Talk:Sammy Davis Jr.

Cocaine and Satanism

The book Deconstructing Sammy by journalist Matt Birkbeck, states that in the late 1960s "Sammy found solace in drugs, particularly cocaine and amyl nitrate, and experimented briefly with Satanism and pornography". In his autobiography, "Why Me?: The Sammy Davis, Jr. Story" and the 2000 update Sammy: The Autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. he mentions his cocaine addiction. A search of Google News finds many news articles for Davis and cocaine/drugs. Why has his cocaine addiction been left out of the Wikipedia page? Davis admitted himself he took cocaine. Yet another example of Wikipedia NOT being accurate. And his Satanism is mentioned in the book Deconstructing Sammy. newtaste —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

"satanic" idiocy

the responses to the "alleged satanist" mention do nothing but demonstrate ignorance of the so called "church" of satan which he clearly had some run-ins with, which has little to do with worshipping satan and much more to do with mockery and the prostitution of attention. Moreover, certain so-called Satanic groups most definitely had established contact with the man and continue to claim him as one of their own, regardless of the actual personal beliefs of the man. --Diablorex (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find any actual evidence for that, let us know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sub page nominated for deletion

The subpage Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. has been nominated for deletion. John Vandenberg 12:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Satanist?

Sammy here is listed on the List of Satanists page. The talk page has a citation, but I can't really confirm it. Googling gave me quite a lot of hits, but I really couldn't tell if any of them stretched beyond the conspiracy theorists that pervade the internet. Anyone know anything about this? I was hoping snopes.com would help, but they haven't addressed it. I guess it's at least a confirmed rumor, and he's an "alleged" Satanist anyway, which is not the same thing. I'd like to hear from other people (and not just "I like Sammy, he's great, he can't be a Satanist", but something a bit more substantial). -R. fiend 14:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NO he couldn't have been one, since he was Jewish, like it is said he converted in a hospital. 68.4.66.92 (talk · contribs) 19:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I was rather startled by that in the article. I had never read or heard anything like that about him. It doesn't seem to be at his IMDB page or much else.--T. Anthony 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see the official "Church of Satan" group and his niece allege it. As people never tell untrue stories of their uncles it must be valid. Like the claim Einstein was a Christian Scientist.--T. Anthony 14:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Sammy was a good friend of Jayne Masfield (actress) who was involved with satanists once in her life. He simply can't be labeled a satanist by associatiom..--XLR8TION

I know my own memory will not be considered a reliable source but I remember Sammy being the Phil Donahue show saying that he used to keep one of his fingernails painted red to show his allegiance to the Church of Satan. He was promoting his autobiography at the time so it may be written in there MrBlondNYC 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I 'remember' that according to Snopes.com and other sources, a lot of people "remember" that the CEO of Procter & Gamble said on Donahue that his company was Satanist. And I 'remember' that Snopes concluded that it never happened. Not that I would propose Snopes as a source for anything other than verifying that Snopes 'says' it, but... McGehee 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

True I don't have the episode on tape. But keep in mind he was promoting his autobiography and was talking about his notoriously self-destructive behavior. He wasn't saying that he IS a Satanist. He was saying at a certain time in his life he went through a weird period where he experimented with Satanism and regretted it. I doubt he did all the things that Satanist do whatever they are. He just said that he kept his fingernail painted red. And it is true that he was friends with Anton LaVey as evidenced by a famous picture of them together. MrBlondNYC 11:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Satanists do not believe in God or the Devil, so he could not have been both at the same time. But, just because he was Jewish at one time doesn't mean he didn't change religions later. People do change their minds, and not everyone believes in the same religion all their lives. Even preachers have been known to later become atheists. Therefore, just because he converted to being Jewish while he was in the hospital doesn't mean it's not possible for him to have been a Satanist later on. Cokie500 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article for Karla LaVey it says, "In 1973 Karla met and presented Sammy Davis Jr. with his warlock baphomet amulet on behalf of her father." But the statement does not include a citation. Cokie500 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this blurb:

• LEGEND: Anton LaVey was a close friend of Sammy Davis, Jr. and inducted him into the Church of Satan.
  

REALITY: Sammy Davis, Jr. was invited to accept an honorary membership in the Church of Satan by Michael Aquino. After Davis sent Aquino his acceptance on March 17, 1973, he was presented with the honorary membership on April 13, 1973 by Aquino and Karla LaVey alone. Anton did not meet Davis until August 1973.

