# Talk:Glass Spider

@RRawpower: Let's discuss this here on the talk page. No need for an edit war. First, please try and remain civil, suggesting that I am unintelligent is no way to start a conversation. Second, I'm of the mind that your information, even if correct, isn't as straight forward as you think. The page you link to ([[1]]) says nothing about ABC or David Bowie. No Wikipedia user would reasonably read that page and understand what it was conveying in the context of this article. Unfortunately drawing that conclusion inline is nothing short of original research. Third, as this is a Good Article, all edits made must meet GA standards. Finally, the detailed information you included likely does not belong in the lead anyway, but rather in the body. These last 3 reasons are why I was reverting your changes. 
I admit the information you include has enough merit to be included somehow, so I suggest the following: revert the changes back to what was originally said ("...first since Elvis...") and that we add a link to the page you've included in a 'See also' section of the References for this article, as we've done here for the Glass Spider Tour. That way a user who was truly curious about the Elvis connection can go read up to their heart's delight. If you can find an article from a reputable source that states specifically that Bowie's "Glass Spider" show was the first ABC Concert Special since Elvis' Timex special (something I have looked for but been unable to find, but perhaps you'll have better luck), then that would certainly be the kind of information that we could put fully inline in the article (albeit still in the body and not in the lead). Thank you 87Fan (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@87Fan (talk) I would apologize for the remark but for the peremptory reversions effectively insulting my own intelligence and good intention to emphasize Bowie's fairly notable achievement in this case IF, in fact, this broadcast was indeed ABC's first concert special in over 25 years. Granted that I reached such a conclusion by deductive reasoning based on this page's existing statement and at least one legitimate source reliably representing Elvis Presley's history, which is still not the same as jumping to some arbitrary conclusion nevertheless. Given the escalating circumstance, I actually did go so far as to attempt to seek out a more concretely conclusive declaration of ABC Television's own concert special history that might serve as more conspicuous corroboration, but found none as yet as you have also apparently tried as well. 
All of which frankly leads me directly back to the original assertion – that this was ABC's first concert special "since Elvis" – which MUST have been sufficiently verified to warrant inclusion in this article in the first place. I would therefore suggest at this point a proper review and evaluation of that specific detail in order to ascertain its initial verification as well as such scrutiny possibly suggesting some additional "reputable source(s)" that reliably confirm BOTH my deductive conclusion and the original assertion altogether. Otherwise, by the same deductive reasoning, if there should turn out to be no such "reputable source" for the original assertion in the first place, it must rightly be deleted to dispose of this entire matter once and for all. 
BUT if that original assertion may yet stand, then I likewise see no reason at all to deny my conclusion as stated given just how rarely Presley EVER appeared on television after his return in 1960. Again, just THREE times: twice on NBC – the famous 1968 comeback special (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Presents...ELVIS) and their edit of the 1973  international satellite concert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_from_Hawaii_Via_Satellite) – and once on CBS in 1977 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_in_Concert). MOST importantly in this argument, that last Wikipedia article also CONCLUSIVELY states "It was Elvis' third and final TV special, following Elvis (a.k.a. The '68 Comeback Special) and Aloha From Hawaii." ERGO, the ONLY Elvis concert TV special on ABC most definitely HAD to be that program in 1960. And IF Wikipedia itself is ultimately still deemed an "unreliable" source in and of itself – as also previously declared in this matter – then we will most certainly have a whole other can of worms to address.
As for the placement of this whole statement in the lead, I obviously was not responsible for the original assertion's positioning as such. Not so ironically, what was merely a passing detail of comparatively little import to remain in the lead rather innocuously has become admittedly overelaborated to the point where, perhaps, the entire reference would be best moved elsewhere in the body. I can only say my practical objective was by no means to exaggerate the significance of either my own observation or what I still consider Bowie's practical achievement to warrant responsible emphasis that any other reader could and should appreciate as I most certainly did upon this realization.
