Talk:Elvis Presley/archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an Archive. Do not edit it. Use the main article talk page. Thank you.

Contents

Citations

Can we get some more [citation needed] tags added to this article? There's still a few paragraphs that are readable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.17.218 (talk • contribs)

New image

Elvis in 1957
Elvis in 1957

This image was recently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and appears to be free of copyright. It looks like a good candidate for the top image to me (we should use free images at the top where availiable). Arniep 22:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need another pictoral reminder of Presley's awful movies? ... comment added at 22:51, 17 May 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"
Since the article doesn't have a single pictorial reminder of Presley's awful movies, I think adding this would be a good idea, yes. If the page is judged too heavy (in bytes), one could drop one of the Presley-with-bimbo photos, or the uninteresting CD cover. -- Hoary 06:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Suicide

The article should explain that Presley overdosed on ten different drugs because he was going blind from glaucoma and feared he had bone cancer, plus the 10,000 drugs he had taken in 1977 alone had damaged his brain. It's a shame the autopsy report will not be published for some years to come. ... comment added at 22:51, 17 May 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

This is stunning stuff, Mr/Ms IP! "10,000 drugs" -- not, say, 9,825 or 10,226. Did Presley perhaps have a goal of reaching this nice round number? It's only a shame that the autopsy report will not be published for some years to come for those people who have a tabloidy interest in celebrity expiry. I don't care how Presley died and for a moment I thought that publication would be good as it would shut people up. But no -- after all, if the autopsy report were published tomorrow, it wouldn't silence people enthralled by the image (true or entire fiction) of Presley defecating his way to eternity: if they were proved right, they'd go on and on about it; if they weren't, they'd cry whitewash. So, Mr/Ms IP, lacking the autopsy report, where do your factoids come from? National Enquirer, perhaps? Marlon Brando? Eminem? -- Hoary 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's all factual and from the Internet Movie Database: "In 1977 alone, his personal physician Dr George Constantine Nichopoulos (usually referred to as "Dr Nick") had prescribed 10,000 hits of amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, laxatives, and hormones for Presley." ... comment added at 17:06, 30 May 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

Well, IP, I see a difference between "10,000 drugs" and "10,000 hits". Also, this is from an unsigned trivia list. Do you really believe that unsigned trivia lists at IMDb are reliable sources for information about what went on between a dead celeb and his doctor? -- Hoary 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think an online encyclopedia which anybody can edit is any more reliable? ... comment added at 20:09, 31 May 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

Is it more reliable? That depends on the article. Do I think that you have any interest in making this article more reliable? No I don't. Hoary 08:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm interested in seeing the truth told about Presley's sordid life and vastly overrated career. The very concept of an encyclopedia anybody can edit is stupid. ... comment added at 16:18, 1 June 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

Second biggest selling solo artist

Presley is actually the second biggest selling recording artist in history, after Michael Jackson, and the article should be corrected thus. The official Elvis website makes it clear they can only account for half a billion record sales worldwide, and it is believed that Crosby too may still be ahead of Presley. ... comment added by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

Mr/Ms IP, you might find this interesting. And what's the problem with "~~~~"? Can't locate it on the keyboard? -- Hoary 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, Mr/Ms IP, here is the relevant part of the article after it had been "corrected" by you: Presley remains the second best-selling solo artist in popular music history, after his son-in-law [[Michael Jackson]], according to the RIAA.<ref>RIAA, [http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/010804.asp Elvis Presley Now Best Selling Solo Artist In U.S. History] (January 8, 2004).</ref> As you might guess from the title of that reference, it does not say what you say it says. (Indeed, it doesn't even mention Jackson.) Frankly, I don't care whether "best-selling solo artist" was the king of big collars or the king of nose-jobs. I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that it was the latter: please present convincing evidence in an intelligent way. -- Hoary 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So, Mr/Ms IP, you now take the trouble to delete the reference when editing the page. You changed from an article saying one thing with (possibly inadequate or faulty) evidence to one saying something else with no evidence. How about providing some evidence? Incidentally, Presley fans (among whom I am not numbered) are likely to look askance at whatever evidence you do provide, so it would be wise to argue your point on this talk page. And remember, signing ("~~~~") is really easy. -- Hoary 10:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Presley's music, which he stole from black culture, sounds so unbelievably dated. Most teenagers have no idea who he was and would just laugh at his pathetic ruined career. Michael's music on the other hnad sounds like it was recorded yesterday. He has sold infinitely more records than Fat Man, and will launch an enormous comeback album at the end of 2007. ... contributed at 21:50, 22 May 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"

Interesting that you should say that, Mr/Ms IP. I too would have imagined that lots of teenagers wouldn't have any idea of who he was. But interestingly we read in this edit that Most black teenagers in America hate Presley because he was an evil racist who stole black music. The author of that comment? Why, that tireless contributor to this talk page 195.93.21.65! In order to hate him, wouldn't they have to know who he was? -- Hoary 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Presley is not the biggest selling solo artist

