Jump to content

Talk:David Bowie/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Legacy and influence section - segment mentioning Annie Lennox

This segment that I revert here is wp:trivial. Giving such an importance to Lennox is wp:undue weight, we can't begin citing the artists that have praised Bowie, the list is endless and there would be far bigger names to mention before Annie Lennox's. I took a look at other articles, Beatles, Velvet etc and there isn't any name mentioned in the legacy as their influence is too big. wp:Namedropping is something to be avoid for such influential artists. Woovee (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Baby-with-the-Bathwater Syndrome. Anything undue can be trimmed while leaving the important details—you know, the award—intact. My proposal:
At the 2016 Brit Awards on 24 February, Bowie was given a posthumous Brits Icon award for his "lasting impact on British culture." The award was received on behalf of Bowie and his family by his close friend Gary Oldman.<ref name="Brits tribute">{{cite news|title=Read Annie Lennox And Gary Oldman's David Bowie Tribute Speeches At The Brit Awards 2016|url=http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/read-annie-lennox-and-gary-oldmans-david-bowie-tribute-speeches-at-the-brit-awards-2016|newspaper=NME|date=4 October 2016}}</ref><!-- Cites previous 2 sentences. -->
—ATS 🖖 Talk 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
You have to mention why is it valuable to wp:NAMEDROP Annie Lennox and that award in particular which was just a quote at the brits whereas he received many other awards far more prestigious. There is an article called List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie. Woovee (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
You are making stuff up as you go along. First it was "name dropping" (Annie Lennox?...there's "far bigger names than her")...overlooking the fact she has known him for over 30 yrs and was asked to read a tribute to him before another personal friend Gary Oldman was asked to collect the award on behalf of him and his family (awaits Gary Oldman?...theres "far bigger names than him"). Then it's "far more prestigious awards". The Brits are the British Phonographic Industry's annual pop music awards. Icon/Lifetime achievement is it's highest accolade.RyanTQuinn (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This is just your opinion, where do you know that "she has known him for 30 years", does anyone care?. Why mentioning Lennox is important, is she a high authority ? Bowie has influenced everyone from Blur to Suede, The Cure, Kate Bush or the Smiths. There are tons of quotes from influential acts who are his heirs. Bowie is one of the most influential artists of all time, it is already said in the article.. The last part of the Legacy section is wp:trivia content, it would be better if it ended with the Rolling Stone's quote of 2016.Woovee (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Woovee, it isn't just an opinion, it an actual fact. You are lumping people whop actually either knew or worked directly with the man with those who were influenced by his music. There is substantial, citable information that Lennox and Bowie were collaborators and friends, as Oldman was. It isn't name-dropping that these two particular people were chosen - they were chosen to present and receive for a reason. It isn't trivial, especially since it can all be cited. it might seem trivial tou *you*, but that cannot really be helped.
Now, your three reverts have been undone. Please do not remove cited information; if you still feel that its inclusion is trivial or listy, knock together an RfC and let people weigh in. That's how the process works. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It is true that you know yourself how works wikipedia especially with your history as you have already been blocked half a dozen of times and your edits mainly consist of taking part to discussions on talks quite strongly. I see that you had never contributed to this article on David Bowie before apart reverting my edit. As you may not know it, Bowie has never recorded anything with Lennox, she wasn't a collaborator contrary to what you advanced and the source doesn't use the term collaborator once. Bowie once did a duet with her in concert, so she is just one of the countless artists who briefly shared a stage with him during his career.
RyanTQuinn showed that the Brits award was already mentioned in the "Awards and recognition" section. No need to write it the legacy section once again. As Lennox's name doesn't appear anymore, there is no more wp:undue weight. Woovee (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You can knock off the personal attacks any time, Woovee. All I did was point out how you were equating two dissimilar things; I didn't call you a bottom-feeding, edit-warring felch-monkey. The next time you decide to personally attack either myself or another user, you'll find out what being blocked feels like. The same thing goes for edit-warring your personal view in. Be nice, or begone.
Moving on...as I understand it, any editor can edit anywhere they damn well please, barring topic or other administrative bans, so it doesn't really matter if I've made one edit or one thousand; both are of equal weight. So, there's that. I typically do not like to edit articles that I have personal feelings about or are professionally affiliated with (I've learned that from other users); the point is, quantity does not replace quality. Ever.
Additionally, you opined that David Bowie had never recorded together, or made any sort of collaboration or contact with one another. Well, that's just nonsense. Bowie has worked with or collaborated with just about every musician working today. His only criteria for working with someone is that they had to be very, very good at what they did. Which Lennox (by most accounts) is.
I am just a single editor. I don't speak to make to you happy or sad or pathetically defenseive. I speak to improve the article. The quicker you grasp that concept, the less likely you are to get permabanned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
you opined that David Bowie had never recorded together, or made any sort of collaboration or contact with one another.?? No this is not what I wrote, I only talked about the duets he did in concert, and so specifically of duets that were never properly recorded like the one he did with Lennox once. I didn't talk about his other well known duets that were released. I won't comment the rest of your message. :) Woovee (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Changes are being made to the Genre section, and I'm not sure that they are appropriate. I reverted one and left a message on the talk page of 173.30.49.173 asking them to put an edit summary on any changes, but they are still making them without. Could somebody please advise a) if these changes are appropriate or b) what my next steps should be? Many thanks MarpoHarks (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarpoHarks: Genre changes require reliable sources and consensus before they are accepted. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response @Mlpearc. I don't think I should keep reverting though, should I? If not, what should I do now? Sorry to be such a newb but I've never come across this before. MarpoHarks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Associated acts

Suggest adding Nile Rodgers. 127W111 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:

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

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Left Handed

I’ve just watched the video for Lazarus: and couldn’t help but notice that — in one scene — Bowie uses his left hand to mine writing.

I’m a southpaw, myself: and always like spotting celebrity left-handers.

I have to ask: was Bowie left-handed?

It’s a minor point, I know, but I’d LOVE to know … !

Cuddy2977 (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

He's listed as left-handed in The Guardian. I note that left-handedness is mentioned tangentially at Paul McCartney, which is a WP:FA, perhaps it should be added here. Nortonius (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing & source/citation issues

Hi, I'm unclear why my entire edit has been wiped consistently. If a source is needed, I've sent several reliable ones. Also, I believe I have improved the original edit (for example, with additional information about the BBC television production based on Hanif Kureishi's novel). The additions to the section are valid and an improvement, so what source is required? I've sent various links. A quick web search will support the edit.

Also, after this continual reversion of editing began, I signed up and created an account, so I will use that as an ID consistently from now on.

Thanks,

--Sreedb (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sreedb, thank you for your efforts to improve this article. I would again refer you to the talk page of the IP account from which you began. One such link helps identify what is and what is not a reliable source; the other shows how to cite those sources within the article—not just in the edit summary. I hope this provides an answer, and cheers to you. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor who is repeatedly undoing my work said I needed to come to this talk page to discuss the issue. I understand sourcing. Should I incorporate the source into the text? Footnote it? A major portion of my edit really doesn't require a source or citation; I'm assuming it's the single sentence that notes that "The Buddha of Suburbia" was marketed as a soundtrack album but actually is a studio album with only one original track from the television score (the title track). This is absolutely true, and I've sent tons of links (not just blog links) to support this, and my edit keeps getting reverted as a whole. I've substantially edited one other Wiki entry in the past year and that was a breeze! Not sure what's happening here. Please help!

Thanks,

--Sreedb (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sreedb, yes, inline citations are preferred. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anything potentially contestable that is not accompanied by an incorporated source can be removed at any time. The links I have provided demonstrate how to do this. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks, ATS

Well, I've added my source, which I believe is reliable. Thank you for your patience.

Happy New Year!

--Sreedb (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

continued reversion of edit

Hi,

I am wondering why my edit of "The Buddha of Suburbia" continues to be reverted. My first source was a link to the artist's liner notes on the album, my second is a press release issued upon the re-release of the album in 2007, from David Bowie's official website. There is also a Wiki entry for the album which corroborates my edit. Not sure why this relatively minor edit is turning into a weird back and forth. The album is very different from the rather abbreviated soundtrack David Bowie created for the series (except for the original track). Has anyone seen the BBC series and listened to the album? They're not the same. Maybe an editor needs to listen to the music?

Also, it's unclear to me why my complete edit is reverted. As I've written before, I've certainly clarified the info on the tv series, which is helpful information, and this has also been wiped repeatedly.

--Sreedb (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now found a different source, using a PopMatters review of the re-release in 2007. PopMatters is not a blog, as I'm sure the editors realize, but an online cultural mag which has been in operation since 1999. I hope to put this edit to rest now.

