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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.
Im sorry but my hamster has more talent than Elvis. He didnt have 1/4 the talent of Prince, James Brown, Michael Jackson and the Beatles. Rolling Stones, Madonna, and Dylan are utter garbage too.
According to a Bulgarian book about Beatles, Elvis Presley was envious to their success and bought off all tickets for their concert, so no one could enjoy it. Can someone comment on this (I find highly improbable), and would you please enter a short comment on the main page to help shed light on the facts. Thanks, NT
This article is becoming to long, especially the section 1969-1977 - Elvis's final years. The whole section can exist as an article itself. I estimate the readable prose of the article must be approximately 100KB. I suggest some division. A W 03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion and due to requests to reduce length to enyclopedic levels together with requests to clean-up various sections I've decided to BE BOLD and lieu of Wikipedia:Article size guidlines and went ahead with an entire re-format of the article in line with other Featured article's. In the course of re-format I've created these other pages:
in the vain of Memphis Mafia which was already created - to facilatate a break-up of article as requested leaving principle biography, discography, and legacy in-tact as is the standard in F.A. articles. There is still much more to be done with what is remaining in the main article and to be debated here as to what can be improved further with syntax, grammar, etc. along with material inclusions. I welcome all comments on the new pages created and all help in sorting this out to a workable arrangement. -- Northmeister 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) -Pertaining to the above, I've continued with clean-up, reformating, and additions relevant to encyclopedic article. The four articles created earlier contain much of the information that has been removed; per suggestion - and need help reformating as well. There is still more to do. The Biography (in line with other article approved as Featured articles - which I used as a model for cleanup) is redundant and long on the final years and the 1970s. I left much criticism of Elvis within the text wherever I could if it was well sourced and relevant. Much has been reorganized as well and moved around for chronological reasons. I welcome all constructive help in this regards and any constructive criticism. My hope is for a clean page ready to be featured. -- Northmeister 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To my dismay, I have now seen what has happened to the Elvis Presley article a few days ago. User:Northmeister has removed several paragraphs from the article in order to cut it from a very biased point of view. He himself states on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Therefore, he removed most material that included some critical remarks concerning the singer's life. The article now reads as if it has been chiefly written by Elvis fans.
There are still expressions in the article that clearly show the dominance of biased fan views:
Further changes suggest that fans now dominate the article:
Several well-sourced details have been totally removed from the older version of the article, for instance:
- from the Early life section:
- from the Death and burial section (which has now been totally removed):
In the section concerning the influence of Elvis's manager Colonel Parker, which was correctly entitled Presley and his manager "Colonel" Tom Parker but is now wrongly entitled American icon, these well-sourced critical remarks have been removed:
The last passage now reads:
Significantly, this additional remark has been omitted:
The Drug abuse section is now part of the Controversy surrounding death section, despite the fact that there is no controversy about this abuse of drugs which took place during the singer's lifetime.
References to Elvis's relationships and the Memphis Mafia have been excluded from the text, and the sections on The Elvis cult and its critics and the FBI files on Elvis have been totally removed. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I've just looked at the main article again. It does, as I agreed before, have a fan site element to it. But in terms of format and headings, It is better in that it has a more encyclopedic feel to it. Gone are whole sections that emphasised aspects that encyclopedias would not detail or even mention at all. But granted it needs work. There is nothing wrong with this article being chiefly written by Elvis fans, or even looking as if it has, so long as NPOV is maintained. And there is every indication that some editors who happen to be fans are making every effort to recognise their own potential for bias and to seek support in achieving a NPOV. What this article does NOT need is contributions that take it outside of an encyclopedic framework and which do so as if there is a sustained and deliberate attempt to inject a dubious and rather unsavoury negativity disguised as an attempt to restore a NPOV. If all editors had the insight to recognise their own potential for bias and any apparent propensity to stick to dubious agendas, we might get a decent article written soon, instead of about ten years from now. Rikstar 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There are several versions of this "quote"
Note the different words as the "quote" is repeated from text to text. The orginal "quote" is based on a second hand rendering. This is addressed in the following book -
page 32 “On more than one occasion, however, Phillips has denied making any such statement (Marcus, 198: 16n; Worth and Tamerius, 1988; 153n) and Keisker is the only source of direct evidence to the contrary.” [3] (emphasis added) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve Pastor ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I've truncated the Legacy and reformated the article regarding 21st century. Added "Accomplisments and Awards" then changed title to "Commerative measures" but am unsure of sub-header title and what it should be. Tried to reduce the trivial nature of the 21st Century section with new section "Recent Developments" - of course feel free to twik these sections if you feel you can improve them. Trying to get article length within acceptable standards - as earlier complaints of length were lodged by others and in the original Featured article rejection. I am pleased with the efforts of several editors thus far towards making this article acceptable to the "Good" category and someday be a "Featured" piece. -- Northmeister 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding health and cause of death' - We should shorten this titled for the look of the format. I am open to suggestions - maybe Health and cause of death or Health issues and death or Health and death issues - something overall that is shorter. -- Northmeister 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a photo of Elvis from Aloha Hawaii - to see his look at the time. Photo's should show his transformation through the years I think. Not sure if one exists for his last years or not. Also added 1945 fair 'old shep' singing - first time before crowd. -- Northmeister 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"In May 2007, the Warner Bros. and Paramount home video units launched a major campaign for 24 Elvis films on DVD. Jailhouse Rock ( 1957) and Viva Las Vegas ( 1964) were being released as double-disc collectors editions for the 30th anniversary of his death. [13]"
I look at the above as simple advertisement. But I could be wrong. It may belong in the recent developments section. I'll let others decide if that is the case. -- Northmeister 05:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to the day that we can replace a description of this performance to a clip of it that everyone can see for themselves. Dance is one of my hobbies. Presley's estate sanctioned a line dance to go with "Such a Night". There are, what I thought would be pelvic movements in the dance, so I did big hip/pelvic rolls. Boy was I surprised when I actually saw how Elvis moved. As I wrote originally, the movement he did was in his legs. I have stopped rolling my pelvis in this particular dance, because Elvis was rotating his knee and leg, not his pelvis or hips. There is of course some movement in his hips, but it is incidental. If they had wanted his hips and pelvis to show, he would not have been wearing black pants, coverd in part by a light colored sport coat. When this show was broadcast, his performance was over in little more than 2 minutes. Just as most people believe that they saw someone stabbed in the shower scene in "Psycho" (Hitchcock only shows the knife rising and falling, head shots, and blood going into the drain) people thought they saw Elvis thrust his pelvis. Likewise, people go to salsa lessons expecting to wiggle their hips. Hip motion in salsa comes primarily from stepping onto a straight leg, something Elvis does almost spastically in this preformance, and others. Also, dance for the majority of the population, has come quite a ways since the mid 1950s. Now, Fosse's dancers used their pelvis and hips! Just as I hope that Wikipedia would want to include the fact that a tomato is in fact a fruit, even though everyone calls it a vegetable, I hope we will not perpetuate an inaccurate description of how Elvis moved. If anyone knows where this clip can be found on line, please add a link! Steve Pastor 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this will look better after I've seen it for a while, but I doubt it. Emphasizing through the end of the 1950s at this point goes way outside any time line, since the next section is on early TV appearances, all of which were in 1956. There was a synergy between the TV appearances and the 1956 releases. Presley didn’t cut “Hound Dog” until after the Steve Allen show. The post 1956 records can be picked up later. Also, the lengthy list of songs just looks bad, especially the ones in red (Yes, I know, article to come. It still looks bad.) I think we are a bit off track here. Thought I would give whoever added this first crack. Steve Pastor 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What's up with that? I want to add an incident about Nat King Cole being beaten up, while at the same time he was a #1 selling artist, as an example of how things were in the 50s. Where did a workable link to that go? Think maybe the rewrite edits are coming to fast? Steve Pastor 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances need some rewriting. Here is Elvis expert Greil Marcus on the Ed Sullivan Shows (see [5]):
See also the following account taken from Michael David Harris, Always on Sunday: Ed Sullivan, An Inside View (1968), p.116:
I think there needs to be some detail about the sexual content of Presley's act in the breakthrough year bit, as opposed to just saying it was "controversial". I'll have a look. Also, the bit about Freddie Bell and Hound Dog, which 141, edited at one point, could lose the "a major attraction in town, at the Sands casino hotel" as it just bloats the piece Rikstar 05:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. The following passage is still to be found in the opening of the article. To my mind, most of this material should be included in the different sections of the article.
Query: did Elvis's dead actually "stun the American nation"? Which sources say such things? This seems to be wishful thinking of some fans. According to Samuel Roy, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." Except for the fans who held his memory in honor, he was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'" A CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, which "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." See Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173. During the 1970s, frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380´. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116. Significantly, all this material, supported by several independent university studies, has been deleted from the article. Onefortyone 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Onefortyone. Are you alright? I assume you have read the above paragraph. So here we are again, so soon after I first posted it and, to my surprise, we are discussing dubious edits that would take this article way outside what most people would consider an acceptable format. I agree that the intro could be altered, especially the bit about his death 'stunnning' the nation. You could have politely pointed this out, but you had to have a dig at those pesky darn Elvis fans, didn't you? Why you mentioned the Samuel Roy quote: "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." is a mystery; it doesn't back up any claim of yours that isn't covered in the current article. As for the other sources, you don't make a big thing about them being 'Experts On Elvis', as you did with Greil Marcus, but it seems their observations regarding 'drag queens', 'androgyny', 'pancake makeup', etc. should somehow sit undisturbed in what is (and I'm boring myself now) a general encyclopedia article. As you have often said to other editors: "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE"!! Rikstar 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, he only became famous because he stole black music which is in itself racist, he may well have been bisexual, and his death was almost certainly a deliberate overdose. ( BillRodgers 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
As for Elvis' death "stunning" the nation, I recall clearly the day he died and the constant television reports throughout the afternoon, evening, and into the late night, and talk on and off television for days afterwards. I remember his death covering the front page in huge print with his picture on every newspaper I saw the next day, as well as a late edition "August 16th" copy out in one of our papers that very night he died.
