Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 1

Top
I humbly suggest you mention Elvis fascination with Martial Arts, how he was one of the first westerners to receive a blackbelt, how he did demonstrations on stage, etc.


 * Elvis Presley was not "one of the first westerners to recieve a blackbelt. The first to recieve a blackbelt was oviously me!", unless you mean the first few thousand or so. Dan ranks had been established for almost 75 years when Elvis started to learn martial arts, and they had been taught to westerners for almost 20 years by the time he came to the art.  James Mitose's students in Hawaii during WWII would be good examples of some of the some first westerners to gain a black belt.  Elvis learned martial arts when it was spreading and becoming popular in the United States, but for decades before that there had been taught in the west, although typically only in Hawaii and California, places with lots of Japanese and Chinese immigrants.  --Wingsandsword 23:31, 28 July 2005 with love Angelina Jolie(UTC)

what about the Jordanaires? (sp?) [sp see section)

Presley's importance to American and world culture are such that this article deserves a serious rewrite. If someone will do it, that would be great....DW

P.S. Note I changed his middle name on the opening line to the way it is spelled on his birth certificate.

Yes, agree with all
The Martial Arts info is important, I'll see if I can find enough specifics to make an attempt.

It's really important to some joker on here to pretend Elvis is the gay son of a Jewish couple.... wouldn't be surprised if it's the author of one of the trash/loid books. Folks are always trying to make a buck inventing something new about Elvis, it's easier than accomplishing anything worthwhile on their own.


 * Not a joke, but information taken from a seriously written new biography which throws new light on his career. ~

Which are you, David Bret or his publisher? He has written some of the most discredited, inaccurate bios in the industry and this is just another of his throwaway, tabloid, invent-for-cash pieces of trash. This book is not considered a credible Elvis work regarding Elvis' career or his personal life and I believe you already know that. Further, it is completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia for the placement of product advertisements, particularly in the aggressive manner in which you persist in monitoring and pursuing the promotion of Bret.

I removed completely the "gay" reference. In this day and age, much trash is written and it is easy to do because a dead person cannot be slandered by law. {Actually since Elvis is a copyrighted trademark owned by EPE I think there is a way to rectify this outragous insistance about Elvis being gay. He was NOT, and EPE is looking into this right now.} As such, authors of limited skills like David Bret, immune from lawsuits, use any form of sensationalism to sell books. In the case of Presley, he provided zero proof of any homosexual relationship. His book and the claim of a gay Elvis has been totally dismissed by all but a few with an agenda. No credible media organization gave his book any validity of any nature. To add to Wikipedia this unfounded claim from such a source, belittles Wikipedia and does great harm to its credibility. NightCrawler 17:02, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * So much for the comment by a user who is still under a Wikipedia hard ban. Here is some other information on the author and his book:


 * French-born David Bret is one of Britain&rsquo;s leading show business biographers. He has had many successful biographies published, including Gracie Fields: The Authorised Biography, Morrissey: Landscapes of the Mind, Piaf: A Passionate Life and George Formby: A Troubled Genius. He has also written innumerable magazine articles (for instance, for The Stage) and lectured at the University of Chicago.


 * Bret's book is a comprehensive guide to Elvis Presley's career on film and TV which analyzes the King's every celluloid appearance, including his 33 films, documentaries, TV appearances, tributes, biopics and retrospectives. Accompanying this exhaustive study is a biography of the legend and a complete filmography. The book uncovers a wealth of previously unpublished material and presents photographs from the author's personal collection. ~ -  User: 80.141.254.46


 * David Bret is a sensationalist, don't believe anything he writes! David Bret is GAY!

I don't think that the material from the David Bret biography should be deleted, but I would like to see it corroborated. ffirehorse 23:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The gay reference to Elvis NEEDS to be deleted and kept deleted! Bret did not even know Elvis! Most of his information such as discography and filmography was lifted from other Elvis books. For him to take the word of Dee Presley is absurd! That woman is squirrley and she has made up some disgusting stories about Elvis.
 * Besides, if Elvis was gay (which he wasn't) then why did he sleep with hundreds of women? For Brett to say that Elvis and Priscilla only had sexual relations one time is preposterous....was Brett in their bed too?


 * In her autobiography, Priscilla Presley herself said that although Elvis would spend hours alone with her in her bedroom he never made any advances toward her. This statement is totally contradictory to your claim that Elvis was 100% heterosexual and a womanizer. ~ -  User:80.141.197.110

Isn't there anything exciting in Duisburg for you do besides trying to ruin a dead man's reputation?


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


 * None of the MM are gay! They have all been married at least once and have children.


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


 * Sorry, Elvis and and Memphis Mafia were/are not in the same category as R. Hudson or E John. They were/are not gay and had no interest in men sexually.

Elvis was nonconfrontational and that's why he never stood up to Colonel P. Bret and Dee Presley are wrong. Period.


 * This is your opinion. ~

Elvis was very much aware of the fact that Priscilla Presley was under age at the beginning of their relationship, and he was reticent to engage in a sexual relationship with her while she was under age. As their relationship grew more serious, Elvis refrained from having sex with her because he wanted to marry a virgin.


 * Could this be the normal behavior of a womanizer who slept with hundreds of girls and women? ~  -  User:80.141.232.231

I'm 100% straight, yet am not constantly having sex. I better watch out, when I die I might suddenly become gay. Mind you, there won't be as much money to make out of me as they're would be Elvis Presley. 195.93.21.4 02:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No, disagree with
1) "the demand for transistor radios exploded so much so that Sony went from a small Japanese telecommunications company making radios to a giant global conglomerate"

Uuuuuh ! What about this? Is it all thank to Elvis that Sony becam what it is now?? If not (and I'm pretty sure it's not), this information has no place here.


 * Elvis sightings links here, but this page says nothing about the phenomenon, or about the Church of Elvis, or the many other strange things related to him.212.42.97.111 11:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2) The word "constipation" isn't mentioned even once in this article. After all, it is a popular myth that Elvis died because of this lifestyle-related problem whilst on the crapper. I see a real problem with the neutrality of this article: it is mostly written by hardcore Elvis fans - people who probably think he changed their lives to the better and so forth. But neutral point of view knows no boundaries, and unpopular facts about their wonderful hero deserve mentioning, no matter how offencive they are to them.

Elvis Presley's international influence
I love Elvis's music, but I don't know much about his international impact. The thing is that the section isn't quite complete, so I was wondering if there's someone who knows a great deal about Elvis Presley's international influence. Then you can expand on information on Elvis's influence. If there's somebody who's a big Elvis fan, please let me know. Marcus2 13:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elvis had more Top 10 hits in the UK than in the US, and was popular all over the world. Interestingly, he never played a concert outside of North America. Elvis' touring was confined to the United States and Canada. It has been claimed this was due to Col. Tom Parker having entered the USA as an        illegal alien in his teens, and thus Parker did not want to call attention to his immigration status.

Elvis' cultural legacy
It might not hurt to have a mention of his legacy among impersonators and such, as well as more on Elvis sightings and mentions of the Churches in his name (though they are mostly jokes), but they are still part of his legacy: Church of Jesus Christ Elvis and First Preslyterian Church of Elvis the Divine. Let he who has not sinned cast the first rhinestone... --DanielCD 20:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bret's Book
This is an article about Elvis Presley, a man who loved women, a heterosexual man.
 * Bret's book has no place here. This is not an article about slanderous second class writers!

With due respect, David Bret has made a career out of thinly researched books containing "revelations" of celebrity sleaze. Until a reputable source prints this info, we're better off without.


 * In her book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis, Dee Presley, the king's stepmother, also makes some astonishing accusations. She says that Elvis was with men, too, and also mentions his affair with Nick Adams. ~ User: 80.141.221.170


 * Dee Presley is known for her over the top remarks. She has always had an axe to grind since her flirtations with Elvis were ignored. Those who were close to Elvis for his entire life are in total agreement that Elvis was 100% hetrosexual. His desire for women never waned. These statements about Elvis being gay are totally unfounded and need to be stopped. If anyone wants to speak to Elvis' first cousin Billy Smith who was with Elvis from the very beginning to the end, please say so and I'll arrange it. I can also arrange for you to speak to many of the other Memphis Mafia, Marty, Larry, Sonny, Red, etc.

I am contacting my friends at EPE and we will get this settled once and for all. They will not tolerate Elvis being called gay!
 * Why is it that as soon as the gay reference to Elvis is removed it reappears again in a matter of minutes?


 * It is an undeniable fact that Elvis and Nick Adams were boyfriends. For instance, in Los Angeles, where Elvis made movies, Judy Spreckels remembers going out on a Sunday with him and his friend Nick Adams. The latter had become the companion to a group of homosexuals and Elvis was one of his male friends. ~ -  User: 80.141.221.170


 * This is not a fact and it is most certainly deniable! Judy Spreckels is but one woman, there are hundreds of other woman, most still living who have shared their sexual encounters with Elvis from the 50's through the 70's. I think it's time for some of these women to come here and tell their stories anout their bedroom frolics with EP. If you prefer Elvis' bio to just center on his sex life and not his great musical´accomplishments, then so be it.


 * Sorry, Judy Spreckels was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the exciting days of his early career. They drove bumper cars in Las Vegas, rode horses in California and hung out at Graceland. "Anything he told me was not going to go to any publication," she said. "I am the only person who was around Elvis who was a writer and didn't write a book. I felt secrets were secrets." ~ -  User: 80.141.191.142

Top Tens
Madonna has 35 Top 10's, the last was "Die Another Day" in November 2002. And Elvis has 38 Hot 100 Top Tens, this was confirmed when Billboard published "110 Musical Milestones" in celebration of their 100th anniversary a month or so ago. MadonnaFan 17:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Top 40 singles
http://go.to/madonna -- FAQ --- the webmaster discusses the records that Madonna, Elvis, The Beatles, etc. hold. The site is down but will be up soon... MadonnaFan 04:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is ELV1S 30 #1 Hits spelled with a "1"?

A- Because that's the way BMG decided to spell it.

Category:Identical twins
Jesse Garon Presley was Elvis' stillborn identical twin. Here's the link to his bio at the official site. In the interest of completeness, I added both to the category. I think its appropriate, but im not looking for a fight, i wont re-apply it if it disappears again. popefauvexxiii 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Hallyday
I removed this:


 * In France, singer Johnny Hallyday copied Presley in the French language, becoming a huge star in that country.

I don't know much about either of them, but I haven't found any source to support the theory that Johnny Hallyday is nothing but a French-language Elvis impersonator. It might be accurate to say he was strongly influenced by him, but then who wasn't? Deco 01:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spelling The Jordonaires/Jordanaires
I read the booklet of my "The complete 50's masters" (5 CD-box, RCA, bought 1993).
 * It has pictures of posters, saying "The Jordonaires".
 * page sessionography, second page
 * page starting with 'Tutti Frutti', background picture.


 * But the same chapter, recording personnel-lists say "Vocals: The Jordanaires".

Fed investigation requested. -DePiep 14:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have many of their autographed pictures, the correct spelling is Jordanaires.

Aight Kids, Reel it in a little
Hey, stop it with the edit-summary-challenged reverts. Before anyone else reverts any more changes, please discuss these edits here. I'm sure we can come to a solution that everyone is happy with- some people here don't want Elvis to be slandered posthumously, and others want possibly relevant biographical information to be included somehow. I'm sure we can couch the information properly so that it can be included with a grain of salt. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's written by David Bret it SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt. He's a modern day Albert Goldman! Here's some facts about Elvis' sexuality. I am in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family. At one time or another at least one of these people were always with Elvis. According to them, Elvis never lost his interest in women,and he was never faithful to any one woman! While married, he slept with hundreds of other women, then when Linda Thompson-Jenner-Foster came into the picture and lived at Graceland he cheated on her. While he was engaged to Ginger Alden he had a tryst with Alicia Kerwin(a bank teller from Memphis), and a few others in Las Vegas. Just because he knew Nick Adams does not make EP gay! I have gay friends too....does that automatically make me gay?


 * As for his step-mother Dee, she has made some very unsavory remarks about Elvis and his own mother! (Gladys) If she can say something that vile, then she's capable of saying anything. Besides, she's mentally unstable.


 * Also, this Bret creature claims Elvis and Priscilla only made love one time... HOW would he know such a thing?


 * I will not stand by and let him tarnish the name of one of the greatest entertainers of all time and a true American Icon.


 * Many of the Memphis Mafia have written tell-all books and if this gay factor fit in they would have used it to boost sales. They are all in total agreement that Bret is full of .....well, you know what.


 * A devoted Elvis fan is constantly deleting what is written about Presley's possible homosexuality in two different books on Elvis and some other sources. One of these sources is written by the king's stepmother, Dee Presley. In the article on Elvis is only written that some authors claim that Elvis was gay. The reader may decide whether or not this accusation is true. This Elvis fan seems to be the same guy who is still under a Wikipedia hard ban. He is even deleting parts of the present discussion and claims, without proof, that Elvis slept with hundreds of women. I do not understand why this Elvis fan sees the king's possible homosexuality as a problem. ~ -  User: 80.141.212.159


 * It's a problem because it's a LIE!


 * This is your opinion. Others would say that there is enough evidence that it's true. ~  -  User: 80.141.238.198

But, there is plenty of evidence to prove EP was Not GAY!
 * Produce the evidence then. There is none.
 * Actually, the "devoted fan" is someone who knew Elvis all of his life.


 * This is what you claim you are. Sorry, it seems more likely that you are a member of the Elvis Mafia who wants to make money selling "girl's guides to Elvis Presley" and all of this stuff and therefore wants to keep alive the story of Elvis the prodigious lover of women. Why are you so keenly interested in suppressing other opinions in this talk on Elvis? According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not allowed to delete contributions by other users on discussion pages. ~ -  User: 80.141.238.198


 * The above paragraph is a personal attack on the integrity of the MM. They have never written any silly "girls guides to Elvis Presley". Most of their books on EP have become the Definitive books, and even Peter Guarlnick used their books as his personal reference. As I mentioned earlier, there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and the most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM.´The more I read remarks like the one referenced, the more I'm convinced David Bret is indeed here plugging himself (haha) and his book. [ L.T. - CA ]


 * You are indeed joking around. ~

There is nothing for the reader to decide about Elvis' sexuality, he was 100% heterosexual. It's a shame someone is taking the word of Dee Presley, one of the few women Elvis despised! There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay.....one is by Dee Presley and the other is by a plagiarist named David Bret.


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


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


 * Once the reader gets past the requisite Abu Ghraib reference, it could well be that Elvis is singing about the leather-laded gay bear scene. -  User: 80.141.178.36


 * What an idiotic conclusion!!!

Are you for real? Firstly, he didn't write that song. Secondly, you have to listen to the song and not try and take the lyrics out of context. It was written and sung for a teenage audience. It's about puppy love and nothing else. Good grief, take you're nonsensical agenda elsewhere.


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


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


 * When was the last time you heard of a co-ed prison? There is also the expression "Purple gang". The reader may know that lavender is the official gay color. Number 47 also seems to have something for fellow inmates. In addition, you may try to figure out what two partners might do with a wooden chair. If you have any ideas, let me know. -  User: 80.141.178.36


 * --OH now that is rich! Elvis didn't write those songs....and even if he did. Are you saying that Eminem is a rapist/murderer because he "sings" about rape and murder? Your logic is twisted, and you're sadly mistaken about Elvis having ANY gay tendencies. No, I'm not a member of the MM, but let me tell you some of them have written factual books about EP, such as: Revelations of the Memphis Mafia, Elvis What Happened, Portrait of a Friend, Elvis From Memphis to Hollywood. Perhaps you need to contact Elvis historian and former Memphis entertainment reporter Bill E Burk. He has several highly accliamed Elvis books in print, and he was a personal friend as well. He believes in researching his work, not listening to idle gossip the way Bret does.

What shall we do now? Despite recent claims by some authors, among them Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley, that the king may have been gay as he had an affair with homosexual actor Nick Adams, there is the opinion of many others that such accusations are only based on hearsay. I think that both opinions should be mentioned in the article. At the beginning, the said passage on the king's relationships clearly says "From the beginning of his career, Elvis was a sex symbol who sent legions of women swooning. He had a string of girlfriends, before and after he became famous, including celebrities such as Mamie Van Doren, Natalie Wood, Tuesday Weld, Cybill Shepherd and Ann-Margret." Therefore, I have now added at the end the sentence, "Despite these accusations, many other authors believe that there is still much evidence that Elvis was heterosexual." I hope that this is satisfactory and acceptable to all. ~


 * Dee Presley is not a credible source. David Bret is a sleeze chaser.


 * This is your personal opinion. ~ -  User: 80.141.186.210

OK guys, are we cool? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I wasn't able to follow this debate over the weekend, but I'm finding it really hard to follow the debate retrospectively, as you guys aren't signing your comments. So I have a few requests, if this debate is to continue:
 * 1) Can everyone start signing their comments with ~ ?  This is good advice for any wikipedia talk page.
 * 2) Can we refrain from the personal attacks?  Even though "idiotic conclusion" is not a direct attack on a person, it is still unnecessary for these procedings.
 * 3) I think we all acknowledge that our encyclopedia article should include all important sources.  Though some people may discredit Dee Presley and David Bret's credibility, the fact that they are significant biographers or characters in Elvis' life means that their opinions should be presented as such in the article, although they can be given with a disclaimer.  If these claims are later resoundingly disproven, we can remove the topics.
 * Hey, I just had to re-add some comments that were deleted by User:66.61.69.65, who is still failing to sign his posts. If you continue to not follow wiki procedure, you may be blocked from editing.  Please follow decorum here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I just saw the same removal on the article and the talk page by User:24.165.212.202. If anyone makes these same removals without further discussion or descriptive edit summaries, I will block their IP for 24 hours.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Same warning for User:82.40.81.132. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have now rearranged the discussion text to make it more readable. No part of the original text is missing. ~ -  User: 80.141.191.142

One last thing, I would like to refocus the debate on this page slightly. Keep in mind that we are not debating here whether or not Elvis was or was not gay, but whether or not the 'rumors that he was gay are encyclopedic. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.
 * Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland."


 * It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. Therefore, the passage, "just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual", should be included in the Wikipedia article. ~ -  User: 80.141.248.192

First - terminology: "Gay" commonly refers to people who "strongly" prefer to have sex with people of the same sex. (Most often refering to male homosexuals). Since Elvis is reported to have had sufficient (in my judgement) liaisons with the opposite sex, he was unlikely to be "gay". -- The questions of how you define a person's sex and just how strong the preference must be, I'll leave to others to wrangle over - I don't think they matter here. Can we agree that the argument here is whether he could be described as a bisexual?

Second - "100% hetrosexual". Unless a man gets physically sick at the sight of another man or in any other man's presence, the idea that he is 100% of any sexual orientation is silly. We are talking about preferences, right? If we are talking about behaviour, then there may be a factual basis to base conclusions on. These "facts", if subjected to sufficient examination or corroboration, may be accepted by a rational unbiased observer or may be discredited. Proof is evidence sufficient to convince, nothing more nor less.

Third - Negative Proof. In order to "prove" that Elvis was not bisexual, you would have to prove that he never ever engaged in sex acts with another male. This is an impossible task: he was not monitored by unbiased, honest observers 24/7, birth to death.

Fourth - I assert that given his own self-interest (for all the financial, social and personal reasons you can think of in those "enlightened" times) he would reasonably be expected to keep his "preferences" a secret. Given the "show-biz" reality then and now it is likely (again IMHO) that some of his "girlfriends" were only there for the publicity (like Rock Hudson's career) or for the money ( examples are infinite). BOTH for their part and on his part. We CAN agree, I believe that he did NOT leave behind a hoarde of male lovers - else we would have heard from some of them by now. So, would it be also reasonable to agree that he preferred women? (The question, irrelevant as whether he put his left shoe on first or his right, is did he have a significant interest in men (as sexual partners)?) The answer (to repeat myself) seems to be that he preferred women. Why isn't that enough?


