Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 23

message: I propose shortening this to:
=====Discussion=====
This version gets rid of quotes (which I think are generally unencyclopedic) and cuts the section down to facts, with a bit of interest thrown in. Rikstar 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got no problems with that. I just tried to add the above to the wikiproject you created but realised you'd added your last comment. Apologies. Rikstar 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First draft

message: This version gets rid of quotes (which I think are generally unencyclopedic) and cuts the section down to facts, with a bit of interest thrown in. Rikstar 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got no problems with that. I just tried to add the above to the wikiproject you created but realised you'd added your last comment. Apologies. Rikstar 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: A revision, to reduce it's length and redundant wording, for what its worth. I hope editors will note it is not simply a revert and that content remains because it has been discussed above. It isn't my preferred version, but like any decent editor, I am trying to accommodate others. Rikstar (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to shortening the Old Shep bit and prefer the above version. I think we could get rid of the direct quote about Vernon and make it:
*Vernon has been described as a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility [I think it reads better]. Rikstar (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right, but every section could potentially have its own main article. Would that be acceptable? Rikstar (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. He's notable, and those years are sourced. It will be illustrated. This article needs to be shortened for readability. It should touch on all the major points and leave the reader with an understanding and knowledge of all the important aspects of his life and career. It should leave them wanting to read more, and for that, we expand in main articles on each topic. I see no reason his early years can't support a stand-alone article. There's certainly enough information. I assume these biographies go into more details regarding his parents, no? I don't know about them. I'm interested to find out more. This is a good way to make that available to everyone who hasn't read the bios. Lara_Love Talk 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure if it is really necessary that every section should have its own main article. As a colorful personality, Elvis needs one comprehensive article including many facts concerning his life and career. Query: how many users are going to read all the additional material presented in extra articles? Onefortyone (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many users are going to read an article the length of a book? Lara❤Love 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th draft