--Sreedb (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have again been reverted arbitrarily, which I've undone (again). I requested that the editor come to the Talk page, although there has been no response. This time the editor states that PopMatters isn't a valid source. PopMatters is reliable and has its own Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters The album in question also has a Wiki entry which supports my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(soundtrack) I would appreciate clarification on the editing going on -- do these editors know the rather obscure record in question? I sincerely doubt it. --Sreedb (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had this frustrating experience, Sreedb, it must have been very trying for you. I'm also surprised that I'm the first to respond to you here, although we're all volunteers here and who knows what people are doing at the other end of the internet – I'm only surprised because I tend to keep a fairly low profile, so others usually beat me to it.
I think the first thing that needs to be borne in mind here, although strictly it's incidental, is that this article is a featured article: all this means is that, while improvements to the article are always encouraged, and no matter how valid an edit might appear to be to whoever makes it, if it doesn't fit the existing format of the article, especially in terms of relevance and sourcing, then it is likely to be undone. This is only to preserve the high quality of the article. Not because anyone necessarily thinks the information added is wrong. Although the relevance of what is being added will also be a factor: I think the information you have been trying to add is relevant, and no-one else has said otherwise, but for future reference have a look at WP:WEIGHT. So, I think the best way to approach the sort of edit that you've been trying to make is first to be sure that the source you are using is considered reliable. If in doubt, try searching for the name of the source in the archive at the reliable sources noticeboard, and if you don't find any relevant discussion there then post a question on the main page there by clicking on "Click here to start a new discussion". Do this before you edit. The next thing is to familiarise yourself with the format used in the article for citations: it's always important to maintain consistency throughout anything that's being written, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and "Wikipedia:Citing sources" is helpful here.
Notice also that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. I mention this because you pointed out that the WP article for the album has a citation for much the same information that you have been trying to add here. I just had a look at that citation, and at that time unfortunately the link in the citation wasn't working. But I note that it is essentially pointing to what appears to be a blog, one that you have previously attempted to add for a citation, at http://www.davidbowie.se/bassman/st/index.html: searching within the website I found images of the sleeve notes that you wanted to cite, but unfortunately the low resolution of the images means that the text is illegible, probably to avoid infringement of copyright. That and the undesirability of our readers having to search a website themselves to find what they want do make this an inadequate citation, I'm afraid.
But I don't mean to be negative: in one of your edits you changed your citation to one from PopMatters. This was reverted on the grounds that PopMatters "is not a proper source". I've done a search of the reliable sources noticeboard archive, and I'm not sure I agree with that: have a look at the archive entries listed in this search. My own feeling is that the only thing less than ideal at that stage with what you have been trying to add was the format in which the citation was presented. With that in mind, I suggest we wait for a bit – after all, so long as we know what's going on, there's no great hurry – and if, after a couple of days or so, no-one pops up here with a solid objection to using PopMatters as a source, I'll restore the information that you've been trying to add with a properly formatted citation. Then you'll at least be able to see how it can be done in a way that's consistent with the existing citations in the article. I hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your response. I realize my citation formatting is poor -- still figuring that out. I, too, was surprised that PopMatters was considered "unreliable." As a newbie editor (laid up with a healing broken ankle and bored), I'm still learning about sourcing. I understand that blogs are unreliable, and so I started searching for a good source to back up what truly is an accurate factual edit on my part. Due to the relative obscurity of the album, my Bowie biographies to hand have been frustratingly unhelpful in providing a first-rate print reference for my edit. I also get it that pre-existing Wiki entries are inadequate. I'm most certainly taking your advice, will accept the "undo" for now, and I hope you will see fit to restore my work. Thanks again! --Sreedb (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem Sreedb, I'm glad you found that helpful. I saw that your WP account was quite new, and that prompted me to write here. Starting to edit on Wikipedia can be a very bumpy experience, and it certainly involves a very steep learning curve. There are so many ins and outs – I've been here nearly nine years and there are still areas that remain dark to me! But stick with it and I assure you it can be a very good way to dispel boredom, I'm sorry to hear of your broken ankle. You just need to stick with it, and you'll learn what works or doesn't work here as you go. Which is all I've done. By the way I've added two colons to the beginning of your last comment: a colon at the beginning of a comment indents it to show the order in which comments are added, and each time a new comment is added it needs one more colon than the previous comment had. In edit mode, you can see that this comment starts with three colons, one more than for the preceding comment. Just so you know. When indenting pushes text unreasonably far across the page you can start a new comment with {{od}}: see Template:Outdent, just one of a zillion different ways of adapting text on WP! I certainly intend to keep an eye on this immediate issue for now. Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, a colon is an indent! Alright! I appreciate your help. --Sreedb (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sreedb, I have now added such detail as I think is relevant and supported by the citation of PopMatters, with reference to the discussion above. I think it is acceptable, so I hope it sticks this time around. Nortonius (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for remembering this -- I never had a response from the previous editors, obviously. I hope the edit isn't reverted. Sreedb (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, no problem. While I'm here, I ought to mention the need for an edit summary for every edit you make: otherwise you might contract editsummarisis! ;o) I know you have supplied an edit summary quite often, but doing it every time helps casual observers take you more seriously, besides making it easier for anyone watching to assess what's going on. The less people are distracted from what they want to be doing, the happier they'll be. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

See Template talk:David Bowie singles to discuss whether or not the navigation box for Bowie's singles is too large. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bing Crosby in infobox?

The associated acts section of the infobox says not to make additions without discussing them here. Any reason not to add Bing Crosby? He and Bowie recorded a well-known duet. DragonflyDC (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a one time event on a specific TV show - and yes I am old enough to have watched it and marveled at their performance. As I look at the documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts it states - "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" - and then later it states "The following uses of this field should be avoided: One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" - both of these instructions would indicate that Crosby should not be included. The duet is mentioned in the appropriate spot in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that guidance; thanks. DragonflyDC (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Day-In Day-Out" is now a good article!

I'm pushing to get the first official good topic for Bowie to be the Never Let Me Down-era releases. "Day-In Day-Out" is now the 3rd Good article behind Never Let Me Down and the Glass Spider Tour. Next up, hopefully, will be "Time Will Crawl", "Never Let Me Down" and Glass Spider. I'm not sure if we'll have to push "Bang Bang" or "Girls" to GA or not (as they're not officially listed as Bowie articles). Regardless, please jump in if you'd like to help get these articles polished. Happy 70th birthday Bowie! We miss you! 87Fan (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Time Will Crawl" is now also a good article. 87Fan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to be outdone, "Never Let Me Down" is also now a good article. Only one article left (Glass Spider) and we should have our first Bowie Good Topic! 87Fan (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sales

I change the sales to 100 million records with the previous source. User @ATS: removed the reference arguing that the source with 140 million records is newer with 9 days of difference. I know that Bowie passed away one week later when the reference with 100 million record was published. Is natural that the sales of deceased artist increase, but based on his certified units, 140 million records see too high. However, the reference with 100 million record is from the same year. He doesn't broke posthumous important record after he died. We know cases that sales are inflated by fans, media and the record companies, so we need to follow a good criteria based on the certified units. With Bowie, for example, United States (the biggest music mark worldwide) is only 12 million record. The same from his native country. They are very low figures for someone that is claim to sell up to 140 million record~s. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The encyclopedic standard is not "that can't be true", Chrishonduras, but rather what is reliable. Essentially the same publisher nine days later used the 140-million figure, and a newer reference will almost always take precedence. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@ATS: I know, is fantastic but the "verifiability, not truth" is not a policy is an essay if you're referring that an encyclopedia like us "can't be true". And with maths, is technically impossible, that he sold up to 30-40 million records one week later and/or in the same day when he died. But if you still with the same idea, don't worry. We will follow a normal process, like a consensus. In this days, is common do that in the sales figures of the artists. If not.......... I don't know how will be Wikipedia, if we place "the next available sales" for each artists. Grosselly inflate. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth is an essay expounding upon our verifiability policy, described on the essay page as "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy". Without it, Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia would live only in the current US administration. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I already notified in music projects to reach a consensus about the different figures, both with "reliable sources" and different "truths". Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 19:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

