Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 1

message: 1) "the demand for transistor radios exploded so much so that Sony went from a small Japanese telecommunications company making radios to a giant global conglomerate"
Uuuuuh ! What about this? Is it all thank to Elvis that Sony becam what it is now?? If not (and I'm pretty sure it's not), this information has no place here.
::Elvis sightings links here, but this page says nothing about the phenomenon, or about the Church of Elvis, or the many other strange things related to him.212.42.97.111 11:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, disagree with 

message: I love Elvis's music, but I don't know much about his international impact. The thing is that the section isn't quite complete, so I was wondering if there's someone who knows a great deal about Elvis Presley's international influence. Then you can expand on information on Elvis's influence. If there's somebody who's a big Elvis fan, please let me know. Marcus2 13:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis Presley's international influence

message: It might not hurt to have a mention of his legacy among impersonators and such, as well as more on Elvis sightings and mentions of the Churches in his name (though they are mostly jokes), but they are still part of his legacy: Church of Jesus Christ Elvis and First Preslyterian Church of Elvis the Divine.  Let he who has not sinned cast the first rhinestone... --DanielCD 20:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis' cultural legacy 

message: Madonna has 35 Top 10's, the last was "Die Another Day" in November 2002. And Elvis has 38 Hot 100 Top Tens, this was confirmed when Billboard published "110 Musical Milestones" in celebration of their 100th anniversary a month or so ago. MadonnaFan 17:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Tens

message: http://go.to/madonna -- FAQ --- the webmaster discusses the records that Madonna, Elvis, The Beatles, etc. hold. The site is down but will be up soon... MadonnaFan 04:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 40 singles=

message: Jesse Garon Presley was Elvis' stillborn identical twin. Here's the link to his bio at the official site. In the interest of completeness, I added both to the category. I think its appropriate, but im not looking for a fight, i wont re-apply it if it disappears again. popefauvexxiii 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Identical twins 

message: I removed this:
:In France, singer Johnny Hallyday copied Presley in the French language, becoming a huge star in that country.
I don't know much about either of them, but I haven't found any source to support the theory that Johnny Hallyday is nothing but a French-language Elvis impersonator. It might be accurate to say he was strongly influenced by him, but then who wasn't? Deco 01:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Hallyday 

message: I read the booklet of my "The complete 50's masters" (5 CD-box, RCA, bought 1993).
* It has pictures of posters, saying "The Jordonaires". 
:page sessionography, second page
:page starting with 'Tutti Frutti', background picture. 
* But the same chapter, recording personnel-lists say "Vocals: The Jordanaires".
Fed investigation requested.
-DePiep 14:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling The Jordonaires/Jordanaires 