SOURCES: Davis letter to Aquino 3/17/73; Church of Satan Priesthood Bulletin 4/30/73; Aquino, COS, Chapter 23; Sammy Davis, Hollywood in a Suitcase (pre-publication text, printed in Daily News, New York, 9/11/80), Karla LaVey.

Can anyone verify the pre-pub autobiography text printed in the Daily News? - Wickning1 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are pictures in the Church of Satan history by Michael Aquino at www.xeper.org of Sammy Davis Jr. with Anton LaVey, Diane LaVey, and Michael Aquino. He was involved even if later he dropped it. WerewolfSatanist 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he "played along" when he attended at least two Satanist rituals along with a girlfriend of his who was a believer, but that he personally didn't believe in it, and was actually bored by the whole ordeal. Could be from his second authobiography, Why Me?, but I can't remember the exact quote. Demf 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I read in a Anton Szandor LaVey biography, that he was a close friend with Sammy Davis jr. and Lavey granted him as "warlock" of the satanic church on April 1976. 3inchesofadown (talk · contribs) 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the article has no mention of neither the Church of Satan or of his friendship with LaVey. If there exists some good source for this, this is information that should be presented in the article. __meco 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He was a Satanist and according to the CoS he achieved the position of Warlock within the church in 1973. There are images of Karla LaVey presenting him his Medallion. --QSaranis 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is well established that Mr. Davis was involved with the Church of Satan. Any debate about how serious or devout he was about such involvement simply betrays that one doesn't really understand what the Church of Satan was about at that time. It doesn't matter whether or not he took it seriously for his involvement to be notable, and therefore worth mentioning in the article.--Diablorex (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading all the discussion on Davis being an alleged satanist, I don't see any sources that could be considered definitive or even all that credible, which could justify including this rumor, especially when it could be considered financially harmful to his estate, and therefore possibly actionable, to include this rumor. I'll have this page on my watchlist, and if someone reverts my deletion, I'll forward the link to this article to Davis's estate, and see if they want to take this up with Wikipedia administration. I don't mean that as a threat, I really think it is the best way to resolve the issue, if people think it is THAT important to mention this rumor.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to Gareth E Kegg for contacting me about his very valid concerns regarding my statement that I would contact Davis's estate if the mention of Davis's alleged satanism was added back to the article. This is what I told him:

Thanks for contacting me about this. I do understand your position about my talking about alerting his estate. I kind of knew when I posted it that it would naturally be read as a threat, even though I sincerely don't mean it as a threat. I know it sounds like me saying "don't you revert, or I'm gonna call Sammy's estate". It's sometimes hard to express intent though text - there is no tone of voice, etc. to give one clues. I just looked at the LONG back-and-forth discussion about this, and thought deleting it would probably just result in it being reverted - there seem to be some people highly invested in keeping the rumor on his page. I thought that if we can't settle it here, maybe Davis's heirs could definitively settle it, even if their settlemen would be to ask the Wikipedia management to make sure this is not on his article. It borders on libel, and is hardly encyclopedic. If I had an encyclopedia article written about me, and someone added some possibly libelous information in it, I hope someone would alert me so I could set the record straight. It's any wikipedian's choice to revert my edit, and it's Wikipedia management's choice to decide whether or not that exposes them to a libel suit, and it's Davis's heirs' choice to decide if they want to ask that it be permanently deleted, or seek legal relief. In order for Davis's heirs to have that choice, they have to know about it, they have the right, but wikipedians and Wikipedia have the right to know in advance that I would alert his estate, which is why I said I would. Again, I didn't mean it as a threat, but I guess there is no way to say it that wouldn't be taken as one. If the edit is reverted, I will not alert the estate until after I have contacted Wikipedia management, to give them a fair chance to deal with the situation internally.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope that addresses anyone's concerns. I don't want to get anyone in trouble, I just think Davis's estate has the right to weigh in on this, as influential as Wikipedia has gotten these days.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My response: "I sympathise with your frustrations, but you can't libel the dead, and I have grave doubts that the views of relations are more objective than those of biographers and researchers." Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

His estate is an ongoing entity which still earns from use of his likeness and royalties from his artistic products and could be financially harmed by damage to his reputation. I don't know the law in UK, but in the US, depending upon the state in which the suit is brought, relatives of a dead person can sue for libel. For instance, in my state, Oklahoma, the law reads:

"Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, [683 P.2d 1349] and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends. BOTTOM LINE - I'm not a law expert, so I don't know if Davis's estate has any grounds in suing over the satanism allegation - but my letting people know that I intend to share with the estate the presence of the allegation on Wikipedia is not a threat, does not violate wikipedia policy, and though you may disagree with it, no one can prevent me from doing so.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You would be well-advised to read this: Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So because there is a disclaimer that information may be wrong, we shouldn't try to eliminate information which is of dubious encyclopedic worth? Besides, such disclaimers aren't very protective in the US, so they are of little worth. You would be well-advised to read these: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html, www.WikipedaClassAction.org, http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2007/02/zoellers_lawsui.html, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html. I make no comment on the merits of the lawsuits or whether or not I agree with them - but these lawsuits show that disclaimer doesn't make Wikipedia or anyone who edits on it immune from lawsuit. Maybe these plaintiffs will lose these lawsuits, but defendents who win lawsuits still find them very costly experiences.Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as costly as it will be to the losers. Meanwhile, there is nothing in the article about satanism, so what's your complaint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from the Satanism page. Which you could have done also, with far less effort than you spent making empty threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment I was referring to was on this article. I was the one who removed it Saturday.Check the history and get your facts straight.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand on what Baseball Bugs has said... you are absolutely correct that the information was poorly sourced and controversial, and needed to be removed. However, the preferred way of rectifying this problem is not through legal threats (see WP:LEGAL), but rather by consensus and editing. Legal threats are poisonous to the atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration that defines Wikipedia.

You also seem to be under the misunderstanding that the folks you are speaking to "own" Wikipedia or something. We don't. So pointing out to us that various organizations have at times considered suing Wikipedia doesn't really have a point. First of all, we know. Second of all, that's not us being sued, so I'm not sure what your point is. Lastly, and most importantly, we are already doing what we can -- we remove libelous and inaccurate statements when we find them, just as Baseball Bugs did once you pointed out the problem regarding Sammy Davis Jr. and false rumors of Satanism. Do you have a different suggestion other than just removing the statement???

Anyway, consider this a warning. In the future, please do not make legal threats on Wikipedia under any circumstances. If there really is a legal issue that needs attention, there are other channels for this other than commenting in Talk pages. In this case, there was no need to go to those channels, because all you had to do was remove the content. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well-aware of the nature of Wikipedia, and that the contributors here do not "own" the site, therefore my notification of my intention to share future satanism allegations with Davis' estate is not intended as a threat to them .Again, I made no legal threat. Sharing information with people or entities is not legal action. What they choose to do with such information is not my concern. Letting people know that I would share such information is not a threat. Your interpretation of WP:LEGAL is overreaching. I have explained my position, will not alter my previously stated intentions, and therefore there is no need for further discussion. This is my last post on this subject.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments were, in fact, "threatening", and all you had to do was to change the content yourself - a fact which the attorneys would have pointed out. In effect, your non-action on the article contributed to any public perception of Davis being a satanist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did change the content on this page myself, on Saturday. Check the history and get your facts straight.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You failed to remove it from the Satanism page, which is where the complaint originated. So you did only half the job. Which also points out why your threats have no basis. Users make a good-faith effort to remove controversial unsourced material. But we can't be everywhere at once. Next time, lose the threats and fix the problem. That's your job as an editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales: "There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well ... And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overlook_legal_threats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.156.226 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor is not a first-time user. He knew that all he needed to do was fix it, and not make threats. Wales' comments don't apply in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, my mistake was thinking that I was being courteous in letting people know that I might alert Davis' estate, so that they would know beforehand. Apparently this is not appreciated, so if a similar situation arises in the future, I will not post on Wikipedia my intent to inform the entity of the possibly defamatory information, nor will I post on Wikipedia that I have done so after the fact. I will just go ahead and inform the entity.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You continue to make groundless threats. If you see a problem here, fix it. That's your right and responsibility as an editor. And making threats is liable to get you banned. Unless that's what you want, stop it now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remember that wikipedia's civility guidelines enjoin all of us to "assume good faith". My last statement was not intended as a threat, and I would ask you not to jump to conclusions. I sincerely understand that I made a mistake in thiking I was being courteous by stating my possible future actions, please take that at face value. I get it that there is a strong belief here that any statement like mine about contacting Davis' estate is negative to the atmosphere of cooperation. What I am saying is that since that is the case, I understand that such statements as mine are not appreciated and therefore I will not make them anymore. Please remember to assume good faith and maintain civility according to Wikipedia's guidlines, which also enjoins against "ill-considered accusations of impropriety."Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think you meant, multiple users on here have seen it as a threat. So it might occur to you that the problem is on your side of it. Stop it. Stop it now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already said that I recognize I made a mistake, and would not do so again. I recognize that my expression and choice of words was the problem. I am not sure what more you want, so to avoid a flame war with you, I will disengage and let you have the last word.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable or unreliable?:[1]