He had a few record certifications (29 million in total), this 140 million seems exagerated to commercial purposes. People like Barbra Straisand has 97 million copies in certified sales and the claim for her record sales 150 million copies worldwide. It seems more accurate to put Bowie with 100 million copies than 140 million.--88marcus (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Chrishonduras 140 million is too high figure for David Bowie. This figure is unreliable. He has sold more than 100 million records. 140 million records seems like impossible. —Navyiconer (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would remind everyone to read our policy on original research; "I don't believe it" fails an encyclopedia. Specifically, we would require that a reliable source debunks a figure provided by a reliable source. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And you don't believe 100 million figure too, don't you? —Navyiconer (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic standpoint, what I believe is irrelevant. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Please ATS Common sense. This is a consensus and the 100 million figure is also following the Wikipedia's policies. What are we doing is avoid the common practice of the inflate figures that came from the media and the record companies. Because is this case, lets put 1 billion records in the Michael Jackson, The Beatles or Elvis Presley articles just because are the next available sales and came from "reliable sources". Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 02:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You're making two mistakes: one, that we're supposed to somehow compensate for "inflated figures" that are literally nothing more than our belief that they're inflated—and, for the record, it would hardly surprise me—two, that our common sense essay is somehow sufficient to change the reliable to something "more" reliable. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not, sir. Sorry but you're wrong. We're talking with bases that are inflate figures because are very unrelates with his certified units first. This is a common practice in the media and by record companies (1 and 2). With the 100 million record you said that "What I believe is irrelevant" is a mistake that came from "our belief" and doesn't have a base. However I will assume good faith.
Second, I wanna ask you, if you wanna that 140 million figure remains and is linked the List of best-selling music artists, why you don't advise in the talk page? I mean because is a contradiction the 100 million for users and for readers... Conversely delete the link in this article. Other thing and is very important after "newer reference will almost always take precedence". What about other like this from a "reliable source" that is newer and said that is 100 million records?.
I don't know about the Common sense interpretation that can be use in something "more" reliable. And also, I look here just one opinion agree with the 140 million figure. And there is reliables and "more" sources alongside the 100 million records (that mathematically are close possible with his certified units). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely why we are here, on the talk page.
To simplify, we are an encyclopedia. We have two virtually identical sources in terms of reliability and are using the newer of those two sources in the article which, more to the point, uses an estimate (the sources you've provided say "more than 100 million" and "well over 100 million", which clearly is not synonymous with "an estimated 100 million"). To change the data would require that we find and apply, by consensus, a more reliable source for an estimate. This is policy, and it is incontrovertible. —ATS 🖖 talk 17:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be best to state David Bowie has sold between 100-140 million records. The statement could be supported by both sources that state over 100 million and 140 million.--Harout72 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Extraneous. We have a reliable source that says "an estimated 140 million" and a handful of editors who believe that number is too high. At the absolute most, a footnote could be added to the effect that "Additional sources put that figure at somewhere over 100 million." At the most. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
At the absolute most? Really? What makes you call the shots at this article? We also have a reliable source which clearly states over 100 million. Over 100 million doesn't in any way translate to 140 million. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to state between 100-140 million records. In fact, the 100 million records is the only figure that should be used. As far as I'm concerned all editors involved in this thread except you, strongly believe that the 140 million is inflated based on Bowie's available certified sales which stand at 29 million.--Harout72 (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Which demonstrates to me your difficulty with what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. Because one example you cite says "more than 100 million" and the other says "well over 100 million", the 100 million figure is the only one we cannot use since, without significant embellishment, it directly contradicts all sources. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Meantime, I have rewritten the sentence to give the attribution and date. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I used one source above. Save your time and energy to lecture me as to what wikipedia is and isn't. Now that you added this, go one extra mile and add also "Other news outlets such as Belfast Telegraph in 2016 estimated Bowie's total worldwide more than 100 million records", that is of course if you wish to avoid the label of Ownership of content.--Harout72 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I see your WP:OWN and raise you one WP:IDONTLIKEIT which, if allowed to take hold, destroys the foundation of an encyclopedia. Literally the entire argument against 140M is "I don't believe it", which cannot stand, by policy. I say again, neither "Bowie has sold more than 100 million records" nor "his career—one that yielded 28 studio albums, well over 100 million records sold worldwide" constitutes an estimate. They are, at best, ballpark figures, whereas the Telegraph figure is an estimate. There is one, and only one, way to counter that estimate: a newer, better estimate. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, in doing some actual research on the subject, I note that CNN used the ballpark figure of "More than 130 million" in 2013. Assuming its accuracy, to slam a 2016 estimate of 140M is absolute rubbish. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the 140 million figure looks suspicious, therefore, we bring in the available certified sales. The certified sales are a great tool to measure and analyze the stated figures given by the so called reliable sources. In this case, the correct figure the certified sales suggest is anything lower than 140 million, and we have a source for that. The source doesn't have to avoid using words such as Over or More than in order be in line with wikipedia's policies. A source in general may be regarded as reliable, but if the information it's released isn't, then it should not be used to support that specific material.--Harout72 (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"We have a source" for "available certified sales"? Do tell ... —ATS 🖖 talk 05:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The available certifications for each country have sources. I have compiled all Bowie's certifications here. The sources for each certifying body can be found at the bottom of each music market.--Harout72 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I will presume, then, that you are familiar with the concept of original research? Beyond that, this compilation uses publicly available figures, which may—or, more importantly, may not—include, say, those countries that don't make such reports public.
The operative—because, in encyclopedic terms, it must be—phrase is "estimated ... worldwide", which is simply not something we can do on our own, and certainly not something an encyclopedia can present to its readers without a reliable, secondary source.
The 140M figure may be wrong; if so, that's irrelevant, however odd! As long as it is the most reliable estimate from the most reliable source, it cannot by policy be overruled. That said, the beauty of a living encyclopedia is: when a reliable, secondary source offers a newer estimate, we'll replace the one that's there now. His records will be sold for as long as they're made; the number will continue to change. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
ATS you have some contradictory points. Remember that the exactly amount of each artist, is not gonna be known. So, it doesn't matter pretty much if a source says over, more than, almost, up to or estimated. If not... the same source in other article says that the 140 million figure is an "estimated". With the newer references, I don't know how jump with 100 million to 140 million is reasonable, even with mathematics. When Michael Jackson died, (he's a good example of posthumous sales), he taken almost 12 months to sell almost 40 million and was a record. But... Bowie in just one week. How? at least if I read that he broke the Michael Jackson's record I will believe. Do you have a source about this? :) In all Wikipedia, almost every users, IPs and even outside Wikipedia, like popular forums, we know that we can based on certified units to know if a sales of an artist is inflate. This is reasonable. How to know?, we have the links in this article for example. And NOT, the 100 million figure is not contradictory to the all other references, we have in this talk page at least two examples. They also meets the Wikipedia's policies. Outside Wikipedia, we have more. I can provide you, IF you wanna, in other languages that I can handle that he sold 100 million records. This is for a Worldwide view. The 140 million now, it see omnipresent but I don't impress, because the practice of the record sales, especially after the artist's death, is a woozle effect. You need to know more, and be careful how the music industry works, and inflate figures are very common, see for example this article and this other one. Sometimes, Wikipedia contributes with those figures. I can give you concrete examples, with diffs and chronologically, even the own artists copying their sales from Wikipedia.
We're reaching a consensus and with your comments and oppositions, its looks like a Ownership of content. Careful, I will assume good faith. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
When a "consensus" is in opposition to policy, policy prevails. Period. We are an encyclopedia, not a democracy; we do not do reasonable, we do reliable and verifiable—and this is particularly enforced within biographies of living persons which, despite Bowie's death, still qualifies in this case.
If you feel I'm out of line, take it to a noticeboard. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
ATS, are you even vaguely familiar with Original research? It is not original research if there is a reliable source for everything presented. Wikipedia does not require any secondary source to present Gold/Platinum certifications, and most definitely does not forbid Routine calculations including such as adding numbers, converting units. It is nobody's problem that you do not wish to go over the available certified sales coming directly from RIAA, BPI, BVMI, and so on so forth. The bottom line is the certifications are reliable and are available to the public, therefore, you cannot ignore those.--Harout72 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Please go read WP:SYNTH immediately. In short, you are attempting to synthesize an estimate from totals available to you that may or may not represent actual totals. That is original research and cannot, by policy, be used to supplant a reliable, secondary source.
As I mention above: if you feel I'm out of line, take it to a noticeboard—because I'm more convinced than ever that the article, and therefore the encyclopedia, will be harmed by this "consensus". That is the bottom line, after all. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Is not necessary. This is a consensus, and the arguments are following the Wikipedia's policies, and there is not any disruptive editing (not yet). I mean, just that to be honest, sometimes it reads that 100 million is not encyclopedic for you. And is true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, I agree. But there is both sides of "the truth". I don't understand why we have to hide a fact that has have reliable sources as well. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
"Hide"? Hardly. But I-don't-believe-X-therefore-Y certainly cannot happen. I'm done stating my case; you'll have to take it to the community at large from here. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added the 100 million figure. This is claimed by a reliable source and we don't need a consensus. Any objections, feel free to take the matter to appropriate noticeboards. We have discussed in details. No need for other editors' permission for such insertion.--Harout72 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the reason why the consensus needs to be. So, we're not breaking the Wikipedia's rules and with the record sales, sometimes is necessary this process and analyze each case for separate. We don't have to cherry pick statements, we have to show all that's in front of us and that actually comes from real sources. I think that the Harout idea initially to present both sales is the most accurate solution. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful. I support the Harout change. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit confused

