Jump to content

Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 23: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 155: Line 155:
I edited about parts about the Memphis mafia ...crap about Red West loving Elvis the most and who was his closest friend; there is no way nobody can be right about neither
I edited about parts about the Memphis mafia ...crap about Red West loving Elvis the most and who was his closest friend; there is no way nobody can be right about neither
:You have deleted direct quotes from reputable authors. Therefore, I have reinstated the said passages. [[User:Onefortyone|Onefortyone]] 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:You have deleted direct quotes from reputable authors. Therefore, I have reinstated the said passages. [[User:Onefortyone|Onefortyone]] 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there is no evidence of anyone in particular having the "title" Elvis' best friend; according to Marty Lacker (on Elvis.alt.king newsgroup) he favored one person one week and another the next week, and besides, many authors are just in it for the quick buck, like the article in the november issue of Playboy - that has been refuted on Elvisinfonet.com


==Parents, childhood and youth==
==Parents, childhood and youth==

Revision as of 16:31, 10 December 2006

WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians / Core NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Template:V0.5



Male Friendships

I have removed the comments regarding Elvis' brother Einis the penis, as they were not close to each other. 138.25.102.115 13:30, 13 November 2006

As far as I know, there were no such comments in the article, and nobody has removed them. This seems to be the edit of a troll. Onefortyone 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the last two paragraphs in the male friendships section. This is a discussion that has been done to death and has no real place in an encyclopedia. User Onefortyone has an agenda that he follows with a fanatical zeal. He uses secondary sources that were all published after Presley's death and are of questionable merit. Additionally, he takes pieces from reputable works like Guralnik's to back up his wild claims. For example, in no way, shape or form does Peter Guralnik suggest that Presley was gay or bi-sexual. Guralnik is considered by many to be the ultimate Presley biographer and yet somehow he has missed the incest and homosexual claims? This page should not be used for what is turnin into an out and out slanderous attack on Presley. We have pages and pages on this "debate" all with the same user. We should have higher standards than this.

Further, in the 'Lasting Legacy' section User Onefortyone references obscure plays about Presley and then notes reviews that support his claims that Presley was gay man who had incestous relations with his mother (despite wife, child and numerous girlfriends). I'm sure User Onefortyone can dig up something suggesting Elvis killed Jimmy Hoffa and was secretly a drag-queen! The point is, the man was one of the most documented entertainers in human history. His FBI files fail to mention any of these things. This is an encyclopedia but this entry is so bogged down in innuendo that it's hard to tell he was even a musician.

If I may finish my rant I'll also note that just because User Onefortyone cites to a secondary source it does not mean that said source is valid. He continually abuses the concept of 'peer-reviewed' in an effort to bolster his claims. Moreover, all of his sources are from marginal figures in Presleys life. He is unable to quote directily from reputable sources (other than as a set-up for his more outlandish claims) and he resorts to quoting unpublished manuscripts for support. This is not a historical figure from a bygone age with little contemporary documentation. This is a public figure with over 2,000 books published about him 99% of which offer no support to User Onefortyone's agenda. This article really has become a tribute to one posters fantical agenda. Lochdale

  • I have reinstated the deleted paragraphs as they are all supported by several independent sources, among them university studies. As every reader can verify, I have quoted directly from reputable sources. In my opinion, you seem to have an agenda, Lochdale, as you are frequently deleting passages which are not in line with your personal view of Elvis. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are purposefully missing the point. You cite secondary sources and give them credibility despute the dearth of evidence supporting your POV. You are manipulating Wiki rules to suit your agenda. Lochdale
You are wrong, Lochdale. I have included material from publications on Elvis by Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Thomas Fensch, Albert Goldman, Earl Greenwood etc. and from current university studies on race and gender, which extensively deal with the Las Vegas Elvis, such as Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (1997) and Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999). These are all important and reliable sources, not minority views. Onefortyone 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not wrong at all. You include reputable sources only insofar that they support you position by inference. Put another way, you cite Guralnik only so much as you can then use what he wrote as innuenedo for your own point of view, and a warped one at that. It's not a scholarly approach and it's certainly not a NPOV (and it never has been). Lochdale
What I have cited are historical facts supported by most Elvis biographies. Try to find a source that contradicts what I have cited. There is no such source. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this constitute a violation of your probation? --Pcj 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not, as all of my contributions are well sourced. Indeed, they are supported by several independent publications, among them the best Elvis biographies available and some critical university studies. This means what I am inserting is not poorly sourced information or original research. Quite the reverse! Interestingly, as a relatively new contributor to this discussion page, Pcj, you seem to be well informed about matters that took place many months ago ;) Onefortyone 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see why that would be particularly interesting. I would rather expect people to be informed in discussions.
As to your sources, I would contest that Guralnick cites Greenwood in his book (granted, among numerous others), whereas Greenwood - from what I can tell - got other facts about Elvis wrong (and his book received generally poor reviews); perhaps Greenwood was not as close of a cousin as he claims to be. I would also say that Playboy is hardly a reputable source, and that the content which was cited earlier in that passage seems to hinge on that interpretation (cited in Playboy) in any case. --Pcj 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Playboy article is certainly a reliable source as it was written by Alanna Nash, a reputable Elvis biographer. For your information, here is an excerpt from the review of Greenwood's book in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):
Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination.
Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If the Playboy article was written by a reputable Elvis biographer, then why didn't she put it in one of her published works? In any case, her revelation seems to be a result of gossip and rumors, as quoted. Also, for your information, another review of Greenwood's book, this one from Publishers Weekly, reads:
This sensationalized, dull "portrait," written with freelancer Tracy, claims that Elvis's turbulent life and career resulted from his unstable youth. "Glossing over his cousin's professional accomplishments, Greenwood concentrates instead on the juicy details of his bizarre personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters."
What the two reviews both seem to agree on is that the work is very lurid/sensationalized and focuses on juicy bits of gossip about Elvis, much like a tabloid would. --Pcj 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a few words about Playboy. It is certainly a good magazine including various articles on fashion, sports, consumer goods, and public figures, all written by reputable authors. It also has short fiction by top literary writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ian Fleming, Vladmir Nabokov, and Margaret Atwood. So why not publishing an article on Elvis's sex life in that magazine? As for Greenwood's book, many readers are interested in Elvis's personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters. By the way, there are also many other topics dealt with in this book. Onefortyone 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, 141, you are interested in Elvis's personal relationships, his drug abuse and his sexual encounters. -- Hoary 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which university source are you referring to in regards to Elvis's male friendships? --Pcj 13:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The university sources I have used deal with the allegations of racism, the Las Vegas Elvis and the world-wide Elvis industry. Most Elvis biographers have extensively written about Elvis's male friendships. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that you are only including sources whose content that you happen to agree with, which is obviously a breach of the NPOV policy here (particulary undue weight). What I see here are secondary sources that support a fringe agenda with an exclusion of the vast majority of sources (including many primary ones) that disagree with this.--58.169.8.139 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them well-known Elvis biographies. Most other editors do not use books on Elvis or university studies on the rock 'n' roll era. If you have additional sources, please feel free to quote them. Onefortyone 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, parts of this article are disproportionally weighted toward a fringe agenda which is supported by a mere handful of secondary sources. I'm glad that someone had the sense to remove that stuff, this was beginning to sound more like an essay arguing in favor of a particular agenda than anything resembling an encyclopaedic article.--58.169.8.139 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the passage in question should be reduced to at most a sentence, if it is kept at all. --Pcj 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. None of user Onefortyone's "sources" are reputable. What he has done is to cite from fringe works about Presley. He then adds in general quotes from respected authors to buttress his wild claims. For example, almost not reputable biograper even notes his friendship with Nick Adams much less stating that he was one of Presley's best friends. With over 2,000 books about him and a massive FBI file Onefortyone still has to dredge the very depths of works on Presley to find anything that will support his agenda. I would note that none of these types of salacious "works" were published when Presley was alive. User Onefortyone has an agenda here and it really shouldn't be entertained any longer. Lochdale
So you think that books on Elvis by authors and biographers such as Peter Guralnick, Elaine Dundy, Alanna Nash, Thomas Fensch, Albert Goldman, Earl Greenwood etc. and current university studies on race and gender and the rock 'n' roll era are not reputable, and you are calling these publications "salacious works"? This seems to be your personal problem. Did you read over 2000 books on Elvis? Certainly not. I am frequently citing my sources. Where are your quotes from books on Elvis? You are constantly denigrating reputable publications simply because the content of these sources is not in line with your personal view of Elvis. You should stick to the undisputable facts to be found in books on Elvis. The Wikipedia article is not a fan site which is only singing Elvis's praise. Onefortyone 00:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Goldman's book has been ripped to shreds. Guralnik never suggests in any way, shape or form that Presley was gay or that he had an incestual affair. Greenwood is suddenly considered reputable? There are 2,000 other authors who singularly fail to mention anything you've brought up. As for the studies, they are no Elvis specific insofar as they posit theories and they do not opine on Presley or his actual personal life. Moreover, you say "undisputable facts" when I note nearly 2,000 books who do not support your position. Hundreds of thousands of articles that do not support your position and the fact that the man was a recent historical figure yet there is no proof of any of your allegations nor is there any support for them. And please stop abusing the notion of peer review as it does not mean what you think it means. Lastly, you are the one taking the positions that are simply unsupportable beyond conjecture so it is you who should defend them. Lochdale
All I can say is that I am frequently citing my sources. This is fully in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. All you can do is denigrating these sources and deleting well-sourced paragraphs from the article. I have not yet seen you provide direct quotes from a book on Elvis. I have only seen you adding false information to the article, for instance, that Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley "never lived with Presley". Onefortyone 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the male friendships section because it is fundamentally unsound. For example, Nick Adams isn't noted as a particular close friend of Elvis in Guralnik's book nor is he even mentioned in any book by his ex-wife or any of his bodyguards. I've also removed the reference to Elvis being a homosexual based on the comment that "tongues wagged" mentioned in a Playboy article. Seems a little light and post-dated to be adding to this article. Lochdale

Would you please stick to the facts, Lochdale. In his book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, Peter Guralnick clearly says that Elvis "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" (p. 336) and that "Elvis was glad Colonel liked Nick" (p.339). On p.410, Guralnick says that Elvis
enjoyed being back in Hollywood. It was good running around with Nick again - there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day. On the weekend Nick called up his friend Russ Tamblyn, who had a small, one-bedroom beach house on the Pacific Coast Highway just south of Topanga Canyon, and asked if he could bring his friend Elvis over. Tamblyn, who at twenty-two had been in the business from early childhood on, both as an actor and as a dancer, and who saw Nick as something of a hustler, said sure, come on out.
In his book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, Guralnick writes: "Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time." So it is quite clear that Elvis spent most of his time with Nick Adams. Interestingly, on p.347-348 of his book, Last Train to Memphis, Guralnick writes that June Juanico didn't doubt that Elvis loved her, but "she didn't know if she could ever get him back. Elvis told her he had just heard from Nick and that Nick was coming to town tomorrow or the next day. He started telling her all about Nick and Nick's friends and Jimmy Dean, but she didn't want to hear." This statement certainly proves that June was jealous of Elvis's friendship with Nick Adams. Guralnick even cites Nick Adams's "charming account of his friendship with Elvis" which was published in May 1957. See also these photographs showing the two men together: [1], [2],[3]. You cannot deny the historical fact that Nick Adams was Elvis's best friend. Onefortyone 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also question the value of quoting Earl Greenwood who was Presley's second cousin. Greenwood never lived with Presley and wasn't part of his inner circle. Is this what we now consider reputable? --Lochdale 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most good biographies aren't written by people in the "inner circle" of the subject. Opinions seem to differ about Greenwood's book (which I haven't read, don't much want to read, and certainly don't want to buy), but I haven't yet read any unfavorable review that's lucid and persuasive. Here's a generally favorable review from the NYT, not the best source of reviews, but also far from the worst. Just how bad is this book? -- Hoary 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting review of the book [4] which is from an admittedly biased site. That said, the site tears the book apart and suggests that Greendwood wasn't even a cousin of Presley. Griel Marcus, however, pretty much dismissed Greenwood and he wasn't seen as an important figure either of Guralnik's books. This is the fundamental problem though isn't it, there have been so many books written about Presley that a certain poster has to focus on the very few the support his position (even if somewhat tenously). The legitimate bios, such as Guralniks, simply don't support the contentions in any way. --Lochdale 03:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think that a fan site is a reliable source? I don't think so. Such sites are frequently casting aspersions on publications which are not in line with the positive view the fans have of their mega star. So what. More important to me is that you have included false information in the Wikipedia article. This disqualifies you from being a good editor. Onefortyone 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the reviewer, Bill Burk, has written more than 12 books on Presley. Using your standards when it comes to the quality of sources he is as legitimate a source as any you have cited. As such, his review and critique of Greendwood is more than valid. Indeed, his criticism suggests that Greendwood's book is fatally flawed meaning we should not reference it in this article. --Lochdale 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Bill Burk was once a reporter on the local paper, The Memphis Press-Scimitar. He claims to have been a close friend of Elvis (see [5]), though he is not mentioned as such in the major Elvis biographies. He makes talks at Elvis conventions and wrote books such as Elvis Through My Eyes, Soldier Boy Elvis or Elvis Aaron Presley: A Candle in the Wind, primarily puffed on fan sites. Significantly, he calls Elvis "a very, very wonderful person" and his books on Elvis "appreciate Elvis Presley" and "trace the dreams of this young man who one would become the personification of the American Dream". We read that the author became "privy to Elvis' battles against hunger and poverty, his dreams ... to one day become a star", etc. etc., and he predicted, "When Graceland swings its doors open ..., it will be like the founding of a new industry in Memphis". As a fan site enthusiastically exclaims,
Thank God for the continued publication of Bill Burk's "Elvis World" and Darwin Lamm's "Elvis International." Thank God for the Elvis Presley fan clubs, still faithfully in operation today, twenty five years after The King left us. And finally, thank God for the many Presley sites now in operation throughout this new medium we call the world wide web. His legacy is unsurpassed by any entertainer in our lifetime.
However, if you have a published source (not a fan site) which confirms the claims by this author, then cite it. Otherwise, it seems to be fan stuff in no small degree. Onefortyone 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's quite clearly written by the author of 12 books on Presley. The website is the author's own website. Based on that review, the credibilty of Greenwood's book must be called into question. Are you even begining to see that just because something is published it does not mean it is a credible source? Given the vast amount of information published on Presley and the actual information we know about the man does it not strike you as both unfair and biased to include every allegation from less than credible sources? Put another way, just because it is in print does not make it credible or correct. I find it laugable that you, who would cite to an unpublished manuscript, suddenly are deciding what is and is not a credible source. This goes to the fundamental dishonesty of your position and your agenda --Lochdale 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That the author has written 12 books on Elvis, all including surprisingly new information on the mega star, suggests that he is endeavouring to make money with Elvis's name. However, as I said, if you have a published source which confirms his claims, then cite it. As for Dee Presley's manuscript, it has been cited by reputable authors in published sources, that's the difference. She has also written a summary of her accusations for a newspaper. Onefortyone 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Some further information: Bill Burk's books are all published either by Burk Enterprises, Memphis, TN, or by a Memphis publisher called "Propwash", formerly affiliated with Red Oak Press. Propwash seems to be Burk's own publishing company, as it only publishes books and magazines about Elvis Presley and reaches the market primarily through direct mail and fan sites. Burk's recent book, Elvis Aaron Presley: A Candle In The Wind (2005), for instance, is illustrated with many attractive full-page photographs of Elvis in order to feed the fans' ravenous appetites for anything related to the perfect image of their mega star. It is on Elvis's generosity to others, includes "first hand accounts" of his relationships with early girlfriends and relates what the singer's female co-stars thought about the nice guy Elvis. Other topics include: Elvis with the King and Queen of Thailand, Elvis with three Scandanavian princesses, Elvis's first four-wheeler, the day young Tanya Leny met Elvis, etc. etc. There are no critical voices to be found in this and the other books. So much for the quality of Burk's writings. Onefortyone 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
All this talk of Dee Presley made me start to wonder who (aside from stepmother from hell) she was (is), anyway. So I googled, and one of the top hits for her is this illuminating page, which in turn brought me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone. It makes interesting reading. -- Hoary 08:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, on these pages you can find all the misinformation produced by Ted Wilkes last year, who (thank heavens!) is now banned for one year. However, I am wondering whether one or two of the relatively new editors who are now frequently deleting paragraphs I have written, may be new sockpuppets of my old "friend". As for Dee Presley, it is a historical fact that Vernon Presley, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him." See also the account in Elaine Dundy's book, Elvis and Gladys (2004), where the author relates (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." This was too much for Elvis who still loved his mother. One afternoon, "a van arrived ... and all Dee's household's goods, clothes, 'improvements,' and her own menagerie of pets, were loaded on ... while Vernon, Dee and her three children went by car to a nearby house on Hermitage until they finally settled into a house on Dolan Drive which ran alongside Elvis's estate." For some websites dealing with Dee Presley, see [6], [7], [8], [9]. However, these seem to be fan sites which may not be reliable enough. There is also a website providing the content page of Dee Presley's unpublished book. Unfortunately, it is nearly unreadable. Perhaps somebody is able to decipher what is written on this sheet of paper. Onefortyone

