Talk:Elvis Presley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:42, 18 December 2009 editJaye9 (talk \| contribs)226 edits →There is absolutely no point attempting to shorten this article.....← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:15, 18 December 2009 edit undoSteve Pastor (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,364 edits →There is absolutely no point attempting to shorten this article.....Next edit →
Line 278:		Line 278:

	"Maybe in the '90s or possibly in the next century people will look upon the '80s as the age of masturbation, when it was taken to the limit, that might be all-that's going on right now in a big way". Personal Quote by Bob Dylan --] (]) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)		"Maybe in the '90s or possibly in the next century people will look upon the '80s as the age of masturbation, when it was taken to the limit, that might be all-that's going on right now in a big way". Personal Quote by Bob Dylan --] (]) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

			:Never much cared for Dylan, but I am again challenging editors of good faith who would like this to be a better article. Another reminder about how this works. From a post earlier this year. I am starting with the Ed Sullivan apprearance which dovetails with my primary interest of Elvis's early career. See my edit today and the archived discussion where the majority of editors consistently rejected 141s arguments regarding this material, and its appropriatness for inclusion in the article. We can do this if we work together. ] (]) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

			Any individual editor can revert an edit up to three times. At that point, if they continue to revert, they are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Enough of you have stated your opinions on this. I suggest that you "vote" with your edits - to the material in question. I agree with those of you who feel that this material does not belong in this article. I began this discussion with removal of this material from one part of the article. If you can edit the article I suggest you all do the same, in line with your opinions. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:15, 18 December 2009

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elvis Presley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

Template:VA

Elvis Presley was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 22, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 7, 0007	Good article nominee	Listed
November 25, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Elvis Presley (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elvis Presley, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elvis PresleyWikipedia:WikiProject Elvis PresleyTemplate:WikiProject Elvis PresleyElvis Presley

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tennessee High‑importance

	Tennessee portal Elvis Presley is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. • • • • TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Mississippi

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rock music Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 21, 2004, February 22, 2005, August 16, 2007, August 16, 2008, and August 16, 2009.

Archives

Elvis Presley was a very good PIANO PLAYER. Where and how did learn to play the piano so well? And why doesn't anyone mention this?

I have a question which has been occupying me for a long time: Elvis Presely was a good PIANO PLAYER (just listen to the "Million Dollar Quartet", where Elvis plays almost all piano parts and accompanies himself singing.

Everybody knows Elvis played the guitar. But he wasn't a very good guitar player, actually. He could play chords, to accompany his singing, but no more than that.

But his piano capabilities were very good. Not just chords, Elvis really could play the piano very well, no comparison to his guitar playing (which was sufficient for the purpose of course, but Elvis was a good PIANIST).

My question: Why did he play the piano so well (even in 1956), where had he learnt it? And why doesn't anyone seem to notice that Elvis was a good piano player (he is always referred to as a singer - of course - who could also play the guitar. But Elvis wasn't REALLY a guitarist, although he could play chords to sing along to, but he REALLY was a piano player.

It would really be nice if someone could answer these questions:

1. How come Elvis was such a good piano player? Where and how did he learn it?

2. Why is the fact that Elvis was quite a good piano player neglected by all sources?

Thank you for your answer, in advance.

Hello there. Don't know who you are. You can type or paste four tildes after your post to let us all know. To try to answer the two very good points you raise:

1. Presley grew up without access to any piano, but he certainly heard piano played in various styles on recordings and live as he grew up. It is well-documented that Presley had a keen musical ear and it seems he learned to play the piano by simple experimentation when he began to have access to them as a professional entertainer. He is said to have played piano on at least one take of "Tryin' To Get To You" on July 11, 1955, so I guess he was a quick and natural learner. This, and more detail on Elvis and the piano, can be found in Adam Victor's The Elvis Encyclopedia. In addition, DJ Fontana has noted how Presley could be found in a recording studio with any instrument he chose to lay his hands on, and that he could probably play anything competently, given the inclination. I understand other people, including Paul McCartney and Marvin Gaye, had similar natural affinities to music and instruments. It's pretty clear, however, that Presley did not push his abilities as far as either of them, but that's a different story.

