Talk:Elvis impersonator

Current Edit and Comments
I have just completed a new look article in conjunction with Etf which re-structured the information in the old Elvis impersonator article to try and produce a much clearer, more informative and easier to read article.

The reason for doing this was mainly to do with the clarity of the old article which was starting to get lost under the snippets of information that have been slowly tacked onto the article over time. We tried to be as fair as possible and used current wikipedia rules to govern the article.

Hopefully you find the new article an improvement over the last version and hope to encourage its continued improvement. --Legoman and Etf 6 February 2006 16:25 (UTC)

Edits by OneFortyOne

 * All these edits are well-sourced and mainly based on academic studies by university professors such as David Wall, Marjorie Garber, and others. They should not be removed. Onefortyone 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that its best to keep things simple, ie. KISS principle, this is far better than over complicating what is a fairly good article with some poorly thought out (but referenced) additions.  Looking at your previous edits on Elvis Presley and the fact you have caused many problems on this article, see,  Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone for an example.  I hope you have not moved over to a lesser article to avoid detection and cause further problems.  Lets add some real value, not just content.  I dont think anyone really wants to see this article degenerate into another Soap box for your points of view. Legoman 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My edits are certainly improving the article, as they are based on academic studies. The Wikipedia article should present a balanced view of Elvis impersonation, not just what Elvis fans would like to read. Onefortyone 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely you can see that most of your edits are less than balanced when you apply NPOV (See "Undue weight"), there are many traits that Elvis Impersonators use in order to carry out an impersonation, sexual identity would be considered a fringe element, rather than representative of what the majority of Elvis impersonators use for impersonation. Like it or not, the majority of impersonators whether Elvis or otherwise are professional people and I find it odd that you feel the need for the article to require large sections about fringe elements such as cross dressing, cults and people who use sexual identity for impersonation, especially when it is such a trivial trait in an impersonator?  Are you going to start adding sections about cross dressing in Police Officer, I doubt it, maybe singer for example, as I am sure theres at least the odd cross dressing singer out there?  A good reason for not doing so is that Notability and relevence come into play, again this also applies to references too.  Maybe you should re-examine why you have decided to contribute to this article, is it to further your strange obsession in subverting articles so they conform to *your* opinions on sexuality and sexual identity, or is it to help improve a wikipedia article?  Looking at your past and present edit history and behaviour so far on this and other articles, I begin to wonder if history is not repeating itself...  Let use some of the wikipedia guidelines to provide a workable article.   What do other fellow Wikipedians think?? Legoman 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tried to use Notability and NPOV to craft the article into a more workable solution (in good faith, regardless of what accusations are being thrown about at Administrators noticeboard). I fail to see why things cant be discussed here to work toward an amicable solution rather than being petty about things.  Here is an edit summary of some of my recent changes, a correction of Andy Kaufman entry so it is in context to the section.  Andy is maybe one of the first notable Elvis impersonators documented, so why change this, is there any more documented *notable* impersonators before this time?  Another edit, why over complicate, what can be said simply?  Why is there an insistence on concentrating on fringe elements of impersonation rather than the main elements?  Lets keep things to the point, in perspective and representative of the subject and the size of article.  Another edit, a huge amount of text about Elvis Herselvis (above) which Onefortyone created, NPOV comes into play and may explain the strong sexual identity and negative aspects of some of the recent edits.  As for the text above, surely it would make sense for this to be in *that* article and not this one?  Also, does it require its own section for one event in 1996, about one impersonator, back to Notability again?  Cults, no idea why this is even mentioned, back to Notability again?  Section on crossdressing, just because its mentioned in a paper, doesnt mean it is relevant or representative of the subject, maybe to cross dressing but not here, back to Notability again?  Lets see what happens, are we going to get another revert/cut and paste without further work, consideration or discussion here first?  Legoman 12:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please cite relevant sources which say that "there are many traits that Elvis Impersonators use in order to carry out an impersonation" and that cross dressing and the impersonators' "sexual identity would be considered a fringe element," as you claim. Most university studies I have consulted say otherwise. Furthermore, which source says that the majority of Elvis impersonators are professional people? The Elvis Herselvis case is certainly an important example of banning the performance of a notable impersonator from an International Elvis Presley Conference by the conservative sponsors of Elvis Presley Enterprises. As for Andy Kaufman, I have now added some details. Onefortyone 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please state the cold hard statistics on what these so called expert studies were based on? As far as I can see they are just opinion, just because they are "academic" it doesnt mean they are based on fact or correct.  No matter how many "quatations" you stick into the article to support what seems to be *your* bias on sexuality and gender issues of Elvis impersonators, how about some figures to support your edits (from several large professional Elvis impersonator Registries or failing that, check the numbers and statistics from the lists mentioned in the External Links section of the article)?  Are you sure that your own opinion is not clouding a Neutral point of view (Again see the "Undue weight" section and more importantly the part about Flat Earth theory)?  As for relevant sources which say that "there are many traits that Elvis Impersonators use in order to carry out an impersonation" how about common sense?  The prime purpose of Elvis impersonation is to produce a representation of Elvis, since when has sexuality and sexual identity been one of Elvis' key attributes, surely he was a pop icon and is remembered for his music and how he looked?  