This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.
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)
All this material is well sourced. Onefortyone 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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.
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)
"...When I was a child, ladies and gentlemen, I was a dreamer. I read comic books, and I was the hero of the comic book. I saw movies, and I was the hero in the movie. So every dream I ever dreamed, has come true a hundred times...I'd like to say that I learned very early in life that 'Without a song, the day would never end; without a song, a man ain't got a friend; without a song, the road would never bend - without a song.' So I keep singing a song..." |
Elvis Presley, Jaycees acceptance speech ( January 16, 1971). |
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)
References
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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'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)
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 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)
16. Dunnan Presley sen Born about 1805 in North Carolina | |||||||||||||||||||
8. Dunnan Presley jun Born 1827, Mississippi married twice | |||||||||||||||||||
17. Wife's name unknown | |||||||||||||||||||
4. Jessie D McClowell Presley Born 1896 | |||||||||||||||||||
18. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
9. married Martha Jane Wesson & Rosella Presley born 1862 | |||||||||||||||||||
19. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
2. Vernon Elvis Presley Born 1916, Mississippi | |||||||||||||||||||
20. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
10. William Hood | |||||||||||||||||||
21. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
5. Minnie Mae Dodger Hood | |||||||||||||||||||
22. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
11. Mary L Warren' | |||||||||||||||||||
23. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
1. Elvis Aaron Presley | |||||||||||||||||||
24. John Smith Born 1828 From Atlanta, Georgia | |||||||||||||||||||
12. Obediah "Obe" Smith | |||||||||||||||||||
25. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
6. Robert Lee Smith Born 1880 | |||||||||||||||||||
26. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
13. Elizabeth "Betsey" Gilmore | |||||||||||||||||||
27. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
3. Gladys Love Smith | |||||||||||||||||||
28. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
14. | |||||||||||||||||||
29. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
7. Octavia Lavinia "Doll" Mansell Born1876,Saltillo, Mississippi, Died 1935 | |||||||||||||||||||
30. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
15. | |||||||||||||||||||
31. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
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!
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
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
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]
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
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
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)
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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)
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! -Veronica 71.243.210.36 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hello, I did a copy-edit in August to bring this article closer to GA standards because I didn't want to delist it on the anniversary of his death. One of the things I tackled during that copy-edit was the references. I had them all formatted consistently (at least I think I did them all). Currently, they are a complete mess again. I've gone through some, but have quickly realized this is going to take hours to correct.
To prevent this from becoming a cycle, if you are adding references to the article, please read over WP:CITE and WP:CIT. The latter is regarding citation templates. You don't have to use those, but that page still shows good examples of how the information should be ordered and formatted.
Past that, this article is probably in the top three I've seen as far as most complex list of references. There are multiple references in some notes, some notes are even referenced. It's very confusing. There's also missing information and such. So I'd appreciate it if someone, preferably whoever put them in, could clarify some things and hopefully gather additional info for these citations. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of stubbing book sources and moving the details into the references section. If further references are added to books, please try to add only author last name (and date if author has multiple listed books in the refs) and page number. Add the details to the ref section.
Also, if some of the notes could be condensed a little, that would be nice. Lara ❤ Love 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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 ...
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. [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
See "New Gladiators" at IMDb [5]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the fourth paragraph, it reads as follows (quotation marks included in article):
"Unlike Bill Haley, who was somewhat overweight and looked like everyone's 'older brother', Presley "generated an "anti-parent outlook" and was the "personification of evil". To many adults, the singer was "the first rock symbol of teenage rebellion. ... they did not like him, and condemned him as depraved. Anti-Negro prejudice doubtless figured in adult antagonism. Regardless of whether parents were aware of the Negro sexual origins of the phrase 'rock 'n' roll', Presley impressed them as the visual and aural embodiment of sex."
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)
How many country albums did Elvis have? Enough to be labeled as Country? Lara ❤ Love 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
BirthPlace
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Guralnick-50
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Here's a link that works. Question is...Is it a worthwhile inclusion. Steve Pastor 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[11] Guess I forgot to paste. Steve Pastor 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.
