Jump to content

Talk:David Bowie/Archive 8

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

The name "David Bowie"

The article should make it clear when David Jones got the artist name "David Bowie". Currently the biography section mentions "David Jones" once and calls him "Bowie" ever after. It even says "Bowie attended Stockwell Infants School until he was six years old". Did he have an artist name already at the age of six? JIP | Talk 03:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

David_Bowie#1962–1967:_Early_career_to_debut_album does explain the origin of the name (he was inspired by James Bowie). I kind of agree with your other point, but I'm not sure how that should be handled. -- Calidum 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
To be honest I agree with this point as well. In my opinion Bowie's main article is a outdated and needs work. Got promoted to FA in 2010 and is frankly missing lots of info, including more info about his actual name. – zmbro (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021

Put Queen in the associated acts since they collaborated with Bowie on Under Pressure in 82 91.165.43.122 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Queen added, as they are mentioned in the lead section. But not a major collaboration. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Martinevans123. I think you need to reconsider this. One of the guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts is that a person or group should not be included for a "one-time collaboration for a single song". It is one of the reasons that Bing Crosby is not in that section even though their collaboration is very popular each December. Now if Bowie did other work with Queen then UP that would help. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MarnetteD here. Bowie collaborated with quite a few artists as one-offs (i.e. Crosby, Queen, Pet Shop Boys, Morrissey, Tina Turner, etc.) Having Queen there would mean we'd have to have all of his collaborators there. – zmbro (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I added it only as it is mentioned in the Lead section. If anyone wants to remove it, I will have no problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead expansion

After seeing Martinevans123's response regarding the request above, it got me thinking that this article could use another paragraph in the lead. At over 200k bytes, it could really use an expansion, as an article like Ringo Starr (only 120k bytes) is sitting at four paragraphs. Currently, this article has three very well-written paragraphs. However, I don't think it gives enough info to give Bowie the credit he deserves. The second paragraph covers his early life up to 1980. Then the third paragraph covers his entire musical period from 1981–2016 and touches upon his film career, all in just eight sentences, with one of those being "Blackstar won British Album of the Year at the 2017 Brit Awards and five Grammy Awards at the 2017 Grammy Awards." (which I don't think warrants good enough inclusion to be in the lead).

I'm wondering if we could split the third paragraph into a fourth, and expand more on his musical career from Let's Dance up to Reality, as in its current state, all it gives the readers regarding his 90s and early-00s work is "Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Bowie continued to experiment with musical styles, including industrial and jungle." It doesn't even touch upon Tin Machine. This period could really use more touching on, and I think a good 5-6 sentences would do. The fourth paragraph I'm thinking could be more about his acting career, plus The Next Day and Blackstar. Since the first paragraph touches on his legacy the fourth wouldn't warrant that. This is just my thinking and some of my ideas. I'd love to know what others think! – zmbro (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea on a new paragraph, but note that the lead should not include information absent from the article's main text. Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Parts of the article need rewritten

Hey all. So far, I've been doing a lot to the article in regards to referencing. Many website refs have been incomplete and I am doing my best to in order to make sure every single one is up to current FA standards (as a lot has changed since 2010, unlike some things). When converting all book sources to sfn, I noticed that the article relies very heavily on Christopher Sandford's Loving the Alien. To me, this poses a problem, as Nicholas Pegg, in the 2016 edition of The Complete David Bowie, has this to say about LTA:

Christopher Sandford's 1996 biography Bowie: Loving The Alien offers worthwhile interviews with the likes of Kenneth Pitt and Keith Christmas, but is hamstrung by some whopping inaccuracies and its author's dogged mission to portray his subject as a ruthless manipulator."

Based on what Pegg states, having Sandford be the primary source for Bowie's main article is an issue. Pegg offers praise to the majority of Bowie's biographers, except Sandford. I even noticed that most of the time, biographers O'Leary, Trynka, Spitz and even Pegg himself have been shoehorned in favor of Sandford's opinions, with Cann and Seabrook's books being completely disregarded. It honestly shocks me that Kevin Cann isn't used once in the entire article.

With these things being said, I believe parts of the article need rewritten in order to fully grasp Bowie's life. Certain parts, notably the Berlin era, merely summarize what actually happened. "Before the end of 1976, Bowie's interest in the burgeoning German music scene, as well as his drug addiction, prompted him to move to West Berlin to clean up and revitalize his career." is not what happened. After the Isolar tour, Bowie moved to Switzerland, then visited the Chateau de'Herouville in France (with Iggy Pop), where he then recorded The Idiot with Iggy, then Low (all this time, Bowie and Pop were living at the Chateau). Then at the end of '76, Bowie and Pop moved to Berlin, where Low was finished. Saying he moved to Berlin from LA is not true, and needs to be fixed.

In summary, the article in its current state seems to utilize one biographer over many others, and the biographer it does use gets many things wrong. I understand that we shouldn't go into too much detail, but states things that are just plain wrong is not ok. I'm obviously fine to start working on utilizing more biographers, but I wanted to present my opinions to everyone and see what others think first. – zmbro (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

New infobox image?

I want to propose to perhaps change the lead image for the article, and use this one instead:

This image has a closer look on Bowie's face, is roughly within the same time as the previous one already (Neoclassicist era), and has a better angle altogether

Josharaujo1115 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that's a particularly good lookin photo for him. Even though the current one doesn't show his entire face, I think it's a much better photo for him. – zmbro (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


I propose we use an older image which shows Bowie looking towards the camera. My suggestion can be seen on the left below, compared to the current infobox on the right.

Infoboxes

— Alduin2000 (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I also find the current image, i.e. File:David-Bowie Chicago 2002-08-08 photoby Adam-Bielawski-cropped.jpg, preferable to the other suggestions. He's still in his prime in that one, which you can't really say of the first suggestion at the top of this thread (that one's been proposed and rejected before). As for the Thin White Duke-era one immediately above, I don't think we should be putting any of Bowie's "characters" in the infobox pic, which of them is truly representative? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I heavily disagree with the Cher image. He was near the peak of his cocaine addiction and was that physically appealing, so we should not be representing him like that. The 2002 image is perfectly fine. – zmbro (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, seems consensus is against this one. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Change the instrument infobox back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie45347542 (talk • contribs) 18:34, August 17, 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why doesn't this section include controversy over his involvements with underage girls? (as mentioned in this article). Hogyncymru (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru, This has been brought up here many times. It's not mentioned because (1) it's not true and (2) there's really no way to prove it. Every testimony that woman has said regarding Bowie has been contradictory based on his biographers or people that were around him at those times (i.e. where he was, what he was doing, etc.) All adding that would do would be defamation against a dead artist. – zmbro (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
How is it different from listing of allegations in other articles? Serious question, I don't know the official policy. Frohike14 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Essentially, her allegations so baseless, and as a result so irrelevant, that including them in the Bowie article would be giving them undue attention. 87Fan (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
87Fan, Couldn't agree more. Even in the 20 different ways she's told the story, she never once made Bowie look like the bad guy (In fact one way she said that she forced HIM). So all adding it here would be doing is defaming a dead artist. – zmbro (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Add back the instruments Bowie played: Guitar, keyboards, saxophone, harmonica. There was no reason to change this, it was pretty well-known he played instruments frequently, and it's an insult to his legacy. 73.25.173.17 (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Secondary instruments are not listed in the infobox, they're meant to be brought up in the article body per Infobox musical artist. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox instruments

First off, why do you think only vocals should be listed, rather than what was there previously? – zmbro (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC) FlightTime Phone Pinging. – zmbro (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Zmbro: People go to his concerts to hear him sing, not play the sax. I am not saying he does'nt play the sax, I'm saying his primary instrument is his voice. Pleas review the instrument guideline here, Infobox musical artist

- FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

FlightTime Phone, I can understand that. However, Bowie was way more than just a singer. In fact, most live performances he made from 67–73 he played guitar as well as sing. Sure he was never no Hendrix, but I personally think it's unfair to not say he was known for guitar. In fact, he sang and played an instrument on every single one of his albums (besides Let's Dance and Tonight) – and the majority of the time that instrument was guitar. On Low and "Heroes" he played much more, but still.
I mean yeah, you can say that people only saw him live for singing only, in fact most live performances in the latter half of his career he did only sing. But overall, to me it's very unfair to say he was only known for singing. Imo it's similar to someone like Taylor Swift. She has guitar in her infobox (which she played across most live performances from 06–12), but nowadays she most of the time sings only live, with the occasional guitar or piano brought out. Counteract this with her actual records, where her past few she's only credited with songwriting and singing. By this standard, guitar by itself should be included in the infobox. I'd be fine with the rest of the items not there, but guitar should 100% be there. – zmbro (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zmbro: First you say sax should be there, now you say guitar. We'll see what this discussion brings or you can try a get the guideline of the template changed.
P.S. Whats on other pages has nothing to do with this discussion, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

- FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This argument is kind of silly IMO. Bowie played guitar and saxophone on nearly all of his albums (except Let's Dance and Tonight) and keyboards on all but his first few. Would someone go see Jackson Browne to hear him sing or play guitar? What about John Lennon? I don't think anyone would take "guitar" out of their infoboxes. Harmonica, on the other hand, was an occasional secondary instrument that probably doesn't deserve inclusion. PerhapsXarb (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
James Perone, The Words and Music of David Bowie, page 32: "Throughout his career, Bowie has been known primarily for his compositions and for his voice. Fans can hear his saxophone playing on many of his post-1960s albums, and Bowie's work as a pianist, synthesizer player and programmer, and occasional harmonica player typically come more to the fore than does his guitar playing." He then states Ziggy Stardust highlights his acoustic guitar playing very well. Thought that was an interesting tidbit to add here. – zmbro (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

why need to remove instruments?

