Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 34

Edit request on 7 January 2012

This article lists "Hartbreak Hotel" as Elvis first single recorded in 1956. I believe that his first single was recorded in 1954 and was "Thats All Right" on A side and "Blue Moon of Kentucky" on the B side

70.24.5.7 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

First RCA single. That's All Right was produced by Sun Records. Regards.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction

To Whom It May Concern,

There is a correction to Elvis Presley's article page: Early Years > Childhood in Tupelo > Paragraph 2 > Line 5: "...was found guilty of altering a CHECK..." should be CHEQUE. I have not made a correction before. I hope this is how it is done. Thank you.

Sindy 41.55.153.224 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The article is written in American English. The spelling of "check" is correct. DocKino (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Elvis and fourteen year olds

This is news to me. Was Elvis known for his relationship with 14 year olds? Have any of Elvis' biographers mentioned this? This seems like a rather controversial point. We certainly should not rush to including it in the article. This section is intended to open a "slow" discussion on the point. Our task is to demonstrate that this issue has solid secondary sources. If it doesn't, then we need to find them before including such info in the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear to have been well documented. All of the information i'm finding says that because Elvis' manager made sure to keep everything covered up, it never turned into a controversy (which would be why there's little info on it). Silverseren^C 21:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the source for this seems to be Kathleen Tracy's Elvis biography, [1] which seems anything but a credible source - furthermore, as was pointed out at WP:BLP/N, this may involve living individuals, so we'd have to be careful what detail we include, even if we can find better sources. I'd suggest that if Tracy's book and other sensationalist sources are all we have to back this up, it is best not included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Tracy is a popular biographer, accomplished and noted for focusing on entertainment subjects. She is a journalist and a writer, not a scholar, but she is not unreliable as a source. Underscoring Tracy's interpretation is Alanna Nash's version of Elvis, taken from several of her books. Nash rehashes some of the Byron Raphael stuff that they published in Playboy in 2005. This story has Elvis into heavy petting with young virgins (pages 182 and 231 of Baby, Let's Play House) and hanging around 14-year-old girls in swimsuits around the pool and playing in their pajamas at night. Girls such as Gloria Mowel, Frances Forbes and Heidi Heissen (page 209 of Baby, Let's Play House, also "The King's Troubling Obsession" by David Leafe in the Daily Mail.) Forbes said 13 was insufficient "...but when I was fourteen he noticed me. Fourteen was a magical age with Elvis." (The preceding quote appears in four books including Rose Clayton's Elvis Up Close: In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best and The Elvis Encyclopedia.) And of course there's Priscilla Ann Beaulieu who Elvis met when she was 14. Albert Goldman wrote of the pajama parties in his 1981 book, Elvis. Goldman wrote, "Elvis had a great gift for disarming parents and persuading them that though their fourteen-year-old daughters spent a lot of time in his bedroom, nothing improper was going on." There's an article in September 1990 Penthouse called "Elvis's Secret Sex Films" in which one of Elvis's inner circle—distant cousin Earl Greenwood—wrote about the home movies Elvis made of his parties with young girls; five nights of films including orgies with fourteen-year-olds. Greenwood said these films were seized by Colonel Tom Parker and used to blackmail Elvis into giving Parker a huge percentage. Greenwood said the same in his 1990 book The boy who would be king, written with Kathleen Tracy. Tracy refers to this movie-making incident on page 107 of Elvis Presley: a biography. Columnist Liz Smith wrote about it in August 1990: "Poor Elvis Presley". Smith says of Greenwood's theory, "it makes some sense."

Greenwood's material about Elvis has been quoted by other biographers such as Rose Clayton, by the Gregorys in their When Elvis Died, and also by Tony Gentry in Elvis Presley (1994, Chelsea House).

This material is out in the public domain and ought to be addressed. I don't think it should be avoided. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Binksternet, There have been more books written on Elvis Presley than any other entertainer,and for that reason you have to take extreme care on who you choose as a reliable source and sadly there's not that many. Mentioning Earl Greenwood as being a reliable source on Elvis Presley,is like saying Ian Halperin is a reliable source for Michael Jackson. To me these two authors are best describled as unscrupulous individuals with a vivid imagination. Please do yourself a favour and get yourself a copy of "Revelations Of The Memphis Mafia" by Alanna Nash,read it and then you will understand the topics you have brought forward in its proper contents,okay!--Jaye9 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that Wikipedia's guideline about reliable sources must flex in the face of many books written about Elvis. I am not trying to say that Greenwood is right, I am simply saying that he has been published, and commented upon, and that his version is part of the public dialog about Elvis. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then find other sources that support this 'public dialog' in a meaningful way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Liz Smith... Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Columnist Liz Smith? Wrote as you pointed out,about Greenwood' theory about Parker had seized these supposed films and used them to Blackmail Elvis into giving Parker a huge percentage and Smith goes on to say "It makes some sense". Well that's the first time I've heard that one and she lost me right there. It reminds me of these conspiracy theorist and these wild things they come up with and they have nothing to back it up with. When you speak of Elvis and fourteen year old girls,it was pretty prevelant in certain parts of the South in those days. It has been said many times that Presley was drawn to 14,15 & 16 year old girls during the early days of his career. As these girls were virgins and made good potential wifes. Someone he could mould into the ideal women. Unlike the girls he met on the road. Quite simply he would not have married them. And it has also been said,during this period he proposed to quite a few of these young girls. I might add,back in 1948,Country singer Loretta Lyn married "Doo" Lyn in Kentucky three months shy of her 13th birthday and yes it was legal. What I am trying to explain is whether we agree with this pratice or not,it is not for us to judge,but more to understand that this is what people did in these parts of the south. It is there culture and Elvis was a part of that culture.--Jaye9 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. In Georgia for instance, the age of consent wasn't raised from 14 to 16 until 1995: Age_of_consent_reform#Georgia.2C_USA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that Elvis's relationships with girls were kind of infantile. This comes as no surprize. Peter Guralnick writes, "Elvis grew up a loved and precious child. He was, everyone agreed, unusually close to his mother." Throughout her life, "the son would call her by pet names, they would communicate by baby talk." Gilbert B. Rodman calls Elvis "the dutiful mama's boy" and mentions, with reference to Guralnick, "the humble modesty of a Dixie-bred mama's boy: In many ways I am sure that the picture is accurate, and it undoubtedly conforms to the image that Elvis Presley had of himself."

Furthermore, Guralnick describes Elvis as a very shy person, as a "kid who had spent scarcely a night away from home in his nineteen years" and who was teased by his fellow classmates: "My older brother went to school with him," recalled singer Barbara Pittman, "and he and some of the other boys used to hide behind buildings and throw things at him - rotten fruit and stuff - because he was different, because he was quiet and he stuttered and he was a mama's boy." These early experiences had a deep influence on his clumsy advances to girls. According to Guralnick, he loved playing with the girls and teasing them, but "it didn't go too far. ... In between shows at the auditorium he would peek out from behind the curtain, then, when he spotted someone that he liked, swagger over to the concession stand, place his arm over her shoulder, and drape his other arm around someone else, acting almost like he was drunk, even though everyone knew he didn't drink." It is no wonder then that Elvis's early girlfriends June Juanico and Judy Spreckels say they had no sexual relationships with Presley.

Concerning the adult singer, Guralnick writes that when Elvis "got bored he just had to tell the guys to hunt up some girls in the lobby of the hotel. He would have them brought up to the suite, offered one observer, "and Elvis would go in the other room, he'd go in the bedroom or somewhere, and then when they came back with the girls, the girls would sit there for maybe ten or fifteen minutes, and finally one of the cousins would go in the bedroom and come out himself and another ten minutes would go by - and then in would come Elvis. And there would be like a silence, and then the cousins would say, 'Oh, Mary Jane, this is Elvis,' and the girls would be totally gone." For the most experienced girls it wasn't like with other Hollywood stars or even with other more sophisticated boys they knew. They offered to do things for him, but he wasn't really interested. What he liked to do was to lie in bed and watch television and eat and talk all night—the companionship seemed as important for him as the sex—and then in the early-morning hours they would make love [editorial note: How should the author know what was really going on in the bedroom? Many girls say they were only talking there]. "He had an innocence at that time", said one of them. "I'm sure it didn't last. But what he really wanted was to have a relationship, to have company."

In their Playboy article, "In Bed with Elvis" (November 2005), Byron Raphael and Alanna Nash have stated that "the so-called dangerous rock-and-roll idol was anything but a despotic ruler in the bedroom ... He was far more interested in heavy petting and panting and groaning" and "he would never put himself inside one of these girls ... within minutes he’d be asleep." According to Goldman, the reason for "never [having] normal sexual relations with these girls" was that "Elvis was a voyeur. What he sought as his erotic goal was a group of girls who would agree to strip down to their panties and wrestle with each other..."

According to Alan Fortas, who knew the singer well, "Elvis needed someone to baby more than he needed a sex partner. He craved the attention of someone who adored him without the threat of sexual pressure, much as a mother would." Furthermore, "Elvis befriended some of the young girls who used to cluster adoringly in his driveway, or outside the fence ... Some of the girls were as young as fourteen. Fortas said they were frequent houseguests who attended his concerts as part of 'Elvis's personal traveling show.' Out in the backyard, they romped with Elvis in the Doughboy pool and challenged him to watermelon-seed spitting contests. They also slipped into his bedroom ... for rambunctious pillow fights. Sometimes they would all sit cross-legged with him on the bed, flipping through his fan magazines or admiring his stuffed-animal collection. Often they would all lie down together and cuddle. But what went on was horseplay, not foreplay."

More importantly, Elvis indeed had relationships with very young women. Priscilla was only 14 years old when the singer began dating her. He was 24, and at that time, he even had a younger girl living in his house, says Elvis’s first guitarist and manager, Scotty Moore. Therefore, authors such as Goldman have gone so far as to call Presley a "pedophile". According to this author, "Elvis plays the strutting, overbearing macho in public, but in private he loves nothing better than to roughhouse with teenage girls with whom he exchanges beauty secrets. His basic erotic image is a crotch covered with white panties and showing a bit of pubic hair -- an image no different essentially from male to female." Alanna Nash also confirms that the singer had a predilection for young adolescent girls. Her book, 'Baby, Let's Play House': Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him (2010), reveals a need in Presley to play Pygmalion and father to very young girls, whom he delighted in making over. A late-blooming "Mama's boy," she argues, young Elvis was a flop with girls and super-religious. Because of a fear of sexually transmitted diseases he wouldn't actually go "inside" women, never undressed, and was more into watching elaborate tableaux, often involving feet.

"What Elvis projected through his epoch-making act," Goldman adds, "was not just the enormous sexual excitement of puberty but its androgynous quality. Much of Elvis' power over young girls came not just from the act that he embodied their erotic fantasies but that he likewise projected frankly feminine traits with which they could identify. ... When you dig down to the sexual roots of an Elvis Presley, you sense a profound sexual ambivalence." Onefortyone (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Onefortyone, where do you find all this disgusting trash? Elvis is dead, so it's proper now to leave this kind of scurrilous rubbish in the dumpster where it belongs. It's just not right to keep going on and on about pubic hair and lace panties. The article just starts sliding downhill once it starts moving in your direction. Give it a rest. Santamoly (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe we should mention it in the article, one way or another, because it is talked about in his biographies. Either it can be a subtle mention in the lede, or it can be something similar to this edit, which was reverted by an editor who wants more discussion + a more reliable source. Pass a Method talk 11:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where you were raised up, but where I live we don't speak ill of the dead. We all wipe our arses, but we can stop talking about it once we're dead. The stuff you dredge up is totally disgusting and doesn't belong anywhere but in the National Enquirer. The article is bad enough without adding in your creepy obsessions. Santamoly (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to learn that Wikipedia has more respect for the living than the dead. There's no special rules for a biography of a dead person but the living get WP:BLP protection. We at Wikipedia are more concerned with reliable sources, verifiability, and proper weight than with respect for the dead. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My question is: Do these so-called "biographies" have sources listed in them? If not, I don't think they should be considered reliable. And even if they do, that doesn't mean that it's true, and it doesn't mean that this type of salacious material should be included in a Wiki article. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear... In the blue corner we have user Onefortyone who reappears after a well-earned rest after seeing an opportunity to push his well-worn agenda regarding Presley's sex life. I wonder if he'll resurrect previous claims that Presley was gay, had sex with his Mom and had oral sex with some dude in the 1950s. And in the red corner we have user Santamoly who thinks the current article is already unacceptably seedy, even though it contains little of such tosh and even though it's a Featured Article. Go figure. Past experience suggests neither will make meaningful contributions here, but may well drive everyone else nuts. I hope they prove me wrong. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

←First, Happy birthday, Elvis (yesterday). Whether these stories are true or not, I think everyone—particularly those who have bad thoughts about Elvis—should read this article, especially the next to last paragraph, which quotes him. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose

I propose adding this sentence. Do you support or oppose? Pass a Method talk 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think it is a moderate compromise to the above dispute Pass a Method talk 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not As was already explained to Silver Seren in edit summary, one sentence in a newspaper article on Michael Jackson is not the high-quality sourcing this FA requires. Furthermore, not all "disputes" requires "compromise"; some "disputes" amount to little more than hot air and the best thing to do is allow them to slowly dissipate. DocKino (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Here are some additional sources: in her book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003), Alanna Nash cites Memphis Mafia member Lamar Fike who remembers that Priscilla showed up at the house that first night wearing a blue-and-white sailor suit and white socks. "I said, 'God Almighty, Elvis, she's cute as she can be, but she's fourteen years old. We'll end up in prison for life.' I watched that from the very beginning with abject fear." Nash adds "that a chaperoned Priscilla would live on nearby Hermitage Road with Vernon and his new wife, Dee. That arrangement lasted only a matter of weeks, Priscilla slipping back and forth between the houses. With Grandma Minnie Mae Presley serving as lenient watchdog, the teenager soon took up residence at Graceland... During Presley's army years, Parker had steadfastly refused to allow Elvis's most serious girlfriend, Anita Wood, to travel to Germany to see him. ("We had to keep everything so quiet ... the Colonel said it would hurt his career.") But though the Colonel took an unusual liking to Priscilla, he was furious at such a Lolita-like setup. Elvis was now twenty-eight years old, with twelve years' difference in their ages. Not so long before, in a redneck hormone storm, the piano-pounding Jerry Lee Lewis had ruined his career by marrying his underage cousin. This situation wasn't nearly as dangerous, but if discovered, it would still be a scandal, and Presley's movie contracts had morals clauses in them - a fact, along with paternity suits, that was never far from Parker's mind." (p.205-206)

According to Albert Goldman, "Elvis never had normal sexual relations with these girls. The reason? Elvis was a voyeur. What he sought as his erotic goal was a group of girls who would agree to strip down to their panties and wrestle with each other while Elvis stared out his eyes with a rocklike hard-on pressing up against his underwear. He accounted for this obsession by recalling an incident from his childhood: a moment when he had seen two little girls tumbling together on the ground with their dresses rising to show their crotches. In fact, with the fine-focus characteristic of his kind, what Elvis described as his ultimate fulfillment was not the sight of the girls or even the crotch but the vision of black pubic hairs protruding around the edges of white panties. Out of all the sexual excitements in the world, this one teasing image represented the ultimate in arousal to Elvis." (Goldman, Elvis, p.338)

Interestingly, there are also several photos showing Elvis’s predilection for very young girls, for example

• 14-year-old Dixie Locke. See [2].
• 15-year-old Siegried Schutz. See [3]

These girls were much younger than 18 when Elvis dated them. This certainly supports Goldman’s opinion that the girls Elvis liked were "as young as possible, certainly no older than eighteen" – or you might say: much younger than eighteen, or fourteen such as Priscilla, or even younger than fourteen as the girl Scotty Moore mentioned in his book. Onefortyone (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What 'you might say' is of no consequence, and given the WP:BLP considerations (these women may well be still alive), none of this speculation is relevant - and may itself be a violation of WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm the one that added that sentence in the first place. I feel that it is not a controversial sentence to include and all the sources I found stated that the manager did this cover-up. If readers want to take away some sort of implication out of that, that's up to them, but we should at least state this age cover-up fact in half a sentence. It's not like it's much of the article at all. Silverseren^C 01:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"All the sources I found..." Could you please identify some of these other sources (including page numbers, please)--as long as they are of higher quality than a single sentence in an article on Michael Jackson? The problem here is not the proposed sentence, which strikes me as worthwhile; the question is if it is supported by high-quality sources, as this Featured Article requires. DocKino (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, would be useful. Yes, "popular" bios are RS, in practice that barely gets you in the door. I'm going to take a scholarly bio over Kitty Kelley every time, and if the salacious information entering the public domain postdates the bio, why, show me something that applies rigor that supports it. Or leave it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be better to say that Parker discouraged the relationship, with various reasons being given across sources, such as here and here. And I see above that Baby, Let's Play House is discussed, but no one seems to give any real reasons why it shouldn't be used, especially if it has actual interviews with the women in question. Silverseren^C 02:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Any credibility you had, you're losing fast. The first cite you offer, How Stuff Works (???), does not have a single word that could be interpreted as supporting the claim that Parker discouraged the relationship. The second cite, an unsigned item on the Yahoo Movies website (this is what you consider a high-quality source?), says only that Parker advised Presley generally "to avoid any long-term relationships". Those leave us very, very far from supporting the inclusion of your proposed sentence. As for Nash's book, exactly what passage are you citing in defense of your proposed inclusion? DocKino (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The How Stuff Works articles states that "Elvis went along with the Colonel's belief that an all-consuming relationship would hurt his image and be bad for his career." In that, Parker discouraged a direct relationship with her because it would make Elvis be "taken". As for the book, I haven't read it, but according to this review of it, it likely has information regarding this subject, specifically interviews that could be helpful. Silverseren^C 03:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously citing How Stuff Works for this? "The material that appears on the Discovery Sites is for informational and entertainment purposes only. Despite our efforts to provide useful and accurate information, errors may appear from time to time. Before you act on information you've found on the Discovery Sites, you should confirm any facts that are important to your decision. Discovery and its information providers make no warranty as to the reliability, accuracy, timeliness, usefulness or completeness of the information on the Discovery Sites". [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The author of that How Stuff Works article, Susan Doll, is a PhD-holding "Chicago-based film and pop culture historian. Over the past twenty years she has written numerous books, including the acclaimed recent titles Florida on Film (2007) and Elvis for Dummies (2009). She also teaches film studies at the college level, works as a writer/researcher for Facets Multimedia and writes a weekly film blog at the Turner Classic Movies website." I think she is knowledgeable about Elvis. Silverseren^C 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Elvis for Dummies"! I'm not sure of the appropriate response here. Whatever - this discussion seems to have moved from allegations of under-age sex (in places where it may not actually have been under-age by the laws of the time) to vague assertions about Elvis being advised to keep his relationships out of the limelight to boost his career. We seem to have no reliable source for the former, and the latter is firmly into 'So what?' territory. Nothing to see here, move along... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there are a number of editors that disagree with you, myself included. The issue with Parker should be noted in a single line and the rest of the accusations in regards to Priscilla should be investigated with looking for more sources. At the very least, it should be noted in the article that, while perhaps (or even likely) untrue, a number of biographies of Elvis and other news stories have accused him of inappropriate conduct with underage girls. Silverseren^C 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, stop. You have failed dismally to establish the supposed "issue with Parker". The "issue" changes with every submission here, and you have yet to find one single high-quality source that firmly supports this "issue"...whichever version of the "issue" you're pushing this hour. As for "inappropriate conduct with underage girls", please cite your high-quality source for that: book and page. DocKino (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Binksternet already covered a number of books and their pages right here. Silverseren^C 06:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written above, DocKino and AndyTheGrump? In her book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003), Elvis biographer Alanna Nash cites Memphis Mafia member Lamar Fike concerning Priscilla: "I said, 'God Almighty, Elvis, she's cute as she can be, but she's fourteen years old. We'll end up in prison for life.' I watched that from the very beginning with abject fear." Nash adds that, "though the Colonel took an unusual liking to Priscilla, he was furious at such a Lolita-like setup. Elvis was now twenty-eight years old, with twelve years' difference in their ages. Not so long before, in a redneck hormone storm, the piano-pounding Jerry Lee Lewis had ruined his career by marrying his underage cousin. This situation wasn't nearly as dangerous, but if discovered, it would still be a scandal, and Presley's movie contracts had morals clauses in them - a fact, along with paternity suits, that was never far from Parker's mind." (p.205-206) These quotes from a reliable source certainly support Silverseren's view. Onefortyone (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Which of Silver seren's views?

Because nothing you've just quoted in any way supports the claim that "Colonel Tom Parker made sure that Priscilla's age did not get out to the media during that time period."

And nothing you've just quoted in any way supports the claim that Presley committed ""inappropriate conduct with underage girls."

What we are left with is the stunning revelation that some of Presley's friends and associates thought it unwise that he pursue a romantic interest in a 14-year-old. Wow. The fact is, we already mention Priscilla's age at the time they met--that is entirely sufficient in the context of this encyclopedia article. But we s-o-o-o look forward to your book... DocKino (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dockino, people are going to take your posts less seriously if you keep dsimissing reliable sources as unreliable, and dismissing notable topics as not notable. Pass a Method talk 17:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for this heartfelt advice. Now, it's time for you to learn how to read...

I have not dismissed any reliable source as unreliable. If you bother to read the thread above, you will realize that you simply made that up. The closest I have come--and it's not very close--is to state that one sentence in a newspaper article on Michael Jackson is not the high-quality sourcing we need to support a significant claim about Presley and Parker. This position has been strengthened by the fact that in all of the many following comments and references to higher-quality sources, no one has turned up any evidence that Parker "made sure that Priscilla's age did not get out to the media during that time period" (as your proposal would have it).

I have not dismissed any notable topic as not notable. Again, if you would only bother to read, you would see that you fabricated that assertion as well. If high-quality sources supported the claim that Parker managed to suppress publication of Priscilla's age, that would be notable--but, to date, no one has found any such support for the claim. If high-quality sources supported the claim that Presley committed inappropriate conduct with underage girls, that would be notable--but, to date, no one has found any such support for the claim. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some further sources:

• "Under the guise of complying with Mr. Beaulieu's conditions, Elvis tightened a protective net around Priscilla that effectively made her a prisoner. ... The only one not thrilled with Priscilla was Parker. While it might be less difficult to pass her off as a friend of the family here for a visit, convincing the country that Elvis was a platonic host of a live-in 15-year-old girl would be almost impossible. The only saving grace was the number of people who lived at Graceland and the fact that Elvis kept her under close wraps and didn't flaunt her in public. While she adjusted to her new home, Priscilla seemed content to spend time at Graceland, but as she acclimated to her surroundings, the natural restlessness of a teenager surfaced. Elvis sternly cautioned her against going out alone at any time, citing his concern for her safety." See Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006), p.116.
• " The lack of a press profile for Priscilla is a testament to the Colonel's talent for controlling the information about Elvis that was released to the media. Elvis had met Priscilla while he was in the army, and then she moved to Memphis to finish high school during the early 1960s, when she was barely 16 years old and Elvis was in his mid-20s. Though the plan had been for her to live with Elvis's father and stepmother, the truth was that she lived at Graceland in Memphis, where she attended a private high school. If the press had uncovered this information, the scandal would have destroyed the mainstream image that the Colonel, Wallis, and Elvis had so carefully constructed. " See Susan Doll, PhD, Elvis for Dummies (2009), Chapter 7.
• "Finally Parker had an idea; it wasn't great, but the Colonel was getting desperate. Perhaps Elvis should get married. This idea came indirectly from Frank Sinatra, who in July 1966 had married Mia Farrow. It was a small, informal ceremony, arranged at short notice and held at the home of Jack Entratter, owner of the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. There were few guests, just some friends and no family. It's unclear what Parker thought marriage would achieve for Elvis as far as his career was concerned. Maybe he thought he could float a newer, even more mature Elvis, or maybe he simply thought that marriage would somehow stabilize and make him more malleable. For five years Elvis had been living in a bizarre relationship with Priscilla Beaulieu that, according to Priscilla's account in her book, Elvis and Me, consisted of pills, Polaroids, and playacting but no fully consummated sex. Priscilla's role as live-in Lolita was certainly not publicized, and it's likely that had the fact about her living under Elvis's roof been made widely known, it would have been the scandal of the decade... " See Dirk Vellenga and Mick Farren, Elvis and the Colonel (1989), p.166.

