Jump to content

Talk:Elton John/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Song of the year Grammy nominations

Call me crazy, but weren't both circle of life and can you feel the love tonight nominated for song of the year in 1995, but beaten out by Streets of Philadelphia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You're Crazy (with a capital C). But you're also right: Grammy Award for Song of the Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

He did NOT act in Kingsman - please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.81.56.81 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Net worth

fourth richest musician in Britain and Irland (2015)
4 - Sir Elton John - £270m

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/sunday-times-rich-list-who-9126070

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

The Namaste Lounge is in Northwood, Middlesex and NOT Watford which is in Hertfordshire. The full address of The Namaste Lounge is 66, Joel St, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 1LL Excav8tor (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam Sailor Talk! 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

2010-present minor error

"In October 2015, it was announced Elton John would release his thirty-third studio album, Wonderful Crazy Night, on 5 February 2016...", I believe it's his thirty-second studio album, not thirty third, unless im missing something

 Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/20100715143032/http://www.eltonjohn.com:80/about/bio.jsp https://web.archive.org/20080209035244/http://abclocal.go.com:80/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=4498224

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/20140421051407/http://www.brits.co.uk/britstv/1991-best-british-male-elton-john - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Costumes

Would it be possible to add a section, albeit small about Elton's wardrobe choices? Throughout his career from glam rock to a toned down but still tailor-made present, his dress choices have always been extraordinary. His donations of all concert clothing after wearing it once, for auction to charities would also belong in that section. I can get photos (my personal specialty on the wikipedia(s)) of more examples showing his flair and variety if needed.. leave that request on my talk page if need exists. Just an idea..

In addition, might I suggest there be a couple of music clips showing his versatility, and perhaps the vocal change after surgery? I recall an interview I read some years back where he mentioned an improvement in the keys he could reach because of that. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Occupation

The list of Elton's occupations has undergone an odyssey of modifications over the years (in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, as well as in the infobox). Here is a partial history of edits (edits to the first sentence only; infobox edits not tracked):

  • For a considerable time up until 26 April 2011:
    • an English singer-songwriter, composer and pianist.
  • As of 03:38, 26 April 2011‎ (Tableclothes):
    • an English singer, composer and pianist.
  • As of 20:52, 18 August 2011‎ (Yoda956):
    • an English singer, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
  • As of 13:53, 26 August 2011‎ (Lastfame):
    • an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
  • As of 13:49, 22 October 2011‎ (Lastfame):
    • an English rock singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
  • As of 10:03, 17 September 2013‎ (MJ1982):
    • an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
  • As of 00:47, 8 December 2013‎ (Batman194):
    • an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist, record producer, and occasional actor.
  • As of 05:36, 20 August 2014‎ (Binksternet):
    • an English singer, songwriter, composer, pianist, record producer, and occasional actor.
  • As of 14:55, 28 June 2015‎ (SilkTork):
    • an English songwriter and singer, who accompanies himself on the piano.
  • As of 23:08, 25 August 2015‎ (Zabboo):
    • an English composer and singer, who accompanies himself on the piano.
  • As of 20:06, 15 November 2015‎ (HLachman (me)):
    • an English singer-songwriter, composer and pianist.
  • As of 07:43, 13 February 2016‎ (HughMorris15):
    • an English singer, songwriter, and composer.
  • As of 05:05, 31 March 2016‎ (Zabboo):
    • an English singer and composer.

So, what shall we put in as Elton's occupation? And can we stop thrashing it about?

Let's start with WP:V (Verifiability) which is a Wikipedia core content policy. It emphasizes that Wikipedia content should reflect what reliable sources have to say, not what the editors believe is true. Here are some sources that may be worth looking at (along with some quotes from those sources):

Using the information from the above sources as a guide, and also considering the example of the Billy Joel page (which apparently is not undergoing such thrashing, so, please, don't go changing it...), I'm editing the occupation information to appear as follows (and I'm not too concerned about "singer-songwriter" vs. "singer, songwriter", since we see it both ways in the various sources, and the Eric Clapton page uses the other way, but let's try this):

  • in the first sentence:
    • an English pianist, singer-songwriter and composer.
  • in the infobox:
    • Musician • singer-songwriter • composer

