Talk:Elvis Presley

Archives

Wow I just archived this page and I realized that there is an arbitrary and inconsistent system for naming the archives. I suggest that someone with the wherewithal standardize them per WP:ARCHIVE. Also, it's probably a good idea to archive this page before it gets to 388 kb. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry - again

Early years is a mess at the moment because of changes. I deliberately got rid of the "German, Welsh, French, Eskimo, Venusian", etc. - style of list because it was beginning to read like a boring shopping list. This infomation is rightly included, but in the footnotes. Having a tedious list at the start of the article doesn't look good. I suggest a return to simply stating in the main text that he "was of mixed ancestry". If it gets any more mixed, stick the details in the footnotes. Rikstar (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, for what isn't, but sure feels like, the umpteenth time, I agree. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) HI!!!

Hi and thanks, Steve, and to ElvisFan1981 for making the changes. Rikstar (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Presley family came to America from Germany in the 18 century. Originally the family name was Pressler, and they were a Sinti family also known as the 'Black Dutch'. Elvis' mother Gladys Love mith was likely to have been a Romanichal. Therefore Elvis Presley's ancestry was European Gypsy. This may go some way in explaining Elvis Presley's Asian looks and musiccal talent. (Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month Magazine, June 2008, www.grthm.co.uk ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.56.118 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Aaron Presley, in the humblest of circumstances, was born to Vernon and Gladys Presley in a two-room house in Tupelo, Mississippi on January 8, 1935. His twin brother, Jessie Garon, was stillborn, leaving Elvis to grow up as an only child. He and his parents moved to Memphis, Tennessee in 1948, and Elvis graduated from Humes High School there in 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.160.149 (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more disturbing that the thought of Wikipedia bowing to racial prejudice.

I'm sorry sir, but I do not agree with sweeping information under the rug - palatable or not. No clearer justification for this can be shown than racism. The underpinnings of Wikipedia is the improvement of human knowledge. Racism divides us; it limits our thinking.

Besides, if it is controversial, then it is of note. If it is of note, then Wikipedia should include it, and do so proportionally to the importance to the topic (obviously it is extremely important in this case or people would not be so motivated to manipulate it). If it is verifiable information it should be included period. If it is changed 600 times, especially in the case of racial prejudice, then it should be corrected 601 times. Sooner or later somebody will come along and post that information again anyway. Throwing our hands up in disgust or cowering away from facing up to the responsibility of Wikipedia to prevent wrong or biased information from being disseminated in its name shouldn't even be given a second thought. I certainly realize the difficulty, but work important to human progress is rarely easy.

I would suggest putting a disclaimer on the page that information has been removed because it upsets some people, but it would significantly reduce my respect for Wikipedia if that were to occur.

I'll end my rant there, but this greatly troubles me. I won't change the page until I have 100% verifiable, undeniable evidence of everything I post on this page, but assuming I can obtain that proof I will change the page to reflect the facts. I hope and expect that the people most involved with editing this page will jealously guard those facts from being removed, as this is important knowledge for all of us - changing it 601 times if necessary. Webjedi (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Webjedi. Please pardon my ignorance (perhaps you are referring to something that happened or was discussed before I started here) but would you be so kind as to explain in a little more detail what has upset you so much? I'd hate to think something within this article is inaccurate, and I'd be even more horrified if something within this article was offensive to anyone. Also, it would be easier for me to monitor what is upsetting if I knew what it was. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk Archive 23. In July I read this article and saw that the fact that he was Jewish was left out even though other components of his ancestry were listed and yet there was a reference at the bottom of the page Entitled Elvis's Jewish Roots. Furthermore, he was part Native American. A Jewish Native American! In other words, he was a good 'ole American mutt (most of us are). There aren't many people in history that have made such an impact as he did. Few (if any) have the power to contribute to social understanding 30 years post mortem. Certainly there are no other Native American Jews that have fundamentally changed an entire society.

I incorrectly connected the reasoning on that page with the removal of my edit. Going back through, I now see my change was removed due to construction of the article. Nevertheless the original reference was removed for desire to be rid of controversy. Apparently there are still many people that refuse to accept he was not 100% WASP. I don't want to accuse people of being racist but when you have an article being vandalized or edit wars going on there is something behind it. I simply feel Wikipedia has a responsibility to be an engine of social progress, and leaving out the fact that one of the greatest icons in our nation's history was so racially diverse is sidestepping that duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3bj3d1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new reference that backs up the claims he was of Jewish heritage. I noticed in at least one of the previous references it was mentioned, but the one I've added is primarily about that subject. From what I understand, the term "mixed ancestry" was used to remove the listy feel of every nationality and religion Elvis was. There are plenty of references linked to that, however, and each read is quite detailed and informative. Perhaps, if others felt it was a good idea, you could begin a section on his diverse backgrounds? I know that I find it fascinating that Elvis had such a wide and varied ancestry, and must admit that I don't know too much about it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, it should be topic of further exploration. Not just that he was Jewish, but that he was mixed in the true 'melting pot' style of America. If there is anything uniquely American, it is Elvis; and I think for all those who preach against "racial impurity" it goes to show how very wrong they are.

BTW, in order to be considered Jewish a person has to come from an unbroken line of female Jews going back to before the time of the Roman Empire. Jews account for something like .02% of World population. American Indians are about 1/4 that number making up ~.005% of World population. If I'm doing my math right that means he had <1 in 80,000 chance of being included in those two lines of ancestry simultaneously (though that doesn't account for entropy due to the his proximity to the full-blooded Native American lineage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3bj3d1 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the previous editor for summarizing the unbelievable silliness of the "Elvis was Jewish" idea. It's small wonder that this article about a fine American artist, and an honorable military serviceman, was removed from GA status. Large parts of the article are just plain rubbish! Let me point out just one glaring defect: Elvis recorded many Gospel songs, a huge part of his output if you look through the discography - and his faith was a central part of his life (hence the "Graceland" name). But there's hardly a mention of it in the article. How many of you editors have even been to an Elvis concert? If you had attended even one concert, you'd be able to immediately spot the massive disconnect between the reality of Elvis in real life and the silly pointless twaddle in this article. The whole thing reads like it was written by 9/11 truthers. Bushcutter (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually think anywhere in the article that it says Presley was Jewish. There is a link to the heritage part which explains in detail as much about his Jewish heritage as his other heritage, but it doesn't actually state he is Jewish anywhere in the article itself. And this might just be a minor point to some who don't actually know the facts, but Graceland wasn't named by Presley and so his faith has absolutely nothing to do with the name Graceland. It was named after the daughter of the man who built it, S. E. Toof. Care to guess the name of his daughter? Anyone who answered Grace can have a point! Secondly, there is more than enough evidence to back up claims that Presley had Jewish heritage, and there is also enough evidence to suggest that Presley knew of his Jewish roots. To be of Jewish heritage is maternal acquisition because there is no mistaking who is the mother of a child. Because Presley's Jewish heritage ran uninterrupted down through his maternal grandmothers, according to Jewish law Presley would be considered Jewish. He may not have openly advertised the fact he knew of his Jewish roots, and he may not have taken part in any kind of Jewish tradition, but there's no denying that he had Jewish ancestry. He put a Star of David on his mothers grave when she died, so I hardly think we can say that he kept it a complete secret. Please feel free to discuss the article and suggest corrections or improvements, but if you are going to do so at least use information that is accurate in future. I don't mind how many people come here and point out mistakes or improvements, but I do mind people who come here and don't know the facts before attacking other editors for the amount of hard work they have put into an article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you aware that a lot of Christian churches have the Star of David in them? As proof of anything, it fails. Collect (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it proved anything at all. From all I have read it was because of her Jewish roots that he did it. If you have an alternative source that undoubtedly proves it was for other reasons then I'd be very happy to read it. The decision was made by him in honour of his Jewish heritage, something his mother was proud of and acknowledged to Elvis at a very early age. It may very well be used by a lot of Christian Churches, but it is generally recognised as a Jewish symbol, and as Gladys was open with Elvis about their ancestry, I see no reason to doubt that it was placed there for that very reason, especially as her gravestone carries both the Star of David and a Cross. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP requires cites for claims, not proof that the claim was errant. In short - do you have a cite quoting him as saying he did it because she was Jewish? By the way, many Muslims also use the Magen David -- so using it as proof of "Jewishness" is even weaker than you might have thought. Unless you find a reliable source on your claim, it does not belong in the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the article at all. The only part of the article that links to anything about Elvis having Jewish ancestry is in the Early Life section, where a link or two were placed for those who felt it should be mentioned. It doesn't say anywhere that Elvis was, is or thought of himself as Jewish. By all accounts, he didn't think of himself as Jewish, but he did know of his Jewish ancestry. What is wrong with that? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Collect, I think we're just whistling in the wind here. The ensuing discussion shows more than ever that few, if any, here have a clue what Elvis was really about in real life, and clearly none of obsessive types have ever been to an Elvis concert and seen the man in real life and listened to him sing from his heart. The obsession with irrelevant trivia (his "Jewishness", the clueless discussion of his mother's addictions, trying to find evidence of "racial prejudice" in the man, his lack of sexual perversions, the lack of understanding of his annoyance with the Beatles, the low quality discussion of his military service, and the almost total lack of discussion of the most important part of his life: his Christian faith) is what has driven the quality of this article down from "not bad" status, to its present "bloody awful" status. Bushcutter (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem here? This whole section starts with someone complaining about there being no mention of Presley's Jewish roots. So what is done? A link, only a link, no actual mention in the article, about his Jewish ancestry. Now we have people complaining that it mentions it at all? How do we go forward with this? If we remove the link, which is all that it is, then someone will come along and complain about it not being included. If we keep in the link, which is all that it is, then someone will come along and complain about it being included. I for one, don't have any interest either way about Elvis and his Jewish ancestry. It wasn't me that initially brought up the whole Jewish thing, and it wasn't me who put the first link. I only added one extra link for someone who thought it had been missed out. It's what it is, it's suggested in the article, and that's it. If any of you feel you can do a better job of the article then feel free. I'm interested to see how it goes and how well those people deal with free-flowing criticism of nearly everything they've written. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm bemused by Bushcutter's bitter comments here. If he/she wants to, they should post rewrites or edits of the sections that are so disliked (with supporting citations). Bushcutter clearly has little knowledge of how this article has had to evolve to keep various ardent editors happy; several, if not all, currently active editors are less than happy with the article, but it is a lot better than it was before any nominations. It was downgraded to B class because of failure to agree on edits to reduce its length. If Bushcutter is an unhappy reader, can I suggest they make positive suggestions regarding change, and refrain from gratuitously insulting the positive, time-consuming and arduous efforts of editors who could quite easily have kissed this god-forsaken article good bye a long time ago. Rikstar (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As always when this comes up, the most straightforward solution would be the "mixed ancestry" statement followed with the references for all of the "groups" in the mix. This doesn't sweep anything under the rug. It acknowledges it, but in a way that doesn't give it importance out of proportion to the entire man, his life, and his importance. This is more or less what we have now, but someone feels the Cherokee part deserves special mention. Maybe someone would like to start an article on Elvis's Ancestry? As Rikstar points out, we've keep going over the same ground here.Steve Pastor (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cherokee mention is made as the immediate prior mention is about his primarily European ancestry. Most people do not consider Cherokees to be European. Yes, we could have absolutely zero mention of his ancestry. The mention now is far shorter than it had been when the article was most bloated. Collect (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, although many Jewish people came to the US from Europe, the ancestral home of the Jewish people isn't in Europe. So, by the same logic of "the Cherokee aren't from Europe"....you could make a case for Presley's Jewish ancestry being mentioned. I think it's best to have no exceptions to all of the mix being in references. But it's not a big deal.Steve Pastor (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For well over a thousand years, the Ashkenazim (literally "German Jews") have been European. Collect (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully suggest that there's a level of authoritarian ignorance at play here that dooms this article. For instance, the obsession with race, ancestry, and racism completely dishonors Elvis' Christian faith in which the concept of "race" doesn't exist. Amongst Christian believers, there is no color or race. And here's a note from the section below to show an example of an editor gratuitously re-introducing an utterly pointless bit of trivial trash: "I have reincluded the remark relating to Gladys's drinking problem, as it is of some importance." How does this type of scurrilous rubbish - whether it's true or not - contribute to a good quality article? Answer: it doesn't. It belongs in an article about Gladys, not Elvis. The result is an article that is so bad that the reader can't help but feel waves of shame from reading such mean-spirited nastiness. I can only weep at the mean and grinding insults being heaped upon the memory of a fine, gallant, and honorable American man by people who have never met him. It's painful to see it. Bushcutter (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect when I say this, Bushcutter, you clearly sound like an intelligent person who is interested in seeing this article reach its potential, but sadly you are coming across as an obsessive fan who thinks that Presley was a perfect man with no failings. We know that isn't true. He was an adulterer, a liar, a drug user/abuser, and he contemplated murder on at least one occasion. That's just the stuff we know about. It's not things that have been made up by any editor here, it's facts that have been cited and spoken of by the men and women who knew, worked with, loved and lived with Presley for many of his years on this planet. I don't understand your point about "the obsession with race, ancestry, and racism..." as there is no mention in the article about his race or ancestry except for one sentence at the very beginning that links to other sites for the facts. Regarding the racism, I haven't read anywhere in the article that says he was a racist. There are claims that he acted or spoke in a racist manner on occasion, but there is also a counterbalance to suggest that it was taken out of context and he wasn't a racist. You might feel it's not relevant to the article, and that's your prerogative, but as it is a direct attack on Presley, it is only fair for it to be defended against, and again it doesn't go into such great detail that it requires hacking to pieces. You constantly bring up his Christian faith, and it's common knowledge that Presley was a strong believer in God and was a charitable man in many ways, but let us not allow a man's faith to be a cloak of invisibility over the rest of his life. Presley was human. Flesh and blood like any of us, and he had his faults and sins which he couldn't escape. If we were to remove everything in the article that is negative towards this man, then it would genuinely be a "fan shrine" which is something that I personally do not want it to become. It's quite amusing, really, that nearly every regular editor of this article has been accused at some point of being an obsessed Presley fan attempting to build a shrine to his memory, and yet it's those regular editors who are the most fair, balanced and open-minded people working on it. I really cannot understand how this article can be fair and balanced if when it is a little positive we get attacked for it, and if it is a little negative we get attacked for it. As Rikstar has suggested above, if you wish to improve the article, then it would be much more resourceful for you to put your energies into that rather than complaining about the current content. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