14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Burk has published more than 12 books on Presley. Using your standards, he is as a legitimate of a source as any you have quoted. His factual deconstruction of Greenwood's book means we should discount Greenwood's book as being unsound. Also, just so everyone is clear, the "newspaper" that published excerpts from Dee Presley's unpublished manuscript was the National Enquirer. Once again user Onefortyone reaches new lows in credible editing. --Lochdale 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You may quote some passages from Burk's books, as these are indeed published sources, though the quality of his writings is questionable. You should not delete quotes from Greenwood's book, as this is also a published source and there are positive reviews of this book in reputed journals. I have now added to the article, "According to Greenwood...", "Greenwood claims..." etc. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I find it insulting that user Onefortyone feels free to quote from an unpublished manuscript but then have the gall to critique works from authors who disagree with him. I am more than happy to stick with reputable secondary works and the actual facts of what we know about Presley. If we did that, however, pretty much every single one of user Onefortyone's edits would be deleted. Since he has thrown credible research under the bus I think it is entirely fair to quote the likes of Burk as reason enough to remove any reference to Greenwood's book. --Lochdale 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't quote from an unpublished manuscript, as you falsely claim, I have quoted from reputable authors citing Dee Presley. If you have published sources which disagree with my contributions, then cite them. I have now deleted the following sentence included by Lochdale, as this is false information: "However, Adams is not noted as being a particularly close friend of Presley in either of Peter Guralnik's lengthy works on Elvis or in any of the books written by Presley's former bodyguards." See the quotes from Guralnick's book on this talk page. Onefortyone 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You quoted from the National Enquirer which I do not believe is a credible source. I have listed published sources who disagree with you but suddenly you find them to be objectionable. Further, 99% of the secondary sources out there on Presley never even mention any of the allegations you keep bringing up time and time again because there is nothing to mention. You specifically quote from a secondary source saying that Adams was "closest of friends" with Presley. Guralnik does not support that in either of his works. He notes they were friends but not "the closest of friends". Again, with the sheer volume of works on Presley you have to resort to unpublished manuscripts and the National Enquirer to support your fringe position. I have cited an author who has published more than 12 books about Presley. This author raises serious questions about the validity of Greendwood's book. Given the standards of your sources we should have no problem accepting Burk's review and remove any reference to Greenwood's work. Moreover, I am reverting the note about Adams re: Guralnik, Schilling, West et al. --Lochdale 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that this section has not only returned but has returned with such definitive statements such as Presley having homosexual relations with Nick Adams etc. As this lengthy and detailed discussion above shows (and in most of the archived sections of this page), there seems to be no evidence for any of this beyond base conjecture. Lochdale 21:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosocial relationships are not identical with homosexual relationships. The paragraph I have written is well sourced and supported by many independent sources. It is very interesting that you continue removing paragraphs I have written. Onefortyone 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe you have an agenda when it comes to this particular issue. The article is "well sourced" only if you read things a certain way or if you accept the absolute credibility of some questionable secondary sources. We have had this debate repeatedly (and you have had it with others). You've been banned from this article several times. You have tried to get me banned several times and have failed. I'd rather never deal with you ever again but what you are doing here is wrong and this encyclopedia should not be used for your own personal agenda. Lochdale 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you please provide evidence that the sources I have cited are "questionable" as you claim. Are there any sources denying that Elvis spent much time with the members of the Memphis Mafia or that Nick Adams was Elvis's friend? Of course not. Onefortyone 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you please provide suppport from Guralnik saying that Presley was gay or that he lived a homosexual lifestyle? Can you provide any legitimate support for that other than base rumour? Your entire position is POV. By using a legitimate, well -research source to back up rumour (at best) is a clear breach of Wiki rules. As I mentioned, I am hopeful that this can go to arbitration. Lochdale 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Lochdale, my last contributions did not mention such claims. The real problem is that you simply claim that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. You also claim that most books do not support my contributions, but you are wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if you did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that you have given direct quotes from one of the sources you claim to have read. Indeed, you frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and you didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as you cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [10]. You did also disparage university studies I have used for my edits, saying, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [11]. This statement speaks volumes. Your only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [12]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [13], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some users, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [14], [15]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [16]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an over-emphasis on Nick Adams in this section. Adams does not get that much ink space in Guralnik's book particularly when compared to West and Schilling. I am going to pare that down but I appreciate your edits. Lochdale 18:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I pared down the section regarding the Memphis Mafia. I think it currently gets the point across. Way too much emphasis on Adams (which is particular poor in an article that barely mentions Bill Black and Scotty Moore (who was friends with Presley all of his life). Lochdale 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that there is an over-emphasis on Nick Adams in the section, as his friendship with Elvis is well documented in the major Presley biographies. You may add details concerning the other friends, but you should not remove the whole passage on Adams. Did you know that in May 1957 Adams even published a charming account of his close friendship with Elvis? By the way, do you really think that Scotty Moore was friends with Presley all of his life? On pages 146 and 155 of his book, That’s Alright, Elvis: The Untold Story of Elvis’s First Guitarist and Manager, Scotty Moore says that Elvis "promised us that the more he made the more we would make, but it hasn’t worked out that way. The thing that got me, the thing that wasn’t right about it, was the fact that Elvis didn’t keep his word. ... We were supposed to be the King’s men. In reality, we were the court jesters". Elvis turned them "out to pasture like broken-down mules, without a penny." Does this sound as if Moore was a friend of Elvis all of his life? I don't think so. Onefortyone 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Consider this, in Last Train to Memphis Dewey Phillips or George Klein are mentioned at least as many times as Adams is. The article clearly over emphasisizes Admas and should be edited accordingly. This is an article about Presley. Not about Adams. As for Scotty Moore, consider how poor this article is that you have bogged it down with nonsense yet barely register Moore's relationship with Presley. Again, look at other articles on other rock figures to see how far this article has fallen. Lochdale 02:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
O.K. As a compromise, I have now only included Elaine Dundy's statement in the Elvis article. This is only a short note by a reputed Elvis expert, and it's well sourced. The other passages are now in the Nick Adams article. I hope this is satisfactory to you. It must be very easy for you to add further material concerning Presley's other friendships, as you have read 2000 books on Elvis. Would you please provide direct quotes from all of the sources you intend to use. I look forward eagerly to your new contributions which certainly will improve the quality of the Elvis Presley article. Onefortyone 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


I edited about parts about the Memphis mafia ...crap about Red West loving Elvis the most and who was his closest friend; there is no way nobody can be right about neither

You have deleted direct quotes from reputable authors. Therefore, I have reinstated the said passages. Onefortyone 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there is no evidence of anyone in particular having the "title" Elvis' best friend; according to Marty Lacker (on Elvis.alt.king newsgroup) he favored one person one week and another the next week, and besides, many authors are just in it for the quick buck, like the article in the november issue of Playboy - that has been refuted on Elvisinfonet.com

Parents, childhood and youth

Elvis' father Vernon Presley is described as a "taciturn to the point of sullenness," whereas his mother Gladys "was voluble, lively, full of spunk."[1] The family was active in church and community. However, in 1938, when Elvis was three years old, his father was convicted of forgery. Vernon, Gladys's brother Travis Smith, and Luther Gable went to prison for altering a check from Orville Bean, Vernon's boss, from $3 to $8 and then cashing it at a local bank. Vernon was sentenced to three years at Parchment Farms Penitentiary. Though after serving eight months Vernon was released, this event deeply influenced the life of the young family. During her husband's absence, Gladys lost the house and was forced to move in briefly with her in-laws next door. The Presley family lived just above the poverty line during their years in East Tupelo.

In 1941 Elvis started school at the East Tupelo Consolidated. There he seems to have been an outsider. His few friends relate that he was separate from any crowd and did not belong to any "gang", but, according to his teachers, he was a sweet and average student, and he loved comic books. In 1943 Vernon moved to Memphis, where he found work and stayed throughout the war, coming home only on weekends. This certainly strengthened the relationship between mother and boy. According to Peter Guralnick, the common story that the Presleys formed a popular gospel trio who sang in church and travelled about to various revival meetings is not true.

In 1946 Elvis started a new school, Milam, which went from grades 5 through 9, but in 1948 the Presley family left Tupelo, moving 110 miles northwest to Memphis, Tennessee. Here too, the thirteen-year-old Elvis lived in the city's poorer section of town and attended a Pentecostal church. At this time, he was very much influenced by the Memphis blues music and the gospel sung at his church.

Elvis entered Humes High School in Memphis taking up work at the school library and after school at Loew's State Theatre. In 1951 enrolled in the school's ROTC unit, tries unsuccessfully to qualify for the high school football team (he's cut by the coach when he won't trim his sideburns and ducktail}, spending his spare time around the African-American section of Memphis, especially on Beale Street. In 1953 Elvis graduated from Humes, majoring in History, English, and Shop.

After graduation Elvis worked first at Parker Machinists Shop, and then for the Precision Tool Company with his father, finally working for the Crown Electric Company driving a truck, where he began wearing his hair the trademarked pompadoure style.

Elvis's parents were very protective. He "grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother."[2] His mother Gladys "worshiped him," said a neighbor, "from the day he was born." Elvis himself said, "My mama never let me out of her sight. I couldn't go down to the creek with the other kids."[3]

In his teens, Elvis was still a very shy person, a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years." [4] He was teased by his fellow classmates who threw "things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy."[5] Gladys was so proud of her boy, that, years later, she "would get up early in the morning to run off the fans so Elvis could sleep".[6] She was frightened of Elvis being hurt: "She knew her boy, and she knew he could take care of himself, but what if some crazy man came after him with a gun? she said...tears streaming down her face."[7]

I think these paragraphs are well sourced, but you may change or rearrange some parts of the text before including it in the article, if you like. Onefortyone 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, I am going to include the above paragraph in the actual article - I'll let you work on talk as I stated on your talk page for another day - then we'll see where we can arrange items and agree. --Northmeister 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - PS. I see it is already added. Looks good. --Northmeister 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Greenwood's book seeing as it's credibility is in question. I also created a new heading under "political beliefs" without changing the succeeding paragraph. It didn't make sense to place it under the same heading as "Allegations of Racism". As Greil Marcus is referenced several times I think it is also appropriate to reference his devastating and detailed criticism of Goldman's book. I will try and add that in when I can actually get it down to a sentence or two. --Lochdale 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV sentence stating that Presley's relationship with his mother had been strengthened. It is a narrative and should read like one. --Lochdale 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a spelling nit

RE: the first sentence —

"Elvis Aron Presley (1935-01-08 – 1977-08-16), known simply as Elvis and also marketed as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King", was an American singer and actor."

