Talk:Jason Donovan

Untitled

Uncompleted discography!

Gay libel trial

How exactly did Donovan "lose credibility"? The article does not explain. Dev920 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now been addressed in the article. After Donovan successfully sued The Face magazine for alleging he was gay, it alienated a large portion of his fan base (Donovan had a significant gay fan base in his heydey, as did Kylie who still does to this day). The act of taking action for libel made it appear that he felt being gay was shameful in some way (regardless of whether he was or not) and his gay fans left him in droves, utterly shattering his career. Basically he should have kept his mouth shut and played along with the ambiguity that had allowed him to appeal to a wider market outside of prepubescent girls. The same thing has happened to Robbie Williams in 2006 following his "gay libel" suit, and his record sales have declined significantly (though not as drastically as Donovan's did in the 90's).

Ridiculous Are there any proof to all this? Cause I can not find it in the article. A lot of stars from those days are without a fan base today, this is a common thing, not unusual, not because of anything else than time passing. And, by the way, what's wrong with gay people? I don't care if people think I'm gay or not, but I wouldn't have anthing but respect for someone who would want the truth. So, according to this article, gay people have more respect for a magazine's right to lie than for a lone person's right to get the truth. I'm removing the part I am referring to.

What exactly is so ridiculous here? Unless it had been altered by the time you read it, you have clearly misinterpreted the article as the facts speak for themselves. Like Kylie, Donovan held a certain popularity with gay audiences in the late 80's/early 90's (most PWL/SAW stars did as their danceable pop music was widely played in gay clubs). At the time, the press liked to rib him about it and even went as far as to imply he was gay himself. The press were probably baiting him, but Donovan took umbridge to the suggestion that he might be gay and sued The Face magazine. He won the case, but the fact that he sued in the first place made it seem as if he felt being gay was something to be ashamed of - regardless of whether he was or not. Right up to the year before the lawsuit, he was still having no.1 hits and starring in a successful run of Joseph. Directly after the lawsuit, he couldnt sell a record to save his life. It had nothing to do with shelf life, as Kylie has always managed to maintain her popularity. I agree that The Face had no right to publish such allegations about him without substantial proof, but Donovan went to such extreme lengths to distance himself from the "gay" label, when really he should have just laughed it off and carried on letting his records sell. It made him look somewhat homophobic, and it was this action that pissed off his fans and that's what ended his career.

The article was not implying that there is anything wrong with gay people, in fact it was quite the opposite. It was merely stating that Jason Donovan clearly had a problem with the press suggesting he was gay - regardless of whether he is or not.

You're right. I feel "the lady doth protest too much" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.71 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course he was right to sue them. It wasn't true - end of story. If they claimed he ate burgers for breakfast, and it wasn't true, it would be the same situation. I don't actually recall him volunteering for the position of gay icon, or defender of queers, so he can really say whatever he wants.Sennen goroshi 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of "libel" is that a statement has to be negative/damaging, not simply untrue. Simply stating something that is untrue is not libel under the law. E.g. saying someone had a burger for breakfast would not be libel unless that person was famously a vegetarian/animal rights activist or similar, and that claim could actually damage their career or reputation. So saying being considered gay is libel is understandably perceived as homophobic. It definitely implies there is something bad about being gay. In fact some courts have ruled that you cannot sue someone for libel for saying you are gay, because being gay is not a negative thing.

There was definitely a backlash against him for being perceived as homophobic. I don't know anything about his fanbase or what effect the case had on his fans specifically. But just look at the news reports or photos from that time -- there were lots of pro-gay protesters outside the courthouse with big signs saying things like "Jason=homophobe" and "It's okay to be gay." He addressed this in "Marie Claire" magazine this month. He says he is "not proud" of suing and admits it was a very bad idea that he regrets, and says the motivation to sue came about because he was in the middle of trying to change his image from being a teenybopper to being a "cool" musician ("I was trying to go from being a Smash Hits person to a Face one") and he was upset that a "cool" magazine he aspired to being in was mocking him.