2. I am not sure why Presley's piano playing is not mentioned more. Perhaps it is because he played it more outside, rather than inside, the recording studio. May be it's because like his guitar playing, it hasn't been judged as significant compared to his other talents. There have also been professional critics and assorted anti-Presley meatheads who have consistently denigrated his abilities, even to point of claiming he couldn't play anything. Perhaps this has added to the lack of publicity/comment about his musical skills.

It is however, self-evident from Presley's live guitar playing on the '68 Comeback special that he was more accomplished than a mere chord strummer. And I am sure most people would be surprised to know how much piano he played on recordings and live in concert. Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. Rikstar 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Question Asker" (piano playing):

Thank you for your hint. Just watched "Baby what you want me to do" from the 1968 TV Special. I had known the track, but didn't remember that Elvis was such a good, extraordinary rhythm guitarist. To avoid any misunderstandings: I am speaking of the live-version where Elvis is sitting with other musicians (Scotty Moore, D.J. Fontana etc.) and where he is playing Scotty Moore's semi-acoustic guitar. I am NOT speaking of the version where Elvis stands alone and plays a red semi-acoustic with rather a thin sound (on this latter version, Elvis Presley's guitar playing, again, unluckily is DROWNED by uncoordinated NOISE of other musicians who are no match for him, to say the least).

There is no doubt he was the best rhythm guitar player of his time. This is not an exaggeration by a "deafened and blinded" Elvis fan. In 1968 there was nothing comparable. It would have been much more than just a good idea for Elvis to play the rhythm guitars on his later recordings, too.

Of course this isn't mere chord strumming, it would be an insult to say this. I do apologize for my ignorance (it was just because I didn't know better).

Elvis' rhythm guitar was as outstanding as his singing, a real ROCK rhythm guitar. No one of the well-known guitarist of his time could play like this. This is unbelievable rock rhythm guitar playing. And I'm not saying this because I'm an Elvis fan blinded by passion.

Of course it is no wonder that Elvis wasn't "just" the most amazing singer in the world, as his daughter Lisa Marie put it. A person like this (whereas the formula: a person like this seems to be strange in this respect, because there isn't a person "like" Elvis Presley), i. e. a person with this enormous musical talent of course isn't "just" a singer. The way he sings or plays any instrument reveals his talent. Therefore, his rhythm guitar is outstanding, to say the least.

Elvis was the best rock rhythm guitar player of his time (of course I'm speaking only of the ones who are well-known and published). No doubt about that. To avoid getting this wrong: I'm not saying nobody else could play those notes (just as well as it doesn't take a lot to sing the notes of "Treat Me Nice" for instance) but no one could play like this.

Pity he didn't do the rhythm guitars on the recordings of the late 60s/70s. If he did, they weren't like this. Maybe he wasn't self-confident enough to play the guitar on the recordings? What he would needed, in my view, is a rhythm guitar player like himself for the concerts (and a drummer, and a bass player, and a pianist ...).

No one sung like him AND no one played like him. This is incredible. Elvis Presley was a genius, FULL STOP (AE: PERIOD). Did any of you youngins even know Elvis!!! He was my best frien, back in the day. We ate macoroni and cheese every Wednesday and Friday. That was his favorite food. He loved it. Well we were bestest buds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.74.14 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Elvis learned to play piano in church. And sing. And play the guitar. Sagradamoto (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality

This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans, including his exploration of Mormonism and possible baptism in the Mormon church, which is well documented in articles and even movies (http://blog.ldspad.com/2007/10/26/elvis-presley-mormon-king-of-rock-and-roll/). It is not not inline with Misplaced Pages's policies to suppress information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.142.141 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"This article is biased to cover up aspects of Elvis Presley's spirituality that disturb the majority of his fans". It could just as easily be asserted that edits about Mormonism are an attempt to promote said church by including information in high profile articles from sources with vested interests. Neither argument assumes good faith, which is another wiki policy. Rikstar409 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)"

->That's a foolish rebuttal. If something is factual, or debately factual, and releveant to the article, it properly belongs in the article. Material doesn't violate Misplaced Pages policy simply because one cross-segment of the population is interested in it, promotes it, or appreciates it, while another group is disinterested in it, and wants to suppress it. I propose the following statement be prepended to this article on the topic, which statement I think is fair, "Elvis Presley owned a Book of Mormon which he is known to have read, and which is marcated throughout in his own handwriting. The extent, or nature of, his interest in Mormonism is undetermined and debated."