Also why do you insist that a huge amount of text about Elvis Herselvis be added here and deserve its own section, shouldn't it be in Elvis Herselvis and not this one? Legoman 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Legoman, according to the Wikipedia guidelines and in order to avoid personal research, all contributions to a Wikipedia article should be well sourced and, if possible, supported by several independent publications (books, articles, university studies, etc.). As far as I can see, I am the only contributor who frequently quotes from reliable sources, among them academic publications by experts on Elvis impersonation, such as Eric Lott and others. As a compromise, I have now rewritten the "Controversies" section, removing a good deal of the material from the Elvis impersonator page and moving it to the Elvis Herselvis article, as you suggested. As for Elvis, he certainly was a sex symbol, and according to many university studies, several Elvis impersonation acts focus on his sexual identity as a key attribute. From Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. ... Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. ... A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later." This is what I did. I have cited several independent sources, among them university studies by experts on the subject. These are certainly the best sources available. If you have any sources contradicting these academic studies you may also cite them. But as far as I can see, there are no such sources. Onefortyone 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may think it is personal, but it isnt. I'm interested in keeping the article based on a Neutral point of view and representative.  Just because we dont see eye to eye there is no need to go running to the administrators (see Administrators noticeboard) to get your own way with edits, its little bit like going to mom when you dont get your own way.  Lets try to be adult and keep the discussions here where they belong.  Its nobodys article and is not a "war" as you put it.  Rather strangely enough this little intelectual exchange of views is actually helping to craft a far better article IMHO, but hey, thats just an opinion.  Keeping a Neutral point of view is difficult especially if you are very emotive about the subject which you make edits on, you seemed to have issues with this in the past (see, Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone), maybe this is a good thing and shows that you "care".  Its worth taking a look at the external links again to see if *your* views are representative of the Elvis impersonators lists there, as you have no other statistical information to go off this is a good a place as any.  Using common sense, I've had a quick look and although not very "academic" I cant see many minority Elvis impersonators (although there are some).  We can all present studies, quotations and opinions but you must ask yourself if the material you are adding is of a wide enough range and quality to be balanced an representative.  On articles about race or any other matter where there is difference of opinion, is it fair to give "Undue weight"  to views from just one side and not the other, I think not, as Neutral point of view comes into play!  Why does this not apply here?  Also we now have a quotes sections, lets keep quotations here for clarity and lets keep it Neutral point of view ie. a balance of good and bad (which you seem to be expert in).  Legoman 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have deleted material that is certainly improving the article along the lines of academic achievement. What you have repeatedly done is not a Neutral Point of View. The publications I have cited are peer-reviewed studies written by university professors and certainly the best sources available. The views of these many independent scholars are certainly representative, as they are analysing the phenomenon of Elvis impersonation from historical, sociological, psychological and gender points of view. There are clearly many works from many authors and many statements from many experts which tend to support my contributions to the article. With that many clearly basic sources, the material I have used is undoubtedly in the majority, and therefore it must be included in the article. I invite you to find and place published sources which tend to refute the research done by the experts I have cited. The problem seems to be that this material is not in line with your personal view of Elvis impersonation. Furthermore, you and your supposed sockpuppet Dr Onion are clearly showing evidence of misunderstanding of Neutral point of view, as you two have repeatedly removed sourced academic points of views. If you are of the opinion that personal websites created by Elvis impersonators or their managers are the most important sources, then we disagree. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, the most reliable sources are published books and journals, particularly books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and books, magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable enough. Onefortyone 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The meterial you've added although "academic" is *unfortately* not at all representative of the subject, is not balanced and hardly representative of the majority of all impersonators across the world (to some fringe Elvis impersonators maybe). Lets use common sense instead of radical fringe views from academics about minorities, sexual preference and geneder issues.  Once again hardly key attributes in impersonation, again shouldnt it be about music and likeness... but I see this point is wasted bacause of the bias.  Its funny how the majority of your edits on the subject are mostly regarding negativity, gender and sexuality from the same selection of fringe academic studies and does not balance out any other way.  You continually complain rather than try to work with people, and I frankly find it hard to assume good faith when you are subverting this article into something of a soap box for sexual preference and geneder issues when its simply about elvis impersontors?  I can see we are back to mud slinging and accusations, why do you take it so personally when someone edits your work, might be worth taking a look at WP:OWN "You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia.".  I have tried to use Resolving_disputes, avoidance, using the talk page and plenty of comments to explain edits, now I am going to Disengage for a while on this article and to see what happens.  It would be nice for other Wikipedians to get involved (not mom, but I am sure she will be watching) but as this is a comparitively small article in comparision with others it may be a long wait?  What do other wikipedians think? Legoman 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The material I have added is certainly representative as it is supported by many independent sources written by experts in the field. You may feel free to add further information on music and likeness. As many people, if not the majority in today's world, are of the opinion that Elvis impersonation is a ridiculous cultural phenomenon (The Book With No Name says that "A lot of people think Elvis impersonators look ridiculous"; James Swain, in Funny Money, talks about "hair done up in a ridiculous bouffant like an Elvis impersonator"; the Charleston Conference Proceedings 2004 mention "the number of Elvis impersonators attending the Super Bowl or something equally as ridiculous", etc. etc.), some critical voices must surely be included in the article. Onefortyone 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Quote
"There are now at least 85,000 Elvis’s around the world, compared to only 170 in 1977 when Elvis died. At this rate of growth, experts predict that by 2019 Elvis impersonators will make up a third of the world population." - The Naked Scientists 3rd December, 2000.

