4 to University students with their projects on Presley,that doesn't make me an expert,but it does make we aware of how difficult it is in writting an article of this nature,and I'm assuming that we have all different ages and we have to try and write an article that will please all types of age groups and interests in the man,not just are own.

Another thing you said 141,"Rikstar: too much information about a relatively unimportant singing contest where Elvis came fifth winning a free ticket to the fair rides / Onefortyone a shorter,more encyclopedic remark upon the same performance."

Onefortyone,when I am reading about Elvis or watching films and I check the article and it doesn't sound write,I will recheck it again and again,I thought that's what were here for,to try and get the article as accurate as possible and with the help of two other editors I thought we achieved that,as the article originally stated that he come second, he did not,if you find this correction to the article unimportant then fine,I don't as it was a myth,myths are myths,there not the truth.

My interest in Elvis are pretty varied 141,it seems your interest seem to be centred on his relationships and anything negative you can find,that's fine,all I ask is that you use a more constructive reliable sources then you have in the past and I believe still exists in this article and I would be more than happy to discuss this with you in the near future. Thank you for you time.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

141 writes:

"Most others seem to be happy with the version as it stands, as there were only a few minor changes since last year."

Really? Everyone is so happy with an article and they just don't want to nominate it? Only a few minor changes? Nothing to do with the article being locked, or the fact that existing editors had given up all hope of having their collective efforts reflected in an improved (by wiki standards) article?? P-lease...

I have already shown the Beatles bit does not have to be part of this article - see my sandbox version? The military insignia is not important; I used it in the sandbox version only because it was one of the few illustration that copied over. It is far less relevant than discussing edits to the text of this article. As this thread is now split, I am going to add comments at the top of this page to follow this, as they should be.

I have also stated:

"Everyone please note: this [sandbox version [8]] is not what I consider a finished piece; no version of it will please everyone; it has been a sincere attempt to cut bloat and editors should refrain from adding, or re-adding, extraneous stuff".

I am not bothered about kilobytes, but being labelled an "ELVISFAN" bores me to tears. What text constitutes all those kilobytes does bother me - not article length per se. Shouldn't the absorption of the Beatles section, as is clear in the sandbox version, be acknowledged by critics as a positive attribute of the sandbox version? The fact that 141 did not do this, and instead chose to criticize the inclusion of a few army badges, shows questionable editing/discussion motives that have little to do with collectively working with other editors in the spirit of wikipedia.

The sandbox version was a fresh starting point for an article bedevilled by a long history of edit warring, and a peculiar apparent reluctance in some parties to see this article cleaned up/edited to achieve a better wiki status. There's no Beatles section, no "pashas", no "ice cream", no section on Controversy, Parker and the Mafia -all sub sections absorbed into a readable text. AND there are already subarticles on these. Let's face it; no one is rushing to nominate the main article as it stands, and it has stood like that for ages. And few are rushing to suggest that previous talk page discussion - about Presley's oh so degenerate parents, Presley being gay, the salacious details of his sex life, etc. - has or will lead to edits that improve this article.

I agree that his parents and their influence should be included, And something about the "Presley Industry" is warranted in the legacy. That's what I think now, just as I and others thought at one time that a Beatles meeting section was warranted. I may change my mind, look at things afresh, think that 'compromise' has a real practical function. Others should try this approach. But whatever, let's keep things balanced and in proportion for a singer's biography. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rikstar wrote,

"Shouldn't the absorption of the Beatles section, as is clear in the sandbox version, be acknowledged by critics as a positive attribute of the sandbox version? The fact that 141 did not do this, and instead chose to criticize the inclusion of a few army badges, shows questionable editing/discussion motives that have little to do with collectively working with other editors in the spirit of wikipedia."

Concerning the Beatles section, your sandbox version is indeed the better one. In other cases IMHO it is not, as I have shown above. I didn't remove the Beatles section from the current article because one or two other editors were of the opinion that it is important. I usually do not delete what others have added. (However, I reinclude important passages that other users have removed from the article.) As for the false claim that I have "questionable editing/discussion motives that have little to do with collectively working with other editors in the spirit of wikipedia," there is already a detailed comparison of the first section of your sandbox version with the relatively short one I wrote last year (see above). Why do you not discuss these two versions in order to create a better one? The same procedure may be useful in order to improve the text of all other paragraphs of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking at new sources regarding his parents which could significantly change the content of early years, so a discussion of current content would be a waste of my time right now. A discussion of each further section was suggested previously. The result was (as i wrote above) "that existing editors had given up all hope of having their collective efforts reflected in an improved article" after discussion of the early years section so they moved on from this idea, worn out by the prospect of tackling further sections where others agreed even more radical editing was needed. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You said, "a discussion of current content would be a waste of my time." This statement speaks volumes and clearly shows your "questionable editing/discussion motives that have little to do with collectively working with other editors" (your words). Onefortyone (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Rikstar has written about more or less giving up on trying to make the article better. You can parse his statements and use the words any way you like. It doesn't change the basic fact that many of us haven't been able to take it for a long time, and left the building a long time ago. (although we do peak in once and a while) Steve Pastor (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to 141: Let me explain this point again. I would not go through a long list of points laboriously discussing changes to and fro to one part of current content, when I am seeking new content to add that would significantly change the content again. Others might be happy to discuss that content and I wish they would in a way - it would be interesting to see how someone else gets on with it. Now where are they all?? Anyway, for me, at this time, it would be a pointless efffort, ergo it would be a waste of my time. I may return to to the points you refer to. Who knows? I'm not sure what this says about my motives, but it is wholly consistent with wanting to improve the article.

There are a few things I am considering discussing with you 141, like: "Some of this additional material is fine and can be merged in the current article." Begs the question: Which bits? I'm obviously interested and I am not averse to discussing issues and content with anyone if in my opinion it is worthwhile use of my time. I feel I've wasted a zillion hours on Elvis already.

Steve, good to know you've peaked in. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Length of Article Suggestions

After reading the article I can see why it is so long. All information that is not "fact" can be deleted. For instance, in the Early Life section one comment is "The family lived just above the poverty line and attended an Assembly of God church". One, who knows what the poverty line was in the 30's & 40's and for that matter what was the Presley's income in relation to that. It is enough to say they were "poor". Also, movie, songs, and sales information can be found on Elvis' music and film discographies. Also, there are many references of things that may have happened or "Elvis' friend remembers it this way". That is conjecture and should not be entered as factual, whether good or bad. For instance, Elvis was offered the part in "Midnight Cowboy". No one knows if he was officially offered the part and if he was, he did not accept it. If we listed what Elvis could have, would have, or should have done, then Wikipedia would not be able to contain it. I have studied Elvis Presley for over twenty years both as a fan and as a critic. If you allow me, I can give a concise biography that would please fans and critics alike without the sensational gossip or tabloid fodder Elvis is subjected to. I will base my information on Peter Guralnick and Ernst Jorgensen books. Of everything I've read about Elvis, they provide the most non-partisan look at his life and career. Their books are recent and surpass the information available to Jerry Hopkins or Albert Goldman.--JCL3CLL (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Most information in the article is already based on relevant and up-to-date publications such as Peter Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley and Careless Love. The Unmaking of Elvis Presley; Ernst Jorgensen, Elvis Presley: A life in music; Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys: The Genesis of the King; Alanna Nash, Elvis Aron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia and The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley; Jerry Hopkins, Elvis. The Biography; Greil Marcus, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession; Connie Kirchberg and Marc Hendricks, Elvis Presley, Richard Nixon, and the American Dream; Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis, etc. For instance, the fact that Elvis's "family lived just above the poverty line" is intensively discussed in chapter 1 of Guralnick's Last Train to Memphis and in all other Elvis biographies. Furthermore, stories told by the singer's friends are part of every Elvis biography. Onefortyone (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point I was trying to make. If you want information regarding Elvis' lineage or whether his family was on the "poverty line" then by all means purchase the book and read it. However, we are trying to condense this article so that it gets to the point. The opinions on Elvis are relevant, just not in this article. It should be based on facts, not innuendo or opinion. For instance, notice this statement in the article:

^{Vernon has been described as "a malingerer, always averse to work and responsibility."[20] His wife was "voluble, lively, full of spunk" and had a fondness for drink.[21]}

Is this fact? Perhaps. Can we verify this? NO. Therefore, it should not be on this page!--12.234.250.75 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to condense the text. You should compare the current size of the Elvis page (148 kb, because of the long "Elvis met the Beatles" section added some months ago and because of an additional illustration included last week that is now a candidate for speedy deletion; see [9]) with Wikipedia pages on other important figures in popular music, for instance, the featured articles on Bob Dylan (142 kb) and Michael Jackson (130 kb). Elvis was not only a Rock’n’Roll singer, but also a B-movie actor, a sex symbol, a victim of drug abuse, head of the so-called Memphis Mafia, etc. etc., and he is still part of a world-wide Elvis industry, including impersonators and the Elvis cult now practiced for commercial reasons at Graceland. All of these different facets of the singer’s life, career and "afterlife" must somehow be part of a long Wikipedia article. However, if you would like to reduce the article’s length, you may condense the "Elvis met the Beatles" section, which is too long, and remove this unnecessary insignia stuff included by military fans:

3^rd Armored Division insignia

Rank and Insignia	Date of Rank
Private	Drafted 24 March 1958
Private First-Class	27 November 1958
Specialist 4	1 June 1959
Sergeant	20 January 1960

.

Other parts of the article are important, for instance, that Elvis liked Gospel music, that his father was a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility and had only low-paying jobs, and that his mother had alcohol problems. Most biographers would agree that brief statements about Vernon's character and Gladys's alcoholism are necessary, as they deeply affected young Elvis's life. Here are some sources:

• In her book on Elvis and Gladys (of which The Boston Globe said that it is "nothing less than the best Elvis book yet" and Kirkus Reviews said that it is "the most fine-grained Elvis bio ever"), Elaine Dundy writes about Elvis's mother: "She was drinking a lot. At the end she was drinking all the time. Vodka. Where'd she get it from? Vernon — he give it to her. Just to keep her quiet." (p.294)
• Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006) says, "While Vernon was serving his time in prison, Gladys found solace in Elvis and, increasingly, in drinking. Even though she drank in private, her bloodshot eyes and the lingering aroma of stale liquor gave her away. She also began missing work..." (p. 17).
• According to Jane Ellen Wayne's chapter on Elvis Presley in her book, The Leading Men of MGM (2006), "Gladys and Vernon were both heavy drinkers" (p.373) and "Gladys took Benzedrine and consumed vodka to excess to ease the pain of loneliness" (p.377)
• Elaine Dundy says about Elvis's father that he "didn't work very hard or very steadily. ... He had been known all his young life as a 'jellybean' – by definition weak, spineless, and work-shy." (p.10)
• Patrick Humphrey’s writes in his book on Elvis (p.117): "There is a widely held believe among psychologists that the disappearance of Vernon from Elvis’ life when the King was three (Vernon was jailed for passing bad cheques) had a profound effect upon Elvis' emotional development. At that age a child naturally goes through a separation anxiety from its mother, which fathers can often help with. Elvis only had Gladys. They slept in the same bed up until Elvis was a young teen."
• Elaine Dundy says about Elvis’s mother (p.71): "it was agony for her to leave her child even for a moment with anyone else, to let anyone else touch Elvis. Maternal love was not for Gladys a prettily sentimental attachment. Rather it was a passionate concentration which deepened into a painful intensity when her son was not there, directly in her sight. ... It was physical torment for her to be separated from him. Maternal devotion is constantly misrepresented as either grasping, clinging, stifling or pathetic. It is none of these things. Every mother of a very young child has the primordial conviction, deeper than reason, that as long as her child is within her eyesight she will be able to protect him from all harm. Generally the mother outgrows this as the child grows up but Gladys all her life remained anxious over each one of Elvis' separations from her."

Similar statements can be found in books by Peter Guralnick and most other Elvis biographers. As such important details are part of every Elvis biography, some information of this kind must also be included in the Wikipedia article, as, according to the Wikipedia guidelines, all information should be based on reliable secondary sources. Onefortyone (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"I think that documentation can so often change your picture of the way things are. For example,with Elvis's father, Vernon, who is often pictured in the past as a kind fo lazy ne'er-do-well, claimed he had a back problem. When I got into the archives here at Graceland,I discovered documentation which showed that he always worked,he always paid his bills. He was the most conscientious of people. This may not make him a hero, but it is very, very different picture than the picture that people were painting of him." Source: August 16,2002 interview with Peter Gurlanick talking with CNN anchor Martin Savidge from Graceland about his books, "Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley" and "Last Train to Memphis".--Jaye9 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Jaye9! You must be an ELVISFAN!! (tee hee hee). I have said above that stuff about his parents should be mentioned, and your discovery will helped to do what I want (and anyone should want) which is to keep things balanced when it should be. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"When I got into the archives here at Graceland,I discovered documentation which showed that he always worked,he always paid his bills. He was the most conscientious of people. This may not make him a hero, but it is very, very different picture than the picture that people were painting of him." Sorry, what else would you expect from a documentation at Graceland? Anyone who expected anything other than a whitewash must be hopelessly naive. Guralnick should have known better. In this case the people who knew Vernon are certainly more reliable sources. Onefortyone (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Words fail me right now, if only to say one thing though, this has gone beyond any sort of common sense.--Jaye9 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

141 wrote: "Sorry, what else would you expect from a documentation at Graceland? Anyone who expected anything other than a whitewash must be hopelessly naive. Guralnick should have known better. In this case the people who knew Vernon are certainly more reliable sources."

Don't be so down, Jaye9. This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in ages!!! Is it really serious? So Guralnick uses hundreds? of Graceland archive documents, many no doubt used as sources for his two books. Wouldn't they all be discredited simply because they came from the whitewash that is Graceland? And so too wouldn't the books be at least partially discredted? But they haven't been, and even 141 has so far shown only respect for Guralnick, except apparently now 141 has apparently developed some superior insight - greater than that of Guralnick himself - with regard to what he thinks is a reliable source/testimony regarding Vernon P. With what authority, other than the people's opinions he chooses to believe, can 141 suddenly decide that Gurlnick doesn't know what he is talking about and that he "must be hopelessly naive"? Breathtaking stuff...

Fortunately there appears to be information on Vernon this isn't just of the lazy, white trash variety - but I suppose that could get casually dismissed instead of being incorporated into the article, just like the vastly esteemed Guralnick has had his words derided at the whim of someone who has shown the air of a disgruntled cynic who changes his tune when it suits his motives. I think this is simply more evidence Of "questionable editing/discussion motives that have little to do with collectively working with other editors in the spirit of wikipedia." Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Any Elvis biographer may use the documents at Graceland, that's not the problem, but one has to be very careful with them. It all depends on the interpretation of such material. Query: why did Guralnick come to the false conclusion that Vernon always worked? It is a fact that Vernon was in prison for some time. This means that he didn't always work. And before he lived a more than prosperous life at, or near, Graceland he had only low-paying jobs. And if he had lost several of these jobs, he didn't have a job for a period of time, at least shortly after he had given up a job or had been fired. Do you really think that it is documented in full detail at Graceland that he always worked and always paid his bills, as Guralnick claims in the interview? Do you really think that unpaid bills from his earlier years as a jellybean and malingerer are all documented at Graceland? Then you must indeed be hopelessly naive. In younger years Vernon was even forced to fake checks in order to solve his financial difficulties. How Guralnick could now come to the conclusion that Vernon "was the most conscientious of people" is really a mystery to me, especially since he was of a very different opinion in his books on Elvis, which are based not only on the whitewashed documents at Graceland, but on commentaries by many of Vernon's contemporaries. One thing is clear: if there is no further publication by Guralnick, in which he provides detailed arguments supporting his recent claims, such claims cannot be used for a Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When I got into the archives here at Graceland,I discovered documentation which showed that he always worked,he always paid his bills. Well, for instance, I seem to remember that he built the house that they lost when he was jailed. I have always agreed with those who argued that the gossip 2nd and 3rd hand stuff has no place in this article. Just like so and so, Elvis Expert's Opinion of what happened has no place when an objective account is available. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree about not including 2nd and 3rd hand stuff and I took this as one of my cues - to cut a lot of such stuff out to create the sandbox version. On the other hand, trying to placate 141 in his preferred version, he seems to like gossipy, highly personal comments (yes, yes, I know, always from reliable souces of course). But this is the approach that's causing intractable problems. I really don't see how Guralnick's comment "has no place"; other 2nd, 3rd hand comments are or can be included. It's adding other information with it for balance that counts, and the reader can make up their own mind about what Guralnick said, or meant, and that pesky word "always" he dared to use (I think 141 may have pointed that out).

It is 141 who has been vociferous in the past about allowing any and all content, on the basis that sourced material - his contributions - should simply not be removed, regardless of how poorly they read AND regardless of how many others want them removed. But as we have seen, this inclusionist approach is what is screwing up this article, and in danger of making it way too long, because there is a depressing and long-standing lack of agreement. I've bent over backwards and had my guts churning because IMHO, one single editor is the only thing that prevents the Presley article from being whipped quickly into shape. I find myself now tempted to revert my efforts and to try and just stick to the facts so we don't have tit for tat expert 1 said this, writer 2 said that, etc., ad nauseum. My sanbox anyone? And then we wouldn't have to bother disecting Guralnick's sentences or anyone else's, like that pasha and ice cream balony. But hey, there's that voice in my head screaming: "What's the ****ing point of trying???????????? Very, very sad. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't fans of this article watching out for poor edits?