message: Hey, stop it with the edit-summary-challenged reverts.  Before anyone else reverts any more changes, please discuss these edits here.  I'm sure we can come to a solution that everyone is happy with- some people here don't want Elvis to be slandered posthumously, and others want possibly relevant biographical information to be included somehow.  I'm sure we can couch the information properly so that it can be included with a grain of salt. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, if it's written by David Bret it SHOULD be taken with a grain of salt. He's a modern day Albert Goldman! Here's some facts about Elvis' sexuality. I am in close contact with many of Elvis' friends, former employees and family. At one time or another at least one of these people were always with Elvis. According to them, Elvis never lost his interest in women,and he was never faithful to any one woman! While married, he slept with hundreds of other women, then when Linda Thompson-Jenner-Foster came into the picture and lived at Graceland he cheated on her. While he was engaged to Ginger Alden he had a tryst with Alicia Kerwin(a bank teller from Memphis), and a few others in Las Vegas. Just because he knew Nick Adams does not make EP gay! I have gay friends too....does that automatically make me gay?
:As for his step-mother Dee, she has made some very unsavory remarks about Elvis and his own mother! (Gladys) If she can say something that vile, then she's capable of saying anything. Besides, she's mentally unstable.
:Also, this Bret creature claims Elvis and Priscilla only made love one time... HOW would he know such a thing?
:I will not stand by and let him tarnish the name of one of the greatest entertainers of all time and a true American Icon.
:Many of the Memphis Mafia have written tell-all books and if this gay factor fit in they would have used it to boost sales. They are all in total agreement that Bret is full of .....well, you know what.
::A devoted Elvis fan is constantly deleting what is written about Presley's possible homosexuality in two different books on Elvis and some other sources. One of these sources is written by the king's stepmother, Dee Presley. In the article on Elvis is only written that some authors claim that Elvis was gay. The reader may decide whether or not this accusation is true. This Elvis fan seems to be the same guy who is still under a Wikipedia hard ban. He is even deleting parts of the present discussion and claims, without proof, that Elvis slept with hundreds of women. I do not understand why this Elvis fan sees the king's possible homosexuality as a problem. ~~~~  -  User: 80.141.212.159
:::It's a problem because it's a LIE!
::::This is your opinion. Others would say that there is enough evidence that it's true. ~~~~   -  User: 80.141.238.198
*Produce the evidence then. There is none.
But, there is plenty of evidence to prove EP was Not GAY! 
**Actually, the "devoted fan" is someone who knew Elvis all of his life.
:::This is what you claim you are. Sorry, it seems more likely that you are a member of the Elvis Mafia who wants to make money selling "girl's guides to Elvis Presley" and all of this stuff and therefore wants to keep alive the story of Elvis the prodigious lover of women. Why are you so keenly interested in suppressing other opinions in this talk on Elvis? According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you are not allowed to delete contributions by other users on discussion pages. ~~~~  -  User: 80.141.238.198
::::The above paragraph is a personal attack on the integrity of the MM. They have never written any silly "girls guides to Elvis Presley". Most of their books on EP have become the Definitive books, and even Peter Guarlnick used their books as his personal reference. As I mentioned earlier, there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and the most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM.´The more I read remarks like the one referenced, the more I'm convinced David Bret is indeed here plugging himself (haha) and his book. [ L.T. - CA ]
:::::You are indeed joking around. ~~~~
There is nothing for the reader to decide about Elvis' sexuality, he was 100% heterosexual. It's a shame someone is taking the word of Dee Presley, one of the few women Elvis despised! There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay.....one is by Dee Presley and the other is by a plagiarist named David Bret.
:Sorry, this is not true. There are even some discussions how gay some Elvis lyrics may have been, for example in the song, "Teddy Bear":
::Baby let me be,
::your lovin' Teddy Bear
::Put a chain around my neck,
::and lead me anywhere
::Oh let me be
::Your teddy bear.
:Once the reader gets past the requisite Abu Ghraib reference, it could well be that Elvis is singing about the leather-laded gay bear scene.  -  User: 80.141.178.36
**What an idiotic conclusion!!!
Are you for real?  Firstly, he didn't write that song. Secondly, you have to listen to the song and not try and take the lyrics out of context.  It was written and sung for a teenage audience.  It's about puppy love and nothing else.  Good grief, take you're nonsensical agenda elsewhere.
:As for Abu Ghraib, let us further examine the king's famous "Jailhouse Rock":
::The drummer boy from Illinois went crash, boom, bang,
::the whole rhythm section was the Purple Gang.
::Let's rock, everybody, let's rock.
::Everybody in the whole cell block
::was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock.
::Number forty-seven said to number three:
::"You're the cutest jailbird I ever did see.
::I sure would be delighted with your company,
::come on and do the Jailhouse Rock with me."
::Let's rock, everybody, let's rock.
::Everybody in the whole cell block
::was dancin' to the Jailhouse Rock.
::The sad sack was a sittin' on a block of stone
::way over in the corner weepin' all alone.
::The warden said, "Hey, buddy, don't you be no square.
::If you can't find a partner use a wooden chair.
:When was the last time you heard of a co-ed prison? There is also the expression "Purple gang". The reader may know that lavender is the official gay color. Number 47 also seems to have something for fellow inmates. In addition, you may try to figure out what two partners might do with a wooden chair. If you have any ideas, let me know.  -  User: 80.141.178.36
:: --OH now that is rich! Elvis didn't write those songs....and even if he did. Are you saying that Eminem is a rapist/murderer because he "sings" about rape and murder? Your logic is twisted, and you're sadly mistaken about Elvis having ANY gay tendencies. No, I'm not a member of the MM, but let me tell you some of them have written factual books about EP, such as: Revelations of the Memphis Mafia, Elvis What Happened, Portrait of a Friend, Elvis From Memphis to Hollywood. Perhaps you need to contact Elvis historian and former Memphis entertainment reporter Bill E Burk. He has several highly accliamed Elvis books in print, and he was a personal friend as well. He believes in researching his work, not listening to idle gossip the way Bret does.
----
What shall we do now? Despite recent claims by some authors, among them Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley, that the king may have been gay as he had an affair with homosexual actor Nick Adams, there is the opinion of many others that such accusations are only based on hearsay. I think that both opinions should be mentioned in the article. At the beginning, the said passage on the king's relationships clearly says "From the beginning of his career, Elvis was a sex symbol who sent legions of women swooning. He had a string of girlfriends, before and after he became famous, including celebrities such as Mamie Van Doren, Natalie Wood, Tuesday Weld, Cybill Shepherd and Ann-Margret." Therefore, I have now added at the end the sentence, "Despite these accusations, many other authors believe that there is still much evidence that Elvis was heterosexual." I hope that this is satisfactory and acceptable to all. ~~~~
:Dee Presley is not a credible source. David Bret is a sleeze chaser.
::This is your personal opinion. ~~~~  -  User: 80.141.186.210
*Hey, sorry I wasn't able to follow this debate over the weekend, but I'm finding it really hard to follow the debate retrospectively, as you guys aren't signing your comments.  So I have a few requests, if this debate is to continue:
# Can everyone start signing their comments with ~~~~?  This is good advice for any wikipedia talk page.  
# Can we refrain from the personal attacks?  Even though "idiotic conclusion" is not a direct attack on a person, it is still unnecessary for these procedings.
# I think we all acknowledge that our encyclopedia article should include all important sources.  Though some people may discredit Dee Presley and David Bret's credibility, the fact that they are significant biographers or characters in Elvis' life means that their opinions should be presented as such in the article, although they can be given with a disclaimer.  If these claims are later resoundingly disproven, we can remove the topics.
OK guys, are we cool? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Hey, I just had to re-add some comments that were deleted by User:66.61.69.65, who is still failing to sign his posts.  If you continue to not follow wiki procedure, you may be blocked from editing.  Please follow decorum here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:OK, I just saw the same removal on the article and the talk page by User:24.165.212.202.  If anyone makes these same removals without further discussion or descriptive edit summaries, I will block their IP for 24 hours.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Same warning for User:82.40.81.132.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have now rearranged the discussion text to make it more readable. No part of the original text is missing. ~~~~  -  User: 80.141.191.142
One last thing, I would like to refocus the debate on this page slightly.  Keep in mind that we are not debating here whether or not Elvis was or was not gay, but whether or not the 'rumors that he was gay are encyclopedic.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:In an article by David S. Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. See  The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was poor sales and the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power. Dee Presley subsequently wrote an article in the National Enquirer about Elvis’s alleged incestuous relationship with his mother. This action invoked an angry reaction from the fans; for example, the T.C.B. Gazette, journal of the Looking for Elvis Fan Club in Mobile, Alabama, published an open letter by Midge Smith to encourage all fans to boycott the Star, a US tabloid: ‘[a]s Elvis fans, we all feel compelled to protect Elvis from those that profit from his name and image, only to turn the truth into trash’. Smith’s stance was supported by the fan club, which appealed to ‘‘‘Elvis’’ fans world-wide not to purchase the Star magazine any more’. 
:Another interesting, but slightly complicated, example of the de facto ‘community’ policing of Elvis occurred after the organisers of the Second International Elvis Presley Conference, held at the University of Oxford, Mississippi in August 1996, invited San Francisco-based Elvis Herselvis, a lesbian Elvis impersonator, to perform at the conference. The conference organiser, Professor Vernon Chadwick, sought ‘not to provoke controversy gratuitously’, rather, ‘to test the limits of race, class, sexuality and property, and when these traditional strongholds are challenged, controversies arise from the subjects themselves’. Furthermore, as an official University event, the conference must comply ‘with all applicable laws regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity in all its activities and programs and does not discriminate against anyone protected by law because of age, creed, colour, national origin, race, religion, sex, handicap, veteran, or other status’. Whilst these intentions were widely known, a number of local Baptist Ministers complained to the Mayor of Tupelo about the inclusion of Elvis Herselvis on the conference programme and sought to block funding for the conference. The church’s concerns were supported by the organiser of the Elvis birthplace and Museum, then EPE followed suit. Conference organiser Chadwick argued that these actions ‘really get interesting when you throw in all the indigenous racism, homophobia, and class distinction that Elvis suffered in the South and throughout his career’. Chadwick received a formal, but diplomatic, letter from EPE’s licensing officer which formally POLICING ELVIS withdrew support for the conference. It referred specifically to the controversial nature of the ‘performers’ invited to the 1996 conference and alluded to the ‘possible [negative] media exposure of this controversial event’. Indeed, it seems probable that the estate’s own actions were themselves forced by the broader community view. Whilst the withdrawal of Graceland’s support was not critical to the survival of the conference, the organisers were disappointed because of the event’s cultural affinity with Graceland."
:It could well be that the ample suppression of the opinion Elvis may have been gay on the present discussion page must be seen in the same light. Therefore, the passage, "just about every other author, writing in the vein of the worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the king, believes that Elvis was heterosexual", should be included in the Wikipedia article. ~~~~  -  User: 80.141.248.192
First - terminology:  "Gay" commonly refers to people who "strongly" prefer to have sex with people of the same sex. (Most often refering to male homosexuals).  Since Elvis is reported to have had sufficient (in my judgement) liaisons with the opposite sex, he was unlikely to be "gay".  -- The questions of how you define a person's sex and just how strong the preference must be, I'll leave to others to wrangle over - I don't think they matter here.  Can we agree that the argument here is whether he could be described as a bisexual?
Second - "100% hetrosexual".  Unless a man gets physically sick at the sight of another man or in any other man's presence, the idea that he is 100% of any sexual orientation is silly.  We are talking about preferences, right?  If we are talking about behaviour, then there may be a factual basis to base conclusions on.  These "facts", if subjected to sufficient examination or corroboration, may be accepted by a rational unbiased observer or may be discredited.  Proof is evidence sufficient to convince, nothing more nor less.  
Third - Negative Proof.  In order to "prove" that Elvis was not bisexual, you would have to prove that he never ever engaged in sex acts with another male.  This is an impossible task: he was not monitored by unbiased, honest observers 24/7, birth to death.  
Fourth - I assert that given his own self-interest (for all the financial, social and personal reasons you can think of in those "enlightened" times) he would reasonably be expected to keep his "preferences" a secret.  Given the "show-biz" reality then and now it is likely (again IMHO) that some of his "girlfriends" were only there for the publicity (like Rock Hudson's career) or for the money ( examples are infinite).  BOTH for their part and on his part.  We CAN agree, I believe that he did NOT leave behind a hoarde of male lovers - else we would have heard from some of them by now.  So, would it be also reasonable to agree that he preferred women?  (The question, irrelevant as whether he put his left shoe on first or his right, is did he have a significant interest in men (as sexual partners)?)  The answer (to repeat myself) seems to be that he preferred women.  Why isn't that enough?
:I would agree if there were not the Memphis Mafia, a group of men who used to hang with Elvis all day and night. So it is an undisputable fact that Elvis spent much more time with men than women. Thus it is more likely that he preferred men.  -  User: 80.141.178.108
Fifth - His daughter is still with us (I think?)  I therefore assert that it is hurtful to SPECULATE about her father.  It is unkind, uncharitable, unChristian and just plain mean.  It is gossip.  Just nasty.  
Sixth - As stated by others above, the question is what are the facts?  Not assertions unsupported by any verifiable facts, but plain old facts.  Not he said she said, but verifiable facts.  The idea that he couldn't have had any secrets from his inner circle is (IMHO) silly - we all have secrets.  The idea that his inner circle must know something is also speculation.  How does any of this affect his legacy?
:There is the statement by The King's stepmother that Elvis had a sexual affair with Nick Adams.  -  User: 80.141.178.108
Seventh - There are those who do not want to blemish his "reputation" for any reason and there are those who want to throw mud, need to throw mud.  Neither of these camps will EVER  have proof sufficient to get them to change their mind.  These two camps are talking past one another.
Eighth - ANYBODY can "conclude" that Mr. X was a "Y".  Solid biographers will document the factual basis for this claim in their publications.  Often, the fact that someone made a claim is treated as a fact supporting the same claim.  This is circular group think.  From what I read here about Bret's claim, I saw NO facts entered as evidence simply his compilation of others claims/opinions.  This is poor journalism and terrible biography - I'm talking about the Wiki article not Bret's book.  Either substantiate Bret's claim with facts garnered from his book, or remove the reference to it.
Ninth - PP is HOT.  Yeah even at 60.  Makes you wonder.... 
:) 02:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aight Kids, Reel it in a little 

