Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Why?

This article does not address one major issue, which is the reason for his self destruction. I am sure there are sources out there that could provide an explanation regarding the reasons for his excessive prescription drug use. - Mistercontributer (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources of conjecture about the reasons for Presley's self-destruction, but no sources of conclusive fact. That's not to say that a balanced section couldn't be written based on multiple theories, but it's debatable whether it would be encyclopedic. Pstoller (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend adding a section which provides insight into this issue to provide the reader more information regarding the reasons for his decline. -Mistercontributer (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that your link is unsourced. The author, Susan Doll, has written numerous Elvis books, but she makes many statements about Presley's physical and mental state without a single supporting citation. A section like the one you suggest would open the door to all sorts of published accounts of Presley's excesses and eccentricities, and would likely end up being less sympathetic than Doll's article. Besides, there is already a section about the deterioration of Presley's health, and another about questions over the cause of his death. I don't see what factual information is missing from this article that would be filled in by a section about possible reasons for his substance abuse. Pstoller (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for Presley's substance abuse was addiction. He claimed he could quit any time, but in reality that is something every addict claims. The longer he took these drugs the more he required to get the hit he was seeking. Some argue that Presley was on a path of self destruction, but I have always disagreed with that opinion. Presley loved his life, loved his family, loved his fans and career. The substance abuse affected the way he portrayed himself on stage and privately, but I don't believe he was purposely aiming for self destruction. I think he was just another addict who thought he was indestructible and could handle what he was taking. "Death? It won't happen to me!". As Pstoller points out above, finding factual evidence would be almost impossible as the only person who really knows is no longer here to discuss it. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize the statements above, Elvis abused drugs because he was addicted to drugs and his decline was due to his drug addiction, which pretty much summarizes the information found in the article regarding this subject, but this information provides little insight for the reader regarding why Elvis had the need for this medication. - Mistercontributer (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're seeking in terms of insight. Readers can bring their own insights into human nature to the facts as laid out on the article. Beyond that, I believe Wikipedia isn't the place to analyze Presley, nor to quote anyone who's done so without actually having him as a patient (as Susan Doll essentially does in the HowStuffWorks article). If you can point to facts, rather than guesswork and/or analysis, that are missing from this article, that could help to improve it. Pstoller (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is this article is incomplete since this article does not provide any explanations for his prescription drug use. - Mistercontributer (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the article makes it quite clear that Presley was introduced to amphetamines in the army. I do agree, however, that it maybe doesn't make it clear enough about the addictions related to these drugs and how they developed over the years to encompass many other medications. Maybe I've skipped a part, but it appears the article does spend most of the 60s discussing music and films, quite rightly, though a little further details about Presley's ever increasing dependence on prescription medication may be necessary. Mainly because the article goes from amphetamines in the 50s then jumps right to serious drug abuse in the 70s. As a fan I obviously know all the inbetween, but casual readers wouldn't know.

Subjects like this have been discussed previously, though, and it has always been agreed that these types of subjects aren't really what the article should focus on. However, maybe a little bit of detail in the 60s sections about his growing dependence on drugs and their addictive qualities might be necessary.ElvisFan1981 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that something is not in the article does not necessarily render the article "incomplete." There have been volumes written about Presley, after all. Yes, Dr. Nichopoulos prescribed drugs to Presley for many ailments, including migraines. But Nichopoulos is a controversial figure for allegedly overprescribing drugs to Presley (ultimately losing his license for overprescribing to others), and his arguably self-serving diagnoses are likewise controversial. So, do those diagnoses belong in this article? Surely not as the sole source on Presley's health and death.

Perhaps an expanded section on Presley's medical history and autopsy is warranted; I wouldn't object to that per se. However, it couldn't possibly be conclusive about the reasons for his drug use. For balance alone, such a section would have to cast serious doubt on the medical necessity of his drug regimen. All addicts have reasons for their substance use, and this article can't conclude that Presley's were better or more understandable than anyone else's. I could be mistaken, but I sense, Mistercontributer, that you're looking for a statement or suggestion that they were. I don't know that Presley has any need of redemption for his drug consumption; but, if so, then this isn't the place for it. Pstoller (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not looking for a statement in this article which justifies his drug use. When I read this article the lack of background information regarding his drug problem seemed like a glaring omission. In my opinion, his drug problem needs to be explained better in this article, since his drug problem was the reason for his decline and contributed to his death. If this type of information can be found in reliable sources, then this information should be included in this article. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the editor to write such a section, but as I said, I have no objection to the addition of one per se. Pstoller (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Elvis Aron Presley

Please change "Elvis Aaron Presley" to "Elvis Aron Presley" evidence for this request can be seen by this YouTube video at the one minuet mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2sUZ16hpmU&list=PL4708288DABCA70F3 As seen in this documentary of Elvis if you skip to one minuet into the video they explain that Elvis changed the spelling of his middle name to one "A" rather than 2 so that his name was closer to his twins name Garon who sadly past away.

Thank you, Kind Regards Robert Holmes 80.0.73.29 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please see Note a (linked from the boldface name that opens the article), where this is discussed at length and is well sourced. By the way, YouTube is not a reliable source, and especially not a sensationalist video like that one. --Stfg (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change a plain-text Elvis (early in the article) to a link to the article Elvis (name) i.e. Elvis > Elvis

Regards, 203.6.146.5 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why? All mentions of Elvis in this article are clearly talking about Elvis Presley. There's no need to link from here to information on the etymology of his first name or other people named Elvis. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to edit 3/5/14

I wish to add a small contribution about his attraction to minors and how he had sleepovers with them, touched them inappropriately, dated several teens along with Priscilla, even gave her amphetamines so she'd stay awake and have relations with other girls while he watched . Other users take down this information once posted, even with references, and I do not understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMitsuomiX (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP and WP:RS. Priscilla Presley is still alive, for a start, and accordingly we will not include such dubiously-sourced material concerning her. More generally, this article is based on credible sources, not tabloid titillation. You should also look up the word pedophile in a dictionary, since you clearly don't know what it means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, all of this has been hashed over in the past—the archives are stuffed with it. The prevailing editorial stance was that Finstad's book is of tabloid quality and thus unsuitable as a source; and that Elvis Presley's private sex life is not relevant to his career, nor even much to his public persona, and thus not to this article. I see no reason to take a different position now. Pstoller (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's really a bunch of tabloid mumbo jumbo with no real proof and has nothing to do with this article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Year Not Specified

In the 3rd-5th paragraphs of the Sam Philipps and Sun Records section the year is not specified.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Elvis Presley: Cause of Death

I notice that the Wikipedia article states that the most likely cause of death was combined drug intoxication, however after viewing a television program (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dead-famous-dna/4od#3671953) in which a study was done into Elvis' DNA, it was shown that he had a variation within his genes which causes several conditions such as obesity. After doing some research into one of the conditions, it was most likely that he died from what is known as 'Heart Muscle Disease'.

I strongly recommend that someone further investigates this, and if need be, amends the page. Morganjp (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Record sales

Elvis Presley is not "the is the best-selling solo artist in the history of recorded music,[5][6][7][8] with **estimated** album sales of around 600 million units worldwide" Do the math on it!

Also, the sources used are pages from various books where the authors got THIER sources from??? I thought wiki was stringent about these kinds of things??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.74.28 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the cause of his death? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect they just omitted to include a new header - I've added one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for correcting. I was confused for the longest time. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia emphasizes quality sources, but not (as far as I know) original/first sources. I'm not sure what math you're asking us to do: the cited sources say what they say, and whether you go with claimed sales or the lower certified sales figures, Elvis still comes out as the best-selling solo artist—ahead of Michael Jackson. Feel free to show us a reliable, non-partisan industry source that demonstrates otherwise. Pstoller (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources that stated 600 million for Elvis came from various book sources. So I don't get the argument that it's biased. A biased view would be to say he sold one billion records. The 600 million estimation is the best description so far. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Record Label

Elvis' record label is now with Sony since RCA has sold its contract and releases to SONY/BMG. All re-releases, new releases and the unreleased material ("Follow That Dream" records) are being released through Sony as it become an official release as of 2010 when Elvis RCA contract was expired. 65.26.91.175 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw him pumping gas just last week...

Does the fact that a handful of nutcases and attention-seekers have spent decades perpetuating the utter nonsense that Elvis is alive really belong in this featured article? It seems to violate WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, etc. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article devotes an undue amount of space to this phenomenon, nor does it legitimize the claims. The pervasiveness of the rumors speaks to Presley's cultural impact and the particular hold he has on his fans. Indeed, the "Elvis sighted at a 7-11 in Kalamazoo" stories were a cultural phenomenon of themselves, familiar enough to be regular fodder for national talk show hosts and other comedians for years. They are a part of his legacy. As such, it would constitute a discernible gap in the article not to mention them at all. Three short sentences (with citations) seems about right. Pstoller (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources??

Looking for information but no sources / links for claim in Discography section of number one hits in many other countries? Anyone help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.91.6 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Once more with with feeling, Elvis Presley was 100% Jewish on his maternal grandmother's side, here is the proof...

Elvis Presley's Jewish Roots Highlighted on his 35th ... www.algemeiner.com › Arts and Culture › Music Aug 16, 2012 - According to Talmudic law, whereby one is considered a Jew by matrilineal descent, then Elvis Aron Presley is indeed a member of the tribe by ... Was Elvis Presley Jewish? - Aish.com www.aish.com/j/f/48945606.html Apr 14, 2007 - In 1998, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "All Shook Up in the Holy Land" exposing Elvis Presley's unlikely Jewish lineage. Jewish Elvis - Elvis Presley News www.elvispresleynews.com/JewishElvis.html Jewish Elvis, Elvis Presley Jewish Heritage, Elvis Jewish Ancestry, Presley Family Tree. By Ken Levine: Was Elvis Jewish? kenlevine.blogspot.com/2013/07/was-elvis-jewish.html by Ken Levine - in 335 Google+ circles Jul 17, 2013 - There's a book called SCHMELVIS: IN SEARCH OF ELVIS PRESLEY'S JEWISH ROOTS by Jonathan Goldstein & Max Wallace. But unlike ... Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe - The Jewish Museum in ... www.amuseum.org/jahf/nomination/elvis_article.html Thus Elvis Presley was Jewish the old fashioned way – through maternal descent, while Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and Sammy Davis Junior all ... Images for elvis presley was jewishReport images

More images for elvis presley was jewish Yes, Elvis Was Jewish - Debbie Schlussel www.debbieschlussel.com/.../yes-elvis-was-jewish-on-the-35th-anniversa... Aug 16, 2012 - All mothers in Elvis Presley's birth line run uninterrupted from the Jewish grandmother, Ms. Tacket, and then through all of his descending ... [PDF] Elvis was Jewish! - Jewish American Society for Historic ... www.jewish-american-society-for-historic-preservation.org/.../Elvis_was... 1. Elvis was Jewish! You have got to be kidding? Publicity photo Jailhouse Rock -1957. My wife and I are Elvis Presley fans. She says, there is something about ... Elvis Presley Family History : 1669-1935 - Elvis Australia www.elvis.com.au/presley/biography/elvis_presley_family_history.shtml Nov 26, 2011 - Elvis Presley Elvis Presley 1800-1935 Family History. ... It was unusual to find a Jewish settler in Mississippi during this time. All accounts point ... There you go, see he was Jewish, at least Jewish on his Mother's side which in and accorind to Jewish law means that he was halachically Jewish. Thank-you. :) (120.149.122.57 (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

This has come up several times in the past. All these "sources" lead back to one source: Presley's third cousin Oscar Tackett as quoted by Elaine Dundy in her book, Elvis and Gladys. The Tackett family genealogy calls into question whether Presley's alleged maternal great-great grandmother, Nancy J. Burdine Tackett, even existed: they have been unable to find any record of her, much less any indication that she was Jewish. Dundy's racialist theory of Presley's "Jewish strain supplying spectacular showmanship," along with her credulous acceptance of one person's hearsay as fact, makes her an unreliable source as well. Thus, the assertion of Presley's Jewishness does not belong in the body of the article. Pstoller (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

YUp - we've been through all this before, and the sources simply aren't credible enough. Unless and until new and better sources are found, there is nothing to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Faked Death Theory

Information on this is incomplete and does both sides a disservice. My edits remedied this to a degree and should be re-established. I know Wikipedia doesn't have a reputation for being neutral, tends to reflect orthodox fanaticism, and its pillar of neutrality and dispute resolution process are pretty much jokes, but it should be neutral.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is known for having rather too much sympathy for minor and fringe issues, because that is who is fired up to come here to make changes, to try and show that the favorite viewpoint is not so small. Orthodox editors (fanatics LOL) are not so numerous, but they last longer.

Regarding the faked death theory, the idea is presented with a few sentences cited to Harrison, Coady, Marcus and Patrick Lacy. It is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that what the article already has is sufficient. "Neutral" does not mean that every position or theory is given equal weight; rather, positions are weighed in rough proportion to supporting evidence. As there is no valid evidence that Presley faked his death and substantial evidence that he didn't, the only importance in citing "faked death theories" is to underscore the fanaticism of Presley's following. Pstoller (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Homicide Hypothesis

As far as I could find, information on Magnum Opus Enterprises does not say whether or not it is a self-publishing company. Such companies are not necessarily unreliable sources. Also, if you exclude it on these grounds then you have to also exclude the Patrick Lacy reference as Author House is a self-publishing company. And there should be separate sections for alternative theories or a separate section for alternative theories in general. The "Questions over cause of death" section is certainly not balanced and includes only 1 viewpoint--typical, shameful, and unacceptable Wikipedia practice. Even the information on the accidental OD theory by Thompson and Cole was deleted--Trouveur de faits (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again: "Neutral" does not mean that every position or theory is given equal weight; rather, positions are weighed in rough proportion to supporting evidence. There is no real controversy about the cause of Presley's death—only controversial claims advanced for the purpose of selling sensationalist books to gullible readers. Did drug use play a role in his deteriorating health, ultimately contributing to his death? Yes. Did he die of a drug overdose? According to separate autopsies by different coroners, no. It doesn't matter how many books or articles say otherwise when the only people claiming that Presley died of an overdose (or a homicide, or any cause other than cardiac arrest) are people who did not examine his body. Pstoller (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Magnum Opus Enterprises: the company has apparently published only one book, by an author who has only written one book and who has no credentials qualifying him as an authority on his subject matter apart from being a devoted Elvis fan. By comparison, AuthorHouse might as well be Random House. However, it would not substantively affect the article to remove the Lacy reference. Pstoller (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ginger who?

'That afternoon, Ginger Alden discovered him unresponsive on his bathroom floor...'

There is no mention of Ginger Alden up to this point. You need to explain who she was and what was her significance. Valetude (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read; "Presley and Linda Thompson split in November, and he took up with a new girlfriend, Ginger Alden.[248] He proposed to Alden and gave her an engagement ring two months later, though several of his friends later claimed that he had no serious intention of marrying again."? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, Occult. Careless of me. Valetude (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

An editor just added this text today, sourced to "Alan Hanson" who has self-published one book on Elvis and who runs a Elvis history blog. Should this be considered a reliable source? There is an accompanying link to a USA Today article which appears to be written by a journalist who was googling for Elvis content and came up with Hanson's blog. I'm concerned this is degrading the sourcing of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is uncertain whether we should add about the disputes related to the concert on here. I have removed it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Suicide Supposition

Whether or not Elvis committed suicide is neither here nor there. The fact is that DAvid Stanley, his stepbrother said that it was suicide. I know this kind of information won't be included because you're a bunch of jackasses.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And what's the proof of it that Elvis' death was a suicide and the quote from David Stanley? David Stanley's words are not proof of anything. All we have as far as Elvis' death goes is what was stated what was going on that his death was a result of either a possible accidental drug overdose or of heart problems. Also it would be nicer if you addressed people in a respective format than that display of ugliness you left behind in your post here. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"This kind of information" is baseless hearsay contradicted by evidence. Why would you think it should be included here? This is Wikipedia, not the National Enquirer. Whether or not Presley committed suicide is what's relevant, not whether someone alleged that he did. Pstoller (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A rich new source of material on Elvis' life and death has recently been published by Oxford University Press: "Elvis Presley: A Southern Life" by Joel Williamson (2014). Excerpts have been published in the last few days by salon.com: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/the_elvis_presley_coverup_what_america_didnt_hear_about_the_death_of_the_king/ Santamoly (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the book is new, the information in it doesn't seem to be. From what I've seen, there's a lot of focus on Presley's "scandalous behavior" that's been published elsewhere; and while Williamson is a noted scholar, I'm not sure what, if any, new sources he has for this old scuttlebutt. He cites the usual "suspect suspects," including Goldman, Finstad, Nash, Whitmer, Dundy, Bova, et al. In any case, the book does not suggest that Presley committed suicide. Pstoller (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

birth_place  = Tupelo, Mississippi, U.S.

birth_place  = Longtown aka East Tupelo, Mississippi, U.S.

173.14.90.209 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done City name is enough for birth_place parameter, rest could be described on the article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Official cause of death

I came here to read about Presley's declining health and death, and was surprised to see that the article doesn't even state what killed him (ie, the official doctor's ruling). I think it was a heart attack, and probably most people know/assume this, but surely the article should say it outright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.193.29 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a doctor's 'cause of death' statement is a 'ruling'. In any case, the article actually quotes the coroner: "There is nothing in any of the data that supports a death from drugs. In fact, everything points to a sudden, violent heart attack." Probably about as explicit a statement as one is likely to get, given the circumstances and the subsequent controversy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh right, sorry, there is a whole section about the cause of death! I hadn't noticed this as I just jumped to the "final year" section, and then there is a whole wade of text about other things so I assumed that was the end of writing on his death. Maybe the cause of death stuff could be moved up? Not sure its current position makes a lot of sense? --78.149.193.29 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes - it is a bit disjointed. There might be something to be said for doing away with the separate 'Questions over cause of death' section altogether, and moving it to the 'Health deterioration and death (1973–77)' section. What do other contributors think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We should either merge 'Questions over cause of death' to the 'Health deterioration and death (1973–77)' or just transfer 'Questions over cause of death' as a subsection under 'Health deterioration and death (1973–77)'. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The latter looks the better option to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad that people agree (I'm the same person who started this section, for some reason my IP number always changes). So can the change be made? --78.146.227.207 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done There were a few subsections already and due to table of content limit. From now, 'Questions over cause of death' can be seen after 'Health deterioration and death (1973–77)'. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

I would like to add an external link to the elvis presley page. www.msg1972.com Susan2447 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: @Susan2447: How would it contribute to improve encyclopedic standard of the article? See also, WP:ELNO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion?

I assume the AfDM is an April Fool's joke, but can we delete it without going through a bureaucratic process? Pstoller (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just done it. Whatever the motive, it was clearly inappropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry

I don't think it can be confidently asserted what his ancestry was. He certainly doesn't look like he had predominantly European ancestry. It is false to assume the official birth, death, and marriage records are correct, particularly in an era when illegitimacy and racism were burning issues, and when the family involved was poor and uneducated.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on Presley's appearance are of no relevance whatsoever to this article - and this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have misconstrued my comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is, what basis other than official records would you have this article use: hearsay and conjecture? While it may not be safe to assume the records are correct, neither is it safe to call it false without more reliable documentation proving it so, such as a DNA test showing predominantly non-European ancestry. Officially, no such test has been done, although someone claiming to have Presley's hair allegedly tested it for genetic health issues. Until there's a confirmed personal genome test for his ancestry, the official records are the very best we have—or can have. Pstoller (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I am quite surprised that there isn't a section on conspiracy theories regarding his death. I am not suggesting any of them are true, but theories relating to his death would have to be some of the most notable conspiracy theories in American popular culture, along with JFK and Monroe. Did there used to be a section which was later deleted? Simgrant (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about the stories of him faking his death. There is a paragraph under the subsection Final year and death. I suppose it could be expounded upon (with source), but a whole section - I don't so. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A Few Important Questions...... (Piano, Arranger/Producer, Philanthropy)

1) I don't understand for the life of me why on the front page here, "Piano" is missing from the list of instruments Elvis played, as it is clearly documented throughout his career that he played piano on a number of his records, including being documented in the highly acclaimed and credible book on his recording career "Elvis Presley: A Life in Music - The Complete Recording Sessions" by Ernst Jorgensen. He is also on film playing the piano live in concert. Why is that instrument not listed here for EP?

2) It has also been documented in quite a number of books on EP, many which I've read, including the aforementioned book "The Complete Recording Sessions," that Elvis arranged and produced the large majority of his RCA non-movie soundtrack records. Steve Sholes was listed as producer (that's just how they did it then) of his 1950s to early '60s stuff, and sometimes with Chet Atkins, but it's been stated repeatedly by the studio engineers who worked with Elvis, and Elvis' own musicians themselves that very early into starting at RCA in '56, now away from the relaxed comfort of Sun Records and Sam Philips' guiding hand, Elvis realized quickly that he was getting virtually no help at all in the studio from Sholes, (who was just an A&R man) nor Atkins, and Elvis called up Sam Philips kinda nervous and asked him for some advice. Philips told Elvis that he (Elvis) knew what he wanted and that he had worked with him (Philips) long enough and had learned enough to take control himself, which by all accounts from people there in the studio with him, was exactly what Elvis did. Later on when Elvis hired Felton Jarvis as his "producer," Jarvis was there to take care of business, but he basically did exactly what Elvis wanted, from instruments, to back-up singers, to song arrangements - everything. It's talked about in the book I've mentioned, it's discussed in the big booklet that comes with the 1950s "King of Rock and Roll" box set, and it's discussed in several other books - right from the guys there with Elvis in the studio. Elvis was his own arranger and producer for much of his non-movie stuff. The '69 Memphis sessions were produced by Chips Moman, but even there Elvis had disagreements with him at times, but mostly let Moman have his way since he had agreed to that at the beginning. Elvis' gospel albums actually say "Arranged by Elvis Presley." This is even touched on in a YouTube video I watched recently, titled "AMS Lecture Series: Albin Zak -- Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog"." The professor of musicology in the video is giving a lecture and discusses this for a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame event. Should Elvis not be listed as an Arranger/Producer, even if only for his own music? He deserves that credit, I might add. Elvis was an extraordinary song interpreter, he could take something previously done and make it into something else completely different - and aside from his voice, his own arranging/producing skills are precisely what allowed him to do this so brilliantly throughout his career.

3) Elvis was also known throughout his lifetime as being extremely generous and giving. Having grown up in abject poverty, he was particularly sensitive and caring about people who were struggling, once he had millions. He gave countless donations to not only many charities, and not only family and friends, but to strangers on the street that looked like they were in need. He bought cars for strangers, he paid their hospital bills, there are countless examples of Elvis' huge generosity - and Elvis did it because he wanted to, not because he wanted good press. He said himself "Money is just paper if it isn't used to help somebody." Maybe it's here and I missed it, but shouldn't this be here on his page as well?

I'm not just throwing this stuff out there willy nilly - these are facts, and they should be documented in any comprehensive encyclopedia entry on Elvis Presley. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrioticHippie (talk • contribs) 13 April 2015‎ 09:09 (UTC)

1) See Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." Yes, Presley played piano, but he is not primarily known as a pianist. Arguably, he's not primarily known as a guitarist, either; but the image of Presley with a guitar is iconic, whereas the same cannot be said of Presley at the piano. His piano playing should nevertheless be discussed (briefly) in the article's text.

2) Presley was never credited as a producer or arranger on any of his records, and he never produced or arranged anything for anyone but himself. This, too, merits brief discussion in the article's text, but it wouldn't belong in the infobox.

3) To the extent that Presley's charitable giving is distinctive, I would agree that it merits discussion. It's part of his legend, and so belongs in the article. However, he is not known as a philanthropist. Per Wikipedia's article on philanthropy, "charity relieves the pains of social problems, whereas philanthropy attempts to solve those problems at their root causes (the difference between giving a hungry man a fish, and teaching him how to fish for himself)." By this definition, Presley was charitable, not philanthropic. Presley was given to frequent and often substantial—but spontaneous, rather than planned—acts of generosity, targeted at the recipient's immediate need. There is an Elvis Presley Charitable Foundation, but it was not established until years after Presley's death. Pstoller (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, maybe "Philanthropy" is the wrong word here, fair enough. I won't argue the point. But Presley's massive generosity is known to anyone on the planet who knows a lick about him and his life, and it should've been in his page long ago. As for the rest, I'll try to make it brief, as with all due respect, I'm thinking it's pointless. I don't believe George Harrison was or is "primarily known" as a "sitar" player, and Elvis played piano live and in the studio far more than George ever played sitar, but sure enough "sitar" is there for George - as is John Lennon apparently "primarily known" as a "harmonica" player, despite using it on basically a handful of early Beatle tracks before it disappeared. Other examples are endless, but again, I won't argue the point. As for producer or arranger credits, everything I said earlier aside, Presley is clearly credited as "arranger" on his Gospel albums. But I get the feeling it doesn't matter. ( PatrioticHippie (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC) )

@PatrioticHippie: I get the feeling from reading your previous contributions that you're having a difficult time connecting with something fundamental about Wikipedia and the way we build articles. It doesn't matter what you "know" or "believe" about the subject of the article, or what is "clear" and "true" to you personally. It only matters what is verifiable in reliable sources. In the case of subjects like Elvis where there is clearly more information out there than we can ever cover, we rely on what's stated in the preponderance of reliable sources to guide us in what to include in the article. If several reliable sources (and I mean published, vetted, well-thought-of sources, not blogs and amateur publications) state that Elvis was well-known for his piano playing, then I'd support writing more about it here. If not, it just doesn't go here. In the case of George Harrison, major works about his life state that the sitar was a well-known part of his musicianship, so there it is. But even so, doing something in one article does not mean we necessarily do it in other articles. We use judgement and consensus on each case. Vague statements about "quite a number of books" don't help us—please do post specific sources and page numbers so we can verify what you're claiming and make an informed decision. Please do "argue the point" but do so within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the instrument credits: It is so common for western pop musicians to play at least some piano that the bar should be relatively high for including it in an infobox. Presley's piano style is neither distinctive nor influential. Conversely, it is exceedingly rare now, let alone prior to "Norwegian Wood," for a western musician to play sitar, and Harrison's use of the instrument was influential on many other westerners to develop an interest in Indian music in general as well as the sitar (and Harrison's teacher, Ravi Shankar) specifically. Lennon's harmonica falls somewhere in between: the instrument is played commonly enough, and Lennon's playing is common as well. But, the crude harmonica on "Love Me Do" was still a defining moment in the British Invasion, and it sent a lot of young folk who'd never heard of Little Walter scurrying to buy their first Hohner Marine Band. For that matter, Lennon's piano playing was more distinctive and influential than Presley's.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too hung up on the infobox. I don't see anyone arguing that this information doesn't belong in the body of the article, so long as you can cite quality sources and keep a sense of proportion in crafting an entry. Pstoller (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about his piano playing being discussed on his front page here, all I wanted to know is why "piano" is not listed in the infobox thingy under "Instruments" he played, as, I'll say it again, he played it; not regularly, but on occasion throughout his career, including live on film, and this fact is for just one of many sources, included in the book I've listed here previously, "Elvis Presley: The Complete Recording Sessions" by Ernst Jorgensen. Nothing "vague" about it, and I assure you it is a very-well thought out and painstakingly done, reliable, verifiable, and highly professional and beautiful hunk of publication, by a man who has complete RCA/BMG/EPE cooperation on anything Elvis, and first hand official access to Elvis' master RCA session tapes and studio recording log books. Short of sending you a copy of Jorgensen's book, or copies of other sources, I guess there isn't much I can do. At any rate, I wasn't aware prior that the artist has to be "known for" playing the particular instrument. Nothing "difficult" about it, that part simply makes no sense to me. Elvis' arranging activities are also discussed in the book, and as I said earlier, his gospel albums "clearly" list him as "Arranger" right on the album back covers. But I can't send copies of the albums and the book.

What qualifies as "verifiable" etc, that part I guess I find "vague" and obviously subjective, and I guess I simply don't understand the strictness of standards as to why he must be "known for" playing it, as he obviously to anyone who knows his career certainly played it enough to be simply listed as an instrument he played. It's not like he played it three or four times in 1956, and never again. Moreover, since originally writing this entry here, I've noticed under the "Instruments" box in Mick Jagger's article that it says he plays "guitar and piano" - and so by the apparent standards of this website which I've been given, Mick Jagger is "primarily known for" playing guitar and piano. In some other universe maybe, but not this one.

Also, again, Presley's huge generosity has been massively documented from the time he became famous, and it isn't even mentioned here. A very well-known and documented trait of the man. Are there no "reliable sources" for this either? Why not say there are no reliable sources that John Lennon wore glasses? No mention of EP's generosity alone is incredibly ridiculous, even without "Piano" not even being listed in the "Instruments" he played box. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much here at all about his extremely well-documented personal life regarding his hobbies and things he was known for - "huge generosity, his huge love of cars and collecting them, his airplanes, Karate, football, other things." Nope, it's just the smut - "drugs and his demise, his divorce, women, racial garbage etc..." A whole lot about the drugs. This website has been here too long now for someone like Elvis Presley's article to be so void of clear and obvious facts about the man to anyone who knows about him, other than plenty of the smutty parts. Anyone coming in here will certainly get plenty about that stuff, and if they don't know much about Elvis Presley in general, they'll at least take the smut away from their reading experience.

I'm not sure what the agenda is exactly in regard to Presley's article here, but it's curious to me. I know this page has been very well locked down through the years, and I've even tried to make small edits about small but well-documented facts, only to be deleted and brushed off with the "reliable, verifiable sources" stuff. After all of the various versions of this EP article, and all of the edits posted in, and taken back out, I simply cannot grasp how EP's hugely famous generosity is not in here after all these years, nor a simple acknowledgement, based on fact, of "Piano" being included in his "Instruments" box. No, he wasn't Elton John or Jerry Lee Lewis, but he played the instrument through his career more than enough to be credited for it in such a simple manner. I just don't get it. Thanks for the feedback. PatrioticHippie (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@PatrioticHippie: Once again, please do provide reliable sources and page numbers so we can verify and discuss your proposed edits. You don't seem to connect or agree with Wikipedia's policies, so perhaps this isn't the best hobby for you. In the event you just missed what I wrote previously and aren't being deliberately obtuse: It doesn't matter what you personally know or believe about the subject. It only matters what is verifiable in the preponderance of reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@PatrioticHippie: There is no agenda regarding this article other than to keep the quality up. Yes, other articles exist that don't adhere to the same standards. They are ranked accordingly. Different articles are maintained by different editors: If I were working on the Mick Jagger article, I would object to the inclusion of piano and guitar in his infobox, as he is not known as an instrumentalist.

The "'reliable, verifiable sources' stuff" is not specific to this article or these editors: it is foundational to Wikipedia. If the facts you want to introduce into this article are well-documented, then by all means provide links to the documentation (from quality sources, not fan sites) along with those facts. If you don't, chances are that your edits will come right back out. As I've said before, there is room in this article to discuss Presley's generosity, his piano playing, his arranging, and his uncredited self-production. I simply haven't the time or inclination to write those entries at the moment. Presley's karate is part of his iconography, and should be mentioned—which explains why it already is. Owning airplanes, loving football—these things are mere trivia, which is why they aren't mentioned. On the other hand, there's sufficient cause to note that Presley loved Cadillacs, especially his famous custom pink 1955 Fleetwood 60. (As Elvis was known for giving away Cadillacs, this info could be included along with his reputation for generosity.)

The "smut"—"drugs and his demise, his divorce, women, racial garbage etc."—is essential information about Presley's life, death, fame, and historical import. In fact, a great deal about his alleged excesses and peccadilloes has been (repeatedly) excised from this article because it's mostly prurient and inconsequential. There, too, the editors have sought balance. Nevertheless, Presley is more famous for his drug use and relationships/liaisons than for his pianism and football fandom, and more historically important for the racial context of his work than for all those other things combined. Those are the primary things one has to consider when structuring an encyclopedia entry. For a list of Presley's airplanes and the name of his favorite football team, one can go to a fan page. Pstoller (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pstoller and --Laser brain: As for Elvis playing "piano," when I have enough time, I'll try and collect some page numbers, quotes, info and whatnot from the book I mentioned, and other sources - and I'm sure the video of him playing "Unchained Melody" live is on YouTube. These things are the only "links" I'm capable of providing. I'm assuming you guys know about Elvis Presley, since you're apparently in charge of his article, so I'm still a bit curious about why I need to supply this on this particular point, but if that's the policy, so be it. Again, all I requested was "piano" be put into his "Instruments" infobox, not that his piano playing in particular needs to be discussed in the article.

His producing/arranging of his own recordings, (non-movie stuff) I can dig up some of the same things as for piano. It would seem relevant in the article of a musical artist, especially since he's never gotten credit for it officially, except on his gospel albums - and I'm thinking that was probably because his gospel work was so close to his heart. Years ago, I always just assumed that Steve Sholes "produced" Elvis' earlier RCA stuff, since he was listed as Producer - but his producing duties as far as the music have since been documented in multiple sources as basically bringing in demos he thought Elvis might like, supplying any additional musicians or back-up vocalists etc that Elvis requested in particular, and sitting up in the control booth with a cup of coffee and watching the clock, while Elvis ran things down in the studio and the actual making of the records with complete final say. Later on, Felton Jarvis, who did apply himself more than Sholes in the actual "producing" effort in the studio, still mainly did the same things as Sholes above, and did exactly what Elvis wanted him to, with Elvis having the final say on the tracks and everything involved. Just something about Elvis' actual role in the Producing/Arranging process would be fair. As I said, I'll dig up some stuff on this - pages and quotes, etc, soon as I can. I would never just take something from a "fan site." LOL I understand the unreliability of that.

As to the rest, to follow on what you've said, Pstoller, it would be great to include a section on his "generosity," as Elvis' was/is legendary, and it should be pointed out in his Wiki article. Hopefully you can get that going at some point.

As far as his hobbies, same thing, I guess. His particular hobbies, he is well known for them. His planes, his Cadillacs and other cars, karate, whatever else. He loved his automobiles and he loved planes too - they are part of the Graceland tour, as some of his various automobiles are. A "Hobbies" section with all of this included would be a great and worthy addition to his article. PatrioticHippie (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@PatrioticHippie: You're still missing the point. We know Presley played the piano; that's not a matter of dispute. However, it doesn't belong in the infobox because that field is reserved only for main instruments. The infobox has a higher, not lower, standard of inclusion than does the main article text. Think about the reverse: Would Elvis be mentioned in an article about rock & roll singing? Absolutely. Would he mentioned in an article about the role of the guitar in rock & roll? Quite possibly, as the image of Presley holding a guitar helped to popularize the instrument, though the sound of Scotty Moore made a bigger impact. But, in an article about rock & roll piano? Almost certainly not, other than to note that his early records had a key role in promoting the guitar over the piano as the music's dominant instrument.

Editors don't "own" articles. They tend to adopt them, but they can always be overruled—usually by broad consensus, sometimes by a formal vote. I happen to have a historical familial connection to Presley that, on the one hand, gives me a body of knowledge and some perspective (such as being able to confirm Steve Sholes' generally passive production role); and, on the other, would make it inappropriate for me to be "in charge" if it were possible (which it isn't). For the sake of maintaining objectivity, I write little if any of the text. So, I'm unlikely to get a new section going, but I encourage other editors to do so.

Volumes have been written about Elvis Presley. It should go without saying that the vast majority of what's in those books cannot be included in this article. Presley made the pink Cadillac an iconic rock & roll image; he did nothing similar for the Lockheed JetStar. That's the difference between what does and doesn't make the cut. As with the infobox, you don't cram in everything that might fit, but rather include only that which is essential. Just because something is true doesn't make it relevant. With that in mind, hobbies are generally of no significance in biographical encyclopedia entries. However, there is a Graceland article that mentions the planes, as they were/are on display there. That article, not this one, is the appropriate place for such information. Pstoller (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pstoller: OK, I understand the point completely now. I guess my point ultimately was simply - Unfortunately, while "we" know Elvis played the piano, anyone coming in here who does not know a lot about him, and wants to know if he ever did, will leave here believing he did not, as unfortunately many people these days simply think "Wikipedia" anytime they think they would like to know something. I wish the standards for the rest of the articles here for musical artists were as strict as Elvis' article gets. Jerry Lee Lewis is apparently "known for" playing "guitar," and Buddy Holly is apparently known for playing not only piano, but the violin and the banjo, no less. Never seen any of that from either of them in my lifetime, but hot damn, good for Buddy and Jerry Lee. Well, at least "guitar" managed to squeak into Elvis' page, He actually had strings in his and everything. I don't agree with your standards in this case, but I do grasp the point you're making and what you're telling me. I don't mean any ill will towards you, but this annoys the hell outta me to the point where I'm just going to forget Elvis Presley has an article here. Again, it's too bad these stringent standards are not applied across the board here at Wiki, but I do appreciate and thank you for your feedback, as well as you saving me the time of doing what I said was going to in my previous entry. I guess there's no need. PatrioticHippie (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@PatrioticHippie: I appreciate your frustration, but I would suggest that your main takeaway should be that you've made valid suggestions for information to be included in the body of the article, which I hope you or some other editor will add. I am likewise frustrated that other Wikipedia articles don't adhere to the stringent standards that are, after all, published on Wikipedia for all editors to see. That said, I'm disinclined to tilt at those particular windmills, so I haven't much right to complain. I would hope your secondary takeaway would be that Wikipedians hold Elvis Presley in high enough regard to maintain his article at a high standard. With the addition of well-supported entries about Presley's piano playing, producing/arranging, and iconic relationship with Cadillacs, that standard will be higher still. Pstoller (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Some sources:

• "Lisa Marie: My father was always singing songs, playing the piano or guitar or listening to music." David Ritz, ed., Elvis by the Presleys (London: Arrow Books, 2005), p.38.
• "Elvis also was expanding his music horizons. He began to teach himself to play the piano. He had many chances to use the pianos at his church and his school. Whereas he struggled to learn the guitar, he found that he had a natural gift for playing the piano. He learned quickly and soon felt that the piano was his best instrument. In fact, throughout his career, he never rated himself very highly as a guitarist." John Micklos Jr, "I want to entertain People": Elvis Presley (Melrose Park, IL: Lake Book Manufacturing, 2011), p. 25.
• "Elvis sat down at the piano in the lounge area in front of the court. He began to play gospel songs and sing. Elvis played the piano by ear. He had never had lessons. The piano, not the guitar, was his natural instrument." Joel Williamson, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life (Oxford University Press, 2014), p.316. Onefortyone (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Onefortyone: OK, now I'm a bit confused. I'm not quite sure what took place, but I just saw this, and then I noticed that "piano" is back in EP's instrument infobox. Does this mean it will now stay there? PatrioticHippie (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said before: no editor owns an article. Entries come and go frequently. I've given my rationale for piano being out (though I have never removed it myself); Onefortyone has given his for putting it back in. Rather than edit-warring, I'm waiting to see what other editors have to say. On the one hand, I stand by what I've already said. On the other, it makes a lot more sense than putting "violin" in Buddy Holly's infobox. So, it depends whether we go by written policy or common practice. Pstoller (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pstoller: Well, FWIW, I may try and add some additional stuff here to accompany Onefortyone's to further support and validate "piano" being in EP's article, which I think it should be, and couldn't believe it had been removed. Is Elvis "primarily known for" doing "country" music, or "blues?" No, but he certainly grew up on a lot of both, alongside so many other styles, and he certainly recorded/performed lots of both. Both were a deep part of his musical make-up, and it would be ludicrous to remove them from his "music genre" box. I would think the same logic would apply with "piano" and Elvis as well, as piano was actually an important part of Elvis' life in music. Aside from Elvis both actually and factually playing piano on various studio tracks throughout his career, as well as live on occasion, and also a lot at home - anyone who has any real knowledge of Elvis and his career, knows he did so - thus isn't Elvis "known for" playing piano? Anyone else who doesn't know much about him, would never know by being here that he did so, if that fact were not here. I've always thought encyclopedias were meant to be informative about their subjects. I understand your strict standards, but I'd like to believe this upholds that, and this is kinda splitting hairs here in this case with EP, I have to think - especially in light of so many other ridiculous infoboxes, like the ones I've mentioned. PatrioticHippie (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@PatrioticHippie: This is why some editors are against the inclusion of infoboxes in articles at all. They tend to be lightning rods for arguments that distract from the content of the actual article. The infobox is meant to distill information from the article prose and provide "at-a-glance" facts about the subject. Genre and instruments are two of the most oft-argued fields because some editors favor listing lots of things (i.e. everything they've dabbled in) but community discussions have always landed on listing only the things the subject is primarily known for. Many musicians are multi-instrumentalists and dabble in multiple genres of music, but that doesn't mean we need to list many of them in the infobox. We list what they are best known for, and people can read the article to get information on other things the subject did (again, citing reliable sources). That being said, I think Onefortyone presents a good case for piano being included in the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I completely understand editors not wanting to just throw into the infobox every single instrument an artist may have dabbled with a couple of times. I agree with that rule of thought and have expressed it myself here in this discussion in regard to others' infoboxes that have instruments I myself and I think most have never heard of them playing or seen them play at all, or very, very little of, if at all. So we're in agreement there. If I were here calling for "bass" to be put into Elvis' infobox because he played it on one track ("You're So Square, Baby, I Don't Care"), it would be ridiculous. But I agree with Onefortyone that "piano" is not such a case for Elvis, and that it firmly belongs in his infobox. PatrioticHippie (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

'In The Ghetto'

Wasn't 'In The Ghetto' a major hit for Elvis in 1969? I see no mention of it. Of course, the article is already very long but I remember this as a major change of tone for Elvis at least on AM radio Seki1949 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested addition

One aspect of Elvis Presley's career that sets him apart from virtually all of his 1950s contemporaries is that unlike Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Little Richard and others is that while all these individuals rerecorded their greatest hits, often multiple times, as their careers went on, Elvis rarely did. There was a technical requirement to rerecord Blue Suede Shoes for GI Blues, and he was convinced to rerecord Love Letters by the song's writer who felt the arrangement could be improved upon, and for the 1968 TV Special he redid A Little Less Conversation along with several other tracks for the show. But otherwise he never released an album of remakes. Of course, it could be argued that his numerous live albums served the same purpose, but I think it's worth noting anyway. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Presley, but I can immediately think of two, related, reasons. Presley never had a marked dip in global popularity in the same way that all the others on your list did. Related to that, all the others recorded for many different labels over the years, while Presley didn't. The other musicians re-recorded their songs, in many cases, at the insistence of their record companies, to try to maximise the returns the companies would make from them. Presley never had that problem. That's my original research - unless you can find a reliable source setting out the same, or different, reasons, there's no case for adding it to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Ghmyrtle. In particular, Haley, Berry, and Richard were essentially finished on the singles charts by the mid-'60s, the odd later hit notwithstanding. This and the likelihood that their early record deals were not very favorable probably contributed to later label-hopping. Elvis was a solid chart fixture every year from 1954 until his death in 1978. Perkins, Lewis, and especially Cash continued to have good country music careers; but, unlike RCA and Elvis, their new labels didn't buy their old masters from Sun; hence, the re-recordings. So long as Elvis remained on RCA and continued to get a good piece of the action on compilations of original recordings (including the Sun sides), and as long as those compilations continued to sell—all of which were the case—neither Elvis nor RCA had any incentive for him to re-record any of his hits. So, the fact that Elvis didn't re-record his hits amounts to trivia, a byproduct of his sustained success and the details of his contract acquisition. Thus, I don't see any reason to add it to the article. Pstoller (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of Visitors to Graceland

The article erroneously states that the number of annual visitors makes Graceland the second most-visited house in the country after the White House. However, the Biltmore Estate page says that Biltmore House receives almost 1 million per year, which well exceeds the totals for Graceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CF:4402:9680:C8F2:2E07:1450:2D45 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The link on the Biltmore page is dead, but a casual Google search for recent sources seems to confirm that Graceland is #3 behind the Biltmore Estate. This may change with the planned addition of a hotel and convention center at Graceland; but, for now, the article should be corrected. Pstoller (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry Questions

There are a number of things that need clarification in this section.

The article states he was Scottish and German. Based on the discussions and sources I’ve seen, his surname is possibly of Scottish or German origin, but it is uncertain which of those it is. In one of the archives, I saw two possible family trees, one leading back to Scotland, and the other back to Germany. Is it true we don’t know which is correct? If so, stating he was “Scottish and German” seems too strong an assertion. If this ancestor was German, it would be his only known German ancestor, but since we don’t know, placing him in the “American people of German descent” category is questionable.

Claiming a person born in 1935 to be of French Norman descent seems odd as well, since the Normans were an ancient ethnic group that existed around the 11th century! Ethnically, they were Scandinavian, and not what one would consider in recent years as “French,” so the “American people of French descent” tag for Elvis should go.

Quite a large percentage of people with ancestors from the UK have “Norman French” ancestors, so this isn’t novel nor all that significant. In essence, “Norman French” has become synonymous with “English.” Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo of restaurant

Small restaurant where Elvis ate when growing up in Tupelo. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith.

Both the authenticity and relevance of this photo have been questioned. Best to discuss and reach consensus. As for its authenticity, the source seems reliable. The photo was found here in the Library of Congress, and there's nothing to indicate that the photographer, Carol M. Highsmith, was misleading in her description of the location. I suppose the question is whether the photo is relevant? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, relevance is the question. If we stipulate that it is an authentic photo by a reputable photographer of a restaurant in which Presley ate—so what? Should we include a photo of Humes High? Should we include photos of the clubs where Presley heard blues, r&b, and country musicians play? Should we include photos of the shops where he bought his clothes, or the dealerships where he bought his Cadillacs? I would say no—and yet, every one of these places is more significant in Presley's history than that restaurant, or any of the countless other restaurants at which he was served. The photo in question hasn't been deemed important enough to include on Highsmith's page, so it's apparently not particularly famous in and of itself. The only two places I've found it on the web (using Google image search and Tineye) are the LOC page from which it was sourced and the Wiki page to which it was uploaded for inclusion in this article. As for the restaurant, we don't even know its name; and it didn't make the cut for the Tupelo, MS page. The photograph not only fails WP:BLUE, but it does so rather spectacularly—such is Presley's fame that any town in America (and many outside) might have a restaurant booth with photos of Presley on the wall. I don't dispute that the photo is as claimed, and my personal opinion is that it's a great photo. But, why put it here? It shows us virtually nothing about Presley. We have the photo of Presley's birthplace: as a visual representation of Tupelo for the purposes of this article, I believe that's sufficient. Can anyone explain why it isn't, and how the restaurant photo fills a vital gap? Pstoller (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

East Tupelo was not Tupelo

Elvis was born in East Tupelo, Mississippi, not Tupelo -- they were miles apart. At the time of his birth, these were two separate municipalities with their own mayors etc.. In fact, Elvis' grandfather Jesse's brother, Noah Presley, was elected mayor of East Tupelo on January 7th, 1936. Bubonicnate (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's cause of death was pronounced as "Cardiac Arrhythmia" which is defined as "an irregular and ineffective heart beat". Over use of drugs is what lead to this arrhythmia but the proper medical way to pronounce a death is not by "drug overdose" but by "drug endured cardiac arrhythmia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbymariemcguire (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this thread seems to be a mish-mash of all things Elvis related then I suggest that the link to Elvis.com should be taken down, since that site is defunct (it redirects to a shopping website). I don't know what the he** the guys and girls at Authentic Brands at taking down the website of the world's first superstar and the world's first bad boy of rock. Probably the only major name in entertainment that doesn't have his own website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that a merchandise-only site doesn't belong in the infobox—fixed. (The link is still in the external links at the bottom of the page.) I would have thought that developing a proper Elvis site would be a top property for ABG. Let's hope it has one in the works. Pstoller (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Numerous alleged sightings of Presley

There is a paragraph in the article about "numerous alleged sightings of Presley" since his death. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for silly conspiracy theorists. I suggest it be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That information is not included as "a soapbox for silly conspiracy theorists," but rather to acknowledge a significant and much-noted aspect of the public response to Presley's passing, and the occasionally extreme nature of the ongoing fascination with Presley in the culture and media. Merely mentioning that these alleged sightings and conspiracy theories exist does not lend them credence in an article that is explicit about Presley's death. Conversely, not mentioning something so widely known and oft-referenced about the Presley phenomenon would, I think, be a serious omission. Pstoller (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

How unfortunate you seem to be the only one replying. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pstoller is correct, sightings were quite a cultural phenomenon for about a decade after his death. Hardly "a soapbox for silly conspiracy theorists" Mlpearc (open channel) 03:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with them. It's not a "soapbox" to mention, briefly, a culturally significant phenomenon, in so complete an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Paradise, Hawaiian Style -- Julie Parrish -- Marianna Hill

You have a wrong picture in the article Julie Parrish. It's a picture of Marianna Hill from Paradise, Hawaiian Style. You have made a mistake because the two girls were in this Elvis movie. Please, can you remove this wrong image in the Parrish article. Thank you. --Danielvis08 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Elvis-nixon.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Elvis-nixon.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 21, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

{{POTD/2015-12-21}}

Need assistance on Elvis related articles

Need some assistance from editors following articles:-

1. Talk:Graceland#Issues
2. Talk:Toilet-related injuries and deaths#Issues

Prior extensive discussion can be also found at this Enforcement report and Reliable sources noticeboard, but right now on the article talk pages, it is only between me and other editor. Excelse (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

sony has publically declared elvis has sold over a billion records

Media & Entertainment

20 Stocks to Buy NOW NOV 6, 2015 @ 01:00 PM 28,175 VIEWS Elvis Presley's 'If I Can Dream' Scores Chart Record With Number 1 Album

More to the point, he is the biggest-selling solo artist of all time, according to Sony , with more than a billion records sold worldwide.

forbes article. please change that elvis has indeed sold over a billion records. thank you.104.226.209.42 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First, If I Can Dream charted at #1 only in the UK, Australia, and Scotland; in the US—which accounts for many more record sales—the album peaked at #21. Second, Sony's claim, while plausible, is unsubstantiated: the company can say anything it wants, but it has yet to back it up with independent certification such as by the RIAA (which puts his total US sales at substantially less than 1 billion units). Finally, the Sony/RCA claim of a billion plus units is mentioned in the Elvis Presley albums discography. It's debatable whether the claim bears repeating in this article; but, if it does, it's only as a claim by Presley's record company (in which the claimant has a decided stake), not as a statement of fact. Pstoller (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Errors in desription of Elvis' mug shot

On this page, the description of the mug shot contains inaccuracies one would not expect from a FA:

• It says Elvis was never arrested. A Google search for "Elvis arrested" not only turns up the date October 18, 1956 when he was arrested, but the same search on Google Images turns up a mugshot from the 1950s with Elvis dressed in an Army overall.
• The Wikipedia mug shot mentions that people's mugshots are or used to be taken not only when they are arrested, but also when they apply for a passport or renewal of their driver's licenses. Maybe that was the occasion here.
• Not a word is said about Elvis wearing specs in this 1970 or 1971 mugshot, but are people not required to put them off for regular mugshots?MackyBeth (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Presley was indeed arrested on October 18, 1956, for getting into a fight with two gas station attendants after one slugged him for not moving his car quickly enough to accommodate incoming customers. (Presley had been recognized at the station, generating an impromptu autograph-signing session.) All charges against Presley were dismissed the next day. (Elvis History Blog)

As for the "mugshot" in the article, a popular theory is, "This shot was taken in 1970 at the FBI headquarters in Washington DC. Being a nut for guns and badges, he had these taken on a visit to President Nixon." (Photos of Elvis Presley) However, the truth is more mundane: it was a photo taken for the issuance of an honorary police badge in Denver, CO. Hence, he was allowed to wear glasses. (This Is Not An Elvis Presley Mugshot)

The article should be modified to reflect this information. I would recommend removing the photo and caption altogether, as they and the related facts have no great historical significance. I'd like that seconded by at least one other regular editor of this article. Pstoller (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As a pretty long term wikipedia editor, including being more involved with this article for some time, I've seen too many articles become collections of near trivia including numerous photographs, lists, etc... I DO appreciate the effort someone put into finding and posting that photo, but I also support Pstoller's suggested edit of removing it from the article. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pstoller (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The 1960s section and neglect of Elvis' interest in folk music and Bob Dylan

The section "Lost in Hollywood" seems a bit rushed compared to the other sections of the biographical part: it decribes a lot of years in a short space, and in my view does not cover all the major events. Elements worth adding:

• The movie "Blue Hawaii" is not mentioned at all, while this may be the most famous of the formulaic movies. The soundtrack was the No.2 best-selling record of the decade, according to Billboard, which fact alone makes it worth mentioning in the section.
• Once a 2,5 year lapse between one non-movie session to another occurred, exactly in the middle of the decade: In early 1964, such recording session yielded a remarkable rethinking of Chuck Berry's "Memphis, Tennessee". The next occasion was the 1966 "How Great Thou Art" sessions. What a waste of talent!
• To my recollection, either Jorgensen 1998 or Guralnick 1999, or even both, point out that the 1968 comeback was sort of "foreshadowed" by an apparent increase of Elvis' musical interest in the years just preceding. In 1966, he recorded Bob Dylan's "Tomorrow Is A Long Time", which he probably learned from Odetta. Dylan himself has called this recording his favorite cover version of his own material (I think bot Jorgensen and Guralnick say that). Over the years some home recordings from the 1960s have been released, most notably Elvis singing along to Peter, Paul and Mary's recording of "Blowin' In The Wind" (on the "Platinum" box set), showing Elvis awareness of folk music.
• In 1967 Elvis made another step toward a comeback when he recorded "Guitar Man" with its composer Jerry Reed on guitar, who also played on the next recording of the session, "Big Boss Man." Both songs were used on the "1968 Comeback Special", "Guitar Man" even as a "signature tune" that runs through the special in different versions. The studio recording is I think significant enough to be included in the article, also because it is nowadays a well-known Elvis record and introduces a kind of funky country sound not heard before from Elvis. Perhaps the 1967 recording of "You'll Never Walk Alone" is worth mentioning as well.

As for the "Genres" section, other evidence of his interest in folk are found in the 1971 sessions that yielded "Early Mornin' Rain" and "For Lovin' Me". He then also recorded Kris Kristofferson's "Help Me Make It Through the Night" and informally, he ran through a verse of Dylan's "I Shall Be Released" (first released on the "Walk A Mile In My Shoes" box set). Live in 1970 he performed Tony Joe White's "Polk Salad Annie", "Walk A Mile in my Shoes" by Joe South, and "Proud Mary" by Creedence Clearwater Revival. Together, this string shows that Elvis was aware of contemporary 1970s singer-songwriter rock music to an extent that may be worth covering in the article.

One or more of Elvis' friends, I think Marty Lacker, said that, like many people, Elvis admired Dylan as a songwriter but did not like his voice. With all of this data, I wonder why Elvis's attitude to the Beatles is covered and his assessment of Bob Dylan is ignored.MackyBeth (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blue Hawaii is included in both the list of #1 albums and the filmography, and the hit single from the soundtrack, "Can't Help Falling in Love," is noted and linked in the "Lost in Hollywood" section.
• I'm not sure where you're getting the info that the soundtrack was the second-best-selling album of the decade. It did have the decade's second-longest run at the #1 position on the Billboard pop album chart, the Billboard 200 (after the West Side Story soundtrack), but that's not exactly the same thing. The album achieved RIAA gold status (500,000 units) in 1961. It didn't reach platinum (1M units) until 1992, and as of 2002 has achieved triple-platinum (3M units) status, That, however, is a long way from the #2 seller of the '60s. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Abbey Road, and The Beatles (aka The White Album) have all been RIAA certified at 10x platinum or higher.
• While Presley's version of "Memphis, Tennessee" doesn't get mentioned in the article, considerable attention is given to How Great Thou Art. The point that Presley's Hollywood years are widely considered "a waste of talent" is more than adequately made.
• There simply isn't room in the article to mention every song to which one might attach significance, nor is that the aim of the article. "Guitar Man" wasn't a significant chart hit until the 1981 remix.
• Presley's awareness and assessment of Dylan might be worth a mention, given Dylan's iconic status. But, "Tomorrow is a Long Time" was buried as a "bonus track" on the Spinout soundtrack LP. More attention is paid to the Beatles because they represented direct competition with Presley for both chart and cultural domination. Dylan's broad influence on songwriting, and his injection of a folk music sensibility into rock music, are vitally important, but he was never competition for Presley in any sphere. Presley neither worked in nor significantly influenced folk music, so I don't think it merits a genre shout-out.

You make a valid point about Presley's importance to songwriters (and vice-versa), and not just post-Hollywood. The article already mentions Leiber & Stoller and Pomus & Shuman, amongst others, but a short section could include noteworthy writers from Otis Blackwell and Aaron Schroeder to Dylan, Reed, and Kristofferson. Alas, I'm not the guy to write it, so I leave that as a proposal to other editors. Let's see what they think. Pstoller (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful reply. The information on the sales of the Blue Hawaii soundtrack comes from the liner notes to a special edition of the CD with alternate takes, but I recall having read a similar report in a special 1960s issue of Rolling Stone, many years ago, which issue included a review of the 25 top albums in Billboard of the decade. If BH is no. 2 on that list because it occupied the No.1 space longer than any other album save one, that achievement would be worth mentioning even if actual sales are lower than some other albums. Some important recordings, Guitar Man among them, may not have been chart hits but have significance in that they show Presley's artistic development. The recurrence of the song in the Comeback Special as a sort of narrative thread is I believe enough to note the studio version. Presley's awareness of Dylan would be a significant element in the article, because the description of the meeting with Nixon mentions that Presley was against bot the Beatles and the sixties counterculture, while performing Beatles song in concert and recording Dylan songs. The burying of Tomorros Is A Long Time on the Spinout soundtrack indicates how much RCA Victor was out of touch with contemporary music. Presley also recorded Don't Think Twice and while I agree with you that these songs ned not be mentioned individually, it would be worth considering that the article say anything about Presley's view on rock's major songwriter.MackyBeth (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If there's a good, citable source for Blue Hawaii being the second-best-selling album of the 1960s (with some explanation as to how that was ascertained), it would help. In any case, it was #1 for 71 weeks in 1961–1962, and it would be consistent with the treatment of his other chart successes to mention that much in the article. As for "Guitar Man," it's a fine record, but claiming it "shows Presley's artistic development" is editorializing. Present citable sources for the claim; the article can't simply assert it. Indeed, the article's well-sourced premise is that 1967–1968 marked a low point from which Presley recovered via Elvis (aka The Comeback Special) and From Elvis in Memphis (both of which adequately display Presley's development and/or return to form). Likewise, the significance of Presley's recordings of Dylan songs can't be stated as original research: find a good source, and it becomes worth considering. Pstoller (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, Pstoller, that this is just a Talk Page. "Editorializing" is a word used for additions to the article itself, not for Talk Page discussions. And let's also not assume that I am proposing edits which I am not. At no point did I propose unsourced material of any kind should be introduced into this article or in any other article I ever edited, so no disagreement or confusion about that. None of the judgments about Elvis' artistic development stated above are my own, instead they are a summary of how I remembered reading them in books by Jorgensen or Guralnick or Marsh. Of course these statements, when introduced in the article, need to be keyed to those sources. The question for now is whether editors of this page would find those additions worth having. Blue Hawaii was not a number 1 for 71 weeks; no album by any artist ever held that spot for so long. It probably was 71 weeks on the charts, of which 20 weeks at No. 1.MackyBeth (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware this is a talk page. However, you are proposing edits to the article, if only in a general way. That's a fine and welcome thing. Still, to determine whether something should be in the article, we should first know and evaluate the source(s) for it. When someone proposes an edit without a source, other editors can't presume one. And, while Jorgensen, Guralnick, and/or Marsh may have an opinion on the significance of a particular track that wasn't a hit (e.g., "Guitar Man," "Tomorrow is a Long Time"), we might have to consider whether their opinion represents critical consensus or if we'd need a contrary opinion as balance. Presley's view on Dylan would be worth citing, if only he'd ever offered one (beyond recording a few Dylan songs). As it stands, the article offers Dylan's view of Presley. Anyway, let's see what other editors have to say.

Oh, and thanks for the correction on Blue Hawaii. You're right, of course: it was only #1 for 20 weeks, behind West Side Story's 54 weeks at #1. Pstoller (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The origin of the edits I propose are probably a bit unusual, as I am translating this article into the Dutch Wikipedia, and in the process notice that some elements missing I recall having read about years ago when I read the most important books on Elvis. So it is actually a train of thought that may prove useful because translating means giving this article a more careful reading than when one merely reads it.MackyBeth (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Since 1977: EP inducted in not 5 but 6 Halls of Fame

The section "Since 1977", second paragraph, is in need of updating, as it does not mention EP's 2015 induction into the R&B Music Hall of Fame. In this wikilink he is mentioned next to the entry for Macy Gray, with notes to sources.MackyBeth (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts while using this article to upgrade the EP article on Dutch Wikipedia

Since the year began I am upgrading the Dutch (D) Wikipedia article with material from this American (A) and the German (G) Wikipedia EP article, and am now up to the change from Sun to RCA. Translating entails close-reading the source, and I noticed some details about the American article which I think may be worth the consideration of the editors here. You may or may not want to change this:

1. The lede of the A article states he won three Grammy Awards. The G article adds to this that all three were for gospel recordings, and also that he was nominated 14 times in his lifetime (until the beginning of 1978).
2. Sam Phillips and Sun Records, first paragraph: The A article does not say at what price Sun's recording service was offered to amateurs. The D article mentions he paid four dollars for recording a two-sided acetate.
3. Early live performances and signing RCA, last paragraph: RCA paid 40,000 dollars for Elvis. The D article states in the main text that 5,000 dollars of this went to EP for royalties and the rest to Phillips. The A article mentions this in note c. Since this was a huge sum at the time, how the money was divided may be relevant enough to be mentioned in the main text of the article.
4. What happened to Dixie Locke, EP's girlfriend from 1953-1955? Not a single mention of her in the article. Long time ago that I read Guralnick's Vol. I, but I remember the relationship was well covered there. She must have been his most important, and perhaps even only serious, girlfriend before he was famous, so this may be worth working into the article. It now looks like he had nothing but music to spend his time with.

Tomorrow the mainpage of the Dutch Wikipedia will feature a still from Jailhouse Rock and a DYK... that as a twelve-year old, EP brought his guitar to school on a daily basis?

Have a good anniversary!MackyBeth (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The info about Presley's Grammy nominations and gospel-only wins is in the section, "Medical crises and last studio sessions." Arguably, it warrants being promoted from that parenthetical mention, but not necessarily to the lede.
2. Minor, but worth noting.
3. Actually, it's in note (d). I could go either way on moving this fact to the main text.
4. Dixie Locke is mentioned in the separate article, Personal relationships of Elvis Presley. Refraining to mention an early girlfriend doesn't imply Presley didn't have one. Most biographical articles don't mention the subject's first girlfriend/boyfriend unless they had significance beyond that fact.

I await further responses. Pstoller (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the details on the 40 thousand dollar deal are now in note d, not because I made a mistake but because after I copied the article to my Dutch sandbox, it was augmented with a new note a.MackyBeth (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Two errors in Sources: Rose 2006 and Rose et al. 2010 > Lacy 2006, Lacy et al. 2010

While working the sources into the Dutch EP article, I noticed an error in two sources. These sources are labeled Rose 2006 and Rose et al. 2010, but in the listed sources the titles are located under the "R" of Rose, just above Roy, but are called Lacey, Rose (et al.). Googled the name and the author is Lacey Rose, so the notes to "Rose" are correct, but the entry in the Sources needs correcting, since they are listed to Lacey, which is her first name.MackyBeth (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just corrected it myself, as it was only a matter of switching the name order from Lacey, Rose to Rose, Lacey.MackyBeth (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since 1977: are the boxed sets from the 1990s not worth mentioning?

The section "Since 1977" focuses on commercial successes but neglects the change in music formats. In the 2000s it is no longer an achievement for a re-release to reach number 1, since the overall sales have dropped considerably. On the other hand, the development of EP's reputation as a serious artist deserves coverage. The 1990s saw the three boxed sets covering the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, as well as a double CD with the gospel recordings. This is the first time his total body of music was presented in a coherent way, within the context of the original sessions rather than on patchwork collections. Later the same decade, in 1998, Ernst Jorgensen published his book that describes all of the Recording Sessions. I think this is only the second example of such enterprise, the first being Mark Lewisohn's 1988 book on the Beatles sessions. Some of this must be relevant enough to mention?MackyBeth (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

All these releases are included in the separate article, Elvis Presley albums discography, and the Jorgensen book is cited as source in both that article and this one. Presley has multiple Wikipedia articles devoted to different aspects of his life and work. How is his reputation as serious artist, both during his lifetime and posthumously, not evident? Pstoller (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It only looks "evident" if you look at it from today's perspective. In fact his reputation has changed drastically through the years. The first generation of rock critics were purists who opined that only his pre-Army work was worthwhile, and actually they only liked his Sun recordings. At the back of his 1982 book Elvis, page 239, Dave Marsh recommends the best recordings, writing: "By making the organization purely chronological, I hoped to establish also the continuity of Elvis' career, to prove once and for all that he was not a great singer for one or two isolated years but for two decades almost continuously. Doubters are advised to listen to the evidence." In 1982 there was something to prove about EP's artistic legacy, evidently. Oh, and it may be worth looking at the similar section in the Featured Article on The Beatles, the 1970s, 80s etcetera, to see what a more comprehensive posthumous cover than just the commercial successes can be. MackyBeth (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant, it's evident from the article(s). In this main article, there are negative critical assessments of Presley from the movie years and the end of his career, followed by more laudatory ones post-'77. Of course, there could be an improved look at the trajectory of Presley's popular and critical reputation; I'm just saying it isn't absent. As for the Beatles article and its attention to less popular works, part of this is due to the nature of their importance: they're revered for pushing the envelope in terms of pop song structure and record production, and some of their less-popular songs were highly influential. This is not nearly so true of Presley. Too, the Beatles article uses songs to chart the progress (or dissolution) of relationships within the group, rather than delving into critical assessments.

Improvements to the article are always welcome; it's simply a matter of discerning what is a genuine improvement. In general, the editors have guarded against bloat, redundancy, and hero-worship. There is a tendency for fans to want more for the sake of more, especially more critical praise and historical minutiae, and to regard this article as competitive with those about the Beatles and Michael Jackson. But, Dave Marsh's statement of purpose for his selected discography is not the purpose of this article. Whatever Marsh may have felt he had to prove in 1982, Wikipedia has no interest in proving in 2016. I do think something could be added contrasting the quality of Presley's career management (including the disposition of his catalog) pre- and post-mortem, given the carelessness of the former and the gold-standard reverence of the latter. Presley's posthumous career—the model for all such careers—is given short shrift here, though it is a profound cultural phenomenon on its own.

My point is, expansion of the article should have some encyclopedic purpose, rather than just upping the fact count. Merely mentioning books and boxed sets doesn't get us there without establishing a context in which they become illuminating. Since you seem to have the drive and the interest, why not put together an actual entry? Pstoller (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What specific kind of entry do you have in mind? It's worth to give it a shot. My work on the Dutch version was originally meant to be a translation-only effort, but inevitably I dived into my Presley library, as I knew I would. I noticed the competitive element yesterday when I translated the account, in "Since 1977", of who had the most number 1's and top 10s and the most weeks at No. 1. Which may have some historical relevance, but with the development over the last few decades in CD sales and downloading or streaming music, it is not the same achievement to reach into the top five in 2005 as it was in the 1950s or 1960s.

You make a good point about the Beatles article treatment of their "less popular works", especially because in addition to their creative use of the studio technique they were songwriters which EP was not. Michael Jackson differed from EP in that he was not only an accomplished dancer but an innovative music video maker as well. And he lived in a period of time when buying records was probably less of a cut out of teenagers' budgets than in the 1950s. For these reasons alone, there is no point in looking at these articles as competitive, even though Jackson saw himself in competition with Prince. The section "Parker and the Aberbachs" rehearses the familiar but doubtful notion that Parker prevented Presley from performing outside the US. It has always amazed me how nobody seems to realize that Parker could have arranged such performances without having to leave the country himself. Ans in Guralnick mentions that Priscilla doubted whether EP himself really wanted to perform overseas. Perhaps we have the A Star is Born-scheme at work here: whenever EP got an attractive offer for something he didn't feel like doing, he had Col. Parker set up conditions that surely would not be met. The only time this failed was with the 1977 CBS TV special: knowing what condition his star was in, Parker asked for so much money he didn't expect the tv station to take it. And then they did agree.MackyBeth (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Parker could have arranged for Presley to tour without him, but Parker was notoriously protective of his influence, and was not sanguine about having Presley out of reach. (Note the concern about Leiber & Stoller's influence even while Presley was in the States.) There are numerous accounts of Parker turning down huge amounts of money for Presley to perform outside the US. The one major exception to the "travel ban" (aside from three 1957 dates in Canada) was Presley's stint in the Army. Parker's judgment that it wouldn't go well for Presley to avoid service was astute; it would not have suited Presley's public image or self-image. Plus, Presley's career was on hold in that period, and nobody was in a position to woo him away from Parker. Parker may also have felt that some military discipline would make Presley more obedient when he came home; pure conjecture, but consistent with the contrast between Presley's pre- and post-Army careers. In any case, it's hardly doubtful that Parker kept Presley from touring more broadly; certainly, many people who worked with Presley and Parker believed it. So did Guralnick, although he believed the Colonel's motive was to keep Presley from getting busted for drugs overseas. (I'm generally a fan of Guralnick's writing on Presley, but I'm not alone in thinking he was taken in by Parker—which is not to say I buy Nash's story of murder in 1929, either.) As for A Star is Born, I'm inclined to trust Jerry Schilling—backed up by most other members of Presley's entourage—that Presley very much wanted to do it, but Parker (for whatever reasons) nixed it, as opposed to Parker's highly dubious account that Presley instructed him to kill the deal. But, my personal beliefs are of no consequence.

Anyway, I was a thinking you might expand upon Presley's non-soundtrack work in the post-Army years, write a section on the post-mortem rehabilitation of his reputation and career, or both. You've made a good, basic case for (concise and well-supported) additions, so I don't see why you shouldn't take the first crack at it. If anyone objects to the edits, they won't be shy about letting you know. :) Pstoller (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sergeant?

It is very unlikely that Elvis made Sgt in a 2-yr hitch. There is a lot of misinformation online about EP: I've read pfc, I've read "discharged in 1964" (incorrect!), etc. A source for this discharge rank (other than a blog) would be an excellent addition to this article. Rags (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've now seen a pic of Elvis at his discharge press conference, w/3 stripes on his sleeve. I'm hearing he was a "spec 4," E-4. Some of you are much more conversant with American mil ranks than myself, but that sounds like the equiv of a ?corporal, maybe? Rags (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It would save everybody time if people would use Google first to see if that settles questions that come up. The search for Sergeant Elvis Presley yields 44.000 results, including pictures, that settle the matter: Elvis Presley left the army as a sergeant.MackyBeth (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, and Wrong. Google fits the classic definition of "an organized way of going wrong with confidence." Sergeant Elvis sounds great, but Elvis was an E-4. Were YOU ever on the service? I doubt it. There are lots of "Sergeant" ranks, but I believe an E-4, or a Specalist 4, in common lingo is a Corporal. You don't make Sergeant in a 2-year hitch in peacetime. I'm sure you can also find lots of Google hits for Elvis the tank mechanic. Elvis's m.o.s. was jeep driver. He did not work on tanks. He was in a historically significant armored division, which possessed lots of tanks, but Elvis neiither drove them nor worked on them. He drove jeeps. That's not how you make sergeant in a peacetime American army. I'm not interested in your opinion and your Google shortcuts, but maybe you know why Elvis was already on post in Germany within weeks of induction. Was he not required to complete basic training? Much has been made of his "not receiving special treatment." Sometimes Wikipedia's more rigorous requirements for substantiatoing info have settled long-standing myths. That can be quite interesting. Rags (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You obviously know more about this topic than I do. But I recall having read in biographies that he was a sergeant, and it seems unlikely that his rank would not be stated correct. No doubt you are right that it is unlikely that Elvis did not receive any special treatment at all, if only because his fame would have forced the Army to give more consideration to decisions regarding him than if he were a complete unknown. However, to quote your own words, "I'm not interested in your opinion" because we have to go by what the sources say.MackyBeth (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of the cited source they can check? We write, "Presley returned to the United States on March 2, 1960, and was honorably discharged with the rank of sergeant on March 5." citing p. 54 of the Slaughter book. However, searching that book on Google I can find only "After his final release on March 5..." and a statement that he had been promoted to "acting sergeant" on January 20 previous. I don't know enough about the military to know whether you are considered to have been discharged at an acting rank, or if we are misinterpreting the source. --Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the Slaughter book, but do have Guralnick's two volumes, and Vol. 2 should provide the military information as well. So if it helps you I can look it up and cite what Guralnick says here tomorrow. Oh, her: Elvis_Presley's_Army_career#Discharge you can see that Guralnick says EP ws promoted to sergeant on January 20, 1960. MackyBeth (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what Guralnick says. We might have two disagreeing sources if one says he was promoted to sergeant and the other says "acting sergeant" which seems much more likely give his term of service and per Ragityman. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Presley achieved the final rank of Sergeant E-5, as reflected on his discharge papers. I've read an anecdotal account that he was actually discharged as a Specialist E-5 or "spec 5," above Corporal (E-4) but below Sergeant; however, Presley's discharge papers don't show that, and there are many photographs from his final month of service showing Sergeant's stripes on his uniform (which would not have been issued to a Specialist). The papers show the rank as temporary (t), but Presley retained it at discharge.

While I don't question Ragityman's experience, I have read the recollections of many other servicemen that it was not unusual to make E-5 in under two years. As for whether Presley's hitch was in peacetime, that's a matter of interpretation. The US. was already committed militarily in Viet Nam before Presley entered the Army, though the war had yet to escalate; and, more relevant to Presley's stationing in Germany, the Cold War was in full swing. That said, the fact remains that Presley was discharged as a Sergeant, rendering interpretations of the the surrounding circumstances and the perceived likelihood of Presley's promotion immaterial. Pstoller (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the matter is settled then, hopefully. Thanks, all. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Guralnick writes, on page 49 of the 1999 first edition of his Careless Love: The Unmaking of EP: "He was promoted to acting sergeant on January 20," and the next paragraph begins: "He finally got his full sergeant's stripes on February 11 and threw a little party at the house." Guralnick's documentation for this is cited on page 668: AP dispatch, February 16, 1960; Andreas Schroer, Private Presley: The Missing Years--Elvis in Germany. William Morrow 1993, p. 140; Rex and Elisabeth Mansfield, Elvis the Soldier. Bamberg, West Germany: Collectors Service GmbH, 1983, p. 103." Rex Mansfield served with EP in the Army.MackyBeth (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate all the effort, guys and gals. I concede, and I would like to stipulate that, as MackyBeth says, my opinion is no more encyclopedic than any other. I did a little OR, and a compatriot who served in Germany says Elvis was acting sergeant because he was an acting tank commander (not a jeep driver, as I had been previously told). He claims Elvis received recognition for actions during maneuvers as tank commander, but of course we have no verifiable sources. I stand corrected all around. Mea culpa. (I don't, however, think the effort is wasted. A valuable verification exercise.) Rags (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am STILL interested to know, did he not have to go through basic training before Germany? Maybe there was a basic training camp IN Germany. I am more conversant w/Navy/Marine "boot camp", and we had a fairly heavy presence in Germany, and also, the mil decision-makers may have thought it better to get him out of the country quickly, but it just seems odd. I recall a photo of the Elvis head clipped short, but never a mention of basic training. I probably should have opened a new topic. Rags (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Answers can be found here: Elvis Presley's Army career. Pstoller (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Awkward quotation in section "Vocal style and range"

The section features a quotation by scholar Lindsay Waters, including this fragment: "His voice can not be measured in octaves, but in decibels." Unless a singer's range is limited to less than one octave (which is not the case here), I find it strange to read that a singer's voice can not be measured in octaves. Am I the only one? Usually an internet search for somebody's vocal range turns up the wanted information in a few seconds, for example here For female vocalists. MackyBeth (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That quote isn't meant to be taken literally (which would render it nonsensical), but rather to emphasize that Presley's expressive/dynamic range—or, as Waters puts it, "emotional range"—is more significant to an assessment of his vocal abilities than is his note range. Likewise, the following clause, "even [measuring in decibels] misses the problem of how to measure delicate whispers that are hardly audible at all," is not literally true. Pstoller (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I understood that the quotation is some kind of hyperbole, and while it may work well in the context of the original essay, I find it not very appropiate for inclusion in an encyclopedic entry, for two reasons. First, one would expect quotations attributed to a "scholar" to be of a factual nature. Second, the sentence as a whole does not seem to illustrate any point, as it only states that neither an account of range nor decibels are helpful. What really counts, and I don't think this receives adequate expression in the section, is the expressive diversity and the different ways his voice can sound. This may be better described by a variety of quotations from descriptions of different recordings, such as is admirably done at Paul_McCartney#Vocals.MackyBeth (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That part of the larger quote doesn't work very well. If it said the true measure of Presley's voice is not in octaves, or something similar, it might be worthwhile. I agree that the article is not improved by containing that sentence. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the quote's hyperbole detracts from its value in a discussion of Presley's style and range. I have excised the sentence under discussion from the full quote. I'm not sure that the remainder is particularly scholarly, either, but it is a reasonable critical assessment of Presley's expressive abilities. I suspect the Waters quote was originally introduced so that the entire segment wasn't given to Pleasants. True or not, the section could benefit from additional scholarly and critical sources of stylistic analysis; more comments on the size of Presley's range are unnecessary, unless there is significant dispute on the subject. Pstoller (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no dispute on the subject of his vocal range. I remember having read some descriptions of trademarks like the "Presley slur", which is a repeat of a line in a lower register, as happens in "Got A Lot o'Living to Do". And perhaps we may find some usable material in Guralnick's description of when he started out at Sun Records, where Guralnick says that Sam Phillips noticed the influence of Dean Martin in his singing style. And o yes, the vocal glissando with which "Love Me" starts has been described in ways worth quoting. I'll be looking out for such things.MackyBeth (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Gospel Side of Elvis

It's still noticeable that this article devotes so little space to the most important side of Elvis' music career: gospel music. To anyone who grew up in the 50s and 60s, it was so apparent that Elvis lived for gospel music. Elvis followed, travelled with, sang with, and supported gospel quartets (The Stamps, The Imperials, The Statesmen, The Jordanaires) and they were a constant presence on stage with him. After every concert, Elvis wound down by jamming the night away with gospel groups. To Elvis, rock and roll was just a sideline that made money. The gospel side of Elvis is the story of Elvis giving away his fortune to poor and needy people, paying their medical expenses, helping their families. Watching the various biographical videos (e.g. He Touched Me) of Elvis reveals the depth of the gospel side of the man. But this article pays very little attention to this side of Elvis - and it's the most interesting part of his story. Santamoly (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In terms of enduring image, historical impact, concert career, and total recorded output, gospel is not "the most important side of Elvis' musical career." It was undeniably important, and is treated as such in the article: gospel is noted as an influence and as music Presley performed and recorded to commercial and critical acclaim. However, Presley is best known, and had the greatest musical/cultural impact, as a rock & roll-cum-pop singer with a notable supplementary career as a B-movie star. Presley never stated that rock & roll was "just a sideline," and his generosity was rooted directly in his faith, not via one musical style. Different people find different aspects of Presley's history "most interesting"; there is no shortage of books and articles covering each area in depth. The concern for this article is to present the proper balance of facts about Presley as a historic figure. As such, it can't please everyone, and it can always stand to be improved; but, it will better serve more readers as-is than by recasting Presley as primarily a gospel artist. Pstoller (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The gospel side is given the weight it deserves. EP liked to warm up for his recording sessions with gospel singing and included gospel material in his concerts, and while good reasons may exist for believing that he wanted to be a gospel singer, he remained a secular singer, which is how the article should describe him. But as in everything, improvement is always possible. It is a bit inconsistent to see that every gospel album is discussed in the biographical part except the 1957 gospel EP, which is in Genres.MackyBeth (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, Elvis lived and breathed gospel music, and he only worked with gospel groups. He sang "How Great Thou Art" in almost every concert. However, almost to a man, his promoters and handlers (RCA, Ed Sullivan, Colonel Parker, etc) didn't like Elvis singing gospel music, but they couldn't shut him up no matter how hard they tried. RCA was even unhappy that his gospel recordings sold Gold. The gospel music was interfering with their plans. They didn't like him praying before and after his concerts and recording sessions. They didn't like him helping people who needed help. And they were all oblivious to the pain the man was feeling as he was squeezed tightly into secular music against his deepest wishes. Elvis always had a battle with RCA to sing the songs he wanted to sing, and it was really pronounced after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Unfortunately, this article, although it means well, reads more like it was written by RCA staffers than his friends and fellow musicians.Santamoly (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles aren't supposed to read as if written by friends and colleagues. They're supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, which a gospel-centric (or faith-centric) narrative imposed on this article would lack. If you have high-quality sources for your specific claims, there might be a place for them in the article. But, it's certainly not true that Presley "only worked with gospel groups," though his best-known vocal backing was by gospel singers. Pstoller (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Another problem with emphasizing his gospel roots is that the result would be to slight the importance of other musical styles, such as blues and country music. And while Santamoly may be correct in saying that RCA did not like to see him recording gospel initially, I remember having read that the label changed its mind when the album His Hand in Mine turned out not be an immediate No. 1 album one of the most steady sellers in their catalogue. Point is, since gospel usually is not an important musical genre for other artists, the genre may look more important to EP's work than it actually was because you notice it more.MackyBeth (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Santamoly, you might enjoy reading the description of the vocal handling of "How Great Thou Art" I just added to the "Vocal style and range" section.MackyBeth (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)"

Changed Marsh 1999 to Marsh 1989 edition

The Sources includes the 1999 new edition of a book by Dave Marsh originally published in 1989. This book is quoted only once, note 272. I plan to use this book to cite examples of vocal style, but I do have the original 1989 edition. For this reason, I had to change the listed edition and I think I am allowed to, as it is only cited once now, and I plan to use it more than once as a source. Does anybody know what is new in the 1999 edition? My 1989 edition runs to 717 pages, the 1999 Da Capo edition has 762 pages, yet the quotation in note 272 apears on the same page in my edition. That can only happen if nothing has changed to the introductory material, and if Da Capo used the 1989 type, which seems a tad unlikely to me.MackyBeth (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your sources belong with your changes, not on a talk page or edit summary, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you changing dates in a reference ? Nvrmnd, carry on.Mlpearc (open channel) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope my explanation is clear and acceptable.MackyBeth (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Forget what I said above about the introductory material, because that is of course paginated in roman numbers, and the body of the book in arabian numbers. "Hurt" is placed at No. 668, and discussed on page 430 in apparently both editions. If the new edition has nothing changed in those hundreds of songs, why bother make a new edition? Or was the quotation from the original edition, but wrongly attributed to the second edition?MackyBeth (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Section "Racial issues:" where does the infamous "shine my shoes"-quote come from?

In the section "Racial issues," paragraph two, a rumor is described of an apparently racist remark EP would have made in 1957, but it is entirely unclear what the source of the infamous "shine my shoes"-quote is--I mean, not the original 1957 source of the rumor itself, but the source of its description in this Wikipedia article. The first note after the quotation, numbered 347, is to an online essay/column from the "Atlanta Music Blog" discussing the matter. First of all, this source does not offer the full quotation, and in slightly different words at that, and second, it does not specify where the writer of the essay has the phrase from. Now that's what I call a poor source. So where did the Wikipedia editor of this part found the full quotation? My best guess is Guralnick 1994, but there is no mention of Guralnick there.MackyBeth (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's unsourced rubbish, it can be deleted. I would think this easily qualifies. Just put a brief note in you edit summary. Santamoly (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a significant controversy. Although "unsourced rubbish" at the time, Presley's response was real and well documented. I'll see if I can find a better source for the story. Pstoller (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a good source. As I expected, Guralnick discusses this on page 426 of his Vol. 1. I'll add it later today. As for it being "unsourced rubbish," the rumor itself is not true, but the existence of the rumor is worthy of inclusion, not only because there was such a fuss about it at the time, but also because it was still held against him decades after his death.MackyBeth (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Guaralnick, as reported by PARADE in 1996, Robinson wrote about this in the Aug. 1, 1957 issue of "Jet." Is that the source you found, or should I try ILLIAD to see if anyone has it? Steve Pastor (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to add, though, that I wonder if it was a big deal at all if there weren't more contemporary accounts.Steve Pastor (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it became an issue only later. Guralnick indeed uses the Jet issue as a source. MackyBeth

Yes, it was one of those things that haunted Presley even after Robinson debunked the claim. More people heard the original rumor than read Jet. It's important because it's part of the significant narrative of race around Presley specifically and rock & roll in general. Pstoller (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)