The King's full name is Elvis Aaron Presley. --Chris 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. At birth, his name was Elvis Aron Presley[17]. He used both spellings throughout his life and apparently considered officially changing the spelling to Aaron, but never did. The Aaron spelling does appear on his gravestone.Shsilver 16:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was about to change it in the article. Seems like some of the "regular sources" aren't clued in about this either... --Chris 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It seems to say "Aaron" at the top now, inconsistent with what it says later on - Jim Mason. .... added at 11:03, 1 August 2006 by 194.80.193.160

This page includes a photo of the tombstone, showing "Aaron". I don't have any particular PoV on this, but the consensus hereabouts is that (i) he was born "Aron" but (ii) his "official" [huh?] name was "Aaron". It's hardly believable that the tombstone had a misspelling; ergo, it's the correct spelling of, uh, well, of his "official" name. (And no, I don't know what that actually means, if anything.) -- Hoary 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole point was that the tombstone was wrong. It says elsewhere on this page that that is one of the main arguments suggesting Elvis isn't dead (although quite why it suggests that I'm not sure). Also, in the photobox thingy at the side right near the top, under "birthname" it says "Aron" so this just looks inconsistent to me. Also, it says in another section "Elvis Aron Presley was born ..." etc. Surely the name on his birth certificate rather than his tombstone should be considered his "real" name. The article suggests that Elvis's parents went out of their way to make sure it read "Aron" on the birth certificate. Jim Mason again (with a different IP address this time as I'm on a different computer).

Interesting little article from Yahoonews that briefly discussed the spelling of Presley's middle name. Lochdale 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

A new version of this section has replaced the former one. The old version ("Version 1") was well sourced, as there were many quotes from university studies. Therefore, I have reinstated this version. But we should discuss those parts of the new version that sound reasonable. Are there any sources that support the allegations of the new version ("Version 2") ? Significantly, Elvis counted no blacks among his closest friends from the Memphis Mafia. Far from it, most of these friends were southern white boys from Mississippi. This fact, for instance, is not mentioned in Version 2.

Version 1

As Elvis's star rose controversy seemed to follow. Sam Phillips' idea of the "white negro" was born of racism.[8] "Racists attacked rock and roll because of the mingling of black and white people it implied and achieved, and because of what they saw as black music's power to corrupt through vulgar and animalistic rhythms. ... The popularity of Elvis Presley was similarly founded on his transgressive position with respect to racial and sexual boundaries. ... White cover versions of hits by black musicians ... often outsold the originals; it seems that many Americans wanted black music without the black people in it,"[9] and Elvis had undoubtedly "derived his style from the Negro rhythm-and-blues performers of the late 1940's."[10] "Many White people would be surprised to learn that Elvis Presley's hit 'Hound Dog' was first popularized by a Black woman, Big Mama Thornton. Elvis and his music live on the collective memory of Whites, yet Little Richard, some of whose work Elvis borrowed, has been forgotten."[11] A southern background combined with a performing style largely associated with African Americans had led to "bitter criticism by those who feel he stole a good thing," as Tan magazine surmised.[12] No wonder that Elvis became "a symbol of all that was oppressive to the black experience in the Western Hemisphere".[13] What is more, Presley was widely believed to have said, "The only thing black people can do for me is shine my shoes and buy my records."[14] It was claimed that the alleged comment was been made either in Boston or on Edward R. Murrow's Person to Person.[15] A black southerner in the late 1980s even captured that sentiment: "To talk to Presley about blacks was like talking to Adolph Hitler about the Jews."[16]
In 1957, the African-American magazine Jet looked into the allegations that Elvis was a racist who was stealing black music. The magazine found no proof that Elvis Presley was a racist or had made any statements indicating racism repudiating the charges. Elvis himself claimed that quotes attributed to him that were racist were fabricated and that he was not a racist.[17] The fact that Presley was "a white performer whose financial success rested upon the songs and styles of black artists historically excluded from the popular music marketplace"[18], together with other factors that would have made him highly suspect in the eyes of blacks, namely his poor, white origins in the then deeply racist Mississippi, his purchase of an old Memphis mansion, or his association with racially conservative politicians such as George Wallace and Richard Nixon has often been used to chastise him.[19] Whether or not it was justified, the fact remains that distrust of Presley was common amongst the general African-American population after the allegations were made public.[20] According to George Plasketes, several songs came out after the singer's death which are a part of a "démystification process as they portray Elvis as a racist."[21] In his book, Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past, David Roediger considers contemporary "wiggers" (white kids "acting Black") in light of the tensions in racial impersonation embodied by Elvis Presley.[22]
Controversy remains as to Presley's political beliefs, if any. In the early 1960s he described himself as an admirer of the Democratic President John F. Kennedy. In 1970 however he wrote to J. Edgar Hoover requesting to join the FBI at the height of its campaign against political activism. In December of that year he met with President Richard Nixon in what was widely seen as a show of support at a time when most artists in the music industry were highly critical of the Nixon administration. Presley told the President he was a huge admirer of everything he was doing, and asked to be made a "Federal Agent at Large" in order to help get the country off drugs. Presley also denounced The Beatles to Nixon, describing their left-wing political beliefs as "very anti-American." Many fans maintain Presley was non-partisan as he never attended fundraisers or donated money to any candidates, and that his infamous conversation with Nixon was caused by jealousy of The Beatles' success and concern for his own future in the recording industry.

Version 2

Although there had been allegations of racism on Elvis Presley's behalf there is abolutely no shred of evidence to support this. There is, however, evidence to support how friendly and appreciative he was of fellow human beings who happened to be black. Such examples are as follows:
Elvis was a white country boy brought up in an area and time of total racism and legal segregation. However, he was drawn to the music many black performers sang. White racists only scorned anything connected to "black" culture. Elvis met and became friends with B.B. King and other such black musicians. He was only a teenager then and "black" music was not commercially popular. Elvis recorded blues music with a country and gospel blend at a time which there was no thought of making big money from. This makes the idea of "stealing" black music for financial reasons void. (Music can not be stolen as it is a natural emotion).
Early in his career Elvis embraced songs from black singers such as Little Richard and Ray Charles and this helped catapult their fame.
Elvis broke segregation laws by attending functions for black people in the 1950's so he could meet his black musician friends. At an earlier stage he also attended black church services as he found their spirituality more uplifting.
Every single black person who met Elvis found him generous, mannerly and respectful towards them, such as Ivory Joe Hunter, BB King, James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Muhammad Ali.
Elvis met James Brown on several occasions. He is known for not having much time for The Beatles but he had no trouble meeting James Brown when he was just as much a success in the 1960's.
Elvis had a backing group for his 1968 comeback special called "The Blossoms". It was a black female trio, including Darelene Love (star of Lethal Weapon movies). She has since expressed a great deal of respect for Elvis.
Elvis had a backing group from 1969 until his death known as "The Sweet Inspirations". This was a female quartet. In 1970 Elvis Presley refused to play Texas as he was asked to leave the black girls at home. When the show officials accepted the fact he was bringing the black girls the show went ahead.
Myrna Smith, one of the black members of "the sweet inspirations" has recalled a night she had a passionate kiss with Elvis.
Elvis invited black boxer Muhammad Ali to his suite in 1973 where they chatted and joked. Ali later said "Elvis is the greatest".
Elvis paid the hospital bills of black singer Jackie Wilson in 1975 when he had a stroke.
Elvis met Nixon because he was pursuing his hobby of collecting law enforcement badges. Elvis had recently received death threats so this made him more anxious to have the help of powerful forces. Elvis meeting Nixon is just an extreme rock 'n' roll moment. On medciation, wearing liberal clothing, carrying a gun and asking for a narcotics badge. This only makes Elvis stand tall as a rock 'n' roll giant. Who since has done anything as daring. The only president Elvis is known to have respected is JFK, an Irish blooded democrat.
Elvis broke down in tears when Martin Luther King was murdered. He often recited "I had a dream" to friends. Elvis soon after recorded the song "If I Can Dream" as a mark of respect for King. Such a song was completely out of character for Elvis as it was political. He felt he had to pay some respects to Martin Luther King, a man he deeply admired.
In 1969 he recored a moving song, sympathetic to poor black neighbourhoods called "In The Ghetto". Again a song totally out of character for a southern white performer.
In 1969, Elvis broke production on his film "Change Of Habit" so he could meet the black soul singer Mahalia Jackson, who was in the studio that day.
A black Memphis blues singer and radio presenter named Rufus Thomas explained that Elvis did far more for the ressurection of blues music than anybody else has ever done. He also compared Elvis to Martin Luther King.
Black comedian, Eddie Murphy, who never met Elvis considers him "the greatest entertainer of all time".
BB King stated, "They didn't make a mistake when they called him The King".
In over 50 years since Elvis became internationally famous not one black person who met or worked him has ever revealed signs of racism on his behalf. They have all found him a decent person who was polite and kind. The idea of Elvis being racist was fabricated by black racists who don't accept how a white boy helped a part of their culture. These black racists also lack the the education or natural common sense to make the transition between race and support. Elvis supported black people. He is a hero to black people but a great deal of black people are not attempting to look beneath the surface or find some depth in the actions that took place. As Little Richard said, "Elvis opened the door for black people".
Besides all this, Elvis could not be stereotyped as a typical white American. Elvis had the blood of several races. These include the Irish, the Jewish and most of all, the Native Americans which can be argued are the most victimised race in America's history.

To my mind, the second version indicates a rather uncritical and idealized view (quotes: "Every single black person who met Elvis found him generous, mannerly and respectful towards them" -- "Elvis meeting Nixon is just an extreme rock 'n' roll moment. On medciation, wearing liberal clothing, carrying a gun and asking for a narcotics badge. This only makes Elvis stand tall as a rock 'n' roll giant"). We should discuss the two versions. Onefortyone 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is nothing to discuss. The second version is too POV and isn't even worthy of discussion.
"I" in "I'm sorry" is AOLuser, who appears to have learning difficulties concerning the "~" key.
One thing to say about both versions is that they are ludicrously prolix. -- Hoary 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now reinstated your short version of the "Male relationships" section. Perhaps you could also write a shorter version of the "Allegations of racism" section. Onefortyone 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The second version looks at Elvis from inside his life, not some cowboy attempting to sound academic. "Elvis was jealous of the beatles" from the 1st version is a completely off the cuff remark. The 2nd version states fact and rarely goes into any personal opinion. It also counter acts comments made in the 1st version, helping to blaance the whole issue. Despite all this, If any black person who met Elvis had expierence of Elvis being racist, let them come forward and balance it with all the other black people who met him and their feelings towards him. Then this issue may start to posess some merit. As of now it is a totally pointless issue and completely worthless of discussion. ... added in two edits on 24 July 2006 by 2006already.

AOLuser, your constant repetition of the claim that "Presley stole black music" does zero to make it credible; it just makes you more obviously a troll. Your only "evidence" so far is what you presented here: Chuck D (not an IP lawyer) saying nothing about Presley stealing anything; Marlon Brando (not an IP lawyer) saying that Presley took and copied black music (of course he did; it's normal for people of any pigment in the US to take and copy the music of others); and Eminem (not an IP lawyer) saying something obscure but apparently blaming himself for it almost as much as he blames Presley. Please run away and play somewhere else. Thank you. -- Hoary 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


"Presley" versus "Elvis"

Naming conventions

There was a very interesting question posted on the King of Rock and Roll talk page on what the agreed-upon convention for using Elvis's name is in Wikipedia. Here is the reproduced question

I changed a couple instances of "Elvis" to "Presley" in the belief that this conforms with encyclopedic style. This might be a special case though, since Elvis was well-known under simply his first name. I checked the Elvis Presley article to see if there's any preference there, but there is no consistent convention. (It uses "Presley", "Elvis", and "Elvis Presley" interchangeably.) Is there an agreed-upon convention for Elvis's name in Wikipedia? Honestly, I didn't want to shift through the entire Presley discussion haystack to find that needle, so I decided to go with his last name simply to make it consistent with references to Chuck Berry as "Berry" in this article.

Has this issue been decided in the past before? and if not, should we establish some guidelines? Geedubber 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).
  • After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only.
That's the standard. -Will Beback 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the article to reflect that then? Geedubber 01:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. The only exceptions would be where more than one Presley is being discussed, in which case "Elvis", "Priscilla", etc would be appropriate to distinguish between them. -Will Beback 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Will Beback. Indeed, a look through the page history shows edits such as this one in which I've replaced "Elvis" by "Presley"; these rewritings of mine (and others) have been effectively reverted by other editors, for whatever reasons. -- Hoary 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There was even a time when he was referred to as "The King" several places throughout the article.[18] We're making progress. -Will Beback 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LAST name on second and later references

This is Wikipedia policy, yet throughout and inconsistently in this article, Presley is referred to by his first name. That makes the article look shoddy and unprofessional, and puts it at variance with Wikipedia policy. Moncrief 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and that's why, some months ago, I went through the entire article making all possible conversions. My good work was undone. Recently I've redone bits and pieces. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to this (boring) work. -- Hoary 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just "Wikipedia policy" -- it's the general policy of every scholarly publication in the English language. -- Odinson777 22:57, 16 August 2006 (EST)

We should change 'Madonna' to 'Ciccone' on the Madonna page as well!
Er, no we shouldn't. She specifically calls herself "Madonna" with no last-name reference. Elvis had a last name, and he used it throughout his professional life. Why is this even a discussion? Of course all references after the first one should be "Presley." This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Moncrief 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality (in particular, allegations of racism)

I had added the NPOV boilerplate when the 'Male Friendships' debate was brewing. Now that that's effectively over with, is there any other reason to keep the boilerplate?

