![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I ran across this article reading the news this morning and thought I'd pass it along to you all to insert in the article. I would do so, but don't have time right now and didn't want to forget the link. Elvis Presley is still the King.
Anyway, there you have it. -- Maniwar ( talk) 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I vote for young Elvis, not "Elvis Meets Nixon" Elvis.. Steve Pastor 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Same here - why use the same image twice? Rikstar 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with one from 1970. Copyrighted images should not be used when free use images are available. Lara ❤ Love 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if reverts or other changes were justified on these pages before blanket reverts or are made. I and others have already argued that it should be shorter. I apologize if my edits have removed anyone's precious work, but I've also removed some of my own additions.
This article is too long. I think the Controversy section should contain detail, but details about Ed Sullivan should be in an Ed Sullivan article. The women in his life section could be shorter, or merged - there is a separate article anyway. Rikstar 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Without checking the edit log, I'll point out that we agreed to at least a couple of things that could be removed. Regarding the Sullivan Show, again. I agree that details are not needed. Except that the persistent myth that Elvis was shown only from the waist up should be addressed. I just viewed "Elvis" starring Kurt Russell, and the makers of that film (Dick Clark Productions) use a scene where the director keeps telling the camera man "only from the waist up" as Elvis sings a song that he never did on the show. Apparently, no one really remembered what Elvis had done, or the film makers took a great deal of artistic license to present the commonly accepted view of what had happened. Remember again, that in those days braodcasts came and went, rarely or never to be seen again (until vcrs and dvd players created a market). Let's not let this urban myth be perpeptuated. We had acceptable language at one time, and somewhere along the way it was lost (too many edits).
I would argue that bringing up old arguments which were settled long ago, reinserting material that was deleted long ago, information whose relevance is marginal at best and without discussion, reverting edits without discussion, etc, is what is keeping this article at the level of a "Fan" site, or perhaps an anti fan site, rather than something that is well written. Steve Pastor 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, critic Onefortyone stated earlier there were problems, namely with "whitewashing" (?) i.e. bias. The only example he gave was that he wanted to make it clear Elvis' guitar playing was not well received. As making this point would further lengthen the article, I reluctantly removed the following:
"Another resident, Johnny Burnette, recalled, "Wherever Elvis went he'd have his guitar slung across his back....He used to go down to the fire station and sing to the boys there....[H]e'd go in to one of the cafes or bars....Then some folks would say: 'Let's hear you sing, boy.'"[22], "
The remaining text simply stated he got a guitar and he played it. 141 however, still went ahead and added that others were 'more dubious' about his guitar playing, when there is nothing left in that part of the article that remotely praises his guitar skills. This lack of care in editing indicates an enthusiasm to simply add negative content. The early years section is now worse and needs cleaning up because of this. I find this kind of editing unacceptable. Rikstar 04:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Presley's first Ed Sullivan appearance ( September 9, 1956) was seen by an estimated 55-60 million viewers. On the third Sullivan show Presley only sang slow paced ballads and a gospel song. [1] The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up during this last broadcast has led to claims that Sullivan had “censored” the singer, or that Colonel Parker had orchestrated the episode to generate publicity. [2] [3] In spite of any misgivings he may have had, Sullivan declared at the end of Presley's final performance that the singer "is a real decent, fine boy" and that they never had "a pleasanter experience" on their show. [3]"
141, I find it incredible that you still think Marcus's account is accurate, when there are now photographs of Elvis' contorted face (certainly not impassive) and Elvis' leg mid stride as he moves energetically across the stage (certainly not cast in concrete). Both photos are from Reddy Teddy and are in the Sullivan Show article. How can you possibly believe that his account is accurate? Steve Pastor 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions.
"Wall has argued that many Presley authors are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which tends to be biased. He contends that few publications are critical... Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall claims that one of the strategies of fan clubs and appreciation societies is "'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."
If there are any wiki administrators or whatever you call yourselves out there watching this article, I think it's about time this unco-operative, disruptive editing behavior was dealt with in some way. LaraLove has already noted "141 wanting to add everything possible that puts Elvis in a negative light." I am seriously considering withdrawing from this article - and all because of one user, who has a history of disruptive editing in this and other articles. [User:Rikstar|Rikstar]] 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I am considering using "helpme" to get the attention of someone one with administrative authority (Norhtmeister? If you can fill this role please speak up.) on this issue, since it seems unlikely that it will be solved here. I will be glad to engage LareLove regarding her "include it" comment. Meanwhile, the discussion should center around "the highest of standards", which I sure hope are higher than "it's verifiable". My only purpose here was to try and find accurate information about Presley's early career. If any ole BS that someone put in a book is acceptable, then this is a sad state of affairs. I hope I'm wrong about this, and that we just haven't found our way forward yet. Steve Pastor 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This talk page used to refer to "the highest of standards". That was after the article was rated a Good Article. Well, we know what happened next. Since there is not longer a link to that page, I am making it available here. [1] Are we "allowed" to place a banner at the head of the article regarding this? Some editors ignored the statement when it was on the talk page. P.S. I have found (again) other relevant information regarding editing of this and other articles, which will be shared if and when it becomes appropriate. Steve Pastor 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that there is a copy of some version of this article at Talk:Elvis Presley/Sandbox. It doesn't seem that it's been in use for a long time; some discussion of it can be found at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive15. Is this page needed? I don't think it's doing any active harm, but I can't see what's useful about keeping it around either. It may contain some history needed for GFDL reasons, but I'm not sure how I would determine whether that's the case.