Hey. I noticed that you removed instruments from David Bowie's infobox. Why? But he played so many instruments and you removed it? Now people are gonna be confused if they saw Bowie play an instrument and they go to Wikipedia and guess what? Just vocals are listed. I know the main instruments are listed in the infobox. But in his Ziggy years, he was mainly using the acoustic guitar. So guitar should be listed in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:5581:41E0:DD40:7969:C182:FE54 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the thread directly above this one? I don't see why readers would be "confused". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Hey all. I wanted to let anyone here know that I started a discussion over at Talk:David Bowie discography that I'd appreciate any input or feedback on. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

Is it necessary or helpful to include various biographers speculations on what David Bowie's sexuality probably actually was, or what his tally of women to men suggests? This isn't some historical figure that died in Ancient Greece, he was on record as recently as 2002 talking about his bisexuality. Having a preference in either direction doesn't make someone straight, nor does getting married or having children; I'm not saying he was any particular orientation, just that there's enough there to talk about without David Buckley's thoughts on the matter . Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Davy Jones

In the "1962–1967: Early career to debut album" section, we have this; "Dissatisfied with Davy (and Davie) Jones, which in the mid-1960s invited confusion with Davy Jones of the Monkees, he took on the stage name David Bowie...".

I know this is stated in several books but it has always struck me as a apocryphal. Bowie's first single under his stage name was "Can't Help Thinking About Me", issued 14 January 1966. The Monkees formed that year and their first release, "Last Train to Clarksville", was in August. In 1965, Davy had issued one single as David Jones that had very minor chart success in the US, but he was unknown in the UK. Surely there was no known possibility for confusion in the UK in January 1966? Humbledaisy (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be clearer if we had a definite date, or at least the year, when he took the name? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
He changed his name on September 15,16, 1965. Both Buckley and Trynka state it. He recorded "You've got a habit of leaving" in August and "Can't help" in December, which was his first release under that name (I recently expanded that article). – zmbro (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well that's a useful fact that could be added anyway? Maybe we could also mention the single by name. Martinevans123 (talk)
I recently added mention of "can't help" in the section as I was surprised it wasn't already there (before that it presented a half-baked summary). I can also add the specific date he changed his name if that is what we'd prefer. – zmbro (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well it would obviously better ground any discussion about the claims over the Monkee's Davy Jones (whether that appears in the article or not). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Davy Jones of the Monkees was a known TV and stage actor in both Britain and the US - nominated for a Tony award - and recording artist - with a Billboard chart entry in August 1965 - well before the Monkees themselves were formed. It's highly likely that, in the showbiz circles in which he operated, Jones/Bowie knew of him before September 1965, and then decided to change his name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, of course. He was born in Openshaw.... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote for the "can't help" article: "By 1965, David Bowie, who was still performing as Davie Jones at the time, had released a string of singles with numerous bands that failed to garner commercial success. As such, EMI dropped him from the label. His new manager, Ralph Horton, contacted publicist Kenneth Pitt for financial backing and an established partner. At the suggestion of Pitt, Jones changed his name to Bowie on 16 September 1965 to distinguish himself from the lead singer of the Monkees.[1][2][3]" Davy Jones' first charted in August 1965, the same time Bowie (as Davie Jones) released "You've Got a Habit of Leaving". Because that was a flop and Jones' single was a Billboard hit, Kenneth Pitt suggested a name change, leading Bowie to start working as "Bowie". – zmbro (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be more correct to say "...to distinguish himself from the singer and actor Davy Jones who later became one of the Monkees...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Good point. – zmbro (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
While we're on this discussion, should we be referring to him as "Jones" in the article up until he changed his name to Bowie? I think this has been brought up before but since the discussion is already underway... – zmbro (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

Grammar mistake: David Robert Jones OAL (8 January 1947 – 10 January 2016)***,**** known professionally as David Bowie (/ˈboʊi/ BOH-ee),

There should be no comma after introduction 2A02:1810:363D:6700:45F8:1CAD:1288:B630 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That's not a mistake, that's standard punctuation for a subordinate clause. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Symposiums.

have added major academic Symposiums sections. Any thoughts?IsabelsPicnic (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Calvin Mark Lee

Calvin Mark Lee, an American record executive who helped Bowie get his first recording contract, has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Damn. Sad seeing so many involved with him over the years die in recent years. RIP. I'd start with converting the French text. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I have drafted the French version fr:Calvin Mark Lee, feel free. Does anybody have a reliable source about his death (except Twitter & Facebook)? JohnNewton8 (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Speculation on Bowie's sexuality against his self-identification

Doesn't seem correct to me that an encyclopedia article should contain obvious (and malevolent) speculation about a person's sexual identity, especially when it contradicts with the said person's self-identification. (Bowie was bisexual and he confirms it for example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxIBftflGvg ) David Buckley can hardly be seen as a reliable source for such information, and the Sandford "source" is all 3rd hand information (read: gossip) anyways.

From the article, as it is now:

Buckley wrote that Bowie "mined sexual intrigue for its ability to shock",[394] and was probably "never gay, nor even consistently actively bisexual", instead experimenting "out of a sense of curiosity and a genuine allegiance with the 'transgressional'."[395] Sandford said, according to Mary Finnigan—with whom Bowie had an affair in 1969—Bowie and his first wife Angie "created their bisexual fantasy".[396] He wrote that Bowie "made a positive fetish of repeating the quip that he and his wife had met while 'fucking the same bloke' ... Gay sex was always an anecdotal and laughing matter. That Bowie's actual tastes swung the other way is clear from even a partial tally of his affairs with women."[396]