 * I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men. -  User: 80.141.178.108

Fifth - His daughter is still with us (I think?) I therefore assert that it is hurtful to SPECULATE about her father. It is unkind, uncharitable, unChristian and just plain mean. It is gossip. Just nasty.

Sixth - As stated by others above, the question is what are the facts? Not assertions unsupported by any verifiable facts, but plain old facts. Not he said she said, but verifiable facts. The idea that he couldn't have had any secrets from his inner circle is (IMHO) silly - we all have secrets. The idea that his inner circle must know something is also speculation. How does any of this affect his legacy?


 * There is the statement by The King's stepmother that Elvis had a sexual affair with Nick Adams. -  User: 80.141.178.108

Seventh - There are those who do not want to blemish his "reputation" for any reason and there are those who want to throw mud, need to throw mud. Neither of these camps will EVER have proof sufficient to get them to change their mind. These two camps are talking past one another.

Eighth - ANYBODY can "conclude" that Mr. X was a "Y". Solid biographers will document the factual basis for this claim in their publications. Often, the fact that someone made a claim is treated as a fact supporting the same claim. This is circular group think. From what I read here about Bret's claim, I saw NO facts entered as evidence simply his compilation of others claims/opinions. This is poor journalism and terrible biography - I'm talking about the Wiki article not Bret's book. Either substantiate Bret's claim with facts garnered from his book, or remove the reference to it.

Ninth - PP is HOT. Yeah even at 60. Makes you wonder....
 * ) 02:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)~

Hyperbole?
Has Elvis really had an "immeasurable" effect on world culture? What does that even mean in this context - that we can't measure it or that it's somehow off the scale? It could be "measurable" and probably be more sensible. All in all I think the article is a bit over the top. Differing opinions? Hardwick 20:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley was not gay
Above our ANONYMOUS contributor said: "Not a joke, but information taken from a seriously written new biography which throws new light on his career."

This is what the publisher's synopsis says about David Bret's "seriously written new biography": "The truth regarding the relationship between Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis is exposed and the controversial allegations that Presley slept with his own mother, raped his wife, held wild sex and drugs parties and left a fan brain-damaged are explored."

So now, we must absolutely add to the article these allegations from this seriously written book by this esteemed biographer. Ted Wilkes 21:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the usual way to sell show business biographies. There are announcements of this kind everywhere. So what. ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

This Wikipedia article quotes David Bret that Colonel Tom Parker blackmailed Elvis because he was gay. However, the Award winning story by Alanna Nash, noted for its meticulous research, never mentions this nonsense that Bret "alleged" without proving any facts to back it up:
 * The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley - Alanna Nash (2003) (Simon & Schuster - ISBN: 0743213017) - . Website:


 * It could well be that both men kept the secret for business reasons. It should also be taken into account that most parts of Nash's book were written before Dee Presley published her recent accusations. ~

Note too, that Bret's book sold next to zero copies


 * How should you know this? ~ -   User: 80.141.178.108

and was totally ignored by any literary or serious media or professional reviewers who don't give credence to such works. Check out the website for Alanna Nash and read the accolades from major sources including Billboard Magazine that called her work a "classic of music industry reporting." In the UK, The Observer called her book "perhaps the most thoroughly researched music book ever written." -- Amazing, all this exacting research and Alanna Nash didn't learn about Elvis being blackmailed by the Colonel because he was gay!#


 * Bret's book on Elvis was not totally ignored. In a story titled "Elvis' Gay Secret," The Globe reports that Elvis may have been gay. The author writes that, according to Bret's book, Col. Tom Parker had such a Svengali-like grip over Elvis because he continually threatened to reveal that Elvis romanced a young actor named Nick Adams: "Elvis' sexual experimentation began with a 'teenage crush' on movie star James Dean that grew into an obsession." The King is said to have seen Rebel Without a Cause some 44 times and ultimately is said to have had a brief affair with Adams, who appeared in the film. Parker supposedly "found himself shelling out substantial amounts of hush money to people who wanted to 'out' his star." There is even a considerable Dutch online review of Bret's book. See http://www.itselvistime.nl/thehollywoodyears.htm It is also an undisputed fact that The Guardian published a very positive review of Bret's book on George Formby. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/critic/feature/0,1169,767653,00.html ~   -  User: 80.141.191.66

On August 16, 2002 Larry King Live had a show on the 25th anniversary of Presley's death that included Linda Thompson, who starting dating Presley only a few months after his separation from his wife, Priscilla Beaulieu-Presley. Thompson lived with Presley at Graceland for almost four years. On this show also was Cybill Shepherd who complained that Presley was sleeping with her in Las Vegas while he had Linda Thompson in another room on the next floor. Thompson said he was a womanizer and in the end dumped her for Ginger Alden who too immediately moved into Graceland. Also on this show was Ann-Margret who talked about what she called a "strong relationship, very intense" that lasted about a year.


 * Given the show-business reality, could it be that some of Elvis's so-called "girlfriends" were only there for their own publicity? ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

As to, Davada "Dee" Stanley-Presley, this poor disgruntled soul who published "Elvis, We Love You Tender" in 1980 never mentioned him being gay etc. Back then, her book gushed about how wonderful he was and never said anything about gay relationships, or incest, but suddenly twenty five years later when she needs money, Dee stanley claims he was gay, had sex with his mother, and other ludicrous statements that no one would listen to.


 * It could well be that Dee Presley broke her silence about Elvis's sexual preferences for business reasons. ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

Her own son, David Stanley dismissed her rantings and he appeared on Larry King Live on January 14, 2005 (Presley's 70th birthday) to honor Presley.


 * No wonder, as he is an enthusiastic Elvis fan.  -  User: 80.141.178.108

On the same program, was Anita Wood who was engaged to Presley and who lived for a time at Graceland until he dumped her for Priscilla Beaulieu while stationed in Germany. (His 1958 letter to Wood that states his intention to marry her was sold by Christie's Auction House in 2004.) On this Larry King program also was Patty Perry, whom King introduced as someone who: "knew Elvis for so long, she was the only woman officially, or unofficially in the Memphis Mafia. " (A fact confirmed by public records and every other member of the Memphis Mafia).


 * Significantly, she seems to have been the only woman in the Memphis Mafia, as there were only men around Elvis. You might see some parallels to Andy Warhol's "Factory", but there were more women around Warhol. Very interesting indeed. ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

And finally on this show was Kathy Westmoreland, who also dated and fell in love with Elvis, and who also wrote a book called "Elvis and Kathy."

The list of women Presley slept with is a mile long. Dozens of books have been written by Elvis associates, friends, etc. He had a large contingent of people with him constantly and none have ever said he was gay or had a gay relationship. And none of these people today have a motive to stay quiet. On the contrary, if one of them said so they would be paid a small fortune. Not one single person, male or female, who knew Presley has ever said he was gay or even hinted such a thing until David Bret in Great Britain "alleged" it without any facts of any kind and he quoted the alcoholic Dee Presley and joined her in alleging without proof that Elvis slept with his mother, left a fan brain-damaged etc. etc. Wikipedia is not a place to be quoting haphazard allegations from such dubious sources – unless you have come to Wikipedia with an agenda.


 * So your argument is that an alcoholic person is unable to say the truth? Would you please read again the whole passage you don't like:


 * Elvis: The Hollywood Years, a 2002 biography by David Bret, claims The King was gay. Bret, who has made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities, says Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. He made it clear that... if Elvis didn't toe the line, he'd let it get out. At that time, it could well have ruined his career. That is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager. In her book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis, Dee Presley, The King's stepmother, who published an unfavorable article in the National Enquirer, also says that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with Nick Adams. In addition, Judy Spreckels, who was like a sister to Elvis, a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets in the early days of his career, remembers going out with Elvis and his friend Nick Adams. Despite these accusations, just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King, believes that Elvis was heterosexual.


 * The passage only says that there are some recent claims in books written by different people, and this is the truth. The following passage should also be added in the "Relationships" section:


 * Apart from these relationships to women, Elvis spent most of his time with men from the so-called "Memphis Mafia", among them Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker, and Lamar Fike. These guys were wearing the same black mohair suits and sunglasses and used to hang with Elvis all day and night. Similar to the real mafia, there was a code of silence within the group during The King's lifetime, and they protected Elvis' name and image.


 * ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

As to our ANONYMOUS users referral to Judy Spreckels, she was a West Coast fan club president who wrote an article called "Elvis and Me" under the byline "Elvis's No.1 fan" for the February 1957 issue of Modern Screen magazine. Did Elvis Presley know actor Nick Adams, and Adams' wife and two children? He absolutely knew Nick Adams, along with several other men with whom he studied Karate while in Los Angeles. Adams was one of the many hangers-on who tried to build a friendship with the biggest star in the world - to enhance his own career. First it was James Dean thar Adams tried to be friends with then a few years later when he heard Presley was a big James Dean fan, he joined the Karate class and ingratiated himself with Presley. And, there is no proof anywhere, of any kind, that Nick Adams was gay.


 * This is not true. Most people in Hollywood knew that Nick Adams was gay. See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_March_16/ai_n6023733 and http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_308/recliminganactress.html Nick Adams is also mentioned in Boze Hadleigh's 384-page volume, Hollywood Gays: Conversations with Cary Grant, Liberace, Tony Perkins, Paul Lynde, Cesar Romero, Brad Davis, Randolph Scott, James Coco, William Haines, David Lewis (New York: Barricade Books, 1996), a book in which Hollywood stars speak freely and provide valuable accounts of what it was like to be gay in an industry filled with double lives and convenience marriages. The author writes that the diminutive yet reputedly well-hung actor Nick Adams may have "hustled while looking for acting jobs in the 1950s." ~  -  User: 80.141.178.108

Note too, that in the Elvis article, and the David Bret article, our ANONYMOUS user has inserted total falsehoods in his edits.


 * Would you please prove your accusations. One thing is clear. You are the person who constantly deletes my contributions on discussion pages. See, for instance, Requests_for_page_protection, history page. You may be the same user who frequently deleted my contributions on the present discussion page. See history of this page. ~ -  User: 80.141.178.108

That alone tells you the value of this person's input and the character of someone willing to repeatedly lie in an Encyclopedia. And oh yes, our friend drove User:Hardwicke away with his lengthy fabrications and constant reinserting of his falsehoods into the Elvis article. So, I challenge ANONYMOUS to scrutinise any article I have created or edited for even one single lie or fabrication.


 * As everybody now can see, this user calls me a liar for placing some information taken out of books on Elvis in the article. He may indeed be a member of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King and therefore tries to suppress all other information which is not in line with this media monopoly. ~ User: 80.141.178.108

And no, I am not an Elvis Presley fan, only someone old enough to totally understand his contribution. But, Roy Orbison is god. Ted Wilkes 23:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's only contributions to the Wikipedia are edits to Elvis Presley, David Bret and Nick Adams plus contraventions to Wikipedia official policy with repeated comments placed into Requests for page protection. I have made a request for Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 20:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note that adding some comment on such a page is not vandalism. But constantly deleting these comments IS vandalism!

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


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

Cultural appropriation: the African American roots of Elvis' music & performance style
This article does an extremely poor job of treating the roots of EP's music in black gospel and blues. That needs to be remedied. There should be a section on "Musical influences." Also, under "criticms," there needs to be specific mention of the phenomenon of cultural appropriation which is a specific phenomenon -- which explains why most African-Americans don't have much use for Elvis or his music. deeceevoice 08:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine so long as it is an honest exploration of Elvis' influences. It's not unreasonable to say that he was significantly influnced by country and blue grass as well as gospel music. It's not as simple as saying that Elvis just "stole" black music when he did nothing of the sort. That's the sort of fiction that a good article should expose. Lochdale

Other matters
Adding August 27 to 'Andrew Presley married Elspeth Leg in Lonmay in 1713', and adding the article to Category:Scottish-Americans --Ben davison 02:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I AGAIN removed fabrications plus the following new derogatory text not befitting an encyclopedia from the same ANONYMOUS user:


 * "Apart from these relationships to women, Elvis spent most of his time with men from the so-called "Memphis Mafia", among them Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker, and Lamar Fike. These guys were wearing the same black mohair suits and sunglasses and used to hang with Elvis all day and night. Similar to the real mafia, there was a code of silence within the group during The King's lifetime, and they protected Elvis' name and image."


 * For this passage I have used information taken from the official "Memphis Mafia" website. See http://www.blacksheep.com/portfolio/memphismafia/ There we can read that


 * "The Memphis Mafia is the nickname given to the group of men who were with Elvis Presley everyday from 1956 until the day he died on August 16, 1977. ... The name 'The Memphis Mafia' was bestowed on the group in an unusual way. In the early 1960's, Elvis and the guys frequently wore black mohair suits. ... Elvis and the guys usually stayed at The Sahara Hotel. Their normal routine for Las Vegas was to stay up all night and sleep during the day. Elvis and the guys normally started their day about 5 p.m. ... There was a crowd of people in front of the Riviera Hotel when the two big black limousines pulled up. Elvis and about ten guys, all wearing black mohair suits and sunglasses, got out of the limousines. Because they normally didn't get much in the sun during the day, their skins were pale white. It was a scary sight to behold, and someone in the crowd yelled: 'Who are they, The Mafia?' "


 * You should not delete relevant facts concerning Elvis's life.

The King
While we should certainly note (as we do) that Presley is sometimes nicknamed "The King of Rock and Roll", it is POV to use that nickname in the text of the article. for example: Can anyone give a reason to justify referring to Presley as "The King"? -Willmcw 22:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Similar to the real mafia, there was a code of silence within the group during The King's lifetime, and they protected Elvis' name and image.

Forgive me for sticking my nose in here. Although I can see how The King has certain connotations that are not factual (that he was the best), it is a name used to refer to him, and therefore I think it's probably ok to use it in the article. It's like reffering to Ryan Giggs as 'Giggs'. It just happens to have more connotations. --Ben davison 22:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although maybe it's because of those very connotations that we should at least try to avoid using it. There are other, less controversial ways to refer to him, I suppose. I'm really helping here, aren't I! --Ben davison 22:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "The King" is very clearly POV. It is completely different to calling Ryan Giggs "Giggs", because that very clearly is his name.  This isn't a fan site; we can explain the use of "The King", but we don't use it ourselves. smoddy 22:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, calm down. I've never used it either. And anyway, I'm clearly sitting on both sides of the fence now, so just ignore me. --Ben davison 23:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry – it's late and I have an exam tomorrow... smoddy 23:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What about saying something like, "the star" or "our rock 'n' roll singer"? But I think "The King" is much better.

Points of view
I believe that Wikipedia has a policy that covers this situation. When contributors cannot agree on what the "facts" are, they SOURCE them:


 * Source A says Elvis was straight for his whole life.
 * Source B says that newly uncovered information "reveals" both Presley's gay tendencies and gay affairs.

When user's click on the name of the author who "uncovered" these "facts", they'll find an article and other links which will allow them to evaluate the veracity of the source.

We need not ensure that the Elvis Presley article is "objectively accurate" but rather that it describes the major sides of the dispute fairly. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Presley's religious views
As an exercise in neutral, unbiased writing I will now attempt to characterize Elvis Presley's religious views. This will be difficult because I am an "interested party".

I will make every effort to avoid POV pushing, but I will describe a point of view which I happen to share:
 * that Elvis was close to the Unification Church - or at least somewhat sympathetic to it

Presley's middle name

 * Elvis's middle name is spelled "Aaron" on his tombstone; according to his official site, the name was spelled Aron at birth but as an adult Elvis planned to change the spelling to Aaron, and the tombstone was designed to reflect that wish.

There may be a minor controversey about the number of A's in his middle name. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Memphis Mafia
In my opinion, the men from the Memphis Mafia must me mentioned in the article, as they played a significant part in Elvis's life. 80.141.245.142 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section
There are more counter-criticisms then criticisms in the critism section. Also, isn't there some belief that Elvis was racist? Shouldn't that be addressed in a balanced manner? Themindset 6 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

These are interesting questions.


 * Given his widely positive reputation as a singer and performer, along with the tone of the article, I don't have a problem with the criticisms but some more positive ones would be ok too.


 * Racism (on levels varying from person to person) was common among whites back then, so this must be addressed within the context of the times. Moreover, Presley was criticized by parents and authority figures for exposing kids to black or "race" music, so the story is certainly not one dimensional. Are there specific, documented examples of racism? If so, how did it affect his work or interaction with fans? Wyss 6 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide specific examples of racism? I've never come across a specific example of Elvis exhibiting any racists tendencies. He had a close friendship with Jackie Robinson and was well respected by James Brown. Before we add that he was a racist why don't we provide some concrete examples? Lochdale

Elvis was gay
Aside from published hearsay decades after he died, there is no documented evidence Presley was gay. Must this article include unsubstantiated gossip? Wyss 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that there are some independent sources which claim that Elvis was gay. It is also an undisputed fact that he spent most of his time with men from the Memphis Mafia. 80.141.249.159 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see the Nick Adams Natalie Wood talk pages if you have questions about why your edits are not encyclopedic. Wyss 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Does it really matter
Whether or not Elvis had, at any time in his life, a preference for homosexuality, is not relevant. Why must we pry into people's sexual behaviours if they have chosen not to speak up about it themselves. It is a fact that he did marry and fathered a daughter. Whether he met with other men does not make a man a homosexual. There is nothing sexual about a group of men or a group of women or a mixed group meeting together. Let it rest, the man is known for more important things than what he did in "the bedroom", which I don't think is any of our business. GCapp GBC 21:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. My only point is that if there is documented evidence cited by a secondary source that he was HS (or did "this" or "that") and it has some meaningful or interesting, encyclopedic relationsip to his career, I have zero problem putting it in. I don't give a flying luzz if he "was" or "wasn't". I do object to unsubstantiated, decades later tabloid market gossip being planted in these articles for the purpose of separately promoting PoV agendas. Wyss 21:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is much evidence that Nick Adams was gay. See sources cited on the Talk:Nick Adams page. It is an undisputed fact that Elvis and Adams were close friends. Red West, member of the Memphis Mafia, says: "...Nick Adams - I don't know if you remember Nick Adams - did a series called "The Rebel". He was a friend of Elvis's and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door..." See http://www.elvisnews.com/output/print.asp?section=art&id=512 Further, if David Bret is right that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams, this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker. So this fact may be of particular interest as far as Presley's whole career as a singer is concerned. That Elvis had an affair with Adams is also supported by statements of Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley.


 * For more information on why your edits are not encyclopedic, please see the Nick Adams and Natalie Wood talk pages (where your other contributions are discussed at length). Wyss 10:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would encourage the readers to spend as much time as they see fit on reading from the beginning what is written on these discussion pages, as the whole talk proves that I have provided a lot of evidence (based on independent sources) to support my assertions. 80.141.219.115 12:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The talk pages only show you're trying to post published but undocumented gossip into these articles, and are especially obsessed with using the words homosexual and gay in your edits. Wyss 13:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So because Elvis had a gay friend then he himself must have been gay? That's utterly preposterous. I thank User Wyss for being more level headed than I am but you clearly have an agenda here. Lochdale

Elvis' hair
The notion that Elvis got his hairstyle from Captain Marvel seems insane. If you've ever seen pictures of black doo-wop groups, its pretty clear where Elvis got the idea.....NoahB 19:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Captain Marvel Junior, not Captain Marvel. Also, Elvis borrowed not just the haircut, but the lightning bolt symbol (see: his "TCB" logo: ). And those facts can be justified easily; a quick search of "Elvis" + "Captain" + "Marvel" (eliminating "Junior"/"Jr." from the search because of the variant spellings) produces hundreds of hits and several relevant links:   (those last two are interviews from Elvis' mother). You can barely see the resemblance in the top picture on this page because of the way it is lit, but this picture and several of the ones on the main page of elvis.com showcase the Elvis/CMJ haircut. Questions? --FuriousFreddy 02:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section said that : Elvis' dance moves and much of his personal style -- his gelled hair, for example -- were clearly borrowed from African-American performers, especially Jackie Wilson. However, "The Book Of Rock Lists" argues that his music owes just as much, if not more to white Country music as it does to Black blues music.

