Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 15

message: This section should say "Presley was 42 years old", NOT Presley was "only 42". 42 is middle-aged, not young, and he died a lot older than James Dean, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Brian Jones, River Phoenix, Kurt Cobain, Jonathan Brandis etc etc etc. In any case the autopsy showed Presley had the body of a 70 year old man. (195.93.21.67 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no argument with the deletion of "only", Mr/Ms AOL, but your knowledge of the results of the autopsy surprises me. I thought it was unpublished. -- Hoary 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two laboratory reports. According to Peter Guralnick, "the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity." See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-2, Onefortyone 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "only" is POV and should be removed based on Wikipedia: NPOV in any event.Michael Dorosh 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death and burial section

message: Per request at WP:RfPP, this article has been protected until disputes have been resolved. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have reached an agreement, please let me know or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See . Onefortyone 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To restate my response on my talk page: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please see m:The Wrong Version. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I am not sure this procedure is working. My hope was collaboration towards a worthy article by wikipedia standards (see Louis Armstrong or The Beatles.  I really do not have any agenda, nor am I in for deleting worthy material. What I am trying to engineer is a credible organization for the article from which we can work. Once we have this we can decide what is worthy to include and what is not. Elvis was a phenomenon by all standards. He changed the way people listened to and looked at music. He made movies, and thus was an actor, whether good or bad is POV is irrelevant. He was both an icon and a man. To a large extent the Colonel controlled his career, for better or worse - but Elvis broke with him in 1968 with his comeback special. His music inspired the Beatles among others.  Like other rock stars he had imperfections - weight problems, drug problems, sleeping problems, and marital problems - what belongs depends on what this article is - it is a biography in brief about the man, his life, his music, his impact. It is neither for him or against him but NPOV. It should reflect all the Louis Armstrong and Beatles articles reflect and live up to wikipedia standards. There is no point in quoting directly numerous times from one source or others, but to give summary of the thoughts of authors directly related to the subject matter. If each of us can agree on this criteria, on working in harmony to achieve a balanced NPOV verifiable article, then we can all be proud of our efforts here. It has been noted that I am a fan - that is true. But, I do not think it does Elvis justice to reduce the human side of the man, his flaws for example or to promote an image without the substance. I am not about doing that nor about including material that ignores the recorded history in favor of exaggerated claims. We must be balanced, neutral, and provide an article whose length is appropriate for an encyclopedia. THEREFORE I PROPOSE A SANDBOX, which I think ought to be set up to work on this article. Let us work out disagreements there. If we all can agree that we are here to help out and do worthy job at producing a worthy article then let us begin to build an article up to par with the Louis Armstrong and Beatles article. I ask the one who protected the page to somehow let us set up a sandbox to work with, I'm not sure how exactly. I extend my offer of reconciliation and collaboration to all who can agree with me here. What say the rest of you?  Sandbox? --Northmeister 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my new version of the opening above. It is a revision of Hoary's version. Onefortyone 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - work with the sandbox until we flesh out a workable version. Please work within the ground rules. If you feel a new header needs creating, lets address that below. If material deleted needs re-inclusion, add it and see where it gets us. --Northmeister 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your not being helpful...constantly spout off racist rhetoric...have a flawed view of events (Parker wished for a traditional version of the 68 Xmas special, and Elvis vetoed that) etc. What is your point - if you hate Elvis, then goto My-Space or start a blog and blog away. If you have sourced based information, that is verifiable then offer it. Don't hide behind anonymity...get an account and show us your not just here to disrupt wikipedia with nonsense. --Northmeister 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While working on a "sandbox" draft, please keep the categories inactive  - they are only for main namespace articles. -Will Beback 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, wasn't aware that they were active...I see you've deactivated them...thanks. --Northmeister 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox?