I am not a competent Wikipedia editor and don't really know how to handle this. Otherwise I would go and edit the article myself, as I am quite certain this must be against some guidelines. Please advice or help and improve the article, thanks. 176.72.42.220 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not saying in its own "editorial voice" that these things are "true"; it is saying that David Buckley presented them as opinions and interpretations, and Wikipedia is clearly presenting them as quotes.
Perhaps, since he is cited fairly heavily, we should find out and make clearer who Buckley is (beyond being the author of a 1999 (rev 2005) biography of Bowie as the citations reveal) – he is not obviously either David Buckley or David Joss Buckley (though he might be either).
You say that he "can hardly be seen as a reliable source for such information" – what is your justification for this claim. Did Bowie publicly refute assertions in the book in the 10-15 years available to him to do so? And have others published contrary assertions? If such contrary material exists, we can and should add and cite it to provide balance. By all means bring us links to, or bibliographical details of, pieces published in reliable sources that counter Buckley's assessments, but we will not remove well-cited material from an apparently reliable source solely on the unsupported opinion of an anonymous internet user (which both you and I are). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.43 (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
While so much might be correct that Bowie enjoyed the shock value of sexual ambiguity in the 70s, and he did indeed repeat the mentioned anecdote, none of this means he was "never gay" or "[never] actively bisexual". The point is, Bowie clearly and publicly self-identified first as gay and later as bisexual. (Also, he said his own announcement of being straight, instead of gay or bi, in the 80s, was because "America is a very puritanical place, and I think it stood in the way of so much I wanted to do"). As long as David Buckley didn't follow Bowie everywhere at all times to witness his private activities, on what basis is Buckley (or anybody else) an "apparently reliable source" on this matter? Is a Wikipedia article really supposed to be a collection of other people's "assessments", "opinions and interpretations" about the subject's private life or the validity of their identity? 86.114.205.198 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is most definitely about other people's "assessments, opinions and interpretations" about a notable subjects life when other people means reliable sources. This is why it was requested that there be justification to exclude Buckley as a reliable source to which there has been no reply. We do not normally include how a subject views themselves if that is what is claimed makes them notable, however, in this instance that is not the case. Removing what Buckley stated would be removal of reliably sourced information as far as we know. Since Bowie's self-identification is mentioned in the same section I don't see the need to add or take away anything. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
So: Wikipedia is supposed to refer to reliable sources. Some Wikipedia editor referred to David Buckley's book. Therefore Buckley's book is a source so reliable that I should not ask for the justification for the use of the particular reference in this particular situation? Anybody familiar with Buckley's writing knows it is not only rich with factual information (and therefore a legit source in many situations) but also his own opinions (as in this case). What makes them more worthy of mentioning here than the opinions of other people? Because he wrote them into his book?
I really don't think yellow press level content or opinions should have any place here, but there are also plenty of other sources, both online and printed (including books), describing Bowie's non-straight liaisons and some of them come directly from the men who he was allegedly involved with. They are being completely ignored. For example Lindsay Kemp used to speak openly about his affair with Bowie. Also Buckley acknowledges this affair, yet - unlike Buckley's opinion about Bowie being "not gay" - I don't see it mentioned anywhere in this article. Instead, the views of a short-term girlfriend from the 1960's (Finnigan as quoted by Sandford) are worthy of referring to.
Also, the statement from Christopher Sandford that "Bowie's actual tastes swung the other way is clear from even a partial tally of his affairs with women" is nothing short of bi-phobic. Bowie's relationships with women do not make him "not bisexual" or his gay liaisons nonexistent.
Now, ARoseWolf or somebody else wiser than me, would please in turn explain to me what is it that DOES make David Buckley's book a "reliably sourced information" in this topic. Who or what makes a reliable source of information concerning another person's sexuality anyways? If you'd be so kind and help me understand what makes Buckley, Sandford, and Finnigan's ideas and opinions, more so than others', worth documenting in an encyclopedia when it comes to Bowie's sexual orientation. Please. 86.114.205.198 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been neglecting this convo up til this point but I'll finally give my two cents. Over the past two years, I accumulated dozens of Bowie books (Buckley's included) as means to expand his work across this site. In that time, I have done some work on his main article which, although it is an FA, I feel does not justify it in some areas, particularly the sexuality area. I will say this, the article's over-reliance on Sandford is a problem, as Nicholas Pegg in his book dismisses Sandford as having baseless opinions and tons of factual inaccuracies.
I own both Marc Spitz and Paul Trynka's bios that I know touch on the sexuality area, the latter I even though touches base on his relationship with the young dancer after Glass Spider and the separate supposed "rape" allegation. I can do some investigation into adding their thoughts into the section as having more opinions I think has more benefit than not. In regards to having only Buckley and Sandford here, I believe the editor who originally brought this to FA status only had those two available; it's not a case of "they're the only two that matter" but more or less "they were the only ones available at the time" and no one else since has bothered to add more input. (I mean, I certainly haven't, because it's not an area I like reading about). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If those "other people" wrote a book and had it published and it received reviews then chances are it would be considered reliable. You would then be able to add that to the article with attribution. The comments are attributed to Buckley because they may be controversial but are pertinent to the subjects life. Wikipedia is not saying that the statements are true. Wikipedia does not necessarily deal in truths or untruths and no reader should just take what Wikipedia says as absolute truth as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Readers should look at the sources and verify them themselves. Every reader then has to decide what they believe or not. Wikipedia only says what reliable sources say about a subject. Every editor strives to get things right but if reliable sources are wrong then Wikipedia will potentially be wrong. That is why we make every attempt to add as many positions on a subject as we can. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
With a very quick googling I found a list of some 50+ published Bowie biography books by as many authors. (I'm NOT saying they all are worthwhile or that they all contain information on this particular aspect of Bowie's life. Just pointing out it's not like there is a shortage of sources these days anymore, if "published and reviewed" is a criteria for a book to be seen as a reliable source.) On top of this, of course, there are biography books that mainly tell about other people but also mention Bowie. (Such as the Christopher Andersen book that documents Bowie and Mick Jagger's relationship in quite a length and detail - not only quoting Angie, as is done in this article.)
The young dancer you mentioned is Melissa Hurley, who Bowie didn't only date but they were openly and publicly engaged, as for example published in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/05/13/personalities/49a4f9ca-3bce-4f41-8975-7e4935cb7dc6/ . Nothing about this in the article, either. While I do think for example Bowie's early relationship to Hermione Farthingale is notable enough to mention here, they were not engaged, unlike he was to Hurley. 86.114.205.198 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
also nothing in the article about Romy Haag, their relationship and/or her influence on his performance 188.238.91.121 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Is it Bow as in cow or Bow as in snow? I don't understand the pronunciation guide on the page 109.154.16.247 (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The latter – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Click on the links in the pronunciation elements ("(/ˈboʊi/ BOH-ee") to view an explanation of each of them. General Ization Talk 04:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In 1999 Bowie claimed not to know anymore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiK7s_0tGsg (from the beginning but especially 2:17-19) but see https://www.englishspeechservices.com/pronunciation/bowie/ which includes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDd5Ps4YqPQ&t=5s from 1975. Mcljlm (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Bowie’s bibliography

Might be worth noting Bowie’s literary endeavors, such as the memoir “Moonage Daydream: The Life and Times of Ziggy Stardust”, the short story “The Diary of Nathan Adler", the forward to Iman’s “I Am Iman”, ect. Plus the unfinished Thin White Duke autobiography and “Bowie: Object” book. 76.78.241.239 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I honestly agree. I'll do some investigation. Thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Added a section. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Bowie also wrote for the Modern Painters magazine: https://www.bowiewonderworld.com/art/modernp.htm 188.238.159.84 (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE CORRECT ("Tibet House")

Spirituality and religion Over the years, Bowie made numerous references to religions and to his evolving spirituality. Beginning in 1967 from the influence of his brother, he became interested in Buddhism and considered becoming a Buddhist monk. After a few months' study at Tibet House in London, he was told by a Lama, "You don't want to be Buddhist. ... You should follow music." By 1975, Bowie admitted, "I felt totally, absolutely alone. And I probably was alone because I pretty much had abandoned God." In his will, Bowie stipulated that he be cremated and his ashes scattered in Bali "in accordance with the Buddhist rituals".

This section has wrong information. Tibet House didn't exist then. Chime Rinpoche appears to have correct information, and this is David's "Lama" (not "a Lama") which could be information integrated into this paragraph. It should read "study at Tibetan Buddhist Centre of London" probably. Please correct (page is locked) 209.204.39.62 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the section (including adding who is monk was as that's notable), but the Tibet House you have linked refers to one in India and not London (in fact, one in London isn't actually mentioned on that page). Since you say "probably", do you have a specific source that says it should be labeled as the "Tibetan Buddhist Centre of London"; as through the books I have none of them give a specific location for where he studied. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The confusion is David did a concert benefit for Tibet House, and I think I saw the article online that seems to suggest this. For one that pages isn't for "India" but for all sites, which are listed, and it's a cultural museum and not a Buddhism center, which I think the article explains. Anyway, Chime Rinpoche says he worked at that place in London, not Tibet House, and unless they're on the same location/building in London it doesn't make sense to conflate them, and seems safer to use the name for it when David was involved with it. That's all I can add further. 209.204.39.62 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. What's the source you have for the location Chime Rinpoche said he worked at? I just wanna make sure we have all the correct info. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

I would like to edit this page Philipf12345 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible article regarding personal relationships

Given how many people over the years have posted about the Lori Maddox situation, I'm considering creating an article on Bowie's personal relationships similar to Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. There' certainly enough info to warrant it. Maybe there we actually present info about the Maddox situation. Also, the current article makes no mention of other things like Bowie briefly dating Susan Sarandon in 1983 nor Melissa Hurley after Glass Spider, or even his relationship with longtime assistant Coco Schwab. If anyone following this page has any objections I think I can get started on that after I finish work on "Let's Dance". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Great idea, fully supported! 87Fan (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Update Started working on the article (there's without a doubt enough material for one). The Maddox situation however I think will be tough to discuss given the circumstances are totally WP:UNDUE and I'm concerned I won't be able to have neutral wording. I'll still try my best though. It's just tough when several bios don't mention her at all and all you have to go off of are random websites. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Glastonbury

"On 25 June 2000, Bowie made his second appearance at the Glastonbury Festival in England, playing 30 years after his first." Where has "30 years" some from? Certainly not from the source. He first preformed in 1971. So that's 29 years. And if his first appearance is notable, why is it not mentioned in its own right? 86.187.174.71 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

BowieNet

I recently created an article for BowieNet. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Better Picture possible?