RRawpower (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@RRawpower: Please, no changes should be made to the article until there is consensus here on the talk page. I must revert your changes so we can discuss what's appropriate. I would greatly appreciate it you worked with me and other editors to figure out what's right, instead of continually changing the page. I've stated what I believe is warranted, to add a link in the 'see also' section of the article to the graceland page. To put the information inline we'd need a reputable 3rd party source that makes that claim. Thoughts? 87Fan (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@87Fan (talk) I'm not arguing about the protocol, only the all too haphazard and utterly arbitrary unilateral rejection of my REPEATED efforts AND especially my VERIFIED corroborations. Not to mention the ultimate inconsistency in your purported standard of "reputable 3rd party source" when I've now offered up THREE ABSOLUTE SOURCES on my assertion of Elvis Presley's television appearance history compared with just the ONE single almost incidental reference that started this whole misbegotten mess to begin with! 
There can be NO argument whatsoever that MY assertion must be considered FAR more inherently substantive and conclusively valid than the mere passing reference in the Chicago Tribune: "ABC-TV will be taping Bowie for an April concert special, the network`s first since Elvis." Even if we DO leave aside completely the list from Elvis Presley Enterprises' own website, the FACTS remain ABSOLUTE that Elvis ONLY appeared THREE times in concert on television AFTER 1960!!!!!!! This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANY other ridiculous claims of additional sourcing when the de facto PROOF has been so long established. UNLESS, that is, we reject the passing mention in the Chicago Tribune as effectively uncorroborated by any OTHER source so far as I can tell! Which means I will most certainly DELETE the whole reference IF my own assertion does not stand: fair warning. 
This is not merely "tit for tat" when I have just now discovered more than a few other Internet sites have made yet another error indirectly related to this matter by claiming "This was the first ABC concert special since 1973's Aloha from Hawaii starring Elvis Presley." 
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Glass_Spider.html
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Glass_Spider_Tour
https://alchetron.com/Glass-Spider
Yet I'M the one who just confirmed AND updated the Wikipedia page to note that that 1973 Hawaii program, just like the 1968 comeback special, was on NBC and, in fact, "NBC did not broadcast an edited version of the concert in the United States until April 4, 1973 because the concert took place the same day as Super Bowl VII. The decision paid off handsomely for the network, attracting 51 percent of the television viewing audience to become NBC’s highest rated program of the year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_from_Hawaii_Via_Satellite < http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/aug/12/elvis-aloha-hawaii/
And as long as we're making such a big deal about these details, I most definitely object to the phrasing "ABC's first since doing the same for Elvis Presley." Because in its title alone, "The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis", the 1960 show clearly "also featured Sammy Davis, Jr., Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford, and Nancy Sinatra" along with the highlight of Elvis. NO comparison at all to Bowie's obvious presence as the complete and sole star of "Glass Spider". Which is why I'D chosen to place the true and PROPER emphasis on "ABC's first [concert special] in over 25 years". And also obliged YOUR own request to situate my CORROBORATING details in the BODY under "Releases". 
What is supremely ironic in all this is not only how preposterous these continuing rejections of SIMPLE established facts continue to be, but how the actual LACK of detail regarding such a relatively momentous statement prompted ME to do the conclusive research which I'm certain most other Wikipedia readers would agree is the REAL point: because leaving it at "ABC's first [whatever] since Elvis" begs the obvious questions of WHEN and where THAT was! ESPECIALLY given the most significant point is the notable time span of over 25 YEARS which had elapsed. 
For the LAST time, should you arbitrarily dismiss my incontrovertible conclusion based ENTIRELY on that original statement in the Chicago Tribune, as well as not one, but THREE Wikipedia pages ALREADY based on OTHER "reputable sources" confirming that conclusion (i.e., that 1960 show was the ONLY Elvis special EVER on ABC), then I will proceed to delete ALL mention of Elvis in this Glass Spider article pending evaluation by OTHER qualified Wikipedia editors who can possibly justify this glaring discrepancy in standards with more cogent reasoning.