Has anyone here got any thoughts on the matter? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please make sure when you're removing information that you're not removing named refs. For example, ref 8 is now blank. I'll fix it, but if everyone could try to watch out for that, it'd be great. If it's <ref name="whatever">Detailed info.</ref>
(base ref), then somewhere else, there's <ref name="whatever"/>
(subsequent use) at least once. If the base ref is removed, any subsequent ones produce a blank error. So, do a search, find an instant of a subsequent use, and paste over the base ref you're removing. Does that make sense? I thank you for your consideration with this.
Lara
❤
Love
20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Having two seperate types of footnotes and two seperate notes/references sections is confusing and non-standard. Let's discuss the best way of merging these two sections. Shall we change all alphabetic footnotes to numeric? Or shall we change all numeric footnotes to alphabetic? Wjhonson 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Egghead06 has been making edits/reverts regarding one sentence. I have admitted on Egghead06's talk page that I find his original dispute difficult to understand. However, I have not found his edits acceptable (though well-intentioned) so I have rewritten the sentence rather than revert to my original, moving away from the wording/grammar he disputed. I hope he, and others find the change makes sense. Rikstar 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made every effort again to reduce (and thus rewrite parts of) this article and keep it balanced and consistent - and keep the notes and references in order - given its basic structure and format. This reduction has been a major priority for some time but it has been hampered. I have not set about reducing anyone's particular contributions; those editors concerned will see that some previously contentious material still remains. In the spirit of everything that wikipedia is supposed to stand for, please show good faith and address any of my edits on this or my page first. I am always open to reasonable discussion, as are other contributors. Rikstar 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is disingenuous. 141 is one of very few making edits; the reasons for removing some of his edits have been detailed here ad nauseum. If 141's "editing has substantially improved", it has not been enough. Thatcher131 noted that 141 had been edit warring, that's all - I could have quoted some other such reference no doubt. 141 wars now with users he accuses of having a personal 'non-wiki' agenda. If it was personal, I'd be doing something like: violating wiki guidelines to eliminate 141's contributions, getting into arb disputes, not seeking or receiving the approval of other editors who co-operate with each other to achieve FA status... but I don't. Comparing myself and others with Wilkes and Wyss is as unfounded as it is reprehensible. Rikstar 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's sad that this page is locked because I have found incorrections. ( MandaPanda1 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
In case some people don't know or care, this article has amongst other things been deemed too long, which may seriously hamper its chances of becoming a Featured Article. I've worked harder than a one-armed cobbler at a world tap dancing contest to shave every single byte off it, by once again condensing sentences, etc., but it still needs to lose more major content. Funnily enough, this was my second time-consuming attempt and was made only in the last 48 hours or so. User 141 was invited to participate in ths effort by using this talk page to discuss/suggest changes, but he has not done so - 141 has merely done exactly what he wants and added nearly 4Kb in the process. According to wikipedia guidelines, this is very naughty. 141 also continues to remain silent about his intentions i.e. that he wants to work with other editors to achieve FA status.
We now have a depressingly familiar situation: reasonable editors will want to work with each other to amend the article, but will baulk at the prospect of knowing their tireless efforts will inevitably be changed/reverted by one maverick, unco-operative user. Way to go! (I thank the Great Whoever that I'm a little high on painkillers at the moment...) Rikstar 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to delist the article. It's terribly unstable, first of all. It's too long, far from focused. The images are not all properly tagged. Some lack sources, some lack adequate fair use rationales, the infobox image should not be a fair use image.
As far as the images go, I'm seeing that some of the fair use images are used in various articles and in userboxes. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each articles it is used in, individually. And fair use images are not within WP policy to be used in userboxes or any other templates.
I'm giving one more week on this article. If it's still not up to standards at that time, I'm delisting it. I'll also be deleting the images from any userboxes at that time. Lara ❤ Love 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This situation is in my opinion beyond mediation. Several editors have directly asked for input on issues repeatedly. Those requests for input and discussion have been ignored. Or, we get the same broken record of "it's verifiable". What we also see is the continual reinsertion of material that has been previously rejected by other editors. When you ask someone for input, and ask them to discuss something being added to an article that has repeatedly been labeled too long, etc., what you have is a rejection of the idea of woking with others. I believe the mediation effort should be skipped on the basis of events documented in these talk pages. I have stated repeatedly my main interest in this article, and it should be obvious that most of what I have contributed has been either mangled or removed completely. Right now my main interest is in seeing if this community has adequate resources to deal with individuals who do not seem capable of working as part of a group to achieve a fairly nuanced goal. Rikstar is not alone, in his opinions of the situation. A review of this page, and previous talk pages confirms that. Frankly, I would have given up a long time ago in the face of behavior by you know who. So, again, I strongly favor arbitration. -- Steve Pastor ( talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A previous entry read:
This infers that other lovers were skeptical about Shepherd teaching Presley about oral sex. It was then changed to:
This rewording now suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley, something not even hinted at earlier. I think this issue needs clarifying. If that means longer text, I think we should revert to the simple claim by Shepherd that she had full sex with the singer, period. This would be simpler and, more importantly, it will allow the article to be shortened. Any discussion about this would be appreciated. Thanks. Rikstar 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was startled (just kidding) to discover that at 03.06, user 141 had actually added nearly 4Kb of material removed only a couple hours earlier. This was in spite of the reasons explicitly given and discussed with and by other users. Notable was the guidance offered by Lara ❤ Love, who will imminently (and quite rightly) "delist the article. It's terribly unstable... It's too long, far from focused." She also observed: "Of course, I realize that pretty much anything you remove will be reverted by 141".