From the Early Life segment; "In 1938, he was jailed for an eight dollar check forgery. During his absence, his wife, described as "voluble, lively, full of spunk", lost the family home. Priscilla Presley recalls her as "a surreptitious drinker and alcoholic." Does the line in bold really have to be in this section? As I was reading it I felt it just didn't fit in at all with the previous two sentences. Perhaps it is important to the article somewhere, but I don't know if this is the right place for it. Would it be ok to either move or remove this line? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I and others agreed about this in a previous discussion, so I have removed the Priscilla quote, but added the fact that Gladys did drink around this time. Rikstar (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of Early Life section from the main artcle it reads: "During his absence,his wife-"voluble,lively,full of spunk" and having a fondness for drink-lost the family home. She and her son moved in with Vernon's parents."

To me it reads as though Glady's fondness for drink caused her to lose the family home,perhaps if it read without Vernon's income was the cause of them loosing the family home. Also,Gladys and her son did infact move in with Vernon's parents,but only for a very brief time and infact stayed with her cousins. Here's what Gurlanick wrote: "During the brief time that he was in Prison,Gladys lost the house and moved in briefly with her in-laws next door. There was no love lost between Gladys and Jessie,though,and soon mother and child moved to Tupelo,where Gladys lived with her cousins Frank & Leona Richards on Maple Street and got a job at the Mid-South Laundry."

"Vernon,Traves and Lether Gable were released from jail on February 6,1939,in response to a community petition,and a letter from Orville Bean requesting sentence suspension. The Presley's continues to live with Glady's cousins for a brief time." Source: "Last Train to Memphis" p.14 & 15 by Peter Guralnick

Hope I'm not appearing to "A...Retentive" about this,just thought it looked a little odd,that's all.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Jaye. I've edited the article appropriately, and actually removed the drink remark as I couldn't find a suitable place to fit it in after my edit. If anyone can reword it slightly to fit it back in then I wouldn't object. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reincluded the remark relating to Gladys's drinking problem, as it is of some importance. Onefortyone (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Quite a lot of significant additions are being made lately. It might be an idea to discuss such changes on the talkpage to ensure things are necessary and run smoothly. ElvisFan 1981, Hi! Cannot contact you on your own talkpage as you are still not registered. You have made many references using the following: "ref name=Stanley-19>Stanley and Coffey, p.95</ref". The number 19 should be the same as the page no., in this example, 95. As things stand all information from the Stanley book you have cited appears to be on page 19, when you click on the footnote numbers. I like a lot of the edits you have made, but we need to keep a dialogue going about them. I'm gonna clean up where I think we need to make things more concise.Rikstar (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected most of the Stanley refs: I must be bored...Rikstar (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't realise that both numbers had to change, but I will remember for the next time. I greatly appreciate you making the changes, thank you. I hope no one feels any of the information I added last night is irrelevant. Elvis did so much in his life that it's difficult sometimes to know exactly what is and what isn't interesting enough for an encyclopaedia, but I tried my best to stick to fairly important stuff. I felt the heading The 1970's needed more than just a couple of paragraphs, and certainly a little more detail. I came to the decision that it would be nice to see a little breakdown of the main things Elvis got up to between 1970 and 1977. I got up to 1972 and I felt it flowed quite well into the Priscilla divorce and then Aloha. My overall view is to pick up from just after Aloha with a section titled 1974-1977 (perhaps even just 1972-1976, which will flow nicely into Final Year and Death?), adding information that is important enough to be included, rather than rushing straight to his weight problems and death after 1973.

Most of '74-'77 was touring, but a few of the things I think should be included are (Please discuss if necessary);

• Illness that affected his Las Vegas engagements and tours, possibly hospital stays, too.
• The A Star is Born incident with Barbra Streisand.
• The firing of Red West, Sonny West and David Hebler, and the book which they eventually released, Elvis: What Happened?.
• The CBS filming of his last tour and the subsequent TV Special, Elvis in Concert.
• The last days, death and funeral.

Some of these things are sure to appear at other points of the article, but I think mentioning them in the '74-'77 section would keep a good time-line within the article. Anything that is mentioned later in greater detail could be linked to via this section. There are maybe a few things others would like to add to it (and the '70-'72 section) and all suggestions are welcome. Also, if anyone feels something shouldn't be included then we can discuss that too. From now on I won't make any massive changes to the article without discussing them in here first. I hope that no one objects too much to my suggestions, but I am open to any ideas. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Learning the wiki 'language', like regarding referencing can be slow and a pain; we're both learnin'! I agree that the things you mention could be added or fleshed out, and a 1972-1976 section would be useful, leading to the existing Final Year and Death. I think touring and concert dates need keeping to a minimum - a previous version of this article listed nearly EVERY tour and read like a telephone book. Make sure you include links to footnotes where necessary; I removed the "grudging" quote about Love Me Tender as it wasn't referenced, but it also duplicated stuff that is in the Acting career section. Rikstar (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that tour dates shouldn't really be emphasized in the article unless they are of importance. I'd suggest just writing "Presley toured through most of (month) before.....(Whatever the next big event is)" instead of listing every single date of the tour. I'll try to work on a 1974-1976 section over the week when I get a spare minute and put it in here for discussion before adding it to the article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'74-'76 Section

This a rough idea for the opening of this section. I have tried to focus on important and/or interesting facts. I think a few of these things could be shortened in this section and perhaps lead to their own section, such as the book Elvis: What Happened?, and the fight which I think could maybe be mixed into a new section about threats on Presley's life, Charles Manson etc. I haven't added 1976 yet, but will do. Anyway, here goes;

As had become the norm for Presley, January 1974 began with a two-week engagement at the Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas. Critics noted that his vocals were strong, and he was clearly in better health, but that he wasn’t looking his best. In April, rumours started to circulate that he would be playing overseas. These rumours strengthened after Australia offered $1,000,000 for him to tour there, but Colonel Parker still wasn’t keen. Parker persuaded Presley that security wasn’t as good in other countries, and that there was no venues big enough for a star of his status in Europe. The people closest to Presley speculated amongst themselves the reasons for Parker's’ unwillingness to travel, but Presley himself accepted Parkers’ excuses, at least in the beginning.

On May 20, Presley’s bodyguards were involved in a fight with a drunk man outside Presley’s hotel suite. The man had been asked to leave the hallway, but became aggressive and began punching and kicking anyone near by. Presley was entertaining his daughter Lisa Marie at the time, and upon hearing the commotion outside, reached for his guns. This was during the Patty Hearst kidnapping, and, according to David Stanley, “Elvis feared for Lisa’s safety”. The incident resulted in a lawsuit against Sonny West, Dick Grob and David Stanley. Although not physically involved in the attack, Presley was also named on the lawsuit. It was resolved a year later with an out of court settlement, but Presley was not happy with the way Red West had conducted himself during the incident (he had punched the man while he was handcuffed). David Stanley recalled Presley telling him later that this was one of the reasons West would later be fired.

In January 1975, Presley cancelled his Las Vegas engagement due to his weight. His close friends were also concerned about the pills he was taking. At the end of January, Presley was admitted to Baptist Memorial Hospital for “tests”. The hospital released a statement saying Presley was there for a “general physical and treatment for a liver problem”, but in reality he was there to detox.

Presley had been approached by Barbra Streisand to appear in A Star is Born, but in March talks between Streisand and Colonel Parker had broken down. Presley had been thrilled at the prospect of doing a more dramatic film, but Parker wouldn’t allow it unless Presley had top-billing and was paid more. Streisand wouldn’t back down and the role eventually went to Kris Kristofferson. Presley was deeply disappointed, and he wasn’t afraid to show it.

On July 13, 1975, Vernon fired Red West, Sonny West and David Hebler as bodyguards. The three men were taken by surprise, especially Red and Sonny who had been with Presley since the beginning. Presley was out of town when it happened. Reasons for the firing were never really known, but according to David Stanley, the reason for their dismissal was probably the fact that they were becoming more outspoken in their confrontations with Presley over his drug dependency. Vernon was also getting tired of his son being sued, and paying out millions, over their fights. Red, Sonny and David would later write a book titled Elvis: What Happened? Released in August 1977, a few days before Presley’s death. In the book they wrote about their experiences with Presley, and in particular his drug dependency. They wrote the book hoping it would help Presley to fight his addictions.

ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think these are valid inclusions. The Streisand thing is in the notes, so that can be used/deleted as necessary. Be interesting to read say Guralnick's take on the above incidents; is this proposed addition just from Stanley and Coffey? I have a feeling it might be a bit biased and that other authors might need to be consulted to check the interpretation of what happened, like regarding Presley's reputation during and after the fight. It may all be accurate, but some checking is needed and if accounts vary, both/all will need including. If that's a problem, maybe the incident should not be included. By the way, this quote: "could never be true to any one woman." in the divorce section has no reference. I think things are looking OK overall. You might wanna check out this if you haven't already: [1] Rikstar (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the only reference I have is the Stanley/Coffey book. One of the reasons I put it in here first was for anyone to cross-reference them and we could iron out any differences before it was finally written into the article. I think the Stanley book is fairly accurate, he was a member of the Memphis Mafia and has access to Gracelands' inner records. He goes into great detail with regards to the "fight" and there is enough information there to write a full section on that alone. In fact, it was Stanley who was first pushed up against the wall by the drunk man, beginning the fight in the first place. Before I had read the Stanley book I was unaware of such a fight ever taking place, but part of me thinks that's because until the Stanley book, other Mafia members were discouraged from talking about it because it's a negative incident for a lot of them, including Elvis. WIth that in mind, it makes me tend to think the Stanley book is less biased because it does talk about things that other author's haven't included, for whatever reasons. I agree it's important to double check all references and keep a neutral viewpoint, though, so if anyone could cross-reference any of the above claims I'd appreciate it. With regards to Registration, I am a registered user, hence my username. I have a talk page[2] but no userpage as I didn't feel I needed one. I'm available on my talkpage if you'd rather discuss some things there. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this addition or all of these details in the Elvis article? I don't think so. To my mind, parts of the latter may be included in the Memphis Mafia article. Alternatively, we may create a new section on the violent behavior of Elvis and his guys, including information about Elvis's predilection for guns and the dangerous games they frequently played. For instance, Elvis was a gun enthusiast who used to shoot television sets when he was bored or when he saw something on TV that displeased him. A Walther PPK and a Magnum were part of the several guns he owned, along with M-16 rifles and machine guns. When Elvis and the Memphis Mafia rented the Rainbow Rollerdrome in Memphis they usually played a game called 'War', of which Elvis was the proud inventor. There were two teams, and the object of the game was to knock over as many members of the opposing team as possible by any means. Another game was called the 'Whip' game. Elvis's idea of an exciting game was that it should be as dangerous as possible. For the game that involved fireworks the guys bought thousands of skyrockets, baby giants, firecrackers, and chasers, which moved rapidly and unpredictably until they exploded. Since the emphasis was on large and potentially lethal fireworks, everyone had to wear air force jump-suits plus gloves, helmets, and goggles. When they were all dressed up, they divided themselves into Blue and Red teams, and started hurling fireworks at the other team. Elvis was left with a big scar on his neck from one firework, and one of his friends nearly lost an eye. Onefortyone (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this addition or all of these details in the Elvis article?

I think the bit about Presley's colour is very important, because it was a major part of his early career, and especially that song. The whole appeal of Presley was that he was a white singer that sounded black, and people who heard that song for the first time were eager to know if it was a white or a black singer. I also think the comment about the phone lines being jammed is a valid one because it highlights just how different the song was. Most people who listen to That's All Right don't understand it's appeal, today it sounds very tame, but at the time it was mind-blowing by all accounts. As for him playing it fourteen times, I think that's important because it highlights how quickly the song became popular. However, if you want to remove it all then please do, I won't be offended, I myself have removed some lines in the past. With regards to the rest of your point, I can understand where you are coming from about the fight bit being put into a Memphis Mafia section. I don't understand how any of the rest of it could be put into a section about the violent behaviour of Elvis and the guys. What does Vegas, hospital visits, Streisand and the firing of Red, Sonny and David have to do with their violent behaviour and games such as War? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the bits mentioned above to remain for the reasons stated by ElvisFan1981. Rikstar (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A separate section on Elvis and violence? I think not. Some stuff could be added to the Memphis Mafia article if it's new. However, it may well be that more detail may be too much, but that can be appraised here and when it crops up in the article - as can comparisons with other authors' interpretations. I'll probably make edits to trim or to make additions more concise, as I have been. If anyone disagrees, I'm sure they'll comment. I'm glad ElvisFan1981 (talk) is taking such an interest in this article - and they have a talk page (my mistake for not noticing). Rikstar (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A proposed inclusion reads: "On May 20, Presley’s bodyguards were involved in a fight with a drunk man outside Presley’s hotel suite. The man had been asked to leave the hallway, but became aggressive and began punching and kicking anyone near by. Presley was entertaining his daughter Lisa Marie at the time, and upon hearing the commotion outside, reached for his guns. This was during the Patty Hearst kidnapping, and, according to David Stanley, “Elvis feared for Lisa’s safety”. The incident resulted in a lawsuit against Sonny West, Dick Grob and David Stanley. Although not physically involved in the attack, Presley was also named on the lawsuit. It was resolved a year later with an out of court settlement, but Presley was not happy with the way Red West had conducted himself during the incident (he had punched the man while he was handcuffed). David Stanley recalled Presley telling him later that this was one of the reasons West would later be fired."

According to Peter Guralnick and the complainant Presley witnessed this "fight", more like an assault, but did nothing to stop it. Four men held the man down, "and the rest beat him to a bloody pulp." As David Stanley was part of this, and the author of the above account, I think he might be a teeny bit biased in his own favour. Jerry Hopkins' book concurs with this.

I suggest: On May 20, Presley’s bodyguards were involved in an incident with a drunk man outside Presley’s hotel suite. The man had thrown breaker switches and several men followed by Presley poured into the darkened hallway. This was during the Patty Hearst kidnapping and, according to David Stanley, “Elvis feared for Lisa’s safety”, who was staying in the suite at the time. When the lighting was restored, four men including David Stanley, held the man while three others "beat him to a bloody pulp." The incident resulted in a lawsuit against Sonny West, Dick Grob and Stanley. Although not physically involved in the attack, Presley was also named on the lawsuit. It was resolved a year later with an out of court settlement. Presley was not happy with the way Red West had conducted himself during the incident, but fans who witnessed it claimed that Presley simply stood by doing nothing to stop the beating. David Stanley recalled Presley telling him later that this was one of the reasons West would later be fired. (citations to be added of course).

I think this anecdote is a good tie-in with the book West & co would publish. It could go in the Memphis Mafia article if needed; for this article it might need trimming a bit. Rikstar (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the rewrite above. I'm torn now about whether to include it in the article, though. Part of me thinks it's important because it is one of the few noteworthy things Presley actually got involved in between 1974 and 1976 (Most of that time was touring), and it does bring a better understanding to the firing of West and co. Another part of me agrees it could be shortened, but each time I read it I struggle to decide which parts should be removed as I find it all important. Perhaps removing the line; Presley was not happy with the way Red West had conducted himself during the incident, but fans who witnessed it claimed that Presley simply stood by doing nothing to stop the beating. and just going straight from the settlement into David Stanley recalled Presley telling him later that Wests' aggressive beating of the man was one of the reasons he would later be fired. Possibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElvisFan1981 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple References

I have just added a couple of referenced notes to the article in the First Recordings section. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make them all come under the one reference in the Ref Section similar to the Stanley books. If someone could teach me I'd be very grateful. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

After many attempts I finally fixed it. I feel quite proud of myself now! For anyone else who may need to learn in the future, I learnt from this page; http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Footnotes . There are many useful Editing features in the Help section http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Contents. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, El! Rikstar (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chart statistics added by MHS1976

These comprehensive stats look impressive, but they add 40,000 bytes to the main article. It has been standard practice to put such stats in separate, linked articles (see 'Bob Dylan' for example). Such articles already exist in Presley's case. MHS1976's efforts may be an improvement and could replace current information. I have posted MHS about this, but if the stats are not moved, they should be deleted. Rikstar (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that this part should be removed. It's very interesting to read, and it's clear that a lot of hard work has gone into it, but a biography article isn't the place for it. As Rik has said, it could be incorporated into the current hit singles page or even have a whole new article on its own (perhaps an Elvis U.S. Hit Singles page solely for the U.S. chart run). I think this article is looking great and is shaping very nicely into a very good biographical piece, in my opinion. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tour bus picture

Should I take a picture of a rundown Elvis tour bus parked along a nearby shed for this article? It's clearly labeled as a former Elvis tour bus. I think I should be able to take a clear picture from the rarely traveled road. Royalbroil 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, snap away. Don't ferrget to tek the lens cap off. Rikstar (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Luckily my camera doesn't have a lens cap! It won't happen for at least a half week. Royalbroil 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, after sitting there for decades, the owner decided to dismantle the bus! I took a picture of the partially destroyed bus and placed it on my flickr account [3] with a Creative Commons license if anyone wants to upload it. Royalbroil 05:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

I would like to mention that the part about the documentary " Elvis on tour" is referring to the year 1971! Actually the movie was made in 1972 and also received the golden globe award in 1972! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empireprolett (talk • contribs)

I'd like to mention that the original section had this information correct (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&oldid=227191546#1970-1972) but with so many edits being made it is easy for some information to get removed, lost or just moved around by accident. Thanks for informing us that it's wrong again. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles

I propose adding a new section: 'The "Fab Four" meet "The King"'. This could go after 'Acting career'. This was a rare meeting of two of the most influential acts in popular music, and deserves more than a passing mention. Editors have already discussed this to some extent. Rikstar (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started this, but I'm sure there's more to add, before cleaning up. Rikstar (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job on this section, Rik, it's looking very good and has added much to the article. Interestingly I notice on the Beatles page that they don't mention it at all. Their loss, in my opinion. I was thinking early on that we could ask in their discussion page if they wanted to help contribute some of their knowledge on the subject to our article (and vice versa), but if they haven't even mentioned it already, perhaps they don't have much more information about it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's Middle Name

It states in the first sentence that Elvis Presleys name is Elvis Aaron Presley, and then it explains it is often spelt Aron, but i think it should be rectified that Elvis Presleys actual name is Elvis Aron Presley, because he is named Aron after his twin brother Garon who died at birth? Laurabrowne (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Laura, thanks for your query. It's quite confusing, but either spelling is right and either spelling is wrong. From elvis.com;

Elvis was named after his father, Vernon Elvis Presley, and Vernon's good friend in Tupelo, Aaron Kennedy. Aron was the spelling the Presley’s chose, either it was a spelling mistake or apparently to make it similar to the middle name of Elvis' stillborn identical twin, Jesse Garon Presley. Toward the end of his life, Elvis sought to change the spelling of his middle name to the traditional and biblical Aaron. In the process he learned that official state records had inexplicably listed it as Aaron, and not Aron as on his original birth records. Knowing Elvis' plans for his middle name, Aaron is the spelling his father chose for Elvis' tombstone, and it's the spelling his estate has designated as the official spelling when the middle name is used today.

So basically, Elvis himself, from all accounts, wanted the double A used, and his father and estate have respected his wishes and they have chosen it as the official spelling, which is clear on their official website when they use the name (see here elvis.com biography) Because the official spelling is Aaron, it's listed on wikipedia as his name. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading this article should click on the superscript letters or numbers. They guide people to an explanation or clarification of queried points. In this case, "a" points to the relevant clarification of why Elvis is listed as "Aaron". Rikstar (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Elvis's original middle name was Aron. On his birth certificate the doctor spelt it Aaron. Vernon Presley(Elvis's Father) was very upset with this and went through quite a bit to fix it. Please fix that. Rumors suggest that the reason why his middle name is spelt Aaron on his grave is either because they spelt it wrong and he is still alive, he wanted it spelt that way because thats how it is bibicaly spelt, or just because of a mistake(Very unlikely).