message: The first sentence reads,
*Presley's father, Vernon (April 10, 1916–June 26, 1979) had several low-paying jobs, including sharecropper and truck driver.
I think it is important to mention that Vernon was "a malingerer, always averse to work and responsibility." This passage should not be removed, as there is no further information about the character of Elvis's father in the article and it underscores why Elvis's mother had such a strong influence upon her son.
*At age ten, Presley made his first public performance in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show. Dressed as a cowboy, he had to stand on a chair to reach the microphone and sang Red Foley's "Old Shep." He won second prize.
This passage may be shorter: 
*At age ten, Presley won second prize in a singing contest at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show. Dressed as a cowboy, he sang Red Foley's "Old Shep." Onefortyone (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to shortening the Old Shep bit and prefer the above version. I think we could get rid of the direct quote about Vernon and make it:
*Vernon has been described as a malingerer, averse to work and responsibility [I think it reads better]. Rikstar (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right, but every section could potentially have its own main article. Would that be acceptable? Rikstar (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. He's notable, and those years are sourced. It will be illustrated. This article needs to be shortened for readability. It should touch on all the major points and leave the reader with an understanding and knowledge of all the important aspects of his life and career. It should leave them wanting to read more, and for that, we expand in main articles on each topic. I see no reason his early years can't support a stand-alone article. There's certainly enough information. I assume these biographies go into more details regarding his parents, no? I don't know about them. I'm interested to find out more. This is a good way to make that available to everyone who hasn't read the bios. Lara_Love Talk 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure if it is really necessary that every section should have its own main article. As a colorful personality, Elvis needs one comprehensive article including many facts concerning his life and career. Query: how many users are going to read all the additional material presented in extra articles? Onefortyone (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many users are going to read an article the length of a book? Lara❤Love 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Only passing by. I learned something from this content and had fun reading it, but the citation formatting is muddled (pls see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the example. We can look on the article page. Lara_Love 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: OK. So we are all belly aching about 141. There seems to be no alternative to involving the Arbcom. I was about ready to do this when Lara stepped in, and I backed off. At least one other editor was with me on this at that time. 
:Who is ready to go to the Arbcom? 
The form that has to be filled out is a bit daunting, probably by design, but the only way this is going to work is if we bite the bullet. Many of us have spent WAY too much unproductive time on this. 
Please leave a simple message on this page. Please do not equivocate. I'm looking for a YES or NO.
I'm guessing that this will be best received if we do it above board and out in the open. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a short note. We already had three arbcom cases concerning the Elvis article because my former opponent, Elvis fan Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW took me to arbitration two or three years ago simply because my contributions were not in line with his personal view and he wanted to harass me. However, my opponents were later banned from the article. The arbcom says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See . This is a clear statement. Onefortyone (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What things do you think have not improved? As far as I can see, I am always citing my sources. Furthermore, you have confirmed above that I have "the resources, intelligence and communication skills to help make this an excellent featured article." Onefortyone (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and 141 also has "the resources, intelligence and communication skills" to stifle healthy debate and kill this article and its talk stone dead (For god's sake, I pay 141 a compliment, a gesture of goodwill, and he even uses that as a stick to beat his opponents with...) There have been numerous examples of 141 refusing to accept edits he personally disagrees with, pushing specific agendas, ignoring consensus... oh, I'm sorry, I am repeating myself, something else that always seems to happen when dealing with 141's tedious arguments. This article is going nowhere; few if any want to get involved with 141, and relative newcomers, openminded to the possibility of working usefully with 141, are now realizing how futile it is. And 141 will probably believe that this is everyone else's fault, and that he is entirely blameless because... he "is always citing his sources"!! I emphasize: there is a real possibility that 141 will, by undermining all opponents, stealthily get his skewed content inserted bit by bit. This is already happening; editors have given up removing stuff he wants in, resulting in e.g. a brief Ed Sullivan section that perplexingly mentions "ice cream", "pasha" and "harem girl". What does that inform readers about the Sullivan appearance?? It reads like a bunch of crap ('scuse my mouth). Like many other dubious bits, if it is changed or removed yet again with the blessing of a consensus in the name of improvement, you can bet 141 will change it back. I've not come across any user who edits in such a disruptive and subversive manner. It's time 141 left the building. Rikstar (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Rikstar, did you realize that I have accepted many of your edits, as they are indeed improvements? What I am criticizing is that you and a few Elvis fans are frequently removing sourced content from the Elvis article. Time and again I have argued on the talk page why I find this material relevant. I have also tried to rewrite some passages in order to shorten the article. Notwithstanding, the abridged material also gets removed. Significantly, you are the person who says that what Elvis experts such as Greil Marcus have written in an essay directly related to the topic is "skewed content" and "reads like a bunch of crap" (see above), simply because you and Steve Pastor do not like the information that Ed Sullivan had "censored" or even "buried" the singer, as Elvis was only shown from the waist up and "stepped out in the outlandish costume of a pasha, if not a harem girl" during the Sullivan Show. It should be noted that I do not remove sourced paragraphs written by others. Only Elvis fans have the audacity to do so. Steve Pastor frequently wants to get rid of some information he doesn't like. For instance, he asked, "Do we really need to know that Elvis and his mother 'slept in the same bed up until Elvis was a young teen?' " See . Rodhullandemu answered, "Why not? If it illustrates the poverty of his early life and is properly sourced, what is the problem? It would have been fairly common for family members in the southern states to share sleeping arrangements at that time..." See . Relating to the content dispute, Egghead06 said, "To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide." See . This means that I am not the only one who thinks that specific information concerning Elvis's life should not be removed. And now Steve Pastor wants to take the content dispute a fourth time to arbcom? The arbcom members have certainly more important things to do and you should not waste their valuable time. As for the frequent removals, Professor Wall may be right with his opinions concerning the activities of the world-wide Elvis industry. Onefortyone (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, 141 is being disingenuous again. Time and again on this talk page others have argued why some of 141's edits should be removed - and he just goes ahead and ignores the consensus. 141 accuses me and others of wanting to remove material because we simply don't like it (because it's critical). How many more times have I to state that there are perfectly acceptable reasons for removing or rewriting material, however well-sourced it is? How many more times have I to state that I think the Marcus quote referring to ice cream, etc, is just a bad read that will beg more questions than it answers when the unintiated read it?? How many? Only 141 has the audacity to ignore a consensus of opinion and keep reinstating unsuitable material. I rewrote the Sullivan section after informing others of my intentions to make it read better, and 141 just changed it back, time and again. "I do not removed sourced paragraphs" proclaims 141, as if removing such material has always been done by others for the wrong reasons. Just another contemptible accusation that I find offensive, and 141 wants us all to hold hands and just forget about his history of disruption and get on with editing the Early years section? Sorry, 141 has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Just look how far this article hasn't progressed - because no one wants to work with one user. If arbcom members have more important things to do than address this issue, I'd like to know what they are. User Northmeister was one of only a few substantial contributors to this article, and he stopped because of 141's tiresome antics and accusations. What a pathetic and lamentable state of affairs. Rikstar (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that you don't want to get on with editing the "Early years" section? Be that as it may, I do want to get on with the section and have now included the 4th draft with some minor changes in the article. As for the Sullivan passages, the chronology of inclusion may be of some interest. On May 18, 2007, I cited the main parts of an essay by reputed Elvis expert Greil Marcus on Elvis's Ed Sullivan appearances on the talk page in order to discuss its content. See . You said, "This is interesting stuff and I've got more like it on my book shelves," and you wondered what might be significant for inclusion in the article. See . Later, a well-sourced paragraph I had included in the article was repeatedly removed by Northmeister, Steve Pastor and Rikstar. I did not understand why. However, as I was willing to compromise, I tried my best to write shorter versions, and at last, only these few quotes from Marcus remained in the version I prefer: " 'Compared to moments on the Dorsey shows and on the Berle show, it was ice cream.' ... The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up and 'stepped out in the outlandish costume of a pasha, if not a harem girl' during this last broadcast has led to claims that Sullivan had 'censored' or even 'buried' the singer ..." See . To my mind, these are important remarks by an expert on rock 'n' roll music, as it is clearly shown that Elvis's Sullivan appearances differ from the more lively ones on the Dorsey shows and that Elvis was censored. As for the lamentable state of affairs, did you mention that GiantSpitoon, a supposed sockpuppet of my old opponent, user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo has removed, as usual, a well-sourced paragraph from the Sex symbol section and started the unnecessary discussion above? Recently, even the entire section has been removed by Hoserjoe. See . But it has been reinstated by LaraLove. See . So much for the disruptive behavior of supposed sockpuppets. See also . By the way, you, Rikstar, included this abridged version of the said section in the Elvis article, and I didn't reinstate the longer version written by me. So much for the claims that I am not willing to compromise. Onefortyone (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you can trumpet the odd occasion when you have not done something that might annoy other editors does not negate how disruptive I and others have found your general contributions. The pasha-ice cream-harem girl stuff is a clumsy, confusing read. You said it, your contribution was judged unfit by a consensus of others so you just shortened it, leaving the confusing and obscure Marcus terms. You persistently refused to accept the wishes of a majority who liked neither your long or your shorter version of Marcus' personal comments.  We have as usual discussed this issue ad nauseum, and all we have is a sub-standard edit to show for it. Rikstar (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be that you and Steve Pastor simply do not like the terms used by reputed rock 'n' roll and Elvis expert, Greil Marcus, even if they are cited in a very abridged form, because they all too clearly show that Elvis was indeed censored and buried by Sullivan, at a time when Presley's music was not generally accepted? Onefortyone (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my case anyway. You're back to your old "you're just a biased Elvis fan" argument again. Been there before, dealt with it before... Rikstar (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another problem. Am I right that a featured article should not be protected? However, if the article is unprotected, many vandals will, as usual, reappear. See, for instance, , , , , , etc. How can this be handled? This is not unimportant. Onefortyone (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOPRO only applies to the main page FA, which is so heavily watched that any vandalism it takes while featured is quickly reverted. Lara❤Love 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom talk