All reliable sources prove you wrong, DocKino. Onefortyone (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Prove me wrong about what, exactly? DocKino (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your denial of the fact that Parker made sure that the information that Elvis lived with a fifteen-year-old girl at Graceland did not get out to the media. Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't even know the simple facts of the case. And you are lying about me. Why are you so evil? Your behavior is so very sad and wrong. Please apologize. You are harmful to Wikipedia and to those of us trying to help it. You make us cry. Very bad. Very sad. DocKino (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say you make me and some other Wikipedians involved in this sad discussion cry, DocKino. You said above: " If high-quality sources supported the claim that Parker managed to suppress publication of Priscilla's age, that would be notable--but, to date, no one has found any such support for the claim." All sources cited have proved you wrong about this detail, as these sources indeed support the claim that Parker managed to suppress publication of Priscilla's role as live-in Lolita at Graceland. This is no wonder, as this information would have caused a scandal. Onefortyone (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Priscilla moved to Graceland in March 1963. She was not "barely 16" as one of your sources claim, she was a few months away from being 18. From May 1963 till her marriage in 1967 she was old enough to do as she pleased and live with whom and where she liked. What exactly did Parker have to hide? An 18 year old adult living with a slightly older man? That's hardly news, even back then, especially in the world of showbiz. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

According to my sources, Priscilla secretly lived at Graceland from December 1960:

• Jon Pareles, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock 'n' Roll (1983), p.439:

"On Christmas 1960, Priscilla Beaulieu, the teenaged daughter of an Army officer whom Presley had met in Germany, visited Graceland."

• Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006), p.115-116:

"During the weeks of Priscilla's holiday visit, life at Graceland took a turn for the normal. Elvis lavished time and attention on Priscilla ... He even found it in his heart to be more polite and less vicious toward Dee. ... Priscilla endured the scrutiny of everyone with admirable grace. ... She had the innocent and idealistic outlook of a well-cared-for teenager. ... She was one of the few things Vernon and Elvis saw eye to eye on. Vernon made a constant fuss over Priscilla - ...- and between the two of them, her head was spinning. For her part, Priscilla seemed just as delighted to be back in America as she was to be at Graceland with Elvis. ... the house radiated a life that had been missing for years. ... As the end of Priscilla's holiday vacation neared, the thought of her leaving drove Elvis to despair. The solution was simple – she simply had to stay. She could go to school in Memphis and live at Graceland full time. Vernon was in full support. After weeks of peaceful cohabitation, Vernon was apprehensive of the mood Elvis would revert to if Priscilla left. Like everyone else, he believed Priscilla's mere presence would solve everything and make Graceland a home, happily ever after. With Vernon on the upstairs extension, Elvis talked to Joe Beaulieu for close to an hour, while Priscilla sat listening quietly but anxiously. ... After a sometimes-impassioned conversation, it had been miraculously arranged. Priscilla would move to Graceland as a guest of Vernon and Dee's, who would take personal responsibility for chaperoning her. ... Elvis enrolled Priscilla in an all-girls school, Immaculate Conception, wanting her well educated and sheltered from the attention of teenage boys. Under the guise of complying with Mr. Beaulieu's conditions, Elvis tightened a protective net around Priscilla that effectively made her a prisoner. ... The only one not thrilled with Priscilla was Parker. While it might be less difficult to pass her off as a friend of the family here for a visit, convincing the country that Elvis was a platonic host of a live-in 15-year-old girl would be almost impossible. The only saving grace was the number of people who lived at Graceland and the fact that Elvis kept her under close wraps and didn't flaunt her in public. While she adjusted to her new home, Priscilla seemed content to spend time at Graceland, but as she acclimated to her surroundings, the natural restlessness of a teenager surfaced. Elvis sternly cautioned her against going out alone at any time, citing his concern for her safety."

• Larry Geller and Joel Spector, If I Can Dream: Elvis' Own Story (1989), p.58:

"Probably the most scandalous rumor circulating then was that Elvis kept a young girl [Priscilla] back at Graceland. ... As Vernon and Elvis promised Mr. and Mrs. Beaulieu, she did complete her schooling and, as far as the public knew, lived with Vernon, Dee and Dee's three little boys, Rick, David and Billy Stanley..."

• Alanna Nash, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003), p.206:

"The immediate promise was that a chaperoned Priscilla would live on nearby Hermitage Road with Vernon and his new wife, Dee. That arrangement lasted only a matter of weeks, Priscilla slipping back and forth between the houses."

There can be no doubt that Parker had to hide that Elvis lived with a fifteen-year-old girl at Graceland, ElvisFan1981. Onefortyone (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, 141, you are cherry picking what you want to see and for others to see. Your own sources even use the words that are the most important in the argument against you. Between March 1960 and March 1963, Priscilla VISITED Elvis twice - 2 weeks in the summer of 1962, and over Christmas 1962. After Elvis left Germany in 1960, they kept in touch via phone, but they did not see each other again until the Summer of 1962, so your source claiming she spent Christmas 1960 at Graceland is very clearly wrong. Not very reliable, after all. Of course, some books get it 90% right and 10% wrong, that's why it's important to know the facts yourself and cross reference before relying 100% on one source. You apparently don't know how to do that properly and instantly rush to any source that backs up your current theories. Even when Priscilla did move to Graceland in March 1963, she did spend several weeks living with Vernon and his wife Dee in their home, so she didn't instantly move into Graceland. So, to summarize....

• Between March 1960 and March 1963, Elvis and Priscilla spent approximately 3 or 4 weeks together. She DID NOT live there, she DID NOT spend Christmas 1960 there. She did not see Elvis again until Summer 1962. Your sources are wrong.
• When she did eventually move back to America, she was only 2 months shy of her 18th birthday. She was neither "barely 16" or 15, as a couple of your previous sources have claimed.
• She spent several weeks living with Vernon Presley and his wife Dee BEFORE moving into Graceland. At this moment I don't know of exact dates, but perhaps it was until May 24, her 18th birthday? (It was only 2 months away)
• Between May 1963 and May 1967 (her wedding) she lived at Graceland as an adult, not an underage child. She did age, as we all do, and did not remain a 14 year old girl for the rest of her life. Therefore, what exactly did Parker have to hide from the press?

I'm also fairly certain that I recall an interview with a showbiz reporter at the time who said that the whole media knew of Priscilla living at Graceland, but as she was old enough to do so and there was no scandal to report, they didn't bother to report it. The press knew and the fans knew. It wasn't important. You need to remember, 141, that Priscilla grew up. She wasn't 14 when she lived with Elvis, and she hasn't been for a long time. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources I have cited say otherwise. It could well be that Parker officially told the press that Priscilla was only a special guest at Graceland, and many fans may believe these claims today, but she was actually living there from December 1960. That's why so many sources are talking about Priscilla's role as live-in Lolita. Therefore, Wikipedia should cite what these sources say. Onefortyone (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have cited are wrong, regardless of how much you want to believe them, 141. I have a book that claims there's a man living in the moon, but I don't think it would pass as a reliable source on the article about the moon. "It could well be..." is not good enough for Wikipedia. Come on 141, by now you should know that. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I support ElvisFan's very strong and detailed analysis. And for all of his tireless efforts, 141 has still not been able to find a single high-quality source that supports the claim in question that "Colonel Tom Parker made sure that Priscilla's age did not get out to the media during that time period." DocKino (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Very strong and detailed analysis? Just a question: where are the sources that support ElvisFan's claim that the many sources I have cited are wrong? You cannot deny that all of these authors agree with the fact that Parker managed to suppress publication of Priscilla's role as "live-in Lolita" at Graceland. Onefortyone (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have sources, plenty of them. My bookshelves are bursting with sources on Elvis Presley's life, music and career. Here are just a few of the most reliable that back up my information.

• Brown, Peter Harry; Broeske, Pat H. Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley. Signet; 1997. p.250-260
• Clutton, Helen. Everything Elvis. 2004. p. 81-82
• Presley, Priscilla. Elvis & Me. 1985. p. 67-120
• Guralnick, Peter. Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. Back Bay Books; 1999. p. 126-141
• Guralnick, Ernst; Jorgensen. Elvis Day by Day: The Definitive Record of His Life and Music. Ballantine; 1999. p. 178/182/184
• Victor, Adam (2008). The Elvis Encyclopaedia. Peter Mayer Publishers Inc.. p. 415. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But where are the direct quotes from these books? Your first source is Brown and Broeske. These authors say on p.321:

• "When word later got out that the bride had been living at Graceland for five years, the media was stunned. Rona Barrett said Priscilla was Elvis's 'dirty little secret.' Still, Tom Parker had reason to be pleased. He had breathed new life into Presley's image, averting what could have been an avalanche of ruinous publicity about the superstar and his live-in Lolita."

So this source supports the view that Priscilla was seen as Elvis's "live-in Lolita". According to another source, namely Susan M. Moyer and Jerry Osborne, Elvis: The King Remembered (2002), p.85, Priscilla "had lived at Graceland six years before marrying Elvis in 1967". Fred L. Worth and Steve D. Tamerius, Elvis: His Life from A to Z (1992) write, p.16:

• "With the help of Elvis's grandmother and stepmother, Priscilla was invited to spend Christmas with Elvis at Graceland in 1960. After the stay, Priscilla returned to Germany on January 2. It was then that Elvis realized how much he missed her. In January 1961 Elvis called Priscilla's father, Captain Beaulieu, and asked if Priscilla could finish her schooling in Memphis under the watchful guardianship of Elvis's family."

And here is Karal Ann Marling, Graceland: Going Home with Elvis (Harvard University Press, 1996), p.77:

• "Citing stories that Hollywood's most eligible bachelor was gay, and painting an equally grim picture of what would happen if Priscilla's family told the world he had seduced a minor child, Colonel Parker seems to have engineered a proposal. Married life would settle his boy down." Even during the press conference after their wedding, "Elvis managed to give the impression that he had scarcely seen Priscilla since his army days."

So he could avoid a scandal, one may add. Onefortyone (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not able to copy/paste from these books the way you do from websites. Therefore I am not going to spend my time typing out every single word that they say. I don't have to. I've given the sources and page numbers. Anyone who wishes to verify them can find the books and read them. They all state that she first visited Elvis in 1962, the first time she'd seen him since he left Germany in 1960, and they all state that she visited a second time at Christmas 1962 before moving to Memphis to live in March 1963 at the age of 17. I don't care if you want to include a line about Parker hiding her existence, that isn't important. However, it is important to clarify that she did not live in Memphis at the age of 14, 15, or 16 like some of your sources have claimed. At the very least, what we have here is a stalemate. Your sources (some very dodgy ones) claim one thing, and mine claim another. Considering that most of my sources are already included in the article now and at its time of being made a featured article, I would think most people consider them perfectly reliable. These sources of mine all cross-reference each other on the dates, so the chances of them being wrong are very slim. The best course of action at this stage is to drop the matter and move on. Like I said, I don't care about your claims about Parker as it really isn't important. Even if he did attempt to stop the media knowing about Priscilla, it was a waste of time as she and Elvis were interviewed just weeks after her arrival in Memphis. Elvis openly told the reporter that she was living there, and nothing more was said or done. If Parker's job was to keep this information away from the press, it was an impossible task as Elvis had already spilled the beans. What is very interesting, however, is that nearly all of your sources contradict each other on several issues, such as length of time she'd lived there and ages, years she'd moved there etc. With that in mind, can you really consider them truly reliable? The difference is that all of my sources say exactly the same thing. Just something to think about, and yet another thing that makes your sources slightly dodgy in places. Like I said above, so many books are wrong in places and contradict themselves. The only way to verify anything within them is to find EXACTLY the same information in several other sources. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, some sources say that Priscilla was fifteen, others say she was sixteen when she lived with Presley at Graceland. However, most sources agree that she was seen as a live-in Lolita and that Parker and Elvis managed to give the impression that the singer had scarcely seen Priscilla since his army days in order to avoid a scandal. This should be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The sources are not strong enough to warrant its inclusion, and they are contradicted by several stronger sources. I don't at all agree that any mention of her being 15 or 16 when she moved there should be added to the article, as I have absolute faith in the fact (and might I point out her own words) that she was 17 when she moved there. She was 2 months away from turning 18 and graduation High School, she was certainly no Lolita figure (Lolita was 12, for goodness sake). As I said above, the press already knew that Priscilla moved to live there a month after she did so, and they didn't care. Parker may have thought it negative publicity, but the cat was out of the bag and it still didn't raise any eyebrows within the media. What an 18 year old woman does with her time is her own business. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, ElvisFan, there are too many sources saying that Parker had to hide that Elvis lived with a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old girl at Graceland in order to avoid a scandal. Onefortyone (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And there are too many sources saying that it's impossible as she was 17 before she even went to live there. If she was 17, how could Parker possibly have had to defend her being 15 or 16? What do we have to do to resolve this when there are contradicting sources? Your sources are quite dodgy in places, and certainly not acceptable for inclusion in a featured article. Your sources even contradict each other, which only makes them weaker. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You could also argue that the sources differ because of Parker's successful strategy to hide the "dirty secret" from public view that Priscilla lived much earlier with Elvis than officially stated. And if there are published sources that contradict each other, then this fact must be mentioned in the article according to Wikipedia policies. Onefortyone (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support adding the sentence, cited to one or two of the most reliable sources shown here. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, not quite. The proposed sentence is this: "Colonel Tom Parker made sure that Priscilla's age did not get out to the media during that time period." We now have some good sourcing that Elvis and Priscilla's mutual romantic interest did not become public for some time, but no firm attribution of that to Parker. I believe we can support an addition here, but rephrased and working off the existing sentence. Something like this: "They would eventually marry after a seven-and-a-half-year courtship, which did not become public knowledge for some time." That's what we can support based on high-quality sources at this point--and we should be able to improve on it. The vagueness of "for some time" is unsatisfactory. Let's keep hitting the books and see if we can determine exactly when their romance became public. DocKino (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not just write what the reliable sources say:

• If the press had uncovered Priscilla's role as "live-in Lolita" at Graceland, the scandal would have destroyed the singer's mainstream image that the Colonel, Wallis, and Elvis himself had constructed. See Dirk Vellenga and Mick Farren, Elvis and the Colonel (1989), p.166. Susan Doll, PhD, Elvis for Dummies (2009), Chapter 7.

This is a clear statement. Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. That is very obviously not a clear statement at all. You sound very much like a troll. In the past, experienced editors have identified you as a troll. Based on your behavior here, you seem like a troll. Are you a troll? DocKino (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If other Wikipedians cite reliable sources that prove you wrong, you are accusing them of being a troll. Very interesting behavior, DocKino, and certainly not in line with Wikipedia policies. Onefortyone (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Them"? No, 141. There's no "them." You are the only participant in this discussion who has been identified by multiple experienced editors as a troll. DocKino (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just did a CTRL+F search to make sure, but you're the only one that's used the word troll in this entire discussion, on this entire talk page. You are acting extremely negative and rude to everyone that opposes your viewpoint in this discussion, rather than focusing on the sources given. Silverseren^C 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, the editors of this article have a long, l-o-n-g history with 141's disruptive behavior here.

I apologize for any rudeness I've shown you. However, I have focused on the sources--the original one, a single sentence in a newspaper article on Michael Jackson, was completely inadequate. As we have looked at more sources, we have--as ElvisFan states--reached at best a stalemate, though her sourcing in general is much stronger. Strongest, of course, is Guralnick, whose two-volume Presley biography is widely recognized as the most authoritative. He confirms that Elvis and Priscilla did not see each other after Germany until mid-1962, in Los Angeles, and that her first visit to Graceland was around Christmas 1962. Case closed on that. What Guralnick also makes clear is that their romantic connection was public knowledge even during the period in Germany, though the media was under the impression at the time that Priscilla was 16 years old. Guralnick in no way attributes that error to any effort by Parker, nor it seems, does anyone else. In sum, the proposal we've been discussing here is a no go. DocKino (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never been disruptive as I frequently cite my sources, but I would say that you have a long history in attacking me and removing my well-sourced contributions. Onefortyone (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please cite the exact wording of Guralnick's statement that Elvis and Priscilla did not see each other after Germany until mid-1962? Onefortyone (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"He had started talking to Priscilla about it in March [1962], two years after they had last seen each other and months since their most recent telephone conversation." p. 126. She arrived in June, meeting Elvis in LA. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that I, 141, PassaMethod, and Binksternet are in support of this proposal, it clearly has nothing to do with disruption. And Guralnick is clearly not the only accredited author who has written about Elvis and a significant number of them mention the issues that came up with Priscilla's age, which is clearly and obviously glossed over in the article. Silverseren^C 03:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the proposal as stated has obviously failed. If you wish to make a new proposal about a sentence you'd like to add addressing "the issues that came up with Priscilla's age", please do so in a new thread--and please make sure that the content of your proposal is supported by our highest-quality sources: as ElvisFan observes, that's Guralnick and Jorgensen. If you want to pursue this, that's what we'll do: Wrap this up and start fresh in a new thread with something that can better withstand scrutiny. And, as Collect has indicated, definitely keep in mind the very high standard we have to meet for anything involving Priscilla--a little refresher read on WP:BLP is probably in order. DocKino (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree here with you, DocKino. Guralnick, and might I add Jorgensen, can both be considered as authorities on Elvis' life and career. Their research has unearthed so much information that previous sources (including some of those put forward by 141) had either not known or had gotten wrong through poor research or false information. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the proposed contentious claim involving a living person neither has consensus, nor does it meet WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Collect. This isn't just an issue of "this source says this, that source says that". There are people involved in this that are still alive and thus all information, especially negative, should be considered very carefully before being included. Even more so when there are conflicting sources. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that several sources contradict each other. Guralnick cannot be right, as remarks by the Memphis Mafia members who were with Elvis at the time say otherwise. For instance, according to Alan Fortas, Elvis

• "had an image to maintain. Just how that image differed with each person's perception came to full light that Christmas, the December he came back to Memphis before he got his release on 'Wild in the Country.' [i.e. December 1960] That was the Christmas Elvis worked a miracle. Using Dee and Vernon as a shield, Elvis persuaded Priscilla's step-father, Captain Joseph Beaulieu, to let Priscilla come to Graceland for Christmas. She would fly from Frankfort, West Germany, to New York, where Vernon and Dee would meet her, and escort her back to Memphis. They, of course, would also serve as chaperones during her visit. Priscilla stayed at Graceland about two weeks, returning to Germany early in January, just before Elvis went back to finish 'Wild in the Country.' We eventually ended up going to Las Vegas..."

See Alan Fortas, Elvis: from Memphis to Hollywood (1992), p.137. Robert Matthew-Walker also writes,

• "...Elvis welcomed Priscilla Beaulieu to Graceland to stay with Vernon and Dee for Christmas. This was an unusual circumstance, for Priscilla was still only fifteen, and the idea of her staying at the Presley household would have raised several eyebrows. It was clearly explained that she would be chaperoned by Elvis's family..."

See Robert Matthew-Walker, Heartbreak Hotel: The Life and Music of Elvis Presley (1995), p.57. In her more recent Elvis biography, Kathleen Tracy says:

• "As the end of Priscilla's holiday vacation neared, the thought of her leaving drove Elvis to despair. The solution was simple – she simply had to stay. She could go to school in Memphis and live at Graceland full time. Vernon was in full support. After weeks of peaceful cohabitation, Vernon was apprehensive of the mood Elvis would revert to if Priscilla left. Like everyone else, he believed Priscilla's mere presence would solve everything and make Graceland a home, happily ever after. With Vernon on the upstairs extension, Elvis talked to Joe Beaulieu for close to an hour, while Priscilla sat listening quietly but anxiously. ... After a sometimes-impassioned conversation, it had been miraculously arranged. Priscilla would move to Graceland as a guest of Vernon and Dee's, who would take personal responsibility for chaperoning her."

See Kathleen Tracy, Elvis Presley: A Biography (2006), p.115-116. It seems that Guralnick is just following the official version of the story invented by the Colonel and the Beaulieus for the press that only in 1962 Elvis phoned Priscilla's stepfather, Captain Paul Beaulieu, for his permission assuring the Beaulieus that the young girl would live at Vernon's house, attend a good school and always be chaperoned, and implied that he would marry her when she came of age. However, the Memphis Mafia members know better. It is no wonder, then, that Vanity Fair magazine would eventually call Priscilla "the original rock 'n' roll Lolita". These facts must be mentioned in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. Those "facts" are, in fact, disputed recollections. Guralnick, regarded as the most authoritative biographer, and several other strong sources state that Priscilla did not visit Graceland until Christmas 1962. And, whether her first visit was in Christmas 1960 or 1962 is simply not a significant enough fact to raise in an article that must summarize Elvis Presley's entire life and career. If done very, very carefully, the history and the historical dispute could be handled--at the length it requires per WP:BLP and basic good historical practices--in the article on Priscilla Presley. DocKino (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really strange to be arguing about facts in an article that contains a sentence such as "Like some of his peers, he may have attended blues venues—of necessity, in the segregated South, only on nights designated for exclusively white audiences." Reading over this talk page and being reverted for "overlinking", it appears that some editors of this page have some serious ownership issues. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a haigiography for fanboys. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about reserving the personal attacks until after making a substantive contribution to the discussion of the topic? Thanks. DocKino (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about you looking in the mirror. You have called other editors in this discussion trolls and even even called one "evil"! Any objective observer can see who is dishing out the personal attacks. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to be confused. This Talk page exists to facilitate discussion of how to maintain and improve the quality of the Elvis Presley article. Any objective observer can see who has contributed substantively to that discussion (e.g., myself) and who has not at all (e.g., you, Tom). Also, it's not good to misrepresent what others have said--I have suggested that one and only one participant in this discussion may be a troll, a figure who has been identified as such by multiple experienced editors in the past; it was that same figure whom I jocularly referred to as "evil." So...don't pass that mirror along until you've gazed in it for a while. (But tell us what you find somewhere else...)

Back on substance: If anything more is to be gotten out of discussion of these matters, it would help if Pass a Method or Silver seren would launch a new thread with a new, very carefully worded proposal that recognizes the issues with WP:Verifiability, WP:BLP, WP:DUE, and WP:LENGTH. DocKino (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the behavior of DocKino, the participants in this discussion should also consult this page. Onefortyone (talk)

Remember that the behavior of another editor does not excuse you from the rules of civility. Continue to comment on the edits, not the editor, and especially don't talk about the editor's behavior on other pages not related to this one, which means keep mention of WQAs and RFCs off article talk pages. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Pass a Method has rejoined us. Would you care to move the discussion forward by making a new, policy-mindful, carefully worded proposal, or not? DocKino (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a carefully worded new proposal:

The Colonel, Wallis, and Elvis endeavored to hide Priscilla's role as "live-in Lolita" at Graceland, because they were aware that the scandal may have destroyed the singer's career. (See Dirk Vellenga and Mick Farren, Elvis and the Colonel (1989), p.166. Susan Doll, PhD, Elvis for Dummies (2009), Chapter 7.) Onefortyone (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont mind the new one, but you should preferably discuss this with Silverseren, because he worded the original proposal. Pass a Method talk 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change. I just feel like the information in general is something that should be mentioned in the article, per numerous mention in sources. Silverseren^C 21:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that this is a terrible, ill-considered proposal that will be reverted on sight for violating our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research."