This is just but I'm just wondering if a better picture can be used for his infobox. The current picture only shows part of his face and is honestly pretty low quality. So can anything better be used? Unless people don't want a different picture then the picture can stay. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been brought up quite a few times but I've personally never had an issue with the current one. I've never understood people's obsessions with wanting infobox pictures show entire faces but that's just me. The problem with Bowie is there's so little good photos of him that are free to use that it's hard to determine which one is best. For example, I checked Commons today and there's dozens of photos around 74–75 like during the Soul tour, but that was when he was deep into cocaine he looked like a stick, then you have him as Halloween Jack but the infobox pic shouldn't be him with an eyepatch... The one currently in use on List of songs recorded by David Bowie I think is pretty decent but for an infobox pic idk. That's some of my thoughts. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally think the current image is more suitable. The picture at List of songs recorded by David Bowie has quite intense, dark lighting as opposed to the well-lit 2002 shot. I’m happy with the current choice personally but I think the shot of Bowie in Chile in the Tin Machine part of this article might be a decent candidate if a change is coming. Humbledaisy (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather it not be that one as that one is honestly worse in terms of seeing the whole face (but if we're going for an arm shot that'll do it) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Categorization

David needs to be added to the 'English lyricists' category. Vladislaus5 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

He was much more than that. "Singer-songwriter" applies better. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Multi instrumentalist

I think "multi-instrumentalist" should be added to the opening paragraph with "musician" added to the infobox because of his ability to play at least 4 instruments. GTAGamer245 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I will say I agree with you on the point that "musician" should be added to the infobox (his playing on Low could be single-handedly used as basis), but "multi-instrumentalist" I don't think there's too strong of grounds. It's fine leaving "musician" out of the opening sentence as it's mentioned in the second sentence though. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Due weight

@Zmbro: would you be kind enough as to summarize your concerns about the content you've challenged? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zmbro: What do you think about moving it under legacy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: The tone and weight of what you are trying to add are completely out of line with the facts. He was accused twice of rape, both unsubstantiated (the first, found under legal review, the second, posthumously accused by an accuser whose story isn't possible by other corroborated events, oh and she's changed her own story several times, too). Perhaps if you changed the wording / tone / implication to something like "Bowie has been unfairly accused of rape twice in his career" instead of "Bowie was a rapist, here are two examples" you might have more luck. 87Fan (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm open to any changes or edits for wording / tone / implication you would like to propose but "Bowie was a rapist, here are two examples" is a made up quote. We clearly say allegations. Also note that for due weight concerns it doesn't actually matter that the allegations were substantiated or not, all that matters is that the allegations were covered. What source says that the accusations were unfair? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Popcornfud for the edits. I have some more additions I want to make once I have access to my materials. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Affairs?

@Zmbro: a bit confused by the language in the bit you just added, I can't access the sources but the language is a bit confusing to contemporary ears because if the marriage was open then the extramarital relationships weren't affairs and if they were affairs then the marriage wasn't open. Do they explicitly say affair? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the sources say affairs. Their marriage was honestly not really a marriage. According to Paul Trynka, they exchanged "wedding wristbands" rather than rings during their ceremony, and David's was stolen by a fan during the last days of the Ziggy tour, to which David said that was symbolic: "our marriage was pretty much over in all but name". It could be one author's bias but through my research David had actual relationships with Foxe and Cherry, while Angie apparently didn't like the attention her husband was getting and had affairs which the ones I mentioned to "get back" at him. I originally wrote it as "David had relationships" and "Angie had affairs" but I felt that wasn't neutral so I labeled both of them affairs. Long story short it's complicated. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If both parties agree the relationship is open, which both did repeatedly, I think the additional source is not accurate or reliable in using the word "affairs" and we should stick with the wording in the more reliable sources. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If the source explicitly says affairs I have no objection, still don't think its the best term but I'm open to any term used by the sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Politics

In one of the statements it says Bowie was a nazi sympathiser and admired Hitler which is completely false. Please remove the section saying this, Bowie did everything he could to help minorities and was very much against Hitlers disgusting actions. Lordladybug (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read the entire section. He made statements supporting fascism and called Hitler the "first rock star" while under the influence of cocaine (very importantly) and retracted the comments a year later when he was sane. I personally think the section makes it clear that he was not a nazi sympathizer but I can reread it and made some adjustments if need be. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s important to acknowledge what he said, but also acknowledge how deeply he regretted his statements and did everything in his power to fight for minorities including jewish people, as the article states. He obviously wasn’t a nazi sympathizer. 2600:1700:1AB1:C600:19A3:5986:9685:41C1 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
It was shocking when he did it, and Bowie's bizarre, racist statements at that time not only lost him friends but had cultural impact - they're cited as one of the reasons Rock Against Racism formed. Though it was brief, people remember and it should not be disappeared. What is equally notable is how he shifted to an anti-racist and anti-facist position, and advocated for Black artists. We have included text about this change, and how he was ashamed and saw those youthful statements as dreadful mistakes. I'm not sure many people in the public eye have changed so much, and spoken about it. If you think we should highlight his regret more, please suggest some ways to do that. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

See also

@Zmbro: what is inappropriate about putting Lori Mattix in the see also section? This article will eventually need to at least mention her in order to be nearer completion, there doesn't appear to be a single full length biography of Bowie which doesn't cover her so we don't really have the option to exclude coverage completely if this article is going to remain a featured article, as it currently it doesn't meet the qualifications. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Because it's not. You wouldn't be able to explain that in a short and simple manner per MOS:SEEALSO, and per that again, items in "see also"s should be someone related to the subject at hand (ex. fajitas being a type of taco).
2. there doesn't appear to be a single full length biography of Bowie which doesn't cover her. That's just plain wrong. David Buckley, Nicholas Pegg, Chris O'Leary, Kevin Cann, Marc Spitz, James Perone, Roger Griffin, literally none of them mention Mattix. Please do your research before making such a ridiculous claim, especially after I said which the only ones that do yesterday.
3. You actually think this article doesn't meet the FA criteria just because of not mentioning Mattix? Per criteria 1b, in what way is her supposed relation a "major fact or detail" from his life? There's literally no way to confirm it: (1) the main subject is dead; (2) the subject making the claim has changed her story several times; (3) she made the claim after he died, why wait?. For the past two years, I've done my best to improve the article's sourcing and content to actually represent criteria 1b (aka discussing actual confirmed major events and details) to better match the FA standard of WP today. The fact you believe that not mentioning her on this article would warrant a demotion from featured status is ridiculous.
4. As I and others have tried to explain to you over the past few days (and you don't seem to understand yourself), Mattix can never be included on this page because (1) all of her accusations have been claims that contradict what both she and others have said over the past 50 years (2) in order to get that point across, you would need to explain all of that and (3) explaining all of that in this article is just implausible (even according to you). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason to put Mattix in See Also, or in this article. I feel sorry for her, but her story simply is not credible - too many others who were there contradict it, and she has contradicted herself too many times. This has all been gone over, and over, and over again. Her various accounts are covered in her article, which is more than sufficient. We don't put every person who has something to say about Bowie in his article or in See also. This is an attempted end-run around your losing an edit-war and refusing to listen to policy or consensus. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
There is content about Bowie at Lori Mattix which isn't here. The multiple allegations of rape are 100% a major fact or detail of his life... Hence the WP:RS discussing their impact on his legacy. I get it, you hate Lori Mattix and think she's a despicable liar out to slander one the greatest people to ever live... But shes a living person, you need to follow BLP. That is not negotiable and if you think that I'm going to let this sort of gatekeeping drop I'm not going to, if it continues we will be at ANI and I will be asking for topic bans. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Go for it then. These past few days I have not been letting bias get in the way of the discussion. Whether I hate Mattix or not, and whether I'm a Bowie superfan or not, I, and several others, have been trying to explain to you reasons why including Mattix here is not justifiable, due to her inconsistent story and timeline issues that would require a lot more talk than we need. Most of this is already covered in Mattix's own article anyways. I'm more annoyed at the fact that you won't just drop it. You didn't even add the initial edit so I don't know why you're so obsessed with getting her on this page, when I and several others have tried to reason with you on why it's not fallible.
You also haven't once tried to explain, in your opinion, the best way to go about this dispute on the page itself, only that she needs to be on the page in some form. Why? On top of that, the only edits you've ever made to this article have been in the past three days, yet Mattix has been brought up numerous times ever since the Thrillist interview was published. Why weren't you in any of the previous discussions? Why the sudden obsession? Just drop it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I dislike gatekeeping I think its one of the most problematic of behaviors on the encyclopedia, I wasn't in any of the previous discussions because I have little interest in the topic per say... its the censorship and whitewashing which I just can't tolerate. I don't care whether the topic is China-Taiwan, Poland and the Holocaust, or David Bowie I don't like it and when I see it I challenge it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There's no censorship going on here. The content relating to Mattix is present, just elsewhere on Wikipedia. That concept is fully compliant and even recommended by policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
And the reason for not including the two Nichols cases is what exactly? Is that present on Wikipedia? And if the content relating to Mattix is present, just elsewhere on Wikipedia why do we link to it nowhere on the page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the merits of including content on Nichols, I would kindly suggest and request that it happens in a separate discussion thread, so that we're not conflating multiple issues. Up until this comment, the entire discussion in this section has been about Mattix, in no small part because of your inclusion and later removal of her name in the see also section. It's hard enough to keep track of this conversation as is, without changing tack halfway through it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You made a claim about censorship, if you do not now want to discuss censorship then do not say it doesn't exist because you're going to be presented with evidence of it. There is arguably a very serious WP:OWN issue here, one which I hope can be solved without having to resort to ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You made a claim about censorship No, that was you when you said I wasn't in any of the previous discussions because I have little interest in the topic per say... its the censorship and whitewashing which I just can't tolerate. I remarked that this wasn't a case of censorship, because the content that was relevant to this discussion section on Mattix, is already present in another article elsewhere on wiki.
Again though, if you wish to discuss the merits of inclusion of content relating to Nichols, I would please request that you do so in another section. As I said before, it's hard enough to keep track of this conversation as is without changing topic halfway through it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The censorship/whitewashing is about alleged rape writ large, Mattix would only appear to be a part of it. If you want to just cover the immediate topic at hand I will repeat: if the content relating to Mattix is present, just elsewhere on Wikipedia why do we link to it nowhere on the page? Generally when more information about a topic can be found at another page which isn't linked in the article it goes in the see also section, why is this topic different? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
why do we link to Mattix nowhere on the page? With respect to the see also section, I defer to CorbieVreccan's reply above where they have already directed you to the relevant guideline. As for elsewhere in the page, I defer back to my comments at NPOVN about being unable to adequately summarise this in sufficient detail while also remaining compliant with NPOV/WEIGHT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree here with CorbieVreccan and zmbro. Including content about Mattix in this article is I think out of scope of this article. As I said at NPOVN, to include Mattix' allegations, we would need to summarise every variation of it she has told. There seems to be at least four different, and at times mutually exclusive variations of how Mattix and Bowie allegedly had their first sexual encounter. In order to include it here in a manner that is policy compliant, we would wind up giving undue weight to this, as it would be proportionally longer than any of the biographies on Bowie expend on this content. Including it in Mattix' article seems like it would be due, but even there significant care would need to be given with respect to both the multiple variations of this encounter from Mattix, as well as the commentary from Mattix' groupie peers who dispute it by the virtue of having their own version of the events.
I'm reminded of the WP:VNOT policy here, while everything must be verifiable to be included in an article, not everything that is verifiable must be included in an article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Would you be amenable to a stand-alone page about the various allegations? We appear to have enough sources to pass GNG by a wide margin. Or perhaps two stand alone pages one for Mattix and one for Nichols? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Would you be amenable to a stand-alone page about the various allegations? I will have to give that some thought. My immediate thought is that such an article would be a very careful balancing act, lest it stray into WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:ATTACK territory, and that alone may preclude creating it.
I don't think two articles though is the right way to go. A stand alone page for Mattix' allegations against Bowie would largely be a WP:POVFORK of content that is already present, if poorly presented, in Mattix' article. Nichols on the other hand does not appear to be notable public figure. She may also still be alive, and unless she's confirmed deceased, aspects of BLP would certainly apply here. If there is to be an article, which to be clear I don't yet have an opinion on if there should, it would have to be titled/scoped along the lines of Rape allegations against David Bowie. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Mattix's allegations are better covered in detail on her page with only a brief summary here. Poking around there appears to be some interesting coverage of the civil case's impact on the public perception of AIDS as thats what the case centered on. Agree on general scope, if we do anything we should be absolutely clear that these are just allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Started a separate section for Nichols below. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Melissa Hurley