message: You guys might be amused by a surprisingly animated debate in an unlikely place, the    talk page of the NPOV policy page. The bottom line is that the absence of the Elvis sightings concept from this page is incompatible with the WP:NPOV policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add information regarding the phenomenon of Elvis sightings, by all means, draft something up here and we'll discuss. But we're not stating a possibility that he's still alive. The coroner's report proves death. Lara❤Love 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What, no Elvis sightings?

message: It should be worth mentioning that the American Presleys, a very rare family name, stem from a Southern Palatinate vintner named Valentin Pressler who emigrated to the U.S. around 1700. Thus the anglicized version "Presley" of the German family name. Compare to the German Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.29.146 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your interest. Presley's ancestry details have been mentioned in the article, though not in the main body of text - see footnote 4. Rikstar (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Ancestry''' 

message: Any one who saw the thing on elvis on cnn saw that they said elvis was related to oprah throw slavery and slave was pregnant by elvis's ancenstor which made them related and 2 there was something about no photo's were allowed at his funeral and somebody took a quick picture and the elvis in the coffin looked like the younger elvis so possible of what alot of ppl think faked death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.160.170 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any extraordinary claims about Presley need equally extraordinary evidence to back them up. If there are several reliable sources that show he was related to Oprah, that's fine, but reliable, well cited sources do not guarantee the claim will be mentioned in the article, though it may qualify for a place in the footnotes. As for the picture of Presley in his coffin, it appeared on the front page of the National Enquirer. It's a pretty bad photo by all accounts and he doesn't look young, he just looks retouched - and very much dead. But if you can quote reliable sources that claim otherwise... Rikstar (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Things

message: I am wondering if anyone knows the charting history of which charts studio albums, live albums, compilations, soundtracks and singles were on, US Billboard, UK, Canada, Australia, and where this information can be founded. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis Presley discography — Chart Help Needed 

message: the girl did this. the one in coe♣  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.53.26 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  go elvis 

message: This is totally unproven- that he died from drugs. Please, let's change this wild assertion. There is absolutely no proof. None whatsoever. 
Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliable sources say otherwise. And I wouldn't consider it a "wild assertion". His excessive drug use is/was no secret. The drugs he took are known, as well as a good idea of the quantities. It's not a stretch to put the pieces together and determine that chronic drug use contributed to his death. And that is a widespread belief. Lara❤Love 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis and drugs 