David Bowie is listed in Category:LGBT singers and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, yet he has stated that his declaration of bisexuality was a mistake and that this was more of a product of 1970s culture than his actual feelings. Does this have any effect on any such listings? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

David Bowie Touring Personnel

Heya. As a fan of David Bowie and frequent reader of Wikipedia, I find it annoying that it is not easy to find which members were with him during what tours/times in his career, making me have to look it up on the various tour pages. I think it would be wise to, if not on this page, then on a different one, include a list and timeline of "David Bowie touring personnel." Here's a rough draft of the timeline that I made; let me know what you think! 184.21.45.75 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Irish heritage of Bowie's mother

The actual citation in the article only says that Bowie's mother's *father* had Irish ancestry: '[Her father] Jimmy Burns's parents were poor Irish immigrants who had settled in Manchester" p.16 "[Jimmy] had known [her mother] in Manchester. Her name was Margaret Heaton"' Whilst the citation doesn't explicitly say her mother was of English extraction, the name Heaton is certainly English. But whatever the mum's extraction, in the name of accuracy can I suggest the article is changed to make it clear that only Bowie's mother's father was of Irish extraction as at present it is misleading as it suggests Bowie's mother was fully of Irish heritage. Personally I think the fact that 2 of Bowie's great-grandparents were from Ireland is not even worth mentioning at all but if it's going to be in this article I think greater clarity is called for...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.96.13 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the name Burns is SCOTTISH and the logical conclusion to this fact is that his so-called Irish ancestors were immigrants from Scotland. It is no coincidence that Bowie gave his son the Scottish name Duncan and he sent him to the Scottish school Gordonstoun. He also took a keen interest in Scottish music and in the country in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.83.154 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Radio play

I've added info to the pages for Blackstar ★ and John Culshaw to include Culshaw's radio play The Final Take: Bowie in the Studio. I'm not sure whether the same info should be added to this page too: either at the bottom of the section Legacy and influence or in a new section titled something like "Portrayal in media". What do other editors think? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Death from liver cancer

It says he died of liver cancer. Did he/they have any idea what caused the liver cancer?

what do you mean? I mean he excessively smoked. However, you don't get cancer because you did x. You can statistically increase your chances but nothing necessarily causes cancer. Healthy people can get cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedks1 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

BowieBanc

Why no mention of BowieBanc, his unsuccessful attempt to create an online bank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.179.238 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Announcing the first David Bowie "Featured Topic" - Never Let Me Down

It took a while to get all the articles up to Good Article status, but it happened, and now we officially have our first Featured Topic on Bowie: The series of articles relating to Never Let Me Down, it's singles, the Glass Spider Tour, and its live video release. Check it out! And as always, feel free to improve any and all of them if you have good sources! 87Fan (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Statutory Rape

Why is there no mention (even in passing) of Bowie being accused publicly by multiple people of having committed statutory rape? There are many, many discussions about this throughout the internet, with (from what I can tell) the main sources here, here, here, and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.63.223 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

See Archive 6 of this talk page for the last time this was discussed. Suffice it to say that including that information is not a popular idea with many editors. --Jonie148 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bowie's mother's paternal grandparents were Irish immigrants???

Is it remotely relevant that Bowie's mother's paternal grandparents were Irish immigrants??? This smacks of some Irish nationalist determined to shoehorn in some reference to Irishness that is just not relevant to anything. How has this become seemingly a permanent part of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.4.237 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Sandford

There are many references and quotes to a work by "Sandford (1997)" that include page citations, but no title of a work. Earlier in the body text, he's mentioned as being "Christopher Sanford", which is all well and good, but gives no note as to which work by which Christopher Sandford is being referenced. Later in the citations, there's one for Loving the Alien, but it's listed as having come out in 2009 and not 1997. Are ALL instances referring to Loving the Alien (both updated and unupdated versions)? And if so, can someone please standardise the citations have a title of work being cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KissMe666 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

/boʊi/ "boh-ee" or /baʊi/ "bow-ee"? I use the first, but I've heard the latter used occasionally. Would it be good to list /baʊi/ as another pronunciation, even if different from how the man himself said it? EditWorker (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

undue

I feel that this article may focus too much on his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.140.223 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

First, you will have to provide concrete examples. Next, what else is it supposed to focus on? Last there is an equitable balance of his life with his works. Oh and one more thing it is a feature article so this has been covered before. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

Please change spelling of Mannish to Manish (as in 'The Manish Boys')

 Done Stickee (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

Please change Davie Jones and the King Bees to Davie Jones with the King Bees ("and" vs. "with")

 Done Stickee (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What do we do with Never Let Me Down 2018?

I posted this on the Never Let Me Down talk page too, but asking here for visibility. Where do we put information about NLMD '18? It's a notable release in some aspects (do any search for news about it, and there's plenty), it's the first (and only) Bowie record to be re-engineered this way, but it's apparently not going to be released outside of the Loving The Alien box set. Do we put information about NLMD '18 in its own article? in the NLMD article? In the Loving The Alien box set page? Looking for consensus here. Thanks. 87Fan (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should we list /baʊi/ as another pronunciation of his name, possibly as a variant? I personally pronounce it /boʊi/, but I've heard plenty of people pronounce it /baʊi/. EditWorker (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think both variants are common. Although it might be difficult to find a reliable source for such a claim? He named himself after James Bowie, of course, so is the pronunciation of that name relevant here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we should stick to how he said it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Udrvt5cvzc, even though he joked that he was confused by other pronunciations https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/12094615/Even-David-Bowie-wasnt-sure-how-to-pronounce-his-own-surname.html MarpoHarks (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ephebophilia