Since there's a lot of traffic here lately I'm wondering what the best way to discuss Bowie's relationship with Glass Spider dancer Melissa Hurley, whom he dated from 1987 to 1990 (she was 22 and he was 40). With the way personal life is laid out it's hard because after divorcing Angie he multiple flings (Susan Sarandon?) and Hurley was a pretty major one (three years and engaged at one point). But she's not "family" so it's hard to say. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should cover it and agree that its hard to fit into the current format. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Spitballing here, but perhaps instead of "early relationships" we just have "other relationships" under "family"? Would go against chronological order, but the personal life section as it is doesn't seem to be following that (except this for some odd reason). That to me would be a good course of action, as the relationships with Ava Cherry and such are now covered under "family" (although we could rearrange and move those too). I would like to get a photo of Angie in the article too. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No problem with mentioning Hurley - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Should Wanda Nichols be added?

In my honest opinion I believe Nichols should be on this page, as it was a significant enough event in Bowie's life that received a decent amount of coverage, both in books and on the web. In this instance we have an event that, according to David Buckley, did actually affect his public image for a short time, which certainly has grounds for inclusion. Nichols herself does not appear notable enough for her own page, and having a separate page titled "Rape allegations against David Bowie" is just silly considering there has been only two. I think the best course of action would be to formulate the info here before we post to the main page. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

One question would be where to add it. Overall I believe the preference is not to have stand alone sections for controversies but to weave them into the biography however that appears hard to do here because the career sections is divided into different categories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Show us the sources you plan to use. That might help. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The multiple UPI sources here and here, plus Buckley, Trynka, and Leigh are good starts. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
She's already mentioned in the article for the Glass Spider Tour, which is the right article since it happened during that time. Not sure how to fold it into this article without giving it undue weight. 87Fan (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You're going to have to figure out a way, not having it is giving it undue weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Someone making a public accusation about a celebrity, without proof or corroboration, happens all the time, and not including those kinds of things in the article about that celebrity isn't giving it undue weight. 87Fan (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thats not how due weight works, due weight is based on coverage it doesn't actually matter what's being covered. It matters how much the public accusation gets covered, it doesn't matter at all whether there is proof or corroboration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree with 87 - Ridiculous. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
If you ask me not having Melissa Hurley is more detrimental than Nichols, but that's a conversation already brought up above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
And one where I've supported you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As 87 Fan says, it's covered well in the Glass Spider Tour page. It's succinct and non-sensational. And yes, lawsuits against celebrities, that are thrown out, are frequent occurences. It would be undue weight to go into them more than that. This user is obsessed with Bowie. There are so many celebrities who have actually been credibly accused and even convicted and this user shows no interest in those articles. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you're getting confused, there is no lawsuit that gets thrown out in regards to Nichols. I don't believe I've made significant Bowie related edits before this, my edit history does not present as obsessive over Bowie. Not sure the same can be said for all here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I actually wasn't aware Nichols was already mention in the Glass Spider article. Since that's the case there's no need to repeat it here, as it makes more sense in the context of that article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Tangent about Nichols and the other two men

So, this is done and I don't want to discuss it anymore, but one thing I find curious: I was just searching for sources about Frampton and the crew member and nothing is coming up. I find it interesting that there's coverage of her charges against Bowie, but it seems everyone forgets Nichols also told police Peter Frampton and one of the crew were in on the alleged assault. That's one of the reasons it was thrown out. She told an elaborate story about the three of them gang-assaulting her. But there was a party full of witnesses who confirmed that they were not with them, not her. Nope, I don't have sources we can use for this. I recall seeing something in print about the three of them being at the next tour stop when they found out about Nichols going to the police, and that they promptly flew back to turn themselves in. But I don't think it's worth adding, even at the tour page, since there's not sufficient coverage. Best leave it. But... yeah. Interesting how this has gone. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I had never really read any details about the suit itself, other than when it was filed and when it was thrown out. The only reason I thought it worth including in the Spider Tour article was that Bowie's Pepsi commercial was pulled off the air due to the lawsuit. I hadn't heard Frampton was also named. 87Fan (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Allegations and Debunked Accusations