If anyone disagrees with this edit or feels it needs to change again, please discuss your proposal and reasons here, along with references to appropriate reliable sources. Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not equipped with resources currently, but just by looking at the writing credits on Elton's work it's clear to see that he's not a regular "songwriter," he's just a composer. In his early days, he may have written the lyrics to a few songs, but he's almost always purely a composer. Singer-songwriters usually write both music and lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabboo (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not primarily known as a "pianist", I mean, musician resumes that elton plays some instrument, even his official website describes him as a musician, also the Infobox. In a nutshell, "pianist" in the first paragraph when it were his primary occupation and if he were known professionally as a PIANIST as Sergei Rachmaninoff, Arturo Benedetti, etc, etc. Ajax1995 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

But you can't deny that the piano is the only instrument he plays? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Totally right, but Elton is a mainstream artist, and i think this term in the first paragraph belongs to "professional pianists" you know, I´m talking about classical performers of this marvelous instrument, and I think the infobox explains with the "piano rock" genre, that he is an excelent piano player, you know all that excelent songs performed live by him "Don't let the sun go down on Me" for instance with George Michael at Live Aid or the live version released in late 1991. Ajax1995 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Although he did like to dabble with his organ occasionally, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Elton John was "The Man" in the seventies, and he made many things that pushed the boundaries in mainstream music. How many later famous performers were "Elton John wannabes"?
Well, this guy, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

National Enquirer 9 April 2016

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Inclusion would breach WP:BLP. Strong consensus at WP:BLPN & WP:RSN that National Enquirer is not reliable for claims about living persons. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's no information that I can find online, but according to various users on Twitter, the cover story of today's National Enquirer makes a pretty serious accusation. Is it a hoax? If not, it's very odd that there's no reference to it in the British media ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I need say that the National Enquirer is a million miles from a reliable source. And Wikipedia is not a tabloid or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we know why there isn't a reference to it in the UK media. However, even if the material in the National Enquirer is true, it is not something that the Wikipedia article needs to be shouting from the rooftops. This is classic tabloid scandal mongering and it would take more than a supermarket tabloid to establish notability. See also WP:BLPSOURCES.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Superinjunction