RRawpower (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@87Fan (talk) I have just now gone so far as to telephone both corporate offices for the American Broadcasting Company and Elvis Presley Enterprises to confirm in NO uncertain terms that the one and ONLY television performance by Elvis Presley on the ABC-TV networks WAS the Frank Sinatra Timex special in 1960. That the OFFICIAL Elvis Presley Enterprises website page does not go to the extent of listing the television networks for that program or his other three specials that followed is of absolutely NO consequence whatsoever to this matter since the networks for all four programs have been readily identified AND verified, both in Wikipedia itself and elsewhere. 
Therefore, the ONLY remaining issue in this matter is whether, in fact, the Chicago Tribune article as cited could conceivably have been as mistaken as those other erroneous references which I just pointed out claimed that the Elvis satellite special from Hawaii was on ABC when it was actually NBC. Therefore, since my assertion is ENTIRELY predicated on that Chicago Tribune statement in the first place, I would insist on deleting that statement and citation in this Glass Spider article for obvious lack of corroboration if my conclusive evidence regarding ABC in general and Elvis Presley in particular should still be deemed any less "reputable".
RRawpower (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@RRawpower: Please do not make any edits to the page until we resolve this. This page has been through GA review and that includes looking at sources etc. It is not appropriate to remove content like this. I will invite site admins to our discussion and they can determine the best way to resolve this. Thank you. 87Fan (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@87Fan (talk) I specifically requested "site admins" a WEEK ago in the first place, only to have to assume MY extensive and CONCLUSIVE research based directly on MULTIPLE reliable sources was being ignored after three more days had elapsed. 
For the THIRD time now I have already FIRMLY established readily proven FACTS regarding Elvis Presley in terms of his extraordinarily rare television appearances. All the more reason I take the strongest exception to what I admittedly dismiss as no more than mere "passing reference" to Presley and ABC in the Chicago Tribune article cited here that you claim was sufficient to satisfy "GA review" – DESPITE the total lack of both the purported date of said Elvis special as an equally essential point of information and, most significantly, ANY other corroboration of said assertion ANYWHERE else to be found on the Internet – OR the ABC Television Company's own Content Rights Department, for that matter, that I phoned directly myself along with Elvis Presley Enterprises, as I noted.
That said, I also object to the actual FORM of phrasing itself by the person(s) who entered the reference to Presley in this article, as I have also made perfectly clear that ABC most certainly did NOT "do the same for Elvis" in regard to the actual nature of each performer's respective appearance. As comprehensively detailed here in Wikipedia, The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis "was a 1960 television special on the ABC Television Network starring Frank Sinatra and featuring Elvis Presley in his first televised appearance following his military service in West Germany... This was Presley's first TV appearance in three years. This was also Frank Sinatra's fourth and final Timex sponsored outing for the 1959-1960 television season." There is absolutely no question that program was, in fact, a Frank Sinatra special, PRODUCED by Sinatra's own Hobart Productions company. Which also happens to be exactly why ABC's corporate office informed me the network ONLY keeps track of such content that it has produced, owned, or acquired rights for future use itself. For all his stature, then and now, Elvis Presley was effectively a guest star in Sinatra's special, albeit a title guest star, in addition to several other performers as also indicated. Again, NO comparison to the obvious degree of Bowie's presence as the SOLE performer in his OWN special completely dedicated to him in actual concert. And THAT distinction is exactly why I also object to Wikipedia's seeming lapse in standards here when any reader is almost certain to have to jump to their OWN conclusion BOTH the reference AND the expression "the same for Elvis" most definitely suggests either the 1968 comeback special or perhaps the later satellite show, again BOTH on NBC. Completely implicit and misleading assertions derived from what is tantamount to unverified "hearsay" has NO place in Wikipedia.
And in MY book, ANY time such a reference literally begs the question of further detail and clarification, I personally hold Wikipedia accountable to fulfilling its own responsibilities and standards to QUALIFY with sufficient corroboration such purported information when found so glaringly wanting.
