Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 21

This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.

The Hollywood years
Recent additions and rearrangement of paragraphs have not helped to improve this section. There is some repetition, and the first mention of the Memphis Mafia now makes little sense because the preceding paragraph that introduced Marty Lacker (of the Memphis Mafia) has been moved. Editors need to be aware of not just the changes they want to make, but also of the effect their changes may have on the logical consistency, timeline and flow of prose that others have already worked hard to establish. Rikstar 13:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to solve the problem, there should be a special section on the Memphis Mafia and Elvis's male friends in the article, as these men were constantly around Elvis for two decades. Here is my suggestion:


 * The Memphis Mafia and other male friends


 * Apart from his relationships with women, Presley had many male friends. He reportedly spent day and night with friends and employees whom the news media affectionately dubbed the Memphis Mafia. Among them were Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker, Lamar Fike and Jerry Schilling. Gerald Marzorati says that Elvis "couldn't go anywhere else without a phalanx of boyhood friends." Even the girls he dated deplored, "Whenever you were with Elvis for the most part you were with his entourage. Those guys were always around..."


 * According to Peter Guralnick, for Elvis and the guys "Hollywood was just an open invitation to party all night long. Sometimes they would hang out with Sammy Davis, Jr., or check out Bobby Darin at the Cloister. Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy ..." When Buzz Cason asked Lamar Fike "how Elvis did it – this partying nearly every night," he "answered, 'A little somethin' to get down and a little something to get up.' Obviously, he was referring to the pills that started a trend that sadly in only a few years would lead to Elvis's untimely death."


 * Samuel Roy says that "Elvis' bodyguards, Red and Sonny West and Dave Hebler, apparently loved Elvis—especially Red ... ; these bodyguards showed loyalty to Elvis and demonstrated it in the ultimate test. When bullets were apparently fired at Elvis in Las Vegas, the bodyguards threw themselves in front of Elvis, forming a shield to protect him." The author adds that the people who surrounded Presley "lived, for the most part, in isolation from the rest of the world, losing touch with every reality except that of his 'cult' and his power." June Wilkinson also confirms that the singer "had an entourage who spoke with Southern accents. The only one I remember was Nick Adams, the actor."


 * According to Presley expert Elaine Dundy, "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." Guralnick confirms that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." In her recent Elvis biography Kathleen Tracy writes that Adams was Elvis's regular friend and often met the singer backstage or at Graceland. "He and Elvis would go motorcycle riding late at night and stay up until all hours talking about the pain of celebrity." Both men also enjoyed prescription drugs, and Elvis often asked Adams "to stay over on nights." "It has since been speculated in Hollywood gossip that Presley and Adams may have shared some sort of intimate encounter. But there's no definitive evidence one way or another." All of the singer's friendships are documented by many photographs.

All this material is well sourced. Onefortyone 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 141 wrote above about me: "It is interesting that you are only harping on the "negative, sexually and gay oriented, mother-loving stuff"." Perhaps that's because 141 keeps bringing up tenuous, sensationalistic homosexual claims that are backed by " no definitive evidence", as the above quote clearly states. Such claims, just like 141's recent post about Presley giving someone a blowjob, are ridiculously lacking in veracity and further evidence that 141's views, if adopted in the article, would make it look ridiculous. Rikstar 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Onefortyone, let's try something different - give us a new (not a rehash of edits from long ago that you continue to bring up - despite coverage in the article already or in a sub-article) take on your edits here. Present your edits below and let us discuss them. If consensus builds for your 'new' edits you wish to offer - I will support your efforts; if not - then we know the will of the community on the matter. This seems to be a rather better solution than continual rehashed material already gone over. Let's start with your first: --Northmeister 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs have been reordered to make the references to the Memphis Mafia make sense, as they did originally.Rikstar 12:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not enough information. I still don't understand why there shouldn't be specific, brief sections on the members of the Memphis Mafia (who spent day and night with Elvis for more than two decades), on Colonel Tom Parker (who had so much influence on the singer's career) and on the Elvis cult at Graceland (and elsewhere) in the main article on Elvis. And I don't understand what should be wrong with my suggestions concerning an additional Memphis Mafia section above. As anyone can see, the material is well sourced. Onefortyone 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about someone mention how Elvis while staying in a hospital once asked his entourage to wake him and feed him an entire cherry pie? Also, fuck the people who continually try to cover up the fact that Elvis was a complete and total mess. Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.103.114.59 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Elvis is alive" meme
Shouldn't this article make at least some passing reference to the persistent rumors, lasting decades, that Elvis was not really dead - and how those rumors turned into a kind of pre-Internet meme? It seems wrong to not even mention it. --Hyperbole 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Presley died from a drug overdose on 16 August 1977. (Daer11 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Try the Weekly World News article if that's what you're looking for. Rodparkes 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The External links
Somehow the links section got cut in two while I edited it. I tried to categorize the various links. Now the 'Various links' header is at the bottom of the site. Could someone, please, fix this problem? Destry 29 August 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destry (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC) I fixed it! [User:Destry|Destry]] (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destry (talk • contribs) 17:18, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Hollywood Years by Onefortyone
"In 1956, following his rise to stardom as a singer, Presley launched a parallel career as a film actor, beginning with the musical western, Love Me Tender, co-starring Richard Egan and Debra Paget. The original title was The Reno Brothers, but it was changed because of the advanced sales of the song “Love Me Tender”. This shows that from the beginning Presley movies were only made in order to sell records. The majority of Presley's films were of the musical-comedy genre, although he also appeared in dramatic films with musical interludes, like Jailhouse Rock and King Creole. He also made one non-musical western, Charro, including many shirtless shots."


 * This shows that from the beginning Presley movies were only made in order to sell records. This edit looks like it needs a citation to support it - but there is already a reference in the same section to Presley not being taken seriously as an actor and his films merely being money-makers. Therefore, this edit is unnecessary;
 * It is important to mention right at the beginning of the section that the movies were only made in order to sell records. Here are some sources. That Elvis's movies were made to "sell records and produce high revenues" is mentioned by Ursula A. Falk and Gerhard Falk in their book, Youth Culture and the Generation Gap (2005), p.52. According to David Ewen, "the youngsters were buying Elvis records and commodities... Each of his movies, with their built-in audiences, was a gilt-edged investment... " See David Ewen, All the Years of American Popular Music (1977), p.559. "By the end of the decade, this strategy had begun to fail, neither movies nor records selling at previous high levels." See Christopher Lyon, The International Dictionary of Film and Filmmakers (1987), p.511. Onefortyone 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * including many shirtless shots. This edit includes a link to a page about "beefcake". Does anyone else think this is necessary? Or that it has gay connotations? If we have this, are we to have a link to a flagellation/beefcake site because Elvis gets his back whipped in Jailhouse Rock? I'm interested... Rikstar 10:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Beefcake poses were used in order to highlight the physical appeal of male stars for both female and male audiences. It is a fact that "Presley shifted into beefcake formula comedy mode for a few years." See CNN: Elvis goes Hollywood: Fun in the sun, and not much else. Onefortyone 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister continues edit warring
My old opponent Northmeister alias User:Ted Wilkes continues edit warring as usual and has removed, without discussion, some recent changes that made sense, as the whole article is a biography. I will leave it for now, but his behavior is not acceptable. Onefortyone 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the beef is between you and Northmeister or Ted Wilkes. But I know from reading this talk page that you're one of the most argumentative editors on Wikipedia.  You want to put unsourced "speculation" as a fact.  Other editors don't want you to do this because it contravenes WP policy.  Get over yourself.  Fooey-fooey-flop-chops 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
On the whole I find Onefortones recent edits very helpful - per his inclusion of the German information with references to boot. Very well done. I maintained the format, though, in light of a biographical look. Took out one sentence and fragment: and I found the first sentence to be argumentative. The second 'fragement' of a sentence I found trivial.
 * This shows that from the beginning Presley movies were only made in order to sell records.
 * including many shirtless shots. - with link to Beefcake.

The article is 111 kilobytes, which is large. I think we have an very well done article so far in keeping with Wikipedia standards and in moving to make this a featured article. I'm not sure what the size would be in text alone, which is important. If someone can figure this out, let us know. Overall, if we can further clean up any trivial matters that might remain - I think we could reduce the size a bit. --Northmeister 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I nominate the sentences about the character of Presley's parents for removal to reduce the size of the artlce. They add little to our knowledge of Elvis, and I consider then to be pretty opinionated. Recently added text about Christian music are tacked on, and include mention of what will happen in the future. I have mentioned these concerns previously. I favor deletion or reduction. The "Elvis is not a songwriter" and the Colonel and RCA picked his songs, etc paragraph is both unneeded and unsourced.Steve Pastor 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, what sentence would that be - you might be right. --Northmeister 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a good idea, as the character of Presley's parents heavily influenced the singer's personal development. In order to get rid of trivial stuff, we should remove the following table from the "Awards and recognition" section:


 * As an alternative, we could also include an additional section on Elvis's boyish naivité at the age of 36. Onefortyone 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we are looking to cut stuff, I think the Jaycee speech can go. I may have a look at further edits to reduce length, but my patience, interest and commitment to this article are wearing thin because of recent edits and talk. Rikstar (signing not working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikstar (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree for length and format - best to leave it out. --Northmeister 03:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have again checked to see if recent edits I made (each of which had a justification), which were reversed with a blanket "adding some material" comment, were discussed or justified on this page. I don't see that here. Am I missing something? Steve Pastor 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Restored edits of StevePastor thusly:
 * "In his book, Me and a Guy named Elvis, Jerry Schilling relates that one way to arouse the wrath of the singer was to play one of his own recordings at his parties. "Get that crap off," was his reaction on one occasion when someone played "All Shook Up" on a jukebox. Presley apparently preferred to listen to the music of others, whether gospel or secular." - Reason: contributes nothing to "Musical influences"
 * Therefore, the paragraph should be entitled, "Musical influences and preferences". The quote is important, as it is shown that Presley didn't like what he had to sing. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Later, he primarily recorded songs that his manager Colonel Tom Parker and the record company thought would be commercially successful." -Reason: No attribution
 * See Jerry Schilling's statement above and remarks by Priscilla Presley. It is a fact that Colonel Parker forced Elvis into all those silly musicals and to sing songs he didn't like. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Presley was not a songwriter and was happy to simply interpret other people’s songs." - Reason: nothing in this article asserts that he WAS a songwriter
 * Therefore it should be mentioned in the article that he was not a songwriter and only an interpreter of several songs he didn't like. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "According to Michael Bertrand, he "was an untrained musician who played entirely by ear. 'I don't read music,' he confessed, 'but I know what I like.' ... Because he was not a songwriter, Presley rarely had material prepared for recording sessions..." When he, as a young singer, "ventured into the recording studio he was heavily influenced by the songs he had heard on the jukebox and radio." " - Reason: We already have material about his listening to the radio that is more specific.
 * These remarks are important. They are not mentioned elsewhere. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Presley maintained close ties with Christian performers, like the The Blackwood Brothers, and he performed or recorded with them throughout most of his career. " - Reason: There is already too much about what Elvis would do in the future in this section addressing where his style came from.
 * An important fact has again been deleted. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rolling Stone magazine wrote that: "Gospel pervaded Elvis' character and was a defining and enduring influence all of his days." - Reason: This "quote" cannot be found at the url listed as a reference.
 * Perhaps somebody else is able to find it. Onefortyone 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the conclusions above and the reasons given. SP edits look to me to be legitimate attempts at reducing clutter and redundancy; in our effort to clean up the article for feature presentation. His edits were deleted without comment here as well. --Northmeister 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Elvis and Marilynn Monroe
On an August 15th sirius radio interview, Joe Esposito, George Klein and Jerry Schilling all laughed and denied that Elvis ever had a romantic interlude with Monroe. They cited Elvis' inability to keep any secrets from them when it came to the girls he slept with. How can a Elvis-Monroe tryst be included as fact when there are none to back it up yet we have three guys closest to Elvis who deny it. If it were true, no doubt they would talk about it as a feather in his cap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The members of the Memphis Mafia certainly did not know every secret about Elvis. His early girlfriend Judy Spreckels says that the singer told her secrets "that I never told and will never tell." Robert L. Levinson's book, The Elvis and Marilyn Affair (1999) deals with a batch of love letters allegedly exchanged between Elvis and Marilyn Monroe during the filming of Love Me Tender and with a secret affair on the Fox lot in 1956 between Elvis and Marilyn. Though the story is fictitious, the author may have had some information about what was going on behind closed doors. Onefortyone 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Levinson just had a neat idea for a book about an Elvis and Marilynn love affair and decided to write a book based on just his imagination. "May have" shouldn't cut it when it comes to facts. I could write a book about a secret fight between Elvis and Bruce Lee or maybe a secret love affair between Elvis and John Lennon after they met. Any idea can be embellished for the sake of good fiction. I just don't see how that can be taken as "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rare Gay-Elvis Photo discovered
At Dan's Chelsea Guitars, located in a storefront of the Chelsea Hotel, there is a picture of Elvis at about 13 in a slightly homo-erotic embrace with another young boy who would become, in adulthood, the president of the Elvis Presley Fan Club. The photograph was apparently plucked from the trash of the communist building across the street when they cleaned out their basement a few years ago. ZZ Top guitarist Billy Gibbons came into the shop one time and spotted the photograph and flipped out, saying that it was one of only six known prints of that shot. He said it was by a famous African American photographer, who, it turned out, had had his studio in the basement of the commie building. See. Onefortyone 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course when you go to the website, there is no posting of this alleged photo. I would love to know what that author's definiton of "homo-erotic" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image review
I review these images on request by user Northmeister. Considered that he wants the article to qualify for featured article status, I will try to be strict in the interpretation of the non-free content guidelines, official policy, and manual of style. I will comment on all images currently used in the article.
 * Image:Elvis Presley 1970.jpg – no problems; I personally think that the cropped image didn't need the background editing for use in an encyclopedia.
 * Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg – I think this image is only justified in the Elvis Presley article because it is such an iconic Elvis cover; this iconic status should be mentioned in the article (why is it iconic?) based on sources (maybe these can be helpful ); the image caption should be something like "The iconic cover of Elvis Presley's debut album Elvis Presley (1956)"; purpose of use description for this image should be split into two unique justifications, one for each use; in this case it should be something like "To visually identify the album and its cover in the infobox in the article Elvis Presley (album)" and "To visually identify an iconic album cover discussed in the subsection Breakthrough year: 1956 of the article Elvis Presley".
 * Image:Elvis-MississippiAlabamaFair1956.jpg – the image needs to be moved up one paragraph to illustrate the fair mentioned there; the image caption should mention the crowd which is also referred to in the text; the statement in the text about National Guards should be sourced; if the fair is the same as the one mentioned earlier in the article "Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show" the full name should be considered; the remark in the text should be sourced; the purpose of use description should explain what the image shows the reader in the Elvis Presley article, something about the nature of his concerts.
 * Image:Elvis presley.jpg – year of the film/video should be added to the caption "(1957)"; Jailhouse Rock in caption should be wikilinked.
 * Image:GIBluesElvis.jpg – I think this image is not significant, it seems to be a dvd or video cover, and should be removed from this article; if the image is kept there is a problem, the purpose of use description is wrong, because the image is not an album; also the purpose of use description should be split, so there will be one unique description for each article; image has no source mentioned.
 * Image:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg – I think this image is not significant and should be removed; if the image is kept the image needs a proper purpose of use description, maybe the template could be used; the Comeback Special in the caption should be wikilinked; location of concert could be added.
 * Image:ElvisPresleyAlohafromHawaii.jpg – I think this image should be removed, unless there is something specific and significant (not just the flowers around his neck) about his performance that readers need to see; the significant information needs to be mentioned in the article and in the image caption; if the image is kept the image needs a proper purpose of use description where the significance of the image use is mentioned; maybe the template could be used.
 * Image:Elvis' tomb.jpg – no major problems; I think Graceland should be wikilinked in the caption; maybe the caption should mention "final resting place" instead of "resting place".
 * Image:Elvis statue.jpg – no major problems; I would like to know when this statue is made and where in Memphis it is, in a mall, at music studios, etc.
 * Image:Elvisstamp.jpg – I think this image is significant for the section it is mentioned in; has invalid purpose of use description, it should be unique for each article the image is used in; purpose of use description should justify the use by explaining why the image is significant over text; maybe enlarge the image in the article up to thumb-width.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. Maybe also my fair use help could be useful to you. – Ilse@ 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Updated each photo per the suggestions above. However, there might be further improvement needed on the photos. Removed GI Blues photo (no mention in article) and replaced with an actual promotional release photo of Elvis and Ann Margret to illustrate Elvis' movie years and that mentioning 'Viva Las Vegas'. Any further input is not only needed, but welcomed. --Northmeister 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "the statement in the text about National Guards should be sourced". Done. Rikstar 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical Preferences
The follow edit has merit (minus a couple changes) and is sourced. However it is out of place where it was put. Not sure where to fit it into the article though any suggestions? The strike-outs I propose are unecessary and some commentary unecessary. The rest is good. The one strikeout about Colonel Parker et. al. needs a source to stay. Lets figure the best place to put this chronologically(sic). --Northmeister 06:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Presley was not a songwriter and was happy to simply interpret other people’s songs. According to Michael Bertrand, he "was an untrained musician who played entirely by ear. 'I don't read music,' he confessed, 'but I know what I like.' ... Because he was not a songwriter, Presley rarely had material prepared for recording sessions..." When Presley as a young singer, "ventured into the recording studio he was heavily influenced by the songs he had heard on the jukebox and radio." Later, he primarily recorded songs that his manager Colonel Tom Parker and the record company thought would be commercially successful. (-Needs Source-) In his book, Me and a Guy named Elvis, Jerry Schilling relates that one way to arouse the wrath of the singer was to play one of his own recordings at his parties. "Get that crap off," was his reaction on one occasion when someone played "All Shook Up" on a jukebox. Presley apparently preferred to listen to the music of others.

Edited material above in the article, since it was restored without discussion. Tried to keep it in the context of where it was placed. No need to change subheader to Musical influences and preferences. I'm open for disccussion on this material if the editor who added them wishes to discuss my changes. --Northmeister 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have deleted material that is important and well sourced. According to Donald Theall, it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod." See Donald Theall, Virtual Marshall McLuhan (2001), p.129. Ernst Jorgensen, a reissue producer and archivist, who has meticulously treated Elvis' musical legacy with immense care, respect, scholarly integrity and historical perspective and insight, says about Elvis and the many problems during the recordings:
 * You can't sing, you can't record on the same level as you can when you were feeling good. ... Several of Elvis' friends told me that Elvis got bored very easily and that's part of the problem.
 * When From Elvis to Memphis first came out it didn't get good reviews in spite of what everybody thinks. It got some fairly poor reviews in many places. It's true that those singles were miracles and the album sold well. But the other thing that's very important is to realize that Chips Moman didn't think the sessions went well. He thought there was a lot of crap recorded during those sessions. He didn't finish the album, Felton Jarvis did. Chips didn't like the way the album turned out and he certainly hated 'Suspicious Minds'. Not the idea of it or the early recordings but what they did to it. So it's a very complicated issue and since we can't ask Elvis you're not gonna know. Also, you can’t have two A&R guys with different visions working with Elvis in the studio. Chips and Felton were not the same type of people. All of them felt there was a lot of compromise in those sessions and that made it unattractive to go back.
 * The Colonel was a master of management. But I think like Elvis he faded in the later years. He wasn't as sharp on what would be the right thing to do. But he also worked with an artist who got more and more out of control as we went through the Seventies. There's a lot of little things and big things where you go, "I don't think that was very smart." Some is 20/20 hindsight, other decisions you may have even questioned at the time. ... You can argue would Elvis have ever become what he was without the Colonel? I say he might not have but he still might have been somebody.
 * According to James L. Dickerson's study, Colonel Tom Parker: The Curious Life of Elvis Presley's Eccentric Manager, Elvis accepted the Colonel's continual quashing of his musical ambitions. The author adds that Elvis's original band was fired because the Colonel wanted to keep Elvis isolated from anyone who might convince his prize attraction that he could get a better deal with another manager. Dickerson also cites guitarist Scotty Moore who blames Parker for drawing up a number of bad contracts that relegated him to mere session-player status. Similar accounts of the Colonel's influence can be found in books by Alanna Nash and Priscilla Presley.
 * Furthermore, Jerry Hopkins says, that during the sixties, the songs for Elvis seemed to be "written on order by men who never really understood Elvis or rock and roll". For Blue Hawaii and its soundtrack LP, "fourteen songs were cut in just three days." According to Tom Lisanti, the songs were progressively worse, and he cites Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, saying that Elvis hated such songs and that he "couldn't stop laughing while he was recording" one of them." All of this material is important, as it shows what Elvis actually thought about the songs he had to sing. Onefortyone 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the recent deletions, and made them myself some time ago. And I believe that each deletion was explained. The material was reinserted without discussion. Not all "well sourced" material belongs in this article. At a certain point, editors need to decide what should be excluded, as well as included. Elvis was not many things. It is not necessary to list them all (such as the songwriter statements). I have only paid attention to Presley's early work. Parker had no influence on Elvis (that I am aware of) at least through the "Elvis Presley" album. My view of "Influences", based partly on its position in the article is that it is about the formation of Presley's style when he was young, not about his entire career. Again, this article is not to be a bottomless pit of Elvis trivia, so we have to make choices. Steve Pastor 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You claim that "Parker had no influence on Elvis (that I am aware of)..." This may be your personal opinion or wishful thinking as an Elvis fan, but the sources say otherwise, and Wikipedia articles must be well sourced. Elvis's personal musical preferences and the influence of Parker on his musical career cannot be separated from the formation of his style when he was young, and the sources show that at least since the early 60s the star was forced to sing songs he didn't like. Therefore, the section should be entitled, "Musical influences and preferences" or perhaps "Musical influences, preferences and dislikes". As the additions I made are important and well sourced, they certainly belong in the article. Onefortyone 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Onefortyone, I am trying to accomodate your edits; but you keep reinserting a bunch of material that just bloats the article. I agree with StevePastor above. We're trying to tidy this article up for feature status and your refusal to work with us is not helping. Please stay away from personal attacks on others and assume good faith on behalf of those here. This is not a contest - were here to present a well rounded article. --Northmeister 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My complete sentence reads, "Parker had no influence on Elvis (that I am aware of) at least through the "Elvis Presley" album." The album came out in 1956. "The early 60s" is at least four years later, after Presley had established himself as an icon. Material on Parker's influence may be appropriate later in the article. Note how the early part of the article is more or less chronological and describes Presley's life and career without jumping around and confusing the reader about what happened when. I have had to wade through many articles on things and parsed them endlessly to determine what happened when. I hope not to see that here. Steve Pastor 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that, for chronological reasons, "Material on Parker's influence may be appropriate later in the article." Therefore, I have now created a new section on "Colonel Parker's quashing of Presley's musical ambitions." I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. --Northmeister 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The additional section should be entitled "Colonel Parker's quashing of Presley's musical ambitions", as it primarily deals with the early 60s and not with the 1968 comeback. Onefortyone 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That title is way to long and argumentative. Let's avoid that and if we can another subsection. Restore my good faith edit by reverting yourself and lets work out whether we need a new subsection or whether we can place your material elsewhere. --Northmeister 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the new material cannot be included in the "1968 comeback" section. The Schilling quote even shows that Elvis didn't like several of his old songs including "All shook up". This is very important and has nothing to do with the 1968 comeback. You may change the title, but there should be an additional section. Onefortyone 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see what we can do with this. I'll look at your recent change and offer comments as such. --Northmeister 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the sub-heading a bit to shorten it. I have no problem with the rest of edit. --Northmeister 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent heading added
The Col. Parker section is disappointing - dealing as it does with musical influences, for which we already have a section. There's also reference to Parker and his other influences in the Hollywood section. Perhaps the editor concerned is pushing for the section to be expanded and devoted to Parker. I hope not - Parker has an article of his own.