A few well-intentioned edits have succeeded only in duplicating content recently eg. intro mentioning billion sales and A Star is Born is referred to in two different sections. (the first mention is the recent edit). I find it sad that no one has pointed this out or sorted it out, or flagged it up for discussion. I find it strange, given that this article is watched so closely and admired by some editors. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are too many minor editors adding small bits of information (sometimes even double content) or removing some passages. Just one example. Some days ago, a presumed Rock'n'Roll fan first moved these paragraphs to another section of the article and then totally removed the whole thing (see [10]). Among this material were several passages on "early musical influences" (including Gospel music) you wrote some time ago. Apparently this editor didn't like the simple fact that Elvis loved Gospel music. Therefore, I have reincluded the material. However, you can't always watch the entire article's content. Onefortyone (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response 141 regarding this. It is a problem and I agree it is difficult to monitor everything. It is good you had the time and prior knowledge to reinclude edits after some major changes. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 07:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like we have a duplicate section (early years) now. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Songwriter, Instrumentalist.

I've just reverted some good faith edits that said Elvis was a songwriter and instrumentalist. Discussion before has come to the conclusion that he can't really be classed as a songwriter, primarily because most of his credits were for publishing reasons only. Also because I can't think of one person who would actually mention the word "songwriter" when talking about him, I don't see how it is appropriate to the article. As I've said before, I know of only one song that he genuinely co-wrote, and I don't believe that is enough to qualify its inclusion. Elvis was a very talented arranger, and producer, but very rarely would he ever tamper with lyrics. Even when he did it was to change a word or remove a verse, never to rewrite a whole section.

I've also removed the term instrumentalist, simply because I personally don't class him as that either. Yes, he played guitar, piano and learnt to play a little bass, but generally, with the exception of the 1950's and a few recordings and live performances after that period, he didn't play enough on his own to fall into that category. I notice that on the John Lennon and Paul McCartney pages, neither of them are described as instrumentalists either, yet I would consider them so before I would Elvis.

If anyone feels that these edits are wrong and should be included, then I would appreciate if discussions included here before any changes were made again. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. For years I thought it was common knowledge that Elvis and Vera Matson wrote "Love Me Tender", so I was in for quite a surprise the other minute when I had a look at Love Me Tender (song). But I think one thing on that page could use a bit of clarification. It says, "Elvis Presley received co-songwriting credit due to his Hill & Range publishing deal which demanded of songwriters that they concede 50 percent of the credit of their song if they wanted Presley to record it." But the reason for this deal seems unclear. If Elvis had set up an "I'll record your song, but only if I get half the royalties" arrangement, that would make some sense, but it wouldn't explain why he was credited so rarely (I can think of only three instances) as a songwriter. It might be good to clarify somewhere (probably in Love Me Tender (song), although perhaps a sentence or two in Elvis Presley could be helpful) just how the royalty/credit situation came about and just how long it lasted. In any case, your revert makes sense, and I see no reason to contest it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cosmic, thanks for your reply. The reasons that Elvis received song-writing credits was simply down to the fact that Col. Parker had seen it as a great way for Elvis (and in return himself) make some extra money without having to lift a finger. It was for financial reasons, and sadly Parker's greed led to Elvis not being able to record some great songs that he was either offered outright, or had shown an interest in. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that the reasons Elvis' name appears on earlier recordings and not later ones is because they soon realised that his name didn't actually need to be on the recording for him to make money unless he did have some input. I'll re-read the article and see if it can be made any clearer for readers. Many thanks. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I much appreciate editing efforts regarding this 'songwriting' issue. I have taken the Parker publishing deal edit in the main article and edited it as follows (for the sandbox version):

"To boost earnings for himself and Presley, Parker cut a deal with Hill and Range Publishing Company to create two separate entities—"Elvis Presley Music, Inc" and "Gladys Music"—to handle all of Presley's songs and accrued royalties. The owners of Hill & Range, the Aberbachs, agreed to split the publishing and royalties rights of each song equally with Presley. Hill & Range, Presley or Colonel Parker's partners then had to convince unsecured songwriters that it was worthwhile for them to give up one third of their due royalties in exchange for Presley recording their compositions. One result of these dealings was the appearance of Presley's name as co-writer of some songs he recorded, even though Presley never had any hand in the songwriting process.[58]"

The main difference is that there is reference at the end as to why Presley was credited as a songwriter, when he wasn't one really. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Rik, looks good and reads a lot better. Would it be ok to put your version into the current article, replacing the paragraph in question? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am glad you approve! I guess I am concentrating more on my sandbox - and using any new, useful edits here to help improve it. Please feel free to make the change. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, maybe a note could be added (Note c, I think) to name the 'co-written' songs - Heartbreak Hotel, Love me tender and All shook up (any more?). That way folks would know which songs they were, without mentioning them in the main text out of the timeline. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Sadly, at the moment, I'm struggling to deal with general references while adding some information about the March 1973 deal with RCA, never mind dealing with notes lol. It's been so long since I really spent a good amount of time editing anything on wiki that I seem to have forgotten the minor things I learnt before. If someone else could deal with the above for the moment, I will try to focus my attentions on learning to edit again. I feel so stupid! ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel! It's good just know it's an OK idea. I may address it in the sandbox and if it works (I'm rusty) I'll copy it over. It's nice to be doing something productive with this article!! Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

grammar edits, please?

I found a few grammar errors on the Elvis page, but I didn't know if I can offer changes with the locked down page, as I am new to Wikipedia. I am not involved in the whole Elvis-Jewish thing; my questions merely regard the grammatical accuracy and if I can edit those. Thanks Msterrell (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Msterrell. You can edit the Elvis article if you have been a member of Wiki for more than 4 days and have more than 10 edits under your belt. The easiest way to get those 10 edits would be to find random articles and correct spelling and/or grammar errors on those pages. Once you've done more than 10 you will be able to correct mistakes on the Elvis article. Hope that helps. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is too negative.

Since Michael Jackson's death, MJ fans have tried to improve his reputation by destroying Elvis's. On many, many websites, it has been claimed that Elvis was a racist, a rapist, and a pedophile. He's also accused of stealing black music. It appears to me that these people are getting all their information from this site. All this negative information should be removed; it's not needed. Also, the entire "sex" section is unnecessary. It doesn't belong in this article. If someone is interested, he can go buy the book.

In your effort to be neutral, you have overdone the negative and scrimped on the positive. Elvis was dynamite; he was magical; he was breathtaking, but I would never know that from reading your ho-hum article. Put some life in it. Try to give people who weren't there a feeling of what he was really like and what an effect he had on the world. He changed everything. Remember that when his first hit song came out (Hound Dog?), the number one song in the US was Doris Day's "How much is that Doggy in the Window?" And music was never the same again.

beth4664Beth4664 (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As both Elvis and Michael Jackson were pedophiles and drug addicts, suffered from declining profits after a long period of success and died in their younger years because of these personal problems, there is now a dispute among fans about the question, who did things worser than the other. That's all. However, a Wikipedia article should be balanced, as it is not a fan site, and must therefore also discuss the negative and controversial aspects of Elvis's life. Onefortyone (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When in his life did Elvis become a pedophile???Mfbinc 00:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs)

In his book, Elvis (1981), Professor Goldman has called Elvis a "pedophile" and a "pervert". According to this biographer, "Elvis plays the strutting, overbearing macho in public, but in private he loves nothing better than to roughhouse with teenage girls with whom he exchanges beauty secrets. His basic erotic image is a crotch covered with white panties and showing a bit of pubic hair -- an image no different essentially from male to female." Onefortyone (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your dear professor wrote a hatchet job, you know it, the world knows it, and if it had anything like the credibility of Guralnick's work, it would be cited by far more editors for this article than... let's see now yes, the only editor who thinks its cherry-picked contents are worth quoting is... 141. The controversial claims of this sort require extraordinary evidence and from far better sources; pedophilia is a serious accusation relating to a sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who commit child sexual abuse. I suggest, as I have said before, that 141 finds sigificantly more evidence in the form of testimony from people who have been abused as children, police, medical or court records relating to such claims, or perhaps some details from a 'kiss and tell' biography by at least several of his presumed many child victims. Funny, but this didn't happen after I raised the subject of better evidence before. There is no comparison between the pile of information relating to what Michael Jackson had been accused of over many years and this desperate, barrel-scraping crock of crap accusation against Presley that keeps coming along from a single editor, 141. His activities in wikipedia, when they inevitably come back to this kind of agenda-driven bullshit, are a total disgrace. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information, Rikstar. Goldman drew on more than four years' research into Elvis's career providing many new insights about the singer's private life based on commentaries by people who knew the singer well. Therefore, this biography is nearer to the real Elvis than many other biographies. It is true that the fans do not like what the author has revealed and that he was very plain-spoken, but according to Rolling Stone magazine (October 21, 1981), Elvis "is a poignant book, the result of Goldman's winning the trust and confidence of hundreds of sources, including many of Elvis' closest friends. It is also an intimate look at a side of Elvis that few even suspected existed. Many people will find some of the revelations unpleasant and view them as a needless and harmful invasion of privacy. Yet, such revelations comprise a truth about modern American heroism and success." Even Greil Marcus, who criticizes some parts of Goldman's biography, admits that the book, "as no book on Elvis Presley before it, ... has been taken seriously. Despite some partially negative or carping notices, the reviewing media have accepted the book as it presents itself--as the last book we will need about Elvis Presley." You are wrong, Rikstar, that pedophilia is an accusation relating only "to a sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who commit child sexual abuse." In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent). The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age. However, the so-called "nonexclusive pedophiles" are attracted to both children and adults, and can be sexually aroused by both. And several pedophiles do not sexually abuse the young girls or boys they are interested in. In the case of Elvis, he seems to have been a voyeur primarily interested in watching young adolescents without having sexual intercourse with them. As for Elvis being a nonexclusive pedophile with a sexual preference for early pubescent girls, there are further sources supporting Goldman's view. For instance, Priscilla was only 14 years old when Elvis began dating her, and, according to his guitarist Scotty Moore, at that time, he even had a younger girl living in his house. See That’s Alright, Elvis: The Untold Story of Elvis’s First Guitarist and Manager, Scotty Moore, p.162. Another reputed Elvis biographer, Alanna Nash, who contacted the Memphis Mafia members and many other eye-witnesses, also confirms that the singer had a predilection for young adolescent girls. She says that Elvis was overly attached to his mother and could not relate normally to mature women; and that Elvis sought out very young girls because he felt threatened by women who were older. These are the facts, Rikstar. However, it is understandable that Elvis fans do not like these facts. Onefortyone (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would reply like that; a certain predictability has been established over the interminable years - voluminous content, but not really dealing with hard evidence. Play about with definitons of 'pedophile' and the hearsay of others to suit your argument, but you still supply no evidence, on anything like a scale with M. Jackson, that supports your agenda. And you were the one who made the comparisons. No mention of Jerry Lee Lewis being a pedophile; why not drag him into it as a comparison? That would make more sense regarding his relationship with Priscilla Beaulieu.

You, 141, just want to make any mud stick; whether it be to do with pedophilia, screwing his Mom (or may be his Mom screwing HIM), bisexuality, homosexuality, or somone having giving him a blowjob (check the history, folks - delightful reading!!!). Guralnick never trawled such depths, because he never encounter such aspects (I guess he must be - AN ELVIS FAN!!!!!). Treat the issue with Priscilla Beaulieu fairly; it should be, and then if "141 finds sigificantly more evidence in the form of testimony from people who have been abused as children, police, medical or court records relating to such claims, or perhaps some details from a 'kiss and tell' biography by at least several of his presumed many child victims", perhaps we can make any due amendments. Or may be, in the absence of what most authorites have found, 141 will continue in his efforts to make this whole Presley article as sordid and unrealistic as 141 - as ever - WANTS it to be. It really is appalling how certain editors WANT this article to turn out. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From a Guralnick book review in Stereophile: '"[Goldman's book] contradicts my ideas of decency and humanity. It has nothing to do with the book I wrote. One of the things I've always tried to do is to leave myself open to truth coming in over the transom. You can't accept any source on faith, but you can't exclude any source. So the fact that I had a visceral dislike for Goldman's book didn't mean I could disregard it. What I did was the same thing I do with fan magazine accounts: I tried to deconstruct [Goldman's] book and remove the attitude, which is a lot of the book—it's probably 70% attitude—to get to what he's really saying and whether it's well-sourced." As far as Goldman's work being well-researched, Guralnick calls Elvis, overall, "chewy" — in other words, mixed. In some cases, like his uncovering of the Dutch background of Presley's inimitable manager, Col. Tom Parker, Goldman was solid. But the evidence for many of the numerous sex frolics cited by Goldman has proved more evanescent.' Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 06:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one who has followed this article will be surprised that I pretty much agree with Rikstar on this one. I just don't have the wherewithall to keep addressing the same type of BS that keeps being brought up again and again. This same put anything anyone has written that is negative sytle of editing, often in spite of documentation that it is just plain wrong, is too pervasive in articles about popular figures. Thumbs up, Rikstar, for continuing the good fight. Steve Pastor (talk)

I have to say, honestly, that the reason I haven't taken part in this particular discussion until now is simply because I don't know enough on the subject of Presley and "young girls" to really feel qualified enough to talk about it. I don't have at hand any documented evidence that suggests Presley was a potential paedophile. I have read plenty on him, and not once have I ever come across any such suggestions, with possible exception to his relationship with Priscilla, but even then I don't recall once reading or hearing that he did anything massively inappropriate with her. There are only two people who really know the ins and outs of their relationship, and since one of them isn't able to talk right now we must listen to the only one who has, and Priscilla has always insisted that she and Presley did not engage in a serious sexual relationship until their wedding night. Now, whether she is saying this to protect his image or not is something that we will never know, but until further serious evidence comes forward to suggest otherwise, then we must really take it at face value.

The claim that Presley was more interested in young girls than older, more mature women, just doesn't seem to fit in with the facts that I know about. It is well documented about his relationships with his co-stars, none of whom were under 18, and his relationship with Ann-Margret is so famous that it just baffles me that anyone could suggest he was scared of older, mature women. Ann-Margret was easily one of the fiercest women in Hollywood at the time, and perhaps of all-time. She was by no means a "tameable" woman, and she certainly wasn't afraid, from all accounts, to stand up to someone like Elvis if needs be. And of all the relationships that Elvis had during his lifetime, that I can think of off the top of my head right now, I can't think of one woman who could be considered too young (with exception of Priscilla).

From all that I've read and heard on the subject of Elvis and Priscilla, from people who knew them and those who didn't, the reasons Elvis was so attracted to Priscilla was because she reminded him of his mother (who had recently passed when they first met, don't forget, and he may still have been in the mourning process), and he saw an opportunity to mould her into the woman of his dreams. It's no secret that he chose her hairstyle, make-up, clothing etc... and from what I gather he was serious about her becoming a woman he could control. I've not once read that he was interested in just having sex with her. If that's seriously all he wanted he could quite easily have done it, kept it hidden and never seen her again. From my general research, he was nothing but a complete gentleman to her from the moment they met and the whole time they spent together in Germany.

And on the subject of the mirrors in Graceland that would allow people to watch others having sex, all I've read or heard of that is that it was mostly entertainment for the "Memphis Mafia" and hangers on, not really something that Elvis himself was interested in. I'm sure he would occasionally have a look, perhaps laugh and joke with the guys about it, but I remember reading that he would rather spend time alone with Priscilla during such times. Again, what is and isn't true will always be questioned, but it doesn't make it false.

So, I'm suggesting, that until some serious research comes forward that proves Elvis had a liking for young girls that we can all agree on, we should very wisely leave the whole subject out of the article. I'm sure that EPE would have no worries about launching a legal case against Wikipedia if it allowed such freedom of speech without some serious evidence. I'm confident that if you were to ask one million people to use one word to describe Elvis Presley, not one of them would say "paedophile". Could the same be said for someone like Michael Jackson? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, if I may say so. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And I just want to add that I think Rikstars above quotes from a Guralnick book review speak volumes. He is a man who has researched a lot more than any of us have, and he has had access to a serious amount of information and people that none of us ever will. If he is cautious of claims about Elvis' sexual history, then I think we all should be. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "If he [Guralnick] is cautious of claims about Elvis' sexual history, then I think we all should be." We should indeed be, and don't let anyone suggest otherwise, given Guralnick's own revelations of Presley's inadequacies. Clinging to desperate, sensationalistic and isolated claims cloaked in the name of 'research' won't be accepted against the plethora of material that rightly shuns such odious tidbits. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to ban an editor? I think 141 should be voted off the island. His interest in Elvis is one-dimensional, prurient, and vulgar. Goldman's book was full of lies. Everyone said so when the book was published. He could say anything he wanted. It's not illegal to slander a dead man.

Elvis dated mature women. Cybill Shepherd is still using her relationship with Elvis to keep her name in the news. He dated all his co-stars. His friends were grown men too--the members of his band. He loved his daughter, but I doubt he liked kids. He certainly didn't hang out with 10-year-olds.Beth4664 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Beth4664, you may not be surprised to hear that 141 has a long and colorful history of warnings, bans, edit arguments or somesuch, but alas, he is still here on this island. And it seems highly likely that he gets off on all the mayhem he causes to us poor, less-resourced and 'less intelligent' mortals than he. But we, comrades in arms of encyclopedic truth, fairness and objectivity, are here too - and the more, the merrier.

I suggest that 141 does as I have done: composes his own sandbox version of the Presley article that HE would think suitable for nomination as a featured article. But I venture the opinion that he will not, because he has never shown the slightest interest in such wiki standards when his own warped agenda has been so dominant in his own mind - and such 'fun' for everyone else - for the last three or so years.