--Pcj 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's OK to remove it. -- Hoary 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the discussion on the "Allegations of Racism" and the "Other Relationships" sections? I am hoping to put together new drafts and run them by User Hoary before making any edits. Until then, perhaps we can keep the neutrality tag? --Lochdale 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


"Allegations of racism" - I came to this Page after finding a factual error in the Patricia Bosworth article that should never have occurred and whose author had numerous edits to this Talk Page and to the Elvis Presley article itself. I have examined the "Allegations of racism" section in detail but have only skimmed through the rest of the article. I was going to correct what I perceive to be the problems in the writing on racism but am a little reluctant to get involved as I see this subject has been a source for much discussion and at times, rancor. I checked the edit history for the Elvis Presley article but could not determine who originally wrote the "Allegations of racism" section. However, the same author of the Patricia Bosworth article did make numerous comments on this matter and on this Talk Page said:

    • "Could it therefore be that you endeavor to remove critical voices from the article which put Elvis in a negative light, although these voices are based on several independent sources, among them Elvis biographies by reputable authors and a critical study on Elvis's alleged racism published by a university press? Onefortyone 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) "

This Wikipedia editor asserts the information comes from independent sources and reputable authors which is true. However, the entire "Allegations of racism" section certainly appears to be a title with text misrepresentation intended to create the Editor's desired "negative light." Whoever the Wikipedia editor actually was, they used text taken out of context in the statement attributed to George Plasketes then added their own words to intentionally misrepresent the actual facts by adding: "in light of the tensions in racial impersonation embodied by Elvis Presley."

Worse though, is that by design the Wikipedia editor in question quoted out of context in order to corrupt the writings of Tennessee State University professor, Michael T. Bertrand from his book Race, Rock, and Elvis. This scholarly work is a study of the relationship between popular culture and social change in America and in is not claiming that Presley was racist, but the opposite. Professor Bertrand postulates that Presley's rock and roll music brought an unprecedented access to African American culture that challenged that 1950s segregated generation to reassess ingrained segregationist stereotypes. Professor Bertrand demonstrates how Elvis Presley was a primary catalyst in helping African Americans move forward. One of the most, if not the most, prestigious source for book reviews is the American Historical Review who wrote: "(Michael T. Bertrand) convincingly argues that the black-and-white character of the sound, as well as Elvis's own persona, helped to relax the rigid color line and thereby fed the fires of the civil rights movement." The "Allegations of racism" section also mentions Professor Bertrand writing about Presley's "association with racially conservative politicians such as George Wallace." A true statement, but again, this is deliberately taken out of context.

I also see that the Jet Magazine conclusion is mentioned in the "Allegations of racism" section of the article but in reality it has been watered down so as to have little or no meaning. What Presley biographer Peter Guralnick wrote in his book "Last Train to Memphis" (p.426) actually stated was:

  • "To Elvis," Jet concluded in its Aug. 1, 1957, issue, "people are people regardless of race, color or creed."

Next, there is a quote concerning Little Richard that was presented within a context deliberately adding to the desired "negative light." Little Richard's career blossomed because of Presley and his fading career had to do with personal demons, not Presley.

As to race and Presley's attitude, an impeccable source wrote:

  • After he became famous, Presley often cited his debt to African American music, pointing to artists such as B. B. King, Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, Jackie Wilson, Ivory Joe Hunter, and Fats Domino. The reporter who conducted Presley's first interview in New York City in 1956 noted that he named blues singers who "obviously meant a lot to him. I was very surprised to hear him talk about the black performers down there and about how he tried to carry on their music."
  • Later that year in Charlotte, North Carolina, Presley was quoted more specifically: "The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I’m doin' now, man, for more years than I know. They played it like that in their shanties and in their juke joints and nobody paid it no mind 'til I goosed it up. I got it from them. Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now and I said if I ever got to a place I could feel all old Arthur felt, I’d be a music man like nobody ever saw. "


Further, there are writings about Presley's race relations within Wikipedia itself. The biographic article on the African American performer Ivory Joe Hunter states:

  • "While visiting Memphis in the spring of 1957, Hunter was invited by Elvis Presley to visit Graceland. The two spent the day together, singing "I Almost Lost My Mind" and other songs together. Hunter commented, "He showed me every courtesy, and I think he's one of the greatest.")

Elvis Presley was no racist. On the contrary, he honored, respected and publicly praised black musicians and their extraordinary talent, doing so at a time in the 1950s when racism was an entrenched way of life in the U.S. South and black artists sold miniscule amounts of their recorded music. Presley stood up to the racist comments made by die-hard segregationists and their labeling of his sound and style as "nigger music". His "Gladys Music" company hired talented black songwriter Claude Demetrius (and others) and made him a rich talented songwriter at a time in the mid 1950s when Demetrius and other black songwriters had mostly limited horizons and pitiful incomes.

As B.B. King, James Brown and others have acknowledged, Elvis Presley opened the door for them. And, oh yes, contrary to the impression created in this article, Little Richard is quoted as saying (by the same unimpeachable source mentioned previously):

"He was an integrator. Elvis was a blessing. They wouldn’t let black music through. He opened the door for black music."

--207.67.145.214 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I . . . am a little reluctant to get involved as I see this subject has been a source for much discussion and at times, rancor. I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you should say that. Well, I urge you to forget your qualms and jump in and start editing (judiciously). There seems to be a bit of a lull now, which of course is conducive to constructive editing, and if things ever get bad later you will be able to drop out. Anyway, this article badly needs input of people who are interested and open-minded.
Do please also consider getting and using a username rather than an IP number. -- Hoary 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FBI Files

I removed a portion of the FBI files section as it didn't seem to be particularly relevant. Also, I have had problems locating the specific details of the alleged blackmailing attempt as described in the actual files as described in the previous text.--Lochdale 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I altered the sented after Alanna Nash to note that she wrote her book on Presley a year after being named the Society of Professional Journalists' National Member of the Year in 1994. I also noted that Goldman's book was harshly criticized by literary and rock critics. --Lochdale 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Lasting Legacy

I removed the reference to the Lee Hall play specifically due to the reference to the critic Rich See. It appears that Mr.See may not exactly be a mainstream critic. I believe the play itself is interesting enough and should be referenced but a specific quote from one person solely for the reason of beating the gay-Elvis dead horse isn't really warranted. The actual review from See. I also removed the section regarding a rock critique of an albulm mentioning Presley. The albulm should stand on it's own without reference to a criticism one way or the other.--Lochdale 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This section also seems to reference fairly obscure songs by fairly obscure artists while ignoring more mainstream tributes/critiques of Presley. Again, it seems to go to an agenda of tossing as wide a net as possible to catch every tawdry factoid possible. This appears to have been done at the expense of other references such as references to the number of books and TV movies about Presley. Fairly major motion films such as Bubba Hotep, True Romance, 3000 Miles to Graceland etc. are excluded (if we assume that they should be included) in favor of obscure references. --Lochdale 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Devotion to his Mother

I removed the references to Greenwood given the criticism of his book noted above. I'd also question the selective quotation methodology used in this section. For example, the fact that he grieved for days after his mother's death is not particularly unusual given that one would expect a son to grieve for his mother. --Lochdale 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding death

The reference that drug paraphenalia was removed from the death scene should either be referenced or removed entirely. Wasn't Presley's doctor investigated after Presley's death? Given the sheer volume of prescription drugs Presley was ingesting perhaps this section could flesh this out a little noting that he clearly had a problem with prescription narcotics? --Lochdale 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Cleanup notice

This article is convoluted, to say the least, and needs a rewrite from top to bottom. I eliminated some of the redundant material but because it is so extensive it is too much for one person to tackle. Maybe volunteers can coordinate efforts on the various sections. Duisburg Dude 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work condensing the relationships section, it looks much better now without all the gossip-like details--58.169.44.235 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some material on the racism issue plus background. Please edit to improve. BookMind 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs a little clean-up but it's a much better examination of the issue than had been there previously. Well done. --Lochdale 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two references to first guitar. One says Jan.1945, the other Jan.1946.

Last Will and Testament of Elvis Presley

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Elvis Presley. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Elvis Presley. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted this, an anonymous IP has added your links to this and many other articles. That's not an acceptable way to get around the requirement that you have support here, so I'm removing the link for now. Wmahan. 06:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Elvis and Polio

I removed the polio reference on Elvis military section because I felt it sounds really corny and lack feels a little over-exxagerated . It said he got vaccined while in military, but he got vaccinated in 1956 (elvis joined the amry in 1958) and recieved huge publicity. I felt iyt needs better info was needed on Elvis fight against polio.

Removed Phenominal succes and its content was moved into American Icon section because i felt its related. I just re-name "American Soldier" to "military service" and add more info about his military draft (in fact I could have gone to elvis mothers death but its getting too long). American Icon and Danger to American culture was moved into "Cultural impact", I am streamlining the article Jbrian80 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Critisism

Ok here some article that align with Chuck D and Johnny Rotten... this guy named Tom Sinclar (ok elvis fan mail bomb him now)

Elvis is Overrated

the reason?

  • He can't write song
  • He barely play musiclal instrument
  • Fall short of artistry and creativity.

This Sinclair guy born in the 60's and by the time he gained "consiousness" err I mean he is old enough to remember craps, all he can see are some pile of 3rd rate Elvis movies in the 60's and that build up his opinion why elvis "sucked"

Well Tom is right, somewhat, Elvis can't write his own music or play his own instrument and by today standard he is more like the Backstreetboys (popular, but its all style and no "art" as Tom claims). The only thing I stronly disagree trhe fact Elvis served as catylist or insperation for other pop group and rock bands like the Beatles.

BTW Chuck D and Johnny Rotten....F--- You! (parody of tupac "Hit em up" song)They makes Courtney Love hopping with coke too tolerable. and off course I love to diss these big mouthed people with irrational opinion based on their culture of rage. Jbrian80 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, the nonsense spouted here is amazing: "He can't write song" -- Could Caruso "write song"? Pavarotti? Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra? Singers are performers; songwriters write songs. "He barely play musiclal instrument" -- Presley could play several musical instruments. He wasn't a stunning talent, but "barely play" is not true. Besides, he was a singer. His voice was his instrument. "Fall short of artistry and creativity." -- Anyone who can say this after listening to a wide range of Presley's recordings is a tasteless fool. -- M-K, 23 August 2006

While I agree with some of your comments I wonder if a criticism section is not warranted? Do other rock star bios have a criticism section? Also, please sign your name by hitting the four tildes button down below. Thanks. Lochdale 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the fuzz with NPOV? I thought its fairly pro elvis and the same time adressing the critisim by some minority Elvis naysayers. The only reason I put this critisim section so to let other people know there are some people who didnt like him.

Presley in the 21st century

To be honest, this section blows (vomit). Compare to other section, this one needs some help because the section was essentially some piles of trivia disguised as paragraphs. It started well then it all goes down to trivia banality.Jbrian80 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't banal trivia aptly describe the industry that developed after Presley's death though? Lochdale 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The section feels like a pile of trivia and some of them should be moved to trivia section. The only way to fix it to re-write. The JXL and okenfold remix are good but the rest are fragmented and really really lame. Since I dont have the time and capability to write huger chunks of words...Jbrian80 06:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some merit to what you are saying but there is a huge kitsch industry surrounding Presley so it makes sense to note that and to give a little flavor of what it is like. For example, the Koizumi visit to Graceland is hysterical. Sitting Prime Minister of Japan who is nigh-obsessed with Presley (including building a statue to him and recording an albulm of his favourite Presley songs). Still, I'm sure whatever edits you make will be grand.Lochdale 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Toilet Death

I was told recently that Elvis Presley died on the toilet. My first thought was to check on Wikipedia to see whether this was true and I was suprised to find there was no mention of this whatever whether it be to confirm, deny or even mention that it might be a rumour. I had to find this information elsewhere.

Even if it is not true I think it should be mentioned somewhere as it is a widespread belief and has a place in an encyclopedia. I can't help but think maybe that the removal of the statement was a biased decision by Elvis fans. Libd 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the article mentions that he was found dead on the floor of his bathroom. I think that's probably good enough.Lochdale 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree. Elvis' "toilet" death is a common question in trivia quizes and the topic of general conversation because of it's very nature. People would use Wikipedia to specifically look for the answer to whether he died on the toilet, not the bathroom. Libd
Well I supposed it's not something I would be interested in but perhaps it is a big trivia question? Iguess the answer is is there any proof he died on the toilet? Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture. I'm not sure as I must admit it's nothing I've every researched. Lochdale 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It was just pointed out (and I checked it in Guralnik's Careless Whisper)that Presley did indeed die whilst on the toilet. If you feel it's important then add away. Lochdale 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Richard

I removed a phrase describing Little Richard as "the first African American musical artist to break through on the pop charts". This is certainly not so-- a number of African American artists (eg Louis Armstrong, the Mills Brothers) did so earlier, and even if we limit the list to rock & roll, Little Richard was preceeded in crossover hits by Fats Domino. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems right to me. Good edit. Lochdale 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sun Recordings

I have removed the sentence that attributed early resistance to the playing of Elvis's music in the South to "hillbilly DJs" not wanting to play "darky music". Characterizing all DJs in the South as racist hillbillies is pejorative and inaccurate, and is a vast oversimplification of the very real issue of race in early rock & roll. It does nothing for the discussion other than reveal the author's prejudice against Southerners. [User:Guest] 0352, 22 August 2006

One Night Stands

I think it's fairly evident that Presley had a litany of one night stands, affairs etc. etc. As it stands, this current entry is little more than innuendo and conjecture. Lochdale 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says that this is "fairly evident"? Are there some direct quotes from reputable sources? As you seem to be of the opinion that hundreds of books on Elvis claim that Elvis "had a litany of one-night stands" you may be able to cite a few of these sources. I have now cited two sources in the opening of this section, which I have rewritten. But these are not "mainstream" publications on Elvis. However, I hope that this new version is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FBI Files