• It is not verifiable that Priscilla Presley ever lived with Presley before she was of or very near the age of consent. Most authoritative sources agree that Priscilla did not live with Presley until around her eighteenth birthday—if she did live with him before turning 18, it was at the very most for a few weeks immediately preceding her birthday. The claim by Elvis for Dummies Doll that they lived together when she was sixteen is contradicted by the prevailing historical view, as explained earlier in this thread. Her claim that Parker, Wallis, and Presley conspired to keep Priscilla's presence at Graceland a secret hangs entirely on her dubious, minority viewpoint that they lived together two years before biographical consensus holds that they actually did.
• It is very far from neutral to promote a description of her as a "live-in Lolita". Vladimir Nabokov's famous Lolita character was twelve years old when she began a sexual relationship with Nabokov's Humbert Humbert character. Even Elvis for Dummies Doll, who claims that Elvis and Priscilla lived together when she was sixteen, does not assert that they had a sexual relationship at that time.

In sum, this "proposal" is potentially libelous, clearly biased, and poorly sourced contentious material that violates our policy on biographies of living persons. Not only will any attempt to bring it into the article be reverted on sight, but per our policy, such reversions are not subject to the 3-revert rule and any efforts to include the proposed statement in anything like its present form will be brought swiftly to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. DocKino (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, DocKino, but you are not the only contributor to the Elvis article. Priscilla herself writes about previous labels given to her, such as "constant companion," "teen heartthrob," "live-in Lolita," "lover". See Priscilla Presley, Elvis and Me (1985), p.238. So calling Priscilla a "live-in Lolita" does not violate our policy on biographies of living persons, especially in view of the fact that many reliable sources use this expression. According to Brown and Broeske, "Rona Barrett said Priscilla was Elvis’s 'dirty little secret'." They add that Colonel Parker had averted "what could have been an avalanche of ruinous publicity about the superstar and his live-in Lolita." See Peter H. Brown and Pat H. Broeske, Down at the End of Lonely Street: The Life and Death of Elvis Presley (1997), p.321. In her academic study on Graceland, Karal Ann Marling says that Priscilla moved to Memphis as Elvis’s "live-in-Lolita". See Graceland: Going Home With Elvis (Harvard University Press, 1996), p.76. Vanity Fair magazine has called Priscilla "the original rock 'n' roll Lolita". The Memphis Mafia members also confirm that Priscilla lived as a young girl at Graceland. In her book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003), Alanna Nash cites Lamar Fike who "watched that from the very beginning with abject fear." Nash adds that the Colonel "was furious at such a Lolita-like setup. ... Not so long before, in a redneck hormone storm, the piano-pounding Jerry Lee Lewis had ruined his career by marrying his underage cousin. This situation wasn't nearly as dangerous, but if discovered, it would still be a scandal ..." (p.205-206) These are all reliable sources, as Dr Doll's book on Elvis is. They do not try to hide the truth as the Colonel and, following his "official" version, Guralnick apparently did. Onefortyone (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the foregoing corrects the inherent problem with the proposal, which is that it was not "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability [and] neutrality" as our policy demands. It also remains potentially libelous and clearly biased, which our policy prohibits. Notwithstanding the baseless disparagement of Guralnick, he remains Presley's most respected biographer, and he is far from the only authority who holds to the prevailing historical view that Priscilla did not live at Graceland before she was 18 or nearly so: Jorgensen, Victor, Clutton, and--yes--Priscilla Presley herself concur. The fact that several commentators nonetheless refer to her as a "Lolita" of whatever sort does not mean that Wikipedia can. Our WP:BLP policy obliges us to obey a considerably higher standard than that which gossip columnists like Rona Barrett and authors of books like Elvis for Dummies must follow. The case against the proposal as currently phrased is closed: It clearly violates WP:BLP and will be treated appropriately. If a responsible editor (one who, say, does not selectively quote Priscilla Presley to avoid the fact that she plainly contradicts his preferred version of reality) wishes to offer a responsible proposal, by all means... If anyone has a proposal that meets that description--while keeping in mind WP:DUE and WP:LENGTH--please start a new thread for it. DocKino (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dockino, your objections are getting rather tiresome. My personal proposal was supported by seveeal people ... you oppose. 4 people agreed on Silversen's wroding proposal ... You oppose. Onefortyone made a new proposal agreed by at least 3 people ... you oppose. Such behavior gets quite annoying after a while. I recommend you make concessions like everybody else does on wikipedia. I disagree with hundreds of edits accross wikipedia but i make concessions because this is a team-project. From now on, i want you to do one of two things; (a) either compremise, or (b) you can propose a reworded version of any previous proposals. Pass a Method talk 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method, you seem like a sincere person, but you're misrepresenting how things have happened here and misunderstanding how Wikipedia works in general. On the first point, you seem to have entirely forgotten about AndyTheGrump's and ElvisFan1981's contributions to this thread. On the second, more important, point, we can't "compromise" on matters of policy. I don't see how your "personal proposal" and Silver seren's differ--that was one proposal and it was conclusively shown to fail our WP:Verifiability policy. It's inappropriate to ask me or any other editor to "compromise" on that policy or to rewrite a misconceived proposal that you favor so it meets policy--that's your job, if you care to put the effort in. Similarly, 141's recent proposal clearly violates our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons (and, as a corollary, our WP:Neutral point of view policy). There's no way to "compromise" about that.

Now, if you're interested in collaboration--I am too. That's how this article became a Featured Article--despite 141's best efforts to thwart its promotion--because Rikstar and PL290 and I and many other helpful and responsible editors worked together to raise it to our highest standards. I miss Rikstar and PL290, who I feel have largely or entirely abandoned the project because they got worn out by dealing with certain irresponsible persons more interested in injecting idiosyncratic points of view and extreme expressions into articles than ensuring they are maintained at the highest quality. Over at The Beatles, which PL290 was also instrumental in bringing to FA status, it's been my pleasure to collaborate with a largely new group of knowledgeable, caring editors who have gravitated to that article and related ones. Productive collaboration is one of the most satisfying aspects of working on Wikipedia. So, once again, if you care to familiarize yourself with all the relevant policies, read through the pertinent sources, and introduce a smart new proposal in a new thread, it would be my pleasure to work on it with you. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if i recall correctly, some of some of your initial responses did not seem to emphasise wiki policy, rather you seemed to oppose any perceived negative information about Elvis being added. Pass a Method talk 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're simply mistaken. I'm the contributor primarily responsible for writing the article's "Lost in Hollywood" section, which details just how bad most of Presley's movies--and the music for them--were. And I collaborated closely with PL290, who took the lead on the "Health deterioration and death" section, which details Prelsey's drug abuse and the often embarrassing nature of his live performances during the last few years of his life. For a fuller accounting of the vast array of "perceived negative information about Elvis" that the article in fact includes and has long included, feel free to read through this diff.

Now that your misperception has been corrected, we can stop talking about mistaken notions of me and see if you actually have a smart, policy-abiding proposal to make. DocKino (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot deny, DocKino, that reliable sources differ as to how old Priscilla actually was when she lived with Elvis. According to the sources that follow the Colonel's official version, Priscilla moved to Graceland only in March 1963, a few months away from being eighteen. Other sources, based on eyewitness accounts, say otherwise. These contradictions should be mentioned in the article. Query: even if Guralnick is right, what exactly did Parker have to hide? In this case he had to hide that Priscilla was seventeen when she lived with Elvis! The big age difference would have caused some controversy, particularly because the state in which Elvis lived, Tennessee, had an age of consent (the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts) at eighteen:

Statutory rape is sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) years older than the victim. (T.C.A. § 39-13-506)

See John M. Scheb II, “An Overview of Criminal Offenses under Tennessee Law”. This means that Elvis offended against the laws of Tennessee when he was found to have a seventeen years old girl in his bedroom. So it really doesn't matter if Priscilla was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen when she moved to Graceland. Therefore, the Colonel and the Memphis Mafia members "watched that from the very beginning with abject fear." Therefore, critics are right to call Priscilla Elvis's "live-in Lolita". She was also called "the freak child-lover of Elvis Presley, Hollywood's best-kept secret" (on the Today show) or "the girl Elvis is rumored to have hidden at Graceland" (in Movie Mirror). Onefortyone (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, Lolita was famously twelve. Again, that sort of "titillating" (see WP:BLP) description remains potentially libelous without a lot of contextualization--way, way more than we can afford to expend in an article that must summarize Elvis Presley's entire life and career.
• Again, the entire argument, in those sources which make it, that "Parker had to something to hide" rests on the highly contentious, minority viewpoint that Priscilla lived at Graceland when she was 16. For all the claims about Parker in this regard, we have yet to encounter one specific, attributed anecdote of him actually working to hide something relevant.
• Again, we have no one authoritatively attesting that Priscilla and Elvis actually had sex before she was of the age of consent--she states in her autobiography that he resisted her sexual advances for quite some time out of fear of doing something immoral and/or illegal.
• And again, I believe that Pass a Method, if this editor is interested in doing so, is capable of coming up with a thoughtful, policy-abiding proposal with which we can move forward. DocKino (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources such as Suzanne Finstad's Child Bride that attest that Priscilla and Elvis actually had sex before she was of the age of consent. Finstad has even shown that Priscilla's claim that she remained a virgin until their wedding night is wrong. See also Alanna Nash's Baby, Let's Play House. Onefortyone (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misuse the English language in this discussion of sensitive matters. "To attest" means to affirm as a witness--in this case, that means Elvis, Priscilla, someone who claims to have observed them having sex, or someone who claims to have directly encountered incontrovertible evidence that they had sex. Finstad asserts they first had sex at such-and-such a time. Other historians and biographers assert something else. Priscilla attests to something else. DocKino (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Finstad's study is based on accounts of various friends and acquaintances of Priscilla, among them members of the family, close friends, classmates, co-stars and numerous members of Elvis’s circle in Memphis and in Germany, who indeed witness that she had sex before she was of the age of consent. Onefortyone (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been running an Elvis Fan Club for about 25 years now and in that time I have accepted the good and not so good traites with this entertainers career etc, because I respect him. But when one has to be negative,as I agree about most of his movies and drug abuse so forth,we need to show empathy,of which you and serveral other editors have skillfully done. This is why I believe in part it is now a FA Article. Sadly some people are incapable of feeling any sort of empathy,but show a great skill in being critical.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What counts on Wikipedia are reliable sources, not your personal feelings as an Elvis fan. There are still too many sources supporting the view that Elvis was keeping a teenage lover hidden at Graceland and that Colonel Parker tried to hide this fact. For new proposals, see also the discussion below. Onefortyone (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

'from'

To try to nip a rather silly edit war in the bud, I've asked for outside help:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Are_You_Grammatically_Correct_Tonight.3F

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that interested editors simply...purchase...a...decent...dictionary. Merriam-Webster's tells us "graduate" may be used transitively or intransitively. American Heritage tells us "graduate" may be used transitively or intransitively.

I have now been accused multiple times on my Talk page of a grave breach of Wikipedia etiquette because I dared to identify this edit, with its edit summary "'graduate' isn't transitive" as "Ridiculous." Well, I do believe it's ridiculous for an inexperienced editor--or any editor--to edit a Featured Article while erroneously tossing around fancy words like "transitive"--a failure of English comprehension that could be entirely avoided by the simple...gesture...of...referring...to...a...decent...dictionary. DocKino (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the USA appears to be the only English-speaking country where anybody currently considers it correct to use the verb "graduate" transitively with the person or persons graduating as its subject and the institution from which they're graduating as its direct object. That use is not recorded at all in the current version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which the English regard as the supreme lexicographical authority on the language they speak. Nor is it recorded in my third (1997) edition of the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English. I haven't bothered to go to a library to try and check the fifth edition, but as far as I can tell, the usage in question is still sufficiently different from normal here that I think any well-educated Australian would instantly recognise it as an Americanism.

The lesson from all this is that before shooting one's mouth off about whether someone else's ideas of correct Grammar or word usage is wrong—or "ridiculous"—one would do well to consider the possibility that he or she may be a native of a different country from one's own, with different ideas about the grammatical propriety or impropriety of any particular expression. To some extent this would apply also to Windofkeltia's original edit, although his edit summary could in no way be reasonably described as "shooting his mouth off".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should perhaps add that I was not here advocating the adoption of Windofkeltia's change. Since the altered text is apparently good US English, and the change has been objected to on those grounds, it shouldn't be changed unless a discussion on this talk page can reach a consensus to change it. A case for the change can be made on the grounds that it's grammatically correct in all dialects of English, including US English, whereas the current version is considered incorrect in most (if not all) dialects of English except US English. Nevertheless, it's still up to those who want to make the change to convince a consensus of editors that the change is desirable. Personally, I don't think it's worth the bother.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"The problem"? There's really no problem at all, so long as editors recognize that this is an article on an American topic, written in good American English. When I edit articles on, say, British topics written in British English, you can be damn sure I refer to a British dictionary and/or stylebook, as relevant, before daring to make any grammatical "corrections." Windofkeltia's "different ideas" about grammatical propriety were completely misapplied here--that is the entirety of the "problem." But thanks for taking your turn at shooting your mouth off about the third edition of the Macquarie Dictionary. Most edifying. DocKino (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've temporarily protected the page due to edit warring over this. Work it out on the talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

By the time he graduated high school in..... doesn't trip-up my English and seems fine. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FBI Informer

Was there not a story about him wanting to inform on his fellow entertainers to the FBI. Even if the story is untrue, deserves a mention? Jokem (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there a story? You haven't provided a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I see we have a FBI files on Elvis Presley article - and this is mentioned there. Not that there seems to be much to it: he made a vague offer, and Hoover turned it down because he didn't like Presley's long hair, or the way he dressed. I think that this probably tells us more about Hoover than Presley. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Claims of still being alive

I have no doubt that he did die on August 16th 1977 - for one thing he wouldn't have wanted his public to know about the high level of drug use even though they were legal. But there was a period for 5 years or so when the idea that he'd "faked" his death to escape the pressures of fame and was still alive and would somehow "come back" probably as a "spiritual leader". There were even claims he'd faked his death due to the fight against organised crime! Whilst these claims now seem to have died their own death, they were quite significant at the time. Should some mention be made of them? At the very least it indicates that there were quite a lot of people who wouldn't just let him die, and desperately wanted to believe he was still around, or the pressure of fame giving some level of credibility to the idea that he might have been tempted to fake his death to escape it. I realise many people would find the whole thing offensive, but the claims were certainly out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.218.51 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Those claims were indeed out there, and to a lesser extent they still are. I don't feel that the subject warrants lengthy exploration, but it does merit at least a mention, perhaps with quotes from some of the scholarly analysis that's been published on the "Elvis is alive" phenomenon. Pstoller (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Elvis on Beale Street

Hey, yeah, it's just like old times here, only with some new names. Meanwhile, I'd like to suggest that BB King's Elvis on Beale Street be moved. "Clearly, it was Dewey who introduced Presley to Beale Street's juke joints and night spots, and he did so only after making hi instantly famous on Jluy 10, 1954... Dewey and Elvis: the life and times of a rock 'n' roll deejay. By Louis Cantor page 148. currently available (along with evidence to support this) through Google Books.) Oh, and Bill Haley was doing rockabilly in 1951, (Listen to Rocket 88 for example. [5] three years before Elvis was one of the "originators". Steve Pastor (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah Steve,this sort of information you've put forward,I myself find so very interesting,rather than all that other irrelevant dribble. I also read someone that they say that the song "Rocket 88" by Jackie Brenston and the piano playing was Ike Turner,back in the 40's was considered by many to be the first R&B song.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The rockabilly thing jumped out at me too when I read the article - the claim that he was one of the originators is somewhat poorly sourced. "Popularizes" - of course! "Originators" - somewhat dubious.VolunteerMarek 22:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat poorly sourced"? Are you serious? It's sourced to Paul Friedlander's Rock and Roll: A Social History, one of the more highly regarded reference works in the field, published by the well-respected Westview Press. Just to check myself, I grabbed my old copy of the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll off the shelf and looked up "rockabilly". Here's how the entry begins: "Rockabilly was Elvis Presley's music, the hybrid of blues and country that become rock & roll." In Rock Music Styles: A History (from McGraw-Hill, again a very well respected publishing house), Katherine Charlton flatly describes Presley as "rockabilly's originator." You may "feel" that he's not one of the originators of the genre, but high-quality sources belie that. DocKino (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By March 1954 Bill Haley and Saddlemen/ Comets had 14 releases that Terry Gordon of the Rockin’ Country Style web site rate as “pertinent” in a discussion of what is most commonly known as “Rockabilly”. [6] Note that Sun hadn't recorded anything that would be released by Elvis. The problem is that many if not most authors either don't know about, or chose to ignore everything that came before Elvis. It would be more correct to state that "to the public at large", or "on the national stage", Elvis was appeaered to be an originator of the style. Steve Pastor (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) While Gordon's efforts are impressive, in the end you're citing what a personal website calls "pertinent" to a discussion of rockabilly. That's rather meager countersourcing.

(2) We do not claim that Presley invented rockabilly. We identify him as "one of [its] originators." That modest claim is very well founded in high-quality sources. DocKino (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"But would you agree with me that rock 'n' roll started with Sam Phillips' Sun label? He was recording-" "No, not really, no," Gene interrupted. "Can't say that Sorry. I know Sam real well and Sam picked up on something that was already happening." Gene Vincent being interviewed in "Race with the Devil" pgae 219. Steve Pastor (talk)

I agree with what I believe is your general philosophical point, which is that it's hard to identify anyone person or event as the "origin" of any musical genre. But again, we don't claim that Presley invented rockabilly and/or rock 'n' roll. We describe him as an originator. That's a different, much more modest, and very well support description. Right? DocKino (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only mentioned this in passing, but when another editor picked up on it, I decided to begin sharing what I've learned over the past year or two (or three?), since I decided my time on this article was no longer justified and decided to pursue other interests that turned out to lead back here. Anyhow, it's my opinion that a more nuanced statement would better represent the facts, rather than simply going with what most authors have written. If no other editors agree, and I have completed the presentation of those facts, or it turns out that no one is interested, I will rest my case.

Vincent goes on to say, "But a lot of people were doing it before that, especially Carl Perkins." Steve Pastor (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Although we did not agree in certain points in the past, Steve, in this case I would like to support your view. Colin Escott and Martin Hawkins write:

• "It is now established that rock music did not originate with the Beatles or even with Elvis Presley a decade earlier and much rock literature has rightly emphasized the importance of the many forms of ethnic music that preceded the rock revolution. 'Rockabilly' was there at the beginning. It was basically hyperactive country music which borrowed in mood and emphasis from commercial rhythm and blues. Rockabilly has become identified with Sun Records..."

and therefore Escott and Hawkins's book "uses a study of Sun — its distinctive sound, its artists, and its market — as a starting point for a wider study of rockabilly music." See Colin Escott and Martin Hawkins, Sun Records: The Brief History of the Legendary Recording Label (1980), p.i. The authors add on p.64:

• "What made rockabilly fascinating was its compulsive rhythm with the accent on the second and fourth beats, usually achieved without the use of a heavy drummer. Other instruments used in the early days were the fiddle and, later, the saxophone when artists had designs on a hit record."

Did Elvis's band members use fiddles? Earlier rockabilly artists obviously did. This means that Elvis was not the originator of rockabilly. Here is another source that discusses the "Rockabilly ideal", i.e. "rebellion against societal controls, excess, hedonism, and a sense of a community among outsiders":

• "These points indicate that Rockabilly was not an isolated phenomenon; its salient features relate it to other musical and cultural movements taking place all over the United States in the 1940's and 1950s. Most of the studies of Rockabilly have emphasized its regional origins. This specific musical fusion of black rhythm and blues and white country music and gospel took place in and around Memphis, Tennessee in 1954; it spread throughout the mid-South region (Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) between 1954 and 1956; and finally became a national and international form of popular music from 1956 to 1958, when it was absorbed by a developing mainstream rock 'n' roll. Early Rockabilly was characterized by a set instrumentation of acoustic rhythm guitar, electric lead guitar, and stand-up string bass, with drums and piano sometimes added later; the use of echo on lead vocal; and heavy rhythms with accents on the second and fourth beats (...). Colin Escott and Martin Hawkins call Rockabilly a "basically hyperactive country music which borrowed in mood and emphasis from commercial rhythm and blues" (...). The musical influences on Rockabilly were only partially regional, and even the immediate regional precursors of Rockabilly — hillbilly boogie, honky-tonk, western swing, and bluegrass — had already been affected by national popular musical forms such as jazz, blues, vaudeville, and rhythm and blues."

See The Southern Quarterly, vol. 22, 1983, p.79. Calling Elvis one of the originators of rockabilly (as in the Wikipedia article) seems wrong to me, in view of the sources cited above. Other musicians were the originators. Onefortyone (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Now in addition to one strong source that identifies Presley as "rockabilly's originator" and a second that calls rockabilly "essentially an Elvis Presley construction", we now have confirmation from a third that says of rockabilly, "This specific musical fusion of black rhythm and blues and white country music and gospel took place in and around Memphis, Tennessee in 1954"--exactly where and when Presley's career began. Just as the "rockabilly" entry in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll puts it: "Rockabilly was Elvis Presley's music." The matter is settled: the historical consensus is very, very clear--Presley was one of rockabilly's originators. Let's move on. DocKino (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, DocKino, it is a historical fact that the origin of Rockabilly was only partially regional, as the same source later emphasizes (contrary to the studies of Rockabilly that have made the claim of its regional origins), and that Elvis was not its originator. Rockabilly was already there before Elvis appeared on the scene. He only made Rockabilly very popular, that's true. Onefortyone (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! We don't say that rockabilly had an originator. And, of course, the influences on it were by no means merely regional. But all the sources agree that it arose in and around Memphis in 1954, and that Presley was one of the originators. We nailed this one! DocKino (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong as Rockabilly was already there shortly before Elvis appeared on the scene. According to Escott and Hawkins's book, Sun Records — its distinctive sound, its artists, and its market — was a big starting point for rockabilly, and Sun started operations on March 27, 1952. Onefortyone (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What?! You've lost the thread, my friend. Sun Records didn't invent rockabilly by opening its doors. You must have been joking there, right? So: We have one high-quality source that flatly describes Presley as "rockabilly's originator". We have a second high-quality source that calls rockabilly "essentially an Elvis Presley construction". Where's the high-quality source that claims "rockabilly was already there shortly before Elvis appeared on the scene"? I haven't found that source. Steve Pastor hasn't found that source. And you most certainly haven't. So...we're done here. DocKino (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already cited my sources above. Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we've all cited many sources. And no high-quality source asserts that rockabilly was a fully formed genre before Elvis started his professional career. Thanks for all your hard work. DocKino (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source explicitly stating that Elvis was not the originator of Rockabilly. It cites Carl Perkins who

• has been called one of the originators of rockabilly. But Carl steadfastly refuses to take primary credit for this accomplishment. " [Sam] Phillips, Elvis, and I didn't create rockabilly; it was just the white man's response to the black man's spiritualness. It was born in the South. People working those cotton fields as I did as a youngster would hear black people singing . . . There's a lot of cats that was doin' our things, and maybe better, that were never heard of — they're the ones that created rockabilly, the ones who never even got on record. We're just the lucky ones."

See Wayne Jancik, The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders (1998), p.16. This means that neither Elvis nor Perkins were the originators of Rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's note that when Haley covered Rocket 88 in 1951 - that's 3 years before Elvis - Sam Phillips did the production in Jackie Brenston's version. Those are a fact, unlike the opinions written by many writers whom DocKeno continues to cite. Perhaps Phillips never heard what Haley did with the song, an arrangment that had the esential elements of "rockabliiy", again, as evaluated by someone who spent thousands of hours creating a database on the subject.

