Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Elvis and Piano - again

I don't understand why "piano" was once again removed from EP's infobox. I thought this had been discussed a while back and settled. Such a minor and tiny thing. Ridiculous, and once again, especially given what instruments many other people are listed as having played. Gotta again wonder about the agenda. I don't get it. He played piano and played it often. This place is supposed to be informative, and someone who isn't a particular fan of EP and doesn't know a lot about him will sure as hell never know he played piano by coming in here! As is stated now in the infobox edit area, "secondary instruments", ie Elvis playing piano, should be brought up in "prose." WTH would that come in on Elvis' Wiki page here? Nowhere, that's where. It's just ridiculous, petty, stupid, and reeks of power tripping. PatrioticHippie (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It was talked about, and it was settled: The consensus was, no piano in the infobox. That is why I have removed it three times in a row. Please do not add it again without an established change in the editorial consensus. The reasoning offered at the time was that Presley is not known primarily as a pianist, but rather as a singer; and his guitar is included in the infobox because, while Presley was not notable as a player per se, the image of Presley with the guitar is iconic and symbolizes a shift from piano-centric music to guitar-centric, which is a watershed development in rock & roll history. I agreed then, and do now, that Presley was probably a better pianist than a guitarist, and that his piano playing should be added to the body text rather than the infobox. You are certainly free to find an appropriate way and place to add it, an effort I wholeheartedly support. If you prefer arguing for its inclusion in the infobox, please make that argument here, and try to achieve a new editorial consensus that goes your way. It could happen.

Please understand that, while I agree with the current consensus based on my reading of Wikipedia infobox guidelines, I am still happy to abide by a contrary reading by a majority of editors. I am not "power-tripping," as this is not at all about what I want but rather about what the majority of editors feel is best for the article according to established protocol. I am aware that other articles flout the guidelines and put minor secondary and tertiary instruments in the infobox. As my mother used to say, "So, if all your friends jumped off the roof, you'd jump too?" Guideline violations in other articles are no argument for violating them here; and, indeed, that very argument was rejected the last time this issue was discussed. Pstoller (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I assumed the debate here some months back about this with you, myself, Laser Brain, and Onefortyone had it settled that it was appropriate enough to include "piano." I guess there are a lot of other editors then besides you who care greatly about such a small point in this case. I'm trying like hell to understand the apparent massive damage to the integrity of this article by including "Piano" under a list of "Instruments" somebody played throughout their professional and private life, or what a massive "flouting" of the guidelines this would be. I'm just coming up empty. The infobox doesn't say "Primary Instruments Played," or "Instrument Artist Was Primarily Known For Playing." it simply says "Instruments." The editors concluding that it is "best" for Elvis' article to leave "piano" out of it - SMH. One would think I was calling for trumpet and tuba. The logic is mindboggling, and it just reminds me why I have so little interest left in adding anything to Wiki any longer. An act of Congress is easier. Peace. PatrioticHippie (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My position at the time was that it would be appropriate to include piano in the infobox if it was properly written about and sourced in the article body. Onefortyone provided a few sources but no one ever did the writing. The infobox should be a summary of what's written in the article, so added "piano" isn't appropriate until sourced text is added to the article describing his piano playing and why it's notable. PatrioticHippie, I did have an exchange with you at the time about the need for reliable sources and I'm disappointed to see you didn't take any of that on board. Can you please tone down the hyperbole as well? --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I did mean to add more research on this, but that said, was also under the obviously mistaken assumption that upon Onefortyone adding the sources that he did and adding "piano", which I didn't expect at all, it appeared and still does now looking back that he and you were ok with keeping "piano" in, and Pstoller was just reluctantly going with it. I figured it was settled. I never realized I was required to do anything more at that point. I honestly haven't a clue as to how I would enter Elvis' piano playing into this article, just for the sake of conveying that he played piano on a number of his records, and live in concert: leastwise per these guidelines nothing that would last the night here. I understand what you mean as to what qualifies "piano" to be included in the infobox, per these guidelines. I simply don't understand why it must apply here in EP's piano case. It's one more instrument, and he actually played it. Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it. PatrioticHippie (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the infobox should reflect what's actually in the article. EP's piano playing is notable enough to stand description. First of all, it is not difficult to point out that he played piano during all phases of his career. In 1956, he was at the piano during the Million Dollar Quartet sessions at Sun, and in 1977 he accompanied himself at the ivories singing Unchained Melody, footage of which is captured for the 1977 CBS special. Notable recordings of EP playing piano: "You'll Never Walk Alone" in 1967 and the three songs recorded in Nashville in 1971 after all of the session players had gone home: "I'll Take You Home Again Kathleen", "I Will Be True", and "It's Still Here". Guralnick 1999 calls these three songs the highlight of the sessions. And the spontaneous version of "The Lord's Prayer", also from Nashville 1971, that is the last song on the Essential Elvis CD of outtakes from 1970-1971. There may be more if you look for it. The more formally recorded of these, the 1967 gospel song and the three 1971 songs, may be important enough to warrant taking aboard in the article, and then "piano" can legitimately be added to the infobox. Oh, and this why the piano playing is notable in both cases: in 1971 there were no other instruments, so these are rare solo recordings. And the 1967 You'll Never Walk Alone started as a warm-up that developed into a recording. That origin is why the piano is not played by a professional piano player. So there is the way to get the piano in. MackyBeth (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that his piano playing is not notable. It's just not in the article. I don't have access to these sources and so I'm not comfortable writing sentences about it. We've just never progressed it from "someone should do this" to someone actually doing it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I do have the sources, and will bring Guralnick with me tomorrow. My comment, however, did not have the purpose to establish the notability of the piano playing, but how to work it out in the article. Because EP singing to his own piano accomponiment is not notable per se, there must be something about it that makes it notable.MackyBeth (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What is notable about Elvis' piano playing is not so much that that he occasionally played piano during a performance, but that Elvis was actually the principal ARRANGER of his performances. Elvis always rehearsed and arranged the performances of his backup groups, especially the Imperials and Sweet Inspirations, while at the piano. Joe Moscheo of Imperials often mentioned this, although it didn't seem like such a big deal to veteran musicians like these guys. That was how the work was done. The arranger's work control station was the keyboard, and that was Elvis' work station during rehearsals. It allowed him to manage and shape the assembly of his performances so that the final product appeared spontaneous and natural. The article makes no mention of this, and it would be nice to hear more on this topic.Santamoly (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. His role as an arranger should be covered in the article, because it is an essential part of his artistry, though I don't think it makes much difference whether his tool of explanation was piano, guitar or voice. The article makes slight mention of arranging, in the Hillburn quotation about the 1956 rethinking of Little Richard material, in the second paragraph of "First national appearance and debut album." I remember that Jorgensens book on recording sessions mentions that the tempo on "Little Sister" was cut in half, compared to the demo. One way to work this in the article may be to point out the string of Chuck Berry songs he recorded through the years up to the 1973 "Promised Land," all of them quite different from the originals, and quite different from each other as well.MackyBeth (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He also played piano on "How's the World Treating You," "Old Shep," "Playing For Keeps," from Sept 1956, per Jorgensen's book of every EP recording session, which I've listed in the past, and which has everything MackyBeth has named as well. EP is listed as playing piano as well as guitar on the Sept '56 session instrumentation list. There are also several pictures of EP at the piano at various times during these sessions and others. He also played piano on "I'll Hold You in My Heart" and "After Loving You" from the '69 sessions, again per the Jorgensen book, and they also seem to think he played piano on "Trying to Get to You" at Sun, though it's way back in the mix. I still don't know how to go about getting this into the article under these guidelines. Under what context? Hey everybody, did you know Elvis played piano? Here are some examples!' I'm not particularly experienced at this Wiki article stuff to begin with. PatrioticHippie (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The way to add this information in keeping in line with the outline of this Featured Article is to select recordings that are worth mentioning in the article. If some of the following examples could go into the article, then the piano may legitimately be added to the infobox:

• the recording of "Old Shep" is notable beacause he sang this at the Mississippi-Alabama Fair talent show when he was ten. So in the description of his second album this is one of the cuts worth mentioning individually, something like: ... including "Old Shep", which he sung at the talent show in 1945, and which now marked the first time he played piano on an RCA session. According to Guralnick, one can hear "in the halting chords and the somewhat stumbling rhythm both the unmistakable emotion and the equally unmistakable valuing of emotion over technique."[Note to Guralnick 1994, page 335.]
• "You'll Never Walk Alone" may be worth mentioning as well, because this is the occasion for Guralnick to point out that "although his playing remained necessarily limited, both rhythmically and melodically, it was always a measure of his engagement when he sat down at the keyboard to play." [Guralnick Vol.2, p. 279.] This is I think a fine assessment of the significance of his piano playing, a significance that has nothing to do with his mastery of the instrument. But in order to establish a reason to mention this recording and hence this quotation, we have to ask ourselves: why is the recording of this song itself notable? I would argue because it is a rare example of spontaneous singing developing into a formal recording session, as your Jorgensen book describes it on page 238, describing his piano playing as his "staccato style."
• As if to underline his statement, Guralnick describes the "impassioned version" of "I'll Hold You in My Heart" as follows: "there is something magical about the moment that only the most inspired singing can bring about, as Elvis loses himself in the music, words no longer lend themselves to literal translation, and singer and listener both are left emotionally wrung out by the time the song finally limps to an end." [Guralnick, Vol.2, p. 335.]
• Guralnick and Jorgensen seem to disagree whether he also played piano on "Without Love", the song recorded right before "Hold You in My Heart," and both seem to hold different opinions about the merit of the recording as well. Guralnick describes the recording in one sentence and begins the next with "For the next number he sat down at the piano," implying he did not sit at the piano during "Without Love." Jorgensen, on the other hand, finds that "his gospel-flavored treatment took it to a level of spirituality rarely matched in his career. Without a break Elvis hit the piano keys again, starting in..." [Jorgensen 1998, p. 273.] implying that he kept playing the piano, as there is no earlier song in the session to explain the word "again." I would say Jorgensen is the more authoritative source here, because we know for sure he listenend to all of the recording sessions, and Guralnick may only have listened to the highlights (as he must have done, otherwise he could not have described "In The Ghetto" the way he did). And second--but this is original research really--if you compare the piano style on the climactic ending to the cresendo's on You'll Never Walk Alone, and the ending of both numbers, I would say this is the same piano style on both songs. The 1977 live "Unchained Melody" may be worth comparison as well.
• Jorgensen and Guralnick also seem to differ on the merit of the 3 1971 solo piano recordings, with Jorgensen not finding them specifically notable on page 438. Guralnick finds "the one real highlight of the session was a trio of songs that Elvis sang on the third-ro-last night, just sitting at the piano by himself at four or five in the morning after everyone else had gone home. (...) Yearning, wistfulness, loneliness, need--all were communicated with a naked lack of adornment that Elvis was seeming to find increasingly difficult to display in the formal process of recording." [Guralnick, Vol. 2, p. 438.]
• Oh yes, the 1977 "Unchained Melody" reminds me to ask: did anyone notice that the 1977 CBS TV special is not mentioned, let alone described, in the article? In order to include it, Guralnick's description of this song could be used, as it serves to exemplify the special, even though the song "proved too raw for network broadcast" and was edited out.MackyBeth (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate everything you've contributed here regarding this, MackyBeth. I'm familiar with much of it from those books etc. I completely concur about how Elvis seemed to really let loose on tracks where he played piano, and that his emotional intensity often came out in his piano playing. His style, as you touched on above, the way he pounded on the keys as he'd hit the crescendos on "You'll Never Walk Alone" and others, in that "staccato" style he had - as if he was lost in the music and the emotional moments, and his playing reflected it. Much like his guitar playing IMO, where he lacked great technical skill, he made up for with pure raw emotion and energy. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not that experienced at how to do this Wiki article stuff. I get what you're saying above, but I'm not sure how this works in regards to how I would go about starting a "piano" section or whatnot on the front page of EP's article. I've added things now and then into an already established section of an article etc, but I've never started a section myself. How does one go about that?

Also, just for a moment to comment on the "arranging" part of EP's saga, which Santamoly brought up above, I brought that up as well, back when I brought up the "piano" thing. Page 31 in the archive index. I submitted that EP "arranged" and "produced" some of his records, per some of the stuff I've read, as well as some of the tracks on his gospel albums stating "Arranged by Elvis Presley." As for arranging/producing, I've read from multiple sources, that Elvis always had the final say as to what would go into his records - instruments, background vocals, arrangements etc, and he also on multiple occasions went apeshit whenever he'd hear one of his records on the radio or wherever, after he'd finished the track and had approved of the final mix, which had then been altered afterwards per an RCA exec or whoever. Elvis knew exactly what he wanted when he was doing a song, and his was the final say. PatrioticHippie (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Guralnick writes that RCA did not have a clue about making rock and roll records when he first recorded there. So they called Sam Phillips, who told them to take directions from EP instead of the other way round. So that is how he got in the producer's seat, even though is rarely ever credited as producer. The major exception is of course the 1969 sessions with Chips Moman, but EP was also not above simply duplicating the arrangement on the demo versions at times. And while he had the final say over the content of his records, he was also obliged to deliver three albums per year, and RCA had the right to assemble albums of session-leftovers to fulfill that contract. Hence albums like "Love Letters From Elvis" and "Elvis Now." And though his critical judgment was sound, it was not impeccable. The best example of that is "Crying In The Chapel," which he recorded in 1960, then left in the vaults until RCA released it as a single in 1965--still don't hear what he could be dissatisfied with. But a more important example is drummer Hal Blaine's remark that he sometimes rejected songs from the stacks of demos that were quite good. I say important because it offers a glimpse of unrecorded hits, a glimpse otherwise only available to those who were at the sessions.MackyBeth (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, be this as it may all be, there's probably no point in getting into this "arranging/producing" stuff any further. I can't even get "piano" into the info box, so getting the above into EP's article seems as likely to me as my hitting The Man on the Moon with a sling-shot. The interest clearly isn't there with the only apparent people here who's say matters any, and it's sad, but oh well. (I tried, Elvis, I tried) LOL PatrioticHippie (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we are progressing rather swift. Sourced material for his piano playing has been looked up and added to this Talk Page to see if anybody finds something objectionable in it or has something to add. If not, the information can be added into the article, and piano to the Infobox. Let's say I'll add to the article later today and leave the pleasure of adding to the infobox to you,since you initiatied the addition? MackyBeth

EP's piano playing is now covered at three parts of the article, as the editing history tells you: the decription of Old Shep is now the only individual description of a cut on his second album, the 1971 piano trio is in the "Nixon" section, and piano recordings now have a paragraph of their own in "Vocal style and range," because it is not the piano playing itself but the intensity it brings to his performance that counts. With all of this I think the article covers a significant but often overlooked element of his artistry, and the way is now paved to add Piano to the infobox.MackyBeth (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Those are a lot of great additions you made there under those sections, MackyBeth. The Vocal Style and Range section has been beautifully fleshed out, and EP's vocals, range and style deserve to be. I noticed the piano entries and they are great. I don't know yet if it'll remain, but I added "Piano" back into the infobox, per your suggestion. It's been frustrating to me because as I've said, I'm just not completely familiar or experienced with how Wiki works regarding adding these types of things, and clearing it with editors etc, and the Elvis "Piano" thing has always frustrated me. I've added little things into sections of articles here or there, but never this type of thing in the case of EP and Piano etc. I completely agree with what you've written in those sections here regarding Elvis and piano, and how the instrument brought out an intimacy and passion in his performances on it that even guitar did not. I hope "Piano" can remain in his infobox. and I appreciate your help, MackyBeth. PatrioticHippie (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• @PatrioticHippie: The guidelines for infoboxes have evolved over the years but there's always been a guideline that it should be a snapshot of key facts from the article body. That's why we worked on getting piano into the article before putting it in the infobox. Like any publication, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style and writing guidelines. You experienced more frustration than most because you picked a) a Featured article, and b) a highly visible article to try to make changes to. In the vast majority of Wikipedia articles you can fly under the radar and other editors won't glance twice if they're watching at all. However, this is the Elvis article. You would have experienced the same frustration had you tried editing The Beatles, or a major political or religious figure, etc. Table stakes are pretty high.--Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• That makes sense, Laser Brain - I reckon it's true that EP's article being "Featured," it's going to be under more scrutiny than most others, and I'm glad it is. This I guess is a good start at my becoming more familiar with how things work here at Wiki in regards to edits, particularly in large Featured articles like this etc; my frustration has been in part a result of my not being so familiar and adept with Wiki in general. I apologize if I've come off impatient or rude on occasion here in this page. Thanks for your help as well. I appreciate it. PatrioticHippie (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• PatrioticHippie, you made a valid point about the piano being an essential enough part of EP's musical horizon to merit inclusion, so we have established a genuine improvement of the article. I enjoyed going through books I haven't touched in years, because I was reminded how well written the works of Dave Marsh, Ernst Jorgensen and Peter Guralnick are. It was the first time I edited a FA article myself, and I could sort of feel people watching over my shoulder to check what I added. The most important thing is not to add unsourced material, because that will be thrown out of an FA faster than it got in. Perhaps in the future someone will change the order of some elements in "Vocal style and range," but it seems unlikely that the piano will be edited out again. I also noticed that the Wikipedia articles for Colonel Tom Parker and Priscilla Presley provide some information that was new to me (I never knew that in the 1970s Parker contacted Vernon to take EP off the road for a year so he could clean himself up, and that Vernon declined because they could not afford to stop touring), and quite a lot that is not in the EP article--nor need it be, because it's better to have something new for the reader in each of the related Wikipedia articles. So these are worth checking out.MackyBeth (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• MackyBeth, that's great, and again, I appreciate your great help very much. Thank you. Those books are all great. I have the Jorgensen book "The Complete Recording Sessions," which is wonderful, and I have the Guralnick books "Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley" and "Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley," which are also great - and I have a bunch of other books on EP as well. I've had the Jorgensen book out a lot lately. Also, I don't recall who wrote them off the top of my head and I don't have them in front of me, but in the EP box sets, 50s, 60s and 70s, there's some good stuff in the booklets that come with them, including regarding the recording process and Elvis in the studio etc. I'm not 100% positive, but I think the booklet for the 50s set may have been where I first read stuff regarding Elvis taking charge in the studio, after his first RCA sessions, which resulted in some great classic tracks, but the process, being different from Sun, apparently went a bit rough, and with Steve Sholes and Chet Atkins providing little help to EP. I think EP talked to Sam Phillips too, kinda nervous about the sessions, and Sam told him that he (EP) knew what he wanted, and to go ahead and take charge - which by all accounts I've read, he did.

• I've never heard or read a thing about Colonel asking Vernon to get Elvis to take a year off and get him cleaned up, so that's a good tidbit there that isn't well-known, I don't think. I know a couple of Elvis' guys told him something to that effect at various times, with Elvis just ignoring it. With all the money Elvis made during his lifetime, it's just crazy that he still had to work himself into the ground because he "needed the money".. but he spent his money practically as fast as he made it, he was very generous and spent a fortune on others as well, and he never invested his money or anything like that. He should've had better money handlers. LOL Oh well, at any rate, I've also noticed what you said earlier about how the '77 CBS Special isn't even mentioned in Elvis' article. I never noticed that until you mentioned it, and it seems that the "Final Year and Death" section is the perfect obvious place for it to be, maybe even including something about "Unchained Melody" with Elvis on piano again, and which was left off the special due to it being too raw and whatnot. But once again, even in his last days, and with much of the rest of the show being subpar as Elvis was, he still poured his heart out on that one, sitting at the piano, his hair a black helmet, and sweat pouring off him. PatrioticHippie (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• The first two booklets were written by Guralnick ('50s and '60s), and the third by Dave Marsh (70s). I regret that not all have been written by the same author, not that I have anything against Marsh, it's just that I would have liked a sense of unity to the boxes. The CBS special should be described in the article, it is really an omission one would not expect from a FA. I recall finding Guralnick's account disappointingly similar to the one found in Jerry Hopkins' "Elvis--The Final Years", if you reckon that Hopkins had to base his account on the broadcast, while Guralnick saw both filmed concerts.MackyBeth (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• MackyBeth, I agree about the CBS special. It's quite surprising to me that it isn't part of EP's article, as it's always been a much-discussed, and I guess infamous document of his final days, his final performances, and the condition he was in at that time. I hope that CBS show is never officially released to the public, but it should be documented in EP's article. I'll have to get the Jerry Hopkins book, one of these days. It's one I don't have. I need to break out my box sets and read those booklets again, for a refresher. PatrioticHippie (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to all dug into the piano topic! A very useful and productive discussion. A few years ago, this article was determined to prove that Elvis was just a no-talent guitar hack, so it's nice to see people willing to speak up for his enormous musical skills. BTW, a wonderful read on the musical side of Elvis is The Gospel Side of Elvis written by Joe Moscheo of the Imperials, with a memorable introduction by Priscilla Presley. There's also a 2-DVD set titled He Touched Me with excellent interviews with many of EP's backup musicians. Both are available, and they'll change forever how you see Elvis as a truly gifted pianist, arranger, and composer. Santamoly (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Santamoly, I think possibly part of my strong desire to see "piano" included in Elvis' article/infobox as it should be, as well as his "arranging/producing" hopefully included somewhere too one day, may indeed be the fact that some through the years since his death have tried to paint him as a lucky hack with no musical talent, which is of course moronic. PatrioticHippie (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Add Category:American country singer-songwriters 75.130.122.118 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 04:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - the request is clear, but the reason for the request is not. Presley was not known as a songwriter, I cannot see any mention of his songwriting in the article at all.
He was better known for demanding 1/3 of the fee from the songwriters that he used - Arjayay (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason may be that he is officially credited with writing the songs his management demanded a share for, so the question is: does Wikipedia go with the official credits or does it follow the well documented actual course of events which is that songwriters would have to surrender part of their royalties or else Presley would not cut their material? I would say the second option because it is widely known that he had no songwriting ability and to imply otherwise by categorizing him as such would be a step toward making the article look like a sourced fanpage instead of the objective entry that a FA-rated article should be. MackyBeth

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

File:Elvis Presley

your fan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.135.2 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

75.130.122.118 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed—not happening. --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

75.130.122.118 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Category:American country rock singers Category:American country singer-songwriters

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

After a look at the first category it seems not a well-defined, even confused category to me, beacuse it does not include familiar names found in the country rock entry, and does include some names that are not usually regarded as country rock singers: Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison, of which the first is surely a mistake since he was no longer alive when the genre emerged at the end of the sixties. EP's recordings in the field are his covers of CCR's Proud Mary, and several Tony Joe White tunes. I don't know if that is enough to warrant his inclusion, though.MackyBeth (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Elvis was one of the most imitated rockabillies. "Country rock," no. Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison are from the same "generation" of performers as Elvis - rockabilly. Steve Pastor (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Telephone calls to president Carter

I just saw what was removed, and there is no doubt that this is accurate. Guralnick describes the same thing in mostly the same words on page 637 of his volume 2. Recently we have been discussing here how awkward it is that the 1977 TV special is not mentioned at all, and if anyone wants to add anything to 1977 then that concert special should be described before we should contemplate including any apparently incomprehensible phonecalls that had zero effect on anything. Just my opinion. MackyBeth

I didn't remove it as inaccurate necessarily, just as possibly undue detail. The FAC for this article saw substantial discussion about its length, so we need to exercise care when introducing extra details here and ensure they are critical to comprehension and the overall narrative. There is a lot of opportunity for bloat. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If the narrative of his deterioration needs fleshing out, it may be worth contemplating to eventually pare this incident down to just one sentence and use it as an extraordinary example of how far he had gone by then, calling the president of the US just like that to help out a friend, and being too stoned to communicate. I don't know if the narrative of his deterioriation needs to be fleshed out, however, but we should be aware of unconscious bias from editors of this page: editors of the page most likely have an interest in Presley that make them dislike the account of his final years, but you gotta admit that those have become an essential part of his impact.MackyBeth (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Album title error

The 1974 album title is "Elvis Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis" not "Elvis: As Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis" as currently shown in the article. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Laser brain (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Adult contemporary

In the 1970s, a large part of Presley's music was in the genre adult contemporary. He is even mentioned as an example on the page for this genre. So why can't adult contemporary be listed among his genres? Aikclaes (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should limit the list of genres in the infobox to the principal ones that defined Elvis and those that most secondary sources would use to describe him. It's true that his music began appearing on adult contemporary charts in the 70s, but I doubt he ever went out and said, "I'm gonna record some adult contemporary music today." I'm interested in other opinions. I think the list is already too long. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Adult contemporary" sounds more like a kind of audience than a kind of music. The infobox should define the essence of his musical horizon, which is more rootsy than Adult contemporary implies--to me at least. The material on albums like Today (1975) and the Graceland sessions is well covered by the genres in the infobox. If any genre needs to be removed from the box, I think it should be "soul". The box already has the more encompassing term "Rhythm and blues" which describes what he recordedbetter, since many of his recordings, like "Shake A Hand" and "If You Don't Come Back" are hits from the 1950s when the word "soul" did not yet exist.MackyBeth (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to remove "soul" from the infobox as well. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Adult contemporary is not considered a genre (as it says in the article you gave a link to). It's a radio format. (And, yes, soul could be removed.) —Musdan77 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mispronunciation of "Presley"

Most people, I would say a majority, mispronounce "Presley". The name should be pronounced ['prɛsli], but most people (including native-English speakers) mispronounce it ['prɛzli]. Many people turn to Wikipedia for info on the correct pronunciation of a person's name, so shouldn't the correct (and maybe also the incorrect) pronunciation of "Presley" be included somewhere in this article? Aikclaes (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean somewhere other than the extensive footnote right after his name in the lead? --Laser brain (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the info. And for the sarcasm. Aikclaes (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's my sense of humor, no offense intended. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue Haired Grandmothers

I do not believe the following statement is accurate: "Even his fans were now ... blue-haired grandmothers." Elvis' fans in the 1970's were the older version of his original fans who were young women in the 1950s (not their mothers). -Mistercontributer (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point. On YouTube there is enough footage of his final years with shots of the audience to say that statement sucks. Especially the director of the 1977 TV special Elvis in Concert aimed to capture the audience's fascination, the majority seems to be on the verge of middle age.MackyBeth (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Since we know this statement is not accurate, and the above reference supports this conclusion, I recommend we remove this statement from the article, since it is misleading for the reader. Also, I have never agreed with the Liberace comparison. Mistercontributer (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded and someone else has just now modified something else in that same element of the article I'll remove the whole quotation.MackyBeth (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal is done. I first reverted your own edit, knowing you would be alerted.MackyBeth (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Religion

It keeps being deleted, besides the profound influence the Assemblies of God church had on Elvis' early musical experience. And, Michael Jackson has information about his religious views in the infobox. So, I restore it once again, and please before removing, provide me some arguments why it can't be.Ernio48 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Last time it was removed the edit summary stated that any infobox should only provide information covered in the body of the article. Since then, that user added Pentecostal to the first mention of the Assembly of God church. I don't know if that is enough to keep it in the infobox, though. The article should perhaps state that he did not change church later in life for that. MackyBeth (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't see this before. Why is "Pentecostal" in the "Religion" parameter (only)? Pentecostal(ism) is not the religion. It's a sect of Christianity. If it is going to be in the IB, it should be: "Christianity (Pentecostal)" —Musdan77 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it has nothing to do with Elvis' notability and barely belongs in the article, let alone the infobox which is for key facts. But, there is always someone in here pushing for its inclusion. --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As for notability, it is well known that he loved to sing gospel songs. When he went on The Ed Sullivan Show, he insisted on singing a hymn, even though Ed didn't want him to. His love for that music came from his Christian upbringing. My issue is that, as far as I know, there is no source/evidence that he ever said that he was a Christian – although people who knew him said that he was – and when he said to his fans that there's only one king and that's Christ, that comes pretty darn close. At least that's how he felt at that particular point of his life (1974).

On a side note, there are currently six citations at the end of the sentence about the Pentecostal church. That's overciting, but two of them are dead links and one belongs in the following sentence. Normally, I would tag the dead links, but in this case, I'll just just remove those. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is no disagreement with my first post here, so I'll make the correction to the IB. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Pentecostal indicates Christianity. Alone. Go through US presidents' articles on wikipedia, in infoboxes in "religion" there is Episopalian/Presbyterian/Baptist - only the branch is mentioned. Why can't we use it here this way? "Christianity (Pentecostal)" is overinformative.Ernio48 (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Musdan77

As children our parents brings us in church and in all fairness I think so do is Elvis Presley mom and dad Jeremy122 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

English please.Ernio48 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ernio48: I'm sure your edit will stick. Until someone changes it again. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Grand Ole Opry

Presley "bombed" on the Grand Ole Opry, and received both a cold reception and negative feedback and as a result Presley swore never to return. However, this article glosses over this debacle. Therefore I recommend we clarify this issue within this article. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't let those short, made-up online items wrongfoot you and check out the scholarly sources first. This is a FA-rated article based on first - class sources, so any online publication which is unsourced itself should be looked at with some suspicion (when and where did Elvis say never to return?). Guralnick's Volume 1 discusses the Opry performance on pages 127-30. He says nothing about Presley having sworn never to return, and at that point neither Elvis's career (he released his first single) nor his 19 year old personality lend much credibility to the likeliness of such statement. If you read Guralnick, you will notice that Presley did not fit the strictly country style of the show format. On page 135, Guralnick quotes the Memphis Commercial Appeal for 14 October 1954, saying the Opry was a bigger event than the Hayride: "But Presley has already appeared on the Grand Ole Opry - on October 2 - and neither customers nor fellow performers wanted him to quit. It is unprecedented for Grand Ole Opry to take a performer on the basis of a single record, which is what Presley had until two weeks Ago." The Wikipedia EP article need not be edited in the direction of the two online sources. MackyBeth (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I chose two random articles to help make that point. When I type "Elvis Presley Bombs at Grand Ole Opry" into Google search I receive 85,500 references as a result, and based on reviewing many of these references, I am confident that statement is accurate. To clarify, my concern is this article does not provide complete information regarding this issue and therefore misleads the reader. Thanks again Mistercontributer (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, and I doubt it is covered in high-quality sources. It seems more like typical online music journalism ("Top 10 Music Legends Who Bombed Early Performances! You Won't Believe Number 4!") that gets repeated everywhere on clickbait sites. That may account for the Google popularity. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that an interesting fact used on "clickbait sites" may also be true, and therefore may belong in an encyclopedia if proven to be accurate. We should not rush to judgment until this issue has been fully investigated. Thanks again for your consideration. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually something being true and verifiable does not mean it needs to be included here. There is a matter of editorial judgement as to what should be included. This has always been a challenge with this article, because it's already quite large. We need to stick to significant facts that create an encyclopedic narrative. We already know it's not covered in a major biography (Guralnick), so I'm not convinced. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note I used the words "may belong" not "do belong" if proven accurate, giving consideration for editorial judgment. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking up what Guralnick has to say about this is taking this into consideration for editorial judgment, and by his account, while Presley was not a great success, he did not bomb either. With just one single release in early October 1954, his career had yet to take off for real, so Presley was in no position to state that he would never return to the Opry. He also was still a shy country boy in 1954, so the statement would be out of character for him as well. Unless we have a reliable source that states where and when he made that statement, the conclusion should be: it is very unlikely that he did. And while 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, 85,500 Google Search results can. Oh, and Guralnick says that Elvis, Scotty and Bill were treated kindly and respectful by the other artists at the Opry, and the trio was especially excited, and a bit anxious, to meet Bill Monroe and to hear his opinion of their version of Blue Moon of Kentucky. He told them he liked it so much that he planned to rerecord it using their arrangement, which he did (see article on the song, section "Other recordings").MackyBeth (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Even though Bill Monroe was polite, that does not mean Presley's performance went over well with the audience and with the management. Since Garalnick's biography of Presley may not contain complete coverage regarding this issue, I recommend we investigate to determine if any additional reliable sources may provide additional and relevant information regarding this subject, such as Graceland.com, Bobbie Ann Mason's biography of Presley, etc. Thanks again - Mistercontributer (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Discographer Ernst Jorgensen writes on page 18 of his book on Elvis's recording sessions that at the Opry "the three young men performed adequately but got little in the way of enthusiasm from the audience--and failed to get invited back." Dave Marsh, in his 1982 book Elvis, on page 47 calls Elvis's performance "an unqualified disaster. Elvis did both sides of his single, and when he was through, Opry manager Jim Denny told him he should go back to driving trucks. Elvis was reportedly devastated for weeks afterward, but by October he was sufficiently recovered to appear on the "HHayride", where he was a genuine success." Now, this remark about sticking to truckdriving seems to be true, he really said that. In any case that performance did not hamper the rise of EP, and is therefore not a major event. So I don't see it deserves more coverage in the article than it has now. Pictures of Elvis in tuxedo backstage at the 1957 Christmas Opry, which he attended as a visitor, can be found on Google Images. The 1954 experience did not leave him very embittered.MackyBeth (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. For the record, my position is this issue needs to be clarified within this article as previously stated, which may be accomplished by rewording vs. expanding this article. Presley's performance was not well received, which is confirmed by multiple reliable sources. The current wording in this article may mislead the reader regarding what actually transpired. Thanks again Mistercontributer (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The wording now is "polite audience reaction" which I think indicates a lack of enthusiasm. What about this description do you think needs revision?MackyBeth (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A summary of the quote from Dave Marsh's biography of Presley which addresses this issue that you referenced would work. Thanks again for your consideration and assistance. Mistercontributer (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the wording "polite" already indicated lack of enthusiasm on the audience's part. I don't know if other editors think something should be revised, but to me it's not clear what would be misleading about the current version. And once again, this performance had no effect on his career, which makes it hard to see why it should be described in more words than just a short mention.MackyBeth (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That description does not fully explain what transpired. We can use the same number of words but different words to better explain what actually transpired. Another option would be to add appropriate references from reliable sources so the reader may review the selected references to find out what actually transpired. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference added to Bobbie Ann Mason source. Please check to make sure I did this correctly. thanks -Mistercontributer (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about this, because you only added a reference without anything else. So no information from that publication was added to the article, hence it cannot be called a source. So I am not sure if this is allowed.MackyBeth (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The reference added from reliable source supports statements in the article, so it is acceptable to add this reference to this article. However, if you have changed your mind from your previous position, I would be in favor of adding information from this source to this article. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rereading this discussion I don't see how I changed from a previous position, since I did not yet say anything about the addition of references. I did not reply because I thought someone else would say something about adding refernces to information already supported. But no one did, so I guess what you did is okay.MackyBeth (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I thought adding the reference which provided additional information was a good compromise. I also appreciate your assistance. At least you kept an open mind and helped research this issue instead of rushing to judgment. Thanks again - Mistercontributer (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Elvis Presley Platz Photo

I thought it informative and interesting to include a photo in this article about the location in Bad Nauheim, Germany where he was living while in the Army which arguably changed the direction of his career. Furthermore, the Germans chose to honor him by naming the area around his home after him. On the other hand, I don't have strong opinions about this.

Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Germans have always been proud that he lived in their country, especially because the Army years turned out to be his sole prolonged stay outside US territory. Their tribute to him may be covered in the posthumous section of the article. About the picture of the house, it may be a useful illustration indeed. On the other hand the article is already very length2. Maybe others have something to say about this. MackyBeth (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note on an RfC about "military careers"

There is currently a discussion and an RfC on Mel Brooks's article about his so-called "military career," noted by an infobox module. Since his military service, similar to that of Don Rickles, was for a few years and before their actual careers began, inserting a massive module in the standard infobox, as in this article, seems both misleading and erroneous. For Elvis, his "military career" module takes up about 20% of the infobox, while his notability is for being a singer and actor. And like the others, most of whom were drafted and were in for a few years, he never had a "military career."--Light show (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that it's "misleading and erroneous", but it does seem to be undue weight. --Laser brain (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The major difference is that EP's military service did not happen before his musical career but interrupted his career when he was one of the world's most popular entertainers. His time in the Army has become an essential part of the story of his career. Removing all of that from the infobox makes it look like there was no interruption of his career at all, and thus makes the box misleading.MackyBeth (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree very relevant in this case. I also dont see a valid reason for its removal at some other RFC that has no consensus at all. --Moxy (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

First line: Aron not Aaron

2600:8803:AE06:C500:494F:A022:45A9:25D7 (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done please read note 1 for the full explanation - Arjayay (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Name wrong

His middle name is spelt Aron... like you have at first. Then further down you have spelt it Aaron... that is wrong. BUBBLESxOo91 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is a military infobox module appropriate?

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

---

Related to above discussion, should this article include an infobox module about his "military career?"--Light show (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. It's misleading to include it IMO, as noted in the previous discussion. Having one's singing career interrupted by the draft for a few years does not make it part of his career. It's mentioned in the article, which is plenty. --Light show (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with Light show that it seems minor when compared with his musical career. I believe infoboxes should be kept tight and concise, containing only key facts germane to the notability of the subject. The military section makes the infobox too large and is undue weight. --Laser brain (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion needs input from other editors. Presley's service ranks among the most famous two years in the Army ever, and deserves to be mentioned in the infobox. A whole shelf of books has been published about this period of his life; how much evidence for notability is needed? MackyBeth (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MackyBeth: I agree it does, and I think that's why Light show opened the RFC. To be clear, I'm not saying his military career isn't worth writing about in the article. I'm just saying it's not among the top key facts I would want in an infobox. Military persons should have military infoboxes, and musicians should have infoboxes focused on the key facts of their musical career. I don't always agree with your thoughts on this page, but I'm always interested in hearing them. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Even though Presley was famous when he became a soldier, his military career was not notable. There is nothing in the article about what he did in the army, or even about his promotions. TFD (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The thing is, his military career was not notable for what he achieved in military terms while in the Army. What is notable is just the fact that for two years he was a highly visible member of the Army. In this respect his Army years are not compatible with Mel Brooks or Don Rickles, mentioned above. What should the infobox say about this? What about finding some middle ground between giving these years undue weight and not say anything about them at all? I see that the box contains "Years of service". Perhaps it's an idea to break down the period mentioned at "Years active" from 1953-1977 into 1953-1958, 1960-1977, so that the interruption is at least covered in the infobox? MackyBeth (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note the infobox for James Stewart was toned down for similar reasons, although in his case he was an air force pilot and made a Brigadier General. Compare his infobox before, when it overwhelmed it, and now. The fact that a major celebrity joining the military during a war naturally draws media attention and keeps him in the spotlight, doesn't suddenly make the military their "career," warranting an infobox. An article like this one is almost a put-down to real service members, like Chuck Yeager, whose life was the military. --Light show (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Some celebrities who enroll as students may be the most highly visible members of their school. Jodi Foster, who was already famous as a child actor before attending Yale, for example, and any member of the British royal family. That does not justify a separate infobox section for their academic careers. TFD (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Which mat be relevant for the Jodie Foster Talk Page, not here.MackyBeth (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the point is to reconcile, or to balance, these two perspectives:

1. doing justice to the military point of view, according to which EP's Army time was not in any way outstanding,
2. and at the same time doing justice to the wider cultural perspective: no celebrity Army service that I know of has been so extensively covered, which makes it hard to base the Wikipedia coverage of EP's Army time on how it is done with other celebrities. Media coverage of how the Army cut his hair alone has been enormous.MackyBeth (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and summmarize on his military career Elvis Presley's Army career provides a wealth of information on his career, so the section should instead be summarized with a link to the main article. He was notable for having joined the military, having gotten an extension, among other things. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 19:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per light show. Iazyges [Speak] 00:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. It's dwelling on trivia. Presley was not notable for military service. Infoboxes are supposed to present a very concise précis of the most salient facts about the subject; we are not to shove into them every possible detail that can possibly be put into them "just because". Agree with suggestion that the years of his military career should be interrupted by the military service period in the infobox; we wasn't making records and such during that period.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. Infoboxes are not for trivia, and his milliary career is not really a "career." Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, Modified. Remove the units assigned, leave in Branch/Rank/Service dates, or even just branch linked as per Mr. Spink above, to address the concerns of weight. Unlike Mel Brooks, the service of Presley was extremely notable at the time and beyond. Disagreeing with SMcCandlish, the article states he continued to record and chart hits while he served (for a soldier outside Special Services that is exceptional IMVHO.) If the facts were lost from the IB it wouldn't be completely devastating to the IB or article as a whole, but I think it would be an unacceptable loss of weight, so I'm weak on it. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • He did virtually no recording while in the Army. He was inducted March 24, 1958. After that, he only recorded five songs while on leave in June, as the article says in the sentence sourced with note 161. Of course, his record company and manager made sure there was enough material to keep releasing singles during those two years. And RCA had to go back to unreleased Sun material to fill up the 1959 A Date with Elvis album. After his discharge on March 2, 1960, he recorded on March 20. Describing that session, Guralnick writes in his Vol. 2, page 59: "the band consisted of the same group who had backed Elvis on his last session, while on furlough, in June of 1958." During the two - year interruption he only made home recordings, now the only way to get a glimpse of the development of his voice, which sounded smoother in 1960 than it did in 1958. The "years active" line in the infobox should exclude the year 1959. For more on this, see Elvis Is Back!. MackyBeth (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Unlike the handful of other discussions recently started for biographies of celebrities who had incidental service, Preslet's time in the military was a media event, that took place after he reached the fame which is his main source of notability, so the service itself received significant coverage in this case. That said, the finer details/particulars of his "military career" did not receive much coverage and did not play a large role in his overall notability. Under the circumstances, I think it makes sense to include the pane for his military service, but reduce it to just a couple of basic elements, per LaughingVulcan's suggestion. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per LightSnow - He wasn't notable for his military career so it's rather pointless to have it as an infobox, Having a section in the article's more than sufficent. –Davey2010^Talk 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep why info on the world's most famous G.I. would be omitted is odd. His hair cut alone was a huge sensation --Moxy (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Elvis was declared the most successful uk artist

Elvis Presley takes Madonna’s world record for Most UK No.1 albums by a solo artist

gwr. please add that. thank you.

73.38.165.46 (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please provide your source for this information. Britmax (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just added the information in section "Since 1977", sourced (see note 326) to an online Billboard publication for October 28. The Billboard piece also cites a second record that this album creates, that of longest span between No. 1 albums. Presley first reached No. 1 with his 1956 debut album.MackyBeth (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Elvis Persey is not dead. He is still alive. Change that

14.203.178.249 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Elvis Presley. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Excessive citation tag in the lead: sources for biggest selling solo artist of all time are obsolete

The claim in the lead that EP is the biggest selling solo artist of all time has a tag added to it. A FA-rated piece should have no such tags, least of all in the lead, so hopefully this issue is settled asap. The nature of the claim makes it an extraordinary strong claim, and I feel that it needs extraordinary strong back-up. So I think 4 sources is okay, as long as each and every one of them carries significant authority. And here we come to what I feel is the real issue: the claim "of all time" is only legit when supported by fairly recent sources, but two of those sources are from 2002, one is from 2001, and one is from 2008. One close competitor for this claim is obviously Michael Jackson, whose death in 2009 predictably increased sales of Jackson's music. Therefore, the sources need to be from 2010 and later, as earlier ones are now obsolete. MackyBeth (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been more of a challenge than I'd thought. I did look around for sources and found some for the RIAA, which are mostly irrelevant. I found a couple sources that mention Elvis in this way but they are very poor and don't say where they got their information. --Laser brain (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

[Sorry that I hadn't commented here before.] As for the excessive citation tag, the average music bio featured article's lead section has one cite (but actually, I think most have none). And I think that this is the only one with consecutive cites (more than one for the same thing). WP:WHENNOTCITE says, "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article." Now, I would say that if the claim is to remain in the lead, just the link to List of best-selling music artists is needed – because that page has plenty of sources (and it does say "As of 2016.."). Maybe one cite can remain – since that info is not actually in the main body of the article. —Musdan77 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

First, your proposal of linking to List of best-selling music artists would mean that one Wikipedia article is used as a source for another, and that's against the rules: each article should be sourced independently. Second, the nature of the claim is extraordinary strong, so it better be sourced in the lead or it will be challenged constantly.MackyBeth (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already a link to that page, and if the sources on that page aren't reliable then the page shouldn't be linked to at all – and that's not what it means to use Wikipedia as a source. But, the main thing is: the claim is not in the main body of the article, so it really shouldn't be in the lead. I would say, if you want it in the lead then then add it to the body with the sources there instead of in the lead (2 or 3 cites). —Musdan77 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not everything in the lead has to be in the body of an article.MackyBeth (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Should I quote from what I quoted above? "the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". And from WP:LEAD, the lead is "a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." and "Apart from basic facts [birthdate, deathdate], significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I'd say that if there's a real problem with the sentence then it doesn't really need to be in the article at all – but certainly not in the lead if it's not in the body. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, it's my turn to quote something from WP:LEAD. The section "Citations" there includes this: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. The claim that EP is the bestselling solo recording artist in history requires citations in the lead, whether it is taken up in the article or not.MackyBeth (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis" ...and that's what we're doing. They're only necessary if it's "controversial" or contested. I could say more, but then I'd just be repeating the different things that I've already said. But, the bottom line to me is: There does not need to be four cites in the lead. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead should not contain anything that's not present and cited in the article body. So on that note, we should make sure that information is included in the body, maybe under Discography. That said, I don't know why there are so many citations on that statement. They were there when the article passed FAC, and all I can imagine is that the responsible editors thought it was a statement that was quite likely to be challenged by passersby who can't be bothered to read the rest of the article. It's also possible that one needs to aggregate the four sources to support that statement, in which case we could condense the four citations into a single footnote that explains such. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. Good idea (last sentence). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. First, this is just the kind of statement you would expect to have strong back-up. Second, I do not see what is excessive about four notes when it is in fact pretty normale. Michael Jackson is also FA-rated, and has four notes backing up the nickname King of Pop in the lead, surrounded by statements that have three-note citation. Beyoncé is a Good Article and has plenty of three-note citation. Against this backdrop, objecting to a four-note backing for a sentence here seems more like one individual's taste than a genuine problem with wiki guidelines, especially since this passed FA-review.MackyBeth (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What I was suggesting is placing a single footnote after the statement that, when clicked, takes the reader to the References section where it is explained that "these four citations back up this statement..." This is done sometimes to reduce visual clutter but maintains the citations. Is that a reasonable compromise? --Laser brain (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I understood that, and please go ahead if you want to, because I couldn't care less if there are four citations or less, as long as it's clear that the support for this claim is strong. More important is that the claim should either be supported by more recent sources or else maybe be rephrased to pertain to 20th century sales numbers instead of all time, as three of the four citations are from 2001 and 2002. It's almost 2017, and it looks embarrassing in a FA-rated piece to have such obsolete sources for this.MackyBeth (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree, and in my initial response to you I indicated that I've had trouble finding more recent sources supporting this. The statement may have to be removed in that case. For example this article, which claims RIAA as its source, lists The Beatles, Garth Brooks, and then Elvis at number 3. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting list, I would have expected Michael Jackson to be higher than number 7. But then again, this is only the list of US album sales, not worldwide. Brooks has much less worldwide appeal than either EP or Michael Jackson.MackyBeth (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, the claim is linked to the "List of best-selling music artists" article. If we trust the sources used there, you can use them here. If we don't then just remove the claim. Simple as that. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks quite complex to me. The claim of sales in excess of 600 million is supported by two fairly recent sources, but one is an Albany newspaper and the other is from Pakistan. Looking at the titles, neither of those articles has sales figures as its main subject. For an FA-rated article you would expect the sources to be a music industry paper like Billboard, and the article in Billboard to be specifically about sales figures.MackyBeth (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources provided in the list article are quite poor and I think they barely rise to meeting WP:RS. They would not pass muster at FAC and they aren't appropriate for an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pentecostal roots

In it generally well-known among Elvis fans that "The King" was born and raised in the Pentecostal church. While doing research on Elvis, I have found that his roots within the movement were "deep" (to say the least). Wikipedia even states here that Elvis' later controversies with Pentecostals did not lead to him leaving the church.

According to one website, it was stated that Elvis was baptized into the Assemblies of God some time around 1944 (around age 9) using the trinitarian formula — baptized by immersion in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". Following his family's moving to Memphis, the Presleys began worshiping at a Church of Jesus Christ, pastored by Reverend Rex Dyson. Dyson, an adherent of Jesus' Name Pentecostalism, states this both of Elvis' parents, Vernon and Gladys, as well as Elvis himself, were all re-baptized using the oneness formula — by immersion in "the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins".

It is important to know that the Assemblies of God and the aforementioned Church of Jesus Christ are both Pentecostal churches, but the former movement adhere to the Trinitarian doctrine, while the latter practice the doctrine of Oneness.

I do not know if this is necessarily important enough to place in Elvis' biography, but I found particularly interested so I decided to interest to here. http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/article-wasthekingbaptizedintwobeliefs.shtml (a link to the website that mentions Elvis being baptized "into two beliefs"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.232.47 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive citation tag, redux

MackyBeth and Musdan77, the excessive citation tag is still in the lead and the conversation got archived. I don't feel like those of us discussing really agreed on anything, but I'm really uncomfortable with maintenance tags being in a Featured article. Is there something we can do to move forward on the discussion? Musdan77 I think you were the one who placed the tag. Are you OK with removing it if I enact my idea of grouping the citations under one footnote? --Laser brain (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My view was, and still is, that this tag is unjustified, and may be removed without any adjustments. The Featured Article on Michael Jackson has 12 notes in the opening sentence alone, four of which are sources for his nickname King of Pop. Four notes for a wellknown title that is unlikely to be challenged. In comparison, the extraordinary claim that EP is the bestelling artist of all time is of the sort you would expect to see backed up by a series of notes. Not that I have any objections against Laserbrain's propos all, I just don't see the need for it.MackyBeth (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's remove it then. We have one editor arguing for it who is the same one who placed it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Should drop all sources from the lead...no need for detail stats in the lead to begin with....all should be said in the article with its sources.--Moxy (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had basically settled this. Just remove the claim and that would take care of the whole issue. Laser_brain, you agreed with me that "The lead should not contain anything that's not present and cited in the article body." And MackyBeth, you should know that we don't compare articles. I think that the MJ opening paragraph is definitely wrong, but it has nothing to do with this one (we follow MOS). Too many cites (especially in the lead) is just as bad as a tag saying that there's too many. (And thanks, Moxy, for your input.) —Musdan77 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the claim as well. I guess the question is: Do we think the claim is correct, but just poorly cited? Or just incorrect. The sources are quite unclear. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Musdan77, to get an idea of how many notes are enough to warrant an excessive citation tag we just have to look at other FA articles, but the MJ article alone is not enough to get a sense of what's reasonable. The Beatles article has only one single citation in the entire lead, and it occurs at the statement that they are the most influential band in rock history. While it is true that any such claim in the lead should be backed up in the article itself, extraordinary claims such as this one will be challenged if not supported by a Source. So for practical reasons the claim to EP's bestselling status is best accompanied by citations even in the lead. The major problem is that the sources are early 21th Century, and predate the death of Jackson in 2009. Which is not to say the statement is no longer accurate, but needs attribution to more recent publicaties. MackyBeth (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have not been able to find recent sources supporting the statement. I've done library searches that include books and periodicals, and even academic journals that focus on music. Until someone can locate a reliable source, I think the statement should be gone. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In the lead say something generic like...."One of the bestselling musicians of the 20th century". (Linking our sourced article on best sellers or a section link to where we have sources and details in this article).--Moxy (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a good idea! --Laser brain (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That should solve the issue indeel. I'm sorry to hear your efforts have been unsuccessful, Laserbrain, but you never know when a reliable statement of sales figures might be published.MackyBeth (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

May I please start making changes because I notice some problems that I would love to fix? BuckMyer (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

revert back to facts

please rectify. elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx per many sources like gwr and sony . 73.38.165.46 (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This was revised for lack of recent sources. If you have reliable sources from the current decade that substantiate this claim is still valid, please cite them here.MackyBeth (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx.

please rectify. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-solo-artist

As of 2017, based on both sales claims and certified units, The Beatles are considered the highest-selling band. Elvis Presley is considered the highest-selling individual artist based on sales claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

thank you.73.38.165.46 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Guinness web site doesn't cite its sources, and that's been the main issue. I don't consider that reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Guinness statement is disputed even in the comments to the article itself. The article RIAA Certification indicates that EP has the most gold/platinum etc records in the US. A Google search for RIAA Elvis Presley turns up a 2015 statement that his sales in the US total 133.5 million until that year; the Guinness Book still says 129.5 and therefore must be obsolete. It is a lot more difficult to nail down his worldwide sales figures. In no way am I denying that EP is the best-selling-solo-artist of all time. The article just needs reliable and up-to-date sources for this assertion.MackyBeth (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Jewish roots

The Forward, the oldest American Jewish newspaper, has had several articles about Elvis Presley's Jewish roots. This is one of the more definitive, by one of their senior writers:

http://forward.com/opinion/204893/on-elvis-yahrzeit-his-not-so-secret-jewish-history/

On Elvis' Yahrzeit, His Not So Secret Jewish History

J.J. Goldberg

August 30, 2014

Included were his religious paraphernalia, which he “always wore,” the docent told me: a cross and a Chai pendant (visible in the photo above).

The story includes a photo of his mother's original tombstone -- with a Jewish star. The significance is that, under Jewish law, that would make Elvis Jewish. Some people would call him half-Jewish. They also give the story of how the Memphis Hebrew Academy asked Elvis for $1,000. He gave them $150,000. Disc jockey George Klein, whow knew all the Memphis musicians, said that Elvis was openly Jewish, and hung around with many Jewish musicians and friends. Colonel Tom Parker decided to de-emphasize Elvis' Jewish origins, not because he had anything against Jews, but because he thought it would be bad for business. So there are indisputably many WP:RSs which conclude that Elvis was at least Jewish on his mother's side, and at least had Jewish roots. --Nbauman (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose among my first questions would be: How do you envision this information fitting into the article? This page has been a constant balancing act in staying at a reasonable length considering how much information is out there about Elvis. We've tried to stick to what is relevant and prominent—mostly things related to his notability as a musician and entertainer. How is being part Jewish relevant to his biography? Are you thinking a passing mention, as we mention his heritage and church attendance? Also, can you explain why none of the prominent Elvis biographers cited in this article saw fit to mention it (that I'm aware of)? --Laser brain (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It should go in the paragraph starting "Presley's ancestry." The footnote has Bloom dismissing it as a "tall tale," but I'm not sure that Bloom is even a WP:RS. It should certainly be balanced, under WP:NPOV, with the arguments from many WP:RSs, including the Wall Street Journal, that Gladys was Jewish. The strongest evidence, I think, is that her tombstone had a Jewish star. (I'd like to know how Bloom explains that.) Her Jewish ancestry is as significant, and well-documented, as her "possibly" Cherokee ancestry. Elvis himself contributed significant amounts of money to Jewish organizations and used their facilities. On his neck, along with a cross, he wore a Chai, which is worn by Jews much like a Jewish star. Larry Geller taught Elvis not only Zen Buddhism but also the Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism (also persued by Madonna). So it seems that Elvis Presley explored many religions. I can't speak for the Elvis biographers, but the facts I've described are well-documented by many WP:RSs. If you're going to include Scots-Irish, Scottish, German, French Norman, and Cherokee, you should also list Jewish in the body, not just a footnote. --Nbauman (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles that claim for definite that Elvis Presley had Jewish ancestry are jumping on the bandwagon and the prime evidence used is simply a story told by one of Presley's relatives. The other so-called 'evidence' do not prove he had Jewish ancestry e.g Presley wearing a Star of David necklace. There's simply not enough convincing evidence that Presley was Jewish, or more correctly, had Jewish ancestry. Currently the article states in a footnote "According to a third cousin of Presley's, one of Gladys' great-grandmothers was Jewish. There is no evidence that Presley or his mother shared this belief in a Jewish heritage. Syndicated columnist Nate Bloom has challenged the cousin's account, which he calls a "tall tale"." The source given is http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/The_Jews_Who_Wrote_Christmas_Songs_2010.shtml--Donald Ivanov (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Love affair with Nick Adams

According to Elvis step mother, he had a long love affair with Nick Adams. Why does the article not saying anything about this? 95.199.0.85 (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that this was discussed before but the sources were found wanting. Possibly the discussion is in the talk page archive. Britmax (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Elvis' actual middle name is Aaron, you put Aron in the box, but you put Aaron outside of the box. February 22, 2017 8:50 AM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M briglia05 (talk • contribs)

If you click on edit you'll see a warning that Aron is NOT a typo.MackyBeth (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing the name Aaron to Aron in the infobox, and the other way around in the lead. It is correct the way it stands.MackyBeth (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

drug addiction

The lead says he abused drugs for several years...implying 3-4 years...there is no clear cut definition of several but it implies his addiction wasn`t a life time thing which it was...the word several should be dropped...perhaps replaced with many. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. Long-time drug abuse was the underlying cause of virtually all of his health problems and the lead should not give the impression of downplaying.MackyBeth (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

I am Elvis Presley himself and i hereby give myself edit authority over this article. So please give me edit access as i would like to fix the Death section as it says HELLO and hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.123.99 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External link addition

Hello thoughts on adding this link:
FBI Records: The Vault - Elvis Presley at fbi.gov
Thank you, Vwanweb (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Elvis' middle name is ARON not AARON!!

Someone needs to fix it. I can't figure out how!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb nado (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The spelling of his second name is explained in the note with the first mention of the name, right where the article begins--explanatory note number a. MackyBeth (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Death

"Whether or not combined drug intoxication was in fact the cause, there is little doubt that polypharmacy contributed significantly to Presley's premature death." should taken off as it is based on nothing but speculation. It is particularly shocking after Dr. Joseph Davis' statement who confirms Elvis died of a natural cause. This phrase is now mistakenly often added as part of Dr Davis' statement which it is not. As already said, everything in the autopsy points out to a sudden death caused by a massive heart attack. Countless members of Elvis' family, especially on his Mother's side, died at a young age due to heart related illness. They died at the same age Elvis did or even younger and most of them never took any medication. To assert that "there is little doubt that polypharmacy contributed significantly to Presley's premature death" is pure conjecture.

If that is the case at all, it is not conjecture on the part of the Wikipedia editors, but by the sources used for this article. And Gladys died of a liver condition probably caused by alcoholism, not of heart issues.MackyBeth (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Change middle name from Aaron to Aron. 68.195.23.245 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done see the section above. There is a note next to it that explains the spelling error. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111224030746/http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-extra-the-top-40-christmas-albums.html to http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-extra-the-top-40-christmas-albums.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox instrument, again

Elvis is mainly known as a singer, did he often play guitar ? yes, was it his "primary" instrument ? no. Did Elvis play piano ? of course, was it his "primary" instrument ? no, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find him playing piano on stage. Elvis' "main" instrument was his voice, nobody is saying he didn't play other instruments, but according to the Infobox guidelines "secondary" instruments of an artist are addressed in the article body, not the infobox. Kellymoat disagrees and has asked for consensus, so here we are. - FlightTime (open channel) 11:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not voice an opinion. I said that if you want to change the instruments in the Infobox, that you need to get get a consensus. In fact, I am not sure why there isn't a note saying as such. Kellymoat (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

One discussion from the archives. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

But I will offer my opinion. When you say 'Elvis', I do not conjure up an image of him and a piano. As a fan, I know he plays. But it isn't my first or second thought. I am fine with excluding piano from the infobox. I can't see why we would consider removing guitar from a list of primary instruments. Sure, in the later years (Post War/Vegas era), he did more singing than playing. But look at all of those album covers (and movie posters) with him and a guitar. Sure, he isn't in the same league as Yngwie Malmsteem, as far as talent goes, but he definitely is known for guitar. Kellymoat (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still not known as a guitarist. Movies and posters do not count because it can be argued that the guitars are props. The only time I can remember him playing guitar in a concert situation was the 68 special and again it was probably just to give his hands something to do since he had to remain seated. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I put movies in the parenthesis and made the main argument about the albums. Kellymoat (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the discography page, the studio album articles have him listed as playing guitar on every album (except for 2 that do not even have him credited for singing). And of their corresponding album covers, he appears with a guitar on six of them - all prior to 1970. Which sort of plays into what I said - early Elvis was always him and a guitar. It wasn't until later in his career that he started to be wear jumpsuits and do karate on stage instead of playing guitar. Once notable, always notable. Kellymoat (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Elvis could barely play guitar anyway, regardless of how often he held it - shouldn't be listed as one of his main instruments IMO. Zabboo (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Coming from you, I find that surprising - being that Lennon asked him if he was going to start playing guitar again on the new album, and when Elvis said yes, Lennon said that he would buy that album. Kellymoat (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what Lennon has to do with this discussion, but even if Elvis played guitar on a album (or two for that matter) does not make it a primary instrument. Elvis was/is known as a vocalist, always has, always will be, regardless how many instruments he played. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lennon has nothing to do with this discussion. Just because I'm a fan of the Beatles doesn't mean I consider John Lennon's word law. I agree with FlightTime. - Zabboo (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Zabboo, Kellymoat, FlightTime, it appears the consensus here is pretty solidly against including these instruments in the infobox. I am removing them accordingly. Cjhard (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

I corrected an error and added some further details. Why were these edits reverted? First, Elvis was a singer, not a singer-songwriter. See [1]. Second, he still slept in his mother's bed when he was a teen. This is of some importance, as it shows how unusually close he was to his mother. See also Elaine Dundy, Elvis and Gladys. Third, it should be mentioned that he died when using the toilet, as it is common knowledge that "the King died on the throne". For the latter detail I have cited a recent Oxford University Press publication (Joel Williamson, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life). ADogCalledElvis (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No comment? So the error should remain in the article and you are not really interested in improving it? I see. ADogCalledElvis (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right that Elvis was a singer, not a singer-songwriter. I'll change the article accordingly. I don't have much of an opinion on the other changes. Cjhard (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Traumatic Brain Injury

Based on this article, Elvis most likely suffered from traumatic brain injuries due to drug overdoses, and also due to falling down and hitting his head, which would partially explain his decline and changes in personality. I recommend that we add references to this article regarding this issue, so the reader may have a better understanding of what was happening to Elvis in his final years. Mistercontributer (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted the above a couple of days ago over this past weekend. That should have provided enough time for the editors who are interested in this article to state their opinion regarding this issue. Since there are no objections I plan to go ahead and add reference to this article. If anyone has any comments, questions, or concerns please notify me on this talk page. thanks - Mistercontributer (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx.

please rectify. sony and the gwr both state this. the way riaa counts sales undercuts e.p. total sales.

HE IS ALSO THE BIGGEST SELLING SOLO ARTIST OF ALL TIME. SONY 2017

that is from an offcial sony website. this trumps wiki editors opinions104.226.209.42 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC) (that have no factual basis)

104.226.209.42 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Date Parker signed Elvis is not March 2 but March 26, 1956. See 2 proofs.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker#Managing_Elvis and other sources*, Tom Parker aka Andreas van Kuijk (by the way, it might be useful to remind the reader of his real identity from time to time in the text) signed Elvis Presley on March 26, 1956, not March 2. This might be just a typing error.

Thus the sentence "Neal's contract was terminated and, on March 2, Parker became Presley's manager."

should be replaced by "Neal's contract was terminated and, on March 26, Parker became Presley's manager."

• http://www.kalb.com/content/news/Elvis-Week-2017-Auction-at-Graceland-to-Feature-Exceptional-Items-437857163.html :

"***March 26***, 1956, Elvis Presley Signed Contract Solidifying Colonel Parker as His Exclusive Management - One of the Most Famous Contracts in All of Popular Culture, Estimate $30,000-$35,000".

Marjoram Curry (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox instrument, again (2)

In my recent edit, I was fixing the parameter by adding flatlist and removing caps, not adding content. I did wonder about "piano" and searched the talk pages, and found the section Elvis and Piano - again, which seemed to conclude that piano was OK to stay. I didn't see Infobox instrument, again, and never thought that "guitar" shouldn't go in the infobox. Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument does not use the term "primary instrument" (or "secondary instruments"). It says: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using." In the early years, he was definitely known for playing guitar, as shown in the article body. Emphasis should be put on "known for using" – and of course, it needs to be backed up by RS in the main body, as the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article. It's not just some insignificant instrument, like something that he (or any artist) would just play a few times in his career. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New evidence on Elvis death

I found an interesting article in the London Evening standard newspaper about the death of elvis Presley on august 16th this year the 40th anniversary, apparently a few years ago some new evidence came out about his death. I quote some of it . Despite contrary belief that Presley, passed of a heart attack brought on by a accidental overdose of prescription drugs , apparent declassified files under covered in 2013 that were made public in March 2014 reveal the death of the late singer was a homicide drug overdose most likely by FBI undercover agents the secret files had asserted ELVIS PRESLEY was rubbed out by the FBI to prevent him from testifying in a big Mob trial, in the 1980's allegations came out Elvis had been part of one of the largest FBI investigations of the 1970s, code-named Fountain Pen “Apparently, he had been the innocent victim in a Mafia fraud case involving millions of dollars.*“Scores of federal agents worldwide had investigated it and Elvis was due to give evidence. Is okay to mention this in the questions over cause of death section. (Amy foster (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the story has enough legitimacy to tell our readers about it. Not many sources mention it, almost no reliable ones, and the sources that do talk about it give conflicting information. One retired FBI blog says that Elvis was unaware of the FBI investigation, and would not have been called as a witness, even though one of his airplanes was involved in the fraud (a small jet airplane with custom red velvet interior that he might never have flown in.) So with not very many high quality sources and with contradictory information, it seems to me not important enough to try and patch together the two or more versions of this FBI case which may not have had any impact on Elvis, or may have killed him. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Elvis played Guitar and Piano according to live performances and records Supreme0123 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 06:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

"Presley" is misspelled in "Final year and death" section towards the end Ha729 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Death of Elvis Presley

There should be a separate article like Death of Michael Jackson or Murder of John Lennon. The death section in this article is getting too long anyway, and there are more theories and details to cover.Ernio48 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Banners

@FlightTime: Can you explain the maintenance banners you placed on this article? Since this is a Featured article, it should be defeatured if the issues can't be fixed immediately. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Spike Wilbury: Issue resolved. Here's the context. I'd thought the banners had been removed. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Middle name (again)

Hey, Elvis has one a in his middle name. To remind him of his brother Jesse Garon Presley who died at childbirth. His grave is actually misspelt. Just a friendly heads up. Mjike2000 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hey Mjike2000, see note A which appears directly at the beginning of the article. This explains the issue. It also sounds not very plausible that his grave would be misspelt. MackyBeth (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Change:

On March 25, 1961 Elvis Presley performed a benefit concert at the Block Arena in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii to raise funds for the Memorial to the [[USS Arizona]] which was sunk at [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]]. This was to be Presley's last public performance for seven years.{{sfn|Gordon|2005|pp=110, 119}}

To:

On March 25, 1961 Elvis Presley performed a benefit concert at the Block Arena in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii to raise funds for the [[USS Arizona Memorial|Memorial]] to the {{USS|Arizona|BB-39|6}}, which was sunk in the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]] in 1941. This was to be Presley's last public performance for seven years.{{sfn|Gordon|2005|pp=110, 119}}

Because: Disambiguates and links directly to the right USS Arizona instead of the ship index page, properly formats the ship name per MOS, and links to the memorial Presley was raising funds for. Using the 'attack on Pearl Harbor' link corrects an existing WP:EASTEREGG problem. Grammatically a comma is needed between the two clauses. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 82.39.49.182 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109001825/http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/The_Jews_Who_Wrote_Christmas_Songs_2010.shtml to http://www.interfaithfamily.com/arts_and_entertainment/popular_culture/The_Jews_Who_Wrote_Christmas_Songs_2010.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Elvis Karate

Is it worth mentioning that Elvis was a fan of martial arts since he made a film based on his interest called The New Gladiators (film). Dwanyewest (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It may indeed be worth mentioning that he was into karate, not just because he made that movie, but more because he began practicing it long before it became popular, because he practised it for a long time, and because he famously incorporated karate movements and poses into his stage act.

The earliest mentioning of karate in Guralnick is December 1959. On page 47 of Volume II, he writes: "In early December Elvis began formal karate lessons as well after witnessing a demonstration by Jurgen Seydel, 'the father of German karate,' whom he sought out at his studio in Bad Homburg."MackyBeth (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed tag for nickname the King

I don't know if this will do, but this Billboard item is an example of Elvis being referred to as merely "the King": [2] MackyBeth (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Troll alert: Watch out for Amy Foster and ADogCalledElvis

For years, the great team that brought this article to FA status—PL290, DocKino, and Rikstar—fought off an especially pernicious, and bizarrely toilet-obsessed troll, who then went by the username of Onefortyone. Having returned to Wikipedia after a break of several years, I was dismayed to discover that this exemplary article has once again been subjected to assault by the same troll—the damaging edits made by both Amy foster and ADogCalledElvis bear the unmistakable stamp of Onefortyone.

Please be aware, Amy/Dog/141 is no dummy. They know how to conceal their malicious edits in various ways—such as by making a series of "awkward" edits that conceal a blatant falsification of a verifiable quote. Consider, for example, the following series from "Amy foster": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=810357765&oldid=810357686 (so "awkward"!, all the formatting went kablooey!), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=next&oldid=810357765 (golly, that formatting still makes it unreadable!), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=next&oldid=810358199 (oh, sweet relief—those double square brackets is all it took!). Now here are those three edits collapsed into one revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=810358892&oldid=810357686. And now it's much easier to see how "Amy Foster" blatantly falsified a longstanding quotation in the article—the 1994 coroner's assessment of the cause of Presley's death—one you can easily check in the online source (https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2002/aug/11/features.magazine27).

Amy/Dog/141 is also a master of the maliciously deceptive edit summary. Check this beauty out from "ADogCalledElvis": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&type=revision&diff=791732624&oldid=791731997. "Elvis was not a songwriter" indeed. Props to Dr.K. for catching the Dog in the act: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=next&oldid=791732624. The Dog did work their, uh, crap in again later undetected...until now. I got rid of it, and it ain't comin' back.

The best advice for how to deal with Amy/Dog/141 going forward is to (a) revert all their edits on sight, (b) don't engage with them directly (they're an experienced troll—they will have you pulling your hair out by the roots if you wade into debate with them), and (c) keep speaking to each other about what's best for the article while ignoring their attempts to undermine the process. I know we all want to assume the best of our collaborators and find a way to work together, but just think about the two examples I gave you above. On the basis of those two alone—and I know of literally dozens more from 141's history—that blatant falsification of a quote and that egregiously deceptive edit summary, you should feel confident in judging that Amy/Dog/141, however sincere they may choose to sound at times, is never, ever to be trusted. — DCGeist (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lifestyle subsection—improve or cut?

On February 26, 2016, six years after Elvis Presley achieved Featured Article status, Ibadibam made the good-faith addition of a new subsection, "Lifestyle." So far as I can see, this was preceded by no discussion—either explicit or implicit. Is everyone concerned with this article happy that this is a worthy addition? I feel it's verging on trivial territory. And the first of its two small paragraphs adduces no source for the significance of the Cadillacs, let alone the (yes, entirely conventional) claim about "luxury and excess."

Basically, this is not a subsection worthy of a Featured Article. We have two choices: (1) improve it or (2) cut it. If you favor (1), please explain how you would improve it, and offer a source or two to get us going. My vote at present is (2), cut it. — DCGeist (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to cut it. I've taken a few wikibreaks of my own but have generally resisted expansion of this article unless for very good reasons. This expansion doesn't seem of particularly high value. --Laser brain (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, DCGeist. To give a little context, I started that section to move content from Egg sandwich that wasn't worth including there. And then as I was drafting it I found there were three articles—Fool's Gold Loaf, Elvis sandwich and Elvis Presley's Pink Cadillac—that concern items closely associated with Elvis that weren't yet mentioned in this article at that time. I could have just added them to Elvis Presley#See also, but since this is an article of particular quality, I thought I should make a good-faith effort to integrate them into the article body (since a See also section "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic"). Anyway, if they're not noteworthy in an article about Elvis, why would they be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia in general? Ibadibam (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ibadibam. And I believe you've articulated the exact bottom-line issue—does most of the material in question belong in our encyclopedia at all? It's a borderline case. Yes, it is the sort of thing people sometimes talk about when they talk about Elvis...but really in terms of pop trivia, right? Not as something significant about his life, let alone his impact. It looks to me like Fool's Gold Loaf has some independent reason to exist as an article (and not everything Elvis ever had something to do with needs to be linked "in a comprehensive article" on him, even at the WP:SEEALSO level), while Elvis sandwich and Elvis Presley's Pink Cadillac might...I'm afraid...not earn a spot in Wikipedia. — DCGeist (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose an AfD for any of the articles we're discussing (except egg sandwich, but I don't think you're worried about that one). There is something to Elvis as a cultural symbol of celebrity excess, an unofficial spokesman for Las Vegas in its formative years, and a modern-day patron saint of gluttonous stardom, but perhaps this is better covered in Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Ibadibam (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I just looked up why I never noticed the Lifestyle section. I translated this article for the Dutch Wikipedia, and for that purpose I put the English version in my sandbox on January 1, 2016. My first response to DCGeist's message was: the article should not have such section, because the biographical section "Life and career" should provide all the information needed about his lifestyle. I still hold that view, but on the other hand, section 3 "Public image" may well contain a subsection called "Excesses" or "Over-indulgence" or something along those lines, beacause after all, Ibadibam is right that part of Presley's posthumous public image is that he indulged excessively in food, drugs, boredom, generosity (giving away cars to complete strangers), and all kinds of luxury. This 2017 Washington Post article makes that point quite well. However, the current shape of that section is indeed bordering on the trivial. So my conclusion is that it should be cut in its current state, but may be re-added after it's improved to the scholarly level of the rest of this FA-rated piece.MackyBeth (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the Washington Post article you linked would be a good starting point for a FA-worthy section? Ibadibam (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be included, but the thrust of the article is how his popularity was misunderstood by the mainstream media. I just linked it for its next-to-last paragraph, which in my view shows by example how his lifestyle is part of his public image.MackyBeth (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I just took a look at it. It's a good piece, but in fact has very little to say about the topic at hand. It notes that he "showered complete strangers with lavish gifts," and that's really it. (The topics referenced in another line—"In his last couple of years, Presley noticeably gained weight, and we learned after his death that he had become addicted to prescription drugs"—are, of course, already extensively covered in our article.) — DCGeist (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not link it as a suggestion for a source, but only because the next-to-last paragraph shows by example how his lifestyle is part of his (posthumous) public image. A more serious source for this section would be a book like Greil Marcus' Dead Elvis (book). But many of these aspects were not part of his public image while he was alive, and keeping the focus on the public image during his lifetime may be a sensible restriction.MackyBeth (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a great point. He's clearly become an icon of overindulgence, but was he that when he was alive? I'm not sure at all. Unless there's clear evidence that he was, I think that would be a strong basis for eliminating "Lifestyles" from the "Public image" section, while perhaps adding a sentence or two on the matter to the final paragraph of the "Since 1977" subsection. — DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Having worked through the article, I think it's clear that—despite the honest effort applied to it—the "Lifestyles" doesn't measure up, either in terms of substance or sourcing (hopefully, our Featured Articles are superior to the For Dummies line, and the Piercy Symbols, which might seem at first glance like an actual work of scholarship, is nothing of the sort). There are solid sources for the food-related points, and I'll try to work them into the main "Life and career" narrative. Seeing little support for retaining the section, I'm going to go ahead and cut it. — DCGeist (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I created a new penultimate paragraph in the "Since 1977" subsection. Thanks to Ibadibam for laying the groundwork for this. — DCGeist (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

sales and sourcing

I don't have strong opinion whether 1 billion or 600 million is more appropriate, but the current is not really up to Wikipedia standards in any case. Elvis is subject to a lot of publications including scholarly ones and well researched journalistic pieces and books, so there should be much better and more authoritative sources for record sales than the ones currently used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not happy at all with the sources being put into the article. An article from a Pakistani news site that's not even about Elvis? However the editor 88marcus has inserted it twice and I don't want to get into an edit war. --Laser brain (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well one could argue it is still an improvement over no source. However they should be replaced by better sources and once that happens the editors here should insist on them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Even the more reliable sources make major errors when it comes to publishing records sales. One quick example is CNN publishing two completely different figures for Michael Jackson on the same day, 350 million records and 750 million records. As for the current sources, both Tribune-Star and The News International are reliable sources. It's more important to have correct sales figures by just ordinary reliable sources than to have inflated sales figures published by more popular news agencies.--Harout72 (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, there is place here or justification to introduce the WP:OR at List of best-selling music artists into this article. And "correct" in WP is not what you, me or any other editor believes it to be, but what the most reputable sources state to be "correct".

Every source can contain an error and figures for record sales often do conflict. The approach for WP is to pick the most reputable and authoritative sources (also as recent as possible) and use what they state. In cases of sources of similar reliability conflicting WP in doubt states the conflicting figures properly attributed.

Neither the Tribune nor News International are good sources and certainly don't have better reputation than CNN. The News International article mentioned Elvis just on the side, so is presumably written by somebody without deeper knowledge. The Tribune Star is small local newspaper without a particular reputation and not the best source either, however the article deals with Elvis directly at least and such might be better than News International at least. A better source would be article on Elvis in reputable national newspaper, in a well known investigate new outlet, in music magazine, a reputable book or some scholarly publication. Sources of those types should ultimately be used here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forget to look at this Talk, I only look at the Talk of "List of best selling artists". You can revert my edition if you like, I will not do that again, unless we could find a consensus here. I don't know why Rolling Stones or CNN could be more reliable sources than the one that I posted, none of those sites works with sales, like Nielsen Soundscan or IFPI, and 600kk with only 250kk with certifified sales seems more accurate to me. Unfortunally I couldn't find nothing besides the inflated 1kkk sales.--88marcus (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't we have sources for saying that the sales are 1 billion? Sure it sounds unrealistic to some editors but when we are mentioning "600 million" on the lead, we might be ignoring the 1 billion figure or just underestimating the alternative estimates. Should we just ignore these both estimates from lead and just call him the best selling individual/solo artist? Excelse (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• My understanding is that sources disagree, and all of them are estimates. What Kmhkmh says above is most applicable: If there is no single authoritative source, then we say something like, "Sources disagree on sales estimates, ranging from x up to x" etc. The problem is that modern sources don't have any new information—journalists who have to write something about Elvis (like in the case of the News International source) just research and find a figure without bothering to notice that there is disagreement on the number. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Undue for lead for FA. Move sales figure "sales estimates ranging from 600 million to 1 billion", to section and just call him best selling individual/solo artist on lead. Excelse (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fats Domino

I have reverted an edit[3] because there was no reliable source provided. If USA Today printed this interview, which I believe they did, there should be a link or some other type of evidence. I looked for additional sources, and I have found none that would meet WP:RS. Even if reliable source has been discovered, I wouldn't support inclusion of this quotefarming. It would be better to say, "In 2002, Fats Domino said he was glad to have a photograph with Elvis Presley. Domino added that he liked Presley's singing and that he could sing anything." If reliable source has been discovered. Excelse (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This article attracts similar edits quite often. Well-meaning editors read something about Elvis meeting someone or other someone saying something about Elvis and it appears here. We should limit additions to those that can be demonstrated to be important by reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was a good faith edit that has potential to remain on non-FA articles but here we have to be extra careful because this is an FA. Excelse (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It requires context. Domino's comments might have meaning in a section on the controversy around Elvis vs. Black pioneers of R&R. But, as just a famous musician praising Elvis, his quote would be one entry on an endless list. Pstoller (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)