message: Has Elvis really had an "immeasurable" effect on world culture? What does that even mean in this context - that we can't measure it or that it's somehow off the scale? It could be "measurable" and probably be more sensible. All in all I think the article is a bit over the top. Differing opinions? Hardwick 20:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperbole? 

message: This article does an extremely poor job of treating the roots of EP's music in black gospel and blues.  That needs to be remedied.  There should be a section on "Musical influences." Also, under "criticms," there needs to be specific mention of the phenomenon of cultural appropriation which is a specific phenomenon -- which explains why most African-Americans don't have much use for Elvis or his music.  deeceevoice 08:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural appropriation: the African American roots of Elvis' music & performance style

message: In my opinion, the men from the Memphis Mafia must me mentioned in the article, as they played a significant part in Elvis's life. 80.141.245.142 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Memphis Mafia 

message: Aside from published hearsay decades after he died, there is no documented evidence Presley was gay. Must this article include unsubstantiated gossip? Wyss 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact that there are some independent sources which claim that Elvis was gay. It is also an undisputed fact that he spent most of his time with men from the Memphis Mafia. 80.141.249.159 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis was gay

message: The notion that Elvis got his hairstyle from Captain Marvel seems insane.  If you've ever seen pictures of black doo-wop groups, its pretty clear where Elvis got the idea.....NoahB 19:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Captain Marvel Junior, not Captain Marvel. Also, Elvis borrowed not just the haircut, but the lightning bolt symbol (see: his "TCB" logo: ). And those facts can be justified easily; a quick search of "Elvis" + "Captain" + "Marvel" (eliminating "Junior"/"Jr." from the search because of the variant spellings) produces hundreds of hits and several relevant links:    (those last two are interviews from Elvis' mother). You can barely see the resemblance in the top picture on this page because of the way it is lit, but this picture and several of the ones on the main page of elvis.com showcase the Elvis/CMJ haircut. Questions? --FuriousFreddy 02:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The influence of both factors should still be obvious, though. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis' hair 

message: I've noticed some back and forth on the middle bame, Aaron or Aron... does anyone know the story on this? Was it perhaps a change he made at some point? Is it only mis-spelled on the grave marker? Or was it a common mis-spelling throughout his life. Did EP ever comment on it? Wyss 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncle Ed said on this discussion page on Presley's middle name: "Elvis's middle name is spelled "Aaron" on his tombstone; according to his official site, the name was spelled Aron at birth but as an adult Elvis planned to change the spelling to Aaron, and the tombstone was designed to reflect that wish.  " What about saying Elvis A(a)ron Presley at the beginning of the article? 80.141.214.107 21:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Messy. I changed it back to Aaron. This could be a trivia item, though. Wyss 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaron and Aron

