Talk:David Bowie/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Asterism/Constellation

Please could the following be added to the end of the section linked in the template:

Following Bowie's death, a constellation in the shape of the lightening bolt on Ziggy Stardust's face from cover of Aladdin Sane was registered by Belgian astronomers in his honour.

-- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't known that you could register constellations/asterisms nowadays. Presumably this is a MIRA Public Observatory program, but I haven't been able to track down the specifics. In any case, I've put in a new section, 21st century constellations, in the Constellation article, which should generate the necessary data one way or another. E.g., does it have a specific Latinate name? kencf0618 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I was only adding what I'd seen in the Guardian article. But I see the info is already in the article -- somehow I missed it. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite what media sources may claim, you cannot create a new constellation without upsetting the current system of 88 constellations (see the discussion at constellation). You can form a new asterism, a non-notable one in this case, but no astronomer (or amateur astronomer) will ever use it. And what does in the vicinity of Mars mean? In a few months from now Mars will be in a different area of the sky. AstroLynx (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Where do you register a new asterism? Surely it's not predicated on stars around Mars, as the source would have it. Willondon (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't 'register' a new asterism - there is no scientific organization (like the IAU) where they maintain a list of officially recognized asterisms (there is one for the constellations). What you can do is point out an interesting pattern of stars in the night sky, talk about it in various media and hope that others will agree with you and use it in their own publications. In this case this is very unlikely as the stars in this asterism differ too much in brightness (the brightest is nearly 100 times brighter as the faintest). It will never be of any use to astronomers (amateur or professional). AstroLynx (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, MIRA is not a research observatory or an astronomical institute (where professional astronomers work) but a "volkssterrenwacht" (a "public observatory") which is usually staffed by amateur astronomers or volunteers. AstroLynx (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I never took Bowie for a typographer, But then he always did look good in print. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a cross-border asterism, so into the asterism article it goes. Certainly a notable and unique centopath! kencf0618 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Offspring

Has another son in Berlin, Germany http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/david-der-zweite/7903422.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.210.28.164 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2016‎

Conjecture. Reading through that, the author simply thinks that the so-called 'son' looks like Bowie and the only credible context is that he has worked at Hansa. Nice story though. Karst (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexandria Zahra Jones, Bowie and Iman's daughter, text from David Bowie, can someone edit this into the David Bowie box on the right of David Bowie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger A. Newman (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 January 2016‎

 Not done. We do not include non-notable children in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That hasn't stopped millions of other articles from mentioning such rubbish. Cassianto^Talk 09:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

BowieNet?

A lot have articles about David Bowie released after his death have pointed out Bowienet, which was an attempt by David Bowie to create something like an ISP. I do not see any info about it on the wiki page and feel the claim should be looked into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.153.245 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WOuld be good to include it, there is a good article about it here.Karst (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a short section; it needs expansion, and should have an article in its own right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

BowieNet

Could somebody please add a section discussing David Bowie's ISP/Wesbite BowieNet as it is an important part of the work Bowie did outside of his musical career. See this article to learn more about BowieNet. Nobledragon87 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a short section; it needs expansion, and should have an article in its own right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The article should mention the BowieNet ISP, which had millions of users

Could an editor here add information about the "BowieNet" fan-club ISP? It was "a visual, interactive community for music fans" (as The Guardian says), launched in September 1998, several years before the early mainstream social networking services, Friendster (2002) and MySpace (2003). There's not even a single mention of it at all in the Bowie article at the moment - though it is mentioned in a 16 OTHER articles -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=BowieNet&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

- and many news outlets are devoting entire articles to how extraordinarily prescient it was. These 3 news articles have all the main info about it:

Billboard: Behind David Bowie's Pioneering Internet Service BowieNet, Where the 'Sailor' Was Known to Roam

http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6842796/bowienet-david-bowie-pioneering-online-fan-club-isp

In the televised interview here, from 1999, he talks about recent cultural history, music, and the potential, inevitable power of the Internet. The article below it has more info about the service, as well as a few screenshots:**

BBC: David Bowie: The internet pioneer

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35279234

And another article about it:

The Guardian: BowieNet: how David Bowie's ISP foresaw the future of the internet

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/11/david-bowie-bowienet-isp-internet InternetUser25 (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

AS noted above, I've now added a short section; it needs expansion, and should have an article in its own right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

BowieNet 2

Can someone please explain to me why this three-line factoid deserves its own sub-section? I plan on being bold with this and delete it, but can anyone think of anywhere more suitable for it to go? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the several preceding discussions on the matter on this page (now refactored into one section; as is this); one of which includes my reply to an OP's edit request, that "I've added a short section; it needs expansion". See also the sources I cited in that short section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are wrong to give this a section all by itself. It looks ridiculous. This should have an article by itself if it was that notable. Cassianto^Talk 09:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to suggest that every notable topic already has an article, just as it is a fallacy to suggest that a subject is not notable, because there is not yet an article. I again refer to you to the comments I left in the earlier discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Instruments

Instruments should at least include Acoustic Guitar, Electric Guitar, Saxophone, and Piano - see these links:

I see that there's been a debate about what instruments to name in the infobox, and I saw this --

"If you think an instrument should be listed, a discussion to reach consensus is needed first per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument"

-- and I think it is rather neglectful to only name "Vocals," considering the hundreds of songs and concerts in which he played a guitar (and composed the songs on it as well) - and he played both the acoustic and the electric:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bowie+guitar&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMpoHfvrTKAhVJVyYKHZ8uCywQ_AUIBygB&biw=1467&bih=678

And then his work as a saxophonist, which is also what he was throughout the 1960s, before becoming most well-known as a singer-songwriters and a guitarist, as the article itself says:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bowie+saxophone&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaqpfwvrTKAhWIeCYKHXj0De4Q_AUICCgC&biw=1467&bih=678

And then there's his work on the piano:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bowie+piano&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJwLu_v7TKAhWC6SYKHdRzCA0Q_AUICSgD&biw=1467&bih=678

I'd say the best way to put it would be to have this is the infobox under "Instruments," which will automatically put it in the proper format like the "Associated acts" list, not in the list format you see here:

• Vocals
• Acoustic Guitar
• Electric Guitar
• Saxophone
• Piano

InternetUser25 (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That looks about right to me. With an artist like Bowie, the usual "not known for" criterion doesn't apply, in my opinion. With Bowie, if he's not known for them, it's because his vocal abilities and the sheer breadth of music he produced overshadows his accomplishments with the individual instruments. As someone mentioned above, for each of those instruments, his volume of work with them would merit an infobox mention in any lesser musician's article. (I'm also a fan of his Stylophone work, but I'm not going to push it.) Willondon (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC) (Added note: there are two interesting past discussions, from 2009 at Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_3#Multi-instrumentalist, and from January 2016, archived way too soon at Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_5#Instruments.)

Still, that is the criteria. He has to be known for it to some degree, at least have some sources stating it, not just looking at Google. Plus, you don't need to put acoustic and electric guitar, just simply guitar. We don't put if the saxophone is a tenor sax, soprano sax, or whatever else. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the distance between acoustic and electric guitar is much larger than between different registers of sax, but I tend to agree that 'guitar' would adequately cover both instruments in the infobox. Willondon (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No body is saying that he doesn't play these instruments but, He is more known for singing than any other instruments and the guidelines of the infobox is only primary instruments are to go in the infobox, any other (secondary) instruments should be handled in prose. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case, I'm arguing for an "Ignore all rules" approach, because with Bowie, there's really more than one primary instrument. He's *ahem* more unique than most in that sense. Willondon (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see now that the guidelines do speak in the plural, as do you, and allow for more than one "primary" instrument. Willondon (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not the amount of entries, it's all about what they are most know for and Bowie is most known for singing. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem here is that the guidelines say "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using" but they don't provide criteria for making the judgment of what instruments an artist is primarily known for using. "Primarily known for" is a very subjective phrase, and we're all prone to assuming that what we primarily know an artist for using is what that artist is (in a universal sense) primarily known for using. Mlpearc says that Bowie "is most known for singing" but does not point to any evidence to support that assertion. If we're going to debate this kind of issue, we need to provide objective evidence, not simply assert our individual impressions. As I noted previously (talk), Bowie played sax on 18 of his 28 studio albums and keyboards, including piano and organ, on at least 17 (not including credits for playing synthesizers, chamberlins, and mellotrons). If one accepts album credits as one legitimate source for determining what an artist is primarily known for playing, then I think it's very fair to say that Bowie is primarily known for playing saxes and keyboard instruments as well as singing and playing guitar. So I stand by my argument that the infobox should list vocals, guitar, saxophone, and keyboards, as in the version here [1]. D.Holt (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the infobox instruments to the version here [2], which lists "vocals, guitar, saxophone, keyboards". I sense there's consensus for it among all the discussion. Willondon (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. See my other comment below, with the list of other artist.

Oppose Infobox is fine the way it is. The secondary instruments can be mentioned in prose. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How about we go half way, possibly just vocals and guitar? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Support including the above instruments, because they were important to Bowie's career.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Support for reasons noted above.D.Holt (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Support guitar, keyboards and saxophone, as suggested. But are "Vocals" an "instrument"? If I see that listed as an "instrument" I usually remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ghmyrtle vocals are instruments, especially in classical music. What, just cause you don't use your hands? They don't have to be official to be classified as an "instrument". A spoon can be an instrument. They can be practiced, you can sing at different notes, and just like traditional instruments, they have registers, in singing known as vocal range. So like the guitar, bass guitar, tenor sax, soprano sax, etc, we have bass, baritone, tenor, countertenor, contralto, alto, mezzo-soprano, and soprano. That aside, we only use instruments he's known for, or at least plays regularly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a simple question of what definition of "instrument" is used, but as the consensus on this site (at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, for instance) seems to be to treat "vocals" as an instrument, it should obviously remain in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, here are the "Instruments" listings of a few other of the most popular singers of the past 50 years, who do seem to be primarily and more widely identified as "singers" than as "musicians," "guitars," "pianists," or whatever else. You don't think that someone looking up the David Bowie on Wikipedia should be readily informed the Bowie played the acoustic guitar, electric guitar (but okay, if you just want to say "guitar"), saxophone (and I see a suggestion that we could include what types, but okay), and piano? Just saying "Vocals" is to very egregiously neglect his work as a composer and performer on those of other instruments. Those Google Image links I posted were to show that those instruments have been a prominent part of his work and his career as a professional musician and entertainer.