I am not a hardcore Wikipedia editor, so I defer to others. However, when (Redacted). There are stories all over the British press about unnamed celebrities obtaining injunctions to prevent English and Welsh papers from publishing the details. Is Wikipedia subject to such injunctions? I doubt it. Huckfinne (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Huckfinne, Please review our policies on including information about living persons WP:BLP and verifiability WP:V, original research WP:NOR and reliable sourcing WP:RS. I have redacted the unsourced claim in your comment above, under WP:BLP; if you wish to discuss it, please provide reliable sources which make that claim. Feel free to contact me at my Talk page if you have any questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It is a superinjunction if its existence cannot be mentioned at all, such as Trafigura. Recently the British tabloids have been in a tizzy over a "celebrity" who has claimed that his right to privacy has been violated. It is possible to report the existence of this injunction which led to a gagging order on the press, but not to say who the celebrity is. Wikimedia content is hosted under United States law and is not forced to comply with gagging orders of this kind. In 2011, Wikipedia eventually broke the CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd injunction because the person involved had been reliably named in the foreign media. In this latest incident, the real problem is WP:BLP. Even if all of it has actually happened, it is not suitable for the article on the basis of supermarket tabloid sourcing. The sourcing is also not strong enough to say which "celebrity" has obtained the injunction in the UK courts, so it should not be added to the article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Surely mentioned a super injunction at all on the talkpage of Elton John is giving too strong a hint as to the celebrity involved in the super injunction and we are mentioning its existence by saying we can't mention it??--Egghead06 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've asked WP:OVERSIGHT about this and they pointed out that Wikimedia content is hosted under United States law. There is a clear mismatch between the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights over this type of issue. It was inevitable that some people would ask about this on the talk page and WP:OVERSIGHT is unlikely to get out the scrubbing brush and redact edits that have been made in good faith. A superinjunction cannot be mentioned, the current "celebrity" one can. It was inevitable that this would set off guessing games about the person involved. In the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, people on Twitter guessed right about some of the identities of the people involved, and got it wrong about others. Whatever, nothing goes into a Wikipedia article without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out (in case any UK editors are thinking about discussing this), that for editors in the UK, regardless of where information is stored on Wikimedia's servers, UK editors *are* subject to UK court orders, people have been prosecuted successfully for breaking them in the past on social media/forums etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, so be careful if you are in the UK (but perhaps not Scotland).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I've created an article for PJS v News Group Newspapers here. I've not named anyone as I don't wish to be engaged in any legal action. Also sometimes these stories turn out to be false. DanielJCooper (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ironically, PJS v News Group Newspapers has now reached WP:GNG which it would never have done without legal action.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps PJS v News Group Newspapers should get some kind of protection to prevent vandalism? DanielJCooper (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
There is now enough reliable coverage from the Scottish, US and Canadian media to name whoever PJS and YMA might be. As far as WP:OVERSIGHT is concerned, only violations of WP:BLP are a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I’ll leave that for someone else. I’m editing from a English location so I think I would be in contempt of court. Personally I find this area of law rather confusing particularly the argument in Spycatcher that Scottish publications can be breach of ‘English’ injunctions?! [2] DanielJCooper (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as Scottish media lawyers are concerned, this type of injunction does not apply in Scotland if an interdict has not been obtained in a Scottish court. The wee Bravehearts already know who PJS and YMA are, but are not allowed to tell the Sassenachs. It is all rather stupid, as Joshua Rozenberg pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Am still a little confused. So, any editor who is editing in Scotland, or anywhere else apart from England and Wales, is legally entitled to name the parties involved in this article, yes? All this about the Wikipedia computer servers being based in USA is just irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I would advise any person in the UK not to name PJS or YMA due to the enthusiasm of Carter-Ruck. This law firm has taken action against "an Irish blogger" who I also seem to be unable to name.[3] It's getting sillier by the minute but lawyers must have their fees.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that there aren't one or two of our friends across the pond who'd like to raise the glorious banner of freedom of the press on this lowly and oppressed singer's article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Instead of Basil Fawlty saying "Don't mention the war!", it is people in Scotland being told "Don't mention the injunction!" The opera isn't over until the fat lady sings. Joshua Rozenberg is neither fat nor a lady, but when he sings the audience listens.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
One might expect a world-wide encyclopedia to furnish one with the facts, mightn't one? But I thought that classic thriller was set in the sewers of Vienna, not Germany?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have some legal and BLP concerns here. According to the High Court, when British readers access a website the content is deemed "published" in the United Kingdom. Cameron Diaz successfully sued the National Enquirer for libel in England and Wales because 279 readers accessed the site. Therefore, I think this section should be redacted as it clearly links Elton John to the injunction. Regarding WP:BLP this section makes unsourced claims and spreads rumours and innuendo about a living person. @Martinevans123: (who I think is based in the UK) has almost certainly breached the injunction above. In 2013 the High Court stated an injunction preventing the publication of supposed images of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson applies worldwide and equally to the internet. This injunction is no different as far as I can see. See also the Funding evil case where an American author lost a legal battle because the plaintiff ordered books to be sent to the UK and then sued there. What is to prevent Carter-Ruck from suing the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales over this section and naming of the plaintiff at the article PJS v News Group Newspapers? AusLondonder (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Joshua Rozenberg is right. None of this would ever have been interesting or important without the injunction. People in various countries now know the identities of the people involved, but people in England and Wales are not allowed to know. Nothing has been learned since the days of Spycatcher.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to heartily thank m'learned friend for that robust confirmation of identity. It was, of course, a complete mystery to me who the judges meant when they said this person had "presented an image of commitment rather than monogamy". Or indeed why Huckfinne should open this thread on this particular Talk Page to start with. I'd also like to thank Mr Wales, in advance, for paying the trillion dollar fine, plus costs, on my behalf. I also admit that, yes, I was the third man - I was just desperate for that signed photo. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If there are legal concerns the talk page of PJS v News Group Newspapers and edit history of the article PJS v News Group Newspapers name an individual and also therefore breach the injunction . It is far too easy for an anon IP to edit at the moment and I would suggest some kind of protection DanielJCooper (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of countries have backwards censorship laws, and lack the freedom of speech that our servers enjoy. We should only be concerned with our own standards of publication and not be concerned with some edict by a foreign country. We hardly respect the Chinese ban on talking about Tiananmen Square, and I don't think we should respect the "amazinginjection" any more.