141's thoughts and intentions behind his latest edits are notable only because of their complete absence on this talk page. 141 is, amongst other things, still adding unnecessaily negative content. Example, from The Hollywood years:
To loosely paraphrase this entry, Elvis made some admittedly crap movie songs, but he made some better ones, but the crap ones were really crap 'cos they did badly in the charts and he only had one #1.
If anyone is interested in balance, NPOV, etc., I don't see how a negative comment, followed by a positive, followed by a negative, is balanced. I think this is more evidence of 141's bias and his sheer inability to see that his edits are not in line with creating a listed article. I've lost count, but some of 141's changes are being reinstated by him alone for the fourth or fifth time - completely without consultation with others and with a total disregard for wiki standards of quality and conduct.
A few observations have been made elsewhere about the reserves editors need to combat 141's kind of aggravating interference. All I can say is that peoples' resources are finite - mine are dwindling. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia if able editors are provoked beyond endurance and end up withdrawing; even more tragic are those reasonable editors who may take regrettable and uncharacteristic actions because such provocation is unimpeded. Rikstar ( talk) 08:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth here's my view. Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. He is dead and people will continue to write with bias and an agenda. To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide. Unfortunately brevity and balance appear to be mutually exclusive but until both sides are allowed their say this article will fall further into disrepute.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The information that Elvis gave some guy a BJ has never been included in the article. There seems to be a dispute as to whether an information is important or not. Just some examples of Rikstar's removals. A former paragraph of the article ran as follows:
In order to shorten this paragraph, Rikstar deleted some parts of the text:
See [6]. The first quote removed by Rikstar explains why Elvis's mother drank excessively: because her son was apart from her. The second quote demonstrates how close Elvis was to his mother. The third information shows that the singer needed to be comforted by his friends. Otherwise he wouldn't have got over the lost of his beloved mother. Query: why didn't Rikstar delete
Is this information more important than the other ones? I don't think so. Onefortyone ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
(N.B. The "BJ" claim was not in the article, but the claim was introduced by 141 on this page, and was stoutly defended (along with it dubious source) by 141. This was supposed to be yet more 'evidence' for 141's continual assertions that Presley was gay or at least bisexual. 141 has often argued that such claims should be included, presumably in the name of 141's idea of balanced content. Rikstar ( talk) 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
The fact that this discussion is repeating itself speaks volumes. Instead of article improvement, we're forced to deal with uncordial and nonconsensus based, disruptions; repetitive and relentless. I've tried to get third parties, good at editing tasks, involved in this article to help improve it; but repeatedly they say the same thing to paraphrase: "I don't want the hassle". The hassle of what you ask? Take a look at the latest round of lets disrupt editing to prove a point. You wonder why this article can't move forward. Who the heck wants the hassle of it all? The worse part is despite numerous evidence to the contrary and despite past prohibitions on editing this article, the same said personage wishes to play innocent as if there is no history of inflicting the 'hassle' that keeps people away. When will WP:Point violation, due to the history here, become quite clear enough, to enforce a previous Arbcom case involving this editors editorial 'hassle'ment of others? I wonder. This is the last statement I make on this page until this situation is resolved, although I'll monitor the page and help where I can from time to time. What the 'hassle' is the point of editing if all your work and the work of others is disrupted by a broken record playing over and over that which was dealt with before. Rikstar thanks for all the effort, Laralove great work, StevePastor the same, and other productive editors, thanks all. Best of luck and I hope this article achieves feature status as I hoped it would. -- Northmeister ( talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. This section is too long... it has its own main article. I've re-read it. 141 has added stuff that was cut... He's added oral to the sex... It needs changing again... blahdy, blah... I give up, don't care, lost the will to live... Send in the cavalry. Rikstar ( talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Cybill Shepherd's relationship with Elvis, I did some further research. The problem is that there are too many different accounts about this relationship contradicting each other. According to Boze Hadleigh, she said,
Here is what some reports say:
(This suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley.)