Unless proof can be provided that his fanbase specifically suffered due to this case, it should not be in the article, but the fact that he was perceived (rightly or wrongly -- and I believe wrongly) as homophobic by some people and that he suffered a backlash because of this is verifiable fact. Just look at the protest photos. 81.1.81.88 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt whatsoever that the case made him appear homophobic in the eyes of the public and the fact that he was having big hits up until the case and flops right after it do more than merely suggest that his fanbase had diminished because of it. There is at least a correlation between the two things, if not precise proof. As for whether he genuinely was homophobic, I think he must have been to some extent because there had been rumours about his sexuality since the late 80s but this did not impact on his career at all which implies that it was the actual suggestion of being gay that he had a problem with. He was part of a well-oiled hit machine along with Kylie, Bananarama, Big Fun, and Sonia - all of whom had something of a gay following because their music was cheesy dance-pop and often played in gay clubs at the time. I never actually thought Jason Donovan was gay, but he did have something of a gay following because he was this expertly styled pretty boy with fashion sense and wholesome good looks who made S.A.W. records. He played the part well which is probably why he achieved success but also probably why the press started suggesting things about his sexuality. I do think he sued because he felt being gay was something to be ashamed of and he felt the need to prove something. In all fairness, he was quite young and naive at the time when it all happened which might also account for his actions, but not only did he offend the gay crowd, he also made himself look like a childish, insecure brat who was sulking because people were calling him names. So much for trying to lose the prepubescent audience. Nobody likes a cry-baby. 79.69.2.88 13:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit late, but I need to jump in here. There's no proof that the lawsuit affected his career. He certainly wasn't having No.1s up till that time, several of his singles beforehand failed to make the top 10. He'd had his peak and was now naturally going downhill as most popstars do. The only thing worth mentioning is the fact that Donovan himself said that it hurt his career (whether it's actually true or not).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but given that his career was in decline anyway, it might have been his publicity agent's idea to sue for libel in a bid to get his name back on the front pages. And it could have been defended on the basis that he really wasn't gay in any event. But it backfired. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but not all of Kylie's records were making the top 10 by that time either, but she managed to go on to greater things afterwards. Donovan couldn't even give his records away following the court case, so there is a very apparent correlation.79.66.11.193 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an old discussion now, but Donovan himself has admitted (in his autobiography) that suing The Face wrecked his career. So if it comes straight from the horse's mouth.... 88.104.25.53 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Married?

On the 22 September 2008 edition of BBC One's The Dark Side of Fame with Piers Morgan, Donovan claimed that he married Angela Malloch. However, I haven't found any evidence of that; both this article, and many other sources, give the impression that he has never married anyone. Can anyone clarify the truth of the matter? Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Further, the article's writing style leads to a bizarre theory: that Donovan managed to produce a daughter all by himself, without the contribution of any female Homo Sapiens specimen at all. --AVM (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Donovan and Molloch married in Bali in Summer 2008. There are sources added to the article to show this now.80.47.43.200 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

jason donovan

Would it be possible for someone with the time and inclination to put together a list of acting credits, akin to the discography ? He is better known here (in Australia) as an actor, particularly after MDA which was excellent, and a list of acting credits would be an asset, for someone on their way to the video shop for instance ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummywolf (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

jason donovan

Would it be possible for someone with the time and inclination to put together a list of acting credits, akin to the discography ? He is better known here (in Australia) as an actor, particularly after MDA which was excellent, and a list of acting credits would be an asset, for someone on their way to the video shop for instance ... Mummywolf (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Donovans Irish ancestry.

http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/2010/08/who-do-you-think-you-are-see-jason-donovans-ancestors-in-our-records/comment-page-1/#comment-59796 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.34.201 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring in live pagespace