message: Not sure why the page keeps getting reverted back to an anti-Semtic and untrue claim that Elvis' Jewish lineage is only valid in Nazi Germany.  It's a well known fact that Elvis' maternal Grandmother was Jewish.  In the Jewish religion a person's religious lineage is passed down via the mother.  See http://www.elvispresleynews.com/JewishElvis.html or type into any search engine the terms "Elvis Presley" and "Jewish roots" and you'll see numerous articles and research stating with 100% surety that as far as Jewish law, theologians, The Wall Street Journal (in a 1998 article), and the Jewish faithful are concerned, Elvis is Jewish.  However I think we can also agree that despite this he certainly wasn't a practicing Jew.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNY Boy (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Presley was not a practicing Jew and did not consider himself Jewish. He was Protestant. It is not anti-semetic to of me to disagree with you and say no, he is not Jewish and that he should not be listed under the Jewish singers category. Also, it is ridiculous to include Jewish with German, Scottish, French, and Cherokee as it is a religion, not a nationality. NewYork1956 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My, my a little testy aren't we?  I wasn't referring to you as being anti-semitic.  That would be silly.  I was referring to the suggestion made by someone else that tracing one's Jewish roots through the mother's side of the family was something the Nazis did.SUNY Boy (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "Cherokee" is not a nationality, either. And I'd think it's obvious that Elvis was not of German, Scottish, or French nationality either. He had ethnic French, German, and Scottish ancestry, as well as ethnic Jewish and Cherokee ancestry. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis' Jewish Roots 

message: Is this vandalism, or not? I'm not sure if it is or not, needs someone who knows more about the subject to cast an eye over it. Mjroots (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted all of it. It removed criticisms and other info that reflected Elvis in a negative light. It also changed to an informal tone; referring to him as Elvis in the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lara❤Love 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: It's all very sad, but I baulk at the possibility of engaging in any further attempts to improve this article unless we get more editors involved with an eye on producing a good, encyclopedic entry. The vandals have been rampant, necessitating the lock. I will only peruse these and my talk pages occasionally. As things stand, I'm outta here! Rikstar (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to be the way other articles on here get done. Raise an issue, get consensus, make changes, move on. If anyone disagrees with consensus their changes get zapped - easy! Wiki is no place for approval seekers--Egghead06 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Face it: you lost the battle with 141!  All the energy has been drained out of this project by 141.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is going nowhere 

message: Why is there a  near the top of this page? Isn't Elvis Presley dead? —Helland (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the header in question (WP:BOLD). —Helland (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is alive and well in space...on an alien vessel...being probed.  Haven't you heard?--Veritas (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living person? 

message: Does anybody have a picture of Fat Elvis?  All the pictures are of him still thin. Klosterdev (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not many photographs of the fat Las Vegas Elvis, because Elvis Presley Enterprises is a "well-run marketing machine" that runs on tight regulation of Elvis's images and lawsuits, when necessary. EPE, for instance, "absolutely refuses to license a product picturing an overweight Elvis." Therefore, the Wikipedia article should include a photograph of fat Elvis. For such images, see, for instance,  or . Onefortyone (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Presley appeared "fat" largely (excuse the pun) because he had an enlarged colon. The observations about suppressing pictures of a "fat Elvis" are no doubt true. Given that we do eventually have a picture included of a fat Elvis, are wikipedians going to ensure that there is, for example, also a picture of an emaciated Rock Hudson in his article, given that he suffered and died from AIDS? Licensing of products is one thing, but does wikipedia need to go to such lengths, given the text detailing the demise of celebrities? Rikstar (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat Elvis Picture 

message: Isnt there anytalk of People who Belive that Elvis Faked his death?Joe ferst (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's still alive and he's still only 39 years old!  Isn't that amazing, after all these years!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why

message: ELVIS WAS ALSO KNOWN AS THE KING. HE HAD NICE HAIR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.16.51 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis 

message: "To date, he is the only performer to have been inducted into four music halls of fame."
This is not true. Michael Jackson has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame (for recordings), the Songwriters Hall of Fame, The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (twice, as a solo artist and with the Jackson Five), and in the Vocal Group Hall of Fame (with the Jackson Five).
Celestius17 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halls of Fame 

