Difference between revisions of "Talk:Elvis Presley"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(citations)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
::I read this and it looked like the work of a liberal parodist. -[[User:MejiaS|MejiaS]] 19:39, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 
::I read this and it looked like the work of a liberal parodist. -[[User:MejiaS|MejiaS]] 19:39, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
 +
==Citations==
 +
Ideally this article should use in-line citations. I'm refraining from using a template since I know it's currently being worked on - but something to keep in mind.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:13, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:13, July 22, 2011

! This article or part thereof was copied from Hitparadehalloffame.org but the copied text was originally written by me, User:Usmale, (under the name John Rook) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png

This is a bizarre entry. Not a single source is cited, and several of the claims seem doubtful. For instance, his high school is described as liberal and atheistic, which seems unlikely for a Tennessee high school in the 1950s. Also, I disagree with the assumption that he must have been an atheist because he became hooked on drugs and was driven a bit crazy by fame. He recorded a number of gospel songs, which doesn't necessarily prove he was a Christian, but does reveal the influence of Southern Christian culture in his life. The fact that he had personal demons doesn't merit such an attack on him, especially without any backing evidence. Labeling Sun Records as "liberal" -- I can't figure out what that means based on what I know about the company -- shows the weird hostility toward Presley in this article. I plan to revamp this entry. I own a couple of books on him, and I'm sure there's a bevy of online news articles about him. The King deserves better. EthanR, May 13, 2011

The user who made those edits - which also included obsolete and offensive language - was blocked, but it appears this edit of hers wasn't reverted. I've reverted her now. I also fixed the formatting just a little, but you're definitely welcome and encouraged to work on it!--IDuan 19:37, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
I read this and it looked like the work of a liberal parodist. -MejiaS 19:39, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Citations

Ideally this article should use in-line citations. I'm refraining from using a template since I know it's currently being worked on - but something to keep in mind.--IDuan 11:13, 22 July 2011 (EDT)