Besides being ridiculously speculative and misleading (there are more people in the world now, few people would impersonate him right when he died, and that would never happen because the rate of growth would obviously slow down before 1 in 3 people dressed like Elvis), and from an unreliable source (that spelled Elvis wrong), that quote was directly taken from a copyrighted page. BALETED! --Someones life 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this quote should stay in. There is nothing wrong with using a small quote from a copyrighted source to demonstrate a point, it is referenced so seems perfectly useable from what I can see, its not like there are pages and pages of content that has been passed off as an article?  The source of the quote is from the University of Cambridge run website and not just a random quote from a random person, it was backed up by statistical information and research by them.  It was moved to the trivia section and is supposed to be a light-hearted and humorous trivia point demonstrating that there are a lot of Elvis Impersonators. I guess the humour was missed here?  Yes the information is old (2000) but it does mention a date of 2019 so is still applicable, is there any scientific information to counter this point in order for it to be removed? --Legoman 10:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientific information? How about common sense? I'm deleting it. adavidw 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again I think you are missing the point, it’s a humorous trivia point that is relevant and was based on research by university students from a respected university. It also contains the important figure 85,000; they did not just pull this from the air.  Why not edit the statement to make it more clear that it is not intended to be a serious future prediction on world population and put it into context i.e. demonstrating that there are a lot of Elvis Impersonators (85,000) rather than just deleting it?  Returning it to its original state - adding it back in! Legoman 10:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Notable impersonators
See Notability_(music)

Most (if not all) people who are listed in this section do not meet the requirements or are at the best borderline for notability. In order to be fair to all this section was removed as it did not really add much value and maybe contributed to the article becoming a "and me!" list.