If you happen to live in such a country then you may want to take such concerns seriously, but the rest of use should carry on with our own standards and follow only the outside laws that actually limit us. The only questions we should be asking is "Is it relevant to the article" and "Can it be verified". I would say the answer to both is yes, even if it is only a short mention. I have seen more than one reliable source and if we attribute the claims to them then we are no committing libel or violating our BLP policy. HighInBC 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If we are interested in the court case as a court case, and not for the tabloid inferences it invites about the intimate details of individuals' private lives, I think the answer to the first question is no. This article's subject apparently submitted a witness statement in the case, but that's all. He was not the claimant.--Trystan (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for telling us where this whole discussion should (or should not) be taking place, possibly, legal matters permitting, as the case may be (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that The Sun is off to court tomorrow (Friday) to try and overturn this. [4] A decision is expected in the afternoon. Personally I suggest waiting till then, and if no-one else is brave enough I may just get out my tor browser kit and add it in myself. assuming oversight haven't got cold feet about it. I would appropriate referencing of course. On the other hand I may not be brave enough. --wintonian talk 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, there will be nothing to stop legal action being taken against the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales. As I stated, according to the High Court, when British readers access a website the content is deemed "published" in the United Kingdom. Cameron Diaz successfully sued the National Enquirer for libel in England and Wales because 279 readers accessed the site. Furthermore, in 2013 the High Court stated an injunction preventing the publication of supposed images of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson applies worldwide and equally to the internet. This injunction is absolutely no different as far as I can see. Lastly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTATABLOID. I would strongly oppose inclusion, at least until covered in depth by quality publications. AusLondonder (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Well yes I would look for them first, but I got the impression from this thread (Scottish and Canadian press were mention I believe) that we had now passed the bar in that respect. --wintonian talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of an after thought but would PJS v News Group Newspapers be subject to WP:BLP. I must admit it's a while since I have read it.--wintonian talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of those mentions are in print, not online. Apart from that, they tend to be in low-quality tabloids or blogs anyway. Tabloids are not acceptable for controversial information on a BLP. Per WP:BLP "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts" AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The case is going back to court today (Friday) with an attempt to get the injunction overturned.[5] Regardless of what happens, I still think it has some WP:BLP and WP:DUE issues at the moment. WP:RECENTISM is also a problem. This needs a few weeks to settle down so that a more long term view can be taken.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
On an unrelated note I'd welcome some help over at List of known legal cases involving super-injunctions if anyone has any expertise. Many anonymised privacy injunctions are incorrectly called super-injunctions. I find cases on anonymised injunctions often end up at AfD on the basis that so little is known about a case they are not notable...it can be a difficult and frustrating area of Wikipedia to work on DanielJCooper (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that "ending up at AfD" is exactly the outcome that the applicants for those injunctions would wish to see, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
PJS v News Group Newspapers already meets WP:GNG because it has set off more hoo-ha than any case of its kind since CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. Interestingly, both cases involve Hugh Tomlinson acting for the Claimant. Quote of the day from Hugh Tomlinson: "I advise my clients that an injunction will not be effective. There have been too many examples of people breaking injunctions, getting round them by releasing material on to the Internet." (Sunday Times, 29 May 2011). Er, yes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify on super-injunctions in general from my above comment: Super-injunctions under English law apply to everyone currently residing in, or are a citizen of England or Wales - they do not cover the entirety of the UK - Scotland and N.Ireland have their own legal codes (while Scotland definately is not covered, I am unsure on N.Ireland but given the devolved legal system, suspect it has the same protection). Scottish people in Scotland can comment freely. Scottish people currently in England cant. English and Welsh citizens cannot comment *wherever they currently reside* as English law (and most other countries including the US) considers itself applicable wherever its citizens go. This is generally difficult to prosecute in individuals however where an English person takes an action overseas that is legel there, but illegal here, and is generally applied to corporations and other organisations. Scottish print news can comment freely - as they are published in Scotland. The same Scottish papers cannot print the same thing online (without protections) due to it being considered 'published' in the UK. See the previously mentioned case regarding Cameron Diaz and the National Enquirer. There are ways to reduce the liability - anyone who has encountered a geographical copyright protection on streamed media will understand the basics of this - a website can implement IP-based blockers to mitigate the 'published in X region' issue. As to how this affects Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not operate any blocking software so anything published here is considered published for the UK laws purposes. The WMF in order to keep itself at arms length from liability as a publisher and its protection under US law, will point to the editors for any problematic content if someone actually decides to throw a lawsuit around. So if there are any UK editors, the WMF will hand over details on request from an appropriate authority. So in short - if you are in England or Wales *stay the hell away from this topic until any alleged superinjunction is lifted.* Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
PJS v News Group Newspapers is technically an "anonymised privacy injunction". Its existence is not a secret and the case is available on the Bailii website.[6] It doesn't give any detail about the identities of the people involved. Super-injunctions in English law explains this. The existence of a devolved parliament and separate legal system in Scotland has made this type of injunction almost worthless from the word go. The Scottish media does not consider itself to be bound by this type of injunction and will tear it up at will (which is precisely what happened with PJS v News Group Newspapers).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm collecting a list of these cases over atList of anonymised privacy injunction cases in English law. It is an alpabet soup and one stub I created for a case has already been deleted. Perhaps Carter Ruck have Wikipedia editors?! DanielJCooper (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You must be crackers. You'll get yourself bard. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please delete.