Freddie Mercury: Instruments Vocals piano keyboards guitar (Certainly he played a guitar on albums and onstage much fewer times than Bowie) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury

Mick Jagger: Vocals harmonica percussion guitar piano (And same in this case) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger

Prince: Vocals guitar bass guitar drums keyboards Linn Drum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_%28musician%29

Bruce Springsteen: Vocals, Guitar, Harmonica, Piano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Springsteen

John Lennon: Guitar piano vocals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon

Elton John: Vocals piano keyboards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John

Rod Stewart: Banjo Guitar Harmonica Keyboards Mandolin Piano Vocals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Stewart

Taylor Swift: Vocals guitar banjo ukulele piano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift

Singers whose only listed Instrument is "Vocals" include these ones, who have virtually never released an album or done a concert where they were playing a musical instrument:

Robert Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plant

George Michael https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Michael

Michel Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson

Madonna (though I'd say that electric guitar could be added, given her use of it in recent tours) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_%28entertainer%29

108.29.205.139 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@108.29.205.139: Thanks for the list I'll work on those tomorrow :P. Just because you can show other articles are messed up doesn't mean we can mess this one up. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's establish a consensus here first, to see if other editors agree whether or not those articles are indeed "messed up."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: this is Bowie's page, if you want opinions on all those other artist, you can start a discussion on each of their pages, not here. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. My above comment was more a reaction to your comment those articles are "messed up," preceded by the ":P" emoticon. To me it came across as slightly mocking, and it seemed as though you were just going to change those articles without establishing a consensus of any kind. I do think that some of those lists are excessive (for instance, Taylor Swift). I apologize if I misread your intent.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

3family6, I cut down Taylor's to vocals and guitar, though banjo can be argued as well (I'll get to that later). A good way to tell what they are known for is to search "____ Live" into Google images (in this case, "David Bowie" live) and looking at that, I only see him either vocals only or on a guitar, where as for Swift, I see guitar, and banjo (though I have to go a little further down for that one, hence why I said it could be argued).

Good luck gang, I'm done, bye. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mlpearc that the infobox is bloated with this type of information which should be cut. Mlpearc, you state this article shouldn't be ruined like others; unfortunately, and especially of late, this has already happened. It is certainly not featured quality anymore and once all the commotion has died down, I will be recommending that the gold star be removed. Cassianto^Talk 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My sense from these discussions is that Mlpearc's view that the infobox should only list vocals, or perhaps vocals and guitar, does not represent the consensus view, and that there is at least majority support for listing saxophone and keyboards as well. I would like to restore the version here [3] but won't do so without some support from others. Please weigh in. D.Holt (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the "not notable" arguments to remove other instruments are invalidated by the extent of his musicianship. In producing his music, he used both instruments and musicians. He might play an instrument himself, or have someone else do the work. I think the "vocals, keyboard, guitar, sax" combination effectively summarizes the instruments he used, whether wielded by himself, or by others working with him. Willondon (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I think of Bowie and instruments the two that come to mind are acoustic guitar and saxophone, so those are the ones I would be tempted to list. But when you look at the credits for his songs you see that quite often other people were brought in to play the sax parts. One of the most identifiable saxophone parts in any of Bowie's music was "Young Americans", and David Sanborn was the sax player for that song and the entire album. Donny McCaslin is the sax player on the Blackstar album. Steve Elson is the sax player on The Next Day album. But Bowie did play sax on a lot of albums. I don't know if this helps, but in one article Nile Rogers is quoted saying this about Bowie's sax playing:

"I think David would be the first to admit that he's not a saxophonist in the traditional sense. I mean, you wouldn't call him up to do gigs. He uses his playing as an artistic tool. He's a painter. He hears an idea, and he goes with it. But he absolutely knows where he's going, because he damn well plays the same thing over and over again until I say, 'Well, I guess he hears that.' It's what you might call accidentally deliberate."

The quotation comes from a Rolling Stone article in 1993 about the album Black Tie, White Noise.[4] The Rolling Stone article precedes this quotation by saying this:

"Bowie's saxophone playing, ... is featured more on this album than on all the rest of his catalog put together. The instrument has always been crucial to Bowie's creative process. He uses it to compose his melody lines. But in performance, Bowie's fiercely untutored style can be a little jarring to the technically trained ear."

The "jarring" sax on the Berlin albums was all Bowie. So I don't know if he meets the standards for generally being "known for" playing saxophone, but I certainly always think of him as a singer / guitar player / saxophonist. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See this is exactly the problem, no body is saying that Bowie never touched a sax, and you guys can not even agree that he played one. The question is when you think of Bowie does that thought involve a sax ? no, because the first thing you think of is his singing, now if you think of Dick Parry or Kenny G, now you think of a sax. Any way I'm tired of arguing this point so you can add spoons, white-lighting jug, and washboard if you want, (oh and @D.Holt: I never said "infobox should only list vocals, or perhaps vocals and guitar" unless of course that's what they are known for.) Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When I think of Bowie the first thing I think of is singing. I don't think of acting at all. But that is no argument to keep the description of him as an actor out of the infobox. Acting was a significant enough part of his public career as an artist that it merits a mention. The real problem is the inherent subjectivity of what counts as a "significant enough" part of his career. How many of his acting credits would have to be erased before we would cease to call him an actor at all? I don't know. But I do know that when I think of David Bowie I do think of him as someone who played guitar and saxophone. I don't think of him as someone who played keyboards. This despite the fact that he was Iggy Pop's keyboard player for an entire tour in the late 70s. So on this inherently subjective question I would say that the instruments that should be listed are vocals, guitar, and saxophone. Although I would not include it, I can see that the argument for including keyboards isn't crazy. But anything more than that seems a bridge too far. No spoons or washboard for me thanks. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Acting was a significant enough part of his public career as an artist that it merits a mention @142 and 99: I agree it deserves mention but, not in the infobox, that's what the body of the article is for, the infobox is for quick summary of the subject, not a entire list. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox currently lists his "occupation" as "Singer-songwriter record producer actor painter". I would leave out painter from those and would drop the hyphen ("singer-songwriter" suggests a singular idea not that he both sang and wrote) but actor should be there. 142 and 99 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc says "The question is when you think of Bowie does that thought involve a sax ? no, because the first thing you think of is his singing." But the question is not when you or I think of Bowie, it is when most people think of Bowie, i.e., what he is "known" for. And that's hard to nail down objectively. Our individual subjective opinions or impressions cannot be the primary basis for the decision. The reason I got onto this issue in the first place is that I found it astonishing that sax was not listed, given that when I think of Bowie that thought does "involve a sax" (just as when I think of Bob Dylan my thought does involve a harmonica). But rather than just trust my personal thoughts and feelings, I looked at his album credits to see whether my impression had an objective basis. Album credits aren't an ideal proxy for determining objectively what an artist is known for but I'm not sure what is. It's even harder for an artist who evolves over time, as Bowie did. D.Holt (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie played sax at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. I'm pretty sure that was something a lot of people saw. Also, this. 162.72.151.81 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable doesn't equal "famous" - Bowie absolutely is notable for playing the sax, even if it wasn't as well known as his voice and guitar. Sax definitely should be included.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

I'm afraid there are now way too many quotes. I've tagged the article accordingly. It strikes me that the article is also no longer of FA quality, if it ever was. We need to review that status at the earliest opportunity. --John (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO there is over-reliance placed on one or two biographies. Look at the ref list and you'll see what I mean: there have to be sizeable chunks of the text of the article which merely paraphrase these tomes. IMO, quotes are good if not better. Shouldn't we as encyclopedians be facilitating the reader gaining knowledge of the subject through reading first hand accounts (from quotes)? That's much better, surely, than giving the reader a second hand version, much better than regurgitating the opinion of biographers? Boscaswell (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pics of his acting roles

In the section of his career as an actor there are no pictures. I know that the rules for pictures are tight to avoid copyright problems but I am wondering if any of you who have a handle on those rules might be able to find a pic from any of his films that can be used. This link has several photos from his performance in the stage play The Elephant Man and if any of them can be used they would enhance the section as well. I know this is a long shot but if any of you can help in this it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lancashire, not Kent.

Bowie said (during a "Parkinson" interview): "My mother's family were from Lancashire".

Yes, and this is the clip. But it is not as simple as that. Have a look at the reference in the article. It would over-complicate this area to put all the detail in, wouldn't it? Boscaswell (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image is all well and good, but I'm not sure if that image as he was in 2002 is how he would be remembered in 10 years from now. If you see our articles on Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson, the image is how they were at their commercial peak, in Jackson's case 21 years before he died.

The only issue with Bowie is how to nail one of the images we have in Commons as the best to illustrate his entire career. The Featured Article in Spanish have one from 1974, in Croatian 1987. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I don't like the current lead image at all—it's supposed to serve to identify the article subject and, in this shot, he's facing some 80º away from the camera. That said, if it's replaced, we need to take care to identify Mr. Jones (or, at the very least, Bowie as Bowie) as opposed to one of his characters.