The general nation and the world were indeed "stunned" by his death, and mail, calls, and flowers were sent from all over the world. While in the months prior to his death there were some rumored reports of him being ill in tabloids and in the occasional concert review, his death was not expected by the masses. With the exception of those close to Elvis in his personal life, the fans or critics who saw him live in concert at that time, and anybody else who happened to see his condition first hand, the rest of the public and the world wasn't aware of how bad off he was or that he had any drug problems like he did. The world at large hadn't seen him since the "Aloha" show four years earlier where he looked great. His "1977" condition wasn't seen by the masses until the "Elvis In Concert" show that was shown after his death.
He looked fat in 1973 and numerous phoographs over the next four years showed the world just how bad he looked. ( BillRodgers 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
Maybe it's just me, and I am by no means blind to the "real" and factual negative aspects of Elvis' life and his condition in his last years, but Onefortyone seems to favor a negative light shined on Elvis, first and foremost, including quotes from "books" painting such pictures. He seems to have a problem with positive aspects being pointed out, but not negatives, including totally unconfirmed claims based on heresay and no more.
As Jack Webb used to say, "Just the facts". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 ( talk • contribs).
As evidenced above and numerous times in the past (which can be viewed through his edit history) and which includes but is not limited to:
Baby let me be, your lovin' Teddy Bear Put a chain around my neck, and lead me anywhere Oh let me be Your teddy bear.
Once the reader gets past the requisite Abu Ghraib reference, it could well be that Elvis is singing about the leather-laded gay bear scene.
As for Abu Ghraib, let us further examine the king's famous "Jailhouse Rock"
The drummer boy from Illinois went crash, boom, bang, the whole rhythm section was the Purple Gang. Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block
Number forty-seven said to number three: "You're the cutest jailbird I ever did see. I sure would be delighted with your company, come on and do the Jailhouse Rock with me." Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock. The sad sack was a sittin' on a block of stone way over in the corner weepin' all alone. The warden said, "Hey, buddy, don't you be no square. If you can't find a partner use a wooden chair.
When was the last time you heard of a co-ed prison? There is also the expression "Purple gang". The reader may know that lavender is the official gay color. Number 47 also seems to have something for fellow inmates. In addition, you may try to figure out what two partners might do with a wooden chair. If you have any ideas, let me know. [7]
80.141.197.110 (Talk) This is what you claim you are. Sorry, it seems more likely that you are a member of the Elvis Mafia who wants to make money selling "girl's guides to Elvis Presley" and all of this stuff and therefore wants to keep alive the story of Elvis the prodigious lover of women. Why are you so keenly interested in suppressing other opinions in this talk on Elvis? According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not allowed to delete contributions by other users on discussion pages. [8]
I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? [9]
THEN HE ADDS ON SAME DAY As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [10]
80.141.232.231 (Talk) : I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker, though I would not go so far as to say that those men of the Memphis Mafia who were with Elvis everyday from 1956 on were all gay. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [11]
He then writes on same day: Could this be the normal behavior of a womanizer who slept with hundreds of girls and women? [12]
80.141.201.224 (Talk) Sorry, but this means nothing as many homosexual men have been wooing and marrying straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation. Many of them may be too ashamed to acknowledge their feelings for fear of reprisal. Even Rock Hudson and Elton John were married and still gay as can be. [13]
80.141.248.192 (Talk) In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See [14] The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.
Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland."
It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. ~~~~ [15]
80.141.184.12 (Talk) It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. Therefore, the passage, "just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual", should be included in the Wikipedia article. ~~~~
I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus is more likely that he preferred men.
and on the same day goes to Nick Adams: [16]
80.141.178.108 (Talk) Significantly, she seems to have been the only woman in the Memphis Mafia, as there were only men around Elvis. You might see some parallels to Andy Warhol's "Factory", but there were more women around Warhol. Very interesting indeed. ~~~~ [17]
and also
As everybody now can see, this user calls me a liar for placing some information taken out of books on Elvis in the article. He may indeed be a member of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King and therefore tries to suppress all other information which is not in line with this media monopoly. ~~~~ [18]
80.141.191.66 (Talk) Note: I have found previous edits (long before I showed up) by the same ANONYMOUS user with a single mission under twenty-three different IPs. Again, all for the exact same Elvis Presley, David Bret issues with no other edits. Like they tried to do to me, this ANONYMOUS user used intimidation and relentless bullying tactics while reverting other User's edits until they drove them away. (SEE LIST AT : Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress) Ted Wilkes 23:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles under a dynamic IP address? Sorry, frequently deleting my comments as you did on the said page is vandalism.
Older edit Revision as of 05:22, 9 August 2005 (edit) (undo) 129.241.134.241 (Talk) BTW, this sound like a great idea - if Mr. Wilkes continue to insert his ridiculous claims about Sony transistors, maybe I'll start inserting claims about Elvis being gay. Watch out, Teddy Wilkes!( 129.241.134.241 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)) [19]
Further based on this observation by another Editor:
"Ban Lochdale from celebrity articles? What other celebrity articles is this user accused of disrupting? Moreover, 141 has a long history of skillfully baiting enthusiastic editors into zealously over-stepping WP policies only for the well-meant purpose of curbing 141's incredibly adept abuse of scholarship. Lochdale has been baited, provoked and stung. Meanwhile there is zero documented evidence Elvis Presley was gay, only tabloid hearsay which wouldn't hold up under peer review for a day. Even mentioning it in an encyclopedia article throws its weight off beyond all proportion: In a full length biography, sure, deal with it in a few paragraphs maybe. Lochdale has made mistakes, Lochdale should be admonished and strongly warned, maybe even with six months of Elvis-Presley-Only probation subject to an EP ban if he slips up again.
Meanwhile 141, in my humble opinion, should be hard banned from Wikipedia. His single-minded interest in editing exclusively on the subject of "allegations" concerning the gayness of EP clearly indicates motivations which have nothing to do with scholarship or encyclopedias. His constant, calculated accusations of sock-puppetry violate every aspect of Wikipedian good faith and cooperation.
Has anyone ever noticed that 141 almost always responds to complaints by viciously attacking the complainer with accusations of sockpuppetry? Or slapping the complainer with the label of "Elvis Presley fan"?
For example, to take this to its logical extreme (since 141 is indeed an extreme), how do we know 141 is not Ted Wilkes?
Anyway, if there is supportable documented evidence floating around somewhere that Mr Presley was gay (and though I have yet to see any, it wouldn't surprise me if he was- so convince me then), I'm sure other editors will stumble across it one day and get it into the article through WP policy and encyclopedic methodology, not through edit warring and the disruptive attrition tactics used by 141. Wyss 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [20]"
I've made attempts to work with Onefortyone in the past myself: see my contributions in June of 2006 per this user and his refusal to work cordially: [21].
HENCE: I will revert any edits made my onefortyone that are simply rehashing or putting back in what has already been improved by other editors. If either yourself, Steve, or other editors feel I have errored in the process - please correct my actions. If user onefortyone wishes to show his intentions of good faith then I ask he work out his proposed edits here for the community to judge as above. I make this statement, with no malice toward this editor, but based on his past disruptive actions here and with other articles, previous bans from this article, and with other celebrities biographies and not without just cause. We are all here to create a workable, neutral, 'good' and 'featured' article and are working to that end. -- Northmeister 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Two examples of rehashed material already edited by other editors for flow and summary style that Onefortyone continues to put into the article without assuming good faith on behalf of those editors:
"Presley was dressed in the white tie and tails of a ´'high-class' musician, the clothes were intentionally made so tight he couldn't move freely." [17]
However, according to Jake Austen, "the way Steve Allen treated Elvis Presley was his federal crime. Allen thought Presley was talentless and absurd, and so he decided to goof on him. Allen set things up so that Presley would show his contrition by appearing in a tuxedo and singing his new song 'Hound Dog' to an elderly basset hound..." [18]
Why has this individual been allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to clearly make a point and cause edit wars with other editors for so long is beyond me. -- Northmeister 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with all of this about Onefortyone. It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 ( talk • contribs).