Seeing as David Bowie's sexuality has its own section, I believe his ephebophilia, alleged by Lori Maddox who claims to have lost her virginity to him at age fourteen, is relevant information. As long as the article lists them as allegations (rather than decided fact), I think they have a spot in this article. Since Wikipedia already hosts articles such as Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Woody Allen sexual assault allegation, and others, there is no basis to suggest that allegations do not belong on Wikipedia. Especially given that they are sourced directly from an interview of Lori Maddox, not mentioning this (pretty relevant) aspect of Bowie's sexuality is simply leaving relevant information out of the article. Deliberately suppressing her firsthand statements would likely only come across as a biased attempt at protecting Bowie's legacy, which would not fit with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. I believe the recently-undone edit succinctly addresses the issue in a properly neutral and correct manner. Et0048 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think this is newsworthy and certainly not as much as the other allegations you've listed here. Basically, someone spoke up 40 years after the fact and after Bowie died, meaning there's no way to refute or confirm anything that was said. The fact that any news outlet picked up the story was most likely related to the timing rather than the content, and on top of that the only source you offered was from an opinion column. None of this is verifiable and adding anything like this to this article would give it undue weight. Finally, from your tone and wording it seems like you have an axe to grind for some reason ("ephebophilia"? really?), which means you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you have a reasonable, level-headed argument here anyway. 87Fan (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@87Fan: I'm a bit surprised that you took issue with the ephebophilia phrasing issue. To be honest, I was trying to find the most-possibly neutral, non emotionally-inflaming phrasing for the topic at hand. I tried to choose a term that wouldn't imply criminality or carry the emotional weight of other articles (for example, see the comparatively inflammatory language used in the Jared Fogle article). Though if you have better phrasing for the matter at hand, I'd be happy to hear suggestions.
Also, you suggested I sounded like I had an "axe to grind." I respect you bringing that up and I only think it's fair to disclose what, if any, opinions I have about Mr. Bowie, as neutrality is incredibly important in these matters. My only thoughts, positive or negative, about David Bowie, can be summed up as "I think he was pretty solid in The Prestige but I'm glad they didn't cast him as Elrond in The Lord of the Rings." I read on your page that you said "In my youth I saw the movie Labyrinth and was instantly hooked by David Bowie - instantly and permanently, apparently." I appreciate your honesty about your neutrality regarding the subject. Obviously having a positive or negative opinion on something doesn't disqualify any of us from giving our opinions on possible edits on the matter – fans are probably the biggest contributors to this site – but if I were to weigh in on a Lord of the Rings dispute, for example, it would only be fair that I disclose that I am a huge fan of the series so that other contributors and debaters could weigh my opinions and neutrality accordingly, especially if I was arguing against something negative being said about the topic. Again, I see that you don't like the phrasing of "ephebophilia," and I appreciate your honesty and if you think there's a better term please feel free to weigh in. Regards, Et0048 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In what way do you find the language in the Jared Fogle article inflammatory? He did pay to have sex with minors. He was charged for possessing child pornography. Yes, a 17-year-old girl was involved, but Fogle was interested in minors significantly younger as well or rather more so. The article does state "'weak' pedophilia," which is odd wording that has no basis in science, but it's a statement attributed to the forensic psychiatrist who testified for Fogle's defense team. And I explained what ephebophilia is and isn't below. More is clearly seen in the Ephebophilia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Et0048:I don't appreciate your attempt to impugn my objectivity. I've been active on this site for nearly 10 years and have brought a variety of articles up to good standing which demand reasonable standards for what's written and how. I'm not a Bowie protectionist. He had his faults. Take a look at this article, which I wrote and got promoted, to see that I'm willing to give negative news the due weight they deserve. The news about alleged sexual assault received a few lines, as appropriate for the story, incident and resolution. What would not have been appropriate is if I had created an entire section called "Rape" and wrote several sentences about the allegations. That's what you're doing here. Should we have a sentence or two, correctly worded and weighted, that acknowledges the incident you're so interested in? Possibly, if done correctly. But an entire section, titled in a way that makes it appear that there wasn't just an incident, but a pattern and even a lifetime of behavior, is absolutely ludicrous. 87Fan (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Not including it just looks like blatant protectionism. Agree with 87Fan though, the Patheos source doesn't fit. The girl's interview should be enough on its own. Runk1395 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude, at least in current form. I agree with this revert by 87Fan. WP:Undue weight is a section of our WP:Neutral policy. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. And as someone familiar with the topic of ephebophilia, ephebophilia concerns a primary sexual attraction to the mid-to-late adolescent age group. It does not equate to a passing sexual attraction or some level of sexual attraction to a teenager (as in the case of a man briefly finding himself sexually attracted to a 17-year-old girl who looks no younger than an 18-year-old girl), or to statuary rape. The vast majority of reliable sources do not describe Bowie's sexuality as ephebophilic, which is where WP:Undue weight comes in. There may be valid room for statutory rape material in the article, but it should be added differently than that first incarnation. The allegation articles are an entirely different breed because they are specifically about allegations, with a lot of reliable sources documenting the matters. They don't just concern one person's allegation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: You said "there may be valid room for statutory rape material in the article." Can you elaborate on that a little? As I'm neither a fan nor a critic of David Bowie, I tried to include this material in as neutral a manner as possible, but I admit that the "undue weight" issue is a little trickier than I thought after my first read-through. I've stumbled across a source which gives some counter-arguments to the claims made by Ms. Mattix if that would help the neutrality issue, but I would love some feedback on how people think the undue weight issue could be resolved. Et0048 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I simply meant that if the statutory rape material is covered by a lot of reliable sources and is clearly WP:Due for the article. If it's not something that is often noted with regard to Bowie (one of the sources even asks why the media is silent on it), then it likely should not be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"I Never Dreamed"

23 July 2018: "David Bowie's first known studio recording is set to go up for auction, after it was reportedly discovered in an old bread basket.": The Independent, The Guardian, BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding Marc Bolan to "Associated acts" list

David Bowie and Marc Bolan (T.Rex) were friends, and I'm aware of at least one time when they performed together. It was on Marc's [British] TV show, "Marc"[1] (They were having quite a great time, and at the end Marc famously fell off the stage, much to David's amusement).

References

  1. ^ Archive footage on YouTube

Is this sufficient reason to be added? Linux 1991 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Instruments?

It's been quite a long time since the last discussion about instruments in the infobox... but really I don't think there needs to be another discussion. He played guitar and saxophone very often, and keyboards on occasion, so those two or three should be added. Also "musician" to the occupations (singer, songwriter (or singer-songwriter), musician and actor). It is obviously false to say he wasn't a musician since, well, he was. If nobody objects with good reasons (no, you don't decide what one "thinks of" when they think of David Bowie), I'll add this stuff at some point soon. PerhapsXarb (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to mind, so I'll do it PerhapsXarb (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK if nobody cares I'll actually do it. User:MarnetteD? You seem to be enforcing this so read what I wrote above. I don't want a big debate though since that makes editing on Wikipedia get tiring very fast. PerhapsXarb (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Musician is still not added to his occupations. Why? He played instruments. He was a musician. This is stupid. Dyaluk08 (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Bowie is credited on the Ziggy Stardust album for "guitar, sax, and vocals", and there are doubtless many interviews where he mentions his musician role in recording. I think as long as you've got a clear citation, "musician" can be added to the info box without objection. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. Nobody is adding the instruments that he obviously played, so I will actually do it this time. PerhapsXarb (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A user by the name of PD Rivers has deleted my edit regarding Bowie's instruments. In the common-sense words of Dyaluk08, "[Bowie] played instruments. He was a musician. This is stupid." It is not easy to get consensus among an empty room so...? We all know Bowie played many instruments, the most prominent being guitar, sax, and keyboards, so can we just move on from this silly debate? PerhapsXarb (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi PerhapsXarb. As far as I know, Wikipedia classes all singers as musicians. They don't need to be able to play any instrument. Bowie was not widely known for his ability to play even a single instrument. But yes, he certainly could play some. I wonder could you provide here some clear sources that support the claim that he could play one or more musical instruments? And then we'll see what addition(s) to the article, if any, might be justified? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was any debate that Bowie was a multi-instrumentalist. He played lead guitar on the Diamond Dogs album, for one, and a variety of instruments on Low. Let's Dance was unusual in that he didn't play any instruments on the album, a rarity for him. He played lead guitar on a few songs on Never Let Me Down. These are all sourced in their respective articles. The Ziggy Stardust Tour and Sound+Vision Tour articles both have a picture of Bowie playing guitar live on stage. He toured with Iggy Pop as his keyboardist for, what, The Idiot Tour in the 1970s? I for one think it's very reasonable to state, and list, the major instruments that Bowie was known to have played both live and on albums (off the top of my head, guitar, harmonica, saxophone, keyboards). It's not a matter of how widely known this information is, is it? Taking a peek at Prince's page, it shows a short list of instruments that he played too, and I'm not sure that it's common knowledge that he played the drums. 87Fan (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Sources should be easy to find, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

2 of his great- grandparents were Irish immigrants who had settled in Manchester.??

How on earth is it relevant or meaningful that 2 out of 8 of his great-grandparents were Irish? How on earth has this nonsense survived so long in this article? Can an editor remove this silliness please? If this must survive in this article can someone give some information about the other 6 great grandparents. Maybe we could even go back another generation or two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.4.59 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Subsections necessary for acting career?

His acting career can be compiled into one section. To have it put into separate decades is wholly unnecessary, especially when the article is already loaded with subsections. Nampa DC (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I divided it up into decades because, as he had dozens of roles over a 40+ year career, it makes the section easier to read and understand as the section grows more detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Change main photo?

Hello, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to change the main photo of the article? Since he's gone (sadly) we can use an image from his prime instead of the most recent image. I propose we change the main image to this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Bowie_1975.jpg) as it's a headshot from his prime where he's looking forward. If I'm wrong in any way please correct me or tell me so. Thank you! CarterLennon (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea but I don't think that's a better image to use than the current one - it's so tied to the Young Americans period only and isn't as recognisable and neutral to Bowie's entire career as say an image from 1978, or 2002 as it is at the moment.Humbledaisy (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

Please add something mentioning the spider named after David Bowie. Adonalsium82 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Years Active

On the page currently, Bowie's years active are "1962–2009 2013-2016", the rationale being Bowie's last film role was in 2009, and 2013 was when he released a new album, The Next Day. However, The Next Day was in the pipeline for two years - recording began in 2011 - so making his years active only resume in 2013 seems to be incorrect. I know Bowie had a break from the public eye for around a decade leading up to its release, but wouldn't it be better to list years active as "1962 - 2016"? Humbledaisy 27 December 2019

Why is this article semi-protected to promote compliance with the biography of living persons policy?