That statement is bias within itself. Elvis was known, through his interviews and related sources, to have not been associated with the Latter Day Saint movement. Your source is a Blog, blogs are not viable sources at all. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Elvis was affiliated with the Mormon Church and a Book of Mormon with his handwriting expressing belief in the precepts of that church exists. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,650195503,00.html You Elvis fans may not like this fact, but that doesnt' change that it is a fact and should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.147.18 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.137.146 (talk)

Signing to RCA and Song selection

These two sections duplicate material regarding how Presley's songs were chosen; any suggestions on editing both and/or merging to keep the basics facts of the topic? Rikstar 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if any of it can be merged. Thanks, Rik. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

bias

to much unnecessary quotes of praise, this is a encyclopedia page not a tribute... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias? Too little in the way of specifics I think. "Quotes of praise" are subject to review, as have been the tabloid, negative edits and quotes that have formed this article in previous guises. This is indeed an encyclopedia page, but it has been much less a tribute before several editors tried to redress the balance and make it more neutral (emphasis on neutrality). Please sign your posts, and then others can communicate with you more effectively. Rikstar 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Elvis' total sales are over one billion

With all my respect, I think it's totally unnecessary to use an article on a scottish webpage stating that Elvis sold 300 million records during his lifetime (note 12). This figure is absolutely false; it's a well known fact that at the time of his death Elvis' record sales were over 600 million. You can find too the figure of "more than 500 million" on several sources and that's because they use the data provided by RCA in 1975 (two years before Elvis' death) when the label announced that total Elvis' sales had surpassed the 500 million mark. Two years later, when Elvis died, RCA announced that according with latest reports Elvis' global sales were over 600 million. But 300 million is a false number that in the entire world only appears in this concrete article; I think it's unfair to use it as a valid source to state Elvis' sales.

The same happens with the figure of 300 millions sold from Elvis' death on that appears in the article mentioned in note 13. The only official data you can find everywhere is that Elvis has sold over 1 billion records worlwide, and that announcement was made by RCA in 1981. Since then it was generally used by the media, books, webpages...everywhere; why to pay attention to a wrong figure in a concrete article that collides with the official data? Then, it has no sense to add two false figures to estimate Elvis total sales until now.

Only some sources to back my words (you can easily find many more):

http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/elvis_overview.asp

http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/arts/most_successful_solo_artist_world_record_set_by_Elvis_Presley_70812.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A702839

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/August/20060816170536BCreklaW0.6157648.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/elvispresley/biography

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1022498420070810

And regarding Elvis' sales until 1975 and until his death (1977):

http://www.superseventies.com/extra_07_8.html (just see the third article)

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrity/biography/elvis-presley.htm

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/15655/The-Elvis-Files/overview

http://sharetv.org/person/elvis_presley

RamiroGaliza (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

- - - -

- - -

I agree. Elvis Presley has sold more than 1 billion years ago, and some suggest he has sold as many as 1,5 billion. According to this biography he has sold more than 1 billion. http://biography.elvis.com.au/

From the official site: http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/bio/elvis_overview.asp "Globally, he has sold over one billion records, more than any other artist. His American sales have earned him gold, platinum or multi-platinum awards for 150 different albums and singles, far more than any other artist."

Elvis is Dead?

I came here surprised to find that this article had absolutely no mention of the widely held belief that Elvis is still alive. Given the widespread nature of this view (even if often referred to jokingly) and what I assume would be a large pool of resources documenting this, wouldn't this merit inclusion? On a slightly tongue-in-cheek note, but strangely halfway seriously, does this article violate WP:BLP as Elvis should be assumed to be living?

"Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise (for example, persons born prior to 1885 can be safely assumed dead)."