I concur and will scan through the whole thing again to achieve a shorter, pithier article of the type many of us desire. The intro can be cropped, and bits merged into other sections Rikstar 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the high points of the TV shows are covered. "Hound Dog" and "Why Elvis was shot differently on the last Sullivan show" are the two significant events. (I think Elvis's leg shaking while Sullivan was talking was what did it.) Details like he wore a sport coat and sang without a guitar for the first time are important because they establish the general tone of his appearances. Further material, such he sang this, and that, and then he curled his lip, etc, would be overkill. Again, there is an article on the Sullivan show itself, where it may be appropriate. BTW, I'm find out that there are a fair number of people (mostly women) who know that he "shook his leg(s)" rather than his pelvis. Nevertheless, the misrepresentation of what he did is so prevalent, I think it is rightly addressed here by its exclusion. Steve Pastor 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
All is this great but there are no citations. It shouldn't be cut, but we need to traces sources. Rikstar 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Voice section was probably the most interesting part of the article--little known, well sourced information that went a long way toward explaining Elvis' phenomenal success. And you guys took it out. Way to go! --M-K, 25 May 2007
I have several books which state Presley's second demo single was "I'll Never Stand In Your Way" and "Casual Love Affair". The article says different. Also, the same sources state that Elvis did play for Humes High Tigers football team, but he reluctantly quit at his mother's request (she worried he'd be injured). He's also said to have worked evenings at the Marl Metal Products Company while at school. Anyone shed any light on this? Rikstar 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to applaud the efforts Steve and Rikstar along with others have made thus far with the article. As the article improves I was wondering your thoughts on format. Do you think it is right the way it is or do you think that the structure (sections) should be worded or re-ordered differently? As, to user Onefortyone - any thoughts on his contributions or how we might address them for inclusion if they are not simply trivia? I am not sure of a workable solution here - since much of his material is covered already - just summarized. He was concerned above with a couple of items - do you think we've addressed these? Anyway - keep up the good work. Eventually I would like to have this article submitted for a 'good' candidate in preparation for a 'featured' article. Might do to look at the concerns of those opposed to 'featured' status in the past when this article was nominated. Having done so from the start - I think on length and unsourced statements we've come a long way. -- Northmeister 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved some stuff around regarding the above comments. I think Maria makes a good point about the Controversy section and I like the work done on the subsection title - it seemed long to me originally. In regards to this section - it may need its own article? Not sure. I also agree the legacy section (when I view other artists legacy sections) is lacking. It covers his impact originally in the 1950's but not much else. If anyone has any suggestions on how to address this let us know. Right now the article is about 71kb - not too bad for length - although long it is ok for such a topic. Many featured articles have pictures throughout. Our choices are very limited - but not sure what to do with that. I've kept the quotation from Jaycees as this gives us some impression of Mr. Presley from his words - something 'good' biograhies are now doing - but shortened it. -- Northmeister 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Been doin' some snoopin' around... According to Carr & Farren, and the Elvis Presley's Sun recordings article, "Blue Moon of Kentucky" (BMOK) was recorded July 5/6. Carr & Farren state that Dewey Phillips first played "That's All Right" on radio Saturday evening, July 10. Furthermore, they state that Sam Phillips took 3 acetates for Dewey to listen to/air: including fast and slow tempo versions of BMOK. So it seems the bit in the article about Phillips and the boys rushing to record (or even re-record??) a flip side might not be true. Earlier versions of the Elvis article say BMOK was recorded 10 days after "That's All Right", which might be wrong. Sources with this possible kind of innaccuracy (The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday??) are questionable. The Carr & Farren book is a detailed account that took (they say) 7 years to research. If no objections, I'll do a rewrite - and folks can pick at the result, as they see fit. It'll probably lengthen the section, but I think that's warranted. Rikstar 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently in article - (His Saturday night Red, Hot And Blue show was devoted exclusively to 'black' music). Although this may be true, it way over emphasizes the race aspect of what he played, based on the following: "Phillips was the first to play Elvis on local radio, and the station championed the rockabilly sound coming from Sun Records." [23] His Red, Hot and Blue show went out on WHBQ in Memphis six nights a week from 9pm to midnight, and from 1949 he played a hitherto unheard mix of R'n' B, blues and country that was shortly to mutate into rock'n'roll. [24] Also, if his show wasn't only on Saturday in July 1954, this frees up any of the six nights for him to play TAM. And I promised myself that I was only interested in Elvis's music! Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that Dewey Phillips didn't ONLY play "black" music, and it is importnat to not write things that lead people to that conclusion. Steve Pastor 19:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Red Hot and Blue stuff is really interesting; I've taken out the bit about it only playing black music. The main point still holds that Presley and Dewey had to convince listeners that he was white. If we cannot get confirmation for TAR being first aired - and I hope we can - then the date can be dropped. Louis Cantor has written a book (University of Illinois press) called "Dewey and Elvis"; I wish I could get my hands on a copy... Rikstar 08:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've felt obliged to broaden this, having re-read a lot of source material. Presley's impact was substantial in different ways and it needs to be reflected in the main article. Rikstar 09:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs to mention and quote from significant names in music influenced by Presley eg. Springsteen, Dylan, etc. Currently, the section just mentions contemporaries of Elvis and tails off into stuff about impersonators. Rikstar 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is too long and looks like a list of trivia. The stuff about him being first, in the top ten, etc. of various polls, should be summarised with appropriate links/citations. Hall of fame induction, etc. should predominate. Rikstar 07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:GIBluesElvis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is getting near at least a 'good article nomination' if not featured status. I think getting the good tag first is the appropriate step to take. This is, if the editors feel we are at that point as I do. If we can get consensus on this we should nominate it for a community response. At the very least, guidance can be given; at the most it would get 'good nomination' advancing to 'featured status' thereafter. -- Northmeister 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm about through with this (I know: famous last words...). There are bits that need tweaking/checking (cost of Elvis Sun demo's?, etc). Maybe Controversy over his death could be really paired down and added to Final year and death - I'll try this. But, we've got the bare bones of a decent article (comments above aside, too). I've been consistently ruthless editing down every little byte, if only because I think there's probably additional significant things that can be added and we've now got a few bytes to play with (and I'm really glad there's been a partial lockdown to help me GET STUFF DONE). Any additions are gonna have to be good though, and may need to be re-written to maintain style (which I'm happy to try, if no one else is). I apologize if I've been a bit over-zealous (like dumpin' the Elvis Lives??? and Controversy over death bits), but things can be put right. Northmeister, I'm OK about this being reviewed for its status as it is, 'good nomination' or whatever (and my fingertips are numb). The feedback's got to be useful, and hopefully, encouraging. Thanks BTW to every polite, sane, knowledgeable editor out there who has taken the plunge, and especially to Northmeister for twistin' my arm to get involved in what looked like a nightmare (I know, it may become one again...). I'm kinda looking forward to reverting back to being an "ELVIS FAN" (but am I really??) instead of being an objective/fact freak. Rikstar 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no mention of a live concert in 1961 in Memphis, Tenn. I was a 19 year old, stationed just outside Memphis at the time and attended Elvis's concert there. As I recall, it was his first concert after his discharge from the Army. The current entry says his only concert was for charity in Hawaii. That is incorrect. Rlpowelson Rlpowelson 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know if, and to which extent if so, he had songs written for him? 67.68.31.35 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Click on the various links in the article. For instance, the Elvis Presley album article has a list of who wrote all of the songs. The Sun Recordings article has similar information. Once RCA picked him up, he had the benefit of a major label that received many songs from song writers. A better trivia question would be, did he write ANY songs. Steve Pastor 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Elvis's stepmother of 17 years Dee Stanley is not mentioned yet in this article. His father Vernon is mentioned once. They lived with him at Graceland for a while and he obviously had some sort of a relationship with both of them. Rick Stanley (step-brother) is mentioned however. More on stepsiblings might be of interest.
User:Brenont
05:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding stuff that is more than a minor edit is fine, but it needs to be significant. A recent editor (Intersting) has added a whole paragraph - details a fight Presley broke up in 1977. I'd argue this is less significant than other material that could be included, and Elvis was involved in a similar, more newsworthy incident in 1956, which resulted in a court appearance. But that has been left out. There are hundreds of anecdotes like these, but we can't add 'em all, so it might be best not to add any, and leave all that stuff for other publications, documentaries, fan sites etc. Rikstar 07:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
In 1992 it was observed: "For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar." 1992 was the 15th anniversary; the 25th anniversary of his death was in 2002. This needs a fix.
I think Elvis Presley is almost due for re-submission. The references need work however, which is a tedious job (See Moving Forward, above). They need standardizing and inline additions are need to title/explain sources. If online sources are still up to date, a retrieval date needs to be added to each. I'll start, but help would be appreciated. Rikstar 08:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DUDE!! How do you edit this thing?? Some of this is so unbelievably wrong!! Like, they spelled his middle name wrong...It's Aron...with ONE "A". It's spelled wrong on his gravestone too, but they did that in honor of the fact that before Elvis died, he was going to change his middle name to have to "A"'s. And Elvis didn't WANT a guitar for Christmas. He wanted a bike, but they couldn't afford one so his mum bought him a guitar instead, and things just took off from there.