Religion / Jewish

Citations needed on extra statements concerning religious. No original research on religious views allowed. AceLT (talk · contribs) 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the links to Davis' Jewishness. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sammydavis.html Rklawton 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point in the edit summary. There is no contradiction between being Black and Jewish. I dated many years a lady who was both, from birth. gidonb 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, someone who knows more about Sammy Davis should add a few sentences to explain how he became Jewish, since his being Jewish was a feature often noted in the entertainment media.--M@rēino 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Godfrey Cambridge who once made gentle fun of Davis being Jewish, i.e. that he didn't see any point in being discriminated against twice! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Descent

Sammy Davis Jr., was of Puerto Rican descent as stated by himself. Just because one person claims differently doesn't mean a thing. Here are three of the dozens of reliable sites which back up his own Puerto Rican claim. Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDb, Sammy Davis Jr. and Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr. . Tony the Marine 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The book has extremely good reviews, and I have read parts of it on Amazon and it seems highly unlikely that the author was mistaken.

• www.randomhouse.com/catalog/
• www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-12/p-64
• www.handbag.com/gossip/celebrityinterviews/denzelwashington/gossip/celebrityinterviews/tomhanks/
• www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/

Arniep 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with User:Arniep in regard to his continous reverts in the Sammy Davis Jr. and Elvera Sanchez articles, see:

• User_talk:Arniep#Puerto_Rican_Descent

Arniep insists on posting his version and his version only. Arniep cites as proof the following transcript from an unauthorized bio, a book written without the permission of the Davis Estate by Wil Haygood. The transcript can be found here:

• http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375403545&view=excerpt

For some unknown reason Arniep refuses to accept the overwhelming fact that every reference to Sammy Davis Jr., and his mother point to the fact that Elvera Sanchez was of Puerto Rican descent and "not" Cuban. Nor Arniep or the author of the book cite official documents to back up these claims.

These are only three sites of the many which state that Davis' mother was Puerto Rican:

• Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDb,
• Sammy Davis Jr.
• Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr.

In every other biography of Sammy Davis Jr., it is stated that his ancestors were Afro-American and Puerto Rican. In his own autobiography "Sammy : The Autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Sammy Davis, Burt Boyar, Jane Boyar", Sammy Davis claims that his mother was Puerto Rican. How could we doubt his own words?

Another thing, the author claims that Davis denied his "Cuban" ancestry because of the "Anti-Castro" sentiment. This does not make any sense since it would be almost impossible to keep his whole family and his friends quiet for so many years. If that was the case then way didn't Desi Arnaz of "I Love Lucy" fame, Cesar Romero and Celia Cruz do the same?

I have tried to reach a "middle ground" with User Arniep by offering these new versions: Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis Jr. as a solution but, Arniep refuses to cooperate and instead of having an open dialogue about the issue, continues to revert.

I have no personal interest in either article. My main concern is that commonly accepted facts and not "hearsay" be posted in Wikipedia articles. To quote Sammy Davis himself: "I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!" Tony the Marine 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The book got horrible reviews on Amazon.com. Four readers rated negatively. Furthermore, the author wrote a book on Adam Clayton Powell Sr., another famous African-American who married a Puerto Rican woman and had a Puerto Rican son. His family says that the autobiography is unbased. Please site documents. A book review is not good enough. I think we have made this clear to you using examples. You have either little research skills or are simply ignorant. XLR8TION

Tony and XLR, please familiarize yourselves with our verifiability policy and the supporting reliable sources guideline. Specifically, they say that statements by the subject of the article do not supersede published, verifiable documents. In the case of a conflict between what the subject of an article claims and what external documentation states, the external documentation (assuming it is a reliable source) is given precedence. In such cases, it is appropriate to state that the subject claims one thing while other sources claim another. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Census Research

Two census records show that the family was Cuban - with daughter Elvera Sanchez (Davis) born in New York.