Anyone stating things like the above parargraph needs to cite reliable sources to support their assertions. The current version of the article does cite references for Elvis being Aaron. Rikstar (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the above edit request. It seems that there's a good source for his middle name being Aaron, and it seems you didn't provide any source claiming that it's instead Aron. Verifiability, not truth, is what's used to determine what to include in an article in cases like this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My source is a book, called 'The Book of Useless Information', but i'm not sure just how reliable that is as a source. Then again, how reliable is Wikipedia, if the only people that can solve issues raised, such as this one, would be Elvis Presley himself, or his family.(Laurabrowne talk) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is as reliable as its sources. A great deal of effort has been put in by editors who simply want the most acceptable account of what his middle name is. One book saying different is not enough; there has to be a considerable weight of evidence to overturn the sources used here, and the fact that the Presley estate has told us he is officially Aaron. Rikstar (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Army Rank

Presley was never a Staff Sergeant. He attained the rank of E-5 Sergeant and upon coming home had a personally tailored uniform that the tailor accidentally put E-6 stripes on it. I would fix the article if I could, but I don't want to break it like I usually do. Please fix this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.164.216 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources to back up your claims would be helpful. However, I found a source, and this has been put in place of the source that didn't say anything about his rank - see [4]. I have also amended the rank chart. Thanks for pointing this out. Rikstar (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Post-Army Recordings

On the main page titled "Military service and mothers death",where it mentions about Elvis's alledged London visit. I just think it's a little out of place in this section,as it was proven to be nothing more than a publicity stunt. My suggestion is that could we replace that perhaps with more emphasis on the next paragraph about Elvis's Post-Army Recordings? Here is what Author Charles L.Ponce DeLeon had to say about Elvis's Post-Army Recordings: "These sessions gave Elvis an opportunity to record an even wider variety of songs. The most notable change was inclusion of an operatic ballad that enabled him to make use of the vocal skills he had developed in Germany. Released as a single in July, "It's Now or Never" was a rewritten version of an Italian folk song that had once been a hit for Enrico Caruso. It became a huge hit and gave Presley his second No.1 single in a row. Elvis's next single,released in November but also recorded at the April session was also a ballad,"Are You Lonesome Tonight?". It was another remake-the original had been popular in the 1920s-and it included a corny recitation that was clearly out of step with the times. But it was a favourite of Parker's wife and well suited to Elvis's new vocal style,and the Colonel was certain it would be a hit. Parker had never interfered in Elvis's recording or choice of material,but sensing how important this was to his manager,Elvis put his entire soul into the recording,giving the final product an ardent sincerity that captivated listeners. It was soon Presley's third consecutive No.1 song. He followed up with another Italian-flavoured tune,"Surrender",which was released in early 1961 and became the fifth straight Presley single to reach the top charts. It was an astonishing run,equal to the success he had enjoyed in the mid-1950s,and a testament to his fans willingness to accept his change in musical direction.

Yet hit singles were but the tip of the iceburg,and any review of his post-Army recordings that focuses on singles alone underestimates his growth as a vocalist. The Nashville sessions in the spring of 1960 were among the most fruitful of his career and resulted in works that rank with his most oringinal and accomplished recordings of the 1950s,subsequent sessions in October and the following spring were also productive,though not to the same degree. Inspired by the long hiatus from recording,Presley demonstrated his mastery of ballads,country-inflicted pop ,jaunty pop rock,and nasty blues. The blues songs-particulary "A Mess of Blues" and Lowell Fulson's "Reconsider Baby",long one of Elvis's favourites-were riveting with the crack studio musicians providing the perfect accompaniment for Presley's raunchy vocals. Even otherwise innocuous pop-rock tunes had a edge that lifted them above the bland pop songs that had come to dominate the charts since the late 1950s." the author goes on to say "Elvis continued in the same vein at recording sessions held in October 1960,im March,June,and October of 1961,and in March 1962. Besides "Surrender",the October 1960 sessions yielded a stellar gospel album. His Hand in Mine,a project Presley had been looking forward to for several years. It did surprisingly well on the charts,reaching No.13. The three sessions in 1961 produced hit singles-"I Feel So Bad","His Latest Flame" and "Good Luck Charm",the latter reaching No.1 Only Roy Orbison,Ray Charles,Jackie Wilson and a few Motown artists can challenge Elvis for both quality and quantity of music in this period," the critic Dave Marsh has argued,"and only Charles can touch his diversity." Source:"The Life Of Elvis Presley"-Fortunate Son by Charles L.Ponce DeLeon p.124,125,126

Looking at what this Author has to say,makes me think that the recordings at this time and the transition Presley made deserves a little bit more of a mention. Any thoughts?--Jaye9 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Rikstar (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

When he became the Pelvis

Lots of rewriting. I heard Elvis address the "Elvis the Pelvis" nickname on the Elvis '56 dvd. In fact, the usage began after the Hound Dog performance on the Steve Allen Show, which was in 56. Right now it is out of place in the Early Performances section. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few things are out of chronological order simply to keep relevant subject material together, and the article reading easy. It could be put that he would later be labeled the Pelvis, and still include it in the existing section, where his other names are generally mentioned. Alternatively, it could be put after the Hound Dog mention, but I don't have the reference details for that. If you've got any views on the rewrite, Steve, please comment. I did a rejig of Ed Sullivan cos it was so bad; I am not happy with some of the quotes in it, but removing them has been, er, a bit difficult in the past. Rikstar (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OOps. It was the Milton Berle Show. Funny what you think of when you get up in the middle of the night. I'll spend some time here agian in the next few days. (Although it looks looks like I've got a hardware problem on this end.) Steve Pastor (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)164.159.60.2 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

On August 15,1955,Presley(who had now been billed or labeled in the media as the "The King of Western Bop","The Hillibilly Cat",and "The Memphis Flash"). From April 23 1956,he had a two-week booking at the Venus Room of the New Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas - billed as "The Atomic Power Singer". Source:myspace.com (Aust)

He got the nickname "Elvis the Pelvis",from his performance on Milton Berle's "Texaco Star Theatre",which worried the family minded Ed Sullivan. Source:www.findagrave.com

(1956)Earned nickname Elvis the Pelvis after second appearance on "The Milton Berle Show". Source:www.eonline.com

Reporters of the mainstream press had saddled Elvis with what they thought was a clever nickname. "Elvis the Pelvis" - a name the serious young singer despised. Oh Hy Gardner's television interview program,Elvis complained,"I don't like being called Elvis the Pelvis - I mean it's one of the most childish expressions I have ever heard coming from an adult. Source:people.howstuffwork.com "Elvis Presley And The Press"

Hope the above helps. --Jaye9 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay. Here's another one from the Milton Berle article. [5] Those of us who have been around are aware of the "churning" of this article. Elvis is such a high profile subject, that many, many people want to contribute. It doesn't end up producing the best outcome, however. What happens, too, is that in the interest of brevity and/or cohesiveness, details are collapsed and condensed, making it very easy to misread. Writing well is way more difficult than just throwing in a bunch of details, many of which are really someone's opinion or interpretation of what actually happened. This article, I'm afraid, will never be complete. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hound Dog article has a link to the edited/looped/wrong music version of the Milton Berle performance. Can anyone put in a link to the "real", unedited, unadulterated performance? I looked on YouTube, and only the looped version showed up. Jorgenson writes as if there was no pause. To me there was a definate break in the music and movement. It would be cool if people could see for themselves.Steve Pastor (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I hope I've managed to copy this link OK. [6]. This is the 2min 4secs version I found on YouTube. I'm not sure if this is edited, but it's a whole lot better than the one in the Hound Dog article. If it is OK, could you add it to the article? Glad you're still around and making comments after everything you've had to put up with. Rikstar (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Just found this [7], a 2min 35secs version. Has extra instruments dubbed onto it. Rikstar (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley Shrine on Aspen Mountain

There is an Elvis Presley Shrine on Aspen Mountain in Colorado. According to the Aspen Times newspaper it was the first shrine erected on the mountain. "Elvis Presley Enterprises" of Memphis, TN has made contributions to the shrine. Perhaps information on the shrine should be added to the Elvis Presley article somewhere. See this web page for the link to the Aspen Times article and also for more info on the Elvis Presley Shrine: http://www.aspensnowmassshrines.com/index.php?id=1,23,0,0,1,0 AspenShrines (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For a general biography, I don't think this is really relevant enough to warrant inclusion. Rikstar (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's on first

What I consider an important detail has been edited out somewhere in all of the volumous editing that goes on in this article. "Everyone knows" that Elvis got big becaus he did rhythm and blues songs. Truth is, his version of Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky" was a bigger hit in the South in 1955, when first released, than "That's Alright". RCA put him in its country division when they bought his contract. Some may consider it to be a minor detail. I think it's important. And, it's quite clear if you look at the reference. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on the Steve Allen appearance

If the article HAS TO include someone's opinion about Allen's motivation and intent, etc, WITHOUT ASKING Allen himself, it's only fair to let Allen speak for himself. Note, too, if you bother to check the reference, that Elvis appeared in a comedy skit on this same show, along with Allen and others. Allen was a comedian. If this makes the article too long, then someone's opinion about this show should also be removed, which would be OK with me. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Steve. There should be balance. Rikstar (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

SocailStudies

Elvis was born in January 8, 1935 Tupelo, Mississippi, USA. Elvis began playing his guitar when he was 12 years old. Which is in 1953. Also he started making alot of of money.Alot of people thought that he became rich so he could get drunk. But that's not true. He became rich for his family. He didn't even realize that he was becoming rich. His childhood was very normal. He started working very hard on his own songs. By the time he was 40, his health became very bad. He was drinking drugs and becoming very sick. So, a few years later, Elvis's death was at age 42, a terrible time to think as. What everybody would think of is Elvis. His love, his help, his friends, and his family. If Elvis was my brother, I would cry to death, even if i didn't have to. Everyone in the world just don't believe in Elvis. Well, I'll never forget the day I blessed Elvis. Hello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.148.97 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding citations to the summary

Other (featured) articles have citations here, so relevant ones should be added, preferably ones already cited in the main text. Please do so if you can, or have the time. Thanks. Rikstar (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interviews, film of performances

Take a look at this site [8] There is some good footage here. One man tells about buying Elvis a jock strap the first time he was on national tv (apparently he had been wearing boxers up til then). The Hound Dog on Milton Berle Show segment is dubbed with the recorded version with the Jordanaires, and doesn't show the slow version he switched into at the end ??? One the whole though, this site in based in Australia is excellent. Let's talk about adding refs to to the article somehow.Steve Pastor (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, Steve. The proper Berle version of Hound Dog is on You Tube by the way, in addition to the dubbed version. Will browse the site more when I have time. I think refs for the summary can be added from existing ones, but this site may really help. Other refs are need for main text anyway, having had a quick look. What do you think of the article anyway?? Would any of your changes touch on previous problems we've had editing this thing? Rikstar (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry

Presley, though not a Jew himself, definitely had some Jewish ancestry. Therefore, he should be in the Americans of Jewish descent category. He is already in other ancestry categories. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