Given the further discovery that other sites have apparently made yet another error claiming the Elvis Hawaii special was on ABC rather than NBC, I see NO reason at all to take even an established newspaper as the Chicago Tribune at face value for some INCIDENTAL comment in a column which could just as easily have been subject to the questionable memory of the columnist. Which is exactly why, again, I am so indignant, not because of the challenge but how utterly arbitrary and haphazard this particular process has been, unlike ANY of the many hundreds of other additions, modifications, or edits I've contributed to Wikipedia over many years. 
RRawpower (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


### Refining suggested alteration
@Rhinopias (talk) Thank you very much for your time and attention to review and respond to this issue reasonably and responsibly.
First, of course alchetron.com source is NOT reliable, which was MY entire point as far as further evidence of such completely inaccurate and misleading information online. That you should still miss my point in discovering such relevant examples of related errors in this matter only underscores my intention and, perhaps, compulsion, to QUALIFY my assertions here almost to a fault. 
If anything, my citing the official Graceland.com page of Elvis Presley Enterprises has only served to confuse matters that much more, apparently, given that list's lack of television network identification. Nevertheless, I have readily obtained ABSOLUTE identification AND verification of those network affiliations from sources OTHER than Wikipedia which should conclusively confirm that the Frank Sinatra special WAS indeed the ONLY appearance by Elvis Presley on ABC after 1960!
My references to such other apparent errors in terms of Elvis Presley television appearances (i.e., alchetron.com claiming Elvis in Hawaii was on ABC) were specifically intended to point out that the Chicago Tribune article – regardless of that publication's reputation in general or the column's questionable passing mention of Presley in particular – STILL never stated anything more OR less, ultimately, than "Elvis on ABC", and might consequently have been just as subject to that author's potentially faulty memory. But IF Wikipedia should still see fit to maintain THAT Tribune citation to ABC and Elvis in this Glass Spider article, MY finding of the relevant related FACTS can and should NOT be ignored or rejected. You can NOT have it "both ways" (well, you can, but Wikipedia obviously should not hold a double standard so conspicuously inconsistent).
I have by no means "synthesized" ANY information whatsoever, but repeatedly provided concrete and CONCLUSIVE confirmation of the FACTS of Elvis Presley television appearances from RELIABLE sources OTHER than Wikipedia, including: 
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/aug/12/elvis-aloha-hawaii/ "An American TV audience would have to wait until April 4th, when an edited version of the concert, expanded with songs videotaped just after the live event, was presented on NBC. That broadcast attracted 51 percent of the television viewing audience and was NBC’s highest rated program of the year."
Here are a few more: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/inside-elvis-presleys-legendary-1968-comeback-special-w477303 "When Presley's manager, the notoriously iron-willed Colonel Tom Parker, initially met with NBC in May 1968, he asked them to produce a special of Presley singing Christmas songs."
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/elvis-presley-on-tv-10-unforgettable-broadcasts-20160128: "May 12th, 1960: The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis" – Embedded YouTube video with superimposed titling: "Elvis Presley & Frank Sinatra - Love Me Tender & Witchcraft, May 1960 - America's ABC TV"
"December 3rd, 1968: Elvis ... He inked a deal with NBC to finance Presley's next movie ... as well as an exclusive television broadcast, his first in more than eight years." [emphasis mine]
"January 14th, 1973: Elvis: Aloha From Hawaii Via Satellite" – No mention of network, which is why I made the point of providing the first reference above to this special on NBC. This notation is strictly to demonstrate ALL Elvis Presley television appearances between 1960 and 1977, as also listed at https://www.graceland.com/elvis/film_and_tv/televisionappearances.aspx, which the veteran Elvis Presley Enterprises archivist herself told me by phone they simply see no need to identify the TV networks for their purposes. Yet it makes absolutely NO sense that the OFFICIAL corporate website for the Elvis Presley estate would either overlook or omit ANY television appearance in such a commemorative list!