Although growing, the pared down version of about 68Kb was missing a few important bits, e.g. about Tom Parker. I've also noted the length of other biographies, like Bob Dylan's, and these are substantially longer, yet have Featured article status. As long as Presley's article contains only significant content (of an encyclopedic nature), I think its limited expansion is OK. Rikstar 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Artice probably near its "maximum" in length - less than 80kb - Dylan's is 100kb or so (FA status - I thought it was a decent one to emulate). Have seriously wanted to maintain NPOV: hard given controversy about Presley on many levels. I believe there is plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him - and what will the die-hard fans think?!?! - will a 50/50 division of disapproval = NPOV??. I think any encycopedia entry would have to be somewhat on the positive side about his contribution, impact and influence. Notes are extensive, but necessarily so, given the subject. Web notes need work. I would still urge all editors to discuss major changes/comments on this page. I admit to not being so fastidious in that regard, but I hope the end result is something approaching Featured Article standard. Rikstar 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that several paragraphs have now been improved and I am happy that the "Elvis lives?" section has been removed. However, the Elvis article is far from FA status. It still requires a lot of cleanup. Significant details concerning the singer's personal life are still missing. There isn't "plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him", as you claim. Just one example from the "Early life" section. Concerning the singer's first guitar, the article states,
This paragraph says nothing about the distaste with which Elvis's guitar playing was called trash or hillbilly music by his fellow students. Here are two quotes from Peter Guralnick's book:
The following details concerning Elvis's parents have been totally removed:
These are important facts. Why are they omitted? On the other hand, the "Awards and recognition" section has still the following, totally irrelevant quote included by Northmeister:
"...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 16th, 1971). |
Many more points of criticism could be made. Interestingly, another user said on this talk page (see above):
This should make you think. I will watch the article and return later. Onefortyone 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Have added account of meeting with Pres. Nixon, a sufficiently bizarre episode that does not exactly enhance Presley's reputation. Rikstar 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
141- It seems to me that a good deal of the objections to edits you listed under this heading on this page have been addressed: The biased prose (multiple references to him being 'iconic', 'staggering', etc.), being a mama's boy, his father's laziness, Gladys's booze problem, Parker's influence and reputation, Presley's sex life (or lack of it), his adultery, etc. Other points not flattering Presley have also been included: the Nixon meeting and his intent to have Mike Stone killed. In the absence of further details from you, your (talk page) assertion that the article "still requires a lot of clean up" does seem a bit gratuitous. Rikstar 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of Early Life there is an occurance of 'the the'.
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy U C P 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is still too fan-oriented. A recent book, Elvis Presley: A Penguin Life by Bobbie Ann Mason (Penguin, 2003) reveals another Elvis, a somewhat tragic life filled with strife. The author depicts Elvis's relationship with his mother in ways that demonstrate close mother-child bonds. It is shown how Elvis clung to his mother as a small child and remained close to her throughout her life. Authors such as Peter Guralnick reveal that he was seen by many as a mama's boy, even in his twenties. Material more specifically referring to these important facts has been removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago. Even after his mother's death, Elvis craved maternal care, a need that often influenced his relationships.
Mason suggests that the two incidents that most affected Elvis were the death of his twin brother at birth and the death of his mother. Events that deeply influenced Elvis's childhood also include the poverty of his parents, the alcoholism of his mother and his move to Memphis at thirteen. There is no reference to the alcoholism of Elvis's mother in the "Early life" section. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article does not mention Elvis's feelings of inferiority, which complicated his personal and professional relationships, most markedly his attitude toward his manager Colonel Parker, his often complicated romances with women and his extravagant spending habits. All this is thoroughly discussed in Mason's book.
There is nothing on the unhealthful influence of the Memphis Mafia on Elvis in the article, although it is a fact that Elvis spent day and night with these guys.
Mason also points out the interesting irony of Elvis's beginning his career by cultivating an image as a threatening rebel, while actually living as an innocent young man devoted to his mother and eager to please friends and business associates. Yet when Elvis returned from the Army his manager Parker transformed him into a mainstream boy. With similar insights, Mason reveals other facets of Elvis's life, including the paranoia that overcame him later in life. A special section on Colonel Parker's negative influence on Elvis has been removed from the Wikipedia article some months ago. I don't know why. Instead of discussing such important points in an additional section, the Wikipedia article still includes much fan-oriented stuff in the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and Elvis in the 21st century" sections.
A long critical discussion of the Elvis cult has been deleted. Instead of this comprehensive discussion, there is now only a very brief section on the "Elvis religion".
There are indeed several improvements. However, the totally irrelevant passage on Elvis's trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" in which he says that he was a dreamer and the hero of comic books, has only recently been removed. (In stumbling across such trivia, the reader would only have been surprised at the singer's naiveté.)
There are many more questions. Why is the section about Elvis's misuse of drugs now entitled "Post mortem"? Wasn't he alive when he took drugs? Why is a section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era still missing, which, according to current academic research, has feminized Elvis?
Furthermore, why does the "recognition" section omit any critical voices? It is said in this section that "Presley has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence." But nobody questions whether he is still popular among the younger generation. In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, "the multimillion dollar Elvis business will try to connect with a new generation of teenage fans." They endeavor to show up more film clips, photos and other material from the vast Presley archives online. 'We will take our MySpace page and we will focus on expanding our number of friends on MySpace, that kind of thing,' Jankowski said..." However, Baird concludes, "Moving Elvis content online should be easy; making Elvis cool again will be more difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See [31] Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed? I don't think so. So why is it not mentioned in the "recognition" section that most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music?
There are many more questions of this kind. I am happy to see that the passage on Presley's voice including the Henry Pleasants quote which I contributed last year, withstanded the whitewashing and is still to be found in the article. But does it belong in the "Legacy" section? Significantly, the "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century." But a David Bowie quote about Presley has been removed: "There was so little of it that was actually good." "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.
As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed. In that era, which was much criticized by critics and musicians, Presley was distanced from his roots. This is an important biographical fact. However, the most frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley, when the singer excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. According to Professor Garber, the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had presented "variations of the drag queen figure" (see Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116) and appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich" (see Garber, p.368). Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it in his study, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127. No wonder that "white drag kings tend to pick on icons like Elvis Presley." See Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999), p. 248.
All this well-sourced material was removed from the article presumably because it was not in line with the opinion of some Elvis fans who endeavored to "improve" the Wikipedia article some months ago. So I would say that the article is still far from GA status. Onefortyone 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Presley's later paranoia is mentioned in a reference to similarities to Howard Hughes. Parker's negative influence is referred to in the the Hollywood section. Intelligent/interested readers can find out more if they want to; the main article is about Presley - not his manager, his ma and pa, Tom Jones, the Memphis Mafia nor the guy he paid to clean his windows.
The trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" was removed. Now you criticize the timing of its removal. I don't know why - it's gone, end of story. Funnily enough, I thought of keeping it, exactly because it was an embarrassing indication of his naiveté - and his drug-addled state at that time (much as it pained me to do so - as an 'Elvis Fan').
Presley's drug misuse is mentioned elsewhere outside the Post mortem section (err... because he was alive when he took drugs); said section is not a re-titling of a drug misuse section.
'Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed?'. This quote isn't in the main article. Are we going to stick with suggestions to do specifically with the main article content here or keep going to unrelated matters when it suits us? "Most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music". There are a million things kids nowadays have no interest in; the main article makes no reference to kids liking Presley's music.
'The "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century."' It's a quote - it's someone opinion regarding his legacy. David Bowie's quote, and a million others that agree with him that they didn't really rate his later music, necessarily exclude themselves from inclusion because they say nothing about his legacy.
"As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed." Suppressed? Nonsense. Presley's incoherent, drug-addled appearances of the 70s are mentioned. Critics' quotes are included (Shame the embarrassing Jaycee's speech was removed...)
The rest of your suggested additions cover very old ground and you cite the usual justifications of them all being "well-sourced". They are not worthy of inclusion in a main article on Presley, in my humble opinion. Rikstar 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What if the said photos were deleted from the article? Rikstar 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with most of your arguments above. There is not enough material on the Memphis Mafia in the article, as these guys played such an important role in Elvis's life. Lots of books deal with them. A biography must lay more emphasis on these facts. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not entitled "Elvis's music". So details from the personal life of the singer must also be appropriately discussed, as in all other biographies. There should be a special chapter on the influence of Colonel Parker in the article, not only some few remarks in the Hollywood section, as this man had so much influence on the career of the star. And critical sections on Elvis's drug abuse and his jumpsuit era in Las Vegas are necessary, as most biographers critically deal with these important details. That the younger generation isn't interested in Elvis and his music is also important, as the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and "Elvis in the 21st century" sections, which are primarily talking in superlatives and include so much fan stuff, may suggest otherwise. One further example may show why the article is still not "good" enough in several sections: Concerning the Steve Allen Show, it is said,
This is clearly whitewashing historical facts. An earlier version of the same paragraph was much different (and well sourced):
The earlier version is the better one. Otherwise the next passage in the article doesn't make sense:
There is even wrong information to be found in the article. It is said that Elvis had a relationship with Natalie Wood. Here are the facts according to Wood expert Gavin Lambert:
The article is still not neutral enough, as several crtical voices on the Elvis cult are missing. Onefortyone 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, 141 - I note your critiquing tactics are unchanged: you make some useful and interesting points, but these are almost buried in your apparent contempt for the current state of this article, for it's 'fan' editors and by extension the administrator who had the 'temerity' to judge it a Good Article. Perhaps - and I'm guessing here - that's why Northmeister felt unable (and he undoubtably has the ability) to discuss your criticism. I will respond more specifically in due course. Rikstar 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Additions have been made to the '1956' section, specifically the Steve Allen episode. N.B. these changes have NOT been made because the earlier version was a clear "whitewashing [of] historical facts", nor because the earlier version didn't "make sense". Rikstar 07:46, 27 July 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Thank you.
Im sorry but my hamster has more talent than Elvis. He didnt have 1/4 the talent of Prince, James Brown, Michael Jackson and the Beatles. Rolling Stones, Madonna, and Dylan are utter garbage too.