The article's subject is dead.72.76.163.6 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Significant changes to a WP:FA

SouthofHeaven1981, keep in mind that this is a WP:FA (featured article) and that extra care should be taken when editing it. See WP:CAREFUL and Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Featured articles. I'm not disputing any of your most recent changes. I'm simply alerting you to the fact that, like WP:CAREFUL states, "In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." Some of your changes may need discussion first. Be open to bringing matters to the talk page before making significant changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey,
Understood, and please know that I took extra care to make sure every edit that I have made was thoroughly cited & considered. The 'Music career' section was bloated with both redundant info and items that had nothing to do with Bowie's music, so I moved those items to the appropriate sub-categories. I deleted absolutely nothing that wasn't talked about elsewhere on the page (his role in The Elephant Man, for instance), and if you or anyone has any issue with any of my previous additions or edits I would be happy to discuss them! Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. And you as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve restored the article to its stable (and featured article) layout dated 9 January 2020 at 21:50. The reason is his life directly impacted on his music. They are intrinsically linked. It’s not something you can separate and add in later in it’s own category. His alienation with LA via his drug use caused his subsequent move to Berlin. The music he produced was tied to the experiences of whatever place he was based in at the time. His music changed because he changed wherever he happened to be. PD Rivers (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then my question is, why even have other sections? Why not just combine it all into one giant chronological narrative combining music, acting & other work, and divide it up by time period? If BowieNet & Bowie Bonds somehow contributed to Outside & Earthling, and a year painting in Switzerland contributed to the Berlin Trilogy, then surely Labyrinth contributed to his late 80s pop music, & The Elephant Man contributed to Scary Monsters. If we either divide it up into different types of work, or combine it into one narrative, I feel like either would be a smoother read than expecting people to jump around & try to find what they're looking for. SouthofHeaven1981 —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

CHANGE: "1972–1974: Ziggy Stardust

Bowie during the Ziggy Stardust Tour, 1972–1973 Dressed in a striking costume, his hair dyed reddish-brown, Bowie launched his Ziggy Stardust stage show with the Spiders from Mars—Ronson, Bolder, and Woodmansey—at the Toby Jug pub in Tolworth in Kingston upon Thames on 10 February 1972."

TO

....Bowie launched his Ziggy Stardust stage show with the Spiders from Mars—Ronson, Bolder, and Woodmansey—at the Borough Assembly Hall in Aylesbury on 29 January 1972Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).."


SEE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggy_Stardust_Tour Imperial72 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

AND

https://www.davidbowie.com/blog/2017/4/3/1971-aylesbury-friars-poster-discovered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial72 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS to contradict claims in other articles are are sourced to external cites. The second link failed verification; the 9/25/71 poster is linked but that is for a non-Ziggy performance. The link to the 1/29/72 Ziggy tour appearance is 404. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Films

Why no films at all? By all means suggest criteria for selection of a list, or a source that makes such a selection. But to just ditch the whole list like this because "open to much argument about what is included; "selected" by who? UNSOURCED" looks like a mindless tantrum. 86.186.37.225 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it is mindless to add an entirely unsourced section to a featured article. Where do we draw the line for what films are included? Let's have them all. If we have them all, then why have a separate filmography article? It's strange how you provide sources for one article but think that none should be used on this one. CassiantoTalk 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Please add Stephen Ray Vaughan to the Associated Acts section. SVR's guitar plaing on Let's Dance is iconic and a significant contribution to the success of that album and to a shift in Bowie's style at that point in his career.

Thanks for your consideration. DavidDeMello (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I don't believe that one solo on one single makes an act "associated". If you have other sources to support, by all means share here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Discography section

A sock is trying to add a discography section to this article, and have included a link to a separate article that specifically deals with listing Bowie's discography. Ok, I thought this might've been bloody obvious, but the Bowie biography already has the link to the separate Bowie discography article, which is appropriately placed at the top of the "Music career" section, so it doesn't need it repeated below. Also, the list which is trying to be added above is also sourceless and this is a featured article, hence why I have deleted it. Source it or lose it. CassiantoTalk 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

So User:NNDDRRWW is a nasty old sock, eh? Take 'em to the sock board or whatever it is. The article had a Discography section when it appeared on Main Page as Today's featured article on March 11, 2013. So what's changed? Any views on Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles etc. etc. etc.? 86.187.172.197 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
What part of "source it" do you not understand? And why don't you try logging in? I allow one comment to anonymous accounts, and that's your lot. CassiantoTalk 19:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't separately sourced when the article appeared as TFA in 2013. You think some of those albums (which all have their own article) aren't by Bowie? Just been invented, maybe? Aren't they all fully sourced in the text already? 86.187.238.42 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't care about the 2013 TFA. And who cares what I think? What does matter is that this is a featured article and there is an entire section that is unsourced; having such a section would prevent it from becoming a featured article by today's standards. Oh, and the linked article? Well that is a featured list and those wishing to go off and find such information, can, via that. Why repeat the discography and link twice? That is almost certainly an overlink. CassiantoTalk 20:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's the link to the AllMusic Bowie Discography: [4]. That took all of 10 seconds to find. All you have to do is replace the section and add that link as a source. Or perhaps your nice sock friend will do it for you? 86.187.174.170 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
All I have to do? No, no, no...that's not how it works. The onus to add a source is on the person who writes the text. If they don't, it gets deleted. Simples. Explain why it has to be repeated aside an article that carries all the information in. CassiantoTalk 21:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI I’m not a sock account, just a new account. I wasn’t aware this was an issue on the page prior to editing, I did have a glance at the last 2 archived talk pages of the article but didn’t see any consensus about the discography section other than people trying to add soundtracks. I won’t attempt re-add the discography section. I didn’t realise it would be an issue. NNDDRRWW (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@NNDDRRWW: For a newbie you surely have the jargon going on. - FlightTime (open channel)

I’ve had previous accounts but I’m not using this as a sock account, my previous account hasn’t even edited this page. And for reference my old account was User:OBLIVIUS. NNDDRRWW (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So the edit summary here was "already in article". That's not quite right, is it. Most other musical artists have a section called "Discography", whether or not there's also a separate stand-alone article as well. This article has had one for years. Why has it now been deleted? Seems bizarre. 86.187.231.220 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What's bizarre is your idea that something that is a few thousand bytes in size can be added to a featured article without a source. CassiantoTalk 22:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's that link again [5]. It's not easy to add any anything to the article when it's "protected". Or to re-add in this case. 86.187.231.220 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That's part one of the two reasons I deleted it, answered. Unfortunately, you omit to tell me why we should include a list of albums that can be found elsewhere in the David Bowie discography article. Where do we draw the line? Include the albums, then the singles, then the compilations? Before we know it, we will have the entire David Bowie discography article in this one! Nope, sorry, not convinced. CassiantoTalk 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest re-adding exactly those 25 albums that you removed. No more,no less. They are the best known. This would be in line with Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Oasis and countless other musical artists. 86.187.230.137 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You can suggest what you like, but the answer remains the same and until you answer my questions above, I shall not communicate with you further. CassiantoTalk 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I've answered. You need not communicate further. But let's hope someone else sees sense and re-adds the Discography section, in line with nearly all musical recording artists across the whole of Wikipedia. 86.187.161.145 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

BowieNet & Bowie Bonds

PD Rivers reverted my previous edits, but I hold that Bowie Bonds & BowieNet have absolutely nothing to do with his music output in the mid 90s and should not be categorized under his "Music career." I suggest that we add an "Other works" subcategory that includes that, along with his painting/art collecting career (which is already categorized separately). Does anyone have any objections to me making that edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That change looks fine to me. I only reverted the whole thing as I couldn’t see what alteration to the article was and wasn’t appropriate. Others have built up the article to its featured article status, so any sweeping changes are to be avoided. PD Rivers (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this utter nonsense being included in a featured article? CassiantoTalk 15:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Because David Bowie was a multifaceted person who was involved in many different things, and Wikipedia is where people go to read about them? Refrain from talking to either of us like that, as you are (I assume) not a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Try signing your posts. This is a featured article, or was until you came along with your trivial nonsense. I have a good mind to apply for it's delisting. CassiantoTalk 19:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"Bowie sing. Bowie act. No details! Look somewhere else!"