See [7]
In her book, Cybill Disobedience: How I Survived Beauty Pageants, Elvis, Sex, Bruce Willis, Lies, Marriage, Motherhood, Hollywood, and the Irrepressible Urge to Say What I Think (2000), Shepherd talks about her affair with Elvis who "charmed" her by telling her in one of his pill-popping hazes about the time a doctor gave him an injection directly into the pupil of his eye. Shepherd is also claimed to have said, "I did the nasty with Elvis. This man loved to eat. But there was one thing he wouldn't eat . . . 'til he met me." See [8]
Here are some excerpts from Larry King Live:
See [9]
It seems as if most of these stories are only told for publicity reasons. Therefore, I have now changed the text, saying that Cybill Shepherd has revealed that Presley kissed her all over her naked body - but refused to have oral sex with her. See Hollywood Actress Reveals Her Elvis Sex Secrets. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone ( talk) 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now created a new subsection entitled "Wife and daughter". I think this makes sense. Onefortyone ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this occurring? the_undertow talk 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is too long and most sections are filled with irrelevant, undocumented, and/or disparaging material that has nothing to do with a proper encyclopedic reference. For example, there was far too much speculation about Elvis' family tree, the behaviour of his father, his sex life, and how some people in the audience felt about his performances. Since this article is spinning off in so many irrelevant directions, much can be removed to shorten up the article and make it more coherent. I intend to clean up most of the other sections in this same manner and hope that other contributors will refrain from including reams of rubbish about his sex life, random thoughts of his friends, and taste in food. Hoserjoe ( talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the wrong version of this page for a week, or until you guys can decide what needs to be "cleaned up" here. -- Haemo ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoserjoe, I appreciate your efforts. I agree with some of the changes you made. However, there are ongoing discussions on the talk page. A lot of what you removed has been removed before and subsequently readded. Regardless, I totally agree that the article is much too long. One question I did have about your changes, however, is why did you remove links to main articles? Lara ❤ Love 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoserjoe, the links I refer to are the main article links located at the beginning of sections. The "See also" links indented just below the header. These links lead to the articles that explain in detail whatever is being summarized in this article. Removing them is not appropriate. Also, I agree that a lot of the sourced material in the article is not encyclopedic, but there are, as noted above, ongoing discussions about this. Joining the discussion would be more appropriate than, as Rofhullandemu noted, unilaterally removing material. Lara ❤ Love 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
To the user Hoserjoe: Please don't the use or compare the gossip about Elvis' sex life, drug using etc. with the serious research of Elvis Presley's roots. That is absolute not on the same level. You are acting very arrogant and unfair to some people about things (research) you are obviously not too well informed about. On the other side all parties who were involved in the "roots discussion" agreed a f t e r this discussion that it could be left out without harming the article. This was not the case with the so-called "well resourced" and "serious" material about Elvis social and sex life. Instead of this very fair behavior an editing-war started or/and continued. By the way I don't know why a mentioning about the Memphis Mafia should be more relevant than a mentioning about how many instruments Elvis was able to play on what level. After all he was a musician. I think the musical aspects in this article are rather thin. It is at this point more a mix of music history, pop culture and yellow press. Many words are spent on "controverial king" about many things. But only few words are said about the very important collabortion with Leiber & Stoller. Instead of Jackie Wilson's quotation (after all he was the same age with Elvis- maybe you should state a quotation from someone who was older and was active as a performer/musician before Elvis like Roy Brown or Crudup) you could give examples were Elvis developed (black and white) music and were he only copied it. There would be lots of examples - here are only a few: If you consider Carl Perkins as the composer of "Matchbox" Elvis would deserve the same right with "milk cow blues" which is a mixture of the Kokomo Arnold song (words), another John Estes song from the early 30's (words and more prominent melody) and a composition by Bob Wills which was inspired proably by both songs. The intro is 100% Elvis. Another song which was reinvented by Elvis is "blue moon of KY." by changing a waltzer into a 4/4 and adding a whole new intro to the song. Even most county bands did use Elvis' version as a role model when they covered that song. On the other hand he copied almost tone for tone (at least the instrumental arrangement) the Coasters "girls", the Clovers "Bossa nova", and "come what may" by C. McPhatter. I could go on and on. All about his music. You forgot in this article about the main thing - the music. You could show notations, chord progressions, lead sheets etc.. - but nothing. Many famous music journalist don't know what they are talking about when it comes to analyze the music because they are not able to play any. I think it was for excample Mr. Guralnick who wrote about a guitar tuning in "feel like going home" or "lost highway" which is absolute ridiculous. In my opinion you should concentrate more on Elvis art - movies and music etc.
87.162.41.133 ( talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland
That the nickname "Joe" has repeatedly been used for the removal of critical content from Elvis Presley may cast some suspicion on the activities of user Hoserjoe. Could it be that Hoserjoe alias BomberJoe is identical with Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo and his many sockpuppets (Suzulu, Mingy Jongo etc. etc.)? Some months ago, they frequently deleted blocks of critical material they didn't like from the Elvis Presley page. For the activities of sockpuppet Suzulu, see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. The same user also mangled direct quotes from books. See, for instance, [23]. And he repeatedly removed critical content he didn't like from the talk page. See [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Mingy Jongo, another sockpuppet of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, also deleted long paragraphs from Elvis Presley. See, for instance, [29]. There are many more examples of this kind. Significantly, user Hoserjoe has now removed similar material from the Presley page that he thinks to be "irrelevant" or "outright crude and offensive" (his words), regardless of the fact that it was well sourced. What a coincidence! Onefortyone ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
On November 16, 2007, LaraLove said,
As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See [30], [31], [32]. However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ sudo}}
Fix the errors generated by citations 192 and 193. Most likely, they are simply of the form <ref name="..." />, but the citation of the same name that actually contains the reference has been removed. You will either need to go through the page history, find what the reference was and add it to one of the two citations, or remove the two citations and find an appropriate reference elsewhere. I'd supply the corrections myself, but you seem to have protected the page, which means I can't use section editing, and I'm not going to go through the whole thing counting to 192 to find which citation it is. Thanks – Gurch 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've delisted the article. There's just too much. Once everything has been worked out and there is a stable version, please renominate it at WP:GAN. If you believe I have made an error in delisting this article, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be no significant changes to the article that have not first been discussed on the talk page. If the same mess from before starts back up, I'll request it be reprotected. This article can achieve FA. We just all have to work together and talk it out. Lara ❤ Love 03:52, 26 November 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I ran across this article reading the news this morning and thought I'd pass it along to you all to insert in the article. I would do so, but don't have time right now and didn't want to forget the link. Elvis Presley is still the King.