According to a Bulgarian book about Beatles, Elvis Presley was envious to their success and bought off all tickets for their concert, so no one could enjoy it. Can someone comment on this (I find highly improbable), and would you please enter a short comment on the main page to help shed light on the facts. Thanks, NT
This article is becoming to long, especially the section 1969-1977 - Elvis's final years. The whole section can exist as an article itself. I estimate the readable prose of the article must be approximately 100KB. I suggest some division. A W 03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion and due to requests to reduce length to enyclopedic levels together with requests to clean-up various sections I've decided to BE BOLD and lieu of Wikipedia:Article size guidlines and went ahead with an entire re-format of the article in line with other Featured article's. In the course of re-format I've created these other pages:
in the vain of Memphis Mafia which was already created - to facilatate a break-up of article as requested leaving principle biography, discography, and legacy in-tact as is the standard in F.A. articles. There is still much more to be done with what is remaining in the main article and to be debated here as to what can be improved further with syntax, grammar, etc. along with material inclusions. I welcome all comments on the new pages created and all help in sorting this out to a workable arrangement. -- Northmeister 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) -Pertaining to the above, I've continued with clean-up, reformating, and additions relevant to encyclopedic article. The four articles created earlier contain much of the information that has been removed; per suggestion - and need help reformating as well. There is still more to do. The Biography (in line with other article approved as Featured articles - which I used as a model for cleanup) is redundant and long on the final years and the 1970s. I left much criticism of Elvis within the text wherever I could if it was well sourced and relevant. Much has been reorganized as well and moved around for chronological reasons. I welcome all constructive help in this regards and any constructive criticism. My hope is for a clean page ready to be featured. -- Northmeister 02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To my dismay, I have now seen what has happened to the Elvis Presley article a few days ago. User:Northmeister has removed several paragraphs from the article in order to cut it from a very biased point of view. He himself states on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Therefore, he removed most material that included some critical remarks concerning the singer's life. The article now reads as if it has been chiefly written by Elvis fans.
There are still expressions in the article that clearly show the dominance of biased fan views:
Further changes suggest that fans now dominate the article:
Several well-sourced details have been totally removed from the older version of the article, for instance:
- from the Early life section:
- from the Death and burial section (which has now been totally removed):
In the section concerning the influence of Elvis's manager Colonel Parker, which was correctly entitled Presley and his manager "Colonel" Tom Parker but is now wrongly entitled American icon, these well-sourced critical remarks have been removed:
The last passage now reads:
Significantly, this additional remark has been omitted:
The Drug abuse section is now part of the Controversy surrounding death section, despite the fact that there is no controversy about this abuse of drugs which took place during the singer's lifetime.
References to Elvis's relationships and the Memphis Mafia have been excluded from the text, and the sections on The Elvis cult and its critics and the FBI files on Elvis have been totally removed. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I've just looked at the main article again. It does, as I agreed before, have a fan site element to it. But in terms of format and headings, It is better in that it has a more encyclopedic feel to it. Gone are whole sections that emphasised aspects that encyclopedias would not detail or even mention at all. But granted it needs work. There is nothing wrong with this article being chiefly written by Elvis fans, or even looking as if it has, so long as NPOV is maintained. And there is every indication that some editors who happen to be fans are making every effort to recognise their own potential for bias and to seek support in achieving a NPOV. What this article does NOT need is contributions that take it outside of an encyclopedic framework and which do so as if there is a sustained and deliberate attempt to inject a dubious and rather unsavoury negativity disguised as an attempt to restore a NPOV. If all editors had the insight to recognise their own potential for bias and any apparent propensity to stick to dubious agendas, we might get a decent article written soon, instead of about ten years from now. Rikstar 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There are several versions of this "quote"
Note the different words as the "quote" is repeated from text to text. The orginal "quote" is based on a second hand rendering. This is addressed in the following book -
page 32 “On more than one occasion, however, Phillips has denied making any such statement (Marcus, 198: 16n; Worth and Tamerius, 1988; 153n) and Keisker is the only source of direct evidence to the contrary.” [3] (emphasis added) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve Pastor ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I've truncated the Legacy and reformated the article regarding 21st century. Added "Accomplisments and Awards" then changed title to "Commerative measures" but am unsure of sub-header title and what it should be. Tried to reduce the trivial nature of the 21st Century section with new section "Recent Developments" - of course feel free to twik these sections if you feel you can improve them. Trying to get article length within acceptable standards - as earlier complaints of length were lodged by others and in the original Featured article rejection. I am pleased with the efforts of several editors thus far towards making this article acceptable to the "Good" category and someday be a "Featured" piece. -- Northmeister 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding health and cause of death' - We should shorten this titled for the look of the format. I am open to suggestions - maybe Health and cause of death or Health issues and death or Health and death issues - something overall that is shorter. -- Northmeister 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a photo of Elvis from Aloha Hawaii - to see his look at the time. Photo's should show his transformation through the years I think. Not sure if one exists for his last years or not. Also added 1945 fair 'old shep' singing - first time before crowd. -- Northmeister 05:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"In May 2007, the Warner Bros. and Paramount home video units launched a major campaign for 24 Elvis films on DVD. Jailhouse Rock ( 1957) and Viva Las Vegas ( 1964) were being released as double-disc collectors editions for the 30th anniversary of his death. [13]"
I look at the above as simple advertisement. But I could be wrong. It may belong in the recent developments section. I'll let others decide if that is the case. -- Northmeister 05:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to the day that we can replace a description of this performance to a clip of it that everyone can see for themselves. Dance is one of my hobbies. Presley's estate sanctioned a line dance to go with "Such a Night". There are, what I thought would be pelvic movements in the dance, so I did big hip/pelvic rolls. Boy was I surprised when I actually saw how Elvis moved. As I wrote originally, the movement he did was in his legs. I have stopped rolling my pelvis in this particular dance, because Elvis was rotating his knee and leg, not his pelvis or hips. There is of course some movement in his hips, but it is incidental. If they had wanted his hips and pelvis to show, he would not have been wearing black pants, coverd in part by a light colored sport coat. When this show was broadcast, his performance was over in little more than 2 minutes. Just as most people believe that they saw someone stabbed in the shower scene in "Psycho" (Hitchcock only shows the knife rising and falling, head shots, and blood going into the drain) people thought they saw Elvis thrust his pelvis. Likewise, people go to salsa lessons expecting to wiggle their hips. Hip motion in salsa comes primarily from stepping onto a straight leg, something Elvis does almost spastically in this preformance, and others. Also, dance for the majority of the population, has come quite a ways since the mid 1950s. Now, Fosse's dancers used their pelvis and hips! Just as I hope that Wikipedia would want to include the fact that a tomato is in fact a fruit, even though everyone calls it a vegetable, I hope we will not perpetuate an inaccurate description of how Elvis moved. If anyone knows where this clip can be found on line, please add a link! Steve Pastor 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this will look better after I've seen it for a while, but I doubt it. Emphasizing through the end of the 1950s at this point goes way outside any time line, since the next section is on early TV appearances, all of which were in 1956. There was a synergy between the TV appearances and the 1956 releases. Presley didn’t cut “Hound Dog” until after the Steve Allen show. The post 1956 records can be picked up later. Also, the lengthy list of songs just looks bad, especially the ones in red (Yes, I know, article to come. It still looks bad.) I think we are a bit off track here. Thought I would give whoever added this first crack. Steve Pastor 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What's up with that? I want to add an incident about Nat King Cole being beaten up, while at the same time he was a #1 selling artist, as an example of how things were in the 50s. Where did a workable link to that go? Think maybe the rewrite edits are coming to fast? Steve Pastor 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances need some rewriting. Here is Elvis expert Greil Marcus on the Ed Sullivan Shows (see [5]):
See also the following account taken from Michael David Harris, Always on Sunday: Ed Sullivan, An Inside View (1968), p.116:
I think there needs to be some detail about the sexual content of Presley's act in the breakthrough year bit, as opposed to just saying it was "controversial". I'll have a look. Also, the bit about Freddie Bell and Hound Dog, which 141, edited at one point, could lose the "a major attraction in town, at the Sands casino hotel" as it just bloats the piece Rikstar 05:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a question. The following passage is still to be found in the opening of the article. To my mind, most of this material should be included in the different sections of the article.
Query: did Elvis's dead actually "stun the American nation"? Which sources say such things? This seems to be wishful thinking of some fans. According to Samuel Roy, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." Except for the fans who held his memory in honor, he was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'" A CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, which "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." See Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173. During the 1970s, frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380´. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116. Significantly, all this material, supported by several independent university studies, has been deleted from the article. Onefortyone 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Onefortyone. Are you alright? I assume you have read the above paragraph. So here we are again, so soon after I first posted it and, to my surprise, we are discussing dubious edits that would take this article way outside what most people would consider an acceptable format. I agree that the intro could be altered, especially the bit about his death 'stunnning' the nation. You could have politely pointed this out, but you had to have a dig at those pesky darn Elvis fans, didn't you? Why you mentioned the Samuel Roy quote: "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." is a mystery; it doesn't back up any claim of yours that isn't covered in the current article. As for the other sources, you don't make a big thing about them being 'Experts On Elvis', as you did with Greil Marcus, but it seems their observations regarding 'drag queens', 'androgyny', 'pancake makeup', etc. should somehow sit undisturbed in what is (and I'm boring myself now) a general encyclopedia article. As you have often said to other editors: "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE"!! Rikstar 09:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, he only became famous because he stole black music which is in itself racist, he may well have been bisexual, and his death was almost certainly a deliberate overdose. ( BillRodgers 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
As for Elvis' death "stunning" the nation, I recall clearly the day he died and the constant television reports throughout the afternoon, evening, and into the late night, and talk on and off television for days afterwards. I remember his death covering the front page in huge print with his picture on every newspaper I saw the next day, as well as a late edition "August 16th" copy out in one of our papers that very night he died.