141 has single-handedly driven away many editors of great value to this article, prevented untold others from making valuable contributions (I know them personally), and pushed other worthy editors over the brink of wiki rules. Arbcom and administrators do 'the job', but, as Shania Twain once put it, they collectively "Don't impress me much". Wikipedia has its faults and boy, doesn't wikipedia let characters like 141 run rings around everything it claims to stand for. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you, Beth, or anyone, makes good edits (including deletion) of things that have been published, but nevertheless may or may not be "reliable sources", factually correct, or are things that most of us think don't belong in an encyclopedic article, there are those of us who will back your edits. Using the ArbCom, etc, is a time consuming, frustrating process that infrequently is worth the time and effort. I know. I tried. I've seen some (very) gradual improvement over time in various articles, however, and the process of editing will work, eventually.Steve Pastor (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, but it seems as though I'd stuck a stick into a hornet's nest! Just a few notes. Rikstar said, "if 141 finds sigificantly more evidence in the form of testimony from people who have been abused as children, police, medical or court records relating to such claims, or perhaps some details from a 'kiss and tell' biography by at least several of his presumed many child victims, perhaps we can make any due amendments." Did you actually read what I have written? I said that Elvis seems to have been a voyeur who was primarily interested in watching young adolescent girls without having sexual intercourse with them. This means that he didn't abuse the girls so that there are no such testimonies from child victims as in the case of Michael Jackson. But there are commentaries by people who knew the singer well. What about the statement by his guitarist Scotty Moore that Elvis kept a girl in his house that was younger than 14-year-old Priscilla? What about Alanna Nash’s commentaries on Elvis’s predilection for very young girls, which are all based on eyewitness accounts by the Memphis Mafia members? The latter say that Elvis adored to fondle and suck the toes of these girls. And the young fans certainly liked to be fondled this way by the star. They didn't think of themselves being abused. It is also well known that the King went out with many mature girls only for publicity reasons. He had no sexual relationships with most of his co-stars but dated them because the Colonel told him to do so. Significantly, Peggy Lipton, one of the most beautiful girls who spent a night with the singer, has stated that Elvis was like a "teenage boy". "He didn't feel like a man next to me - more like a boy who'd never matured," and they didn’t have sexual intercourse. This statement speaks volumes. Guralnick is correct in concluding that Elvis wasn't really interested in most of the women he dated. What he primarily liked to do was to lie in bed and watch television and eat and talk all night with them. However, Guralnick was too close-mouthed to tell the truth about the singer’s actual preferences. Others were more outspoken. That’s the difference. Onefortyone (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Since MJ's death, it's true that there has been a sudden rise in attacks on Presley, but only because of the whole "Who was better?" argument, which any intelligent person knows is a ridiculous comparison because they came from different times and sang very different types of music. As for suggestions that this article promotes Presley as a "racist, a rapist, and a paedophile", I definitely have to disagree. There is nowhere in the article where he is accused of being a rapist or a paedophile, and the only part that discusses any kind of racism does so to the point where it is made very clear that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Presley was a racist, in fact it even states that the opposite is true.

I wouldn't worry about MJ fans trying to destroy the image of Presley. For over 30 years people have been trying to destroy the image of Presley with tell-all books, documentaries etc... and none of it has ever worked. Personally I think the reason that MJ fans are getting their knickers in such a twist and trying to make Presley look bad (and I say this as a fan of both EP and MJ) is because it's actually MJ who will go down in the history books as the one with the worst reputation. There will always be a "who was better...." row going on with regards to Presley. For the last 40 years it's been between him and the Beatles, and now that MJ is dead it's between those two.

It's quite literally impossible to compare a man whose first hits were in the 1950's, before they even had proper stereo recordings, and a man who grew up and developed as an artist at a time when advancements in recording music were far beyond that of stereo. And don't forget that MJ had the advantage of the MTV generation, where Presley didn't. MJ toured the world, Presley never did. MJ made music videos that lasted over 10 minutes and were considered mini-masterpieces, Presley never did (mainly because it wasn't the norm then.) However, with all the advances that MJ did have, he still failed to sell more records than Presley has done. Presley, despite his lack of touring, tv promotion and digital downloads still holds that record. It's been reported that the first few days after MJ died he sold about 20,000 records a day. Presley sold in excess of 20 MILLION records in the days following his death. And he is still selling millions of albums a year, despite them mostly being re-hashed, re-releases of greatest hits. 30 years after his death, Presley is still huge business. Time will tell if MJ will have as much of a staying power, but in the meantime we should all just enjoy the music of both these legendary entertainers and stop arguing.

As for how you think the article should be improved, I think that if you notice an area that could do with having some life put into it then I wouldn't object to you attempting that yourself. I would only ask that any major changes are discussed in here first. Good luck and I look forward to seeing any improvements. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the above excellent points made by ElvisFan1981: there are sections of the article that describe the impact he made and the special qualities of his voice, etc. There is little point in going over top to describe how "Elvis was dynamite; he was magical; he was breathtaking", etc. It doesn't need to belong in this article. If someone is interested, they can go buy his records, DVDs, watch youtube etc.

I agree the sex symbol bits don't work in this article; the whole section is cheap. And there should be more about what qualities he had that created his reputation.

As for Jackson fans thinking Elvis was racist, take a look at the myths being perpetuated by Chuch D, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, etc. That's where Jackson fans are being misinformed, not by anything in the Presley article. If you can add anything positive to this article, please discuss your ideas or edits here. Your efforts would be very welcome. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 17:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why anything "Onefortyone" writes is not deleted immediately, and any and all of his requests ignored. It is obvious this person is simply looking to have as many negative things about Elvis here as possible, and mostly lies and BS, like Goldman's book et. This person presents himself as if he's interested in the facts while it's clear he's only interested in defaming Elvis. Alone, just his using Goldman's book for info, as if it's anything but garbage that hasn't been debunked decades ago, is enough to prove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.249.123 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information, IP75.3.249.123. I am not only citing Goldman, as similar statements about Elvis can be found in hundreds of other sources, among them Elvis biographies and university studies. And I have personally contributed enough "positive" content concerning most sections of the article, for instance, dealing with his mother and father, the star's youth, his early stardom, his voice, his TV appearances, his movies, his interest in gospel music, his friends and relationships, his political beliefs, the singer's manager Parker, Elvis's stages in Las Vegas, but also with his consumption of drugs, his death, the Elvis cult, etc. etc. However, it is understandable that Elvis fans do not like to hear the more disappointing truths about the singer's life. Goldman's book has been called explosive, inflammatory, malicious, and brilliant at the same time, but it does not include lies. It may, at best, include some biased interpretations and assumptions. The author may also have been wrong about Elvis's music (he doesn't like rock and roll very much, and he says so) and has often used rather condescending language, but he was absolutely right about the man, because he presents Presley as the weak, dependent, bigoted and self-destructive singer he really was - not as the flawless megastar many fans would like to see him in their pathetic, if not infantile, fantasies. By the way, Goldman was not the first or the only biographer to maintain that Presley was a drug-addicted, mother-fixated freak with a fetish for guns, 14-year-old girls and excessive amounts of peanut butter and banana sandwiches. In fact, 5 years before Goldman's book came out, two of Elvis's own bodyguards, Sonny and Red West, wrote a book, entitled "Elvis: What Happened?" In this book they revealed, from their own point of view, pretty much all the same things that Goldman later would. And there are many more sources of this kind. For instance, here is reputed Elvis biographer, Greil Marcus, about the "shocking truth" that Elvis's mother Gladys may have had "years of bliss with Elvis in her bed, or she in his": " 'It makes sense,' said Adrian Sibley of the BBC's The Late Show. 'America has brought Elvis up to date: now he needs therapy just like everybody else. Don't they have twelve-step programs for incest survivors?' 'It makes sense,' said Jip Golsteijn, pop critic for the Amsterdam Telegraaf. 'It's what I heard again and again in Tupelo, years ago. Nobody meant it as a condemnation. Given the way Elvis and Gladys were about each other, it was simply the conclusion everyone drew.' " See Marcus, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000), p.6. Interestingly, the current Wikipedia article does not waste a word about the Oedipal Elvis, because this material has been removed some years ago, although the close relationship to his mother (a fact that is also stressed by Guralnick, Elaine Dundy and many other biographers) must have had an immense influence on the singer's development. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article includes much information about Elvis's career as a singer, his setting records for concert attendance, television ratings and recordings sales. We read, for instance, that he is "the best-selling solo artist in the history of music, selling over one billion records internationally, and he is regarded as one of the most important figures of twentieth century popular culture. Among his many awards and accolades were 14 Grammy nominations (3 wins) from the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, which he received at age 36, and his being named One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation for 1970 by the United States Jaycees." Some time ago I have included what music critic Henry Pleasants has written about the King's voice:

"Elvis Presley has been described variously as a baritone and a tenor. An extraordinary compass... and a very wide range of vocal color have something to do with this divergence of opinion. The voice covers two octaves and a third ... Moreover, he has not been confined to one type of vocal production. In ballads and country songs he belts out full-voiced high G's and A's that an opera baritone might envy. He is a naturally assimilative stylist with a multiplicity of voices—in fact, Elvis' is an extraordinary voice, or many voices."

Does this all sound negative? And do you think that this passage should be deleted immediately? I don't think so. The problem with Elvis is that he didn't write his own songs as Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney did, and that he had to sing many songs he personally didn't like. It is no secret that the so-called King of Rock'n'Roll would have preferred gospel music. This is also a fact many fans didn't like. Be that as it may, a Wikipedia article should be balanced and must also contain some critical content, especially if it is to be found in reliable sources. Onefortyone (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

First you claim that Elvis was a pedophile, and now you say he slept with his mother! And the whole town knew about it. That's insane. Just when did all this "incest" take place? And how on earth could anyone have known about it? Did Gladys discuss it at the beauty shop? Did Elvis talk about it with his friends at school? No!! He was close to his mother--period. My son is close to me. A lot of sons are close to their mothers. Only someone with a dirty mind would construe that in the worst possible way. This is absolute trash.Beth4664 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have only cited what Greil Marcus has written. His source was Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. And Dee was certainly informed by Vernon. Guralnick says: "Elvis grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother. Vernon spoke of it after his son became famous, almost as if it were a source of wonder that anyone could be that close. Throughout her life the son would call her by pet names, they would communicate by baby talk, 'she worshiped him,' said a neighbor, 'from the day he was born.' " Onefortyone (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Elvis's mother doted on him. It is the normal reaction of a mother who lost her only other child at birth. There's nothing unusual about it.Beth4664 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Onefortyone, you are a hack. You consistently quote garbage from any trash-filled tabloid book you can think of, again and again for God knows how long. Goldman's book is loaded with lewd and trashy unproven BS about Elvis, just as his book about John Lennon was. As many critics said at the time they came out, it was blatantly obvious very early in the books that Goldman had nothing but disdain to start with for the subjects he wrote about in those books. Now it's Dee Stanley, who didn't even KNOW Elvis Presley until AFTER his mother was dead, and who Elvis could not stand. But her account of him and his relationship with his mother is also the gospel in your world. There is NOTHING, ZERO evidence of ANY kind that points to Elvis being a ped, or gay, or incest with his mother, or "racist" or any of the rest of the sick BS your ilk spew. You need to be banned from this site. If I had that power, you would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.235.38 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for this commentary. Am I right that it could have been written by an Elvis fan? No further comment needed. Onefortyone (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, Onefortyone, not a tabloid page. A person does not have to be an "Elvis fan" to want documented, proven "facts" only in his or anybody's article, rather than unproven slanderous BS by people with agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.9.15 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the current topic

Pedophilic tendencies and less sexual interest in mature women?

ElvisFan1981 has written: "The claim that Presley was more interested in young girls than older, more mature women, just doesn't seem to fit in with the facts that I know about. It is well documented about his relationships with his co-stars, none of whom were under 18, and his relationship with Ann-Margret is so famous that it just baffles me that anyone could suggest he was scared of older, mature women."

It is a fact that most of Elvis's so-called relationships were nothing more than bogus dates for publicity reasons. As for the alleged relationship with Ann-Margret, it is well known that there was a great publicity campaign about the romance between Elvis and Ann-Margret during the 1963 filming of Viva Las Vegas and the following weeks, which helped to increase the popularity of the young Hollywood beauty. In his critical study on the "dream machine" that publicists, tabloid newspapers, journalists, and TV interviewers use to create semi-fictional icons, often playing with inauthenticity, Joshua Gamson cites a press agent "saying that his client, Ann-Margret, could initially have been "sold ... as anything"; "She was a new product. We felt there was a need in The Industry for a female Elvis Presley." See Joshua Gamson, Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America (University of California Press, 1994), p.46. Therefore, they created a female Elvis named Ann-Margret. See also C. Lee Harrington and Denise D. Bielby, Popular Culture: Production and Consumption (2000), p.273. In her own memoir, Ann-Margret only refers to Presley as her "soulmate", but very little is revealed about their long-rumored romance. She does not even mention that she had a sexual relationship with Elvis, she only relates that "in a moment of tenderness" he bought her a round bed in hot pink colors. So you can be quite certain that they dated primarily for publicity reasons.

Here are some further sources. Stating without prejudice that Elvis "was not the super-suave stud everyone thought he was," Joe Esposito reports "voyeuristic tendencies" and a "full-blown Madonna complex", which certainly supports what Goldman has written.

Guralnick relates how the Memphis Mafia handled the teenage girls who were as keen as mustard on meeting the star: Elvis "was enjoying the single life, and when he got bored he just had to tell the guys to hunt up some girls in the lobby of the hotel. ... when they came back with the girls, the girls would sit there for maybe ten or fifteen minutes, and finally one of the cousins would go in the bedroom and come out himself and another ten minutes would go by - and then in would come Elvis. And there would be like a silence, and then the cousins would say, 'Oh, Mary Jane, this is Elvis,' and the girls would be totally gone." That's all. Interestingly, even some of these girls emphasized that Elvis "had an innocence at the time."

According to another account, Elvis kept on hand brand-new sets of pyjamas, white cotton panties, and toothbrushes for the girls. The girls were brought to his room, he had them shower, wash their hair and remove all their makeup, and wear the cotton panties and pyjamas. Most of them report only snuggling and watching movies with him during these evenings. Therefore, it is no wonder that Goldman found a "decline into infantilism" and a "bizarrely infantile behavior" in Elvis.

One thing seems to be clear: what Elvis really wanted was, according to Guralnick, "to have company." But there was that womanizer image he had wrongly established and had to defend in public. This may be the real reason why he often had girls in is bedroom. But in most cases he watched TV or read books with the girls the whole night. He did this also with mature women. Dorothy "Dottie" Harmony, a Las Vegas dancer who dated Presley, recalled dates in which religion was the topic of discussion. "I'm not kidding. We read the Bible aloud together."

Sheila Ryan, one of the few women who claimed to have had "a very active passionate romantic life" with the singer but finally married James Caan, also mentions Elvis's infantilism: "he was very much a little boy. He had that little boy quality. I've often said, before I met him, he had that smile and everyone interpreted that smile to be his sexy look. And it wasn't that at all. It wasn't a sexy look. It was his innocence, his vulnerability. It wasn't at all something that he turned on and off. It was just, you know, just vulnerable. ... The man was just not normal." She adds: "I'd heard that he didn't have a lot of intimacy with women. That mostly he did, a lot of talking and staying up and reading." Indeed, the latter seems to have been the usual thing when Elvis had girls in his bedroom.

Actress June Wilkinson says, "I met Elvis on the set of King Creole. He invited me to dinner at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. He had an entourage who spoke with Southern accents. The only one I remember was Nick Adams, the actor. Then Elvis gave me a tour of his suite, sat me on the bed in his bedroom and sang to me for two hours. That was it. The next day he called me again, but I was leaving at midnight. So he said, 'bring your bags along,' and we had dinner again. He was very sweet, and he was friendly. He had more than sex on his mind. He got me to the airport on time, and our paths never crossed again."

According to Guralnick, he wasn't really interested in most of these women. This is also confirmed by Jerry Hopkins who writes about Elvis's tour to Hawaii: "Velma Fisher remembers a young woman on the ship who said she had to meet Elvis. Velma took her to his cabin and knocked. The door opened. Elvis pulled the girl inside. The door closed. (Velma later said that when the ship arrived in Hawaii the young woman came up to her in tears. Elvis had rejected her.)"

As for the assumption that Elvis was not only a pedophile but also a voyeur, Greenwood has stated that "with teenage girls", Elvis felt "more secure he wouldn't be pleasuring himself with a mother," and that home movies were made with some of the girls because Elvis liked "to watch the girls have sex with each other. The faces changed and each group got younger, until on the final evening there were four fourteen-year-olds ... The movies were Elvis's latest pride and joy. He and his boys watched parts of them every day..." This means that the star didn't make love to them, being more interested in peeping at young pubescent girls.

There was another problem hindering the star from having full sex with the girls: Elvis's "drug protocol." According to Alanna Nash, it "was so intense and stultifying that often he would get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and never make it back to bed..." He would wind up in the bathroom, "sprawled on the floor, zonked out and cruising his own private hemisphere." Onefortyone (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As always, some very interesting reading there Onefortyone, but I have to take issue with it. You open with the line "It is a fact that most of Elvis's so-called relationships were nothing more than bogus dates for publicity reasons." Well, where are the thousands of publicity photos that would accompany such a bogus date for publicity reasons? I have very rarely seen pictures of Elvis with his dates, and therefore the suggestion that they were mostly for publicity isn't one that stands up. Even his relationship with Ann-Margret, the publicity of that came about after the relationship had already begun. It became a way to sell the picture, and the audience could pick up on the sexual vibes between the two co-stars, but again there isn't a huge amount of material of them together outside of the film set. Why is this? Very probably because Elvis was a very private man who didn't use his relationships for publicity reasons. Ann-Margret on the other-hand, from what I have read, was desperate to expose her relationship with him because she knew the massive amount of publicity it would generate. She was so eager to out their relationship, and even for him to propose to her, that it was eventually what led to their split. The fact that she doesn't write a great deal about their relationship doesn't mean it was all made up, perhaps she just has a respect for the man, and herself, a respect that clearly most of your sources lack.