Cmiych (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a "widely-held" belief; some crackpots may believe this, but their claims shatter into nothingness when tested. The only "sources" taking this seriously are the usual lunatics and per WP:REDFLAG, we ignore them. Rodhull andemu 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See Elvis Presley phenomenon which documents (albeit relatively poorly) the belief. I know I'm kinda playing devil's advocate with the BLP claim, but do the theories about his death not at least justify inclusion in the main article? Growing up in Memphis, TN I've seen the candlelight vigil's and the belief is more prevalent than you would believe (I know, that original research, just pointing it out). Note: I do not believe Elvis is alive. Cmiych (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul is dead, but Elvis is alive ... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah :)

The Legacy section contains a link to Elvis Presley phenomenon. I'd say the link is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point attempting to shorten this article.....

Everyone, at some point, over the last 12 months has agreed that the article is in desperate need of being shortened. I, and many other editors, have spent time editing it to attempt to bring it more in line with a length that is acceptable but also informative. However, there is no point to that if every time there is a major break-through someone comes along and puts it all back the way it was before. The Ed Sullivan appearance and the Legacy section are perfect examples. I shortened the Ed Sullivan appearance because it was dramatically bloated, but I kept the overall feel of how it read beforehand. Today it is back to practically how it was before with information that just repeats exactly what has already been said in the paragraph above it. There is no need to add quotes, paragraphs or even a few words to an article if it expands it needlessly. Sometimes there is a need for such things, but certainly not the way they've been handled today. The legacy section, also, a part that I spent time altering only to find it put back to how it was previously. What a complete waste of time for me to do that if people don't feel it improves the article. Might I also add that it is a LEGACY section, and therefore it should reflect exactly what it is and so there is no need for it to point out any negativity about the subject in question. Michael Jackson's page is a great example. MJ is a man who had some incredibly negative experiences during his lifetime. Do the editors on that article shy away from them? No, they talk about them in the relevant sections and then show how truly brilliant he was again in his legacy section. Why, then, should Elvis Presley be treated any differently? As the title of this section suggests, there is absolutely no point any of us wasting our time to attempt to shorten this article if our work is simply reverted by people who have no interest in seeing the article be improved. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree it needs to shrink. There's a lot of good content, but too much detail. A topic of this size needs presenting in summary style. To get into great shape it needs to continue to reduce in size, not grow. PL290 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree. What you are doing now, ElvisFan1981, is whitewashing the article, as you have primarily removed content that includes critical voices about the singer. This is not a fan site. Some weeks ago, another user has written that there are “too much unnecessary quotes of praise, this is an encyclopedia page not a tribute...” See . And there can be no doubt that this user was right, if you now look at the Legacy section whitewashed by ElvisFan. Let us compare the old and new versions. See

What we now read in the new version is that Elvis was “unique and irreplaceable”, that he “paved the way for many artists, black or white, that followed in his footsteps,” that his music “had a huge effect on the popular culture” and “helped to break down racial barriers”, that his films “are replayed on television all over the world”, that “Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century”, that his “Las Vegas engagements are amongst the most famous and well known of any performer”, that the “worldwide satellite concert, Aloha From Hawaii, is still the biggest single concert any solo entertainer has given to date”, that Graceland “has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the USA,” that “Presley has been inducted into four music 'Halls of Fame'”, that some years ago one or two of his songs again “topped the charts” in several countries, that Presley was listed as one of “the top-earning deceased celebrity, grossing US$45 million for the Presley estate”, that the singer “Presley enjoyed the kind of worldwide fame that had never been seen before,” that his “name, image and voice are instantly recognisable on every continent and within most cultures,” that “in music polls worldwide, he is constantly recognised as one of the most important musical artists of all time” etc. etc.

This sounds as if it was written for a fan site, as there are no critical voices to be heard, and this is no longer a balanced, encyclopedic view of the singer. Interestingly, more critical, well sourced material written by reputable authors that was part of the old version of the said section has all been removed by ElvisFan1981, for instance,

that “Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society”, that when Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost," that “latter-day song choices had been seen as poor,” that “many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs,” that “tabloids had ridiculed his obesity and his kitschy, jump-suited performances”, that his “sixties' film career was mocked”, that die-hard fans “even denied that he looked ‘fat’ before he died”, that it “is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load” because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls...", that some even saw him “as a white man who 'stole black music'”.