Again, this issue has been debated to death. Looking at the FBI files themselves there is nothing to back up this assertion (sort of extraordinary that such a massive claim against one of the biggest stars at the time would be settled for such a paltry amount). Lochdale 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the files never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort. The entire basis for the section I removed is a seconday source.
You are wrong. I have quoted directly from Thomas Fensch's book on the FBI files which cites the original text of the files. Onefortyone 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, in his book The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), Thomas Fensch reproduces actual texts from numerous FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981, and in the appendix, the author reprints 36 pages of original documents as full-page illustrations, showing exactly how the FBI handled these cases. Pages 30-34 deal with one of the best documented accounts, concerning Elvis being the victim of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau of Johannesburg. This man represented himself to be a doctor specialist in the field of dermatology. When Presley was in the military service in Germany, he hired this man "proported to be a medical doctor and a skin specialist." Among the documents the author provides are copies of letters from Griessel-Landau to Elvis and one of his secretaries. There can be no doubt that Griessel-Landau made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. According to the FBI files cited in the book, Griessel-Landau had
admitted to Presley that he is bisexual. His first homosexual experiences took place early in his life in the orphanage in which he was brought up. On 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments. At the time that he told Griessel-Landau of this decision he also thoroughly censured Griessel-Landau for embarrassing him...
This made Griessel-Landau angry and he decided to extort sums of money from the singer. Elvis "was interviewed on 28 December 1959 concerning his complaint that he was the victim of blackmail..." The case was referred to the FBI. According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau "threatened to expose Presley by photographs and tape recordings which are alleged to present Presley in compromising situations." An investigation determined that Griessel Landau was not a medical doctor. Finally, "By negotiation, Presley agreed to pay Griessel-Landau $200.00 for treatments received and also to furnish him with a $315.00 plane fare to London, England." After having "demanded an additional $250.00, which Presley paid," a day later Griessel-Landau made another "telephonic demand for £2,000 for the loss of his practice in Johannesburg." Then the blackmailer departed to England. This is what the FBI files and Fensch's book say. So much for Lochdale's false statement above that the FBI files "never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort." Onefortyone 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It is important to note here that Lochdale continues deleting the well-sourced passage I have written, falsely claiming in the edit summary that the "Actual files do not support allegation". See [19]. He certainly did not read the original text of the FBI files. Onefortyone 16:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Where do the files mention anything about Presley being a homosexual? They don't. Isn't it amazing that these pictures have never shown up and Griessel-Landau was paid off for such a paltry amount? Again, it goes to your agenda and your need to spin quotes etc. to push that agenda. Lochdale 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you please stick close to the facts. You said that "the files never mention homosexuality or anything of the sort." Certainly the FBI files do mention the homosexual leanings of Griessel-Landau. So what is your problem? My edit didn't say that Elvis was homosexual, it only says that he was the victim of a bisexual blackmailer. This is documented by the FBI files. Onefortyone 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't how the piece is written though. The files never suggest that Presley was a homosexual or even the alleged pictures (that have never actually been proven to have existed) were homosexual in nature. Moreover, the point of the section is just to show that there were FBI files on Presley rather than to focus on any particular issue. Lochdale 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The files clearly show that Adams was the victim of a bisexual blackmailer. As the Griessel-Landau case is the best documented account, it should be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The files say nothing of the sort. They mention numerous things such as paternity suits, break-ins etc. etc. This is an encyclopedia so it makes no sense to pick and choose what we want to include. What we should mention is that the files exist. That's what we do so it should be left at that. Lochdale 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As a compromise, I have now created a new article on Griessel-Landau. I hope this is satisfactory to all. You may feel free to start further articles on the other important cases documented by the FBI. Onefortyone 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of "The Elvis Cult and its Critics"

The "Elvis Cult and its Critics" need to be cleaned up. There's a lot of great information there but it is worded poorly and it's one very, very, very large wall of text. Aserty 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc. which seems to be a little too specific for an encyclopedia entry. That said, I have avoided editing it (other than the first sentence) as I'd like to actually read it in some detail. Thanks for the clean up. Lochdale 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So you think university studies are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles? This statement speaks volumes. Onefortyone 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As does yours as it is indicative of your favorite pastime: taking things out of context. You've gotten in trouble before for doing that. My point was, you actively seek out any and all works that could be construed in anyway to support your POV. Your entire methodology is POV. Further, I genuinely question the validity of Your quoting of anything because you consistently take things out of context or twist things for your own ends. Lochdale 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What is your argument? Would you please provide evidence that I have taken things out of context, as you falsely claim. Where are your sources saying that my contributions are wrong? All you can do is removing content I have written, simply because it's not fan stuff and not always singing the praise of Elvis, but based on reliable sources. Onefortyone 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite simply, you take a questionable source and then use a more reputable source in an effort to bolster it. For example, citing one author saying that "tongues wagged" that Presley and Adams were "getting it on" and then using a quote from Guralnik (a reputable biographer) to note that Adams and Presley were friends. Of course, you fail to mention that Guralnik NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together nor do the hundreds and perhaps thousands of other books on Presley. I think it's time this went to arbitration as I am tired of going back and forth with you. Lochdale 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you realize that I did not include the passage "that 'tongues wagged' that Presley and Adams were 'getting it on' " in the said paragraph you are constantly deleting? See [20]. By the way, this is a quote from an article by the pen of Alanna Nash, certainly a reputable Elvis biographer such as Guralnick. And you falsely claim that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". Indeed, this author describes their close friendship in his book. Red West, another of Elvis's friends, also mentions this friendship in one of his interviews. Elaine Dundy, also a reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend. So what is your argument? Is there a source which denies that Adams and Presley were close friends? Of course not. Onefortyone 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Elaine Dundy says, "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest." (Elvis and Gladys, p.250) In an interview, Red West confirms that Adams "was a friend of Elvis’s and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door and then Robert Conrad who did "Hawaiian Eye" and "Wild Wild West", we played football every Sunday when Elvis got back and all those people would come out..." See [21]. Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." (Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.336, 339) During the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric" (Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.339-340). According to the same author, in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day" (Last Train to Memphis, p.410). Are there any sources which say that these authors are wrong? Onefortyone 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is with your selective use of quotes. For example, Guralnik never suggests at any time that Presley's relationship with Adams or anything else was anything other than friendly (In fact, Guralnik doesn't give that much space to Adams at all). So by using a quote from Guralnik saying that Presley and Adams were friends to support unsubstantiated allegations made by one author (out of hundreds if not thousands of books on Prelsey) is a distortion. As such, your selective use of quotes to, in essence, build a case is POV and unencyclopedic. Lochdale 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is your source which proves that Adams wasn't one of Elvis's best friends? There is no such source, as it is well known that Adams was Presley's friend, and there are lots of photographs showing them together. See, for instance, [22], [23],[24]. You cannot deny the historical fact that Nick Adams was Elvis's best friend, and this should be mentioned in a biographical article. Onefortyone 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've never denied that they weren't friends. That said, Guralnik doesn't spend that much time on Adams. Further, he never suggests that they were lovers or that they were anything other than friends. Lochdale 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So it should be mentioned in the article that they were friends. The rumors about their possible homosexual relationship are not mentioned in the paragraph I have written. Why did you delete this section? Here is the well-sourced paragraph you have removed:
Apart from his relationships with women, Presley lived a homosocial life, as he spent day and night with many male friends and employees whom the news media affectionately dubbed the Memphis Mafia. Among them were Sonny West, Red West, Billy Smith, Marty Lacker and Lamar Fike. Gerald Marzorati says that Elvis "couldn't go anywhere else without a phalanx of boyhood friends."[23] According to Peter Guralnick, for Elvis and the guys "Hollywood was just an open invitation to party all night long. Sometimes they would hang out with Sammy Davis, Jr., or check out Bobby Darin at the Cloister. Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy ..."[24] Samuel Roy says that "Elvis' bodyguards, Red and Sonny West and Dave Hebler, apparently loved Elvis—especially Red ... ; these bodyguards showed loyalty to Elvis and demonstrated it in the ultimate test. When bullets were apparently fired at Elvis in Las Vegas, the bodyguards threw themselves in front of Elvis, forming a shield to protect him."[25] "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest."[26] In an interview, Red West confirms that Adams "was a friend of Elvis’s and I went to Hollywood and met him. He helped me get into the first door and then Robert Conrad who did "Hawaiian Eye" and "Wild Wild West", we played football every Sunday when Elvis got back and all those people would come out..."[27] Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick."[28] During the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric,"[29] According to Guaralnick, in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day."[30]
What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is a mess and should be removed until it is cleaned up. It's basically been supported by one user who has a particularly agenda that has permeatd this article for years. For example, his own mentor and another editor have pointed out that Wikipedia is not the place for original research or wild speculation [[25]] and [[26]]. To wit, it has been pointed out that: Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter: — Justbecause something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim. — Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. — This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia. — I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation.

Emphasis is not mine. This aticle is a disjointed mess and this section just adds to the problem. I am happy to discuss this further though I think it may be time to go to arbitration. Lochdale 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted material concerning the Elvis cult, the FBI files on Elvis, etc., all of which is well sourced. Another user said on this page that the paragraph on the "Elvis Cult and its Critics" includes "a lot of great information" but needs some rewording. So other users think that the paragraph should not be removed. By the way, you should also have mentioned what administrator NicholasTurnbull said on August 4, 2006:
Lochdale:, it does ... seem some of the edits (but not all) that you have made are not strictly in line with WP:NPOV, which I hope you will work on satisfying in the future. I might also ask whether you would be willing to enter into a voluntary hiatus from editing the article for a period of time until the dispute has settled a little.
In my opinion, Lochdale, you are part of an Elvis fan group that endeavors to suppress well-sourced information from the article which is not in line with the positive view you have of your favorite star. The fact is that you seem to push an agenda, as you are the person who is frequently deleting whole paragraphs I have written. These paragraphs are well sourced and include relevant information. As for your relevant edits, here is one of your recent contributions to the Elvis talk page which shows your interests: the Elvis shrine Onefortyone 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You have been banned from this article numerous times. You have pushed your fringe agenda and have been told by two seperate editors that you are way out of bounds. Administrator Turnbull said in no uncertatin terms that you should cease with your edits. Further, your edits are not well sourced but selectively sourced. You are trying to build this non-existent conspiracy in order to push your fringe point of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for your personal agenda. With regard to the Elvis shrine you'll note how I thought it should be removed. The "Elvis Cult" piece was entirely point of view and based mostly on original research. This is an encyclopedia. Again, you have been banned before for the very same behaviour your are currently exhibiting. Lochdale 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You must be joking, Lochdale. As everybody can see, all of my recent edits are well sourced, particularly the "Elvis Cult" section. Did you notice that this is a critical paragraph concerning Elvis? Therefore it is entitled "The Elvis Cult and its critics." Did you further notice that another user was of the opinion that this section includes "a lot of great information," but only needs some rewording, presumably because of the many quotes from several independent sources I have given. The whole article should be well balanced, and as there is still much nonsensical stuff in it written by Elvis fans who are always singing the praise of the megastar, some critical voices may also be included. I have not yet seen one contribution by Lochdale which is well sourced or critical of Elvis. By the way, all critical passages of the article, for instance the section on Elvis's consumption of drugs, were started by me. Onefortyone 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is choc full of orinal research. It's an amalagamation of anything and everything, the veracity of which is dependent on one editor's view of mostly obscure papers and other research. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic. Lochdale 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis was a Vegetarian

I spotted some PETA type bullcrap when I was looking through the article at the introduction. The line, 'Elvis was a vegetarian!!!' I tried to edit it out but the line was not on the editing box. Can someone remove it please?

This line has already been removed by the AntiVandalBot. Onefortyone 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Shrine Page

I guess I don't have any major issue with adding a link to Bill Slater's Elivs Shrine page though I'm not sure it is needed and I am a little uncomfortable with the self-promotion which appears to be a violation of Wiki rules. Lochdale 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

"His popularity as a singer has survived his death and continues to confound his strongest critics." The bias shines through...

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. The problem with the article currently is that it contains so much lurid and often times ridiculous information that it raises a credibility issue for the entire article. Pretty much no other rock star bio is quite as infected as this one is. The entire "Elvis cult" is so POV as to be laughable.Lochdale 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I created the proposed list page? Durova 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Paragraphs and passages removed by Lochdale

The problem is that User:Lochdale, who seems to be an enthusiastic Elvis fan (see this contribution or this discussion), is frequently deleting passages and paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley article which are not in line with his all too positive view of the singer. See, for instance, [27], [28], [29], [30]. I don't think that this is O.K. I do not understand what should be wrong with my edits, as all of them are well sourced and I have quoted from mainstream biographies, publications on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. Other users are also of the opinion that the critical section on the 'The Elvis Cult and its Critics' includes "a lot of great information " but needs some rewording. See this discussion. However, Lochdale totally deleted the whole paragraph. Here is the original text I have written:

There is a star cult surrounding the singer uncritically feeding the fans with information they like. It has been claimed that there are over 500 US fan clubs and that they exist in every state except three: North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming. According to the American Demographics magazine, 84% of the US people say that their lives have been touched by Elvis Presley in some way, 70% have watched a movie starring Presley, 44% have danced to one of his songs, 31% have bought an Elvis record, CD or video, 10% have visited Graceland, 9% have bought Elvis memorabilia, 9% have read a book about Presley, and 5% have seen the singer in concert.[31] Not all of these people are Elvis fans. A collection of essays entitled The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media critically examines what distinguishes fans from general audiences and explores the relationship between fans and their adored media products. Part of this volume is the article, "Fandom and Gender" which includes an examination of female fantasies of Presley.[32] To many of his female fans, the songs Presley sang "were secondary to his personality and the way he performed them," evoking the well-known emotional responses.[33] In her autobiographical article, "Sexing Elvis" (1984), Sue Wise even describes "how she came to terms with her lesbianism through a close identification with the feminine side of the King."[34] "Elvis's 'effect' on young girls threatened those men who assumed that young girls needed to be protected both from sex in general and from its expression in questionable characters like Elvis in particular."[35] However, there were not only female fantasies directed at the star. According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community."[36] "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls"; yet, Presley "clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon."[37] There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod."[38] On August 16, thousands of die-hard Elvis fans travel to Graceland every year in order to celebrate the anniversary of Presley's death.[39] The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators.[40] According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult.[41] What is more, David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong 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."[42] According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage."[43] "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult."[44] Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult."[45] Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977 (see the "Elvis lives?" section of this article). In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture. This Presley cult has been much criticized. "As one reader complained: I was really surprised that you used that article about the boring Elvis cult! You would use one on McDonald's?"[46] Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life. During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis.[47] According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis.[48] "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years."[49] According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'"[50] When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse."[51] In a recent study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll.[52] However, one of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier."[53] It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jewelled 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."[54] 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.[55] Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich."[56] Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it.[57] Thus, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." He was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'"[58]

Perhaps somebody is able to rewrite this paragraph, but it should not be deleted. As a second example, here is the original section concerning the FBI files on Presley which has also been removed by User:Lochdale:

As Presley was a very popular star, the FBI had files on him of more than 600 pages.[59] According to Thomas Fensch, the texts from the FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981 represent a "microcosm [of Presley's] behind-the-scenes life." For instance, the FBI was interested in death threats made against the singer, the likelihood of Presley being the victim of blackmail and particularly a major extortion attempt by Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau while the star was in the Army in Germany, complaints about his public performances, a paternity suit, the theft by larceny of an executive jet which he owned and the alleged fraud surrounding a 1955 Corvette which he owned, and similar things.