message: Why was the quote for Garth Brooks removed? I feel this quote has as much importance and relevance as that of John Lennon's, seeing as Garth was continually compared to Elvis for a number of years by certain media and when was asked about it, replied "No one will Ever touch Elvis". I ut it on the Garth Brooks article and feels it also has relevance to this one. 195.93.21.4 11:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Garth who?  Jgm 01:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Garth Brooks. One of the worlds most successfull - if not the most successfull - artists of the past 15-20 years. (Further info on him can be found on Wikipedia by clicking on his name >>>>>> Garth Brooks 195.93.21.4 19:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "Garth Brooks" was a pseudonym of Chris Gaines.  Jgm 00:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Give up the comedy attempt. (lol) 195.93.21.4 06:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Garth Brooks Quote

message: The opening of this article as re-written by Ted Wilkes is too PoV. I'm not going to revert it for the moment, so as to prepare the discussion. Elvis Presley was the single most important act in American popular music during the mid and late 1950s. However, the statements made in the article are now so sweeping as to be unsupportable. He was not the most influential entertainer in the history of music (although likely the most influential entertainer in the history of American popular music). He was not in any way responsible for the advent or success of the 45 RPM record as the wording of the article implies. He was not responsible for the emergence of rock and roll. He was certainly not responsible for the relatively generous allowances post-war children in the US received and so on. He had enormous talent and I can write about remarkable aspects of his talent which are not yet in this article. He rode the wave of these things, so to speak, with that talent, rather gloriously for a time, but he was not responsible for them. 
Out of all the books published about EP, it is likely possible to find someone somewhere in print who has made some of these superlative generalisations, but for all the enormous impact Presley had, it was not as described in the article. Extraordinary assertions such as these require extraordinary citations, multiple and scholarly. I'm open to seeing them.
* First, please support the statement that EP was the most influential entertainer in the history of music. Wyss 15:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any citation, I have NPoV'd the statement into something more reasonably supportable. Next,
* Please support (using multiple, scholarly sources) the statement that "EP created a phenomenal change in music entertainment bringing about a major shift in consumer markets, the likes of which had never been seen before." This is an incredibly sweeping remark implying EP personally engineered a shift in the global economy. Wyss 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweeping statements

message: I removed: 
* Elvis is said to have been able to recite all of James Dean's lines in the movie Rebel Without A Cause and reportedly dated Natalie Wood early in his career.
This "Rebel Without A Cause" reference is a fabrication or confusion with Jerry Schilling who told Larry King he (Schilling) was a big Dean and Brando fan but never said he memorized anything. It was not on Presley's list of favorite movies as detailed by Priscilla Presley in her book Elvis and Me. (See that article for films he did like.) Her only reference to Dean was in passing named together with Brando and others of the new generation as examples of some "serious" young actors that Elvis wanted to be rather than the movie roles he was stuck with. His relationship with Natalie Wood is already covered in the Relationships section.
::Thanks for taking care of that one, Ted Wilkes ;) Wyss 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't miss that comment. It sounds more like politics than music criticism to me. Wyss 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: Looking over the article, I think it's much improved. I especially appreciate Ted Wilkes' extensive additions (thanks!) about EP's gospel roots and relationships. Also, his work on the opening passages, although I thought they were too PoV at first, IMO with a bit of tweaking are now a helpful synopsis of the socio-economic setting into which this talented individual stepped in 1954-55.
About the phrase Elvis Presley was the most influential entertainer in the history of popular music, I think it should read American popular music, but in truth I'm ok with it so long as it continues to read popular music. I think such a summary is only slightly exaggerated and is reasonably arguable and acceptable. No (or very few) eyebrows should raise if the phrase widely acknowledged as... is kept in the header.
* There was an American musical comedy called Bye Bye Birdie, a sort of satire/homage to Elvis starring Ann Margret. Is this worth a mention in the article? Wyss 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I've done something to upset you Ted Wilkes. Please let me know when you're ready to discuss this article according to Wikipedia procedure and policy. Thanks. Wyss 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Influential Elvis

message: A Wikipedia article is not a fanzine or tribute page. The line,  Rolling Stone magazine's biography of him noted, "Elvis Presley is rock 'n' roll." is unencyclopedic and inappropriate for the header. Rock and roll is a genre of music, not a human being. Immediately below, the article does assert, in effect, that Presley embodied rock and roll so the RS quote is redundant too. The Billboard "#1 act of the rock era" quote is even more problematic. There are issues with the definition of rock era, and for that reason the #1 can be reasonably argued against. The latter has already been discussed here, and I have removed it. I've left the RS quote for now. Finally, any description of any person's influence in any field must be qualified somehow, for example by is widely regarded, is generally considered, even is overwhelmingly regarded and so on. Wyss 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you now contradicting yourself? You already asserted above: 
*"About the phrase Elvis Presley was the most influential entertainer in the history of popular music, I think it should read American popular music, but in truth I'm ok with it so long as it continues to read popular music."   --  Ted Wilkes 20:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Still do. Could you please try reading my posts more carefully?  Wyss 20:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RS and Billboard quotes in header