message: The following quote has been deleted by Rikstar:
*According to Brett Farmer, "the orgasmic gyrations of Elvis Presley and his band of male prisoners in the 'Jailhouse Rock' sequence from the 1957 film of the same name ... provide instances of a spectacular eroticization, if not homoeroticization, of the male image that is quite unusual in mainstream cinema." See Brett Farmer, Spectacular Passions: Cinema, Fantasy, Gay Male Spectatorships (Duke University Press, 2000), p.86. Onefortyone (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am amused by your contribution. There can be no doubt that "Elvis the Pelvis" is well aware of both the Wikipedia articles on Elvis Presley and the heated discussions on Talk:Elvis Presley. Nearly every controversial contribution concerning Presley's possible homosexuality has been literally borrowed from the Wikipedia pages. I find this thread very interesting as it shows the narrow-mindedness of the fans, yet it should be entitled "Elvis was a closet(ed) [not closed] homosexual." Notwithstanding, it seems that my recent quote from Brett Farmer's study, Spectacular Passions, has been overlooked by "Elvis the Pelvis". This is inexcusable. By the way, one of the biggest European fan groups set up for the celebration of the Elvis Presley cult is situated in Duisburg, and there are lots of critics of their frequent meetings. Onefortyone (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just read the topix forum. Yeah, it looks like the same contributor. Still, nothing wrong with that, but it suggests an agenda. I am going to remove the homoerotic reference; 141 didn't discuss its inclusion here before making such a significant change. Rikstar (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to reinclude the quote, as Jailhouse Rock is one of the more important Elvis films and therefore needs some further comment, but I will leave it for now in order to show good faith. Onefortyone (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: personal opinions of authors on whether a dance and song is 'erotic' or 'homoerotic' is original research I'm afraid, and is not suitable or notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia Thisglad (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not original research. According to peer-reviewed university studies, the dance sequence is indeed erotic or homoerotic. Brett Farmer wites that "the orgasmic gyrations of Elvis Presley and his band of male prisoners in the 'Jailhouse Rock' sequence from the 1957 film of the same name ... provide instances of a spectacular eroticization, if not homoeroticization, of the male image that is quite unusual in mainstream cinema." See Brett Farmer, Spectacular Passions: Cinema, Fantasy, Gay Male Spectatorships (Duke University Press, 2000), p.86. See also the other quotes I have given on this talk page. For interpretations of Jailhouse Rock from a gay perspective, see, for instance, Sheila Whiteley and Jennifer Rycenga, eds, Queering the Popular Pitch (2006), p.249; Jeffery P. Dennis, Queering Teen Culture (2006), p.70; Linda K. Fuller's study, Media-Mediated Relationships (1995), p.168, and Harry M. Benshoff, Queer Cinema: The Film Reader (2005), p.81. And if you watch the dance sequence, you will notice that there can be no doubt that the university researchers are right. Onefortyone (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly have a continuing agenda to add as much 'gayness' to Presley's image in this article as you can. I note the undiscussed addition of "drag queen" to the legacy section. This type of editing in inexcusable. And no, I'm not trying to whitewash the article - you are on a solo mission to sexually skew wikipedia articles and this should be resisted when other encyclopedic biographies do not mirror your views about Presley. Rikstar (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow is this still going!? - Part of modern day culture I'm afraid Rikstar. There is a trend towards adding any number of famous people as gay to support a particular lifestyle. If writing a book on a subject means that references from that book satisfy WP:RS then they are valid (however much it seems like ) but....for balance the fact that he was hetro-sexual can also be 'supported'. It seems like it is still a case of put both sides and let the reader decide because we will never really know.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow indeed, it still is going. Your comments, as ever, have been duly noted. Rikstar (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting career - gay references 

message: I think that the TCB band, symbol, etc. merits having its own Wikipedia entry. However, I lack the knowledge to write it. I mention it here in hopes that someone can be spurred to do this. Migp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCB and TCB band? 

message: Beautiful People:
"Once it was established that a man could be a sex object, it was time to show he could be pretty, too. Androgyny in men would become a fact of life with the rise of rock and roll in the 50s. It was one thing for a flaming queen like Little Richard to cross the line segregating the genders, but even the overtly heterosexual Elvis Presley did some trespassing by wearing mascara and dressing in gold lame, the latter recommendation of Liberace, the entertainment world's most flamboyant fairy.
Following the example of Elvis and the rock and roll rebels he inspired, straight men broke free from the rigid dress code of earlier generations and started strutting their stuff without shame. Now, as men keep in shape with regular visits to health clubs (which their stogie smoking ancestors would have called a gym), the appreciation of male beauty is out of the closet as the gay men do much of the appreciating". Source: Date Info - The webzine of Date.com by Brian W. Fairbanks.
Brian W. Fairbanks has written alot of articles on Elvis as well as John Lennon, Bob Dylan etc. I think he is a bit of an Elvis Fan, don't hold that against him 141, the man just shows good taste. I personally think it's about the music, first and fullmost, the rest just follows,we are all human.
To User:Steve Pastor: amongst his many works, he has also written an article on The Ed Sullivan Show. Go to Brian W. Fairbanks -Writer on the web, if you care to have a look.--Jaye9 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Writer: Brian W. Fairbanks Perspective 

message: There were a couple of fans of Elvis Presley. Two boys named Andrew Scheib and Kushal Dhangauna introduced a boy named Rishi Haran to Elvis Presley. Kushal Dhangauna introduced Rishi one Elvis song Hound Dog. Andrew Scheib introduced Rishi another song Blue Suede Shoes. Then, Rishi saw music videos of Elvis on Youtube and soon, he loved Elvis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.69.139 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later on fans 