While I've heard of that before, do you have any specific proof? Ykerzner (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

elvis is the greatest singer/performer/entertainer of all time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.77.87 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not visit this discussion for almost a year. And here is a strange discussion going on about Elvis Presley. I remember I mentioned on this site that his oldest known ancestors came from Germany and after telling each other some "pro" and "contra" all discussion members agreed that it is not so important and could be left out without harming the article. I think this could be done with his "jewish" roots as well. Why? Obviously he did not care for it (if he had ever jewish ancestry). So why should it be so important for the article (proably it is more important to some people with strange obsessions). He was not religious in that way, he was not interested in Israel. It is the same for Germany, he was there and did not even care. He was never in Israel although he was a multimillionaer. He was never interested in natives like for instance someone like Marlon Brando. Nobody considered him as a native ( even if he had ancestry) when he was alive. Did he ever visited his "brothers and sisters" in the reservation? Okay - maybe some people saw "flaming star" or "stay away Joe" - but that was fiction and Elvis did care for film scripts as much as for Israel and Germany(east&west) together. I think his interess in black culture (not only music) were much more important than having gypsies, german, british, jewish or any other background. How can some person call it racistic (in Elvis Presley`s case) to leave his (non confirmed) jewish background out? It is the same with his native background? I think he did not care that much for (his) ethnic background but more for his social background which is not the same (at least in his case). 87.162.38.67 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland One more thing: It is stupid and racistic to think that somebody is a superior human being because he is from one ethnic background ("pure"). On the other it is stupid and racistic to think someone is superior because of a certain mixture of backgrounds. Many people tend to see only the one side of the medal. 87.162.38.67 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

At one point we removed all mention of any specific ancestry or ethnic background precisley to avoid this sort of unproductive spinning of wheels. Let's go back to that. Again. Rikstar? Are you there? Anyone else who wants to try to end this unending discussion? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way it currently is, is well put. It lets readers know of his mixed ancestry/Jewish roots etc., but without bogging the article down in fairly trivial stuff. If someone wants to research his roots further, there are plenty of citations to follow which goes into quite some detail in places. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm here, Steve - just a little late. As I wrote below (Nov. 28) "no one wants their penny-worth - their ancestry - taken out. So it all got kept in, but reduced to... a boring list of numbers. There seems to be enough material to create a separate article on 'Elvis Presley's ancestry'". IF creating a separate article about Presley's ancestry is justifiable, I would be more than happy to see "Presley was of mixed ancestry", followed by a link to the ancestry article. I am pretty fed up with this ancestry oneupmanship and there's probably not a cat in hell's chance of me having anything to do with such an ancestry article. If a separate article isn't an option, I guess what we've got will have to do. I would like to remove all mention of it, but I fear all the ancestry claimants will slowly start putting stuff back in, and the thought of that happening all over again would drive me nuts. Rikstar (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FBI Files on Elvis Presley

From the article FBI Files on Elvis Presley, has the Paternity Suit section which was added five months ago any thruth to it? SledgeX (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this unsourced paragraph. The story is not mentioned in Thomas Fensch's book on the FBI files. It was included by an IP (see [9]) and may have been fabricated. Onefortyone (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname

Last night, I had a discussion with a friend of mine on how to pronounce Presley. I pronounced it /prɛsli/, but she pronounced it /priːsli/. Who was right? Should this piece of info added to the article? -- Army1987 (t — c) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to pronounce either of the names above cos I haven't been bothered to look up how to do it. I do know Elvis on recordings called himself PRESSley, as opposed to PREZZley. So which one is that? If there is agreement on the pronunciation, I think it should be added. Rikstar (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar issue

His Blue Hawaii even "boosted the new state's tourism. Some of his most enduring and popular songs came from those [kind of] movies," like "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" and "Viva Las Vegas."[152] This sentence is quoted verbatim from the article. Since a large portion of it is taken from what seems to be a book or article, maybe it should be: His Blue Hawaii even "...boosted the new state's tourism. Some of his most enduring and popular songs came from those [kind of] movies...", like "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender" and "Viva Las Vegas."[152] Ykerzner (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Ykerzner

I agree, though I'm not sure about the last comma after the quotation marks. If you don't amend this, I'm sure someone will. Thanks for your input. Rikstar (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

elvis presley lives

there has been a conspiracy that elvis aron presley is still alive with found evidence such such as error of the correct name on elis's grave stone and also with in the coffin of elvis was air conditioning people believe that with in the coffin was a wax dumby and the air conditioning was to prevent it from melting. Also there has been rare sightings of elvisand there is a man who looks identical to elvis but as an older form and also sounds just like the singer, he is under the name jon burrows which is also the name elvis visited the white house in. Even though there is a large amount of evidence nothing has been proven but please judge for your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.31.27 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

article does not concentrate on the artist - too much anecdotes

The article contains too much what should be foot notes (or left out) instead. For example the "Boston shoeshine anecdote". You could tell Presley was a target for racist accusation (which he was not guilty of) and give the further explanation in the foot note (but even that is not so important).

The same with Presley's "down-to-earth-attitude". Is it essential to know about the underwear and the tv sets? I don't think so. It would have been better to leave that out in favour for mentioning that some of the back up singers during his performances in 1969/70 were the very famous "Sweet Inspirations" who had several top 100 hits at that time and that they were headliners in their own right. Another worth reading thing that you did not tell was the fact Jerry Reed was not only the composer but played the famous lead-guitar (not only) on "Guitar man" but on 3 or 4 other songs , too (for example Big boss man, U.S. male which started the comeback and were a departure from his movie soundtracks). The rumour about the skin-tight jeans and the lead bar is absolutely uninteresting. That he did not sleep or was not interested in every starlet that admired him or/and wanted to use his stardome to become famous in her own right is more than understandable and because of that not worth mentioning. Is it so abnormal for a superstar who could have almost any good looking woman ( famous or not famous) at any time not to tear off her clouths immediately but to make conversation instead? That very attractive women were eager to sleep with him was nothing unusual to that guy but the rule. Why should he take every chance given to him when he got so many chances? Another not essential anecdote is about the Egyptian ankh, star of David and a crucifix around his neck. Such stories are interesting but not essential and make the article overblown. After all he was a musician and not a religious leader or philosoph. If you are mentioning Marty Wilde, Hallyday and Celentano (and even Bobby Solo) you could mention Peter Krauss and Ted Herold who sold millions of records in Germany (especially during and after Elvis' stay in the Army ), Austria and Switzerland,too, but you prefer telling the reader about his ex-girl friends and how Elvis kissed their naked bodies instead (I did not know that this is such an unusual thing - maybe in the USA or other english-speaking countries- that you have to write in wikipedia about it).

when a reporter referred to him as "The King", Presley pointed to Fats Domino, standing at the back of the room. "No," he said, "that’s the real king of rock and roll." Do you think Elvis meant this serious? I think it was a mixture between a (inside)-joke among musicians and the fact that Elvis did not like to be called "King".

I read Lennon was very disappointed about the meeting (as was Ringo Starr). I could go on but have no time. My resumee - too much anecdotes not enough about his music and his arrangement/producing talents.

Last point "mixed ancestry and 6 foot notes" - that looks really silly. Better leave it out. 87.162.28.56 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Some good points, I think, and worth considering for amendments. Some of these anecdotes only remain after worthy attempts at editing, when other editors refused to have material removed. This resulted in counter material being added, which may be what you see as making the article overblown.

The Boston shoeshine anecdote though, is a key inclusion precisely because it was and is the only racist quote attributed to Presley and people then, and now, still think and say Presley was racist because of that single quote. Leave it out? Make it a footnote? It's far too important for that.

Presley's "down-to-earth-attitude" is referred to in an anecdote to illustrate that Presley did not get preferential treatment and wanted to be seen as unselfish to his fellow soldiers. The fact that the anecdote happens to be about underwear and TV sets is besides the point. Presley's generosity - whether an act of genuine compassion or a drug-fueled impulse - is hardly mentioned in the article, though numerous sources are available. Perhaps this is because of the need to keep the article from being overblown.

Nothing wrong with the Sweet Inspirations getting a mention - and the other backing groups/singers he used. Artists influenced by Presley are included and more could be added, but should they all be included? This could end up like another long list - like his ancestry (see below).

Agree about the sexual references dominating over "his arrangement/producing talents". I don't like the sex symbol section, but editing it has been difficult in the past.

If Elvis did not like being called the King or was simply modest, then the Domino anecdote supports this view.

Not sure why you mention Lennon and Ringo's disappointment as the article states that "The Beatles were, overall, disappointed by the visit."

The 6 footnotes about ancestry do look silly: but you should have seen the article before they were only footnote references; a long and boring list of races. You are probably not aware that editing this list or removing it was a nightmare because no one wanted their penny-worth - their ancestry - taken out. So it all got kept in, but reduced to... a boring list of numbers. There seems to be enough material to create a separate article on "Elvis Presley's ancestry".

Thank you for the input. I hope any radical revisions are discussed here first.Rikstar (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is strange - after over 20 years in the public as a star nobody found more than this lousy Boston shoe shine incident which is not even true and still people are trying to use it against him. I don't know why? Are they envy or why there is often so much hate in this accusations? There are many Country & Western performers, Soul Singers and even Rock & Roll Stars who did tell worse things and much later and many of their negative and nasty comments were true and soon forgotten afterwards. I have the feeling if people write in wikipedia something positive about Elvis they have to apologize and allow other people who dislike him or his art to write something negative - even if there is nothing to write as in the "Boston case". The calculated and wanted effect of the so-called (over)"critical-view" is that readers who did not know much about Elvis before reading this article think the racist accusations, his here proclaimed "indifference" in attractive women and other non-confirmed strange behaviors are as important as his music or even his films. In german language there is one saying : If you are throwing enough dirt on someone some of the dirt will always stick! I think in this article it is the case. Someone has only to read the headline Controversy and cultural impact. Even the controversy and not the cultural impact gets mentioned first. Was Chuck Berry ever accused for stealing "white" Country music (Maybelline, 30 days, downbound train)? No and right so! He was influenced by that kind of music. Did Elvis put his credits under "milk cow blues boogie"? No - but he could have done so because he reinvented the song. Did anyone ever heard the Kokomo Arnold Original (or even the John Estes blueprint from 3 years before) who talks about stealing music. Other artists (like for instance Carl Perkins) were not as generous as Elvis considering Mister Perkins put his name under "Matchbox" - an old Blind Lemon Jefferson number. But no one is telling that story in wikipedia. I don't want to accuse Perkins because I think he had every right to do so. But Elvis could have done the same thing and he did not (and by that time he was not a millionaire or even wealthy).

I think the "Sweet Inspirations" stand out as the were more successfull than the other back up singers. The same with Jerry Reed who did not write the song for Elvis but for himself and recorded it before.

