Talk:Bing Crosby

Baseball Unassessed

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).

Mass Media

I cut the sentence "He played an important part in the development of recording technology." Perhaps this is so, could we get some explanation of this point? -- Infrogmation 16:54 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is absolutely true. Apparently he was almost single-handedly responsible for introducing the tape recorder into America because he realised what a difference it could make for broadcasting, and the technology moved on faster as a result. I saw a documentary which mentioned his role. Deb 17:26 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Crooner of the 20th century

Bing Crosby holds the distinction of Crooner of the 20th century.

Uh.... says who? Source? Anthony Dean 22:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, Bing is the most successful crooner of the 20th century.

Bing Crosby won a T.V. Guide poll to decide the distiction crooner of the 20th century. But I cant find any references. --Sicamous 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis is also estimated to have sold well over a billion records. In any event, until Sinatra arrived in 1942 Crosby didn't have any real competition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.103 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Crooning is a specific style, and Crosby epitomizes it. Elvis is no crooner, and it remains to be shown that Azanvour is any more so than Elvis.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra was the greatest crooner/entertainer of the 20th century, and all the newspapers said so on his death in 1998. Bing is only remembered by a few diehard (generally old) fans.

"Sinatra was the greatest crooner/entertainer of the 20th century, and all the newspapers said so on his death in 1998. Bing is only remembered by a few diehard (generally old) fans." - Given the time frame, though, the comparison is difficult to make. In 20-30 years time, it might be true that Sinatra is 'only remembered by a few diehard (generally old) fans' as well - if indeed that is true of Bing Crosby.

Also it should be noted that Sinatra doesn't even approach Bing in terms of record sales, either today or when they were alive.

bipolar

Removed the bipolar refence after reading Bing Bipolar. Is there a reference for this assertion?

Database 06:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bipolar, again

Removed the statement that

Many people believe that Crosby's extraordinary abilities were due to his having bipolar disorder.

Such a claim should not be put in an article without indicating what people, specifically, believe this, and indicating where they said so.

A statement like can go in the article whether it's true or not, as long as you can show that it is widely believed. It's not necessary to provide a photocopy of a psychiatrist's diagnosis. What is necessary is to cite a good source. A print biography, with title, author, and page number; a magazine or newspaper article, with date and page number; or a website which can be judged to be authoritative (not someone's personal page or blog). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING MICHAEL BUBLE
This is a fairly petty consideration, but is it really appropriate to include Michael Buble among names like Como, Sinatra and Martin? This is not so much a judgment of how he stacks up in singing ability relative to those names; it just seems strange to include him in particular when he has been a household name for less than five years. The others sang for decades and are almost universally recognized in name and voice, whereas Buble is still fairly inconsequential and has not yet had enough time to demonstrate whether he'll be a fad or a legend. If most people agree that he should be left in there, however, then perhaps include others like Harry Connick, Jr., who have actually been around for awhile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipdouglas (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

White Xmas

_ _ I removed the references to others' recordings of this song, which are irrelevant to this article, until it is shown that the obvious approaches to it don't work, & he is accepted as having shown how it should be sung -- or that others' recordings are economically viable bcz they can cash in on nostalgia for him.
_ _ The reference to "twenty times" is mathematically illiterate, but it's slightly better to have it in this obviously wrong form that not at all, so i haven't removed it. "Between 1942 and 1962" normally means inclusively, i.e. "'42 thru '62" (21 years); less one exception and plus 1998 is 21 times. Rarely, "between 1942 and 1962" means exclusively, i.e. "'43 thru '61" (19 years); less one exception and plus 1998 is 19 times. Needs fix; some research required.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Elton John has the biggest selling single worldwide at 37 million sales, how can White Christmas have sold 50 million as reported on this page?

-Good idea, done --Sicamous 03:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd article

It seems to just pretty much say the son who defended him was wrong and committed suicide. Yet the article on that son indicates he had a heart attack. IMDB says the same. What's the truth here? And do we have enough sources to make it so clear he was "an abused child who took his father's side" as it essentially says.--T. Anthony 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to change that. We really shouldn't do "gossip as fact" here. In fact I think Wikipedia should've learned better on that awhile back. Maybe the heart attack explanation was a way to spare the family from news of another suicide, but I don't see enough evidence of that. I think we should just keep it as heart attack and not imply different without sourcing.--T. Anthony 08:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to that the article on Gary Crosby isn't so clearcut that he's right about his Dad.--T. Anthony 08:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that reliable sources of information will say Phillip Crosby died of natural causes or "unspecified." That is because the coroner would not release the cause of death, which is certainly not standard procedure. [1] Some speculate- although speculation is not in itself proof- that retired LA Coroner Thomas Nogouchi, who liked to hobnob with the stars, may have known the Crosbys and used his influence to keep their secret as a favor or out of pity, or some other party within the California Dept. of Health intervened. Certainly there is no compelling reason for the cover-up.

Phrasing

To me when the current article, following the defense of Bing Crosby quote by his son, says that "Phillip passed away in 2004 reportedly of a heart attack." (emphasis added) seems to have a sinister connotation (especially in context of what was quoted previous to that sentence)... I mean, if someone dies of a heart attack, don't we kinda know? Is there enough doubt that we must list his cause of death as "reported"?