I don't understand why this passage which includes useful information has been removed. The same paragraph now reads: [31]. The following passage was removed from the "male friendships" section:

Presley expert Elaine Dundy says that "Of all Elvis' new friends, Nick Adams, by background and temperament the most insecure, was also his closest."[60] All of the singer's friendships are documented by many photographs.

This is a short quote from a mainstream biography on Presley. Dundy's book Elvis and Gladys was called by the Boston Globe "Nothing less than the best Elvis book yet" and by Kirkus Reviews "The most fine-grained Elvis bio ever." Many photographs exist showing Elvis together with his friends. See, for instance, these photographs showing Elvis together with Nick Adams: [32], [33],[34]. I don't know what should be wrong with these historical facts. Other users may add details relating to other friends of the singer. Where are your contributions concerning the other friends, Lochdale? As you constantly claim to have read lots of books on Elvis, it must be very easy for you to add further material to the article. But all I can see is that you are only removing paragraphs I have written instead of improving the article.

Just three examples. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the passages cited above, nor are they POV, as all sources are cited. Interestingly, all material I have added was removed by only one and the same user: Lochdale. All other users who recently contributed to the article did not remove passages written by me. Perhaps some unbiased third-party users can have a look at all of these paragraphs and help to solve the dispute. Onefortyone 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been down this road before. You have been banned from this article several times before for your behaviour. Firstly, Adams died 10 years before Presley did and the Memphis Mafia continued long after Adams. He had many friends and Adams was necessarilly his best (West, Schilling etc.). So rather than take a POV we should leave it as is as many could claim to be Presley's best friend. In addition, the FBI files should be referenced and that is about it. The files NEVER say that there was a homosexual blackmail attempt and if it were such an attempt then it was the worst ever given the small dollar amount the alleged blackmailer received. so why focus on that one issue? We should just reference the files and leave it at that. One need only look at the articles on John Lennon or Buddy Holly to see what a disgrace this article is. Lochdale 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This statement clearly shows that you are endeavoring to suppress well-sourced information from the Elvis Presley article. I would say that you are pushing an agenda. Significantly, you are not discussing the well-sourced content of the said paragraphs which is supported by many quotes from mainstream biographies, publications on the rock 'n' roll era, universitiy studies, etc. This speaks volumes. Onefortyone 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And as for all your "well researched" edits, I think your own mentor put it best (and paraphrased what many others have been trying to tell you) when he said: Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter: — Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim. — Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations. — This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia. — I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation. Perhaps that is clearer. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Bold textLochdale 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. You know that these remarks were made on the assumption that there are only one or two sources supporting my edits, as you have falsely claimed, but this is not the case. And these remarks were made with reference to contributions concerning Elvis's sex life. We are here talking about edits on other topics which are indeed well sourced, as everybody can see. Why are you so keenly interested in removing material from the article which is not in line with your personal view? Onefortyone 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not repeating myself at all the quote is just an excellent indicator of your agenda. Pretty much all you do on Wikipedia is focus on taking extreme views about Presley and those who may or may not be tangentially connected to him. This is an encyclopedia and is not a forum for your personal agenda. The article in question has no place on a general bio about a long-dead rock star. Again, look at other bios of other rock stars. It is edits like yours that affect Wikipedia's credibility as an information source. Lochdale 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
So you think information on Elvis and his personal friends or critical remarks on the Elvis Cult, all supported by the mainstream biographies and peer-reviewed studies should be suppressed? I see. What do you prefer? Fan stuff? Onefortyone 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fan stuff? Heh, I'm not really a Presley fan. For example, I have no problem with the drug references because they are supported by massive amounts of evidence. All I want is a fair, accurate and non-agenda driven article. One that looks like other Wiki articles like the ones I referenced above. You are obsessed with this article to the article's (and I am guessing your own) detriment. Also, peer-reviewed does not mean that they support the contention(s) mentioned in any work. We've been down this road before. Why not go to arbitration (again) about this issue rather than beating a dead-horse? Lochdale 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
One of your major edits shows that your favorite topic seems to be the "Koizumi visit to Graceland" You said on this talk page that the former Prime Minister of Japan "is nigh-obsessed with Presley (including building a statue to him and recording an albulm of his favourite Presley songs)." I have not yet seen a critical contribution from your pen which is supported by quotes from one of the mainstream biographies. Onefortyone 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
So what? My understanding was that we were to avoid POV and not make every effort to inject our own theories or biases into an article. Given your multiple bannings, it is clearly a concept you have difficulty with. As for Kozumi, well he was the prime minster of the world's second largest economy and had made an albulm of Presley songs. I tend not to go near the drug references as I think they are well-sourced and go to the singer's death. Beyond that, most of the stuff you add is tawdry muck-racking at its worst. Lochdale 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The best way to avoid POV is to cite sources (biographies, books and articles dealing with Elvis). I have cited my sources. Onefortyone 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you selectively cite sources or you use sources that suit your agenda no matter how vague or questionable. Again, this has been pointed out to you before via bans, other admins and even your own mentor. There are many, many books etc. on Presley. Quoting everything and anything just so it suits your agenda is not "citing sources". You should really take a step back from this article as it seems to be a genuine obsession for you. Lochdale 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
O.K. As everybody can see, you are not willing to discuss, step by step and sentence by sentence, the content of my well-sourced contributions. This also speaks volumes. Onefortyone 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Many people have gone over this with you. You just keep missing the point or being purposefully obtuse. All any one has to do is to check the archives to see just how long you have dragged this issue out. I'm comfortable with my edits though I would be willing to look into the arbitration proceeding. Lochdale 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC?

Erm...not wanting to tread on any toes here (and being no Elvis expert myself), this looks like a good time to read an essay and open a request for comments. Regards, Durova 03:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why hasnt been nominated to FA?

I was quite shocked when I discovered that no one has even tried to nominate this article to be a FA (you are supposed to be able to see failed nominations on the TalkPage, right?).

I really don't know much about Elvis except that he sang a lot and women loved him.

But this article has it all, doesn't it? Lot's of info, but still relevant info... references, inline references, interesting info... you name it.

The only thing that I don't like is the heading "Girls! Girls! Girls!". I know that "Girls!" was a great part of Elvis life, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Surely you're not saying we would find such a heading in a true encyclopedia.

"Girls! Girls! Girls!" is the title of an Elvis movie of 1962. It is here used as a heading. Onefortyone 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So

  • nominate this article to become a FA, but first
  • change that heading

Just some thoughts (from a newb...).

81.170.138.232 19:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

done. Arniep 19:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid this article is nowhere near FA quality. The most glaring problems are the Trivia section and the Elvis Cult section. I would clean up those sections and then nominate the article for Good Article status. If it succeeds at attaining good article status, get a Peer Review and then consider nominating the article to be a Featured Article. Kaldari 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree on both points. I also think the article is too dependent on quotes which suggests original research and/or POV. The Elvis Cult section is a screed rather than an actual encyclopedic entry. Lochdale 20:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Elvis cult" section is well sourced, as all passages are supported by several independent publications. The "Trivia section" is not well sourced and primarily includes fan stuff. Onefortyone 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Elvis Cult" section is selectively sourced and consists of original research. It is fundamentally unencyclopedic. Lochdale 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What happenned to The Elvis Cult section?

Anyone? I'm all ears........81.170.138.232 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion section above. It was a section that was riddled with POV and original research. Read more like a screed than an encyclopedic entry. Lochdale 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I DID read that. But you never wrote that you had it removed! Please describe "Read more like a screed" means so I can try to fix it. I still think removing it was a little bit extreme. It was filled with facts, lots of it. Both about those who liked elvis and those who did not like him. 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Lochdale frequently removes paragraphs he doesn't like. This is not acceptable, especially in view of the fact that the material is well sourced. Onefortyone 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem with it is the fact that it is filled with POV and original research. The first issue is whether this needs to be in an encyclopedic entry. It's way too detailed and goes into what can best be described as the margins of Presley-study (if such a think exists). Is that really what an encyclopedia is for? Compare this article to the article on John Lennon for example to see the difference. The idea of an "Elvis Cult" is in and of itself POV. Reliance on papers published by idividuals and selective quotes from those papers skirts too close to POV and original research. For example, even the notion that Pat Boone was more popular than Presley based on some "poll" is fairly ludicrious given the massive disparity in record sales etc. Unless we start looking into a "conspiracy" in the music industy etc. etc. Does an encyclopedia really need to go into that sort of detail? Do we have to post any and every thought any may ever of had on the subject no matter how far-fetched or self-serving? Do various papers on gender-studies really belong in a general article about an entertainer? Nothing everything that mentions Presley's name is germane to the article Lochdale 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. I hope this won't escelate into a edit war. I have put the cult-section back into the article. But you are right. It has several problems in its current form. But I think we can fix these problems and turn it into a good part of this article. I have now tried to cut the section into several paragraphs instead of one big. Can you please check and see if the "grouping" is good (yes, my English sucks).81.170.138.232 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the cult-section?

Oh God! Who keeps removing the cult-section? Can the person please atleast mention that she/he is doing it in the TalkPage? I put it back up but now someone has removed it once again. Atleast I STATE why I put it back and what I changed! Thankyou! 81.170.138.232 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale's primary aim on Wikipedia is constantly removing paragraphs. See his contribution history from the beginning. The best way is to reinstate all paragraphs he has removed. Onefortyone 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you aren't seeing my edit summaries as I am noting each time I move it! I think we should use the sandbox to edit this section. Personally, I think the entire section is a mess (and fundamentally unencylopedic) which is why I have removed it. Perhaps we could go through it in the sandbox? Lochdale 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm a newb. I have no idea what edit summaries are and I really don't know what the sandbox is. I know I probably should have learned a few more things than just how to edit an article before I started to actually editing them. But I guess I wanted to get into the fun too quickly. Can you please just direct me to the edit summaries and the sandbox and I will cooperate! <^_^> 81.170.138.232 22:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, have you considered creating an account on Wikipedia? It's easy and it'll give you a username and you can create your own signature. Lochdale 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm on it (and forgive me for moving your response. I think I just broke some holy wikipedia-rule by doing that)!
Well what do you know. I do have an account! PureRumble 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no worries. I am slowly learning how to use the Wiki-code efficiently (though it has been a slow process for me!). Lochdale 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurens Johannes Griessel Landau

The following article is being considered for deletion (see [35]):

Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau was the name of a swindler and blackmailer who represented himself to be a medical doctor and skin specialist. At the end of November 1959 he was hired by Elvis Presley to make skin treatments, but in December 1959 he made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. After Presley's decision to discontinue the treatments, Griessel-Landau claimed to be in the possession of compromising photographs and tape recordings and endeavored to extort money from the star. The case was dealt with strictly confidentially and referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
===Details of the case according to the FBI files===
According to one of the best documented FBI files on Elvis Presley, the popular singer was the victim of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau of Johannesburg, South Africa, who was hired on 27 November 1959 by Presley as an alleged doctor specialist in the field of dermatology in Bad Nauheim, Germany, when the star was in the military service. During his skin treatments, which involved Presley's shoulders and face and took place in the singer's quarters, the man had made several homosexual passes at Elvis and his friends. According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau
is alleged to have admitted to Presley that he is bisexual. His first homosexual experiences took place early in his life in the orphanage in which he was brought up. On 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments. At the time that he told Griessel-Landau of this decision he also thoroughly censured Griessel-Landau for embarrassing him ...
This drove Griessel-Landau into rage and he decided to extort sums of money from the singer or to ruin his career. The case was referred to the FBI. Elvis "was interviewed on 28 December 1959 concerning his complaint that he was the victim of blackmail..." According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau "threatened to expose Presley by photographs and tape recordings which are alleged to present Presley in compromising situations." An investigation determined that Griessel Landau was not a medical doctor.
===Confidential treatment===
Presley didn't take the matter to court. According to the FBI files,
Information concerning the subject was furnished to this office by the Provost Marshal Division, Hqs., U.S. army, Europe, with the indication that they wished to avoid any publicity in this matter since they did not want to involve Elvis Presley nor put him in an unfavorable light since Presley had been a first-rate soldier and had caused the army no trouble during his term of service.
===Final negotiation===
Because things did not turn out the way he expected, Griessel-Landau endeavored to play the case down in letters he wrote on 27 and 28 December claiming that he sympathized with Elvis and that he had decided not to take action against the singer. The FBI files say that finally,
By negotiation, Presley agreed to pay Griessel-Landau $200.00 for treatments received and also to furnish him with a $315.00 plane fare to London, England. Griessel-Landau agreed to depart to England on 25 December 1959 at 19.30 hours from Frankfurt, Germany. [But] Griessel-Landau did not leave as agreed, rather returned and demanded an additional $250.00, which Presley paid. A day later Griessel-Landau made a telephonic demand for 2,000 £ for the loss of his practice which he closed in Johannesburg, South Africa prior to his departure for Bad Nauheim to treat Presley.
Then the blackmailer
departed Rhein-Main Air Field, Frankfurt, Germany at 16.00 hours, 6 January 1960 on Flight 491, British European Airway for London. ... He is alleged to be seeking entry into the United States. No contact between Presley and Griessel-Landau has been reported since 5 January.
===Further reading===
In his book The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (2001), Thomas Fensch reproduces actual texts from numerous FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981, which represent a "microcosm [of Presley's] behind-the-scenes life." The author reprints, in the appendix, many original documents as full-page illustrations, showing exactly how the FBI handled such cases. Pages 30-34 deal with Presley being the victim of Griessel-Landau. Among the documents the author provides are copies of the original FBI files concerning the case and letters from Griessel-Landau to Elvis and one of his secretaries.
===External link===