The general nation and the world were indeed "stunned" by his death, and mail, calls, and flowers were sent from all over the world. While in the months prior to his death there were some rumored reports of him being ill in tabloids and in the occasional concert review, his death was not expected by the masses. With the exception of those close to Elvis in his personal life, the fans or critics who saw him live in concert at that time, and anybody else who happened to see his condition first hand, the rest of the public and the world wasn't aware of how bad off he was or that he had any drug problems like he did. The world at large hadn't seen him since the "Aloha" show four years earlier where he looked great. His "1977" condition wasn't seen by the masses until the "Elvis In Concert" show that was shown after his death.
He looked fat in 1973 and numerous phoographs over the next four years showed the world just how bad he looked. ( BillRodgers 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
Maybe it's just me, and I am by no means blind to the "real" and factual negative aspects of Elvis' life and his condition in his last years, but Onefortyone seems to favor a negative light shined on Elvis, first and foremost, including quotes from "books" painting such pictures. He seems to have a problem with positive aspects being pointed out, but not negatives, including totally unconfirmed claims based on heresay and no more.
As Jack Webb used to say, "Just the facts". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 ( talk • contribs).
As evidenced above and numerous times in the past (which can be viewed through his edit history) and which includes but is not limited to:
Baby let me be, your lovin' Teddy Bear Put a chain around my neck, and lead me anywhere Oh let me be Your teddy bear.
Once the reader gets past the requisite Abu Ghraib reference, it could well be that Elvis is singing about the leather-laded gay bear scene.
As for Abu Ghraib, let us further examine the king's famous "Jailhouse Rock"
The drummer boy from Illinois went crash, boom, bang, the whole rhythm section was the Purple Gang. Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block
Number forty-seven said to number three: "You're the cutest jailbird I ever did see. I sure would be delighted with your company, come on and do the Jailhouse Rock with me." Let's rock, everybody, let's rock. Everybody in the whole cell block was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock. The sad sack was a sittin' on a block of stone way over in the corner weepin' all alone. The warden said, "Hey, buddy, don't you be no square. If you can't find a partner use a wooden chair.
When was the last time you heard of a co-ed prison? There is also the expression "Purple gang". The reader may know that lavender is the official gay color. Number 47 also seems to have something for fellow inmates. In addition, you may try to figure out what two partners might do with a wooden chair. If you have any ideas, let me know. [7]
80.141.197.110 (Talk) This is what you claim you are. Sorry, it seems more likely that you are a member of the Elvis Mafia who wants to make money selling "girl's guides to Elvis Presley" and all of this stuff and therefore wants to keep alive the story of Elvis the prodigious lover of women. Why are you so keenly interested in suppressing other opinions in this talk on Elvis? According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not allowed to delete contributions by other users on discussion pages. [8]
I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? [9]
THEN HE ADDS ON SAME DAY As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [10]
80.141.232.231 (Talk) : I have been living for some time in Memphis. I am interested in facts throwing new light on the king's life and career. If Bret and Dee Presley are right this would explain a lot, for instance, the strong influence of Colonel Parker, though I would not go so far as to say that those men of the Memphis Mafia who were with Elvis everyday from 1956 on were all gay. What's wrong with the fact that Elvis may have been gay or bisexual? As a musician, he is still a much loved legend. [11]
He then writes on same day: Could this be the normal behavior of a womanizer who slept with hundreds of girls and women? [12]
80.141.201.224 (Talk) Sorry, but this means nothing as many homosexual men have been wooing and marrying straight woman in order to provide a safe cover for their true sexual orientation. Many of them may be too ashamed to acknowledge their feelings for fear of reprisal. Even Rock Hudson and Elton John were married and still gay as can be. [13]
80.141.248.192 (Talk) In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See [14] The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’.
Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland."
It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. ~~~~ [15]
80.141.184.12 (Talk) It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. Therefore, the passage, "just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual", should be included in the Wikipedia article. ~~~~
I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus is more likely that he preferred men.
and on the same day goes to Nick Adams: [16]
80.141.178.108 (Talk) Significantly, she seems to have been the only woman in the Memphis Mafia, as there were only men around Elvis. You might see some parallels to Andy Warhol's "Factory", but there were more women around Warhol. Very interesting indeed. ~~~~ [17]
and also
As everybody now can see, this user calls me a liar for placing some information taken out of books on Elvis in the article. He may indeed be a member of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of The King and therefore tries to suppress all other information which is not in line with this media monopoly. ~~~~ [18]
80.141.191.66 (Talk) Note: I have found previous edits (long before I showed up) by the same ANONYMOUS user with a single mission under twenty-three different IPs. Again, all for the exact same Elvis Presley, David Bret issues with no other edits. Like they tried to do to me, this ANONYMOUS user used intimidation and relentless bullying tactics while reverting other User's edits until they drove them away. (SEE LIST AT : Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress) Ted Wilkes 23:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles under a dynamic IP address? Sorry, frequently deleting my comments as you did on the said page is vandalism.
Older edit Revision as of 05:22, 9 August 2005 (edit) (undo) 129.241.134.241 (Talk) BTW, this sound like a great idea - if Mr. Wilkes continue to insert his ridiculous claims about Sony transistors, maybe I'll start inserting claims about Elvis being gay. Watch out, Teddy Wilkes!( 129.241.134.241 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)) [19]
Further based on this observation by another Editor:
"Ban Lochdale from celebrity articles? What other celebrity articles is this user accused of disrupting? Moreover, 141 has a long history of skillfully baiting enthusiastic editors into zealously over-stepping WP policies only for the well-meant purpose of curbing 141's incredibly adept abuse of scholarship. Lochdale has been baited, provoked and stung. Meanwhile there is zero documented evidence Elvis Presley was gay, only tabloid hearsay which wouldn't hold up under peer review for a day. Even mentioning it in an encyclopedia article throws its weight off beyond all proportion: In a full length biography, sure, deal with it in a few paragraphs maybe. Lochdale has made mistakes, Lochdale should be admonished and strongly warned, maybe even with six months of Elvis-Presley-Only probation subject to an EP ban if he slips up again.
Meanwhile 141, in my humble opinion, should be hard banned from Wikipedia. His single-minded interest in editing exclusively on the subject of "allegations" concerning the gayness of EP clearly indicates motivations which have nothing to do with scholarship or encyclopedias. His constant, calculated accusations of sock-puppetry violate every aspect of Wikipedian good faith and cooperation.
Has anyone ever noticed that 141 almost always responds to complaints by viciously attacking the complainer with accusations of sockpuppetry? Or slapping the complainer with the label of "Elvis Presley fan"?
For example, to take this to its logical extreme (since 141 is indeed an extreme), how do we know 141 is not Ted Wilkes?
Anyway, if there is supportable documented evidence floating around somewhere that Mr Presley was gay (and though I have yet to see any, it wouldn't surprise me if he was- so convince me then), I'm sure other editors will stumble across it one day and get it into the article through WP policy and encyclopedic methodology, not through edit warring and the disruptive attrition tactics used by 141. Wyss 00:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [20]"
I've made attempts to work with Onefortyone in the past myself: see my contributions in June of 2006 per this user and his refusal to work cordially: [21].
HENCE: I will revert any edits made my onefortyone that are simply rehashing or putting back in what has already been improved by other editors. If either yourself, Steve, or other editors feel I have errored in the process - please correct my actions. If user onefortyone wishes to show his intentions of good faith then I ask he work out his proposed edits here for the community to judge as above. I make this statement, with no malice toward this editor, but based on his past disruptive actions here and with other articles, previous bans from this article, and with other celebrities biographies and not without just cause. We are all here to create a workable, neutral, 'good' and 'featured' article and are working to that end. -- Northmeister 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Two examples of rehashed material already edited by other editors for flow and summary style that Onefortyone continues to put into the article without assuming good faith on behalf of those editors:
"Presley was dressed in the white tie and tails of a ´'high-class' musician, the clothes were intentionally made so tight he couldn't move freely." [17]
However, according to Jake Austen, "the way Steve Allen treated Elvis Presley was his federal crime. Allen thought Presley was talentless and absurd, and so he decided to goof on him. Allen set things up so that Presley would show his contrition by appearing in a tuxedo and singing his new song 'Hound Dog' to an elderly basset hound..." [18]
Why has this individual been allowed to disrupt Wikipedia to clearly make a point and cause edit wars with other editors for so long is beyond me. -- Northmeister 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with all of this about Onefortyone. It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.139 ( talk • contribs).