These recent changes have unbalanced the article, as has the re-inclusion of Presley's 'Christian' influences in the musical influences section (I cannot find specific 'Christian' wording in any other sources - only 'Gospel'. There's also an inline link in the text (that's a no-no). All this also unbalances that section).

I have looked at amending all this to maintain existing style and consistency, but it really will be time-consuming. I think editors should bear in mind how easy it is to unbalance an article by making rash or poor edits - and spoil its chances of Featured Article status. Rikstar 14:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your analysis, but in the spirit of consensus building I don't see where it hurts to have the Col. Parker subheading. If you still feel differently, maybe we can work out a reasonable solution to what onefortyone wishes to include about Parker and his influence on Elvis' music choices. This issue is one of pressing issues holding this article back; maybe we should solicite the help of one of the reviewers in determining whether this issue will be a problem for featured status. --Northmeister 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have reworked the article to accommodate the above issues. Others had influence apart from Parker ('Mafia', Geller, included, somewhat clumsily by me, in Hollywood years). So I have created a section to cover these influences collectively (The influence of Col. Parker and others). Also moved main reference to Priscilla to where it should be: the women in his life.


 * There is still a problem with the way the reference to Chips Moman reads and "get that crap off", etc. Doesn't read well and the whole paragraph should have page citations - not just vague references to the books containing this stuff. I hope this is helping to solve this issue. It's been bugging me... Rikstar 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have removed the above paragraph as it has little to do with influences and is out of place in this section. Rikstar 06:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry... again
I've ignored this section - it always had tedious problems and I thought they'd be sorted. Looking at it and all the claims made by authors, genealogists, etc. I'm surprised the German ancestry dominates in the article. It seems to because certain editors want it to, yet I cannot see how, for example, his Scottish ancestry is any less relevant; indeed it conflicts with the German evidence. Much has been said about undeniable proof in the Elvisorama documentary - but why is this source more undeniable than other claims? There were and still are Presleys, Pressleys, Presslies in Scotland.

This ancestry issue seems far from resolved. It is the only thing, in my opinion, that spoils this article. I would like to see it removed rather than stay in its current form. Alternatively, it could all be included in the Notes early on, with a specific mention about any competing/conflicting claims that have arisen in recent years. Then readers can make up their own minds, or do more research elsewhere. Rikstar 06:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be best to keep the first sentence and then write up two or three sentences covering some detail on each ancestry and the conflict between the Scottish and German roots? Something along the lines of "Presley's Scottish roots are said to be...., although there is conflicting evidence that Presley might derive from the German name 'Pressler'" - Something to that effect anyway. --Northmeister 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second!
Why o' Why ..would someone change their surname to a name that already is native to Scotland today...i know some people changed thier name in america to blend in and other reasons..but there is ALOT of scottish ancestry proof...with ALL HIS FAMILY ROOTS TILL SCOTLAND....I havent seen any proof of all his ancestors from germany.....only this one ancestor..thats not enough proof..of having german ancestors....there is even a PRESLEY Tartan...but it would be cause its a scottish surname.. hispania 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical about the German connection because the Presley name already existed in Scotland. That's why I added the bit about Scottish researchers disagreeing about his German ancestry. There has been staunch support for the German theory (funnily enough from German editors). The "Presley of Lonmay" tartan is a red herring however: it was invented after Presley's Scottish roots were identified - in 2004. Rikstar 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I just made this...but couldnt for some reason put all the 8 generations into the family tree. after number 16. its Andrew Presley,Born about 1765, North Carolina,then Andrew Presley,Born about 1720 in Scotland. Arrived North Carolina in 1745. and first Andrew Presley who married in Lonmay on August 27th 1713 with Elspeth Leg. If anybody finds more about the names of people that are missed.then please add it..but ive never seen anthing like this about the german ancestors....the UK did a research on this..afew years ago...after the german research years earlier...but as far as i know..there has been more people going to the geneolgy labs in Scotland..with actual papers showing the ancestors...leading upto elvis.... If his family ultimatly ends up in germany...then it needs proof all the way. hispania 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I partly have to agree with rikstar that the information on Elvis' ancestry is proably too detailed. But maybe the reason for mentioning too many details is that there seems to be some kind of competion like Rikstar already mentioned and because of that and not wanting to start the same discussion over and over again the editor did a little bit too much. Maybe one competition could be "how many different cultures or Countries can we connect with Elvis" another could be "let this culture/country in or/and leave that one out". User Rikstar wants to have scottish ancestry included - where is the problem? Scotland is part of U.K. like Rhineland is a part of Germany. My suggestion is to concentrate these infos. It could be mentioned that his ancestry reaches back until the the 17th century to german catholic vinedressers (on paternal side) who changed their name Presslar into Presley after some years living in America and that Elvis was predominantly anglo-american/ british or what ever you call it. I would leave out the unconfirmed material (too much speculation). Maybe someone likes to do an extra article about Elvis' ancestry - proably there will be enough infos.

In general what is interesting about a ancestry (my opinion I'm no geneologe): 1.Where does it start/how far it reaches back (the root) 2.which cultures are dominating 3.what kind of where the last two generations (parents/grandparents)

Rikstar pointed out that the research concerning german and scottish collides. Yes and no. One child of Valentin Presslar changed his name from "Andreas Presslar" to "Andrew Presley". Of course if that Presslar had to change his name he have to use something more english sounding otherwise he could have stayed "Presslar". One example: The actor James Garner's name is actually "Baumgartner" a typical german name (often found in Bavaria and the south of Germany and even in Austria). The studio changed his name without asking the actor because the bosses thought it is too long, to complicated and too foreign/german. Now "Garner" alone could be still german with first names like "Norbert" or "Heinz" but "James Garner" sounds 100% anglo-american. Proably you'll find in the U.K. "Garner" which means in english a place to store corn and grain. That proves nothing. If "Presley" would be written "Pressli" people could guess that is a typical swiss name.

I guess one genealoge got back as far as to that "Andrew Presley" and thought because of the name that he was scottish. Well, then Gerd Pressler did his research (starting in Germany and not thinking about Elvis as I mentioned before) and reached back to where he found out about a "Andreas Presslar" who changed his name to "Presley". I think that's all what happened.