message: User:Wyss: Researching your edits over the past few days lends me to several conclusions. 1) You need to tone down your "comments", they come across as arrogant, and all-knowing. 2) You have either deleted important historical facts like transistor radios or you completely reworded something that totally and completely changed the important fact as follows:
::::Your comments come across like a maniacal, unobjective Elvis fan, Ted Wilkes, but I know you wouldn't describe yourself that way, I'm willing to collaborate with you, I understand how these things can happen. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You had made several interprative, PoV and historical errors (in my judgement) already. I was being careful. If that's what the article says I take your word for it. A quote would be nice but isn't necessary :) Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know something about that radio station, and have read lots about it. They didn't even switch to rock and roll/pop until Elvis was back from the army. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The transistor was developed by Western Electric during the late 1940s. Early transistor radios were expensive, "tinny" sounding devices sold for their "portability" and were not a mass market item until the late fifties (by which time Elvis was in the army) when Sony did begin tapping into the American youth market with small, cheap, lightweight and still tinny sounding "transistor radios." Elvis Presley was not responsible for the emergence of transistor technology or transistor radios. Rather, his fame was built on tube technology, tens of millions of tube radios (in homes and cars) and record players, thousands of tube radio and TV transmitters (and his first hits were on 78RPM shellac records, I've held one of them in my hand- That's Alright Mama/Blue Moon of Kentucky, I think it was- that part's original research but I can support it with a cite if you like). RCA had introduced 45RPM records in the late 1940s as the result of competition with CBS and its 33&1/3RPM "long playing" records (based on older radio transcription discs). Most people had 78RPM players so it took awhile for the new formats to catch on, but by the mid 1950s the north American market was flooded with all sorts of releases from many artists in many genres in both formats, which were vastly superior to 78RPM in terms of playing time (the 33s anyway), convenience, surface noise, wear, breakability (the new discs were vinyl, not shellac) and for more complex reasons, sound. They were destined for mass market acceptance with or without that "backslidden Pentacostal pup, Elvis Presley" (great line, TW!). I studied communications technology in college btw :) Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Elvis Presley had enormous amounts of talent (acres, to adapt a metaphor we've seen, way). To say he was responsible for the socio-economic shifts and technology developments of the 1950s is unsupportable. To say those trends made his fame possible is another kettle altogether. You've inverted cause and effect. It's like saying Bill Gates caused the PC "revolution." He didn't, but he rode it more successfully than anyone else. If you were "there" and cite that, it's original research and not acceptable for use in this article. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Billboard publishes him, of course they endorse him. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: So quote his PoV and attribute it as such, don't put it in Wikipedia's NpoV narrative voice. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sales figures are one thing, interpreting them is another. For a time during the late 1970s, ABBA had outsold the Beatles (and Elvis Presley btw) in Europe and they used the stats in their marketing. Beatles fans (including many record industry execs and radio DJs) went ballistic and the marketing materials were quietly withdrawn. They were indeed bigger than the Beatles for a time, but it was bad public relations within the Anglo-saxon, male dominated music industry to press the point. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: His definition of "rock era" is extremely problematic. They weren't even calling it "rock" until around the time of his comeback in 1968, and many people consider "rock" and "rock and roll" to be related but different genres. Are we still in the "rock era"? Some say yes, others say no. Wyss 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing suggestions and cautions

message: User:Wyss: You reverted my statement in the article saying concering Sony transistor radios being sold in American in 1956 and said in your editing comment : Sony came later, in a much wider and complex of wake of transistorized consumer technology. - I provided facts to prove what I said with photos and reference sources from Sony itself. Please provide your reliable source that declared "Sony came later" so that we know Sony's book and information brochures lied and that your deletion of my work and replcement text was not your created Non-Original Work. 
::Your adult interpretation of your childhood memories is deeply mistaken (you've muddled cause and effect), but Wikipedia protects itself from that sort of thing by prohibiting original research. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more information on this. Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't understand what original research means in the context of Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more information. Wyss 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WLS didn't start playing rock and roll/pop until 1960    and plainly had nothing to do with Elvis' early airplay. Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That assertion can easily be supported according to WP policy but the stark difference is I'm not trying to insert it into the article. Would you like me to support it with cites anyway? Wyss 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You're mistaken. You've been citing original research and (following Wikipedia policy) I'm not accepting it for inclusion in the article. Wyss 23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: Wyss! What happened to "constipation"? A lengthy article about Elvis that does not contain
that word, surely can't be NPOV? Do you really want to start everything all over again? I'm sick and tired of reading about what a wonderful guy Elvis was...at least, I comfort myself with the fact that he is rumored to have had the #1 most shameful death of all rock artists.
::I think Ted Wilkes must have taken it out. I've been focused on other stuff with him and didn't see. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll find and restore it. Note: The rumour exists, no reason it can't be mentioned in a long article like this so long as the context is clear. Wyss 11:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh!? Wyss 14:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Removal 