I concur and will scan through the whole thing again to achieve a shorter, pithier article of the type many of us desire. The intro can be cropped, and bits merged into other sections Rikstar 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the high points of the TV shows are covered. "Hound Dog" and "Why Elvis was shot differently on the last Sullivan show" are the two significant events. (I think Elvis's leg shaking while Sullivan was talking was what did it.) Details like he wore a sport coat and sang without a guitar for the first time are important because they establish the general tone of his appearances. Further material, such he sang this, and that, and then he curled his lip, etc, would be overkill. Again, there is an article on the Sullivan show itself, where it may be appropriate. BTW, I'm find out that there are a fair number of people (mostly women) who know that he "shook his leg(s)" rather than his pelvis. Nevertheless, the misrepresentation of what he did is so prevalent, I think it is rightly addressed here by its exclusion. Steve Pastor 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
All is this great but there are no citations. It shouldn't be cut, but we need to traces sources. Rikstar 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Voice section was probably the most interesting part of the article--little known, well sourced information that went a long way toward explaining Elvis' phenomenal success. And you guys took it out. Way to go! --M-K, 25 May 2007
I have several books which state Presley's second demo single was "I'll Never Stand In Your Way" and "Casual Love Affair". The article says different. Also, the same sources state that Elvis did play for Humes High Tigers football team, but he reluctantly quit at his mother's request (she worried he'd be injured). He's also said to have worked evenings at the Marl Metal Products Company while at school. Anyone shed any light on this? Rikstar 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to applaud the efforts Steve and Rikstar along with others have made thus far with the article. As the article improves I was wondering your thoughts on format. Do you think it is right the way it is or do you think that the structure (sections) should be worded or re-ordered differently? As, to user Onefortyone - any thoughts on his contributions or how we might address them for inclusion if they are not simply trivia? I am not sure of a workable solution here - since much of his material is covered already - just summarized. He was concerned above with a couple of items - do you think we've addressed these? Anyway - keep up the good work. Eventually I would like to have this article submitted for a 'good' candidate in preparation for a 'featured' article. Might do to look at the concerns of those opposed to 'featured' status in the past when this article was nominated. Having done so from the start - I think on length and unsourced statements we've come a long way. -- Northmeister 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved some stuff around regarding the above comments. I think Maria makes a good point about the Controversy section and I like the work done on the subsection title - it seemed long to me originally. In regards to this section - it may need its own article? Not sure. I also agree the legacy section (when I view other artists legacy sections) is lacking. It covers his impact originally in the 1950's but not much else. If anyone has any suggestions on how to address this let us know. Right now the article is about 71kb - not too bad for length - although long it is ok for such a topic. Many featured articles have pictures throughout. Our choices are very limited - but not sure what to do with that. I've kept the quotation from Jaycees as this gives us some impression of Mr. Presley from his words - something 'good' biograhies are now doing - but shortened it. -- Northmeister 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Been doin' some snoopin' around... According to Carr & Farren, and the Elvis Presley's Sun recordings article, "Blue Moon of Kentucky" (BMOK) was recorded July 5/6. Carr & Farren state that Dewey Phillips first played "That's All Right" on radio Saturday evening, July 10. Furthermore, they state that Sam Phillips took 3 acetates for Dewey to listen to/air: including fast and slow tempo versions of BMOK. So it seems the bit in the article about Phillips and the boys rushing to record (or even re-record??) a flip side might not be true. Earlier versions of the Elvis article say BMOK was recorded 10 days after "That's All Right", which might be wrong. Sources with this possible kind of innaccuracy (The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday??) are questionable. The Carr & Farren book is a detailed account that took (they say) 7 years to research. If no objections, I'll do a rewrite - and folks can pick at the result, as they see fit. It'll probably lengthen the section, but I think that's warranted. Rikstar 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Currently in article - (His Saturday night Red, Hot And Blue show was devoted exclusively to 'black' music). Although this may be true, it way over emphasizes the race aspect of what he played, based on the following: "Phillips was the first to play Elvis on local radio, and the station championed the rockabilly sound coming from Sun Records." [23] His Red, Hot and Blue show went out on WHBQ in Memphis six nights a week from 9pm to midnight, and from 1949 he played a hitherto unheard mix of R'n' B, blues and country that was shortly to mutate into rock'n'roll. [24] Also, if his show wasn't only on Saturday in July 1954, this frees up any of the six nights for him to play TAM. And I promised myself that I was only interested in Elvis's music! Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that Dewey Phillips didn't ONLY play "black" music, and it is importnat to not write things that lead people to that conclusion. Steve Pastor 19:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Red Hot and Blue stuff is really interesting; I've taken out the bit about it only playing black music. The main point still holds that Presley and Dewey had to convince listeners that he was white. If we cannot get confirmation for TAR being first aired - and I hope we can - then the date can be dropped. Louis Cantor has written a book (University of Illinois press) called "Dewey and Elvis"; I wish I could get my hands on a copy... Rikstar 08:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've felt obliged to broaden this, having re-read a lot of source material. Presley's impact was substantial in different ways and it needs to be reflected in the main article. Rikstar 09:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs to mention and quote from significant names in music influenced by Presley eg. Springsteen, Dylan, etc. Currently, the section just mentions contemporaries of Elvis and tails off into stuff about impersonators. Rikstar 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is too long and looks like a list of trivia. The stuff about him being first, in the top ten, etc. of various polls, should be summarised with appropriate links/citations. Hall of fame induction, etc. should predominate. Rikstar 07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:GIBluesElvis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot
10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is getting near at least a 'good article nomination' if not featured status. I think getting the good tag first is the appropriate step to take. This is, if the editors feel we are at that point as I do. If we can get consensus on this we should nominate it for a community response. At the very least, guidance can be given; at the most it would get 'good nomination' advancing to 'featured status' thereafter. -- Northmeister 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm about through with this (I know: famous last words...). There are bits that need tweaking/checking (cost of Elvis Sun demo's?, etc). Maybe Controversy over his death could be really paired down and added to Final year and death - I'll try this. But, we've got the bare bones of a decent article (comments above aside, too). I've been consistently ruthless editing down every little byte, if only because I think there's probably additional significant things that can be added and we've now got a few bytes to play with (and I'm really glad there's been a partial lockdown to help me GET STUFF DONE). Any additions are gonna have to be good though, and may need to be re-written to maintain style (which I'm happy to try, if no one else is). I apologize if I've been a bit over-zealous (like dumpin' the Elvis Lives??? and Controversy over death bits), but things can be put right. Northmeister, I'm OK about this being reviewed for its status as it is, 'good nomination' or whatever (and my fingertips are numb). The feedback's got to be useful, and hopefully, encouraging. Thanks BTW to every polite, sane, knowledgeable editor out there who has taken the plunge, and especially to Northmeister for twistin' my arm to get involved in what looked like a nightmare (I know, it may become one again...). I'm kinda looking forward to reverting back to being an "ELVIS FAN" (but am I really??) instead of being an objective/fact freak. Rikstar 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no mention of a live concert in 1961 in Memphis, Tenn. I was a 19 year old, stationed just outside Memphis at the time and attended Elvis's concert there. As I recall, it was his first concert after his discharge from the Army. The current entry says his only concert was for charity in Hawaii. That is incorrect. Rlpowelson Rlpowelson 02:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know if, and to which extent if so, he had songs written for him? 67.68.31.35 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Click on the various links in the article. For instance, the Elvis Presley album article has a list of who wrote all of the songs. The Sun Recordings article has similar information. Once RCA picked him up, he had the benefit of a major label that received many songs from song writers. A better trivia question would be, did he write ANY songs. Steve Pastor 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Elvis's stepmother of 17 years Dee Stanley is not mentioned yet in this article. His father Vernon is mentioned once. They lived with him at Graceland for a while and he obviously had some sort of a relationship with both of them. Rick Stanley (step-brother) is mentioned however. More on stepsiblings might be of interest.
User:Brenont
05:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding stuff that is more than a minor edit is fine, but it needs to be significant. A recent editor (Intersting) has added a whole paragraph - details a fight Presley broke up in 1977. I'd argue this is less significant than other material that could be included, and Elvis was involved in a similar, more newsworthy incident in 1956, which resulted in a court appearance. But that has been left out. There are hundreds of anecdotes like these, but we can't add 'em all, so it might be best not to add any, and leave all that stuff for other publications, documentaries, fan sites etc. Rikstar 07:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
In 1992 it was observed: "For those too young to have experienced Elvis Presley in his prime, today’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of his death must seem peculiar." 1992 was the 15th anniversary; the 25th anniversary of his death was in 2002. This needs a fix.
I think Elvis Presley is almost due for re-submission. The references need work however, which is a tedious job (See Moving Forward, above). They need standardizing and inline additions are need to title/explain sources. If online sources are still up to date, a retrieval date needs to be added to each. I'll start, but help would be appreciated. Rikstar 08:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
DUDE!! How do you edit this thing?? Some of this is so unbelievably wrong!! Like, they spelled his middle name wrong...It's Aron...with ONE "A". It's spelled wrong on his gravestone too, but they did that in honor of the fact that before Elvis died, he was going to change his middle name to have to "A"'s. And Elvis didn't WANT a guitar for Christmas. He wanted a bike, but they couldn't afford one so his mum bought him a guitar instead, and things just took off from there.
Although growing, the pared down version of about 68Kb was missing a few important bits, e.g. about Tom Parker. I've also noted the length of other biographies, like Bob Dylan's, and these are substantially longer, yet have Featured article status. As long as Presley's article contains only significant content (of an encyclopedic nature), I think its limited expansion is OK. Rikstar 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Artice probably near its "maximum" in length - less than 80kb - Dylan's is 100kb or so (FA status - I thought it was a decent one to emulate). Have seriously wanted to maintain NPOV: hard given controversy about Presley on many levels. I believe there is plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him - and what will the die-hard fans think?!?! - will a 50/50 division of disapproval = NPOV??. I think any encycopedia entry would have to be somewhat on the positive side about his contribution, impact and influence. Notes are extensive, but necessarily so, given the subject. Web notes need work. I would still urge all editors to discuss major changes/comments on this page. I admit to not being so fastidious in that regard, but I hope the end result is something approaching Featured Article standard. Rikstar 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that several paragraphs have now been improved and I am happy that the "Elvis lives?" section has been removed. However, the Elvis article is far from FA status. It still requires a lot of cleanup. Significant details concerning the singer's personal life are still missing. There isn't "plenty of stuff to cover the lows/dark side and negative reaction to him", as you claim. Just one example from the "Early life" section. Concerning the singer's first guitar, the article states,
This paragraph says nothing about the distaste with which Elvis's guitar playing was called trash or hillbilly music by his fellow students. Here are two quotes from Peter Guralnick's book:
The following details concerning Elvis's parents have been totally removed:
These are important facts. Why are they omitted? On the other hand, the "Awards and recognition" section has still the following, totally irrelevant quote included by Northmeister:
"...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 16th, 1971). |
Many more points of criticism could be made. Interestingly, another user said on this talk page (see above):
This should make you think. I will watch the article and return later. Onefortyone 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Have added account of meeting with Pres. Nixon, a sufficiently bizarre episode that does not exactly enhance Presley's reputation. Rikstar 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
141- It seems to me that a good deal of the objections to edits you listed under this heading on this page have been addressed: The biased prose (multiple references to him being 'iconic', 'staggering', etc.), being a mama's boy, his father's laziness, Gladys's booze problem, Parker's influence and reputation, Presley's sex life (or lack of it), his adultery, etc. Other points not flattering Presley have also been included: the Nixon meeting and his intent to have Mike Stone killed. In the absence of further details from you, your (talk page) assertion that the article "still requires a lot of clean up" does seem a bit gratuitous. Rikstar 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of Early Life there is an occurance of 'the the'.