If the section really must stay then it should be re-wrote (not just added back in) with the above guidelines in mind. --Legoman 17 February 2006 10:45 (UTC)


 * Notability has nothing to do with that. That is about creating articles. In this case it is not relevant whether a person is good enough to have their own article, but whether he is relevant for the subject. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree on this, although not perfect Notability_(music) does give very good advice that could be applied to this article to stop it degenerating into a small article with little content and a large list of questionably "notable" people. I also think its a shame that it was added back in without at least spending the time in trying to reference the information with sources. It has few, if any references for most of the entries in that section, some dont even have anything notable apart from a name.  It looks more like a "and me!" list and will get longer over time.  Where would the list stop, when it is 10, 20 or 20000 people long?


 * In my opinion the article does not suffer without this section. Provision has been made for the reader to find impersonators via the open directory link in the external links section.


 * Does it add value... what do other Wikipedians think??? --Legoman 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, simplicity is best ... but I also like the potential Wikipedia has for becoming a master reference that catalogs all information known to humans. I argue in favor of a separate entry that is just a list with bios of the impersonators, and the main entry can link to it someplace. --Mesolimbo 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between throwing a whole section out and talking about a list of 20,000 people. Right now it is a limited list of people and it is the combined work of many different editors. If the list is too long or if an addition is silly then it would be appropriate to make a change, however deleting a whole list and completely rewriting an article is not the way Wikipedia works. Please read: WP:OWN. If the list becomes too long which is not the case it can be moved in due time. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some good points made so far. However, at 17 people the list is bigger than the article, which seems way over the top (time to be moved), especially when applying Notability_(music), Vanity_page and Verifiability.  Appologies in advance for such a long reply.  Lets try and look at the list objectively using NPOV,


 * 5.1 Andy Kaufman
 * Possible candidate for staying? Possibly the most notable as he has a well structured and established page, but no references to back it up as fact.  Shifted entry into origins.
 * (For what it's worth, Kaufman's page has a citation, which is corroborated in the biography "Lost In The Funhouse" indicating that Elvis saw him perform, which if it doesn't directly contradict the Bill Haney statement in the Literature section, certainly might merit a clarification. Chicobangs (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
 * 5.2 "Big" Jim White
 * Informative entry, tried to justify notability, nice attempt but no references.
 * 5.3 Bruce Atkinson
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.4 Deke Rivers
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal?  No references.
 * 5.5 Eilert Pilarm
 * Has own page, but no references to back it up as fact. Sold records (no facts), is this enough to justify possible notability, possible candidate for staying?  No references.
 * 5.6 Elvis For Peace
 * Possible candidate for staying? News worthy item (however, local news).  References to back it up as fact.
 * 5.7 Elvis Phuong
 * Some interesting text, possible notable due to record release, no references to back up.
 * 5.8 Extreme Elvis
 * Some interesting text, see Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.9 Francis Lane
 * Some interesting text, possible noteable due to TV appearance (twice on same show), no references to back up.
 * 5.10 James Cawley
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.11 Kevin Doyle
 * Had airplay on radio station, possible notable due radio airplay (was it in a chart or in rotation?), no references.
 * 5.12 Marco Tulio Sánchez B.
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.13 Martin Fox
 * Informative entry, tried to justify notability through various national TV and radio appearances, nice attempt but no references.
 * 5.14 Mike Albert
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.15 Tagish Elvis
 * Possible candidate for staying? News worthy item (however, local news).  No references added to back it up as fact.
 * 5.16 Terry Buchwald
 * See Vanity_page does it offer anything for the reader. Candidate for removal? No references.
 * 5.17 Tortelvis
 * Has own page, backed up by release information (with discography), possible candidate for staying? Some references on own page.


 * We need some way to benchmark who is notable and who is not because there are an awful lot of people who will think they deserve a place on the list. The section is very weak, vulnerable to spam and I count at least 7 people who shouldnt be there at all (make that 8 with the recently reverted Elvez addition by Adavidw).  This was the reasoning on why it was not put back in (to be fair to everyone).