It appears that several accounts are engaged in a content dispute on this live pagespace. I'd encourage all editors to remember WP:BRD, and stop the revert war with discussion on this talkpage. At this moment, some registered editors are claiming the insertions are BLP/Undue violations, and other contributors, all ip users, are making claims the reverting editors are blatantly vandalizing the page. Without going into either claim, I can safely say that nobody is discussing this disagreement on the talk page, as we expect all editors to do. This has been going on for the last five days. Please move your dispute to this location before several of the editors are blocked for 3RR, since two have passed that threshold in the last 24 hours. BusterD (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Meters (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is where I saw it. Discussion of content issues belongs here, as you correctly pointed out on 3RR. This has now involved 3 registered accounts, and three ip addresses, over the course of five days. At this point, refusing to discuss on talk makes it likely more than one user will be blocked for warring. BusterD (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the ip's (88.104.24.7 (talk · contribs), 88.104.20.169 (talk · contribs), 88.104.31.14 (talk · contribs), 87.112.71.198 (talk · contribs)}) are all one person. If that's the case, then an immediate block is due as 87.112.71.198 was already blocked for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue for WP:SPI. Raise it there if you like, but not here. Meters (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested edits

I've not looked at the sources, but the material at dispute appears to be typical tabloid journalism information unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, focusing on his relationship with Kylie Minogue. There is disagreement to whether the material is even verifiable. If it's verifiable, give us some indication as to how. It would also help to have some indication on how it meets WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the full set of changes being disputed. I'll break out each subsection's edits for simplicity. Meters (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've refactored slightly, adding 4th level Discussion headings to denote where discussion for each issue subsectioned should go. Since I've had no interaction with this pagespace, I'll take the lead on commenting on each section to help generate consensus. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1988–91: Pop career

The cited source added to this section (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-02/jason-donovan-plans-new-album/496394 seems wp:RS since it's ABC) says that Donovan and Minogue "briefly dated". That's not enough to justify saying that they were "romantically involved", as has been pointed out several times now, and it's WP:Undue to change the section header to 1988–91: Pop career and relationship with Kylie Minogue. They may well have been briefly romantically involved, but it could also mean little more than that they were seen in public together a few times by the paparazzi.

The edit concerning Donovan having dyed his hair brown for his 1990 movie role seems rather trivial to bother including. Comparing his hair colour to that in a video does not verify the statement since I don't think there is a source given which says which of the two hair colours is his real colour. Even so, I don't care if this statement is included. I have no reason to doubt that the information as given is correct, and it's not contentious. Note that this entire subsection needs a BLP unsourced section tag. Any remaining unsourced info can be removed after that tag has been in place for a while. Meters (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I tend to agree that based on presented sources, changing the title of this section to include the name of a personality the subject briefly dated seems to give undue weight to the relationship. Further, I agree that the information about hair color, while it may be accurate, is not significant enough information to be included without sourcing specifically covering the appearance change. I also agree adding the "BLP unsourced" tag to this section as suggested. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1991–93: Stage career and The Face lawsuit

• 'In 1991, with questions about his ability to sing, and the break-up of his relationship with Minogue due to her relationship with INXS singer Michael Hutchence, Donovan accepted the lead role...' vs 'In 1991, Donovan accepted the lead role...'

Unsourced negative BLP. Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• '"new" version' vs '"restaged" version' of play

Restaged is a more precise term in reference to a performance. Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'while the stage production won the 1992 Laurence Olivier Awards for set design and costume design. Donovan left the production in early 1992 citing "exhaustion" and was replaced by TV presenter Phillip Schofield.' vs simply 'Donovan left the production in early 1992.'

Unsourced negative BLP. WP:Undue emphasis on how well the production did without Donovan. Why would his presence, or lack of it, have had anything to do with awards for set design or costumes? No sources are cited so the quotes around exhaustion are WP:SCAREQUOTES, implying that it was something other than exhaustion that resulted in Donovan's departure. Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'the action of his lawsuit made him appear homophobic and had the effect of alienating much of his audience.' vs 'the lawsuit created a backlash with people accusing him of being homophobic.'