Jackie Wilson's hair changed after he went solo in 1957 (not 56 as erroneously reported in his Wiki bio) and probably modeled after Presley who by 1957 was a superstar. (See photos of Wilson with the Dominoes 1953-1957.) The second part about the "The Book Of Rock Lists": Elvis spoke about his musical roots in his '68 Comeback Special and his influences have now been well documented here. Ted Wilkes 13:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * The influence of both factors should still be obvious, though. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Aaron and Aron
I've noticed some back and forth on the middle bame, Aaron or Aron... does anyone know the story on this? Was it perhaps a change he made at some point? Is it only mis-spelled on the grave marker? Or was it a common mis-spelling throughout his life. Did EP ever comment on it? Wyss 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed said on this discussion page on Presley's middle name: "Elvis's middle name is spelled "Aaron" on his tombstone; according to his official site, the name was spelled Aron at birth but as an adult Elvis planned to change the spelling to Aaron, and the tombstone was designed to reflect that wish. " What about saying Elvis A(a)ron Presley at the beginning of the article? 80.141.214.107 21:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Messy. I changed it back to Aaron. This could be a trivia item, though. Wyss 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Because this article is getting long, I deleted the Section about his salary for films. These figures should be inserted into the information section on the individual film. Ted Wilkes 13:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I DELETED THE FOLLOWING NONSENSE: Many have since wondered why an only child – by then the sole support of his parents and grandmother – was drafted during peacetime, since his services were clearly not critical for the defense of his country. It has long been suspected that Elvis' draft notice was either politically instigated to shunt his "dangerous", "race-mixing" influence, or encouraged by his manager in order to keep the increasingly world-wise Southern lad under his thumb.

The U.S. Selective Service Act mandated compulsory service for all American men. If you signed up, you served two years -- if you didn't and were drafted, you served three. That was why there was such an uproar when a few years later in 1967 Muhammad Ali refused to be inducted claiming "I ain't got no quarrel with them Vietcong" while Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did their own bit to avoid either service or the Vietnam War. Ted Wilkes 22:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is a popular myth that Elvis died whilst on the toilet
Does anyone really dispute that many, many people believe Elvis died while pooping? That is all I'm saying, and someone keeps deleting it. I believe the mentioning of this fact is protected by NPOV, since it doesn't claim to describe what happened, but merely states a popular point of view regarding his death explained in a simple matter User:129.241.134.241


 * Please put new talk page sections at the bottom of the page.


 * Please sign your posts with four tildes.


 * This might be suitable as trivia/urban myth, with some sort of reference to citations either supporting or debunking it. I'm sure the anon knows that putting a reference to the "Elvis died on the crapper" myth in his death section skews the tone and PoV of the article somewhat. Anyway, I imagine we can work this in somehow, but not as presented so far. Wyss 03:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I might dispute this simply because Ginger Alden, the one person who found him and therefore the only person with the facts, has never said said this. Ted Wilkes 14:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The death of Elvis
The troublesome sentence in question is "It is a popular myth that Elvis died whilst defecating on the toilet" and is mentioned in the "Death and Burial" section...well, until one of Elvis's die hard fans deletes it that is. None of them gave any reason to delete my sentence, they probably think it is offencive to the memory of their hero, yet it is worth mentioning. I mean, an article about Elvis cannot be purely written by his fans, it loses all the objectivity if it is.

- well, i'm a newbie. Sure, I can do that (129.241.134.241 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Please put new talk page sections at the bottom of the page.

- sure (129.241.134.241 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes.

- I resorted to do that when Wyss made bogus linkspam reports against me, not understanding the term. I've never added any links to any wikipedia article whatsoever. (129.241.134.241 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
 * Please stop making bogus vandalism reports.
 * You've restored linkspam several times. If you didn't notice it, please be more careful. Wyss 16:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even like Elvis, and even if I did, wouldn't care whether or not he died on his toilet.

Since it does exist as such, I've put the urban legend in the trivia section where it belongs. The PoV tag is not needed, and should have been discussed first on this talk page. Wyss 16:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

- "et tu, Brute" is in the assasination section, not some "trivia" section. And besides, you don't even mention the words "defecation" or "constipation". According to that myth, Elvis didn't HAPPEN to be on the toilet whilst already in the process of dying. he died BECAUSE of sitting in the toilet. His constipation problem made his pressure rise and his heart stopped. A reader unfamiliar with the myth will not understand what is being said there. (129.241.134.241 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC))


 * et tu, Brute is part of the documented record. Your item is an urban legend. We can cite the legend, even clarify it, but it does not qualify as a cause of death for an encyclopedia article. Wyss 16:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ???!!!!!! Are you claiming they had tape recorders in ancient Rome, Wyss???!!!!!! It is even LESS documented that the constipation thing. At least there have been reports of constipation medicine found in Elvis's bathroom. I can only accept the article if it mentions the words "died of constipation" or "died whilst defecating", nothing less. But who but me will fight to keep those words even if they are in the trivia section? Will you, Wyss? (129.241.134.241 16:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC))


 * Didn't you know? Reality programming goes all the way back to the colleseum and all those pesky Christians playing Survival with lions and stuff (joke). Wyss 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

REMOVED Irrelevant gossip: "It is a popular myth that he died whilst defecating on the toilet." This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip tabloid. Ted Wilkes 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

- Wilkes, this is an encyclopedia written with a neutral point of view. Because of this, it is quite different from other encyclopedias. A normal encyclopedia wouldn't mention the arguments of Holocaust Deniers in the Holocaust article, for instance. I'm sure claiming that the Nazis were really nice guys who did NOT murder 6 million Jews is a far more offensive thing than claiming (rightfully) that many people DO believe that Elvis died of constipation. (129.241.134.241 15:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC))


 * The item is already in the trivia section, the information is intact. I am trying to compromise with you (the urban legend does exist, although there is no evidence that it's true). It's in the article to stay, no information is being withheld from readers.


 * The information is taken out of the place where it naturally belonges and altered to the point where it is impossible to understand that information. Furtermore, if I turn my back on this article, it will not even stay long in the trivia section - some die hard Elvis fan will delete it, and you, Ted, will surely not fight to protect it there, will you?


 * By bringing "Nazis" and "holocaust deniers" into this discussion, you demonstrate a willful lack of courtesy and cooperation.


 * I know that theory, that as a discussion goes on and on, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approach 1. except I didn't compare anyone here with Hitler or Nazis, I only explained what NPOV a la Wikipedia is. None of you seem to respect NPOV.


 * Describing your repeated addition of this item as "removing vandalism" is misleading and a violation of WP policy.


 * So is claiming that I keep inserting "linkspam"


 * The article otherwise describes Elvis' death according to the documented record, which is what an encyclopedia does. However, the item you've cited is in the article. We can even add the word constipation if you like, I don't care.


 * Exactly, Ted. You DON'T care. You're not going to protest if some Elvis fan deletes it from the trivia section. Look, if a person is unfamiliar with this myth, can he understand what Eminem was referring to by impersonating Elvis on the toilet in his music video "Without Me", for instance? Therefore it belongs in the "Death and Burial" section, not anywhere else, just like "et tu, Brute" (Julius Caesar's last words) is in no "Trivia" section, either.


 * If you continue refusing to work towards consensus and cooperation on this, your editing history may be referred to RfA. Wyss 16:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I welcome any investigation of this article and all its users by Wikipedian moderators, that's why I'm trying to attract attention to it by placing the POV tag at the top!


 * You're attracting attention :) By the way, the item is already in the trivia section, and you appear to be in violation of the three revert rule. I'm willing to work with you on this, how 'bout it? Wyss 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I want the words "died of constipation" or "died whilst defecating" and you, [[User:Wyss|Wyss] will make an effort to keep them there when some die-hard Elvis fans delete it, OK?


 * Ok, in the trivia section. Wyss 16:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll retire for a while then, but I strongly suspect that when I come back I'll find the sentence deleted by some Elvis fan, without you or Ted Wilkes having lifted a finger to protect it. Well, I'll give you two the benefit of the doubt for now....we all have better things to do than removing each other's sentences every 10 minutes, don't we? NPOV foreva.


 * I'll protect it (and the way it's worded now I think it's rather safe, also the urban legend does exist). Thanks for making the effort to work this out. Wyss 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You too, Wyss, you too. It's nice to have my contribution in a popular article. And i'm glad NPOV prevailed. I'm sorry I mistook you for a crazy Elvis fan in the beginning. (129.241.134.241 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC))


 * He did some early rockabilly which I think is cool enough but otherwise... ;) Wyss 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
OK, to the anon who keeps adding the line "He is officially the #1 singer of the rock era and remains one of the most recognisable figures in music." in the header. This sentence is inherently POV. This sentence doesn't declare what officiating body has declared him as such, and there is no "official" ranking of singers of the cork era. Your comment in the defense of the statement is "Presley IS offically the #1 act of the rock era, confirmed by Billboard's Joel Whitburn in his throughly reserched music books avalible at all good book stores.". If that's the case, then you should put (somewhere in the article, not in the header): "Billboard's Joel Whitburn delcared Presley the #1 act of the Rock era." Presto! Instant NPOV. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the "trivia" section then, because I don't see why the opinion of just one person - Joel Whitbum - is important enough to put it in one of the major sections. The reader might get the wrong, non-NPOV idea that Joel Whitbum is God(129.241.134.241 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC))


 * Anywhere but the header. Trivia section would be ok by me. Wyss 14:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If the anon editor that keeps inserting that line continues to add it without responding on this talk page to the problems that people have with the line, and the placement, it will be reverted on sight. I have placed a note on the talk page of the most recent IP, as well.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. Wyss 18:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So it's ok to add it anywhere in the article but not the header? so what is that all about? it's ok to give him credit for being the #1 act of the rock era, but let's not put it at the start. how bizarre. So what has anyone got to dispute this? an argument Bono is more influential. Yeah, when Bono has influenced a generation of music that has been as rich as the music that followed Elvis, then they can comment. Elvis is the biggest/most influentail/successful act ever - proven by the charts all over the world, yet we can't give him due credit. POV would be my opinion, yet this is factual information based on the music charts. Next you'll be telling me it's only my opinion Presley had over 100 top 40 hit singles.


 * Please stop trying to game this discussion with semantics. Some encyclopedia readers have credibility standards different from yours and could actually think less of EP with a blatant PoV, marketing oriented cite like that in the header. Anyway I've put it in the trivia section where it's both informative and harmless. Wyss 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Btw, sales charts reflect product sales, not cultural influence. As it happens though, EP's cultural influence was widespread and the article already explains it plainly. Wyss 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That maybe true today, however back in the 1950s to sell the volume Presley did, you had to have influence. Music back then was much diffrent. Why do you think most of the other 1950s acts that were pap didn't appear on all-time sales lists?

btw, if people could think less of EP with what you claim is a POV post (i still contest it is nothing of the sort), then why is a simular comment sitting smug on the Beatles article?


 * Please sign your posts. Your continued use of unsigned posts despite several warnings on this page is borderline disruptive.  If you want to keep the statement POV, use statements like "one of the most", "one of the best", "arguably the best", etc. "#1" is a very subjective statement without context, and is not encyclopedic. The most recent edit you made to the header, using the provable facts such as chart success and cited influences is much better as the facts there are indisputable and uncontroversial. Thank you. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I do not know how to sign a post, neither have I seen a warning either. If the statement wasn't encyclopaedic, then how come I have seen such statements in encyclopaedias? Not every article will say "one of" or "possibly is" when the facts show that it is for sure. To say Elvis is the #1 act based on chart peformace" is not POV when it is a fact available in the public domain, in terms of chart reference books. anon. user


 * Please sign your post with four tildes.


 * The title "#1 act" is subjective and implies more than record sales. For example, Liberace sold many millions of records during the early and mid 1950s. He was "huge" (there are staged publicity photos of him and Elvis together, so keen were their managers to equate them both as mega-stars). Today his musical legacy as a musician or pianist is null (although he is remembered as a master of the Las Vegas style floor show, as an all around entertainer, as well as a cultural icon by some groups). Wyss 19:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Elvis was just more than selling records, as anyone who knows about music will know. However the article did state "based on record sales", so that would clear it up even if he wasn't. Also are you telling me that in the 1950s Libarance was considered equal to Elvis is terms of celebrity? Come off it.... that is not true at all. Also you go on to say he has "null" legacy as a musician or pianist, then go on to say he is remembered as a cuteral icon. If it wasn't for his musical style he wouldn't have that credibility, so therefore his musical legacy can't be nothing. The argument Liberace was hug dose not in anyway offer anything in form of an argument that precludes Presley from being called the #1 act. Elton John was the #1 act of the 1970s, would you argue "he wasn't cause The Bay City Rollers were big in the 1970s too?". 195.93.21.4 23:36, 27 July 2005


 * First, to sign any post, type four tildes, like this: ~ . That's four of these ~ in a row, usually found in the far upper left of your keyboard (you'll have to shift). The wiki software will then automatically add your IP address (or username if you're registered) and the time and date. This is rather essential for any ongoing conversation. Please do this and if you still have trouble, don't be shy, keep asking, it's ok.


 * You don't have to register and get a username, but it's highly recommended. There are lots of advantages and it's free. You'll get your own user page and talk page, and people will find it easier to get familiar with your edits and discuss stuff with you.


 * Yes, for a time during the 1950s Liberace was considered much bigger than Elvis. He had his own weekly TV show and was selling millions of records a year. Celebrity waxes and wanes. Talent (or the lack of it) does not always correlate with popularity and commercial success- I'm not commenting on EP here btw.


 * There is a stark difference between a musician and an entertainer, but I don't want to digress into that here.


 * About "#1 acts" and so on, it's in the article now and Presley's impressive recording career stats are tighty summarized in the header. If you edit more in Wikipedia, you may come to understand what editors mean when they use terms like subjective and NPoV. The Billboard columnist's remark was based on documented facts, but was in itself a subjective conclusion. Those are helpful to cite in the body of the article but not in the header, which must briefly summarize documented facts about the subject for quick understanding by the reader. Wyss 22:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (I signed this by typing four ~ s in a row, it's easy, try it!)

Thanks for your help. I'll like to know when Liberace was considerd "bigger than Elvis", because of his TV show. When Elvis was recording for Sun records maybe... but that would hardly take much really would it if we are honest? From 1956 on (when he joint RCA) Elvis was the #1 star as can be told from record sales, chart success, concert tours and viewing figures of his very own TV appearnces. I'm not denying Liberace wasn't a big star, of course he was, but I think it's a bit odd to claim he was bigger than Elvis from '56 onwards. Kenny Rogers had a weekly TV show once that did really well in the early to mid 1970s, but I don't think he was considerd bigger than Paul McCartney (at that time at least). 195.93.21.4 07:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Plainly Elvis got to be "bigger than Liberace" but that wasn't my point. Funny you should mention Kenny Rogers, whom I happen know something about. I'd say that in the late 1970s in the American south Kenny Rogers was very much considered "bigger than Paul McCartney" but if that makes you blink, it shows how complex and ultimately subjective, relative and potentially misleading these sweeping statements can be. Wyss 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a misleading claim at all. Kenny Rogers was bigger than McCartney in the late-1970s, but i said nothing about the late 70's in the point you were replying too, I said early and mid 1970s, back then Rogers was considered nowhere near the fame of McCartney, because he wasn't as successfull then. Just like Elvis wasnt as sucessfull as Liberace untill the dawn of the "rock era". 195.93.21.4 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What is it that you specifically don't like about the article now? Wyss 20:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Who said I didn't like anything about the article at the present time? I'm replying to you and comments you claimed I made. However if we are only allowed to respond if we don't like something in the article then what is it you don't like about the article? 195.93.21.4 06:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Only checking :) Anyway I think we agree on the cyclical nature of celebrity (that's not a stealth dig at E btw). Wyss 14:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Garth Brooks Quote
Why was the quote for Garth Brooks removed? I feel this quote has as much importance and relevance as that of John Lennon's, seeing as Garth was continually compared to Elvis for a number of years by certain media and when was asked about it, replied "No one will Ever touch Elvis". I ut it on the Garth Brooks article and feels it also has relevance to this one. 195.93.21.4 11:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Garth who? Jgm 01:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Garth Brooks. One of the worlds most successfull - if not the most successfull - artists of the past 15-20 years. (Further info on him can be found on Wikipedia by clicking on his name >>>>>> Garth Brooks 195.93.21.4 19:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought "Garth Brooks" was a pseudonym of Chris Gaines. Jgm 00:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Give up the comedy attempt. (lol) 195.93.21.4 06:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. What was the quote? Wyss 17:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I said above, it was "Noone will ever touch Elvis". Also why was the remark about more people possibly being intrested in buying his singles if the single was still a major format deleted? That comment holds just as much bearing as the fact they sold little compared to singles sales in the past. If that is gonan be deleted I think the whole comment before it should, I don't see other articles belitting chart information on artists because less singles are sold today.

195.93.21.4 17:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was graffiti. I'll put it back in. Also, sorry I didn't read your post carefully. By the way, you don't have to, but you might want to consider registering as a user. It's free and has several benefits and advantages (including allowing editors to get to know and recognize you and thereby more helpfully work with your edits and concerns). Wyss 19:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I imagine someone thought the other edit you mentioned was pushing PoV on Elvis a bit too hard, or maybe it wasn't clear. Try it again with different wording? Wyss 19:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A little help appreciated:
 * I'm not the best at organizing a page but have more information to insert. If someone wants to jump in and fix it all up, that would be welcomed. Ted Wilkes 20:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

From the "related" section, I removed Blackface because it is irrelevant here and propely placed in other articles. And, Cultural appropriation because it is already referred to. Ted Wilkes 16:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted text removed by User:Wyss as extreme POV. Rewritten, the statements here are fact. 12:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC) Ted Wilkes

Sweeping statements
The opening of this article as re-written by Ted Wilkes is too PoV. I'm not going to revert it for the moment, so as to prepare the discussion. Elvis Presley was the single most important act in American popular music during the mid and late 1950s. However, the statements made in the article are now so sweeping as to be unsupportable. He was not the most influential entertainer in the history of music (although likely the most influential entertainer in the history of American popular music). He was not in any way responsible for the advent or success of the 45 RPM record as the wording of the article implies. He was not responsible for the emergence of rock and roll. He was certainly not responsible for the relatively generous allowances post-war children in the US received and so on. He had enormous talent and I can write about remarkable aspects of his talent which are not yet in this article. He rode the wave of these things, so to speak, with that talent, rather gloriously for a time, but he was not responsible for them.

Out of all the books published about EP, it is likely possible to find someone somewhere in print who has made some of these superlative generalisations, but for all the enormous impact Presley had, it was not as described in the article. Extraordinary assertions such as these require extraordinary citations, multiple and scholarly. I'm open to seeing them.