Anyway, there you have it. -- Maniwar ( talk) 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I vote for young Elvis, not "Elvis Meets Nixon" Elvis.. Steve Pastor 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Same here - why use the same image twice? Rikstar 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with one from 1970. Copyrighted images should not be used when free use images are available. Lara ❤ Love 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if reverts or other changes were justified on these pages before blanket reverts or are made. I and others have already argued that it should be shorter. I apologize if my edits have removed anyone's precious work, but I've also removed some of my own additions.
This article is too long. I think the Controversy section should contain detail, but details about Ed Sullivan should be in an Ed Sullivan article. The women in his life section could be shorter, or merged - there is a separate article anyway. Rikstar 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Without checking the edit log, I'll point out that we agreed to at least a couple of things that could be removed. Regarding the Sullivan Show, again. I agree that details are not needed. Except that the persistent myth that Elvis was shown only from the waist up should be addressed. I just viewed "Elvis" starring Kurt Russell, and the makers of that film (Dick Clark Productions) use a scene where the director keeps telling the camera man "only from the waist up" as Elvis sings a song that he never did on the show. Apparently, no one really remembered what Elvis had done, or the film makers took a great deal of artistic license to present the commonly accepted view of what had happened. Remember again, that in those days braodcasts came and went, rarely or never to be seen again (until vcrs and dvd players created a market). Let's not let this urban myth be perpeptuated. We had acceptable language at one time, and somewhere along the way it was lost (too many edits).
I would argue that bringing up old arguments which were settled long ago, reinserting material that was deleted long ago, information whose relevance is marginal at best and without discussion, reverting edits without discussion, etc, is what is keeping this article at the level of a "Fan" site, or perhaps an anti fan site, rather than something that is well written. Steve Pastor 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, critic Onefortyone stated earlier there were problems, namely with "whitewashing" (?) i.e. bias. The only example he gave was that he wanted to make it clear Elvis' guitar playing was not well received. As making this point would further lengthen the article, I reluctantly removed the following:
"Another resident, Johnny Burnette, recalled, "Wherever Elvis went he'd have his guitar slung across his back....He used to go down to the fire station and sing to the boys there....[H]e'd go in to one of the cafes or bars....Then some folks would say: 'Let's hear you sing, boy.'"[22], "
The remaining text simply stated he got a guitar and he played it. 141 however, still went ahead and added that others were 'more dubious' about his guitar playing, when there is nothing left in that part of the article that remotely praises his guitar skills. This lack of care in editing indicates an enthusiasm to simply add negative content. The early years section is now worse and needs cleaning up because of this. I find this kind of editing unacceptable. Rikstar 04:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Presley's first Ed Sullivan appearance ( September 9, 1956) was seen by an estimated 55-60 million viewers. On the third Sullivan show Presley only sang slow paced ballads and a gospel song. [1] The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up during this last broadcast has led to claims that Sullivan had “censored” the singer, or that Colonel Parker had orchestrated the episode to generate publicity. [2] [3] In spite of any misgivings he may have had, Sullivan declared at the end of Presley's final performance that the singer "is a real decent, fine boy" and that they never had "a pleasanter experience" on their show. [3]"
141, I find it incredible that you still think Marcus's account is accurate, when there are now photographs of Elvis' contorted face (certainly not impassive) and Elvis' leg mid stride as he moves energetically across the stage (certainly not cast in concrete). Both photos are from Reddy Teddy and are in the Sullivan Show article. How can you possibly believe that his account is accurate? Steve Pastor 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions.
"Wall has argued that many Presley authors are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which tends to be biased. He contends that few publications are critical... Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall claims that one of the strategies of fan clubs and appreciation societies is "'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."
If there are any wiki administrators or whatever you call yourselves out there watching this article, I think it's about time this unco-operative, disruptive editing behavior was dealt with in some way. LaraLove has already noted "141 wanting to add everything possible that puts Elvis in a negative light." I am seriously considering withdrawing from this article - and all because of one user, who has a history of disruptive editing in this and other articles. [User:Rikstar|Rikstar]] 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I am considering using "helpme" to get the attention of someone one with administrative authority (Norhtmeister? If you can fill this role please speak up.) on this issue, since it seems unlikely that it will be solved here. I will be glad to engage LareLove regarding her "include it" comment. Meanwhile, the discussion should center around "the highest of standards", which I sure hope are higher than "it's verifiable". My only purpose here was to try and find accurate information about Presley's early career. If any ole BS that someone put in a book is acceptable, then this is a sad state of affairs. I hope I'm wrong about this, and that we just haven't found our way forward yet. Steve Pastor 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This talk page used to refer to "the highest of standards". That was after the article was rated a Good Article. Well, we know what happened next. Since there is not longer a link to that page, I am making it available here. [1] Are we "allowed" to place a banner at the head of the article regarding this? Some editors ignored the statement when it was on the talk page. P.S. I have found (again) other relevant information regarding editing of this and other articles, which will be shared if and when it becomes appropriate. Steve Pastor 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that there is a copy of some version of this article at Talk:Elvis Presley/Sandbox. It doesn't seem that it's been in use for a long time; some discussion of it can be found at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive15. Is this page needed? I don't think it's doing any active harm, but I can't see what's useful about keeping it around either. It may contain some history needed for GFDL reasons, but I'm not sure how I would determine whether that's the case.