In 1953 just about one year before Elvis recorded at Sun, Haley and the Comets had a song that was #12 in the nation, having climed the charts since April of that year. Haley's rockabilly effort was even featured on the The “Glory in the Flower” episode of the CBS Omnibus dramatic series, broadcast on October 4, 1953 from 5:00-6:30pm Eastern time. the ifirst time this type of music was played on national television in the US. It would have been hard for Phillips and Elvis to miss that one. Again we are still in the days BE (Before Elvis). Steve Pastor (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Steve, Terry Gordon ("someone who spent thousands of hours creating a database on the subject") has a wonderful, useful site in "Rockin' Country Style", but this is simply not a reliable source per our WP:Verifiability policy. Also, you need to recognize Gordon's own definition of his site's scope: it "attempts to list every rock & roll single aimed at the country & western market and every pop rock & roll single whose style was primarily derived from country-oriented rock & roll." Gordon never uses the the term "rockabilly" and obviously, far from every song he lists would qualify as rockabilly--do keep that in mind when you use the site for your personal research purposes in the future. Finally, note his five strongly positive criteria for inclusion in the category of "Genres":

• Sounds like Elvis on Sun
• Sounds like Carl Perkins
• Sounds like Jerry Lee Lewis
• Sounds like Elvis on RCA, 1956-58
• Sounds like Charley Ryan's "Hot Rod Lincoln"

That's Elvis first, and Elvis twice. But you think it's a stretch to identify him as an originator of the sound Gordon is interested in? That's just not a viable position.

So that leaves us with this from your most recent comment: In 1953, Haley and the Comets had a #12 hit--"Crazy Man, Crazy", to be specific. It's not clear what relevance that has to the description of Presley as one of rockabilly's originators. Does any high-quality source, for instance, describe "Crazy Man, Crazy" as the song that defined the new genre of rockabilly? Anything like that at all? DocKino (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some further research. In his Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997), p.85, Frank Coffey writes that " 'Crazy Man Crazy' was the first rockabilly record to make the Billboard pop chart in 1953." According to Michael Campbell’s Popular Music in America (3rd edition, 2009), p.161, Carl Perkins was of the opinion that "rockabilly music was a country man’s song with a black man’s rhythm" continuing a long line of country takes on black music. The author adds that "the sound of rockabilly was not confined to Memphis or even the South. The idea of countrifying rhythm and blues had spread throughout North America." This author further writes that "Bill Haley recorded the first big rockabilly hit." According to Craig Morrison’s Go Cat Go! Rockabilly Music and its Makers (1996), p.35, Bill Haley’s Rock the Joint of 1952 is "bona fide rockabilly, perhaps even the birth of the style." In his Supremely American: Popular Song in the 20th Century (2005), p.134, Nicholas E. Tawa writes that the first white offerings of rock 'n' roll were given the designation "rockabilly" and that "Rock 'n' roll emerged more clearly as a white genre with the 1953 record 'Crazy Man Crazy,' sung by Bill Haley." According to Brock Helander’s The Rockin' '50s: The People who made the Music (1998), p.13, "Rockabilly developed in the early to mid '50s. It usually featured frantic, uninhibited lead vocals, a wild stinging lead guitar, and thumping stand-up bass. Rockabilly found its first widespread expression thanks to Sun Records... Bill Haley and the Comets were perhaps the earliest purveyors of rockabilly... They scored major pop hits from 1953 to 1956 with songs such as 'Crazy, Man, Crazy,' 'Dim, Dim the Lights,' the classic 'Rock Around the Clock' (...), 'Burn That Candle,' and 'See You Later, Alligator.' " All of these sources clearly support Steve Pastor's view that there were rockabilly songs before Elvis appeared on the scene. Onefortyone (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about cherry picking, and intellectual dishonesty. Let's take a look at just one of your sources: Morrison's Go Cat Go! He states in his preface,

Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release, on the Sun label of Memphis. Presley announced the arrival of rockabilly through his dynamic stage act, and the style spread into Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, and neighboring states. Musicians inspired by Presley joined the movement, bringing their own backgrounds. (p. x)

Let's take a look at another source you've brought in, Tawa's Supremely American:

Rockabilly ripened in Memphis, where Sam Phillips' Sun Records, a small regional outfit nurtured it.... Among the most seminal musicians were Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Roy Orbison.... Over the next two years [beginning in 1956], a string of number-one recorded hits [by Presley] dominated the charts and went a long way toward defining the rockabilly style.... (pp. 134–35)

There is no question that Haley was an important influence on the development of rockabilly; similarly, there is no question that Presley was one of the style's originators--indeed, multiple sources (Friedlander, Charlton, Morrison, Rolling Stone Encyclopedia) identify him as the most significant originator. That there were songs before 1954 that may retrospectively be identified as rockabilly does not contradict that observation in any way. Once again, and for the last time, the critical consensus is undeniable: Presley was one of rockabilly's originators, exactly as we state. We don't need to spend any more time and energy on this. DocKino (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, according to the sources I have cited, Elvis wasn't an originator of Rockabilly. He was among those (and perhaps the most significant musician) who made it very popular. Onefortyone (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's just a blatant falsehood. Morrison, as quoted above, inarguably identifies Presley as an originator of rockabilly--"Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release." We're done here. DocKino (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this author state that Elvis was an originator of Rockabilly? No, he doesn't. Onefortyone (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! He obviously does, as anyone who understands the English language and is intellectually honest can plainly read. As does Friedlander. As does Charlton. As does Tawa. As does the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia. But you go on pretending otherwise...it won't make any difference to the content of our Featured Article. DocKino (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary of the English language says that "origin" , "crystallization" and "recognition" are different things. As Carl Perkins says: " [Sam] Phillips, Elvis, and I didn't create rockabilly; it was just the white man's response to the black man's spiritualness. It was born in the South. People working those cotton fields as I did as a youngster would hear black people singing . . . There's a lot of cats that was doin' our things, and maybe better, that were never heard of — they're the ones that created rockabilly, the ones who never even got on record. We're just the lucky ones."Onefortyone (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've quoted Carl Perkins before. This may come as a surprise to you, but quoting him again doesn't bolster your position. DocKino (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And what about the rockabilly experts who say that 'Crazy Man Crazy' was the first rockabilly record?" Onefortyone (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself here. As I stated above, that there were songs before 1954 that may retrospectively be identified as rockabilly does not contradict the evident critical consensus that Presley was one of the originators of rockabilly. DocKino (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, but it is not in line with the sources I have cited above. Onefortyone (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but what you've just said is false. Not only is it in line with the sources already cited in the article, it's in line with both Morrison and Tawa, who you happily brought to our attention. In fact, I think it will be most useful to quote Morrison's comment, "Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release", in our article. DocKino (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is also mentioned that Elvis was not the originator of rockabilly but helped that it could crystallize into a recognizable style in 1954, this may be a good idea. Onefortyone (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bill Haley (The Saddlemen) Rock the Joint Essex 303— "Jumpy opus is an odd mixture of c.&w. and r.&b." from Billboard Apr 26, 1952. More than two years B.E. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, you repeatedly referred to Gordon's "Rockin' Country Style" in a vain attempt to somehow prove that Presley was not a seminal rockabilly figure. I demonstrated conclusively that Gordon--if we are to interpret "rockin' country style" to mean rockabilly--MUCH more strongly identifies the rockabilly style with Presley than with Haley. What do you have to say about that? Were you, perhaps, wrong? DocKino (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that you are familiarizing yourself with the RCS site, you might want to go to the Advance Search page and do a search for "perintent" songs in the year 1952, then 1953. You will see numerous songs by numerous artists. You will also see that there are many more in 1953 than in 1952. Thank you for your continuing comments as I continue to present the information I have come across since leaving this article years(?) ago. Upon completion of that presentation, and perhaps a more concise statement of the points presented, we will see if other editors agree with my suggestion that the current statement should be modified. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. I'm perfectly happy with that--it would be great if we had other editors joining in...any editors other than 141, who I do not believe is participating honestly or for sincere reasons. That said...

Here's what I'm seeing as I consider the wealth of information on the RCS site: yes, there was a lot happening in 1952 and especially 1953 that was pertinent to the development of rockabilly. But the consensus among critics/historians is that it didn't all come together in the form we now recognize as quintessential rockabilly until 1954. Looking at the range of how that's stated, I believe it is Morrison who comes closest as any one writer can come to expressing the consensus view: "Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release."

Steve, if you know other Wikipedians who are familiar and/or interested in this period of popular music history who you'd like to invite to look over the sources and weigh in, I'm all in favor of getting more eyes on the topic. DocKino (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just another opinion on Elvis for today. “Elvis Presley is an after-the-fact personality in regard to the origin of rock ‘n’ roll, but his sudden and enormous popularity played a key role…” Rock! It’s Still Rhythm and Blues. Lawrence N. Redd. The Black Perspective in Music, Vol 13 No 1 Spring 1985 p 39. More to come over the next few days. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

More on Haley in 1953. Billboard noted in the “Popular “ record section, “Real Rock Drive” (Essex 311) had a “relaxed, free swing” delivery, while “Stop Beatin’ Round the Mulberry Bush” had “a driving beat” in an “exciting lively rendition” with a “frenetic quality”. Jan 24, 1953 p 37. For the June 1953 release of “Fractured” and “Pat-a-Cake” Essex (327) Billboard wrote that both sides were “mighty potent,” “another wild driving disking,” “crazy backing” “that really goes,” “a driving beat” <Aug 1, 1953>. Next Haley releases in September “A wild and wooly item” that could easily cut across classifications” according to Billboard reviews. After the release of “Rock the Joint” promotional materials for Bill Haley and the Saddlemen went like this They’re Rockin’ the Show World with a Modern Cowboy Swing and Jive… ” “Jive, Cowboy, Popular, Hillbilly, The Most Versatile Band in the Land”. Soon we'll see that even the name that stuck for this music has an origin story from Before Elvis recorded his first session with Scotty and Bill. Steve Pastor (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That may well be, but while the fascinating information you've provided is obviously highly relevant to Bill Haley, clearly relevant to the history of rock 'n' roll, and likely relevant to the history of rockabilly, it is not particularly relevant to THE question: whether Elvis Presley was one of the orginators of rockabilly. Historians clearly concur that he was, and none of this information about Haley's "driving beat" does anything to change that. DocKino (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a book I've been looking into purchasing today, mainly because it includes information about Elvis, but it's primarily about the history of Rockabilly. It's from last year, so I'm assuming fairly up to date with its research, and is written by Greil Marcus with input from Michael Dregni, Peter Guralnick, Luc Sante, Robert Gordon, Sonny Burgess. Each of these names are very well known within the Elvis community, and all of them are considered very knowledgeable when it comes to his life and career. Several of them, if not all, are considered highly credible music historians in their own right outside of Elvis. Here's some of what the book had to say regarding Elvis and Rockabilly.

• "Rockabilly came and went like a Saturday night. Its arrival can be pinpointed: July 5, 1954, the night Elvis Presley, Scotty Moore, and Bill Black recorded “That’s All Right” in Memphis’ Sun Studios."
• "They struggled as well to find a name for the music - a label to denigrate it for do-gooders and moral watchdogs; a code name for the adherents to recognize each other. Elvis’ audience in the early days was mostly country fans - albeit a younger country fan and, more and more, a female one as well. His music was labelled country bop or hillbilly bebop, blending the sense of backwoods mysticism with the hottest and wildest jazz then making the rounds. Some few newspaper and magazine writers called it “rockabilly”, but it was not common coin back then. Still, it proved a fine term, distinguishing this Southern white country music from the rock ‘n’ roll perpetrated by Little Richard and Fats Domino in New Orleans, Ike Turner and Jackie Brenston, Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley laid down in Chicago, and even the Tin Pan Alley rock ‘n’ roll of Bill Haley and His Comets."
• "“That’s All Right” was more than just all right - it was the song that jumpstarted rockabilly. The story of the session has become legend: Derived from Mississippi Delta bluesman Arthur “Big Boy” Crudup’s 1946 recording, “That’s All Right, Mama” Elvis and the erstwhile Starlite Wranglers created rockabilly ground zero."
• "At the start, this was Southern music. And even more so, regional music. It came of course from Memphis, but soon spread across the South from Alabama to Mississippi to Arkansas and Louisiana and on to Texas. Then inspired by Elvis, there was soon rockabilly being cut in California, even in the cold north from Washington to Minnesota to Massachusetts - and across the ocean to France and Great Britain - anywhere the germ could travel."
• "Released on April 25, 1955, “Baby Let’s Play House” immediately became Elvis’ most imitated song - a blueprint for rockabilly thereafter."
• "Elvis invented rockabilly. He also invented Rockabilly Style. Looking back at Elvis’ slicked-back pompadour, two-tone shoes, baggy pants, and too-sharp suits in pink and black, he personified the classic 1950s rockin’ look. But before Elvis became famous, his style was considered so outlandish and weird that it was downright shocking. As Elvis’ guitar man, Scotty Moore, remembered, “When I first met Elvis, when he came to my house on that Sunday afternoon, he had on a pink shirt, pink pants with white stripes down the leg, and white shoes. And I thought my wife was gonna go out the back door. Again, just the shock, because people just weren’t wearin’ that kind of flashy clothes at the time. He had sideburns and the ducktails - just a lotta hair.”

I don't know all that much about the history of rockabilly, but when I read parts of the book I thought it might be relevant to this conversation. The book is called Rockabilly: The Twang Heard 'round the World - The Complete Illustrated History, and it's available to buy now. Here is a link to the google pages that I have quoted above. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnny and Dorsey Burnette, assisted by their friend guitarist Paul Burlison, jumped ahead of history in 1953 by rocking up the traditional country songs of the day and performing forbidden up-tempo, segregated black songs in the joints around Memphis, Tennessee. In fact, they were the first musical pio­neers who helped to found Rockabilly music-a year before Elvis Presley's Big Bang "accident" of 1954. from "The Rockabilly Legends" by Jerry Naylor and Steve Haliday. 2007. More to come from this source. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That same book you've mentioned cites Elvis as one of the "Rockabilly Legends celebrated in this book". As this discussion is primarily about whether or not Elvis can be considered one of the originators of rockabilly, I think nearly every source so far has agreed that he can be. The article doesn't state he was the inventor, so I don't see the problem. Perhaps the word "originator" is the problem. Maybe a word such as "innovators" or "groundbreakers" would be more appropriate? Or "trendsetters", "trailblazers", "pioneers"? The book also says the following;

• [In the fifties]... a powerful new movement in music began to change the world, led by a young truck driver from Tupelo, Mississippi, who became the “King of Rockabilly”!

That's pretty plain to me. However you look at it, Elvis had a huge role to play in the history of rockabilly music, not necessarily as it's creator, but certainly as one of the most important characters in its success and movement. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. We'll get to where you can hear Elvis says that what he Scotty and Bill just recorded "sounds like Carl Perkins", and how he knew what Perkins was already doing (and the Dorsey's et al). To me that means he knew he hadn't exactly created something new. So, don't anyone get me wrong. Elvis was HUGH in his impact, and he did bring something new - mostly his voice - to the mix. I like "trendsetter". But even a footnote might capture it. Don't know yet. But thankfully, I've got just a few more items to post over the next few days. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the term "trendsetter". I think it's a good middle ground. Although to be fair to the current article, that's two sources I've read now, including your own, that state Elvis was there at the birth of Rockabilly. With statements like that, it's very easy to understand how Elvis could be thought of as some sort of originator. Sounding similar to something does not make it any less new. Nearly every musical genre in the last 50 years could have been compared to something that came before it, in some form. Reading a little further in the book you've just introduced to us, it says the following with regards to rockabilly music;

• The only fact on which most everyone agrees is that Rockabilly music was born on the sweltering night of July 5, 1954, when a young truck driver turned struggling singer was nervously horsing around during a coffee break of a demo session at a tiny Memphis recording studio. That young Mississippian led the rockabilly explosion - a new type of music that ignited young people all across the nation while at the same time causing panic among parents and preachers. But he never would have caught anyone’s attention at all without the help of a creative, eccentric businessman named Sam Phillips. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When Elvis walked into the Sam Phillips Recording Service, he was asked by Phillips's assistant Keisker, "What kind of singer are you?" Elvis said, "I sing all kinds." ... "Hillbilly?" "Yeah, I sing hillbilly." He just summarized what was already there - various blends of blues, R&B, country etc. Only his voice was unique. There can be no doubt that the earliest rockabilly songs were sung by others. As Michael Campbell, in his Popular Music in America, says: "Bill Haley recorded the first big rockabilly hit." (3rd edition, 2009), p.161.) Onefortyone (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is another one of the problems here, hillbilly music vs rockabilly. The two are different types of music. The article doesn't claim that Elvis was one of the originators of hillbilly. Rockabilly might have been born out of hillbilly music, but it wasn't hillbilly music. Every source I've read on this, including ones cited within this discussion, states that Elvis, Scotty and Bill, in Sun Studios, Memphis, created what would go on to be known as rockabilly. A new source I've read recently says "Elvis undisputably stands as the progenitor of the new idiom". I like the word progenitor. As I said above to Steve, perhaps the word originator is the problem here, maybe it should be changed. However, it cannot be ignored that what Elvis, Scotty and Bill did in early July 1954 is considered by the vast majority of sources, music historians, and other musicians, as the birth of "rockabilly". Even if we don't want to state that Elvis was the inventor or rockabilly, there's definitely enough evidence to suggest he was one of the most important figures in its development between 1954 and 1956. Now, had Marion Keisker asked Elvis if he sung "Rockabilly", you'd have an excellent point. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me just say that there are sources on the table that don't agree that Elvis, Bill, Scotty, and Sam Phillips started it. (see Gene Vincent's flat out statement for one.) One question would be, what do the authors do to dismiss the music that, in retrospect is rockabilly (that would be the small number that managed to get recorded)? Or, do they just ignore it. "Legends of Rockabilly" contradicts itself with their information about Carl Perkins and the Burnettes. Here's what the book says about Perkins. "Carl Perkins and his two brothers, Jay and Clayton, played all the area honky-tonks and gained a strong following with their innovatiove, high spirited type of country music. Most requests of the racous Perkins Brothers band were for hillbilly songs that the boys would jive up - classic Hamk WIlliams standards infused with a faster rhythm. Carrl ignited the songs with his black oriented lead guitar playing, borhter Clayton chopped wood by slapping that bass fiddle, while borther Jay flooged his old acoustic guitar." Change the names and you have the same line up Phillips put together for the Sun session. See also the line up for Haley's early work evaluated as rockabilly by Terry Gordan. And, it seems that Elvis, and probably Scotty and Bill knew what Perkins was doing up in Jackson.

Remember, too, that the term rockabilly was not being used widely yet. (Western Swing was didn't have that name for about 10 years from the time people started playing it.) But... Steve Pastor (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for a new start, why has this well-sourced and useful edit been removed from the Elvis article? Onefortyone (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The question, rather, is why was it ever introduced? The paragraph in question clearly seeks to summarize the consensus view among music historians about Presley's role in the development of rockabilly. Perkins, though a significant historical figure, is no historian, and his rather philosophical musings on the origins of rockabilly are more appropriate for the article on Perkins himself. DocKino (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit clearly demonstrates that there is no consensus view among music historians. Apart from Elvis, Carl Perkins has also been called one of the originators of rockabilly by some critics. If he says that he and Elvis didn't create rockabilly, then this statement is of much importance. As the quotes above show, there are music historians who are of the opinion that rockabilly developed in the early to mid '50s, i.e. before Elvis appeared on the scene, and that Bill Haley recorded the first big rockabilly hit. If these sources contradict your sources, then these contradictions must be mentioned in the article according to Wikipedia policies. Onefortyone (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Elvis "created" rockabilly. And the edit in question is a quotation from the musician Carl Perkins--in no way does that demonstrate anything about the consensus among music historians concerning Presley's central role in the development of rockabilly. The argument you have presented is illogical. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as the article cites Katherine Charlton, who calls Elvis "rockabilly's originator", other opinions by experts that contradict her statement must also be mentioned. Onefortyone (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Perkins's involvement in the early rockabilly scene does not make him a historical "expert." As for Charlton's statement, it is no more than a particularly strong iteration of the consensus view; the voice of the article clearly takes a more moderate position. DocKino (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Perkins is a big figure in the early rockabilly scene, his statement as an expert is of much importance. He must have known what was already there before he and Elvis appeared on the scene. As for Charlton's opinion, it is not a consensus view, as several experts are of a different opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are going in circles. There is no point in further engaging with these illogical arguments. We'll see if ElvisFan and Steve make any progress. DocKino (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Pastor, who is one of the rockabilly experts here, seems to agree with my opinion. Interestingly, there seems to be no consensus about the definition of "rockabilly". Here is an interesting passage from Craig Morrison's Go Cat Go! Rockabilly Music and its Makers (1996), p.9-10:

• Brian Taylor ... did not think rockabilly could be precisely defined — "one man's rockabilly is another man's hillbilly or rock 'n' roll" — but named records widely accepted as rockabilly: Presley and Perkins on Sun and the first King recordings of Charlie Feathers and Mac Curtis. He suggested that the following questions are unanswerable: "'Is no Haley or [Ricky] Nelson material rockabilly — 'Can one have fiddle or steel or harmonica on rockabilly?' — 'If Johnny Carroll is rockabilly, why not Gene Vincent? — 'Are both or neither of Holly's cuts of "That'll Be the Day" rockabilly?'"

In view of this statement by a rockabilly expert, does it make sense to call Elvis one of the originators of rockabilly? I don't think so. Why not just say, "Presley was one of the greatest performers and popularizers of rockabilly" ? Onefortyone (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for introducing something new. And it's yet another source that supports the description of Presley as one of rockabilly's originators. Of course, there are always questions of definition around the perimeter of any genre. But consensus defines the core. Who does Taylor identify as making "records widely accepted as rockabilly"? Why, Presley and Perkins, along with Feathers and Curtis, who came a little bit later. That strongly suggests that Presley--like Perkins--is one of the originators of the sound most widely accepted as "rockabilly". The case for the article's current language is getting stronger and stronger, though I'd like a little more information on Taylor's qualifications as an "expert". DocKino (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, DocKino, as the quote strongly suggests that Elvis should not be called "one of the originators of rockabilly", as there is no exact definition of the term and of the period of time during which the sound was actually created. The other sources cited above clearly say that what has been called "rockabilly" was already there in the early 50s, i.e. before Elvis recorded his first records. By the way, Steve Pastor is also of the opinion that "one of the originators" isn't the right expression. Onefortyone (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And once again, you pose an illogical and ahistorical argument. Just because there are disagreements about the parameters of a genre definition does not mean that it is impossible to speak sensibly about a genre's "originators" or those in synonymous positions--many critics and historians do. (Indeed, by your illogic, no one could speak of rockabilly at all, because "there is no exact definition of the term.") Taylor clearly affirms that Presley is one of the earliest musicians who made "records widely accepted as rockabilly" [emphasis added]. As for Steve, I am, of course, very, very, very familiar with his position, which rests on observations about songs and musicians variously "pertinent" to rockabilly's development and which happens to be belied by the clear, explicit statements made by multiple music historians that Presley was an originator of rockabilly and was central to the genre's development. DocKino (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Though Elvis was central to the genre's development and popularization, he should not be called an originator, as, according to some experts, the sound that is now called rockabilly (a sound that cannot be exactly defined) was created before Elvis recorded at Sun Studio. Why not avoid the term "originator"? Onefortyone (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems little debate here or elsewhere about the phrasing and sense of what's now in the primary text: "Presley was a central figure in the development of rockabilly." For the terser phrasing we need in the lead section, I'd be okay if we replaced "one of the originators" with "one of the vanguard performers". Let's hear from ElvisFan and Steve. DocKino (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the latest source provided by 141;

• It does suggest that defining what is and isn't rockabilly is difficult. With the exception of Presley and Perkins, Feathers and Curtis, it doesn't want to name anyone as definitely being rockabilly. To me, that says that Presley can definitely be considered rockabilly, and as there are no names mentioned before him, it's not unrealistic to consider him an "originator". Every other source I've read so far, including ones cited here by other editors, has also agreed that Presley is the originator of rockabilly.
• If defining rockabilly, with the exception of the names mentioned above, is so difficult, how can we possibly be sure that anything prior to July 5, 1954 is rockabilly and not just hillbilly? As I've stated previously, they are different musical genres, and therefore hillbilly, regardless of how similar it sounds to rockabilly, cannot be considered actual rockabilly.
• By stating that it's impossible to answer whether or not recordings by Haley were rockabilly, it makes all other claims within this discussion void. If it's impossible to define Haley's music as rockabilly, then we can't accept any source that suggests it is rockabilly. Again, every source I've read so far, including several on this page, have called Haley "rock and roll", not rockabilly. I have to admit, from a personal point of view, I don't hear any similarities between any Haley recording and Presley's first recordings at Sun. I've never thought of Bill Haley's music as anything but early rock and roll.
• It does mention Perkins as a definite rockabilly musician. Other sources I've looked at have stated that Perkins' first, real rockabilly performance was Blue Suede Shoes. He didn't write that until 1955, at least six months after Presley began recording professionally at Sun. Therefore, yet again, Presley's name comes first with regards to rockabilly.

