Jump to content

Talk:Elvis Presley: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jaye9 (talk | contribs)
Line 174: Line 174:


So, was he circumcised or not?--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
So, was he circumcised or not?--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


They say not,and in saying that,does in no way prove that he was Jewish,more to do with the times.--[[User:Jaye9|Jaye9]] ([[User talk:Jaye9|talk]]) 00:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:40, 23 October 2010

Template:VA

Featured articleElvis Presley is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 0007Good article nomineeListed
November 25, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 30, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 23, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

Why rumour racism?

It sickens me that this Wikipedia-page pays attention to the rumour that Elvis was racist. It's a RUMOUR and not a fact, and Wikipedia is about facts. The rumour is nonsense and not important.IGG8998 —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't a rumor; it's an opinion published by two reliable sources. Unless you can provide an opposing opinion, from a reliable source on the matter, I suggest you just abandon this, because nothing is going to change otherwise.— dαlus Contribs 22:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed at length all before,as to why it is important to mention this in the main article on Elvis Presley. If you don't believe it should be included,then ask yourself this questions. Why is it then,that well respected Elvis Presley biographer Peter Guralnich deemed it necessary to write a whole article,about this very subject?--Jaye9 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than a rumor. It's trashy second-hand gossip. There's been ample sources refuting this nasty piece of gossip, but the sleaze-mongers at the helm have opted to stay with the gossip, thereby perpetuating the low quality of what should be a high-quality article. It's on a par with the obsession with Elvis' last moments on the toilet just before he died. As every lawyer knows, it's impossible to prove that someone is NOT a racist, and this depraved nonsense will continue to have legs (regardless of it being total rubbish) as long as this article supports it. Santamoly (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of the article's content is both exhaustingly intemperate and wildly inaccurate. The article makes clear that Presley was not, in fact, a racist. The article in no way "stays with the gossip"; it addresses a significant belief about Presley that has been widespread and plainly refutes it. Finally, you are evidently much more obsessed with "Elvis' last moments on the toilet" than the article itself is.—DCGeist (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be unaware of the brouhaha a few months back when a truly obsessed editor drove the other editors to distraction with that issue, i.e about "the King died on the throne" and all that. As regards the racism story, if the article basically reports and then refutes the rumor, that might be better than being silent on the matter and letting people wonder. (The idea of Elvis being racist is absurd, but there's no accounting for the ideas of rumor-mongers.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue which could be addressed is the rather misleading section title "Racial issues." The mere existence of the section may lead some to conclude "smoke = fire." Is there a way to deprecate the possibility that someone will actually believe this stuff? And the rap quote at the end is promotional for the singer - but is not directly relevant to the human Elvis. This is not a BLP, and all sorts of stuff are "fair game" but I rather think "fair game" is a poor excuse in an encyclopedia which does not wish to perpetuate falsity. Collect (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a more to-the-point section header, such as "false rumors"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point about the section title, since issues can sometimes connote only the negative problems rather than the more general matters the section in fact covers; though right now I'm exhausted and can only come up with Respect from blacks and accusations from whites. PL290 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And hard to kill

"So why didn't the remor die? Why did it continue to find common acceptance up to,and past,the point that Chuck D of Public Enemy would declare in 1990,"Elvis was a hero to most... Straight-up racist that sucker was,simple and plain.

Chuck D has long since respudiated that view for a more nuanced one,but the unassailable logic behind its common acceptance within the black community rests quite simply on the social inequities that have persisted to this day,the fact that we live in a society that is no more perfectly democratic today that it was 50 years ago". Source: part of article by Peter Guralnick featured in the New York Times

What does intrigue with this rumor that has attached itself to someone like Presley and not Jerry Lee Lewis for example,is somewhat of a mystery. Not taking anything away from Lewis at all,he is one of the greats. But wasn't there a famous quote made by Lewis back in the 50's,during a concert where he set his piano alight and had stated to Chuck Berry,"follow that nigger". Elvis never publicly said anything like that. Why is it then,that certain rappers,went after Presley and not Lewis. Interesting!--Jaye9 (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence that the "shoe shine" story may be true

It has been claimed that Elvis never said such things against black people. But are these claims true? Gilbert B. Rodman, Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996) writes (p.36):

Chicago Reader music critic Bill Wyman reports hearing a variant of the "shoe shine" story (one in which Elvis said something along the lines of "I wouldn't even let niggers shine my shoes") from an African-American woman who first heard the tale around 1956...

