Jump to content

Talk:Aloha from Hawaii via Satellite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAloha from Hawaii via Satellite has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Elvis Presley's concert Aloha from Hawaii via Satellite (advertisement pictured) took place at midnight in Hawaii to match the prime time of its target audience in Asia and Oceania?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 14, 2013, January 14, 2022, and January 14, 2023.

Untitled

[edit]

How many people where attending this concert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.189.125.130 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"For both shows, Presley was dressed in a white "American Eagle" jumpsuit designed by Bill Belew."

No, "Aloha Bald-Headed Eagle" suit was designed by Gene Doucette. 62.65.224.87 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"...broadcast live via satellite around the world on January 14, 1973."

I'd like to get more information on that. The Show wasn't "live around the world". It was live mainly in asia, US Citizens as well as Europeans did see a tape a couple of days later, but I don't know details, I hoped to find here.

Elvis was not the first to use satellite transmission for a concert

The Beatles did it 6 years earlier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_you_need_is_love —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.44.142.36 (talk) 01:01, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

That was NOT a "concert" that was a peformance of one song! 66.67.229.26 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know if there were ever any official viewing figures released to support the colonels marketing claims, 1 billion across only 40 countries would be a feat even by todays standard Seaneyt (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1.5 billion people figure cited on this page is pretty much definitely false. Take a look at http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis-aloha-special.html 24.18.97.156 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the introduction to reflect this, and have added a new section that discusses the viewing figures. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.42.104.181 (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)The 1 billion figure touted for this is way off the mark, even more ridiculous a figure when we are going way back in the early 70's ...With a worldwide population of approx 3 and a half billion.86.42.104.181 (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced viewing figures?

[edit]

Please remove someone's opnion that that aloha elvis was not seen by 1.5 billion people . The author brings no facts just assumptions . Thank you

198.228.200.153 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are included at Aloha_from_Hawaii_Via_Satellite#Viewing_figures. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article is citing a persons opnion with no credible fact.

[edit]

the article cites a persons opnion and there logic that aloha elvis was not seen by a billion people. i can easily post other peoples opnion that it was. numerous news articles even today state it was watched by a billion people. please remove the quoted bloggers opnion. please put pre news articles a billion people in total (not all at once watched aloha elvis.

thank you

68.199.0.23 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the authors assumption

[edit]

"If barely a third of the U.S. population tuned in, does it seem reasonable that an equal amount would have done so in places like South Vietnam, where TV broadcasting only began in 1965

this is opnion not fact. one could easily argue that third world countries would tune in more to see american entertainment which is more credible because viewing figures show 90 percent in the phillapenes tuned in.

please remove opnion. thank you

68.199.0.23 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states that some people question these claims and then goes on to give an example of someone questioning it and their reasons for questioning it. There is nothing at all wrong with that statement. The lead of the article states that viewing figures have been estimated at 1 billion, and also states that this figure is debated. Again, nothing wrong with that statement. The article is neutral and is written as such. As an avid Elvis fan I have read more than my fair share of biographies/Elvis encyclopedias, and I think it's fair to say that most of them use the 1 billion figure only because they are copying it from a previous source. This doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it lazy writing.
Alan Hanson, who questions the figures and is used in the article as a source for these questions, has clearly done a lot of research regarding the matter and it's a reasonable inclusion. To be completely fair to his argument that Colonel Parker just added up the total populations to reach a figure of over 1 billion, it's not impossible to believe. Parker very often exaggerated things to make his client look better, and no one knew how to do it better than him. I'm not even 100% convinced that a total of 1 billion people have seen it overall since 1973, nevermind the idea that that many watched in 1973 alone. Did 1 billion people watch it live? I doubt it, but we'll never know. It sounds good, but it doesn't sound realistic. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two sides to this coin. Yes, the blog writer's opinion -- no matter how sound you may feel his methodology may be -- is "opinion not fact". The other side is that the 1 billion figure is also opinion, not fact (the opinion of someone promoting a product is often worthless).

Yes, it's a blog. I, for one, am not prepared to ignore our general prohibition on such sources. The other side of that coin is that, IMO, the "1 billion" figure is a steaming pile of crap. With that in mind, I figured a reliable source wouldn't be hard to find. Bingo. Yes, they cite the blog. However, they are a reliable source (USA Today) and also cite Guinness Book of World Records. The best they can say is that the figure "now seems dubious". With a bit more digging, I'm willing to bet we can find reliable sources that outright call it an exaggeration/lie. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) i have posted prior that gwr states elvis sold a billion records and was denied because gwr was in the business oh hype. now because the gwr states a superbowl show (that madonna had higher ratings )for its gospel. i am sure we can all agree that aloha elvis was at least seen by over 300 million.

please put a credible estimate

thank you 76.222.86.76 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who said what to you about Guinness somewhere else. I'm discussing this article. The source I am proposing is USA Today. They state the claim "now seems dubious". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite. 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:

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) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite. 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:

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) 16:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite. 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:

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) 19:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    This article has multiple areas where a copy edit is warranted and was nominated with several typos and capitalization issues present. From what I'm reading, one of the policies that might be of most use to you is MOS:NUMERAL, e.g. "charted at forty-three" probably should be "charted at 43". There are some extraneous commas and one or two sentences with too many ", and" setups. Take another look, or perhaps send it to WP:GOCE.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Lots of good offline and newspapers.com citations with a nice citation density. Personal suggestion: make sure to get page numbers from the newspaper, which often vary from what newspapers.com provides, especially for papers that use lettered or numbered sections. Earwig throws up a content farm's repost of this and a couple common phrases and story titles, with the highest legitimate entry at just 13 percent similarity.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    While I have issues with the prose quality, the article covers all the things it needs to and does it well.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    GDuwen has been the only substantial editor since beginning the major expansion in December.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The primary blocker here is a copy edit, and it's definitely needed. I am placing the nomination on hold, to be resumed after a copy edit by WP:GOCE. The article needs it before I can promote. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for taking up the review. I placed the article on the request section of the Guild. I'll ping you whenever they happen to work on it (there are a bunch of articles at the time in the queue).--GDuwenHoller! 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for letting me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie Just checking-in to let you know that I'm still tracking the progress of the article on the GOCE list. It is currently nicely placed on the request queue, so I think we'll be hopefully able to continue the process soon enough.--GDuwenHoller! 22:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: After the wondeful job by Twofingered Typist, we are now able to continue with the nomination.--GDuwenHoller! 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GDuwen: Thank you for waiting. I caught a few other things that were missed, but I am good to pass this GA now. Thanks for your patience. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. It took a little longer than usual, but it was worth it.--GDuwenHoller! 18:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Australian promotion of Aloha from Hawaii via Satellite
Australian promotion of Aloha from Hawaii via Satellite

Improved to Good Article status by GDuwen (talk). Self-nominated at 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT0. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aloha_from_Hawaii_via_Satellite&oldid=1205393765"