This all makes sense and explains the wrong belief in the scottish roots. And there is no reason for not believing this. There is no reason calling me nazi, who wants to proove that Elvis is "fullblooded german". I know it was only one stupid person who did this but would have appreciated if other discussions members would have told that Armleuchter to shut up. But maybe they thought that guy (me) wants to start a competition. That's wrong- only facts. Greetings from 87.162.36.52 10:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Much has been said about undeniable proof in the Elvisorama documentary - but why is this source more undeniable than other claims? It is proably newer (2007). Once again the "Andrew Presley" who was thought to be Elvis' oldest known relative and be of derived from Scotland is the same person who is the son of a son of Valentin Pressler. That means "Andrew Presley" formerly "Andreas Pressler" was born in America but his father and his Grandfather - a german vinedresser- were Germans. There is no scottish ancestry at that point. If you don't want to believe me I can't do nothing against it. It is true - I could be anybody putting you on but I think if rikstar had seen the documentary he would say that the german ancestry is a proven fact. The film is not that good and will be soon forgotten. So Rikstar will never have the chance to see it and Elvis will remain of scottish ancestry forever - at least in the english-speaking wikipedia! Elvis is 100% American anyway and would not bother at all I guess. Greetings from 87.162.36.52 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland, an admirer of the american artist Elvis Presley!
 * Franco (and Northmeister). Thank you for your responses. Franco, Please assume good faith. There really is no need for you to use phrases like "if you don't want to believe me". You can believe ME when I say I Have NO interest in proving Presley was of Scottish/UK, Cherokee, 'Eskimo', Hottentot or any other ancestry, or in disproving his German ancestry. I am a dispassionate 'internationalist' in this regard and am only concerned that what is included in the NPOV article is credible, and is not challenged by conflicting claims. This could affect FA nomination. You and the evidence you support/present may well be right, but it is a stance that appears to be easily challenged by Scottish ancestry supporters. The German/Presslar edit looks fine on its own and it is well sourced. But anyone clicking on the Scottish link will be taken straight to another credible source saying otherwise. Because of this, I think the wikipedia account should at least acknowledge this uncertainty (as Northmeiser suggests), or the Scottish reference should go, or maybe the obvious conflict of information can be resolved another way. Rikstar 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Hello Rikstar, please have in mind I'm no native english speaking person. So I'm more limited in arcticulation than you. Of course I am good enough in English that people can understand me. Please have also in mind that a written word weighs more than a spoken word (don't know if that phrase makes sense to you - in german language it does). It takes a lot more time for me writing something in english than in german. It is the 2nd time you are telling me what phrases I should use or not ( remember the "aspersions" when I first dropped a note on this site). I think I did not behave so bad that you have a right to teach me how to do or that I am so bad mannered that you have to correct me when other people can call me a nazi and get away with it. I don't care if you are an internationalist or not. I only speak to you as an Elvis-fan, (critical) admirer or only someone who is just interested in Elvis' music and life. It started when I saw that documentary (which is not good made but disappointing and I turned it off after awhile by the way) that I looked in the german Wikipedia to see what they had written about Elvis. They mentioned that "Valentine Pressler thing" but the article was not very good. The discussion was not on a high level either ("I heard Elvis is not dead but lives somewhere anonymous"). So I read your article and thought that it was better and the discussion was on a higher level. But that ancestry thing was missing. Of course - the documentary could be only seen on very little seen TV Channel Arte (a colabouration of the french public TV and the public german TV which concentrates on art, literatur, politic, film and all kinds of music). So I thought I tell you the news: A headline to catch attention and 2 or 3 sentences, proably there will be some french or german/austrian fans who will tell you that this info is not made up. That did not happen so after your "aspersion" accuse I told you the details I knew and "141" said this sounded reasonable. And it was o.k. for me. After some days or weeks I dropped by again on this site. I saw that "Heil hitler"-thing and that it was written after my long explanation. So I put a comment to it. After that I watched that discussion more regularly. Before that I thought about the obvious conflict scottish/german and I thought there is no conflict anymore when you have in mind that two researcher started from different ankles (one starting in Tupelo - the other in Rhineland). The Tupelo researcher reached back until Andrew Pressler, the german Rhineland researcher(who was not searching for Elvis but his vinedresser dynasty) found out that one Of Valentine's P. grandchildren changed his name from Andreas Pressler to Andrew Presley. The researchers worked together and found out that the person is identical. Is this so hard to believe? I think it is logical. That is the way research works anyhow. I don't care if Elvis is of german or of any other ancestry. I only wanted to make clear that I don't make things up and that people are wrong who think that Andrew P. is scottish. I did not use the word "competition" in the first place, I did not get personally or were rough on somebody and I wonder if this theory of solving the scottish/german conflict makes sense to you or is totally constructed. One last thing I only said "if you don't want to believe me" I made you no accusions. I don't know you. The only thing about you I know is that you don't believe in my resources and theories or explanations - nothing more or less. And I'm so free to tell you that. I believe you that you don't want to prove any scottish or other ancestry- Why should not I? 87.162.37.110 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutchland
 * Franco: Welcome aboard. Glad to have you here and to have your input on matters. You may want to improve the German article in manner that we've done here. It was entirely inappropriate for someone to type 'Heil Hitler' after your comments. Don't let that distract you from things. In regards to the issue of ancestry, I see it as pretty much a disputed topic. Indeed the Scottish and German roots do conflict and then maybe they don't? In America, many persons after several generations have different ethnic backgrounds - thus being essentially American. Germans are the one of the largest ethnic groups outside of the English, who first established the colonies. In fact, America almost spoke German by a vote of one. Something most people don't know. Anyway - our task here is to include both in an informative way and not to make judgements about either. I think this is the best way forward. May I suggest you sign in and pick a user name. We welcome any further input you might have on improving the article. --Northmeister 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Northmeister's comments - and Franco, your written English is a lot better than my German... Rikstar 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have amended the Ancestry section to reflect the conflict between the various ancestry researchers, without deleting the German details. I think this is a fairer way of describing the current state of the research. Rikstar 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Northmeister & Rikstar, and thank you for your fine comments. I would like to improve the Elvis article in german wikipedia but I'm afraid that I have not got the time. The german article is not bad - only yours is better. I'm not a member of a wiki but sometimes (maybe twice a year) I have written or worked on an article. The only thing I could add to your Elvis article was the info about the ancestry. An anecdote about his Army stay in Germany (as told by Ted Herold): A german singer called Ted Herold - one of the two german/austrian "Elvis" - waited in front of Elvis' home to give him one of his records to listen to. When Elvis arrived in his uniform he told the german singer that he is in Germany on duty for his country and not as an artist. He said he would like to talk to him but he got to get up early the next morning but if Herold would wait for about 20 minutes on the outside Elvis would listen to the record and tell him his opinion. From the outside Herold heard that Elvis listened to the whole a-side and most of the b-side,too. He came out and gave the record back telling him that he liked it. Well, not a great story but it showed that Elvis was a gentleman and at least on that day there was no member of the Memphis Mafia around and if - it was even more gentleman like what Elvis did (giving the record personally back to the singer who was absolute unknown to him). About playing BASSGUITAR and DRUMS. Some 15 years ago I saw an ELVIS bootleg on vinyl. I forgot the name and which songs were on it but at least on one song the personel had jazzguitarrist Barney Kessel on guitar and Elvis on Bassguitar (among others). I never heard it but I know Kessel recorded with Elvis on some soundtracks and I read that Kessel did jamsessions with Elvis. Paul McCartney said when he visited Elvis in Graceland with the Beatles Elvis was playing Bass along with a jukebox ( "Mohair Sam" by Charlie Rich). McCartney showed him the correct basslines and Elvis mostly ignored the three other Beatles for the rest of the remaining time. (sources - McCartney interview and Klaus Voorman biography - creator of the "revolver" cover and Bassplayer (Manfred Mann, Plastic Ono Band etc.)) About playing DRUMS: The leadguitarrist of the Johnny Burnette rock&roll trio Paul Burlison said Elvis was an early member of that group. He played rhythmguitar and sang harmonies and if a drum kit was avaiable (which was not very often since they usually played on the streets and none of the owned one) he even played drums. When Elvis could not convince the Burnette Brothers to use him as a second lead vocalist but they  asked him to play the drums instead he quit. Burlison said Elvis hated it to be in the background and wanted a record audition but the other group members thought they were not good enough for that and that they needed drums. (sources - Radio interview with Burlison aired on German radio show "roots" when Burlison died 4 years ago). Dear Rikstar proably my english is better than your german but there is a big chance that your german is still better than my italian. ArrivederLa 87.162.50.2 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Franco
 * First I'll state again that the ancestry information is a can of worms. I would be OK if it was completely left out.
 * Regarding Elvis and the "Burnette Trio". Here is some text from "Rockabilly Legends" (Full reference is in article). "Elvis often came around when the Burnette Trio was rehearsing at Lauderdale Courts-and usually Dorsy would run him off. .. "He was just somebody bugging them," Billy answers. ... Elvis also wanted to sing those pop crooner ballads... Elvis was just some kid who wanted to be part of the gang." Steve Pastor 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

--

There has been staunch support for the German theory (funnily enough from German editors). It has nothing to do with me being german that I supported the "german theory" but because of seeing a austrian/french documentary (and a listening to radio feature) which proably was only aired in that 3 countries. If they had convincing arguments for any other ancestry I would have told you, too. If he is "scottish" it's okay with me but my "staunch support" was because of the convincing "german theory" (which is supported by american geneologist not germans - remember "Pressler" was not looking/searching for "Presley"). Maybe Steve Pastor's idea of leaving the whole ancestry out is not the worst idea - it would not hurt the article because after all Elvis' ancestry is not reflected in his music or life. [Franco]


 * Franco: I am pleased that you are not biased about this issue - and I hope/assume other editors are not biased. The family trees of both the Scottish and German research would look interesting when seen together; only a (partial) tree of Scottish ancestors appears here (above, thanks to hispania). I tend to agree Franco: this is a frustrating and time-consuming issue and could easily be left out and not harm the article. Or a simple Note could be added directing readers to all the ancestry sources that are already listed. Thank you for your continued help to sort this out. Rikstar 10:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Elvis often came around when the Burnette Trio was rehearsing at Lauderdale Courts-and usually Dorsy would run him off. ''' Paul Burlison mentioned that, too. Dorsey Burnette had some boxing skills and Elvis was a little afraid of him and had much respect because Dorsey was older and stronger. It was Dorsey (not Johnny) who told Elvis that there would be only one lead singer - his brother Johnny. Burlison said Dorsey - who was a bully - did not like Elvis and thought he was a "mother's boy". Elvis was not accepted as a full member but he performed with the Burnette Brothers before his sun auditions. In that interview Burlison also mentioned that they always performed an original composition which was recorded under the name of "baby lets play house" by Arthur Gunter who stole it from them. 87.162.26.36 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland
 * Is that interview available on line, either as streaming audio or as a transcript? Steve Pastor 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

-- I heard the interview on Berlin FM Station "Radio eins" the show was called "roots" and the moderator's name is Wolfgang Doebeling. It was aired shortly after Paul Burlison died. I don't know if Doebeling interviewed Burlison or some other person since I was only able to hear Burlison's answers but not the question. I don't know if it was done by a german radio station or any other Station from another radiostation/ country and I don't know when it was recorded exactly (proably late 90's). I had it on tape. It was longer but that's about all he was saying about Elvis. 87.162.56.134 08:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland
 * I think this statement by Burlison could be included in the article on Arthur Gunter . But it would be best if we could somehow make it a "verifiable" reference. If you would be willing to spend some time on it, hop on over to the article. There is also a site that has orignal versions of Elvis songs, and they might be interested, too. Could you contact Wolfgand? OOOO - If you could convert a sample of the tape to an mp3 file..., but you use past tense..- If I "see" you at the Gunther article, maybe we could continue there. Steve Pastor 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

INSTRUMENTS AND SEXUALITY
WAS ELVIS BISEXUAL?

