Talk:Glass Spider

message: @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  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 s should be added to them from the sources. Rhinopias (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As as a sidenote, , 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)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Refining suggested alteration 

message: I removed content discussed throughout this section with this edit. 87Fan, if you contest the removal you could reinstate it and add  with a  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 () 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  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)
thread_title:  Accuracy of Tribune source