According to Dan Heilman

Marcus points out that Guralnick apparently "wasted six weeks trying to track this statement down and find out if he could make a chain going back to Elvis, and he wasn't able to."

But Greil Marcus also says,

It's very possible [Elvis] could have said that. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that he did. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who believe it. Believe me, Vernon Reid [of Living Colour] has heard that story. Spike Lee has heard that story. Chuck D [of Public Enemy] has heard that story. I don't criticize them for believing it, because that's a big thing. That's a big rock to get over.

See Rodman, p. 37. However, there is indeed some evidence that Elvis actually said it. According to Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995), p.257, there was a black waiter from Chattanooga who heard the words.

His name was Willie, and he said he was standing about three people away from Elvis at the Patton Hotel in the fifties, and he overheard Elvis say, "All a nigger can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes."

Even the boys from the Memphis Mafia

heard Elvis use the term 'nigger' maybe once or twice, but never directly to anybody. And as a rule, he didn’t use it. You also have to consider the times. When his daughter was little, we were talking about this one time and he said he'd be damned if Lisa Marie married a black man.

I also did some further research. Michael T. Bertrand, Race, Rock, and Elvis (University of Illinois Press, 2000) writes:

There are several reasons why no subject associated with Presley causes greater controversy and conflict than that of race. He was, after all, a white performer whose financial success rested upon the songs and styles of black artists historically excluded from the popular music marketplace. Second, he hailed from the former slave-holding and segregated South. Third, he belonged to a white working class traditionally antagonistic to its African American counterpart. Fourth, upon achieving affluence, he purchased an antebellum-style mansion in Memphis that to many recalled the Old South as represented in Gone with the Wind. Fifth, he associated with racially conservative politicians such as George Wallace and Richard Nixon. Finally, he presumably uttered a racial slur on at least one public occasion during his career. (p.26)
As the bearer of too many painful images and memories, Presley has become a symbol of all that was oppressive to the black experience in the Western Hemisphere. (p.27)
Many have almost systematically insisted that Presley, "looking the part of a hillbilly racist," generated nothing but distrust within the black community. A black southerner in the late 1980s captured that sentiment: "To talk to Presley about blacks was like talking to Adolph Hitler about the Jews." One journalist wrote upon the singer's death that African Americans refused to participate in the numerous eulogies dedicated to him. (p.200)

It was claimed that Presley had either made his racist comment in Boston or on Edward R. Murrow's Person to Person. (p.221) The author adds on p.222:

A southern background combined with a performing style largely associated with African Americans had let to "bitter criticism by those who feel he stole a good thing," as Tan [magazine] surmised. So, too, did Jet.

Although Bertrand also asserts that the racial aspersion was fabricated and appeared nothing more than "the natural result of [Presley's] success, coupled with his Mississippi birthplace" and further says that "the offending statement passed into fact," the author seems to be unaware of the witness Alanna Nash has cited. I think the paragraph must be rewritten because there is some evidence that the "shoe shine" story may be true, even if Elvis later denied it. Onefortyone (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know the deal: the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is not some evidence that makes an editor think something may be true, but verifiability. Same as for the ancestry: whatever the reliable sources say, we say here. PL290 (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you said above, "whatever the reliable sources say, we say here." According to a reliable source, Alanna Nash, Elvis Aaron Presley: Revelations from the Memphis Mafia (1995), p.257, there was a black waiter from Chattanooga named Willie who said "he was standing about three people away from Elvis at the Patton Hotel in the fifties, and he overheard Elvis say, 'All a nigger can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes.' " This is a clear statement. As authors who believe that this story isn't true are already cited in the article, this source should also be mentioned, especially in view of the fact that the testimony of a witness is presented by Nash and some of the other sources claim that there is no witness. Furthermore, according to Elvis expert, Greil Marcus, there are a lot of people who believe the story: Vernon Reid [of Living Colour] has heard that story. Spike Lee has heard that story. Chuck D [of Public Enemy] has heard that story. Wikipedia reports what the sources say, the reader may decide. Onefortyone (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL290,what you stated above is so very true and you explained this so clearly, with so very few words,you have a gift. I on the other hand, tend to ramble on abit to get my point across,that's just me I'm afraid. So please,could you just bear with me,while I point out to and others about an interesring article I found about rumors and how they can stick to an entertainer and be quite distructive in there on way. This particular rumor I believe was the reason why Elvis couldn't go to Mexico for his Movie "Fun In Acupulco",because of death threats.