Oh you did, thanks. "This may make an interesting addition to the one of the 5,131,053 wikipedia articles on Thursday." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit: Since even Rupert Jackson now accepts that anyone who is interested now knows who PJS and YMA are, there is little point in continuing with the pretence that it is a secret. However, I reverted this material on BLP grounds because under normal circumstances a claim sourced to the National Enquirer would not go within a mile of a WP:BLP article. It is only the legal action that has made all of this notable, and the wording in the article should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The Straits Times is reporting it [7].--Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically the injunction is still in force pending a decision by Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. What really matters is how much of this is interesting and relevant for a BLP article. Without the legal action, none of this would have been notable or well sourced enough for a mention per WP:BLPSOURCES. Legal commentators have seen this case as sounding the death knell of the privacy injunction in the UK. This is the lasting source of notability for PJS v News Group Newspapers, not lurid tabloid claims which on their own would have failed BLP guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it appalling that coming to Wikipedia yielded no information about what is an obviously important an on-going civil case of world-wide importance. That one country with backwards censorship laws is able to silence Wikipedia - with the apparent consent of the editors - demeans the organization and vastly harms the quality of the content. Geofferic T•C✡ 20:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As you may have seen in the news yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled on PJS v News Group Newspapers and upheld the injunction by a 4-1 margin, with only Lord Toulson dissenting. Needless to say, the UK tabloids were not very pleased. The judgement in full is here and notes: "Unlike Canute, the courts can take steps to enforce its injunction pending trial." There have also been reports of users on Twitter receiving requests to remove tweets allegedly naming PJS and YMA.[8] This has now turned into Spycatcher Mark 2 because anyone who is remotely interested found out who PJS and YMA are a long time ago. As far as writing for a Wikipedia article is concerned, there are still WP:BLP issues due to the mainly tabloid sourcing naming PJS and YMA. The allegations about whoever it might be would fail WP:BLP due to their lurid nature and no obvious need to mention them. As with previous injunctions, it is only the legal action that has made things more important and notable than they actually are.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess Elton's now reconsiderd that celebrity endorsement for Bertolli. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Is he named "Blanket"?

Hello - I noticed under "Personal", the article is specific to share details of his eldest son and through what "method", but no further mention of the 2nd son. "They have two sons. Their oldest, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born to a surrogate mother on 25 December 2010 in California. He also has ten godchildren..." Seems odd why one son is mentioned, but not the other. Thanks - SP 06.09.16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.236.39 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:BLPNAME. Strictly speaking, it isn't necessary to name either of their two children in the article. His other son, Elijah, is mentioned in the "Watford Football Club" section, but isn't mentioned in the "Personal life" section, which is weird.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok... so, how about modifying "They have two sons". to "They have two sons: Zachary, born in 2010, and Elijah, who followed in 2013". Here's a recent article as a reference. http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2017/02/elton_john_eugene_oregon_tour.html SP 02.28.2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.236.39 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Americans are racists

Can someone find a link to EJ's comment that Americans are racists. It should be part of the article. I love his music but a big part of his life is his political stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Here it is: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-04-28-elton-john-idol_x.htm I'll work on editing the article.Dynasteria (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016


He got the Academy Award nominations in 1994 not 5, the list with awards is wrong

98.114.52.240 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he was nominated in 1994, but the awards section denotes when he actually won the award which would have been in early 1995. Topher385 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The 67th Academy Awards were held on 27 March 1995 and were for films released in 1994, so the article is correct about The Lion King.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

In the bibliography, there is a book written on Elton John, by Jean francois Bouquet, which should be added, ref is here: https://www.amazon.fr/Elton-John-Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois-Bouquet/dp/2723401502. ISBN-10: 2723401502 . The book is called: Elton John, le gentleman musicien TarmoMakinen (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)  Not done there are numerous books about Elton John, we only include the most notable, which would require consensus on this page first - Arjayay (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Elton John the actor

Is Elton John still an actor?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

He has got 13 credits as an actor on IMDb, but is obviously best known as a pop singer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Duo not Pair

Dear All,

Although I am not a native English speaker, I think that "duo" not "pair" is the proper word to describe the Elton-Baupin partnership. Please consider making the necessary changes.

Thank you, --- xchange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.184.154 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree here, as duo in English usually refers to a performing partnership, eg a double act. Elton John and Bernie Taupin did not perform together and they formed a songwriting partnership similar to Gilbert and Sullivan, with John writing the music and Taupin the words in the songs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Wholly agree with ianmacm: "duo" can be synonymous with Duet, and is usually applied to artists who perform as a duo. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean like Elton & France in Donner pour Donner and Les Aveux, the songs writen by Micher Berger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Put on the glasses!