 * Dr Debug notes that "however deleting a whole list and completely rewriting an article is not the way Wikipedia works". I spent time and effort trying to make the article better and I would like to hope that it is a vast improvement on its previous incarnation and a step in the right direction to encourage a less spammy article.  I tried to keep the integrity of the article intact, if you look closely it wasnt a complete rewrite most of the text is still original (preserving and improving previous editors work by adding references and re-ordering).  I also used WP:OWN, Notability_(music), Vanity_page and Verifiability as guidelines!  In your rush to revert the article, Andy Kaufman's entry wasnt even corrected - to the detriment of the current article (maybe you overlooked it?).  Again, why not put some time in and improve the section rather than re-adding unreferenced (at best) and vanity (at worst) entries.  This was always going to a little controversial for those who stand to loose an entry, but lets help to make the article better not worse?


 * Any opinions? What do other Wikipedians think??? --Legoman 09:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
The joke statistic about elvis impersonators making up one third of the world population is inappropriate. --User:24.63.106.86 1 February 2006 00:11 (UTC)


 * Although this comment seems like a joke (it wasnt meant to be taken too literally, thats why it has been moved to Trivia), it was based on scientific statistical research into how many Elvis impersonators were in around in 1977 compared until when the quote was made which makes it valid. User:Legoman 6 February 2006 22:27 (UTC)

Extreme Elvis Edit
Tidying of ExtremeElvis entry. There was no need to include a second link to his website and this should have been in the External Links section. Also decided to remove a references to the ExtremeElvis website until either the FBI page is confirmed as real or an operational website which includes information of real value to ExtremeElvis appears. Feel free to re-add the link if the website re-opens or if there is confirmed information that the FBI did shut down the website. --Legoman 16 October 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Tidying
Completed general tidying including removing links that were broken. Feel free to re-add these if and when they are fixed. --Legoman 4 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Trivial Trivia, Indeed
The fact (?) that Caroline Rhea dated an Elvis impersonator at some point during her life is of no relevance whatsoever to this article. Her article, maybe, not this one. Deleting. --Feitclub 22 April 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Edits by 72.193.144.181
This IP added a section that does not fit into the article at all and contains several links to booking sites. Smells like advertising to me. I will revert those changes. --Buxbaum666 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph Commented Out In "Types of Elvis Impersonator"
Under the three levels of impersonator, there was a paragraph that seemed to be inserted as an advertisement for a group. I commented it out, pending further review. 50.46.186.215 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Elvis sound-alikes
I expected to find a section on Elvis sound-alikes too in the article. The pop music knew a lot of them during the 70s, especially in the UK and the Benelux countries. Should we add such a section? 83.85.143.141 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're being lose with using impersonator rather than impressionist, but I agree that voice impersonation/impressionism should be able to fit within this article.
 * As long as we have reliable, third-party sources, I don't think we could go far wrong. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Most imitated his lower ends of his voice, like Les Gray from Mud, Danny Mirror and Jack Jersey did. Some imitated his act, covered his songs, while not trying to imitate as closely as possible his image, like Ricky Gordon and Mike Berry did. René Shuman won a contest by impersonating, but after that changed his image and sound soon. So there is quite a range of methods used to imitate The King. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons to impersonate Elvis
Dutch reverend ds. Fred Omvlee is organizing Elvis-gospels services in the Netherlands, and tells on the project's website (translated: Elvis' chapel; the website is written in the Dutch language): Always be yourself, unless you can be Elvis, then always be Elvis. However, his services will probably have Elvis impersonators entering, as Omvlee tells on his weblog of people citing: Elvis' gospel songs brought me to believe, to the Christian Faith. Elvis is for them an evangelical idol. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elvis impersonator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101121447/http://secondwindpublishing.com/DonationsToClarity.html to http://secondwindpublishing.com/DonationsToClarity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elvis impersonator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616021732/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/staff/lawdw/elvwall.pdf to http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/staff/lawdw/elvwall.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127035148/http://www.uapress.com/titles/fa10/smirnoff-pb.html to http://www.uapress.com/titles/fa10/smirnoff-pb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722211807/http://www.elvistribute.us/impersonator-poll.php to http://www.elvistribute.us/impersonator-poll.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elvis impersonator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806205156/http://www.johnnycharro.com/news_060609.htm to http://www.johnnycharro.com/news_060609.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
In case I can't get to this soon: I'm seeing the promotion of individuals, unreferenced information, original research, and poor references. - Hipal (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)