The term, "teenage girls", could mean 18 or 19, it doesn't necessarily have to be under 18. From Goldman's own book, one of your favourite reads at the moment clearly, Elvis liked small, kittenish girls who were built to his ideal proportions. They were to be no higher than five feet two and weigh no more than 110 pounds. The prime areas of erotic interest were the ass and legs. Hair coloring, complexion, facial features were not important, though beauty was, naturally, desirable. What was critical was that the girls be as young as possible, certainly no older than eighteen, and that they be not too far removed from the condition of virginity. The bit in bold very cleverly doesn't say under 18, but it is enough to suggest it. But actually all it says is, very clearly, "no older than eighteen". That is very, very different to under 18. Again, if you really want to see something that isn't there you will if you believe in it enough. As for Goldman himself, his book was massively destroyed by the majority of the critics, and those who knew Elvis. Reviews were on the most part horrendous, and it is no secret that Goldman had a huge disliking for the subject he was "studying", hardly a fair mindset to begin writing a book. It's also important to remember that his second book on Elvis completely bombed, and included such ridiculous claims as Elvis committed suicide.

It's all very well pulling out these negative remarks, comments and quotes, but the truth is that when you look a little deeper and actually think about what is being said with the knowledge of your own findings on the subject, they just don't stand up. Anyone can crop a line or two from a whole paragraph and take it completely out of context, and that is mostly what is happening in a lot of your research, however interesting it is to read. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that "when you look a little deeper and actually think about what is being said with the knowledge of your own findings on the subject" (your words) you have to agree with Goldman and the other sources I have cited. There are indeed many photographs that were taken for publicity reasons. Some examples:

• Photos showing Elvis together with actress Yvonne Lime, some of which even including the press photographer. See [11]
• There are dozens of publicity photos showing Elvis and Ann-Margret. See, for instance [12] and [13]
• For Elvis and actress Natalie Wood, see [14]
• In Germany, Elvis dated 18-year-old actress Vera Tschechova for publicity reasons. See [15].

These are just a few examples I found only on one website. There are many more publicity photos of this kind. You may visit the fan sites.

Interestingly, there are also several photos showing Elvis’s predilection for very young girls, for example

• 14-year-old Dixie Locke. See [16].
• 15-year-old Siegrid Schutz. See [17]

These girls were much younger than 18 when Elvis dated them. This certainly supports Goldman’s opinion that the girls Elvis liked were "as young as possible, certainly no older than eighteen" – or you might say: much younger than eighteen, or fourteen such as Priscilla, or even younger than fourteen as the girl Scotty Moore mentioned in his book.

By the way, reviews of Goldman’s book weren’t on the most part horrendous. Only fan magazines damned it and some few critics criticized the author's focus on viciousness, sexuality, etc. Others liked the book. According to Rolling Stone magazine, October 21, 1981, Elvis "is a poignant book, the result of Goldman's winning the trust and confidence of hundreds of sources, including many of Elvis' closest friends. It is also an intimate look at a side of Elvis that few even suspected existed. Many people will find some of the revelations unpleasant... Yet, such revelations comprise a truth about modern American heroism and success." Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post called it a "nasty book, written in spectacularly execrable prose, but the view of Presley that it expressed dovetailed in many instances with my own, and in spite of itself I found things in it to admire." Even Greil Marcus, one of Goldman’s critics, says that Goldman has significantly shown that "Elvis Presley built his own world...--where the promise was that every fear, pain, doubt, and wish could be washed away with money, sex, drugs, and the bought approval of yes-men..." And Marcus must also admit that the book, "as no book on Elvis Presley before it, ... has been taken seriously. Despite some partially negative or carping notices, the reviewing media have accepted the book as it presents itself--as the last book we will need about Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Convenient that you completely missed the point of my entire paragraphs above. I don't deny there are photographs of Presley with his co-stars, including Ann-Margret. What I said was "..where are the thousands of publicity photos that would accompany such a bogus date for publicity reasons?" The few that you cite on that page are mostly from the very first time they met to promote the picture, and the others are from the movie set. It's not unusual at all, especially in the 60's, for a photographer to be onset snapping away at the stars of the movive. What I was asking is where are all the photographs of the pair out to lunch? Out to dinner? Out to a movie? Just driving around or walking along the street or openly seeking attention from photographers outside of a promotional photoshoot? There are none that I have ever seen.

There are lots of such photographs. Some examples:

*Elvis and Ann-Margret hanging out on a children’s playground (or is it a site of roadworks? I'm not sure), waiting for the press photographers: [18]

*Elvis playing golf with Ann-Margret: [19]

*Elvis on the street or out to a movie with Natalie Wood and his best friend, gay actor Nick Adams: [20] and [21]

*There are also photos showing Elvis and some prepubescent fans: [22]

As most of these photos are not "nice" enough, they do not appear in the fan magazines. You will find many more in the local newspapers of the time. Several of these "bad" press photographs may also have been suppressed by the Colonel (and later by EPE) in order to keep the image of the megastar alive. Onefortyone (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, those photo's are all over fan magazines, books, films, etc... but it still didn't answer my question. I've seen all of those photographs before, where are the ones of Elvis and Ann-Margret together that aren't staged? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are looking for. There may be several other photographs not to be found in the fan magazines. If you are interested in such press photographs, you may consult the newspaper archives. There you will certainly find what you need. Perhaps this kind of press photographs.

Did you know that, at least since 1964, Ann-Margret had been seriously dating actor/producer Roger Smith (whom she had first met in 1961)? Interestingly, she dated Smith at exactly the same time when she and Elvis were the dream nation's First Couple. By the way, Smith and Ann-Margret married in 1967. See James Robert Parish, Michael R. Pitts, Hollywood Songsters: Allyson to Funicello (2003), p.40. Onefortyone (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just watched an interview with Ann-Margret, and from her very own mouth she says "Our relationship was very strong, serious and very real..... our relationship lasted for one year...." She's clearly not hiding the fact that they did indeed have a relationship. They met in July 1963, and so if she began dating her husband in 1964 I would quite happily believe that she could have dated both men. Anyway, I feel that quite nicely brings to an end this particular discussion. It's no longer about the article, and it isn't adding anything to it at all. Thanks for the information and interesting tit-bits that you provided, they've all been worth reading. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the photographs of Elvis with Dixie Locke, in the 1950's it wasn't unusual for a slightly older teenager, in this case (1953) 18 year old Elvis, to be interested in a slightly younger teenager (1953) in this case Dixie Locke. How many couples from the 50's and earlier have age gaps in their relationships of 5+ years? Very many of them because it was certainly not frowned upon then. It was seen as a very common practice for a young man to take an interest in a young girl and show intentions to her parents of eventual marriage. Of course it's difficult to understand today, but so is stringing up black people on trees, not letting black people ride up the front of the bus, and trying to imagine black people not being able to vote. Yet all of those things were very common only 50/60 years ago. Also, simply because of the following line it's easy to understand exactly the point I've just made.... "On January 24, 1954, Fourteen year old Dixie noticed Elvis at a church function and making sure he overhears, she made plans with a girlfriend to go roller-skating the following Saturday night. 'I thought he was the most gorgeous thing I'd ever seen. He was a very shy person, but when he started singing he put so much into putting the music across that he kind of lost himself. He threw himself into it completely', she says." This line alone shows that it was not Elvis that showed the initial interest, it was her. Is that common for a paedophile?

It then goes on to say, "On February 16, Barely two weeks after their first meeting Elvis brought Dixie home to meet his parents. On February 26, Elvis and Dixie attended the all-Night Gospel singing at Ellis Auditorium together for the first time. Elvis and Dixie will see each other virtually everyday throughout the summer, going to the movies two or three times a week. On June 3, 1954 Dixie left Memphis for a family vacation in Florida." If it was so uncommon and unusual for a man of Elvis' age to show an interest in a girl of Dixie's age, then why would their parents be so eager to encourage their relationship? Why would they not immediately put a stop to it? Simple. Because it was the done thing in those days. It was probably the way many people began their relationships and met their future husbands/wives. Again, just because it seems odd today, doesn't mean that it was so odd 50 years ago.

Of course it's easy to attack Elvis because he's a celebrity, but would you call anyone else who met their wife in the 50's a paedophile because he was 18 and she was 13/14, to their face, right now, today, as they sit quite comfortably holding their grandchildren or great-grandchildren? I wouldn't think so. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, you are only dealing with the early photographs of Elvis with Dixie Locke. You do not discuss Elvis's dates with 14-year-old Priscilla, 15-year-old Siegrid Schutz, or the even younger girl Scotty Moore saw in Elvis's house when the star was 24 or 25. All this certainly attests the singer's continued interest in very young girls, which already existed when he dated young Dixie. Onefortyone (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Elvis's relationship with 14-year-old Priscilla

ElvisFan1981 has written: "Priscilla has always insisted that she and Presley did not engage in a serious sexual relationship until their wedding night. Now, whether she is saying this to protect his image or not is something that we will never know, but until further serious evidence comes forward to suggest otherwise, then we must really take it at face value."

As for Priscilla, it is not clear whether they had already a sexual relationship when she was very young. According to Larry Geller and Joel Spector, "probably the most scandalous rumor circulating then was that Elvis kept a young girl [Priscilla] back at Graceland. ... As Vernon and Elvis promised Mr. and Mrs. Beaulieu, she did complete her schooling and, as far as the public knew, lived with Vernon, Dee and Dee's three little boys, Rick, David and Billy Stanley..." (But who knows what was really going on there.) Joe Esposito says that it "was not until 1963, when Priscilla turned seventeen, that her father allowed her to live in Memphis. ... At first, she did stay at Vernon's to keep her promise to her parents. But Priscilla spent most of her time with Elvis, and before you knew it, she was permanently installed at Graceland." However, according to other sources, Priscilla "was permanently installed at Graceland" two or three years earlier. She first visited Graceland on Christmas 1960. "During the weeks of Priscilla's holiday visit", Kathleen Tracy writes,

"life at Graceland took a turn for the normal. Elvis lavished time and attention on Priscilla ... Priscilla endured the scrutiny of everyone with admirable grace. ... She had the innocent and idealistic outlook of a well-cared-for teenager. ... She was one of the few things Vernon and Elvis saw eye to eye on. Vernon made a constant fuss over Priscilla - ... - and between the two of them, her head was spinning. For her part, Priscilla seemed just as delighted to be back in America as she was to be at Graceland with Elvis. ... the house radiated a life that had been missing for years. ... As the end of Priscilla's holiday vacation neared, the thought of her leaving drove Elvis to despair. The solution was simple – she simply had to stay. She could go to school in Memphis and live at Graceland full time. Vernon was in full support. ... With Vernon on the upstairs extension, Elvis talked to Joe Beaulieu for close to an hour, while Priscilla sat listening quietly but anxiously. ... After a sometimes-impassioned conversation, it had been miraculously arranged. Priscilla would move to Graceland as a guest of Vernon and Dee's, who would take personal responsibility for chaperoning her. ... Elvis enrolled Priscilla in an all-girls school, Immaculate Conception, wanting her well educated and sheltered from the attention of teenage boys. Under the guise of complying with Mr. Beaulieu's conditions, Elvis tightened a protective net around Priscilla that effectively made her a prisoner. ... The only one not thrilled with Priscilla was Parker. While it might be less difficult to pass her off as a friend of the family here for a visit, convincing the country that Elvis was a platonic host of a live-in 15-year-old girl would be almost impossible. The only saving grace was the number of people who lived at Graceland and the fact that Elvis kept her under close wraps and didn't flaunt her in public. While she adjusted to her new home, Priscilla seemed content to spend time at Graceland, but as she acclimated to her surroundings, the natural restlessness of a teenager surfaced. Elvis sternly cautioned her against going out alone at any time, citing his concern for her safety."

Alanna Nash states that though the promise was that a chaperoned Priscilla would live with Vernon and his new wife, Dee, that arrangement lasted only a matter of weeks, "Priscilla slipping back and forth between the houses." In her book, Elvis and me, Priscilla writes about Elvis: "Any sexual temptations were against everything he was striving for, and he did not wish to betray me, the girl waiting for him at home who was preparing to be his wife." However, reputed biographer Suzanne Finstad calls the content of Elvis and me a web of lies that Priscilla has spun. The author paints Priscilla in a rather negative light describing her as a "wild child" and "sexpot" and stating that Priscilla wasn't a virgin on her wedding night, as she and Elvis slept together on their second date. If this is really true, then Elvis would have had sex with a 14-year-old girl during his military service in Germany, which would indeed support Goldman's view that Elvis may have had pedophilic tendencies. This would further imply that the singer had rendered himself liable to prosecution in 1959, as he would have acted against the German (and US) law at that time, because Elvis was 24 and Priscilla hadn't reached the so-called age of consent (i.e. the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of having sex with an adult person). However, Finstad also emphasizes that Elvis hated sex. This means that the singer was not overtly sexual towards his wife some years later - a fact even Priscilla confirms in her book. Further sources say that Elvis never made love to Priscilla again after the birth of his daughter, because he would never have sex with a woman who had had a baby. Onefortyone (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The most important line in your whole writing above is, "If this is really true.....". Everything that you bring to the table is questionable, and therefore not usable in the article. You also open with the line "As for Priscilla, it is not clear whether they had already a sexual relationship when she was very young." Exactly! And again, because it is unclear we can't confirm or deny it and therefore it is also all unusable in the article. I really wish you would drop all of this Onefortyone. Not because I don't like it, I find it all very interesting and it fuels my desire to know as much about Elvis as I can, but simply because there is no serious confirmations of truth in anything you have so far provided. All we are doing is going round in circles and it's becoming quite tiresome. I enjoy reading all this information that you provide to us, but a lot of it is easy to argue with and that in itself means it isn't good enough for inclusion. I have always agreed with your point that the negative should be thrown in with the positive, but there also has to be a fair, researched balance, and throwing something in just because its been suggested doesn't seem right. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be taken into account that Suzanne Finstad is an excellent biographer and known for her over-attention to detail. When she says that Priscilla didn’t tell the truth when she claimed to have been a virgin until her wedding day, then Finstad’s statement must be taken serious as it is based on extensive interviews with family members, close friends, classmates, etc. It is also understandable that Priscilla is not willing to compromise herself in public, if she really had sex with Elvis as a fourteen-year-old girl. Onefortyone (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Some questions concerning the intro paragraph

The following paragraph has recently been rewritten by ElvisFan1981:

• Throughout his career, he set records for concert attendance, television ratings and recordings sales. He is the best-selling solo artist in the history of music, selling over one billion records internationally, and he is regarded as one of the most important figures of twentieth century popular culture. Among his many awards and accolades were 14 Grammy nominations (3 wins) from the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, which he received at age 36, and his being named One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation for 1970 by the United States Jaycees.

Query: do we need all these details? Here is the "List of the Ten Outstanding Young Americans" for 1970:

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

What is so important about this list that it is mentioned in the intro paragraph? Furthermore, we read that Elvis is the best-selling solo artist ever who sold over one billion records. The following sources indicate that this is merely an assumption:

• The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Third Edition (2001) says that Elvis "is believed to have sold over 1 billion records worldwide" (p. 774).
• Billboard wrote (May 12, 2001): "By 1984, RCA had manufactured 1 billion Presley records." (But if this is really true, were all these records actually bought by the fans or were many of them returned by the record stores?)
• In their book, Buy, keep or sell? (2006), Judith Miller and Mark Hill write (p.246): "It is estimated that he has sold more than one billion records."
• Here is Linda Romine, Frommer's Nashville & Memphis (2004), p.197: "Elvis has sold more than a billion records worldwide, according to some industry estimates."
• Susan Doll, Elvis for Dummies (2009): "Estimations purport that Elvis Presley has sold more than one billion records worldwide without touring outside of the US and Canada..."
• In her book, Elvis As We Knew Him (2003), Jennifer Harrison (an Elvis fan) claims: "If, in 1977, RCA-Victor had pressed two billion records, you can assume that number to be accurate in regards to record sales, since I assure you that Elvis Presley records are not being returned by record stores, who realize they will always be able to sell these records no matter what the popular trends in music." (p.117) (Really?)

So the intro should better say, " It is assumed by many (or It has been claimed by some industry estimates) that Elvis is the best-selling solo artist artist in the history of music, selling over one billion records internationally..." Onefortyone (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the list of awards, it is one of the few awards and accolades that Presley ever did appear in person to accept, I think that says in itself how much the award actually meant to him (it's common knowledge that Presley very rarely attended awards ceremonies). Considering there are only a handful listed, I don't personally think that it's a problem being included in the opening paragraph, it hardly weighs it down with an endless list. And actually, how many entertainment personalities have received the award in over seventy years? 15 out of hundreds of people awarded the title. I think that is significant enough to be mentioned. And also it states "awards and accolades", and the title is an accolade. If, however, you feel it shouldn't be included then by all means remove it.

Secondly, with regards to the claim of over one billion records sold, you'd have to ask the person who included that in the first place about how it should be worded. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New picture

Would anyone be interested in getting a new picture for the intro? That hairstyle looks dated now, even though it was fine at the time. I always liked the black leather jacket shot from the come-back special--timeless. He was in the best shape of his life too-lean, mean, cool, sexy. That's the way I would like him to be remembered.Beth4664 (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

At one point we had a nice "young Elvis" - "mid 50s" shot, which is the part of his career I find most interesting. But, I do agree that he was maybe at his best on the so called 68 comeback special. I would support a change to another photo from either era. Getting one, and doing all of the "form filing" and jutifying is kind of a challenge in and of itself. If you've got the time... Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What about including this photo in the "Last year" section – for reasons of balance? Onefortyone (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fans are more interested in finding the nicest "young Elvis" - "mid 50s" photo depicting Elvis "in the best shape of his life... - lean, mean, cool, sexy."