Came here looking for a hint as to whether his glasses hurt his eyesight, was shocked to find nary a mention of glasses at all. How can an article with ten pictures of a man wearing ten pairs of glasses devote not one line to his particular affinity toward the things? Among other accolades, Vogue called his collection the best ever. I don't see a Fashion section and am not the sort to make them, but it's something to consider for someone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This guy gets it! He'd be glad to hear that seven years later, we have one "frame", though it's only a reference author's surname. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How many records sold?

Hi. As the both articles concerning Elton John's discography (singles and albums) state that he sold more than 450 million records (100 mln singles plus more than 350 mln albums) the information given here ("more than 300 mln records") seems to be not precise :-) ~~Maciek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.252.162 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tour statistics?

Any interest in adding tour lists to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric m allen (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Simon Dupree and the Big Sound

Should a sentence about this be added early on in his career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric m allen (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elton John/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


I've got mixed views on Elton. I think "Funeral For A Friend" / "Love Lies Bleeding" is one of my favourite songs of all time, while if I ever hear Candle in the Wind '97 played again I think I might kill someone. Since I've started tinkering with the article, I might as well carry on. I think my initial concern is the sources seem to be a bit of a mix of things, rather than biographies that you really need for articles of this importance. Only Bernardin / Stanton is mined to any great depth. Keith Hayward's biography could also be used for substance. I don't know if this'll be a showstopper for GA, but if you were planning to take this to FAC afterwards; this is essential.

I tend to copyedit as I go and raise issues as and when they arise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead

  • Why do we need three citations to verify his date of birth? It's not particularly contentious, given the publicity some of his birthday parties have had.
    • @Ritchie333: I removed two of the sources about his birthday.
  • "He has more than fifty Top 40 hits" - where is this mentioned in the body?
  • Is ownership of Watford FC important enough to go in the opening paragraph?
    • @Ritchie333: I removed that info from the opening paragraph.

Life and Career

Early life

  • I can't find where all the birth and death dates of Elton's parents are verified. Two sources didn't seem to mention much at all, while the other one mentioned his father's date of birth but nothing else. The citation to Hayward just mentioned "p.2 onwards" which isn't very helpful.
  • "and was raised in a council house by his maternal grandparents, in Pinner" - this information isn't in the next citation along. The next sentence says "when the family moved to a nearby semi-detached house". Was he raised in a council house or a semi-detached house?
  • "His parents married in 1945" - this source isn't very helpful. Surely a biography somewhere has it?
  • "until the age of 17, when he left just prior to his A-Level examinations to pursue a career in the music industry." - this sentence could do with being later on in this section; later paragraphs talk about events as a child aged 7 and 11, so to mention what he did at 17 seems in the wrong place.
  • "tried to steer him toward a more conventional career, such as banking" - the citation to this (Phillip Norman) needs a page number
  • "John has stated that his wild stage costumes and performances were his way of letting go after such a restrictive childhood" - as above, and same issue for next sentence
  • The citations Rosenthal's biography in this section all need page numbers.

Summary

I'm going to pause the review at this point, as this article does not appear to meet criteria 2b of the good article criteria, and there has been no attempt to check any of the article's references in the improvement to GA. All book citations must have page numbers that verify the information, and I have already spotted several claims that doesn't appear to be in the sources given. Please can you address this ASAP or I'm afraid I'll have to quick-fail this :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think you should fail my nomination.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
You really should make a more active effort to check your article before you nominate one like this. Ritchie333, I believe the user is familiar with the GA process, but I wonder if maybe their plan was to fix the issues during nomination period and they are astonished with the rapid review? It would be a forgivable mistake, I've done it before (though it was less severe and it ended up passing). As for you, MagicatthemovieS, you should take special care to make it much closer to matching the GA criteria for an icon like Elton John before you nominate just because of how big an icon he is, as he will draw attention on the backlog and likely pull a review pretty quickly in comparison to others, as is the case here.
"Daniel my brother, you are, older than me..." Love that song, for the record. You can guess why dannymusiceditor oops 03:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Danny, I was expecting to work with @Ritchie333: more before he suggested to end the review. I was also foolish not to clean up the article further before nominating it for GA. I am still very willing to work alongside Ritchie to fix the article's issues.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
I certainly don't mind working with a nominator to get an article towards GA, as I did for Talk:The Rolling Stones/GA1 and Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA3, both of which had referencing / sourcing issues, but I thought I would give them a week to see if they were up to the challenge (which they were). However, in this case, the issue of questionable factual accuracy was just too severe to continue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll close the review for now per the issues above. What I would recommend doing is reading this guide which explains one way of tackling core biographies to get up to GA / FA status. FWIW, I have a long-term plan to get Aretha Franklin to GA, but it will involve reading several biographies first. I'd imagine a similar level of work is required for Elton, even for GA. If there's a LGBT pride week or editathon, that might be a time to get a bunch of people to give this a go (as I did with Graham Chapman some years back). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible Harley Davidson 100th anniversary performance criticism irony