My preferences: either 2009 or 1975. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to see more discussion on this ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You bring up a very good point that he was a character for a very good proportion of the time he was in the public eye, more than Elvis and Jackson merely wearing a different costume. A great example of changing the lead image in the suggested manner is at Joe Cocker; before his passing, it showed him as a balding, wide-figured man, much different to how the average person would think if you said "remember that Joe Cocker?"; it was changed to a 1969 image. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I would only like to mention that the current main photo is really horrible. It is a candid photo with his eyes almost shut. At this time, when the traffic to this page would likely be extremely high, it would be appropriate to have an image which would be a better representation of his character. --Lastsolfa (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

... and yet it's markedly better than the one it replaced—and I went with that one for now because it's so much more clearly an identifying image. That said, I almost went with the more stylized (sorry, Brits, I'm a Yank) image from 1975 since it's my personal preference. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Picking one Bowie picture for the infobox has always been difficult, not just because of the usual licencing restrictions, but because of his longevity as a performer and his many changes of image. I do think that it would be limiting to use a Ziggy or Thin White Duke shot because, no matter how iconic, they represent characters rather than the man himself. The 2009 picture was in fact used for a while before discussion (no, I haven't searched the archives but I'm sure it's around) resulted in the current one being chosen. Lastsolfa's mentioned a couple of issues with the 2009 shot and I agree. I've seen the 1975 image ATS mentions but I'd prefer we didn't go with a shot that's a variation of an album cover. I encourage further input from the community but I really see no issues with the current 2002 picture -- it's clear, aesthetically pleasing (to my eye at least), relatively recent, and shows him relatively 'normal'...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I appreciate you chiming in, thanks! I would note, as I've argued above, that the 2002 shot is awful (IMO) as an identifier, given Bowie's near-90º turn from the camera. If the purpose of an identifying image is to invoke "oh, yeah, him!" from someone who, say, remembers the name but not the face, that 1975 shot is the slam-dunk—really the one in Commons that's undeniably Bowie. IMO. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really fond of the idea that once an article subject dies, the lead image is replaced with one from when they were most in the public spotlight, so with Bowie, it would be one from either the 70s or the 80s. Technically, the 80s were the time when he looked most mainstream and least like a character, so I'm leaning towards a photo from that era. In any case, I find most later shots of him uncharacteristic, as around 2000, he somehow started looking a lot like Sam Neill, for some odd reason. Who knows, maybe he always did under all that glitz and make-up? --2003:71:4E6A:C930:7CE3:11DB:5671:F15C (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the discussion above, I make official my proposal that this image from 1975 supplant the image currently in the infobox. Reason: someone looking up the article who recalls the name but not the visage would be most likely to respond, "oh, yeah, him" with this image moreso than any other in commons.

• Support as nom. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's an old publicity shot of him playing a role. The existing photo is a far better representation of him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The currant image is much more what he looked like for the last two or three decades. The one from 75 is a look that he only kept for a brief period of time. It is a dodgy thing to speak for what readers will or will not think. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- not to a discussion per se but to the proposed image; I've said why I prefer the current pic to the proposed one in the subsection above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons already outlined. He looks like a New Romantic in the photo proposed. From 1975? Crikey. Way ahead of the time of the New Romantics, and that's perhaps notable in itself. But it's not an image that resonates, more a curiosity. Boscaswell (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality (again) - but only as lived in the early seventies

I think there is a problem with the slant of some of the sexuality section. In this lengthy interview he states (in connection with having read John Rechy's City of Night, which has - from my memory of having read it about 30 years ago - a lot of gay sex in it) "….There was something in the book akin to my feelings of loneliness. I thought this is a lifestyle I really have to explore because I recognize things in this book that are really how I feel. And that led me a merry dance in the early Seventies, when gay clubs really became my lifestyle and all my friends were gay." That is not 100% definitive, but the implication is clear and it is that he had a lot of gay sex. OK, now compare and contrast the emphasis in the section and the reliance (over-reliance) placed on Buckley, because in this section we have Buckley saying " "it is probably true that Bowie was never gay, nor even consistently actively bisexual ... he did, from time to time, experiment, " Hmmm... I don't doubt that for the rest of his life he was only hetero, but in this period...? You see, looking at the section, we have it presented in quite a lot of depth that the bisexual thing was something which he put out to gain publicity etc. and not much more than that. But if we are to believe Bowie himself, and of course we must, then...? It looks to me that that was how he was at that time, he lived a gay lifestyle, including having gay sex, but it was for only for the early seventies. Boscaswell (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a Daily Telegraph article (quoting from an interview from 1996) I came across which also refers to his having seriously pushed the envelope as it were as regards hedonism. Here. "I spent well into my 20s doing that – just throwing myself wholeheartedly into life at every avenue and seeing what happened. Taking drugs; being totally and completely and irresponsibly promiscuous…’ He pauses, chuckling to himself. ‘To the best of my abilities...."

I think therefore that quoting Buckley's "he did, from time to time, experiment" is quite simply wrong. Bowie lived life to excess. It seems he did that as regards sex for a while, and then didn't. The article doesn't reflect his indulgence, instead it waxes lyrical on whether or not his declaration of bisexuality was a mistake, and that perhaps with greater emphasis on the commercial sensibilities of so doing. I think that some substantial changes are needed. (in particular as there's a bloomin' big quote in the section which frankly doesn't really say much, when I've just been slagged off like crazy for putting in quotes - in another section - which were much shorter!) Boscaswell (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is noting that Bowie's sexuality was not clear-cut to the general public, and was much debated. The same is seen at the James Dean article as well. We note what Bowie stated, and include commentary on what his sexuality might have been; these comments are obviously personal opinions. They are not presented as facts. Disagreeing with them doesn't mean they should be removed. Bowie's sexuality is obviously debatable. It's also notable, and this article includes commentary that summarizes the opinions on that topic. These opinions were recently reflected on this talk page (now seen at Talk:David Bowie/Archive 5#Bisexual and/or LGBT categories...again); but we can't include the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors in our Wikipedia articles. I think the section is fine as is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Memorial Concerts

I don't regard memorial concerts as insignificant. Furthermore, I don't recall any such nearly two weeks after the death of any other musician, and ToyZooAndPhantahexArtists AtBoiseDoesBowie.jpg was at a grassroots venue, so to speak. This speaks to the deep influence David Bowie's oeuvre had had on pop music generally. You have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and you are paid homage at an at capacity memorial concert in the American hinterlands too (albeit at the city of Treefort). Discuss. kencf0618 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Significant" and "encyclopedic" are not synonymous; there's also the issue of WP:PROMO (Why this concert? Why this band?). If there was something specifically notable—such as, say, The Benefit Concert for the David Bowie Liver Cancer Foundation—then that would likely belong. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of the memorial concerts being illustrated in general -one would denote all. But we probably need more data on those. kencf0618 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability is key—it can't cause the reader of an encyclopedia (sorry, Brits, "encyclopaedia" ) to ask, "what's this tosh doing here?" 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I concur! But regarding the memorial concerts qua memorial concerts, we await further developments, if any. kencf0618 (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Along those lines, here's a good appreciation of Bowie's influence and the complexity of his music. The local angle, but if any more cover bands want to weigh in, go ahead! http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/sayonara-to-the-starman/Content?oid=3701846 kencf0618 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion and spirituality

In an earlier section, there is mention of Bowie kneeling and reciting the Lord's Prayer on stage at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. I added, to the Religion and Spirituality section, these words: "As before mentioned, Bowie knelt and recited the Lord's Prayer at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert on 20 April 1992." This was then deleted by John, who considered it to be trivia. I feel very strongly that it should be included in this section. I've never, ever, heard of any other rock or pop artist doing what Bowie did then. I cannot conceive by any stretch of the imagination that this action can be considered as mere trivia. It is an exceptionally extraordinary thing to do, in his exceptionally extraordinary life, and as such deserves a mention in this section. He being a very private person, I believe this to be an insight into his own very private beliefs, notwithstanding his comments regarding ritual, as quoted in the section. Boscaswell (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Millions of people kneel and recite the Lord's Prayer every day. You may well believe that his prayer gives "an insight into his own very private beliefs", but how can we possibly know? Bowie was certainly a huge celebrity and a real showman, well used to theatrical performance. That was a concert stage. I'd be more inclined to see mention of the prayer in support of a very close friendship with Mercury, except that I'm not sure there is any other evidence for that. I can see why one might think the event gives unique insight into Bowie's spirituality. But I'm a little unconvinced. Maybe it should stay simply because of it's novelty. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Check out his quote in the Earthling album: "I guess the common ground with all the songs is this abiding need in me to vacillate between atheism or a kind of gnosticism. I keep going backwards and forwards between the two things, because they mean a lot in my life. I mean, the church doesn't enter into my writing, or my thought; I have no empathy with any organised religions. What I need is to find a balance, spiritually, with the way I live and my demise. And that period of time - from today until my demise - is the only thing that fascinates me." While what he did at the Freddie Mercury concert was appropriate, a quote like this indicates it didn't mean anything more to him. 87Fan (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

True, millions of people do kneel and recite the Lord's Prayer every day, Martin Evans. But few do it in front of a TV audience numbering a hundred million or more. Name for me not just one but many other rock stars who have done the same thing and I'll happily agree with you that it was a nothing event. Agreed? Boscaswell (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a "nothing event", Bos Caswell. I said: "Maybe it should stay simply because of it's novelty." But I'm now even less convinced that is tells us anything about Bowie's spirituality. Do you think "a hundred million or more" watching makes something more spiritual? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. But if he does it in front of what he knows will be a hundred million or more, then it says something. What it says is a matter of conjecture, but there's no question that it's a massive thing.