AND AS YOU ARE NOT LETTING ANYONE EDIT THIS PAGE HE PLAYED GUITAR, PIANO, BASS, DRUMS, PERCUSSION, UKELELE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.61.25 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He only played guitar and piano in the studio or live. Yes, he slapped his guitar as well, but it is stretching it to call him a percussionist. He is not known as a bass or ukelele player - just because he was in a film or a publicity shot with one or messing with a drum kit doesn't mean we can say he played them (he did not play ukelele on the Blue Hawaii soundtrack for example). So we are sticking to a list of things we know he could and did play proficiently. His sexuality has been trawled over ad nauseum. Please remember to sign your messages. Rikstar 08:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE A PICTURE OF HIM ACTUALLY ON THE DRUMKIT AND IT SAID THAT HE WAS ORIGINALLY A DRUMMER AND WAS GOING TO BE A DRUMMER ASWELL A SINGER IN THE BAND HE FORMED BUT HE WAS TO SHY BECAUSE HE DIDNT THINK HE WAS GOOD. iT WAS SAME FOR THE BASS, UKELELE AND BONGO IVE GOT THE BOOK WHERN I FIND IT ILL TELL YOU THE NAME OF IT. sO PUT THE DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * Any information you have on this subject is welcome, the more detail about the sources the better (I've got at least TWO pictures of him using a drumkit).
 * No one I know means any offense if we have different opinions/information to you, so please be polite and assume good faith when you post your messages - then we can have a calm and sensible discussion about this interesting topic. Rikstar 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry removed
This section has been spoiling this article for weeks. There is nothing to be gained by conducting arguments in the main text - depending on what genealogical research each editor finds most convincing. Let's keep discussion of his ancestry to these pages - though I am personally not interested because it is a can of worms. His ancestry is really a minor part of his biography, so I have confined mention of it to the notes and then without comment, to prevent arguments. If any concensus is ever reached about making any mention of it in the main article (and I don't think it should), let it be decided here, first. Rikstar 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
I wanted to know about the relation of ancestory of Elvis Presley and Oprah Winfrey. I watch every Elvis TV show and read every book I can about Elvis and nothing seems to be in them about the direct relation. Just that they are related, never do I see a family tree or proof that Elvis Aaron Presley and Oprah Winfrey are of any relation. Are they really "long-lost" cousins?? Please answer my questions and send them to this e-mail- veronicarenae92@aol.com Thank you! -Veronica71.243.210.36 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Continual vandalism
Could someone please consider protecting this article? It has been plagued with puerile edits and is taking a lot of time to correct since the last partial lock was lifted. Rikstar 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if it is possible to create a good, or better, article on Presley without permanent protection. Although this isn't the wiki philosophy, as I understand it, it seems that, in certain circumstances (this being one of them), a truly open article and quality are mutually exclusive. Steve Pastor 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely, Steve, and would certainly support any efforts to restrict editing to only registered users. But I doubt that's gonna happen, so unfortunately we will just have to accept that most of what we see on this site will remain mediocre. Jeffpw 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone unregistered at IP address 201.41.77.222 has just made extensive edits to two sections, creating "Elvis and Priscilla". Not totally without merit, so I have not done any wholesale reverts. But these changes need extensive clean up and citations to maintain consistency. There are also dubious deletions by this user. More work for someone, probably who is a registered editor, and therefore accountable. Rikstar 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's unfortunate. Because the edits were not reverted, we are now stuck with them because my edits and those of others have conflicted with this person's. They have removed relevant, sourced information and replaced some of it with original research. They have also screwed up references and used existing references when I question whether or not they actually pulled the information they included from said references. Out of the several edits, only one should have been kept, maybe two. But now, we have entire paragraphs, perhaps even an entire section removed, other sourced information that should have remained, and also errors that will all have to be meticulously found and corrected one by one.  Lara  ❤  Love  02:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's middle name is spelled wrong.
It was spelled with only one "A" on his birth certificate. Athough it is said he planned to change the spelling to the more traditional spelling of the name, he never did and his middle name on his birth certificate is Aron.

Thank you very much ...
 * As is stated in the notes and references section of the article:


 * (May 9 2002). "Elvis Presley - the Singer". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
 * Presley's genuine birth certificate does actually say "Elvis Aaron Presley" (as written by a doctor). There is also a souvenir birth certificate that reads "Elvis Aron Presley." When Presley did sign his middle name, he used Aron. It says 'Aron' on his marriage certificate and on his army duffel bag. Aron was apparently the spelling the Presleys used to make it similar to the middle name of Elvis' stillborn twin, Jesse Garon. Elvis later sought to change the name's spelling to the traditional and biblical Aaron. In the process he learned that official state records had always listed it as Aaron. Therefore, he always was, officially, Elvis Aaron Presley. Knowing Presley's plans for his middle name, Aaron is the spelling his father chose for Elvis' tombstone, and it is the spelling his estate has designated as the official spelling whenever the middle name is used today. His death certificate says "Elvis Aron Presley". This quirk has helped inflame the "Elvis is not dead" conspiracy theories. Elvis' stillborn brother's first name is given as Jesse in many sources. However, according to a memorial marker in the grounds of Graceland, the correct spelling is Jessie.


 * A similar explanation regarding his name appears on Presley's official website. :"FAQ: Elvis' middle name, is it Aron or Aaron?" Elvis.com. Retrieved June 25 2007.
 * Regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gleason "quote"
I'd like the other editors to look at this reference. The bluepossum Dorsey page has a factual error in stating that it "introduced Elvis Presley to TV for the first time (he sang "Heartbreak Hotel"). He didn't sing Heartbreak until he was on the third show. Here is a site with a list of Elvis's TV appearances in those early years. A minor detail, perhaps, but enough for me to question whether this is enough to "verify" a direct quote attributed to Jackie Gleason. I would like to see it removed. Or, is this supposed to be hung onto the Jorgenson reference? Opinions? Steve Pastor 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gleason quote may be mentioned in other sources - I'll check what I've got. If it cannot be verified, it can be deleted. If you're really unhappy with it, we can afford to lose it. Rikstar 07:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard for this one should be as high as the one used by responsible journalists. There should be independent verification, which is very difficult, as you know, in this world of copy and paste. More journalist standards - when did he say this, where, and to whom? Unless we have all of this, I don't think it's appropriate to have a "quote". There is plenty of acutal, recorded, and printed reaction to this incident. No hurry. Let's see if anyone else registeres an opinion. Steve Pastor 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rikstar 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a necessary quote, delete it. Also the site used for the citation looks to be one of personal research, and not a valid source.Aladdin Zane 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Exactly the conclusion I came to after just looking at related pages at that site. It shall be done. Steve Pastor 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

After an early take, Phillips can be heard on tape saying: "Fine, man. Hell, that's different—that's a pop song now, just about."
There used to be a reference for this "Rockabilly Legends". I'll look it up again, and post it here since LaraLove is redoing references. Steve Pastor 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it one page 42 of The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday ISBN-13;: 978-I-4234-2042-2. I'll wait a while, and if Lara doesn't get it done, I'll put it in myself. Steve Pastor 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any references you need to add to the article, if you're not sure how to format them, just put the information in the right spot and I'll go through and format them. 10 digit ISBNs are preferred, but I can find them by searching the 13 digit, so it's no big deal.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

the thing waving in his pants
Elvis: By Those Who Knew Him Best. Virgin Publishing Limited, whichever page ... So, this is from someone who knew Elvis best, and the director said that Sullivan said.... Please watch the shows. All of them if possible. Not only does this verge on hearsay, it uses quote marks to give this handed down verison way more weight than it deserves. Sullivan's people showed Elvis in toto numerous times during the first two shows he was on. He was even shown in full doing a complete rendetion of "Hound Dog", gyrations included. And Sullivan knew all about the Milton Berle Hound Dog performance. Presley sang only ballads and gospel songs on the third show (except for 40 seconds of Hound Dog. The pattern in all of these early shows was to do close ups when the singer was singing something slow or soft. They only pull out to longer shots when the singer projects lots of energy. I urge you to not let "it's in a book and therefore "verifiable" triumph over common sense. Please watch the shows. Please watch how Sullivan interacts with both Presley and the audience. Opinions? Steve Pastor 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you've got a different take on the 'from the waist up' saga, we will need to quote reliable sources as reference (what is Guralnick's take on this?). Watching the shows may be personally convincing, but if the relevant section is rewritten without citations, won't it be original research? It might help if you give us a more precise account of your perspective - the opinions/attitude of all those involved; then we might be able to find specific information to support your views. As for "Elvis: By Those Who Knew Him Best", I found it had a lot of info that contradicted the usual myths and innacuracies about Presley. I don't see it as being that unreliable, except perhaps for the opinions of some of his fans quoted in it. Rikstar 07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made the following argument before. Actual recordings, such as the kinescopes made of the broadcasts of the Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle shows are a more authoritative source than someones interpretation of the shows. There can be no more reliable source. If Presley was shown in full repeatedly, which he was, by the Sullivan people, when was this "quote" overheard? I cannot accept that watching a recording of a broadcast is "original research". It is more along the lines of "I looked it". I did not create the recording. I looked at it. Compare the "verifiability" using quote marks, which imply that this is EXACTLY what Sullivan said over 50 years ago with actually watching the shows and confirming that Elvis was shown in full in all but the last shows. Yes, you can look it up in the book, but the account of what is supposed to have been said is over 50 years old, and is not an actual recording of what Sullivan said. It's a story someone told someone else. And it's pretty titilating. And it helped sell the book.
 * The current Elvis article is pretty good, overall right now. This passage, however, and the Gleason "quote", are, in my opinion, tabloid quality. The only truly verifiable facts are that on the last show, Elvis sang gospel songs and ballads (unlike the earlier shows where he did more upbeat, rock and roll songs and was shown in full), and was shown only from the waist up. The reference is the Ed Sullivan Shows dvd (something that was in the article at one time). The rest of it is hearsay, whether it is in a book or on a web stie. Steve Pastor 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve. All I know about the Sullivan quote is what I read in "Elvis: By Those Who Knew Him Best". Marlo Lewis, the Ed Sullivan director, said in an interview (to whom and when exactly, I don't know):
 * "Ed said to us just before the show, 'We're in trouble. Elvis is doing something in these concerts that can no way be shown on television. He's hangin' some kind of device in the crotch of his pants so that when he moves his knee back and forth, it looks like his personal organ.' Ed used a little better language than that. 'It's waving back and forth just above the knee. We can't have that on a Sunday night [etc].' So when we shot the show, I took camera two and said, 'Dolly into a chest shot and stay there.' And for the entire six minutes we only saw Elvis from his chest to his head. We never revealed the rest of him, nor did anyone ever see this 'implement' between his legs. And I'll tell you a secret: it wasn't there."
 * I don't know that this account "is over 50 years old" because we don't know when he gave the interview. I agree it is titillating (but that doesn't make it untrue or exaggerated). I don't know anything about Marlo Lewis and whether he made up stuff like this - I just don't know. If Sullivan liked Elvis and the whole from-the-waist-up thing is a perpetuated myth and Lewis' testimony doesn't fit with other evidence, I'm happy to go along with that and just have the truly verifiable facts that you state put in the article. Rikstar 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's one I hadn't heard before - it was Colonel Parker who told the camera man to only film Elvis form the waist up! He did this because he knew it would create controversy, and publicity! I'll stick the ref in revised text, which is almost done. Nothing like a good story! Steve Pastor 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