The fun of his career is in the little details & side tours. Go ahead & apply for whatever you want if it makes you feel like a big strong boi. Sincerely, signed, gatekeepers suck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You simply cannot come to a featured article and add what you want. This article has gone through a rigorous review. Start a talk page discussion and gain a consensus. Start a WP:RFC if you must. CassiantoTalk 19:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Renamed twice: Tom Jones

I suppose the following is incorrect, but I encountered it in several places and I figure that having it here will make it easier to negate. Several pages, such as [6] claim that before starting to use the name David Bowie, he used the stage name Tom Jones for a while, but had to rename because of Tom Jones (singer). The biography here does not seem to leave room for such an extra rename. Tzafrir (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It never happened. He certainly never changed his name to David Cassidy, and there's no reason to think he ever used the name Tom Jones either. Tom Jones was an established pop star in 1965, before Bowie changed his name from Jones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

1987 Rape Allegation

The 1987 rape allegation that was dismissed due to lack of evidence, should be included in his personal life, there are reliable sources readily available from that time to cite. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidd (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/18/British-singer-actor-David-Bowie-was-cleared-Wednesday-by-a/1514564210000/
Agree it looks to be some bias. People have to accept that their heros aren't always great people despite being talented — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul2123 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Paul2123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Allegations are for your blog but not for an encyclopedia. BTW creating socks is not the way to go on this MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, however this isn't a blog but from a newspapers archive - notice the date of the reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidd (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The allegation is briefly mentioned in the article for the Glass Spider Tour, giving it the weight and context it deserves, but putting something like this (essentially an unproven, dismissed allegation) in an article the way you proposed gives it undue weight, and frankly casts your ability to remain neutral in serious doubt. Go away, troll 87Fan (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from name calling! The allegation is a serious offence that deserves to be in his personal life section, even if it was dismissed. It provides another insight into who Bowie was, from the extremely talented artist to a flawed individual (take note of the illegal drug use, and the fascist comments). The culture we live in today has put more emphasis on these allegations, and following suit from other pages, this piece of Bowie history should not so easily be disregarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidd (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sign your posts. This unproven and legally dismissed allegation gives NO insight into who David Bowie was. At best, it's a demonstration of the price of being a celebrity, and even so is still not worthy of inclusion in this article. 87Fan (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Discography

Why isn't there a discography section that includes all his studio albums? Most other artists I see on WP have that so why not Bowie? – zmbro (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I agree. I re-added his discography for now because I wasn't aware of the discussion that happened back in January. We should at the very least include a discography section but instead of listing all of his studio album, we just put the link to his discography page. Even then, I still think it would be better to list all of his studio albums just like every other singer/musician article. I don't get what the problem is. Not having the discography section will just cause confusion and edit wars. Plus it goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Here it states, "These articles should follow the guidelines given by WikiProject Discographies. The discography section of the musician's primary article should link to the separate discography article..the discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article." Tagging @MarnetteD: Bowling is life (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Also wheres the "consensus" saying that their can't be a discography section for this article. There doesn't seem to be a consensus from the archived discussion from January. Even with WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind, there is no good reason not to include his discography. We should at the very least include a discography section but instead of listing all of his studio albums, we just put the link to his discography page. That way, readers can access his discography easier. Bowling is life (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Bowling is life I agree where's the consensus? All I saw in the archived page was 3 editors and a random IP arguing about it. Plus, what's the big deal with having it? It's helpful to readers to have all the studio albums in one spot, and if that's the case with every other artist on this entire site, why can't it be for Bowie? – zmbro (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Where's the consensus for it? Don't you think it's rather redundant since his works have an entirely separate article? CassiantoTalk 16:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think consensus currently lies in the consistent rejection of such a discography here, since Cassianto effectively tagged it as unsourced and removed it (and the Filmography section) on 21 January.[7][8][9][10] On the same day, Cassianto tagged the Concert tours section as unsourced,[11] and it was removed the next day (!) by PD Rivers.[12] None of those things has since returned successfully, and, while the issue of a discography was raised here in January, as previously noted,[13] there was also a brief discussion about the Filmography section.[14] However, I think it's probably better that a consensus be formed here by discussion, if possible, rather than inferred from edits to the article.
I think the argument that we cannot have an unsourced section is inescapable. But that is not the only argument. Also valid, I think, is the argument that, since the article David Bowie discography exists, there is no need for a "mini discography" here – while it would duplicate tabulated information presented better elsewhere, it would also duplicate information already presented here, in prose, in the Music career section. As Cassianto said, where do you draw the line?[15][16] If it's "helpful to readers to have all the studio albums in one spot", clearly that spot should be the discography article, not here. The prospect of edit wars is also raised, above: I think a mini discography here could be a running sore, compared to simple disagreement over whether or not there should be one. So, I'm convinced by those two arguments.
Given the foregoing, I find the recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines frankly bizarre, and note that MOS:DISCOGRAPHY supports that approach. That something may be amiss is suggested by the fact that the same WikiProject says, "[i]f a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary", and goes on to give Tangerine Dream#Discography as an example. However, when you follow that link, you're presented with a section enumerating 164 albums, with no significant prose, and not a reference in sight.[17] Something somewhere needs updating, but I don't have the motivation or stamina for that. For now, I agree with the WikiProject's preference for prose, which is what we have in the present article at the time of writing; although I recognise that Bowie's 27 albums doesn't come close to TD's 164.
Regarding the idea that other articles have a Discography section, so why not this one, I've had a look at the examples of other articles with discography sections that were given in the discussion that occurred in January, and they're not great.[18] At Bob Dylan, the section is a wholly unreferenced list, with no prose; and the great age of its FA status undermines its usefulness.[19] The Rolling Stones presents the same format but for a single sentence of prose that might fit better in an explanatory footnote (efn); but it is only a GA, albeit a fairly recent one: the issue of an unreferenced Discography section is not addressed in the GA review, maybe because it wasn't seen as an issue by those involved.[20] It was nominated by Ritchie333, who might (or might not) be inclined to contribute here. Likewise, The Beatles presents a wholly unreferenced section, with minimal prose that again might fit better in an efn; and that article is also a pretty ancient FA.[21]
I don't intend to trawl all articles in WP that have discography sections, but that sample gives me no reason to change my view. Besides, even if there are heaps of other articles with such sections, that doesn't require that this article conform, especially if, as I see it, doing so would impair the article's quality. Regarding the WikiProject and the MoS, I'd invoke WP:IAR for now. So, I support the absence of a Discography section in this article, as at the time of writing.[22] By extension, I also support the absence of a Filmography section, given the presence in the article of a lengthy Acting career section of prose, with a link to David Bowie filmography in the appropriate place; and the absence of a Concert tour section, since the tours receive extensive coverage in the article's prose, and they are listed in the "David Bowie" template at the bottom of the page. Having said all that, I'm pretty much out of stamina, for various reasons not limited to the present, global pandemic, so my further involvement here might be limited. But you never know. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts

Per Template:Infobox musical artist, the "Associated acts" field in the inbox is not for one-off collaborations. This means that Queen, for example, should not be in there. It's a very long list and I suspect many of other acts should be removed too. Can someone more familiar with Bowie check this? Popcornfud (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: I've removed some acts that quite clearly don't match the criteria for associated acts and left bands that Bowie was a part of and frequent collaborators of his (Visconti, Alomar, etc). You can remove any acts that I might have missed. Aria1561 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

Berthold Brecht in the text there is Bertold Brecht 2A02:8071:31AA:2600:610E:3B7A:39F5:38CA (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Every instance in this article gives it as "Bertolt". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

David Bowie’s signature should be added to the page 68.110.234.72 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Koto

Should we consider him a koto player?79.27.127.77 (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Should there not be some rule about references not being to subscription media?

There seems to be a lot of The Times ones, you shouldn't have to pay to confirm.

If there isn't all good. Just seems a bit silly.

Thanks

--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Discography

At the very least, the link to the discography page should be under its own 'Discography' section, as seems to be the convention. I had to do a search to find it in its current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BariNeon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Years Active

David Bowie went out of the public eye in 2006, he came back in 2013 and finished his last album just before his death

Years active should state: 1967-1987 - he took a break after the glass spider tour 1990-2006 and 2013-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgoh7622 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. The 'gaps' referred to here don't take into account various acting roles and the preparation for new music that he was undertaking during those years. -SouthofHeaven1981

On top of agreeing with SouthofHeaven, what you're saying is not true. If you believe he took a break after Glass Spider, I guess Tin Machine (1989) is obsolete? Also, he wasn't musically active between 2006 and 2010, but he recorded The Next Day from 2011–2013. He also made a few public appearances between '06 and '10, either with Iman or his son Duncan when promoting films Duncan directed. So no, what is currently displayed is correct. – zmbro (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

David Bowie Is

If no one objects, I'm going to move the information about the David Bowie Is museum exhibit out of the "Music career" section and into the "Legacy" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead I think it fits better there. – zmbro (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