"May 1959: While Elvis Presley's popularity in the U.S. was arguabley at it's all time peak,Mexico was in the midst of a huge anti-Elvis backlash.

Tijuana tabliods called him a racist and homosexual,after the singer reportedly told gossip columnist Federrico de Leon "I'd rather kiss three black girls than a mexican".-(part)

"The book "Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexian Counterculture" (Berkeley: University of California Press,c1999)claims the original Elvis quote was fabricated. According to author Eric Zalov,"Herbe Pompeyo of Polygram Records in Mexico City claims that a high up Mexican political figure wanted to contract Presley for a private party,for which he sent the performer a blank check to fill in as he wanted. Presley,according to the story,returned the check,so the politico extremely offended,invented the storyline about Elvis not liking Mexian women."

My point I'm trying to make here,is what starts these rumors in the first place and if the above be any indication to this fact, then it clearing is an insight,that these rumors have nothing to do with the subject at hand.--Jaye9 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rodman, Chicago Reader music critic Bill Wyman reports hearing a variant of the "shoe shine" story (one in which Elvis said something along the lines of "I wouldn't even let niggers shine my shoes") from an African-American woman who first heard the tale around 1956. So the story seems to be from the mid-50s, not from 1959. However, it is interesting that in 1959 Mexico was in the midst of a huge anti-Elvis backlash and that the singer reportedly told gossip columnist Federrico de Leon, "I'd rather kiss three black girls than a mexican". This may also be mentioned in the article, as it supports the view that Elvis occasionally made racist statements. Onefortyone (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Lefty77, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Category entry: American Baritones on the Elvis Presley page should be removed. Replace with American Tenors or just removed.

Elvis Presley was a tenor that could sing a high B. I can give references if needed. Thanks.


Lefty77 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Elvis has been described as both a baritone and a tenor. This has been discussed in the past on this talk page. Use the archive search bar to see the previous discussions regarding this matter. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cutting of Elvis's hair.

I was about ten years old living in Las Vegas, Nevada when I saw Elvis on the first Ed Sullivan show appearance. The next day at school everyone was talking about Elvis all the kids and even the teachers. We kids knew he was the symbol of something new under the sun A Natural youth undiluted and unspoiled. Elvis was our symbol of glorious wild freedom. He was sexy and uninhibited and we got the message. Then he got drafted and they cut his hair off. When we saw that we realized our Samson was defeated. We knew it in our bones. The Elvis after that was but a shadow of the champion he had been and his career after the army is the proof we were right. Let me see you verify that in your encyclopedia for it is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.8.209 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't gonna happen. You can't demand that verification of merely personal observations should form an encyclopedic article. But people can read the existing article and make up their own minds about the course Presley's career took — and whether that pesky barber had anything to do with it. If you do agree with John Lennon that Presley "died" when he got called up, don't forget to ignore awkward facts, like he had his biggest chart album, had his highest grossing movie and had all his Grammy award-winning achievements — all after his hair hit the floor. And the '68 special was hardly his worst TV/live performance... :) Rikstar409 19:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ancestry

