• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive1
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive2
• Archive: Talk:Elvis_Presley/archive3

The following critical paragraph should be included in the Elvis article in this form or another:

==The world-wide Elvis industry==

Most authors who are writing books and articles on Elvis are part of a worldwide Elvis industry which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the singer. Many of the stories about Elvis are written in order to feed the fans and to sell records or CDs. More than 2000 books have been published and the content of the majority of them could be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprizing details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his excessive sex life. Some unfavorable voices sensationally claiming that Elvis had a sexual relationship with his mother or another man, that he raped his wife or had committed suicide because he had been suffering from bone-marrow cancer may have been motivated by money. All such publications are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. David S. Wall, BA, MA, M.Phil, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Information Technology, has shown that one of the strategies of the worldwide Elvis industry is

" 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority that can be influenced in order to exercise its considerable economic power. Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways, for example, when Dee Presley, nee Stanley, Elvis’s former step-mother, wrote a supposedly whistle blowing account of Elvis’s last years. The fan clubs refused to endorse the book and condemned it in their editorials. The combined effect of this economic action and negative publicity was ... the apparent withdrawal of the book. With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power."

User:Hoary said that the "first effort at adding a section inspired by Wall's allegations struck me as very dubious. ... I do think that there could well be something in it that's worth saying. Actually when I look at the latest arguments ..., presented by 141 and TW, I'm happier with 141's than with TW's." Onefortyone 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone asked me to have a look at this paragraph and see if I could help with it. I have to say, I don't see much encyclopaedic merit in it. The first thing that strikes me - and I hope this isn't construed as a personal attack, but simply as frankness - is that Onefortyone appears to have a rather singular focus on particular aspects of celebrity gossip. Whilst there's nothing wrong with 'specialising' in something with regards Wikipedia edits, it appears to me from the little that I've seen that it's spilling over into adding a certian bias and POV to the articles and this proposed paragraph.

As I say, the paragraph doesn't strike me as having much encylopaedic merit. It implies an unspoken conspiracy for writers to talk up Elvis, thereby giving disproportionate credibility to those who are more scathing of him.

The reality (at least as it appears to me, someone who doesn't really pay any attention to Elvis, other than the one or two songs of his that I like), is that the scathing books are probably being written and are being bought because they're laced with tabloid scandal and gossip, rather than being truthful. They're as much a part of the 'Elivs industry' as the positive books. It's perfectly possible that Elvis fans who write books about him are more likely to display a positive bias, but there's no reason why all Elvis fans would always show bias. As for a world-wide movement (however organised or unspoken it's suggested it may be) to keep suppressed those who 'speak out' against Elvis, simply strikes me as nonsense. (I'm afraid I don't have the interest in the subject to find and cite any sources to support my POV. I've even less interest in unpicking my POV to make it NPOV with regards this article. Sorry).

The paragraph, if it were to have any encyclopaedic merit at all would be something along the lines of "So and so suggests that the large number of Elvis fans world-wide keep suppressed those works that are critical of the singer. However, so and so says that these criticisms are made to lend weight to books that would otherwise be classed as trading in gossip." I certainly don't think it's worthy (in encyclopaedic terms) of any more than a sentence on each side, and quite frankly, I don't think it's even worthy of that. The article in its current state seems (at a cursory glance) to be appropriately encyclopaedic and NPOV. The inclusion of (what appears to me to be) a weak conspiracy theory, and the necessary subsequent debunking wouldn't do anything to improve an article about Elvis Presley, or by association Wikipedia.

I'm not sure that's what you wanted to hear when you asked me to take a look at it, but that's my take on it. And I did manage to use a disproportionate amount of parentheses, so that's got to be good. KeithD (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. The problem is that there are no critical voices in the whole article, except for the paragraph on the influence of Colonel Tom Parker which was written by me. What do you think about the endless passages written by user Ted Wilkes on Elvis's relationships with women? Or what about this passage:

In 1956 America, birthday and Christmas gifts were often music or even Elvis related. A girl might get a pink portable 45 rpm record player for her bedroom. Meanwhile American teenagers began buying newly available portable transistor radios and listened to rock 'n' roll on them (helping to propel that fledgling industry from an estimated 100,000 units sold in 1955 to 5,000,000 units by the end of 1958).

Are they really encyclopaedic and NPOV? Just a question. To my mind, there are several other paragraphs based only on gossip and hearsay which need rewriting. And I am very astonished that you think that "The article in its current state seems (at a cursory glance) to be appropriately encyclopaedic and NPOV." See also [1] Onefortyone 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

At the time of my previous comment, I'd only skimmed through the article. I've just read the entire article. Firstly, I'm not going to search through the history to see who wrote which passages. A Wikipedia article should be spoken with one voice, in reporting the encylopaedic facts about its subject.

I think there's plenty of reporting of criticism in the article. His early television appearances, and all the Elvis the Pelvis stuff, reports criticism. There's a mention of John Lennon being critical of him. The section on relationships doesn't present him in a favourable light. There wasn't anything that struck me as a lack of reporting of criticism.

There are a couple of changes I'd like to see in the article. The Colonel Tom Parker paragraph says "some low-budget standard musical comedies" which loosely implies that the films weren't very good. The Movies section seems to report that they were fairly well received. There's an imbalance between those two passages, which should be addressed with the citing of cinema attendances and reviews from the likes of Siskel and Ebert or similarly respected reviewers.