Has anyone here got any thoughts on the matter? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please make sure when you're removing information that you're not removing named refs. For example, ref 8 is now blank. I'll fix it, but if everyone could try to watch out for that, it'd be great. If it's <ref name="whatever">Detailed info.</ref>
(base ref), then somewhere else, there's <ref name="whatever"/>
(subsequent use) at least once. If the base ref is removed, any subsequent ones produce a blank error. So, do a search, find an instant of a subsequent use, and paste over the base ref you're removing. Does that make sense? I thank you for your consideration with this.
Lara
❤
Love
20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Having two seperate types of footnotes and two seperate notes/references sections is confusing and non-standard. Let's discuss the best way of merging these two sections. Shall we change all alphabetic footnotes to numeric? Or shall we change all numeric footnotes to alphabetic? Wjhonson 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Egghead06 has been making edits/reverts regarding one sentence. I have admitted on Egghead06's talk page that I find his original dispute difficult to understand. However, I have not found his edits acceptable (though well-intentioned) so I have rewritten the sentence rather than revert to my original, moving away from the wording/grammar he disputed. I hope he, and others find the change makes sense. Rikstar 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made every effort again to reduce (and thus rewrite parts of) this article and keep it balanced and consistent - and keep the notes and references in order - given its basic structure and format. This reduction has been a major priority for some time but it has been hampered. I have not set about reducing anyone's particular contributions; those editors concerned will see that some previously contentious material still remains. In the spirit of everything that wikipedia is supposed to stand for, please show good faith and address any of my edits on this or my page first. I am always open to reasonable discussion, as are other contributors. Rikstar 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is disingenuous. 141 is one of very few making edits; the reasons for removing some of his edits have been detailed here ad nauseum. If 141's "editing has substantially improved", it has not been enough. Thatcher131 noted that 141 had been edit warring, that's all - I could have quoted some other such reference no doubt. 141 wars now with users he accuses of having a personal 'non-wiki' agenda. If it was personal, I'd be doing something like: violating wiki guidelines to eliminate 141's contributions, getting into arb disputes, not seeking or receiving the approval of other editors who co-operate with each other to achieve FA status... but I don't. Comparing myself and others with Wilkes and Wyss is as unfounded as it is reprehensible. Rikstar 11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's sad that this page is locked because I have found incorrections. ( MandaPanda1 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
In case some people don't know or care, this article has amongst other things been deemed too long, which may seriously hamper its chances of becoming a Featured Article. I've worked harder than a one-armed cobbler at a world tap dancing contest to shave every single byte off it, by once again condensing sentences, etc., but it still needs to lose more major content. Funnily enough, this was my second time-consuming attempt and was made only in the last 48 hours or so. User 141 was invited to participate in ths effort by using this talk page to discuss/suggest changes, but he has not done so - 141 has merely done exactly what he wants and added nearly 4Kb in the process. According to wikipedia guidelines, this is very naughty. 141 also continues to remain silent about his intentions i.e. that he wants to work with other editors to achieve FA status.
We now have a depressingly familiar situation: reasonable editors will want to work with each other to amend the article, but will baulk at the prospect of knowing their tireless efforts will inevitably be changed/reverted by one maverick, unco-operative user. Way to go! (I thank the Great Whoever that I'm a little high on painkillers at the moment...) Rikstar 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to delist the article. It's terribly unstable, first of all. It's too long, far from focused. The images are not all properly tagged. Some lack sources, some lack adequate fair use rationales, the infobox image should not be a fair use image.
As far as the images go, I'm seeing that some of the fair use images are used in various articles and in userboxes. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each articles it is used in, individually. And fair use images are not within WP policy to be used in userboxes or any other templates.
I'm giving one more week on this article. If it's still not up to standards at that time, I'm delisting it. I'll also be deleting the images from any userboxes at that time. Lara ❤ Love 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This situation is in my opinion beyond mediation. Several editors have directly asked for input on issues repeatedly. Those requests for input and discussion have been ignored. Or, we get the same broken record of "it's verifiable". What we also see is the continual reinsertion of material that has been previously rejected by other editors. When you ask someone for input, and ask them to discuss something being added to an article that has repeatedly been labeled too long, etc., what you have is a rejection of the idea of woking with others. I believe the mediation effort should be skipped on the basis of events documented in these talk pages. I have stated repeatedly my main interest in this article, and it should be obvious that most of what I have contributed has been either mangled or removed completely. Right now my main interest is in seeing if this community has adequate resources to deal with individuals who do not seem capable of working as part of a group to achieve a fairly nuanced goal. Rikstar is not alone, in his opinions of the situation. A review of this page, and previous talk pages confirms that. Frankly, I would have given up a long time ago in the face of behavior by you know who. So, again, I strongly favor arbitration. -- Steve Pastor ( talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A previous entry read:
This infers that other lovers were skeptical about Shepherd teaching Presley about oral sex. It was then changed to:
This rewording now suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley, something not even hinted at earlier. I think this issue needs clarifying. If that means longer text, I think we should revert to the simple claim by Shepherd that she had full sex with the singer, period. This would be simpler and, more importantly, it will allow the article to be shortened. Any discussion about this would be appreciated. Thanks. Rikstar 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was startled (just kidding) to discover that at 03.06, user 141 had actually added nearly 4Kb of material removed only a couple hours earlier. This was in spite of the reasons explicitly given and discussed with and by other users. Notable was the guidance offered by Lara ❤ Love, who will imminently (and quite rightly) "delist the article. It's terribly unstable... It's too long, far from focused." She also observed: "Of course, I realize that pretty much anything you remove will be reverted by 141".