"October 3rd, 1977: Elvis in Concert ... The film is edited together from a June 19th concert in Omaha, Nebraska, and one that followed on June 21st in Rapid City, South Dakota. The performances were deemed so poor that CBS producers considered shelving them in favor of a future tour, but this was mooted after Presley was found dead on August 16th."
Given the understandable objection to including too much detail in this article's lead paragraph, I also made the point of placing the obvious emphasis there on the time span and ABC in terms of Bowie's "achievement" as I said, while consciously choosing to elaborate with further detail in the later body section as advised. Your further statement – "if anything the use of Elvis' name in the lead seems a bit much (and could still be mentioned in the body)" – would appear to affirm my own position and solution on that particular point. 
I would therefore respectfully submit the following revisions once again and ask what, exactly, remains at all questionable or insufficient to publish as is:
[Revision as of 21:24, 13 February 2018]
[Lead: 3rd paragraph] An edit of the film was shown on American Broadcasting Company-affiliated stations in June 1988 as a concert special, ABC's first in over 25 years. The full concert video was subsequently released in 1999 on DVD and re-released again in 2007 with a Special Edition, which peaked at number 9 on the UK Video Charts.
[Body: Releases section] A 1-hour edit from the original release was aired on US prime-time television on June 3, 1988 on American Broadcasting Company-affiliated stations.[11][18] This was ABC's first concert special in over 25 years since it broadcast The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis marking the return of Elvis Presley from military service in 1960.[19][20][21]
[References] 
19. ^ "Elvis TV Appearances - Elvis Television Specials". Retrieved 13 February 2018.
20. ^  Elvis in Concert
21. ^  O'Malley, Kathy; Gratteau, Hanke (12 November 1987). "Towing the Line..." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

I like your suggested wording, but there are still sourcing issues. The rollingstone.com link doesn't mention the network, so the video itself would need to be cited. Now that I see exactly what you are trying to accomplish… the "25 years since" and the title of the broadcast ("Welcome Home Elvis") are connected, in that you are combining multiple sources which do not directly demonstrate these. You yourself are demonstrating this, which is synthesis. However, in writing my comment above I saw you utilizing unreliable sources without you laying them out exactly like you did just now, demonstrating that you are using sources to simply check all possible instances between 1960 and his final TV appearance. This is most likely compiling information. In other words, you are not attempting to synthesize a conclusion that is not published. If 87Fan or some other editors besides me agree that this is not original research, because the few sources used do directly support the suggested text, I think it's acceptable but with something more like this as the body text:
"This was ABC's first concert special(Tribune) in 28 years, since its broadcast of Welcome Home Elvis in 1960.(YouTube video)"

The Tribune source is required to state that Glass Spider is ABC's first concert special since x because no other source we have can possibly determine that the network hasn't produced a concert special that's unrelated to this discussion. Describing the show's significance (to Elvis) is not relevant to this article's subject; reader's can click the link to learn about it if they choose. The YouTube video just sources that Welcome Home Elvis aired on ABC in 1960. Importantly, to come to the calculated conclusion that ABC did not broadcast any other in 28 years, the following has to be done (as could be demonstrated in the article through note 1, above):
I think this would cover it. This isn't the easiest, most obvious attempt at compiling a couple sources, so we should be careful and provide very exact footnotes. And |quote=s should be added to them from the sources. Rhinopias (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
As as a sidenote, RRawpower, I apologize for not understanding that you were citing alchetron.com to show its inaccuracy and not suggesting it be used as a source, but it's difficult to follow your comments. Even around your original use of "alchetron.com" I don't see where you say it's not good in a direct way. It'd help the discussion along greatly if you attempted to make your comments more succinct and avoided writing every-other-word in CAPS, as it's distracting. Italics are a great, occasional way to emphasize something. ;] Rhinopias (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias Thanks for your help here. I am in agreement with what you are suggesting. I am aware of rules against synthesis and original research and was nervous what what RRawPower was attempting was crossing that line. I think what you're suggesting, a good improvement on my original proposal, does a good job of resolving this. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias (talk) I said from the very start "Granted that I reached such a conclusion by deductive reasoning based on this page's existing statement and at least one legitimate source reliably representing Elvis Presley's history, which is still not the same as jumping to some arbitrary conclusion nevertheless."
