Talk:Lisa Marie Presley/Archive 1

PICTURE?!?!

i added a photo of LMP and gave the source, date, and location. but Realist2 keeps deleting it and there is no photo! can anyone stop him from taking photos off?

First of all please sign your posts in talk pages by addig four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Second... as Realist2 said in his summary, the image still seems to infringe copyrights. So it is not suitable for use in the wikipedia. Sorry.--Legion fi (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive reported the matter to the admin noticeboard. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the picture comes from wireimage.com, which states in its terms and conditions:

This Site is owned by WireImage. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the content featured or displayed on this Site, including, but not limited to, text, graphics, data, photographic images, moving images, sound, illustrations, software, and the selection and arrangement thereof (“WireImage Content”), is owned by WireImage, its parent company, affiliates, licensors, or third-party image partners.

All elements of the Site, including the WireImage Content, are protected by copyright, trade dress, moral rights, trademark and other laws relating to the protection of intellectual property.

(emphasis added)
I hope this helps clear up the matter. Player 03 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. The image is clearly copyrighted. No discussion. --Legion fi (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor violated 3RR about 4 times, if it is re added again "good faith" can go out the window. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This section was replaced by the above poster, 74.61.232.95. I restored it manually to keep all of the information. Player 03 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Naked Gun?

No mention of her appearences in the Naked Gun movies? I think those would be worthwhile to include.

That was her mother, Priscilla. --Clay Collier 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I've removed an unsourced claim about drug use. Since she says she didn't use drugs and there's no evidence of a drug conviction, the statement violated WP:BLP. Durova 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

She has never once denied her drug use, I'm not sure if she has talked about it in the last few years, but she has in the past.

Kung Fu Black belt?!!!

"She has a black belt in kung fu fighting. " I removed that line from Trivia.There is no such thing as black belt for kung fu fighters, thats Karate or judo.

193.220.17.250 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)MAs

What is the "Tennessee Tide" single listed for 2007?

Under singles what verification is there for "Tennessee Tide" for 2007? Tennessean 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Tennessean

Oprah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She's family of Oprah Winfree

Drug use mentioned in first paragraph??

Is that really necessary? I'm going to move it to later in the article in a few days if nobody objects. Really, it's not the first thing I think of when I think of Lisa Marie Presley - "Oh yea! The girl who got expelled from Unnamed Boarding School for drug use!"

nah first thing most people think is, "oh that batshit insane Scientologist, with no talent living of her fathers fame", but they wouldn't let me put that in the intro.77.99.150.12 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pregnant?

She was wearing an empire waist, and looking a little plump on the Oprah show today (Oct 2007).

LMP was was pregnant but miscarried shortly after that show. LMP was again pregnant by mid February 2008 with twins.JGG59 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks keep reinserting statement that she has announced she is expecting twins. She has not announced this - she announced that she is pregnant. The twins story has been reported by Star magazine - a tabloid, and that certainly didn't contain any announcement from her. Please provide reference (and a reliable one) before reinserting. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the tabloid was right. Imagine LMP is having twins and all reported in tabloids.69.22.232.130 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The point being who determines a valid source. I have seen legitimate news sources make huge mistakes. And please do not remove, not good Wiki behavior. 66.108.111.112 (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing this text, in the past I have put in the article with references, LMP was having twins and you removed since you felt it was not reliable. I try to discuss, but you removed it. This is a discussion about LMP article. You are very dismissive and arrogant.66.108.111.112 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriages

A user keep amending the article with wishful thinking about LMP and MJ. Removing facts about thier break up. Presley stated in interview after interview she did not see him the last six months of thier marriage. Also in divorce papers. The user keeps making connections in other articles and making links, making it sound as if the article is about Mr. Jackson. Its has been over a decade since the divorce LMP life has very little if anything do do with MJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.75.49 (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MJ

I agree a user keeps adding references and links to MJ through out LMP artical. She seem to think LMP and MJ are still seeing each other? What can we to to stop her from removing information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree

What is her issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.156.146 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop posting lies

Lisa has NEVER once said she did not see Michael Jackson in their last 6 months of marriage, show me where she supposedly said it, and I'll show you this is proven by pictures & video of them together in their last 6 months. The only thing like that she has ever mentioned is they got into a fight once and he left her for 6 WEEKS, which was not at the end of their marriage. The divorce papers do not say a thing but the standard "irreconcilable differences". I also do not keep adding links to Michael Jackson. 24.36.249.148 04:26 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Oprah interview, Check out the Diana Sawyer interview. Mind you I not saying Jackson was wrong or bad. Presley states she did not see Mr Jackson the last six months of thier marriage. It is stated in the press many times, this a biography in an Encyclopedia neutral points of view.The situation contributed to the collapse of thier marraige. Not right or wrong just what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.232.156 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the Oprah & Diane Sawyer interviews, she does NOT say this. I know the page is supposed to be neutral, that is why I delete the false statement, and replace it was an actual fact. The baby issue was the main reason for the failure of the marriage. Here is proof they saw eachother the last 6 months. - Sept '95, MTV Awards, - Oct '95 BET HOF in D.C. then to Memphis Zoo, - Thanksgiving '95 (not a public appearance but the chef who made their food gave an interview about 10 years ago) - Dec '95 NY Hospital for 4 days, the separation came on the last day, Dec 10/95 24.36.249.148 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sorry. I agree whoever keeps posting that Michael and Lisa didn't see each other for 6 months towards the end of the marriage is wrong. Point of fact Michael and Lisa were at the 1995 MTV VMA Awards and this was less than 6 months before the divorce. As someone else said there are pictures to prove that they were together so I think someone is getting confused with when Lisa mentioned in her Oprah interview last year about when Michael and Lisa took like a month apart from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.23.206 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Please leave your bias at the door. You have a Micheal Jackson centric view point and have inserted his name in other articles. I have followed this article. JGG59 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

A user keeps entering unsupported claims of ongoing romantic relationship with MJ. This ia article on LMP not Michael Jackson.66.108.3.236 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Lisa having an on and off relationship with Michael for 4 years after their divorce is no longer an unsupported claim. Lisa said it herself in her Oprah interview last year but I agree it isn't relevant to this article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.23.206 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote on MJ

I restored the actual quote from people website. When you remove the Quote it is out of context. It is fully explain she -LMP- later she recanted the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.106.248 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

misleading

[1] Your edit has already been reverted previously by an admin. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

From AN/I

In response to this:

Okay, the sentence about the last six months of their marriage should be removed unless sourced. To put the article into Category:Michael Jackson, I don't know. There's no standard for that. I suggest that be discussed until a consensus is reached. Now, for the removed additions, I believe that yes, this is the article on Lisa, not Michael, but the addition is relevant save perhaps "In one phone call he made to her, she described him as high, incoherent and delusional." I would remove that, but the rest seems appropriate to me to detail their marriage and their relationship leading up to it. This brings the previous point of the potentially misleading quote. I believe it was being used out of context in the previous use, as the source did not support the claim that she's referring to child abuse, therefore, as it is included in the above addition, it is in context and appropriate. To suggest otherwise is a BLP-violation. I have not yet looked into the image issue, however, I will look into that now and if I find issues with the copyright, I will delete any WP image or request it on Commons. Additionally, I will warn the users appropriately.

The part noted in the above addition, I believe, should stay, as it gives context to their relationship leading up to their marriage, and her role as his support during the child abuse allegations is significant. I believe how and when he proposed is also significant and should be included. The sentence about "Idiot" needs a source to be included, though it's not of much relevance. Everything else is a matter of verification in the sources and there are minor changes, such as in tense in the first change and a difference in a year further down. LaraLove|Talk 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "High, incoherent" sentance per your suggestion. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

someone keeps changing the divorce dates from 2004 to 2003 when the source from the people website clearly says that they were divorced on may 26, 2004.

random MJ info

someone keeps writing long paragraphs about phone conversations they had and saying that MJ had a drug problem. there is no link to the source given. i am not the first person to attempt removing this information, but the writer continues to put it back on. any way to keep this from being edited over and over again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-x3 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a book, there are no links. But books are considered more reliable on wikipedia than web links. Also if you look above you will see that an admin, lara love, already said the content was fine.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 07:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

the article is not about MJ. if how he proposed and quotes from their phone conversations are so important, why is there 3x as much written about MJ than there is about her other husbands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-x3 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because no1 has any books or details about her other partners, we need to expand these parts too. Help find sources and build up the other areas of the article.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No MJ info is getting deleted

my edit was undone for no specific reason. i consider the yahoo biography on her pretty reliable. it uses the same wording as written in the wiki article, so please read it before you undo another edit. thank you! btw, i dont know how to use talk pages for users so im writing it here

You are adding information that goes against our policy on WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP.— Realist² 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the quote gives a clear understanding of how Presley was feeling not negaitve or positive. Jackson has been quoted about his perspective why not Presley? Makes the article a little more interesting.74.73.176.161 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of baby names

I've not found a source documenting the origin of her kids names, but Harper and Finley seem an allusion to the main actors in Phantom of the Paradise. Has anyone found documentation to that effect? --Kneague (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I read up on your theory seems very plausible, now to get it down in a quote from either parent.74.73.176.161 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You Are Not Alone Video

In this video they talk, laugh and touch but they don't huge and kiss. --X7000matrix (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the information was remove was: it was a quote from a referenced source.JGG59 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley says Michael knew

Should me mention something about this? http://www.cygy.com/2009/06/lisa-marie-presley-says-michael-jackson.html 70.68.139.248 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Princess of R&R

Is this really such a relevant fact to be right there at the front of the article? i would think mentioning it should only be in conjunction with her father, and not in reference to her music career. it appears to predate her music career a bit, and having it here at the front makes it appear that she has received accolades that justify the phrase musically, which i dont believe she has. I for one never heard this phrase used. And, it links to a list of honorifics where she is not listed. this link should be removed or her name added there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually LMP is listed and referenced on both pages.JGG59 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley name was removed after vandalism on the List of honorific titles in popular music and referenced.66.108.95.79 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Performance at 25th anniversary concert

"Eight months before the album's release, Presley performed "Nobody Noticed It" at the 25th Anniversary Elvis concert. The song, which was featured on the album, was written as a tribute to her father." If this is referring to the Elvis: The Concert show at the Pyramid Theater in Memphis during Elvis Week 2002, she didn't actually perform the song (I was there). She introduced it, then the recorded song was played over the speakers while the lyrics were projected onto a screen. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find another source to back this up, but I thought I should say something anyway. Jenavira (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Elvis' vs Elvis's

The correct term is Elvis's. Apostrophes without (s) at the end only occur to signify plurality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.0.233 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect about apostrophes indicating plurality. Elvis' or Elvis's can be correct for possessive. See Apostrophe. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Years active...

I see there has been a bit of dispute, and I would like to add an opinion. The article already states she began recording long before 2003. I do believe the year LMP was known to begin performing publicly and/or recording should be listed as the first year as years active. Just because she didn't have a recording contract before 2003 doesn't mean she was not working actively as a singer. See what I mean? Because there have been problems with IP edits, I am going to leave this alone for now, unless I get a chance to edit from home where I can log in (cannot at work). Trista (user Triste Tierra) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RIAA Gold and Platinum Certifications

For some reason, these certifications are constantly falsified on Wikipedia pages. The information here is very wrong. According to RIAA, accessed on Saturday, June 26, 2010, her first album went Gold. The second one didn't receive any certifications. This would, of course, mean that neither one went platinum. I would also question whether her second album debuted in the top ten, but I can't find that info on the RIAA site. I do know that it didn't have much presense on radio or store shelves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.14.30 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

MJ quote too long

The page looks weird with three to four paragraphs about an 18-month marriage to Michael Jackson, but only a few sentences about her marriages to Danny Keough and Michael Lockwood, the fathers of her children! The MJ section needs to be trimmed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.18.83 (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Storm or Presley?

This article and several pages on the Internet say Benjamin Keough's middle name is Storm, but many other pages claim it's Presley ... Dugnad (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would include it under personal life with references!JGG59 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality?

I was reading an article on AfterEllen and it said that "Others, like Alanis Morrisette, Lisa Marie Presley, and former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell have acknowledged previous relationships with women, but are quick to place these firmly in the past. Presley even went so far as to say on The Howard Stern Show in April 2003 that although she could have a relationship with a woman again, she tries to keep that impulse in check." Should we include something like this in the article? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would include it under personal life with references!JGG59 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Date error

There's a date error in here. She was separated from Keough in 1996 and divorced in 1994? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.175.130 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My changes are being reverted.

Why are my changes being reverted, I am posting information that I have seen like everyone else and posting valid sources to back up what I am saying so can someone explain to me why they are being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 October 2011

On Wikipedia, we have strict policies concerning articles about living people. These policies are in place to protect Wikipedia from possible legal action regarding anything that might be untrue. This means that anything that you add to an article about a living person must be backed up with highly reliable sources, and if it's not, it must be immediately removed. In the article, you used YouTube as one of your sources; unfortunately, YouTube is not considered a reliable source as its content is not scrutinized for accuracy. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page procedure

Use "new section" to create a new topic. Then someone might reply (as done above). To make a further comment, please click "edit" to the right of the heading of the current section (that is, there is no need to click "new section" again). See WP:TP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Youtube

The youtube video specifically shows what I am referring to in the works of the people involved. And what happens to the rest of my edits, my sources are not youtube and I gave valid links so why are those being taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, the video shows a clip from Entertainment Tonight (their logo is pretty obvious), but it doesn't look like it was uploaded by the ET staff themselves. This means that it's a copyright violation, and it wouldn't look good on Wikipedia if we sourced our material from an illegally uploaded video. (This page has some helpful guidelines on using YouTube videos as a source for your material.)

Second, the other sources that you cited aren't reliable. A couple of your sources are from a Lisa Marie Presley fan site. Fan sites don't typically have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see this page for more information on what constitutes a verifiable source). The other sources you cited are Amazon product pages -- these shouldn't be used as sources themselves; rather, you should cite the book itself, and only if the book was fact-checked and accurate.

Please, before you continue, please read our pages on biographies of living persons, reliable sources, and verifiability to make sure that the information you add is as accurate as possible. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 08:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the excellent answers given by Mikaey, it would be worth noting that as well as being accurate, information must be verifiable (reliably sourced, see WP:V). Also, text must be encyclopedic, so talk about rumors is almost certainly inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignore.

ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was my change reverted again?

I don't get it, I took out all the YT and rumors and had only valid sources and yet my changes were reverted again and I was blocked why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 November 2011

The explanation is at your talk page (User talk:HeyheyMJ). This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq I am aware of that but I had 3 reverts because of this page which caused me to be blocked for 24 hours so what was wrong with my last change? I followed all the rules.HeyheyMJ (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ignore

Ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lisa Marie Exhibit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lisa Marie Exhibit.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lisa Marie Exhibit.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

LMP leaves scientology

Just an FYI - Lots of rumors are flying about LMP leaving scientology based on lyrics of a new song on her new album and a "non-denial denial" interview recently in Australia[2]. I added a citation needed template to the sentence added about her leaving. While I personally could say I believe it's true, right now, it's just speculation. But..keep your eyes peeled for the sake of lord knows what could appear on this page :) Sarah (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson letter

I do not want to get into an edit war with another editor, so I am explaining my edit here and won't keep reverting. It just seems to me that the content of this letter is unimportant to the bio (it certainly does not warrant so many words) and is personal enough to L M Presley to prompt her to have it removed from sale. It seems like trivia to me. Anyone else have a view? Regards,GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree does not need to be mentioned as an all important event in LMP life . She has stop numerous Elvis artifacts from being auctioned off over the years should they be listed I think not.JGG59 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, (User:JGG59). Best wishes.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeated section blanking by IP user

To User:67.185.176.32... First, thanks for leaving me a message about this on my talk page. Here's the thing... you've blanked parts of this page ten times in the past month without explanation, so it's hard to "come to a compromise," as you put it. When you remove sections of a page, especially when the content is sourced, you need to explain why in the edit summary or get a consensus first on the article talk page; otherwise, your blankings will be reverted by other editors and/or treated as vandalism, which is what has happened here. Just because it is your opinion that content doesn't belong in an article doesn't mean that it's OK to just go in and remove it willy-nilly without giving an explanation.

Looking through your contribution history, it doesn't appear that you've ever provided anything in the edit summary. In the future, when editing this article or others, please give valid reasons. Oh, and when on talk pages, please sign your posts by typing four tilde (~) characters at the end of it... thanks! MsFionnuala (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Danny Keough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Danny is a plausible search term, but most (if not all) coverage on him are from sources pertaining more to ex-wife Lisa. He fails WP:BIO for not being notable without his Presley affiliations, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support After all that whole article talks about him and Lisa Marie Presley. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Even the article itself states, "He is widely known for being the first husband of singer and songwriter Lisa Marie Presley." Textbook WP:NOTINHERITED. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support – per nominator's reasoning. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Fails WP:GNG and falls into the category of WP:INHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have merged those parts of that article to this one, that I found to be important. Anyone can revisit that Danny Keough, and reestablish the article if clear notability has been established. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scientology

Presenting rumors as fact or even including them is a gross violation of WP:BLP -- this has been a continual problem with this subject here and one that some people do not seem to understand: none of the "sources" (gossip rags, supermarket tabloids, anti-Scientology blogs) used to present the claim LMP left Scientology are all based upon speculation of a 2012 interview with USA Today -- nowhere in that interview does she even mention Scientology. This is a totally different situation than say, Leah Remini, who did step forward and openly denounce Scientology and state for the record that she is no longer a member. LMP has never done such a thing and all the tabloids and gossip rags are basing their speculations on a single interview from a few years ago. Laval (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Residence

Is it really necessary to be so specific about her place of residence in the second paragraph of the intro? I'm just rolling through and know very little about Presley but it seems somewhat out of place and unnecessary. I've never noticed other celebs articles being so specific about there home unless it too was also noteworthy. But maybe I just haven't been reading the right articles.

ElephantBanner (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I thought she was living in England, somewhere near Tunbridge Wells, and saying how much she enjoyed it. Valetude (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really relevant and certainly has no place in the WP:LEDE. It needs to be rewritten to reflect all aspects of the article. Karst (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree it's not ledeworthy. But it is quite usual to say which country someone is living in, somewhere in a major article. Valetude (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No reporting on some adversity in life; POV?

There does not appear to be reporting on LMP's adversities in life, like her struggle with drug addiction. Confer, Lisa Marie Presley’s Overdose Hell — Elvis’ Daughter ‘Squandered Fortune’ On Drugs as reported by Radar Online.

Is this a fair and balanced article, or is it biased and lacking WP:Neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

1) sign your posts 2) when was this post created?50.111.57.100 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Noloader: It is abiding by the biographies of living persons policy and the policy on reliable sources. Radar Online is a gossip website and does not qualify as a reliable source. Until the story is carried in other places, it cannot be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The date of LMP's son Benjamin's death was in this article as July 7, 2020, when all online sources/articles are stating his death took place on July 12, 2020. TMZ was the first to report on his his death, and many other sources have since reported. I changed the date to July 12. 172.222.112.194 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lisa Marie Presley.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Death

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lisa Marie Presley is dead. 98.42.28.99 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Already resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Died 1/12/2023 73.226.163.197 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia needs a reliable source. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148951299/lisa-marie-presley-elvis-presleys-only-child-and-a-singer-in-her-own-right-dies

Per her mother Newtothisedit (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Already resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, responded prematurely on my phone. I see someone has updated it with a citation,which I have now formatted properly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I actually was replying to the IP user, but the checkmark seems to make it look like I was replying to you with that. Sorry if that caused any confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Recent Death Template Was Somehow Prematurely Erased

I have concerns about bad information which may be unreliable. More information was added when the template was erased and should be checked.Speakfor (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why the template was removed as the explanation didn't make sense to me, but it looks like only the section that had any significant edits was the Relationships section and the Death section, both of which look well sourced to me. So it looks like there is no issue that needs resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin's age

According to this page Benjamin would have been would have been 8 years old when he was a sucessful musician who shot himself. Other sources say he was 27 when he died. If this is true he would have been born in 1973. Lisa would have been a child. Was he adopted? 2603:8080:8C01:1EDF:988E:4497:955A:4009 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The AP source gives his birth date as 1992, which is correct. He died in 2020. His father Danny is a musician. Benjamin had been offered a recording contract in Europe years ago, possibly only because of his heritage and resemblance to his grandfather. At that time, some sources say he was offered that contract as Benjamin Presley. He didn't record anything. — Maile (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Lisa Marie Presley was born May 1, 1968. 2603:8081:4600:28B8:7542:9742:D991:886 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

First time Lisa Marie met Michael Jackson

Would an editor please help clarify:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Child_Bride/eVqODQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA424

At the time, neither Michael nor Lisa recalled their fleeting introduction, backstage, at the Sahara Tahoe when Lisa was six and Michael was sixteen. Myrna Smith, who was with Jerry and Joe Esposito when they took Lisa to that long-ago concert, confirmed this. “Lisa didn’t even remember meeting Michael as a child,” Myrna said. ‘She asked me, ‘Did I ever meet Michael Jackson?’ and I said, ‘Don’t you remember? We took you to see the Jacksons.’ ”’

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Child_Bride/byGHCJqFuosC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT572

Brett Livingstone Strong’s response to Lisa and Michael’s Primetime Live interview was, quite simply, anger, for both created the illusion—the lie—that they had been friends for years, ever since their initial meeting at a Jackson Five concert when they were children. Michael and Lisa did not even name the correct city where the concert was held: They said Las Vegas when in fact it was Lake Tahoe. Michael and Lisa told the world, on television, that Michael had lusted after Lisa since she was six, that they had been in frequent contact over the years, and that it was always in his mind that he would marry Lisa one day. Brett, who knew the truth—that he had orchestrated the meeting not two years before, for the express purpose of getting Lisa a record contract with Michael’s company—was deeply offended, particularly since Scientology is founded on truth. The interview was, he realized, classic media manipulation. “Michael thought that was the way he should present it, as if it had always been in the background, whereas ... the truth [was] that I did it as a business thing....He was trying to defend his life [after going] through this traumatic period of being an accused child molester, and now [he’s] married to Lisa Presley—and is that a beard, or what? So he says, “Well, I’ve known her all my life, when the truth of the matter is that they had briefly met one another, but Lisa had never [considered it a real] meeting, and Michael exaggerated it out of all proportions.” Strangerthings7112 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The only two people who knew the truth and accuracy, Lisa and Michael, are both deceased. Celebrities tend to say whatever sounds good at any moment. After Lisa married Michael, Priscilla was on a TV talk show and said she found out about it after the marriage had occurred. And, yet, Lisa and Michael gave an interview on TV and said that at the insistence of their attorneys, they had both signed a prenuptial agreement to protect their individual assets. Given that Priscilla was legally a trustee of Graceland, she almost assuredly had to have been informed of the pending prenup agreement and marriage. As for when Lisa and Michael met for the first time ... who even knows? — Maile (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Other books confirm their brief introduction would've been at the Sahara Tahoe and not Vegas, so that should at least be corrected.

https://books.google.com/books?id=263SDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT187

https://books.google.com/books?id=tAJ5BwAAQBAJ&pg=PT65

https://books.google.com/books?id=HG9OEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwMvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT440

"Several concerts" is an exaggeration. It was one. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)