I think it's disgusting they'd put his allegations on this page with so little evidence to back up the claims. It is disturbing for his family and those who actually respect his legacy. Someguy53386383884 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The following allegations against David Bowie of sexual misconduct have been long debunked, and it should be considered a violation it’s even included in the article as they were proven false. Here is a well researched and well sourced thread, debunking both Lori and Sable’s claims: https://twitter.com/hstylesisjagger/status/1083967075473854464?s=46&t=42e_4GHLbt3JItE2iH3Tog Liyahvsps (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Compressing section as it's the same topic. I just did some cleanup on the section, but I would have no problem removing it completely. I don't think we need the MeToo and "what the seventies were like" tangents, either. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, please do remove it. The information regarding the accusations are completely false, and could count as a defamation of his character. David Bowie deserves to be remembered in an accurate and respectful manner. 2600:1700:1AB1:C600:19A3:5986:9685:41C1 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
That's why I've and 87Fan have said for years any time someone brings it up. All they are are claims that defame him. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Which has what bearing in terms of our coverage of them? We cover defamatory claims the exact same way we cover non-defamatory claims. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Removing the accounts of contemporaries who contradict Mattix's accounts is inappropriate as it goes to credibility. Right now you're the only one who is arguing for keeping the section at all. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
What does attacking the credibility of a living person have to do with this? Thats not our place as wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Mattix should have thought about that before she told a handful of different versions of the story. If she honestly can't remember, and she may well not remember clearly, I really do have compassion for her. She was most definitely raped, battered, and imprisoned by Jimmy Page. I think that after Bowie died she decided to monster him to take the heat off Page. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I could understand not remembering well, and even mixing up certain places, however, saying you had a lengthy dinner with John Lennon and Yoko Ono in March 1973 when it’s confirmed Bowie didn’t even meet John Lennon until September 1974 is rather imaginative, Lori also claimed to have met Bowie at the rainbow bar during the Ziggy era, when at that point, Bowie was frequenting jazz clubs, not the sunset strip. Liyahvsps (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
And you would have a BLP to back up your claim that a living person did this for those reasons? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
There’s a ton of articles on when Bowie met Lennon, I heard from a couple of people who knew him during I assumed from an Iheartradio show that he frequented Jazz clubs, so when I find it’ I’ll definitely get back to you, here’s the article regarding Lennon meeting Bowie with Tony Visconti as witness:
https://www.nme.com/news/music/david-bowie-was-terrified-of-meeting-john-lennon-for-the-first-time-2852261 Liyahvsps (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I know you're new here but WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is prohibited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
From WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.. Evaluating the validity of sources is one of the prime uses of article talk pages. This routinely involves discussing whether a source is contradicted by evidence from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something nobody has questioned the reliability/validity of any of the sources. Mattix is not used as a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Well as I stated previously, there are many articles that discuss it that perhaps you can look into. I do feel for Lori as she was definitely a victim of Jimmy Page, however the claims concerning Bowie are exceedingly faulty, and to not be trusted. Liyahvsps (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The question is not what do you feel, the question is what have reliable sources published. If the answer is that there aren't any reliable sources which say that "the claims concerning Bowie are exceedingly faulty, and to not be trusted" you guys are going to hit a wall the minute you try to get consensus for this anywhere but here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Since I’m new here, explain to me what would be the most appropriate source, perhaps a book written by an author? There is a series of well cited and well sourced threads linked here providing more evidence regarding the false bowie accusations. Liyahvsps (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
You contradict your own point, especially with this edit. How are we supposed to be neutral and "maintain consensus" when you remove things that help do those things. In order to be neutral about this topic, all of that extra stuff needs to be said in order to prove she's contradicted herself and the accounts of others. Saying "she claimed this" and that be the end of it just brings undue weight. The point is there will never be consensus on WP when it comes to this because there never will be irl. So that's why we don't include it. Period. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
How is coverage of other events written in the 1980s and 1990s relevant to a discussion about allegations made in 2016? How can sources from before something happened include views on what happened? BTW thats not how neutrality works, what you're describing is actually a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is the "false balance" is the only way to explain why Mattix's allegations are false. Because simply saying "she claimed this" and "these claims make Bowie's legacy controversial" cannot work, as that defames him and is completely not neutral. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
If "false balance" is the only way to explain why Mattix's allegations are false then we shouldn't be describing Mattix's allegations as false. That is exactly how neutrality works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This section should be removed. The accusations have been proven to be false long ago, and it's just an act of vandalism and disrespect towards David Bowie's legacy to include them. These should be removed as quickly as possible. Here is the proof they were proven false: https://twitter.com/hstylesisjagger/status/1083967075473854464?s=46&t=42e_4GHLbt3JItE2iH3Tog you can find many other sources on the internet to prove it. Please remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiraix07 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding these false accusations are just disrespectful and they should be removed immediately. Lordladybug (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
These allegations are a part of his history and should be documented. You’re coming across as someone refusing to hear any critique on Bowie, regardless of pertinence. I believe survivors and refuse to let the cult of celebrity skew my morality. A Twitter thread isn’t proof of anything. Cattell91 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This convo is already done and set in stone. And "survivors"? Wth are you talking about? It's literally one woman with an inconsistent story. And this woman was also an underage groupie who supposedly gave consent, meaning it's only rape on a technicality. So you have no idea what you're talking about and are clearly miseducated on the matter. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This conversation is still open and doesn't currently have a clear consensus. I wasn't aware that someone underage could consent... I thought that was the whole point of an age of consent, do you have a source for that? Please educate me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that the entire section was only added yesterday by a new account. And has been contested since the addition. There needs to be consensus to add something this controversial. So, per talk and per the edit history, I am removing it until there is a solid consensus to add it. I strongly advise editors to read the sources here and in Lori Mattix. And anyone who wants to defend Lori's honour should probably take it to Jimmy Page, where her age is given as older than she was and it's called a "relationship". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I was edit warring to begin with. The entire thing was added by a new account and as a main heading without any discussion, to which I said to see the talk page history, which one person didn't seem to understand. So thank you. I knew this would attract bad press (three people created WP accounts just to comment here. That says something.) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
And of course its just a coincidence that the "one person" is the only one who isn't a die hard David Bowie fan and the only one without any COI at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
So being a fan automatically means you have a conflict of interest and you don't intend to be neutral or preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia's content? Very uncool thing to assume. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, fans tend to have a hard time with neutrality. Thats basically a truism, of course they do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: who exactly is trying to "defend Lori's honour"? We don't defend and we don't attack, we summarize what is published in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not a die hard Bowie fan, but am on a campaign to remove false or unsubstantiated allegations and debunked accusations wherever I find them. Right now I am also trying to get them removed from Joe Biden's article. Such false claims tell us nothing about the person being falsely accused, but they tell us a lot about the person doing the accusing. THAT'S where such allegations belong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: which would be fine and dandy if we had even a single source which called these allegations "false or unsubstantiated allegations and debunked accusations." You can't say they're false claims without a source and none of the sources so presented say that. None of the sources say these were false accusations, note that at least one of the people who made the allegations is still living so WP:BLP applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
However, the sources provided do present factual contrarieties and chronological inconsistencies within Lori’s claims. 2600:1700:1AB1:C600:19A3:5986:9685:41C1 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Until the allegations are proven, and are therefore no longer allegations, they don't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a living person, there is no such standard... WP:NPOV actually explicitly says otherwise "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Saying nothing is not engaging in a dispute. Nor is it influencing anything. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This situation will never be resolved, nor will it ever have adequately reliability sourced information to create balance, henceforth we should never include it. It doesn't matter if there are zero reliable sources that explicitly state these are false allegations. For things like this you have to have both sides of the equation to be neutral and balanced. As it stands that will never happen. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't "create" balance thats not how it works, you don't need "both sides of the equation to be neutral and balanced" see WP:NPOV. Thats how it works on every other page on wikipedia, why should this one be any different? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
This comment by Horse Eye's Back on the NPOV thread pretty much sums up what we're dealing with here:
"Why does it matter from an NPOV perspective whether we can trust Mattix or not?"diff
That is shocking, and reveals what we have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is A tendentious, disruptive editor, a WP:POVPUSHer who has an agenda that is not based on the truth. This user wants to smear this bio subject, and does not care if the the charges are true. I don't think anyone here "hates" Lori Mattix. But by her own words, and the words and photos of her contemporaries, she's not a reliable witness. But that doesn't matter to this user's agenda. This user has no consensus to continue this. This is well past the point of absurdity. It's been going in circles since it started. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
We publish that which has been previously published by reliable sources, we explicitly do not publish the "truth." See Wikipedia:Verifiability "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[a] If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering. Mattix, as the source all publications are relying on, is neither WP:RS nor WP:V As I said there, and others, including another admin, have agreed, you are forum shopping and need to drop this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You have not done so as Admins you have done so as involved editors. Your opinion counts for exactly the same as any other editor. Note that "A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book), The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Mattix isn't any of those three. She is not a source as wikipedia understands a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is done, but for the record, Horse Eye's Back is not being accurate in his statement above about "involved editors". The comments made to HEB at NPOVNB, that he's forum-shopping and being inappropriate, are from David Fuchs,diff,diff who has not edited this article. Unless HEB had some undisclosed conflict with him in the past, Fuchs is an uninvolved admin. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs commented on the content dispute, that makes them involved. If they wanted to address my behavior as an admin and not give me a friendly warning as a fellow editor they would have. I'm also in general informed that WP:forum-shopping requires "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages" I raised it on just one talk page and just one dispute resolution noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I will just leave my response as your understanding of INVOLVED is flawed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It may be flawed and you are welcome to point out on your talk page (not mine) why its flawed. For the purposes of the discussion here all that matters is that you are involved. When you offer "my 2p" on a content dispute you become involved in it... "I think the answer to the question asked is yes, it's sound editorial judgement to exclude the alleged rape based on the preponderance of sources and the coverage therein." can't be cut any other way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s important that the information in this article remain as it was. I may even go as far as to suggest that a separate article is created on the topic too. You can’t delete entire sections because you don’t like it.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

This photo is flattering and clear, and taken closer to his prime.