I also just acknowledged having "to qualify my assertions here almost to a fault" to such an extent that I was all the more frustrated and indignant having to provide ever more elaborate references and explanations that I knew full well risked becoming incoherently convoluted. 
All the more reason that I still remained most personally bothered by the apparent lack of any other means of a corroborating source or statement to deduce correctly that this event actually was ABC's first concert special broadcast in such an unusually long period of time as 28 years – entirely based on some incidental remark in a newspaper column. And when all is said and done here, that Chicago Tribune assertion regarding ABC and Elvis was, in fact, completely wrong.
Since ABC corporate told me by phone that they effectively can't be bothered to keep track of any content they don't actually own, I decided to "go along" with Wikipedia's apparently adamant adherence to the Chicago Tribune as a supposedly "reliable source" in this instance only to prove my conclusively accurate points about ABC and Elvis. Yet I certainly did not want to end up having any erroneous statement in this Wikipedia article for lack of sufficient research and verification. 
Which is why I finally just remembered another resource here in Los Angeles as well as New York: The Paley Center for Media, "formerly the Museum of Television & Radio (MT&R) and the Museum of Broadcasting". It turns out their library of mostly media recordings is maintained by a very knowledgeable archivist who was similarly struck by these assertions about Bowie, Elvis, and ABC as I had been upon first reading this Wikipedia article. And in the course of our phone conversation he also thought that ABC must have had some other comparable programming since Elvis but well before Bowie in 1988. So he happened to mention offhand Barry Manilow without any idea of the network affiliation until I immediately searched Google for "Barry Manilow TV special". Initially finding no mention of network for a DVD box set on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Barry-Manilow-First-Television-Specials/dp/B000VWQDVC), I then discovered this ultimate evidence of his special on ABC in 1977 through IMDb (  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0331188/reference): 
"The Barry Manilow Special (1977)... Distributors American Broadcasting Company (ABC) (1977) (United States) (tv)"
This is proof positive, once and for all, that the Chicago Tribune column was simply incorrect in no uncertain terms as I first suspected. And while it gives me no satisfaction to have to prove Wikipedia "wrong" as well, I can only hope and trust that this whole misbegotten mess may serve as a serious opportunity for all you Wikipedia editors to reflect seriously on both your roles and responsibilities in exactly how you proceed to determine and accept (at face value?) such potentially misinformed and misleading "reputable sources" without sufficient corroboration. And, equally important, just how you proceed to interact with your many contributors in order to ensure the best experience as well as best results for all concerned.
In other words, as succinctly as I can possibly state this: there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for this particular Wikipedia page to include any unsubstantiated reference or footnote to such timespan in ABC Television's "concert special" history.
RRawpower (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that does go against what the Tribune reference says. I don't understand though why you have been aggregating sources and suggesting a rewrite that included the inaccuracies if the Tribune article being incorrect is what you originally suspected and what you were trying to demonstrate? No one holds every word ever published to be accurate if proven otherwise, but we cannot be afraid to trust reliable sources (works that are respected as typically truthful and accurate) because there'd be no sources to use. When attempting to discredit something, it just needs to be shown that it's inaccurate… which I don't believe had occurred until your investigation brought you to the Manilow special. Rhinopias (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias (talk) Inconsistent as my own chronology regarding this matter may seem, I would maintain my keeping any initial suspicion about the Chicago Tribune's inaccuracy to myself does not automatically contradict or disqualify my simultaneous efforts to follow up that Tribune column's assertion to its own logical conclusions for either outcome: as I've repeatedly emphasized (with objectionable capitalization) if we should all choose to accept and let stand that Tribune reference to Elvis and ABC, then my finding of facts conclusively hold that the last Elvis appearance on ABC simply had to be in 1960. 