Let me put it another way, people. He's (probably) the only rock star to have done this. And yet some are saying that it shouldn't get a mention in the Religion and spirituality subsection of the article about him? Eh? Boscaswell (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He was in the public gaze for most of his life, but not everything he did in that time belongs in this encyclopedia article. I think there is a danger that if we included this it would make it seem more important than it was. Do his biographers make a big deal out of it? --John (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever reason do you have to say that it was not important? Biographers will push things which they want to push. Anything spiritual more often than not goes to the back of the queue, if it's to do with religion, throw it out the back door, and as for praying, well, really. "We can't have my hero (Bowie) being seen as someone who prays, can we? I mean, that would never do! Let's move on to his flirting with fascism..." Boscaswell (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more noteworthy might be the fact that at 1985's Live Aid, the film showing starving and diseased Ethiopian children, set to the song "Drive" by The Cars, was shown only because Bowie offered to drop the song "Five Years" from his set as a trade-off (though neither US feed, ABC nor MTV, chose to show the film): [5] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about Religion and spirituality, Martin Evans. Please stop throwing up red herrings. Thanks. Boscaswell (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes we are, Bos Caswell. Nothing to do with compassion and general humanity, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you respond to my pointing out that you made an irrelevant comment with another one. Your comments lack respect, even with the mis-spelling of my Wiki moniker, twice. I'm sorry, but there is no point in my trying to have any rational discussion with you - any follow-ups will be ignored. Goodbye. Boscaswell (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I respond by suggesting that spirituality and compassion may be in some way connected. I'm not complaining that your over-familiarity with my own name means you also mis-spelled my Wiki moniker, twice. No-one else seems to have any problem with my rationality. I hope you recover. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The connection between spirituality and compassion is clear, but it is not the subject of this sub-section or Talk article either, more one for philosophical discussion elsewhere. Apologies for mis-spelling your name, though I'm sure you'll agree that Martin and Evans are separately identifiable as names, so I'd contend that it is an easy mistake for me to have made, and certainly not a deliberate one. I'm recovering, thanks! Better than I was... Boscaswell (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The event is mentioned elsewhere in the article. As Martin rightly says, there is no evidence that it had anything at all to do with his own religion or spiritual views, and there is no good reason to repeat a mention of it in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion and spirituality - arbitrary break #1

This source may be useful: [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the piece has some useful quotes, such as this one: "On a personal level, I have an undying belief in God’s existence. For me it is unquestionable." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A great find, Andy! Thank you. I'm currently waylaid with the flu, but have been planning to completely revamp this section of the article, as it is currently very weak and flimsy (and no it won't end up of biblical size). So tomorrow or Monday, all being well. Boscaswell (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's done. It's bigger than it was, but that is no surprise. Maybe one of the quotes can go, if you like, but no more than that, and to be honest I think it is fine just as it is (which I would, wouldn't I?) and would rather none did go, as what I've done is picked out something from every decade, thus supporting the statement made in the first para. "throughout his career". And that is why the paras. are shorter than is typical in the rest of the article. One para. per decade...well for most of it, anyway. I did include the Lord's Prayer at Wembley, but pointing out that he did this in front of a billion people, so it's not just a repeat. Doing such a thing in front of a billion people can never ever be trivial. A section which is about his spiritual beliefs would be incomplete without it, I feel. Boscaswell (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've gone and deleted one lyric extract anyway. Nothing from the 80s now! *sniff* haha. Anyway, all done now, and it looks good IMO. Boscaswell (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a pass. There was too much wp:or and randomly sprinkling lyrics from songs was misleading (people write about a lot of things they don't support, are you going to suggest we have a section called 'child abuse' and quote lyrics from 'Shopping for Girls' there?). I think the section is far more neutral now. 87Fan (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell reverted my edits claiming "mutilation" [[7]] and claiming "praise" for his edits. I'd prefer someone to arbitrate here as I don't think a reasonable conversation is possible between him and I. I felt my edits (sorry I don't know how to wikilink in a specific edit) were neutral and unbiased. 87Fan (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no wp:or. The statement in the first para of the re-vamp is supported by everything in the article. I explained that in this Talk section before you went and did your major edit. You said that you deleted lyrics, but your very first deletion included the quote "I have an undying belief in God’s existence. For me it is unquestionable.", which is categorical. Maybe too categorical for some, but that is by the by. If you care to read a few lines above this, you'll see, 87Fan, that others have cited it. Bowie did not sing about child abuse throughout his career, so any comparison with that is, I would argue, absurd. Finally, it's not misleading, when Bowie makes it very clear himself that he has belief, to draw attention to that. To avoid doing so is - therefore - not neutral. To delete a quote that makes that so very clear is fairly obviously bias. Oh, and as for the praise I claimed, someone tidied up one thing of mine before your major edit and in his or her edit summary said "well written". Boscaswell (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been pointed over here from my talk page and feel obliged to make my feelings known on this matter. Frankly, I don't care much for his spirituality, what his religion was, or which animal, if indeed, he wanted to come back as. It's the man the performer and his music I'm more interested in; sure, give it a paragraph at most, but to dedicate an entire section to this load of old tosh is frankly stupid. Cassianto^Talk 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm utterly with Cassianto on this one; it reads like a Christian Post piece, not an encyclopedia article, as if the section is trying to convince the reader—or its author, for that matter—of God's existence. For one thing, "Bowie" is included 10 times; "God"/"Lord" (not including the Lord's Prayer, which is a title) is included seven times. See WP:UNDUE: this could be cut to one paragraph, two at most. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ATinySliver - if the section were to be cut to one or two paras., then it would be smaller than it had been for years. And it was then too small. A statement which had sat on this very talk section for some time, unchallenged. I have drawn to the reader's attention a few pertinent points about Bowie's spirituality, by way of referenced quotes and lyrics. It is only through these that one can gauge his spirituality. This is important, because as with any article about someone of Bowie's stature which makes any pretense of being complete, it must be about the whole man (or woman), not just his musical output. You say that you are utterly with Cassianto. Well, Cassianto wrote "I don't care much for his spirituality" and "load of old tosh" wp:npov Boscaswell (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

... and much of the section is a load of old tosh; I'm reading In Other Words right now, and our section dispatches Bowie's "almost an atheist" in favor of overwrought (if not outright OR) references to "God". It can be considerably shorter and still be "complete". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is how I would have it:

"Although he was in many ways a very private person, Bowie made no secret of his belief in God. He experimented with many religeons including Buddhism and, towards the end of his life, Christianity. He also went through a brief period of atheism."

I appreciate some of it may need some adjustment, but I would say that these two-and-a-bit lines cover it amply. Cassianto^Talk 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just MHO, but that goes too far in the other direction—there was clearly a public impact on him and his music. My suggested rewrite is here. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a fiddle about, hope you don't mind. Yes, that looks OK, if a little overlong. But it's certainly better than what's there currently, although it does go well over your suggested "one paragraph, two at most" ;) Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was before I actually wrote it ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Er....if most of it is "a load of old tosh", but most of it is basically quotations from the man himself, plus a few lyrics which he either sung or wrote, and some actions of his, then what? In the Arena interview, for example, Bowie himself used the word God rather a lot. As I've tried to explain before, I want the reader to be able to get the full measure of the man - and that won't be achieved by presentation of an article which does its best to either ignore or briefly gloss over his spirituality, because someone "doesn't care for" it. Boscaswell (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that we should not "gloss over" the subject; at the same time, neither can we put undue weight on it. The section as it is suggests that his religion and/or spirituality was his primary motivator; myriad sources citing his desire to be a chameleon say otherwise. Also, as I've noted, the section virtually dispatches his "almost" atheism in favor of belief, which compounds UNDUE.

Have you read my suggested rewrite? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Strictly for the purposes of encyclopaedic comparison, here's a real load of old Tosh. I think your re-write is rather good, A Tiny. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The last time I saw lines that were this much tosh was, well a few minutes ago, actually. Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Since when is 6:28 a "real load"? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And, he was only 42. Oh no, don't wake up the policeman! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The quote about the "Stations of the Cross" can be found online here: [8] He goes on to define what he actually meant - about The Kabbalah and "the nearest album to a magick treatise that I've written". So maybe not the pious Catholic connection one might have assumed from that snippet? I'm not sure how much is included in that Q interview. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But then he signs "Word On a Wing", at the end of the album "In this age of grand illusion / You walked into my life / Out of my dreams ... Lord, I kneel and offer you / My word on a wing." So clearly the emphasis is spiritual. That may not be what some may like, but the facts speak for themselves. wp:npov Boscaswell (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That speaks to why I trimmed it that way: it states the fact, them moves directly to why he questioned his spirituality in his writing. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you say so. I'd be happy to see that tiny quote extended to give it the intended context. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and extended just enough to do so. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, IMO the extension you wanted to the quote, which was put in at your request, gives it a context which is more than open to debate. At that time he was a cocaine addict, that much is known and is beyond dispute. Your wanting the extension in is I'm guessing to colour the idea that he was writing about the Stations of the Cross and all the other things which relate to spirituality as being miserable. I dispute that and contend that his memory of it is that it was a miserable time to live through because of his addiction. I've no doubt, in fact, that that's true, he's talked about it elsewhere - we all know this, don't we? I believe that you're projecting a meaning onto the words. So I'm planning to delete the extension to the quote, so that there can be no misunderstanding or potential misleading of the reader, but in a day or two, to give yourself and ATinySliver time to see this and respond or whatever. Boscaswell (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I had no such intention. I think if he said something it should all be reported, that's all. It's not that long a quote, but at least it's not tiny. I think the reader should be able to make up their own mind about any connotations of "being miserable". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above: "I'd be happy to see that tiny quote extended to give it the intended context." Er...."intended context"...? OK, you'll no doubt support mention of his concurrent cocaine addiction, then, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding or the reader being mislead. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it, to mention his coke addiction in this section. So how to avoid misunderstanding or the risk of the reader being mislead other than to delete the extension? Mention of another branch of spiritual inquiry, the Kabbalah, has gone, for some reason, from that very quote. All the best! Boscaswell (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the wrong answer. Not sure if a cocaine addiction precludes a sense of spirituality. Seems a strange qualification. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A cocaine addiction doesn't preclude spiritual searching, far from it. And as we know Bowie himself said, most of his life was that, was spiritual searching, including his chameleon-like changes. But please could you explain what reason(s) you have for retention of the "being miserable" extension to the quote? Thanks. Boscaswell (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The original quote included was: "very much concerned with the stations of the cross." "All the references within the piece are to do with the Kabbala."? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The passage answers the question of whether he doesn't remember making Station to Station, saying it's "very true":

"I would say a lot of the time I spent in America in the '70s is really hard to remember, in a way that I've not seen happen to too many other artists. I was flying out there—really in a bad way. ... The "Station to Station" track itself is very much concerned with the Stations of the Cross. All the references within the piece are to do with the Kabbalah. It's the nearest album to a magick treatise that I've written. ... It's an extremely dark album. Miserable time to live through, I must say."