a first recording session question
Since the Phillips quote came up again. Has no one yet listened to the Elvis '56 dvd? The part where they capture the Bill Black inspired verison of Blue Moon on Kentucky, and Elvis can be heard mentioning Carl Perkins? BTW, I see the makers of Elvis the Series went with the Scotty Moore verison in that "Blue Moon.." was not recorded the same day as That's Alright. Can we finesse that part of the text? Where can I see the "session logs" that were referred to in an earlier discusion? Steve Pastor 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki Sun recordings and Jorgensen refer to a "session" taking place on "July 5-6". So obviously at least one song was recorded on a different day to the others. I don't know if any more specific info exists about this. I don't doubt Scotty Moore. At least the current article refers only to the same session (to agree with the sources) and doesn't state the two songs were recorded on the same day. Rikstar 08:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Writer and producer"
Anyone else think that calling Elvis a writer and producer is stretching credibility just a little bit? I vote for both terms to be deleted. I am reluctant to delete them as the editor who added them has been rather displeased about changes to his previous edits. Rikstar 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Elvis never wrote any music. He stated this himself. So, what did he write? How much did he write? etc. As far producing, he did have a major impact on how some of his music was recorded. He was able to get away with it because of his potential, initially, and later, his popularity. But, I don't think that means we can call him a producer. I say, it is up to the editor who wants this in the article to justify what he or she wants. Please make your arguments here. Steve Pastor 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it can be sourced, then it can be included. Otherwise, it should be removed.  Lara  ❤  Love  02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Elvis has writing credits on the movie "New Gladiators", and producer credits on the feature films "Elvis: That's the Way It Is" and "Elvis On Tour". So both credits come from his acting career on not the music career. This sentence states things he was, and he was a singer, musician, actor, writer and producerAladdin Zane 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See "New Gladiators" at IMDb. In this 2002 film the writer credit is followed by "(idea)". The other films you mention are "tour" films, rather than drama, comedy, etc. IMDb lists Elvis as playing himself. I would like to see Elvis involved in something besides a film or films about himself to truly be considered "a producer". Steve Pastor 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what "you'd like to see" Yes he is given writing credits because of the idea. What that means is he was not the script writer of the movie itself. But he was a writer of the idea used in the script. Also the fact remains he was the Producer of those 2 Feauture films. That is not something to be taken away from him. Because of your Personal POV. Because according to your quote "I would like to see Elvis involved in something besides a film or films about himself to truly be considered "a producer". You are basically saying film producers arent producers, or musical film producers arent producers. Which by the way is just showing a Personal POV and not a NPOV. A producer is a producer no matter what he produces (music / film / music videos / animated films) so keep your personal POV out of it. Unless you can disprove he was the producer it stays. Because it is up to you to disprove it, and not just use your personal POV to say what you would like to see. This article is about Elvis Presley not you, It also is not just about musical Elvis.Aladdin Zane 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC

So, I guess we can assume that you have presented your argument in full? I disagree with you. I can give you examples of people getting credit for things regardless of whether they actually contributed to "writing", for instance. If Elvis had lived longer, perhaps someone would have let him produce a film about something other than his own activities. Then he would be a producer. Did RCA forgo paying Steve Sholls as producer of Elvis's records? Your agrument would be more convincing if you were more specific about there not being another producer around. The phrase "I would like to see" is a polite way of stating the fact that I disagreed with your assessment that Elvis was a producer because he was listed in the credits of the films about himself. Regarding his being a writer, having an idea is not the same as being a "writer". Even having a draft of a script is not the same. My standards for what should be in an encyclopedic article are different, and I would say higher, than yours. I wonder if you have convinced others with this argument. Steve Pastor 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bottom line he has professional credits as a writer, and producer unless you can disprove it.Aladdin Zane 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The "bottom line" is that the introduction should only contain a brief description of his life/career, mainly information regarding what he was famous for. Elvis is NOT famous for being a "writer" or a "producer". Information regarding this can be, and is mentioned, elsewhere (in the Filmography - the New Gladiators thing). "Disproving" whether he was or wasn't anything has little to do with it. I am disappointed by the argumentative tone of your responses to Steve Pastor regarding this point. You were similarly argumentative about using his surname throughout this encyclopedic article. Please assume good faith when discussing - we are all on the same side and want the best for this important wikipedia article. Rikstar 10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rikstar as stated previously, This is not your article, Just because his producing credits were at the end of his career does not mean the are to be forgotten. Also the sentence is not about what made him famous. I gave in for the writer and removed it. Fact is he has professinoal credits as producer (not only in his movies but also he has song producer or executive producer credits from before he passed away) unless you can disprove the credits they stay. There was also several albums he was given Arranger credits on from before he passed away, but I didn't say that.Aladdin Zane 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get this. The intro is for brief information - a summary of his life. The producer/writer stuff and all the other details of his life are in the rest of the article, or other links. Writer/producer/arranger shouldn't be in the intro - just like it doesn't say "soldier" in the intro. It's question of format and style. Why you keep going on about disproving things - I don't know. The fact is no one reading ANY other article on Elvis is going to read he was as much a producer as he was a singer and actor. Why do you want this article to be uniquely different?? Like you say, it isn't YOUR article. Rikstar 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so it's not out of place for such information to be included. But one thing I'm noticing is being said a lot here is that the claim must be disproved to be removed. It's actually quite the opposite. Information must be sourced when challenged in order to be included. So no one here has to disprove anything. Now that it's been challenged, it must be proven to be included.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a summary of an article be more accurate if it included things in the article? :) The article doesn't go in to his role as a producer, so there's really nothing to summarize. the_undertow talk  18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * just because the article does not go into his role as producer of his live concert TV films, does not mean he wasn't a producer.Aladdin Zane 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. A summary of Catcher in the Rye will not include items from other books. Just as if the lead-in is to be a summary of the article, it must stick to the article. You're summary of my statement was misleading as well: I did not assert Elvis was not a producer. the_undertow talk  20:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed my last scheduled haircut. I have given myself a trim to look presentable. This does not make me a barber. Elvis's production credits are similar to my self haircut. If he had lived longer, perhaps he would have established his credibility as a producer by producing music or film for other artists, as many actors and musicians have done over the course of the years. He didn't have the chance to do that. So, again, Alladin, I disagree with you on this, as do other editors. Steve Pastor 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense, in this matter. Doesn't matter when in his career he had his production credits. He has them from both music and movies. In music he had them in 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1977 prior to his death. In movies from both his TV films from 1973. And as per wiki policy these are credible unless they can be disproven.Aladdin Zane 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, this is an exercise in consensus and you don't have it. Second, you mention policy but which one defends these sources? The first site you provided actually calls itself a 'blog,' which is pretty much a red flag. IMDB is a user-edited source and is hardly reliable as well. the_undertow talk  20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually read the policies they are realiable in the way they are used. Also according to policy they are realiable unless the can be disproven/ All off which has not been done. I will be changing back.Aladdin Zane 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I await your citation of policy. In the interim, here is the policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have failed to adhere this policy by providing unreliable sources AND failing to use citations. You certainly fail to adhere to consensus. However, if you revert you will not have failed hitting the 3RR point and this is just a friendly reminder that you are fast approaching the threshold. the_undertow talk  23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to read wiji policy on sources. Both are very valid sources unless the content being disputed is disproven. Which noone has yet to do. So yes I am adding it back, if you don't think it belongs, Then it is simple, disprove the producing credits. Otherwise you are simply trying to impose your personal POV.Aladdin Zane 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some citing of policy. In order to include the information it needs to be attributed to a reliable source.  Lara  ❤  Love  05:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." -- WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (Emphasis added) -- WP:V.
 * "Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources." -- WP:NOR
 * "[T]he only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately." -- WP:NOR
 * "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." (Emphasis added) -- WP:CITE
 * "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Emphasis added) -- WP:RS
 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." (Emphasis added) -- WP:RS

Controversial king
In the fourth paragraph, it reads as follows (quotation marks included in article):

Reference: Billboard writer Arnold Shaw, cited in Denisoff, R. Serge (1975). Solid Gold: The Popular Record Industry. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, p.22