Elvis meeting Beatles When McCartney said this (It was one of the great meetings of my life. I think he liked us.) he was 15 - 20 years older than Elvis when he died. A succesful musician and family man who was mild about Elvis' unfriendly behavior trying to find explanations and excuses. Lennon died even younger than Elvis. And if he wanted to become like Elvis before the meeting - Elvis (and his development) was only a role model what should not become of him afterwards. Maybe Jerry Schilling did not want to talk bad about dead persons and Lennon hoped that the Beatles and Elvis could start again with a better beginning next time. In Klaus Voormanns ("Revoler"-album-cover, bassplayer on many Harrison, Ringo and Lennon albums and friend of the Beatles since 1961) autobiograpy "Warum spielst Du nicht Imagine auf dem weissen Klavier, John?" it is written that Harrison said that the Beatles were stoned and that Lennon made an attempt to break the ice with a joke Elvis disliked. After Elvis seemed to be too shy to start the conversation and the rest of the Beatles were too nervous to decide what to do Lennon impersonated Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau and asked Elvis who was surrounded by the Memphis Mafia in a faked french accent "You must be Elvis?". Elvis played "Mohair Sam" by Charlie Rich (again and again almost the entire meeting so that the Beatles who were great fans of that song got nerved) and Elvis played basslines instead of starting a conversation. So Lennon and McCartney grabbed some guitars trying to jam with Elvis. They stopped when the stoned Harrison asked Elvis what kind of device were laying on the table. It was a remote control device for the tv. elvis made channel-hopping and playing loud bassguitar almost the rest of the meeting. McCartney was the only Beatle who got in any real conversation with Elvis talking about bassguitars, -styles and -players. There wasn't any meaningful talk with Ringo Starr who played pool with some of Elvis' people when the jam began. Voormann stated that Elvis disliked Lennon the most and did not care for the other Beatles. 87.162.63.135 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

I think we need to be clear that because Presley received unfair criticism, that is no reason for not mentioning it in the article. It is precisely because Presley is singled out for such criticism that it should be mentioned. I think it is very sad, and exactly why he was unfairly criticized is something for social historians, etc. to ponder. But, if reference to "Elvis was a racist" stuff is left out, it will look like the article is being whitewashed in Presley's favor. A link, "How Did Elvis Get Turned Into a Racist?", given in the article is all about this distasteful attempt to tarnish the Presley phenomenon.

There are other articles about Presley linked to the main one in which editors can add more stuff about Presley, positive and negative. In the past, attempts to make this article more positive (i.e. more balanced) were met with determined if not necessarily reasonable opposition. And this followed criticism that the article did not contain enough unfavourable material. When I think back - about the edit wars, the accusations of fan bias and then the sordid material offered for discussion by people with their own agendas, not to mention the constant vandalism - I could weep (I think Franco, you were editing when some of this was going on). It seems some editors are quick to put the inclusionist's hat on to justify wanting their own tittle tattle thrown in, and they won't accept no for an answer.

Attempts to reduce this article's length in order to remove what many feel are unnecessary edits, only made it harder for any agreement to be reached about what constitutes essential material. So unhappy editors had to resort to adding counter claims, and this still isn't finished, especially in the sex symbol section (maybe more bloat on the way). It was mugs like me who tried to edit all this to look and read the best it could, but whether the article is biased is up to the individual. I'm not sure, Franco, from your comments what you would change. Are you content with the Beatles section? You have offered more Beatles information, and most of it is negative about Presley, but elsewhere you say the article is already too negative, that you "have the feeling if people write in wikipedia something positive about Elvis they have to apologize". It's not clear that you want the information to be used in the article, or whether it is included here just out of interest. Hope you can clarify this. I do think more could be added about Presley's achievements, his musical skills and charisma, etc. - what made him so appealing to millions of people. Rikstar (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because Presley is singled out for such criticism that it should be mentioned. Well that is your opinion. I would go a different way: The famous musicians (or their fans) who accused him should show their sources (they have the advantage of being alive and are able to defend themselves against accusations). It would make more sence to me to write about the obvious racism of Chuck D and Mary Blidge and a lot of other famous people than about Elvis' non-exixting racism. I think it's is unfair to the music and cultural impact of Elvis that such things got too much space in the article and other much more essential aspects of Elvis did not get mentioned. I think people who are interested in the person and music of Mary Blidge or Chuck D should discuss it on the discussion site of their articles in wikipedia. They should find out if there is racism or not. Or maybe start an article "racism in showbussiness" and dicuss it there. I think you should not let it become your problem that some people (for instance Chuck D and Blidge obviously) have problems with 1.Elvis being white , 2.the fact that he was from the rural south, 3.that they believe what other people say only because they share a similar pigmentation and repeat it without checking out any sources or 4.that they wanted get simply attention. By the way - Do you think this musicians ever heard one of A. Crudup's or Kokomo Arnold's songs or even Roy Brown? I think you could write that Elvis was target of racism and accused of being a racist and mentioning some source and footnotes. But for an article about Elvis it is too detailed the way it is. I think give Elvis credit for what he did - positive and negative - and not for what he did not do.

About Elvis meeting the Beatles: Okay they met and there was no chemistry between them. Did it have any impact on Elvis? He did not like the Beatles before and not after they met. It is another anecdote from Elvis' view. But I think it would be worth reading in a article about the Beatles or John Lennon. He meant much more to them than the other way around (positive or negative). I only gave details about the meeting I've read in a german book which proably was not published in english language. It shows a very negative behavior of Elvis and I wished he would have act different but the sources are that way and having the Beatles Anthology on dvd I could see and hear Ringo Starr telling the story (only McCartney was very, very kind, maybe even a little bit white washing).

I would like to know what you think about my comments about Berry, Perkins, Kokomo Arnold etc.. I think it tells something about the accusation of stealing music. Heard several years ago an interview with Dave Bartholomew when he played in Switzerland where he said he listened with Fats Domino to many songwriters black and white, blues and country, and he bought the best songs, arranged and changed them and put his name (and Dominos) under it. He said that was common and he knew from some former Ellington musicians that the Duke did the same. 87.162.47.181 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

It is the rare musicican who does not/did not record songs previously recorded or performed by other other musicicans. We have an entire legal system that addresses the issue of "legal ownership" of songs. I suggest that you start following links of indivdual songs someone said Elvis "stole". (Look at Hound Dog, whcih I researched quite a bit, as an example.) Often you will see that there is a credit showing who wrote the song (or at least who got credit for writing it). Note to that Elvis, and nearly all musicicans are managed, produced, etc by others, etc. I agree with your comments on some of the content of the article as it currently stands. I stood along with Rikstar, (well,well behind him I'd say, in trying to make the article more ojective and less tabloid like. I was worn down. Rikstar keeps on keepin' on. Hats off to Rikstar! Steve Pastor (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, you've made my day. Rikstar (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Elvis and racist allegations. Franco, I would love the attitudes of people to be different, but I don't have the time to confront every unfair critic, or to get people to discuss their prejudices on various forums/discussions, or to get them to "show their sources". As a compromise, anyone who wants to read about Elvis being racist (which people sadly do believe), they will read this article and find that it is not true. Not just denied in a footnote, but explained in some detail to make it a convincing explanation. People aren't all stupid; some will wonder how and why Mary J Blige and Chuck D called Elvis a racist on hearsay only.

Elvis and the Beatles. This meeting was included because it was a unique meeting between the two most influential acts in pop music. I used the sources I had. It is hard to mention something without fleshing out the text with some sourced material. If you think the details should be changed, discuss the changes in detail here. If they belong more in a Beatles article, go ahead and try. There seems to be a mutual dislike between Presley and Beatles' fans and my experience is that Beatles' fans will want to keep Presley mentions to a minimum.

I agree that the African American acts you mention did what they did, and if it isn't mentioned in any article that they operated like this, it should be. Rikstar (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rikstar, your are probably more realistic about the article in terms of what is possible with the editors and what is not. My view - I have to admit - is a more idealistic one and I've always on my mind that the one or the other user is reading the discussions, too and think about the comments I made here even if it is not included in the article. 87.162.48.149 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Hi Franco. I think you are right. There is nothing wrong with having high ideals for this article and it is good to have informed discussions on this page to make other people think hard about editing it. The Presley article is way from perfect, never will be, but it's a lot better than it was a couple of years ago. Hopefully it will only get better. Rikstar (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I tried to track down the Jorgeson reference to Elvis's hip thrusts, and haven't been able to find out what book this is supposed to be in, just a long list of page numbers in references??? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. The only book by Jorgenson used in this article is: Jorgensen, Ernst (1998). Elvis Presley: A life in music. The complete recording sessions. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312185723, which is listed in "References". Links to it in the article are like this: ^ a b c Jorgensen, p.49 (for example). Sorry but not sure what long list of page numbers you mean. If you can clarify, might be able to help more. Rikstar (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Just not used to having to look at another list to find the books. I'm going to look at it the afternoon. Thanks.Steve Pastor (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Elvis's dislike of travel by plane and stay in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai

According to many sources (though this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article in Wikipedia), Elvis hated flying and this was given as his main reason for not touring Europe or anywhere else in the world. However, he did (presumably) travel to Hawaii to film the two movies, Blue Hawaii and Paradise Hawaiian Style, and I would guess he would have flown across the Pacific Ocean. (A voyage by boat would have taken a good few (wasted) days.) So did he or didn't he fly? He did fly to Germany in order to join the army and he did fly back to the United States, but was there any occasion when he flew by plane to any other destination? I ask this because it came to my attention that Elvis is cited as one of the many celebrities who, at one time or another, stayed in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, one of the hotels seized by terrorists in November 2008. Is this true??? And, if so, did Elvis fly to get to and from India? User: Colin_marksColin marks (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Colin_marks

Elvis sailed to Germany on the USS Randall. He did fly back, stopping off in Scotland for the plane to refuel. Elvis' fear of flying allegedly began when a small aircraft in which he was travelling in the 50's developed engine troubles and had to do an emergency landing. To say Elvis was scared of flying would perhaps be a little over the top, however. It's fair to say that he wasn't necessarily comfortable flying, but it was something he did often in his life. As you say, he did fly to and from Hawaii on many occasions, and lets not forget that he owned The Lisa Marie which he frequently used to fly around the US on tour. He also used commercial aircraft to fly to and from Washington for his visit with Richard Nixon. As for his stay in India, as far as I know, he only ever visited a handful of countries/states outside of America; Hawaii, Canada, Germany and France (Scotland if you count a few hours in an airport terminal). I don't believe he ever visited India, it's someone playing a joke. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Any claim that a fear of flying was the main reason for Presley not touring Europe or anywhere else in the world needs a reliable source to support it. Any claim that Presley visited India needs even more reliable evidence to support it, because all the evidence is as ElvisFan1981 states above. If the sources cannot be found or simply don't exist, this stuff won't get mentioned. Rikstar (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, ElvisFan1981 and Rikstar. You're both "ön the ball"". What do you reckon to the claim in http://www.rockmine.com/Elvi.html that Elvis stayed at the George V Hotel in Paris, France - and it wasn't on miltary service, (so it states). He didn't perform in France, so what could he have been doing? Shopping in Gallerie Lafayette?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin marks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Presley flew to Paris to have fun with friends for a few days. Google "elvis in paris" for more info, like the fact(?) he stayed at Prince de Galles (Prince of Wales) Hotel, and not the George V? Rikstar (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Another not essential anecdote..."

Franco wrote on November 26 (see above) that: "Another not essential anecdote is about the Egyptian ankh, star of David and a crucifix around his neck. Such stories are interesting but not essential and make the article overblown."

I agree, which might seem strange because I was the one (love that song) who added it. The section "Influence of Colonel Parker and others" was created specifically because several people, either as individuals (eg. Parker) or as a group (eg. RCA execs., Memphis Mafia) had significant influence on Presley, personally and professionally. And that should have been it. But then someone chose to expand on a subject merely alluded to in this section, namely Presley's spiritual interests. I felt this new material was a) getting away from the point of the section and b) it was specifically about Mormonism, and gave the impression that this was the biggest deal when it came to Presley's religious beliefs. When I mentioned this to the editor concerned and that I felt the material was inappropriate, the editor was adamant it should not be removed. I don't want to make accusations, but I felt the editor, perhaps because of their own religious convictions, had a vested interest in adding a Mormon reference, as opposed to objectively improving the article. So, I reluctantly left it in and, to redress matters, I added the Linda Thompson quote, which I think more fairly describes Presley beliefs. So now two unnecessary bits had been added, but the second was necessary only because the first found no agreement for its removal.

