Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Civil Rights Movement—does it really belong in intro or not?

On July 17, 2013, well-respected contributor Pstoller edited the passage in the introduction addressing Elvis's cultural impact in the 1950s, altering this sentence:

His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style made him enormously popular—and controversial.

to this:

His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style, combined with a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines that coincided with the dawn of the Civil Rights Movement, made him enormously popular—and controversial.

This was the outcome of an extensive discussion here about how to address the effect of Presley's various musical and performative influences on his cultural impact initiated by GabeMc. When Gabe initiated the discussion, in fact, the sentence read:

His energized interpretations of songs, many from African-American sources, and his uninhibited performance style made him enormously popular—and controversial.

So, ultimately, we evolved—on the central point—from focusing on the assertion that "many [of Elvis's early songs were] from African-American sources" to the argument that he displayed "a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines." That seems fine to me, and is just as well supported by the main substance of the article.

What concerns me is introducing the "dawn of the Civil Rights Movement" as defining context. Pstoller offered up this element very late in the discussion, made no argument on its behalf, and none of the four comments from other contributors that followed in the discussion address it all. Why is this all a problem? Because the Civil Rights Movement is mentioned not once in the substance of the article—it is thus, on the face of it, inappropriate to raise in the introduction.

At a personal level, I love the idea of connecting Elvis to the Civil Rights Movement, but I do not believe that this is a mainstream position. I would not be surprised to learn that one or two sophisticated scholars examine him in that context, but even if that were the case, that would not be sufficient grounds for making the connection in the introduction. Unless someone here can make a strong, well-sourced case that historians now regularly assess Elvis's impact in the 1950s in relation to the emerging Civil Rights Movement, I move that we strike this clause from the introduction. — DCGeist (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil rights issues are discussed in #Racial issues and in article sources like Elvis Presley and Civil Rights and Why I Stopped Hating Elvis Presley. But the sentence in the lead paragraph is vague and doesn't give the proper context. I think what it's alluding to is that there were White people who were uncomfortable with Presley's appropriation of African-American music specifically because the Civil Rights Movement, in addressing intellectual property rights, had raised their awareness of race issues in the music business. So it's not that Elvis was controversial because of the Civil Rights Movement; he was controversial with more people in the context of the Civil Rights Movement. But I don't know that that's a lead-level detail. Ibadibam (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear about one thing: in the late 1950s, the nascent Civil Rights Movement was definitely not "addressing intellectual property rights." It was addressing voting rights, it was addressing educational rights, it was addressing housing rights, it was addressing equal-access rights in the broadest terms. It was not addressing anything as fringe as intellectual property rights. If you imagine the civil rights activists of the era, for instance, were defending black musicians' intellectual property rights against white musicians who were ripping them off—it's just not true. Try to find evidence for that—you won't. The Civil Rights Movement had much, much bigger fish to fry. The whole issue of cultural appropriation (it was never framed as the legalistic "intellectual property" until very recently) did not significantly impact white consciousness until the early 1980s. Check the hard sources—go to the library and eyeball the books. You'll see. It took a l-o-n-g time for white folks to realize what they were ripping off. — DCGeist (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, intellectual property rights were not part of the systemic reforms sought by the movement, but discussions of cultural appropriation—even before we had the term cultural appropriation—began to enter White discourse because of that movement, that's all I'm saying. And like I said before, it's not a point that's worth making in the lead section of this article. Ibadibam (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me provide some insight into my edit to help give basis for review. My goal was was to provide a framework in which to understand the significance of Presley's choices of material and the stylistic elements of his interpretations, especially as related to the controversy noted in the original version of the sentence (and the interim version). What I found lacking was a clear connection between "African-American sources" and "controversial." Rather, the focus was on "energized interpretations" and "uninhibited performance style" as the generators of controversy. They certainly were important in that regard, but I don't think it's possible to understand why Presley was so controversial without reference to the racial politics of mid-20th century America (particularly the South). As Ibadibam says, "it's not that Elvis was controversial because of the Civil Rights Movement; he was controversial with more people in the context of the Civil Rights Movement." (Note my use of the term, "coincided"). This was partially about White appreciation/appropriation of Black culture (which involves IP, but is more than that), but also about White fear, disdain, and oppression/repression of Black people. These factors made Presley controversial with White and Black audiences, with conservatives and liberals, at the time and ever since. They are a huge part of why he is a historically important artist. And they are inextricably linked to the time in which he rose to prominence. Now, there may be a better (or, um, less controversial) way to say that than to specifically reference the Civil Rights Movement. However one says it, it could be better supported. But, I submit that omitting that perspective from the introduction would be bowdlerizing history in general and Elvis' history in particular. Pstoller (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

All excellent points. To add a sentence or two to the "Racial issues" section to provide more of the context you're describing, I've ordered Michael T. Bertrand's Race, Rock, and Elvis from my local library. It might perhaps be a source for alternative language in the intro (or, indeed, support for the existing language). — DCGeist (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand this issue correct, the point seems to be that mentioning the CRM might give the impression Elvis played a conscious role in it, even when the word "coincided" should make readers aware he did not. Maybe a phrase like "...coincided with a revolution in race relations".MackyBeth (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking something along those lines. The association between Presley and the CRM per se is just a bit too tenuous to feature it explicitly in the introduction, I believe. — DCGeist (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 20:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So long as the essence of meaning is preserved, I have no objection to the excision of the phrase, "Civil Rights Movement." I thought it was effective shorthand for the sociopolitical changes coinciding with the cultural ones, but I understand why one might regard it as problematic. While Presley was a revolutionary figure, that was not a matter of his own intent, and it was strictly a matter of commercial intent for Phillips/Sun, Parker, and RCA. His import may ultimately have been profoundly political, but only by extension. I never meant to imply he was an activist. Pstoller (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So I've got Bertrand's Race, Rock, and Elvis, which has lots of good things. I'll offer up something for the "Racial issues" section in a few days, but I'm ready to make a proposal for the sentence we've been discussing in the intro. Here's my thought process. I woke up with this in my head:

Mental Sandbox Version:

His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style, combined with a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines during an era when the status quo in race relations was under growing stress, made him enormously popular—and controversial.

Too wordy. After staring at it for a while, I came up with this:

Version 2.0:

His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style, combined with a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines during a transformative era in race relations, made him enormously popular—and controversial.

Accurate, a little shorter than the current version, flows fine, and addresses all the concerns raised above, I believe. Thinking that "transformative era in race relations" deserves a link, I looked through the available articles on Wikipedia and there was one clear choice—yep, the article on the CRM. So, my proposal is:

Version 2.1:

His energized interpretations of songs and sexually provocative performance style, combined with a singularly potent mix of influences across color lines during a transformative era in race relations, made him enormously popular—and controversial.

How's that? — DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest a minor change to ".... transformative era in race relations in the US....". Race relations elsewhere in the world were not necessarily going through a "transformative era" in quite the same sense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the national context will be clear to readers, but if others agree we need to specify, how about "American race relations"? Flows a little better, avoids the "in"/"in" echo. — DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that readers will automatically assume the national context, so the addition US is not necessary. Neither do I have strong objections against it, though.MackyBeth (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

v.2.1 relocates the Civil Rights Movement from explicit text to implicit link, which I think satisfies both the intent and the objection rather elegantly. Thank you, DCGeist! Ghmyrtle's minor change suggestion also seems reasonable to me, however it's phrased. It is perhaps better not to assume what readers will assume, and in any case the addition costs us nothing and gains us a measure of clarity. Pstoller (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

After all this, nobody made the change, so I've taken the liberty. Pstoller (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elvis Presley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160704192651/http://clatl.com/cribnotes/archives/2012/08/20/why-i-stopped-hating-elvis-presley to http://clatl.com/cribnotes/archives/2012/08/20/why-i-stopped-hating-elvis-presley

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No mention of The Beatles

I added the following information and it was removed because it appears to be trivia and the article is "already too long" , I haven't seen any rules not permitting information because an article is too long, I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is for information, there is no mention of his meeting with The Beatles and it was a significant meeting, as one of the Memphis Mafia put it "it was like introducing royalty to royalty" , shouldn't the mention of Elvis inviting The Beatles to his home, on their page, be removed because "it's trivia"?? - On August 27, 1965, Presley met The Beatles at his Beverly Hills home for the first and only time, apart from George Harrison who met him for the final time at Madison Square Garden during the 1970s. According to Beatles drummer Ringo Starr, during an interview with Ben Harper, Presley was playing his bass guitar while facing his television upon entering his house. According to Alan Fortas, they all sat down together and did not say anything for several minutes until Presley blurted out "hey look, if ya'll are just going to stare at me all night long, I'm going to bed man", and then suggested to "jam" which The Beatles immediately accepted. By several accounts, John Lennon questioned Presley as to why he was focusing on his film career and not music, which partly inspired Presley's 1968 comeback.

Thoughts? ThePlane11 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That Presley and the Beatles were the titans of their respective generations is pretty much a given. It makes the meeting interesting to fans and historians. However, unless you have it from a quality source (rather than mere speculation) that Lennon prompted Presley's "comeback," nothing in this encounter appears to have led to any discernible changes in the lives or work of the artists involved. They did not collaborate on any recordings or public performances, and even eyewitness accounts of their jam session are inconsistent. That's why I imagine editors would have adjudged it trivia. Famous people meet other famous people all the time, but if nothing comes of it, it doesn't merit a mention in an encyclopedic biography. Pstoller (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Paul Mccartney, members of Presley's entourage and relatives have all said that they met and played a few songs together. Colonel Parker even handed out "presents" which were mostly albums. Yes indeed, famous people meet other famous people all of the time, but this has been reported by notable media groups, also I thought my source of the BBC was enough. There is several videos of The Beatles bragging about their meeting with Elvis, reported many times. I just don't understand how The Beatles page is given a pass for mentioning it but not this page. It is hypocritical. I mean, the purpose of this page is 95% aimed at historians and fans. As a matter of fact, I was first enlightened by a historian who went into depth about the conversation between John Lennon and Elvis, and the whole Beatles-Elvis meeting. Even something subtle should be mentioned. I believe there is a difference from his 2-minute hug "meeting" with Marilyn Monroe compared to The Beatles who specifically requested to meet him and spent a long duration at his Beverly Hills home, talked together, played together and exchanged gifts. ThePlane11 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"By several accounts, John Lennon questioned Presley as to why he was focusing on his film career and not music, which partly inspired Presley's 1968 comeback", it sounds too interesting. Do we have any articles where this information can be moved? It might be indeed trivial for this article though. Excelse (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If I gave the information some sources, which I most certainly can do, can the information be added without backfire? I don't mean to sound pathetic but I cannot be bothered with the backfiring, when I put my spare time into contributing to Wikipedia, when we really should come to an agreement and the information is article-worthy. Personally, I believe adding the information to another article defeats the purpose and the information would receive fewer views (as it takes more time to get to) , I mean The Beatles were severely inspired by Elvis' early music, but then again atleast the information would not go to use, maybe The Beatles article? ThePlane11 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes we need more sources that support your information, you should prove that you are proposing something important. We will also discuss how it should be written. Excelse (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've found the sources. If you can message that user then I'll jump in the conversation shortly afterwards. ThePlane11 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the meeting/jam happened. The issue is, is it of sufficient import to the subject of the article to include it? If you have a reliable source that confirms, or at least makes a strong case for, Lennon's comments at the meeting serving as direct impetus for the '68 "comeback," that could justify the inclusion. So could documentation of some other significant outcome of the meeting. Otherwise, impeccable sources aren't sufficient if they don't report anything of consequence. The BBC and Guardian articles don't. It would be great if you had a source that did.

Absent such a source, why is it OK that the encounter is in the Beatles article and not here? Arguably, because Elvis influenced the Beatles and not the other way around, it speaks to a relationship (even if not an event) that affected them more than him. Mostly, however, it's because different people edit different pages, with different notions of sufficient relevance. That's not hypocritical. Rather, it's a natural outcome of the structure of Wikipedia.

Regarding "backfiring," the editing process on Wikipedia is frequently argumentative and ultimately a product of consensus and/or stamina. Everyone edits in their spare time. If you can't be bothered with the process unless people agree easily and quickly, Wikipedia editing might not be for you. I do sympathize: I edit infrequently because I find that, as often as not, it's too much work for too little return. But that is no reason to include or omit information in an article, nor to curtail discussion of proposed changes. Pstoller (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes sources are here. Perhaps maybe not in great length but nonetheless their meeting should be mentioned somewhere, it is what I believe. My point was that we should not argue for the sake of arguing, it's pointless and gets nowhere. We should be able to come to an agreement, add valuable and important information, help Wikipedia and readers, and be sensible. I don't see why it should be any other way. My goal here is progress. I agree it is a shame that they never recorded the meeting, however Ringo Starr insisted that it should not be publicised. If there's nothing that I can do then there's simply nothing I can do, I'm realistic. ThePlane11 (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two internal pages that discuss article size and scope: WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. There are various reasons that articles don't include every fact and detail that can be proven to be true, and that we spin off relevant details into subarticles. It's a normal editorial process. This page has been a constant challenge to keep under a manageable size, owing to the sheer volume of published information about Elvis. We as editors must decide what's important to present in the main article. My argument is that Elvis meeting the Beatles is trivia because nothing of note came of it, and as Pstoller said, "nothing in this encounter appears to have led to any discernible changes in the lives or work of the artists involved". If you have any sources that develop this meeting as anything more than a "fun fact", I'd love to reconsider inclusion. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Guralnick describes the meeting on pages 210-212 of his Volume II. On page 211, he writes: "The Beatles' overall reaction was one of disappointment, their response to Elvis a prickly mix of anger and disillusion ('To be honest,' said their press officer Tony Barrow afterward, 'I'd describe Elvis on that showing as a boring old fart--but I do know Ringo enjoyed his game of pool'). Nonetheless, they reciprocated with an invitation of their own: Why didn't Elvis and the guys stop by and visit them on the weekend? Elvis almost immediately demurred".

Some of Elvis's entourage did go see The Beatles, and "John Lennon went out of his way to tell Jerry how much the evening had meant to him and that he would appreciate it if Jerry could tell Elvis 'if it hadn't been for him I would have been nothing.' Jerry carried the message back. 'I was just thrilled, of course, and I told Elvis, but he didn't say anything, he just kind of smiled. That was it.'" (p. 112).

In the very next paragraph, Guralnick describes Elvis meeting Tom Jones for the first time. Jones topped by the set of the movie Elvis was doing when he met The Beatles, and was "dumbfounded" to discover Elvis knew every song on his album well enough to sing it to Jones. If any artist emerging after Elvis can claim to have influenced, and even artistically challenged, him, the case for Tom Jones can be made more convincingly than The Beatles.MackyBeth (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Roman bust

@Laser brain: Firstly, friendly greetings, I come in peace. We're both looking for a better article & I'm hoping, by expanding my reasoning to persuade you to agree that this improves our knowledge of one part of the topic i.e. his general recognisability many years after his death. I would expect all Wiki contributors and most journalists to be fans. The ref describes the behaviour of 2 different professional groups -archaeologists and auctioneers -who can be presumed to be more NPOV than the aforementioned. The section is on sightings of Elvis outside his lifetime. I'm immensely sceptical about his post-1977 manifestations but if these have been reported then the pre-1935 with photograph is far more valid and suggests the fashion may have been around much longer than we think. The reader can decide. Re my alleged transgression, the ref was inserted in 2014 and removed without discussion or notification in 2018 as part of large set of updates by a now banned sock puppet. I assumed WP:BRD didn't apply though I don't know of any ruling on this. Clearly many other readers didn't think it was trivia and though I note your comments on article length this is only half a line. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I do think it's an interesting "fun fact" that someone found a thing that looks like Elvis, we'd need some sources demonstrating that this is important/critical for inclusion here. I'd certainly like to hear any other opinions on this. --Laser brain (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We should think about creating a new article for all these interesting findings including the above one where we have discussed the meeting with The Beatles. Providing a link to that article on lead would be a good measure. I can't think what would be the title but collecting such findings at one place (including draftspace) would be a good start. Excelse (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it amounts to anything more than trivia. It might have a place in a book, or perhaps even a Wikipedia article, devoted to Elvismania. In a biographical article, however, it's extraneous. Pstoller (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We need an Elvis mania, it will pass WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@JRPG: I think you have a good reason behind reinserting the mention of Roman burst, do you think we need to start an RfC? You can provide your reason there. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We already have Elvis sightings and other related articles for things that are more appropriate for the cover of Weekly World News than an encyclopedia. Again, please provide sources indicating why such items are prominent enough in his biography to be written of here. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse, Laser brain, and Pstoller: Thank you for your comments Excelse, I'll now try and explain more clearly why the bust article is both significant and unique. Laser brain, you didn’t say if you’d managed to see the picture, I’m aware it may not be available in some places. If you haven’t, I can understand your response.

With the best of intentions the article’s been called a “fun fact," an “interesting finding” and there’s a note that it could be included with Elvis impersonators. That misses the point!

There have been thousands of pop stars since Elvis -all described by their acolytes in sensational terms and yet 10, 20 or 30 years on, only the most zealous of their fans remember them. Would many people recognise Buddy Holly?

Elvis was different and I don't regard myself particularly as a fan. As the article says the bust was immediately recognised by a group of archaeologists and auctioneers. Both groups are well educated but neither are noted for being pop music enthusiasts. The article shows in a way that no other sentence does, how well recognised Presley is even today amongst the general public. That justifies its presence. Impersonators of course play mostly to former fans.

Regards JRPG (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If this piece of (relative) trivia is to be added anywhere, it should be at Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Even if that article does not currently cover the lasting recognition of Presley as a cultural icon even among a non-musical audience, perhaps it should. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ghmyrtle. As I don't generally contribute to music articles, I was unaware of the "cultural impact" article but it is the sort of heading I was looking for. It focuses almost entirely on 1950's and 1960's racial issues but I agree a single line on the extent to which he is still remembered amongst the general public is worth including. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Dates

I just came here to find out the year Elvis started performing in Vegas. It's a huge article, very detailed, but it hardly gives the year on anything. It will say he did this or that in May. I would think a historical article would need to be clearer than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF09:0:8D4E:DC09:2288:8C32 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Months are given in the context of a year referenced in a preceding paragraph or section heading. So, for example, where the article says, "In late April, Presley began a two-week residency at the New Frontier Hotel and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip," it has already established that the year is 1956; for, "In May, the brand new International Hotel in Las Vegas, boasting the largest showroom in the city, announced that it had booked Presley," 1969. Granted this type of linearity, while efficient, is not the clearest format for scanning for factoids, but all the information is there. Pstoller (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review

I'm hoping that various editors who have been active on this page in the last few years will take time to review and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elvis Presley/archive1. Since serious issues have been uncovered with socking involving the editor who nominated this page at FAC, it's being scrutinized. Pinging Pstoller and MackyBeth --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First name

Does anyone seriously disagree with the addition of "often known simply as "Elvis"? Elvis Presley is undoubtedly known by the vast majority of people by his first name. If someone were to say "Elvis", not many people would reply "Elvis who?"--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As you've been told in various locations, it's redundant, and removing the text is not trolling/vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do explain why it is not useful. There are other people called Elvis and the article currently reads at the top "Elvis Presley" unlike the Madonna article which does not use her full name at the top of the article. The Elvis Presley article is the same Kylie Minogue and that article includes "often known simply as "Kylie". Why should the Elvis Presley article be any different? Both are generally known by their first names.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Because Elvis is almost universally known that way. Kylie isn't always known by her first name, and either way, she's not nearly as popular as El Vis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Elvis and Kylie are almost universally known by their first names. Sometimes they are mentioned by their full names but both 'Elvis' and 'Kylie' are well established universally to those two people. Since you agree that Elvis Presley was and is known by his first name, why should "often known simply as "Elvis"" not be included?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed "often known simply as "Kylie"" from the Kylie Minogue article, I wonder how long it will be before someone reverts that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Joseph P. Smith (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why User:SarekOfVulcan reverted my edit under the reason of "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Funny really. No one here is disagreeing that Elvis Presley was and is generally known by his first name but are simply debating about whether it should be included in the article.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If you make a change to another article to make a point after failing to make an argument on a different article, that's being disruptive. Knock it off. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's arguable whether Elvis Presley was truly a mononymous person. His last name was as well known as his first, and he never formally dropped it. Because his first name, "Elvis," was so uncommon, he could be, and often was, referred to by that name alone. But, after the arrival of Elvis Costello, Presley's last name was used more regularly, and a common response to "Elvis" became, "which Elvis?" Similarly, Kylie Minogue never dropped her last name—it's just that there are relatively few Kylies, and many people aren't sure how to pronounce "Minogue". However, in 2018, more people would assume "Kylie" refers to Kylie Jenner. This is fundamentally different from Cher, Madonna, or Prince, none of whom ever used their last name professionally. Pstoller (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pstoller, although Elvis Presley never dropped his surname, after he became famous he became known by first name Elvis. If you mention "Elvis" to someone, he will not reply "Elvis who?" Even Elvis Costello literally named himself after Elvis Presley and people will think of Presley before Costello. Yes, there are other people called Elvis but as far as popularity and connection go the first person someone with think of when "Elvis" is mentioned will always be Elvis Presley. Elvis Presley is known all over by his first name. Even now it is always just "Elvis in Concert" and "Christmas with Elvis and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra". If we look at the other articles of people known by their first name e.g Madonna and Prince, the articles do not mention their surname at the top but only how they are known but the Elvis Presley article mentions his full name and does not mention that he is known simply as Elvis.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

James, you may have a point but you've now drifted firmly into "in my opinion" territory. When something is arguable, we defer to published reliable sources rather than our opinions as editors. If you can cite some high-quality sources (even those already used in the article) that refer to Elvis as truly mononymous, I have no problem adding the phrase. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That is fine. The various Elvis Presley fan sites in the biography section such as Graceland THE HOME OF ELVIS PRESLEY in the state: "Known the world over by his first name". I am sure if you wanted references to books, I could go through the trouble of sourcing several. Is it even necessary? I am not disputing that there are other people called Elvis (there will also be other people called Cher, Madonna, Prince, etc) but the first person people think of when Elvis is mentioned will of course be Elvis Presley. As Behind The Name states "The name was brought to public attention by the singer Elvis Presley (1935-1977)". Thus, the name Elvis is closely associated with Elvis Presley. Type "Elvis" into Google search and everything that comes up is about Elvis Presley.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Great to have an editor who's on first name terms. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Apart from Elvis and Donovan, can anyone else actually think of another singer from that era that is known by their first name? "Elvis" was such an uncommon name (have a read of Elaine Dundy's book Elvis and Gladys on page 67 for further details) that once he became famous people started to know him by his first name alone. He is widely known by his first name, this is hardly open for dispute. Any reference to "Elvis" will inevitably mention Elvis Presley since he made it famous. This is unlike other singers of today such as Adele who have relatively common first names but are known by their first name. In fact, when it comes to the association of Elvis with Elvis Presley, last year a Scottish brewer BrewDog had to change the name of grapefruit-inspired Elvis Juice because the Elvis Presley Enterprises objected to the use of Elvis. Oliver Morris ruled last week against the brewers, saying, "On the basis that Elvis is a relatively uncommon name, and given that Mr. Presley is the most famous of Elvises, I consider that most average consumers, on seeing the name Elvis alone, are likely to conceptualize that on the basis of Elvis Presley." The two co-founders ames Watt and Martin Dickie legally changed their first names to Elvis and stated: "There isn't just one single person in the world called Elvis, so we added two more to make a point". http://www.inside.beer/news/detail/uk-brewdog-loses-elvis-name-dispute.html--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So how about Alexandra, Alice, Antoine, Ayshea? etc etc ... that's just the A's from that era. Why just that era? Shouldn't we have some consistency across all articles for artists, or at least singers, with such names? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Only Ayshea qualifies for what I meant, I was referring to the person's actual first name.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, ok. You seem to be developing your own personal logic here as to how people should can best be described if they are well-known by their first name only. I'm just concerned that whatever conclusion you're coming to may not necessarily fit in with Wikipedia guidelines for bio articles in general. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to people known by their actual first name such as Madonna, Donovan, Elvis, etc, rather than a mononym such as Cher (Cherilyn), Gordon (Sting), Marshall (Eminem), etc. Elvis Presley was mostly credited as just "Elvis" (mostly wrote ELVIS) and he is often referred to as simply Elvis. The association of the name Elvis with Elvis Presley goes without saying. Are you seriously disputing that Elvis Presley was and is known by his first name?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm seriously disputing that adding such a trite and sterile detail, in the opening section of an article, is likely to improve it. But hey, maybe Cherilyn Sarkisian would disagree (I see she has a slightly different format?) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Every other famous singer that is known by a mononym (sometimes their actual first name) there is a mention in the article, whether that be the actual article name or "often known as...", why should the article of Elvis Presley be any different? Even though there are other people called Elvis (like any name), Elvis Presley is the first and foremost person that people think of when the name Elvis is mentioned and he is widely recognised by his first name.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide the wiki links to your "Every other famous singer that is known by a mononym", so we can all judge? And, while you're at it, please provide a WP:RS source for your claim that "Elvis Presley is the first and foremost person that people think of". I do hope you're not confusing "thinking" with "Goggle Search". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer), Björk, Usher (musician), Beyoncé, Prince (musician), Cher, and the list goes on and on forever. Are you seriously asking for a source to provide proof that Elvis Presley is known by most people by his first name? Indeed, people also know his last name but his first time is enough. I am sure there are plenty of sources but the first one that comes to my mind is "Known the world over by his first name, he is regarded as one of the most important figures of twentieth century popular culture. Elvis died at his Memphis home, Graceland, on August 16, 1977."--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"The world over" is a geographical description - you've got 7.6 billion to account for. "Goes on forever", eh? wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. also, Kylie isn't the best comparison here.

I am not going to waste my time with your feeble attempt at trying to get a reaction out of me. Anyone who clicks on your pipelinks will see you are not being serious.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

How regrettable. Good luck with other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That was so funny I forgot to laugh.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Shucks, me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you trolling? :S--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm just disagreeing with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You are fooling no one. The talk page is to be used to discuss improvements to an article, not to post stuff with pipelinks to songs. If you continue, I will report you..--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I consider all of my piped links entirely relevant. I'm wholly unconvinced by your arguments. Report away, if you think that will help. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You know exactly what you are doing, you are trying to get a reaction out of me and failing miserably. If you disagree with what I have said then provide evidence.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do, thanks. It seems I have produced a reaction, but so far it's been wholly unconvincing. As the proposer of any addition to the article, I think the onus for evidence probably falls more on yourself. Report away if you think that will help your case. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not taking a strong position on this either way. I made a devil's advocate argument for the sake of establishing whether Elvis Presley should be treated as a mononymous person, and if so, how significant that fact is in terms of placement within the article (if at all, then where). Am I arguing that Presley isn't widely known and immediately recognizable simply as "Elvis"? No; that would be ridiculous. However, unlike most of the other examples in this thread, he is, and always has been, widely known and immediately recognizable by his full name and by his last name alone: if you say, "Presley," roughly as many people will assume Elvis as people hearing "Elvis" will assume Presley. He's typically filed under his last name in record stores. The same is not true of "Sarkissian," "Sumner," "Mathers," "Knowles," "Ciccone," "Nelson," "Raymond," "Hewson," et al.

Whether a mononym is someone's actual first (or last) name is a red herring—that's not part of the definition. During Elvis Costello's period of greatest popularity, people often referred to him mononymously as "Elvis," and "which Elvis?" was a common enough question that it was sometimes necessary to refer to either Elvis by full name in text and speech. Obviously, the recognition factor of "Elvis" via Presley was the basis of Jake Riviera's ploy. But, the success of the "borrowing" argues both ways regarding Elvis Presley's status as a mononymous person.

OK, let's acknowledge that Elvis Presley put the name "Elvis" on the map, and no one (including Costello) has substantially diminished the association, nor likely ever will. This is not without significance, though it is also not quite the same as a mononym. (Elvis on Wikipedia redirects to Elvis Presley, but there is also an Elvis (disambiguation) page.) The questions at hand are, 1) does this fact merit inclusion in the article, and if so, 2) does it belong in the lede? My current thinking is "yes" to 1), and "no" to 2). The reason Presley's sobriquets, "the King of Rock & Roll" and "the King," make the lede is that they speak to his cultural stature in a more specific and profound way than does his name-as-mononym. Some of Presley's other significant nicknames appear later in the article; the fact that he was eventually well known simply as "Elvis" arguably merits that level of inclusion—at the point in the timeline where it's historically relevant, with one or more good sources. Pstoller (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pstoller, your arguments seem rational. I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Pstoller, it was good to read something worthy to actually read rather than the trolling of User:Martinevans123! You are right, without any question, Elvis Presley made the name "Elvis" famous which is why he is for the most part associated with the name. Although his surname was included in his sales, many of his albums and recordings only used his first name e.g the 68 Comeback Special was titled "Singer Presents...ELVIS". Elvis Costello was born Declan Patrick MacManus and actually changed his first name after Elvis Presley. Any baby born in 1956 and after would more than likely be viewed as having parent(s) that liked Elvis Presley and was named after him. Although there are other associations with the name Elvis e.g Eastenders and Fireman Sam, the association of Elvis as a name with Elvis Presley is so strong that people will always associate the name with him and if you say to people "I like Elvis" I don't think many people would think you meant anyone else apart from Elvis Presley. The name Madonna is always going to be associated with the singer but there is an actress Madonna Sebastian, which do you think people think of first? The idea that Elvis Costello somehow diminished the association of Elvis with Elvis Presley is completely unfounded. The fairly recent thing of Elvis Presley and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was titled "Christmas with Elvis and The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra". Elvis Presley is without question known by his first name. Remember, this is not a name that had traditional references and can be associated elsewhere or was fairly common name but rather a name that became famous of Elvis Presley.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"The name Madonna is always going to be associated with the singer". Wow. I think that kind of sums it up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Elvis (name) actually states "Most commonly, it refers to American singer Elvis Presley (1935–1977)" which is precisely my point. This is not a name that had any literature references or anything but actually became famous because of Elvis Presley in 1956. Have you checked the popularity of Elvis? Before 1956 the name was virtually unheard of in the world but when Elvis Presley became famous the name gained popularity in the US (I can only check a chart for the US) and has become strongly associated with Elvis Presley since then without question. I actually know someone called Elvis who is in his late 30s. Guess what? His dad is a massive Elvis Presley fan. The name will forever be associated with Elvis Presley rather than Elvis Costello or anyone else for that matter. User:Martinevans123, what is it with you and posting useless pipelinks? :S Association is the whole point, there will obviously be other people named "insert here" but it is about association and undoubtedly the name Elvis is associated with Elvis Presley to the extent he is often known simply by his first name.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

James Joseph P. Smith, you're repeating your arguments. Yes, people generally take "Elvis" to mean "Elvis Presley." Got it. Now, why does that belong in the lede of the article? What significant thing would doing that accomplish that putting it later in the article—or even omitting it altogether—would not? Remember, the article is full of facts, the vast majority of which are not in the lede; and the vast majority of facts known about Elvis Presley are not in the article at all. Why is this one fact more important, more foundational, than any of those? Remember, this is not an article about the name, "Elvis." It's a biographical article about Elvis Presley: briefly, who he was as an artist, a cultural icon, and a person. I have argued for inclusion of the recognition attached to the name in the body text because it emphasizes/clarifies his iconic status. That said, I believe the article already makes it abundantly clear that Elvis Presley was and is an icon. In what way has it failed to do so that can be remedied only by elevating his given name to a mononym at the top of the article? If you (or another editor) cannot argue convincingly for that, then it does not belong there. That he was known by his first name, in and of itself, is not enough. Pstoller (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I am simply making the case that Elvis Presley is often just known as "Elvis". Thus, what is the problem with putting in the lede: "often known simply as Elvis"?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it's true doesn't mean it's important enough to put in the article. Consensus that it belongs in the article doesn't mean there is consensus that it belongs in the lede. Elvis Presley was right-handed, but although that's a fact, it's not in the article. Truth alone does not meet the standard for inclusion. If you understand this, then make the necessary arguments for inclusion in the article and lede, as you have not done thus far. If you don't understand this, then editing on Wikipedia might not be for you. Pstoller (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comparing that he was and is widely known by his first name and that he was right-handed is like comparing apples to oranges. The former is exclusively about him whereas the latter millions of people shared and share with him. Elvis is not a common name and is strongly associated with Elvis Presley whereas being right-handed is very common and is not only associated with Elvis Presley. The honorific nicknames and nicknames are mentioned in the article, why should the fact that he was and is widely known by his first name be omitted? Also, if someone searches just "Elvis" into Search Wikipedia it redirects to the Elvis Presley article. What does that tell you?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It tells me that they've discovered something so obvious that they don't need to learn about it at Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC) ... what they want here are good interesting facts

This has passed the point of absurdity. Yes, Elvis Presley's name was "Elvis." That's not why he's notable. Having a name sufficiently unusual that it easily becomes associated primarily with you is not an accomplishment. I have already stated my opinion that, like his nicknames, his semi-mononymous status could be reflected in the relevant part of the body text, provided that the contributor includes good sources supporting the significance of the addition. (Which is to say, it's pretty much like anything else anyone wants to add to any Wikipedia article.) Despite your apparently pathological need to put this fascinating fact into the lede, you have provided no convincing justification for doing so, and you have been unable to bolster your argument beyond repeating your initial assertion. It's not my article. It's possible other editors will outvote me on this—but I doubt it. So, either do the work of finding the sources and the appropriate place to put the addition (which is not the lede), or give it up. Pstoller (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Pstoller, you are twisting my words. I never said it was an "accomplishment" but it is a fact that his first name was all part of his image, his live concerts had "ELVIS" in the background, albums and singles were sold bearing just his first name. Of course, he is so famous that most people did and do know his surname as well. Interestingly, I Googled "singers known by their first name" and have a look at this. However, since it is clear you are just going to label this as "repetition", there is no point in trying to debate this any further since you are for some unknown reason adamant that it does not belong in the lede.

User:Martinevans123, are you following me around like a lost puppy for a specific reason? Also, a talkpage is supposed to be used to discuss improving an article and not to have a little game by posting links to irrelevant stuff. If you continue attempting to troll, I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Joseph P. Smith (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The basic point is that the fact that he was sometimes referred to simply as "Elvis" is not sufficiently important or interesting to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. It could be mentioned briefly somewhere later in the article - but the opening paragraphs are to summarize and highlight what is important in a person's biography - and having an unusual and widely-recognisable first name is simply not that important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: the Lost Puppy - you know how Watchlists work, yes? And the fact that you might be watching two of the same articles I do, or suddenly now three? But please go ahead and report me if it will make you feel any better. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing the same article(s) is not the problem. The problem is you trolling with pipelinks, you know what you are doing so stop acting silly.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said I was acting? But ok James, I'll do my best to avoid this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123, you just can't help yourself.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that makes two of us? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@James Joseph P. Smith: You haven't gained any consensus here and this is now taking up way too much of everyone's time. It's getting disruptive. Please read WP:STICK and find something else to do. --Laser brain (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, "James". I see that the user name in your signature has now turned "true blue". Was it you who mentioned a "lost puppy" somewhere? I guess we won't be seeing you around for a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Elvis' Middle Name

Elvis writes (or perhaps wrote) his middle name without an extra A. --114.31.15.6 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

His birth certificate says Aron, but his grave says Aaron. TheGoldenTopHat (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you should note the first note in the page, it clears this up. TheGoldenTopHat (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is covered in a thorough footnote right after his name in the first sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Elvis’ paternal grandfather born out wedlock and took his mothers surname

Hi I would like to add to the Life and Career - Early years, that his paternal grandfather Jesse D. Presley was born illegitimate to Rosella Presley with the fathers identity unknown. Jesse took his mothers surname as a result. Rosella also had 10 other Illegitimate children. Theodore sandhu (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That's probably not noteworthy, if other editors think it is you'll need a reliable source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cashbox/Billboard US Singles Charts credits under number one singles

Anyone think we should add these? Cashbox was a major chart system, second-largest in the country. Billboard's Singles Sales charts were Billboard's answer to Cashbox after the Cashbox charts were discontinued. EPBeatles (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Clambake

The link to the above within the text currently directs to the culinary dish and should be piped to either Clambake (film) or Clambake (soundtrack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.239 (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I chose to link to the soundtrack, because the article only mentions that that album was a record low sales.MackyBeth (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Elvis’s name on wiki page

His name is Elvia Aron Presley you guys have it with two “A’s” Sebysebb (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the long note that discusses this very thing? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Change discography section?

The current discography section only lists number one albums. I suggest the section be changed to list all of his main releases (studio albums, soundtracks, live albums) and the text above it should be slightly altered (i.e. removing text stating "this is a list of number one releases", etc.). Other editors, what are your thoughts?

The altered discography section should look something like the following:

Main articles: Elvis Presley albums discography and Elvis Presley singles discography

See also: List of songs recorded by Elvis Presley and List of Elvis Presley hit albums

Studio albums

• Elvis Presley (1956)
• Elvis (1956)
• Elvis' Christmas Album (1957)
• Elvis is Back! (1960)
• His Hand in Mine (1960)
• Something for Everybody (1961)
• Pot Luck (1962)
• Elvis for Everyone! (1967)
• How Great Thou Art (1967)
• From Elvis in Memphis (1969)
• From Memphis to Vegas / From Vegas to Memphis (1969) (Elvis Back In Memphis)
• That's the Way It Is (1970)
• Elvis Country (I'm 10,000 Years Old) (1971)
• Love Letters from Elvis (1971)
• Elvis sings The Wonderful World of Christmas (1971)
• Elvis Now (1972)
• He Touched Me (1972)
• Elvis (1973) (The "Fool" Album)
• Raised on Rock / For Ol' Times Sake (1973)
• Good Times (1974)
• Promised Land (1975)
• Today (1975)
• From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee (1976)
• Moody Blue (1977)

Soundtrack albums

• Loving You (1957)
• King Creole (1958)
• G.I. Blues (1960)
• Blue Hawaii (1961)
• Girls! Girls! Girls! (1962)
• It Happened at the World's Fair (1963)
• Fun in Acapulco (1963)
• Kissin' Cousins (1964)
• Roustabout (1964)
• Girl Happy (1965)
• Harum Scarum (1965)
• Frankie and Johnny (1966)
• Paradise, Hawaiian Style (1966)
• Spinout (1966)
• Double Trouble (1967)
• Clambake (1967)
• Speedway (1968)

Live albums

• Elvis (NBC TV Special) (1968)
• From Memphis to Vegas / From Vegas to Memphis (1969)(Elvis In Person at the International Hotel)
• On Stage (1970)
• As Recorded at Madison Square Garden (1972)
• Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite (1973)
• Elvis Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis (1974)
• Elvis in Concert (1977)

List your thoughts below. Ajlantarctica (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Musical artist (with medium to large discography's) pages, usually only list studio albums on their main page. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That is usually the case. The live albums section could be removed. However, in my opinion, his soundtracks could be considered important enough to be on the main page as well. Ajlantarctica (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Guitar

A famous guitar that belonged to Elvis was sold. Where would this information go?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

His Karate Instincts Took Over

The last paragraph under "Marriage Breakdown and Aloha from Hawaii" reads...

At a midnight show the same month, four men rushed onto the stage in an apparent attack. Security men came to Presley's defense, and his karate instinct took over as he ejected one invader from the stage himself. Following the show, he became obsessed with the idea that the men had been sent by Mike Stone to kill him. Though they were shown to have been only overexuberant fans, he raged, "There's too much pain in me ... Stone [must] die." His outbursts continued with such intensity that a physician was unable to calm him, despite administering large doses of medication. After another two full days of raging, Red West, his friend and bodyguard, felt compelled to get a price for a contract killing and was relieved when Presley decided, "Aw hell, let's just leave it for now. Maybe it's a bit heavy."

I suggest the following edits...

At a midnight show the same month, four men rushed onto the stage in an apparent attack. Security men came to Presley's defense. Presley ejected one invader from the stage himself. Following the show, he became obsessed with the idea that the men had been sent by Mike Stone to kill him. Though the men on stage were found to just be fans unrelated to Stone, he raged, "There's too much pain in me ... Stone [must] die." His outbursts continued with such intensity that a physician was unable to calm him, despite administering large doses of medication. After another two full days of escalation, Red West, his friend and bodyguard, felt compelled to get a price for a contract killing and was relieved when Presley decided against it, stating, "Aw hell, let's just leave it for now. Maybe it's a bit heavy."

HIS KARATE INSTINCTS TOOK OVER made me lol oh my god

68.226.78.162 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited it somewhat. I agree it sounded a bit silly as written. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom, Here is all the details

President Donald Trump awarded Memphis’ own Elvis Presley with a Presidential Medal of Freedom on Friday.

Elvis Presley was one in every of seven Americans to receive the award. as well as Miriam Adelson, Orrin Hatch, Alan Page, Babe Ruth, Antonin Scalia, and Roger Staubach.

President Donald Trump awarded the ribbon of Freedom to seven folks Friday, as well as the late rock ‘n’ roll star Elvis Presley

The nation’s highest civilian honor, the ribbon of Freedom is awarded to people World Health Organization have created vital contributions to the United States’ national interests and security, to world peace, or to cultural or alternative vital public or personal endeavors.

Elvis Presley was recognized for his ability as a musician further as serving 2 years within the us Army.

At the Friday ceremony, Trump aforesaid it had been “very, terribly special” to be granting the award.

“It’s an excellent honor,” he said. “Melania and that I am excited to we tend to come you to the White House as we honor the recipients of our nation’s highest civilian honor.”

And though Presley is one in every of the largest names on the list – with the White House unharness line him associate degree “enduring and beloved yankee icon” – alternative recipients are rock stars in their title.

“America is blessed to own the foremost ability, passion and talent of anyplace on earth,” Trump aforesaid at the ceremony. “We are really an excellent nation and we’re a nation that’s doing very, very well straight away.”

Trump conjointly posthumously honored late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and baseball legend Babe Ruth. The White House unharness delineated Ruth because the “personification of ‘America’s interest.'”

Trump referred to as Scalia “one of the best jurors ever to serve our country.”

“Universally loved for his soaring intellect, sensible wit and fierce devotion to our start principles, Justice Scalia has created a deep and lasting impact on the history of our nation,” Trump aforesaid.

Other recipients enclosed fractional monetary unit. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, World Health Organization is retiring when forty one years within the Senate, and GOP donor and donor Miriam Adelson. Trump conjointly honored soccer stars Alan Page and Roger Staubach, creating him the primary president to award the ribbon of Freedom to football game players.

Trump cited Staubach and Page’s add providing scholarships and supporting charitable causes across the country.

“Roger, you inspire Americans across the country to figure laborious, dream huge and perpetually plough on to finish,” Trump aforesaid.

Established by President United States President in 1945, the Medal of Freedom has been awarded to over five hundred civilians. This was Trump’s 1st time giving the award.

Elvis Presley died in 1977 at his Graceland point Memphis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley&action=submit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley&action=submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamlesh 295 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

WHY has not a mention of the Presidential Medal of Freedom been made. Just a question. 190.212.26.76 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It is, in the "Since 1977" section. Britmax (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

See explanation by Britmax. The section says that "In 2018, President Donald Trump awarded Presley the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously." DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Guitar and piano belong in the infobox

On 17 November the infobox was edited so that in the line Instruments only Vocals remain. Last year I edited the article to cover EP's piano playing, which instrument was then listed in the box. FA-articles for Bob Dylan and John Lennon still list "keyboards", so why is piano removed for EP? And the inclusion of guitar need not be discussed. MackyBeth (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

He is best as a singer, yes, he does play guitar and piano, but those are secondary to his singing and per Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, secondary instruments should be brought up in the article body. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It is inexcusable to remove this. The addition of the piano has ben thoroughly discussed here.MackyBeth (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

KADIE LYNN WOZ HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadie lynn (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Note a

I'm wondering, are we best serving our readers (and potential editors) with "note a" that appears after the first instance of the subject's name? This edit got me thinking because Lordtobi later said that the note does not render on mobile. I've long thought that our use of esoteric inline notes and text to explain important concepts is virtually invisible to mobile editors, of which there are obviously increasing numbers. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain, FYI, the note does render now on my mobile device; there might have been a technical issue with the Template/Module or Wikipedia's CSS base, but that appears to be resolved. Regarding your question, the middle name debacle should, at least in short, be described in the article's "Childhood in Tupelo" section, from there it can be expanded upon using a note.

Same with the pronoounciation: the lead should carry the primary pronounciation, with a note explaining why it is used. The current format where the pronounciation turns up out of the blue when opening the note that is appended to his name seems odd, and there should be seperate notes for middle name and pronounciation, as they are two distinct topics. Lordtobi (✉) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Elvis Presley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Elvis Presley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2019

The Childhood in Tupelo entry of the 1935–1953: Early years section should be updated to include a mention of the fact that both Elvis and his mother Gladys survived the Tupelo tornado of April 5th, 1936; the fourth deadliest tornado in American history; during the 1936 Tupelo–Gainesville tornado outbreak. Logan Agle (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

2603:3018:B00:A00:D032:6E82:BFA1:6D72 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:American country singer-songwriters

I'm parsing this as "please add Category:American country singer-songwriters. I'm denying this; singer-songwriter has a specific meaning, and besides which, Elvis didn't write any songs. He has credit on some songs because the Colonel required songwriters give up half their publishing rights before Elvis would record their songs. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

J.D. Sumner & The Stamps

I just noticed that J.D. Sumner and The Stamps are not even mentioned once. They were his backup vocal group from 1972 till the end. Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

J.D. Sumner & The Stamps

I just noticed that J.D. Sumner and The Stamps are not even mentioned once. They were his backup vocal group from 1972 till the end. Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

Shouldn't the cause of death say cardiac arrhythmia due to undermined causes but disputed instead of cardiac arrest, there was medical dispute surrounding his precise cause of death because the then medical examiner ruled a cardiac arrhythmia due to undermined causes before the autopsy and toxicology were completed , but some of the doctors who performed the autopsy and those who did the toxicology stated it was due to polypharmacy. cardiac arrhythmia or polypharmacy raged until 1994, when the State of Tennessee reopened the autopsy. The State retained the famed former coroner of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Joseph Davis, MD, who had done thousands of autopsies. He rendered the opinion that Elvis Presley died of a cardiac event which is what the medical examiner at the time of the first autopsy said , which settled the public controversy. Dr. Dan Warlick, who was present at the autopsy, "believed Presley's chronic constipation—the result of years of prescription drug abuse and high-fat, high-cholesterol gorging—brought on what's known as Valsalva's maneuver. Put simply, the strain of attempting to defecate compressed the singer's abdominal aorta, shutting down his heart. There seems to be medical dispute whether it was a cardiac event or polypharmacy, years of prescription drug abuse would have been a contributing factor . 109.149.73.241 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 109.149.73.241 (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of middle name

There is some disagreement about the spelling of Mr. Presley's middle name. I know that the gravesite says Aaron, but I have heard that it is actually misspelled, and should say Aron. Does anyone have any definitive proof either way? Alan (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See the box at the top of this page? Try that for multiple previous discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the references in the article that deal with this issue. Alan (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

Under cause of death which states Cardiac arrest can it now say cardiac arrest brought on by possible polypharmacy, the article says the lab results indicated that was primary cause 86.144.19.133 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I think it'd be best if you talked this through with other editors here first, something tells me it could be controversial. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Usefulness of elvis.com link in infobox

See the discussion at Talk:Michael_Jackson#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_17_November_2019_2. On visiting the link in the infobox here, it was surprising to find that it redirects to https://www.shopelvis.com/store which is a load of merchandising, and as far as I can see, contains absolutely zero biographical material about Elvis. Ouch. Since this is a Featured Article, this needs to be looked at. If it was in the external links section, I would have removed it immediately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed. Commercial garbage owned by some company called "Music Today". --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The website at https://www.michaeljackson.com/ isn't ideal either, but it seemed just about OK, so I left it in for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What made you guy's change your minds?

What made you guys change your mind's that Elvis had no Jewish ancestry. In other words what was the conseus that you agreed upon that Elvis wasn't Jewish? (BTW, i still think he was)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.161.217 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the article footnotes says "In her book Elvis and Gladys, Dundy also states that Presley's great-great-grandmother Nancy Burdine Tackett was Jewish, citing a third cousin of Presley's, Oscar Tackett. However, there is no evidence that the Presley family shared this belief and the syndicated columnist and Jewish genealogist Nate Bloom has challenged the cousin's account, which he calls a "tall tale". There is an article in Haaretz here which says that Elvis was Jewish, but this uses the same information. The claim is based on Halakha, so if Elvis had Jewish maternal ancestry, he would pass the membership test. However, there are other questions such as the ones raised at Who is a Jew? The real problem, though, is that the Tackett claim is disputed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A recent edit dispute

A new user decided to remove text which had been included in the article for months upon months from the article which the user admitted he or she admitted to be true because he or she thought repeating the name Elvis was a bit pointless. I reverted the edit in good faith and now I’m being basically threatened with being blocked from editing for being disruptive by one user who has been following me around all night! Elvis’s full name is used as the title of the article, like Kylie Minogue, but both are known by their first names. Thus, there is nothing wrong with mentioning a name more than once.--Doctor987654 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Check the edit history of the article. User:FlightTime is reverting my edits with just simply giving the reason as “Nope”. How is that an argument to not include the text which had been removed from the article because a user thought it was “pointless”? The text had been included in the article for months upon months so there must have been a general consensus for it to be included in the article. I don’t see any reasonable argument for it to not be included in the article. Claiming that it shouldn’t be included in the article because a word (a name in this case) is used more than once is quite frankly ridiculous.--Doctor987654 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes that was my edit summary (after being reverted by another experienced editor), have you reviewed the messages I've left on your talk ? - FlightTime (open channel) 03:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you have made a mistake. The only person who has reverted my edit has been you (twice). The user who removed the text which had been included in the article for months upon months is user:Andhw which was only created last month and the user said he has only been editing on Wikipedia for a few months. I reverted the edit in good faith because the text had been included in the article for months and there is no real reason for it to not be included in the article. Check the edit history and you will see what I mean. Consequently, I do hope that you can see your mistake and revert your own edit to include the text back in the article. I hope there are no hard feelings between us.--Doctor987654 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added “also known mononymously as Elvis” back to the article because 1) there is no dispute about the statement since it had been included in the article for months 2) the user who removed it even admitted it was true so even the person who removed it was not disputing the context. Another experienced user made a mistake and thought that I had been reverted by an experienced editor so reverted my revert of the good faith edit of removing the content which is why this section came about in the first place. Hopefully this will be the end of a short-lived case of wires crossed.--Doctor987654 (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Elvis Presley has always been known by his first name Elvis. No other person called Elvis could ever diminish the association of the name with Elvis Presley. For example, Declan McManus, better known by his stage name Elvis Costello (named after Elvis Presley and his father’s stage name Day Costello), has never been known mononymously as “Elvis”, but “Elvis Costello”. Another name which is the same is the name Prince. Prince Nelson has always been known by his first name Prince. Geoffrey Royce Rojas, better known by his stage name Prince Royce, has never been known mononymously as “Prince”, but “Prince Royce”. Cher Lloyd is known by her full name, Kylie Jenner is known by her full name, etc. Elvis, Prince, Beyoncé, Madonna, Cher, etc, are all mononymous (one-person names). Everyone knows it’s Elvis Presley and Beyoncé Knowles, but their first names are unusual names so only their first names are needed for everyone to know which people you are referring to when their first names are mentioned. It’s a no-brainer really.--2A02:C7D:16ED:C600:48E6:E84A:3C:BDFB (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Jewish ancestry

I’ve read online that Elvis had Jewish roots. Has this ever been confirmed? Or, is it speculation?--2A02:C7D:16ED:C600:48E6:E84A:3C:BDFB (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see the section "What made you guy's change your minds?" above here on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Elaine Elizabeth Presley

She claims to be the "eldest daughter of Elvis and Priscilla" on her website elaineelizabethpresley.com and that she was born in the UK in 1959[1]. Should she be included here?--Auric talk 10:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Also known simply as vs often known simply as

Section started by CU-blocked sock is collapsed per WP:BANREVERT

A couple of quick searches on Google show that “also known simply as” only shows up a few results and “often known simply as” brings up way more results. Books and sites always use ‘common’ or ‘often’. Although using ‘also’ is grammatically correct since it means ‘in addition; too’, it isn’t exactly the chosen word when the name is someone’s given name. One normally reads “often known simply Elvis”, “often known simply as Beyoncé”, “often known simply as Madonna”, “often known simply as Prince”, etc, when it is the person’s first name. I don’t believe changing ‘also’ to ‘often’ is engaging in weasel words. The change is subtle (small but important) because it’s how Elvis has always been known as to most people (often/commonly known as).--Nature987765 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Please note: OP's comments are struck per WP:BANREVERT for being a sockpuppet. Dr. K. 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) The word choice “also” is not used by any source. The word choice “often” is the preferred choice and is the word commonly used. ‘Also’ is normally used when referring to someone’s stage name, not someone’s given name.--Nature987765 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC) : Also means in addition. What is ‘in addition’ (an extra person or thing) to someone’s given name? Nothing. Often is the correct word choice because that is how he is frequently referred to by most people.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC) ::This is really tedious stuff, but basic English. The word ‘also’ means ‘in addition’ which means an extra person or thing. What is extra about someone’s given name??? Quite clearly the correct word choice is ‘often’ because that word means ‘frequently’ and Elvis is often/commonly/frequently referred to by his first name. I’m not sure why two people seem to be having problems comprehending very basic English words. ‘Also’ brings up three results and ‘often’ brings up tons. Why is that? Yet two people are reverting my edits, despite my explanation.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC) @FlightTime Phone: It was you who chose the word ‘also’ when you changed how the sentence was to how you wanted it to be. [[2]] Thus, the burden of proof is on you. You need to explain why you chose ‘also’.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC) @FlightTime Phone: I have been more than reasonable with you and I have explained why ‘also’ is not the correct word of choice. There is nothing extra about someone’s given name. The correct word choices would be often, commonly, etc. Explain your reason(s) why you chose ‘also’.--Nature987765 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) God will you please give a user a chance to reply before you add another comment Please look up Edit conflict No, actually it was a user script that made the initial change. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 04:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC) And surprise, just because you "explain" something doesn't make it correct. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 04:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) :::@FlightTime Phone:It was you who changed the words and decided to use ‘also’, so perhaps you may want to explain your choice of word. I’ve explained why I think it’s wrong to use ‘also’. Of course my opinion is not a fact, but what is a fact is the definition of the word and in this case it makes no sense to use it. And, ‘often’ or ‘commonly’ is used more than ‘also’ which isn’t even used by any reliable source.--Nature987765 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC) ::::@Dr.K.: Can you give me your two pennies' worth? I’ve explained why I believe ‘often’ is better word choice. Do you disagree with me? Do you have any problems with the subtle change?--Nature987765 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)|}

Elvis's Name

Elvis Presley's name is spelled incorrectly in the wiki. in the wiki, it says: Elvis Aaron Presley this is not his actual name, because there was only one A in his name. If corrected his name would be: Elvis Aron Presley could someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smochort12 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See Note a) in the article. There are various reasons for the Aron/Aaron spelling, but Aaron was considered to be the official spelling by Presley himself. It is a common myth that his name is spelled wrongly on his tombstone, but he would have wanted Aaron. In this news story from the Daily Express in 2019, the newspaper discovers the totally un-new fact that the spelling on his grave is Aaron.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you try the italian page photo?

File:Elvis Presley 1958.jpg

Presley in June 1958

I strongly suggest "Elvis_Presley_1958.jpg" --79.55.50.68 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox image in the Italian version of the article is here. It is quite a nice image, while the current infobox image here shows Elvis in Jailhouse Rock.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed the image to this one, because it gives a clearer view of his face; it seems to work better in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bryan1518 re this edit: You have reverted without giving an edit summary here. Do you not like the suggested image? As I said, it seems to give a clearer view of his face, which makes it a better choice for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

End of the first paragraph under Life and Career, 1.1 1935–1953: Early years, states Elvis was "inspired by other rising artists such as Buddy Holly, Dean Martin, Little Richard and Frank Sinatra." Reference to Buddy Holly, at least, should be removed from this list as Buddy was actually influenced by Elvis, which is also described in Buddy Holly's Wikipedia page. While they were contemporaries, Elvis' style and image were pretty solidified by the time Buddy Holly started as a professional musician, around 1955. Again, this is all described in Buddy Holly's Wikipedia page, so his inclusion as one of Elvis' early influences contradicts the information on that page. 47.204.10.222 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357 (Talk) 01:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Claim Elvis has the most number-one albums on the UK Albums Chart is incorrect

The fact stated that Elvis Presley has the most number-one albums on the UK Albums Chart is incorrect. If you look up the UK Albums page that titles belongs to the Beatles. Elvis has the highest by a solo performer. The way the article is written implies he has the highest overall. Should be re-written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:23BB:E101:88B4:FCE0:C7EE:5C04 (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

take f word off 47.144.8.250 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the quote is within a context where it is OK. It is used to describe Presley's serious decline in health during the 1970s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

Elvis' middle name only had one A in it, in this article it is spelled with two. It is Elvis Aron Presley. You can watch videos of his family talking about it and with pictures of his birth certificate showing only one A. 2605:A000:D606:A800:1C58:E5F2:65A9:94B3 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is explained in footnote [a] at the bottom of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

Under the Heading "Teenage Life In Memphis", "....he began practicing guitar regularly...." - 'practicing' is an error - please amend to 'practising'. Clearview48 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: See Practice vs. Practise. As a British person, I've had to check this before, and practice is correct in American English for “repeated exercise to acquire a skill” as the cite says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Adult contemporary should be added as a genre

"Adult contemporary" should me added to the genres in the infobox, since most of his songs in the 70s were typical of this genre. Aikclaes (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Remove one 'A' from Aaron in first line. It is correct in the info box. YourDadsFluffer (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read note a adjacent to Presley's name in the article. Britmax (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Great great grandmother was Jewish?

I've read that Presley's great great grandmother was Jewish. She was Cherokee as well? That sounds a little far-fetched. So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.181 (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Haartez.com an online publication,

"In “Gladys and Elvis,” a 1985 biography of Presley, Elaine Dundy cited a Presley cousin, Oscar Tackett, who told her that Elvis’s maternal great-great-grandmother, Nancy Burdine Tackett – also an ancestor of Oscar’s -- was Jewish."

Don't know if it's reliable or not but in an online quiz not affiliated with this publication one of the questions is, "was Elvis Presley Jewish" and the correct answer is "yes." So somehow bouncing around the internet is the assertion that Presley had a Jewish ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.181 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is dealt with in footnote b) at the bottom of the article. The claim that Elvis had Jewish ancestry is largely anecdotal. Matrilineality in Judaism would mean that Elvis inherited his Jewish identity from his grandmother. However, the Haaretz article states as a fact something that was not proved conclusively, or accepted by other people who knew the family.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.181 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no real evidence to support the claim, only anecdotal evidence. The American columnist Nate Bloom described the claim as a "tall tale" for a good reason.--LeftiePete (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

explanatory note a: "Aaron Kennedy, though" should be " Aaron Kennedy, thought" 2600:8806:300:52D:6C6A:F155:BF77:4CAD (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's correct as written. The core of the sentence boils down to "The name was chosen, though another spelling was probably intended." ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Family

I don't understand why his parents and brother aren't fully listed. EandJWoods (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Crap, never mind. In my rush I missed the info I was requesting. My mistake. EandJWoods (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the note about Elvis' middle name?

There used to be a note explaining how Elvis' middle name was "Aron" when he was born, and he later changed it to "Aaron" to be correct. However, someone recently removed this. I was wondering if I had any support for restoring it. Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This used to be footnote a) and can be seen here. I'm not sure exactly when this was removed but would support putting it back due to the removal of sourced content without a proper discussion first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit back in February. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the footnote because it removed a considerable amount of sourced content in one go without establishing a consensus first. The problem occurs because the spellings Aron and Aaron both appeared on legal and official documents during Presley's lifetime. People often ask why this happened, and the footnote looks at this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Date first played That's All Right on WHBQ

There seems to be a dispute in books about the date that Dewey Phillips first played That's All Right: either July 7 or July 8, 1954. It is not clear why the article has settled on July 8. Is there a definitive answer?

Here are a few examples

July 8

Ponce de Leon, Charles L., Fortunate Son: The Life of Elvis Presley. Macmillan; 2007. "On July 9, the night after Elvis's radio debut..."

Elvis Presley: Fighting for the Right to Rock - Page 31 "On July 8, the song made its debut on the local “Red Hot and Blue” show on radio Station "

Memphis: Birthplace of Rock and Roll - Page 65 Robert W. Dye · 2017 "on July 8, 1954, Dewey played Arthur “Big Boy” Crudup's “That's All Right” by Sam Phillip's newest artist, Elvis Presley, for the first time." ---

July 7

"Elvis and Gladys" by Elaine Dundy p.89 "Just two days after,on Wednesday, Sam's old friend and ex-partner Dewey Phillips played "That's All Right{Mama}'on his popular evening WHBQ radio program.

Elvis by Rees Quinn · 2015 Just after 9:30 p.m. on July 7, 1954, Dewey Phillips played “That's All Right” on WHBQ for the first time

Elvis, Rock 'n' Roll Legend - Page 29 Susan Doll "but on July 7 , 1954 , he played the record"

Everything Elvis - Page 116 Pauline C. Bartel 1995 "On July 7, 1954, Dewey played "That's All Right (Mama)" and received forty-seven phone calls"

Kaltenmeyer (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Claims of Elvis's Jewish Ancestry

Should claims of Elvis's Jewish Ancestry be removed from this article? (See above section for context) ClearSeawater (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a RfC is really appropriate, at this point in time. As I've stated above, I think that the specific edit being discussed in that thread was inappropriate, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article cannot discuss commentary regarding Elvis's possible Jewish heritage at all. This is a question of balance, of representing accurately what sources say, if such issues merit inclusion, and of distinguishing between fact and opinion when doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I removed the rfc tag just now ClearSeawater (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You provide a good logical framework to apply when editing biographies. Is it in fair order to remove the edit and restore the explanatory notes which balances the claim of Jewish heritage with the challenges against that claim (ie https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&oldid=1030105531) ClearSeawater (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The diff you show does not discuss it at all. The dispute discussed there is over a separate claim about Morning Dove White and whether or not she was Cherokee (Interestingly the version you linked is also an inaccurate representation of that debate and what the source it cites says; it says a genealogy researcher disputed it on multiple grounds while the source actually says it was confirmed). I will repeat: Nate Bloom's offhand mention in 2012 cannot be used to state that current reporting from 2021 is wrong about something that was not known in 2012. The headstone, which is what caused a major shift in the attitudes of RS regarding this subject, had not been discovered in 2012. It would be like using a source from before the rediscovery of the coelacanth to say that current sources are wrong and that it is still extinct. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure I'm following the first part of what you said. We were discussing this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=1030300038&oldid=1030105531, and the revision before that edit was this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&oldid=1030105531 (I was referencing restoring explanatory notes b.). There is no mention about Morning Dove White in the aforementioned edit, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said. Just to confirm, your assertion is that the headstone which has a star of David on it is proof Elvis was Jewish? I think religious symbols can mean affinity to the culture, but it doesn't stand as proof of ancestry. For example, Elvis wore an Egyptian ankh, but we can't take that as proof of Egyptian Ancestry. It's not to say he cannot be Egyptian, it's just to say that religious symbols can't be valid proof of ancestry. ClearSeawater (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My assertion is that reliable sources, and his estate, are treating it as proof of ancestry. Sources don't say that he had Egyptian ancestry. They do say that he had Jewish ancestry. We report what RS say, regardless of whether or not we think they are correct. Snopes, which is a Reliable Source, says ""We did some research, and learned that Presley indeed had a Jewish ancestor." "So Presley’s maternal great-great grandmother was Jewish, and this connection was acknowledged by Presley and his estate generations later in 1964." "Given that there is much historical evidence of his having a Jewish ancestor, we rate this claim as “True.”". JTA, another reliable source, says: "Stories of Elvis’ Jewish heritage have long been in circulation, but when it comes to a legend like Presley — whose death is not even considered settled fact in some quarters — it’s not always easy to separate fact from fiction. With the headstone now on public display and an accompanying sign proclaiming “Gladys’ Jewish heritage,” any lingering doubts can finally be erased." The family estate, which should be reliable for ABOUTSELF information, says: "This headstone, which features the Star of David to represent Gladys' Jewish heritage, was placed at her grave in December 1964". To say that these sources are wrong (sources which directly reference the headstone) would require contemporary reliable sources disputing them. Do you have any contemporary reliable sources disputing them? Because your explanation given above is original research which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. You cannot "prove" that reliable sources are wrong unless other reliable sources say they are. It isn't enough for you to just explain why you think they are wrong. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find your edit which scrubbed away the explanatory notes related to disputes of Jewish ancestry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=1030656908&oldid=1030504838. This does not seem like an edit made in good-faith, especially considering the misleading edit summary stating the source doesn't support the statement, when one of the sources (Nate Bloom) you removed, indeed supports the statement of the anecdote of Elvis's Jewish ancestry being a "tall tale". And this is purely speculation, but the timing of your edit suspiciously follows https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=1030300038&oldid=1030105531 ClearSeawater (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That explanatory note was placed after a statement saying that a genealogist disputed the fact that Morning Dove White was Cherokee. This was the statement at the time of my edit. "His mother, Gladys, and the rest of the family, apparently believed that her great-great-grandmother, Morning Dove White, was Cherokee;[12][13] this was confirmed by Elvis's granddaughter Riley Keough in 2017.[14][15] Elaine Dundy, in her biography, supports the belief[16]—although one genealogy researcher has contested it on multiple grounds.[17][b]" Neither of those references, [17] or [b], contained the information they were being cited in support of, and one was directly contradictory to it, so I removed them. Citations follow the information they are citing, they don't precede it. When a citation doesn't support the statement it is cited in support of, I don't go searching for statements that it might fit by. References often appear multiple times in an article, there is no reason to assume that it is somehow "missing" from a different area. Aspersions of the sort you have just made are actually a quite serious breach of policy, and I would strongly suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA.NonReproBlue (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion regarding Elvis's mother being Jewish, as the source cited says no such thing. If the article is to contain anything on this subject at all, it needs to be properly sourced, and to accurately reflect what the source actually says. And if there are differing opinions on the subject, to make that clear. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy, and not really open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it "says no such thing". As I said above I believe that "had Jewish ancestry" is more accurate to the source than "was Jewish", but other than that phrasing the material presented was fully supported by the source, and the other available sources. In addition to the sources I discussed above (Snopes, the estate, etc.), the article that was currently cited specifically mention's his mother Gladys having Jewish heritage multiple times. "With the headstone now on public display and an accompanying sign proclaiming “Gladys’ Jewish heritage,” any lingering doubts can finally be erased." "“We thought it would be a great way of honoring her Jewish heritage as well as honoring her,” said Marchese, who has worked at Graceland for 32 years and is one of the world’s preeminent experts on the Presley family. “We think it’s what Elvis would have wanted.”".NonReproBlue (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The source didn't say she was Jewish. You cited it for a claim that she was. A misrepresentation of the source. Not the only one, since your mention of "a headstone marked with the Star of David" fails to note that the source cited also states that it was marked with a cross, and that neither the author of the piece, Dan Fellner, nor Graceland’s vice president of archives and exhibits, Angie Marchese, were stating that Elvis, or his mother, considered themselves Jewish. They state that Elvis and his mother apparently had Jewish heritage, and perhaps considered it to be of some significance, but that isn't the same thing at all. And certainly isn't something to be making tabloid style claims about how something that has apparently been debated for many years had been 'revealed' in 2021. I can only hope your use of sources elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't follow the same pattern of simplistic spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the statement to the article, it was added by Moonswimmer in the edit you linked to above, so I would thank you to watch the accusations you make. Your aggressive tone is unwarranted, unwanted, and unbecoming of someone who references "fundamental Wikipedia policy", one of which is "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". I already suggested above, in the section you first responded in, that it be changed away from "was Jewish" after I too checked the specific wording of the source, and was waiting to hear others chime in about whether or not the replacement phrasing I proposed was appropriate, or whether there were alternative suggestions, before editing it in. NonReproBlue (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally you say "something that has apparently been debated for many years" but as far as RS go I have only seen the single reference to Nate Bloom ever cited as the other side of this apparently hotly debated topic. Currently we have Snopes, JTA, Haaretz, and the Presley estate, (and a new book The Jewish World of Elvis Presley, which seems usable but I am not familiar with the publisher) the on one side, and Nate Bloom on the other. What do you think is a WP:DUE amount of verbiage to give to each side? NonReproBlue (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion over the editing sequence. However, it is an undeniable fact that in this edit [3] you changed the word 'claimed' to 'revealed', and removed the sourced statement regarding the presence of a cross on the headstone. And in a previous edit, [4] as has already been noted, you removed sourced content (in an explanatory note - I'm not sure why it was there, rather than in the article) which likewise seems not to support your preferred account. This looks like spin to me. Particularly when accompanied by an edit summary that offered no explanation at all for the removal.

As for what is 'due', I'm not entirely sure, but I am entirely sure that Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to decide this on the basis of 'sides'. This is a biography, not a frigging football match. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted an edit that seemed pretty clearly to be a WP:CLAIM issue as the source used pretty firm language. Given Halacha, the difference between matrilineal Jewish ancestry and being Jewish is not as cut and dry different as you seemed to intimate, though after closer review i agree that Jewish ancestry is more accurate to the source than simply Jewish. The other edit you reference was my first edit to the page, before i ever got involved in this debate, and had an accurate edit summary. Neither citation referef in any way to the claim it was cited after, which was about a Cherokee ancestor. I only included a quote from the other in the edit summary because it directly contradicted what it was cited after, whereas the other simply didn’t mention it. It is pretty clear if you actually look at what it said when i edited it. Like i said before, i don’t generally hunt for areas that citations that fail verification might fit better, since they are often also cited there. I have made a total of 2 edits to the main article, and have based everything i have said here on sources which i have provided. Hardly evidence of the manipulative POV that i am seemingly accused of by you and the brand new editorNonReproBlue (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are under the misapprehension that Wikipedia considers Halakha in any way a decider regarding statements regarding who is or isn't Jewish, you are entirely mistaken. As for 'pretty firm language', the source is firm enough - in repeating what Marchese had to say regarding Elvis's exploring "other religions" as well as the Christian faith he was raised in, regarding the presence of the cross as well as the Star of David, and much else that indicates that whatever Elvis thought about his Jewish heritage, it shouldn't just be reduced to simplistic statements that omit the broader picture. As the Jerusalem Post article states, this is a subject that has been debated for some time, and frankly, even if the Jerusalem Post thinks the matter is settled, I see no particular reason to assume that to be the case. Wikipedia can and probably should inform readers of Marchese's opinions on the matter - but as opinion, rather than as bald assertions of fact. Neither the Jerusalem Post nor the Jewish Telegraphic Agency where the story seems to have originated (I've no idea why the same article was being cited twice) would be expected to have any particular expert knowledge regarding Elvis, and it would seem reasonable at least to suggest that they may not be entirely a disinterested observer as far as any claims to anyone being Jewish goes. Journalists tend to write for their readership, and to tell them what they like to hear. Accordingly, Wikipedia needs to be a little sceptical about sources that assert that "lingering doubts can finally be erased". that, certainly, can only be opinion, until backed up by other sources saying the same thing in regard to what Marchese has claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Elvis Aaron Presley, also known simply as Elvis

I think that this runs into problems with the principle of some astonishment and isn't necessary. What do others think? It has been added in a revert despite two other editors disagreeing, so it needs to be discussed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not that big of an issue, why do we even need this kinda bureaucracy. Elvis Presley is not a mononymous person, like Prince, Madonna, or Beyoncé. If he were mononymous, this page would be moved to Elvis. Beyoncé article was previously titled Beyoncé Knowles which had similar opening sentence saying that she is known mononymously as Beyoncé. It's totally weird, and that's the reason it's moved to its current title. Back to Elvis, of course he's known as Elvis, it's his nickname, his first name. The extra sentence is absolutely useless. Mariah Carey has used simple name "Mariah" in a lot of her albums and singles covers, do we say that she is mononymosly known as Mariah? Of course not! Bluesatellite (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert this due to lack of consensus. Elvis Presley is his WP:COMMONNAME and there is no need to say "also known simply as Elvis" in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? Elvis Presley is a mononymous person. A mononymous person is someone known by a single name - irrelevant if people know his/her surname - and Elvis was arguably one of the first singers to be known mononymously. Everyone knows that Beyoncé’s surname is Knowles and her marriage surname is Carter - she has even done tours as Mrs. Carter, but she’s still a mononymous person, known by one name - her first name. Beyonce formally dropped her surname after she left Destiny’s Child and started her own career, that is why the article was changed. Anyway, back to this article, the reason why the article isn’t just ‘Elvis’ is because he never formally dropped his surname, but his promotions and record sleeves credited him as just Elvis, but his credits for films and songs credited him using his full name. ‘Elvis’ redirects to this article. Of course there are other people with the name, but go anywhere in the world and just say the name Elvis and people will know which person you are on about straightaway. I doubt there’s a single person alive when hearing the name Elvis doesn’t think of THE ELVIS. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that he’s also known by his first name and many other articles do the same such as the Kylie Minogue article. Trying to compare the names Elvis and Mariah in terms of being mononymous is a false analogy. The inclusion of “also known simply as Elvis” or something similar has been included in the article as far back as 2019, so I don’t know why someone is trying to make a problem that is not warranted.--Emily19911991 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

From the New York Times: "It has become a truism that the three most identifiable names in the whole world are Jesus, Coca-Cola and Elvis.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/24/magazine/among-the-believers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Charles Kuralt, from his 1977 CBS TV special tribute/eulogy to Elvis, as reported in the book, When Elvis Died (by Neal and Janice Gregory, When Elvis Died Book , “In looking at his life, you have to start with the fact of his name. It was perfect for fame, giving him an instant idiosyncratic identity … You never heard anybody ask, 'Elvis who?”

”Some people own their name in a way that defies all others. For example, when you read Elvis on this page, mostly likely your mind goes immediately to that Mississippi boy who would become the King. You don’t need any more clarification than his first name to come to that conclusion.”

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/religion/2016/12/09/ronnie-mcbrayer-jesus-one-name-others-keeping-faith/95215582/

”Plato, Elvis, Boudicca, Geronimo and Adele are mononyms, that is, people who are famous enough to be known and addressed by a single name, usually their first.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-maggie-and-the-art-of-political-name-calling-fzmh7lws0

All of these references, and there are many more, refer explicitly to Elvis being universally recognised as a mononym, his surname “Presley” is explicitly excluded to precisely make that point. If Britney (Spears), Beyonce (Knowles), Hilary (Clinton), Oprah (Winfrey), Madonna (Ciccone), Prince (Nelson), likewise other such examples are mononyms, then “Elvis” unquestionably is too. As such, it should be included in the lede of the article and has been for a very long time, precisely for the reasons above.--Emily19911991 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It is just a clunky opening sentence. It adds very little useful information and seems to be something of a bee in the bonnet to keep on adding this when other editors objected. This is a slow edit war because you are ignoring the wishes of other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the information above? A talk page isn’t a place for someone to discuss his/her opinions and personal points of view. It’s about being objective and looking at reliable sources. I have provided more than enough evidence that Elvis is a mononym and as such it should be included in the lede of the article. There’s nothing clunky about pointing out that he’s known simply as Elvis, his first name. The fact you just don’t like it carries no weight whatsoever. It’s up to you, or anyone else who objects to explain why information which has been included in the article for years should now be removed. I mean, User:Bluesatellite is trying to claim that Elvis isn’t a mononymous person by comparing him to Mariah Carey. I have provided evidence that “Elvis” is a mononym, I would like User:Bluesatellite to provide some evidence that Mariah Carey has ever been argued to be reduced to the monomym of “Mariah”.--Emily19911991 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: The article WP:COMMONNAME is referring to the title name of an article, not additional information included in an article. The reason why Elvis’s full name is the title of the article is because he never legally dropped his surname and was credited as his full name. Loads of articles state “also known simply as” and then followed by that person’s first name… Mushtaq Omar Uddin, Areski Belkacem, Kylie Minogue, Jamia Simone Nash, Stokley Williams, etc, etc.--Emily19911991 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite: A talk page isn’t meant for people to express their opinions and that’s all you have done without any sources to back up your claims. Elvis Presley has always been known as Elvis, without any need to mention his surname, and that by definition means he is a mononymous person. I have also provided sources to back it up. You don’t get to just remove information from an article that has been there for years when reliable sources back it up and it’s been included in the article for ages.--Emily19911991 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

”Prince was a member of a select group of artists known only by a single name, also known as a mononym. Other monomymous perfomers include Cher, Liberace, Adele, and Elvis, just to name a few. The website Ranker placed Prince second on a list of the best mononymous singers, just behind Madonna.”

https://babynames.com/blogs/celebrities/goodnight-sweet-prince-a-tribute-to-one-of-our-favorite-mononym-artists/

”Andy Warhol, no less, affirmed Elvis's ascension to the pantheon of global icons by featuring him in one of his multi-image screenprints, alongside the likes of fellow mononyms Mao, Marilyn and Che.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/elvis-the-once-and-future-king-171699.html?amp

”Stardom is rare. Household-name-around-the-world superstardom is even rarer. Reduce it to the mononymous – Elvis, Madonna, Beyoncé – and you’re down to a handful of individuals. And there, quietly among them all, lies Hozier.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/hozier-if-i-wanted-to-make-a-f-king-pop-song-i-would-1.3794161

I have provided more than enough sources proving that “Elvis” is a mononym… it’s common knowledge a you say that one name and you think of one person. You have provided not one source stating that “Elvis” is not a mononym.--Emily19911991 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Record sales numbers in section "Achievements"

The first sentence of the section "Achievements" says that EP is the best-selling solo artist ever, "with sales estimated as much as 500 million". 500 million what? Albums? Albums and singles combined? And this was the sales number during his lifetime, according to the source cited, which is a superficial memorial article from the Pakistani site Geo.tv. that is itself unsourced. I'm surprised this is an acceptable source for such information.

Further, the paragraph beginning with "As of 2020", states that in the US alone the sales of 146,5 million albums have been RIAA-certified. That number would be lower for albums sold in the US during his lifetime. MackyBeth (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Singer but not a musician?

Some time ago (but not that long), he was also listed as a musician, or do I misremember? Any reason it doesn't apply to him? He didn't write music and had no formal musical training from what I gather, but did play guitar and piano, albeit at a fairly basic level. 2001:BB6:78A5:C600:7406:117:C199:A068 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Elvis was a great rhythm guitarist. He could play the guitar,piano and bass. He played piano in his gospel songs. Anyone who composes, conducts, or performs music are referred to as a musician. Just like any musician, singers are performers of the musical arts. Diadora26 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Elvis is notable as a singer, that's it. He was a hack on other instruments, at best, and was not notable for his skills as an instrumentalist. --Laser brain (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Elvis was a fabulous rhythm player. He'd start into "That’s All Right", with his own guitar, alone, and you didn't want to hear anything else.Elvis plays the rockin' bass guitar heard on "You're So Square (Baby I Don't Care). Watch the 68 comeback "baby what you want me to do"were Elvis plays guitar. Elvis played piano much better than guitar but you don't see him play it much, he had one at Graceland that he always played. And played it in hisconcert singing Unchained Melody around May or June, 1977. He could play instruments. Diadora26 (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I can recall a similar discussion at Talk:Michael Jackson. Jackson could play various instruments passably well, but most of the musical backing on his tracks was played by top class session musicians. This is also true of Presley's work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There are videos on YouTube where Elvis plays the guitar and piano. I have never seen a video or concert where Michael Jackson plays instruments. Diadora26 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that third-party sources describe Elvis as a musician with any regularity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.mswritersandmusicians.com/mississippi-musicians/elvis-presley

https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/who-was-elvis-presley Diadora26 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Elvis-Presley-Influential-Musician-In-The-1950s-PJJL7RSYDT Diadora26 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) A website written by high school students.

(2) Educational website for children. And note that this article, along with the previous one, is clearly using the term 'musician' to refer to a singer, since they say nothing about him playing instruments. In that broad sense, Elvis was a 'musician'. It doesn't however make sense to describe him as a 'singer and musician' on that basis though.

(3) Essay of some sort, written by some random dude on the internet.

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and stop wasting everyone's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're just mean and I really don't know what your problem. The best reliable source are videos on YouTube, shows Elvis playing guitar and piano. And musicians who knew Elvis, said he was a great rhythm guitarist. There's no difference between Wikipedia and all those sites, Wikipedia is not reliable source A bit of truth, and the rest erroneous more opinion than fact.The reason Wikipedia content is added / edited and updated by a big community of users. I know for sure that sometimes I have found content being updated based upon popular belief and not on facts. Anyway have a good life bye Diadora26 (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Elvis and the USS Arizona

He helped raise funds to complete the memorial. There was a special on WPBS on December 7, 2021 to support this information. 108.12.49.161 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)