message: Jerry Hopkins' updated biog is essential reading as it was the first, and has been updated. It is unfortunate that LaraLove's wikiproject for this and other sections has not been followed. The content of Hopkins' biog is as valid as anyone else's and contains highly relevant information (positive and negative I might add). More to follow? Rikstar (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerry Hopkins has published best-selling biographies of Elvis and other stars such as Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix, and he was an editor and correspondent for Rolling Stone magazine. I see no problem quoting from this author's publications. However, in his book, Elvis: Prophet of Power, Samuel Roy says (p.121) about Hopkins's first biography of Elvis that, although at one time it "was considered a definite biography" ... it is clear that Hopkins does not have a good understanding of Elvis' talent. The most distasteful part of the book is Hopkins' great admiration for Colonel Parker." Roy adds that Hopkins's second book on Elvis was a "disappointment in almost every respect" and again proved that the author "understood neither Elvis the performer nor Elvis the man." Onefortyone (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So, Hopkins updated biog is a source worth using then. I'm glad we agree on that. Rikstar (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: I propose adding someting to the Legacy section (or a new one?} detailing the exploitation of Presley, especially immediately following his death. Material can be drawn from Hopkins' updated biog and can/should include some of David S. Wall's observations (re: EPE, etc.). Such a section/additions would not be negated to a related article, as other stuff has been. Rikstar (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think stuff I was thinking of adding would be more appropriate in the Elvis phenomenon section, but some bits could be added to Legacy in this article. Not a lot of feedback to improve/change this article at the moment, which is as I predicted. Rikstar (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section? 