Can this content be merged into the article? Onefortyone 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Every contributor to the request for deletion (other than you) noted that the article should be deleted. See [here]. The incident takes up one page out of 663 of the FBI files. Tne one page never says that he made passes at Elvis but do note that Landau was most likely metally disturbed. As two seperate editors noted, it's not relevant. Lochdale 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Two users said that the article should not be deleted. One user recomended to merge its content into the article. Onefortyone 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is an interesting one. The FBI file has been noted in a number of places, including this article: "Arts: The FBI files," The Independent (London), Dec 13, 2005. I think the wikipedia article is probably excessive, but I don't know that it should be deleted altogther. Uucp 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect This seems to be somewhat noteable, but not deserving of its own article. I say merge the event into the article, but be sure not to make it more than it really is. I don't know if Elvis was gay, bi, or straight... but I'm pretty sure that for any claims about his homosexuality to be notable, it's going to take more than the word of a con artist. Report the incedent, but don't use it make unfounded claims about Elvis' sexuality. AniMate 07:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Another user seems to be a sockpuppet. Onefortyone 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Several users and an editor noted that it was not relevant. 1 page out of 663 isn't relevant. This is why the article will be deleted. You seem to be obsessed with the notion of sockpuppets. Lochdale 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The original FBI files contain more than a dozen pages dealing with the case, not only one page. All Elvis biographers deal with the case, including Guralnick. So it's relevant. Onefortyone 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that I created the Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau article in order to avoid an edit war. As an alternative, I would recommend to include the following paragraph in the FBI files section of the Elvis Presley article:
As Elvis was a very popular star, the FBI had files on him of more than 600 pages.[61] According to Thomas Fensch, the texts from the FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981 represent a "microcosm [of Presley's] behind-the-scenes life." For instance, the FBI was interested in death threats made against the singer, the likelihood of Elvis being the victim of blackmail and particularly a "major extortion attempt" while he was in the Army in Germany, complaints about his public performances, a paternity suit, the theft by larceny of an executive jet which he owned and the alleged fraud surrounding a 1955 Corvette which he owned, and similar things.
According to one of these accounts, Elvis was the victim of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau of Johannesburg, South Africa, who was hired by the singer in Bad Nauheim, Germany, as an alleged specialist in the field of dermatology, but had made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. When on 24 December 1959 Presley decided to discontinue the skin treatments, Griessel-Landau endeavored to extort sums of money from the singer. According to the FBI files, Griessel-Landau "threatened to expose Presley by photographs and tape recordings which are alleged to present Presley in compromising situations." An investigation determined that Griessel-Landau was not a medical doctor. Finally, "By negotiation, Presley agreed to pay Griessel-Landau $200.00 for treatments received and also to furnish him with a $315.00 plane fare to London, England." After having "demanded an additional $250.00, which Presley paid" and a further "telephonic demand for 2,000 £ for the loss of his practice which he closed in Johannesburg", the blackmailer departed to England.
This is much shorter than the Griessel-Landau article and summarizes the main facts. Onefortyone 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That doesnt' solve the problem at all. It still brings undue attention to a minor and rather trivial incident. Why not leave it as it currently stands then provide a link to the actual files themselves? That way readers can go to the actual source itself for additional information. Looking at the FBI memo, it does not say that Landau made passes at Presley. It also says that there were no actual photos, that two women were with Presley during the exam, Landau may have been mentally disturbed etc. etc. Why get into it at all? All over $400? It's a minor issue underserving of specific attention. Footnoting the files is enough. Lochdale 01:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was enough to warrant an actual article it would stand on its own. It can't and it is no more important than the other hundreds of pages of the files. The summary in the article is fine as it currently stands. And if you created the article to avoid an edit war then why did you keep trying to link to the article in the main Presley article? Lochdale 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guralnik et al. reference it barely in passing. As an administrator noted to you, just because it is mentioned does not mean it is relevant. If we go on the basis of what is mentioned then we should add thousands of pages to this article. Lochdale 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, why are you so keenly interested to delete all references to the case? It is well documented and part of every Elvis biography. Thomas Fensch, author of the book on the FBI files, calls the case a "major extortion attempt." Onefortyone 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mentioned and then promptly ignored. If it were so "major" don't you think that Gurlanik would have spent even an iota of time on it? He didn't because it wasn't relevant. As for Fensch, well the files are very boring (remember, people can read them for themselves) so he had to try and spice up a book he was trying to sell. Think he might have a slight agenda? For a user who sees agenda's and conspiracies everywhere then this should not be a surprise to you. $400 is a major extortion case? Even $2,000 wasn't much back then. So a $400 bill from someone who was most likely mentally deranged is now "major"? It's just not relevant, let it go. Lochdale 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Lochdale, you are wrong: $200.00 + $315.00 + $250.00 + £2,000 (i.e. USD 765.00 + GBP 2,000). Certainly a lot of money at that time. And you never know what Elvis or the Colonel actually paid. Onefortyone 02:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a place for conjecture. They paid him around $400 which is di minimus. As I pointed out to you quite some time ago, $2,500 would buy you a mid-sized American car in 1960. That's the kind of pay-out you would expect for a major case against one of the then biggest stars in the world...a chevy. Lochdale 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you read what I have written? GBP 2,000, not $2,000. Do you know the difference, especially at that time? Onefortyone 02:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lochdale is still deleting the "Elvis cult" section

I think this is not acceptable. Here is the current version he has removed:

The Elvis cult and its critics

The fans

It has been claimed that there are over 500 US fan clubs and that they exist in every state except three: North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming. According to the American Demographics magazine, 84% of the US people say that their lives have been touched by Elvis Presley in some way, 70% have watched a movie starring Presley, 44% have danced to one of his songs, 31% have bought an Elvis record, CD or video, 10% have visited Graceland, 9% have bought Elvis memorabilia, 9% have read a book about Presley, and 5% have seen the singer in concert.[62] Not all of these people are Elvis fans. A collection of essays entitled The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media critically examines what distinguishes fans from general audiences and explores the relationship between fans and their adored media products. Part of this volume is the article, "Fandom and Gender" which includes an examination of female fantasies of Presley.[63] To many of his female fans, the songs Presley sang "were secondary to his personality and the way he performed them," evoking the well-known emotional responses.[64] In her autobiographical article, "Sexing Elvis" (1984), Sue Wise even describes "how she came to terms with her lesbianism through a close identification with the feminine side of the King."[65] "Elvis's 'effect' on young girls threatened those men who assumed that young girls needed to be protected both from sex in general and from its expression in questionable characters like Elvis in particular."[66] However, there were not only female fantasies directed at the star. According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community."[67] "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls"; yet, Presley "clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon."[68]

The ritualization of the Elvis cult

There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod."[69] On August 16, thousands of die-hard Elvis fans travel to Graceland every year in order to celebrate the anniversary of Presley's death.[70] The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators.[71] According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult.[72] What is more, David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong 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."[73] According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage."[74] "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult."[75] Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult."[76] Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977 (see the "Elvis lives?" section of this article). In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture. This Presley cult has been much criticized. "As one reader complained: I was really surprised that you used that article about the boring Elvis cult! You would use one on McDonald's?"[77]

Critical voices

Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life. During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis.[78] According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis.[79] "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years."[80] According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'"[81] When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse."[82] In a recent study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll.[83] However, one of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier."[84] It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jewelled 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."[85] 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.[86] Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich."[87] Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it.[88] Thus, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." He was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'"[89]

I hope that the other users will discuss these paragraphs. Lochdale refuses to discuss the content, he only deletes the whole section, although another editor was of the opinion that there is "a lot of great information" in it and IP 81.170.138.232 tried to reinstate it several times. I would say that Lochdale's behavior isn't acceptable. Onefortyone 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not submit this to mediation or arbitration then? The entire section is clearly not encyclopedic (though I am not sure you even know what that means anymore). The entire section is POV and original research. Further, given your history of misrepresenting sources it behooves us to stick to well-known sources. Lochdale 02:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This may indeed be a good idea. As I have cited my sources, among them mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies, my contributions to the Wikipedia article are not POV and certainly not original research, as you falsely claim. But your deleting tactics are POV. You have not yet provided a single source which contradicts the contributions. By the way, your behavior is very similar to that of Ted Wilkes who has been banned for one year because the arbitration case was re-opened. Onefortyone 02:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE consider paragraph breaks in these sections. They are basically unreadable. You need to put in paragraph breaks. Moncrief 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. See [36]. I hope the paragraph breaks are now satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Added some references but I screwed up once again...

OK! Now I have added some references to sources where it previously said "citation needed". I screwed up in one way but lets talk about that later. First of all, I want some people to check my references, AFTER reading what I have to say about them.

First of all, the "retrieved"-part of a references should state which date it was when I (the person who found the source) found it, right?

I have added references to two facts

  • He continued to perform before sell-out audiences around the U.S. until his death in 1977
Three references has been added, leading to three articles about three different concerts during 1977. Only one of them mention that there were no more tickets left, but all of them mention BIG numbers when they talk about how many there were among the crowd.
  • Later that year in Charlotte, North Carolina, Presley was quoted as saying: "The colored folks been singing it and playing it just like I’m doin' now, man, for more years than I know. They played it like that in their shanties and in their juke joints and nobody paid it no mind 'til I goosed it up. I got it from them. Down in Tupelo, Mississippi, I used to hear old Arthur Crudup bang his box the way I do now and I said if I ever got to a place I could feel all old Arthur felt, I’d be a music man like nobody ever saw."
A reference has been added to an article on TIMEs online website. The problem? It doesnt state that he said that in Charlotte, North Carolina. I found another article that said that the quote comes from "Carolina Journal" or something like that. But that doesnt mean that he said it in North Carolina and it certainly says nothing at all about Charlotte. Also, I didn't like the site where I found that article. It just didn't make any good impression. Should the "Charlotte-Carolina" thing be removed? It's not important where he said (as long he did it standing with his two feet on earth), only the fact that he DID say it is important, right?

How I screwed up? Well when I made this edit, I forgot the edit summary. I also forgot to mark the edit with an m (minor edit). Is it possible to fix this?

PLEASE CHECK THE OUTLOOK/FORM OF THE REFERENCES IN THE NOTE-SECTION!!!

Waiting for some feedback!

Edit: I always forget about this: PureRumble 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Are all these quotes from fan sites? The best way is to cite from some published books on Elvis or the rock 'n' roll era. Onefortyone 14:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if you really can say elvisconcerts.com is a fan-site. It is a comprehensive database over all the tours and concerts that Elvis has performed in. However, those three references that I added lead to COPIES of newspaper-articles, that have been stored at elvisconcerts.com. What I'm trying to say is that elvisconcerts.com have not written them, they have just copied these articles and inserted them into this "database". That is OK, isn't it? I mean, sure we could speculate about if those are true articles or maybe some guy at elvisconcerts.com have written them. But if we reason like that, then can't we question just about everything? Just my thoughts. But now that you know this, if you still find it completely unaccaptable then tell me so I can try to find the real articles. PureRumble 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If the source is given it may be O.K. to cite this material. Onefortyone 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More references, More newbie questions... more pain!

OK! Here comes a summary of every reference I have inserted so far (except those that I have already mentioned above):

  • The Jimmy Carter quote about the death of Elvis.
Whoa! This one was bad. It skipped a part of the quote without making the [...]-mark!!! I found that part of the quote useful and I have inserted it. The source is [37]. It seems to be VERY reliable. But one problem! The source does not state when that quote was published. Please take a look at the reference-part in the notes-section. Is it OK that the only date that I have written is when the reference was retrieved?
  • The BBC top 100 english language singers list. Elvis was second.
The source is good here too. It is from bbc news website. One problem, the author of the article has not been stated. Please take a look at the reference in the notes-section. Is it OK that there is no "by"-part in the reference?

Feedback Please! I also want to know if it is safe and OK to delete the "Charlotte, North Carolina"-thing that I wrote about here above? It's not important that he said it in Charlotte, and we only have a source that backs up the fact that he said that quote, not where he said it. PureRumble 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this part already cite its source?

This paragraph of the article is followed by a "citation needed"-mark

Peter Guralnick's book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), "drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease...no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing...There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report...indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity."