In 141's own words, this source is from a "rockabilly expert", and therefore it can be considered fair to use in the argument that Presley was the originator, not just "one of the originators", of rockabilly. I've said before that the word "originator" might be what some editors here have a problem with, yet even some sources provided by those editors has claimed Presley as the "originator" of rockabilly. If I was writing this article from scratch, taking into account the sources I've read regarding rockabilly, at this point I would have no problem with using the term "one of the originators" again. At this point, after much discussion and reading of many sources, I don't think there's enough reason to change the current article's wording regarding this matter. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As an editor with very limited experience on this page, this discussion seems to be an exercise in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A reliable source (in fact a textbook) supports the statement; the statement is attributed in-text; and it meets the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. That does not, of course, mean that absolutely no discussion should ensue about the topic, but as far as inclusion in the article, it's a slam-dunk.

My good deed for the day. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom and ElvisFan have made arguments for retaining the existing language that are quite different and both very convincing. I'm convinced by them, and by all the sources I've looked at it. Let's leave it as it is. It is clear that there will be no consensus in favor of a change for the foreseeable future, if ever, so further exhausting our time and energy on this is clearly pointless. We can move on. DocKino (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In two consecutive months in 1953, the Burnette brothers each had a son. Johnny named his son

Rocky, while Dorsey named his newborn son Billy - both boys named after professional'boxers. The proud fathers dedicated a week of their performances, and then a whole month, to their new babies. "This is a Rocky 'n' Billy song," they'd say,and they'd romp into "Tear It Up" or something else. Eventually they wrote a song called "Rocky 'n'Boogie." Inevitably, someone in the crowd would forget the name of the song and call out, "Play that Rockabilly song." To all of us who were there at the beginning, that's where Rockabilly really got its name. The Burnettes didn't record their song until after Elvis smashed his way into the history books, but they birthed the name for this new and vibrant world-changing music. Rockabill Legends page 264 ~ (not many page #s!). According to wikipedia Billy was born May 8, 1953. "Two consecutive months" would be April/May or May/June. This isn't an exact date, but it looks like locals in Memphis knew the word "Rockabilly" a full year before July 1954. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Terry Gordan of RCS isn' the only one who thinks Haley did rocabilly before Elvis. Writing of Haley, "during the early 1950s, through a seuccession of experiments, to produce what he call cowboy-jive, whcih became hillbilly boogie and later rockabilly." p 193 "Let the Good Times Roll -the Story of Louis Jordan and his music. John Chilton. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

After an early rendition of "Blue Moon of Kentucky", Sun Records owner Sam Phillips exclaimed, "BOY, that's fine, that's fine. That's a POP song now!." Presley responded, "That sounds like Carl Perkins!" I posted this information on this talk page previously, before leaving the article. I asked that people check the reference. I'm not aware of anyone responding. But, Perkins was in Jackson, not Memphis. And although Jackson is in Tennessee, how did Elvis know what Perkins sounded like since at that time when Carl had never had any records released? Looks like Jackson would be too far for even his radio performances to reach Memphis. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Steve, this citation doesn't even MENTION rockabilly. DocKino (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources that speak volumes, Steve. I do not think that there is a consensus here. The discussion shows that only DocKino and ElvisFan1981 think that Elvis was one of the originators of rockabilly, as their sources claim. Other sources say otherwise. Therefore, StevePastor, VolunteerMarek and Onefortyone support the view that Elvis should not be called one of the originators of rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, actually 141, your best sources completely supported the viewpoint that Elvis should be called one of the originators of rockabilly. And VolunteerMarek's concerns, which pertained to sourcing, have been addressed in the most explicit fashion possible (i.e., Charlton: Presley was "rockabilly's originator"). And you're very conveniently forgetting that Tom Reddy--no buddy of mine--observed that the whole argument against that point was an exercise in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So...tallying up...that's a very clear consensus in favor of retaining the current language. DocKino (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, DocKino, Craig Morrison’s Go Cat Go! Rockabilly Music and its Makers (1996) says, p.35, that Bill Haley’s Rock the Joint of 1952 is "bona fide rockabilly, perhaps even the birth of the style." There is still no clear consensus view that Elvis should be called one of the originators of rockabilly. Steve Pastor, Onefortyone and VolunteerMarek do not support this view, which is wrong according to the new sources I have cited below. Onefortyone (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember "Crazy, Man Crazy" and how it was the first rockabilly song to be in the top 20 a year before Elvis first recorded with Bill and Scotty? Bill Haley stated the following regarding Elvis speaking to him back stage in Oklahoma City in 1954/1955. "He was only a nineteen year old kid then and had a lot of spunk. His eargerness to learn reminded me of myself back when I was his age. He told me his favorite song was "Crazy, Man Crazy", and after he heard it he knew he wanted to be a singer too." from "Sound and Glory" page 103. So, We don't have to speculate about if Elvis heard the song. Steve Pastor (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Steve, this citation doesn't even MENTION rockabilly. DocKino (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on Perkins' playing, Sam Phillips has been quoted as saying that, "I knew that Carl could rock and in fact he told me right from the start that he had been playing that music before Elvis came out on record." Steve Pastor (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Steve, this citation doesn't even MENTION rockabilly. DocKino (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh DocKino, historical evidence suggests that certain claims that Elvis originated rockabilly at Sun seem to be wrong. According to this Billboard article, Charlie Feathers may have invented rockabilly in 1949. According to Glen Jeansonne, David Luhrssen and Dan Sokolovic’s well-researched new study, Elvis Presley, Reluctant Rebel: His Life and Our Times (2011), Charlie Feathers

• "maintained that he was already playing rockabilly in the Sun Studio long before Elvis" and Hardrock Gunter "had already pushed country music toward rockabilly with an original song for the indie Bama label, Birmingham Bounce (1950) and his Decca recording of the Dominoes' Sixty Minute Man (1951). Elvis may have seen Gunter perform in Memphis and heard his recordings. Harmonica Frank was another white man who claimed to have invented rock and roll 'before I ever heard of Elvis Presley.' " (p.64)
• "Another wrinkle in the story of Elvis's sudden invention as a rockabilly singer comes in the person of Johnny Burnette. Like Elvis, Johnny and his brother, Dorsey, worked at Crown Electric as delivery drivers and Johnny sang in the Starlite Wranglers before forming the Rock and Roll Trio with with Dorsey and Paul Burlison in 1951. The net of musical association around Elvis seems too thickly woven for Elvis to have been 'green as a gourd.' Perhaps Elvis, in addition to his many other musical interests, was already a junior player in the developing rockabilly sound with other Memphis musicians well before that fateful July night in the Sun Studio." (p.66)

Steve Pastor has already shown that Elvis was well aware of the fact that he didn't invent the new sound. Therefore, Elvis should not be called an originator of rockabilly in the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Awww, 141, you just said an untruth (surprise!) when you said that "Steve Pastor has already shown that Elvis was well aware of the fact that he didn't invent the new sound". Neither Steve nor anyone else in this thread has established anything about what "Elvis was well aware of."

But, HEY!! THANKS 141, for giving us yet another source that supports the already very, very, very well supported description of Presley as one of the originators of rockabilly: "Perhaps Elvis, in addition to his many other musical interests, was already a junior player in the developing rockabilly sound with other Memphis musicians well before that fateful July night in the Sun Studio." Well done, 141, well DONE. DocKino (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Steve has shown many sources that have also contradicted themselves and stated earlier or later in their wording that Elvis can be considered an originator of rockabilly. I have pointed some of these out at the point of inclusion, above. Most of his sources haven't even mentioned rockabilly, as pointed out by DocKino above. I'd also like to have the exact minute that the DVD Elvis '56 has the audio of Elvis saying "That sounds like Carl Perkins" so that I can check it out for myself. It's not strong enough to just say it's there without an exact time stamp for people to verify it themselves. A time stamp is the equivalent of a page number in this case and is definitely necessary. It would be great for me to hear because it will be something new that I have never heard before. I have the audio of the recording on CD, but it cuts out before Elvis says "That sounds like Carl Perkins". Even the source provided by 141 above says the following...

"Perhaps Elvis, in addition to his many other musical interests, was already a junior player in the developing rockabilly sound with other Memphis musicians well before that fateful July night in the Sun Studio".

To me, as I read that, it suggests that Elvis can be considered someone of interest in the progression of rockabilly long before July 1954. However, as it uses the word "Perhaps', there is no real way of knowing and therefore it isn't really a viable source for this article on either side of the argument. Although, if it is good enough for the argument against it, then it can definitely be considered good enough for the argument for it. You can't have it one rule for one and one rule for the other. Some other, more experienced editors know more about how viable a source is than I do, so I will let them decide for definite. As for the Charlie Feathers suggestion, there is absolutely no evidence to support that other than his own telling of the story. It even states that in the source provided. "Pushing country music towards rockabilly" and actually creating rockabilly are two completely different things. There were plenty of people around the world working towards the invention of radio and/or television, but only one person can be considered the definite creator of these things. The majority of the sources, provided by Steve and others, have stated somewhere that Elvis, Scotty and Bill, in July 1954, created what would become known as rockabilly. Again, I would suggest we alter the word "originator" if that is such a problem, but at this time I don't really see enough evidence to back its alteration. To be fair, most of the sources provided by others would be better suited to the articles on Rockabilly, Carl Perkins, etc., rather than here on the Elvis Presley article. In my view, after having taken into account all the provided sources, I still think that Elvis being considered an originator of rockabilly is a fair statement. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that important people such as Carl Perkins and Charlie Feathers have stated that Elvis was not the originator of rockabilly. Other sources have clearly shown that the sound was there before Elvis appeared on the scene. Onefortyone (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Elvis said, during his earliest sessions with Scotty and Bill, "That sounds like Carl Perkins". But, how did he know what Carl sounded like? It didn't quite fit. Somehow I found out about an article in "The Atlantic" about Carl Perkins from December 1970, and got a reprint. Carl is quoted. "Elvis, he came from the same environment as me, though not as poor, and he told me later that he had come up to Jackson and seen us one night at El Rancho. His manager then, Bob Neal, a big DJ at WMPS in Memphis, had seen us too." It must have been before that first recording session (otherwise how would he have known what Carl sounded like?). Elvis, Carl, and eventually Phillips knew that their music was similar. But Carl had already been doing it for years, just as Bill Haley had. And probably a bunch of other folks, but they never got recorded or got into the books.

Knowing that Elvis heard Carl and Haley (and probably others, as he had also heard r&b groups) before, and he recognized that what he was doing "sounded like Carl Perkins" means to me that, when looked at closely, I can't accept Elvis as an "orginator".

This, I think is similar to Benny Goodman and swing. He didn't originate swing, others had been playing it for years, but he helped make it very popular and was call the King of Swing. Now hoping that we can talk about alternative wordingsSteve Pastor (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Monday,July 5 1954 The three of them went to the Sun Studio because Sam Phillips wanted to hear them on tape. Recently developed,magnetic recording tape made it possible for them to do one take of a song,listen to it,then make adjustment for the next take. Nothing special happened at that session until Presley began fooling around and playing an obsure 1946 blues song,'That's All Right',during a break. Elvis started singing Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudup's blues song,'That's All Right',with a fast rhythm and in a more casual style than most blues songs,and Moore and Black jumped in. Phillips voice boomed out from the control booth,'What are you doing?" None of them really knew. How could they? How could they know that they had stumbled onto a new sound for a new generation? Sam recognized it right away. He was amazed that the boy even knew Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudup - nothing in any of the songs he had tried so far gave any indication that he was drawt to this kind of music at all. But this was the sort of music that Sam had long ago who heartedly embraced...And the way the boy performed it,it came across with a freshness and exuberance,it came across with the kind of clear eyed,unabashed originality that Sam sought in all the music that he recorded,it was 'different',it was itself. Phillips was excited about the trio's sound and recognized its potential. He asked them to refine their unique interpretation of 'That's All Right',and then he re recorded it. At the time he cut his first record for Sam,there was no word that could adequately describe his style of music. When the press attempted to explain his sound,they usually made a mess of it,often confusing their readers with inappropriate or comical comparisions to other types of music. Elvis was referred to at various times as a 'hillbilly singer','a young rural rhythm talent',a 'white man...singing Negro rhythms with a boppish approach to hillbilly music'. Not long after Elvis' success,other rockabilly and country-western singers showed up on the doorstep of Sun Studios,hoping that Phillips could work the same magic with them as he had with Elvis,Phillips eventually recorded Johnny Cash,Jerry Lee Lewis,Carl Perkins,Roy Orbison,Charlie Feathers,Billy Lee Riley,Dickie Lee and other artists. July 1954 not long after the 17th Sam Phillips asks WMPS Memphis disc jockey Bob Neal to book Elvis on his Country Music Jamboree at the Overton Shell that featured Slin Whitman and Billy Walker as the headliners. It would be their first professional public performance as a band. Source: Elvis Presley News:Elvis Aaron Presley 1953-1955 The Hillibilly Cat/EPE What I don't quite undertand Steve in the above about Bob Neal,is that Elvis had already done his first recording,before he had even meet Bob Neal,let alone become his Manager.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret Carl's recollection as meaning that Neal had influenced how Elvis sang that first song. Carl was just sayin' that Neal knew what Carl was doing just like Elvis did. And, yeah, people showed up at Sun, just like Carl, because they had already sounded like Elvis, before Elvis was recorded and his record was played on the radio. And, if you think about, Bill and Scotty had no problems providing the accompaniment on the song(s) on that first record. So, doesn't it make sense that they had playing like that already? We could talk about slapped bass and how it had been part of CW playing for a long time, but that's a different topic? Steve Pastor (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Steve,I thank you for your explanation. But to say people like Carl and others already sounded like Elvis did before Elvis was recorded and his record was played on the radio,I'd think I'd have to agree to disagree with you on that one. But I will acknowlege a couple of things with you though. I remember reading in Scotty Moore's book he mentions admiring the guitarist out of Bill Haley's band the Coments,who happened to be a Jazz player I believe, and also stating that he thought the Rolling Stones were the best Rock'n'Roll band in the 60's. But in saying all that, many bands and musicians including Elvis and the Blue Moon Boys and Bill Haley and The Comets,Carl Perkins and many others put their cards on the table. As Elvis had said in an interview "I happened to come along when there was no trend,I was very lucky.--Jaye9 (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That Elvis is an originator of rockabilly is a popular myth. Those authors who celebrate him as the first megastar of rock 'n' roll follow this myth. Others who are aware that the sound was there before Elvis recorded his first records at Sun presume to question this myth. As two contradicting opinions are to be found in different sources, both opinions must be mentioned in the Elvis article according to Wikipedia policies. Alternatively, Elvis should not be called an originator of rockabilly. Why not just say, "Presley was one of the greatest performers and popularizers of rockabilly" ? Onefortyone (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Because multiple music historians describe Presley as an (or even the) originator of rockabilly, and no music historian quoted so far supports your novel claim that this well-founded description is merely a "popular myth". That's why not. Tom Reedy noted a month ago that your pursuit of this argument is an apparent "exercise in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Nothing has changed. DocKino (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that Carl Perkins, who has also been called one of the originators of rockabilly by some critics, says that he and Elvis didn't create rockabilly. Some experts on rockabilly support this view, others (chiefly Elvis fans) promote the opinion that Elvis, the megastar of rockabilly, must have created the sound. For instance, in his book, The Encyclopedia of Rock Obituaries (1999), Nick Talevski writes, "Elvis was not the originator of rock'n'roll, nor the first to release a rock'n'roll record, but he was its first real star..." In her book, Nadine: The Story of an American Orchestra Conductor (2001), Paulina Dennis confirms this opinion: "Elvis was not the first: Bill Haley and Jerry Lee Lewis were two of many white musicians who were bringing this rhythm and blues influence into a more-or-less pop music framework along with such black singers like Chuck Berry and the Platters... But it was Elvis's dynamic personal style and extreme popularity that actually made Rock 'n Roll the force that would change the style and direction of American popular music." Onefortyone (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Another key figure deeply involved in creating the sound before Elvis appeared on the scene is Doc Pomus. In his study on Rock 'n' Roll Jews (2001), Michael Billig writes that Rolling Stone was not exaggerating when it declared in its obituary that "every songwriter in Rock & Roll owes something to Doc Pomus" for Doc "helped invent Rock & Roll". In his Riding on a Blue Note: Jazz and American Pop (1981), Gary Giddins says, "As a songwriter, Pomus names Leiber and Stoller and Blackwell as influences: 'Jerry and Mike in terms of structure, and Otis in the sense of originality and spontaneity.' I asked him about the assumption, prevalent in Presley criticism, that Elvis created head arrangements on his best records, that he was in effect the producer. 'This is absolutely untrue. Elvis did not create those sounds, and I can tell you that he managed to get his name on songs he had nothing to do with writing. One thing I can assure you is that his singing was significantly influenced by Otis.' " Onefortyone (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything you've added recently is very interesting, 141, but what has any of it got to do with rockabilly? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's got a lot to do with rockabilly, as rockabilly is one of the earliest styles of rock'n'roll. Onefortyone (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet none of these sources actually claim that Elvis was not an originator of rockabilly. Rockabilly was a fore-runner to rock and roll, and therefore anyone considered rock and roll (Haley, Lewis etc.) are only called such after the birth of rockabilly. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockabilly was not a fore-runner to rock 'n' roll. In his Supremely American: Popular Song in the 20th Century (2005), Nicholas E. Tawa says that the first white offerings of rock 'n' roll were given the designation "rockabilly". Talevski clearly writes, "Elvis was not the originator of rock'n'roll, nor the first to release a rock'n'roll record, but he was its first real star..." Scotty Moore gave a definition of "rockabilly" to Peter Guralnick that contradicts your opinion, ElvisFan, as he confirms that the sound was there before Elvis recorded his first records: "It had been there for quite a while, really. Carl Perkins was doing basically the same sort of thing up around Jackson, and I know for a fact Jerry Lee Lewis had been playing that kind of music ever since he was ten years old. You see, from the honky-tonks you got such a mixture of all different types of music and I think what happened is that when Elvis busted through it enabled all these other groups that had been going along more or less the same avenue — I'm sure there were hundreds of them — to tighten up and focus on what was going to be popular. If they had a steel guitar they dropped it. The weepers and slow country ballads pretty much went out of their repertoire. And what you had left was country-orientated boogie music." See Peter Guralnick, Lost Highway: Journeys & Arrivals of American Musicians (1989), p.104. Onefortyone (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

But none of that changes the fact that Elvis is considered one of the originators of rockabilly. As has been said before, the article doesn't claim that Elvis invented rockabilly, or that he even invented anything. However, there is no doubt that what he, Scotty and Bill did is considered the true birth of rockabilly by many, many sources, including those provided in the argument against him being an originator. Before Elvis did what he did there was no name for it, the term rockabilly did not really exist, regardless of a little story about two little boys. Sure, it may have sounded like something that had come before, it may have been a sound that other people had been working towards before, but what doesn't sound like something that came before? It doesn't mean rockabilly wasn't a new genre, and it certainly doesn't mean Elvis cannot be considered one of the originators. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Moore clearly says that the sound "had been there for quite a while, really. ... I know for a fact Jerry Lee Lewis had been playing that kind of music ever since he was ten years old." There are similar statements by Carl Perkins. This shows that Elvis cannot be one of the originators of rockabilly, though several authors may believe in the myth that Elvis, the megastar of rockabilly, must have created the sound. Onefortyone (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if it is in fact rockabilly he's talking about, but it doesn't change the fact that the music did not have the name "rockabilly" before Elvis came along. There are still far more sources that state he is ONE OF the originators, and many that state he IS THE originator, of rockabilly, and therefore I see no strong enough reason to change it. The article doesn't claim he invented it, it claims he was one of the originators, backed up by many sources. We'll have to agree to disagree until further evidence can be discovered. And for the record, the article doesn't claim that Elvis created the sound. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are sources claiming that Elvis was one of the originators of rockabilly, and there are sources contradicting this opinion. According to Wikipedia policies, both views must be mentioned in the article. You cannot cite just one view, as in the current version of the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Earlier this was quoted from “Rockabilly: The Twang Heard 'Round the World: The Illustrated History” "Elvis invented rockabilly. He also invented Rockabilly Style.” This statement was written by Sigrid Arnott. Other publications by Arnott are: “Medieval fasting women : dynamics of gender and power”, and “KnitKnacks: Much Ado About Knitting.” We can perhaps discount this one as the opinion of a respected music historian, I’d say. BTW, if you haven't been looking at the talk pages ElvisFan identified the seeming mention of Carl Perkins as coming from another, later recording session. But I see that 141 pointed out the Scotty Moore acknowledged that Perkins and others were doing rockabilly style before he, Bill Black, and Elvis recorded. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Carl Perkins has also clearly stated, "[Sam] Phillips, Elvis, and I didn't create rockabilly." Onefortyone (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"There's a book I've been looking into purchasing today, mainly because it includes information about Elvis, but it's primarily about the history of Rockabilly. It's from last year, so I'm assuming fairly up to date with its research, and is written by Greil Marcus with input from Michael Dregni, Peter Guralnick, Luc Sante, Robert Gordon, Sonny Burgess. Each of these names are very well known within the Elvis community, and all of them are considered very knowledgeable when it comes to his life and career. Several of them, if not all, are considered highly credible music historians in their own right outside of Elvis. Here's some of what the book had to say regarding Elvis and Rockabilly." Greil Marcus appears to have no credentials as musician. Does anyone have any information to the contrary? Steve Pastor (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This publication is a popular fan book repeating the myth that Elvis created rockabilly, and, judged by its contents, a real disappointment. However, there are other publications: Glenn Altschuler writes,

Elvis was something new under the Sun. Although he did not invent "rockabilly", he introduced it to tens of thousands of teenagers. With loose rhythms, no saxophone or chorus, rockabilly was a "personal, confiding, confessing" sound, as Charlie Gillett has defined it, with instrumentalists responding "more violently to inflections in the singer's voice, shifting into double-time for a few bars to blend with a sudden acceleration in the vocalist's tempo."

See Glenn C. Altschuler, All Shook Up: How Rock 'n' Roll Changed America (2003), p.30. According to Charles Brown,

people are led to believe that Elvis Presley is the only important rocker who had country roots. Of course, Elvis is important in the history of rock and roll, but he was not the first rockabilly musician by any means. He was the first southern rockabilly musician but not the first country rockabilly star; Bill Haley was.