Firstly, I just noticed, he's referencing the title track with respect to SotC and Kabbalah, not the album. Secondly, we can infer that "flying out there—really in a bad way" refers to drug abuse but, since he doesn't say so in the passage, we violate SYNTH if we say so in Wikivoice. Thirdly, and also arguing against the drugs–misery connection is that the '70s were hard to remember "in a way that I've not seen happen to too many other artists". Everybody in the '70s was on drugs or, at the very least, experimenting therewith. It was the reason I set up the quote the way it is now: letting him speak rather than us doing it for him. (Edit: I've gone ahead and made a change for accuracy purposes [to clarify what was said and about what] per the source.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable approach. But I'd rather have the whole thing, in full. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

... and I'd argue UNDUE—specifically, anything not having to do with "religion and spirituality" could only accompany the album narrative. Meantime, the section definitely should not be longer than it is now, and at least one editor has argued strongly that it's already too long. Cheers. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, why have meaningful context when we can have a neat article. Maybe a separate article is the way to go after all. But now I'm siding more with Cas Boswell here, I don't see the need for the "misery" bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not meaningful if it's not on point—exactly the opposite. That said, I too would have no argument with removing the "miserable" passage. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Call me an aging glam-rock hippy if you will, but I managed to extract meaning from the whole of that quote. Even the bits I didn't really like. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wanna bet who's older? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Andy Warhol, Sliver Screen. Can't tell them apart at all." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Had to look it up; I was in middle school when Hunky Dory came out. Seems I'd've lost the bet ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So, ATinySliver, you go ahead and change it, without any reliable consensus being reached. Spirituality is a contentious issue for some. There are some who simply cannot cope with it at all. There are some who go into cold shivers at the very mention of the word "God". So to have it made clear that one's hero was himself spiritual, well. Did you notice how many times that Bowie himself used the word "God" in the Arena interview? I have already pointed out that Cassianto's view that "I don't care much for his spirituality" conflicts directly with wp:npov. Your first post in this subsection, which came directly after Cassianto's, reads "I'm utterly with Cassianto on this one". This makes it very clear that you share views on this which also conflict directly with wp:npov I contend therefore that the two of you cannot make up any part of a consensus. I'm bordering on taking this to the Administrator's Noticeboard, as you are not coming from wp:nov, yet seek to make out that the meagre discussions on the talk page following your initial input gave you free rein. I've no doubt that this cuts across a whole host of wp policies. Boscaswell (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The result of your edits, ATinySliver? There is an emphasis on flirting with atheism, whereas his spirituality is evident throughout his career, and the very important quote (which is categorical about his belief) which opened my re-write has been deleted. Too categorical for you? Well, I am reintroducing it, as, to quote 87Fan in an edit which threw the emphasis onto atheism, "any discussion of his spirituality must include this direct quote about it." Boscaswell (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding one further point, and I can't emphasise this enough. You wrote above, ATinySliver: "The section as it is suggests that his religion and/or spirituality was his primary motivator; myriad sources citing his desire to be a chameleon say otherwise." I'm going from what the man himself said. And he said about that very thing: "Looking at what I have done in my life, in retrospect so much of what I thought was adventurism was searching for my tenuous connection with God." Could he have have made things any clearer? It is what Bowie said. Boscaswell (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which Arena interview was that, Bos? I wonder do you have a link to a transcript at all? Are you fully recovered from the flu yet - it can make one very grumpy, can't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arena interview is the one linked from the PJMedia link that is in the last para of mine above. It's also here. It is a huge deposit of important information, about many areas. Me, I'm nearly recovered, thanks. Er...I'm only as grumpy as anyone would be who had put in as much time as I had to completely renovate the Religion and spirituality section - and it really did need it - only to see virtually all of his work given the hatchet job, mainly by someone who by his (or her) own admission agrees with the sentiment "I don't care much for (Bowie's) spirituality" and therefore would be extremely hard-pressed to claim that s/he held a NPOV. I'd be surprised if anyone else wasn't similarly "grumpy", wouldn't you? Boscaswell (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity - I'd probably just walk away in disgust (and make do with a good dose of Night Nurse). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks, Martin. And Night Nurse is a great, great song. I see it as being very important, though, too important to walk away from. Bowie is a hugely influential figure. What there had been prior to my changes yesterday was some talk of Buddhism and of atheism, when the reality is very different. Anyway.....I've made a few changes, each of which are far less major than yesterday's of course. But with the exception of the deletion of the word "to" they're all important. The overall impact is to enlarge it by just two lines of text and furthermore all instances of the word "atheism" and "atheist" remain. Maybe we can all agree that it is OK as it is and leave it at that? Boscaswell (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I still don't think this section is being written or handled appropriately. I agree with other editors that it's far too big a section for someone who was not a religious figure themselves. In addition, someone keeps reverting my quote on the subject without discussion or reason (or even, in my opinion, replacing it with anything valid). I have a sneaking suspicion it simply doesn't fit the narrative that some editors want to tell. I will wait until the dust settles and we re-review this article before making any more edits. Also, perhaps someone should consider making a page devoted to the subject of Bowie and religion? Then we can have a simple summary here and people can dig up quotes to their heart's content there. 87Fan (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting for a moment that he was a religious figure, 87Fan. But he himself alluded to his own spirituality, to whatever degree he was, and he did this many, many times. Bearing that in mind, a section which is no longer than 16 lines including one line for each break in paragraph, is far too big? He is on record as saying: "Looking at what I have done in my life, in retrospect so much of what I thought was adventurism was searching for my tenuous connection with God." Bearing all of this in mind, how can you possibly say that 16 lines out of, what, 300(?), is too many? Boscaswell (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, 87Fan, on the assumption that the quote you're referring to is the one he made when discussing Earthling, I think you'll find that most of the quote you put in is still there. A few words are missing, I believe. I didn't touch it, by the way. I wanted to say, too, but not about your quote, that we're all of us having to compromise here, me included. I'd prefer it if the section was as long as it was when I wrote it yesterday, but... All the best. Boscaswell (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a separate article is justified, especially as there is not one for his sexuality. But I guess we shouldn't necessarily rule anything out. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of editing this section of the article and having people get upset about it who while doing so indicate a non-NPOV. Such as has just happened, twice, by the editor who reverted it at 20:24 today. I've explained in edit summaries, but I'll do it here too. A. yesterday I was being criticised for quoting lyrics, and now it's for quoting quotes. I contend that the real reason for people not liking what I have written is perhaps that they don't like what they are finding to be germane about Bowie wrt. his spiituality? and B. The editor who reverted twice tonight wrote: "his 2005 quote is more than sufficient as it covers every base of his belief (or lack of)" It is obvious this is not coming from a NPOV. Can Wiki policies be upheld here, please? Boscaswell (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I'm not getting involved in this to-and-fro at the moment. But I think you may find that none of the edits made to this section, in themselves, contravene any policy, and that consensus may be against you. WP:3RR applies to everyone, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell quoted me above (giving him "praise")...yes for being well written which it was. I didn't state it should remain in the article hence i stated "will be interesting to see if it remains". I dont know if he is pushing a religious angle which others on here seem to be disagreeing with. There are those on here with more knowledge of Bowie than myself which is why I wasn't sure if the content inserted was a balanced reflection of his beliefs. From what little I do know about him he didn't appear to flaunt his beliefs which would suggest only a brief mention. The Lords Prayer incident is notable for one, as is the quote from Lazarus. What matters is neither promoting his belief or lack of, and striking the right balance.WisconsinPat (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a religious angle, WisconsinPat. I'm making clear his spirituality, something he had to varying degrees throughout. And that is very clear from what he said. Religion and spirituality, by the way, are different, though connected. "Would suggest only a brief mention"....like only 16 lines in 300, then? *grin* Please bear in mind should you still insist on "only a brief mention" that Bowie himself said (in 1993) "Looking at what I have done in my life, in retrospect so much of what I thought was adventurism was searching for my tenuous connection with God.", because when you do you will I hope realise that anything less than at the very least 16 lines would be outrageous by omission. Or a bit like minimalism on steroids, perhaps. I hope you can understand that. Boscaswell (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell—and I'm only going to use your UN once—I have already explained precisely how I was "utterly with Cassianto" and, clearly, you are choosing to not accept that explanation. My motivation is improving the article, regardless of my belief structure—and I had a small but clear consensus to do so. The section was bloated, quoted, and lyric'ed to death, and I (and we) must and should strive to find balance, within the context of an encyclopedia, and without placing undue weight on either end of the argument, or on the argument itself. Whatever the man believed or didn't believe in the end is of no concern to me in encyclopedic terms, and nor should it be of anyone else's. (Edit: that said, I've paraphrased and re-added the "undying belief" quote for balance.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits of a few hours ago around the S2S quote, ATinySliver Looking good! I'd take issue with one thing that you wrote above, though (not in the article), specifically "Meantime, the section definitely should not be longer than it is now, and at least one editor has argued strongly that it's already too long." As we know, that editor was coming from a non-NPOV saying "I don't care much for his spirituality" and therefore has to be discounted. Anyway.... Reading all the talk comments between yourself and Martinevans123 I see that he was coming round to agreeing with me - yes, really - about not having the extension to that quote which I had been, er, forcefully discussing with him in the first place. *sigh* Boscaswell (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that a "sigh like Twig the Wonder Kid"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! (FWIW, meantime, I disagree with "As we know, that editor was coming from a non-NPOV saying "I don't care much for his spirituality" and therefore has to be discounted." This is not an automatic disqualification; it is not necessarily incorrect to analyze an argument in a vacuum, so to speak, if the basic argument is valid. And it was indeed valid. ) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

With that, I think we have to agree to disagree. :-) By the way, did you read my post on this page in a new Sexuality section? Boscaswell (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Did; IMO, the section does indeed rely too heavily on Buckley; that said, using Bowie's entire quote is unnecessary and it could easily be paraphrased. That said, were we to include the quote that his feelings of loneliness resulted in the lifestyle exploration "that led me a merry dance in the early Seventies, when gay clubs really became my lifestyle and all my friends were gay", we must be exceedingly careful to not reach any conclusions therefrom in Wikivoice, whatever is "clear". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I've trimmed it a bit and tried to find more balance with the presentation. Haven't done anything with the "merry dance" quote yet. (Edit: just added it as a footnote.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ATinySliver, yes, better I think. But your comments are of course about the Sexuality section - er...did you want to move your last 2 posts here to that Talk section? :-) Boscaswell talk 14:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's here because I was responding to your question. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Religion and spirituality - arbitrary break #2

Well back onto the Religion and spirituality Talk section! :-) It's grown by several lines in the last few days, with the addition of another large quote, the suckered in one. UNDUE. It disparages religion and - well I never! - it's been left in! But seriously, and this is a very interesting point. It's also one which not everyone will understand, because sadly there are millions out there who don't separate religion and spirituality. Now it's fairly obvious that Bowie really disliked organised western religion, ie. Christianity, but then (as per the interview in the new quote, which can be read here) he still wore a small crucifix. Go figure. That interview is late 1980, btw. He's about to story board the videos for the 2nd and 3rd singles from Scary Monsters. Ok, with me so far? It was me who added "and spirituality" to what had been just "Religion" as the section title. And for Bowie and conveying how he was at various times, it was spot on. The thing is, the result of his disparaging organised western-style religion, and the result of a lot of people loving that (and I'm a fellow traveller here, tho I don't like to disparage), is that the idea of his maintaining a personal spirituality, which he did, and which kept on coming back to him, is being lost in the section. A quote which is not in at the moment but which I think should be is: "Looking at what I have done in my life, in retrospect so much of what I thought was adventurism was searching for my tenuous connection with God." I've put this in Talk before, it was in my original re-vamp, it's in the PJ Arena reference (2003) which I think is still there. Now I know, the quote includes the word God. But please can all understand now that this does not mean that he was religious about it?