But I don't understand. Doesn't it already give us a reference? "Peter Guralnick's book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999)"? PureRumble 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are not gonna give me response on this one then I'm gonna do what I think is the right thing; I'll remove the "citation needed"-mark. PureRumble 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the "Girls! Girls! Girls!"-heading to "The women in his life"

So let's see... it's clearly not a encyclopedic-heading. The section is about the women that Elvis was involved with. And the fact that there is a movie/book/song/whatever with the title "Girls! Girls! Girls!" Just makes it all worse! Not a single word in that section mentions ANYTHING about this movie/book/song/whatever "Girls! Girls! Girls!". So tell me, why should the heading be "Girls! Girls! Girls!"? PureRumble 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, because it's an Elvis-related title, and is thematic to an article about him? By this same reasoning, why is Alan Clayson's George Harrison biography titled The Quiet One, since Harrison obviously didn't spend his whole life in silence, or Lou Reed's anthology of writings titled Between Thought and Expression, since he didn't express everything he's ever thought? Zephyrad 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but those are biographies and anthologies and they are supposed to be interesting to read and maybe even a bit entertaining. An encyclopedia is used to gather knowledge, and because of that it should be easy to find knowledge. If you got a heading with the same name as a movie, then what do you expect of that section? I know this case in particular is a special one, but general rules should be followed. That's what I think. PureRumble 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; you're misinterpreting my use of those examples, and a casual look at Elvis's movie credits will make the title make sense – if someone doesn't know about the movie already. Zephyrad 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

There is a substantial difference between making a collection of trivia instead of a proper page, and including a trivia section at the end of a page. The call was to integrate the trivia into the page, NOT to remove it altogether. UberCryxic does not appear to understand the difference, and if he doesn't want a trivia section (which is included at the end of COUNTLESS Wikipedia pages), then I suggest he either integrate the trivia himself before simply cutting it out... or let him go through every page on Wikipedia with such a section, try deleting all those trivia sections, then try to argue his point. Zephyrad 07:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When was he born?

The bio block with his picture says 1933. The body text says 1935....

http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/bio/elvis_overview.asp And I say VANDALISM ;-)
I'll change it. PureRumble 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain dethrones Elvis as top-earning dead celebrity

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-10-24-cobain-over-elvis_x.htm?csp=34


Priscilla on Gladys

Priscilla Presley describes her as "a surreptitious drinker and alcoholic." When she was angry, "she cussed like a sailor".

Given that Elvis didn't meet Priscilla until after his mother died, this sounds like a very questionable quote to put in without context. Is this confirmed by actual eyewitnesses or in Elaine Dundy's book? ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical changes.

This is my first post, and I'm kind of new at this, so sorry if I bungle things up. Anyway, I was reading the first section of this entry, and this part was really grating to me (cuz I guess I'm a grammar Nazi) ---

His death was premature at 42, despite alarming concerns about his health. When he died on August 16, 1977, it was a huge shock to his fans. However, it soon became clear that a combination of over-work, obesity, depression, bad diet and severe abuse of prescription drugs, accelerated his premature departure. However, much confusion, conflict, contradictions and general controversy still surrounds his death. Regardless, his popularity as a singer has survived his death.

There is repetition, and a misuse of the word "despite." My recommendation would be to change it to the following:

He died a premature death at the age of 42 on August 16, 1977. His death was a huge shock to his fans, but there were alarming concerns over his health -- in particular, his combination of over-work, obesity, depression, bad diet and severe abuse of prescription drugs. Despite the conspiracy theories and general controversy that still surround his death, his popularity as a singer has survived him.

--This1kid 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

His death wasn't premature as he overdosed on 14 different drugs, a probable suicide.

Comments in Boston

The article needs to be amended because nobody can ever prove Presley did not mnake those remarks, just as his critics cannot prove he said them. All we know is that he wasn't in Boston that year.

Helpful notice from Iowa

Elvis' middle name is spelled "Aaron" not "Aron" -November 10, 2006 -Emily Hicks, New London, Iowa (moose_in_a_sweatervest@hotmail.com)

No it isn't.


So much crap

Theres so much crap in certain sections. Theres practically whole interviews in some sections and several untrue accusations. Most of the sections projects Elvis in a bad light, mind you, some parts are not facts but seem as a biased rant of a bitter person.

How do you know they're untrue?

Youtube

There is al lot of material on him on Youtube. I miss his music and performances in the article. When did he perform and what are his albums. search for Elvis Presley on Youtube--Freek Verkerk 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vocal range

I do not believe that Elvis ever recorded a high B, and the quote from the professor is dubious and needs citation. Elvis' vocal gift was not his vocal range but rather the quality of his performances, both vocal and otherwise. -- Ssilvers 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of the best analyses of Elvis's voice:
Henry Pleasants, "Elvis Presley." In Simon Frith, ed., Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. Volume 3: Popular Music Analysis (Routledge, 2004)
The author writes (p.260):
Elvis has been described variously as a baritone and a tenor. An extraordinary compass and a very wide range of vocal color have something to do with his divergence of opinion. The voice covers about two octaves and a third, from the baritone's low G to the tenor's high B, with an upward extension in falsetto to at least a D flat. His best octave is in the middle, from about D flat to D flat, granting an extra full step either up or down. In this area, when he bears down with his breath on the cords, the voice has a fine, big, dark baritone quality. When he eases off, as he often does in ballads, he achieves a light, mellow, seductive sound reminiscent of Bing Crosby, if rather breathier, with a wide vibrato that he may have got from Billy Eckstine. Elvis' vibrato, however, is faster and less conspicuous. Call him a high baritone. The voice has always been weak at the bottom, variable and unpredictable. At the top it is often brilliant. His upward passage would seem to lie in the area of E flat, E and F. On E and F particularly, there is almost always the telltale evidence of strain common to singers who have not mastered the transition from one register to another. On his very first records he made distressing sounds on these pitches. They were open, callow, sometimes nasal, and utterly unrelated to the round baritone timbre of the middle voice. As early as 1959, he seems to have gained some measure of control, or accommodation. ... From there on up, what Elvis does with his voice depends upon what he is singing. He has always been able to duplicate the open, hoarse, ecstatic, screaming, shouting, wailing, reckless sound of the black rhythm-and-blues and gospel singers. But he has not been confined to that one type of vocal production. In ballads and country songs he belts out full-voiced high Gs and As that an opera baritone might envy. While he has not learned to sing comfortably and predictably in the 'passage,' he learned early how to focus his voice when he got above it.
Henry Pleasants (1910-2000), the author of this fine essay on Elvis's voice, was the longtime London music critic for the International Herald Tribune and certainly an expert on the human voice. He studied voice, piano and composition at the Curtis Institute of Music and received an honorary doctorate from Curtis in 1977. For 29 years, Pleasants lectured and conducted seminars on singing at the American Institute of Musical Studies in Graz, Austria. He is best known for his 1955 book The Agony of Modern Music, a polemical attack on the direction taken by much of 20th-century serious music, and an argument in favor of jazz and other vernacular styles as the true music of the time, both as entertainment and as art. He developed this theme in other books, for instance, Death of a Music?: The Decline of the European Tradition and the Rise of Jazz (1961) and Serious Music — and All That Jazz! (1969). But his first and major enthusiasm was the human voice. His book The Great Singers (1966) became a standard reference work. Other books on singers and singing were The Great American Popular Singers, Opera in Crisis, and The Great Tenor Tragedy: The Last Days of Adolphe Nourrit. Onefortyone 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Elvis: The Early Years

Can anyone please tell me if it was lindsay lohan who played priscilla in the mini-series. Its been annoying me for a while. thanks! (FearSneachta 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

The cast of the Elvis mini series on CBS featured Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Elvis, Camryn Manheim as his mother Gladys, Robert Patrick as his father Vernon, Randy Quaid as Colonel Tom Parker, Rose McGowan as Ann-Margret, and Antonia Bernath as Priscilla Presley. Onefortyone 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Filmography

A separate section needs to be dedicated to a filmography. Or perhaps a separate article on it would be necessary. Ekantik 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Elvis 8-track tape that K plays in the Lincoln Tunnel Scene in "Men In Black"

What album is that? It sounds pretty good. 147.145.40.43 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually Elvis' version of Promised Land by Chuck Berry. Jason 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

This article's introduction is hard to read. Can we not have simple declarative sentences without clogging the introduction with details?--Filll 14:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Backing groups

This article needs some information about his being backed up by The Jordanaires, and after 1970, The Imperials. 76.211.18.221 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

'68 Comeback Special

I have rewritten parts of this to tie in with my substantial revision and expansion of the separate article on the Special Rikstar 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion/archive pages are quite irritating and depressing to read inplaces. In the absence of any criticism (so far) of my '68 Special article, I find myself actually thinking about making major, much needed revisions to this article, in this case condensing it and possibly creating extra links. However I am put off by the thought of the time it will take, and the inevitable co-editing that will come from those who have already made this article sub-standard. I think Mr. Presley deserves better... Rikstar 09:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Peter Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.12.
  2. ^ Peter Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.13.
  3. ^ Guralnick, p.13.
  4. ^ Guralnick, p.149
  5. ^ Guralnick, p.36, referring to an account by singer Barbara Pittman and Patrick Humphries, Elvis The #1 Hits: The Secret History of the Classics, p.117.
  6. ^ Guralnick, p.280.
  7. ^ Guralnick, p.346.
  8. ^ Bill Brewster and Frank Broughton, Last Night a Dj Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey (2000), chapter on "The White Negroes", p.33.
  9. ^ Robert Walser, "The rock and roll era", in The Cambridge History of American Music (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.358.
  10. ^ Martha Bayles (ed.), Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music (University of Chicago Press, 1996), p.22.
  11. ^ Carol Tator, Winston Matthis, Frances Henry, Challenging Racism in the Arts (University of Toronto Press, 1998), p.134.
  12. ^ Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis (University of Illinois Press, 2000), p.222.
  13. ^ Bertrand, p.27.
  14. ^ A variant: "I've only two uses for niggers – they can buy my records and they can shine my shoes." Quoted in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is in Us: Journeys and Encounters, 1987-1994, p.17.
  15. ^ Bertrand, p.221.
  16. ^ Bertrand, p.200. The author adds, "One journalist wrote upon the singer's death that African Americans refused to participate in the numerous eulogies dedicated to him."
  17. ^ Snopes.com.
  18. ^ Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis, p.26.
  19. ^ Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis, p.27.
  20. ^ Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis, p.200.
  21. ^ George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.53.
  22. ^ David Roediger, Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past (University of California Press, 2003), p.26.
  23. ^ Gerald Marzorati, "Heartbreak Hotel", The New York Times, January 3, 1999.
  24. ^ Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, p.72.
  25. ^ Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.87.
  26. ^ Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.250.
  27. ^ See RED WEST INTERVIEW.
  28. ^ Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.336, 339.
  29. ^ Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.339-340.
  30. ^ Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.410
  31. ^ See Elvis People, A Play by Doug Grissom.
  32. ^ See Lisa A. Lewis, The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992).
  33. ^ Roger D. Blackwell, Tina and Kristina Stephan, Brands That Rock: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the World of Rock and Roll (2003), p.33.
  34. ^ Quoted in Kate McGowan, Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 5 (2002), p.199.
  35. ^ Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p.136.
  36. ^ Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), p.20.
  37. ^ Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), p.251-252.
  38. ^ Donald Theall, Virtual Marshall McLuhan (2001), p.129. See also Sylvere Lotringer and Sande Cohen (eds.), French Theory in America (2001), p.114.
  39. ^ Cameron Tuttle, The Bad Girls' Guide to Open Road (1999), p.192.
  40. ^ See Annalee Newitz, White Trash: Race and Class in America (1996), p.262.
  41. ^ Marjorie B. Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (1997), p.369.
  42. ^ David S. Wall, “Policing Elvis: legal action and the shaping of post-mortem celebrity culture as contested space”, Entertainment Law, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, 52-53.
  43. ^ David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
  44. ^ James Elkins, On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art (2004), p.53.
  45. ^ Paul A. Cantor, "Adolf, We Hardly Knew You." In New Essays on White Noise. Edited by Frank Lentricchia (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.53.
  46. ^ Rodman, Elvis After Elvis, p.75.
  47. ^ Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.288.
  48. ^ Jennifer Harrison, Elvis As We Knew Him: Our Shared Life in a Small Town in South Memphis (2003), p.71.
  49. ^ Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, p.58.
  50. ^ Robert A. Segal, Theorizing About Myth (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), p.109.
  51. ^ Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.173.
  52. ^ See Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004).
  53. ^ Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303.
  54. ^ Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380
  55. ^ See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116.
  56. ^ Garber, p.368.
  57. ^ Joel Foreman, 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.
  58. ^ Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173.
  59. ^ See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001).
  60. ^ Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.250.
  61. ^ See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001).
  62. ^ See Elvis People, A Play by Doug Grissom.
  63. ^ See Lisa A. Lewis, The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992).
  64. ^ Roger D. Blackwell, Tina and Kristina Stephan, Brands That Rock: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the World of Rock and Roll (2003), p.33.
  65. ^ Quoted in Kate McGowan, Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 5 (2002), p.199.
  66. ^ Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p.136.
  67. ^ Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), p.20.
  68. ^ Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), p.251-252.
  69. ^ Donald Theall, Virtual Marshall McLuhan (2001), p.129. See also Sylvere Lotringer and Sande Cohen (eds.), French Theory in America (2001), p.114.
  70. ^ Cameron Tuttle, The Bad Girls' Guide to Open Road (1999), p.192.
  71. ^ See Annalee Newitz, White Trash: Race and Class in America (1996), p.262.
  72. ^ Marjorie B. Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (1997), p.369.
  73. ^ David S. Wall, “Policing Elvis: legal action and the shaping of post-mortem celebrity culture as contested space”, Entertainment Law, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, 52-53.
  74. ^ David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
  75. ^ James Elkins, On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art (2004), p.53.
  76. ^ Paul A. Cantor, "Adolf, We Hardly Knew You." In New Essays on White Noise. Edited by Frank Lentricchia (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.53.
  77. ^ Rodman, Elvis After Elvis, p.75.
  78. ^ Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.288.
  79. ^ Jennifer Harrison, Elvis As We Knew Him: Our Shared Life in a Small Town in South Memphis (2003), p.71.
  80. ^ Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, p.58.
  81. ^ Robert A. Segal, Theorizing About Myth (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), p.109.
  82. ^ Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.173.
  83. ^ See Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004).
  84. ^ Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303.
  85. ^ Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380
  86. ^ See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116.
  87. ^ Garber, p.368.
  88. ^ Joel Foreman, 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.
  89. ^ Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173.