 * First, please support the statement that EP was the most influential entertainer in the history of music. Wyss 15:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Absent any citation, I have NPoV'd the statement into something more reasonably supportable. Next,


 * Please support (using multiple, scholarly sources) the statement that "EP created a phenomenal change in music entertainment bringing about a major shift in consumer markets, the likes of which had never been seen before." This is an incredibly sweeping remark implying EP personally engineered a shift in the global economy. Wyss 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The most influential in history
Sweeping statements are acceptable to describe sweeping events. It is obvious that User:Wyss could not have been a teen or pre-teen in 1956. I was. Being born in 1945, with older brothers and sisters, plus friends, (my sister was a big-time bobby-soxer and that was "cute", safe, and acceptable to parents), I lived in and therefore KNOW precisely what was before Presley and experienced what actually happened in 1956 and onwards. Girls, screaming, fainting, crying and babbling incoherently about how much they loved Elvis was not acceptable. I know how notes were passed around in class at both my junior high and my sister's high school about "Elvis" and his rock and roll, and how he was the ONLY topic of conversation in the schoolyards, something that never happened before with a musical entertainer. I know about small town USA where Presley's music soon reached. I know about parents not allowing Presley’s music and how they went to a friend's house to listen to his records or to watch him on Ed Sullivan. I know what music my older siblings had been listening to and I know the "weekly allowance" we all got in 1955 (kids always compare within the family and with friends), and how peer pressure to be "cool" brought demands (yes we demanded - my older siblings never dared) a bigger allowance because we could see with our own eyes the increasing prosperity of our parents. We went from 10¢ a week to a buck because 89¢ is what a 45rpm cost in small towns, less in big cities I learned to my dismay. We rebelled and it was resisted - even a teen shutting their door to their bedroom was unheard of disrespectful conduct. We TOLD our parents for the first time exactly what WE wanted for Christmas and it was one thing: Presley music and clothes. And, oh yes, "ducktail" haircuts were banned in my school and we defied the principal who went to the School Board -- who backed down. As to Presley being the most influential, this does not need scholarly sources to read and understand statistical facts or to read a Sears Roebuck catalog to see the change between 1955 and 1958 with the appearance of low-cost Elvis Presley guitars, clothes, and other products. The closest thing kids had at the time was Davy Crockett and Presley quickly made him a distant memory. Presley’s "black" sounding music was a big issue (among bigots) and our acceptance of it led to Chuck Berry singing side by side with "Good Ole Boy" Jerry Lee Lewis and others in a 1957 U.S. tour. The fact that a black star like Berry, whom the teenagers accepted equally, had to sleep in a different hotel, or occasionally in a car while traveling together, helped bring a questioning about segregation. Bringing African American singers into mainstream American consciousness was extremely significant, and the bigots constantly reminded us it was "nigger" music. Note the fans ages in 1957 and how they, seven years later, were the young volunteers from the North who went to the South to fight for desegregation. (Yes, my brother went South). Read how the white Mayor John Hynes of Boston found an excuse to ban rock and roll from the city after the interracial rockers Lewis, Holly, and Berry performed there together – as equals. As to his "bringing about a major shift in consumer markets," the 1956 Front Page of the Wall Street Journal article tells it all as to Presley's enormous economic impact and the shift to teen buying power. (No such writing has ever appeared since. And I read the WSJ, Barron's and the Economist, always). Look at the Billboard charts 1950 to 1955. Look at record sales, look at the dates the flood of teen and music magazines that came into existence and the creation of the Billboard Hot 100. Look at photos of Presley in 1956 then photos of those who followed – hair, clothes were all Presley copies. (see Ricky Nelson photos on his parents TV shown in 1954 then at the time of his first record. – ditto for everyone else.) Look at the date of the chart hits by ALL others – they came after Presley and their record sales, although very substantial, were only a tiny fraction of Presley’s. As to "EP created a phenomenal change in music": in 1956, it was Presley who knocked Les Baxter and his kind of music out of No.1. And by 1957, Baxter, Mitch Miller and the like were gone from the pop charts --- forever. And, we pre and early teen kids never went to a record store. But when Presley released “Hound Dog,” we were late for school so we could be first to buy the record in the morning when the store opened. (All adults, plus anyone we didn't like, were nothing but Hound Dogs and were "no friend of mine.") And the record stores, seeing us for the first time buying product started stocking everything rock and roll --- and we showed up with our newly increased spending allowance. And oh yes, we teens created a new monetary system called "an advance against my allowance" because there was no way we were waiting til Saturday if the next Presley record came out on Wednesday.

Only Bill Haley came before Presley and Haley had a great sound (on at least one record) but zero charisma with his standard stance and overweight near-middle age appearance in his plaid jacket and bow tie. The reason John Lennon (and Dylan and others) said what they did is because Presley's popularity CREATED the huge demand for rock music that swept America and a new consumer power that opened the door to the others to make a living in rock music. In the face of powerful and widespread efforts to stop him, Presley kept going, doing his thing. That in fact is what insipred me, my friends, and the rest of teenage America to stand up and speak out and for Ed Sullivan to change his tune and say he is a "good, decent, boy." Read about the Texans (Holly, Orbison, Knox), and others from all over the U.S. particularly from Presley's South, who came to Memphis and Nashville because of Presley. When he went to NYC to record for RCA, it brought Bobby Darin and others to record there with new record companies springing up. Presley's power was still so great even a few years later that Fabian, who couldn't croak a note, was picked up by a promoter from a street in Philadelphia and made a star because, as the teen magazines wrote, his looks were a cross between Elvis and Ricky Nelson. (And yes, I bought "Turn Me Loose")

Want more facts from someone who actually lived the Presley period and who rebelled against his parents when his elder siblings had never done so before? I could write volumes on what Presley created – and I was never a great Presley fan but sure am grateful he came along because he made it all possible. Read the quotes by Dylan, Springsteen, Orbison, and even forty years later by Garth Brooks. When the White House gives the President a speech, and Carter accepts to deliver it, then the President's words about one entertainer says His and not "He is one of the entertainers," reiterates a fact. President Carter said His music and his personality -- permanently changed the face of American popular culture.

And, American popular music and culture became worldwide. That is why Elvis Presley is the most influential entertainer in the history of the known universe. And, that is why this comment must be in the header section for Presley to identify exactly his place in popular music history. Ted Wilkes 14:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Except for the Carter reference, that's all original research, not an acceptable source for a WP article. As for Carter, he was a failed politician, not a noted social historian or musicologist. With all due respect, I don't accept your citations. Wyss 15:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeat: Facts about the state of music before and after 1955 in music are here at Wikipedia and speak for themselves. Hairstyles are also here Ricky Nelson but available on the web too. All other major singers and their emersion dates are here too. And, not one of them was personally banned etc. Their sales stats are here too. We don't need to list them. And, I accept the words of John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and the others QUOTED in the article. Historians or musicologists do not express opinions on clothing sales, they use facts. The Sears Roebuck Catalog is a fact. I was part of it. Wyss, were you?

Sorry, but read what I said: The White House -- and the staff at the White House do have social historians or musicologists and any other credible source for preparing Presidential statements.


 * Yeah, I thought about that. From what I gather, in 1977 Whitehouse speechwriters weren't writing social and pop music histories from a schoarly perspective. They were writing political speeches. Moreoever, most historians know that any public euology of a popular entertainer offered by a political leader is historically worth about as much as the latter's poll standings the morning after. Wyss 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying Jimmy Carter was deliberately misleading? Politics means being vague, not precise. In fact, knowing about Carter's Christian beliefs, if anything he would never antagonize the religious right who, even in 1977 were still condemning Presley for the harm he did to America's youth. In 2005, they are still trying to get "sexual suggestiveness" off the air.


 * Carter would never antagonize the US religious right?! Ted Wilkes, I have one response to that... Ronald Reagan. Wyss 16:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You said in the comment on your edit: "if that goes into the header, it's got to be qualified."

If President Carter mislead the public, provide proof where even one historian or musicologist contradicted his statement or one major R&R performer who disagreed with the President, or one reputable magazine who disagreed. Why would Wikipedia qualify a Presidential statement that no one has ever challenged? Ted Wilkes 16:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. You don't seem to be referring to the Carter quote already in the article. Could you paste the quote you're referring to below so I can have a look? I certainly wouldn't object to directly quoting Carter in the header, whatever he said (even "Elvis was the greatest conscious entity in the history of time, I know because the cyborgs from Zorg9 told me when I was there last week" - exaggerated for effect :). The attribution would be qualifier enough for me and it's strict NPoV. Wyss 16:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I already posted it above (the --- represent the omission of unrelated "fusing the styles of white country and black rhythm and blues" and, add to it that when a Discovery Channel public opinion poll nearly thirty years later puts way Presley ahead of all other entertainers as the Greatest American (no other singer was even in the top 25) it does give some indication  that  Americans (based on polling theories) agreed with what the President's highly paid staff and unlimited budget for research concluded. Note that this poll was a copy of the one in Canada that is detailed at Wikipedia. Also, we can wait to give you proper time to quote a qualified historian or musicologist who disagreed with the President's statement anytime since 1977. You don't accept Lennon, Dylan, Cliff Richards, and the others? Please clarify who you think they are wrong. As to historians and musicologists and the opinions of "wise" managers/commentators, you should listen to the words of "Handle With Care" by the Traveling Wilburys and read the cover notes they placed on their first album. Ted Wilkes 16:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reference to Carter I can find is down here. Can't find the quote. Can you please just paste it below? It's likely we can use it. Thanks.


 * It's your responsibility to cite a reliable secondary source supporting your assertion. I'm under no obligation to find a cite that disagrees with it. Meanwhile, all you've offered is lots of original research and a reference to a quote from a politician which you say is somewhere on this page but which I can't find (sorry about that, I truly looked). Wyss 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Public opinion polls are best directly attributed in the article since they're notoriously fickle and you might want to re-read my posts on quotes by celebrities about other celebrities, and why context is so important. Wyss 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Notice I kept the Lennon quote. Presented in context, summing up the paragraph, I think it's very helpful. All the other celebrity quotes are already in the article too, I haven't objected to them and I think they work. Wyss 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As we both know, referencing other Wikipedia articles (without verification), especially those about celebrities, can be fraught with peril ;) Wyss 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All this citing of original research by you concerns me a bit. Have you read No original research? It's official Wikipedia policy. We can't cite your original research for this article. Wyss 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone who lived the experience is in fact a reliable source when they quote verifiable statistical facts and events, not opinions. (The U.S. Supreme Court has said so, repeatedly, citing exactly that.) Obtaining secondary confirmation from others who lived at the same time would be pretty easy. And, the statements you agree with by Dylan, Lennon and so on are more credible because of their birth dates and position in the music industry support the claim he was the most influential entertainer in music history.

And, (your) opinons on how the researchers and speechwriters at the White House conmduct themselves is not acceptable as a means for decision making at Wikipedia or opinionizing that Carter was a failed politician. In the United States, we accept White House statements as true until someone disproves them as we did when Nixon said "I am not a crook" and as we did not when Clinton said "I never had sexual relations with....". Parsing of words is a game, but always arises to the level of legal qualification and accepted public fact.

President Carter said: "Elvis Presley's death deprives our country of a part of itself. He was unique and irreplaceable. His music and his personality, fusing the styles of white country and black rhythm and blues, permanently changed the face of American popular culture. His following was immense and he was a symbol to people the world over, of the vitality, rebelliousness, and good humor of his country."

You may quote Carter in the opening paragraph but if so, quote with it the other confirmations from the most respected experts such as Lennon, Dylan etc. unless you are prepared to state that the opinion of Dylan and Lennon has no merit. If as they asserted: before Presley there was nothing, and we owe it all to him, or CR saying "If there was no Elvis Presley, they're would have been no Cliff Richard" etc. etc., then with the documented (Wikipedia too) statistics as to his musical success, the timeline of musical recording facts, (what musicologists use) he is the most influential and too, no other person, living or dead, has claimed any other person to be more influential or even as influential. Unless too, you are challenging the statistics and the accuracy of the Billboard Charts. Ted Wilkes 17:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that "we accept White House statements as true" is mistaken.


 * Here at Wikipedia, we don't use the US Supreme court as a guide to citation policy. We use Wikipedia's published policies instead. Wyss 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In principle, birth dates do not correlate with credibility.


 * I'm not sure "no other person, living or dead, has claimed any other person to be more influential" is true. Anyway, can you prove that? (Hint: You can't prove a negative) Even if you could, granting Elvis the adjective by default would be flawed logic. Wyss 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most reasonable people would agree that the wordish Lennon was using a metaphor when he said there was "nothing." We all know there was "something" before Elvis and Lennon's quote contains no information as to what he was leaving out (plainly rather a lot).


 * The literal content of the Carter quote doesn't support your assertion that Elvis was "the most influential entertainer in the history of music." Thanks for pasting it in though. I'm sort of relieved his speechwriters weren't nearly as rash as you had me thinking they were. Wyss 18:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You still haven't responded to my concerns about all this original research you've been citing.


 * Cites from people living during that time are not considered reliable sources (individual witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and scholars compare their accounts against other known accounts and documents wherever possible). For the most part, WP cites should be published and reliable secondary sources drawn from the documented record. I thought you knew about all this stuff.


 * So far, you've only provided original research for your assertion Elvis was "the most influential entertainer in the history of music." Original research is not an acceptable source in Wikipedia. The text of the Carter quote doesn't even come close to matching your assertion. Wyss 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Previously you misquoted me to make an incorrect statement ("White House") and now again with "In the United States, we accept White House statements". I never said Wikipedia. Absolute acceptance of a White House statement as fact is what keeps America as a democracy from disintegrating and why we have an impeachment process. It is fundamental to our existence. We may at time claim to interpret the President’s remarks differently but NEVER does the Media or anyone claim it to be false without proving it. If someone from Libya wishes to disagree, they can, but in the USA, Americans accept the President’s statement as absolute fact. And, Wikipedia does quote Washington, Lincoln and others. Presley was a musician, not a painter. When the President says “EP permanently changed the face of American popular culture,” it is an expression of the collective thinking of the American people expressed by its leader. As such, my quoting the President at Wikipedia is only part of what Dylan, Lennon, Brooks, Jesus Christ, and others said plus the historical records which are not sources, they are just facts. My assertion is based on this collective. Therefore, this plus my above statements as to historical statistics bearing out the statement and the collaboration of others which I have already spelled out requires no further statement from me. If you are uncertain, please reread the above. The facts in support of Presley as the most influential in the history of the universe is clearly documented. And John Lennon is talking about his own music: Rock and Roll. And, before Elvis there certainly was music, again as stated Les Baxter, Mitch Miller and oh yes, that hard rocker Patti Page!

Now that we have a consensus with other Elvis editors such as 195.93.21.99, we can move on to fixing up other sections in this article about the most influential entertainer in the history of music. Ted Wilkes 19:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think I should ad what Rolling Stone magazine says about Presley:
 * "Elvis Presley is rock 'n' roll. - it was Elvis who made rock 'n' roll the international language of pop and inspired countless kids around the world to pick up a guitar or step up to a microphone. He forever changed pop music, recording acres of perfect material over two short decades." --   Ted Wilkes 20:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're still trying to cite your own original research! A cite from RS is ok by me if it's attributed (besides, I like the quote). However, it does not support your assertion that Elvis Presley was the most influential entertainer in the history of music, which is what I thought we were talking about. So far as consensus goes, I don't think a single anon represents a shifting tide. Wyss 09:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are wrong. For Rollong Stone to say: Elvis is Rock and Roll automatically means he is the most influential. He cannot be anything else. You asked for proper sources, Rolling Stone is the ultimate reference. And, if you liked it, why did you delete it and why did you remove the link to Rolling Stone Magazine that we Americans cakll "The Bible" of pop music. Do not revert this most essential information again. Ted Wilkes

Removed text
I removed:
 * Elvis is said to have been able to recite all of James Dean's lines in the movie Rebel Without A Cause and reportedly dated Natalie Wood early in his career.

This "Rebel Without A Cause" reference is a fabrication or confusion with Jerry Schilling who told Larry King he (Schilling) was a big Dean and Brando fan but never said he memorized anything. It was not on Presley's list of favorite movies as detailed by Priscilla Presley in her book Elvis and Me. (See that article for films he did like.) Her only reference to Dean was in passing named together with Brando and others of the new generation as examples of some "serious" young actors that Elvis wanted to be rather than the movie roles he was stuck with. His relationship with Natalie Wood is already covered in the Relationships section.


 * Thanks for taking care of that one, Ted Wilkes ;) Wyss 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the Criticsm section. Most of it as to Presley's roots in music is elsewhere in the article or some could be added. However, the following appears to be questionable at best as the only other Internet reference to a Helen Kolaoke is in Wikipedia clones:
 * "Helen Kolaoke (2002) criticizes Presley, saying "for black people, Elvis, more than any other performer, epitomises the theft of their music and dance". --  Ted Wilkes 15:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't miss that comment. It sounds more like politics than music criticism to me. Wyss 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Influential Elvis
Looking over the article, I think it's much improved. I especially appreciate Ted Wilkes' extensive additions (thanks!) about EP's gospel roots and relationships. Also, his work on the opening passages, although I thought they were too PoV at first, IMO with a bit of tweaking are now a helpful synopsis of the socio-economic setting into which this talented individual stepped in 1954-55.

About the phrase Elvis Presley was the most influential entertainer in the history of popular music, I think it should read American popular music, but in truth I'm ok with it so long as it continues to read popular music. I think such a summary is only slightly exaggerated and is reasonably arguable and acceptable. No (or very few) eyebrows should raise if the phrase widely acknowledged as... is kept in the header.


 * There was an American musical comedy called Bye Bye Birdie, a sort of satire/homage to Elvis starring Ann Margret. Is this worth a mention in the article? Wyss 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My flurry of edits today has been of minor ones, for encyclopedic word flow and syntax, bits of organisation and chronology and fixing some repetition and typos. Wyss 13:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just curious: after all your edits in The Beatles how is it that you left it with numerous unsourced opinions and statements like: "Their unprecedented fame caused its own stresses and the band was already on the verge of splitting up..." - I am shocked and just do not want to believe it but, are you possibly biased against poor old Elvis? Please say never! Ted Wilkes 15:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I've done something to upset you Ted Wilkes. Please let me know when you're ready to discuss this article according to Wikipedia procedure and policy. Thanks. Wyss 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo
I hate to remove someone's sincere contribution but the photo quality of Image:Elvissw.jpg is just too poor for a proper presentation when User:Wyss and others get it ready for "Featured Article" candidacy. Ted Wilkes 15:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of External links
I removed all the external links except the one owned by the Presley Estate (It's veracity is sujbect to SEC scrutiny.) and the standard IMDb one used throughout Wikipedia. The reason is that most of these are links to fan or personal sites and are little more than advertising. There are so many of these, that admit one you must admit them all and the article could end up with a huge list. As well, competition between these external sites is fierce and I know for fact that some have information that is less than reliable. Plus, we get rid of the annoying links like the onlineline petition an ANON user has been putting in repeatedly. Of course, this is open to discussion. Ted Wilkes 18:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

RS and Billboard quotes in header
A Wikipedia article is not a fanzine or tribute page. The line,  Rolling Stone magazine's biography of him noted, "Elvis Presley is rock 'n' roll." is unencyclopedic and inappropriate for the header. Rock and roll is a genre of music, not a human being. Immediately below, the article does assert, in effect, that Presley embodied rock and roll so the RS quote is redundant too. The Billboard "#1 act of the rock era" quote is even more problematic. There are issues with the definition of rock era, and for that reason the #1 can be reasonably argued against. The latter has already been discussed here, and I have removed it. I've left the RS quote for now. Finally, any description of any person's influence in any field must be qualified somehow, for example by is widely regarded, is generally considered, even is overwhelmingly regarded and so on. Wyss 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you now contradicting yourself? You already asserted above:


 * "About the phrase Elvis Presley was the most influential entertainer in the history of popular music, I think it should read American popular music, but in truth I'm ok with it so long as it continues to read popular music."  --  Ted Wilkes 20:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Still do. Could you please try reading my posts more carefully? Wyss 20:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It was your declaration that we must quote musicologists or historians. Rolling Stone only, and without exception, consults, uses, pasys, employs "musicians, critics, historians and key industry figures" in arriving at all their conclusions either for their published biographies or their 100 Best stuff. As such, I repeat, that the most authoritative source in Music declaring Presley IS R&R means he is in fact the most influential. And, their bio states his influence as I previously quoted verbatim. Unless you are denying the validity of the assessments derived from the most proper sources, then please deal with facts as they exist, not your notion of some vague generality. I asm reversing you for the last time. If you disagree then take it to RFC. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm editing according to WP policy and will likely continue to. IMHO you're slipping as many fragments of PoV creep as you can into the header and making it sound like a sales pitch for an Elvis CD collection. In effect, even the most blatant, diehard Elvis fanatic wouldn't object to EP being characterized as widely regarded as the most influential entertainer in the history of popular music. You have rarely responded to the content of my posts on this talk page and for the most part have offered your own original research. Editorial statements from Rolling Stone can be attributed, but it's not appropriate to include additional PoV spin like "the music industry's most respected magazine." I'm trying to come to a consensus with you. Wyss 23:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Wysss, because I have had great respect for your dedication and ability, I will explain further: Elvis Presley is a biography about a musician. Quoting in the header the most authorative source on how and where he fits in the scheme of things in music history is not only proper, but essential. As I said, Rolling Stone is in fact the most authoritative source and you demanded a qualified source. You insist on inserting the qualifier: widely acknowledged as. By qualifying the statement about him is in fact an assertion that there are those experts who disagree with Rolling Stone. As such, according to your own words and Wiklipedia policy, if you claim that the authorative source quoted is wrong, then you are required to provide the competent source upon which you based your qualification. Ted Wilkes 00:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times, and every media outlet in America refers to Rolling Stone as the "Bible" of the music industry. What are your qualifications to say: "music industry's most respected magazine" is a joke, RS is a consumer sales platform. (By the way, the writings of all persons, or businesses are in fact "a consumer sales platform.") Ted Wilkes 00:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please support your assertion that every media outlet in America refers to Rolling Stone as the "Bible" of the music industry. I'd like a citation for each media outlet, please. I think that would include several thousand radio and television stations, hundreds of magazines, several other content providers. Once you've done that, we can address the rest of your last post. Wyss 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are playing games, User:Wyss. And you know it. End of discussion until you reply satisfactorily. Ted Wilkes 00:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - You should also have bothered to read above when I said : "Rolling Stone only, and without exception, consults, uses, pasys, employs "musicians, critics, historians and key industry figures" in arriving at all their conclusions either for their published biographies or their 100 Best stuff", a fact you already know. So, I repeat, you are playing word games. Ted Wilkes 00:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I said we'd address that after you have supported your assertion, every media outlet in America refers to Rolling Stone as the "Bible" of the music industry. Would you like to support or retract that assertion now so we can get to the next item? Wyss 00:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wyuss, more distractions don't work. I have compromised greatly to achieve consensus. Ted Wilkes 00:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The "widely regarded" does it for me. If it makes you feel any better, I don't like the Rolling Stone reference in the header at all (if it were further down I'd be more than ok with it) but happily accept the compromise. Now I strongly suggest we step back from this header for awhile and give other editors a chance to express their input (if any). Again, I think you've added reams of helpful content to this article. I want it to be credible and believe it or not, flattering to Presley as an artist, since the historical record reflects so much that is so flattering about him. If it's presented in an encyclopedic manner with true NPoV (which I think it now is), in a supportable historical context, even more readers will come to the same conclusions and there's no need to "preach to the choir" when it comes to the King ;) Wyss 01:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing suggestions and cautions
User:Wyss: Researching your edits over the past few days lends me to several conclusions. 1) You need to tone down your "comments", they come across as arrogant, and all-knowing. 2) You have either deleted important historical facts like transistor radios or you completely reworded something that totally and completely changed the important fact as follows:


 * Your comments come across like a maniacal, unobjective Elvis fan, Ted Wilkes, but I know you wouldn't describe yourself that way, I'm willing to collaborate with you, I understand how these things can happen. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ORIGINAL TEXT:
 * By the end of 1956, Presley's impact on the American economy had reached such significance that the effects of his spurring of a new and powerful youth consumer market was reported on the front page of the December 31, 1956 issue of the The Wall Street Journal.

USER WYSS EDIT: Preseley's fame soared to new heights towards the end of 1956, the effects of a new and powerful youth consumer market on the American economy was reported on the front page of the December 31, 1956 issue of the The Wall Street Journal.
 * Revision as of 08:53, 2 August 2005

The Wall Street Journal article was about Presley and his impact - not an article about the new youth consumer. What bothers me, is that you changed this without knowing what you are talking about and removed him from the equation. The shift in consumer spending between 1956 and 1960 was the largest in history.


 * You had made several interprative, PoV and historical errors (in my judgement) already. I was being careful. If that's what the article says I take your word for it. A quote would be nice but isn't necessary :) Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And another one was your removal of the reference to WLS Radio in Chicago with the editing comment "WLS Chicago had nothing to do with EP's early airplay." In fact it did. The text talked about the end of the National Barn Dance, which came about because Presley (who brought the other rock and rollers with him as the article points out) was so dominant that it severely cut into country music venues such as WLS' Barn Dance. Presley and his elevation of Rock and Roll caused it. To carry it further, he ended the Louisian Hayride too. The article stated, in conjunction with a timeline flow, that:


 * By 1960, other important stations like WLS in Chicago, Illinois, who had broadcast the "National Barn Dance" since 1925, dropped the show to switch its format to Top 40 Rock and Roll Music.


 * I know something about that radio station, and have read lots about it. They didn't even switch to rock and roll/pop until Elvis was back from the army. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You also did a similar thing re your edit comment "Sony came later, in a much wider and complex of wake of transistorized consumer technology)." This too was a removal and with an unfounded comment. Just for the record, Sony's first transistor radio went on the market in 1955 and by March of 1957 they were already producing pocket size radios. If you didn't understand the wording and sequence of events in radios, that is understandable if you weren't there.


 * The transistor was developed by Western Electric during the late 1940s. Early transistor radios were expensive, "tinny" sounding devices sold for their "portability" and were not a mass market item until the late fifties (by which time Elvis was in the army) when Sony did begin tapping into the American youth market with small, cheap, lightweight and still tinny sounding "transistor radios." Elvis Presley was not responsible for the emergence of transistor technology or transistor radios. Rather, his fame was built on tube technology, tens of millions of tube radios (in homes and cars) and record players, thousands of tube radio and TV transmitters (and his first hits were on 78RPM shellac records, I've held one of them in my hand- That's Alright Mama/Blue Moon of Kentucky, I think it was- that part's original research but I can support it with a cite if you like). RCA had introduced 45RPM records in the late 1940s as the result of competition with CBS and its 33&1/3RPM "long playing" records (based on older radio transcription discs). Most people had 78RPM players so it took awhile for the new formats to catch on, but by the mid 1950s the north American market was flooded with all sorts of releases from many artists in many genres in both formats, which were vastly superior to 78RPM in terms of playing time (the 33s anyway), convenience, surface noise, wear, breakability (the new discs were vinyl, not shellac) and for more complex reasons, sound. They were destined for mass market acceptance with or without that "backslidden Pentacostal pup, Elvis Presley" (great line, TW!). I studied communications technology in college btw :) Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out the impact of Presley and R&R is the elements that made him the most influential. They are extemely important to demonstrate to the newer generations who know nothing about that time and his role. (See edit re his being drafted as some mysterious event). That is what biographies are supposed to do. However, rather than willy-nilly edits and unfounded broad assertions, ask on the Talk page for an explanation or comment so others can assist you. We are, after all, here to work together. Thank you. I will fix these things up as soon as possible. Ted Wilkes 02:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Elvis Presley had enormous amounts of talent (acres, to adapt a metaphor we've seen, way). To say he was responsible for the socio-economic shifts and technology developments of the 1950s is unsupportable. To say those trends made his fame possible is another kettle altogether. You've inverted cause and effect. It's like saying Bill Gates caused the PC "revolution." He didn't, but he rode it more successfully than anyone else. If you were "there" and cite that, it's original research and not acceptable for use in this article. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

In this same vein, you dismissed the Whitburn / Billboard statement inserted by another Wiki User about Presley as the "#1 act of the Rock era". On this website, Billboard sanctions Joel Whitburn's writings.


 * Billboard publishes him, of course they endorse him. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The most qualified collectors and assessors of historical data on rock and roll is in fact Billboard magazine. Billboard's sanctioning of Whitburn's writings makes him a quotable, qualified source for statistical record data.


 * So quote his PoV and attribute it as such, don't put it in Wikipedia's NpoV narrative voice. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes Billboard in almost all articles as they are the accepted experts in the gathering of facts.


 * Sales figures are one thing, interpreting them is another. For a time during the late 1970s, ABBA had outsold the Beatles (and Elvis Presley btw) in Europe and they used the stats in their marketing. Beatles fans (including many record industry execs and radio DJs) went ballistic and the marketing materials were quietly withdrawn. They were indeed bigger than the Beatles for a time, but it was bad public relations within the Anglo-saxon, male dominated music industry to press the point. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, with Whitburn's book(s) endorsed by Billboard or when he quotes Billboard, then his comment is not trivia, it is based on the same facts that the company uses to compile the Billboard Hot 100. Therefore, the Whitburn statement that Elvis Presley was the "#1 act of the Rock era" must be appropriately allocated as part of the collection of statistcal data on sales, No.1 hits (a Billboard compilation too) and other such facts from a credible source. And, from such a source, it is not out of place in the header. Ted Wilkes 03:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * His definition of "rock era" is extremely problematic. They weren't even calling it "rock" until around the time of his comeback in 1968, and many people consider "rock" and "rock and roll" to be related but different genres. Are we still in the "rock era"? Some say yes, others say no. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sony radios
User:Wyss - Thought you might enjoy the small addition I made to the Sony article and photos and Sony book references used. My father bought us this in 1956 to use at our summer cottage up in Canada, because, most of this new post-war trend in second homes on a lake didn't get electricty until a sufficient number of serviced lots were sold and electrical hook-ups subscribed for. As such, this particular model seen here that my father bought was the 1956 box-like one (see my previous allusion to this way above). I carried it to school to listen to Presley. In 1957, I wanted the new "cigarette pack" size. No luck, the perfectly good box had to do. S'pose maybe I was right? 1956 ain't late 1950s, it was Elvis time in North America! Ted Wilkes 18:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * As you say (in your interesting original research), your father bought it for its portable qualities, needed because of rapid economic change and heightened prosperity in north America after the war (in this case a summer house not yet wired for electricity) not because of Elvis, and when you asked for a smaller, personal one in 1957, you didn't get it, all in line with what I posted above :) Wyss 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, as I said, I toook it to school. As one of the first, I was popular with all the girls for about two days then every damn boy in school had one to listen to Elvis, and now I remember, also "Honey Don't" by Carl Perkins. Problem got worse - the next year, 1957, everyone had the pocket radio to listen to Elvis and followers (Everly's in particular) and I didn't. Ted Wilkes 18:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's 100% original research. Wyss 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research? Read the Sony article and what I said above: I gave the book references from Sony for the FACTS inserted in the article. Ted Wilkes 18:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your personal recollections are original research and irrelevant as citations. IMO you're mis-interpreting your memories, Presley was not responsible for the introduction of transistor radios in America. However, all that enhanced post-war affluence among white american teenagers certainly had a lot to do with an explosion in record sales when the "right" entertainer (Elvis) came along doing a sort of rock and roll mainstream kids could relate to. Wyss 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Wyss. And I do have a degree in business and many years business experience. The "Transistor" wasn't invented for portables, it allowed for them to become economically viable. All companies make sample products for reseach testing - such was the portable radio. An experiment, one (then) small part of the bigger commercial potential (war equipment, government etc.) Companies do not proceed to build production lines, sign suplier contracts, line up major distributors (need more?) to go into production for a product nobody wants. Now, in 1956 my family was part of the very few who had a summer cottage (outside of the very wealthy) and the portable my father bought was because I DEMANDED (okay, whined, sulked) to listen to the new music. It was in fact the teen buyers who bought portables and the 1957 pocket portable changed everything. It had headphones, too. My father never tucked a pocket radio into his starched white shirt, under the vest, under the suit. We 1956-57 teens created the portable radio market and we only wanted them for music -- the demand for which was created by Presley -- we did not want them to listen to Patti Page.  AND, there was no post war affluent teenagers. Not one parent in America ever woke up one morning and said "Well, I guess I'll increase the brat's allowance tenfold today."  No, Wyss, we DEMANDED it because we wanted it. We created consumer market through our wants that parents could then afford. Read Forbes, a year or two ago they wrote about the origins of teen demands. You can politely give up now. Ted Wilkes 19:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of your post (personal recollections from almost half a century ago) is original research, which is not an acceptable citation for a Wikipedia article. You briefly mention Forbes magazine, but don't cite any quotes (or publication dates). Please read No original research if you have further questions about this. Wyss 20:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)



By the way, you can read about the God of all music and each of his albums courtesy YT. Ted Wilkes 18:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Orbison was an angel for sure ;) Wyss 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When you utter that name, do so with great reverence. I have every American album he ever issued, bought as originals within hours of their release. Holly too. EoC Ted Wilkes 18:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Need for reverence noted, application confirmed. Wyss 19:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No original research
User:Wyss: You reverted my statement in the article saying concering Sony transistor radios being sold in American in 1956 and said in your editing comment : Sony came later, in a much wider and complex of wake of transistorized consumer technology. - I provided facts to prove what I said with photos and reference sources from Sony itself. Please provide your reliable source that declared "Sony came later" so that we know Sony's book and information brochures lied and that your deletion of my work and replcement text was not your created Non-Original Work.


 * Your adult interpretation of your childhood memories is deeply mistaken (you've muddled cause and effect), but Wikipedia protects itself from that sort of thing by prohibiting original research. Please see No original research for more information on this. Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an answer, it is more avoidance of dealing with the issue. My edit to the Sony article is 100% statement of fact and zero personal comments. Please answer the question -- you are, after all, the one who said it with a reversion of mine. Ted Wilkes 23:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand what original research means in the context of Wikipedia. Please see No original research for more information. Wyss 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You also said when deleting my text in the article: WLS Chicago had nothing to do with EP's early airplay. Please provide your verifiable source. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * WLS didn't start playing rock and roll/pop until 1960   and plainly had nothing to do with Elvis' early airplay. Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone's personal Website is not a reliable source. The WLS site confirms exactly what I said in the article but that you deleted!


 * These cites aren't exactly personal. One is run by a former WLS DJ. Do you dispute the information?


 * Anyway you're bluffing. The pages I cited don't even mention Elvis Presley. Wyss 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You said above:
 * Most people had 78RPM players so it took awhile for the new formats to catch on, but by the mid 1950s the north American market was flooded with all sorts of releases from many artists in many genres in both formats, which were vastly superior to 78RPM in terms of playing time (the 33s anyway), convenience, surface noise, wear, breakability (the new discs were vinyl, not shellac) and for more complex reasons, sound.

Your assertions (about events from almost half a century ago) is original research, which is not an acceptable citation for a Wikipedia article. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * That assertion can easily be supported according to WP policy but the stark difference is I'm not trying to insert it into the article. Would you like me to support it with cites anyway? Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not necessary, just pointing out that you frequently quote non-original research or your own "memories" or "opinions" without supporting it, even, unlike me, to the point of deleting someone else's statement of fact. Thanks for offering anyway. Ted Wilkes 23:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No further replies necessary, the points raised are fully understood by all. Ted Wilkes 23:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken. You've been citing original research and (following Wikipedia policy) I'm not accepting it for inclusion in the article. Wyss 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Text Removal
Wyss! What happened to "constipation"? A lengthy article about Elvis that does not contain that word, surely can't be NPOV? Do you really want to start everything all over again? I'm sick and tired of reading about what a wonderful guy Elvis was...at least, I comfort myself with the fact that he is rumored to have had the #1 most shameful death of all rock artists.


 * I think Ted Wilkes must have taken it out. I've been focused on other stuff with him and didn't see. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll find and restore it. Note: The rumour exists, no reason it can't be mentioned in a long article like this so long as the context is clear. Wyss 11:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal insults
(Re: Text Removal) User Wyss: "I think Ted Wilkes must have taken it out." Not only do you insert unfounded statements into articles, you also do the same here willy nilly without bothering to take three seconds to check and make a personal attack on me with a fabricated accusation. May I remind you of the No personal attacks policy. Ted Wilkes 13:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Changing an unnecessay title that is inappropriate at Wikipedia. Ted Wilkes 13:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh!? Wyss 14:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think you took it out, but maybe I'm wrong, anyway I said I think you did it. It wasn't a personal attack, you've removed that item in the past. I notice you still haven't quoted and cited the Wall Street Journal article as I asked, and I think you're mis-interpreting whatever information you can cite about Sony transistor radios. Please provide cites from secondary sources to support your interpretive assertions about 1950s economics and consumer products in north America, thanks. I'd also appreciate it if you would stop trying to find reasons for confrontation and accusation at almost every turn, and try to work with me on writing this article according to Wikipedia policy. Wyss 14:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User Wyss: said "I still think you took it out,". -- You need to stop the insults, and now. It took a few seconds for me to find this but you, as I noted before, didn't even bother. This kind of conduct at Wikipedia casts serious doubt on your credibility.


 * Revision as of 15:25, August 2, 2005 172.139.77.249

-- Ted Wilkes 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

So where are the cites I asked for? Wyss 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your assertions
I've repeatedly asked Ted Wilkes to supply actual quotes from the Wall Street Journal article he is using as a cite and mentioning in the article. The reporter's qualifications are interesting but need not be cited in the text of the article. I don't know why Ted Wilkes resists providing the quote. When I speculate on this topic, I think maybe he doesn't have it, or that its literal content doesn't support his assertion that Elvis Presley was in effect single-handedly (my words) responsible for the growth of the consumer youth market in 1950s north America (I suspect the article mentions Presley's prominent role as one of those who profited from it but doesn't credit him with causing it). Anyway I don't know why Ted Wilkes won't cite his sources.

We have a similar issue re Sony and transistor radios. Although Ted Wilkes has posted much original research to this talk page in the form of recollections and interpretations of those memories, he has yet to cite a secondary source on Sony's transistor radios that even mentions Presley's name.

Regarding the radio station WLS in Chicago, Ted Wilkes seems to want an assertion in the article that WLS switched over to rock and roll/pop in 1960 because of Elvis Presley. I have been unable to find any secondary source discussing their format change that even mentions Elvis Presley, and after continued requests Ted Wilkes has yet to provide one either.

I'm willing to work with Ted Wilkes on this, but his remaining assertions seem to invert cause and effect and in the absence of secondary sources which plainly support his thesis, I continue to edit the article according to my good-faith interpretation of WP policy, especially No original research. Wyss 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I support EQuintan's condensation of the article and have also moved the Rolling Stone quotes to the legacy section, since they are blatant PoV and not suitable for the header. Wyss 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss - You are aware that eliciting someone else to do your edit to avoid being blocked from editing after reaching the three revert rule limit is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Massive deletions of text are not acceptable without explanations. If User:EQuilan wishes to remove any section he may bring his reasons to the discussion page. Ted Wilkes 22:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I was as surprised as you to see EQuilan show up. I did not solicit his/her participation, but I do strongly support the condensation. If you have any questions about why some of your edits have not been enyclopedic, please re-read this talk page. Wyss 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Back and forth
Given the back and forth we're seeing involving four editors over the last few hours, I've now put together (or reconstructed) a version of the longer article without the unsupported original research interpretations, which preserves the minor chronological updates made during that time. Wyss 01:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The unsupported items are:


 * That WLS Chicago changed its format in 1960 because of Elvis Presley (the editor has offered no cites that mention the WLS format change and EP, and I can't find any).


 * NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE. -- THE INFORMATION ON WLS IS HOWEVER VERY RELEVANT AND FACTUAL IN EVERY WAY. (Can't find? The information AND link is in the WLS article here on Wikipedia.) SEE AND NOTE ABOVE I REFERRED TO WKBW AND DICK BIONDI SO SEE ALSO THE WLS SITE'S ARICLE/LINK (left of page) TO RADIO HALL OF FAME DJ DICK BIONDI:  AND READ WHERE IT CONFIRMS EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE:
 * "Dick Biondi moved to WLS in 1960. His show introduced rock and roll to listeners in nearly 40 states" --  Ted Wilkes


 * A vague reference to a Wall Street Journal article, unquoted despite repeated requests for its relevant text, which an editor has used to support a threaded assertion that EP was in effect singularly responsible for the growth and affluence of the consumer youth market that emerged in post WW2 north America.