What to make of him having his ashes scattered in the Buddhist traditions, eh? A cat among the pigeons, if ever there was one (laughs). Obviously it must be in the article, which it is, and also must be there the words "Look at me, I'm in heaven" as presented, but neither of these fit in the same paragraph as him being drawn out about atheism, do they? Incidently, there are heaps of Kabbalah and magick references in Blackstar, apparently. Crowley even gets into the lyrics somewhere. Bowie really did head off into some strange places sometimes...

The section now is a bit here, a bit there, IMO. If it were to be reorganised by time, that would help to make sense. Maybe. He changed over time and his belief systems did, going round in more than circle. Buddhism; Ziggy; coke habit; S2S; Kabbalah; Berlin; I hate religion; Let's Dance; 80s; Iman! love, God, spirituality; almost an atheist; heart attack; blank; Kabbalah; Buddhist ashes scattering, he's in heaven. All the best! Boscaswell talk 14:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It probably always will be "a bit here, a bit there", given its source (). Still, I went back and took a look, and I agree the bit about "organised religions" was unnecessary exposition as presented. (Edit: I've just rearranged the narrative for better flow.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I noticed you changed "question" to "examine" again. The reason it has been changed back is from Bowie's own words, as you have noted: "Questioning my spiritual life has always been germane to what I was writing. Always." If the purpose is a "slight alteration in emphasis", that violates SYNTH. Instead, we could incorporate the quote, something like "Questioning my spiritual life has always been germane" to Bowie's songwriting. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

that would be good, ATinySliver! Boscaswell talk 04:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Coolness! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Properties

In the Family section, we have "The couple resided primarily in New York City and London, as well as owning an apartment in Sydney's Elizabeth Bay." But the will, or at least what I know of it, does not mention a London pad or a Sydney aptmt, yet mentions the Indo (Bali)-style place on Mustique, and also an upstate New York property. Info I'm giving is from the NYTimes article. It's here The 1992 Architectural Digest article it mentions, with words by none other than Buckley, is here A lot of Bali in his Mustique mini-palace, but not only Bali. That article also mentions living in a house overlooking Lake Geneva. Boscaswell talk 20:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Bay pad was sold in 1992.

this article starts

"David Bowie lived in an apartment at Elizabeth Bay, Sydney for approximately 10 years up until 1992.

"His Sydney apartment was used as a base for month-long adventures to the outback and far north Queensland rainforests throughout the 1980s."

(later in the piece) "According to real estate information, Bowie's apartment was decorated in wall-to-wall black slate. He purchased the unit in 1983 and sold the apartment in 1992." Therefore the statement in the article, which has sat there for forever, "The couple lived in (NYC and London), as well as owning an apartment in (Sydney)" was probably never true, as they didn't marry until 1992, the year of its sale.

Wall-to-wall black slate. OMG. Boscaswell talk 06:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wider family

Unwanted topics getting erased here systematically http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/david-der-zweite/7903422.html another son of the Great Bowie said to live in Berlin, German citizen, first name David (sic). The mother never asked for alimony. The journo who wrote the article died not too long ago, and he had no reason to lie. It is a known fact in Schoeneberg and some other areas of Berlin that Bowie left a son with a German woman there. The son is not unknown in Berlin. It seems not to be in the interest of certain circles in Britain to let this fact even be discussed. Now, after the death of the Great Bowie, if not for inheritance reasons, which other ones could it be to oppress this "rumor"? It is worth at least a mentioning in the Wikipedia article of that major newspaper article published and also a discussion here ... before the news finally hit Britain. LOL Truth always comes to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:5298:F95C:A21D:62FD:8E2D (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a gossip website. This rumour, claim, or whatever it is is not something that should be included here. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what, unknown OP in Berlin, I think you're probably right. Whether or not it gets into this article is another matter, unfortunately. But there is a kind of fixed way of thinking on here, about Bowie, which a whole bunch of editors do their utmost to uphold. Eg1. Bowie was for the most part an atheist, which is quite wrong. It wa a huge battle to get any semblance of truth into the Religion and spirituality section. Eg2. that Bowie only experimented with gay sex in the early 70s. But there are quotes from him which make abundantly clear that it went much further than that (Including one, by the way, in which he says that he acted out, sexually, completely irresponsibly. The link to this is in the Sexuality again (but only in the early seventies) section of Talk, which has been recently archived. And that quote is what makes me think that you are right about him having had a son in Berlin.) Instead, we have "was my declaring my bisexuality a big mistake?" on repeat in that section, and a discussion of whether it was good or bad commercially, for goodness' sake, together with the opinion of a biographer that when he was being gay, he was just experimenting. A long experiment!

This is a Featured Article, but if you take a look at the Properties section of this here Talk, you'll see that it contains a glaring error and multiple omissions, which have been made clear in my Talk comments for all to see. Nothing has been done. Why don't I edit it? Because after my experience of instigating the movement of the Religion and spirituality section into a state approaching truth, I feel battered. It was not a pleasant experience, but that is Wikipedia editing. Various editors have a fixed idea about Bowie and many simply won't let it go. Boscaswell talk 09:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Interpretations of Bowie will always change as the field in academic discussion testifies actually. And there is a large amount of it; see for instance David Bowie: Critical Perspectives - a book with a wide variety of interpretations that was published last year. Every aspect of this Wikipedia article is up for discussion really. Such is the postmodern interpretation of the man. But here we have to present the common ground and adhere to a WP:NPOV to keep it all encyclopaedic. Karst (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I am sorry if you had a rough time in other discussions about editing this page, but if you are suggesting that there is something wrong with the resistance to including this rumour (and it is little more than a very minimal rumour) that Bowie had a son in Germany you are very wrong. What is the basis for claiming he had such a son? One article written more than a decade ago by a guy who says some guy and his friends claim that he is Bowie's son. What proof did he offer? Well, people say he looks like Bowie. And he says his grandmother who raised him told him he was Bowie's son. That's it. Maybe that is enough to get you a guest spot on the next Maury Povich show, but it is not even remotely enough to count as sufficient to make the claim credible enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Because if that's enough for inclusion I might just start telling people that I am also Bowie's son so I can be included in the article. To paraphrase Ronan Farrow, we're all "possibly" David Bowie's son, so why not? 142 and 99 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't pushing for its inclusion, 142 and 99. If you read my post above again, you'll realise that I'm virtually resigned to the current state of affairs with the article. I look askance at it now, in the knowledge that although it is a Featured Article, it contains untruths and distortions.

wrt. the man in Berlin, *if* he is the illegitimate son of Bowie, who had never been acknowledged, what proof could there be? Visual, the mother's knowledge (via her mother) and...DNA? I did some translation work on the tagesspiegel article linked above and it makes it clear that the writer thereof is struck by the astonishing resemblance of the man then to Bowie at that age. He was told that he was the son of David Bowie from - I believe (I'd need to check back) - a fairly early age. I think the article would be enhanced by the inclusion of these pieces of information, tho I'm not expecting that to happen. I'm sorry, but your argument "we're all "possibly" David Bowie's son, so why not?" doesn't hold water, does it...why put it forward? I mean, we don't all have an astonishing physical resemblance to him, do we? All the best. Boscaswell talk 08:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You know who also does not have an astonishing physical resemblance to Bowie? Duncan Jones, his actual biological son. You ask what proof there could be. DNA evidence or some claim by Bowie that this was his son would do the job. If either of those was reported in a reliable source then sure, that would be fine. Remember a few years ago when some woman claimed that Justin Beiber was the father of her child? Loads of news sources reported the claim, but none declared it as fact. It was, of course, ultimately proven to be a lie. To say that Wikipedia should have included the claim as fact is absurd. With this German guy, it was one column in one publication more than a decade ago. If Wikipedia included in the article every rumour that one guy once reported in one column at some point in the past then the article would be 100 times as long and full of the most ridiculous nonsense. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget, 142 and 99, that I'm not pushing for its inclusion. This is, for me anyway, a laid back discussion. The following few lines I've just lifted from archive 6, the Sexuality (again) section. There is a Daily Telegraph article (quoting from an interview from 1996) I came across which also refers to his having seriously pushed the envelope as it were as regards hedonism. Here. "I spent well into my 20s doing that – just throwing myself wholeheartedly into life at every avenue and seeing what happened. Taking drugs; being totally and completely and irresponsibly promiscuous…’ He pauses, chuckling to himself. ‘To the best of my abilities...."