There is something wrong with the quotation marks. They should be singles inside of doubles, but I'm confused about where the specific quotes from Shaw start. ('Older brother') is correct. but then there is ("generated) which opens another quote but there has been no closing quote. Can whoever wrote this fix it, please?  Lara  ❤  Love  02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Onefortyone put this quote in. Rikstar 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Country
How many country albums did Elvis have? Enough to be labeled as Country?  Lara  ❤  Love  06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He recorded dozens of country tracks, spread over several albums/singles. He did less rockabilly stuff but we have to label him as Rockabilly because it was an important genre, so I think the country label is as valid Rikstar 11:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Add "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theories
Google proves notability: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Elvis+is+alive Plus lots of movies claim Elvis didn't die he returned to his homeplanet. I think they had that exact quote in the movie "men in black". William Ortiz 06:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go Elvis sightings. I text searched for "alive" and found nothing. William Ortiz 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sullivan Show - again
Presley was introduced thusly the first time he appeared on the Sullivan Show. "Laughton appears in front of plaques with gold records and states, "These gold records, four of them... are a tribute to the fact that four of his recordings have sold, each sold, more than a million copies. And this by the way is the first time in record making history that a singer has hit such a mark in such a short time. ... "  Gold records, acknowledgement of Elvis's achievements to date... Sorry, Marcus, reality contradicts what you wrote on this one. Please see show available on dvd to confirm. Steve Pastor 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Laughton may have appeared in front of plaques with gold records in order to introduce the singer, but there can be no doubt that the famous actor was the main act of the said Sullivan Show. Elvis expert Greil Marcus has been accurately cited. You may add some details, but don't delete the quote. Onefortyone 20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, according to more than one source, Sullivan paid a total of $50,000 for Elvis to appear 3 times. Does it make sense that he would Bury him? It doesn't to me. (Years later, Ed paid only $25,000 for the Beatles.) And if you look at the total amount of air time Elvis had... Authors have a bad habit of embelishing, rather than sticking to facts. Basically, they make stuff up.It is my intent to delete statments that are contrary to what we can see in the actual broadcast. Most of what you've inserted about the harem outfit squares with what is on the dvd. BTW, what night cap and gown? I watched these shows repeatedly. At what time in which broadcast did this occur? Presley was wearing a sport coat out in Hollywood when they first showed him. regaridng stiff legs, Elvis didn't always do the same thing. He actually mixed it up pretty good. But only when there was lots of energy in the song. Steve Pastor 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know what show business is? According to Sullivan biographer Michael David Harris, "Sullivan signed Presley when the host was having an intense Sunday-night rivalry with Steve Allen. Allen had the singer on July 1 and trounced Sullivan in the ratings. When asked to comment, the CBS star said that he wouldn't consider presenting Presley before a family audience. Less than two weeks later he changed his mind and signed a contract." During the 60s, Sullivan "tried to sign the singer up again... He phoned Presley's manager, Col. Tom Parker, and asked about a price. Parker came up with a list of instructions and conditions and after hearing the demands Sullivan said, 'Give Elvis my best—and my sympathy,' and he hung up." See Michael David Harris, Always on Sunday: Ed Sullivan (1968), p.116. After his three appearances, the singer never again appeared in Sullivan's show. This fact speaks volumes. Greil Marcus says, "From show to show, month to month, as Berle or Allen or Sullivan flitted around the ever more relaxed, seemingly invulnerable Presley, you enter a queer drama, where legitimate, northern, fully socialized and socializing individuals, great celebrities secure in their belief that they will and deserve to be remembered forever, try eagerly, or desperately, to at once distance themselves from and attach themselves to the Memphis Flash in the pan. It’s a trend, they’re going to ride it out, they were here before he was and they’ll be here when he’s gone, but they’re like moths drawn to his flame." By the way, Elvis was only appearing for a few minutes in Sullivan's show, Charles Laughton was on air for hours. It may be your personal opinion that Presley was wearing a sport coat, but which source says that this was the case? Onefortyone 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be good for all of us to get in the habit of not blindly thinking that everything in a book or on a web site is true. This is improtant in this article, because it is way past the point of anything that is verifiable being shoved in it, if it is going to have any kind of "good" or better rating as an article. Steve Pastor 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In another example of this, I went and looked at magazine covers where someone wrote, in a book published this year, something appeared. Again, the book is wrong. If you can't verify what someone wrote, and can point to an actual record of something, like the dvds of these shows, we will have a better, more accurate article. We don't have to rely on second hand information anymore in some cases. If we had Sullivan on tape saying "Yes, I paid big bucks for him, but I intentionally buried him by not putting him on first..." Maybe I'd buy this stuff. (Actually, I would wonder what Ed had been smoking when he said it.) Meanwhile, I say look at the darn shows yourself. You can probably get them through your local library. At the least you can find a site that lists the content of the shows and how much time Elvis was on air vs other acts. Steve Pastor 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Greil Marcus is a reputed Elvis expert and his books on Elvis are reliable sources, especially in view of the fact that the author is notable for producing scholarly and literary essays that place rock music in a much broader framework of culture and politics than is customary in pop music journalism. Wikipedia cites reliable sources. Marcus's article is entitled, "Elvis Presley: The Ed Sullivan Shows" and therefore directly related to the topic. In order to write such an article, Marcus must have carefully studied the shows. If there are any other articles or books specifically dealing with Elvis's three Ed Sullivan appearances, which totally contradict his account, you may cite them. Otherwise Marcus is certainly one of the best sources concerning the topic. Onefortyone 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Onefotryone, the best source concerning the Sullivan shows are the Sullivan shows themselves, which, as I keep writing are available to anyone who will take the time to find, and look at them. We all make mistakes. I am requesting that you do not rely on someone else's version of what happened, but check it out yourself. Why? Because, while it is possible that you and I will come up with different interpretations of what we see, we should be able to agree that Elvis was introduced with the following statement ... Elvis wore a sport coat on all but the last show, etc. The problem with Marcus and his ilk is that they interpret things for us. And his suppostion that Elvis was "buried" is not supported by anything that can be seen or heard in the shows themselves or by records of how much air time Elvis had on the show(s). Nor does he offer any supporting evidence for his contention. I cannot accept the argument that he is an authority and therefore must be right when I can see and hear for myself. And what I see and hear can be verified by anyone, simple by looking at a dvd of the shows. If the shows themselves were not available to the public, it would be a different matter. Then we would have to rely on the authorities to tell us what happened. Steve Pastor 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

References... again
Y'all really know how to work a girl! This would be a lot easier if those adding the references could at least attempt to include all the necessary information. I can appreciate formatting isn't for everyone, but I'm going to start removing references that lack necessary information that I can't find, like page numbers.

Also, I started this section because it didn't appear anyone was reading the other section but me. If I seem to be talking to myself in this one, I'm just going to start deleting refs that appear to have incorrect information that I can't sort out. I'll also remove any challengeable information. I'm not spending hours on end cleaning this up for my health. It won't stay listed as a GA if it doesn't get cleaned up, so some help would be beneficial.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya doing a great job - I've already deleted non-page no. citation. Will help out elsewhere when I can, but I got a D- in formatting. Rikstar 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
The Ed Sullivan section just doesn't work. Arguments about this section have resulted in it containing details - what Charles Laughton said, etc. - that seem to be in there to justify the editor's particular stance regarding the Ed Sullivan shows - to score points in an argument. The details don't tell us anything interesting or significant; they just look strange, making this section inferior to the rest of the article. I think there should be mention of: Elvis being on the three shows, the fee paid, the high TV ratings, a bit about the 'from the waist up' and that's all.

Also, we have an addition in the controversy section concerning the sexuality of his performing. We already have several references to this; the new edit adds nothing new - except titillaing terms like "strip tease", "orgies", "masturbation" and "sexual pervert". This is unnecessary.

I vote for severe editing of the Ed Sullivan section and deleting the sentences containing the salacious terms quoted above. Rikstar 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I only partly agrree. What Charles Laughton says in order to introduce Elvis is irrelevant. Every other star would have been introduced with similar words. This is show business. More important is what reputed Elvis biographer Marcus has written in an article specifically dealing with Elvis's three appearances in the Ed Sullivan Show. He is certainly the best source concerning the topic. Without Marcus's critical remarks, the misgivings that Sullivan had according to many reliable sources would make no sense. Therefore, I have abridged and reincluded the material. As for the controversy section, the "titillaing terms", as you call them, like "strip tease", "orgies", "masturbation" and "sexual pervert" have not been mentioned before in the article. As they are well sourced and clearly show what adults thought about Elvis's performances at that time, they certainly belong in the article, especially since Elvis is known as a sex symbol. These terms are part of the cultural history of the fifties and early sixties. Onefortyone 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, I agree with Rikstar. I would even agree to going back to the pre Marcus version. As you know, however, I made my argument regarding the Marcus quote here, after it was added to the article. Since no one agreed with me that the quote was inaccurate and misleading, I decided to take another tack. That being, making what actually happened obvious to even a casual reader. I had initially saved all of this detail for the Sullivan article itself, where I felt it was more appropriate. I agree with your suggestion, and further submit that we revert with the stipulation that the Marcis quote also be excluded. (I haven't looked at the newer edits yet.)
 * One more comment, which I've made before, so many people have projected so much onto Elvis... As editors of this and other articles, I think we owe it to readers to present as little opinion, and as much fact as we can, since there are plenty of facts. :::P.S. Will have to save pix for "Critical Commentary" in the Sullivan article. "his legs as if in casts" Ha! ::::I see a new quote by an "author" proporting to tell WHY Allen set up the Hound Dog bit like he did. Allen is on record as to why he did it, and the author is reading Allen's mind. Again, facts are preferable to opinion. Steve Pastor 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I have your attention, when Elvis did his first set on the first Sullivan Show, two ballads, only tight shots were used. He did rockers in his second set, and alternating close and long shots were used. More energy, more jumping around, more long shots. Less energy, more close ups. Steve Pastor 19:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have made the proposed changes to these two sections. I think you're right about the mix of camera shots, and the censorsip thing could well be red herring. Rikstar 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting error
In awards and recognition section, the paragraph about the postage stamp, can someone correct the problem at the end of it? Thanks. Rikstar 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. I used parenthesis instead of brackets. :/  Lara  ❤  Love  04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reshaping" the introduction
I'm not sure why the intro has been rewritten by Joey, etc. It now partly reads: "During much of the 1960s, Presley turned his attention to the movie industry, making the majority of his thirty-three movies during this time. The steady decline of his musical quality and luke-warm movie reception eventually took its toll on Presley however, and in 1968 he returned to live music in a TV Special and thereafter across the U.S.. The shift back toward music took Presley to the top of the music charts once again, however the rejuvenation of his career did not come without a cost. Health problems would plague Presley during much of his later life, which coupled with a punishing tour schedule and addiction to prescription medication, led to his premature death at age 42."

In what way did his 60's career "take its toll"? Why did the rejuvenation of his career have "costs"? Is this just a reference to touring? The previous version was simply a summary of the facts. The latest rewrite is woolly and begs questions for the unitiated. It implies that drugs were only significant after his career rejuvenation, but the seeds of his demise were probably sown years earlier - he had problems with drugs years earlier.

I think the earlier version was more accurate and informative. It was also shorter, and we have to watch article length. Rikstar 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The previous version was better. This reads to editorial. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a magazine article.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo's Wikipedia contributions, see and  Onefortyone 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer comments about the point in question, in this instance. Rikstar 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the previous version was much better. As far as I can see, it has now been reinstated. Thanks. Onefortyone 22:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually a bit offended that my good faith edits to improve the article were blanket reverted, based on a couple of errors which could easily remedied. And i don't think the style is too editorial in my opinion, I think it flows much better than a standard list of disjointed facts. The version you have provided Riskter is boring, thread-bear on facts, and is out of order (why are you establishing his significance at the end on the ontro rather than the beginning? have you even read the style guide?). A good article ENGAGES the reader, not put them to sleep! But never mind, if my edits to improve the article aren't going to be appreciated then I going to take my leave, there are much better things to focus on.Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 07:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't "provided" any version, boring or otherwise, though did contribute edits to the introduction. No one has argued the introduction is perfect, but your changes were judged to have made it worse, for the reasons stated above. The changes you made begged too many questions. If you've been offended - I am too occasionally. Welcome to Wikipedia editing! Rikstar 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood years again
The following quote has been added: "...aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, [was] acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."