Originally it said the cause of death was not reported "possibly to spare the family from hearing of another suicide." This struck me as way more ominous since there seems to be little to indicate that's what happened. However I thought maybe that person knows something I don't so I'd allow for a bit of doubt. I'll remove that though as most things just say he had a heart attack.--T. Anthony 06:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Some fan must have written this article. "A talented vocalist"? "impressive range"? "impeccable phrasing"? "sophisticated vocal techniques"? Are these things common knowledge? Please source them and tone down the fan-gush writing; it does not fit with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC

To answer the question "Are these things common knowledge?," for the most part, yes. However you are right, the opening paragraph is slightly fan based, so I toned it down. --Sicamous 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I don't know how to do it myself, but someone needs to put one of those "This Article Requires Cleanup" banners on the top of it. The grammar is terrible, and though I fixed all I could, I'm not sure how to fix some sentences. A lot of the information is subjective and reads like a newspaper editorial... I'd say it needs a major rehaul.Polyhymnia 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, its no worse, or better, than any other article

Pedophile

I have read Bing abused the four children of his first marriage sexually as well as physically, this really should be included in the article.

That's Joan Rivers unfounded opinion that has never even been close to substantiated. --Sicamous 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But nevertheless, many people today seem to believe it.

Height

Many wikipedia articles mention the height of celebrities, therefore I think it is right to list Bing as 5'7". A quote from Gary Giddins book, A Pocketfull of Dreams: Talking about Mary Carlisle, who worked with him in films, "Carlisle noticed he was self-conscious about his height...and he wore lifts...he once told Alan Ladd how pleased he was that Ladd was shorter...Bing maintained he was 5ft 9, but an office secretary Nancy Briggs, recalled a visit to his home when he wore slippers and she realized he was just about her height - 5ft 7."

Date of birth

On IMDb it says Bing Crosby was born on May 2 and in the article it says May 3. Which one is correct? /Ludde23 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is correct, his date of birth can authentisized here http://www.mcckc.edu/~crosby/born.htm. --Sicamous 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

I removed the word "acclaimed" from the info about Crosby's death - there is nothing acclaimed about dying at 74. Also removed the "most likely aged 76" bit - newspaper records prove Bing was indeed born in May 1903, making him 74 when he died.

I also removed the "1901" listing on the note about the inscription on his tombstone - the 1903 date has been confirmed and is now listed by the Who's Who and Guinness Book of Records etc. It has even been corrected at findadeath.com.

Sinatra?

This sentence- "Bing Crosby, along with Frank Sinatra, is usually considered to be the most talented singer of his time" bothered me. Why are we mentioning Sinatra here? Even if he is the most talented singer of his time (which I doubt) it doesn't have much to do with Crosby, does it? It just feels out of place. Does anyone object to me taking Sinatra's name out? And maybe rephrase it so it isn't so "OMG, Bing's the best!"-Randomglitter 08:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra surpassed Crosby long ago.

Well, I don't like either of them, but that was hardly my point. -Randomglitter 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Mathis?

Johnny Mathis sold 150 million worldwide, so why is he part of the 'elite club' of biggest sellers? There have been at least 15 artists who have sold more than him.

I dont know why Johnny Mathis would be one here, he is certainly not one of the greats in as far as record selling. --Sicamous 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube links have been removed --Sicamous 05:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tape recorder development

There are a lot of details in the "mass media" section about tape recorder development that have little or nothing to do with Crosby. These parts should go into articles on the tape recorder rather than here. --Blainster 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Crosby's influence on the development of the tape recorder may, in the long run, be as important as his influence as an entertainer.

Which is more important today: Hedy Lamarr's movies and her sex appeal, or the cellular telephones and WiFi made possible by her invention of spread-spectrum wireless transmission? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family

Maybe a list, or even a page, on the Crosby family and what each did/does - they all seem to have their own article. - Matthew238 07:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "holy trinity?"

What about the remark that

He is usually considered to be a member of popular music's "holy trinity" of ultra-icons,[citation needed] alongside Elvis Presley and The Beatles?

Usually? By whom, exactly?

The reference at the end of the sentence merely refers to the Guinness Book of World Records. No page number or other indication of where this is to be found in Guinness, or what is said. What, exactly, does Guinness say about this?

(Is this is perhaps an evasive way of saying Bing Crosby was not ranked #1, but perhaps #3 on some list? Like the stuff you occasionally see in college articles where someone will say a college is "ranked in the top fourteen" in something...)

Does Guinness actually use the phrase "holy trinity?" As a devout Catholic (who almost refused to sing White Christmas because it was secular in content and written by a Jew) I am sure Crosby would have strenuously objected to such a use of the term as blasphemous. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "devout Catholic" didn't stop Crosby from beating his kids, having affairs with Grace Kelly and Inger Stevens, abusing alcohol and drugs etc.

I recall seeing the term in iTunes essential thing for Bing, I also believed that it was originally linked there to --Sicamous 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and Red links should be removed

i feel that there are a lot of personal opinions, such as the holy trinity remark that should be removed if it hasnt already. also, all of the red links in the filmography section should be removed. there is also an inconsistent style of referencing, with a lot of references in one section and none in others. Missy1234 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. The red links in the filmography and discography sections are now redlink free. Missy1234 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]