Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 21

message: Shouldn't this article make at least some passing reference to the persistent rumors, lasting decades, that Elvis was not really dead - and how those rumors turned into a kind of pre-Internet meme?  It seems wrong to not even mention it.  --Hyperbole 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presley died from a drug overdose on 16 August 1977. (Daer11 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the Weekly World News article if that's what you're looking for.  Rodparkes 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Elvis is alive" meme

message: "In 1956, following his rise to stardom as a singer, Presley launched a parallel career as a film actor, beginning with the musical western, Love Me Tender, co-starring Richard Egan and Debra Paget. The original title was The Reno Brothers, but it was changed because of the advanced sales of the song “Love Me Tender”. This shows that from the beginning Presley movies were only made in order to sell records. The majority of Presley's films were of the musical-comedy genre, although he also appeared in dramatic films with musical interludes, like Jailhouse Rock and King Creole. He also made one non-musical western, Charro, including many shirtless shots."
*This shows that from the beginning Presley movies were only made in order to sell records. This edit looks like it needs a citation to support it -  but there is already a reference in the same section to Presley not being taken seriously as an actor and his films merely being money-makers. Therefore, this edit is unnecessary;
:::It is important to mention right at the beginning of the section that the movies were only made in order to sell records. Here are some sources. That Elvis's movies were made to "sell records and produce high revenues" is mentioned by Ursula A. Falk and Gerhard Falk in their book, Youth Culture and the Generation Gap (2005), p.52. According to David Ewen, "the youngsters were buying Elvis records and commodities... Each of his movies, with their built-in audiences, was a gilt-edged investment... " See David Ewen, All the Years of American Popular Music (1977), p.559. "By the end of the decade, this strategy had begun to fail, neither movies nor records selling at previous high levels." See Christopher Lyon, The International Dictionary of Film and Filmmakers (1987), p.511. Onefortyone 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beefcake poses were used in order to highlight the physical appeal of male stars for both female and male audiences. It is a fact that "Presley shifted into beefcake formula comedy mode for a few years." See CNN: Elvis goes Hollywood: Fun in the sun, and not much else. Onefortyone 12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Changes''' to Hollywood Years by Onefortyone

message: My old opponent Northmeister alias User:Ted Wilkes continues edit warring as usual and has removed, without discussion, some recent changes that made sense, as the whole article is a biography. I will leave it for now, but his behavior is not acceptable. Onefortyone 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the beef is between you and Northmeister or Ted Wilkes.  But I know from reading this talk page that you're one of the most argumentative editors on Wikipedia.  You want to put unsourced "speculation" as a fact.  Other editors don't want you to do this because it contravenes WP policy.  Get over yourself.  Fooey-fooey-flop-chops 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northmeister continues edit warring

message: On an August 15th sirius radio interview, Joe Esposito, George Klein and Jerry Schilling all laughed and denied that Elvis ever had a romantic interlude with Monroe.  They cited Elvis' inability to keep any secrets from them when it came to the girls he slept with.  How can a Elvis-Monroe tryst be included as fact when there are none to back it up yet we have three guys closest to Elvis who deny it.  If it were true, no doubt they would talk about it as a feather in his cap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfbinc (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The members of the Memphis Mafia certainly did not know every secret about Elvis. His early girlfriend Judy Spreckels says that the singer told her secrets "that I never told and will never tell."  Robert L. Levinson's book, The Elvis and Marilyn Affair (1999) deals with a batch of love letters allegedly exchanged between Elvis and Marilyn Monroe during the filming of Love Me Tender and with a secret affair on the Fox lot in 1956 between Elvis and Marilyn. Though the story is fictitious, the author may have had some information about what was going on behind closed doors. Onefortyone 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis and Marilynn Monroe

message: At Dan's Chelsea Guitars, located in a storefront of the Chelsea Hotel, there is a picture of Elvis at about 13 in a slightly homo-erotic embrace with another young boy who would become, in adulthood, the president of the Elvis Presley Fan Club. The photograph was apparently plucked from the trash of the communist building across the street when they cleaned out their basement a few years ago. ZZ Top guitarist Billy Gibbons came into the shop one time and spotted the photograph and flipped out, saying that it was one of only six known prints of that shot. He said it was by a famous African American photographer, who, it turned out, had had his studio in the basement of the commie building. See . Onefortyone 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rare Gay-Elvis Photo discovered