 * 1) HARDLY VAGUE, IT NAMES REPORTERS NAMES AND EXACT DATES. WIKIPEDIA POLICY IS TO CITE SOURCES. QUOTING DIRECT TEXT IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, ONE THE WSJ DOES NOT ALLOW. --  Ted Wilkes


 * 2) AND YOU also SAID - "singularly responsible for the growth and affluence (etc.)"


 * NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE. -- Ted Wilkes


 * That Elvis Presley was singularly responsible for the introduction of transistor radios in the US by Sony (the editor has provided no citations that mention both Sony transistor radios and EP, and I can't find any).


 * NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE. -- Ted Wilkes

These factors, and the editor's enthusiastic and lengthy narratives of his own personal recollections of the era on this talk page, have convinced me that the above assertions are original interpretations based on the editor's own original research and are thus not acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

There are a couple of other questionable items, the inclusion of a strongly PoV Rolling Stone magazine quote in the header (which I have moved to the legacy section) and a reference to Elvis-themed gift-giving in 1956, which alone doesn't seem to be much of a problem but which has been used as a fulcrum for the unsupported items listed above.


 * SORRY, BUT YOU ALREADY AGREED WITH THE ROLLING STONE QUOTATION (ABOVE). -- Ted Wilkes

Meanwhile, the same editor has contributed large amounts of helpful, supportable content to this article which I strongly endorse and would like to see kept. Wyss 01:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * THAT'S YOUR OPINION. --  Ted Wilkes

The editor could have sent me the WSJ text via private email if he was worried about copyright issues. I count over three dozen recent private emails from him in my inbox. Wyss 02:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a big brouhaha about what was written in two articles in the WSJ. For each, a specific date is given. Looking through old US newspapers on microfilm is a tedious affair, as they're typically bloated with ads; however, my hunch is that the WSJ of that time wasn't so bad. The only university library to which I now have access only has the WSJ since 1983 or thereabouts, but I know that plenty of other university libraries have it. I'm not in nor even near the US, plenty of people here are. It should be easy to find. Hoary 04:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Much easier: Does anyone have the articles? If so, scan them and send them to Wyss, who clearly would like to see them. Hoary 04:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute notice
I've placed a disputed tag on the article while we sort this out. I do need to see the text he's referring to and the WLS intepretation seems to be unsupported too. I didn't see any reference to Sony transistor radios in the current revision of the article but if it's there, or re-appears, that also needs to be supported in some confirmable way. I think the article is very helpful aside from these unqualified and broad socio-economic interpretations. Wyss 15:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am removing the dispute notice by User:Wyss again because it is no more than petty vandalism without the required details claimed to be in dispute spelled out on this page. All such disputed items, labelled in the prior section by User:Wyss as "The unsupported items are:" were fully answered in great detail. Note, however, that the claims were in fact false. If new claims are to be documented here, please ensure you QUOTE ACCURATELY. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 15:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've plainly spelled out the items in dispute on this talk page. The editor's characterization of my placing a dispute tag on the article as vanadalism is abusive. He is invited to read vandalism for the definition of that term under Wikipedia policy. Wyss 15:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One more time: I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. Ted Wilkes 16:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You did, saying... it is no more than petty vandalism. This is similar to other assertions that you've made "no such claims." Anyway I'll restate them below. Wyss 16:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss deleted the following text as soon as it was inserted by me:
 * In 1984, Presley was posthumously given the W.C. Handy Award from the Blues Foundation in Memphis in recognition of his "keeping the blues alive in his music - rock and roll."

I have reinstated it. Ted Wilkes 16:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop with your repeated word games and stop the misleading referrals. I will not allow you to continue with your pettiness. State ACCURATELY and precisely what you dispute here. Then, and only, then, will I gladly answer as I have done before. Ted Wilkes 16:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed content No.1
Here, for the third or fourth time, are the disputed items:

1 The editor has written: ''Presley, and the enormous nationwide demand for rock and roll music he created, severely impacted the traditional country music industry. By 1960, after three straight years of sharply declining audiences, important longtime country radio broadcasts such as the Louisiana Hayride came to an end and major stations such as WLS in Chicago, Illinois, who had broadcast the "National Barn Dance" since 1925, dropped the show to switch its format to Top 40 Rock and Roll Music.''

The problem: The editor has provided no secondary source to support this threaded assertion. It can be supported that Presley created a demand for Elvis Presley records. It can be supported that some country music broadcasts suffered declining audiences, but the editor has not provided support that EP was singularly responsible for this as the sentence implies. It can be supported that WLS switched its format to rock and roll/pop in 1960. However, the editor has not provided support that they did this because of Elvis Presley. No WLS history page I've seen even mentions EP, they didn't switch formats until he'd been in the army for two years and the editor has offered no citation of a secondary source that asserts WLS changed formats because of EP. Similarly, his direct cause-and-effect assertion that EP caused the cancellation of a few country music broadcasts years later is unsupported.


 * THE RESPONSE: I never said it was Presley. I said it was Presley, and the enormous nationwide demand for rock and roll music he created,'' - that is an undisputed fact. You might even read a United States PBS documentary which is referenced in the article and with this link: Amongst other statements, it:

1)The PBS documentary on music roots called Presley QUOTE "an American music giant of the 20th century who singlehandedly changed the course of music and culture in the mid-1950s. (This fits with what Rollling Stone magaine says when they said: EP IS R&R)


 * AND


 * 2)The PBS documentary on music roots called Presley QUOTE : "Presley in 1954 cut a version of Arthur Crudup's "That's All Right" that made blues a primary catalyst in the birth of rock & roll. The record set the stage for rock & roll's arrival.


 * As to the Louisian Hayride demise, read the Wikipedia article - I put the details and ISBN number of Logan's book as a reference. WLS is documented already. After thirty some years, the ratings declined so much WLS cancelled it (The Barn Dance) and went to R&R, the R&R demand created by Presley who singlehandedly changed the course of music and, as I said: "the demand he created for rock and roll" (note this connects the above by PBS The record set the stage for rock & roll's arrival.. AS Lennon, Richards and all others, whose comments are in the article said: he created the demand. The demand severely hurt country music that had to consolidat in Nashville. (Read Logan's book refered to here and millions of other books.)

And in support of all those experts like PBS, Rolling Stone, the President of the United States, as stated in the article, also said Elvis Presley "permanently changed the face of American popular culture.

Just for the record, your "disputed" item borders on meaningless. There are thousands of books, films, documentaries etc. on this. -- Ted Wilkes 17:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC) -

Disputed content No.2
2 ''In 1956 America... Teens also bought the new Sony transistor radios in huge numbers, helping to propel the fledgling company into a leadership role in electronics.''

The problem: This is unsupported. Teenagers were not buying Sony transistor radios in huge numbers in 1956. Tens of thousands of transistor radios had been sold by Sony in the US by 1957, but these are not "huge" numbers in relation to the American econoy at that time (for example, Elvis Presley sold millions of records during the period, as a result of his recordings being heard on tube driven radios, and virtually all of these were played on tube record players). Sony's mega unit sales didn't begin until the very early 1960s (when Elvis was already gone and back from the army) but no matter, it is the editor's responsibility to cite his assertions as made in the article.

FIRST: YOU STATED AS FACT: "Teenagers were not buying Sony transistor radios in huge numbers in 1956." Please cite your sources. First (above) you said "Sony came later" and dismissed the reference altogethger but thebn changed your tune by the absolute facts supplied by me. And, my sources are already cited by me (and this is the second time I've told you) in the Sony article book references for books by the Sony company publication and the book by Morita.

---

Disputed content No.3
3 By the end of 1956, Presley's impact on the American economy had reached such significance that the effects of his records sales spurring a new and powerful youth consumer market was reported by Louis Kraar in a December 6, 1956 article in the highly influential business and financial newspaper The Wall Street Journal...

The problem: The editor asserts that Elvis Presley's record sales spurred a "new and powerful youth consumer market" and cites a WSJ article, but has refused to provide the actual text supporting this assertion, even by private email. I can support a counter assertion that the emerging youth markets were created by socio-economic forces that had little or nothing to do with EP (talented though he was, culturally influential though he was).

Summary: By threading together a few inocuous remarks about 1950s tecnology and economics in an article about EP, the editor has achieved a strongly implied and wholly unsupported assertion that Elvis Presley was singularly responible for: Sony transistor radios being sold in the millions ("huge numbers") in 1956-1957... WLS changing its format in 1960... and in effect, the post war affluence of american teenagers.

In an early edit, he had asserted that they had demanded or otherwise forced their parents to give them higher allowances for the specific purpose of buying Elvis Presley records, however, he's been slightly more careful since this dispute began.

He has provided only lengthy personal recollections and his own personal interpretations of his memories, which is original research and which has been repeatedly pointed out to him. He has also asserted that I am too young to understand what happened then (my paraphrase- he knows the year of my birth). He has for the most part ignored my remarks about these aspects of the problem. Wyss 17:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN: YOU PLAY WITH WORDS. THIS STATEMENT BY YOU IS FALSE. YOUR ARGUMENT, THEREFORE, IS MEANINGLESS.
 * "The editor asserts that Elvis Presley's record sales spurred a "new and powerful youth consumer market"

Thank you. With all these rather minute items now fully answered, I will now remove your dispute notice. Thank you. -- Ted Wilkes 17:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

=
======================================

BTW - You still have not said why you immediately deleted my important insertion about the W.C. Handy award and the Blues Foundation. An apology might be a nice gesture. A simple, non-wordy one. Ted Wilkes 18:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding the difference between secondary sources and original research.


 * The PBS quote does not say WLS changed its music format because of "Presley, and the enormous nationwide demand for rock and roll music he created..." WLS altered their format because of changing rural demographics. The reference to WLS should be removed. Wyss 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your response to my concern about Sony transistor radios is angry and circular. As I recall, the Sony website mentions around 40,000 of the smaller model transistor radios being manufactured during 1956. This number is insignificant in comparison to the number of records Presley sold (and would amount to about one transistor radio per US neighbourhood, never mind the website makes no mention of these expensive gadgets being sold to teens). Therefore, the inclusion of any mention of Sony in the article is woefully misleading and should be removed. Wyss 18:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ted Wilkes RESPONSE: Angry? Tired of dealing with banalities maybe, but never angry. Please advise how As I recall is encyclopedic. Because you say you are from Switzerland and weren't born until long after 1956 (please correct me if I'm wrong) I will explain. Presley, as all the experts state unequivocally, created the R&R explosion. That is, in America, called culture. Because of Presley's role changing the culture (again the experts say), these are essential enunciations to understanding his place and the new environment PBS refers to when it said: He singlehandedly changed the course of music and culture in the mid-1950s. Culture is more than records, much more. The Hayride & WLS country music demise are important examples of the impact of his R&R movement on culture. The reference to Sony, is part and parcel of the change in music habits of teens, agasin a part iof the culture he singlehandedly changed. Have you read Morita's book? I have. Ted Wilkes 18:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reply to my concern about the WSJ article, in full, is: ONCE AGAIN: YOU PLAY WITH WORDS. THIS STATEMENT BY YOU IS FALSE. YOUR ARGUMENT, THEREFORE, IS MEANINGLESS. Since your reply contains no helpful content, I presume you can't support your assertion. The WSJ paragraph should be removed. Wyss 18:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MORE PLAYING WITH WORDS. If you have a legitimate item to dispute, state it. You will be answered. As everyone can see, I have gone out of my way to PROVE every single statement I made, far beyond Wikipedia norms. Ted Wilkes 18:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason you use the term "legitimate" is because you think your personal interpretation, based on your original research, "must be so" because you remember something about your youth. WP doesn't work that way. You have yet to provide a single conforming citation supporting the specific assertions you've made, as I've listed them above. Wyss 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And the apology for the Handy Award improper deletion? Did I miss it? Ted Wilkes 18:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * You might apologize for disrupting Wikipedia and refusing to work cooperatively and according to WP policy IMHO. Wyss 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disrupted Wikipedia? Is creating meaningful articles and removing unsustantiated assertions disruptive? Aren't you the one User:Onefortyone had to seek Mediation because of the same conduct you evidenced here as you did on other articles? The Talk pages in question show the same tactics: lots of words, no substance. 19:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Creating helpful content doesn't confer any additional perogative to insert original research where you find gaps that don't correspond to your PoV. Wyss 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There is more work to be done here on his death and illness and reported hospitalizations from prescription drug abuse c.1974-75. Then, when done here, we can move to get rid of the POV in The Beatles. Ted Wilkes 18:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you continue to refuse to cite your assertions, and further refuse to address my concerns about your use of original research in your edits, I'll edit the article accordingly. Wyss 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All your disputed statements have been answered. Delete any more of those relative facts and you will be reverted. Ted Wilkes 19:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an arbitrary threat, not a citation. Your answers did not yield citations supporting your assertions. Wyss 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MORE WORDS - SAME OLD TACTICS. - Threat? I answered all your questions and went out of my way to be courteous and helpful when I stated above: If you have a legitimate item to dispute, state it. You will be answered. ---  Ted Wilkes 19:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't been courteous at all but that's another subject. The reason my "tactics" might seem "same old" to you is a) I'm only following WP policy, so I'm consistent and b) you've been unable to support your assertions other than with original research. Please provide citations from reliable secondary sources supporting your assertions. They're plainly recounted above. Wyss 19:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, all your questions, were answered with multiple sources cited.

As to couduct, you the one User:Onefortyone had to seek Mediation because of the same way you conduct yourself here as you did on other articles?. This is the end with your repeated WORD GAME that goes on and on without any substance or willingness to state your case. Each time I give you an indisputable source, you start going in circles. You did this elsewhere, repeatedly. I will not have you abuse my generosity and willingness to go out of my way to help. Ted Wilkes 20:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've been helpful at all. You refuse to back up your original interpretations with citations from secondary sources. That's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile it is noted that you're resorting to desperation tactics. You know perfectly well that User:Onefortyone accused me of being your sockpuppet, and you're the one who was criticized by Mel Etits for poor behavior. Yeah, ME gave me a 3rr warning after User:Onefortyone asked him to, but I didn't violate 3rr, and Mel Etitis and I worked out our differences rather quickly. Meanwhile, all you've really done has been to distract this conversation from the lack of citations for your sweeping assertions. Wyss 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User Wyss inserted this text:
 * "However, this format change had nothing to do with Elvis Presley. Post-war demographic shifts meant that "America was changing from a rural to an ever increasing urban and suburban society," and WLS' rural audience dwindled dramatically. People were moving to the cities. ."
 * The website User:Wyss linked to is not the official WLS website nor is it sanctioned by the Station. (A link is not a sanction, just like we do at Wikipedia.) It is not an offical source. Only the Station WLS and its official website: WLS web site can state why they converted to R&R. Citing proper sources is helpful. Ted Wilkes 20:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're bluffing. (The site is run by a former WLS DJ, contributed to by former WLS DJs, and linked to directly from the history button of the WLS corporate site... that sounds rather "endorsed" to me) Wyss 20:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Repeat, links mean nothing. An ex DJ can say or speculate as much as they want. WLS also links to others but they don't vouch for its content. Only the station can do that. And, we know for fact that many, many, stations converted to R&R, and WLS did too in early 1960. Here is the WLS AM Radio link above [. Sorry, your source is not accepttable under Wikipedia policy. Didn't you say that yourself to another editor on another article you disputed? --  [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 20:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You're confused. This is a reliable source (and hey, at least I'm citing one). The other you're referring to was widely regarded as made-up gossip. Anyway it's published on the web, credible, linked to directly from WLS' corporate history button etc. You can squirm as much as you like, but the cite complies with WP policy. Wyss 20:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the DJ's site isn't encyclopedia material but I aoppreciate yourv effort. Ted Wilkes 20:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also: The website User:Wyss linked too is not the offical Sony site but it says: that the 1957 model: "took the world by storm." Most businesses would only dream to have such a "lacklustre" performance. The site also says that Sony sold 114,536 in its first intoduction period. That is amazing in a nonexistent market with what was then a high priced product from a country whose products were stuill then the butt of jokes. It seems if this unauthorized site is correct, then it certainly did take the world by storm. Ted Wilkes 20:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the editor would drool all over them if they agreed with his original research. Sadly, his original research is unsupported (I tried to find cites to support him days ago). The editor has provided no citations supporting his PoV, yet I've cited credible sources supporting my concerns about the viability of his original research. Wyss 21:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Later note, several minutes after I posted the above, Ted Wilkes made this edit to put the above remark by me in quotes, which I have removed, since they change its tone. The Sony related citation is here,  on a UK radio enthusiast's site, lots of links to pictures of Sony transistor radios, sales figures, history etc. The site's author lists a bibliography of several official Sony publications at the bottom of the page, linked to jpg images of their covers. Wyss 08:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I still object to the inclusion of the editor's original research in the article (as repeatedly outlined above), I've placed several citations which provide an accurate historical context for the youth market in which Presley appeared in 1955 and 1956, so at least we don't have to deface the article with a disputed tag for now. Wyss 21:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good lord, no one ever said Presley was "a catalyst for the increased affluence". The articles you linked to don't mention Presley (as far as I could see from my "Page Search".) Plus, I today question supposed "scholarly" professors "papers" after the Head of the Law department at a UK university said the U.S. Religious right mobilizes for Elvis Presley and he then declared that Dee Presley wrote a non-existent book without even checking the online Library of Congress. -- Some scholar.-- . What Presley did do, was get those kids (like YT) to buy his stuff and (above) I said that the market for Davy Crockett existed before Rock and Roll for kids and early teens. Presley spurred the market by helping kids "want" more, and not just his records, but clothes etc., record players, pocket radios and other stuff where many others benefited. (Soon thereafter, someone came up with the term: "Peer pressure".) Your exterior links are nice, but not relevant (some questionable as I said) to Presley and R&R music. However, the research and attempt to help is greatly appreciated. Ted Wilkes 21:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above editor is now mis-representing his early edits, which broadly gave Presley credit for spurring a rebellion of consumerist affluence among US teenagers, who "demanded" higher allowances from their parents in order to assert their "rights" and buy Elvis Presley records (similar language is contained in his musings on this talk page). I agree, however, that Ted Wilkes original research isn't relevant to the Presley article. Wyss 21:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No change whatsoever. The article remains the same: that the effects of his records sales spurring a new and powerful youth consumer market was reported by. And. being an eyewitness who was widely traveled throughut the USA in the mid 1950s and knew many teens and read the magazines of the day, listened to the radio, etc., we "DEMANDED" more of an allowance. Peer pressure is on teens which results in increased demands on parents, then and now -- and I have kids to prove it. But, sadlly, I agreed with User:Wyss not to insert my eye witness experience because it is not acceptable to Wikipedia. However, if it were permissible, I'd write a dozen pages on that era. And, please don't use valuable space on the page referring to non-relevant and possibly questionable material from New Zealand on 1956 American culture. Ted Wilkes 21:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers will note that the editor uses a plural personal pronoun to support his assertion. He continues to offer original research, and doesn't seem to understand that it isn't acceptable even as a citation, much less as a narrative in the article. The editor will, of course, attempt to undermine however he can my citations re the WSJ, that's why I provided four. If need be, I will provide four more. Readers will also note that he has changed his tone from ALL CAPS belligerence to faux politeness. Wyss 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you help out on the Rock and Roll article? It needs work. Or, The Beatles, you must be concerned about the POV in it? Ted Wilkes 21:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * First, because Ted Wilkes is taking up my time here in your willful and determined effort to include original research in a Wikipedia article. Second, I hope he will stop bringing up other articles and other WP experiences in an effort to distract this discussion away from the problems caused in this article by his original research. Wyss 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks
This is abssolutely a No personal attacks violation:
 * 17:40, August 6, 2005 Wyss (rv removal of cited material, Ted Wilkes, please stop lying in your edit summaries, thanks)

I gave a full explanation here on the talk page, AS ALWAYS. Ted Wilkes 21:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * He lied. I never said one of my citations wasn't credible. He's baiting me, trying to find grounds for a block or an RfC or whatever. Wyss 21:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I said re SONY: The website User:Wyss linked too is not the offical Sony site.