So never mind there actually being any unplanned offspring or not, in view of his own statement, I posit that the chances of there being one (or more) are way, way higher than they would otherwise be. Have a good day. Boscaswell talk 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You might not be "pushing" for inclusion, but you are arguing for the legitimacy of including it, which amounts to the same thing. Given how much you talk about the religion and sexuality sections in this discussion (which has nothing to do with either of those discussions), it seems you are just using this section to make further complaints about frustrations in the other ones. Also, to get back to the proper subject of this section, your "positing" that the "chances" he has other offspring is irrelevant to the question of whether such "posits" should be included here. The speculations of editors here is not a sufficient basis for including anything. If they were, then we should include the claim that music industry executive Jack Steven[9] might be a long lost brother of Bowie, too. Or, as some have speculated, Steven is actually Bowie and the whole "death" thing is a hoax. Or we could just leave all that for the rumour websites. I vote the latter. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not project my views on a subject, 142 and 99. Thank you. I am not pushing for its inclusion or even arguing for its legitimacy. Things are not always black and white, even though there are those who see things as such. Again I find myself referring back to something I've already written: this is, for me anyway, a laid back discussion. Stay cool. Boscaswell talk 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The person who started this section said "It is worth at least a mentioning" and you replied, "I think you're probably right. Whether or not it gets into this article is another matter." So yeah, you were arguing for the legitimacy of its inclusion, whether or not it is included. But if you were not doing that and not working out other frustrations, why comment in this section at all? Is it because, as you claim "this is, for me anyway, a laid back discussion"? If so, then you have misunderstood the purpose of talk pages. Talk pages are not for general chat and "laid back discussions". They are, to quote the talk page guidelines, specifically "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article". The editor who started this section argued for a change. I argued against it. You came in and said the original editor is "probably right." If you do not mean right about inclusion, then you are at the wrong place. Laid back chat with no specific purpose belongs on some blog somewhere, not here. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

racism in this article

"with its little narrative surrounding the young Aborigine couple"

To characterize this couple as 'Aborigine' because of their dress and geographic location seems to be somewhat racist. This ads nothing of note to the story, the explanation, or article except to insert a racist view of who these people in the video are.

with its little narrative surrounding a young couple

gives you everything the reader needs to know without invoking colonialist white racial categories to the article as if they are fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.158.191.114 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a source from The Guardian which uses the term "aboriginal" yet is very clearly showing the video attempting to demonstrate tolerance and understanding towards native Australians. Do people consider 'Aborigine' an offensive term full-stop these days? Nobody would suggest the "N" in N.W.A was a racial slur, would they? I'm willing to reconsider if you have an up-to-date source saying it is, though Wikipedia is not censored and can offer opinions that may offend, though seldom intentionally. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article linked to has the title "Aboriginal Australians", so maybe that would be a more grammatically correct term? TonyAbo123 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've given that a go. Crikey, a serious reply to a serious question by Martinevans123. Leap with utter astonishment, they say! Bruce333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Threesie - you're such a "Rebel Rebel". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I just restored the word "Aborigine" and changed "nude" back to "bare-bummed". It seems people have not noticed that is is all an exact quotation from Buckley's biography. That it is a quotation and the start quotation was given, but there was no end quotation mark nor a page number reference, so I added those as well. I also removed the Guardian source as it makes no sense appearing in the middle of a Buckley quotation. The quotation is very long so it might be better trimmed down (and then some wording can be changed) but for now it is presented as an accurate quotation. 142 and 99 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Current lead sentence violates WP:BLPLEAD, which states "However, avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Can we go back to the lead that was in the article when it was promoted to FA, "... is an English rock musician, who has also worked as an actor, record producer and arranger." Also, please don't add painter to the list. If his painting was the only thing he was known for, he would not be notable, hence not a notable profession. Thanks, LK (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree he's not a notable painter, however he's a VERY notable singer and songwriter. I don't know when this passed Featured Article status but that seems fairly irrelevant now considering it's certainly a long time ago and the article has changed a lot since then. It needs to be reconsidered for such status. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Singer, and songwriter are redundant to musician. For example, one wouldn't write "Smith was a author, short story writer, novelist and biographer", since the last three roles are implied by the first. Also, a songwriter is a profession, it implies that one professionally writes songs for others to perform; writing one's own songs is part of being a singer. LK (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

LK, apologies, but you make numerous errors in the above statement. A singer can be a musician, but is often only a singer; see damn near every contemporary pop artist except Taylor Swift. (I exaggerate, but only slightly). A songwriter can be a singer and/or a musician, but not necessarily; see Neil Sedaka (a pianist, but not necessarily considered a musician). Songwriter is in fact a profession, which may or may not include writing your own songs; see singer-songwriter and songwriter. Writing songs can be part of being a singer, but is more commonly not. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I totally disagree, There's a lot of singers who do not write songs and song writers who do not sing. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, the question comes down to, was he notable as a songwriter. We should ask two questions: Do WP:RS regularly refer to him as 'songwriter'? And, if the only notable thing he ever did was to write songs for others to sing or perform, would we have an article on him? If the answer is 'no', then that role should not be in the lead sentence. What I have seen is RS referring to him as a 'singer-songwriter', and I would be amenable to including that in the lead sentence. LK (talk)

Was he notable as a songwriter? I would say yes—and that's from only the first page of the Google search. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Was he notable as a songwriter? Is the Pope Catholic?

Er, run this by me again, LK, you're contending that Bowie was not notable as a songwriter? I think I need a lie down...

The first sentence of the Intro is perfect as it is, IMO. Boscaswell talk 19:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Guys, again, songwriter is a profession. Was he notable as someone who wrote songs for other people to sing? I don't see anything in your google results that indicates that. Suppose I'm the owner of a famous notable hotel. I fix my own taps and pipes. That does not make me a notable as a plumber. LK (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything reliably sourced that states, or even infers, that a professional songwriter must "write songs for other people to sing". And then I presume that you mean "for other people to sing professionally"? Otherwise I can't enumerate how many times I sang "Space Oddity" myself; knowing that thousands of others must surely have also sang along. It's a bad synthesis and the crux of your assertion! Bowie is certainly a notable songwriter, and if he had done nothing more than to have written the songs credited him, he would unquestionably qualify for an article in Wikipedia. Perhaps the joke is on me for I can't believe I've said as much as I have on the subject; lest I next belabor that Paris is indeed in France.--John Cline (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most here that people who write songs for themselves to perform count as songwriters, but even by the more limited definition of people who write songs for other people Bowie is still notable. He wrote "All the Young Dudes" for Mott the Hoople, a huge hit for them, listed by Rolling Stone as the 253rd greatest song of all time, and one of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll". He co-wrote "China Girl" with and for Iggy Pop and co-wrote 7 of the 9 songs on Pop's Lust for Life album, including the title track which is 149th on the Rolling Stone top 500 list. If writing for other prople 2 of the 500 greatest songs of all time does not qualify him as a notable songwriter then I don't know what does. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think LK might have missed why the Beatles are considered to have had such a huge and enduring impact on music. A great deal of it is precisely down to the fact they wrote their own songs. They changed the game and people like Bowie, Elton John etc. followed their example. instead of relying on "professional songwriters". In fact, I even remember John saying his generation more or less killed off the professional songwriter. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Funk Rock / Soul

I call for the inclusion of funk rock as one of David Bowie's genres. The biggest funk rock track of the 1970s was of course Fame which was a track by David Bowie, along with the success of Golden Years, both of which he performed live on Soul Train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomewhereInLondon (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@SomewhereInLondon: There's also this book source that mentions funk, particularly in reference to his mid-1970s period. If nobody argues to the contrary in the next 24 hours, I'll say the "ayes" have it and "funk" can go in the infobox. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Aye. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's Dance was quite funky too, to be fair, although it often seems to be dismissed as his "pop" period by serious critics. It's not an accident he teamed up with Nile Rodgers. Rodericksilly (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be general according to Wiki guidelines, and for an artist with as much breadth as Bowie, that unfortunately means the particular nuances of his myriad phases have to be left out. Yeah, he had a funk period, and a plastic soul period, and a hard rock period, and an industrial period, and a jungle period, and a psychedelic folk period, and a proto-metal period, etc...but unless it counts as a defining style that his career can be generally summed as—or unless you can find a source that describes him generally or prominently as a funk-rock artist rather than just someone who experimented with funk (and soul) it's just POV. Besides, his experiments with black music are easily subsumed under "art-rock," like much of his career. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I was sitting on the fence with this one. While Young Americans and Let's Dance are quite funky, they've not been characterised as just "funk", they've been characterised as plastic soul and blue-eyed soul. And whether they constitute a big enough proportion of his output to go into the infobox, I'm not entirely convinced. I agree the infobox is in danger of being overloaded. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that two of Bowie's biggest hits "Fame" and "Let's Dance" had strong funk rock tendencies is reason enough to include 'funk rock' in the infobox. User:SomewhereInLondon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, and internal consistency within Wikipedia, how does a song justify categorizing its performer into a particular genre when it is not categorized by that particular genre itself? Here you have used "Fame" and "Let's Dance" to categorize David Bowie as a funk rock performer when the songs are funk and pop  • dance-pop respectively. It seems we need better examples to consider or that the song pages should be corrected themselves; first. Perhaps I am mistaken?--John Cline (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

I merely said that they both had 'strong funk rock tendencies' which they both do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomewhereInLondon (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Album-related RFC

Editors may be interested in joining the discussion at this RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dropped out

This article doesn't say when Bowie dropped out of school. --123.2.142.50 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Blue-Eyed Soul

I call for the inclusion of blue-eyed soul as one of Bowie's genres. I point towards Young Americans and Station to Station which are some of Bowie's most successful and critically acclaimed albums and are definitely characterized as "blue-eyed soul". There are many, especially in the United States, who only know Bowie through his "blue-eyed soul" work so its a shame that it is not included as one of his genres. This is in contrast to glam rock which is mentioned despite only Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane fitting this genre. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC) SomewhereInLondon

Request to edit Semi-Protected

I would like to request to edit the semi-protected page to update the citations regarding the street party in Brixton after his death. Currently one of the sources is from a New Zealand paper which had nothing to do with the actual event. I would like to replace this with a link to an article in the Independent which I feel is more relevant. Honorasaur (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Top 10 single in five different decades

There should be some mention that Bowie has achieved at least 1 top 10 hit on the UK Singles charts in 5 different decades (1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2010s) - Possibly in the legacy section of the article. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The early Philadelphia soul sound influence

I know I have run past both print and video interviews that mention Bowie as absorbing the "Philly Soul Sound", but have been comatose and such for the past year or two so my short term memory is a bit fuzzy. That being said, one interview mentioned that at the time Bowie was doing this, bass guitarist Gail Ann Dorsey was born about the same time. Off the top, a friend of mine currently in the employ of Mojo magazine (and has removed copyright to allow us some of his photos- he's a photographer for them) produced this little clip for Mojo's online video magazine: Top 10 David Bowie Songs from watchmojo.com. It's an interesting listen if nothing more. I apologize for not being here to edit more but I did procure several early Bowie photos.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if there is a specific source that indicates that he took on the "Philly Soul Sound" - perhaps there is a Mojo article that mentions this? The YouTube link is not sufficient, I'm afraid. Karst (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll have to do some rummaging if/when I find the time. I completely distrust You Tube for a variety of reasons. I'll have to see.. I am "semi-retired" due to illness.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)`

Queen as an associated act

I'm just going to start this, since I've seen it added a few times: should Queen be listed among "Associated acts"?