141's thoughts and intentions behind his latest edits are notable only because of their complete absence on this talk page. 141 is, amongst other things, still adding unnecessaily negative content. Example, from The Hollywood years:
To loosely paraphrase this entry, Elvis made some admittedly crap movie songs, but he made some better ones, but the crap ones were really crap 'cos they did badly in the charts and he only had one #1.
If anyone is interested in balance, NPOV, etc., I don't see how a negative comment, followed by a positive, followed by a negative, is balanced. I think this is more evidence of 141's bias and his sheer inability to see that his edits are not in line with creating a listed article. I've lost count, but some of 141's changes are being reinstated by him alone for the fourth or fifth time - completely without consultation with others and with a total disregard for wiki standards of quality and conduct.
A few observations have been made elsewhere about the reserves editors need to combat 141's kind of aggravating interference. All I can say is that peoples' resources are finite - mine are dwindling. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia if able editors are provoked beyond endurance and end up withdrawing; even more tragic are those reasonable editors who may take regrettable and uncharacteristic actions because such provocation is unimpeded. Rikstar ( talk) 08:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth here's my view. Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. He is dead and people will continue to write with bias and an agenda. To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide. Unfortunately brevity and balance appear to be mutually exclusive but until both sides are allowed their say this article will fall further into disrepute.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The information that Elvis gave some guy a BJ has never been included in the article. There seems to be a dispute as to whether an information is important or not. Just some examples of Rikstar's removals. A former paragraph of the article ran as follows:
In order to shorten this paragraph, Rikstar deleted some parts of the text:
See [6]. The first quote removed by Rikstar explains why Elvis's mother drank excessively: because her son was apart from her. The second quote demonstrates how close Elvis was to his mother. The third information shows that the singer needed to be comforted by his friends. Otherwise he wouldn't have got over the lost of his beloved mother. Query: why didn't Rikstar delete
Is this information more important than the other ones? I don't think so. Onefortyone ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
(N.B. The "BJ" claim was not in the article, but the claim was introduced by 141 on this page, and was stoutly defended (along with it dubious source) by 141. This was supposed to be yet more 'evidence' for 141's continual assertions that Presley was gay or at least bisexual. 141 has often argued that such claims should be included, presumably in the name of 141's idea of balanced content. Rikstar ( talk) 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
The fact that this discussion is repeating itself speaks volumes. Instead of article improvement, we're forced to deal with uncordial and nonconsensus based, disruptions; repetitive and relentless. I've tried to get third parties, good at editing tasks, involved in this article to help improve it; but repeatedly they say the same thing to paraphrase: "I don't want the hassle". The hassle of what you ask? Take a look at the latest round of lets disrupt editing to prove a point. You wonder why this article can't move forward. Who the heck wants the hassle of it all? The worse part is despite numerous evidence to the contrary and despite past prohibitions on editing this article, the same said personage wishes to play innocent as if there is no history of inflicting the 'hassle' that keeps people away. When will WP:Point violation, due to the history here, become quite clear enough, to enforce a previous Arbcom case involving this editors editorial 'hassle'ment of others? I wonder. This is the last statement I make on this page until this situation is resolved, although I'll monitor the page and help where I can from time to time. What the 'hassle' is the point of editing if all your work and the work of others is disrupted by a broken record playing over and over that which was dealt with before. Rikstar thanks for all the effort, Laralove great work, StevePastor the same, and other productive editors, thanks all. Best of luck and I hope this article achieves feature status as I hoped it would. -- Northmeister ( talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. This section is too long... it has its own main article. I've re-read it. 141 has added stuff that was cut... He's added oral to the sex... It needs changing again... blahdy, blah... I give up, don't care, lost the will to live... Send in the cavalry. Rikstar ( talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Cybill Shepherd's relationship with Elvis, I did some further research. The problem is that there are too many different accounts about this relationship contradicting each other. According to Boze Hadleigh, she said,
Here is what some reports say:
(This suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley.)