I know people have discussed the lead image before, but I think this (right) would be a better picture for the infobox. I'll admit I'm not an expert on the whole public domain/licensing thing but I found this already in Wikimedia Commons and it says it's public domain so I assume it's fair game. The current picture shows his face from the side and is from 2002, which is long after his peak of fame. The picture I'm suggesting shows his face more fully and clearly, and is from 1983, when he was still in his prime but had recovered from his cocaine addiction. As far as I can see, the only advantages the current picture has over this one is being in colour and having Bowie ‘facing’ the article. Thoughts? RubeusIgnis (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. It's certainly one of the better ones I've seen of him (on this site at least). If we could make sure it's 100% in the public domain I would not be opposed. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I had a look into it and it seems to be in the public domain. GTAGamer245 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
And the reason for not using a more informing color photograph would be what? Our job isn't to pick a picture that looks good we're supposed to pick a picture that shows what the subject looks like. For subjects where a color photograph is available that means using a color photo. Are you under the impression that we're supposes to pick flattering pictures or that we prefer pictures from someone's physical "prime"? Thats a new one, have you ever seen someone else argue that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
During my time on WP I've found it's become somewhat of an unspoken rule; use a contemporary photo of the individual while they're alive and when they pass use a photo that "in their prime", whatever that means. Awhile ago there was a rather unflattering image of Paul McCartney in his infobox and someone made the comment that it should be a photo from 1964 as that was "in his prime".
With Bowie's 2002 picture, apparently people have had issues that his whole face isn't shown, for whatever reason (same thing over at Talk:Kanye West oddly). I've never agreed with the "in their prime" bs, I say just use a flattering picture rather than a horrendous one (cough cough George Harrison). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
That person apparently failed to achieve consensus, that "rather unflattering image" is the one currently in his infobox. What is the policy or guideline basis for choosing a flattering picture over a more representative one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Idk if there's a policy or guideline, but imo it's all opinionated. If you look through the archives of this article you'd see there's been discussions about the infobox picture before and every one has (again imo) been more unflattering than the 2002 image. It seems the best course of action here might be to revert back to the 2002 image and open an Rfc on the matter. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Its all a matter of opinion, but the promotional of a subject (such as writing from a flattering angle or picking flattering pictures) is forbidden. This is why I was so surprised to see you so openly use the language. If you don't have a policy or guideline based reason maybe stop doing it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Stop doing what? What are you talking about? What language? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Stop promoting the subject (for example suggesting we use flattering rather than representative pictures). That is antithetical to the purpose of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
How the fuck am I doing that? All I'm doing here is trying to have a civil conversation about the current infobox picture and you start accusing (which you seem to love to do). If all you're going do is be difficult and insult then just get lost. Sorry I just want an important musical artist to have a good representing picture on an internet encyclopedia. I didn't realize that means I'm promoting the subject. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Horse Eye's Back: Drop the stick or do I have to add to WP:NPA again. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could point out the personal attack, I'm sure you're aware that placing templates without any actual reason to do so is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
A picture can either be representative or it can be flattering, those are mutually exclusive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I preferred the previous image, not only because it was in colour but because it's a more neutral image of Bowie. The 80s shot is strongly tied to one era, which I don't think the 2002 shot really was, and I think that's important when it comes to someone known for being successful with various different looks. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I know this page doesn't get much traffic but perhaps we should open an Rfc to try to get more consensus on this. Because I agree I think the 2002 image is more neutral. I don't get why his face being slightly sideways is such a dealbreaker. Something like Roy Bittan is a problem but that one isn't. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we could find a good color photo from the 2000s that shows his whole face (as opposed to just one side)? That could be the best of both worlds. 2600:4040:2655:500:31A9:3440:697B:6233 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why having an image in color is inherently better. There are other biographical articles with black-and-white images in the infobox, even when color images of the subject are available. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
You don't see how an image in color conveys more information to the viewer than an image in black-and-white? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Welsh heritage

If he's of partly Welsh heritage, why isn't that basic information mentioned even briefly in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ceremony on Bali

David Bowie's ashes were used in a Balinese ceremony Ngaben. It is NOT a Buddhist tradition/religious act. Ngaben is a Hindu funeral ritual performed only in Bali... Bali is a Hindu island, not Buddhist. 84.242.76.202 (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The source only mentions the scattering of his ashes in a Buddhist ceremony, and does not mention Ngaben. I believe the wikilink to "Ngaben" needs to be removed. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Fixed – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

David Bowie was not 69 when he died, he was 54 (maybe 55). This should be corrected. 125.237.34.180 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Golem08 (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Blatant troll – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Lori Mattix again

We reached consensus here on talk that the Lori Mattix allegations belong in her article. Yet now the same user who attempted the POV push here, is over there attempting to remove all content that questions the veracity of her conflicting statements:[1] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Twin Peaks role worth a mention in the lead?

Is Bowie's role as Phillip Jeffries in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me notable enough to mention in the lead? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Apologies for the delay. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Typo in a quote

This quote/sentence has a typo:

He mostly chose projects with arthouse directors that he felt were outside the Hollywood mainstream, commenting in 2000: "One cameo for Scorsese to me brings so much more satisfaction that, say, a James Bond."

THAT in the last phrase should be THAN. Mistyake (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

really poor research across the board

I have a very serious doubt, why in Bowie's article says that it received nine platinums in the United Kingdom? It has many more, I don't understand why someone has done such poor research with an artist of Bowie's caliber, and on top of that it cannot be edited, on the official BPI website there are up to 31 platinums, 47 golds and 57 silvers , and these certifications began after his best moment, that is, after Aladdin Sane. There is really a lack of information in all fields, this article is terrible, it makes me sad that an artist of Bowie's level has such a poor article and so full of misinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.251.23.136 (talk) 08:43, December 1, 2023 (UTC)

You very welcome to fix the issue. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
In general, Bowie's career is terribly poorly documented on Wikipedia, it saddens me, it is not that difficult to search through forums dedicated to Bowie, where there is a lot of information. 85.251.23.136 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Then fix it. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@FlightTime: the article is semi-protected, so the IP editor can't directly fix it.
Sorry, didn't realize that, but this will help, see {{Edit semi-protected}}. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
IP editor, could you give a link to some sources that support the changes you wish to see made? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This IP has been blocked twice now for edit warring and being distruptive. 90% of their Bowie-related edits are them adding chart-related content that are always unsourced or sourced unreliably. Now, they've decided to shit on all Bowie-related content across the encyclopedia because it doesn't agree with their claim. Frankly, I'm offended, given I've devoted countless hours of writing, reading, and researching expanding Bowie's articles over the past 2&1/2 years. If the IP wanted to be constructive, they'd provide reliable sources supporting their claims instead of disregarding everything due to one possible error. But here we are. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Internet forums and scuttlebutt are not acceptable sources of information. Remsense留 20:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See also section