The 1930 census shows this family:

• Name: Louisa Sanchez
• Home in 1930: Manhattan, New York, New York
• Age: 41
• Estimated birth year: abt 1889
• Birthplace: Cuba
• Relation to Head of House: Head
• Race: Negro (Black)
• Parents' birthplace: Cuba

• Household Members: Name Age
• Louisa Sanchez 41
• Julia Sanchez 26 daughter
• Elvera Davis 23 daughter, b. New York married (absent from household)
• Gloria Sanchez 6 grand daughter

1920

• Name: Lousa Sanchez
• Home in 1920: Manhattan Assembly District 21, New York, New York
• Age: 31 years
• Estimated birth year: abt 1889
• Birthplace: Cuba
• Relation to Head of House: Head
• Father's Birth Place: Cuba
• Mother's Birth Place: Cuba
• Marital Status: Widow
• Race: Mulatto
• Sex: Female
• Occupation - ladies maid
• Home owned: Rent
• Year of Immigration: Un
• Able to read: Yes
• Able to Write: Yes
• Image: 914

• Household Members: Name Age
• Elvera Sanchez 14
• Julia Sanchez 16

Denise Oliver-Velez (talk · contribs) 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Denise, so-called original research is not permitted on this site. Sammy always said when he was alive he was Puerto Rican, than a biographer came on board and did an unauthorized bio on Sammy saying he is Cuban;. Since usually a verbal confirmation is considered more legitimate that has to be mentioned, and the other claim (remember this has never has been confirmed by the Davis or Sanchez) families will be mentioned but only to alert readers that others disagree with Sammy's claims when he was alive. Since the claim is a rumored that never has been confirmed it can't not be included in the article. Articles can't rely on rumors to make an article legit. --XLR8TION (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I have watched this ding-dong over his mother's ancestry for some time, and having actually read the book, feel that a compromise is required. I like the current version, saying Sammy described himself as Puerto Rican, but Haygood claims his mother was Cuban. Sammy is dead, so any biography is now unauthorized, and I have faith in biographies to expose things that the subject disagrees with and hides. Sinatra went into battle with Kitty Kelly, who made much rumor about his life verifiable, and Ella Fitzgerald's real birthdate was only discovered after biographical research, to give two relevant examples. I do not think, therefore, that the subject should be the ultimate arbiter of their life story. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gareth you have a good point there, however, in maintaining the site's NPOV guidelines, the article should state Sammy's claims vs. the author's claims. The editors who have eliminated Sammy's PR ancestry claims even deleted a cited source, which can be labeled vandalism if you look at it. The "early life" section is now written in a NPOV manner. This will allow the reader to see both viewpoints and decide for him/herself which claim is more credible. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the following, from his maternal grandmother's obituary in 1996: At the memorial service, friends noted that Louisa Sanchez was born in Cuba and that her parents were black and Native American so she lived her life as an advertisement for harmony among all races. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All In The Family

Maybe his famous scene on the sitcom All in the Family should be mentioned? 67.182.22.63 00:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

May want to mention his guest appearance on "All In The Family" including the famous kiss...

• www.tvacres.com/sex_techniques_racial.htm

Goes well with his pushing for racial equality. 69.248.114.49 (talk · contribs) 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both folks above. If we can include trivial mentions of him in songs, then the longest recorded laugh in television history, when SDJR kisses Archie Bunker, should definitely be there. CodeCarpenter 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The episode has a large section in the All in the Family page, a subset of which could be added to this page, IMO. All In The Family#Sample episode: "Sammy's Visit" CodeCarpenter 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Impressionist

Impressionist???? 81.9.152.240 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glass Eye

What about his glass eye? Its been discused in pop culture numerous times.71.70.171.247 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)AME

Archie Bunker to Sammy Davis, after telling everyone else it was impolite to bring up this subject: "How's your eye?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Television Credit

I believe there is a missing television credit. In the late fifties or early sixties, Sammy Davis, Jr. had a role in a television show about soldiers in basic training. Sammy's role was that of a young and mentally slow recruit that was ridiculed and taunted by other soldiers. The other soldiers decided to play a practical joke with a "dud" grenade. To their surprise, Sammy's character throws himself on the grenade to save his comrades. Does anyone else remember this outstanding performance? John Royall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.100 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember the movie and would like to find out the movie name so I can get a copy and see it again. As I remember, it was a good movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.241.226 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendship with Sinatra

After describing his early career, it mentions that he joined the Rat Pack, started by his "old friend" Frank Sinatra. This doesn't seem like the right way to introduce Sinatra. The article should first mention something about where they met and became friends. I'd add it myself, but I have no idea how they met. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme from Baretta?

I'm wondering if the fact that Sammy sang the theme song from Baretta ("Keep Your Eye On The Sparrow") is worth putting in the article, and if so, where? Joe JJC (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

possible cleanup of article???

I recently read this article and I found it to be somewhat repetitive. (For instance, the controversial nature of Davis' second marriage.) I also feel that the article should be organized so that the events of Davis' life flow in chronological order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonyellis (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr. Greater Hartford Open

Has anyone ever found information regarding how Sammy's sponsorship of this golf tournament in Connecticut came about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.229.46 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)