User Wyss replied and agreed with me that it wasn't an acceptable siource, hence I deleted it:
 * User WYSS agreed saying: "I suspect the editor would drool all over them if they agreed with his original research. Sadly, his original research is unsupported (I tried to find cites to support him days ago). The editor has provided no citations supporting his PoV, yet I've cited credible sources supporting my concerns about the viability of his original research."


 * Readers will note that in that quoted text, I don't agree with Ted Wilkes about anything. I think his reading comprehension skills are ok, so my conclusion is... sort of unavoidable. Wyss 22:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not engage in further discussions with someone who calls me a liar and engages in personal attacks. Ted Wilkes 22:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the edit summary he lied in. I never said that citation wasn't credible. Meanwhile, I interpret this as another tactic on the part of the editor to avoid discussing the problems with his original research. Wyss 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe the editor has a point. If he thought I was agreeing with him that one of my citations wasn't credible, perhaps he does have a serious perceptual or reading comprehension problem. I'm sure reasonable readers will understand why I thought he was lying. Now that I've seen his response, maybe he wasn't, so I take it back. However, given his evident lack of reading comprehension, which I think is caused only by his extreme emotional attachment to this specific dispute, I think he should disengage from this article for several days, ponder the problems his original research has caused, and think about how he might work in a more cooperative way to stabilize this article and keep it free of original research. Wyss 22:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
Mr Wilkes, you'd better suggest some sort of compromise, because I intend to revert any edits by you to the last Wyss version. I'm sure you remember my persistence about the "constipation" thing, so your versions will not stay there very long.

Like I've said thousands of time, I'm sick and tired of crazy Elvis fanatics who claim he was the reason why people started buying this or doing that etc. To me personally he's a guy who performed songs written by other people in a music genre invented by an entirely different ethnic group (African Americans) - and who is rumored to have had the #1 most ridiculous death of all celebrities (yet another #1 hit for Mr. Presley :-) ).

So, Mr Wilkes, what is your offer gonna be? (129.241.134.241 03:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC))

WLS radio et al
Despite providing reams of facts to repute the unfounded assertions of User:Wyss, she ignored and repeatedly inserted her incorrect statements on WLS radio etc. After launching a personal attack against me, calling me a liar, User:Wyss took advantage of my refusal to continue and once again reinserted the following text:
 * " - However, this format change had nothing to do with Elvis Presley. Post-war demographic shifts meant that "America was changing from a rural to an ever increasing urban and suburban society," and WLS' rural audience dwindled dramatically. People were moving to the cities. - ”

Ted Wilkes is misrepresenting the history of this discussion (although he may believe he's being sincere). His assertions re WLS are unsupported and his mention of WLS in this article is misleading. I've supported my edits with citations, he's only offered original research (which attributes cause and effect in unsupported ways). Wyss 01:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Response (3 parts):
 * 1) This entire issue has been dealt with before (see above). First, this statement is a personal and unsubstantiated opinion by User:Wyss inserted in front of text in order to create her own meaning. She said However, this format change had nothing to do with Elvis Presley. Post-war demographic shifts meant that. Those are her words and as User:Wyss has frequently declared, personal opinions aren't acceptable at Wikipedia but she put them in front of a direct quote: "America was changing from a rural to an ever increasing urban and suburban society," and WLS' rural audience dwindled dramatically. People were moving to the cities. – This quote is totally irrelevant to the Presley article. The fact is, by 1960 WLS switched to Rock and Roll, hiring one of the nation's top Rock DJ's, Radio Hall of Famer, Dick Biondi.


 * 2) What I wrote in the Presley article expressed no opinion and made no judgment on WLS radio's motives. I only pointed out the fact that with the arrival of the nationwide Presley phenomenon (PBS  description  ) and Rock & Roll music, many, many stations all across America dropped country music and other shows such as WLS’s National Barn Dance which had been a hugely successful show for years and was second only in the United States to the Grand Ole Opry in presenting country music. That WLS and many others switched from country music to Top 40 Rock & Roll is a documented fact. Radio stations are businesses who answer to their shareholders and only change their shows to adjust to consumer demand.

3) In addition to creating her own version of what was said, the website that User:Wyss refers to belongs to a former employee. Even though it confirms what I wrote: “Faced with dwindling audiences, WLS reluctantly closed down the live version of the National Barn Dance,“ it is not a qualified source for an encyclopedia. Only the station's owners are qualified to state why they made certain business decisions.

I think it's a reliable source. Announcers for major radio stations work under constant market pressures and are often familiar with the economic and demographic contexts of their work. The cite says WLS changed its format because of shifting demographics and doesn't mention anything about EP. I'd rather leave any mention of WLS out of the article altogether: When they switched formats, Elvis was already finishing up his service in the army etc. Wyss 01:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal reference
Like the WLS radio issue above, despite providing reams of facts to repute the unfounded assertions of User:Wyss, she ignored and repeatedly inserted her incorrect statements on the Wall Street Journal reference. After violating the No personal attacks policy, calling me a liar, User:Wyss took advantage of my refusal to continue and once again reinserted the following text:   yields discussions on higher levels of disposable income along with widely shifting demographic and global social trends. Only one briefly mentions Presley, noting that the singer's success alerted some marketers to the untapped potential of a youth consumer market already in existence. -"
 * "- However, although he profited from it, Elvis Presley was not a catalyst for the increased affluence and independence of youth in post-war America. A sampling of scholarly and otherwise qualified studies on the topic

Response:
 * 1) This entire issue has been dealt with before (see above on this page). What I inserted in the article is of extreme importance. What I wrote was this:


 * " - By the end of 1956, Presley's impact on the American economy had reached such significance that the effects of his records sales spurring a new and powerful youth consumer market was reported by Louis Kraar in a December 6, 1956 article in the highly influential business and financial newspaper The Wall Street Journal. As a follow up by the nation's largest circulation paper, on December 31st Presley made the Journal's front page in a story by Louis M. Kohlmeier, a future Pulitzer Prize winning journalist whose "Reporting on Business and the Economy" is today part of the curriculum at Columbia University. Kohlmeier's article, labeled "Elvis Presley today is a business," detailed the singer's impact through the massive and growing sales of his merchandise to the new teen market. It is believed to have been the first front page financial article in the newspaper's history about a musical entertainer and the first in which a journalist described an entertainer as a business. - "

The key to what I said is "spurring", I did not say "created". Presley's huge and unprecedented record sales spurred the market – that is an indisputable fundamental of economics. Note that PBS said Presley "singlehandedly changed the course of music and culture in the mid-1950s" and the President of the United States in an offical press release from the White House said Elvis Presley "permanently changed the face of American popular culture." Spending habits are an integral part of culture.

What User Wyss added to the article says: "A sampling of scholarly and otherwise qualified studies on the topic". These 4 references are not about Elvis Presley and Rock and Roll. One is from Harvard University, it is not about, and does not mention, Presley or his Rock and Roll industry. It is an article about American consumerism and belongs in the Economy of the United States article.

The other 3 references are by non-Americans and in 2 of them the word "United States" doesn’t appear anywhere and they make no mention of, and have nothing to do with, Presley or his Rock and Roll. They are all generalities about baby boomers etc. that is irrelvant to the Presley article. However, I does mention Presley but User:Wyss again distorts facts and to create her own meaning and mislead readers at Wikipedia when she stated (above):
 * "Only one briefly mentions Presley, noting that the singer's success alerted some marketers to the untapped potential of a youth consumer market already in existence."

In the article, User:Wyss inserted her opinion: "Elvis Presley was not a catalyst for the increased affluence and independence of youth in post-war America."

In fact, that article actually confirms what I wrote about Presley. Here is verbatim what the article actually said: "The phenomenal success of Elvis Presley in 1956 convinced many doubters of the financial opportunities existing in the youth market."

While I give great credence to the Wall Street Journal financial newspaper and one of its most important business writers and Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting winner, I cannot give unequivocal acceptance to a "paper" placed on the Internet that express the opinions of one professor from the Department of History, University of Auckland, New Zealand about United States economics particularly because the Professor's paper is without benefit of other scholarly review and its date unknown meaning its theories could have since been updated many times since by other scholars. I note that it ends in the 1970s. However, in the spirit of cooperation and respecting a Professor and his university, I have inserted this quote in its true and accurate form into the article.

As seen on this page and in other Talk pages where User:Wyss has been involved, she uses voluminous word games devoid of substance and refuses to deal with facts while forcing others to provide proofs of the same issue over and over. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If we're talking about word counts and games, I think Ted Wilkes has it backwards but whatever, I'm here to work on the article and solve issues related to its content. Meanwhile I'm getting happier with the WSJ paragraph. The sweeping assertions seem to have diminished and it's starting to be heavy on quotes and objective remarks directly related to EP's career. Wyss 01:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Onefortyone aka ANON 80.141. ettc.
I removed unfounded text inserted today for at least the thirtieth time by User:Onefortyone (Formerly know as ANON 80.141. etc.)
 * 1) "Judy Spreckels was his platonic girlfriend during the early days of his career. She was a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets. "He told me secrets that I never told and will never tell," she retrospectively says. "Anything he told me was not going to go to any publication. I am the only person who was around Elvis who was a writer and didn't write a book. I felt secrets were secrets." They drove bumper cars in Las Vegas, rode horses in California and hung out at Graceland."


 * RESPONSE: As the article this quotes from states, this is Ms. Spreckels claim without proof. She was a peripheral figure at the very best as president of one of his fan clubs while she lived in Nashville and came to a party for fan club Presidents as noted in passing in the Elaine Dundy book. In Peter Guralnick’s most respected book, he again only mentions Spreckels in passing. Her minor role doesn’t warrant including in this article


 * Judy Spreckels and Elvis were close friends. See this interview: or Onefortyone 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) She emphasizes that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and that they did not have sex until the night of the wedding.


 * RESPONSE: False statement: They were very sexual and passionate. See direct quotes in Priscilla's book. See: Elvis and Me. The matter of his Pentecostal religious beliefs and the values in American society at the time giving rise to his need for her remaining a virgin until marriage is also fully covered in this article and in the book.


 * This is only your personal interpretation of the fact that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards Priscilla. Onefortyone 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) Apart from these relationships to women, Elvis reportedly spent most of his time with men from the so-called "Memphis Mafia". Among them were Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker and Lamar Fike. They used to hang with Elvis all day and night. There was supposedly a code of silence within the group during Elvis's lifetime, and they protected his name and image, but after his death, some Memphis Mafia members wrote books on his life.


 * RESPONSE:Irrelevant to relationships, they were all salaried employees that varied in number over the years as they came and went. Bruce Springsteen had a similar entourage for years, Lance Armstrong actually lives with other men most of the year. User:Onefortyone, under his ANON IP, already created a disgusting "trash" article filled with insulting gossip, POV and unfounded opinions on the Memphis Mafia.


 * On their own website, the members of the Memphis Mafia confirm what I have written:


 * 4)Elvis: The Hollywood Years, a 2002 biography by David Bret, claims Presley was gay. Bret, who has made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities, says Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ... That is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager. In her manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis and an unfavorable article in the National Enquirer, Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, also confirms that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with his friend, Nick Adams. Despite these statements, most other authors, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, describe Elvis as heterosexual.


 * RESPONSE: This book by a discredited author whose credentials are unknown, "alleges" only and provides no proof. It is not a credible encyclopedia source in any manner. All credible and extensively researched books make no such claim, but in fact enunciate much detail on Presley's womanizing. Second, the supposed statement by Elvis's former stepmother, Dee Presley, is unfounded. -- Ted Wilkes 15:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is again your personal opinion. It is a fact that Bret has written in his book that Elvis may have been gay. Dee Presley also says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams. Onefortyone 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To make things sparkly clear, Ted Wilkes and I have our differences of opinion now and then :) but I support him 100% on this thread and stand behind and endorse his edits on this aspect of EP's life. He's working strictly from secondary sources here and I'm aware of no evidence supporting Onefortyone's single-agenda edits. Wyss 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

USER:Onefortyone take note:
 * User talk:Trey Stone - Our current thinking is that we will ban aggressive POV editors from the articles which they impact. This policy has been refined somewhat from our former general bans and includes Probation. – Wikipedia:Arbitrator Fred Bauder - Ted Wilkes 14:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ted, as I have cited several independent sources to support my contributions, I am not an aggressive POV editor. How reliable your own sources are, Ted, is seen from the discussion on "Sony portable transistor radios" on this page. Your argument is only based on personal memory and hearsay. To my mind, YOU are the aggressive POV editor. Onefortyone 12:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: No, you have not cited credible sources. You have cited hearsay and two publications by authors with questionable agendas and a less than stellar publishing history. Several members of the Memphis Maphia wrote highly critical books about Elvis. It is highly unlikely that they would have covered up his sexuality. You're basing your claims on fourth-rate sources and you are engagin in what I can only describe as a character assasination. Lochdale

WSJ paragraph
Having removed the word "spurring" at first, I put it back in after trimming some of the praise given to the WSJ (its reputation is widely known and recognized). I'm not crazy about the word "spurring", but I think it's reasonable to use in the para, which now sticks to attributed quotes and which I now find both interesting and helpful. Wyss 15:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Except, you put it back in the wrong place, thereby changing the meaning. Ted Wilkes 15:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Try reading it again. If you still don't like it, I'll keep after it until you do. Wyss 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You deleted important information that you yourself repeatedy demands. That is, proper sources and references as to that person's qualifuications. You removed the supporting credibity of the writer. And, you removed "In this vein" - In fact, the good Professor you cited was writing about the WSJ article and others (print media). Ted Wilkes 15:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes, please take a deep breath and calm down. The WSJ has a great reputation, one of the best. The "Pulitzer prize winning" phrase is still there. The para needn't overdo its praise for the WSJ. What mattered to me was that there be attributed quotes and no original interpretation of them. Now... what specifically doesn't work for you? Please be a little patient here, ok? Wyss 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your games to portray me as first "angry" (yesterday) and now to "Calm down", don't work. Validating the credentials of a source quoted is your demand. Note too, quoting the good Professor in italics is what you did with Elaine Bundy on Nick Adams. I have gone far out of my way be be courteous and answer ALL your demands but you continue over and over with the same disruptive tactics that have no substance. Ted Wilkes 16:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I think you've gotten so sensitive about this, you're seeing things that aren't there. The italics are style considerations, put 'em in quotes if you like, I don't care. I'm restoring the paragraph the way you had it (if you haven't already). If you want readers to think along the lines of, "hmm, they certainly are praising the WSJ to the max here, I wonder what sort of PoV they're trying to sell me...", ok. I think you're skimming my remarks on this talk page and not reading them btw, maybe I'm wrong but that's the feeling I get. Wyss 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As you are well aware, ALL my edits, without exception, are founded on verifiable facts and I never promote anything. No person reading this will think Wikipedia promotes the WSJ. Because I am qualified to talk about business manners, and can provide qualified sources, I am going to expand on the WSJ article to detail in dollar terms relative to GDP then and now just how large Presley's impact was. It is the Professor YOU quoted that called it " The phenomenal success of Elvis Presley in 1956 convinced many doubters of the financial opportunities existing in the youth market." Ted Wilkes 16:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You're not even responding to my remarks. Wyss 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sony portable transistor radios
User:Wyss repeatedly deleted the following important and relevant information I had inserted:
 * Teens also bought the new Sony portable transistor radios in huge numbers, helping to propel the fledgling company into a leadership role in electronics.

This is important, factual, and very relevant to the article and I have now reinserted it in a modified form:
 * Teens also began buying the new Sony portable transistor radios in huge numbers, helping to propel the fledgling company into a leadership role in electronics. -- Ted Wilkes 01:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wyss again deleted this important and relevant information: 02:18, August 9, 2005 Wyss (→An American phenomenon - teens were not buying Sony transistors in volume in 56 or 57, this is wholly unsupported and misleading)

User:Wyss said (above on this page): 1) "I think you're mis-interpreting whatever information you can cite about Sony transistor radios." 2) User:Wyss also said that I had "provided no citations that mention both Sony transistor radios and EP, and I can't find any." 3) User:Wyss also said "Tens of thousands of transistor radios had been sold by Sony in the US by 1957, but these are not "huge" numbers in relation to the American econoy at that time." 3) User:Wyss also asserted: "Sony's mega unit sales didn't begin until the very early 1960s (when Elvis was already gone and back from the army)."

Please see Northwestern University  writing with referencing to The Portable Radio in American Life by University of Arizona Professor Michael Brian Schiffer, Ph.D. (The University of Arizona Press, 1991) that says amongst much other things on this subject:

1) The rapid growth in sales was not fueled by the consumers who had bought the earlier generation of high-fidelity radio consoles. Sony's march to dominance in consumer electronics was, instead, driven by a uniquely American phenomenon: rock ‘n’ roll.

2) Schiffer writes (in his book: The Portable Radio in American Life.) "Rock and roll was not yet a household word, much less a big business. Largely because of Elvis, that would soon change."

3) Sales of portable radios in 1958 exceeded 5 million. Two years later, that figure had doubled.


 * That's not 56 or 57, that's the total for 1958. Elvis was in the army by then and I don't see the name Sony anywhere in that bolded sentence. Teens weren't buying transistors in "huge" numbers in 56 or 57. Managing to find EP's and Sony's names disjointedly mentioned in a single paper about an emerging consumer technology during the 1950s doesn't support your assertion. Wyss 12:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Next, see the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame permanent exhibit: "Listen to the Music: evolution of audio technology" and read [ http://www.rockandrollreport.com/the_rock_and_roll_report/2005/04/two_new_exhibit.html] that says:


 * "In 1954, the transistor radio came into being. This small, battery-powered unit became a favorite of teenagers, enabling them to listen to their music of choice – rock and roll – in the privacy of their bedrooms, in the car, on the beach, or wherever. "

There are many more references from Kent State University and the like so I don't understand why User:Wyss said (above): I can't find any. Also, here at the Wikipedia article transistor radio that I had linked in the Presley article, is an external link to the website of Dr. Steven Reyer, a Professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. It gives a great history by an Engineer on the first transistor portable made by Regency Division of Industrial Development Engineering Associates of Indianapolis and how they sold 100,000 units in 1954 then closed their doors, handing over the huge new industry to Japan, led by Sony.

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 11:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they went broke and Sony proceeded to struggle with it for five years before finally cracking the market. None of these quotes supports your assertion that teens were buying them in "huge numbers" in 56 or 57. Nor do they support your inference that Presley had any causal effect. He is described as a symptom, not a creator or catalyst. Your interpretation is original research, your assertion is wholly unsupported by the very quotes you cite. Wyss 12:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * READ THE FACTS. Ted Wilkes 12:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did. Btw please don't SHOUT. Wyss 12:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Second response:
 * The statistics and reference and link to  inserted by User:Wyss, as I already told her yesterday (see above), is not an acceptable source. It is a website by a self-professed "fan"of radios in the UK who is not even remotely qualified as per his own posted biography . This person with a General Certificate of Education states on his Website's bio page that his education is a "higher level school (equivalent to British A level). For someone who repeatedly demands of me and others to provide "multiple, scholarly sources," the deliberate referencing such a source by User:Wyss violates to the extreme the No original research policy and Verifiability which states as Official Wikipedia:Policy: "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and claim to be an expert in a certain field."