See [7]
In her book, Cybill Disobedience: How I Survived Beauty Pageants, Elvis, Sex, Bruce Willis, Lies, Marriage, Motherhood, Hollywood, and the Irrepressible Urge to Say What I Think (2000), Shepherd talks about her affair with Elvis who "charmed" her by telling her in one of his pill-popping hazes about the time a doctor gave him an injection directly into the pupil of his eye. Shepherd is also claimed to have said, "I did the nasty with Elvis. This man loved to eat. But there was one thing he wouldn't eat . . . 'til he met me." See [8]
Here are some excerpts from Larry King Live:
See [9]
It seems as if most of these stories are only told for publicity reasons. Therefore, I have now changed the text, saying that Cybill Shepherd has revealed that Presley kissed her all over her naked body - but refused to have oral sex with her. See Hollywood Actress Reveals Her Elvis Sex Secrets. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone ( talk) 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now created a new subsection entitled "Wife and daughter". I think this makes sense. Onefortyone ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this occurring? the_undertow talk 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is too long and most sections are filled with irrelevant, undocumented, and/or disparaging material that has nothing to do with a proper encyclopedic reference. For example, there was far too much speculation about Elvis' family tree, the behaviour of his father, his sex life, and how some people in the audience felt about his performances. Since this article is spinning off in so many irrelevant directions, much can be removed to shorten up the article and make it more coherent. I intend to clean up most of the other sections in this same manner and hope that other contributors will refrain from including reams of rubbish about his sex life, random thoughts of his friends, and taste in food. Hoserjoe ( talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the wrong version of this page for a week, or until you guys can decide what needs to be "cleaned up" here. -- Haemo ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoserjoe, I appreciate your efforts. I agree with some of the changes you made. However, there are ongoing discussions on the talk page. A lot of what you removed has been removed before and subsequently readded. Regardless, I totally agree that the article is much too long. One question I did have about your changes, however, is why did you remove links to main articles? Lara ❤ Love 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hoserjoe, the links I refer to are the main article links located at the beginning of sections. The "See also" links indented just below the header. These links lead to the articles that explain in detail whatever is being summarized in this article. Removing them is not appropriate. Also, I agree that a lot of the sourced material in the article is not encyclopedic, but there are, as noted above, ongoing discussions about this. Joining the discussion would be more appropriate than, as Rofhullandemu noted, unilaterally removing material. Lara ❤ Love 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
To the user Hoserjoe: Please don't the use or compare the gossip about Elvis' sex life, drug using etc. with the serious research of Elvis Presley's roots. That is absolute not on the same level. You are acting very arrogant and unfair to some people about things (research) you are obviously not too well informed about. On the other side all parties who were involved in the "roots discussion" agreed a f t e r this discussion that it could be left out without harming the article. This was not the case with the so-called "well resourced" and "serious" material about Elvis social and sex life. Instead of this very fair behavior an editing-war started or/and continued. By the way I don't know why a mentioning about the Memphis Mafia should be more relevant than a mentioning about how many instruments Elvis was able to play on what level. After all he was a musician. I think the musical aspects in this article are rather thin. It is at this point more a mix of music history, pop culture and yellow press. Many words are spent on "controverial king" about many things. But only few words are said about the very important collabortion with Leiber & Stoller. Instead of Jackie Wilson's quotation (after all he was the same age with Elvis- maybe you should state a quotation from someone who was older and was active as a performer/musician before Elvis like Roy Brown or Crudup) you could give examples were Elvis developed (black and white) music and were he only copied it. There would be lots of examples - here are only a few: If you consider Carl Perkins as the composer of "Matchbox" Elvis would deserve the same right with "milk cow blues" which is a mixture of the Kokomo Arnold song (words), another John Estes song from the early 30's (words and more prominent melody) and a composition by Bob Wills which was inspired proably by both songs. The intro is 100% Elvis. Another song which was reinvented by Elvis is "blue moon of KY." by changing a waltzer into a 4/4 and adding a whole new intro to the song. Even most county bands did use Elvis' version as a role model when they covered that song. On the other hand he copied almost tone for tone (at least the instrumental arrangement) the Coasters "girls", the Clovers "Bossa nova", and "come what may" by C. McPhatter. I could go on and on. All about his music. You forgot in this article about the main thing - the music. You could show notations, chord progressions, lead sheets etc.. - but nothing. Many famous music journalist don't know what they are talking about when it comes to analyze the music because they are not able to play any. I think it was for excample Mr. Guralnick who wrote about a guitar tuning in "feel like going home" or "lost highway" which is absolute ridiculous. In my opinion you should concentrate more on Elvis art - movies and music etc.
87.162.41.133 ( talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland
That the nickname "Joe" has repeatedly been used for the removal of critical content from Elvis Presley may cast some suspicion on the activities of user Hoserjoe. Could it be that Hoserjoe alias BomberJoe is identical with Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo and his many sockpuppets (Suzulu, Mingy Jongo etc. etc.)? Some months ago, they frequently deleted blocks of critical material they didn't like from the Elvis Presley page. For the activities of sockpuppet Suzulu, see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. The same user also mangled direct quotes from books. See, for instance, [23]. And he repeatedly removed critical content he didn't like from the talk page. See [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Mingy Jongo, another sockpuppet of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, also deleted long paragraphs from Elvis Presley. See, for instance, [29]. There are many more examples of this kind. Significantly, user Hoserjoe has now removed similar material from the Presley page that he thinks to be "irrelevant" or "outright crude and offensive" (his words), regardless of the fact that it was well sourced. What a coincidence! Onefortyone ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
On November 16, 2007, LaraLove said,
As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See [30], [31], [32]. However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ sudo}}
Fix the errors generated by citations 192 and 193. Most likely, they are simply of the form <ref name="..." />, but the citation of the same name that actually contains the reference has been removed. You will either need to go through the page history, find what the reference was and add it to one of the two citations, or remove the two citations and find an appropriate reference elsewhere. I'd supply the corrections myself, but you seem to have protected the page, which means I can't use section editing, and I'm not going to go through the whole thing counting to 192 to find which citation it is. Thanks – Gurch 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've delisted the article. There's just too much. Once everything has been worked out and there is a stable version, please renominate it at WP:GAN. If you believe I have made an error in delisting this article, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Regards, Lara ❤ Love 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be no significant changes to the article that have not first been discussed on the talk page. If the same mess from before starts back up, I'll request it be reprotected. This article can achieve FA. We just all have to work together and talk it out. Lara ❤ Love 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)