1968–1971/Personal life

If nobody objects, I'd like to take a crack at reorganizing a couple paragraphs in the section "1968–1971: Space Oddity to Hunky Dory." Huge chunks of the narrative are about Bowie's early relationships with several women, with minimal information about his musical output at the time (this section is listed under "Music career") and I feel like a lot of that information would be better suited to the "Personal life" subsection. The parts that are about him working on music at the time (his collaborations with Hermione Farthingale, for instance) would still be in this section, but the rest of the info should be moved in my opinion. -SouthofHeaven1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed this proposal. So I point to what I stated here (followup note here). Some of his personal life material is going to be in the career section, and that includes who he wrote songs about. It's not like who he wrote songs about should be in the personal life section instead of the career section. Also, keeping WP:Overlinking or flow reasons in mind, it can be a poor option to split up content about a person Bowie interacted with. I mean, if there is no need to mention the person in two different sections, why split the content? Why not mention the material together for cohesiveness? The article has enough sections. And there are people who strongly believe in linking a term or person's name once past the lead; see MOS:REPEATLINK. I commonly follow that line of thinking as well. So we can wind up with a name linked in the career section, but that same name not linked in the personal life section. And an issue with this is that a person might overlook the initial link or skip to one section as opposed to the other. But still, we have to take WP:Overlinking into consideration.
All that stated, I don't feel strongly about this change. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand that the splitting of narratives like that can make a narrative flow a little awkwardly, however in the case of Bowie the narrative is an unwieldy mess in the Music career section, with gigantic paragraphs that barely mention his actual music. Personally I would prefer an abundance of subsections rather than a gigantic narrative (up until a couple months ago, Bowie Bonds & BowieNet were both listed under Music career, just to cite one example). -SouthofHeaven1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs)
I think that the current setup is mostly fine. Also, like I told you before, we have to keep this article's WP:FA status in mind.
I tagged your above comment as unsigned. In the future, sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the help! SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of England article

Craw Allen, regarding this and this? Why would readers want to go to the List of cultural icons of England article instead of the Cultural icon article? The list article doesn't tell them anything about what an icon is. And whatever number Bowie is on whatever list can be mentioned in the Davie Bowie article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

1974-1976/Politics

How do we feel about the last 2 paragraphs of the 'Thin White Duke' subsection of the 'Music career' section? That entire section is about Bowie's flirtation with fascism and fascist imagery, virtually no references to the music he was touring behind at the time. There is also some redundant info on this in the 'Politics' section, I think that it could all be combined into one entry under Politics. SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs 15:42, 27 August 2020‎ (UTC)

The following shows that it partly concerns music/his career: "After recovering from addiction, Bowie apologised for these statements, and throughout the 1980s and '90s criticised racism in European politics and the American music industry. Nevertheless, Bowie's comments on fascism, as well as Eric Clapton's alcohol-fuelled denunciations of Pakistani immigrants in 1976, led to the establishment of Rock Against Racism." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I say leave it where it is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we edit the part about his contributions to the Spongebob Musical?

His song was No Control, which was an unreleased song from Outside that was tweaked to work with the musical. I just think its a neat fact that should be covered briefly as it wouldn't add too much to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunkert (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Lindsay Kempe

'Girlfriend' Lindsay Kempe? Vandalism, I presume? 195.213.55.31 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@SouthofHeaven1981, you introduced this phrasing earlier this month. Please address it ASAP, pending its reversion. General Ization Talk 19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
An error, taking care of it right now, thanks for the heads up! SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

ALRIGHT it refers to lindsay kemp as david bowie's girlfriend but lindsay kemp is a guy i think? 82.29.78.181 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
An error of my doing, apologies, corrected! SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

The "associated acts" bit should probably be reviewed, Lennon and Jagger should probably be added (esp. considering Bowie is listed as an "associated act" on the latter's page) InlineCitations (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Savage Records harming the success of the album in the USA?

There's nothing much about Savage Records in this write up (just before Black Tie White Noise when he signed a $3.4 million deal with the record label). I thought it would be more prominent in the article with some people at the time pointing to the troubles at Savage to why the album wasn't a big hit in the USA....

Info about Savage...

"David Mimran's Savage Records (known for British band Soho and their Smiths-sampling indie-dance hit "Hippychick" in 1991)[1][2] was set up by the Swiss teenager in 1986 and funded by his multi-millionaire father. Due to the almost endless financing of his father and the fact their A&R manager (a Swiss record shop owner called Bernard Fanin) had industry experience, the label managed to make it into the 1990s with a number of dance and hip-hop hits by artists such as Silver Bullet and A Homeboy, Hippy and A Funky Dread (issued on Savage's Tam Tam dance label).[3][4] Around the time Soho had their top ten UK hit,[5][6][7] Mimran decided that Savage would not just be a British indie, but would be an American major instead. Savage Records went on a spending spree in America, which resulted in them opening plush offices on Broadway, hiring Michael Jackson's manager Frank DiLeo and signing David Bowie to a massive $3.4 million record deal, all which ended when Mimran's father, Jean Claude, cut finances."[8][9][10][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/24732/soho/
  2. ^ https://www.songfacts.com/facts/soho/hippychick
  3. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/28417/a-homeboy-a-hippie-and-a-funki-dredd/
  4. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/25625/silver-bullet/
  5. ^ https://www.sohopopgroup.com/about
  6. ^ https://www.songfacts.com/facts/soho/hippychick
  7. ^ http://www.clockworkthrob.com/Soho_Story.html
  8. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/rock-a-close-shave-and-no-cash-back-when-david-bowie-signed-to-savage-he-took-a-long-shot-and-missed-1492135.html
  9. ^ https://variety.com/1993/music/news/savage-has-gone-silent-107368/
  10. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6843757/david-bowie-businessman-deep-dive-visionary-dealmaking
  11. ^ http://www.mtv.com/news/1426406/no-appeal-for-savagebowie-lawsuit/

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

First mention of full name of biographer David Buckley is not at first use in article. 71.214.93.142 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 19:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged relationship with Lori Mattix

I added a paragraph on Bowie's sexuality, namely his alleged relationship with an underage girl in the 1970's. It has been widely publicised and deserves to be mentioned in this article, in my opinion, also bearing in mind the relevance this subject has to the current "Me-too" movement. Jeroen1961 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. The issue is that this is a single source who's released some contradictory information and cannot be refuted. It's basically completely a rumor. I think you should expect that this will be removed. 87Fan (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, there are many sources, people who hace confirmed the relationship between Mattix and Bowie and other rock stars. In the article on Prince Andrew, the allegations of his supposed sexual relationship with an underage girl is also mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Friendship_with_Epstein_and_sex_abuse_allegations In this video, Jimmy Page's ex-girlfriend confirms Page's relationship with Matix, and there are others who have confirmed Bowie's relationship with Mattix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RDPL5380rCsoU&v=PL5380rCsoU&feature=emb_rel_end Jeroen1961(talk) 12:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
These sources allege rather than confirm. Also note that YouTube is not considered a WP:RS. For a change like this you should run a WP:RFC to gain a consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My main source, the article by Kaplan (https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie) does not allege, but states, in Mattix's own words, that she lost her virginity to David Bowie. Once again, it is no different to Giuffre's statement that she had sex with prince Andrew as an underage girl. A consensus is therefore not called for. The source is valid. Jeroen1961 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually a WP:CONSENSUS is required. You need to read WP:OTHERSTUFF as well. Mattix's own words are on allegation not a confirmation. BTW that source is WP:PRIMARY which is not enough for adding the info to the article. You need WP:SECONDARY sources. Feel free to start the RFC and/or start a thread at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If you feel an RFC is needed, feel free to start it. I do not feel the need, nor do I think it is required. My source is secondary, as it was not written by herself, but by a well-known journalist. Frankly, you are creating unnecessary trouble. Jeroen1961 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy links to previous discussion of this issue: Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_7#Ephebophilia, Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_6#Lori_Mattix, Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_2#Pedophile?, Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_5#Lori_Maddox Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that this page is no longer a BLP I dont think we can keep the information completely off the page, although there is of course room for discussions of scope, prominence, etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Any and all info that is added to an article (or included in it already for that matter) is subject to consensus. I'll link to the policy page again Wikipedia:Consensus as it is pertinent to the current thread. The title of the article that is the main source is "I lost My Virginity to David Bowie" and the byline of the article is "By Lori Mattix, as told to Michael Kaplan" and Kaplan writes "Here she is, in her own words, with the occasional interjection" so no it is not written by Kaplan and no it is not a secondary source. How anyone could miss that is beyond me. Per Horse Eye's Back suggestion a small mention may be warranted. It is hard to judge if mentioning every person that the subject of an article had sex with is encyclopedic. That kind of info can become WP:INDISCRIMINATE after a while. Secondary sources would help to establish whether it should be included. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I disagree that the article written by Kaplan is a primary source. He has written it, basically he is quoting Mattix. Besides, primary sources may be used. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." WP:PRIMARY Moreover, the source is reliable. Jeroen1961 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_7&oldid=1136336347"