See Charles T. Brown, Music U.S.A.: America's Country & Western Tradition (1986), p.80. See also the same author's The Art of Rock and Roll (1983, 3rd ed. 1992), including a chapter on "Elvis Presley and Memphis Rockabilly" and defining, p.191, rockabilly as "the first concrete combination of country music with rock and roll." Jim Cullen, a Harvard professor whose reviews have appeared in Rolling Stone, says,

Contrary to popular myth, however, Presley did not invent rock & roll, and he was only one of a number of its significant practitioners. Western swing bandleader Bill Haley's "Rock Around the Clock" (1954) had wide currency before Presley's records did, and Jerry Lee Lewis may have had more raw performing talent. And there were many exceptionally gifted African Americans who were as deserving of fame and stature as Presley but who were denied it because of their race.

See Jim Cullen, The Art of Democracy: A Concise History of Popular Culture in the United States (2002), p.265. According to Bo Diddley,

Elvis was not the first. I was the first son of a gun out here. Me and Chuck Berry. And I’m very sick of the lie. You know, we are over that black and white crap, and that was all the reason why Elvis got the appreciation that he did. I'm the dude that he copied after. ... Elvis did not invent rock and roll. He didn't start rock and roll. He came two and a half years after me. See, and Little Richard said that he invented rock and roll. Richard is three years behind me.

Cited in Neil Strauss, Everyone Loves You When You’re Dead (2011). Some further sources: "Elvis did not invent rock and roll. He was not the first to bring black and white musical styles together." See Adam Woog, A History of Rock and Roll (1999), p.23. "Elvis did not invent rock music all by himself but built on artists who came before him." See Jeffrey L. Harrison and Jules Theeuwes, Law and Economics (2008), p.142. According to Michael Bertrand,

Phillips found Elvis. And although it is true that Elvis Presley did not invent rock 'n' roll, his success as a white country artist performing rhythm and blues credibly nevertheless helped the music attain national and international acclaim. In bringing black music that he loved to a larger white audience, Presley served as an important agent of change within the segregated society in which he lived.

See Michael T. Bertrand, "Rock 'n' Roll." In Robert E. Weir, ed., Class in America: Q-Z (2007), p.711. Frank Magill writes,

Contrary to the popular myth, Presley did not invent rock and roll, a term that had begun circulating in the black community as early as the late 1940's. Chuck Berry possessed far greater song-writing gifts and a penchant for integrating racial styles; Jerry Lee Lewis may have had more raw performing talent.

See Frank N. Magill, Chronology of Twentieth-Century History: Arts and Culture (1998), p.1202.Onefortyone (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the entry on Greil Marcus; his credentials are about as valid as they come, and most of the other contributors range from reputable to exceedingly reputable. But Marcus wrote the entry on Buddy Holly, not the material being cited here. The foreword by '50s rockabilly artist Sonny Burgess says, "I never hear the term 'rockabilly' back then. Nobody did. Everybody said, 'Where'd that come from?' I don't know. We never really pinned it down, where that term came from. When people asked what music we played, we were rock 'n' rollers." These sentiments have been echoed by nearly everyone now considered in retrospect to have been a part of the rockabilly scene. The stuff about how rockabilly's "arrival can be pinpointed" appears to be by editor Michael Dregni, whose prior music-related credits are primarily books about Django Reinhardt. The question is, what does Dregni mean by "arrival?" If he's talking about the invention of a musical genre, he's off the mark according to key people who were there. However, if he's talking about placing that genre on the map of public consciousness, and elevating it from a footnote to a chapter in the book on popular music history, he's pretty much on the money. Pstoller (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly ample historical evidence and critical opinion (some of which is cited above) in support of rockabilly's existence prior to 1954 to require that any statement that Elvis Presley was an "originator" of rockabilly be balanced with a counter statement. Either that, or the claim should be excised altogether and replaced with something less controversial.

It must be remembered that while everyone has an equal right to an opinion, that does not mean that all opinions are equal. To wit: Katherine Charlton's claim that Presley was "rockabilly's originator" is an opinion unsupported (if not flatly contradicted) by fact. Charlton is a retired community college music history professor with an academic background in classical music. However much postgraduate study she's done since she earned her MA in music history from CSU Fullerton (which did not and does not have a rock/pop music program), it is ludicrous to claim that she is a more reliable authority on rockabilly than Carl Perkins or Scotty Moore. If Perkins and Moore state that they, Presley, and Sam Phillips did not invent rockabilly, then that carries substantially more weight than anything Charlton writes to the contrary—even if McGraw-Hill publishes it in a textbook. If Charlton can substantiate her claim, that's one thing. However, to simply accept the word of an academic over those of the subjects of her studies is to have the tail wag the dog, and it makes a mockery of Wikipedia's intent when it comes to the all-important doctrine of verifiability. (Likewise, Sigrid Arnott's casual assertion that "Elvis invented rockabilly" should not be taken out of context: it was merely a setup for her slightly less dubious assertion that "he also invented Rockabilly style"—meaning style of dress rather than music, to which her credentials as a "textile artist, historian, and author" apply.)

Presley, Perkins, et al. developed, mastered, and greatly popularized a music that they did not originate. It is hardly a slight against any of them to say so. Presley may be the single most important entertainer in the history of American (and perhaps even global) popular music in terms of his impact on other musicians and the general public alike. His legacy is not improved by claiming for him things that he did not do. Pstoller (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Milt Gabler, "true pioneer of the record business" beginning in the 1920s, and producer of "Rock Around the Clock." "Bill had had "Crazy Man, Crazy" on Essex in Philadephia. Bill was doing like rockabilly." from Audio 1988 pages 67-78.

I've got one or two more items, but I think it's time to work on alternative wording. There are now at least three editors who have stated that they are in favor of this. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"With this new lineup, the early, raw rockabilly sound of the Saddlemen-Comets came to an end." "Sound and Glory..." page 109 Steve Pastor (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Some further sources:

• "Elvis was not the first southern white kid of his generation to innocently but potently mix musical influences in a 'revolutionary' rock 'n' roll style. Some, like Ronnie Hawkins (born two days after Elvis, in Arkansas), were precociously boppin' the blues on stage while Presley was still in high school, but did not record until after Elvis had opened up the opportunities. Others, like Sonny Fisher (born in 1931 in North Texas), may even have influenced or at least helped to encourage the budding Presley, and first recorded in much the same style around the same time as Elvis. It was a general trend, not a one-man movement." See Tony Russell, Encyclopedia of Rock (1983), p.27.
• "As the years pass it becomes more difficult to disentangle truth from myth, but even as the half century is now upon us it is important to reassert the fact that rockabilly - southern hillbilly rock 'n' roll - didn't fall out of a clear blue sky in July 1954 into a small Memphis recording studio. Elvis didn't invent rockabilly any more than Louis Armstrong invented jazz or Hank Williams invented honky-tonk country music, but like them his charisma and innate showmanship allowed him to be the catalyst that introduced a previously unaware general public to a musical style that had been fermenting for several years." See Roots Of Rockabilly, Vol. 1 (2011).
• "Contrary to popular legend, Elvis, Scotty Moore, and Bill Black — along with producer and Sun Records honcho Sam Phillips — did not invent the musical hybrid that would come to be known as rockabilly." See The Journal of Country Music, Volumes 20-21, 1998, p.16.

Elvis himself said:

• " 'I listened to a lot of country music, gospel, and rhythm and blues. I was influenced by all that and my style is a combination of these.' Elvis indeed put together black music and country music, but he did it unconsciously. Bill Haley can be said to have originated the rock model, it was Elvis Presley who made sure that the model would survive." See Charles T. Brown, Music U.S.A.: America's Country & Western Tradition (1986), p. 82.

I think it's time now to change the passage in the article which falsely claims that Elvis was one of the originators of rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's time for you to stop defying consensus and making false statements. It is has been well established that Presley was one of the originators of rockabilly. Your edit to the primary text was out of line, and has been reverted. However, responsible contributors here can agree that Charlton's suggestion that Presley is the originator of rockabilly lies a bit outside the mainstream view and there's no loss in cutting that. As for the edit to the lead section, I personally have no problem with replacing "one of the originators" with "the most important popularizer"--both are accurate, both informative. I'll be interested in seeing whether that change is acceptable to the others who've weighed in here. DocKino (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to replace "one of the originators" with "the most important popularizer." Steve Pastor (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. However, I am still of the opinion that it must additionally be mentioned that, according to several rock music historians, Elvis did not invent rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No. See above. We're done here. DocKino (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think not quite, Doc. Having rejected the categorical statement that Elvis originated rockabilly, if Wikipedia is still going to include Paul Friedlander's assertion that rockabilly is "essentially…an Elvis Presley construction" then, in the interest of balance, it should also include one of the many dissenting critical viewpoints cited here (or a better example thereof). Pstoller (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny. I think you're being unhelpful and disruptive of an already overextenuated process here, P. The categorical statement that Elvis originated rockabilly was not "rejected." Get it straight. That statement comes from a source that none other than Onefortyone introduced. I agreed to its deletion in the spirit of compromise, consensus, and conclusion. If you insist on prolonging this process, I'm more than happy to restore it as a baseline and we can argue interminably from there. DocKino (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I disagree with you makes me neither unhelpful nor disruptive. Threatening to restore an agreed-upon deletion for personal reasons—that's unhelpful and disruptive.

Reputable music critics differ on the precise nature and degree of Presley's significance to rockabilly. Virtually all agree that he was at least "the most important popularizer," which is why that was an excellent edit. There is, however, no consensus that rockabilly is "an Elvis Presley construction," making the selection of quotes implying such consensus problematic. This is especially true given that Presley, Scotty Moore, Carl Perkins, Gene Vincent, and others have all claimed otherwise. Including a brief, legitimate contrary viewpoint—without staking out one view or another as the truth—resolves the issue. That would be consistent with the Wikipedia rockabilly page. What is objectionable about this proposal? Pstoller (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey I got a question, if Elvis himself said that he never started rockabilly then why do some folks insist he be giving credit to something even he knew he never created? I like this new edit as a "important popularizer" because that's what he really was and popularizing a genre that already exist (rock and roll & rockabilly) is still respecting his legacy in music history. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There could be several reasons, but I think the main one is that Elvis, being the King of Rock and Roll, and the most recognizable entertainer of the 20th century (ok don't quote me on that ), he sells. One book about rockabilly spends lavish amounts of print and photos on Elvis, then gets around to mentioning the fact that people were doing the same thing, and there was even a name for this style of music, before Elvis cut his first record (that was released). Why? again, Elvis has the highest profile. Another is that he is a crutch for authors unwilling or unable to do serious research. Witness the text quoted above by the author writing about rockabilly fashion. BTW, DocKino, I applaud your efforts at the group approach to editing this article along with editors who take this subject seriously. I haven't gone beyond the intro for a long time, because I have more primary sources to work with. I have to say though, that I agree with Pstoller that at the least the quote he has focused attention on should be balanced with a contrary opinion from a high quality source. Steve Pastor (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Some reliable sources are clearly of the view that Presley did, more or less, "invent" rockabilly; others just as clearly hold that he did not. (As an aside, I see that many of the "sources" that have been brought into this discussion are not high-quality in the context of musical history analysis: anecdotal comments by Presley's professional rivals and unattributed CD liner notes do not qualify.) That question aside, there certainly is a consensus among professional historians and critics that, as the article currently puts it, he was "a central figure in the development of rockabilly." That summary description needs no modification, and the article obviously must not state in Wikipedia's voice that he definitively "did not invent" rockabilly.

The paragraph in question currently quotes Morrison and Friedlander, two unimpeachably high-quality sources. If one more brief quote can be identified—from an equally premium-level source, and one that directly addresses rockabilly (not "rock 'n' roll", but "rockabilly")—that would provide some tonal balance, I could see that as being a worthwhile addition.—DCGeist (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

These reliable sources have already been cited:

"Elvis was something new under the Sun. Although he did not invent "rockabilly", he introduced it to tens of thousands of teenagers." See Glenn C. Altschuler, All Shook Up: How Rock 'n' Roll Changed America (2003), p.30.

"Of course, Elvis is important in the history of rock and roll, but he was not the first rockabilly musician by any means. He was the first southern rockabilly musician but not the first country rockabilly star; Bill Haley was." See Charles T. Brown, Music U.S.A.: America's Country & Western Tradition (1986), p.80.

"Contrary to popular legend, Elvis, Scotty Moore, and Bill Black — along with producer and Sun Records honcho Sam Phillips — did not invent the musical hybrid that would come to be known as rockabilly." See The Journal of Country Music, Volumes 20-21, 1998, p.16.

Here is my new version of the said paragraph:

According to music historians, Presley was a central figure in the development and popularization of rockabilly, though he did not invent this early rock 'n' roll style. "Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release, on the Sun label", writes Craig Morrison. Paul Friedlander describes the defining elements of rockabilly (claiming them to be "essentially ... an Elvis Presley construction"): "the raw, emotive, and slurred vocal style and emphasis on rhythmic feeling [of] the blues with the string band and strummed rhythm guitar [of] country". In "That's All Right", the Presley trio's first record, Scotty Moore's guitar solo, "a combination of Merle Travis–style country finger-picking, double-stop slides from acoustic boogie, and blues-based bent-note, single-string work, is a microcosm of this fusion."

It should be included in the article for reasons of balance. However, DCGeist has reverted this edit. See [7]. As an alternative, the first sentence may read, "Most music historians agree that Presley was a central figure in the development and popularization of rockabilly, though, according to Glenn C. Altschuler, Charles T. Brown and other experts, he did not invent this early rock 'n' roll style." Onefortyone (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your proposals are poorly written, blatantly slanted, and obviously do not rest on any sort of consensus that has developed here. Your repeated attempts to impose them despite repeated challenges and your complete failure to achieve consensus for any such change have reached the point of edit warring, in violation of Wikipedia policy.—DCGeist (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about consensus and edit-warring. If you feel Onefortyone's proposals are poorly written, then perhaps you could suggest improvements. As for "blatantly slanted," they are no more so than the text as it is now. Glenn C. Altschuler is as unimpeachable a source as Paul Friedlander, and his quote directly addresses rockabilly. Likewise The Journal of Country Music. To dismiss the testimony of Perkins, Vincent, Moore, and Presley himself as "anecdotal comments by Presley's professional rivals" indicates dubious comprehension and/or a distinct bias toward the "Presley invented rockabilly" narrative. Perkins, Vincent, and Moore were colleagues, contemporaries, and friends of Presley's, not merely "rivals," and their statements as practitioners and witnesses are essential to any valid history of the music. Notable is the fact that their accounts are not contradictory, but rather in complete accord that none of them invented rockabilly. (This is not the same as accepting tall tales from Charlie Feathers at face value.) Their published statements are as premium-level as it gets. Pstoller (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the context of this article, you are wrong. The current text is not blatantly slanted, unlike 141's proposal. It does not claim that Presley was the sole inventor of rockabilly. Its topic sentence states the broadly agreed-upon view that he was a central figure in the genre's development. As for appropriate sources, we are discussing a brief paragraph that addresses Prelsey's relationship to the genre of rockabilly. In that context, we need to rely on the judgment of well-recognized music historians like Morrison, Friedlander, and yes, Altschuler.

ASIDE: You say, "Likewise The Journal of Country Music." No. That is not an acceptable attribution at all, let alone a high-quality one. Who said this in the The Journal of Country Music? Did you even bother to check before touting it? It would appear not.

That said, Altschuler is a very good source generally, but is the quote that 141 has cherry-picked a very good quote specifically? I don't think so. It's much less detailed and informative than the Morrison and Friedlander quotes. Surely, we can do better. If 141 bothered to gain access to actual books in the field, rather than relying on narrowly targeted online word-string searches, he might be able to come up with more compelling suggestions. Or, you know, you could stand to hit the library for an afternoon, Pstoller, if you truly care about this issue so much.

As for 141's poor writing, I don't need to suggest an improvement when the existing version is much better. It's YOU who needs to do the work here and present a convincing improvement if you're intent on seeking a change in this FA-quality text.—DCGeist (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the context of the article, I'm right. The choice of quotes is blatantly slanted. Selecting quotes for bias creates bias, even if the surrounding text is neutral.

As for The Journal of Country Music, did you bother to check? I suggest you look here. The Journal is as high-quality a source as any on this subject. The problem you have—and with which I concur—is that the attribution is poor. I do not own a copy of that issue, nor can I find a full scan or transcription online, so I cannot say who wrote the article or whether the author is quoting someone within the article. That's on 141, since he apparently has a copy (or a good link). The issue with the Altschuler quote is similar: it's too perfunctory, so, yes, we can do better. Still, the quality of the quote is not the same as the quality of the source (Altschuler), and it was the latter that you criticized.

Due to the bias in the current passage and our (near) consensus that, in your own words, "If one more brief quote can be identified … that would provide some tonal balance, I could see that as being a worthwhile addition," I must disagree that the existing version is "much better." You criticized 141's writing with no hint as to why you think it's "poor" beyond deficiencies in his sourced material. However improper his procedure may be, 141 correctly identified a problem and has proposed several solutions of varying viability. It is not helpful to dismiss them as "poorly written" with no further comment.

So, assuming we find suitable quotes, what about the remaining proposal would you change? I grant that "…he did not invent…" should be changed to more neutral language, and putting the first clause of Friedlander's quote in parentheses is sloppy. On the other hand, "… claiming them to be…" is an improvement upon "…which he similarly characterizes as…," if only for the excision of "similarly." So, why not begin thusly:

"Presley was a central figure in the development and popularization of rockabilly, though music historians are divided as to whether he—in collaboration with Moore, Black, and Phillips—invented it." Follow with the existing quotes, plus one or two brief counter-quotes. Any objections? Pstoller (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I never "criticized" Altschuler as a source, as you claim. Nowhere. You're reading carelessly and interpreting glibly. That needlessly complicates communication. Again, Altschuler is a very good source; the quote that's been brought in from him is not a very good quote.

Second, know when you're owned. You want to defend a cite? You make sure you can back it up. When it comes to the The Journal of Country Music argument, you have been lazy and have failed. Did I bother to check? Excuse me? I'm not invested in promoting the source! Seems you always want other people to do the work YOU are responsible for. Do better.

Third, your concluding suggestion is—in literary quality—a great improvement on 141's tortured jabs. However, it's still not as good as what we currently have. It is very, very unusual for any serious cultural historian to attribute the "invention" of any artistic genre to a specific individual (or discreet, tight collective of individuals); the latest proposal seems as if it's written in a world where cultural historians agree, say, that Cézanne literally "invented" modern art and Hank Williams and his band literally "invented" country music. That just doesn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances. It would be much better to simply demonstrate the range of opinion with a (specifically) high-quality quote from a (generally) high-quality source. That's what's called for. Something else from Altschuler? Perhaps Charlie Gillett? Peter Guralnick? Nick Tosches? Let's see you go to work. (Sometimes "popular myth" is accurate: librarians ARE hot.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

DCGeist has written above, "If one more brief quote can be identified—from an equally premium-level source, and one that directly addresses rockabilly (not "rock 'n' roll", but "rockabilly")—that would provide some tonal balance, I could see that as being a worthwhile addition." I have provided these sources. Glenn C. Altschuler, Charles T. Brown and other experts have clearly shown that rockabilly already exists when Elvis appeared on the scene. Those authors for whom Elvis is the hero still claim that he invented or originated rockabilly. These contradictions must be mentioned according to Wikipedia's policies. Steve Pastor, Pstoller and Onefortyone are of the opinion that the said paragraph should be rewritten for reasons of balance. Why not say,

According to several music historians, Presley was a central figure in the development and popularization of rockabilly. However, Glenn C. Altschuler and Charles T. Brown emphasize that other musicians originated this early rock 'n' roll style. Notwithstanding, according to Craig Morrison, "Rockabilly crystallized into a recognizable style in 1954 with Elvis Presley's first release, on the Sun label." Paul Friedlander describes the defining elements of rockabilly (still claiming them to be "essentially ... an Elvis Presley construction"): "the raw, emotive, and slurred vocal style and emphasis on rhythmic feeling [of] the blues with the string band and strummed rhythm guitar [of] country". In "That's All Right", the Presley trio's first record, Scotty Moore's guitar solo, "a combination of Merle Travis–style country finger-picking, double-stop slides from acoustic boogie, and blues-based bent-note, single-string work, is a microcosm of this fusion.""

According to Brock Helander's The Rockin' '50s: The People who made the Music (1998), p.13, "Rockabilly developed in the early to mid '50s. It usually featured frantic, uninhibited lead vocals, a wild stinging lead guitar, and thumping stand-up bass. ... Bill Haley and the Comets were perhaps the earliest purveyors of rockabilly... They scored major pop hits from 1953 to 1956 ..." According to Glen Jeansonne, David Luhrssen and Dan Sokolovic's well-researched new study, Elvis Presley, Reluctant Rebel: His Life and Our Times (2011), Charlie Feathers "maintained that he was already playing rockabilly in the Sun Studio long before Elvis" and Hardrock Gunter "had already pushed country music toward rockabilly with an original song for the indie Bama label, 'Birmingham Bounce' (1950) and his Decca recording of the Dominoes' 'Sixty Minute Man' (1951). Elvis may have seen Gunter perform in Memphis and heard his recordings. Harmonica Frank was another white man who claimed to have invented rock and roll 'before I ever heard of Elvis Presley.' " (p.64) All these sources show that the current version of the paragraph must be rewritten in order to counterbalance the existing quotes. Onefortyone (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "must" be "rewritten," as several editors have clearly shown. Oh, and speaking of showing things clearly, your thesis statement above is false: "Glenn C. Altschuler, Charles T. Brown and other experts have clearly shown that rockabilly already exists when Elvis appeared on the scene." No, they don't "clearly show" that at all, they argue that. Other experts argue, in more detail, that he basically did originate rockabilly. Well, the fact that your own argument rests on a big falsehood is hardly a novelty. At any rate, Reluctant Rebel looks like it may be a worthwhile source if we agree to add another quote. DocKino (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could re-write it as Elvis being ONE of the most important popularizers of rockabilly since Bill Haley, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins and the like also did its work in popularizing the genre. I guess this name was also something people made up because they couldn't quite describe the music that sounded country but wasn't as slow-pitched as country was supposed to sound like at the time. I don't know why people think someone could "invent" something that was already there. You can't invent music. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

New proposal

In order to avoid disagreements similar to the ones above, i would like to see Dockino (and others) to make a proposal. I have collected some references so we can collaborate for consensus. Whats the best to word (a) Elvis relationships with youngeer girls and/or (b) attempts to cover this up, using the following sources? (feel free to add more sources);

• Elvis Presley, the original pop King, escaped a similar fate when his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, kept the future Priscilla Presley's age under wraps. - Christian Science Monitor,
• [8] elvis.com,
• [9] elvispresleymusic.com,
• [10] Priscilla Presley, Elvis Presley's Wife, Susan Doll,
• though there was a surprising lack of uproar over the age difference, especially in light of the public excoriation that fellow Sun Records alumni Jerry Lee Lewis received for marrying his teenage cousin. yahoo movies,
• Baby, Let's Play House pages 182 and 231,
• "Jackie Rowland, 14... 14 was his magical age...Frances Forbes...when I was 14, he noticed me.. Gloria Mowel and Heidi Heissen, both also at that 'magical' age" Daily Mail,
• Elvis Presley: a biography, Kathleen Tracy
• scientific american Elvis described as "Hebephilic"

Pass a Method talk 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What about this version:

As Priscilla lived with Elvis at Graceland before she was of the age of consent, it is no wonder that the Colonel, Wallis, and Presley endeavored to hide this fact because they feared a public scandal.