message: I review these images on request by user Northmeister. Considered that he wants the article to qualify for featured article status, I will try to be strict in the interpretation of the non-free content guidelines, official policy, and manual of style. I will comment on all images currently used in the article.
#:Image:Elvis Presley 1970.jpg – no problems; I personally think that the cropped image didn't need the background editing for use in an encyclopedia.
#:Image:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg – I think this image is only justified in the Elvis Presley article because it is such an iconic Elvis cover; this iconic status should be mentioned in the article (why is it iconic?) based on sources (maybe these can be helpful  ); the image caption should be something like "The iconic cover of Elvis Presley's debut album Elvis Presley (1956)"; purpose of use description for this image should be split into two unique justifications, one for each use; in this case it should be something like "To visually identify the album and its cover in the infobox in the article Elvis Presley (album)" and "To visually identify an iconic album cover discussed in the subsection Breakthrough year: 1956 of the article Elvis Presley".
#:Image:Elvis-MississippiAlabamaFair1956.jpg – the image needs to be moved up one paragraph to illustrate the fair mentioned there; the image caption should mention the crowd which is also referred to in the text; the statement in the text about National Guards should be sourced; if the fair is the same as the one mentioned earlier in the article "Mississippi-Alabama Fair and Dairy Show" the full name should be considered; the remark in the text should be sourced; the purpose of use description should explain what the image shows the reader in the Elvis Presley article, something about the nature of his concerts.
#:Image:Elvis presley.jpg – year of the film/video should be added to the caption "(1957)"; Jailhouse Rock in caption should be wikilinked.
#:Image:GIBluesElvis.jpg – I think this image is not significant, it seems to be a dvd or video cover, and should be removed from this article; if the image is kept there is a problem, the purpose of use description is wrong, because the image is not an album; also the purpose of use description should be split, so there will be one unique description for each article; image has no source mentioned.
#:Image:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg – I think this image is not significant and should be removed; if the image is kept the image needs a proper purpose of use description, maybe the template  could be used; the Comeback Special in the caption should be wikilinked; location of concert could be added.
#:Image:ElvisPresleyAlohafromHawaii.jpg – I think this image should be removed, unless there is something specific and significant (not just the flowers around his neck) about his performance that readers need to see; the significant information needs to be mentioned in the article and in the image caption; if the image is kept the image needs a proper purpose of use description where the significance of the image use is mentioned; maybe the template  could be used.
#:Image:Elvis' tomb.jpg – no major problems; I think Graceland should be wikilinked in the caption; maybe the caption should mention "final resting place" instead of "resting place".
#:Image:Elvis statue.jpg – no major problems; I would like to know when this statue is made and where in Memphis it is, in a mall, at music studios, etc.
#:Image:Elvisstamp.jpg – I think this image is significant for the section it is mentioned in; has invalid purpose of use description, it should be unique for each article the image is used in; purpose of use description should justify the use by explaining why the image is significant over text; maybe enlarge the image in the article up to thumb-width.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. Maybe also my fair use help could be useful to you. – Ilse@ 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated each photo per the suggestions above. However, there might be further improvement needed on the photos. Removed GI Blues photo (no mention in article) and replaced with an actual promotional release photo of Elvis and Ann Margret to illustrate Elvis' movie years and that mentioning 'Viva Las Vegas'. Any further input is not only needed, but welcomed. --Northmeister 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the statement in the text about National Guards should be sourced". Done. Rikstar 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image review 

message: This section has been spoiling this article for weeks. There is nothing to be gained by conducting arguments in the main text - depending on what genealogical research each editor finds most convincing. Let's keep discussion of his ancestry to these pages - though I am personally not interested because it is a can of worms. His ancestry is really a minor part of his biography, so I have confined mention of it to the notes and then without comment, to prevent arguments. If any concensus is ever reached about making any mention of it in the main article (and I don't think it should), let it be decided here, first. Rikstar 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry removed

message: I wanted to know about the relation of ancestory of Elvis Presley and Oprah Winfrey.
I watch every Elvis TV show and read every book I can about Elvis and nothing seems to be in them about the direct relation. Just that they are related, never do I see a family tree or proof that Elvis Aaron Presley and Oprah Winfrey are of any relation. Are they really "long-lost" cousins?? Please answer my questions and send them to this e-mail- veronicarenae92@aol.com
Thank you! -Veronica71.243.210.36 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis Presley 