@Ian Rose: what is your objection to the see also section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: this edit summary "you made these edits without any discussion. Wait until actual discussion has occurred or I'm reporting you."[2] confuses me because this talk page discussion was already open and in general its the removal of the challenged content that waits for the end of the discussion... Which I will add you didn't open or join, despite apparently being strongly opposed (to the point of threatening reporting) to making edits without waiting until actual discussion has occurred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This should be treated in prose as is being discussed. It's an ugly non-sequitur as formulated, and it frankly seems a WP:POINTy inclusion—what context does it serve the reader? None. Remsense诉 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The see also section isn't non-sequitur... It serves the same purpose see also always serves: to point the reader to places where more information about topic of the page is discussed. What purpose is served by excluding valid see also links? If you don't want it in the see also put it in the article as prose! The place to put stuff waiting to be put into prose? Yes... You guessed it, a see also section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
But it seems that the topic of the discussed See also articles is quite different from the Bowie bio. If related and often discussed in sources about him, these links should be in the text. If not, then it looks strange to add a link to MeToo without any explanation. Artem.G (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the sources we David Bowie is one of the primary figures in the MeToo movement such as "Who’s bad? From Michael Jackson to David Bowie, why are some stars uncancellable?" [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
One source from 2024, even though MeToo happened in late 2017-2019. How does that constitute a "main" figure? And on top of that, the reevaluation of Michael Jackson's legacy mainly came after Leaving Neverland in 2019 and had nothing to do with MeToo. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Who said that was the only source? The MeToo movement is ongoing, it did not end in 2019. The given source puts it in the context of the movement "So how has this happened? How come some artists seem impervious to the supposed huge shifts in public opinion in the wake of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter? David Bowie is a striking example. Claims after his death by Lori Mattix and Dana Gillespie that he had had sex with them when they were under the age of consent (15 and 14, respectively) have largely been ignored, dismissed or at least treated completely differently to other male stars similarly accused." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
What discussion are you talking about? Before yesterday there was only one discussion about a random Guardian article you had with 87Fan early last month where there was absolutely no consensus reached on anything (only an extension of the convos from last year you refuse to close). Then you added the see also edits unprovoked. So there was no "open discussion". You're entirely in the wrong here and edit warring until you get your way once again. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
To add, I didn't say anything last month because I felt I already said everything I needed to say last year yet since you're making controversial edits without reason so now I feel obligated to join in. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have given reasons, these should not be controversial edits (note that so far nobody has actually made a policy or guideline based argument against inclusion, nobody actually seems to object on actual grounds other than that they don't like it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The guideline says that most well written articles do NOT include a see also section because the links have been worked into the article. In this case, I would not include the links in a see also section. This seems to be a well written article, why would we want to degrade it? --Malerooster (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Malerooster HEB is determined to have something related to Lori Maddox's accusations against Bowie in the article even though there isn't an easy way to do that basically it's more than a simple 'he did or did not do it'. It's all laid out in the archives for this page which you may or not be aware of. I'm still on vacation so I'll be fully invested in this upon my return home. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm determined to have something related to MeToo because its due and NPOV... The topic isn't really covered without it (it would not for example currently pass a FA re-evaluation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You won't stop until you get your way, yet you yourself have made it abundantly clear over the past year that you have no idea how to add the information in a neutral way. In case you don't remember, you tried adding Mattix under a see also last year and also faced pushback here even after a bunch of discussion had already occurred. You trying to do it again this year is just being disruptive. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
So you're saying that the information can be added in a neutral way? Because below you're saying that you don't know how to add the information in a neutral way "because it is much more than a simple "did or did not do it"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
You tell me. Is it? I and the other ten editors who have contributed to these discussions over the past year have all been in agreement that there is no neutral way to add it. So if there is a way to you, how? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
So you're saying that its abundantly clear that you have no idea how to add the information in a neutral way? A number of editors have supported inclusion, it isn't 1 vs 11... At the least I think we can do is note that there is a controversy (if it can't be done for size reasons then on wikipedia we make a child page... Not exclude it, I've never encountered that suggestion in any other context on Wikipedia). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Name me three other editors who have supported inclusion. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That wasn't the claim... You said that besides for me not a single editor had supported inclusion. I would also note that given the changing circumstances you now appear to support partial inclusion (or at least that is my understanding from the new section below this one) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Where would you work them in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I would not include them in the article right now. If you present some reliable sources that make the case for inclusion, post them here and have a discussion. --Malerooster (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There are many, MANY, holes in Mattix's story. You can check out this Medium article for more insight. This is why Mattix is not in the article, because it is much more than a simple "did or did not do it". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The piece in the Guardian also mentions a Dana Gillespie as do these additional pieces [4][5][6]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware. I started a new discussion on her below. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This discussion, it was opened before your revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

New piece in the guardian

"Who’s bad? From Michael Jackson to David Bowie, why are some stars uncancellable?" [7]. Presumably we should add something to legacy and influence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another Bowie related article from the Guardian, this one an interview[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding something like this would give it WP:UNDUE weight, without a lot more context. I think what may be appropriate, is to include this info in a fair, balanced and complete article about bands and artists in the 60s and 70s, groupie culture, and changing societal norms. I'm not sure if that exists, but you're welcome to write it. But, you'll notice that not every new article published about anything is included in the Bowie wikipedia entry just because his name is on it. 87Fan (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding something like which part? There are two articles here which cover different topics. Our current article doesn't appear to mention cancel culture and its impacts (or lack thereof) on Bowie's legacy, in order to be NPOV we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
That interview with hairdresser Suzy Ronson is quite interesting. Schwarzkopf Red Hot! Who knew! You know what they say.... "if you can remember the perm lotion, you weren't in the salon..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. almost certainly also belongs at Mick Ronson, where she's not even mentioned?
Mentioned but only in the personal life section "Ronson was married in Bearsville, New York State, in March 1977, to Suzanne (Suzi) Fussey, a hairdresser, who worked for David Bowie at the same time that Ronson did." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @87Fan: now that you have had time to think about it what would be your preferred addition to the article? In terms of thoughts on the general contextualizing of Bowie's legacy this book review might help[9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I will add my insight to this thread once I return from my vacation in a few days. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    My thoughts on this Guardian article:
    • The author does not seem to be coming from a neutral point of view; he seems to call out Bowie specifically – that alone makes this article not useful for inclusion.
    • He brings up a quote about Bowie from Claire Dederer's book Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma, which itself got a bad review from the same publication, calling the book "so thin, so ill-researched and, frequently, so crude".
    • I agree with the critic Jesse Crispin's opinion lambasting Dederer's book and questioning Mattix's accusations: "When that accusation came up, there was not consensus, there was a lot of discomfort."
    • This article is about why some artists have been "cancelled" more than others. I somewhat agree with the statement by Crispin that "anyone who built up a loyal following before the advent of social media is ultimately immune from it". Bowie's influence was massive long before social media and after he died everyone acknowledged that.
    • Regarding this specific article, it does not warrant mentioning because to me because I do not find it neutral. Bowie was not a rapist who drugged underage girls like Steven Tyler or Roman Polanski. Bowie's two (count em two) encounters with underage girls (when Bowie himself wasn't even that much older mind you) are simply a footnote on the larger-than-life legacy Bowie left. People like Claire Dederer need to realize that.
    – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    There is no requirement that the source be neutral or that the author comes from a neutral point of view, what do you mean "it does not warrant mentioning because to me because I do not find it neutral"? Note that NPOV (which you linked) says almost the opposite of what you do... "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." but you're saying that you don't want to include a published significant view because that view isn't neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    In what way would you incorporate this article then? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would summarize the significant views in it and add them to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    How? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm thinking maybe three sentences in legacy and influence? One sentence noting that Bowie has not for the most part been cancelled and why some want him to be, one sentence which summarizes with Dederer's view, and one sentence which summarizes Crispin's view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why would Dederer and Crispin deserve their personal views to be included in an encyclopedia though? Don't these individual assume guilt (without proof or even conviction) and then speculate why others do not accept they are guilty or just don't care? I don't see how that is part of Bowie's legacy. Wiki should be a platform for presumption of guilt? The authors don't even seem to contemplate that Bowie and Jackson were not cancelled because a lot of people just don't find the accusers credible. castorbailey (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Neither of those individuals do that. If you have a reliable source for that contemplation we can include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    " In her book Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma, Claire Dederer writes about the specific pull Bowie had on young minds: “David Bowie was the patron saint of weird kids … For kids like me, there was a sense of ownership; Bowie was ours." "This intense connection meant that many overlooked the accusations." But for Dederer, it made them cut deeper. Other famous bands might have slept with teenage girls, she writes, “but not our guy”. She clearly is speculating that people overlooked the accusations (and the supposed reasons why) instead of just not believing the accusations. That's presumption of guilt. Likewise, Crispin, does not bring up the possibility that people simply don't cancel Bowie because they don't believe the accuser. I don't see why the personal opinion of individuals who presume guilt should be on wiki at all. The article as a whole lumps together convicts with people who were merely accused by dubious parties. castorbailey (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    What policy or guideline would you use to justify your position on source reliability and/or due weight? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't put any thought into how we could integrate this source (if at all) but I just want to echo Horse Eye's Back here about the neutrality of sources. We can't disregard reliable secondary sources just because we suspect the authors are biased, that's not how Wikipedia works and it would be dangerous to start doing that... it would mean anyone with a POV to push could simply disregard any source they didn't agree with on the grounds of them being biased etc. Popcornfud (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Tyler and Polanski are different because they're living people therefore the BLP policy applies. Thats apples and oranges. I would also ask you to describe in detail how an adult has sex with a child without it being rape, take your time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Dana Gillespie

Although we are very unsure of Lori Mattix, one thing that I would be fine with putting in the article is Bowie's underage relationship with singer Dana Gillespie. It is documented (Kevin Cann, Dylan Jones, Gillespie's own memoir, and various online articles (for one), that the two met before Bowie was famous in 1964 (when he was 17 and Gillespie was 14) and began a relationship after (it is heavily implied that it was sexual: she witnessed Davie Jones and the Manish Boys attempting to play them – their music made little impact on her, although the singer's androgynous appearance did. After the set finished he approached Gillespie and requested she take him home: "I don't need to tell you what went on that night, but we were very young.") There are also quite a few photos of Bowie with Gillespie (including one on WP) where there are none with Bowie and Mattix. 87Fan Ian Rose Would either of you have any objections on adding this? It would go under 'other relationships'. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Feels like it would be appropriate to be added since it's well-corroborated. The Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom article doesn't make it clear if their ages were an issue at the time (the laws were changed in the 70s) 87Fan (talk) (edited a typo)
I support this inclusion, with the note that anything we write up here we can also use at Dana Gillespie which while it has one of the pictures you were talking about doesn't say that they were in a relationship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bowie/Archive_8&oldid=1237219301"