Elvis himself did not like these low-budget films. Film critics criticized these movies, although many fans may have liked them. The Movies section indeed needs rewriting. It is not critical enough. Onefortyone 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the section on relationships was too long, and could be comfortably edited down by a half without losing anything vital. As it stands, it feels like we hear more about Elvis' relationships than we do about his music.

Finally, I thought there wasn't sufficient mention of his drug use. His last years, isolation, and so forth, don't get much mention in the article. It's a section that's likely to have rumours rather than facts as its sources, so I'd suggest treading carefully. With some common sense, it should be able to be expanded appropriately.

As for the specific paragraph you asked my opinion on, I'd say that one sentence is speculation and should be removed. ("A girl might get a pink portable 45 rpm record player for her bedroom.") With that sentence going, I'd probably remove the preceding sentence too, leaving it with just the statement of fact about the number of transistor radios vastly increasing.

All in all though, I think it's a pretty good article overall. Sorry to astonish you. KeithD (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it is "a pretty good article overall" as you claim. I still believe that less than 5% of the whole article is critical. In my opinion, the general tone of it is uncritical. Perhaps you may be able to rewrite some passages, for instance the "Relationships" section, and add a critical paragraph on Elvis's consumption of drugs, etc. Onefortyone 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should an encylopaedia article be primarily critical? An encylopaedic article should be factual, with a neutral point of view. It should report criticism if such criticism has been leveled against its subject from reliable sources (as the article does in its current state), but its main focus shouldn't be criticism. I may have a look at rewriting the Relationships secion at some point. I don't know enough about his drug use to add to the article about that. KeithD (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There should be a theater section in the article where plays relating to Elvis are discussed. One of these theatrical performances is Cooking With Elvis. According to reviewer Rich See, this play

is a production where every scene is filled with both pathos and humor. It's a dark comedy with a light heart and flows well except when there is a sudden change in Elvis' monologues. It's at this point when Singing Elvis becomes Reverend Elvis and starts making bizarre speeches about sodomites that the play begins to wear thin. While this is probably in reference to the gay rumors that continue to swirl around the King of Rock and Roll -- his obsession with James Dean and an alleged affair with actor Nick Adams -- unless you are an Elvis aficionado or gay man, you probably won't know anything about this part of the Elvis mystique. All in all, Cooking With Elvis is a three or four joke comedy that's very dark and exceedingly funny but 30 minutes too long.

See [2] Are there any other plays relating to Elvis? These could also be listed in this new paragraph. - Onefortyone 12:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On another talk page, administrator Ed Poor says,

Should we take the gay sex rumors to another page? Maybe combine with similar gossip about Elvis Presley and other entertainers who have been "outed" (or slandered). It's not really of general interest. Besides, you guys are alway fighting about it, and I'm getting tired of settling your squabbles. Uncle Ed 02:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to place a link in the "Relationships" section on the Elvis page, for instance entitled, Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley Onefortyone 12:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we're winning. Onefortyone is on the defensive. But we mustn't stop. No concessions here. It is important to make a stand against misuse of Wikipedia for financial gains. (129.241.134.241 01:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

Would you please refrain from personal attacks of this kind. Thank you. Onefortyone 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add hu:Elvis Presley to the interlanguage links. (If you care, you may update using the robot-refreshed interlangs in the hu article, too.) Thanks. --grin ✎ 13:37, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

David Bret's credibility as a source has already been discussed (and shown to be "worthless") on this talk page. Another editor recently gave this link [3] as an example of his opinion of Mr Bret's research methods and published work. I agree with it. Among other things, the reviewer charaterizes Bret as an "amateurish hack." Wyss 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You should also mention that, apart from this biased review which was obviously written by an Errol Flynn fan, there are also positive reviews of Bret's books. See, for instance [4] and [5]. Onefortyone 00:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said there wasn't a market for sloppy, inventive gossip. Wyss 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you and Ted Wilkes seem to be part of this market, as everybody can see from your Wikipedia contributions. Query: is there a source you have used for the Elvis article which is peer-reviewed, such as the article by Professor David S. Wall I have cited above? Onefortyone 00:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, if you vandalize WP you could be blocked. Wyss 00:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is no answer to my question. Would you please be so kind as to list on this page or your talk page all the peer-reviewed publications you are using, so that every reader may convince himself or herself of the quality of your sources. Thank you. Onefortyone 01:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, 141 (we've been through this clumsy tactic of yours before, you know). Wyss 01:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are unable to present peer-reviewed sources you have used for your contributions? As you are a Wikipedia user who was awarded the barnstar of diligence for tireless devotion to accuracy, it must be easy for you to list the most important sources you have used on this page, especially in view of the fact that you frequently accused me of not citing peer-reviewed sources. Onefortyone 01:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First, if you're targeting only me (which is likely a violation of WP policy), I think you'll have to go through the whole history of the article and identify my content contributions (please don't muddle these with the re-wordings and flows I've done). Then, if you have any specific items to dispute, bring them up here. But don't you remember trying to use this sweeping, retaliatory tactic on me before on another article, then quickly dropping it when you understood it could get you blocked or banned? Wyss 02:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'positive' reviews are very weak sources. The Guardian book review actually only has one single word on the quality of the book or the author ("thoughtful"). The rest is about George Formby. "Thoughtful" is certainly a positive word, but it doesn't qualify its praise, as the Errol Flynn book review does qualify its criticism. If it's noted that the critical review is from an Errol Flynn fan, then it should be noted that the George Formby review is from a George Formby fan. The second review is in what appears to be Dutch, and as such can not be verified.

Could you both please do all you can to keep this discussion civil? Thanks. KeithD (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)