message: I've repeatedly asked Ted Wilkes to supply actual quotes from the Wall Street Journal article he is using as a cite and mentioning in the article. The reporter's qualifications are interesting but need not be cited in the text of the article. I don't know why Ted Wilkes resists providing the quote. When I speculate on this topic, I think maybe he doesn't have it, or that its literal content doesn't support his assertion that Elvis Presley was in effect single-handedly (my words) responsible for the growth of the consumer youth market in 1950s north America (I suspect the article mentions Presley's prominent role as one of those who profited from it but doesn't credit him with causing it). Anyway I don't know why Ted Wilkes won't cite his sources. 
We have a similar issue re Sony and transistor radios. Although Ted Wilkes has posted much original research to this talk page in the form of recollections and interpretations of those memories, he has yet to cite a secondary source on Sony's transistor radios that even mentions Presley's name. 
Regarding the radio station WLS in Chicago, Ted Wilkes seems to want an assertion in the article that WLS switched over to rock and roll/pop in 1960 because of Elvis Presley. I have been unable to find any secondary source discussing their format change that even mentions Elvis Presley, and after continued requests Ted Wilkes has yet to provide one either.
I'm willing to work with Ted Wilkes on this, but his remaining assertions seem to invert cause and effect and in the absence of secondary sources which plainly support his thesis, I continue to edit the article according to my good-faith interpretation of WP policy, especially Wikipedia:No original research. Wyss 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please cite your assertions

message: This is abssolutely a Wikipedia:No personal attacks violation:
*17:40, August 6, 2005 Wyss (rv removal of cited material, Ted Wilkes, please stop lying in your edit summaries, thanks)
I gave a full explanation here on the talk page, AS ALWAYS. Ted Wilkes 21:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::He lied. I never said one of my citations wasn't credible. He's baiting me, trying to find grounds for a block or an RfC or whatever. Wyss 21:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers will note that in that quoted text, I don't agree with Ted Wilkes about anything. I think his reading comprehension skills are ok, so my conclusion is... sort of unavoidable. Wyss 22:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This  is the edit summary he lied in. I never said that citation wasn't credible. Meanwhile, I interpret this as another tactic on the part of the editor to avoid discussing the problems with his original research. Wyss 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No personal attacks

message: Mr Wilkes, you'd better suggest some sort of compromise, because
I intend to revert any edits by you to the last Wyss version.
I'm sure you remember my persistence about the "constipation"
thing, so your versions will not stay there very long.
Like I've said thousands of time, I'm sick and tired of crazy Elvis
fanatics who claim he was the reason why people started buying this
or doing that etc. To me personally he's a guy who performed songs written
by other people in a music genre invented by an entirely different ethnic group (African Americans) - and who is rumored to have had the #1 most ridiculous death of all celebrities (yet another #1 hit for Mr. Presley :-) ).
So, Mr Wilkes, what is your offer gonna be?
(129.241.134.241 03:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Despite providing reams of facts to repute the unfounded assertions of User:Wyss, she ignored and repeatedly inserted her incorrect statements on WLS radio etc. After launching a personal attack against me, calling me a liar, User:Wyss  took advantage of my refusal to continue and once again reinserted the following text:
*" - However, this format change had nothing to do with Elvis Presley. Post-war demographic shifts meant that "America was changing from a rural to an ever increasing urban and suburban society," and WLS' rural audience dwindled dramatically. People were moving to the cities.  - ”
Ted Wilkes is misrepresenting the history of this discussion (although he may believe he's being sincere). His assertions re WLS are unsupported and his mention of WLS in this article is misleading. I've supported my edits with citations, he's only offered original research (which attributes cause and effect in unsupported ways). Wyss 01:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WLS radio et al

message: Like the WLS radio issue above, despite providing reams of facts to repute the unfounded assertions of User:Wyss, she ignored and repeatedly inserted her incorrect statements on the Wall Street Journal reference. After violating the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, calling me a liar, User:Wyss  took advantage of my refusal to continue and once again reinserted the following text:
* "- However, although he profited from it, Elvis Presley was not a catalyst for the increased affluence and independence of youth in post-war America. A sampling of scholarly and otherwise qualified studies on the topic  
 