message: ===The fans===
It has been claimed that there are over 500 US fan clubs and that they exist in every state except three: North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming. According to the American Demographics magazine, 84% of the US people say that their lives have been touched by Elvis Presley in some way, 70% have watched a movie starring Presley, 44% have danced to one of his songs, 31% have bought an Elvis record, CD or video, 10% have visited Graceland, 9% have bought Elvis memorabilia, 9% have read a book about Presley, and 5% have seen the singer in concert.See Elvis People, A Play by Doug Grissom. Not all of these people are Presley fans. 
Music critic and Presley biographer Dave Marsh says about the singer's fans: "There are people in places that count in the world, and people in places that don't. He is the son of the people who don't count, and their shining star. That's what makes him unique and what people still respond to.""How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. A collection of essays entitled The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media critically examines what distinguishes fans from general audiences and explores the relationship between fans and their adored media products. Part of this volume is the article, "Fandom and Gender" which includes an examination of female fantasies of Presley.See Lisa A. Lewis, The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992). To many of his female fans, the songs Presley sang "were secondary to his personality and the way he performed them," evoking the well-known emotional responses.Roger D. Blackwell, Tina and Kristina Stephan, Brands That Rock: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the World of Rock and Roll (2003), p.33. In her autobiographical article, "Sexing Elvis" (1984), Sue Wise even describes "how she came to terms with her lesbianism through a close identification with the feminine side of the King."Quoted in Kate McGowan, Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 5 (2002), p.199. 
"Elvis's 'effect' on young girls threatened those men who assumed that young girls needed to be protected both from sex in general and from its expression in questionable characters like Elvis in particular."Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p.136. However, there were not only female fantasies directed at the star. According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community."Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), p.20. 
"Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls"; yet, Presley "clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon."Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), p.251-252.  This poll should, however, be taken with a grain of salt as Presley had significantly more record sales than Pat Boone.
===The ritualization of the "Elvis cult"===
There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod." Donald Theall, Virtual Marshall McLuhan (2001), p.129. See also Sylvere Lotringer and Sande Cohen (eds.), French Theory in America (2001), p.114. "An excessive enterprise, empire and entity, Elvis appears on memorabilia and merchandise, in roadside relics and Graceland's gift shops; at fast food chains, in front yard flea markets and backyard shrines; World-Wide Web sites in cyberspace and sporting events; at parties and parades or as part of promotions, protests and pranks."George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.3-4. On August 16, thousands of die-hard Elvis fans travel to Graceland every year in order to celebrate the anniversary of Presley's death.Cameron Tuttle, The Bad Girls' Guide to Open Road (1999), p.192. The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators.See Annalee Newitz, White Trash: Race and Class in America (1996), p.262. According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult."Marjorie B. Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (1997), p.369. 
What is more, David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. "With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."David S. Wall, “Policing Elvis: legal action and the shaping of postmortem celebrity culture as contested space”, Entertainment Law, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, 52-53. 
According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage."David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998). "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult."James Elkins, On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art (2004), p.53. A collector in Newark, New Jersey "paid nearly a billion dollars for a messy nap-kin said to have been used once by Elvis Presley."Ruffin Prevost, Internet Insider (1995), p.42. Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult."Paul A. Cantor, "Adolf, We Hardly Knew You." In New Essays on White Noise. Edited by Frank Lentricchia (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.53. Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977 (see the "Elvis lives?" section of this article). 
In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture. 
This Presley cult has been much criticized. "As one reader complained: I was really surprised that you used that article about the boring Elvis cult! You would use one on McDonald's?"Rodman, Elvis After Elvis, p.75.
===Critical voices===
Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life. During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis.Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.288. According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis. Jennifer Harrison, Elvis As We Knew Him: Our Shared Life in a Small Town in South Memphis (2003), p.71. "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years."Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, p.58. 
According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy, who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'" Robert A. Segal, Theorizing About Myth (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), p.109. When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse."Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.173. 
In a recent study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll.See Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004). 
However, one of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier."Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303. It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jeweled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans."Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380 According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits.See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116. Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich."Garber, p.368. Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it.Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127. No wonder that "white drag kings tend to pick on icons like Elvis Presley." See Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999), p. 248. 
Thus, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." Except for the fans who held his memory in honor, he was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'"Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173. After the singer's death, things changed. In their book When Elvis Died: A Chronicle of National and International Reaction to the Passing of an American King (1980), Neal and Janice Gregory documented through newspaper and television archives the reaction of the media to the spontaneous and unprecedented outpouring of public grief at Elvis's death. One reporter after another described scenes not witnessed since the death of Valentino. When President Jimmy Carter issued a public statement acknowledging Elvis's contribution to American life, he effected a turning point in our culture and the way the media reports on figures in show business. It could be argued that Elvis's death was the event that precipitated the media's dubious current obsession with celebrity. According to Curtis W. Ellision, "The most vivid anecdotes in When Elvis Died focus on the origins of the perpetual death memorial that Presley's home, Graceland, has become." The author adds that "Some anecdotes in the Gregory account reinforce the impression that Presley's death touched nostalgia for teenage years."Curtis W. Ellision, Country Music Culture: From Hard Times to Heaven (1995), p.153.
===The Elvis religion===
In a later essay, Neal and Janice Gregory critically discuss the media attention on the subsequent Elvis religion as a means to discredit his fans.See Neal and Janice Gregory, "When Elvis Died: Enshrining a Legend," in Vernon Chadwick, ed., In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion (1997). Indeed, after his death, Presley had been seen by fans as "Other Jesus" or "Saint Elvis".See Mark Gottdiener, "Dead Elvis as Other Jesus", in Chadwick, In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion, and "Saint Elvis" in Elvis Culture, by Erika Doss (University of Kansas Press, 1999). "I don't think he will ever die down," Dolly Parton says. "He's considered by many to be like a religious figure, like Jesus. ... I don't know how to explain it, but it's there, and it's real, and people love it.""How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. 
In his book Elvis Religion: The Cult of the King (2006), Gregory L. Reece describes the presence of Presley in books, songs, art, movies and on the Internet. The author sets out to appraise the religious significance of the star for popular culture. For instance, Paul Simon's 1986 song "Graceland" presents Graceland as a holy place. Movies like "Finding Graceland" and "Mystery Train" have Presley as the central character, bearing spiritual messages. In Portland, Oregon, a woman opened the so-called Twenty-Four Hour Church of Elvis. There, visitors could slip a quarter into a machine, — The Mystery of the Spinning Elvis — to supposedly contact the spirit of Presley. Some Internet sites even invite people to post accounts of their spiritual encounters with the singer. Several artists use Presley as a recurring theme because he is such an icon of pop culture. The Naked Art Studio in Birmingham had a showing of Elvis art. A mosaic entitled "The Last Supper (Elvis)," shows Presley enjoying a turkey leg at a table littered with pill bottles — allusions to Presley's religion and drug abuse. However, "Elvis stands for violence, uncertainty and loss," says Reece. "Elvis is the apocalyptic messenger. One doesn't seek him out for spiritual advice, but shudders at his presence." The author concludes that Presley is the sort of god the public wants today. Elvis was overweight, he dressed out of date and he took too many prescription drugs, just like us. 
Only a small part of this material is already included in the current version of the article. Many parts have been excluded last year by Northmeister who created some additional pages in order to get rid of the critical material from the main article. Onefortyone (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Elvis cult and its critics