Referencing the first sentence in third paragraph of the Billy Elliot the Musical and 60th birthday (2000–2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elton_John&gettingStartedReturn=true#Billy_Elliot_the_Musical_and_60th_birthday_(2000%E2%80%932009) section of this article, would it be worth mentioning an ironic element, namely that: Contained in the lyrics of one of Elton's biggest hits 'Saturday Night's Alright' is the verse that goes... "A couple of sounds that I really like are the sound of a switchblade and a motorbike"*, which is in opposition to the disappointment of the 'biker' crowd and Elton's own quoted comments to the contrary... "I'd play you a song about motorcycles, but I don't have any." as referenced in the 'further reading article' cited as reference (119)?

--Milkkefir (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference to Elton John receiving piano as a gift

This line -- "Elton John started playing the piano at the age of three after receiving it as a gift,[23]"

If you look at the source text linked in "23" it actually says that elton john learned to play on his grandmother's piano but it is NOT clear if he ever received a piano as a gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.36.170 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

He did receive a piano with wrapping paper as a Christmas gift in the 2018 John Lewis TV commercial,[9] but this probably doesn't count as a reliable source. The NPR cite says otherwise, so the gift part fails verification and should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they need to call the piano tuner in? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is he a really a "Sir"?

Hi, there's a discrepancy here in Wikipedia (he's also addressed as Sir on sites in other languages). The following is quoted from Wikipedia's own site [[10]] "The senior two ranks of Knight or Dame Grand Cross, and Knight or Dame Commander, entitle their members to use the title of Sir for men and Dame for women before their forename" As Commander (CBE) Elton John is one level below (3rd rank), hence, would not qualify for adding the "Sir" (sadly), even so they also use it on his own homepage https://www.eltonjohn.com/elton-john (maybe he has been upgraded to a knight?)

Cheers, DasGrimm (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he was knighted in 1998 and became Sir Elton John.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
He is entitled to be called Sir because he is a Knight Bachelor. Weburbia (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Are such matters still of significance ? Knighthood in general, I wonder ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019

Toronto, Canada "Change from Toronto, Canada to Toronto, Ontario because it is typographically, geographically and politically incorrect." (Srwatkins1956 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)) Srwatkins1956 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Successful songs

Elton John's breakthrough came in 1973 - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (song and LP-Album). He made Candle in the Wind in memory of Marilyn Monroe and again in 1997 for Lady Diana. These two songs can't be avoided , and must be mentioned in the lead. This is not subjective thoughts (as a red user suggested) but pure and proper facts. Boeing720 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: Material on Wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced. It is usually subjective to say "X is most famous for Y" or similar statements. In any case, it is wrong to imply that Elton John's breakthrough came in 1973 with "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" as he was already a well known singer-songwriter by then. By this stage, he had a #1 album with Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player and had a #1 Billboard chart hit with "Crocodile Rock", so he wasn't exactly a nobody in early 1973. Please don't add unsourced personal analysis which is nowhere near "pure and proper facts".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a global perspective. "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" was a huge hit in -73, without it who knows about his successes. He might been known to a few earlier, but again after "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" he became famous in the entire western world. I didn't say he was a nobody before, but plenty of today very little known artists and groups have had #1 Billboard. Worth mentioning, but it was not "Crocodile Rock" that made Elton John world wide famous. Boeing720 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That's completely untrue – not only was it a number one in the US and in Canada, it was a top ten hit in ten other countries across the world, including most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. So he was certainly famous worldwide before Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, his first major hit was "Your Song", which made the top 10 in both the UK and the US, way back in 1970.Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Name not consistent throughout the article

The names "EltonJohn", "John" and "Dwight" are all over the place in the "Early life" and the "Pub pianist to staff songwriter (1962–1969)" section. Should it not be "Dwight" until after the sentence which mentions that he legally changed his name?