I wish this constant generalisation would stop. "Fans"? All "Fans"? I don't think so. This fan certainly doesn't think that Elvis looked his best in the 50's, and I'm not one bit put off by the way he looked on his very last tour. He was a human being, a man who was very capable of putting on weight and losing weight like any of us. A man who found it more difficult to lose weight as he aged, like any of us would. To just blatantly assume that "Fans" like something is seriously wrong. Sweeping generalisations are very uncalled for, especially when you don't know anything about every "Fan". I would be more than happy for a picture in the Last Years section to be from his very last tour, one of him looking overweight and pale. It's realism, it's life, it makes him even more human and not a God. I don't have an interest in a God, I have an interest in the man, the human being, the real deal. It's partly because some people assume that all Elvis "Fans" want to see him looking his best that EPE won't officially release his final concerts on DVD, something which any real fan would love to own. I do own a copy, bought from eBay, and whilst it's watchable and very enjoyable, I would love to get my hands on a proper, re-mastered official version. Perhaps the constant mocking Elvis got/gets for his look in the final years is what led to the ridiculous stick thin celebrities we have today, and the airbrushing that leads to millions of young boys and girls starving themselves to look like an image that isn't even real. Despite Elvis' growing waistline in the 70's, his shows still sold out everywhere he went, fans still screamed as loud as they had done in the 50's, and his records still sold millions of copies around the world. I'm sure that every "Fan" who was at those concerts didn't care how Elvis looked, it wasn't/isn't important. New fans of all ages find Elvis appealing, and even in the 70's he gained fans that weren't even born when he was making his movies in the 60's. Today there are still many younger fans who listen, watch and try to imitate Elvis. His mass appeal was never his looks. Elvis' looks were like that of a new relationship; initially you are attracted to the person based on their looks, but if there's nothing deeper going on underneath then it won't last. Perhaps that explains why Elvis is still a huge name today and other stars from the last 50 years have all faded; Elvis went deeper than just his looks. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate what Steve Paster is saying,he is not having a go at Elvis's build,I think he is saying his fondest memories of Elvis and what he relates to,and that is to do with the 50's Elvis. My brother and some other people are of the same opinon, it's to do with his music,nothing more. It's just a personal taste with his music and the whole thing with the 50's.dancing,cars,cloths,hairstyle etc. It's called youth.

I on the other hand I'm am different, my first record I bought of Elvis,was from a second hand record store and it was an album of his early recordings, Elvis Presley (The black and white cover with the pink & green writing and the second album I got was the Moody Blue Album.) I enjoy different songs from different era's.

I and many others like yourself ElvisFan1981 have the bootleg copy of the Last Concert and only wished that EPE would bring out the original version. They may in time. Look what happened, they now have the Elvis Tribute Yearly Contest with Elvis Tribute artists, I didn't think that would ever happen. Never say never.

I think with the last concert people feel very sad for Elvis,even my parents who are not Elvis Fans carn't get over how he looked in th 68's Comback Special and in just nine years later, he looked so sick,it's called compassion,it's got nothing to do with his weight. If anything,that is one thing that alot of people can relate to,be they fan or non fan,we don't stay beautiful for ever. Unlike 141's little remark,that's to demean someone,there's the difference.--Jaye9 (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the page has been slightly altered since my last inclusion here, or maybe I just mistakenly put it in the wrong place, but my above comments were in relation to Onefortyone saying ""Fans are more interested in finding the nicest "young Elvis" - "mid 50s" photo depicting Elvis "in the best shape of his life... - lean, mean, cool, sexy." which is now (and may always have been) below the comments I made above. It wasn't a reply to Steve. I hope no one has taken that the wrong way. :)

And I agree Jaye, perhaps one day EPE will get round to officially releasing the last concerts, I sure hope so. It would be interesting to know if it would be viewed the same way had he not died so soon after they were recorded. Maybe if he was still alive, or had died many years later they would view it differently. We'll never know. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be kind of "fun" to rotate a number of pictures that are representative of Elvis' life. Maybe we could agree to do that. The "Fat Elvis" picture represents only a very short period of his life, and, as the "head" picture would be inappropriate because it is so atypical. (There is a guy who calls himself "Big Elvis" who's been performing in Vegas for 7 years.) It IS, however, appropriate for the Final Year and Death section. No? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Elvis was never fat. He was bloated from heart medication, probably beta-blockers, which can cause one to gain water weight rapidly. It can also cause dizziness and confusion, which might explain why he forgot the words to the song. And he was only "fat" for the last two years of his life. For some reason, people who don't remember Elvis assume that he was always fat. But there was much more to Elvis than his appearance. He commanded the stage during every appearance. His last performance was beautiful to me, not pitiful at all.Beth4664 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Goldman

EIN: The infamous Albert Goldman biography on Elvis. We know you've talked about your involvement in his book before but as you say even today you still are blamed for it. For those fans who don't know the full story could you set the story straight?

LF: I'll tell you something. He wanted to do the book and my involement was set up through an individual in New York. Albert was a hard writer and I had nothing to do with how he used that information I provided to him. The way he wrote it was terrible but I had no editoral control over the book. When I read the gallery proof I took them out the back yard and buried them! Source: Part of the Lamar Fike interview 2008 with Elvis Information Network

I could have put so much more in then I did, but I choose not to, what is the point when dealing with you 141. If you have read "Elvis and the Memphis Mafia" and what they have said, not just on Albert Goldman, but on other subjects & sources that you have brought up both past and present,which they speak of, both with honesty and integrity. Then shame on you. As far as I'm concerned,your an experts AH--Jaye9 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

O yes, I know that fan sites do not like what Goldman wrote. They are always damning critical remarks on the megastar. Fans are more interested in finding the nicest "young Elvis" - "mid 50s" photo depicting Elvis "in the best shape of his life... - lean, mean, cool, sexy." See [23] and [24]. As he was a member of the Memphis Mafia, Lamar Fike was very close to Elvis, that's true. He introduced his friend Goldman to many sources. Therefore much material in Goldman’s book is based on eyewitness accounts. Lamar also recalled: "The problem was Albert's personality. At first, he liked Elvis. But later, he started disliking him." This may happen if you take a deeper look in the personal life of a star. Goldman himself told an interviewer: "People were scandalized by my use of humor and ridicule... Elvis was someone they were accustomed to taking in a very sentimental way. But I feel he was a figure of the most bizarre and grotesque character." Notwithstanding, even Greil Marcus, one of Goldman's critics, admitted that the book, "as no book on Elvis Presley before it, ... has been taken seriously. Despite some partially negative or carping notices, the reviewing media have accepted the book as it presents itself--as the last book we will need about Elvis Presley." Onefortyone (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Partly Fact, Mostly Fiction

Firstly 141,please accept my oppology for calling you an Experts AH,that was uncalled for. But I just don't understand how someone like yourself,who reads as many Elvis books,as you say you do,can take Greenwood seriously and in the other instance pass of Bill Burk as just an Elvis Fan,that did talks on Elvis for European Fan Clubs. Well,his done alot more than just that. He has exposed alot myths and hacks with their exaggerated claims in regard to Elvis Presley. Is Greenwood telling lies or is Bill Burk & Marty Lacker. I'll put my money on Burk and Lacker, I want the truth thanks.

You recently wrote on the Elvis Talk page this: "As for the assuption that Elvis was not only a pedophile but also a voyer,Greenwood has stated that "with teenage girls",Elvis felt more secure he wouldn't be pleasing himself with a mother," and that home movies were made with some of the girls because Elvis liked "to watch the girls have sex with each other. The faces changed and each group got younger,until on the final evening there were four fourteen-year-olds...The movies were Elvis's latest pride and joy. He and his boys watched part of them every day..." This means that the star didn't make love to them,being more interested in peeping at young pubescent girls."

May I suggest 141,that you read "Elvis and The Memphis Mafia" book. A very different version to Greenwood's. Yes,Elvis did recieve one of the first Recorders as a gift from RCA in 1968. The boys recalled this in their book,as they had to lugg it up Hotel Stars for Elvis. When they asked Elvis want are you doing with it,he said he was recording football games. He lied. Elvis the say took great paines to hide these Vidoes from them and when he was away,they snuck up into his bedroom looking for these tapes,which they found and they were dissappointed because Elvis had taken the cord with him. Joe Esposito,with alot trouble found another cord and they viewed these tapes. To today standards they would rate them a R at best,no mention of 14 year old girls. Perhalps Greenwood read their book and put his own take on it. You see Elvis didn't sit around watching these films with the boys,as Greenwood states,he was very private about it. Greenwoods version is much more titillating.

Bill Burk writes about Greenwood: "He writes of Elvis being in an English class with Dixie Locke at Humes High School and how they became sweethearts and often doubledated with "Cousin" Earl and his girlfriend. Earl writes he attended Tech High School."

"On reading this,I called Dixie and said "You liar! You've been telling me all these years you went to school with my first wife at South Side High School and now I learn you went to Humes! "Who Says?" quizzed Dixie. "You know I went to school with Frances(My first wife)" "Earl Greenwood! "WHO is Earl Greenwood?" You would think someone who doubled dated with "Cousin" Earl as much as he claimed would remember him" Soure EIN (by the way Burk trips Greenwood up on alot of other things as well)

Marty Lacker writes about Greenwood: "And as for Earl Greenwood,first of all,he claims to be a second cousin. Billy says he isn't. And I've seen the entire family tree and there is no Earl Greenwood on it. He was a guy who hung around the gates. Every once in a while,he was allowed up to the home with all these other people who came up and maybe he had his picture taken with Elvis at the skating rink. So what? Source: "Elvis and The Memphis Mafia"--Jaye9 (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks I jumped the gun there a little bit when I said Greenwood may of got his information from the "Elvis and The Memphis Mafia" book more likely Albert Goldman's book,as Greenwood's book came out in 1990 after Goldman's and before "Revelations By The Memphis Mafia" book. By the way Albert Goldman claimed that there were rumours circulating around,that these Vidoes of Elvis were around certain Hollywood Porno shops whatever,yeah likely story.--Jaye9 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a few notes. I don't know how reliable Greenwood is. I have only cited the eye-witness account I found in his book. Publisher's Weekly says that the author, "a cousin who grew up with Elvis and later became his press agent, attempts to explain the singer's turbulent life and career by detailing the events of his youth. Poverty, unstable parents, the death of a twin brother at birth, emotional attachment to his alcoholic mother are included in the litany of childhood misfortunes offered as explanations for the star's debauched behavior as an adult." It is further stated in this review that Greenwood concentrates on Elvis's "bizarre personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters." There are even more positive reviews. For instance, the Library Journal reviewer says: "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."

Yes I know that the Memphis Mafia confirms that the said videos exist. However, do you really think that the Memphis Mafia members would openly confess that they made blue movies with fourteen-year-old girls? I don't think so because of the legal consequences. Perhaps there are some inaccuracies in Greenwood's book as in most other books on Elvis. I don't know exactly. However, it is a fact that the book includes many details which can also be confirmed by other biographers. Even Guralnick has used Greenwood's book as a source.

As far as Bill E. Burk is concerned, I met this guy some years ago and it was clear that he was primarily interested in self-promotion and selling his fan magazines, published either by Burk Enterprises, Memphis, TN, or by a Memphis publisher called Propwash, i.e. Burk's own publishing company. One of his more recent publications, Elvis Aaron Presley: A Candle In The Wind (2005), is primarily on Elvis's generosity to others, including "first hand accounts" of his relationships with early girlfriends and reporting what some female co-stars thought about the nice guy Elvis. Other topics include: Elvis with the King and Queen of Thailand; Elvis with three Scandinavian princesses; Elvis's first four-wheeler; the day young Tanya Leny met Elvis, etc. etc. This content speaks volumes. There are no critical voices on Elvis to be found in this and the other books written by this author, who also runs an internet fan site on which he endeavors to disparage all those who have published critical material on Presley. So it is clear that Burk is not a reliable source, especially in view of the fact that others have shown that some of his statements include false claims. This website, for instance, accuses Burk of being "intellectually dishonest, manipulative, and guilty of making false distorted quotations." Onefortyone (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

141,I went to the website you referred to,had a look at it. These individuals who have done this website are scary (fruit loops). Don't insult me.--Jaye9 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, but they have clearly shown that Bill Burk is not as accurate and serious as his fans believe. By the way, you may also say that Burk's website is "scary", although the latter is more extensive in its derogatory commentaries concerning critical publications on Elvis. These are all fan sites, but you have been the first to cite from such a page. Onefortyone (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing this white supremist on TV once,who was taking passages out the bible to justify his own twisted beliefs and it made me sick. I'm getting that same sick feeling here.--Jaye9 (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time and effort

This page is merely highlighting the fact that a lot of useless material exists on Presley. Some editors are always willing to attach credibility to people, books, websites, etc.just because it suits their agenda. Using such sources is a waste of time - as is amply demonstrated by the way this article has not changed much to accommodate cherry-picked opinion. These numerous tidbits, rumors, highly personal observations belong elsewhere, NOT in an encyclopedic article. Let's stick to the facts, as much as we can. There's plenty of them. Much information is useless as far as inclusion in a neutral, encyclopedic article.

There appears to be only one editor who constantly presses for this article to be written otherwise. And it is leading us nowhere, for the millionth time, over several depressing years. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True. So true. It is tiresome and repetitive and perhaps we should all just agree to let it go now, it's getting us nowhere and definitely isn't improving the article, or moving it forward, in any way. I have only really been involved with this article for the last 12-18 months (I can't really recall offhand) so I don't remember all the discussion before, but if all of this is just a rehash of all of that then it is unnecessary. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, let me suggest that we direct our energies to removing opinion, even if by "experts" when a "reporting" of what actually happened is available, and reversing edits that introduce such opinions into the article outside of a section that is specifically devoted to "opinion". For instance, a long time ago I added material about Elvis' "leg shaking" in his first big public appearance. Since then I found two statements, one by Elvis, and one by Scotty Moore that contradict that Elvis was "nervous". The "opinion" that he was nervous is just that, an opinion. I just haven't taken time to rewrite that paragraph. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Onefortyone, who seems to be the source of most of the BS and tabloid rag quality entries here, not banned from this article permanently? He has no interest in facts, only every unproven tabloid accusation he can find, by any hack he can find, whether they ever even met Presley or not. Or he takes something that is true and twists it into something perverted that wasn't there to begin with. His agenda is disgustingly obvious, and he should have been banned a long time ago. I don't get it. Why is he not???? Why is he tolerated or taken seriously for two minutes here instead of just banned and done with it??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.9.15 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's Nothing More I Can Do Here

I've been with this article for quite awhile now,when I think about it. I e-mailed Marty Lacker last night to ask him if I could get his insight on different things from time to time and I told him about Wikipedia and I said how I believed that most of the editors were really genuine. He has never gone into Wikipedia until now,of course he doesn't need to. But he had a look. His reply made me think about alot things and my involement with this article.

If it's not difficult enough to cross check souces and I beleive I have done this to the best of my ability,I've got 141 thrown into the mix. I should be just focussing on what I'm supposed to do and that is finding the best sources possible for this article,but instead I'm thinking about how he is going to twist it around. I'm spending far to much time thinking what his going to do and his responses with lots of different souces all thrown in with his own spin on it,most of which inderectly has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I don't know if you do this because you think it's clever,or to daze and confuse me. His refusal to accept any souces you bring up,if it doesn't suit him. Lets not forget his arrogant manner,let's see:your just an Elvis Fan,this speaks volumes,you may put it in,this is unexceptable,your wrong,or your sources are just Elvis Fans to. Who do you think you are? In the end it doesn't matter what you think or say 141,people will figure it out by themselves. The way I see it,while you continue to stay with this article,I believe it will never reach a GA rating,period and in the end,I see you as just this sad twisted lonely man.

For these reasons,I will not be returning to this article,I just don't see the point.