This version avoids the expression, "live-in Lolita". Onefortyone (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Rejected. You can hardly have forgotten, so you are clearly willfully ignoring the extensive discussion above of these matters. Once again, the entire argument, in those sources which make it, that the "Colonel, Wallis, and Presley endeavored to hide" anything rests on the highly contentious, hotly disputed, minority viewpoint that Priscilla lived at Graceland when she was 16. In addition, for all the claims about Parker in this regard, we still have yet to encounter one specific, attributed anecdote of him actually working to hide something relevant. As for Wallis, not one single source quoted so far (no, not even Doll) claims that he "endeavored to hide" anything. All in all, this has every sign of being a proposal made in bad faith. DocKino (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with DocKino. Having read through much of the material above, I think such a contentious claim requires very high quality sourcing and attributed anecdotes. Everything above (at least from handful of sources which I would consider reliable) seems to repeat a popular myth. As WP:BLP applies here, the standards are even tighter. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there are a lot of reliable sources supporting my proposal. For instance, in her book, The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley (2003), Alanna Nash writes that Parker "was furious at such a Lolita-like setup. ... Not so long before, ... the piano-pounding Jerry Lee Lewis had ruined his career by marrying his underage cousin. This situation wasn't nearly as dangerous, but if discovered, it would still be a scandal ..." (p.205-206). Susan Doll says, "If the press had uncovered this information, the scandal would have destroyed the mainstream image that the Colonel, Wallis, and Elvis had so carefully constructed." See Susan Doll, PhD, Elvis for Dummies (2009), Chapter 7. What about this shorter version: "As Priscilla lived with Elvis at Graceland before she was of the age of consent, it is no wonder that the Colonel endeavored to hide this fact because he feared a public scandal." Onefortyone (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be irresponsible of us to report that the Colonel endeavored to hide anything, unless someone witnessed or had intimate knowledge of such acts and that knowledge is documented in reliable sources. In other words, how do Nash and Doll know this? A lot of authors repeat things irresponsibly without doing appropriate research. --Laser brain (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nash has written a book on the Colonel and therefore interviewed many close friends and acquaintances of Parker, among them the Memphis Mafia members. Onefortyone (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If Nash demonstrates first-person knowledge (primary research) of the Colonel endeavoring to cover it up, I would support your wording. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see. Nash has been mentioned often here, but we've never seen evidence that she offers any first-person accounts of the Colonel endeavoring to cover up the situation with Priscilla. Even if we do see that, the wording would have to be adjusted: (1) it would need to acknowledge that according to leading biographers, Priscilla did not live at Graceland before, or more than a few weeks before, the age of consent, and (b) the unencyclopedic phrase "it is no wonder" would need to be discarded. But, yes, let's find out exactly what Nash has, with dates and everything. DocKino (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi DocKino

On 12 January 2012 ( 05:19) you wrote : "Because nothing you've just quoted in any way supports the claim that "Colonel Tom Parker made sure that Priscilla's age did not get out to the media during that time period."

Apparently you are right. Look at this article on Feb 28, 1960

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f9QpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KgUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4758,4649258&dq=elvis+presley+priscilla&hl=en

--Roujan (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi DocKino

Look this page. The second link titled : <Elvis Presley Due To Fly Back>. Just below there are other links which proves that Colonel Tom Parker has never hidden the age of Priscilla. On the link <Meriden Journal March 1, 1960> we can also read :<Presley told a news conference he had been dating Priscilla for three or four months> http://www.google.com/search?q=elvis+presley+sold+million&hl=en&gl=fr&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&psj=1&ei=g9RZT5fGFMig8QO0rbnXDg&ved=0CBQQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=601#hl=en&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=elvis+presley+sold+million&cp=24&gs_id=22&xhr=t&q=elvis+presley++priscilla&pf=p&gl=fr&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=elvis+presley++priscilla&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=91c5be38b58163d7&biw=1024&bih=601

--Roujan (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the question, as Elvis dated other teenage girls, too. We are talking here about the fact that Parker apparently tried to hide that Priscilla lived with Elvis at Graceland before she was of the age of consent. In her book, Child Bride, Suzanne Finstad writes, "That Elvis Presley was keeping a teenage lover hidden at Graceland became an unspoken scandal, an open secret in the corridors of the music industry in Nashville, common but hushed gossip in Hollywood. Columnists either ignored the rumor, pretended not to believe it, or blindly accepted Elvis's transparent ruses." Why not simply say what Nash has written: Parker "was furious at such a Lolita-like setup; ... if discovered, it would ... be a scandal." Nash seems to be the best source on Parker. This author also writes, "The immediate promise was that a chaperoned Priscilla would live on nearby Hermitage Road with Vernon and his new wife, Dee. That arrangement lasted only a matter of weeks, Priscilla slipping back and forth between the houses. With Grandma Minnie Mae Presley serving as lenient watchdog, the teenager soon took up residence at Graceland, sharing Elvis's bed..." Finstad also writes about Priscilla, "As a teenager, she was cloistered at Graceland, trailed by whispers labeling her Elvis Presley's Lolita." This clearly means that Priscilla lived in Elvis's house (and bedroom) before she was of the age of consent, but her parents were told she lived with Vernon's family on Dolan Drive. Another study, Dirk Vellenga and Mick Farren's Elvis and the Colonel, says, "Priscilla's role as live-in Lolita was certainly not publicized, and it's likely that had the fact about her living under Elvis's roof been made widely known, it would have been the scandal of the decade... " According to Wikipedia policies, secondary sources including opinions by experts should be cited in order to tone down disagreements between Wikipedians. Onefortyone (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just as I suspected. Once again, you cannot cite a single instance of Parker endeavoring to cover something up in Nash, or anywhere else it seems. His feelings about the situation do not equate with the actions you wish to ascribe him. This is called misuse of the sources. DocKino (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

To my reading, there can be no doubt about what Nash has written. However, here is an alternative proposal that is closer to the source:

According to Alanna Nash, Parker "was furious" at the fact that Priscilla lived with Elvis at Graceland before she was of the age of consent; "if discovered, it would ... be a scandal."

This version avoids the expression "Lolita-like setup". Onefortyone (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove, without any doubt, that she lived at Graceland before the age of consent? She was literally weeks away from her 18th birthday when she moved to Memphis, and Nash uses the term "several weeks" to describe how long she lived with Vernon and Dee before moving in with Elvis. Does any of that prove she lived at Graceland before her 18th birthday? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you so sure that Priscilla was literally weeks away from her 18th birthday when she moved to Memphis? Parker's official claims? However, lots of sources say otherwise. According to Fred L. Worth and Steve D. Tamerius, Elvis: His Life from A to Z (1992), p.16, "Priscilla moved into Graceland in October of 1962". Publications International, Private Life of Elvis (2005), summarizes, p.70: "In October 1962, while he was in Hollywood filming Fun in Acapulco, Elvis played host to Priscilla and her dad, and won over the senior Beaulieu with his charm and hospitality. After a few days, father and daughter flew to Memphis, where Captain Beaulieu and Vernon Presley enrolled Priscilla in the all-girl Immaculate Conception Cathedral High School and moved her into the home that Vernon shared with his second wife, Dee." Albert Goldman, Elvis, writes, p.355, "In October, after Elvis left for Hollywood to start work on Kid Galahad, Vernon Presley enrolled Priscilla at Immaculate Conception Cathedral High School." Other sources say that she lived earlier with Elvis. In his book, If I Can Dream: Elvis' Own Story (1989), p.58, Larry Geller claims that Priscilla moved to Memphis in May 1962. Robert Matthew-Walker, Heartbreak Hotel: The Life and Music of Elvis Presley (1995), states, p.57, that "Priscilla's stay with Vernon and Dee became permanent in January 1962." According to Scotty Moore, Priscilla "had been living at Graceland since 1961 and the rising tide of negative publicity made the relationship a potential threat to his career." Priscilla herself talks about previous labels given to her, such as "constant companion," "teen heartthrob," "live-in Lolita," "lover". Onefortyone (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you learnt nothing from our recent discussion about the whole "That sounds like Carl Perkins" incident? It's far too easy for a false line to be repeated over and over and over again by lazy, irresponsible journalists and authors who haven't properly researched their information. This is wikipedia, and this subject is about a living person, a living person who is one of the people who tells the story that is the "official" version. We have a responsibility to get this as accurate as possible so that we don't suggest any falsities that could lead to legal action against wikipedia. If in doubt, leave it out. As I wasn't there I can never be 100% positive of anything, 141. However, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and as most of the sources that I completely trust (several of those you use above not included) follow the "official" version, I have no option but to believe the "official story", as written by Priscilla herself, over those provided by people who may or may not be out just to make a fast buck from their lives with Elvis and whose memories may be slightly hazy. Or authors who haven't taken the time to verify their information. I read as much as I can, I hear as much as I can, I watch as much as I can, and then I put it all together and decide on what I think is most likely to have happened based on the information and the sources.

Larry Geller? Really? He didn't even know Elvis until 1964. Priscilla visited Elvis in the USA in the summer of 1962, can you be 100% sure that Geller isn't confused and mixing up his information and dates? And that raises another problem. Some of your sources claim she moved there in 1961, some claim January 1962, some claim May 1962, some claim Autumn 1962. And according to the source you want to use to prove that Parker was furious about Priscilla living at Graceland because she was underage, it was March 1963 that she moved to Memphis. Therefore, you have a source that backs one of your "theories", yet it disputes your other one and follows the "official" storyline only 1 page beforehand. Even your own sources can't agree on an exact date or year! Isn't it possible that they've just copied one false source themselves, like what happened with the Perkins quote, leading to a completely false rumour being repeated over and over and over again? Which in turn leads to people, such as yourself, assuming there's some kind of cover-up going on.

I'm not saying that the "official" version is the absolute truth, but at the moment there is not enough concrete evidence to suggest it's false. Every source that supports the "official" version gets every single piece of their information right regarding the matter, yet very few of the sources citing the alternative story can even agree on the dates. That sets alarm bells ringing in my head immediately. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Finstad has demonstrated that, in several instances, Priscilla didn’t say the truth in her book, Elvis and Me. Furthermore, your claim that Priscilla visited Elvis in the USA for the first time in the summer of 1962 is wrong. According to eyewitness Alan Fortas, Elvis "had an image to maintain. Just how that image differed with each person's perception came to full light that Christmas, the December he came back to Memphis before he got his release on 'Wild in the Country' [i.e. December 1960]. That was the Christmas Elvis worked a miracle. Using Dee and Vernon as a shield, Elvis persuaded Priscilla's step-father, Captain Joseph Beaulieu, to let Priscilla come to Graceland for Christmas. She would fly from Frankfort, West Germany, to New York, where Vernon and Dee would meet her, and escort her back to Memphis. They, of course, would also serve as chaperones during her visit. Priscilla stayed at Graceland about two weeks, returning to Germany early in January [1961], just before Elvis went back to finish 'Wild in the Country.' We eventually ended up going to Las Vegas..." See Alan Fortas, Elvis: from Memphis to Hollywood (1992), p.137. So it is an undeniable fact that Priscilla spent two weeks at Graceland in December 1960 and January 1961. There can also be no doubt that she visited Elvis several times after that date. Finstad has shown that there is even unclarity concerning the "deciding factor" in her parents' decision to permit her move to Memphis. As so many sources differ about the exact date of Priscilla’s move to Graceland, these contradictions must be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Even if we accept "March 1963" as the correct date, she can still be called a live-in Lolita. According to Pamela Clarke Keogh, she arrived with her father in Memphis in March 1963. "But as might be expected, she stayed at Vernon and Dee's for about a week before moving into Grandma's room at Graceland and, shortly thereafter, Elvis' bedroom. ... To the world at large, the subterfuge worked — a seventeen-year-old girl secretly living with the most famous sex symbol in the world! As Elvis well knew and the Colonel reminded him, if the press got wind of this, it could be devastating for Elvis' career." See Pamela Clarke Keogh, Elvis Presley: The Man, the Life, the Legend (2004), p.142. Onefortyone (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

After wading my way through this lengthy and repetitive debate, I have to ask: Is this material—true or not, verifiable or not—really pertinent to a Wikipedia bio of Elvis Presley? There are many things that Presley may or may not have done in his private life, but unless it can be demonstrated that these things had a significant effect on his public career, I don't see how they have any pressing relevance. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Presley began having sexual relations with Pricilla Beaulieu in Germany when she was 14, and then similarly assume that she moved in with Presley when she was 16, the fact remains that there was no scandal; Presley's career was not derailed; and he and those around him seem to have made no significant creative or business decisions in response to this alleged tinderbox (beyond allegedly taking some care as to not expose it). It has virtually nothing to do with why Presley is a public figure, nor how he is generally perceived. (Contrast this with Presley's drug use, which is extremely relevant to his image and career.) The only real argument I see in favor of including this information is the allegation that Colonel Parker used "secret sex films" (not featuring Beaulieu) to blackmail Presley into signing a bad contract. However, only Earl Greenwood has put this story forward—repeated, but never substantiated, by Penthouse, Kathleen Tracy, and Liz Smith. So, the question isn't, "Is it true?" or, "Can you prove it?" but, "So what?" Besides, there's an entire separate article on Presley's personal relationships here. I question whether that article needs to exist, but as it does, putting the same material in the main article would be redundant. So, how about giving this poor, dead horse a respite? Pstoller (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the supposed blackmail, there are some few allegations of this kind. David Bret, for instance, has claimed that Parker knew that Elvis had an affair with actor Nick Adams and therefore had been able to blackmail Presley by threating to reveal this "secret information". Much of this information seems to have come from Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, who may have heard it from Vernon. However, most biographers do not deal with these matters. Therefore, these claims are not included in the article. On the other hand, I do not think that it is unimportant that so many sources differ about the exact date of Priscilla’s move to Graceland, and there can be no doubt that Elvis secretly kept Priscilla in his bedroom before she was of the age of consent. The singer's career was not derailed because this information was withheld from the public. As Pamela Clarke Keogh wrote in her book on Presley: "As Elvis well knew and the Colonel reminded him, if the press got wind of this, it could be devastating for Elvis' career." We are talking here about one or two additional sentences that would not extend the article very much. Onefortyone (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only can there be doubt, but there is doubt. The fact that so many sources differ means that there is no one accepted source or story. Beaulieu's age remains irrelevant to Presley's career and fame, so two sentences on the subject is two too many for a Wikipedia article. Pstoller (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"and there can be no doubt that Elvis secretly kept Priscilla in his bedroom before she was of the age of consent." You've lost this proposal on more than one occasion. There is an extreme doubt, seeing that there's absolutely no proof to what you're saying. Keep your blatant slander to yourself. Also, any such claims of Presley having an "affair" with Nick Adams is entirely an allegation, there's no proof to back any of it up, hence why it won't be added to this article. Priscilla herself has stated that your proposed statements are indeed false, along with many other trustworthy sources, no one here that has a good head on their shoulders is going to agree with you on either note, and frankly, I'm sick and tired of reading your ridiculous slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Finstad has shown in her book that, in several instances, Priscilla didn’t say the truth. As this material is out in the public domain and discussed in several books on Elvis, it is part of Elvis’s history and ought to be addressed according to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. This is also the opinion of Silverseren, Binksternet, Pass a Method and Tom Reedy. See this discussion. What counts on Wikipedia are the many reliable sources that indeed deal with the matter. There are still too many sources supporting the view that Elvis kept Priscilla as a teenage lover hidden at Graceland before she was of the age of consent and that Colonel Parker tried to hide this fact. Onefortyone (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The key term is, reliable. Finstad is not; likewise her major source, Currie Grant, who lost the defamation suit brought by Priscilla Presley over his accounts in Finstad's book. Repeating defamatory statements in a Wikipedia entry is bad practice. Pstoller (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Finstad is still a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. She is a reputable biographer, journalist and lawyer who has received a prize for literary excellence. Liz Smith praised in the New York Post "Finstad's research and her analysis of Priscilla's complex character." "In Child Bride," said John Austin in his Viewpoints review, "the author has very carefully mapped the relationships and circumstances that shaped one of the most powerful (behind-the-scenes) women of her generation." It is true that Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night. Grant lost the case and was ordered to pay $75,000, though Priscilla had sued for at least $10,000,000. However, Grant is not the only eyewitness Finstad has cited in her book. Furthermore, you may not be aware of the fact that in her 2010 book, Baby, Let’s Play House: Elvis Presley and the Women Who Loved Him, Alanna Nash has shown that the press reports about how the lawsuit was resolved and the way it was actually resolved are very, very different things. Nash has unearthed a 1998 confidential settlement agreement between Grant and Priscilla that puts a different light on the outcome of the court case. On the one hand, it says, Priscilla can tell the media that she feels "vindicated" by the result of her lawsuit. On the other, Grant will not have to pay a cent in damages provided he never discusses her again in public. Furthermore, while Grant will no longer claim to have had sex with Priscilla, she will no longer accuse him of attempted rape and will pay him $15,000 for pictures he took when she was a teenager. What to make of this? Nash argues: "Clearly Priscilla has taken extraordinary measures to silence Currie Grant, presumably to protect the myth of how she met Elvis and whether she was a virgin at the time." But there is also another possibility. Could it be that, despite the alleged rape, the massively rich former Mrs Presley simply took pity on a man who had, after all, introduced her to her future husband? In her book, Nash has further revealed that the Priscilla of 1959 — the year she met Elvis — was not exactly the innocent schoolgirl of the accepted fairytale romance. In Germany, where her stepfather was serving in the American air force, she frequently flirted with a crowd of black-leather-jacketed boys at an air force club. This is fully in line with Finstad's statement that Priscilla's own accounts conveniently overlooked her previous sexual relationships with Tommy Stewart, Peter von Wechmar, Jamie Lindberg, and possibly Ron Tapp. Furthermore, on the evening that Priscilla was introduced to Elvis, Grant found the singer kissing her against a wall. By 8.30pm, according to several other people in the house, says Nash, Elvis had taken her up to his bedroom, and they did not emerge until after 1am. This strongly suggests that most parts of the story as related in Finstad's book seem to be true. In an interview, Nash has additionally stated, "Suzanne Finstad helped me see that Priscilla's story of being the virgin bride just doesn't hold up under scrutiny." Onefortyone (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As you say: "It is true that Priscilla successfully sued Currie Grant, one of Finstad’s interviewees who had stated that Priscilla promised sexual favors with him in exchange for meeting Elvis and that she was not a virgin on her wedding night." That is factual. It means that neither Finstad nor anyone else who relies on Grant as a primary source is credible with regard to the specific subject matter under discussion here. It also means that repeating Grant's discredited statements in Wikipedia—no matter through whom they are filtered—would be tantamount to libel.

Liz Smith is a gossip columnist, not a literary critic; her endorsement of Finstad is at best meaningless. As for Nash's book, I point you here. Nash is more reputable than Finstad—almost anyone would be—but Nash's reliance on Finstad as her primary source on Priscilla rules out both her reliability and objectivity. Even more so, her reliance on Goldman and Whitmer.

But all this remains secondary to my main points, which are: 1) none of this is sufficiently relevant to Presley's importance to warrant inclusion in his Wikipedia bio, and 2) there is already a separate Wikipedia article that deals with this material. If you can't get the better of your fascination with this subject matter, I suggest you blog about it. It does not belong here. Pstoller (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Finstad's book is a reliable source as it is based on the accounts of many people who knew Priscilla and Elvis well. They all agree that Priscilla was not a virgin bride. Furthermore, lots of people still believe in Currie Grant's version of the story. He simply lost the lawsuit because he had not enough money to pay for excellent lawyers. Interestingly, the book was republished in 2006 without protests from Priscilla. However, I do not intend to include Finstad's remarks on Priscilla's alleged virginity in the Elvis article, but I think it should at least be mentioned that she lived with Elvis at Graceland before the age of consent. Onefortyone (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is much dissent amongst people who knew Elvis and Priscilla well; Finstad chose to quote those who supported the story that she wished to tell. Agreement on Priscilla's virginity is 1) not the same thing as a verifiable statement of fact, and 2) not important for a biographical article on Elvis Presley. (A book, perhaps; an encyclopedia entry, no.) This issue is addressed on the Priscilla Presley page; if it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia (and I question that), it's there. People may believe Currie Grant's story for any number of reasons, but their belief does not make it true. Your statement that Grant lost the lawsuit because he couldn't afford better lawyers is sheer conjecture. The fact remains that he lost and the judge ruled his statements defamatory: end of story as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's quite clear that you think it should be mentioned that Priscilla moved into Graceland when she was 17; what isn't at all clear is why. In the absence of a career-rocking scandal (a la Jerry Lee Lewis), it amounts to trivia. As I said above: go blog about it. Wikipedia is not TMZ. Pstoller (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that it should be mentioned that Priscilla moved into Graceland when she was 16 or 17, as several sources say that the singer had to hide this fact (because it was against the laws of the state of Tennessee). It is certainly no coincidence that most of these sources use the expression, "live-in Lolita". Alanna Nash writes that Parker "was furious at such a Lolita-like setup. ... if discovered, it would ... be a scandal ..." Susan Doll says, "If the press had uncovered this information, the scandal would have destroyed the mainstream image that the Colonel, Wallis, and Elvis had so carefully constructed." The fact also shows that Elvis had a predilection for very young girls. Onefortyone (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We're well aware of your opinion. It has lost out. DocKino (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One would hope that we would grow up sooner or later and move on!--Jaye9 (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For me when researching anything on Elvis Pstoller,it's not about what is being said is all that important,it's more to do with who's saying that is.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley

...were prominent enough figures in his life to be mentioned in the lead. Tradepath8 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring to impose that view on the article, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Make your case here why you believe Priscilla and Lisa Marie should be added to the lede, see if you can build a consensus in favor of your position, and accept the possibility that consensus may ultimately weigh against you.—DCGeist (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

::Why shouldn't it be added to the lead is a better question. Several pages for popular entertainers have some aspect of their personal life mentioned in the lead. Tradepath8 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

:::How long before someone replies or throws their opinion in? Tradepath8 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to make the slightest effort to present a compelling argument for the inclusion in the lede of facts which all the editors here are well aware of, and which everyone to date has clearly concurred does not merit such inclusion. If you can't be bothered to even attempt to construct a convincing argument, you should not be in the least surprised that no one is bothering to "throw their opinion in."—DCGeist (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::What argument do you want? It just should be. That's like asking a person why do they wear clothes, or why do they eat. Because they should. Really, why do you want it to not be mentioned? Tradepath8 (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Years active

The "years active" should read as follows:

1953-1977

Yet someone keeps persisting on having it look like this:

1953-77

The second version looks like an unprofessional, abbreviated mess. I haven't seen the "years active" be abbreviated like this on any other wikipedia page. Tradepath8 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your claim about what you've seen "on any other wikipedia page" would be more compelling if you knew that "Wikipedia" is capitalized; at any rate, it is irrelevant. Your opinion as to what constitutes an "unprofessional, abbreviated mess" is amusing and equally irrelevant. Abbreviating the second date in a range is a standard style accepted by all major style guides and explicitly preferred by several, including the Chicago Manual of Style, the leading style guide of American English. Furthermore, our own Manual of Style states, "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." All clear? (While you're educating yourself as to proper style, it would also be nice if you familiarized yourself with the difference between the hyphen and the en-dash. Thank you.)—DCGeist (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but "preferred" and "normally" don't mean "has to be", but of course, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." And that, I think, is where the emphasis should be. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Presley in Egypt

<In the 1970s Elvis was offered $5m to stage a concert in front of the Pyramids in Egypt. When the Colonel declined the offer, Saudi billionaires raised the offer to $10m> http://www.elvisinfonet.com/spotlight_real_failure.html ( right column)

Is it true?...If yes, i think it's pertinent --Roujan (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There are already references to Parker/Presley being offered work abroad (Palladium, London; Australia). There was a story about Presley being offered a gig at Wembley Stadium too. I can't see what benefit there is in just adding to this list of claims/rumours. The main point is Parker was given inducements to send Elvis abroad and Parker said 'No'. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 13:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

not dead

This is more than a rumor. It should be in the article. Why not? Because there aren't reliable sources for this. I see. Is that why this article has three "references" that lead to dead links, and five books that are out of print (and when published were of very small presses). And that's just for one "bonafide" section. Hmm.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aloha audience

There are no reliable global TV audience estimates for anything, even the Olympics. Wikipedia:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The three books cited for the 1.5-billion figure may be very reliable for most Elvis-related facts, but there is no reason to believe the authors have any special expertise in the area of TV audience estimates. Therefore the blogpost debunking the 1.5-billion figure has precedence, even though blogposts are, other things being equal, less reliable than published books. jnestorius^(talk) 16:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just wrong. A blogpost never takes precedence over multiple reliable sources. Period. We can pursue this discussion, but only if you're willing to seek out better sourcing for your position. DocKino (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression you are not disputing the facts of the matter, just the adherence to policy. In which case, here is my suggestion: clarify the policy. Elaborate Wikipedia:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources by placing a blanket ban on any global TV estimates in articles derived from books about the event/PR releases by the organiser, etc. Being "reliable" is not an all-or-nothing status; to say a source is reliable does not mean that every assertion within it is equally reliable. Citing three sources rather than one resolves certain kinds of problem (individual mistake by one author) but not other kinds (all three authors relying on the same faulty original source). The underlying problem is that bogus inflated television figures are seldom specifically refuted. I can find multiple sources of this general fact, e.g.:

• The Economist all statistics for global television audiences are a bit spurious
• Sporting Intelligence Many of the supposedly “most watched” events in history have been attributed viewing figures that were simply made up. And these numbers are passed down as fact, unquestioned.
• Sunday Times Frequent claims have been made of audiences in the multiple billions for events as varied as sporting finals, funerals of public figures, weddings and political events. In most cases these are unsubstantiated guesses, from broadcasters or rights holders. “This tends to be marketing based on hyperbole, based on what an audience could be if every single person who has access to an event watches it,” says Alavy.