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy U C P 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is still too fan-oriented. A recent book, Elvis Presley: A Penguin Life by Bobbie Ann Mason (Penguin, 2003) reveals another Elvis, a somewhat tragic life filled with strife. The author depicts Elvis's relationship with his mother in ways that demonstrate close mother-child bonds. It is shown how Elvis clung to his mother as a small child and remained close to her throughout her life. Authors such as Peter Guralnick reveal that he was seen by many as a mama's boy, even in his twenties. Material more specifically referring to these important facts has been removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago. Even after his mother's death, Elvis craved maternal care, a need that often influenced his relationships.
Mason suggests that the two incidents that most affected Elvis were the death of his twin brother at birth and the death of his mother. Events that deeply influenced Elvis's childhood also include the poverty of his parents, the alcoholism of his mother and his move to Memphis at thirteen. There is no reference to the alcoholism of Elvis's mother in the "Early life" section. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article does not mention Elvis's feelings of inferiority, which complicated his personal and professional relationships, most markedly his attitude toward his manager Colonel Parker, his often complicated romances with women and his extravagant spending habits. All this is thoroughly discussed in Mason's book.
There is nothing on the unhealthful influence of the Memphis Mafia on Elvis in the article, although it is a fact that Elvis spent day and night with these guys.
Mason also points out the interesting irony of Elvis's beginning his career by cultivating an image as a threatening rebel, while actually living as an innocent young man devoted to his mother and eager to please friends and business associates. Yet when Elvis returned from the Army his manager Parker transformed him into a mainstream boy. With similar insights, Mason reveals other facets of Elvis's life, including the paranoia that overcame him later in life. A special section on Colonel Parker's negative influence on Elvis has been removed from the Wikipedia article some months ago. I don't know why. Instead of discussing such important points in an additional section, the Wikipedia article still includes much fan-oriented stuff in the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and Elvis in the 21st century" sections.
A long critical discussion of the Elvis cult has been deleted. Instead of this comprehensive discussion, there is now only a very brief section on the "Elvis religion".
There are indeed several improvements. However, the totally irrelevant passage on Elvis's trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" in which he says that he was a dreamer and the hero of comic books, has only recently been removed. (In stumbling across such trivia, the reader would only have been surprised at the singer's naiveté.)
There are many more questions. Why is the section about Elvis's misuse of drugs now entitled "Post mortem"? Wasn't he alive when he took drugs? Why is a section on the Las Vegas jumpsuit era still missing, which, according to current academic research, has feminized Elvis?
Furthermore, why does the "recognition" section omit any critical voices? It is said in this section that "Presley has featured prominently in a variety of polls and surveys designed to measure popularity and influence." But nobody questions whether he is still popular among the younger generation. In an article entitled "Getting today's teens all shook up over Elvis", Woody Baird says, "Teenagers in the 1950s and '60s went wild over Elvis Presley, much to the consternation of their parents, but kids in the new millennium aren't so stirred by rock 'n' roll's original rebel. 'I can't try to sell somebody Elvis who doesn't know who he is . . . that he's not just some guy who's been gone for 30 years,' said Paul Jankowski, chief of marketing for Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc." Therefore, "the multimillion dollar Elvis business will try to connect with a new generation of teenage fans." They endeavor to show up more film clips, photos and other material from the vast Presley archives online. 'We will take our MySpace page and we will focus on expanding our number of friends on MySpace, that kind of thing,' Jankowski said..." However, Baird concludes, "Moving Elvis content online should be easy; making Elvis cool again will be more difficult. After all, for most kids, Elvis is the music of their parents' - or grandparents' - generation." See [31] Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed? I don't think so. So why is it not mentioned in the "recognition" section that most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music?
There are many more questions of this kind. I am happy to see that the passage on Presley's voice including the Henry Pleasants quote which I contributed last year, withstanded the whitewashing and is still to be found in the article. But does it belong in the "Legacy" section? Significantly, the "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century." But a David Bowie quote about Presley has been removed: "There was so little of it that was actually good." "Those first two or three years, and then he lost me completely." See "How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002.
As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed. In that era, which was much criticized by critics and musicians, Presley was distanced from his roots. This is an important biographical fact. However, the most frequent points of criticism were the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley, when the singer excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." See Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. According to Professor Garber, the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." See Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380. According to several modern gender studies, the singer had presented "variations of the drag queen figure" (see Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116) and appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich" (see Garber, p.368). Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it in his study, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127. No wonder that "white drag kings tend to pick on icons like Elvis Presley." See Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999), p. 248.
All this well-sourced material was removed from the article presumably because it was not in line with the opinion of some Elvis fans who endeavored to "improve" the Wikipedia article some months ago. So I would say that the article is still far from GA status. Onefortyone 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Presley's later paranoia is mentioned in a reference to similarities to Howard Hughes. Parker's negative influence is referred to in the the Hollywood section. Intelligent/interested readers can find out more if they want to; the main article is about Presley - not his manager, his ma and pa, Tom Jones, the Memphis Mafia nor the guy he paid to clean his windows.
The trivial "Jaycees acceptance speech" was removed. Now you criticize the timing of its removal. I don't know why - it's gone, end of story. Funnily enough, I thought of keeping it, exactly because it was an embarrassing indication of his naiveté - and his drug-addled state at that time (much as it pained me to do so - as an 'Elvis Fan').
Presley's drug misuse is mentioned elsewhere outside the Post mortem section (err... because he was alive when he took drugs); said section is not a re-titling of a drug misuse section.
'Does this sound as if Elvis's "popularity continues ... with each new generation connecting with him in a significant way," as some fans claimed?'. This quote isn't in the main article. Are we going to stick with suggestions to do specifically with the main article content here or keep going to unrelated matters when it suits us? "Most teens nowadays have no interest in Elvis's music". There are a million things kids nowadays have no interest in; the main article makes no reference to kids liking Presley's music.
'The "Legacy" section primarily talks in superlatives such as "Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century."' It's a quote - it's someone opinion regarding his legacy. David Bowie's quote, and a million others that agree with him that they didn't really rate his later music, necessarily exclude themselves from inclusion because they say nothing about his legacy.
"As already mentioned above, all critical references to Elvis's Las Vegas "jumpsuit era" have been suppressed." Suppressed? Nonsense. Presley's incoherent, drug-addled appearances of the 70s are mentioned. Critics' quotes are included (Shame the embarrassing Jaycee's speech was removed...)
The rest of your suggested additions cover very old ground and you cite the usual justifications of them all being "well-sourced". They are not worthy of inclusion in a main article on Presley, in my humble opinion. Rikstar 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What if the said photos were deleted from the article? Rikstar 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with most of your arguments above. There is not enough material on the Memphis Mafia in the article, as these guys played such an important role in Elvis's life. Lots of books deal with them. A biography must lay more emphasis on these facts. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not entitled "Elvis's music". So details from the personal life of the singer must also be appropriately discussed, as in all other biographies. There should be a special chapter on the influence of Colonel Parker in the article, not only some few remarks in the Hollywood section, as this man had so much influence on the career of the star. And critical sections on Elvis's drug abuse and his jumpsuit era in Las Vegas are necessary, as most biographers critically deal with these important details. That the younger generation isn't interested in Elvis and his music is also important, as the "Legacy", "Awards and recognition" and "Elvis in the 21st century" sections, which are primarily talking in superlatives and include so much fan stuff, may suggest otherwise. One further example may show why the article is still not "good" enough in several sections: Concerning the Steve Allen Show, it is said,
This is clearly whitewashing historical facts. An earlier version of the same paragraph was much different (and well sourced):
The earlier version is the better one. Otherwise the next passage in the article doesn't make sense:
There is even wrong information to be found in the article. It is said that Elvis had a relationship with Natalie Wood. Here are the facts according to Wood expert Gavin Lambert:
The article is still not neutral enough, as several crtical voices on the Elvis cult are missing. Onefortyone 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, 141 - I note your critiquing tactics are unchanged: you make some useful and interesting points, but these are almost buried in your apparent contempt for the current state of this article, for it's 'fan' editors and by extension the administrator who had the 'temerity' to judge it a Good Article. Perhaps - and I'm guessing here - that's why Northmeister felt unable (and he undoubtably has the ability) to discuss your criticism. I will respond more specifically in due course. Rikstar 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Additions have been made to the '1956' section, specifically the Steve Allen episode. N.B. these changes have NOT been made because the earlier version was a clear "whitewashing [of] historical facts", nor because the earlier version didn't "make sense". Rikstar 07:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)