message: In a later essay, Neal and Janice Gregory critically discuss the media attention on the subsequent Elvis religion as a means to discredit his fans.See Neal and Janice Gregory, "When Elvis Died: Enshrining a Legend," in Vernon Chadwick, ed., In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion (1997). Indeed, after his death, Presley had been seen by fans as "Other Jesus" or "Saint Elvis".See Mark Gottdiener, "Dead Elvis as Other Jesus", in Chadwick, In Search of Elvis: Music, Race, Art, Religion, and "Saint Elvis" in Elvis Culture, by Erika Doss (University of Kansas Press, 1999). "I don't think he will ever die down," Dolly Parton says. "He's considered by many to be like a religious figure, like Jesus. ... I don't know how to explain it, but it's there, and it's real, and people love it.""How Big Was The King? Elvis Presley's Legacy, 25 Years After His Death." CBS News, August 7, 2002. 
In his book Elvis Religion: The Cult of the King (2006), Gregory L. Reece describes the presence of Presley in books, songs, art, movies and on the Internet. The author sets out to appraise the religious significance of the star for popular culture. For instance, Paul Simon's 1986 song "Graceland" presents Graceland as a holy place. Movies like "Finding Graceland" and "Mystery Train" have Presley as the central character, bearing spiritual messages. In Portland, Oregon, a woman opened the so-called Twenty-Four Hour Church of Elvis. There, visitors could slip a quarter into a machine, — The Mystery of the Spinning Elvis — to supposedly contact the spirit of Presley. Some Internet sites even invite people to post accounts of their spiritual encounters with the singer. Several artists use Presley as a recurring theme because he is such an icon of pop culture. The Naked Art Studio in Birmingham had a showing of Elvis art. A mosaic entitled "The Last Supper (Elvis)," shows Presley enjoying a turkey leg at a table littered with pill bottles — allusions to Presley's religion and drug abuse. However, "Elvis stands for violence, uncertainty and loss," says Reece. "Elvis is the apocalyptic messenger. One doesn't seek him out for spiritual advice, but shudders at his presence." The author concludes that Presley is the sort of god the public wants today. Elvis was overweight, he dressed out of date and he took too many prescription drugs, just like us. 
Only a small part of this material is already included in the current version of the article. Many parts have been excluded last year by Northmeister who created some additional pages in order to get rid of the critical material from the main article. Onefortyone (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Elvis religion

message: I've made some additions/clean up. Would like to have made more to enable it all to read better, but there would no doubt be the same old objections. Rikstar (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits  

message: This needs to be intergrated into the article, a similar thing was done very successfully on the Janet Jackson article, which subsequently became a GA. At the moment this is nothing more than a trivia list with a posh title. Has anyone concidered renominating this article soon it doesnt seem too far off on a quick scan? --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I'll look at integration. I agree it should be nominated too. Rikstar (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have merged Awards and recognition with rest of article - mainly Legacy. Rikstar (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Concerning the length of the article, you have claimed that any other huge solo acts don't come close to Elvis Presley. You are wrong. For longer Wikipedia pages on big figures in the history of popular music, see the featured article on Bob Dylan (139,627 bytes) and the good article on  Paul McCartney (122,724 bytes). This means that the Elvis article doesn't need to be trimmed in order to achieve GA status. Onefortyone (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks R2. Take your point about length; you should have seen the FA nomination of 2 years ago - 150kish?? This article is pretty much impeccably sourced, but we can lose some stuff - if only other editors allow (it's been difficult...). Will give it a go. Rikstar (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case you have come a long way already. ;-) — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and recognition AKA - trivia list 

message: Though you spent a lot of time on the article in order to improve the text, Rikstar, I am not happy with some of your recent deletions, for instance:
*Wall has argued that many Presley authors are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which tends to be biased. He contends that few publications are critical. One such book is Albert Goldman's controversial biography (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his stage costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall claims that one of the strategies of fan clubs and appreciation societies is "'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. "With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." 
*Vernon Presley recalled: "There were times we had nothing to eat but cornbread and water ... but we always had compassion for people. Poor we were, I’ll never deny that. But trash we weren’t ... We never had any prejudice. We never put anybody down. Neither did Elvis." 
*The article claims that "the so-called dangerous rock-and-roll idol was anything but a despotic ruler in the bedroom ... He was far more interested in heavy petting."	 
*Peggy Lipton further relates that with Presley it "didn't feel like a man next to me—more like a boy who'd never matured." When he tried to make love to her, "he just wasn't up to sex. Not that he wasn't built, but with me, at least, he was virtually impotent."	 
*In his critical study on the "dream machine" (media manipulation to create semi-fictional icons), Gamson cites a press agent "saying that his client, Ann-Margret, could initially have been "sold ... as anything"; "She was a new product. We felt there was a need in The Industry for a female Elvis Presley." 	
See also these edits: , , ,  . I will leave it for now but I would like to reinclude the material. Onefortyone (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent removals by Rikstar

message: Why does the last edit say it was removed from Category:Possibly living people]? We have an entire article devoted to Elvis sightings!!! Elvisfan4life (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia guidelines discourages fringe theories. Bytebear (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, note that the Elvis sightings article explicitly states that Elvis is dead. Bytebear (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis sightings