message: Could someone please consider protecting this article? It has been plagued with puerile edits and is taking a lot of time to correct since the last partial lock was lifted. Rikstar 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to wonder if it is possible to create a good, or better, article on Presley without permanent protection. Although this isn't the wiki philosophy, as I understand it, it seems that, in certain circumstances (this being one of them), a truly open article and quality are mutually exclusive. Steve Pastor 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you completely, Steve, and would certainly support any efforts to restrict editing to only registered users. But I doubt that's gonna happen, so unfortunately we will just have to accept that most of what we see on this site will remain mediocre. Jeffpw 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone unregistered at IP address 201.41.77.222 has just made extensive edits to two sections, creating "Elvis and Priscilla". Not totally without merit, so I have not done any wholesale reverts. But these changes need extensive clean up and citations to maintain consistency. There are also dubious deletions by this user. More work for someone, probably who is a registered editor, and therefore accountable. Rikstar 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's unfortunate. Because the edits were not reverted, we are now stuck with them because my edits and those of others have conflicted with this person's. They have removed relevant, sourced information and replaced some of it with original research. They have also screwed up references and used existing references when I question whether or not they actually pulled the information they included from said references. Out of the several edits, only one should have been kept, maybe two. But now, we have entire paragraphs, perhaps even an entire section removed, other sourced information that should have remained, and also errors that will all have to be meticulously found and corrected one by one. Lara❤Love 02:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continual vandalism 

message: Hello, I did a copy-edit in August to bring this article closer to GA standards because I didn't want to delist it on the anniversary of his death. One of the things I tackled during that copy-edit was the references. I had them all formatted consistently (at least I think I did them all). Currently, they are a complete mess again. I've gone through some, but have quickly realized this is going to take hours to correct.
To prevent this from becoming a cycle, if you are adding references to the article, please read over WP:CITE and WP:CIT. The latter is regarding citation templates. You don't have to use those, but that page still shows good examples of how the information should be ordered and formatted.
Past that, this article is probably in the top three I've seen as far as most complex list of references. There are multiple references in some notes, some notes are even referenced. It's very confusing. There's also missing information and such. So I'd appreciate it if someone, preferably whoever put them in, could clarify some things and hopefully gather additional info for these citations. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the YouTube references because of probably copyvio. Lara❤Love 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It was spelled with only one "A" on his birth certificate. Athough it is said he planned to change the spelling to the more traditional spelling of the name, he never did and his middle name on his birth certificate is Aron.
Thank you very much ...
:As is stated in the notes and references section of the article:
:(May 9 2002). "Elvis Presley - the Singer". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
:Presley's genuine birth certificate does actually say "Elvis Aaron Presley" (as written by a doctor). There is also a souvenir birth certificate that reads "Elvis Aron Presley." When Presley did sign his middle name, he used Aron. It says 'Aron' on his marriage certificate and on his army duffel bag. Aron was apparently the spelling the Presleys used to make it similar to the middle name of Elvis' stillborn twin, Jesse Garon. Elvis later sought to change the name's spelling to the traditional and biblical Aaron. In the process he learned that official state records had always listed it as Aaron. Therefore, he always was, officially, Elvis Aaron Presley.  Knowing Presley's plans for his middle name, Aaron is the spelling his father chose for Elvis' tombstone, and it is the spelling his estate has designated as the official spelling whenever the middle name is used today. His death certificate says "Elvis Aron Presley". This quirk has helped inflame the "Elvis is not dead" conspiracy theories. Elvis' stillborn brother's first name is given as Jesse in many sources. However, according to a memorial marker in the grounds of Graceland, the correct spelling is Jessie. 
:A similar explanation regarding his name appears on Presley's official website. :"FAQ: Elvis' middle name, is it Aron or Aaron?" Elvis.com. Retrieved June 25 2007. 
:Regards, Lara❤Love 03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis Presley's middle name is spelled wrong. 