To the rest of you,let me say it has been a pleasure working with you.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Jaye, and I hope that you finally find the heart to return very soon. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

best selling solo artist?

there is no actual calculated number close to one billion+ to say that elvis presley is the best selling solo artist in history. its very possible that michael jackson, cliff richard, madonna, alla pugacheva, mouskouri, ar rahman, wei wei, etc., etc., etc. could have been better sellers than elvis. it would be better to say he's one of the best selling solo artists or acts in music history. one is assuming too much by saying he is the biggest seller. the likely reality also is that figures of 2 bln, 1.5 bln, 1 bln, 750 mln, 500 mln, etc. are tremendously exaggerated for promotional purposes. for the reason that the number might be exaggerated but that he is still obviously a popular artist, one of the best sellers makes more sense. Vpuliva (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of the last three or of Cliff Richard. I'm guessing their names would at least sound familiar if they were billion sellers. Does Madonna still make records? I always thought she was more of a personality than a singer, and not a very interesting one at that. As for Michael Jackson, you know the debate is raging on that. I have no idea where these figures come from. I know that someone is watching because I have come across web sites that keep track of what records are being sold daily. But I don't know where the historical figures come from. However, I still believe this statement is true: Elvis Presley was the best-selling solo artist in history. He's still selling records. He's still earning $100 million a year. I would let the statement stand as it is now.Beth4664 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles page on Wikipedia is quite open about announcing that they have sold over 1 billion records, and so I don't see why the Elvis Presley page shouldn't be. Cliff Richard? Nowhere near sales of Elvis. Madonna? Never. Any of the others, I very much doubt. Michael Jackson is the only serious contender who could rival Elvis and The Beatles for selling power, and even the experts are saying that he's most likely to have sold around 500 million, not the 750 million that has recently been claimed. I read a few days ago that since his death (approx. 4 weeks ago) he's sold 9 million records worldwide. That is a massive achievement, but not when you consider that Elvis Presley sold in excess of 20 million following his death, according to very similar reports at the time. I think if it's good enough for the Beatles page (they cite Wikipedia, by the way) then it's good enough for this page. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

i didnt say change the numbers since every artists' pages seem to exaggerate numbers. but seeing as how everyone is exaggerating (which they are - no one can actually calculate sales to equal such ridiculous numbers), it would be fair to put elvis as one of the best selling. beth4664 and ef1981 seem very angered that i even brought it up and are extremely biased to dispute other artists' sales but not elvis' sales (again, ALL are likely exaggerated - you cannot say that elvis' figures are accurate and everyone else exaggerates). the bottom line is we truly have no idea what actual sales are. but what we do know is that elvis is a very popular artist and for those reasons, we should label him as one of the best, not definitely the best or no mention. or at the very least, say he is possibly or quite possibly the best selling solo artist. the article assumes too much and sounds too sure of numbers that are not even calculated.

i should also bring up that just because artists are not popular in the us or uk does not mean they are not best sellers. rahman and wei wei are from the incredibly massive markets of india and china respectively. just being popular there (even though they are popular throughout the world in reality) makes them likely contenders. and just because they are not popular in the us does not mean they are not popular in the rest of the world. the world does not revolve around the us or even the uk. for example, bollywood, the hindi film industry, possibly outsells hollywood (by numbers not by money) and by a rather long margin according to many reports, yet very few people in the us actually watch those movies.Vpuliva (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

to elvisfan1981, i looked at the beatles page just now. while they also have that 1bln figure, they are careful in mentioning they are one of the best selling not the best selling. its very possible that other bands have outsold them, or they are best selling, but again it's not definite as there is no official worldwide tally of sales. i also looked at michael jackson's page and there is a similar statement made there as well. Vpuliva (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? Prove it. You make a lot of assumptions, but you haven't proven anything. Show your sources. By the way, I'm not angry. But, really, the Hindu market? You've got to be kidding.Beth4664 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

to beth4664: I made no assumptions. I said that it is possible that other artists have outsold Elvis. It is also possible that Elvis is the best seller. But since there is no official worldwide tally as I said before, we cannot make that assumption that Elvis is THE best seller. I even suggested you add the word possible. But since he is very popular as I stated, we can say he is one of the best. Look at the Beatles wiki page. Many would agree they are the best selling band. But they are careful to say that they are one of the best, as it is not official - they even have a Guinness World Record for it unlike Elvis, yet they are professional in not making the bold assumption. Michael Jackson has a Guinness World Record for Most Succesful Entertainer of all Time, but their editors are also careful in not making a sweeping statement that he is the best selling. Also, if you still think I am making bold assumptions, at least I am doing so on this discussion page and not on the article page where people can potentially be mis-informed. By the way, I'm not sure if it is still up, but you can go to the Bollywood wiki page and there is a table there of stats. It can also be searched for on the net. It is supposedly the premier movie industry in Africa, Asia (which itself has the majority of the world's population), and was/could still be in Eastern Europe. It's also popular in Latin America, the Caribbean, Western Europe, and Australia. In any case, I said possibly - it is possible that Hollywood is actually better selling. Please read my responses carefully - don't be motivated to speak because of your anger and your bias for Elvis. I don't have to prove anything more - I agree Elvis is very popular, but so are so many other artists. You have to prove to me there is an actual official worldwide tally and show me those figures. Until you have this proof, I, along with others, can not be convinced that such a bold statement is really the case. I am not in any way bringing Presley down with my minor suggestions. By the way, it's Hindi the language, not the religion Hinduism. Also, it is possible more people speak Hindi than they do English. And it is possible for people to like things that are not American or British. Vpuliva (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not write that statement. I suggest you direct your demands for proof to the person who did.Beth4664 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not one bit "angered" by the suggestion that the page should say "...one of the best selling artists....", it said that for a very, very, very long time before someone changed it only a few days ago (and no, it wasn't me) and so I would please ask you kindly to take that back, there is absolutely no need for that kind of accusation. Secondly, I didn't say that because an artists isn't huge in the US or UK that they couldn't possibly have had more success than anyone else, the facts speak for themselves.

The problem here seems to be that the line states "...the best-selling solo artist in the history of music...." rather than "...one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music...". So let's deal with that. Journalist Nick Keene writes, Elvis did not sell 1 billion records by 1982 which claim first appeared via an article in the 'Washington Post' dated 12 July of that year and quoted RCA as its source, nor is there any validity in the current claim of 1.5 billion - whatever Sony BMG may say in the liner notes on the back of one or two recent DVD releases. Rest assured my investigations reveal that Elvis is still by some distance the greatest record seller of all time, but even 26 years later it is no easy task trying to establish whether or not his sales have actually exceeded one billion copies.

So, perhaps the estimate of 1 billion record sales is exaggerated, perhaps it isn't, but it's still clear from his research, and research of many others, that Presley is the greatest record seller of all time. EPE claim 600 million sales in the US alone, and 400 million in the rest of the world. Roger Semon and Ernst Mikael Jørgensen, who have spent years researching Presley's music and record sales have stated, "As consultants to RCA Records we are 100% convinced that Elvis is the biggest selling artist of all time."

Sales for all artists, including Presley, the Beatles and Michael Jackson are very probably exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that they aren't the best selling artists of all time. Right now, as of this moment, Presley is regarded as the best selling solo artist of all time. In the future that may change, and when/if that time comes then it will be reflected in the article, but until then I believe, as I'm sure many others do, that it's fair to state Presley is the best selling solo artist of all time.

However, if it really upsets you so much that you need to alter it, then I won't contest your edit of the article, but I can't speak for the person who made the original edit. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no official worldwide tally, but I do appreciate that you are open to an edit. Vpuliva (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A stolen suggestion

The article on Nick Adams has had similar problems with reliable sourcing. There's a good suggestion on the talk page under the heading "Shall we rename the article Nick Adams (hustler)?" A link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Adams_%28actor%29 The gist of the idea is to include all notable speculation, but in its own section, or even to make a separate article on the source to link to.Rikidozan89 (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The only "dispute" is whether or not speculation or opnion has a place in an article about a subject where there is abundant objective information available. And the things that are generating the most "ink" are disapproved by the great majority of editors. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion/speculation should not be included as fact. If a notable critic/artist gets quoted it's presented as opinion, and that's okay. I thought some of the sources were disputed. If they got their own section or article with a disclaimer, ex. "Disputed Claims", then they wouldn't be presented alongside other sources as fact, but would get a mention if notable. The Goldman book comes to mind.Rikidozan89 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Back so soon you say,yeah I know,I must be some kind of masorchist I guess.

Rikidozan89,I can appreciate what you're saying and I thank you for your comments. I first read Albert Goldman's book many years ago and again just recently. The sad part was this book could have been one of the best books written on Presley,as he was the first author to find out the true identity of Col.Tom Parker. Superb investigative work on Goldman's part,I must say. However Goldman's attitude and contempt for the star,I believe sadly let him down.

The difference with say Gurlanich and Goldman,Gurlanick didn't help me know Presley,however he did help me understand him,something Goldman failed to do.

Goldman certainly did imply that Nick Adams had a homosexual relationship with James Dean,as have some other books on Dean. Goldman had also accused this with John Lennon and his manager Brian Epstein. All based on rumor and hearsay.

So I went over to the Wikipedia Article on Nick Adams main page,titled Friendship with Dean and Presley and it states: "In his book Elvis(1981) Albert Goldman wrote Nick Adams ingratiated himself with James Dean precisely as he would do a year or so later with Presley. He offered himself to the shy,emotionally contorted and rebelleous Dean,as a friend,guide,a boon companion,a homosexual lover - whatever role or service Dean required."

In his book,Goldman called Presley many things,that were clearly aimed to attack his masculinity. Things like for example: simply gorgeous,he looked outrageously gay,there was widespread suspicion that the singer was actively or latently homosexual,he looked like a big fat women that had just recovered from surgery. He even went as far as to make a snide remark about Presley's genitalia,calling it an ugly hillbilly pecker. In the end,he did say that though Presley was not homosexual his image was rough trade. Did he say or even hint that Nick Adams and Elvis were homosexual lovers? Emphatically the answer is no. Do I care? Not really. As far as I'm concerned,Albert Goldman crossed the line of what is known as common human decency.

In saying that the Wikipedia article on John Lennon,doesn't even mention Albert Goldman,they had the good sense not to even bother. The John Lennon article didn't need the likes of Goldman to reach it's GA rating and nether do we.--Jaye9 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes they don't mention Goldman in the Lennon article. The Lennon book has it's own article. If someone finds Goldman's take on Elvis to be notable then it should get it's own article or it's own subsection in a child article. Goldman's book did make a splash and I wouldn't argue with someone that wanted that to be represented, accurately and with quoted criticisms/acclamation of the book, if it were to get it's own article completey seperate from the main Elvis wiki. This would appease people wanting Goldman represented, and people that find him unreliable as a source for the main Elvis article.Rikidozan89 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I only post this because because Goldman does get listed as a source at the bottom of this page.Rikidozan89 (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CHANGE TO THE "SEX SYMBOL" SECTION.

I think the second paragraph of this section referring to the Ed Sullivan show should be deleted. It's already been covered on a previous page. And I don't believe there was ever any rumor that Elvis wore a (ugh) fake penis.

I was a very little girl, but I remember the show clearly. It was a big event. A lot of relatives gathered at my aunt's and uncle's house, because they were the first in the family to own a TV. We knew from the papers that Sullivan was not going to show Elvis from the waist down when he was performing, because he moved his his hips. That was considered obscene at the time.

And that is exactly what happened. When he was performing, the camera stayed above his waist, but it was apparent from his upper-body movements that he was moving or dancing. Everybody commented on it. However, when he walked out on the stage, when he took a bow, when he stood next to Ed Sullivan, the camera showed his entire body.

Ed Sullivan was very much a prude and very conservative. He did not hire off-color comedians or acts of questionable taste. Ed would never had hired Elvis if there were a chance that Sullivan would be nationally embarrassed and humiliated.

Since you have no source for this, and you state clearly it was a rumor, I believe it should be deleted.Beth4664 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A previous version of this paragraph ran like this:

Presley's sexual attraction and photogenic looks have been acknowledged. Director Steve Binder, not a fan of Presley's music at the time, recalled from the '68 Comeback Special: "I'm straight as an arrow and I got to tell you, you stop, whether you're male or female, to look at him. He was that good looking. And if you never knew he was a superstar, it wouldn't make any difference; if he'd walked in the room, you'd know somebody special was in your presence." According to Marjorie Garber, a "male rock critic writing in 1970 praised Elvis as 'The master of the sexual simile, treating his guitar as both phallus and girl.' ... rumor had it that into his skin-tight jeans was sewn a lead bar to suggest a weapon of heroic proportions. But a boyhood friend of Elvis's tells it somewhat differently, describing a stage ploy from the singer's early career, around 1955: 'He would take the cardboard cylinder out of a roll of toilet paper and put a string in one end of it. Then, he'd tie that string around his waist. The other end, with the cardboard roller, would hang down outside his drawers, so as when he got onstage and reared back with that guitar in his hand, it would look to the girls up front like he had one helluva thing there inside his pants.' "

Then it was changed last year by Rikstar (see [25]) to the current version:

According to Marjorie Garber, a "male rock critic writing in 1970 praised Elvis as 'The master of the sexual simile, treating his guitar as both phallus and girl.' ... rumor had it that into his skin-tight jeans was sewn a lead bar to suggest a weapon of heroic proportions." She cites a boyhood friend of Presley's who claims the singer actually used a cardboard toilet roll tube to make it "look to the girls up front like he had one helluva thing there inside his pants." Ed Sullivan had apparently heard similar rumors and instructed his director Marlo Lewis to film only Presley's chest and head for his final Sullivan appearance. However, Lewis was skeptical about Presley wearing such a device and says simply: "It wasn't there".

However, I can’t find the quote as it is given here in Rose Clayton and Dick Heard’s book, Elvis: In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best.

My source says,

According to Ed Sullivan’s co-producer Marlo Lewis, the rumor had it that "Elvis has been hanging a small soft-drink bottle from his groin underneath his pants, and when he wiggles his leg it looks as though his pecker reaches down to his knee!" Therefore, it was decided to shoot the singer only from the waist up during his performance in the Sullivan Show.

This is what Lewis himself says in his book. I have now changed the said paragraph. However, Rikstar may cite the original quote from his source. Onefortyone (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clayton and Heard, paperback, p.118: "... nor did anyone ever see this 'implement' between his legs. And I'll tell you a secret: it wasn't there." - Marlo Lewis. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Presley appeared three different nights on the Sullivan show. On the first two shows he was shown in full, even performing the infamous "Hound Dog" - see Sullivan Show article for screen shot. Only on the 3rd show, when he did nothing but ballads in full, was he shown from the waist up only. It was common for a person to be shown in a variety of shots, with "close ups" during slow passages. Steve Pastor (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! And I don't think he wore a pasha outfit either. I've never seen a picture of Elvis dressed like a pasha, and I doubt even the colonel could have talked him into dressing like one. In those days, singers wore suits. Remember American Bandstand? Men wore suits. As I can recall from the Ed Sullivan clip (this is a fine young man, etc.), Elvis was wearing a suit. I'm sure someone will now prove me completely wrong by sending in a picture of Elvis wearing a turban, but as I said, I don't recall any.Beth4664 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Sex Symbol"/Relationships section of this article is, I believe, choked up with a lot of irrelevant information and reads in part like a porno Mills and Boon--needs some serious work done to it.--Jaye9 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Elvis expert Greil Marcus says that the star "stepped out in the outlandish costume of a pasha, if not a harem girl. From the make-up over his eyes, the hair falling in his face, the overwhelmingly sexual cast of his mouth, he was playing Rudolph Valentino in The Sheik, with all stops out. That he did so in front of the Jordanaires, who this night appeared as the four squarest-looking men on the planet, made the performance even more potent." This means that the author has compared what Elvis wore and how he appeared during his performance in the Sullivan Show with the outlandish costumes of the actors in a Valentino film. By the way, a nice and appropriate comparison, and it is written by a reputable Elvis biographer and rock'n'roll expert.

As for the Ed Sullivan appearances, Elvis’s performances were telecast live and kinescoped, as videotapes and DVDs were not yet invented in the 50s. The problem is that what you now see on DVD is not necessarily identical with the performance people saw on TV at that time. You can be sure that there were different cameras shooting the star and his band (some showing Elvis from the waist up, some in full, others showing the members of his band or the host), and someone from Sullivan’s team decided what went on air and what not. However, for producing the modern DVD they have certainly used the best material available from the archived shots of all the different cameras, also material which was definitely not on air in 1956. This means that the modern DVD is not a reliable source for a decision as to whether or not Elvis was to be seen in full or from the waist up only. Therefore even concerning the first two Sullivan shows, it is not clear if Elvis was really shown in full during his performances. Several sources say otherwise. This may also explain why newspaper reports or eyewitness accounts of the time and experts using these sources seem to contradict what is now to be seen on DVD. Onefortyone (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have the DVD, with pictures from every angle, perhaps you can put to death the artificial penis rumor. As I said above, Ed Sullivan would never have allowed him on the stage.Beth4664 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can see some of the pictures yourself in the Sullivan Show article. Not that I'm looking for it, but, you know, I just don't see it. There IS a video clip where someone fromt he show states that he took Elvis out to by a jock strap for this show. Can't help but wonder if that isn't where the rumor started. I have implored people to view these shows for themselves. You can probably get them through your public library and an interlibrary loan, maybe Netflix, etc. Some of this is on YouTube, too. If more people would actually see what actually happened, maybe, eventually, all of the junk that's been written will be discredited. Please, people, see for yourself, and help make this article reflect what we can see and hear with our own senses, rather than rumor, hearsay, and "experts" telling us what happened. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hunh hunh. You said "junk". Jgm (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is insignificant if Elvis actually used a cardboard toilet roll tube or a small soft-drink bottle to make it "look to the girls up front like he had one helluva thing there inside his pants." What is more important is that the rumors exist and therefore Sullivan instructed Marlo Lewis to film only Presley's chest and head for his appearance in the show. This is of much interest, as it demonstrates that the star was censored by the media. Therefore, the rumors must be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But this particular rumor was not circulating AT THE TIME. It became a rumor after the fact. According to your very own words, it was not rumored until 1970.Beth4664 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Beth, you are only referring to one of the sources Professor Garber has cited in her academic study. However, if Ed Sullivan’s co-producer Marlo Lewis says that the rumor had it that "Elvis has been hanging a small soft-drink bottle from his groin underneath his pants" and because of this rumor Sullivan decided to shoot the singer only from the waist up during his performance in the Sullivan Show, then the rumor must already have existed in 1956. Furthermore, Garber cites another source in her study, namely one of Elvis's boyhood friends who described "a stage ploy from the singer's early career, around 1955: 'He would take the cardboard cylinder out of a roll of toilet paper and put a string in one end of it. Then, he'd tie that string around his waist. The other end, with the cardboard roller, would hang down outside his drawers, so as when he got onstage and reared back with that guitar in his hand, it would look to the girls up front like he had one helluva thing there inside his pants.' " This means that the particular rumor was indeed circulating AT THE TIME. Onefortyone (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this one forty one. Your reason for this being notable is because this shows that the media censored Elvis. That implies that he actually did something in order to be censored when it's not verified that he ever wore "the device". Even the producer doesn't claim that Presley wore anything in his crotch, he merely says that they took a precaution based on an unverified rumour. That has nothing to do with Presley's actual behaviour, and the situation reflects much more on the people that started/spread the rumour, and the producer that decided to take a precaution because of it, hence it doesn't belong in the article. Your reason for it being notable is bunk.Rikidozan89 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also there are other sourced reasons for why Elvis was only shot from the waist up for the third Sullivan show. However the crotch thing is the only reason given seperate from the others and given its own paragraph in the mistitled Sex Symbol section. Not to mention the direct quoting of Marlo Lewis doesn't include the phrase "therefore it was decided to shoot Presley from only the waist up" he's just quoted as saying there was a rumour. The Marjorie Garber stuff doesn't seem like it should even be up for discussion. It does elaborate, but only on boyhood rumours that it doesn't even verify. That's encyclopedic?Rikidozan89 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Edit: You know what? I can't even edit this article. I'm done commenting. If it's decided by the editors that actually work on the article that none of my comments have been helpful then sorry.Rikidozan89 (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your argument. Marlo Lewis himself says that Presley was shot only from the waist up during the show in order to ensure that his prosthetic self-endowment would not grace America's living rooms. So they were convinced that Elvis had a soft-drink bottle inside his pants. And this fact is important because it was the main reason why the singer was censored. Onefortyone (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This summary has 141 daring to declare things as 'facts' but completely ignores what Lewis said in Clayton and Heard i.e. "... nor did anyone ever see this 'implement' between his legs. And I'll tell you a secret: it wasn't there." It doesn't matter if 141 couldn't find this quote. It was originally made in good faith, from a reliable editor and is well sourced. This kind of twisting, selective misuse of data has no place in wikipedia. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I never did finish this exchange, so I guess I should elaborate before leaving the article. "Marlo Lewis himself says that Presley was shot only from the waist up during the show in order to ensure that his prosthetic self-endowment would not grace America's living rooms. So they were convinced that Elvis had a soft-drink bottle inside his pants. And this fact is important because it was the main reason why the singer was censored." Then why is this not quoted in the article? Marlo Lewis is just quoted as saying there was a rumour. Rikidozan89 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Edit: I accidentally messed around with the wrong text but reverted the edit.Rikidozan89 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'"Elvis has been hanging a small soft-drink bottle from his groin underneath his pants, and when he wiggles his leg it looks as though his pecker reaches down to his knee!"[171] Therefore, it was decided to shoot the singer only from the waist up during his performance in the Sullivan Show.'You see how the second sentence is not quoted to Marlo Lewis. The sentence that indicates that they censored Elvis because of the rumor is not quoted to Lewis.Rikidozan89 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What I have written above is simply a summary of what you can find in Lewis's book. If you would like to see the entire page, please consult the book, p.146. It should also be noted that Lewis made a mistake as he says that Elvis appeared on the Sullivan Show in 1955. In fact it was in 1956. But this could happen after so long a time (the book was published in 1979). Interestingly, Lewis also says that they censored Elvis because of the rumor concerning the soft-drink bottle inside his pants on his second appearance. This supports the view that Elvis was not only censored on his third appearance as some Wikipedians claim, but already on his second and perhaps first appearances. This makes sense as the rumors already circulated in 1955, so that Sullivan and Lewis were well aware of them before they invited Elvis to perform in their show. BTW, did you know that a source Jaye9 quoted last year, has Elvis himself say,