I think the entire final paragragh should be deleted, as Franco has suggested. Rikstar (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone agree? Rikstar (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No one? Well, I'm going to delete it for the reasons stated above. Rikstar (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream...??? Anyone?

Is it me, or does "Compared to moments on the Dorsey shows and on the Berle show, it was ice cream" not make a whole heap of sense? I got nothing against Greil Marcus - marvellous chap - but this selective quote not only doesn't tell me anything useful, it doesn't tell me anything I understand. I just read it and think: well, what were those moments on the Dorsey and Berle shows?? What was 'ice creamy' on the Sullivan show? What is ice cream in this context? There are explanations, no doubt, but why should I feel forced to ask, me not being too stupid? I don't think it's good when a line of text, or a paragraph, begs more questions than it answers. May be someone can put me right on this, or agree that is should be omitted. This has been bugging me for a while. Rikstar (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand the "ice cream"-thing but I thought it was because english is not my natural language. 87.162.32.54 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

I wouldn't object to this quote being removed. I don't understand it either, unless it's meant to mean it was amazing, but that isn't clear from the quote. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who wrote it into the article maybe able to shed some light on what it means and their answer if told to Greil Marcus,Greil Marcus could very well so no,I didn't mean it that way at all. I myself wouldn't have a clue what it means. All I know is that I don't like ice-cream.

Greil Marcus is a great writter and he comes accross as a bit of a character. I think it's just his style of writting.

Here's what he had to say about a part/recording of Elvis Talking about his career and how Greil Marcus interpreted that particular piece. My only comment would be to say Elvis had a bit of a raucous sense of humor. We all interperet things differently.

If you want to know who he was and where he came from. ("From my side of the story. There's alot that's come out about what happened,but never from my side"),listen to the astonishing onstage monologue that ends the first disc of the four-CD set. It's August 24,1969,three weeks into the engagement at the International Hotel in Las Vegas that brought Presley back from life as a performer,and he feels happily naked,sly,sardonic,coolly nailing his enemies,one by one. "So they arranged to put me on television. At that particular time there was a lot of controversy-you didn't see people moving out in public. They were gettin it on in the back rooms,but you didn't see it out in public too much. So there was a lot of controversy-and I went on the Ed Sullivan Show. They photographed me from the waist up. And Sullivan standing over there saying "Sumbitch". 'I said,"Thank you,Ed,thank you. I didn't know what he was calling me,at the time." Source:archive.salon:com/ent/col/marc/2002/08/26/75/indext.html--Jaye9 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Take it out. It's BS. Apparently, rather than say anything good about Elvis, and the way he was presented in the first two Sullivan appearances, he wrote what he wrote. Elvis was shown it full on both of those shows, including when he sang Hound Dog. But if you write about that you pretty much have to give up the urban myth that Elvis was "censored" on the Sullivan Show. PLEASE, get the dvd and watch ALL THREE shows before buying into what someone else wrote. It's all there, including the commercials! We don't have to take someone else's opinion at truth anymore. See also all the BS that has been written about this in the Sullivan articles. The article should be about what happened, etc, rather than someone's interpretation of what happened. Take it out.Steve Pastor (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK... here goes. At least I'll have a look cos there's other Marcus quotes and I think the whole damn Sullivan thing needs rewriting. Any suggestions appreciated. Rikstar (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"And Sullivan standing over there saying "Sumbitch". 'I said,"Thank you,Ed,thank you. I didn't know what he was calling me,at the time." Elvis did pull a fast one on Ed on the second show. While Sullivan was addressing the audience Elvis stood motionless for a while. Then he shook his legs, and since he had the baggy pants on, the pant legs shook quite a bit, too. The girls in the audience screamed. Elvis had a big grin on his face. Sullivan looked at Elvis, who quickly went dead pan with his expression and shrugged as if he had no idea what had happened. So, how come I never read about that little episode and had to see it with my own eyes? Yeah, I'll be here. Will be gone next week, but this is a long term project.Steve Pastor (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestions are to anyone interested: Show a rewrite of the Sullivan shows here for discussion; stick to the facts, rather than the subjective views of commentators, so no quotes from them; make sure it is well-sourced.

Steve, I hear ya and share your frustration. I agree about the bit you describe starting "Elvis did pull a fast one on Ed on the second show." However, you also said: "I never read about that little episode". That could be a problem. If you and everyone else hasn't read about it, it probably means there are no sources, reliable or otherwise, to back up your claim that "Elvis pulled a fast one on Ed". in other words, your claim could be seen as original research. I realize you haven't said you want this included in a rewrite, but I just thought I'd use it to flag up the need to use well-sourced material.

(BTW, have you seen elsewhere my response to finding a better Hound Dog clip? I linked to this [10]) Rikstar (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard and have the entire recording of Presley talking about his career,at the 1969 Las Vegas Show at the International Hotel. Presley also states in that recording,that alot of things that have been written have been so inaccurate. Shouln't we give Presley his own voice when permissible in this article?

Guys,it's really hard for me in some ways as I was born in the 70's,I wasn't there,but I love alot of that music from that era. The guide I try to follow is judge these events in contest of their times,not mine.

Rikstar I hear ya,I know Wikipedia have there guides and rules to follow, they have to, but isn't viewing film footage, talking with people who were from those times eg:parents, grandparents, etc. are a guide to help you choose the right sources.--Jaye9 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve,Rikstar,

WE HAVE GOT IT, everything Steve has discribed, word for word, the full discription of the Ed Sullivan Shows, when Elvis appeared, including what comercials were being shown,what acts were on at the time, everything. It's a magazine that comes out every 2nd week in the newsagents in Australia. It is called "The Official Collector's Edition by DeAGOSTINI In Association with Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. A friend of mine has kindly loan them to me. Don't worry Steve, we are going to get there. It's superb.--Jaye9 (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaye9, It's a good point and I couldn't agree more - records, footage, etc. are all there to be used as such a guide: it's the original source material. And I agree Presley's own views are valid. We just have to avoid coming to our own personal conclusions based on it and putting them in any wiki articles, without other corroborating, third-party sources. I know my own viewing and listening steered me towards writers like Guralnick. I only got a copy of "Last Train to Memphis" a few weeks ago and have just thumbed through it. Interestingly, he appears to make no mention of Elvis being censored, or any of the other claims typically associated with the Ed Sullivan shows. This lack of information/opinion to me is enough to question when the "from the waist up" stories started. This is I think what Steve has been saying is just one of the things that's wrong with the existing account of Ed Sullivan, and why a total rewrite is needed. P.S. I was born in the 60's, so I wasn't there either! Rikstar (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't contribute anything to the current Sullivan inclusion (that I remember) but I'd be happy to see it rewritten, and if possible would love to contribute towards the rewrite if I can be of any assistance. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ElvisFan. There are online accounts like: [11] which make no mention of censorship, but seem to tell in a fairly neutral way, what happened. I hope that there are even more reliable sources available. Of course, if other reliable sources say different... Rikstar (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rik. To be honest, I think a lot of the "furore" surrounding Presley's appearance on Sullivan in '56 was down in part to Col. Parker's publicity machine, and also the effect that time has had on it. It's easy for us to look back to 1956 and think of it as a much simpler time, where people were hugely offended by Presley and his movements. However, from video I've seen of the audience at the time, most of whom were a good age at the time, they seemed to be more amused by his performance rather than offended. I think it's highly possible that a very low number of complainants made it possible for the press attention to escalate it much higher than it really was. A recent example would be the whole Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross situation on the BBC. I believe that it might have been less shocking at the time than we are led to believe, but how to word that properly in the article is quite difficult.ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello ElvisFan. I think you're right about the media's take/involvement at the time, and how things were subsequently viewed by biographers, etc. The whole thing appears to have taken on a twisted life of its own, at the time (for publicity), and when writers wanted to make a meal of things. This is one of the mythological developments of the "Elvis Phenomenon" that is not very helpful to us right now. How to word all that is difficult; but at least we have worked out that only very simple things happened at the time. They can be simply stated, i.e. he appeared on such and such dates, and he sang such and such songs, audience figures, etc. Following that, perhaps we could give one good media quote about reaction (New York Times?). That should be it, no other opinions necessary.

BUT THEN, there may well be people reading it and asking: "But what about shooting him 'from the waist up??' Wasn't that a BIG deal?". That will then need to be answered/mentioned, in which case, we can write (quoting or linking to a typical source) that "some commentators have argued that Presley was censored and filmed only 'From the waist up'".

The Brand/Ross incident is comparable, except for the fact that their producers should have been censoring, i.e. performing a role they were officially supposed to do, yet in Elvis's case, no one was officially supposed to be censoring anything, unless these stories about Sullivan, the TV network, etc, unofficially cropping Elvis, have any credence. Rikstar (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of songs Elvis did on the last show (mostly ballads and, for instance, Peace in the Valley) along with the fact the directors chose shots partly based on whether or not the singer was singing - moving in for vocals, moving out when the band is playing and the singer isn't singing would suffice to explain it. You see this same pattern in the Dorsey Brothers, Milton Berle, Steve Allen, and Sullivan Shows. Look at the pix, song list, etc at Ed Sullivan Show.Steve Pastor (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Some clarifications concerning Marcus's "ice cream". Here is the full quote from Greil Marcus:

They went into “Ready Teddy.” It was Little Richard’s most thrilling record, there was no way Elvis was going to catch him, but he didn’t have to—the song is a wave and he rode it. Compared to moments on the Dorsey shows, on the Berle show, it was ice cream — Elvis’s face unthreatening, his legs as if in casts — but it didn’t matter.

To my mind, rock 'n' roll expert Marcus is here saying that, in comparison to the other shows, Elvis acted more like a good boy and that his Sullivan appearance was pleasing and perhaps kind of "frozen", meaning that Elvis was not acting too much like a rock 'n' roller as on the Dorsey and Berle shows. As for the DVDs Steve Pastor is frequently citing as a source, what makes you so sure that all the material you can now watch on DVD was actually on air in 1956? There were certainly numerous different TV cameras running during Sullivan's show from which the best material available has now been chosen for a modern DVD. This collected film material only shows what was going on in the studio during the broadcast and what was filmed by the different cameras, but this must not necessarily be identical with the material the TV audience actually saw in 1956. Therefore, other sources, particularly eyewitness accounts of the time, are so important which suggest that the television audience saw Elvis from the waist up only. By the way, Marcus was one of these eyewitnesses. Onefortyone (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here. I still maintain that if editors are having difficulty trying to understand one observer's comment, then that comment cannot remain. Rikstar (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More Images?

I have moved the Jailhouse Rock still to the Acting career section, because it was a film he acted in. I have also noticed at the head of the discussion page that Elvis is Featured Article in three other countries and there are good images in those. Can these be used in this article? Or are there likely to be copyright issues? Rikstar (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are these other Wiki sites? If so I don't see a problem with copyright. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue suede shoes - Mary J Blige

Hello Rikstar, I just visited the MJ Blige discussion site (only because of my further recherche about BLUE SUEDE SHOES and having similar ideas like you) and left a comment. Now we have the problem where it belongs! 87.162.32.54 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

The myth surrounding his first public performance

In the article, an oft-told story is written as follows:

"On October 3, 1945, at age ten, he made his first public performance in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show at the suggestion of his teacher Mrs. J.C. Grimes. Dressed as a cowboy, the young Presley had to stand on a chair to reach the microphone and sang Red Foley's "Old Shep." He came second, winning $5 and a free ticket to all the Fair rides."