message: I'd like the other editors to look at this reference. The bluepossum Dorsey page has a factual error in stating that it "introduced Elvis Presley to TV for the first time (he sang "Heartbreak Hotel"). He didn't sing Heartbreak until he was on the third show. Here is a site with a list of Elvis's TV appearances in those early years.  A minor detail, perhaps, but enough for me to question whether this is enough to "verify" a direct quote attributed to Jackie Gleason. I would like to see it removed. Or, is this supposed to be hung onto the Jorgenson reference? Opinions? Steve Pastor 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gleason quote may be mentioned in other sources - I'll check what I've got. If it cannot be verified, it can be deleted. If you're really unhappy with it, we can afford to lose it. Rikstar 07:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for this one should be as high as the one used by responsible journalists. There should be independent verification, which is very difficult, as you know, in this world of copy and paste. More journalist standards - when did he say this, where, and to whom? Unless we have all of this, I don't think it's appropriate to have a "quote". There is plenty of acutal, recorded, and printed reaction to this incident. No hurry. Let's see if anyone else registeres an opinion. Steve Pastor 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Rikstar 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gleason "quote"

message: There used to be a reference for this  "Rockabilly Legends". I'll look it up again, and post it here since LaraLove is redoing references. Steve Pastor 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it one page 42 of The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday ISBN-13;: 978-I-4234-2042-2. I'll wait a while, and if Lara doesn't get it done, I'll put it in myself. Steve Pastor 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any references you need to add to the article, if you're not sure how to format them, just put the information in the right spot and I'll go through and format them. 10 digit ISBNs are preferred, but I can find them by searching the 13 digit, so it's no big deal. Lara❤Love 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After an early take, Phillips can be heard on tape saying: "Fine, man. Hell, that's different—that's a pop song now, just about."

message: Since the Phillips quote came up again. Has no one yet listened to the Elvis '56 dvd? The part where they capture the Bill Black inspired verison of Blue Moon on Kentucky, and Elvis can be heard mentioning Carl Perkins?  BTW, I see the makers of Elvis the Series went with the Scotty Moore verison in that "Blue Moon.." was not recorded the same day as That's Alright. Can we finesse that part of the text? Where can I see the "session logs" that were referred to in an earlier discusion? Steve Pastor 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki Sun recordings and Jorgensen refer to a "session" taking place on "July 5-6". So obviously at least one song was recorded on a different day to the others. I don't know if any more specific info exists about this. I don't doubt Scotty Moore. At least the current article refers only to the same session (to agree with the sources) and doesn't state the two songs were recorded on the same day. Rikstar 08:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a first recording session question