Take for example in the "Early life" section, one sentence after the next one:

Both of John's parents were musically inclined, his father having been a trumpet player with the Bob Millar Band, a semi-professional big band that played at military dances.[22] The Dwights were keen record buyers, exposing John to the popular singers and musicians of the day, and John remembers being immediately hooked on rock and roll when his mother brought home records by Elvis Presley and Bill Haley & His Comets in 1956.

I'm sure many people will assume "John's" and Dwights" were two separate families.

Apart from the leading sentence in the first section, I don't think "Elton John" or "John" should be mentioned until the sentence when he changed his name legally.

Thoughts?--JackRussell1962 (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have made an edit and changed the name to "Dwight", unless it refers to something relevant to after his name was changed to Elton John (present tense).--JackRussell1962 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Similar case at another famous John, which I recently tried to tidy up. More eyes would be welcome over there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

His foundation has raised over $450 million. Please change from $200 million to $450 million. Source is from concert last night after his foundation speech and these figures projected on the screen. Iansaron (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this may well be true, but it doesn't have secondary sourcing. Maybe the media will report this. The Billboard article here says that the Elton John AIDS Foundation has raised 450 million euros, approximately £400 million or US $500 million. This figure was given when he was awarded the Legion of Honour in June 2019.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

In the 'Pub pianist to staff songwriter (1962–1969)' section, 'He' is spelled 'Hs' in 'Hs legally changed his name to Elton Hercules John on 7 January 1972.' 76.127.250.243 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bill Donohue mention and quote?

Why is this even in the personal life section? Donohue’s career is about trolling famous people ostensibly to complain how they’re not good as he and devote Catholics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

1960s and 70s work as covers artist

As Reg Dwight he recorded several cover versions that were released in the UK, there was a collection of these issued as: https://www.allmusic.com/album/legendary-covers-as-sung-by-elton-john-mw0000487478 Also mentioned in BBC news article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50003238 Very hard to trace original releases (eg cheap UK hits albums performed by non-original artists). John a s (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

change profile pic to a younger pic from 1984 era in the boating hat and suit. He looks amazing. Thx 2600:1010:B102:E892:C1BD:626:90AB:627A (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Comma

At the end of the article's second paragraph, the musicals that Elton John composed for is listed. I found the lack of an oxford comma in this list to be confusing and because of the protection on the article, I cannot change it. If someone could put a comma after "Aida", I would be thankful. -Trenton Burgess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentonman04 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Trentonman04 How is this confusing? It would be more confusing to include a comma at this point as it could be then read as meaning that the stage adaption of The Lion King is Aida. In contemporary standard British English an Oxford / serial comma should only used to avoid confusion, not to create any. Quizical (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Reference #168, from TRTWorld, is flawed in two ways and ought to be changed to a better source from Reuters. (link to Reuters here -> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-eltonjohn/elton-john-signs-with-universal-for-the-rest-of-his-career-idUSKCN1M121P ).

First, the reference states that the original source is in Turkish, which is untrue. While the website cited is Turkish in origin, to US users the entire webpage is in English. Secondly, the source for the article is stated as "Reuters." I found that the TRTWorld Article is a word for word copy of the original article posted on Reuters (link here - > https://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-eltonjohn/elton-john-signs-with-universal-for-the-rest-of-his-career-idUSKCN1M121P ).

I believe that in order to protect source integrity (for instance, if there is a correction to be made on the Reuters article it likely wouldn't be reflected on the TRTWorld Article) the reference ought to be changed to the original article from Reuters. Further, I believe the source from Reuters is more credibly as the original reporter is disclosed, as well a note to the website's generally high standards of reporting. ThatSuperNerd (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Although there is already also the second source to digitalmusicnews.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns anti Mexican immigrant stance.

He says build bridges not walls for Brexit...but told Arizonans they should block Mexican nationals. I also don't see a reference to his Rush Limbaugh performance..known as embracing the right wing racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:A1A0:C135:2A61:3670:7BC5 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence

"On 16 February 2020, his first show at Mount Smart Stadium in Auckland, New Zealand was cut short as he lost his voice because he was diagnosed with walking pneumonia earlier that day.[181] He was cleared to perform the next show on 19 February.[182]"

When in fact he was originally cleared - but did not perform shows on the 19th February or the 20th February postponing shows to the 15th and 16th January 2021 - making them the last shows on the tour.

Sources:

https://www.ticketmaster.co.nz/elton-john-tickets/artist/735394 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12309727 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409729/elton-john-concert-rescheduled-so-he-can-recover-from-pneumonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.86.195.82 (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elton_John/Archive_3&oldid=1142759718"