That spurious claim needs to be removed from the introduction, because both Michael Jackson and Bing Crosby have sold far more records, and that can be easily proven. Michael is the biggest selling solo artist in history, and Christmas continues to bring Bing ahead of Presley every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.67 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 June 2006

Please provide the evidence and I'm sure that someone will be happy to make the change! --ElKevbo 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. How about this:

category ---- Elvis Presley ----- Bing Crosby

weeks at #1 --------75 ----------------173

  1. top 30 hits -------85 ---------------- 383
  1. number 1 hits -----18 ---------------- 41

consecutive weeks at the #1 position ---16 (1956) --------- 23 (1944)

most songs in top 30 in one year -------10 (1956) --------- 27 (1939)

total points --------- 33,415 ------------125,899

acted in movies -----31 (no awards) ---- 60 (5 Academy Awards)

The ONLY thing Elvis fans can use is the fact that Elvis was awarded 51 gold or platinum records for recording sales, as compared to only 23 for Bing. However, the RCA did not begin certifying gold records until 1958. Who knows how many hundreds of unofficial gold and platinum records Bing would therefore qualify for? Bing was only available on 78s, yet he consistently sold far more than Presley when people had considerably less money to spend. "White Christmas" was the biggest selling single for 55 years, from 1942 until 1997. He was the first recipient of the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, and was the biggest selling recording artist in history until the early 1980s, when Michael Jackson began to take over. More information can be found at http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/mus.htm. Bing Crosby, during the 1930s and 1940s, was more popular than Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Michael Jackson COMBINED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.65 (talk • contribs)

While poorly edited, that page is quite interesting. -- Hoary 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in intro

The introduction claims Presley is the biggest selling solo artist. This is in fact a complete falsehood, as both Bing Crosby and Michael Jackson have sold far more records worldwide. The spurious claim about Presley's sales needs to be removed immediately. (195.93.21.67 07:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

The claims in the page mentioned above are interesting. But they don't mention Jackson. -- Hoary 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if Michael isn't the biggest selling solo artist, he has only released 5 albums. Elvis released like 500 and is not definitely the biggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.65 (talk • contribs)

Mr/Ms IP, I thought you'd discovered where the "~" was. If you've forgotten the trick, a reminder: just hit the key four times in a row, OK?
So you're saying that it's Crosby 1, Presley 2, Jackson 3?
Incidentally, my impression of the page that you cite is that the meat of it comes from Billboard. This not-so-fascinating article gives the impression that its ratings are now based sales in places that use some electronic gizmo (where they're based on sales at all), and that they used to be based on sales within the US. Another problem is that this is a contentious matter -- not that I personally give a damn either way -- and that the Billboard info is, or factoids are, presented on a personal site.
The Presley article now cites a source that is very likely to be biased as saying that "It is estimated that Elvis Presley has sold over one billion record units worldwide" -- estimated by whom? How reliably? Published where? So I'd agree that the article is crappy here. Perhaps somebody can cite a credible source. -- Hoary 10:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Elvis's sexual ambivalence

There should be a paragraph on Elvis's sexual ambivalence in the article, as it is subject of several peer-reviewed studies.

  • On page 553 of their book, Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook (2004), Joyce H. Lowinson, Pedro Ruiz, Robert B. Millman and John G. Langrod mention the "idealization of Elvis as an androgynous culture hero."
  • On p.229 of her study, Listening To The Sirens: Musical Technologies of Queer Identity from Homer to Hedwig (University of California Press, 2005), Judith Ann Peraino says, "Beginning with the mascara and pompadours of Little Richard and Elvis Presley in the 1950s, rock musicians have long presented themselves as conundrums of race and gender for adolescent contemplation."
  • According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community". (p.20)
  • When talking about the "antagonism of males to females' idols" and stars such as Rudolph Valentino and "Johnnie Ray (who also had homosexual connections)", Darden Asbury Pyron, in his book Liberace: An American Boy (University of Chicago Press, 2001), adds that Elvis Presley "possessed a certain early reputation as a sissy." (p.448)

There are many more academic studies of this kind. Onefortyone 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's lucky Presley overdosed in 1977, otherwise he would have died of AIDS along with his friend Liberace. Then there would be no fascination with the dead racist loser. ... contributed at 04:09, 25 May 2006 2006 by 195.93.21.65, a frequent contributor to this talk page who has been repeatedly and politely asked to sign his or her contributions with "~~~~"
Mr/Ms IP, I think we all know by now that you believe that Presley was a racist (for which you provide no proof) who "stole" black music (for which you provide no proof) and that he sold fewer records than Michael Jackson (for which you provide no proof) and that he died while on the john (for which, etc.), took some staggeringly large and round number of drugs, and was in every conceivable way utterly disgusting. Thank you. We got the message. Now please either (a) go away, or (b) say something that's both intelligent (yes, I'm open to evidence that, for example, Jackson sold more records than Presley) and signed ("~~~~"). -- Hoary 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SEE NEXT: Talk:Elvis Presley/archive13