message: Anyone else think that calling Elvis a writer and producer is stretching credibility just a little bit? I vote for both terms to be deleted. I am reluctant to delete them as the editor who added them has been rather displeased about changes to his previous edits. Rikstar 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, Elvis never wrote any music. He stated this himself. So, what did he write? How much did he write? etc. As far  producing, he did have a major impact on how some of his music was recorded. He was able to get away with it because of his potential, initially, and later, his popularity. But, I don't think that means we can call him a producer. I say, it is up to the editor who wants this in the article to justify what he or she wants. Please make your arguments here. Steve Pastor 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be sourced, then it can be included. Otherwise, it should be removed. Lara❤Love 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Elvis has writing credits on the movie "New Gladiators", and producer credits on the feature films "Elvis: That's the Way It Is" and "Elvis On Tour". So both credits come from his acting career on not the music career. This sentence states things he was, and he was a singer, musician, actor, writer and producerAladdin Zane 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what "you'd like to see" Yes he is given writing credits because of the idea. What that means is he was not the script writer of the movie itself. But he was a writer of the idea used in the script. Also the fact remains he was the Producer of those 2 Feauture films. That is not something to be taken away from him. Because of your Personal POV. Because according to your quote "I would like to see Elvis involved in something besides a film or films about himself to truly be considered "a producer". You are basically saying film producers arent producers, or musical film producers arent producers. Which by the way is just showing a Personal POV and not a NPOV. A producer is a producer no matter what he produces (music / film / music videos / animated films) so keep your personal POV out of it. Unless you can disprove he was the producer it stays. Because it is up to you to disprove it, and not just use your personal POV to say what you would like to see. This article is about Elvis Presley not you, It also is not just about musical Elvis.Aladdin Zane 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC
So, I guess we can assume that you have presented your argument in full? I disagree with you. I can give you examples of people getting credit for things regardless of whether they actually contributed to "writing", for instance. If Elvis had lived longer, perhaps someone would have let him produce a film about something other than his own activities. Then he would be a producer. Did RCA forgo paying Steve Sholls as producer of Elvis's records? Your agrument would be more convincing if you were more specific about there not being another producer around. The phrase "I would like to see" is a polite way of stating the fact that I disagreed with your assessment that Elvis was a producer because he was listed in the credits of the films about himself. Regarding his being a writer, having an idea is not the same as being a "writer". Even having a draft of a script is not the same. My standards for what should be in an encyclopedic article are different, and I would say higher, than yours. I wonder if you have convinced others with this argument. Steve Pastor 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line he has professional credits as a writer, and producer unless you can disprove it.Aladdin Zane 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "bottom line" is that the introduction should only contain a brief description of his life/career, mainly information regarding what he was famous for. Elvis is NOT famous for being a "writer" or a "producer". Information regarding this can be, and is mentioned, elsewhere (in the Filmography - the New Gladiators thing). "Disproving" whether he was or wasn't anything has little to do with it. I am disappointed by the argumentative tone of your responses to Steve Pastor regarding this point. You were similarly argumentative about using his surname throughout this encyclopedic article. Please assume good faith when discussing - we are all on the same side and want the best for this important wikipedia article. Rikstar 10:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rikstar as stated previously, This is not your article, Just because his producing credits were at the end of his career does not mean the are to be forgotten. Also the sentence is not about what made him famous. I gave in for the writer and removed it. Fact is he has professinoal credits as producer (not only in his movies but also he has song producer or executive producer credits from before he passed away) unless you can disprove the credits they stay. There was also several albums he was given Arranger credits on from before he passed away, but I didn't say that.Aladdin Zane 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so it's not out of place for such information to be included. But one thing I'm noticing is being said a lot here is that the claim must be disproved to be removed. It's actually quite the opposite. Information must be sourced when challenged in order to be included. So no one here has to disprove anything. Now that it's been challenged, it must be proven to be included. Lara❤Love 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a summary of an article be more accurate if it included things in the article? :) The article doesn't go in to his role as a producer, so there's really nothing to summarize. the_undertow talk 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just because the article does not go into his role as producer of his live concert TV films, does not mean he wasn't a producer.Aladdin Zane 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I said. A summary of Catcher in the Rye will not include items from other books. Just as if the lead-in is to be a summary of the article, it must stick to the article. You're summary of my statement was misleading as well: I did not assert Elvis was not a producer. the_undertow talk 20:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That makes absolutely no sense, in this matter. Doesn't matter when in his career he had his production credits. He has them from both music and movies. In music he had them in 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1977 prior to his death. In movies from both his TV films from 1973.  And as per wiki policy these are credible unless they can be disproven.Aladdin Zane 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is an exercise in consensus and you don't have it. Second, you mention policy but which one defends these sources? The first site you provided actually calls itself a 'blog,' which is pretty much a red flag. IMDB is a user-edited source and is hardly reliable as well. the_undertow talk 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually read the policies they are realiable in the way they are used. Also according to policy they are realiable unless the can be disproven/ All off which has not been done. I will be changing back.Aladdin Zane 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I await your citation of policy. In the interim, here is the policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have failed to adhere this policy by providing unreliable sources AND failing to use citations. You certainly fail to adhere to consensus. However, if you revert you will not have failed hitting the 3RR point and this is just a friendly reminder that you are fast approaching the threshold. the_undertow talk 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to read wiji policy on sources. Both are very valid sources unless the content being disputed is disproven. Which noone has yet to do. So yes I am adding it back, if you don't think it belongs, Then it is simple, disprove the producing credits. Otherwise you are simply trying to impose your personal POV.Aladdin Zane 03:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Writer and producer" 

message: In the fourth paragraph, it reads as follows (quotation marks included in article): 
Reference: Billboard writer Arnold Shaw, cited in Denisoff, R. Serge (1975). Solid Gold: The Popular Record Industry. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, p.22
There is something wrong with the quotation marks. They should be singles inside of doubles, but I'm confused about where the specific quotes from Shaw start. ('Older brother') is correct. but then there is ("generated) which opens another quote but there has been no closing quote. Can whoever wrote this fix it, please? Lara❤Love 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Onefortyone put this quote in. Rikstar 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial king