• Con: the template page says one-off collaborations are generally to be avoided
• Pro: "Under Pressure" was a significant collaboration—a worldwide hit that made a household name of Vanilla Ice and that charted again after Bowie's death.

Discuss if you wanna. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Mick Jagger and Tina Turner are mentioned, which (as far as i can gather) were one-off collaborations. Oddly enough Nile Rodgers isn't. That section of the infobox probably needs a rethink. Karst (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No argument there 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for the reasons you've given. The template is designed to help avoid overload (think of how many acts Bowie's done one-offs with - are we going to list Thomas Dolby and The Pat Methany Group too?) - but "Under Pressure" is a notable enough song to warrant the inclusion of Queen. 87Fan (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the Under Pressure collaboration is more notable (IMO) than any other one-off I can think of. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course Queen should be added! The inconsistencies in this article are maddening! SomewhereInLondon (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No argument there 🖖ATS / Talk 19:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Record producer

In case anyone would like to object to this [10]. There is not a single line in the article about Bowie producing records, except in the lead sentence. Per WP:BLPLEAD, the lead sentence should emphaize what he is known for. Before reintroducing the claim, have at least a well cited section about Bowie's supposed record producing activities, and a well-cited claim that the activities were notable. Also, please cite multiple RS that call Bowie a record producer, e.g. "The record producer, David Bowie ..." or "David Bowie, record producer, ...." or "... singer and record producer David Bowie ..." LK (talk)

There are actually a couple of places in the article which talk about Bowie being a producer or co-producer: at the end of the first paragraph of "1972-73: Ziggy Stardust" it says that he produced the song "All The Young Dudes", and in the second paragraph of "1976-79: Berlin era" it says that he co-produced the albums of the Berlin Trilogy. I'm not sure that's enough to make him a record producer. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thought it was common knowledge he was (of course it needs to be mentioned in the body, which it is, at least twice). Arguably his most famous for another artist was Lou Reed's Transformer. DRodgers11 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To be in the lead sentence, he should be known for it. As in, multiple RS, when explaining who he is, state, "David Bowie, the record producer". It's not enough that he produced a couple of records. For example, Obama's page states that he is "an American politician, serving as the 44th President", even though he was undoubtedly also a community organizer, lawyer, and academic. See WP:BLPLEAD: "avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." LK (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lori Mattix

After Bowie's death, the Mattix story got greater exposure. I think it should be in this article (as, for that matter, the '87 rape charges). I added them to the "Sexuality" section as I didn't know what other good place there is. It's been reverted already once, for a bogus reason ("nonencycloepdic content. No blogs" - it's from a VH1 documentary and a news outlet, not a blog). I understand that some fans would find this part of Bowie a bit uncomfortable, but if we're going to document the man's life, let's document it all. Jalwikip (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, second revert, "Hearsay" is all they tell as reason. It's not "hearsay" if the woman in question tells it herself. It's not as if somebody else tells us she told it (*that* would be hearsay). She alledged, plane and simple, she did that. Jalwikip (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

For those that want to see the video, look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnViqstGsYs&feature=youtu.be&t=11m49s Jalwikip (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that these are suitable sources for supporting something as serious as statutary rape alligations. They appear to be blogs, unreliable sources as gossip sites (Do you really think Jezebel is a suitable source?). I also agree with other editors that this is gossip and does not belong in the article, he was never charged with anything. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The blogs I gave as examples of media picking the story up after Bowie's death. The actual source is an interview that's available on YouTube, and a printed interview on a reliable website - in both cases it's Lori herself that's being interviewed (and given that she was, without question, underaged, that would make it statutory rape). And without going into the definition of "gossip", I think it isn't gossip if someone recounts a personal story, even if someone else is involved. Jalwikip (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They would be primary sources then. If it's just her recounting her story then it might not be gossip but it is just her view on the matter and doesn't belong in the article if there are no independent, reliable sources discussing it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If my US$0.02 means anything, I lean against inclusion not because of reliability issues, but because its encyclopedic value is dubious at best. I would be willing to bet that hundreds of rock stars have had sexual relations with tens of thousands of underage groupies (or more), and that in most cases no one cared. Was there an investigation? Were there charges? Does this escape the realm of tabloid? If not, we leave it there.

It is indeed a question of whether it's noticeable enough to include. The fact that "no one cared" is of course not the lithmus test - no-one cared for Jimmy Saville doing his thing in the 70s, until recently the lid was lifted. I personally think the groupies are an important part of the 70s rock scene (there's even articles about some of them here on Wikipedia!), and it can't hurt mentioning them in an article on a rock star if there's been media coverage. Jalwikip (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's noticeable is irrelevant; whether it's encyclopedic is the issue. We are, in essence, talking about one woman who says "Bowie took my virginity when I was 15." And ...? Meantime, Sarahj2107 is right—any comparison to Saville literally could not be more off-base. 🖖ATS / Talk 10:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, if the consensus is to keep, "confessed to having been devirginized" is beyond horrible—"confessed" makes it sound in Wikivoice like she is guilty of something, and "devirginized" is not a word. I would suggest "claimed that she lost her virginity to". 🖖ATS / Talk 20:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker. If you think my wording is bad, you can always change it, that's kinda the core of Wikipedia, right? Jalwikip (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Slanderous gossip. Every article would be flooded if we started including weak material such as this.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's two different reasons. The first "Slanderous gossip", is not very strong. For one, as I explained above, it's imho not gossip if the person involved themself is on film declaring it. Whether it is "slanderous", well, I can see why someone would be uncomfortable with their idol being what is basically a child molester, but remember that this was the 70s and every rock star from this period had intercourse or even relationships with severly underaged groupies (Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page). See also here: http://pleasekillme.com/band-aides-sable-starr-and-lori-maddox/, just as an example (and not as proof). Secondly, "every article would be flooded" is on the one hand I think a bit of an exaggeration, and on the second if it were true, that means there was definitely something going on (which we know there was), and it should be documented! Jalwikip (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that if we include something based on one person's accusations without any evidence, charges or reliable, independent sources then anyone could make up similar accusations and argue to get them included. No comment on parallels to Iggy Pop and Jimmy Page as I am not familiar with accusations made against them or the evidence for it, but making comparisons to Jimmy Saville as you did above is really inappropriate. There is huge amounts of evidence, an independent inquiry and numerous reliable sources discussing what he did. This is not the same thing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Under common law, a dead person cannot be slandered, so any claims this is slander or libel of David Bowie would not hold up in a court of law. 190.95.220.254 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hearsay from groupie(s) does not belong in an encyclopedia. Blogs are the domain of idle gossip, chit chat and unproven comments, not an encyclopedia. Herve Reex (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course hearsay doesnt belong in an encyclopaedia BUT there is a double standard at work here. David Bowie is no longer alive. He is not covered by BLP. Jimmy Page is alive and is covered under BLP. Many of the sources used in the Page article also mentions Lori Maddox losing her virginity to David Bowie or being involved with him. And I'm talking here about books and newspapers not just blogs. Maddox was the source of these claims. Why is it perfectly legitimate to include these allegations in the Jimmy Page article but not in the David Bowie article? Either both article should mention it or both article should exclude it. There is a double standard currently at work over this. 190.95.220.254 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Bowie. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080510103103/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=366 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=366

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox religion and Buddhism

Should the infobox list his religion as Buddhism? There are three references to buddhism in the article, spanning from 1967, through 2005, and to his funeral wishes in 2016. The article also lists many other interests in religious and spiritual matters. I think over his lifetime he drew inspiration from a number of religious traditions, and there isn't strong enough sourcing to declare that Buddhism was his religion. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed: No. (BTW, I marked it as vandalism because it was being added without comment by IP editors.) There are two problems with listing any religion: number one, the template page says, "Per RFC, this parameter should be included only where significant to the article subject." He was known for experimenting within his music with various beliefs and non-beliefs, not for them specifically. Which leads to number two: per the sources within Religion and spirituality, he questioned his spirituality pretty much his whole life; to call him Buddhist is a gross oversimplification at best and outright wrong at worst. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Associated act

Consider The Astronettes as a potential 'associated act'. They were DB's early 70's backup singers. There was a project to record an 'Astronettes' album, with several songs written by Bowie. To make a long story short ... as far as I know, none of the recordings were released until recently, as Ava Cherry ‎– The Astronettes Sessions:[Discogs]. Nevertheless, they certainly were associated with Bowie. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9D03:2DE0:AA61:B599 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would be all for a (very) brief mention in an appropriate passage in the main body, but even their "own" (session) work was released years after the fact. To be an associated act within our guidelines, they'd need to have been established as an act, and I don't see it. —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Regretfully, this is one of those convoluted stories that's difficult to summarize in one or two sentences (cf: Geoff MacCormack, Luther Vandros). I am reluctant to mess with this 'featured article' myself. Below are some potential sources in case somebody wants to attempt an edit:

• Nick Williams (13 January 2016). "Ava Cherry, Former David Bowie Back-Up Singer & Girlfriend, Reflects on Her 'First Love': Exclusive". Billboard. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Richard Metzger (22 September 2010). "Black Barbarella: David Bowie produces Ava Cherry". Dangerous Minds.
• "Ava Cherry And The Astronettes - People From Bad Homes". Discogs.
• 26 results for "Astronettes" in — Pegg, Nicholas (27 September 2011). "The Complete David Bowie". Titan Books (US, CA).

[op]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:7C4A:2A7C:F1FE:29BE (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Impressive that you (Wikipedia ltd) called out the death date so precise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Shouldn't the first genre in the info box be Rock? 2601:2C0:8201:243E:517B:5F26:227A:F642 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Art rock and glam rock are both subgenres of rock, therefore they are more specific. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)