 
 yields discussions on higher levels of disposable income along with widely shifting demographic and global social trends. Only one briefly mentions Presley, noting that the singer's success alerted some marketers to the untapped potential of a youth consumer market already in existence. -" 
Response:
*1) This entire issue has been dealt with before (see above on this page). What I inserted  in the article is of extreme importance. What I wrote was this: 
*" - By the end of 1956, Presley's impact on the American economy had reached such significance that the effects of his records sales spurring a new and powerful youth consumer market was reported by Louis Kraar in a December 6, 1956 article in the highly influential business and financial newspaper The Wall Street Journal. As a follow up by the nation's largest circulation paper, on December 31st Presley made the Journal's front page in a story by Louis M. Kohlmeier, a future Pulitzer Prize winning journalist whose "Reporting on Business and the Economy" is today part of the curriculum at Columbia University. Kohlmeier's article, labeled "Elvis Presley today is a business," detailed the singer's impact through the massive and growing sales of his merchandise to the new teen market. It is believed to have been the first front page financial article in the newspaper's history about a musical entertainer and the first in which a journalist described an entertainer as a business. - "
The key to what I said is "spurring", I did not say  "created". Presley's huge and unprecedented record sales spurred the market – that is an indisputable fundamental of economics. Note that PBS said Presley "singlehandedly changed the course of music and culture in the mid-1950s" and the President of the United States in an offical press release from the White House said Elvis Presley "permanently changed the face of American popular culture."  Spending habits are an integral part of culture.
What User Wyss added to the article says: "A sampling of scholarly and otherwise qualified studies on the topic". These 4 references are not about Elvis Presley and Rock and Roll. One is from Harvard University, it is not about, and does not mention, Presley or his Rock and Roll industry. It is an article about American consumerism and belongs in the Economy of the United States article.
The other 3 references are by non-Americans and in 2 of them the word "United States" doesn’t appear anywhere and they make no mention of, and have nothing to do with, Presley or his Rock and Roll. They are all generalities about baby boomers etc. that is irrelvant to the Presley article. However, I does mention Presley but User:Wyss again distorts facts and to create her own meaning and mislead readers at Wikipedia when she stated (above): 
*"Only one briefly mentions Presley, noting that the singer's success alerted some marketers to the untapped potential of a youth consumer market already in existence."
In the article, User:Wyss inserted her opinion: "Elvis Presley was not a catalyst for the increased affluence and independence of youth in post-war America."
In fact, that article actually confirms what I wrote about Presley. Here is verbatim what the article  actually said: "The phenomenal success of Elvis Presley in 1956 convinced many doubters of the financial opportunities existing in the youth market."
While I give great credence to the Wall Street Journal financial newspaper and one of its most important business writers and Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting winner, I cannot give unequivocal  acceptance to a "paper" placed on the Internet that express the opinions of one professor from the Department of History, University of Auckland, New Zealand about United States economics particularly because the Professor's paper is without benefit of other scholarly review and its date unknown meaning its theories could have since been updated many times since by other scholars. I note that it ends in the 1970s. However, in the spirit of cooperation and respecting a Professor and his university, I have inserted this quote in its true and accurate form into the article.  
As seen on this page and in other Talk pages where User:Wyss has been involved, she uses voluminous word games devoid of substance and refuses to deal with facts while forcing others to provide proofs of the same issue over and over.  Thank you. Ted Wilkes 14:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
If we're talking about word counts and games, I think Ted Wilkes has it backwards but whatever, I'm here to work on the article and solve issues related to its content. Meanwhile I'm getting happier with the WSJ paragraph. The sweeping assertions seem to have diminished and it's starting to be heavy on quotes and objective remarks directly related to EP's career. Wyss 01:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wall Street Journal reference

message: Having removed the word "spurring" at first, I put it back in after trimming some of the praise given to the WSJ (its reputation is widely known and recognized). I'm not crazy about the word "spurring", but I think it's reasonable to use in the para, which now sticks to attributed quotes and which I now find both interesting and helpful. Wyss 15:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WSJ paragraph

message: Expanations are required by ANON 129.241.134.241 for its deletions: their revert to an old version by Wyss deleted changes she had already accepted and my last input as stated immediately above.:
21:56, August 8, 2005 129.241.134.241 (Reverted to the last WYSS version)
I am reverting this. Ted Wilkes 02:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Explanation: Your sentence is awfully presumptious. No advances in technology should be attributed to a mere pop star. What's next - there would be no Napster without Offspring ? Elvis and advances in technology are unrelated. You might just as well say that "families also started buying TV sets so that their kids could watch their favourite hero LIVE, thus helping the TV industry".
When you insert a sentence like that, the reader might think that Elvis should have credit for people buying a new gadget. The only industry (outside of music industry) Elvis might have helped, is the pharmaseutical one - the use of constipation medicine probably skyrocketed! After all, no one really wants to die like that. Give the guy the Darwin's award. 
And also: Judging from the posts above, I don't see that you and Wyss have come to an agreement. Why don't you ask Wyss to implement the changes you both have mutually agreed to? Then I won't have to revert anything! (129.241.134.241 05:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ANON 129.241.134.241 Revert

message: User:129.241.134.241, you have made comments on this page that violate Wikipedia:Civility and referring to me as "fight our common enemy" is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your statement on this page and offer at User talk:Onefortyone to form an alliance to "fight our common enemy" and to prevent others from editing and avoiding the Wikipedia:Three revert rule for themselves and their ally, contravenes Wikipedia:Policy. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Civility / disruption / reasonableness and see if you can then work in a spirit of cooperation by providing reasons for your edit reversions so that consensus, based on facts, can be achieved. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 10:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::Ted, I've read the articles you gave me, and I found nothing that says forming an alliance is illegal. When it comes to personal attacks, then you may be right, but I was only speaking in metaphor.
And I certainly never suggested anything about preventing anyone else but you ( who, after all, have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule ) from editing this article. (129.241.134.241 10:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice to Anonymous User:129.241.134.241

message: Speaking only for myself, I believe the latest statement about portable radios in the American phenomenon section is now reasonable and supportable. I still don't much like the adjective "huge", because the syntax implies these numbers were "huge" in 55 and 56 but I'm  nitpicking a bit there since beginning and ending sales figures are given for the entire period through 1958 etc. Wyss 12:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! I hope not :) Wyss 13:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portable radios