message: How many country albums did Elvis have? Enough to be labeled as Country? Lara❤Love 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He recorded dozens of country tracks, spread over several albums/singles. He did less rockabilly stuff but we have to label him as Rockabilly because it was an important genre, so I think the country label is as valid Rikstar 11:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country 

message: Google proves notability: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Elvis+is+alive Plus lots of movies claim Elvis didn't die he returned to his homeplanet.  I think they had that exact quote in the movie "men in black". William Ortiz 06:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theories 

message: Presley was introduced thusly the first time he appeared on the Sullivan Show.  "Laughton appears in front of plaques with gold records and states, "These gold records, four of them... are a tribute to the fact that four of his recordings have sold, each sold, more than a million copies. And this by the way is the first time in record making history that a singer has hit such a mark in such a short time. ... "   Gold records, acknowledgement of Elvis's achievements to date... Sorry, Marcus, reality contradicts what you wrote on this one. Please see show available on dvd to confirm. Steve Pastor 20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laughton may have appeared in front of plaques with gold records in order to introduce the singer, but there can be no doubt that the famous actor was the main act of the said Sullivan Show. Elvis expert Greil Marcus has been accurately cited. You may add some details, but don't delete the quote. Onefortyone 20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what show business is? According to Sullivan biographer Michael David Harris, "Sullivan signed Presley when the host was having an intense Sunday-night rivalry with Steve Allen. Allen had the singer on July 1 and trounced Sullivan in the ratings. When asked to comment, the CBS star said that he wouldn't consider presenting Presley before a family audience. Less than two weeks later he changed his mind and signed a contract." During the 60s, Sullivan "tried to sign the singer up again... He phoned Presley's manager, Col. Tom Parker, and asked about a price. Parker came up with a list of instructions and conditions and after hearing the demands Sullivan said, 'Give Elvis my best—and my sympathy,' and he hung up." See Michael David Harris, Always on Sunday: Ed Sullivan (1968), p.116. After his three appearances, the singer never again appeared in Sullivan's show. This fact speaks volumes. Greil Marcus says, "From show to show, month to month, as Berle or Allen or Sullivan flitted around the ever more relaxed, seemingly invulnerable Presley, you enter a queer drama, where legitimate, northern, fully socialized and socializing individuals, great celebrities secure in their belief that they will and deserve to be remembered forever, try eagerly, or desperately, to at once distance themselves from and attach themselves to the Memphis Flash in the pan. It’s a trend, they’re going to ride it out, they were here before he was and they’ll be here when he’s gone, but they’re like moths drawn to his flame." By the way, Elvis was only appearing for a few minutes in Sullivan's show, Charles Laughton was on air for hours. It may be your personal opinion that Presley was wearing a sport coat, but which source says that this was the case? Onefortyone 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be good for all of us to get in the habit of not blindly thinking that everything in a book or on a web site is true. This is improtant in this article, because it is way past the point of anything that is verifiable being shoved in it, if it is going to have any kind of "good" or better rating as an article. Steve Pastor 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In another example of this, I went and looked at magazine covers where someone wrote, in a book published this year, something appeared. Again, the book is wrong. If you can't verify what someone wrote, and can point to an actual record of something, like the dvds of these shows, we will have a better, more accurate article. We don't have to rely on second hand information anymore in some cases. If we had Sullivan on tape saying "Yes, I paid big bucks for him, but I intentionally buried him by not putting him on first..." Maybe I'd buy this stuff. (Actually, I would wonder what Ed had been smoking when he said it.) Meanwhile, I say look at the darn shows yourself. You can probably get them through your local library. At the least you can find a site that lists the content of the shows and how much time Elvis was on air vs other acts. Steve Pastor 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greil Marcus is a reputed Elvis expert and his books on Elvis are reliable sources, especially in view of the fact that the author is notable for producing scholarly and literary essays that place rock music in a much broader framework of culture and politics than is customary in pop music journalism. Wikipedia cites reliable sources. Marcus's article is entitled, "Elvis Presley: The Ed Sullivan Shows" and therefore directly related to the topic. In order to write such an article, Marcus must have carefully studied the shows. If there are any other articles or books specifically dealing with Elvis's three Ed Sullivan appearances, which totally contradict his account, you may cite them. Otherwise Marcus is certainly one of the best sources concerning the topic.  Onefortyone 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sullivan Show - again 