message: "When adult programmers announced they would not play Elvis' music on their radio stations due to religious convinctions that Elvis music was 'devil music' and to racist beliefs that it was "nigger music." 
This is a sentence fragment that I'm just dying to fix. If someone has the power to unlock the page, please remove the "when" at the beginning of the sentence! This is nothing controversial, just a scandalous grammatical error ;)Polyhymnia
:Done. And while I was about it I fixed "convinctions" for good measure. The page is still protected.
:Incidentally, your polite, reasoned, signed request for an uncontroversial fix is very refreshing. Do please stick around. -- Hoary 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Hoary, as Northmeister seems to have taken a Wiki-break, you may also include the first paragraphs from the 'Sandbox' in the article: 
Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), known simply as Elvis and also marketed as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King", was an American singer. He also acted for a period of time in lightweight movies.
Presley started as a singer of rockabilly, borrowing many songs from rhythm and blues numbers and country standards. He was for some time the most commercially successful singer of rock and roll, but he also sang ballads, and then moved toward country music. Personally, gospel was the music he cherished above all. 
Throughout his musical career of over two decades, Presley set records for concert attendance, television ratings and record sales. He has become one of the biggest selling solo artist in U.S. music history.He had 104 singles in the US top 40, almost twice as many as the runner-up, with 17 of these reaching number one according to Billboard's 2005 revised methodology. Billboard, How They Got to 17 (December 22, 2005).
The young Elvis has become an icon of modern American pop culture, sometimes held to represent the American Dream of rising from rags to riches through talent and hard work, more often representing teen sexuality with a hint of delinquency. During the 1970s, Elvis reemerged as a steady performer of old hits and new songs on tour and particularly in Las Vegas, Nevada, where he, as a nightclub performer, became known for wearing his standard jump-suit costumes. Until the last years of his life, he continued to perform before sell-out audiences around the country. He died, presumably from a heart attack combined with abuse of prescription drugs, in Memphis, Tennessee. As a singer, his popularity survived his death at 42.
===Protection removal===
Is there an ongoing need for page protection? -Will Beback 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not, as the dispute between two registered users has abated. I'll change it to semi-protection, as a truculent and persistent IP insists on reinserting unsourced junk. -- Hoary 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection from Editing 

message: Is there an ongoing need for page protection? -Will Beback 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, as the dispute between two registered users has abated. I'll change it to semi-protection, as a truculent and persistent IP insists on reinserting unsourced junk. -- Hoary 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection removal

message: Could somebody please change the link to "Chinese people" (second from bottom in "Elvis Trivia") to "People's Republic of China", as Chinese People is a disambiguation page. Thanks. --Daduzi talk 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do it. The page is only semi-protected. See Template_talk:Sprotected for the ongoing debate on how to identify semi-protected pages. Haukur 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, it was fully protected when you made that request. Never mind me, then :) Haukur 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, well thanks for the heads up anyway, I've gone ahead and made the change. One down, only another 300 or so to go. --Daduzi talk 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very minor edit

message: I (as my username might suggest) am a psychologist (Ph.D.) who has studied Presley academically for over 3 decades.  My minor was English literature and I actually reviewed some of the literature on Presley's cultural impact.  I must say, the current lead section in the Wikipedia article is poorly written.  "has become one of the biggest selling solo artist?" (sic).
Where is the "s"?  In addition, the lead section is a very poor and biased summary of the artist and his accomplishments (recordings, etc.) and cultural impact.  I would be happy to assist you in editing this particular article, if you like.  If this is not assistance you seek, I certainly hope you reduce the level of protection to allow for edits of this.  The current version is likely the poorest article, as it stands, I have seen in the past year.  It was actually quite good 6 months ago!
:On 7 April, at a time when the Elvis page was unprotected, you included only this sentence in the article:
::As of 2006, more than a quarter century after his death, Elvis remains the best selling solo artist in U. S. history, accoring to the R.I.A.A.(http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/010804.asp).
:See . There are similar contributions to the Garth Brooks and Best-selling music artist articles. See  and . This website should not be your only source of information. As you claim to be an Elvis expert, I am sure you can provide dozens of independent sources (books on Elvis, peer-reviewed essays, incl. page numbers) in order to support your view. Onefortyone 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the RIAA, Elvis may indeed be the best-selling solo artist in US history. Of course, we can mention this in the article if the source is given. However, is it really true? This website says that the Beatles sold more albums in America than Elvis. According to Harold L. Vogel's study, Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis, p. 486, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the Eagles' "Greatest Hits" are the all-time top selling albums. Until Elton John's version of "Candle in the Wind", with sales of 33 million units, Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" had been the best-selling single with 30 million units sold. Elvis records are not listed there, although he may have had the most hit singles on Billboard's Hot 100 and, during the 1950s, "Don't be cruel" (with "Hound Dog") seems to have been the best-selling single. Do you really think that the Recording Industry Association of America, as a trade group that represents the US industry and fosters a business by promoting their members, i.e. record companies and their interests, is a reliable source? Even the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Congress says that this powerful lobbying organization speaks only in behalf of its membership, which is solely composed of the major record companies, and these major labels have always operated in a manner meant to control and manipulate the US market, for instance, by frequently claiming that their all-time stars are breaking new sales records. Significantly, the RIAA has announced that Elvis stands as the best selling solo artist in US history at a ceremony on the grounds of Graceland Mansion in order to make sure that there will be more exciting news about Elvis in the near future (their words). Translated to mean: More fans should buy Elvis CDs published by the major record companies. There are over 25000 independent music publishers in the US alone. How could the RIAA accurately consider all sales? Onefortyone 23:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Onefortyone, we must avoid original research. It seems that your doing that above. The RIAA is an authoritative source, lets go with that. --Northmeister 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this is really the case. Are there any independent sources supporting this view? Be that as it may, we can mention the RIAA claim in the article if the source is given. Onefortyone 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I welcome any editors who wish to help out here.  There is presently a sandbox that we are working on, and it needs lots of work as you state. Right now it represents the main article with minor exceptions. I am glad you've studied Elvis and his impact; any help you may need just ask. See above for link to Sandbox under that section. --Northmeister 23:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offer to assist editor and request to partially protect