So they arranged to put me on television. At that particular time there was a lot of controversy - you didn't see people moving out in public. They were gettin it on in the back rooms, but you didn't see it out in public too much. So there was a lot of controversy - and I went on the Ed Sullivan Show. They photographed me from the waist up. And Sullivan standing over there saying "Sumbitch". I said, "Thank you, Ed, thank you." I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time.

This may also support what Lewis wrote in his book. And if Sullivan actually called Elvis "Sumbitch", then this material would certainly not have been used for a modern DVD, as these DVDs are primarily produced for the fans. Onefortyone (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a summary? I don't have the book but I do know that wikipedia is meant to be read and understood by the average unresourced reader. If you have a quote of Lewis saying "we censored Elvis because of the soft drink bottle rumor" it should most definitely be included, but if you can't quote the source in a manner that makes it clear the source actually said what you are claiming, then you might be oversummarizing into implication. Also if lewis is quoted as saying such a thing it belongs in the section concerning the Ed Sullivan show appearances where the other listed reasons for the censorship are located. It doesn't belong in the Sex Symbol section because it has nothing to do with him being a sex symbol, or even Presley's own behaviour. It has much more to do with the Ed Sullivan Show and the people that ran it, so it should be placed in that section. "Interestingly, Lewis also says that they censored Elvis because of the rumor concerning the soft-drink bottle inside his pants on his second appearance." This should be easy to directly quote.Rikidozan89 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't have the book, and don't plan to get it since I can't even edit this article I can't really get into this anymore. I still stand by my opinion that you should be able to quote this convincingly, and that it belongs in the Ed Sullivan show section as it reflects on the producers's decisions and not Elvis. The lead bar story has no significance whatsoever since it doesn't add anything relevant to the Sullivan show "censorship". These two sources, while on the same subject, don't support one another. Good luck with the article.Rikidozan89 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that "rumour" wasn't allowed to be used in an encyclopaedic entry; I don't recall the Encyclopaedia Britannica being full of sentences containing the phrase "Rumour has it...", or "It's rumoured that...", but perhaps that's for another topic. However, I agree with Rikidozan that the current topic of discussion should mainly be mentioned in the section which talks about the Sullivan appearances. Maybe a little of it could be used in the Sex Symbol part, but I think that currently it's a little too much. And just to pick up on the line, It should also be noted that Lewis made a mistake as he says that Elvis appeared on the Sullivan Show in 1955. In fact it was in 1956. But this could happen after so long a time (the book was published in 1979).; if that had been any source that another editor had entered then I'm sure that it would have been shot down immediately by a few editors. Seriously, how difficult was it in 1979 to get facts about dates right? It was only 13 years after the incident occurred. I will, however, allow it to pass without serious attack as it could have just been a typing mistake as the 6 is next to the 5, and it wouldn't be the first time that a book has been published with a few typing errors. Anyway, seeing as it is merely a rumour and was never seriously proven as anything more, I don't think it really warrants a place in the article. That's not to say that I'm against it being there, I just think that if it's not 100% checkable it shouldn't be included. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So, we are supposed to believe that, although Elvis was on two previous shows, both times being shown in full as he performed, including, again "Hound Dog", with several months having elapsed, and THEN, someone heard this rumor. Or... what? They knew about it all along, but didn't act until the last show, when Elvis did a medley of "Hound Dog," "Love Me Tender," and "Heartbreak Hotel," followed by a full version of "Don't Be Cruel." For a second set later in the show he did "Too Much" and "When My Blue Moon Turns to Gold Again". For his last set he sang "Peace in the Valley."? Steve Pastor (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some additional sources. In his study, Male Sexual Machine (2002), Dr Kenneth Purvis says,

Rumors exist that even Elvis had to push a long piece of rubber tubing down his pants to earn more shrieks from the crowd for his pelvic gyrations. (p.15)

This quote supports the opinion that the said rumors should be included in the "Sex Symbol" section. More importantly, Susan Doll's Elvis for Dummies (2009), has a section on the infamous appearances of Elvis. She says (p.82) that

Marlo Lewis, who was a producer on the Sullivan show from 1948 to 1959, claims that many on the Sullivan show heard a rumor that Elvis had placed a Coke bottle down his pants for that last set of his October 28 appearance. When he bounced and moved around, the Coke bottle gave an obscene impression through his pants. Based on that rumor Sullivan gave the waist-up order for the final appearance...

This is another important source in support of the rumor, this time in a book written in accordance with EPE. Interestingly it is here claimed that Elvis was censored only on his third Sullivan appearance, whereas Lewis himself said in his book that it was on the second appearance. Notwithstanding the clear statement by Lewis she has cited, Susan Doll asserts that the story is little more than an urban legend (and it may be added that this seems to be the official EPE view or, to be more precise, the opinion of fans). However she additionally also mentions that other stories insist that Elvis had placed an empty toilet paper roll down his pants to produce a similar impression. Other sources say that Elvis used different protheses on different occasions. As there is a special chapter in this book concerning the important rumors, they must also be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT SOURCE? (self-proclaimed by 141). IMPORTANT RUMORS?? (self-proclaimed by 141). "They MUST be included, they MUST BE MENTIONED..." 141 writes. "Rumors"... "Must", ... hmmmmm. Did I read you right?? Oh, 141, you do have a sense of humor after all. You really must compose your own version of this article containing all these sources that support rumors that you support with rumors - I mean sources - that you dig up, as I have urged you to do before. Why not write a whole book yourself, as opposed to contributing to an encyclopedic article? May be this thread will boost the sales of toilet paper (to get at the rolls, you understand...)

Rikidozan89, your comments on this page are welcome, and very much appreciated. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As the rumors were widespread since 1955, it could well be that they are true and Elvis indeed used such protheses. He was young at that time and certainly experimented with his newly born image as a sex symbol. Furthermore, these rumors also help to explain why Elvis was such a controversal figure at that time that even the media were inclined to censor him. Onefortyone (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It COULD WELL be that they are true??? (a bit of doubt there). And Elvis INDEED USED? (mighty bit of assumption there). Deal with the facts, cut the crap, and who knows how good this article could be. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A boyhood friend says that Elvis used such things in his younger years. This is a clear statement by an eyewitness. See quote above. Onefortyone (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The boyhood friend you speak of,was a young country singer of the day. David Houston,a friend of Elvis's from Shrevoport who travelled with him extensively in this period. I got this information from Albert Goldman's 1981 book "Elvis".

I saw a show about Ed Sullivan and it showed interviews of people who had been guests on his show,etc etc. I got the idea that Ed Sullivan was a very powerful man at the time and he could make you or break you. One particular gentleman stands out in my mind. He was a Jewish Commedian and Sullivan had accused him of giving him the ups,after his performance,he said he did'nt. Because of this incident,this man said Sullivan made sure he didn't work again in the business for years to come,which clearly shows a misuse of power on Ed Sullivan's part and you could say this about what happened to the the band the "Doors" as well. Ed Sullivan told Jim Morrison not to say "Girl we couldn't get much higher". Morrison took no notice of what Ed Sullivan had said and did anyway on National Live Television. The Doors had more shows planned on the Ed Sullivan,because of what Jim Morrison did that night,they were cancelled outright. All these rumors,be as they may,just don't add up.

It's a wonder Byron Raphael hadn't attached himself to these rumors about the Ed Sullivan Shows,as well,instead he would say with his interview with Nash in 2003,or whenever it was,that Elvis not only unzipped his pants and dry humped RCA 's Nipper on stage,before thousands in October 28,1957. He had a huge hard on and was well as being well endowed. Give me a break.

Where do all these rumors come from,I have no idea. But like rumors and gossip,they have a way of manifestering themselves and I believe it is human nature for people to attach themselve,and they will,particulary when they had really not that much to do with Presley in the first place. They say things to make themselves more important in the scale of things. I say let them,but they have no place or importance in an Encylopedia Article,it just draws away from what is important and that is the importance of these shows and what they represented in Presley's career.

From reading and viewing reports taken from the 50's,it consistantly shows Ed Sullivan was concerned about all the controversy surrounding Elvis's wiggling and sexually suggestive movements,not toilet rolls,coke bottles and huge hard on's etc that came later.

Please show me testimony's,from Ed Sullivan,Scotty Moore,DJ Fonatna,The Jordanaires and anyting that was written during the 50's pertaining to these rumors and then and only then,I will listen. But until you can 141,it's not worthy for inclusion into an Encylopedia article of this nature,ok.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is just one example. From the Waist Up "Beware Elvis Presley" warned the magazine America in its June 23, 1956 issue. The warning was concerned with his lewd, suggestive, and "downright obscene" stage mannerisms. The magazine felt he might not be too much of a negative influence on young people if he was confined to records "but unfortunately Presley makes personal appearances". Onefortyone (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the all you've got? It's not what asked for.--Jaye9 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It mentions nothing of what I was talking about. It's a lame duck,quack!quack!quack!--Jaye9 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that a newspaper of the 50s would have openly said that Elvis placed a Coke bottle down his pants? No way! You had to read between the lines. Onefortyone (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you tell us, 141, if there is anyone, living or dead, who saw the "small soda bottle" that you go on and on (and on and on) about ad infinitum? May I ask his name. When did this incident take place? Can this witness provide testimony to this event if he is still alive; has he left incontrovertible written proof if he is dead? If you cannot come up with even one name of an actual witness to this event, then we must surmise that this story is a false rumor with no basis in fact. It is even less than a rumor; it is a homo erotic fantasy invented by a man, because no woman would come up with such trash.

Interestingly, Susan Doll, in her book, Elvis for Dummies (2009) includes a chapter concerning the rumors. And there is the clear statement by Elvis's boyhood friend, David Houston, cited above. Onefortyone (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't repeat your same tired, circular argument. I've heard it about ten times. You're in a rut. If we were to take a vote, I vote that rumors do not belong in an encyclopedia. It's not professional. Your argument that the rumors exist so they must be printed is hogwash. No serious writer uses that principle. I don't believe that there were any such rumors at all in 1956, true or false, and I won't believe it unless one turns up in a newspaper or magazine from that decade and not 20 years later.Beth4664 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

The sources say that the rumors existed in 1955 and 1956. My argument is that because of these rumors Elvis was censored by the media. And this fact is of some importance. It is part of the singer's image. Elvis was the bad guy at that time. In contrast, Pat Boone was the good guy. In a letter to J. Edgar Hoover dated May 16, 1955, a purported former member of the Army Intelligence Service stated that Elvis is a "definite danger to the security of the United States," because Elvis's "actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth. One eye-witness described his actions as 'sexual self-gratification on stage,' – another as 'a strip-tease with clothes on.'" The author further criticizes Elvis's "motions and gestures, like those of masturbation or riding a microphone," and adds that "Indications of the harm Presley did ... were two high school girls (...) whose abdomen and thigh had Presley's autograph. ... It is known by psychologists, psychiatrists and priests that teenaged girls from the age of eleven, and boys in their adolescence are easily aroused to sexual indulgence and perversion by certain types of motions and hysteria, – the type that was exhibited at the Presley show. There is also gossip of the Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies. ... From eye-witness reports about Presley, I would judge that he may possibly be ... a sexual pervert." The authenticity of his letter is proved by the FBI. Onefortyone (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all very well and good, and I must admit that it's very interesting to read (despite the fact I've already read it), but it still doesn't bring any proof to the table of cardboard tubes or bottles being under his clothing. Everything that has been put forth so far is in reference to his stage presence and his movements on stage, nothing to do with tubes or bottles. And while I mention the bottles, were these plastic or glass bottles? I only ask because it was very, very rare for any types of soda bottle to be made of plastic at the time all of this happened, it wasn't until the 1960's that plastic bottles really became a big part of the food industry. I would imagine that a glass bottle would be very uncomfortable to wear. And again I must emphasise that rumours are not good enough to be included in an encyclopaedic article. It's also interesting, I must note, that you don't include the mention of the writer of the above letter suggesting that Presley "...may possibly be a drug addict...". Such claims were obviously far off the mark, and therefore it lends very little weight to the entire letter. The gossip of the Presley Fan Clubs degenerating into sex orgies is just hilarious and ludicrous at the same time. Clearly the writer of that letter was very easily swayed by 'gossip' and 'rumour', enough to take the time to write to the FBI about it. However, what's even more interesting is the fact that in his book "The FBI Files on Elvis Presley", where the above letter is reportedly taken from, the author states at the beginning that "'The earliest set of documents in the Presley file is correspondence dated March and April, 1959 regarding a death threat made when Presley was serving in the U.S. Army in Germany.'". Fascinating then that a letter dated May 16 1955 then appears in its pages. Also, fascinating that whilst scanning the pages of the book there is no mention of "1955" anywhere within it from pages 15-17. However, on page 14 there is reference to 'May 16 1956', and an article published on that date which the writer of the above letter is using as the main ammunition in their attack on Presley is on page 15. I would suggest that you use Google with a pinch of salt next to you, as it's very common for people to make typing mistakes on there too.ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your contributions, Elvisfan1981, as you are more carefully looking into the sources. You are right, the article on the FBI files contains some false dates. In his book The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), Thomas Fensch has indeed the correct date of the letter (see p. 14). It’s from 1956. Peter Guralnick and Ernst Jorgenson also say that in 1956 Hoover had heard Elvis’ act consists of "sexual self-gratification on stage." See Elvis Day by Day (1999), p.72. Onefortyone (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another reminder about how this works. Any individual editor can revert an edit up to three times. At that point, if they continue to revert, they are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Enough of you have stated your opinions on this. I suggest that you "vote" with your edits - to the material in question. I agree with those of you who feel that this material does not belong in this article. I began this discussion with removal of this material from one part of the article. If you can edit the article I suggest you all do the same, in line with your opinions. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Priscilla vs Grant

In the article, it states that Priscilla Presley won her case against Currie Grant for his false claims in Suzanne Finstad's book. It then goes on to imply that both Finstad and her publishers back the claims in the book after the case is finished. However, one of the sources given to back up this claim is from during the case, before Priscilla won and it stands to reason that the publishers would stand by the claims.

"Currie Grant 'is being sued' for defamatory remarks he allegedly made to Finstad and others about the actress..."

Notice it is not in the past tense? Therefore the paragraph must be rewritten to emphasise that Finstad and her publishers stood by the claims during the case, or it should be removed altogether. I can't find the other articles that are cited from September, so if Onefortyone could give me those links I would very much appreciate it. If those links show that both Finstad and her publishers still backed the claims 'after' Priscilla won the case, then they are eligible to be used as citations. Otherwise, the entire sentence must be removed. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that you are being a bit narrow-minded now? I have given you a lot of sources I collected the last few years, and wasted a lot of time looking for them. And there are further sources. I think now it's on to you to do your own research. If you don't believe what others have written, try to find a reliable source which contradicts what the newspapers say. But you can be sure, there is no such source. Onefortyone (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done my own research, I've spent the last 1+ hours searching for these sources you have claimed since you posted them, and I couldn't find any of the sources you have cited except for one, and that one didn't actually say what you claim it says, therefore it contradicts your citation. As these other sources aren't checkable (They're not from books, they're from newspapers which should be available somewhere online but unless you provide the actual link, as other websites and news stories do in wikipedia articles, then they can't stay) I have no choice but to remove your recent edits and the entire sentence until it can be properly sourced. I'm also prepared to do what Steve suggests above and remove your recent edits about the rumours, as they aren't encyclopaedic in any way, but I'll sleep on that one and see how I feel in the morning.