message: Y'all really know how to work a girl! This would be a lot easier if those adding the references could at least attempt to include all the necessary information. I can appreciate formatting isn't for everyone, but I'm going to start removing references that lack necessary information that I can't find, like page numbers. 
Also, I started this section because it didn't appear anyone was reading the other section but me. If I seem to be talking to myself in this one, I'm just going to start deleting refs that appear to have incorrect information that I can't sort out. I'll also remove any challengeable information. I'm not spending hours on end cleaning this up for my health. It won't stay listed as a GA if it doesn't get cleaned up, so some help would be beneficial. Lara❤Love 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya doing a great job - I've already deleted non-page no. citation. Will help out elsewhere when I can, but I got a D- in formatting. Rikstar 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References... again 

message: In awards and recognition section, the paragraph about the postage stamp, can someone correct the problem at the end of it? Thanks. Rikstar 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I used parenthesis instead of brackets. :/ Lara❤Love 04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting error 

message: I'm not sure why the intro has been rewritten by Joey, etc. It now partly reads: "During much of the 1960s, Presley turned his attention to the movie industry, making the majority of his thirty-three movies during this time. The steady decline of his musical quality and luke-warm movie reception eventually took its toll on Presley however, and in 1968 he returned to live music in a TV Special and thereafter across the U.S.. The shift back toward music took Presley to the top of the music charts once again, however the rejuvenation of his career did not come without a cost. Health problems would plague Presley during much of his later life, which coupled with a punishing tour schedule and addiction to prescription medication, led to his premature death at age 42."
In what way did his 60's career "take its toll"? Why did the rejuvenation of his career have "costs"? Is this just a reference to touring? The previous version was simply a summary of the facts. The latest rewrite is woolly and begs questions for the unitiated. It implies that drugs were only significant after his career rejuvenation, but the seeds of his demise were probably sown years earlier - he had problems with drugs years earlier.
I think the earlier version was more accurate and informative. It was also shorter, and we have to watch article length. Rikstar 09:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The previous version was better. This reads to editorial. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. Lara❤Love 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo's Wikipedia contributions, see  and  Onefortyone 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer comments about the point in question, in this instance. Rikstar 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the previous version was much better. As far as I can see, it has now been reinstated. Thanks. Onefortyone 22:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm actually a bit offended that my good faith edits to improve the article were blanket reverted, based on a couple of errors which could easily remedied. And i don't think the style is too editorial in my opinion, I think it flows much better than a standard list of disjointed facts. The version you have provided Riskter is boring, thread-bear on facts, and is out of order (why are you establishing his significance at the end on the ontro rather than the beginning? have you even read the style guide?). A good article ENGAGES the reader, not put them to sleep! But never mind, if my edits to improve the article aren't going to be appreciated then I going to take my leave, there are much better things to focus on.Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 07:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't "provided" any version, boring or otherwise, though did contribute edits to the introduction. No one has argued the introduction is perfect, but your changes were judged to have made it worse, for the reasons stated above. The changes you made begged too many questions. If you've been offended - I am too occasionally. Welcome to Wikipedia editing! Rikstar 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reshaping" the introduction 

message: The following quote has been added: "...aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, [was] acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."
I don't think this is a useful addition. It's a highly personal and somewhat obscure comment to make about his movie roles,  and looks out of place because no other comments in this section are anything like it. I note that it contains more titillating references, something some editors seem to have an obsessive urge to include in the Presley article - regardless of how well it gels with the rest of the section. References to the sexual nature of Presley's persona and performances - and the controversy it caused - are already covered. This Sight and Sound addition isn't necessary. I think it should be removed. Rikstar 10:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a quote from a reliable source dealing specifically with Elvis's appearances in his Hollywood movies. It clearly shows what film experts thought about the actor Presley. Therefore, the quote certainly belongs in the Hollywood section of the article. Onefortyone 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I argued that: "References to the sexual nature of Presley's persona and performances - and the controversy it caused - are already covered." You haven't addressed any of the reasons I stated for its removal. Rikstar 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no other references of this kind in the Hollywood section, and therefore this nice quote should be in the article. As I said, the "Sight and Sound" article critically deals with Elvis's film appearances from a film expert's point of view. Onefortyone 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood years again 

message: Here's a link that works. Question is...Is it a worthwhile inclusion.
Steve Pastor 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the link? Lara❤Love 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elvis and Celene