The new ref does not support this change. 'alienated his gay audience' does not support saying that 'it had the effect of alienating much of his audience', and the original (accusation of, rather than appearance of, homophobia) seems more neutral and correct. We know that people accused him of being homophobic, but it's not up to us to interpret that as meaning that he appeared to be homophobic. Accusations can be mistaken or even malicious, for example. Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Addition of 'Donovan tried to make amends and claimed that he did not sue the magazine out of greed or because he was homophobic, but because he had been accused of lying to his fans. Rather than launch an appeal, the publishers of the magazine came to an agreement with Donovan over the damages he was awarded. Regardless, Donovan's career never recovered from his act of litigation. '

unsourced negative BLP. Possible wp:synthesis Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'Now no longer signed to PWL, who had released his first two albums and a "greatest hits" compilation, Donovan moved to Polydor Records. A year after his libel action against The Face, he released his third album, All Around The World (1993). However, the album was not a success and failed to make the UK Top 20 (all of Donovan's albums up until then had been Top 10) and was not released at all in his native Australia. Donovan was subsequently dropped by his new record company, and did not release another studio album for 15 years.' vs 'Donovan moved to Polydor Records and released his third album, All Around The World (1993).'

Some of this is OK, but I'm not sure about het tone, and I done enough for now.Meters (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting all of this on the table. Sunlight has a disinfecting effect. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There's more, but so far I really can't accept the IP's supposedly referenced version. I'd like to hear other opinions, though. Meters (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You have done well to enunciate my initial concerns and edits (and more) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I feel that without accurate and specific sourcing, it would be OR to state conclusions like each of those those listed above. Detail without sourcing has no place on Wikipedia, and especially so in the case of a BLP. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1995–99: Drug addiction, The Last Bullet and continued musical work

• ' where he suffered a drug-induced seizure and was rushed to hospital.' vs 'where he suffered a drug-induced seizure.'

The cited source does not support the addition of the "rushed to hospital", but it also does not support the "drug-induced seizure" The symptoms mentioned are a racing heart, blurred vision, disorientation, and buckling legs, with no mention of a seizure. An ambulance was called, but you have to infer the subsequent trip to the hospital (however, it's easy to find online refs to confirm that he was taken to hospital), and there is no mention of a dramatic, high-speed ambulance ride. Meters (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'In various articles in late 1999' vs 'In late 1999'

The cited source does not support "various articles". The source is one article, and it mentions no others. Meters (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'Donovan has stated he has been drug-free since 2000', vs 'Donovan states he has been drug-free since 2000'

The ref is from 2008 so as it stands I agree that the IP change to past tense is more accurate. Better would be to say that 'Donovan stated in 2008 that he has been drug-free since 2000', and best would be to keep 'Donovan states he has been drug-free since 2000' but with a new ref to show that he still states that (for example in 2012 or 2014. Meters (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I tend to agree again with User:Meters about each of the points above. Possible substance abuse and other potentially damaging material on a BLP is precisely why the BLP rules were established. Putting such information in a Wikipedia article without reliable sourcing tends to discredit both the page subject and Wikipedia as an institution. There are plenty of social media websites devoted to wild speculation and synthesis, but Wikipedia should never be one of them. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That he used drugs prior to the 2000 birth of his child is not in question. All of the sources agree, including statements by Donovan. The change to the past tense leaves a possible connotation that while Donovan used to claim that he was drug free, he no longer does so. A simple update to the ref allows us to remove any uncertainty and clarify that he still maintains that he has been drug free since 2000. Meters (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2005–06: Virgin Mobile phone controversy and participation in I'm A Celebrity...

• Correcting the Stevie Wright wikilink.

A valid edit that got caught up in the edit war. The original wikilink The Steve Wright Show was invalid and the IP's wikilink Steve Wright (DJ) (piped to The Steve Wright Show) works. I reinstated this edit as soon as I noticed, and it is in the current fully-protected article. Meters (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Agree. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812050023/http://www.concertfordiana.com/performers/alw.asp to http://www.concertfordiana.com/performers/alw.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jason and Kylie

AFAIK Jason Donovan and Kylie Minogue were a couple off-screen while they were also a couple on-screen, and at that time also released the duet "Especially For You". Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Maikel (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mention of Boj in introduction

I have deleted "He is now the voice of 'pop's in the tv series 'boj'" from the introduction: it relates to activity from 2014, and isn't significant enough for the introduction. Please revert this edit if you disagree. WeißwurstJon (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

TV Appearance

Jason Donovan also appeared on Dame Edna’s Neighborhood Watch S2 E7: Sally’s Home, which aired in 1993. 2604:3D09:387:C800:95F:2813:FCF4:F4B8 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)