I don't think this is a useful addition. It's a highly personal and somewhat obscure comment to make about his movie roles, and looks out of place because no other comments in this section are anything like it. I note that it contains more titillating references, something some editors seem to have an obsessive urge to include in the Presley article - regardless of how well it gels with the rest of the section. References to the sexual nature of Presley's persona and performances - and the controversy it caused - are already covered. This Sight and Sound addition isn't necessary. I think it should be removed. Rikstar 10:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a quote from a reliable source dealing specifically with Elvis's appearances in his Hollywood movies. It clearly shows what film experts thought about the actor Presley. Therefore, the quote certainly belongs in the Hollywood section of the article. Onefortyone 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I argued that: "References to the sexual nature of Presley's persona and performances - and the controversy it caused - are already covered." You haven't addressed any of the reasons I stated for its removal. Rikstar 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no other references of this kind in the Hollywood section, and therefore this nice quote should be in the article. As I said, the "Sight and Sound" article critically deals with Elvis's film appearances from a film expert's point of view. Onefortyone 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to adding every little tidbit of information for every aspect of his life and career, consider adding only the most relevant information from the most reliable sources. Because something is discussed in another article does not justify it being discussed in this one. In fact, because such information is discussed in an article linked to this one, it shouldn't be included here. All these sections that have full main articles need to be significantly shortened. And these overly editorialized comments and quotes, like the one being discussed here, should be removed. It's not encyclopedic, in my opinion. Keep in mind when making additions that we're building an encyclopedia, not a Biography for the book shelves. Watch the tone and consider how much of it is already covered in the main article. If the information is available there, summarize it here or leave it out all together if it isn't that notable or important.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
The constant reverting of major content needs to stop. The Ed Sullivan show section, for example, keeps going back and fourth. The nightgown and "trying to bury him" stuff. Personally, I think it reads like shit, but if it's true, and the sources back it up, leave it there. The lead read better with the paragraph about how he's one of the best selling, influential figures blah blah blah, in my opinion. However, regardless of which version sticks, talk it out and pick one because the stability of this article as a GA is laughable.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about "the constant reverting of major content". My peception of it is that whole paragraphs appear in the article without any prior discussion. If there had been discussions, a vetting process involving discussion among editors, and a respect for the process of gaining consensus, or even a majority, before the introduction of new material, then this would not be happening. This is the only article I have worked on so far where I see so many editors. It IS possible for people to work together and come up with a better article. But, that only happens when editors respect the work of those who have gone before, and the opinions of those who are also working on the same article. The rewriting of sections at this point, and the insertion of entire paragraphs, or even sections, is not within that spirit. I can think of several possible courses of action in this regard, but will wait and see where this goes. Steve Pastor 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that such large additions should be added here first and discussed. The article is already too long and needs to be trimmed. Adding more information isn't helping that. I'm not messing with content aside from reverting vandalism. I copy-edit and format references, but, as an active member in the GA project, it's frustrating to see so many GA disqualifiers and leave it listed. If it doesn't start to come together soon, it won't stay as GA.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose deleting several sections, like the Ed Sullivan embellishments (already done, but reverted), the slept-with-Marilyn sentence and all the recent 'titillating' stuff contibuted recently. This will shor ten things, but I fear Onefortyone will revert such changes. Perhaps 141 can comment on this now and show some recognition of the reasons already stated to make such changes. Rikstar 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It's starting to read like a published biography, not an encyclopedic article. If we can't come to an agreement with all involved here on the talk page, we may have to request some outside assistance.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to make the changes I proposed above (and there are others). I agree the encyclopedic nature of the article is lacking, but I'll wait a bit to see if we get more comments. Rikstar 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, as the material is well sourced and the contemporary expressions make the text more vivid. However, as a compromise, I have now shortened the text. Onefortyone 03:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

141: Your edits are welcome, but I and others do not think they go far enough. This article could and should be significantly shorter. The individual's wish to include material that is "well sourced... contemporary expressions" (which I and LaraLove see as "tidbits" that make this article less encyclopedic) is less important than the overall look of the article. I note the comment above: "Because something is discussed in another article does not justify it being discussed in this one." It is clear from LaraLove that this article could lose its GA status if this issue is not addressed. I have no wish to target any particular editors contributions; but I suspect you will be unhappy if some of your additions are removed and you will add them back, without the due consideration needed to keep and improve the status of this article. I have in the past reluctantly accepted some of your edits as a compromise, but it is some of these edits (as well as others) that are compromising the status of this article. I am sure you can confirm that your main agenda is to see this article achieve Featured Article status? Rikstar 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lara also says, "if it's true, and the sources back it up, leave it there." I am frequently citing experts on Elvis and I have now, as a compromise, significantly shortened the text, thereby deleting some of the quotes I originally had included. Do you remember what other users said on this talk page? "The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest." There is still some fan-oriented stuff in the article, and therefore, it is far from FA status. Mark Crispin Miller's academic study, Boxed in (1988) includes several critical remarks on Elvis based on eyewitness accounts by the Memphis Mafia members. In his chapter on "The King", the author writes:
 * Elvis gradually became an explosive megalomaniac as his wealth and boredom increased over the years. His body was ravaged by pills. He loved guns, and regularly shot out television sets and light fixtures, sometimes nearly killing various acquaintances. He was obsessed with law enforcement, tagged along on narcotics investigations in Memphis ... He was cruel to his "friends" (it is hard to find an accurate word for hired companions), intolerant to other performers, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and contemptuous of women, causing at least three of them serious physical injury.
 * See Mark Crispin Miller, Boxed in: The Culture of TV (Northwestern University Press, 1988), p.191. Similar accounts can be found in the book, Elvis: What Happened? These important details concerning Presley's personal life are still not mentioned in the article. This speaks volumes. Onefortyone 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem. You have two completely different types of editors working on this article at the same time. Those wanting to add the information that is well-known of Elvis, and 141 wanting to add everything possible that puts Elvis in a negative light. The article needs to include both, but not everything. It's an encyclopedic article, not a comprehensive biography. There are over 215 sources. We can't add every detail of every aspect of his life from every publication about him.


 * The article is entirely too long, it's redundant of main article topics, and it reads to editorial in places. If a reliable source states it as fact, include it. If some questionably reliable biographer has some hearsay or speculation, it can't be included. Facts, not assumptions or presumably true accounts. Every single section that starts out with a Main article: Whatever or the like, needs to be trimmed to a basic summary. When Jimbo said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing," he didn't intend for everyone to take it so literally. We don't have to provide every detail of the man's life and beyond. State the relevant, encyclopedic facts, backed by references... and format them like the rest.


 * When I say that this article could lose it's GA, I'm very serious. I'll delist it myself. I came to this article during my quality reviews of the Summer Backlog Elimination Drive. This article should never have been listed in the first place. It has yet to meet the criteria. But this is volunteer work, I can't get fired, so I ignored the rules and decided not to delist it because what kind of Elvis fan delists his article the week of the 30th anniversary of his death? So I started working on it, nominated for the Collaboration of the Week, and continued to attempt to improve it. Now, here we are. The article is better, but it's still not a GA, and it's no where near FA.  Lara  ❤  Love  13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many more problems. Just one example for what I call whitewashing the life of Elvis. Concerning Elvis's first steps as a guitar playing boy, the Wikipedia article states:
 * In 1946, Presley's mother took Elvis to Tupelo Hardware to get him a birthday present. Although he wanted a rifle, he left the store with a $7.90 guitar. In November 1948, the Presleys moved to Memphis, Tennessee, allegedly because Vernon&mdash;as well as needing work&mdash;had to escape the law for transporting bootleg liquor. In 1949, they lived at Lauderdale Courts, a public housing development in one of Memphis' poorer sections. Presley practiced playing guitar in the basement laundry room and also played in a five-piece band with other tenants. Another resident, Johnny Burnette, recalled, "Wherever Elvis went he'd have his guitar slung across his back....He used to go down to the fire station and sing to the boys there....[H]e'd go in to one of the cafes or bars....Then some folks would say: 'Let's hear you sing, boy.'"
 * This suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true. Here is what Peter Guralnick writes in the first chapter of his biography, Last Train to Memphis:
 * "I took the guitar, and I watched people," Elvis recalled, "and I learned to play a little bit. But I would never sing in public. I was very shy about it, you know." ...
 * It was in his seventh-grade year that Elvis started taking his guitar to school every day. Although teachers in later years would recall the early manifestations of a child prodigy, many students viewed his playing more dubiously, dismissing it with the same faint wrinkle of distaste with which they would greet déclassé fare of any sort ("hillbilly" music and "race" music probably fell into the same category in this regard). Others, like Roland Tindall, admired him for what they saw almost as a declaration of faith. "Elvis would bring his guitar to school... At that time the basement of Milam was like a recess area, you went there during lunch hour—it was all open down there for the children to stay out of the wet and cold. Many times Elvis and a boy named Billy Welch would play and sing down there... Once in a while Elvis might perform for an activity period in the classroom, but only occasionally, because those type of children didn't believe in country music and that was what he sang." ... another classmate, Kenneth Holditch, recalled him to Dundy as "a sad, shy, not especially attractive boy" whose guitar playing was not likely to win any prizes. Many of the other children made fun of him as a "trashy" kind of boy playing trashy "hillbilly" music, but Elvis stuck to his guns. Without ever confronting his denigrators or his critics, he continued to do the one thing that was important to him: he continued to make music.
 * There are many more examples of this kind of whitewashing still to be found in other sections of the article. So you are right, Lara. The article is "still not a GA, and it's no where near FA." Onefortyone 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the Burnette quote. Burnette is also on record as chasing Presley away when he and his brother were practicing, because Elvis wanted to sing ballads, and wanted them to teach him how to play the guitar. The main point of this paragraph is that Elvis played informally around Memphis before he started recording or performing professionally. Steve Pastor 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to nominate the tale of bullying for deletion. At one point we agreed to take it out, and it is back. See page 5 of the presentation at this url .In this study only 31% of students reported that they HADN'T been bullied. I identify with anyone who has been the victim of bullies, but can anyone make a good argument as to why this is so important that it shouldn't be deleted? Steve Pastor 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvis and Celene
Here's a link that works. Question is...Is it a worthwhile inclusion. Steve Pastor 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the link?  Lara  ❤  Love  17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess I forgot to paste. Steve Pastor 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning: Link may induce seizure. Ha. It doesn't load for me. Flashes back and forth between and black screen and a white one. The progress bar says it's trying, but it's a vicious cycle of Reading, Loading, Waiting, Transferring, Stopping, Reading, Loading, Waiting, Transferring, and Stopping.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)