Removing such critical information is what I would call fan bias. The same kind of whitewash is currently happening concerning other sections of Elvis-related articles. See , , , etc. Let us now analyse some edits by ElvisFan1981 in order to demonstrate his whitewashing tactics that even distort direct quotes (see ).

Previous version:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), "he was definitely not the most talented actor around."

Version by ElvisFan:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), he was not always considered the most talented of actors

Previous version:

The scripts of his movies "were all the same, the songs progressively worse."

Version by ElvisFan:

The scripts of his movies were all very similar with songs that were rarely taken seriously.

Previous version:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films; he "couldn't stop laughing while he was recording" one of them.

Version by ElvisFan:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films.

Previous version:

Sight and Sound wrote that in his movies "Elvis Presley, aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."

ElvisFan totally removed this quote, which was taken from a reputable film journal, presumably because of its critical remarks concerning Presley’s acting.

Further examples could be added. All this is unacceptable. Onefortyone (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously not paying much attention, Onefortyone, and you definitely aren't reading the changes correctly. And your desperate attempts to try and make out that I am a die-hard fan who is attempting to make this article all positive won't work on anyone who has ever actually paid attention to some of the edits I've made in the past. All I've done with the above sections you have mentioned as being "whitewashed", is to remove direct quotes and replace them with original written lines that keep the same balance. It is not my fault if you can't see that or disagree, but I'm sure most other editors would find it acceptable. The main goal for me at the moment is to shorten the article, and if that means removing a few lines or some complete paragrahs then that's what it requires. Not everyone will agree with some of the edits and they have the right to say so, but I think most other editors are aware of the fact that removal of some content, both NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE, is definitely necessary to get this article down to a more manageable size.

As for the Legacy section, I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley (NOTE: For future reference, I use Presley as an example because it is the article currently being discussed, but I believe this for any article that has a Legacy section. It's not bias towards just Elvis Presley.). Seriously, compare it to that of Michael Jackson, a man who most people would agree had a much more negative life than Elvis Presley, and you will see no mention in his Legacy section about child abuse, drug taking, skin whitening, debt, overspending, wacky oxygen tanks. Why? Simply because a Legacy section is usually about the good things that they achieved in life and since their death, not the bad things.

Why you feel the need to so drastically paint Elvis to be some kind of monster is beyond me, and some of your additions have been seriously questioned by editors long before I ever came onto the scene. Also, many of your additions are merely repeats of things that have already been mentioned, one of the main reasons they are removed in the first place. I don't know who has uploaded most of what is on the page, and so I have no way of knowing who is responsible for any negative input, but I'm sure it can't all be your work. So why, then, are you the only one who is complaining about it?

As for the article, I have added my fair share of negative, open-minded, well researched information to the article, and so to claim that I am attempting to make it a fan piece is just ludicrous. Also, a lot of the editing that I've done over the last four months has had hardly any effect on the overall negative opinions within the article because most of the work has been to simply replace long quotes and sentences from books with a paraphrased version so that it isn't seen as just an article full of book quotes. Also, I have removed a number of my own additions, both negative and postive, from the article for the sake of space. However, most of your own additions are the long-winded book quotes that are precisely the reason why this article has gotten and is getting so bloated. If you seriously want to help improve the article and possibly reduce its size, then please be my guest. All the editors are welcome to take part and as a team it can be done. However, if you continue to insert long, boring quotes that only add extra size to the article for no reason, then I, and I'm sure other editors, will have no problem with either reverting it completely or re-writing it in thier own paraphrased hand, something that you could do in the first place to save a lot of hassle. Why not spend your time and efforts trying to reduce the articles size instead of adding all the negativity to it? Maybe after it's at a more reasonable size it will be time to sit down and go over what negative issues should definitely be raised or not. I do note that most of your own efforts are simply adding negative paragraphs from books which I'm sure you are already aware of will get a rise from some editors on here, so perhaps you could take a step back yourself and try to understand why your hatred for Presley is so deep within your soul before you attempt it again. There may be such a thing as being too positive, something I don't believe any editor on this article has been, but there is definitely such a thing as being too negative, something that, so far in my experience, only you have displayed.