This has been discussed before - but most of the discussion seems to have been about relevance, not accuracy. Having looked at references on this, the only source for the claim that Presley's matrilineal great-great-grandmother, Nancy Burdine, was Jewish - was Oscar Tackitt, a third cousin of Elvis who is quoted in Elaine Dundy's book (cited in the article). It also appears that Oscar Tackitt is the only source for the existence of this Nancy Burdine in the first place, and that there is no genealogical evidence that she ever existed (much less that she was Jewish). The Tacket Family Association studies the Tackett/Tackitt genealogy and is run by Jim W. Tickett - on one of the Association's guestbook pages, Tackett states: "one researcher has given an unsubstantiated claim that Abner had a wife named NANCY [or Sarah] BURDINE - and this undocumented claim has made its way into the also otherwise erroneous lineages found in the LDS, Ancestry & Family Tree Maker files. Although we have evidence for two wives for Abner H. Tackitt, there is no evidence that such a person as NANCY J. BURDINE ever existed, and there is some doubt that MARTHA TACKETT was a blood dau. of ABNER H. TACKITT. " (Jim Tackitt also makes a similar statement here). So, it appears that this whole story has grown from one unverified claim into a whole internet phenomenon, juding by the number of Google hits. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article prefaces the information with, "According to family accounts ...". As you have noted, that accurately reflects the known reliable sources on the matter. Basing the article on anything else would constitute original research. PL290 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research because I'm not advocating for anything to actually be included in the article, only excluded from it. I think this information would have been interesting had it been true, and I would have wanted it to be included - but since it's almost certainly not true, what's the point of keeping it? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"According to family accounts, one of Gladys's great-grandmothers was Jewish" does not specify that that great-grandmother was in the direct maternal line that would make Gladys Jewish or a paternal line that would not pass on Jewishness. The whole "Elvis is Jewish" issue seems like trivia that does not belong in an article of this quality. One thing I do think should be removed is category:American people of Jewish descent as the most that could be said is that there is only 1 chance in 4 that Elvis is of Jewish descent - it is not a certainty. 67.41.79.158 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point that category:American people of Jewish descent is inappropriate. I've removed it. PL290 (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! This explains the sequined yarmulke he always wore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots12:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I remove that part of the text about him being of Jewish ancestry? Like I said, if it was true and verified, I would be all for it being in the article (as I recall, I once even commented on this page in support of it staying in the text). But since genealogical evidence points to it being false, I don't see the point of keeping the story alive. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zap it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe we should keep it. The notion that Presley was part-Jewish comes up frequently in popular discourse--the cursory and properly sourced way we deal with it here is appropriate. Take it out, and we're bound to have people regularly putting in weakly sourced and broader claims that he was Jewish. If we completely ignore the topic, we haven't done our job. DocKino (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there are a lot of random false claims about a number of people - it doesn't necessarily mean they should somehow be addressed in their Wikipedia article. In fact, many such false claims die out over time if they're not repeated in places like Wikipedia. This particular aspect of Presley seems minor enough that it doesn't warrant a mention (especially since the mention isn't really quite accurate; "family accounts" implies to me that it was widely believed among Presley's close family that they are part Jewish - yet there's no evidence this was the case; Oscar Tackett was just a third cousin, and based on things I've read about him, he wasn't exactly a reliable source). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Jewish Desk Reference (1999) by the American Jewish Historical Society is the first all-encompassing reference to Jewish life in the United States, from 1654 to the present. This authoritative reference of nearly 900 entries covers all aspects of America's lively and influential Jewish culture. It says on p. 128, "Shortly before he became the King of Rock and Roll, a teenaged Elvis Presley was the Shabbos goy for his upstairs neighbor, the local rabbi in the Jewish section of Memphis, Tennessee." Onefortyone (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question concerns only his distant ancestry (one of his mother's great-grandmothers) so his own beliefs and practices don't come into play here. The arguments presented here against the family accounts remain original research (though of course if a credible source were to call the family accounts into question, a mention, attributed to the originator of such a view, would be appropriate). And we have no reason to doubt the phrase family accounts unless, again, a credible source is cited that tells us some of the family disputed Tackett's account. I remain of the opinion that the current presentation—"According to family accounts, one of Gladys's great-grandmothers was Jewish", does the required job well. Also, as now additionally noted, if we remove the information, the addition of less satisfactory alternatives is likely to become a regular phenomenon. For all these reasons, I believe it should remain as it is, although "According to a cousin" would be okay too. PL290 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar Tackett wasn't a cousin, he was a third cousin. This isn't exactly a close family member, is it? And he was the only person ever to make this claim, or to assert the existence of a Nancy Burdine as Elvis' ancestor. Research by the Tackett Family Association (see above) disputes that Nancy Burdine was Martha Tackett's mother or that Elvis' great-great-grandfather was ever married to anyone named "Burdine". I'd say genealogical research is more reliable than a third cousin. And again, there's no obligation to mention this in the article at all - why do so when it doesn't look like it was true? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, was he circumcised or not?--andreasegde (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


They say not,and in saying that,does in no way prove that he was Jewish,more to do with the times.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]