Further, the exact quote I gave User:Wyss above that "Sales of portable radios in 1958 exceeded 5 million" comes from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois which is one of the foremost journalism schools in the USA. Their attribution of Elvis and early Rock and Roll to Sony transistor radios is clear and precise and they quote The Portable Radio in American Life by University of Arizona Professor Dr. Michael Brian Schiffer, Ph.D. (The University of Arizona Press, 1991). As well, Professor Steven E. Schoenherr, Department of History, University of San Diego wrote: "History of Radio: Extensive chronology of evolution of radio technology” . Here, Professor Steven E. Schoenherr staes:
 * "Sony was not first, but its transistor radio was the most successful. The TR-63 of 1957 cracked open the U.S. market and launched the new industry of consumer microelectronics (Schiffer page 209). Other U.S. companies introduced dozens of transistor radio models and by 1959 half of the 10 million radios made and sold in the U.S. were the portable transistor type.

To User:Wyss - If you continue deleting my quoted facts from authenticated scholars and insert the writings of a "fan website" in violation of official Wikipedia:Policy, then I will take this matter to Requests for comment.

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 00:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

ANON 129.241.134.241 Revert
Expanations are required by ANON 129.241.134.241 for its deletions: their revert to an old version by Wyss deleted changes she had already accepted and my last input as stated immediately above.: 21:56, August 8, 2005 129.241.134.241 (Reverted to the last WYSS version)

I am reverting this. Ted Wilkes 02:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation: Your sentence is awfully presumptious. No advances in technology should be attributed to a mere pop star. What's next - there would be no Napster without Offspring ? Elvis and advances in technology are unrelated. You might just as well say that "families also started buying TV sets so that their kids could watch their favourite hero LIVE, thus helping the TV industry".

When you insert a sentence like that, the reader might think that Elvis should have credit for people buying a new gadget. The only industry (outside of music industry) Elvis might have helped, is the pharmaseutical one - the use of constipation medicine probably skyrocketed! After all, no one really wants to die like that. Give the guy the Darwin's award.

And also: Judging from the posts above, I don't see that you and Wyss have come to an agreement. Why don't you ask Wyss to implement the changes you both have mutually agreed to? Then I won't have to revert anything! (129.241.134.241 05:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

Hopefully Ted Wilkes are at least approaching agreement. I strongly agree that advances in technology can't be attributed to EP. Any reference to Sony transistor radios in this article will mislead casual readers into thinking he had something to do with it. Anyway the sales numbers I've seen and cited are very low for 56, still only in the 100,000 range by late 57, and they didn't really pick up for Sony until Elvis had left for the army. I strongly discourage any mention of transistor radios in the article, EP's fame was transmitted and heard through tube technology and transistors would do their work of miniaturization with or without him. Wyss 06:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I mean, Elvis was the Ricky Martin of the 50s, with pubescent girls being his target audience. Naturally, the best medium would be television, not radio. BTW, I remember something about JFK beating Nixon in a televised debate, whereas most of the RADIO listeners judged Nixon to be the winner. So: radio is a menium for the ugly. (129.241.134.241 08:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

Not exactly. Elvis sold hundreds of millions more records than Ricky Martin and had vastly greater cultural impact. Elvis did bring rockabilly and rock and roll to white girls and through them to mainstream western culture and beyond. So far as the visual side, he was frequently seen on television and in movies before he went into the army (and of course the movies continued when he came back, though some might say those were mostly dreadful). The purpose of this article is neither to bash nor canonize EP, but to present both the documented record and published commentary in helpful, encyclopedic form. Wyss 08:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, so far as radio being a medium for the ugly, there is a funny/sad story someone once told me, about a singer named Christopher Cross from the late 70s who had some top forty hits which did great with teenaged girls... until they saw him on TV with his unfortunate "ax murderer" image (according to the story I heard). Plainly, EP did not have this problem in 1956. Wyss 08:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL. BTW, my daily rhythm is out of whack. I'm actually going to bed at 4 PM now....Well, you have one revert left. Use it with care! I'll wake up at around midnight and take over the watch. God damn it, nothing makes life more worth while than fighting hords of brainwashed fanatics....Well, take care! (129.241.134.241 14:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

Dee Presley
User:Onefortyone (including as ANON 80.141.etc.) has several variations of his claim about Dee Presley (the ex-wife of Vernon Presley who were separated in 1974 and divorced in 1977):
 * First he stated: "In her book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis, Dee Presley, the king's stepmother, also makes some astonishing accusations. She says that Elvis was with men, too, and also mentions his affair with Nick Adams."
 * Then when it was proven that no such book exists he changed it to assert: "In her manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Dee Presley, also confirms that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with his friend, Nick Adams."
 * Now that nonsense about using an unpublished manuscript as a reference is a joke that was deleted, today we get version No. 3: "Dee Presley also says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams."

In the article on Nick Adams, this User inserted the same thing about Dee Presley and came up with yet another version at Talk:Nick Adams:
 * "that he was homosexual. Indeed, this accusation (by Bret's book) is proved by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, and by his platonic girlfriend Judy Spreckels."

Seeing as this User reverted others more than FORTY times when they tried to revert his nonsense, perhaps User:Onefortyone needs to explain himself as he has reinserted this repeatedly again today. Ted Wilkes 02:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ted. Dee Presley's manuscript book was mentioned in several articles and in Greil Marcus's book, Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in a Land of No Alternatives (2000). The Madison Entertainment Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Madison Group Associates, Inc., a now defunct company formerly based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, once acquired the worldwide rights to "The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis Presley," a "very private and revealing manuscript" documenting "never-before-released accounts" of Elvis's life. See  So it is clear that a manuscript of the book exists. I think it is of little importance whether the book has been published or not, as its content is well known. There is a short summary of Dee Presley's accusations in an article published in the National Enquirer. More important is that the manuscript was written by Devada "Dee" Presley, Elvis' stepmother, who lived at Graceland with Elvis for over ten years. The new facts she presents have also been discussed by several Elvis fan clubs. It is also a fact that most of these Elvis fan clubs condemned the accusations to be found in the manuscript, although it was written by Elvis's stepmother. To my mind, it is to be supposed that Ted Wilkes may be one of those people writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of Elvis, as has been pointed out by Professor Dr David S. Wall (see  and ), and therefore tries to suppress the opinion that Elvis may have been bisexual or gay. This would explain why he is constantly deleting my contributions. Onefortyone 10:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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


 * This will be fine. Here are the passages Ted is constantly deleting from the "Relationships" section:
 * 1. Elvis's platonic relationship with Judy Spreckels:
 * Judy Spreckels was his platonic girlfriend during the early days of his career. She was a companion, confidante and keeper of secrets. "He told me secrets that I never told and will never tell," she retrospectively says. "Anything he told me was not going to go to any publication. I am the only person who was around Elvis who was a writer and didn't write a book. I felt secrets were secrets." They drove bumper cars in Las Vegas, rode horses in California and hung out at Graceland. She also remembers going out with Elvis and his friend Nick Adams.
 * 2. His relationship with Priscilla Presley:
 * In her autobiography, Elvis by the Presleys (2005), Priscilla recounted how Elvis would stay up all night and sleep most of the day. If he wanted to go out, he'd rent out the venue so no fans would bother him. She emphasizes that Elvis was not overtly sexual towards her and that they did not have sex until the night of the wedding.
 * 3. His relationships with men from the Memphis Mafia:
 * Apart from these relationships to women, Elvis reportedly spent most of his time with men from the so-called "Memphis Mafia". Among them were Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker and Lamar Fike. They used to hang with Elvis all day and night. There was supposedly a code of silence within the group during Elvis's lifetime, and they protected his name and image, but after his death, some Memphis Mafia members wrote books on his life.
 * 4. The accusations that he may have had homosexual leanings:
 * Elvis: The Hollywood Years, a 2002 biography by David Bret, claims Presley was gay. Bret, who has made a career on sensationalized claims of homosexuality of deceased male celebrities, says Colonel Tom Parker "held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor Nick Adams over his head like a sword. ... That is why Parker had so much control over him." According to Bret, many journalists' attempts to "out" Elvis in the past were thwarted by his manager. In her manuscript book The Intimate Life and Death of Elvis and an unfavorable article in the National Enquirer, Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, also confirms that Elvis had sexual encounters with men and mentions his affair with his friend, Nick Adams. Despite these statements, most other authors, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, describe Elvis as heterosexual. Onefortyone 11:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Violation of the 3 revert rules
User:Ted Wilkes has now reverted this article 4 times in the last 24 hours. See for yourselves:

11:35  9th of August 00:10  10th of August 01:07  10th of August 01:30  10th of August

Mr. Wilkes is asked to respect Wikipedia policy from now on (129.241.134.241 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

User:Ted Wilkes has once again reverted the article 4 times in the past 24 hours. This is his second violation. See for yourselves.

00:10  10th of August 01:07  10th of August 01:30  10th of August 08:50 10th of August


 * I did block Ted Wilkes for this violation, and he was quite gracious about accepting the block for the 24 hours. However, on his return he did point out that the anon who pointed this out also violated the 3RR in retaliation.  I have since blocked the anon user for 24 hours as well.  Hopefully, this is the end of it.  I hope that you can all find ways to resolve your disagreements on this article without revert warring.  Please contact me on my talk page, or any other administrator on WP:AN/I if there are any future violations of the rule on this page and they will be investigated further.  Cheers.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

To Onefortyone about gayness of Elvis
It seems to me that you are no big Elvis fan, since you keep inserting stuff about him allegedly being gay. It seems to me that the majority opinion on this site is against that allegation, and will be removed very quickly.

However, if you tone it down a bit and put it in the "trivia" as an "unsupported claim", your claim may very well stay there untouched.

Furthermore, I would be happy to ally myself with you in order to to fight our common enemy User:Ted Wilkes, who keeps inserting ridiculous claims that people started buying a new Sony gadget because of Elvis. He is also one the first people who will remove your stuff.

Of course, you claim has to be altered in order to be approved by User:Wyss, who seems very dedicated to this article, yet is closer to our side than Ted Wilkes' Elvis-Is-A-Wonderful-Guy coalition.

Join us, Onefortyone! After all, an edit war with 3 parties involved seems kind of stupid.

What say you? (129.241.134.241 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC))


 * Why do you clutter up this page with private messages, 129.241.134.241? This one seems to belong here. -- Hoary 04:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to reach concensus with Onefortyone about the gay issue. This is not just between him and me, he's had a lengthy discussion about the "gay" thing with Wyss both here and on his own page, obviously without coming to any agreement.


 * There are two edit wars going on right now - "Elvis is gay" and "Sony transistors". Simultaneously, I want to discourage Ted Wilkes from insisting on the "Sony" thing, and therefore it's better for this text to be here.


 * If you think this takes up unnecessary space, then I'll personally delete it after one week.

But this article concerns as many as 4 people, all of who are eager reverters at the Elvis article. (129.241.134.241 06:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC))
 * You say I'm just trying to reach concensus with Onefortyone about the gay issue. So it's merely something between the two of you. And then, in the very next sentence: This is not just between him and me.... So it isn't merely something between the two of you. Meanwhile, some of your other assertions look bizarre, notably: It seems to me that you are no big Elvis fan, since you keep inserting stuff about him allegedly being gay -- how is being a big Elvis fan incompatible with asserting that Elvis was gay; and for that matter, how is being or not being an Elvis fan relevant to the ability to improve this article? -- Hoary 09:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, I sometimes write things in a rush. This is after all merely the talk page, not the article itself. When I said "it's between me and him", I said it wrong. Let me correct myself: this concerns me, Wyss, Onefortyone and Ted Wilkes.


 * Onefortyone made a claim above (even giving a link to some lecture by a professor) about impossibility of writing unbiased articles about celebrities, because the fans of those celebrities will try to minimise or even forget the "bad" things about their hero. So for me, NOT being an Elvis fan is a criteria of objectivity, because a lot of people are passionate about whether Elvis died on the toilet or not, whether he was gay or not etc.


 * When I first got here, I noticed that it was a very long article, but the word "constipation" wasn't even mentioned ONCE. That's how I got involved in the first place. After a while, me and Wyss reached an agreement, and it is now mentioned in the trivia section. It's far from safe, though - someone removed it quite recently (like a week ago) without giving any explanation. My suspicions are that it was deleted by an Elvis fan.


 * Anyway, I may be wrong on this, I don't want to get involved in a philosophical discussion about Elvis, objectivity, meaning of life (=42) etc.

(129.241.134.241 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia precedent for dealing with this issue:
 * For now, I have removed the Trivia comment on David Bret and his book. Bret’s writings on Presley are not part of widely circulating rumors that might warrant inclusion in the article. A Wikipedia precedent has already been established on the Abraham Lincoln article for similar such issues dealing with homosexuality speculation. For the David Bret writings about Presley that User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 wants included in Wikipedia, if he will produce information on the issue showing that this matter has received sufficient press that historians or qualified biographers and major magazines such as Time magazine have addressed the issue, then User:Onefortyone/ANON 80.141 can place a similar reference in the Presley and Adams articles and set up a smilar page for the Bret book as was done for the C. A. Tripp book,  The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.


 * I have now included a "Rumors" section dealing with these claims. Onefortyone 14:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Anonymous User:129.241.134.241
User:129.241.134.241, you have made comments on this page that violate Civility and referring to me as "fight our common enemy" is a violation of No personal attacks. Your statement on this page and offer at User talk:Onefortyone to form an alliance to "fight our common enemy" and to prevent others from editing and avoiding the Three revert rule for themselves and their ally, contravenes Policy. I suggest you read Arbitration policy/Precedents and see if you can then work in a spirit of cooperation by providing reasons for your edit reversions so that consensus, based on facts, can be achieved. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 10:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ted, I've read the articles you gave me, and I found nothing that says forming an alliance is illegal. When it comes to personal attacks, then you may be right, but I was only speaking in metaphor.

And I certainly never suggested anything about preventing anyone else but you ( who, after all, have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule ) from editing this article. (129.241.134.241 10:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

Please immediately refrain from personal attacks:
 * 07:07, August 10, 2005 129.241.134.241 (Removed vandalism by Wilkes,
 * 06:36, August 10, 2005 129.241.134.241 (Removed vandalism by Ted Wilkes)

Please read: No personal attacks that includes: "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Thank you. Ted Wilkes 11:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't explained or apologized for your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy ( the 3 revert rule ). (129.241.134.241 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

RESPONSE TO: User:129.241.134.241 - Your edits have been reverted in accordance with Wikipedia official poilcy. See No personal attacks that includes "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks."

Please observe Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. I will not participate in such conduct. Ted Wilkes 12:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Medill School of Journalism

 * I agree that the popularity of rock 'n' roll helped the sales of the sony transistor radios. But I don't see what you want to credit Elvis for that. Elvis was not the pioneer of that genre - Chuck Berry was. Without Elvis, the people who wrote and produced all his songs would have merely found someone else to perform them. Furthermore, I think rock 'n' roll filled some sort of a void. The youth needed some form of rebellious music. Even without Berry and Elvis, someone would have come up with something. No, I still think advances in technology are to be credited for the Sony transistor radios, not a pop star. (129.241.134.241 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC))


 * And by the way, the article was reprinted from "The Cole papers" and was originally written by a person calt Shiffer. Who is he / she? What is his / hers occupation? (129.241.134.241 11:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC))


 * For what it's worth, I don't think the article credits Presley with inventing rock and roll, but selling it to the youthful white masses. Wyss 13:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But it seems that even in death (and without the continuing efforts of the "Colonel", etc.) he's destined to "outsell" the more exciting stuff. Poor old Roy ("Good rocking tonight") Brown had to wait till 19 July 2005 before anyone started an article on him. Not much has happened to the article since: no Roy Brown gay rumors, no Roy Brown in sequins, no Roy Brown "constipation blues" rumors, no Roy Brown in "hair don'ts". There's no justice in commercial culture. -- Hoary 15:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, Elvis is the ONLY celebrity who is rumored to have died of constipation. (129.241.134.241 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

It says: "Except where otherwise noted, this history of transistor radios is derived from The Portable Radio in American Life, by Michael Brian Schiffer (The University of Arizona Press, 1991)." Schiffer is an anthropologist, described here. Cheap copies of this book are available. -- Hoary 15:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Note to User:Ted Wilkes, I have restored Hoary's original comment, which you altered. In the future, if you wish to remark on someone's post, add your comments below it. Changing user comments as you did is a violation of Wikipedia policy and if you continue doing this you could be blocked again. Wyss 15:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to User:Wyss – User:Hoary was quoting me (An earlier version of the article cited) and he must have accidentally forgotten to c&p some of the text. You appear to be accusing User:Hoary of deliberately downplaying the credentials of Dr. Michael Brian Schiffer, Ph.D. which I must say, I most certainly don't think he did at all. If User:Hoary disagreed with my correcting of a quote attributed to me, he undoubtedly would have reverted me and stated so. However, I hardly think he would be doing something deceitful as you appear to suggest; after all he posted the link to the Minnesota State University brief biographical information on Dr. Schiffer and I only helped his thoughtful link with the rest of Dr. Schiffer's title as the University of Arizona’s Director of the Laboratory of Traditional Technology.

User:Wyss, I'm sure you and other readers might also want to know that beyond the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, Dr. Schiffer's book is one of the most referred to sources on the matter by scholars, technicians, and others on the internet and was recommended to me personally by Dr. Steven Reyer, a Professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. User:Hoary went out of his way to be accommodative and posted a link where used copies of Dr. Schiffer's book can be purchased cheap. The 259 page edition, even in paperback, is still quite expensive at $27.95.

As noted, you deleted the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and their Dr. Schiffer references/links in the article and inserted material in their place from the website of a radio fan with a General Certificate of Education, which you labeled as a qualified encyclopedic source.

I'll wait until you and your partner User:129.241.134.241 are done with the Elvis Presley article before I check it. Ted Wilkes 18:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't surreptitiously change other users' comments on talk pages. If you do, you could be blocked again. Wyss 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Portable radios
Speaking only for myself, I believe the latest statement about portable radios in the American phenomenon section is now reasonable and supportable. I still don't much like the adjective "huge", because the syntax implies these numbers were "huge" in 55 and 56 but I'm nitpicking a bit there since beginning and ending sales figures are given for the entire period through 1958 etc. Wyss 12:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement "people started to buy Sony transistors" is supportable, but so is "United Kingdom banned heroin in 1956". What has that to do with Elvis Presley?

Maybe it would be possible to say "the market for portable radios was boosted by the popularity of rock 'n' roll music, of which Presley was the most notable representative" ? If you put it like that, then it is rock 'n' roll that is credited, not just Elvis. (129.241.134.241 12:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

But then again, why does it have to be mentioned in this particular article, why not the Rock n roll article? The reader might get the wrong impression that HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR ELVIS, the Sony transistor radios would have sold far, far less than 5 million copies. Can someone craft a sentence that avoids this pitfall? (129.241.134.241 12:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC))


 * The article no longer mentions Sony. I had enormous issues with that.


 * I don't think it any longer implies Presley was responsible for the introduction of transistor radios in the US. The paragraph's ending, characterizing Elvis as a symbol of their parents' consternation, reinforces that IMO.


 * I think the reference to portable radios is superfluous, but it's supportable as it is now worded and if an editor keeps insisting upon its inclusion, I'm ok with it in this present form. On a positive side, it does helpfully inform readers that transistor radios were introduced into North America during the latter half of the 1950s. Wyss 13:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored the reference without the word "huge." In truth, I like it as it is now and think it's helpful. Wyss 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the words "in order to listen to rock 'n' roll music". That way, the main purpose was to listen to all kinds of loud, rebellious, parent-provoking music, not necessarily Elvis Presley. I agree with your argument that the reader is informed about transistor radios in general. If I'm ever on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" and the question is "in which decade did the portable transistor radios become available" I'll answer "the fifties".

But there will never be a question such as "Which famous singer was responcible for selling 5,000,000 transistor radios?"


 * Argh! I hope not :) Wyss 13:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope the issue is resolved now.

(129.241.134.241 13:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

you guys are weird
you guys are nerds. Just listen to white and nerdy the coolest song evr and itll say how peeps who edit wikipedia r nerds. thats what u are. im not trying to be mean or anything, us cool people <3 nerds! I am just pointing out the ovious before it gets into bad hands. for example gary oodoocles hands