Jaye9 has done some digging amongst some good sources and it seems Elvis did not come second as is commonly believed and accepted. So this may have to be rewritten, or a note added. Rikstar (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for this being replaced if there is a decent enough reference for it. From what I gather, he may have come fifth, and even later on claimed to recall fifth place himself when questioned. I haven't ever seen any evidence to back up this claim, however, and that is perhaps why the myth is that he came second. If there's a good enough reference to back up these claims, then it should be added. If the reference is from a questionable source, however, it should be considered very carefully before being added. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ElvisFan, Thank you so much for your response. I take you've read my comments on Rikstar's talk page and the points you've made are very valid and sensible. Okay here we go: what is cited in the article is from David Stanley? When I brought up the question of the myth of Elvis coming 2nd, it just got me bugged. The few sources I found seemed to show enough evidence for me to question the story, thats all. Granted, Bill Burk's books are self published. I think and alot people quite possibly don't know that out there and the video I saw only was released in 2008. There is the mention on it of Elvis wearing a cowboy outfit on stage, a friend of mind has loaned me boxes of Elvis books (I think my family's getting a little worried). However I have only seen two photo's of Elvis in a Cowboy Outfit, except for Television stint on Steve Allen Show I think by memory. The two photo's are 1.Thirteen-year-old Elvis in cowboy gear, not long before the Presley family moved to memphis (with mountain back drop and fence) prop source: Elvis Handbook by Tara McAdams 2. Photography taken of Elvis in September 1953, captures the young Presley in a moody pose with his cousin Gene Smith, both are dressed as cowboys. Source: The Official Collector's Edition Part 9.

The two photo's of Elvis at that fair show elvis in same trousers with suspenders (that hold the trousers up) and same shirt. It's just that I havn't seen a photo of him in a cowboy outfit when he was ten, not saying there isn't.

In regard to David Stanley I'm not saying his lying, far from it, he may be repeating something he has heard like so many others. Peter Gurlanick even says it, he is my favourite author, it has not swayed my opinion of him at all, for reasons I explained above, it just may have got missed. As I said to Rikstar, if anyone here believes there is insufficient evidence to mention this in the article or make a note, we'll just drop it. Thank you--Jaye9 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jaye. I don't think it should be dropped, far from it. I think it's very interesting to find that it may just be a myth. As a fan of Elvis for over twenty years since the age of five myself, and having read many books and collected many films and books on him and I have come across the suggestion that he may have not come second, but I have never seen or read any evidence to properly support the claim. I think the fact there isn't a photograph of him at the fair is interesting too, as you would expect it to have made the local paper. It then raises the question of whether there is a photograph at all, even of the three winners who are supposed to have beaten Elvis? I've never seen such a photograph either. Of course, it must be noted that a lot of material from those days were not kept or archived the way that material today is. The two photo's you speak of, I've seen also, and are obviously not from the fair. I've never heard of the writer you speak of, but that doesn't mean that he isn't a well respected author and should be ignored. I think if he has a valid point to be made then it should possibly be included. I am, however, willing to accept the change because elvis.com states fifth place [12], That is enough for me to be happy for it to be changed. It's from the most reliable source we could possibly have, and therefore must accept it. If no one has any objections, I suggest we change it today. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey E, I shouldn't mention this but I've just come home from a party and I hardy ever drink,but I had a glass of wine with a cork in it,but I still have my facualties. I forgot to mention the Elvis On Tour out takes that Bill Burk talks about where Elvis mentions about possibly coming firth and that he wore glasses for a brief time in the fifth grade, I watched it on tuesday,I tell you this friend of mine has everything on him and it's obviously a bootleg,part of it has no sound,it's distorted in places,but Elvis does say these exact words. I must admit it was a little painfull to watch,as I like things done with quality,but I had to hear it for myself. I think Bill Burk's books are out of print now,I'm not sure and he passed away a little while back. However if you go on the internet you can order the the Elvis On Tour Out Takes and the Video Elvis-Return to Tupelo. The Elvis-Return to Tupelo is well worth watching.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I own the bootlegged Elvis on Tour Special Edition but haven't got round to watching yet. I also watched Return to Tupelo twice and found it fascinating. Will definitely be buying that when I am able to. It's hard to tell how serious Elvis was being without actually having seen him remark on it, but I'll try to have a look over the weekend. I think we should change it to fifth place, as it appears that it's the more accurate telling. Wherever the source for it has come from, it was good enough for EPE to change their records. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen or heard any first or second hand accounts that Elvis came second. Just third hand biographers accounts. From what Jaye9 has shown, some people who were actually there say he was fifth, and I don't think those people have a vested interest in lying about it. If EPE, who are used elsewhere in the article, say it's fifth because of their own research, I agree with ElvisFan that it should be changed, and EPE is cited. Go ahead and change it.Rikstar (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rikstar exactly,

I read an interview on Peter Gurlanick and it was interesting, because when Gurlanick was interviewing Sam Phillips he said to him, don't trust anyone, follow your gut instinct and when I watched the Elvis-Return to Tupelo alot them never get interviewed and I carn't image the National Enquirer knocking on their door any time soon. They just seemed genuine, with nothing to gain. I've met DJ Fontana and Red and Pat West,spent a little time with them. I meam it was only a few weeks, you carn't really get to know people that much it that time, but the way they conducted themselves, if Presley was a quarter as a nice as they were, he's alright in my books--Jaye9 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought, Jaye, after reading this, that YOU had met DJ and Red West, but I read it again... Rikstar (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have, Rikstar, it's a vague memory now,it was a few years ago. Very nice regular folks,as they say. Pat West likes the band AC/DC,you won't read that in a Presley book.--Jaye9 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey ElvisFan, Just read elvis.com. Good Job! Gota go and make Christmas Cake and Pudding fun job,not. Will be back tommorrow.--Jaye9 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes

I tried changinging from "commonly called by his first name" to "commonoly called "Elvis" in the lead, and removing his return "with acclaim" to just his return, and the subsequent word "thereafter" as unneeded wordage. It was reverted, but I would like to know actually why "thereafter" and "with acclaim" and the change to actually citing his first name was so quickly opposed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Collect. The main thing I noticed in your minor changes was that it read as follows: 'A cultural icon, he is commonly called "Elvis", and as the "King of Rock and Roll"', which doesn't read well. Presley made bad movies, then returned to good live performing. This is reflected in the article's opening summary by reference to poorly reviewed films and, by contrast, a well-received TV special, ie. the performance was acclaimed, and the citation given supports that view, just as the citation before it supports the fact that his films were badly reviewed. So I guess I reverted it to draw attention to why it was written that way in the first place. "Thereafter" could go arguably: maybe any such proposed minor changes could be posted and discussed here first if they are disputed. Any improvements would be welcome. Rikstar (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider "Commonly called "Elvis" to be pretty straightforward -- reverting it instead of removing "as" is not the way to get an article improved. Adverbial phrases which are not important to the factual content of an article are also quite unimportant. As for "badly reviewed" that is "opinion" and not fact (how are you to know whether the films were simply given their proper reviews, or were unfairly panned, which appears to be the reason for having "badly reviewed" in the text?) As for removing "thereafter" and "however" and the like -- they are non-controversial, and asking for a twenty line explanation for a ten character removal is absurd. I would ask that you do a self-revert and edit, as otherwie it appears you are asserting ownership of the article. Reverting minor edits is not the way to get other editors to assist in fixing an over-long article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith, and as such I will do a self-revert. I do not own this article, and never thought I did. Rikstar (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "commonly referred to by his first name" sounds better. I'll explain why. It's obvious that he was "commonly called Elvis", because that was his name. Also, I think it's interesting that he was one of the first acts in musical history to be recognised simply by his first name. How many others can you name from before or during his early career? I think that the impact of "commonly referred to by his first name only" explains that in a great way, and illustrates how important his name was. Frank? Dean? James? All these names mean nothing without the surnames. Elvis, however, has an immediate impact and I think the article definitely read and sounded better the way it originally was. Supposedly it's been changed because it saves "space" but as it only saves a few words, I don't think it's a dramatic difference. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- last I looked, his first name was "Elvis" -- using the circumlocution of "first name" makes little sense. And he was not the first to be called by his first name, nor will he be the last. Look at "Aretha" and "Madonna" for example. Or "Bing" even. And I know some would like the article to be a paean to Elvis, but the purpose of WP is to make encyclopedia articles, not to have mini-shrines embedded in it <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was the first, I was emphasising how rare it was. There weren't many before his time who could be recognised by their first name in the music business, and I feel that the original sentence was an appropriate way of pointing out that fact. Bing is a good example, but Madonna and Aretha came after. I don't want this article to be a shrine to Elvis, far from it. I hope that it can be a well balanced article with good and bad points about the man. So far, every editor that I have experienced working on it has been open-minded enough to use both good and bad. I'm not going to argue with anyone over the opening paragraph and I am not pushing for it to be changed, I am merely stating my own opinion that I felt the way it was suited the article better. That is the purpose of the discussion page. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Enrico. Actually first names go back a long way for people who have reasonably unusual ones. <g> In any case, the aim is always improving the article, not fighting. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know plenty of 80+ years-olds who love Bing Crosby, and he has always been referred to by both names - rarely just "Bing", but many in the same care home will refer to "Elvis". Local anecdotal evidence maybe, but I don't think it's the exception. I've never heard in discussions about opera singers that someone loves "Enrico"; he's always "Caruso" or his full name is used. Having an unusual name is not the point here. I actually took a lot of stick when I changed "Elvis" (which a lot of editors used) to "Presley" to standardize things throughout this article; clearly a lot of people think he is and should be commonly referred to as Elvis - it is his moniker, not merely his first name. Are there editors of Crosby and Caruso filling their talkpages with requests to have their first names used throughout? A reference to all this was what was intended in the summary - a point made by ElvisFan1981.

The reference to "poorly reviewed" movies IS ambiguous; the majority of Presley films were critically panned, and that is what the summary is supposed to say - not that the reviews were unfair. This should be changed.

It would perhaps be more constructive if points like this were discussed without implying or assuming bias on the part of "Elvis fans": some of us editors have put up with a tiresome number of unfounded accusations of bias, whilst we have shown time and again that we have supported the balanced view, even putting in negative material that would make most "Elvis Worshippers" weep. Challenging an edit is one thing, but accusations, whether direct or implied, are quite another. Please, let's all assume good faith. Thanks in anticipation. Rikstar (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I surely did not mean to imply bias. I did mean to imply that the article is likely too long <g> and that sensible pruning would make it more readable. Collect (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. My sincerest apologies for reverting your first edit; I am sure it was made with the best of intentions. I fully agree that sensible pruning is a real option: it has been attempted by editors before, including myself, but agreement has been difficult to achieve. I live in hope! Many thanks for your involvement with this article. Rikstar (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Songwriter?

Presley didn't write songs. Heslopian's recent edit needs reverting. Rikstar (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this. Presley did co-write at least one song I know of, and was a very good song arranger, but I think that calling him a singer-songwriter is a bit over the top because he's not someone I consider in that genre. The majority of the songs (50's) that Presley was credited with were for publishing reasons, at the recommendation (for want of a better word) of Col. Parker. I think that as an arranger he as far superior, and it's well documented about how much control he took over the production of the majority of his songs. If no one has any objections by the end of the day, or a good reason for why it shouldn't be reverted, then I'll take the step if no one has done so before hand. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for Heslopian asking him to revert his edit, but someone had to do it, so thanks! Rikstar (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many headlines

There are way too many useless headlines, therefore I am removing the ones 1. Havent been updated in a long time 2. Useless

You dont like what I am doing please tell me why you think that headline should stay on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)