I don't understand your sudden change of attitude. You've always been cool, relaxed and eager to please with countless quotes and sources. Suddenly, when a source you have cited is proven to not back up your claims, and you are unable to provide the others that you claim, then you resort to suggesting we do our own research. Well, as I've said above, I've done my own research and nothing I can find backs your sources. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have wasted a lot of time and given you the sources including the exact dates of publication. Are there any sources explicitly contradicting what is written in these sources? No, there aren't. Onefortyone (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are. The article [26] which you cited, is used to suggest that Finstad and her publishers backed the claims of Grant after the case. The story doesn't state that at all. The source is written while the case is ongoing and therefore to suggest that Finstad and her publishers back the claims after the case isn't relevant with that source. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"We stand by the book completely," Hilary Bass, a spokeswoman for Harmony Books, said Tuesday. "It went through an extensive legal vetting." This is a clear statement from the time of the lawsuit. As I do not know whether they are still of the same opinion as in 1997/98, I have changed the wording into "they said..." in the Priscilla section of the Elvis article and thought that this may be satisfactory to you. But you have again deleted the whole passage including the sources. I leave it for now, as I do not want to be involved in an edit war. However, there is no statement that they have changed their mind. But you may be able to provide a source saying otherwise. If there is such a source, I have no problem with adding it to the Elvis article. BTW, isn't it really a waste of time to constantly quarrel about such details? Onefortyone (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The actual statement isn't the problem, it's the placement of it and the way it suggests that even after Currie Grant was defeated in court the author and publishers backed his statements. For a start, the article says that Harmony Books stand by the book, nothing about the author. Secondly it clearly states that it's during the lawsuit, not after, and thirdly I would imagine that once Currie Grant's claims were thrown out of court it would be very foolish for the publishers and the author to still back the claims, as that would potentially leave them open to a lawsuit next. I have to say that I haven't yet read this book, and for all I know any copies printed since 1998 (when the case was settled) may not include Currie Grant's claims for legal reasons. Copies beforehand may have been removed from sale, except obviously ones that had already been sold. As I've stated on your talk page, I'm very happy for you to include the sentence if it is put in before it's revealed that Priscilla won the case and it's made clear that it was a statement made during the case, not after as the previous position implied. Whether or not Finstad or her publishers backed his claims after the case is something that neither of us know, and so it isn't right, in my opinion, to have it suggest otherwise. And yes, I do think it's a waste of time to constantly quarrel about such details, but that's what a lot of wikipedia is about; discussing edits and questioning sources etc. I'm not afraid to question a source if I know for a fact that there's no way for me to check it. If I can't check it, chances are 99% of other editors can't either, and then we have a problem. If a source comes from a book then most of us should be able to track down a copy somewhere, especially on this subject, and if a source is from a website then it's easy enough to include the web address for all to click on and read. But when a source is from a newspaper clipping from over 10 years ago, and there is no easy way of finding it online, then it does make it more difficult for other editors to confirm it. I could claim that my local newspaper has stated a fact about Presley, but I'm sure that someone would question it eventually if they had no way of reading it for themselves, and quite rightly. Anyway, I do hope that you accept my olive branch above and fit the sentence somewhere else in the paragraph and make it clear enough to readers that it was during the trial, and we can move on from this particular edit. You are very well aware I'm sure, from being a regular editor on this article, that I don't often revert edits that are made unless they are vandalism, and I don't often argue over stupid things like this, but this particular sentence and the others about "rumours" just don't site well with me when I read them in an encyclopaedic environment, and that's the only reason I've questioned these claims. Anything that potentially harms the article with rumour, gossip and uncheckable sources should be treated with kid gloves. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion for further constructive edits

Steve Pastor has written: "Another reminder about how this works. Any individual editor can revert an edit up to three times. At that point, if they continue to revert, they are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Enough of you have stated your opinions on this. I suggest that you "vote" with your edits - to the material in question. I agree with those of you who feel that this material does not belong in this article. I began this discussion with removal of this material from one part of the article. If you can edit the article I suggest you all do the same, in line with your opinions."

This is of course an excellent reminder, and it should be done where possible. However, many sections need time-consuming rewriting and with some sort of agreement. And let's not forget how jaded most people feel about doing that!!

I have - if anyone didn't know - been restructuring and rewriting this article here [27] to cut opinion, rumor, sensationalism, etc. out and STICK TO THE FACTS as much as is possible. It has been well regarded by many in its own right, and as a 'clean start'.

As a result, I already had a suitable edit ready to address Steve Pastor's long-standing misgivings about nervousness being the cause of Presley's leg shaking on stage. I had already amended the sandbox version to meet the excellent point made by Steve Pastor: I just copied and pasted it from the sandbox version, after deleting the same section in the main article. Perhaps further edits could be done the same way. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Jaded" is an excellent way to describe how I feel about the article. There's so much that I know I could easily remove, but I'm also very aware that much of that information has been put there by people who have put a lot of work into the article, and I would not wish to upset anyone by removing their hard work. I know that Wikipedia states that if you don't want your work to be edited or removed in any way don't add it in the first place, but I personally always feel a little saddened when something I've added has been altered or removed completely. Of course this is my problem, but I would think that some other editors would feel the same if I were to alter/remove their inclusions.

Also, I'm torn about whether or not anything really should be removed if it is well enough sourced and written. I always think that articles like this one deserve as much length and detail as is required. I guess this brings me to the question that I've thought about for a while now; is wikipedia a source of encyclopaedic information that could be seen as a whole new book on a subject, or is it a device to introduce people to a subject and let them seek more themselves if they are inclined? So often you read on discussion pages people desperate to have more information; "Why does it say this? It doesn't explain why this happened." or "The article doesn't go into enough detail about X X X subjects....".

I guess it's another example of "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When did Elvis play bass? & ELVIS ARON PRESLEY

Elvis never played bass only guitar, piano to his loved ones, and vocals.

He was born ELVIS ARON PRESLEY, but Changed it to AARON after Aaron in the bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Articles (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it could be argued that Presley didn't play bass, with the exception of a few songs and around Graceland, so I will remove that for now. With regards to his middle name; Graceland and EPE have specifically specified that Aaron is the official spelling. There is documented evidence to suggest that it was the original intent of his parents, and a spelling mistake on the birth certificate is the reason why it was listed as Aron. Anyway, for this article, because the official ruling is Aaron, I think that's the reason it's been used. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Part 1

I've done a bit of work on the article tonight, I hope that others don't find it too much of a disaster. I've mainly focused on separating sections instead of having one massive Biography section with 1.1 - 1.22 within it. I browsed a few other biographies similar to this article and found that they all did the same. I think it's a slight improvement, but that's my personal opinion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about it.

I've also added a few paragraphs that I felt would add to some sections, and I've jiggled around with the order of others. Really, other than that, I haven't done too much that has changed the article, but over the next few days I'm hoping to dig in and do some culling. I'm particularly focusing on quotations and lines from books. Does anyone else think that it would be a good place to start to remove a number of quotes and so on? It's just an idea for now. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ElvisFan1981,thank you for taking the time in separating the sections the way you have,defintely an improvement in my opinion. Keep going,you doing just fine.--Jaye9 (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with these proposed changes - things looking good. Dare I mention it, but my sandbox version gets rid of a lot of quotes by deleting or paraphrasing them. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Just a suggestion: "(January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977; middle name sometimes spelled Aron)" in the first sentence/paragraph would best read: "Elvis Aaron (sometimes spelled Aron) Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977)" or add the comment about his middle name spelling in the Early Life section, adding his middle name and explanation there (in the section about his adolescence) instead of ...16, 1977; middle name... Thanks! =) 69.129.170.102 (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right and I will change it to fit better. Thank you. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've actually removed it altogether because it just didn't seem to fit properly in anywhere. There is a footnote, and 2 references to the information about the spelling and so I think readers can, if they wish, find out more from those. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ELVIS IS A BARITONE?

ELVIS WAS MANY THINGS, BUT A BARITONE? ELVIS MIGHT'VE BEEN A LOW ALTO OR A HIGH TENOR, BUT A BARITONE---NOT. SOPRANOS AND BARITONES ARE USUALLY WOMEN, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MUSIC CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ALTO SAXOPHONE AND A BARITONE SAXOPHONE. ELVIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BARITONE.

DATE OF ELVIS' DEATH

AS FAR AS I REMEMBER, ELVIS DIED IN 1977 ON AUGUST 17TH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.146.238 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Someone should tell EPE. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of First Recording

I'm currently reading Elvis and the Memphis Mafia by Alanna Nash, and on page 29 Billy Smith (Elvis' cousin) says that it was June 13 1953 (Saturday) when Elvis first walked into Sun Studios and recorded My Happiness and That's When Your Heartaches Begin. I'm aware that most sources cite July 18, but certain elvis.com would have the correct date, I had a look there to check if Billy Smith was just wrong. Strangely, elvis.com do not give a date for that first recording, which makes me wonder if perhaps July 18 can't be confirmed. According to elvispresleymusic.com.au, the date July 18 was chosen by Lee Cotton "...by matching the story of a hot summer Saturday afternoon with a salary advance that Elvis received on July 14." Should we assume that Billy Smith is mistaken and accept the famous July 18 date, or should we take into account the fact that elvis.com don't cite a particular date and accept that Billy Smith might actually be right, and change the date? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"The day in July that Elvis finally forced himself inside the Memphis Recording Services was a Saturday,not a weekday,which should dispel any notion that he was taking off a couple of minutes from his lunch hour to shell out $4.00,one tenth of his salary,to make a record on mere impulse". Source: "Elvis and Gladys by Elaine Dundy p.173 (1985)

"It was a Saturday afternoon,a busy,busy afternoon,and for some reason I happened to be alone in the office",she said.

"While he was waiting his turn,we had a conversation I had reason to remember for many years afterwards,because later I had to tell the story so often. He said he was a singer. I said,"What kind of singer are you?" He said,'I don't sound like nobody,' I thought,oh yeah,one of those. I said Hillbilly? He said,'Yeah,I sing hillbilly'. I said,who do you sound like in hillbilly? He said,'I don't sound like nobody'. Source: "Elvis The Biography" by Jerry Hopkins p.41 (updated 2007)

"He showed up at the office of the Memphis Recording Service sometime in mid to late summer,two or three months after graduation". Source: "Last Train to Memphis" by Peter Gurlanick p.58 (1994) Peter Gurlanich also states it was a Saturday.

"Several months passed and on January 4,1954,a Friday,Elvis revisited the Memphis Recording Service a second time,when Marion was out and Sam was in." Source: "Elvis" by Jerry Hopkins (1971)

ElvisFan1981,this is a hard one,who do we choose? Do we go with Lee Cotton's date of July 18 or Billy Smith's date of June 13 1953? In all fairness to Billy Smith,Alanna Nash's book came out in 1995,after Elaine Dundy and Peter Gurlanick's book "Last Train to Memphis". What does concern me however is the Jerry Hopkins updated version,still doesn't mention any date,it just says Summer 1953 and he had interview Marion Kieser back in 1970 and she gave no dates and she was there. Had a look at the Sun Studios Website,this also gives no date,again it just says Summer 1953. However the Sun Studios Website and elvis.com do concur with Jerry Hopkins stating Jan,1954,Elvis makes another Sun demo acetate. I also had a look at the Scotty Moore book and "The Elvis Encyclopedia" by Adam Victor (2008),again,both source make no mention of any dates. For this reason I am a little reluctant to think we should state any date,until we can find a source to back their claims. However in saying they all seem to agree that it was a Saturday and in Summer and some agree on the month of July.--Jaye9 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good sources, Jaye, and interesting to see that they don't state a specific date. I think that perhaps it would be best to change it to "Summer 1953" instead of what it currently is at the moment. Lee Cotton just picking a date randomly because of a few factors, such as Elvis having a few extra dollars and it being a Saturday, isn't very reliable. Billy Smith, on the other hand, was actually there and there isn't enough evidence to disprove what he says. "Summer 1953" is very probably the best compromise, for now at least. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much quoting!

Hey guys, I must start saying that I know very little about Elvis' life.

I first came today to read this article and gain some insight, but I'm disappointed by the awful lot of quoting that has been done, there are even some sections that seem to have been entirely composed by copy pasting quotes (many of them highly opinionated) from biographers and journalists.

One thing is to mention your sources when you write something, which is acceptable and usually required to give credibility to your text, but another completely different is to compose an article with external quotes, that is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia.

It is nice to see that there are experts here who read a lot of books about Elvis, but try to state the facts first and leave the biographers' opinions for the fans. Think that not everyone who comes to read this article is an Elvis fan, some of us came to read about him for the first and we might not care about so much speculation or reflections from biographers. Of course removing it would imply losing some information but I think that's acceptable to improve the overall encyclopedic quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.148.14 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said,couldn't agree with you more.--Jaye9 (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right about that, and if you look above at the Major Overhaul Part 1 section you will see that it's something I suggested recently, and also something that Rikstar has already began doing on his sandbox version. A lot of the quotes have information that, as you rightly point out, are maybe important to the article, but it's also correct that they could be paraphrased instead of quoted. It's also true that a lot of the quotes are negative ones, and from something I experienced yesterday, it's clear that there may be a number of them that have been hacked to pieces for effect rather than getting to the truth of the quote. Thanks for taking the time to bring this up :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RCA Fee - $40,000

I've read that one of the main reasons Parker set up his deals with Hill & Range the way he did, is because they put up $15,000 of the $40,000 fee for Elvis' contract. According to Marty Lacker RCA paid $20,000 and gave Elvis $5,000, and Hill & Range put up $15,000 to Sun Records for a co-publishing deal on Sam Phillip's Hi-Lo Music publishing company. Also he states that Hill & Range insisted on the publishing rights to at least one side of every Elvis single. That's why, according to Lacker, that Elvis had to pick songs from them for the rest of his life. Does anyone else have any sources that could back this up? Right now the article seems to suggest that it was all RCA that put up the $40,000, something which I always believed too, and it doesn't mention anything about Hill & Range putting any money up.

My source is the book I'm currently reading, Alanna Nash's Elvis and the Memphis Mafia, page 48 of the paperback edition (Chapter 6). ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Company lawyer Ben Starr was present in Memphis on November 21,1955 for the signing of Elvis' new recording contract for RCA. Hill and Range contributed $1,000 (or $2,500 as Julian Aberbach recalled in 2002) as an advance on a 50-50 song publishing partnership with Elvis, through the newly-formed Elvis Music company. By some accounts,the publishing company actually put up half the money for the RCA buyout of Evis' Sun contract. As part of the overall deal,Hill & Range also purchased the publishing rights to almost all of Elvis' Sun songs registered to Sam Phillips' Hi-Lo Music company,reputedly for and additional $15,000. Elvis and the Colonel were to receive a third of songwriting royalties on future recordings." Source: "The Elvis Encyclopedia" by Adam Victor p.231--Jaye9 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, thanks for that Jaye. I'm even more confused now lol It looks as though they did pay $15,000 towards Hi-Lo Music but that was simply for publishing rights. It seems as if they only put up $2,500 towards the RCA contract. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ElvisFan your confused,I always thought it was called Gladys Music? It's fun working on Elvis isn't mate,like a maze(or haze). This is what Peter Gurlanick had to say: "They finally worked out an option deal. The option would take effect on Monday,October 31,and allow Parker two weeks to raise $5,000 (until midnight,November 15). The deal was predicated on a $35,000 purchase price-not surprisingly,Sam Phillips did not budge,and undoubtedly part of him was hoping that the price would not be met-and the full amount had to be raised,and the contract executed,within one month by December 1,1955. The $5,000 was not refundable and the deadline would not be extended." Source: "Last Train to Memphis" p.227

ElvisFan,just quickly while I'm here,I've been told that Lamar Fike would be the one who would be most informed,when it comes to Presley's music,as he worked for Hill & Range,so I image he must have given Marty Lacker his information surely. But then he didn't know Elvis in 1955. I'll have a look at the EPE website tommorrow if you like,as they have all the archieves and paperwork on contracts etc,obtained from Parker and I believe he kept everything.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ElvisFan,here's what I managed to find: "By now,the Colonel had turned the heat up on Sam Phillips to allow Elvis to leave Sun Records. Though the singer's singles had all sold well,the label was heavily in debt. For many months,Phillips had refused all offers for Elvis's contract,each time requesting a sum so high that the offer was withdrawn. After the Colonel negotiated to sell Elvis behind the Sun owner's back,a furious Phillips told him that he would only sell for a phenomenal $35,000 plus $5,000 that he owed Elvis in back royalties. The Colonel persuaded RCA to come up with the money and on the 21 November 1955 Elvis officially became an RCA artist." Source:"The Official Collector's Edition Elvis" (Part 6)

This is a magazine that is in association with Elvis Presley Enterprises,Inc and has access to all of the Estate's archieves,which they replicate for their magazines. They have a copy of the contract giving permission for RCA to sign Elvis from Sun Records for an unprecedented $35,000. I read the contract and it's exactly what Gurlanick had stated and I imagine,that Gurlanick had viewed this contract as well,when he went through the Estate's archieves,where he did some his research for his books on Elvis. Gurlanick also pointed out the Parker did not have the money himself,which makes it all sound pretty feasible to me. What other wheeling and dealing went on,one would never know. Hope this helps.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

elvis did not sell 1 billion

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml