Talk:Elvis Presley

Template:VA

Please put elvis as a singer , actor and philanthropist

In recognition of Elvis' charitable contributions Memphis Mayor William Ingram, along with the Governor of Tennessee Buford Ellington, officially declared October 29, 1967, "Elvis Presley Day" in the city of Memphis and in the State of Tennessee..( the king donated yearly to over 50 charities )Memphis tribune

Some of the more publicized charities Elvis gave to were;

On March 24, 1961 Elvis performed in Hawaii for a benefit concert, held at the Bloch Arena, to raise money for a memorial for the USS Arizona which had sank during the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 historically known as “a day that will live in infamy”. Elvis raised $ 65,000.00 and a plaque was prominently placed, at the memorial site, acknowledging Elvis’ efforts in raising the money. Sadly, the plaque was removed due to the acts of a few powerful “non-Elvis fans” and the return of this plaque remains an emphasis of mine and should be to Elvis Presley Fans Worldwide. In in 1964 Elvis bought the FDR Presidential Yacht named the Potomac and donated it to the St. Judes Children s Research Hospital, who ultimately sold it for an amount of $55,000.00, spearheaded at the time by entertainer Danny Thomas (Father of Marlo Thomas aka: “That Girl” TV Star and wife of Phil Donahue the talk show host). One bit of humor involving this event was that Colonel Parker, upon inspecting the yacht the morning that Elvis would personally present the yacht to Danny Thomas with many members of the press being present, saw that the yacht was in dire need of maintenance including paint. As only the Colonel would he authorized ONLY the side of the yacht that would be photographed to be freshly painted leaving the rest of the yacht discolored with peeling paint evident. In 1968 Elvis allowed one of his Rolls Royce to be auctioned off for a charity that assisted mentally retarded children. In 1973 Elvis performed the first “live concert/broadcast via Worldwide satellite”, which was seen by a record audience of over ONE BILLION people, known as “Aloha from Hawaii”. This concert was actually a benefit concert for the Kuiokalani Lee Cancer Fund. The goal was to raise $ 25,000.00 but this amount was greatly exceeded and actually raised $ 75,000.00. In 1975 Elvis gave a concert in Jackson Mississippi that raised in excess of $ 100,000.00 for victims of a tornado. This concert was deeply personal to Elvis because when Elvis was a child a tornado tore through his hometown in Tupelo, Mississippi and killed many people.

I think elvis earned it

71.234.119.3 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

elvis is the most successful artistof all time

please put in the beginning that elvis is considered the most successful artist of all time per

1)gwr 2013 "elvis is the biggest selling solo artist is history with a BILLION in sales"

2) rolling stone (exact bio on there website)

As a recording artist, Presley’s accomplishments are unparalleled. He is believed to have sold more than one billion records worldwide, about 40 percent of those outside the U.S. Presley still appears to hold the largest number of gold, platinum, and multiplatinum certifications of any artist in history; as of While certainly other artists preceded him to the alter of rock & roll, he is indisputably its king.'2010, 151 different albums and singles. He remained an unmatched chart performer from the Seventies until the first decade of the 21st Century when, as the population of record buyers increased, the chart numbers of top sellers like Mariah Carey and Madonna began to challenge his. According to Billboard, Elvis had 149 charting pop singles: 114 Top 40, 40 Top Ten, and 18 Number Ones

rolling stone bio

131.239.63.3 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like alot of guess work any references for these claims like the BILLION mark...not sure people understand what a BILLION is.Moxy (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quite confident the general populace understands what a billion is from the forbes yearly accounting of billionaires and movie grosses. please put that elvis is the most successful artist in history per GWR 2013. IT STATES EXACTLY A BILLION. that is a quantifieable measure of success. the mj article has no problem using an outdated record stated for Michael Jackson in 1996. please put a current one for elvis. GWR 2013 'Elvis is the biggest selling solo artist in history with a BILLION in sales" that clearly means most successful

thank you

12.40.50.3 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you meant that he generated a BILLION in revenue or sold a BILLION albums. Two very different things. This does not say for what - but can assume is total revenue - not just album sales. Not a fan of this type of info - but we could say "According to Guinness book of world records, Elvis has generated a BILLION in revenue as of 2013" Moxy (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A billion albums is impossible, a billion units is improbable. A billion in revenue would be an easy accumulation for an artist like Presley, especially with such high posthumous earnings. Mc8755 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please put in the beginning tagline that per gwr and rolling stone elvis is considered the most succesful artist in history. in this page i have provided the exact link for the gwr that STATES ONE BILLION IN SALES and the current rolling stone bio that states ELVIS LEVEL OF SUCESS IS UNPARALLED. thank you

68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvis Presley (USA) is the best-selling solo artist, with 1 billion sales worldwide (129.5 million in the USA). 68.199.1.56 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone fails to mention any indication as to where they ascertain these figures and GWR says sales of one billion "units" not records which doesn't really make sense for an artist like Elvis who would have almost exclusive sales in records. Elvis' intro says very clearly he is the best-selling solo artist of all time, which his claimed sales of roughly 500 million (see here) attest to. That link also shows that all sources concur that The Beatles have far outsold Presley so calm down with the unparalleled hyperbole. I'm sensing a ridiculous amount of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry going on with these poorly written requests on the talk pages here and for Talk:Michael Jackson. Mc8755 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

please understand i only ask for changes that credible organizations state about elvis. i fail to understand why mj accomplishments are stated in the beginning for him and barely anything is stated for elvis. for example, it states in the beginning that mj is considered the most succesful per gwr and that he has 13 number one hits. why then does it not state in the beginning that elvis sold a billion per gwr and he has 18 number one billboard hits(per billboard) all i am asking is the sAME RESPECT you afford the mj wiki article. i also provded above that per billboard point system elvis dominated the charts, even over the beatles. lastly, mj wiki authors admitted that the most sucessful is ambiguous but you still use it. why then do you dismiss the gwr record for elvis then. that is clearly biased. please put the changes i posted. per wiki, billboard, gwr and rolling stone are well respected sources. also please include philanthropist for elvis too. there are numerous credible sources that show he consitently gave to chariteable orginaztions.

respectfully, the silent majority thank you

76.222.86.76 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First, your idea of "credible" is apparently not the same as the Wikipedia standard.

Second, the Elvis Presley article starts by calling him "a cultural icon," "one of the most popular musicians of the 20th century," "the most important popularizer of rockabilly," "the leading figure of the newly popular sound of rock and roll," and "one of the most important figures of 20th-century popular culture." It also cites his Grammy nominations and awards, his groundbreaking global concert broadcast, and his hall of fame inductions. So, it is hardly true that "barely anything is stated for Elvis." As for his #1 hits, Elvis' chart appearances are detailed at the end of the article; they don't have to be in the opening section.

Third, in terms of according respect, I'm not sure who you mean by "you." Wikipedia isn't a handful of people holding board meetings in which they decide such things; it's countless editors around the world working to a constantly evolving standard that is open to interpretation. The people working on this article are probably not the ones working on the Michael Jackson article; the two sets of editors may have different notions of how best to structure a Wikipedia article (as may all the individual editors within each set); and the two articles are not significant frames of reference for each other. "We" are not biased with regards to Michael Jackson vs. Elvis; rather, "we" are not writing both articles.

Fourth, this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan page. It's wonderful that Elvis Presley was a philanthropist, but that's not why he was famous. Consequently, it is probably not essential that it be included. There are credible sources that he did a lot of things that aren't in this article because they don't belong here: they belong in books, films, websites, etc. that celebrate (or denigrate) Elvis. The point of Wikipedia articles is not to foster competition between the subjects (or their fans), so please stop asking for things in this article because some other article has them.

Finally, you are not "the silent majority," nor are you empowered to speak for it. Presuming that millions of people agree with your arguments you does not bolster them, any more than does regular repetition. You've made your case many times now. If it hasn't worked already, then it seems unlikely that pleading it again will make any difference. So, please, give it a rest. Pstoller (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I respect your opnion, but completely disagree. how can wiki use a source (GWR) but disavow the same source for another person. I hardly think gwr would risk there reputation to 'hype" elvis record sales. I fail to understand why it cant be stated "elvis sold a billion units per gwr" or elvis level of success is unparalled per rolling stone and billboard" it was never my intent to bash or diminish mj accomplishments, only to show that credible sources (which wiki cites all the time) to improve the bio of elvis and mj. I submitted prior the exact link that shows the governor of Hawaii proclaiming aloha elvis day(the official proclamation)2013. i would assume that would be a nice ending on aloha elvis wiki article. editors were shown proof m billboard and soundscan that mj was never the most downloaded artist(ever). there reply was that at one point he was which is clearly not true. (I provided the 2009 soundscan/billboard top ten downloaded artists)mj was not even in the top ten. anyone looking at that would realize the two articles that state mj was are not credible and are not large downloading sites either. lastly, all I asked is that you put elvis as a singer, actor and philanthropist. he is indeed famous for giving and chariteable contributions. there is multiple credible data that shows he was. isn't the point of wiki to educate people?

71.234.119.3 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki" isn't using or disavowing anything. The editors of the MJ article have elected to use GWR; the editors of this one thus far have not. GWR online has no entry for "most successful entertainer of all time," as claimed in the MJ article. MJ is currently GWR's "highest earning deceased artist," but GWR is vague about whether that's in any given year, in 2009-2010 only, cumulatively since death, or what. This is similar to the issues with the "best-selling solo artist" entry, which doesn't say of what Elvis has sold a billion, nor how (or by whom) the figure was determined. That sort of problem makes GWR a poor source of encyclopedic information. The answer is not to compound the problem in this article. Whatever problems you have with the MJ article, they don't belong in the talk section for the EP article.

As for GWR risking its reputation on hype: GWR's entire reputation is for hype. Hype is also the best description for "'Elvis Aloha from Hawai'i via Satellite' Day," which is not even an annual day of celebration but only in 2013. The term "unparalleled" is just more hype; to the extent that it's true, the facts in this article already make it clear. There is credible data that Elvis was a philanthropist, but not that he was especially famous for it, beyond dispensing an unusual quantity of Cadillacs. He's more famous for eating deep-fried peanut butter, banana, and bacon sandwiches, and for appearing after his death at a 7-11 in Kalamazoo, MI. Do you really want to open the door for including those things here? I don't. Elvis Presley is famous as a singer, an actor, and an icon. Considering that few people in world history are as famous, that should be enough. Pstoller (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• The same conversations by the same user were archived for going nowhere and being pointless on the Talk:Michael Jackson page. Maybe consider the same thing here. Mc8755 (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

misdirect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Signs_Of_The_Zodiac

redirects to elvis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.237.57 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an Elvis song called "Signs of the Zodiac," but the redirect is nonsensical, so I deleted it. Pstoller (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-redirected it to The Trouble with Girls (film). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can also redefine it as "Signs of the Zodiac (Elvis Presley song)." I would if I knew how. I think it makes much more sense for the phrase "signs of the zodiac" to route to "Zodiac," with a disambiguation option for the song. Pstoller (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is partly a quirk of capitalisation, in that "Signs of the zodiac" - without capitals - already redirects to Zodiac. What I've now done is rename "Signs Of The Zodiac" (with capitals) as "Signs of the Zodiac (Elvis Presley song)", which as you suggest makes more sense, accords with WP policy on use of capitals in article titles, and now redirects to The Trouble with Girls (film). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. These little moments of sanity and cooperation are profoundly refreshing! :) Pstoller (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mononymous?

A cultural icon, he is commonly known by the single name Elvis. I think this needs a cite; "commonly" implies "more commonly than not" and I don't see that. The link reinforces that impression. There shouldn't normally be anything in the lead that isn't in the article. --John (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear and see people refer to "Elvis" more often than to "Elvis Presley," just "Presley," or "The King." A quick, unscientific Google check generated the following results: "Elvis" = 183M hits; "Elvis Presley" = 62.3M hits; "Elvis Costello" = 10.2M hits. The next most famous Elvis apparently being Elvis Dumervil at under 2M hits, I subtracted 72.5M from 183M to get @110.5M references to "Elvis" alone. Even allowing for several million references to other Elvises, this offers some support for the "commonly" claim. Another unscientific test: If someone refers to "Elvis," do you assume they mean "Presley," or do you wonder which one? Wikipedia doesn't wonder: it forwards "Elvis" to the "Elvis Presley" article. For citations, his last.fm page (http://www.last.fm/music/Elvis+Presley) says, "A cultural icon, he is widely known by the single name Elvis." Also, the Sun Records Elvis page (http://www.sunrecords.com/artists/elvis-presley) states, "Known the world over by his first name, he is regarded as one of the most important figures of twentieth century popular culture." They don't use the word, "commonly," but do they really have to? Pstoller (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's some interesting original research you've done. Are there any published sources that back it up? --John (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave you two published citations. How many do you want? If your hangup is over the word "commonly"—although, frankly I do see that Elvis is referred to by his give name alone more commonly than not—would "widely" satisfy you? Pstoller (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see two high quality sources for this please. Not a record company or a radio station but a serious academic source like an old-style book. It's not a big deal just to remove it for now if this does not exist or cannot be found. --John (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

From the New York Times: "It has become a truism that the three most identifiable names in the whole world are Jesus, Coca-Cola and Elvis." (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/24/magazine/among-the-believers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) Charles Kuralt, from his 1977 CBS TV special tribute/eulogy to Elvis, as reported in the book, When Elvis Died (by Neal and Janice Gregory, 1980, Communications Press, p. 63): "In looking at his life, you have to start with the fact of his name. It was perfect for fame, giving him an instant idiosyncratic identity … You never heard anybody ask, 'Elvis who?'" Pstoller (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are great sources for Elvis being a famous name, but mononymous? I'm not convinced. Separate issue, it should not be in the lead, and not in the rest of the article. --John (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Both references are explicitly about "Elvis" as a universally recognized mononym; "Presley" is purposefully excluded to make precisely that point. In the Wiki on mononyms, it gives the following example: "Some mononym stage names are merely the performer's given name (e.g. Britney, Rihanna, Kesha, Cher, Madonna, Beyoncé)…" If "Britney" (Spears) and "Beyoncé" (Knowles) are mononyms—and likewise such other examples from that article as "Oprah" (Winfrey) and "Hillary" (Clinton)—then "Elvis" unquestionably is. As such, it belongs in the lead, and should be reinforced in the article with one or more relevant citations. Pstoller (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article locked?

I would have thought Elvis would not have been the most controversial person in the world. Apart the fact the whole article reads like the president of his official "fan club" wrote it, there seems little reason for it to be locked

Pls see Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection.Moxy (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I realise the reason it could be. I was just asking about why "this" article is locked. ie. What particular reason for "this" article --CTtheKiwi (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Elvis invites more controversy than you realize, along with more lunatic fringe zealotry and vandalism. The article was protected after a sufficient number of incidences indicating that it should be. Pstoller (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Elvis has been ranked the top solo artist of all time

Please put in the beginning that according to all chart . Com elvis is ranked the top solo artist in hx .

http://www.usefulcharts.com/misc/top-musical-artists-of-all-time.html

It's based on rolling stone , vh1 , billboard and Wikipedia ( all credible sources )

Thank you

71.234.118.65 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)