message: I have now included a shorter version of the movies section in the sandbox. I have removed words like "stupid", but I think it is important to say that critics called the movies "a pantheon of bad taste" and that Elvis didn't like the songs written for these films. As Elvis already didn't like the movies of the early sixties, I think the quote from Priscilla Presley's book must be included in the movies section. Somebody else may add that Elvis acted well in some of his earlier films. If the editor could provide direct quotes from published books in order to support his/her contribution, this would be fine. I have removed the passages concerning West Side Story, The Godfather etc., as I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting these claims. This stuff has been included by an anonymous IP on 29 March 2006. See . The same user has also included the same nonsense in the Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins articles. See  and . See also this contribution by the same editor using a similar IP: . In my opinion, this vandal deliberately added false information to three different Wikipedia articles. I do not think that there is a published source supporting this stuff. Therefore, the whole West Side Story paragraph must be removed.Onefortyone 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check your recent edits to see how it works and offer my edits if necessary. --Northmeister 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It could well be that I made a mistake concerning the West Side Story stuff, as another user added similar paragraphs to the West Side Story (film) article. See  . However, I have not yet seen a reliable source supporting the claims. Onefortyone 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the exact source right in front of me, but I've read somewhere that he was offered the role in West Side Story as well as "A Star is Born". --Northmeister 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need are direct quotes from published sources. Onefortyone 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. What's needed are concise summaries scrupulously made from specified, reputable published sources. -- Hoary 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I think the relationships part is too long and needs a article all its own. Therefore I move to create an article "Elvis Presley's Relationships" or "Relationships of Elvis Presley" and move that material ther with a brief summary for the main article. --Northmeister 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's much too long and doesn't need an article for itself. Instead, it needs compression and abridgement. Presley's "relationships" (what a coy term!) may be of some tabloidy interest, but what we have here purports to be an encyclopedia article. -- Hoary 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the relationships of a star are merely of tabloidy interest. They are an important part of a celebrity's identity. Relationships can be formal (e.g. Elvis legally owns a house in Graceland, some Memphis Mafia members are  employees hired by Elvis) vs. informal (Elvis and Nick Adams are best friends). Relationships can be intimate (Elvis and Priscilla; mother and son), or remote (there may be some distant cousins that haven't met each other). Relationships can be postive (Elvis and Byron Raphael had a strong working relationship) or negative (Elvis divorced Priscilla). All these relationships should be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, mention them. No need to go on and on about them. -- Hoary 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll go with your suggestion. Could you take up that challenge to truncate that section in the sandbox first?  Mainly we need much less quotation and more summary. --Northmeister 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh . . . can somebody who is interested in this stuff (I'm not!) please do the work of summarizing it? -- Hoary 07:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships

message: The article is now semi-protected, not fully protected. -- Hoary 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: On the Talk:Nick Adams page there is a recent statement by Bill Dakota which may be of much interest to Elvis fans. It proves that both Elvis and his friend Nick Adams were bisexual. Onefortyone 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Nick Adams's secretary, Bill Dakota

message: Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.
The link they like to add to this article is tux nu/ Elvis Fan Clubs International. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.
The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.
For more info, see:
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
* User:A. B./To do list#Abusers
Thanks for your help.--A. B. 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help wanted to watch for a [[Elvis Presley]] spammer 

message: Elvis has sold just over 120 million records. Why do you say he has sold over 1 billion. Thats impossible and there's no way anyone can track sales around his time. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales 1 Billion? 

message: The problem with this sentence in the article now is that, with the possible exception of John Lennon, the Beatles weren't living in the U.S. at the time, so how could Presley ask to have them deported??  
If this unsourced quote has a nugget of truth to it, it's either that:
-- Presley asked Nixon to have Lennon, specifically, deported.  Lennon was certainly going through immigration troubles in the early 1970s, so that would be a logical explanation
or
-- Presley wanted the Beatles barred from future U.S. visits, something different from "deported."
I'd change it myself, but I don't know which is accurate. Finding a source for this allegation while you're at it would be nice too.  Moncrief 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears very interesting (if hardly authoritative); but, thanks to his/her very many earlier edits here, 195.93.21.67's credibility hovers around the zero level. Perhaps somebody else could check these sources. -- Hoary 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My bookshelves are full; perhaps somebody else hereabouts already has the book. -- Hoary 05:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Presley also denounced The Beatles to Nixon... and urged the President to have them deported from the United States"