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)
All this material is well sourced. Onefortyone 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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.
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)
"...When I was a child, ladies and gentlemen, I was a dreamer. I read comic books, and I was the hero of the comic book. I saw movies, and I was the hero in the movie. So every dream I ever dreamed, has come true a hundred times...I'd like to say that I learned very early in life that 'Without a song, the day would never end; without a song, a man ain't got a friend; without a song, the road would never bend - without a song.' So I keep singing a song..." |
Elvis Presley, Jaycees acceptance speech ( January 16, 1971). |
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)
References
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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'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)
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 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)
16. Dunnan Presley sen Born about 1805 in North Carolina | |||||||||||||||||||
8. Dunnan Presley jun Born 1827, Mississippi married twice | |||||||||||||||||||
17. Wife's name unknown | |||||||||||||||||||
4. Jessie D McClowell Presley Born 1896 | |||||||||||||||||||
18. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
9. married Martha Jane Wesson & Rosella Presley born 1862 | |||||||||||||||||||
19. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
2. Vernon Elvis Presley Born 1916, Mississippi | |||||||||||||||||||
20. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
10. William Hood | |||||||||||||||||||
21. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
5. Minnie Mae Dodger Hood | |||||||||||||||||||
22. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
11. Mary L Warren' | |||||||||||||||||||
23. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
1. Elvis Aaron Presley | |||||||||||||||||||
24. John Smith Born 1828 From Atlanta, Georgia | |||||||||||||||||||
12. Obediah "Obe" Smith | |||||||||||||||||||
25. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
6. Robert Lee Smith Born 1880 | |||||||||||||||||||
26. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
13. Elizabeth "Betsey" Gilmore | |||||||||||||||||||
27. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
3. Gladys Love Smith | |||||||||||||||||||
28. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
14. | |||||||||||||||||||
29. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
7. Octavia Lavinia "Doll" Mansell Born1876,Saltillo, Mississippi, Died 1935 | |||||||||||||||||||
30. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
15. | |||||||||||||||||||
31. ?? | |||||||||||||||||||
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!
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
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
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]
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
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
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)
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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)
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! -Veronica 71.243.210.36 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hello, I did a copy-edit in August to bring this article closer to GA standards because I didn't want to delist it on the anniversary of his death. One of the things I tackled during that copy-edit was the references. I had them all formatted consistently (at least I think I did them all). Currently, they are a complete mess again. I've gone through some, but have quickly realized this is going to take hours to correct.
To prevent this from becoming a cycle, if you are adding references to the article, please read over WP:CITE and WP:CIT. The latter is regarding citation templates. You don't have to use those, but that page still shows good examples of how the information should be ordered and formatted.
Past that, this article is probably in the top three I've seen as far as most complex list of references. There are multiple references in some notes, some notes are even referenced. It's very confusing. There's also missing information and such. So I'd appreciate it if someone, preferably whoever put them in, could clarify some things and hopefully gather additional info for these citations. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of stubbing book sources and moving the details into the references section. If further references are added to books, please try to add only author last name (and date if author has multiple listed books in the refs) and page number. Add the details to the ref section.
Also, if some of the notes could be condensed a little, that would be nice. Lara ❤ Love 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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 ...
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. [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
See "New Gladiators" at IMDb [5]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the fourth paragraph, it reads as follows (quotation marks included in article):
"Unlike Bill Haley, who was somewhat overweight and looked like everyone's 'older brother', Presley "generated an "anti-parent outlook" and was the "personification of evil". To many adults, the singer was "the first rock symbol of teenage rebellion. ... they did not like him, and condemned him as depraved. Anti-Negro prejudice doubtless figured in adult antagonism. Regardless of whether parents were aware of the Negro sexual origins of the phrase 'rock 'n' roll', Presley impressed them as the visual and aural embodiment of sex."
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)
How many country albums did Elvis have? Enough to be labeled as Country? Lara ❤ Love 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
BirthPlace
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Guralnick-50
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Here's a link that works. Question is...Is it a worthwhile inclusion. Steve Pastor 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[11] Guess I forgot to paste. Steve Pastor 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)