I said to you a few months ago that I respected your research and your opinion on the subject, and I still do, but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with the way you go about doing things, especially when it chases off a number of very important editors who know so much more about the subject than you or I could ever imagine. Let's work as a team and get this article to the best possible place it can be before we have another editing war and aggro, shall we? A new year is on our doorstep and perhaps 2010 would be the perfect opportunity to start afresh and work together. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I have to say that I have not looked at a single edit in the article just yet. I will say, for the record, that information that may be viewed, by some, as negative towards the subject, is not prohibited, as long as it is properly cited. I will say, though, that not all information is relevant for a wikipedia article. We have to remember that this is an article about his entire life, and although not a biography of a living person, though I think I saw him walking out of a Taco Bell last week, we should use caution when we add negative information. Again, I have yet to take a side, and as it turns out, I may not take a side, but I will give my opinion when I have time to take a look.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy is something handed down from the past by tradition, and a celebrity’s heritage, as you may also call it, is sometimes good and sometimes bad. “As for the Legacy section”, ElvisFan says above, “I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley.” So much for this user’s recent edits that removed large blocks of more critical information, or, as ElvisFan claims, with an innocent air, his “removal of some content, both NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed both negative and positive content, there are huge chunks of positive praise that have now been removed from the Legacy section that was there before my recent edits. There were some very positive praises that I've removed from the Acting Section also today, and from a few of the other sections that I've worked on. To say that I have only removed negative content would a downright lie, and you are very aware of that yourself. Just because I have written that "I cannot and will not accept....", does not mean that I will revert any decision to change it back if that is what any mediator decides is best. Again, you are attempting to make something sound worse that it is. And how so convenient that you only seem to copy/paste the content that is critical and in favour of your argument and fail to mention all the positive praise that has been removed/altered from the article in the last four months.

If you are interested in Misplaced Pages being as good a source as it can be in general and are not primarily focused on Elvis Presley, why don't you head over to the Michael Jackson article and the Freddie Mercury article and every other article that has nothing but positive remarks about their subject in the Legacy sections and tell them exactly what you've just written above about what a Legacy should be? I'm sure you will be able to find many negative things about both artists to fill into their legacy sections. Could it be that you don't actually care at all about any of that and that this is some kind of personal vendetta against only myself because of our previous disagreement four months ago? It seems very strange to me that since then you haven't had any input into any Misplaced Pages article, and that your very first input on your return is to alter and then personally attack me for some work that I have done to improve an article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'm also adding that, at the present time, it may appear that there is too much positive praise in the article. However, this is due to the fact that there are still very, very large chunks of the article that haven't been looked at for possible shortening by myself yet, and so none of those sections have had any positive OR negative content removed. It takes a lot of time to work through such a large article, and there is so much that needs removed that it can be very daunting to just leap in and start clipping away. I have edited both positive and negative content many times for deletion over the last four months, but after reading it over before saving it appears that it just doesn't look right and I leave it for another time. Shortening this article is like electing a new President; it is time consuming and in the end not everyone will be happy with the final outcome. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Before shortening, FIRST get a large consensus before spamming the history page with multiple edits, and do it in one edit, so it can be compared, but firstly, more discussion should be had, this isn't your page, and a lot of information has been put through a work of a lot of people over time. I find that in your attempt to do good and remove unnecessary information you've also removed vital information such as his global landmark of 1 billion views which is a significant feat, and also his record sales which many artists' page on wikipedia have stated in the introduction, you do not know what you're doing, do not edit without a consensus. JFonseka (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the record sales of 1 billion were not added until 5 months ago, and so it clearly wasn't a massively important statistic for a long, long time. I won't be working on this article anymore because it is clear to me that many editors do not think I am capable of doing any good here. Good luck to everyone who works on this in the future. I'm confident that the right mix of people will be able to get it back into good shape, and I'm sorry that I wasn't able to be one of those people I apologise to anyone who found any of my edits during my time on this article to be inappropriate. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a bit harsh earlier, I believe you were on the right path, but felt a lot of information was removed that perhaps was deemed necessary by some others. This is not my article and I'm just an average user, so it's not my word that ends it all. Please do contribute and edit because the article is indeed pretty long, but perhaps keeping the introduction more intact but shortening certain points in the main-body? I reverted it to the previous version before you edited simply because it was a bit complex to go through each individual edit. This is JFonseka btw, just having problems signing in. 122.106.163.193 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy is generally the mark or influence left by an event, person etc. on subsequent times, and may be both positive and negative. I'd suggest that anyone making the statement, "As for the Legacy section, I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley", might want to reconsider the accuracy of that remark, although clearly we're not dealing with Adolf_Hitler#Legacy here and in practice the Legacy section may well turn out to be only positive in this case; certainly when I consider the passages whose removal is criticized: “Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society”, that when Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost," that “latter-day song choices had been seen as poor,” that “many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs,” that “tabloids had ridiculed his obesity and his kitschy, jump-suited performances”, that his “sixties' film career was mocked”, I would have to say that in my opinion none of those things belong in the Legacy section. On a general note, I think the move to reduce the article to a manageable size is a welcome and very necessary one, and one which will indeed make it more possible than it is at present to judge and fine-tune the balance of content. PL290 (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personnally saw nothing that struck me as "white-washing" in any of Elvisfan's edit history, although I will admit, I only looked at a couple. I am a bit concerned over some of the information that is covered in the controversy section, as I believe that much of that information can be moved to other sections, as could some of the legacy sections information. Other than that, I think everything is square, by my book.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290 said: Agree it needs to shrink. There's a lot of good content, but too much detail. A topic of this size needs presenting in summary style. To get into great shape it needs to continue to reduce in size, not grow.