I have no specific refutation for Elvis, but the second source above says [emphasis added]:

• The verifiably most-watched event in human history – and the only “genuine 1bn” event to date – was the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

jnestorius^(talk) 09:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The original source for all the claims that "Aloha from Hawaii" was broadcast to 1-1.5 billion viewers is a vague estimate given by Billboard, 16 December 1972, p.18, stating that

Elvis Presley's historic satellite-live television concert, originating Jan. 14 from the Honolulu International Center Arena, is expected to reach a global audience of 1.5 billion viewers.

These viewing figures must be called an Elvis myth promoted by Colonel Parker, especially at a time when Elvis did no longer have as many number-one hits on the charts as he had in his younger years (his last Top Ten hit on the US charts was "Burning Love" in October/November 1972). Onefortyone (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove the later books derive the figure from the Billboard article (i.e. is that the source cited in each of them?). Even if not, it is at least relevant that the figure was being "estimated" before the concert had taken place. The 27 Jan 1973 Billboard makes the qualified statement "The potential audience for the program, following its various broadcasts, has been estimated at one billion people." The key word being "potential". Some actual figures here are 37.8 Japan and 91.8 Philippines (those are share, not ratings; the Philippines is self-reported; not sure how widespread TV was there in 1973). jnestorius^(talk) 23:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The name "Presley" derives from the german name "Pressler" from southern Palatine in Germany

The name "Presley" derives from the german name "Pressler" from southern Palatine in Germany

http://www.videoregister.de/elvis-presley/2009-01-08/

"Der Name Presley stammt wie die Vorfahren von Elvis Presley aus Deutschland von einem um 1700 ausgewanderten deutschen südpfälzischem Winzer, mit dem Namen Pressler. Das fanden Ahnenforscher im Jahr 1990 heraus."--178.254.125.33 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The website you link to hardly qualifies as a reliable source, but more to the point, so what? The article states that Presley is of mixed, mostly European, heritage - though whether he has any German ancestry is unclear. The article is about Elvis, not about the (disputed) origins of his surname, and has no real need to go into such matters. And nor will it, without a considerably better source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nexusboard.net/sitemap/6365/deutschstammige-musiker-t297631/

"Hochstadt-aus den Dörfern Niederhochstadt und Oberhochstadt entstanden

Die beiden weitläufig mit Elvis verwandten Ahnenforscher fanden bei Recherchen in Archiven, Steuerlisten und Kirchenbüchern heraus, dass der «Vinedresser» Pressler 1710 in New York mit einem Londoner Auswandererschiff ankam. Pressler-Familien aus dem heutigen Hochstadt gründeten in Pennsylvania einen Ort gleichen Namens. Die Presslers sind heute über die ganzen Vereinigten Staaten verstreut.

«Der Name Pressler bezieht sich in allen bisher bekannten Abstammungsfällen auf Ober -und Niederhochstadt», sagt Gerd Pressler. Mit «höchster Wahrscheinlichkeit» seien trotz lückenhafter Dokumente Valentin Pressler und Elvis Presley in zehnter Generation miteinander verwandt. Indizien seien der Leitname Valentin, der in den Hochstadter Pressler-Familien bis ins 20. Jahrhundert vergeben wurde sowie der Beruf des Auswanderers: Weinbau ist in Hochstadt seit 770 nachweisbar.

Valentin Pressler, der im Zuge der pfälzischen Auswandererbewegung in die USA kam, lebte mit seiner Frau und seinen fünf Kindern zunächst in New York. Später zog die Familie in den Süden, aus dem auch Elvis stammt. Der Name Pressler - auch Preslar, Preßler und Bressler - passte sich im Laufe der Zeit der englischen Sprache an und wurde zu Presley, erzählt Gerd Pressler. Die Herkunft des Familiennamens sei unklar, möglicherweise beziehe er sich auf die bei Pfälzern sehr beliebte Brezel.

«Allein im 18. Jahrhundert wanderten rund 50.000 Pfälzer nach Amerika aus», schätzt der Historiker Roland Paul vom Institut für pfälzische Geschichte und Volkskunde in Kaiserslautern. Städte und Dörfer waren durch jahrzehntelange Kriege verwüstet, die Bevölkerung lebte in großer Armut. In den USA bürgerte sich schnell der Name «Palatines» (Pfälzer) für alle deutschsprachigen Auswanderer ein." --178.254.125.33 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and the archived thread at Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 30#Elvis of German descent. With contradictory sources, we aren't going to include such questionable claims without the best evidence. It is of little consequence to the article whether it mentions the claimed origins of 'Presley' - this is about the singer, not one of his ancestors who may or may not have been German. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Ghetto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELV1S Has it that the aforesaid song was a number 1 single, as would RCA and EPE, who manufactured and oversaw the album's release. Therefore such should be added to his #1 singles chart below the article. If someone would, that'd be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2012

Hello, this is regarding the opening paragraph. It states: He is commonly known by his first name, 'Elvis'. It used to say: He is commonly known by his first name, 'Elvis', 'The King of Rock n Roll', or simply 'The King'. Please change it back.

67.14.243.3 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Musdan77 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Elvis repeatedly asked people not to call him "The King". He didn't like it, and thought it was excessive. My vote would be to leave fan drivel like this out of the lede. Santamoly (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Elvis' personal preferences, the lede is factually accurate: he was and is commonly known as "The King (of Rock & Roll)," to the point that most people (and not just devotees) would know who you meant by that phrase with no mention of the names "Elvis" and/or "Presley." That makes the statement more substantial than mere "fan drivel." Thus, it seems to me appropriate to keep it in. Pstoller (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

Elvis Aron Presley is his name his birth certificate and is NOT spelt with two 'a's in Aron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.126.167 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Middle Name

In multiple places in this his middle name is spelled "Aaron". Elvis's middle name was in fact "Aron". This is easily verifiable and needs to be changed so people who use Wikipedia for information will have the correct information, because the way it is now is wrong.

WhovianMama (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Sheila Barnard

Looking at the article, there are a good half-dozen sources cited specifically on the middle name situation. So, it's verifiable as-is. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Readers concerned about the spelling of Presley's middle name need to notice there is a superscript 'a' after the first mention of his full name. I guess these things are there to be clicked on and when anyone bothers you get an explanation of his middle name spelling. There have been several people complaining that his name should be 'Aron'. Clearly the superscript 'a' is not exactly a magnet for the curious or the irritated. I suggest the first instance of his name should be followed by, in brackets, "For an explanation regarding the spelling of his middle name, please see x", or some such. Life will be simpler then ;) Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Elvis' "Spiritual Quest"

It seems this article is missing an important element, Elvis Presley's personal life, namely his spiritual quest. This fact of his life was left out maybe for political reason, but it is important to include it in this page or at least create a dedicated page for Elvis Presley's Spiritual Quest. It is important to include it because it explains a lot of things of Elvis Persona, psychology, mind frame, philosophy and the reason why he chose to mix styles and pronounce certain words in his songs. I understand that this is subjective, but the reality is that it is part of Life. I have tried to create a paragraph in this page, on the Spiritual Quest, but somebody deleted it because the references that I have included were somehow Judged invalid. Watch this : Youtube Elvis Presley Spirituality (2/4) --Fady Lahoud (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to cite a more reliable source—and preferably more than one—than Elvis Presley's hairdresser in a shoddy video montage airing on YouTube. Pstoller (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'Memphis Mafia' section in the main article already references Geller, Presley's interests beyond his vapid Hollywood years and the fact that he read, and would continue to read, about spirituality, etc. wherever he went. So this "important element" is already there. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 18:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but it seems too insignificant and it deserves at least a section of it's own, (in my opinion vs another ones opinions). I propose to create a section of Elvis Presley Spiritual Quest and develop the theme. I have tried, but somebody deleted it because he or she belied the references to be bogus... Well I propose that he or she search and gives tones of "Good" references, because I believe there is tones out there. And here is another reference: http://www.devorss.com/elvisenter.htm --Fady Lahoud (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there'd be a constant objection that would flare up over the notion of a so-called "Spiritual Quest". Elvis was what we would now call a born-again Christian. There's entire books and videos just on this topic alone, such as "The Gospel Side of Elvis" by Joe Moscheo. Elvis wasn't on any anything like a quest. He found God early in his youth, and he maintained his faith in Jesus (who he constantly referred to as "The King"), and his backup groups were always gospel quartets (touring Christian quartets). It's all there, and it's all totally documented in print. Yes, it should perhaps be out front in the Elvis article, but some people have a hard time adjusting to it, and it keeps getting bumped down. Santamoly (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, it's somewhere in between what the two of you have said. To my knowledge, Elvis never said that he was born again, or even a Christian. Only he and God know. I know he did believe in Christ, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have other beliefs as well. So, I'm not for or opposed to having a section about the subject. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

True, Elvis never said he was "born again" because the expression wasn't used widely in his time. And he didn't brag that he was a Christian. He was simply a believer, not "born again" as a recovered alcoholic would say. Joe Moscheo of The Imperials (who sang as backup to Elvis in Las Vegas) said Elvis was "a lifelong devotee to gospel", and he meant "lifelong" as in from he was a child growing up in the Pentecostal church of his family. When asked by an interviewer in 2000, Rev Rex Dixon, a Memphis Pentecostal minister, a man who knew Elvis and his parents when Elvis was a teenager, said,"Elvis was real Christ-minded". Published sources quoting those who worked and sang with Elvis seem to agree: there's no evidence anywhere that Elvis was anything but "Christ-minded". If you can find anything (verifiable, of course), let us know. Santamoly (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Official proclamation on aloha elvis

http://m.elvis.com/news/detail.aspx?id=6849

In honor of the king's groundbreaking performances in 1973, the governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie declared January 14, 2013, as "Elvis, Aloha from Hawai'i via Satellite Day." The governor made the announcement at the Neal S. Blaisdell Center last night during the 40th anniversary celebration. "Aloha from Hawaii" returned to the same place for a one-night only enhanced screening celebrating the concert seen by over a billion people worldwide

71.234.119.3 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvis hated being called "The King" and said so repeatedly Santamoly (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Elvis hating his title is not Germaine to adding this update . I clearly posted the link that shows the governor of Hawaii proclaiming 40 years later aloha elvis day . Please include it 71.234.119.3 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So you think that this opportunistic promotional blather takes precedence over what Elvis repeatedly said about being called "The King"? Santamoly (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

proclamatiom of aloha elvis

http://m.elvis.com/news/detail.aspx?id=6849

In honor of the king's groundbreaking performances in 1973, the governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie declared January 14, 2013, as "Elvis, Aloha from Hawai'i via Satellite Day." The governor made the announcement at the Neal S. Blaisdell Center last night during the 40th anniversary celebration. "Aloha from Hawaii" returned to the same place for a one-night only enhanced screening celebrating the concert seen by over a billion people worldwide

71.234.119.3 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvis hated being called "The King" and said so repeatedly Santamoly (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Elvis hating his title is not Germaine to adding this update . I clearly posted the link that shows the governor of Hawaii proclaiming 40 years later aloha elvis day . Please include it 71.234.119.3 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) So you think that this opportunistic promotional blather takes precedence over what Elvis repeatedly said about being called "The King"? Santamoly (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

it is not opportunistic. the proclamation shows the amazing popularity of elvis and his music. its a fitting eneding to aloha elvis. please. the very least show the proclamation in the article.

68.199.5.208 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please put elvis as a singer , actor and philanthropist

In recognition of Elvis' charitable contributions Memphis Mayor William Ingram, along with the Governor of Tennessee Buford Ellington, officially declared October 29, 1967, "Elvis Presley Day" in the city of Memphis and in the State of Tennessee..( the king donated yearly to over 50 charities )Memphis tribune

Some of the more publicized charities Elvis gave to were;

On March 24, 1961 Elvis performed in Hawaii for a benefit concert, held at the Bloch Arena, to raise money for a memorial for the USS Arizona which had sank during the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 historically known as “a day that will live in infamy”. Elvis raised $ 65,000.00 and a plaque was prominently placed, at the memorial site, acknowledging Elvis’ efforts in raising the money. Sadly, the plaque was removed due to the acts of a few powerful “non-Elvis fans” and the return of this plaque remains an emphasis of mine and should be to Elvis Presley Fans Worldwide. In in 1964 Elvis bought the FDR Presidential Yacht named the Potomac and donated it to the St. Judes Children s Research Hospital, who ultimately sold it for an amount of $55,000.00, spearheaded at the time by entertainer Danny Thomas (Father of Marlo Thomas aka: “That Girl” TV Star and wife of Phil Donahue the talk show host). One bit of humor involving this event was that Colonel Parker, upon inspecting the yacht the morning that Elvis would personally present the yacht to Danny Thomas with many members of the press being present, saw that the yacht was in dire need of maintenance including paint. As only the Colonel would he authorized ONLY the side of the yacht that would be photographed to be freshly painted leaving the rest of the yacht discolored with peeling paint evident. In 1968 Elvis allowed one of his Rolls Royce to be auctioned off for a charity that assisted mentally retarded children. In 1973 Elvis performed the first “live concert/broadcast via Worldwide satellite”, which was seen by a record audience of over ONE BILLION people, known as “Aloha from Hawaii”. This concert was actually a benefit concert for the Kuiokalani Lee Cancer Fund. The goal was to raise $ 25,000.00 but this amount was greatly exceeded and actually raised $ 75,000.00. In 1975 Elvis gave a concert in Jackson Mississippi that raised in excess of $ 100,000.00 for victims of a tornado. This concert was deeply personal to Elvis because when Elvis was a child a tornado tore through his hometown in Tupelo, Mississippi and killed many people.

I think elvis earned it

71.234.119.3 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

misdirect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signs_Of_The_Zodiac

redirects to elvis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.237.57 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an Elvis song called "Signs of the Zodiac," but the redirect is nonsensical, so I deleted it. Pstoller (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-redirected it to The Trouble with Girls (film). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can also redefine it as "Signs of the Zodiac (Elvis Presley song)." I would if I knew how. I think it makes much more sense for the phrase "signs of the zodiac" to route to "Zodiac," with a disambiguation option for the song. Pstoller (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is partly a quirk of capitalisation, in that "Signs of the zodiac" - without capitals - already redirects to Zodiac. What I've now done is rename "Signs Of The Zodiac" (with capitals) as "Signs of the Zodiac (Elvis Presley song)", which as you suggest makes more sense, accords with WP policy on use of capitals in article titles, and now redirects to The Trouble with Girls (film). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. These little moments of sanity and cooperation are profoundly refreshing! :) Pstoller (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?

I would have thought Elvis would not have been the most controversial person in the world. Apart the fact the whole article reads like the president of his official "fan club" wrote it, there seems little reason for it to be locked

Pls see Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection.Moxy (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I realise the reason it could be. I was just asking about why "this" article is locked. ie. What particular reason for "this" article --CTtheKiwi (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Elvis invites more controversy than you realize, along with more lunatic fringe zealotry and vandalism. The article was protected after a sufficient number of incidences indicating that it should be. Pstoller (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Elvis is considered the biggest teen idol in history

According to people magazine and time magazine elvis was declared the biggest teen idol on history .please put that in the beginning

Elvis is considered the greatest teen idol of all time per people magazine and time magazine .

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1853419_1853382_1853376,00.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=people+magazine+biggest+teen+idols+cover&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dRaSUa7VMNTK4APyzYCAAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=444#biv=i%7C19%3Bd%7CZpXSY2srTQyT0M%3A

Thank you 76.222.86.76 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Time source you link doesn't say that Elvis was 'biggest teen idol on history' - instead hit places him 9th in a list. [11]. As for People Magazine, you haven't even provided a proper link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvis is considered the biggest teen idol in history

According to people magazine and time magazine elvis was declared the biggest teen idol on history .please put that in the beginning

Elvis is considered the greatest teen idol of all time per people magazine and time magazine .

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1853419_1853382_1853376,00.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=people+magazine+biggest+teen+idols+cover&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dRaSUa7VMNTK4APyzYCAAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=444#biv=i%7C19%3Bd%7CZpXSY2srTQyT0M%3A

http://www.people.com/people/archive/issue/0,,7566920727,00.html

The time rates the biggest teen idols backwards . Elvis was ranked number one solo and the beatles number one group at ten ( the higher the number , the bigger the rank )

Thank you

76.222.86.76 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have again failed to provide proper links to back up your assertions. Not that it matters - magazine popularity contests are ten-a-penny, and of no real journalistic merit. The article as it stands goes into great detail concerning Elvis's lasting popularity and significance, and adding material concerning magazine page-fillers would do nothing but trivialise the subject.

P.S. Please don't start a new section every time you post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvis is commonly known as king of Las Vegas

Please put that elvis is commonly known as King of Las Vegas " he is the only performer in hx to raise Vegas revunue 10 percent across the board http://www.vegas.com/elvis/

Thank you

71.234.118.65 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The USA is a republic. Elvis is dead. And Las Vegas travel websites are rarely seen as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is not a single reference on that web page to Elvis as the "King of Las Vegas." If he were commonly known by that title, Vegas.com would have used it. Pstoller (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This. And plus that's just a matter of opinion. No verified source either so no. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality of Article

Although this article has been a "featured article", it seems to inevitably drift back into a crude and disgusting gossip sheet, often quoting trash sources and nasty-spirited rumor mongers. The article's disrespectful and trashy tone is in sharp contrast to publications by his friends and co-workers who saw him as a true friend and respected arranger and performer. Unfortunately, there seems to be an endless supply of ignorant, mean-mouthed creeps turning up here to tear the man down using low-quality scandal sheets as "sources" - and that's a pity. Santamoly (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I think we should tidy this article up. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Before that happens, can you be specific about what sections of this article constitute "a crude and disgusting gossip sheet," and which quoted sources are "trash" and "nasty-spirited rumor mongers?" Surely you're not suggesting that the only sources for the article should be those offering unqualified praise. Pstoller (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pstoller. However, Santamoly has a well established history of criticizing this article, dismissing or ignoring comments from those who have bent over backwards to make this a featured Article. The irony is that those same editors worked beyond their patience and endurance to keep out the nasty-spirited and trashy content that a very small but persistent minority would have included. Many of those who are relatively new to this article would be angered and astonished at the kind of inappropriate edits that have been suggested. it amazes me that Sanatmoly can only complain about those editors who worked tirelessly to keep this article as neutral as it currently is.

I recall several times requesting Santamoly to be specific about what changes he thinks should be made, or to actually write suggested changes to text on these pages for discussion. I don't recall ever having any discussion with him about such specifics. Why is that? It seems clear Santamoly would rather see negative observations of Presley's life and career completely expunged from this article, rather than it fairly reflect the man and his life, with a few warts included. It's an encyclopedia, not a hagiography.

Perhaps BrothaTimothy and Lord Sjones23 would like to offer their suggestions. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Pstoller and Rikstar on this one. The article should be neutral, and fair, to both positive and negative aspects of Presley's life and career. I think it's quite obvious that his friends and co-workers would, for the most part, reflect on him in a more positive manner. However, I've also read/seen/heard many examples from his closest friends who spoke quite negatively on much of Presley's life and career. Presley was human, he wasn't perfect, and there is no way that he could possibly have lived up to the God-like image that some people wanted to project upon him and his memory. I don't agree that any article should be overly negative, but I also don't agree that any article should be overly positive. Balance is important, although it's not always easy to meet everyone's expectations of what is a fair balance and what is not. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. On second thought, forget it lol. Wikipedia's goal is not to be biased with its articles. I've run into a few articles' talk pages about that. It could break some rules as far as how the article is. You're right, Elvis surely wasn't perfect. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the points made by ElvisFan1981 and BrothaTimothy. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should explain the positive and negative aspects of Presley's life and career. Also, I think everyone should keep in mind of our neutral point of view policy and the subsection regarding undue weight when editing the article. After all, Presley was human. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"He has been inducted into multiple music halls of fame."

The last sentence from the lead: "He has been inducted into multiple music halls of fame."

• I suggest this should be improved by adding some detail to an otherwise vague assertion. Its my understanding that Elvis is the only person currently in the Country, R&B (maybe its Blues) and Rock halls of fame. Can anyone confirm this with an accepted WP:RS? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a good call. I'm looking for a source. I can confirm that he was inducted into the R&R HoF in 1986 (first year); the Country Music HoF in 1998; the Gospel HoF in 2001; the UK Music HoF in 2004 (first year); and the Rockabilly HoF in 2007. (This last was awarded ten years late because the Rockabilly HoF "didn't believe Graceland had the proper respect for our efforts.") Elvis.com states that Presley was the first person to have been inducted into the R&R, Country, and Gospel HoFs, but doesn't say if he's still the only one.

He has not been inducted into the Blues HoF, but he and Sam Phillips received a joint W. C. Handy Award in 1984 for "Keeping the Blues Alive in Rock 'n' Roll". He is not in the R&B HoF, which had its first round of inductions in 2013. Pstoller (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually Johnny Cash is the only other artist besides Elvis to be inducted to the R&R, country, rockabilly and gospel halls of fame. Cash also has extra recognition for inductions to both the national Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So, instead of:

He has been inducted into multiple music halls of fame.

perhaps:

He is one of only two artists (the other being Johnny Cash) to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Gospel Hall of Fame, and the Rockabilly Hall of Fame.

It's the lead, so it doesn't call for a citation. Thoughts? Pstoller (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but 1) if the "new" material isn't currently sourced in the article body, then it should not be included in the lead, and 2) "Presley was the first person to have been inducted into the R&R, Country, and Gospel HoFs" seems better than dragging in that piece of information about Cash; the lead should be Elvis-centric. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, both of y'all bring interesting points. I'm gonna have to think about this harder lol BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm flexible on the Cash datum; its certainly interesting enough, but I am correct that anything new that we add to the lead must first be added to the article body, which isn't a problem of course. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree about cutting the Cash datum; I put it in thinking that his name didn't belong in the lead. Either way, you're right that the statement should be sourced in the body; but, while the individual inductions are already sourced in the "Since 1977" section, the "first" and "one of only two" claims aren't, and I haven't yet seen a reliable source for either. (I have no doubt that both claims are true; I just haven't found anyone to quote.) Pstoller (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)