My ultimate contention and evidence has been to demonstrate that the Tribune, in and of itself, may be considered a reliable source but still should require at least one other reliable corroborating source given this apparent error. The greatest irony, as you have said yourself, is that Wikipedia is not a "reliable source" for obvious reasons based on its very existence as a compilation of contributions by general public users. 
I was "taken in", if you will, by the Tribune column enough to set out at first only to determine and define more concretely the relevant details of that column's (erroneous) assertion. Should you review the sequence of exchanges in this talk section you may notice at one distinct point that I actually did delete the entire reference to ABC's timeframe in general, and Elvis in particular, once I began to argue they should not be admissable based on one single newspaper column's passing mention if my considerably more extensive research and sourcing was to be so summarily dismissed. 
So while I may not have started with any expectation or intention of refuting the Chicago Tribune here, only through my own determination and persistence have we now come to the necessary conclusions I believe I have already covered quite thoroughly. 
RRawpower (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we have come to the "necessary conclusions" just very recently when you found evidence that the Tribune's text may be inaccurate. Your "initial suspicion" didn't justify your removal of content. I'm going to remove the content for now unless this inaccuracy with the Tribune source is shown to be accurate in some form. Rhinopias (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


### Accuracy of Tribune source
I removed content discussed throughout this section with this edit. 87Fan, if you contest the removal you could reinstate it and add {{Unreliable source?}} with a |reason= like "statement's accuracy questioned, see talk" or something. (But maybe leave it out of the lead still?)
With RRawpower's roundabout discovery of The Barry Manilow Special which aired on ABC in 1977, I'm not sure how the Tribune's statement could be accurate (ABC-TV will be taping Bowie for an April [1988] concert special, the network's first since Elvis) when we've established that the Elvis special aired in 1960. The Barry Manilow Special won an Emmy in 1977 in the category "Outstanding Special". I did find this random site that, in describing the Manilow special, says Manilow runs through his hits – in-studio performances mixed with stuff from his frilly-frocked live show. Maybe because it includes in-studio performances it's not considered a "concert special"? That's the only way I can think of that the Tribune statement would be accurate still. If we really think the Tribune meant to exclude it because of that nuance, it should probably be made more clear in the article (e.g. "a concert special solely in front of an audience").  Rhinopias (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhinopias @87fan: A passing reference from fuzzy memory that just happened to be in an otherwise reliable source still got this all wrong, no matter what convoluted logic might be attempted to justify its inclusion in this particular article. As I took considerable time and effort to demonstrate, I discovered at least one other article clearly mistaking the Elvis Hawaii special as supposedly broadcast on ABC. But notwithstanding other misbegotten misconceptions, the absolute facts speak readily and all so much more simply once anyone remotely rational here finally acknowledges just how incredibly few and far between Elvis Presley's television appearances actually were after that one single time on ABC in 1960! Which were all on NBC, but for the last posthumous special broadcast by CBS. Drilling down to Barry Manilow only confuses the entire issue that much more, but for whatever it's worth the actual nature of his ABC special, as summarized, really does reflect the variety show format with other guests on the 1960 Frank Sinatra Timex special on ABC far more closely than, say, the full concert experience of Elvis' most famous "comeback" special in 1968 (again on NBC) that is almost certainly what the Tribune columnist mistakenly had in mind to be comparing directly with this Bowie "Glass Spider" concert in the first place.
As I really should not have to point out for the umpteenth time now, once and for all, regardless of some dubious incidental remark with absolutely no additional qualification of even a title or year that could just as likely have been implying that Elvis' "comeback" special in 1968 for all we know – especially since this Tribune column appeared decades before the effective advent of the Internet and virtually instantaneous access to information. Which, of course, is still subject to debate as all this rigamarole has proven. The point remains that what I continue to dismiss as an erroneous passing reference in a newspaper must still be seen within the drastically limited context of its time in 1987.
RRawpower (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)