This has already been attempted. It got the thumbs up as a good new starting point from everyone - except Onefortyone, who criticized it as if it was a finished article. See it here ].

This current article has ground to a halt. The only thing moving through it is the tumbleweed. It has been rendered desolate over about 4 long years by one user: Onefortyone. He has systematically pissed off every decent, conscientious and knowledgeable contributor - and many potential editors - with his agenda-driven intransigence. Check out the history. Don't take my word for it. Admin LaraLove spent hours cleaning up the formatting, and then got involved with 141 on these pages. Ouch! She concluded he had a rather unsavory agenda too - so then she jumped ship.

There was nothing going on, no one from whom one could gain a "wide consensus" of opinion, so ElvisFan1981 bravely struck out on her own, not always successfully. But there was 141, concealed in his tower, not saying a word for months about a single one of her edits, and then BANG! he takes a sneaky pot shot at her, a move that could only inspire despondency and reduce her to tears of frustration, and it worked! She bent over backwards to appease him, edit WITH him. But no - the same old tedious, crappy, unjust accusations of bias and whitewashing have got rid of the only person lately willing to try to improve this article. Way to go!!!!!!!!!!!! Rikstar 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rikstar's comments above. It has greatly saddened mean to read ElvisFan1981 decision to leave this article, as this young lady has in the past inspired me many a time to stick with it. I would like to put in a quote by Bob Dylan, which pretty well sums up how I feel,(A Metaphor) when dealing with one particular editor and in saying that I believe he is the only one here, getting any sort of gratification out of all this mess and heartache.

"Maybe in the '90s or possibly in the next century people will look upon the '80s as the age of masturbation, when it was taken to the limit, that might be all-that's going on right now in a big way". Personal Quote by Bob Dylan --Jaye9 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Never much cared for Dylan, but I am again challenging editors of good faith who would like this to be a better article. Another reminder about how this works. From a post earlier this year. I am starting with the Ed Sullivan apprearance which dovetails with my primary interest of Elvis's early career. See my edit today and the archived discussion where the majority of editors consistently rejected 141s arguments regarding this material, and its appropriatness for inclusion in the article. We can do this if we work together. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Any individual editor can revert an edit up to three times. At that point, if they continue to revert, they are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Enough of you have stated your opinions on this. I suggest that you "vote" with your edits - to the material in question. I agree with those of you who feel that this material does not belong in this article. I began this discussion with removal of this material from one part of the article. If you can edit the article I suggest you all do the same, in line with your opinions. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Verswijver, p. 129.
Verswijver, p. 129.
Kirchberg and Hendricks, p. 67.
Kirchberg and Hendricks, p. 67.
Lisanti 2000, pp. 19, 136.
Lisanti 2000, pp. 19, 136.
Sight and Sound, The British Film Institute, British Institute of Adult Education (1992), p. 30.

Categories: