Talk:David Bowie/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

... In the words of his biographer ... in the words of his biographer ... in the words of his biographer ...

This article is dominated by Bowie's "biographer". It seems like every section has his "biographer" spouting on about how great Bowie is. Of course his biographer is going to say that. Please make every effort to remove all this rot by his "biographer" and replace it with something meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the presumption that a biographer will be positively biased or psychophantic? I will declare an interest here, saying that I am a Bowie fan, but the fact remains, a biographer (as opposed to an autobiographer!) may be friendly, hostile or neutral in tone, and may be attempting anything from a hagiography to a hatchett job, or simply an informed and well-researched objective view. In David Bowie's case, he has never authorised or co-operated with any biography, so while it proves nothing either way, it does seem to me that any biographer is generally less likely to be psychophantic, and more likely to be sceptical. And Buckley's, which I take it to be the one the above comment refers to, is at least as carefully and closely referenced as most Wikipedia articles. --Clive Lyons (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, biographers are likely to stress the importance and uniqueness of the persons or events they write about. If they didn't and just took a stone cold sober approach at every turn it might make their books less marketable. This is even more true with journalists, because they have to sell their texts, or help sell their media outlets, on a day-to-day basis - and many biographers have clocked many years within journalism. Plus, here at WP the borderline between using biographers and using journalistic writing as sources is a very fluid one, especially with popular culture it's almost nonexistent. So you get people here on WP who are cranking in what they want to read in the article on a musician, an album or a movie star by looking up an article or a popular book that says it and then trunking those statements into the´WP entry without any critical sense.

Now, Bowie is one guy whose stature and lasting influence are well beyond dispute, but that doesn't mean everything he ever did was equally important or only his invention. Some paper/magazine articles or biographies tend to blurb it up though, or emphasize the wrong things. The sound production, songwriting and ambience on Low were likely much more important to the wider music scene and to bands that followed later on than the Diamond Dogs tour (even if the latter was a substantial achievement too), but almost no biography is going to tell you that - the DD tour is so much more rewarding to write about, and there are more people (witnesses/musicians of his band) who have spoken about it. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Location fix for the last concert in the Reality tour

the last concert before his heart surgery was not in Scheeßel, Germany but in Prague, Czech Republic. I know it as i was there, but it's still rather easy to google out (for example http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/bowie-halts-prague-concert-with-shoulder-pain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furak (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stubs EVERYWHERE!

I just deleted a massive amount of non-notable Bowie songs that had no sources and were merely descriptions proving no reason for them to have articles. Most of them were less than 5 sentences and the information was already covered in their album articles. Your welcome. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Announcement of his new album and music video - 2013

Hi

Why are there currently TWO paragraphs at the end of the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie#1999.E2.80.93present:_neoclassicist_Bowie which parrot each other? For a major Wiki page like Bowie's, this needs sorting fast. Far be it from me to choose which paragraph or combination of both should feature (note to second paragraph editor: please READ the article section before posting "newsbreaking" content in a Wiki!). Thanks. 86.112.67.18 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Discography

Why is the album 'the Buddha of suburbia' not in the discography? It is continually wrongly classified as an official soundtrack when it is in fact a collection of original songs only one of which appears in the bbc drama (the title track).80.5.155.222 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)explodingman

Edit request on 23 January 2013

Biography section, 1.10 - "2013-Present - The Next Day" - final line of first paragraph refers to the single, "Where Are We Now?" as: 'his first single to enter the top 10 for two decades, (since "Absolute Beginners" in 1986)'

This is incorrect, and should read: '...since "Jump They Say" in 1993'

"Jump They Say" reached #9 in the UK chart in March 1993. Apart from Wikipedia's own article on "Jump They Say", which confirms this as correct, other sources include the Official Charts Company online archive at the link below:

http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/

Clive Lyons (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done This is a good find! It was widely reported by various media that it was the first since "Absolute Beginners", but even the "Jump They Say" page confirms this to be incorrect. I've since corrected the information with the source you provided. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No LGBT catgories

Where the hell are the LGBT categories? Because the article clearly indicates that he is bisexual. Not only that, but this Talk page is categorized in the LGBT articles? Is this the same shit that's going on with the Jodie Foster article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.99.184 (talk • contribs)

Hello! Could you sign your posts with four tildes (~) it makes it easier to see who's asking! I think part of sexuality is identifying as such; although Bowie had relationships with men, he is currently in a heterosexual marriage and therefore may not identify as being bisexual. This, coupled with contradictory and ambiguous responses concerning his sexuality (he once said he was gay, then bisexual, then a "closeted heterosexual", then back to bisexual) means that it is hard for anybody to categorise it. We as editors can only present sources, and because of their contradictory nature, not conclude on them as it would be POV-pushing. So, basically, the LGBT categories may not be on the main page because editors felt uncomfortable categorizing him. —Jennie | ☎ 17:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Bowie has been intentionally confusing and mysterious regarding his sexuality leads me to agree with you. Eminence2012 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of sexuality is indeed identity - what I like to call 'words' - and his public pronouncements about that have varied over the years. But two other vital components of sexual orientation are attraction and behaviour - 'thoughts' and 'deeds' - and there's lots of verifiable sources about his bisexuality in terms of behaviour. However, WP policies in relation to sexuality categories (but not gender ones) currently privilege words over thoughts and deeds. For live people anyway. And current words, rather than historic ones. And... I'll stop that rant there, but I will say that the end of the current sexual orientation section (to précis the quote: 'he's shagged lots of women, he must really be straight') is either laughably ignorant or appallingly biphobic. Lovingboth (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Came here from the Bisexuality article (see here), and the point is whether or not Bowie currently identifies as bisexual; if he does, he should be in the bisexual category. Bowie's latest public sexual identification is bisexual; we need to have a solid reason to believe that he has renounced that. WP:BLPCAT does not require that a person consistently/constantly reaffirm their sexual identity. And if not placed in the bisexual category, Bowie should at least be placed in a LGBT category.

On a side note: I'll likely later sign the unsigned posts above in this section, if someone does not beat me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: At some point, the bisexual and LGBT categories were added back to the article, but they were recently removed by Przemek mack (talk · contribs). For why, read Przemek mack's explanation in that edit summary. I stand by what I stated above: "Bowie's latest public sexual identification is bisexual; we need to have a solid reason to believe that he has renounced that. WP:BLPCAT does not require that a person consistently/constantly reaffirm their sexual identity. And if not placed in the bisexual category, Bowie should at least be placed in a LGBT category." Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I finally signed the unsigned posts (well, one was partially unsigned). Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And here, Kudzu1 restored the categories. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'The Buddha of Suburbia' belongs in the main discography listed on this page

The usual consensus is that on the main page are listed the artist's main solo studio albums. A soundtrack belongs here if it consists of previously unreleased material, written and performed by the artist specifically for the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As for your first sentence, the relevant style guide says "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums". (bolds mine)

Do you have reliable sources stating that this is a studio album? Bowie himself says that "it was designated a soundtrack", as do publications like Allmusic. What I'm reading about it suggests that is an obscure soundtrack; it's release accompanied none of the hype and fanfare associated with a Bowie studio-album release.—indopug (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Any sources will tell you that it IS a studio album. All songs were written by Bowie and released in the studio. Whether it is one of his major works or not is another thing, rather subjective IMHO. I mean, who decides what is a major work and what isn't ? Critical response ? Sales ? Where is the limit ? I really don't see why this album shouldn't be listed here. Granted, it was designated a soundtrack for a TV serial... so what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (i.e. not blogs, fansites etc) describing it as a studio album, please provide them here. If you can do that, more than convincing just me, we can prevent such arguments and potential edit-wars in the future, with editors who may feel that the album is only a soundtrack. (remember that this is a featured article, and edit-wars may cause it to lose its featured status)—indopug (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "only" a soundtrack ? It is both a studio album AND a soundtrack ! The general consensus is that such albums are listed here, like 'More' on the Pink Floyd page or 'Birdy' on the Peter Gabriel page. By the way, Amazon.com describes 'Buddha' as "David Bowie's 19th full studio album released in 1993". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said on the Edit page, the back cover of the album reads "produced and mixed by David Bowie & David Richards at Mountain Studio, Montreux, Switzeland". If that ain't a proof that this is indeed a STUDIO album, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that it wasn't recorded in the studio. However, everything that is recorded in a studio isn't a "studio album". See: compilation albums and EPs. Also, you aren't asking for the Christiane F. and Labyrinth soundtracks to be included; so clearly there is some subjectiveness to the criteria for inclusion (beyond mere "it was recorded in a studio").

Thus, as I've indicated before, all I'm asking for is a reliable source (like a biography, magazine article or interview) that establishes The Buddha of Suburbia as one.—indopug (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What's your definition of a "studio album" then ? If you can't provide one, how can I ever find a reliable source describing 'Buddha' as one ? Besides, your (or my) definition of a "studio album" does not really matter here. What matters is coherency : on most Wiki pages, "Studio Albums" means "full-length albums (no EPs) recorded in the studio (no live albums) and consisting of previously unreleased material (no compilations)". As far as I know, 'Buddha' fully matches these criteria, whereas 'Christiane F.' does not, as it features tracks taken from previous albums. As for 'Labyrinth', it is half-Bowie, half-Trevor Jones, so it cannot count as a full-length Bowie album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Was that convincing enough ? If so, shall I add 'Buddha' back to the list ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"your (or my) definition of a 'studio album' does not really matter here"—this is exactly it, which is why we defer to reliable sources.

For example, Led Zeppelin's Coda (album) is a collection of previously recorded songs, yet we list it as a studio album, because several sources do.—indopug (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Most songs on 'Coda' had indeed been previously recorded, but not previously released, which is why it may be considered as a studio album consisting of new material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Anyway, here's a Houston Press article describing 'Buddha' as Bowie's 19th studio album : http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-10-18/music/david-bowie/full/. I'm sure many other reliable sources can be found without effort : after all, googling "Buddha of Suburbia" + "studio album" returns over 80,000 results...

Thanks, added.—indopug (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pit

Under " 1969–73: psychedelic folk to glam rock", second paragraph is says: Bowie met Angela Barnett in April 1969. They would marry within a year. Her impact on him was immediate, and her involvement in his career far-reaching, And then comes: leaving Pitt with limited influence which he found frustrating.[26]

Who is Pitt, I don't see his name in the 1000 words before this name mentioned...??? Perhaps a better explanation necessary? Allardo / NL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.63.163 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of.—indopug (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I can't be bothered with Wikipedia Manual-of-Style whitewashing.

There are historical figures who are truly great in their fields, and Bowie is one of them. "Widely regarded as an innovator" is the sort of wishy-washy understatement that is constructed to appease those Wiki Police who delete words like "famous" and "unique" even when used appropriately.

A statement "David Bowie was innovative" or even "David Bowie was enormously innovative" is true beyond question, so a statement that he was "widely regarded as an innovator" is basically, crap.

The sentence that previously read "A major figure for over four decades in the world of popular music, Bowie is widely regarded as an innovator, particularly for his work in the 1970s." now reads "Bowie has been a major figure in the world of popular music for over four decades, and is renowned as an innovator, particularly for his work in the 1970s."

Is it reasonable to say that he is renowned as an innovator? Well, the Victor and Albert Museum thinks so. If a person gets to curate an exhibition about their own work at the V&A, then they are renowned as an innovator, beyond question. David Bowie retrospective unveiled by V&A museum.

Amandajm (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What does this exhausting sentance mean?

..."Earning the distinction of being one of the first white artists to appear on the US variety show Soul Train, Bowie mimed "Fame", as well as "Golden Years", his November single,[52] that it was offered to Elvis Presley to perform, but Presley declined it."...Gimelgort 01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Th4n3r (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A new photo at first.

Come on, that doesn't define what the encyclopedic Bowie is. Unless we conform to the die hard fans of a person. --5.54.179.203 (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

V&A Exhibition

This is pretty major, do we need to add something to the end of the biog section or even add a sub-section to the Legacy paragraph. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down is now a 'Good' article

I bet the Bowie community wouldn't have guessed that the next album after Station to Station to be promoted to good article status would be Never Let Me Down! Drop by the page and check it out - you may even learn something! 87Fan (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean I brought the first Bowie album to GA with S2S? Never thought of that... Nice we've finally got another, but talk about the sublime to the ridiculous... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This will tickle you for sure, Ian Rose, but I'm happy to announce that the article for the Glass Spider Tour is now also a good article. That makes 3! Is anyone working on pushing any other DB articles to 'good' status? Let us know here so we can help! And by 'we' I probably mean 'I' because I can't speak for others, but I'm happy to help. 87Fan (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Electronic rock genre?

The infobox for Black Tie White Noise (at least) has "electronic music". So what's the issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

BOWIE re HENDRIX

• Bowie being introduced to Hendrix (as an unknown) is "random unintegrated datum"? I don't agree, but rather than tit for tat editorial changes, I'm open to hearing your detailed views on this. 20.47, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.hartington (talk • contribs)

SFF Hall of Fame

Bowie has been named to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame (whose original name has been restored online).[2]

That notice implies five members to be named daily Mon-Fri. Perhaps there will be some comprehensive press release Friday or next week. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Three months later there has been no more comprehensive coverage by the museum or by outside sources that seemed likely to me. Revising this article hours ago, I added the bare fact of 2013 hall-of-famerdom ;–) with official ref.

--P64 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Shock rock

Does Bowie do shock rock? An IP seems to want to add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Rock Against Racism

Hello editors I am doing some research on RAR and had heard that some behaviour by Bowie led to its formation. There is nothing about that in the article - is there any reason for this? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.208.137 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rock Against Racism has some info on this that could be brought here♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was that article that led me here looking for more info. Would anyone be willing to copy it to here? I'm happy to do it, but any edits I make usually lead to lots of editors having to correct my work.

I've seen this sort of thing before, I imagine that some sycophantic Bowie fan has removed the information. People don't like to admit their idols have any faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.208.137 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the relevant content from RAR, which seems accurate and well sourced: "Further support for RAR came after David Bowie, speaking as The Thin White Duke, his persona at the time, made statements that expressed support for fascism and perceived admiration for Adolf Hitler in interviews with Playboy, NME and a Swedish publication. Bowie was quoted as saying: "Britain is ready for a fascist leader... I think Britain could benefit from a fascist leader. After all, fascism is really nationalism... I believe very strongly in fascism, people have always responded with greater efficiency under a regimental leadership." He was also quoted as saying: "Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars" and "You've got to have an extreme right front come up and sweep everything off its feet and tidy everything up." Bowie caused further controversy by allegedly making a Nazi salute while riding in a convertible, although Bowie has always strongly denied this, insisting that a photographer simply caught him in the middle of waving. Bowie's claim seems to be borne out by existing footage of the event.

Bowie later retracted and apologised for his statements, blaming them on a combination of an obsession with occultism, the Thule Society and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as his excessive drug use at the time. He said: "I have made my two or three glib, theatrical observations on English society and the only thing I can now counter with is to state that I am NOT a fascist."

Rock Against Racism march in Trafalgar Square, 1978

"

It's perhaps a little too much to put in, but certainly a precis would be appropriate. I'll have a go. 88.106.75.23 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I can't get two of those to work - went with The Guardian and Rolling Stone, which should be good enough? As for undue weight, it's four lines in what might appear to be a 500-line paean - and he was one of the main reasons Rock Against Racism was formed, so it seems most odd to leave this out?88.106.75.23 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to call it out in a stand alone "controversy" section, but it is worth mentioning in the White Duke section. I have moved it there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. It needs to be in the article, because it led to a reassessment of his standing and contributed to the establishment of RAR, and so yes a chrono approach is probably appropriate 88.106.75.23 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

New Album?

I have no idea how accurate this is, but according to this site, Tony Visconti claims Bowie is working on a new album: http://www.kovideo.net/tony-visconti-says-david-bowie-is-back-in-the-studio-news-david-bowie-7682.html Perhaps it is worthy of mentioning? Vithar Alderland (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And now there's this, from Facebook's 'David Bowie (Official)' page, a passing mentioning that seems to indicate a new album is in the making. "When [Rob Stringer] asked me if I minded if he took a few Saturdays off from his duties as percussionist on my new album this year in order to catch the Luton Town football club fixtures, how could I refuse?", signed David Bowie. Is it worth talking about, I wonder? Vithar Alderland (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into this further and make any corresponding edits if necessary.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Here's a link to the news piece with the Bowie quote, from davidbowie.com (24th april 2014): http://www.davidbowie.com/news/bowie-s-message-rob-stringer-mw-awards-53056 Vithar Alderland (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And here's yet another confirmation for you Soulparadox, that db is making a new album. http://www.gigwise.com/news/92651/david-bowie-promises-that-new-music-is-coming-soon Perhaps this is now enough to venture mentioning in the Bowie article? Vithar Alderland (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I had forgotten about this, so thank you for the reminder and assistance! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

From "Legacy" to "Influence"

I have chosen the more suitable "Legacy" heading, as a legacy is handed down by a predecessor, and Bowie is not anyone's predecessor yet, as he is still a peer in the world of mainstream music. If anyone is aware of a definition that makes the use of the term suitable here, please revert my edit with an explanation. Thanks,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

His role as the godfather, in a way, of punk rock (in the UK, at least, likely also in West Germany and Ireland) is very important - many of the first generation of punk performers and band mates had first been fired up by Bowie and glam rock a few years earlier: the members of Sex Pistols, The Clash, Joy Division, early Simple Minds/Johnny and the Self Abusers, The Damned, Siouxsie and the Banshees...The theatrical side of glam, and Ziggy with it, were part of the thing, and Bowie's and Bolan's fans provided the constituency that punk would emerge from (a point clearly and succinctly made by Andrew Calcutt in Brit Cult). Of course he's also been very influential in terms of bringing multimedia and mime elements into rock/pop music in innovative ways. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Pending Edit

I'm not sure if this has been missed when the next edit was accepted, so just in case here it is [3]. It's not very big but is important as "currently" applies only to the present whereas "concurrently" can be applied to many things occurring at the same time in the past (as in this case). Can someone accept? Thanks 2.25.126.198 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Voice type and range

He's filed under "English baritones" while he's in reality a tenor. His voice got lower and he lost much of the brilliance and high notes due to his lifestyle (smoking, strains etc). Or is somebody really thinking his voice colour, tessitura and range, especially when he was young, is that of a baritone? Somebody who knows how to change categories, please change the "English baritones" for "English tenors". Огненный ангел (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

He was definitely a tenor singer in the seventies and perhaps later (songs like Ashes to Ashes and China Girl sound largely tenor-based to me, even if they don't hit many high notes) but one could argue he had two different registers, one very bright and often vibratoless (as in Soul Love, Changes, Sounds and Vision etc), one that's ~deeper, rawer, grittier and more r'n'b/blues-influenced (Rock'n'Roll Suicide, Station to Station, Look Back in Anger etc). Life on Mars? is one track that unites them in the same song, but often they were kept separate. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether he's a tenor or a baritone. Sound and Vision would make me say baritone, because it sounds deep in some places, and he doesn't sing particularly high. It might be that he has quite a wide vocal range, and it may be that he can sing both baritone and tenor.

2.26.201.1 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Em

Backing band members

I'm willing to start an article on Bowie's backing band musicians. He had lots of recurring collaborators and I'd like to summarize it. Any objections or concerns? Please reply here -BlameRuiner (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He's worked with a vast cast of people, and even if you restricted it to those who had been key members of his bands at some time, on an album or a tour, you'd run into several dozen persons. There are really few people he's been working with regularly for a very long time (let's say more than six years in one go) and he's known for sometimes firing key musicians abruptly - the Spiders in 1973, Earl Slick in early 1976, Stevie Ray Vaughan just before the Serious Moonlight Tour in 1983 (ironically replaced by Slick on a few days' notice!). Even with people like Mick Ronson and Tony Visconti, who were essential to his sound in the early seventies, he barely ever worked with Ronson again after 1973 and Visconti was out of sight for many years after he thought he was going to produce Bowie's comeback album (Let's Dance) but was kept off the project. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No Mention of Syd Barrett's Influence?

No more need be said.

24.34.201.89 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want /expect any action to be taken, then yes there is more to be said. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Bacchiad (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lori Maddox

There seem to be some allegations that Bowie slept with groupie Lori Maddox when she was thirteen and he was in his twenties -- I have no idea whether this is true (and really hope it isn't, given how much I like Bowie) but it seems to be unmentioned here. He wasn't charged with anything, but aren't the allegations significant enough to warrant a mention? Have they been debunked or discredited? 24.193.246.104 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"There seem to be some allegations" pretty much answers why this doesn't warrant a mention here. Encyclopedias strive to report what other sources have established. "Have they been debunked or discredited?" Wikipedia isn't the forum for that, but it eagerly awaits the conclusions of those discussions from reliable sources. Willondon (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Since he's a multi instrumentalist...

Isnt there supposed to be the instruments he played/plays? --123.2.142.50 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming album

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On the surname 'Bowie' and its derivation

and why I reverted this edit again:

There's no dispute that 'jäger' means 'hunter', or that the surname 'Jagger' is derived from it. The second source providing the background only says "Out of fear of being confused with Davy Jones of The Monkees, David changed his last name to Bowie, a name that was inspired by the knife developed by the 19th century American pioneer Jim Bowie." The article describes Bowie's admiration of Jagger, but it's original research to combine it all and state "This was a tribute to his friend". This is where I'm asking for other sources. Willondon (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Guitar should be listed under instruments

Yes Bowie's primary contribution to music is vocals and lyrics, but he was the guitarist on a multitude of his albums, so of course it should be listed. Any source of liner notes for his albums should back this up. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Repetition of a quote

I noticed that "challenged the core belief of the rock music of its day" appears three times throughout the article should this be reduced to one? Bwisey (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Two, maybe. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with repeating something in the lead that appears later in the article. I removed the instance in the 1972-1973: Ziggy Stardust section, and left the ones in the lead and the Legacy and influence section. Willondon (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Buddha of Suburbia a Studio album?

I'm actually fairly neutral here on the matter, but I'm wondering: should The Buddha of Suburbia (soundtrack) be listed on the main page along with the other albums? I'm leaning towards yes, but 1 user keeps removing it persistently and I'd like some feedback about it. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed back in February 2013, now available in the archives at The Buddha of Suburbia belongs in the main discography list on this page. My take on the conclusion thus far is that it is a studio album, and there are sources that describe it as such. There was no consensus as to whether it is a "major work", which would further qualify it for inclusion. The result of the discussion was to add it to the list. Willondon (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reasonable argument for excluding it from his list of studio albums. If you read the Wikipedia entry on The Buddha of Suburbia it's pretty clear that putting the word "soundtrack" on the cover was inaccurate: "Although classified in the album cover as a soundtrack, this album is not the soundtrack Bowie wrote for the BBC dramatisation of Hanif Kureishi's book with the same name (which remains unreleased). Rather, after writing the actual soundtrack Bowie decided to work further on the same motifs, creating the radically different pieces that are heard on the album. Only the title track remained unaltered from the original soundtrack." Bowie's comment in that entry makes it sound like he regrets styling it a "soundtrack" and feels that labeling it as one was partly to blame for the album's poor sales, lack of promotion, and relative obscurity: "The album itself only got one review, a good one as it happens, and is virtually non-existent as far as my catalogue goes – it was designated a soundtrack and got zilch in the way of marketing money. A real shame." D.Holt (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Instruments

The summary box lists two instruments: vocals and guitar. I think saxophones and keyboards should also be listed, since he plays them on more than half of his 28 studio albums:

• Bowie sings on all 28 of his studio albums.
• He plays guitar on 25 (all except Scary Monsters, Let's Dance, and Tonight).
• He plays saxophones on 18 studio albums (all except David Bowie/Space Oddity, Young Americans, Lodger, Let's Dance, Tonight, Never Let Me Down, Tin Machine, Hours, The Next Day, and Blackstar).
• And he plays keyboards (including piano and organ) on 17 (all except David Bowie, David Bowie/Space Oddity, Aladdin Sane, Pin Ups, Diamond Dogs, Station to Station, Let's Dance, Tonight, Tin Machine, Black Tie White Noise, and Blackstar).

He also plays synthesizers (8 albums), drums or percussions (5 albums), stylophone (4 albums), chamberlin or mellotron (4 albums), harmonica (3 albums), as well as some miscellaneous instruments, each on only 1 album: kalimba, Roseland electric chord organ, vibraphone, xylophone, and koto. He's also credited with playing "pump bass" on Low, but I'm not sure that's an actual instrument.

Given that many synthesizers probably fall into the "keyboards" category, I think adding saxophones and keyboards to vocals and guitar is enough to cover his major instruments. D.Holt (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this. I think Bowie's as well known for playing sax and keyboards as for guitar, and I don't see that adding these two should open the floodgates for an unnecessarily long list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well, but my suggestion is to make a note that says (keep it to just these 4) since those are his only 4 main instruments. Hell I'll add them now! Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Death?

At first the Official David Bowie twitter account and Facebook page stated it, then The Hollywood Reporter website stated it. I wasn't sure I believed it, but now Duncan Jones confirmed it on twitter too. I've heard uncomfirmed thigns about his manager claiming it was a hoax by hackers, but if his son confirms it too... And the Daily Mail website... --Ifrit (Talk) 07:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly it has been already confirmed by his son, Billboard and THR. The article is updated. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's currently all over BBC Radio Five Live. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

also

Aside from the terrible news today.. there is a long list of artists he has influenced. It shows more his influence in today's music. names are welcome Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

About ref #32 "Paul Trynka. "A Letter from Hermione". trynka.net" - see Draft:Paul Trynka

This is a page on Mr Trynka's personal website. As such, it may not be a reliable reference as a self-published source.
Rather than edit-war about it and so on, I have created this Draft about Trynka.
Purely personal note: Bowie's dead. I cried a little when I heard the news today. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It would possibly be WP:PRIMARY but as he has published a book about the artist and conducted the interview. I would argue that it can be kept, as long as the third party source listed along with it stays. Karst (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Political views

My addition of material on anti-war themes in Bowie's songs was reverted as "bloat". The section is overwhelmingly focused on his supposed sympathy for fascism, and I think if we're going to have a politics section at all, then it needs to be a bit more balanced by considering other aspects of his politics, broadly conceived. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

...and how far do we want to go in discussing Bowie's opinions and motives in his other songs? I think we need to draw a pretty quick line in the sand to prevent the article from increasing to an unmanageable length. I respect you for coming here rather than edit warring though, thank you. Cassianto^Talk 18:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily very far. The point is that articles discussing his political views highlight the anti-war nature of some of his songs, so there is a clear rationale for including that. We might also consider adding something about his identity politics. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that is, of course, until someone comes along and wants another song mentioned and a detailed rundown of how Bowie felt during that particular recording or composition. I see that the lede has also increased to five paragraphs; a no-no at FAC and WP:LEAD. Can you see the danger of this article snowballing to an unworkable and unreadable length quickly? I think we should be ruthless in reverts and copy edits to at least maintain it in a good state, even if it no longer qualifies as a gold star article. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that danger, but the politics section is pretty short and so is hardly contributing to that problem. It is fairly well documented that Bowie considered himself apolitical and shunned involvement in party politics, so I don't think there's a danger of that section getting out of hand. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, the undue emphasis placed on the material about fascism could perhaps be resolved by getting rid of the section and moving the material to the relevant sub-sections under the "Career" heading, where his statement about Scottish independence is already mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your second option Larry. I've cut the lede and conducted some other fixes while I'm here. Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there are already enough contributors to this article, so I'll leave you with that suggestion and get back to my usual haunts! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Source to add

Here is a reference for the wedding at the town hall of Lausanne in 1992: (in French) Gregory Wicky, "David Bowie, le discret châtelain de Sauvabelin", 24 heures, 11 January 2016 (page visited on 11 January 2016).
Lawrence Chabroud (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

Bowie pronunciation

The citation is correct but the wrong phonetics are stated on the page. It should be oh not oo. See Bowie interview with Paxman 2000 where Bowie states it was oh but has various interpretations. The oo is common in North America but the article should stay true to the artists intentions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.245.111 (talk • contribs)

The IPA does read BOH-ee, and did when you made this edit. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Calls to mind Jim Bowie, and the TV show The Adventures of Jim Bowie. His bio page says either "oo" or "o" can be used in pronunciation. I recall the song on the TV series was "Jim Booey, Jim Booey ...". David Bowie also gets a mention at James Bowie#Legacy, last sentence:

"He chose the surname Bowie because he admired James Bowie and the Bowie knife, although his pronunciation uses the "bo-e" variant.

220 of ^Borg

Date of Death?

Can one confirm that he died on the 11th and not the 10th of January (UTC/GMT Time), if so the date on the main page needs updating. 212.159.114.107 (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The posting on the official Facebook page which announced his death begins "January 10 2016", so I think we can take it as official that he died on Sunday. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

All of the papers in the UK say "today", indicating at date of the 11th. The facebook page was edited on the 11th at around 7am (UK time) to also say 'today'. The "10 January" may be a mistake. Twitter was edited at around 6am with the same message, but is a link to the facebook page. I suppose the death cert will be available in due course and we'll know more then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Conventionally you report dates of birth and death relative to the time zone where they happened, which in this case would be UTC-5. – Smyth\^talk 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Every source that I have found reports the tenth. The page is accurate. -Mr. Man (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie's official Facebook posted at 1.30 am NY time - 6.30 am UK time - stating Sunday 10th; I'd have to think that that would be NY time based, given that Duncan Jones retweeted something unrelated at 11.37pm UK time then confirmed the sad news at 6.54am UK time.82.39.112.18 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pupil of left eye

In pictures, you can see that the pupil of his left eye was permanently dialated, the pupils of his eyes were of different sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.77.101 (talk • contribs)

That and the reason therefor are in the article; are you requesting an edit? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BBC claim that he is the people's 29th favorite person...

This bollocks is not worthy of being entered into an already bloated lead section. I'm a Brit and I wasn't asked. So how can this subjective bit of trivia be included in such a prominent area? Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Very true. It is bollocks. But BBC is a reliable source, so that is a slight issue. I feel it's not notable. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph Prasad. Just because it's a reliable source, that doesn't mean everything with a reliable source must be entered into the lead. We have to draw a line; the lead is bloated (currently at 5 paragraphs, although I have copy edited it back down to the preferred 4), so this type of information is not worthy of being included. Frankly, I couldn't care who the BBC and their fictitious panel of "people" consider to be the 29th best person in the world. I want to know if he was the 9th highest recording artist, or the 5th most influential musician in the UK, etc...This is a featured article (supposedly) and it should be maintained as such. I will not have any hesitation in asking for it to be reviewed at WP:FAR should crap like this exist in the lead. Maybe RyanTQuinn has an opinion on this? Cassianto^Talk 04:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Cassianto. Like who cares if he's the "favorite" person. Influence and sales can be more objectively judged and it doesn't seem like WP:PEACOCK, unlike favorite. It has nothing to do with his notability. So even if it's included, it definitely should not be in the lead of all places. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this notable fact is misplaced in the lead, and I'm relatively certain that when the notoriety of Bowie's recent death wanes, the regulars of this page will correct the shortcomings that creep into the article; to maintain its Featured Article status. Trust me, the 210 editors watching this page are not aloof of what's happening here.--John Cline (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section only mentions his music - with no mention of his acting. I think this was significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Rmhermen (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Karst (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Malta International Song Festival 1969

According to this Times of Malta article: "It was in Malta, at the Hilton, in 1969, that Bowie was singled out for best-produced record for the Malta International Song Festival. It was also the first accolade he received in a lifetime of awards." Surely this worth mentioning in this article? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not notable award I'm afraid. Karst (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Filmography

Please add role of Blaylock in The Hunger (1983). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.122 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 71.167.65.122, please find a reliable source and then give it here, putting {{edit semi-protected}} before your request. This is because everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in The Hunger (1983 film). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lyrical Pangeyrical

Why no section on criticism? Many people though that Bowie's music was banal. An example is Keith Richards (Uncut magazine Dec. 2015). Captainbeefart (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone likes the Beatles either. But that doesn't mean such trivia needs to be taken seriously. Such people probably idolize the Spice Girls or The Archies. Dickie birdie (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My God, am I here all alone? Captainbeefart (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedic article that should be presented as neutral. The notion that 'many people thought that Bowie's music was banal' doesn't adhere to that. If there are third party essays in Rolling Stone, for instance, that present a critical survey of his music and lyrics, then it should be included. A throw-away remark by Keith Richards (like these) does not fall into that category.Karst (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. I get the picture. Slavish praise is neutral. Any contrary opinion is a throw-away remark. I'm sorry I missed this Wikilogic. I was planning to refer to the essays of John McFerrin but then I suddenly realized that he is critical of Bowie and is therefore not neutral, so can't be included... Captainbeefart (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason why Mr. McFerrin's essays cannot be included is because his website is WP:SELFPUBLISHED, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. As I said, if you find a good essay with criticism by a reputable journalist, by all means include it. Karst (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

There seems to be a number of people on here who don't understand how a featured article works. They also struggle to understand WP:BRD, this now being the second time that I have had to initiate a talk page discussion on their behalf. I have chronologically set out the lede and someone thinks it's ok to revert back to the bastardised version where it talks of him leaving school then releasing his first album. This was not the case and there are nearly 15 years that go unaccounted for. There will be readers who want to know at a glance how he came to be the international artist he was. The lede should convey this kind of information per the LEAD link above. Thoughts anyone? Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Liver cancer?

It's sourced from the Independent (ref 222 in the death section), but the BBC are saying that "as yet there has been no official confirmation of the type of cancer Bowie had" (directly under the third pic). Thoughts on this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

See the Cause of Death section above. While the family hasn't confrimed it, Ivo van Hove, the theatre director who worked with Bowie on musical Lazarus mentioned it in an interview. It is cited in the text. Karst (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And the source has since been updated to include van Hove's quote. Karst (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, but this article from The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6854980/David-Bowie-had-six-heart-attacks-but-pals-didnt-know-he-was-ill.html claims that it was pancreatic cancer that spread to his liver. Many people with limited medical knowledge ascribe secondary cancer to the organ it appears in, as though it was a primary. 'Liver cancer' in western countries is usually metastatic rather than primary liver cancer.Nqr9 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's not reliable, quoting an unnamed source. If/when someone demonstrably reliable, knowledgeable and identifiable confirms it, it'd be good to go. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist

@WWGB: I'd like to change the infobox to musical artist solely so that I can add the golden solo_singer background parameter for aesthetic purposes. It doesn't change any other parameters set by the person infobox. Bowie was a solo singer as well. 4 examples of these infobox parameters can be seen at John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: It's not correct that your infobox edit did not "change any other parameters". A comparison of the infobox before and after reveals that some fields disappeared as a result of your edit. WWGB (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Six heart attacks?

[4]

Is this biographer close enough to Bowie's inner circle for this claim to be included? I know that medical history is very personal and should remain under WP:BLP for the recently deceased and the wellbeing of his relatives, so I'm asking whether this is anything more than gossip. If true, it would add to what we have in the section, about a man producing despite incredibly dire health '''tAD''' (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll only say that her book didn't review well ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

She names 'a source'. Appears gossip to me. Karst (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Financial innovation

I don't see anything in the article of his issuing 10-year "Bowie bonds" in 1997 (see Celebrity bond), which enabled him to get $55 million against his future royalties. It seems like something noteworthy, but I'm not sure where it should go in the article. -- 46.233.112.76 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That would need some sort of reference. Never heard of these Celebrity bonds. Karst (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Karst: Perhaps you could, as the OP suggested "see Celebrity bond"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Where's David Bowies 1992 "Real Cool World" from "Cool World" soundtrack?

Dear Wikipedia users I'm sorry to hear that David Bowie has passed away. I didn't know that he had cancer but now I know. I also know he's no longer suffering and he's now in the afterlife. But this has been very hard on his wife and his son.

Anyways can someone from Wikipedia please include the article with his trademark song "Real Cool World" in the 1992 "Cool World" soundtrack? Or can I have permission to add the song "Real Cool World" in his article? I would appreciate it because he even has a music video and his song was in the credits of the "Cool World" movie. Please don't forget to include it in his article because he worked hard on his song and I want him to be recognized for his 1992 "Cool World" movie song. Let me know if you include it thanks. CrosswalkX (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every song needs to be mentioned in the article. Only ones that are deemed notable. Perhaps check the discography page. Karst (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Real Cool World" is listed on the David Bowie discography page and there is an article for the Cool World (soundtrack) on Wikipedia. This article has an expandable navigation box, near the bottom, titled: "David Bowie singles" and the song is listed there as well. Thanks for asking your question, and for the interest you've shown in improving Wikipedia.--John Cline (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Did Bowie 'fail' his eleven-plus examination?

I see in the WP article on the Tripartite system of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that secondary technical schools (to one of which Bowie went), "were designed to train children adept in mechanical and scientific subjects. The focus of the schools was on providing high academic standards in demanding subjects such as physics, chemistry, advanced mathematics, biology to create pupils that could become scientists, engineers and technicians." These appear to be the middle tier of the tripartite system rather than the lowest, so while Bowie may not have performed at the highest level on the eleven-plus examination, it seems unlikely that he 'failed' it. Can anyone with a copy of Sandford double-check what he said about it? Jbening (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I passed my 11 plus in 1966 so am familiar with the system then. Technical high schools were a short lived attempt to create technical, engineering and science focussed alternatives to the traditionally arts oriented grammar schools. Supposedly both had equal status. It's very unlikely Bowie would have gone to a tech if he had failed his 11 plus. He would have gone to a secondary modern school along with the majority of kids. --Ef80 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I passed mine in 1961. Although grammar schools had higher status, Bowie didn't fail. I've changed it to a neutral 'after'. Rothorpe (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be impertinent of me to point out that I passed mine in 1990? Cassianto^Talk 05:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hail, Cassianto, you young whippersnapper. Bowie sort of passed: see Secondary Technical School. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jbening and Rowthorpe's understanding of the education system at that time. I have also traced the edit that added the remark about failing the 11+ to 31 July 2010 at 11:49 and Sandford is not even cited. Sealman (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

John Harris in today's Guardian: "Despite passing his 11-plus, he precociously insisted on being educated at Bromley Technical school..." Rothorpe (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Trynka states in "STARMAN: David Bowie - The Definitive Biography" that "Though David's results were good enough for the grammar school, he opted for Bromley Tech" and that "he talked his parents into supporting his decision".Sealman (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Impact/legacy in the lead

Per WP:Lead, it is important that Bowie's impact/legacy be noted in the lead. It is also important that significant care be taken when working on WP:Featured articles, which is also addressed at the WP:Own policy. So after this edit by Ilovetopaint, citing WP:RECENTISM and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I reverted, stating, "Revert lead to more so the WP:Featured version. Current version was not an improvement. And the WP:In-text attribution takes care of the David Buckley claim." While Ilovetopaint's category removals were probably fine, I disagree with the other changes. I then saw that one of the Buckley quotes should be removed and the other trimmed, which resulted in this version of the article. I left that piece in because it is cited by other reliable sources; it's not just Buckley's opinion. That is why I didn't mind this addition (followup edit here) by Carlos Rojas77; what Carlos Rojas77 added is also supported by other reliable sources.

As seen with this edit, Dickdock objected to the quotes in the lead, and to the 2002 100 Greatest Britons poll being in the lead. WisconsinPat reverted here. Dickdock reverted here. WisconsinPat reverted again. Dickdock reverted again. And then I came along and reverted Dickdock. That stated, I think we can do better than quoting people in the lead. It can be perfectly fine to add content with in-text attribution to the lead. But, since this content is supported by various reliable sources, the in-text attribution makes it seem like it's just one person's opinion; this is the type of thing that the WP:In-text attribution guideline warns against. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an implication here that Featured Article = Perfect Article (Cannot Be Improved)... The lead is a wonky runthrough of his commercial successes and offers little as to what Bowie did which "challenged the core belief of the rock music", as Buckley put it. You could reduce the intricacies of his career from two paragraphs into one, creating a new paragraph that actually imparts what musical merits he had.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering how long I've edited Wikipedia, I don't necessarily think that "Featured Article = Perfect Article." But, I do think, like I stated above, that special care should be taken with featured articles, and I reiterate that this view is supported by the WP:Own policy. I have seen featured articles crumble because of an influx like the influx occurring now; so, yes, I am wary of that. As for the lead, I would prefer it remain at four paragraphs, like I recently stated to you , and that Bowie's impact be covered last (which is the typical style). The material on his impact in the lead should adequately summarize the detail on it that is lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I struck part of my post above because I wouldn't mind if the death is covered last in the lead, like we do for the Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22 Reborn for starting this discussion, and for your accurate summary. My position would be that the impact/legacy is evident in the lead and doesn't need quotes or polls to try to bolster it. (And the Buckley quote in my 1999 edition is actually "Bowie challenged the very core belief of rock music of its day" - note the "very" - what does that even mean?) Dickdock (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dickdock. I argue that without the current quotes...the fact that Bowie changed the face of rock music and fashion, and in what ways he did that, is not clearly evident. I'm not stating that those exact quotes should remain in the lead or that we need quotes in the lead at all; like I stated, I think we can do better than quoting. But I do think that how Bowie impacted popular culture should be directly stated in the lead; doing so is following the WP:Lead guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, then I would argue that a bald statement of that would be better ... Dickdock (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just checked Google books, and it appears that the Buckley 2005 quote is "the very core belief" (https://books.google.ie/books?id=ugUIAQAAMAAJ&dq=isbn%3A9780753510025&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=challenged), which (because it's gibberish) someone has edited to "the core belief" - and this mis-quote is in the lead??! Dickdock (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no misquote should be there; the misquote should be fixed. Or better yet, what Buckley means should be summarized without directly quoting him. I have faith that you can add a better piece than what's there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Gosh thanks, (not sure I share your faith), I'll fix the misquote & try a few edits mostly on the Legacy section first and see how they go. I feel some of Buckley's more extreme statements ("there has been no other pop icon of his stature") could be trimmed, and I really hate the dreadful Filicky (who he?) stuff - to quote the wonderful Nicholas Pegg: '(Meaningless comparisons between David Bowie and a certain genus of polychromatic lizard will not be a feature of this book. "It's a piece of lazy journalism, for several reasons," Bowie himself pointed out in 2003, "One reason, of course, is that the chameleon is always trying to blend into his surroundings, and I don't think that's exactly what I'm known for.")' - And it turns out that Filicky (who he?) is even more misquoted than Buckley: (https://books.google.ie/books?id=owfk8Hq7lkwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false) "Bowie has become known as a musical chameleon, changing and dictating trends as much as he has altered his style to fit them. His influence on fashion and pop culture is second only to Madonna." FFS!! Dickdock (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dickdock, as you might have seen, John altered the lead to "Bowie's impact was enormous; he changed the nature of rock music, and changed his own approach repeatedly." While I would have added a bit more, to clarify how he changed the nature of rock music and what we mean by "approach," John's text summarizes the quote aspects enough and suffices for now. And the second paragraph of the lead does state something that gives a sense of his impact: "After a period of experimentation, he re-emerged in 1972 during the glam rock era with his flamboyant and androgynous alter ego Ziggy Stardust. The character was spearheaded by his single 'Starman' and album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. The relatively short-lived Ziggy persona proved to be one facet of a career marked by reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read the lead and I would make one change, cutting Filicky's quote altogether (but leaving it stet within "Legacy and influence"). Reason: the lead—and particularly grafs 2 and 3—already summarizes (sorry, summarises ) his "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation." 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree! Dickdock (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree if that content wasn't vague; it doesn't explain his "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation," and what impact that had. The lead paragraph has the following: "He was a figure in popular music for over five decades, and was considered by critics and other musicians as an innovator, particularly for his work in the 1970s. His androgynous appearance was an iconic element of his image, principally in the 1970s and 1980s." But that is an introduction, and doesn't explain why he was considered an innovator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The leads of our good and featured biography articles commonly have an initial paragraph that is a brief summary, and then the following paragraphs expand on that summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, and essentially answered yourself; this is exactly the sort of content that should indeed be expanded in its proper section, not in the lead. The lead cannot (and should not) make up for shortcomings elsewhere in the article. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The Legacy and influence section adequately explains his "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation," and what impact that had (there is no shortcoming there). And the lead should as well, in a briefer context, not in a vague context. So, yes, I am correct on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I re-read the section and it does indeed. So, now I'm not sure what you meant when you referred to vague content—if the section does in fact support his "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation", then the lead doesn't need to go into any more detail, unless a few words in Wikivoice are needed to fill obvious gaps. In any event, IMO, Filicky's quote should be cut (from the lead only). 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant what I stated above: "[...] it doesn't explain his 'reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation,' and what impact that had." I don't see what else I can state since you think that stating "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation" is enough to explain his impact by itself. It's not. The lead should be clear about what that "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation" was; for example, his impact on glam and/or punk rock. The quotes in the lead make an attempt to state that. I agreed that we don't need the quotes. But I also relayed that we are supposed to directly state what the impact was. Take the second paragraph of the current lead of the Michael Jackson article, for example. After the introduction paragraph, that second paragraph is directly clear about how Jackson influenced the world; there is no vagueness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Edit: It just hit me [literally forehead-smacking] what I did: in considering the bloat issue, I thought that sentence made a perfectly good introduction to the detail below—but it's not an introduction, it's a summary. And I know better. ) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I stated above, John altered the lead in a way that suffices for now. I also see that the "reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation" part goes with other text that I'd previously overlooked: "After a period of experimentation, he re-emerged in 1972 during the glam rock era with his flamboyant and androgynous alter ego Ziggy Stardust. The character was spearheaded by his single 'Starman' and album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. The relatively short-lived Ziggy persona proved to be one facet of a career marked by reinvention, musical innovation and visual presentation." That does give an okay sense of his impact, and correlates with the final paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But like I indicated above, there is room for improvement with regard to relaying his impact in the lead. I might add a bit there for clarity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention and for the ping, I hadn't realised you were discussing this here. Certainly the text could be improved but I very firmly believe that quotes should be judicious and be summarised where possible. --John (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of paragraphs

Just pointing out that WP:LEDE states four paragraphs are a "general rule of thumb", not a strict protocol that every article must follow. I feel Bowie's lede deserves at least five:

• two- or three-sentence explanation of the artist's merit
• one sentence of early life, three or four profiling the extents of his music career, most acclaimed albums, first number one singles, etc.
• paragraph expounding musical merits and cultural impact
• paragraph summarizing film career(?) (debatable, could be included in second paragraph if length is concise enough)
• commercial success and accolades --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know what WP:Lead states; that's why stated to you in my edit summary, "And we try to stick to no longer than four paragraphs per WP:Lead. But I'll see what others think about your changes." I prefer to follow that general rule of thumb. But if five is needed, I could be okay with that. Five was not previously needed for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Ilovetopaint, but I think this would just introduce more bloat to an already bloated lede. For that reason, I'm against this idea. Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, I also don't understand why it is that upon someone's death, more information should be added; this article has survived 9 years at its current length, but suddenly, the man dies and here we are having discussions about adding more information and swelling the lede. I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful here, but all that has happend here, in terms of the article that is, is that he has died. Realistically, and with that borne in mind, the only information that should be added is details of his death and a few posthumous tributes from some notable critics. Everything else should remain the same. Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, you're very nearly arguing against improving the article (as opposed to only the lead), which strikes at the heart and soul of a living encyclopedia. There's a lot of stuff at Wikipedia that's fine as it is; virtually everything can be improved, however, and nothing "should remain the same." I'm absolutely with you on the bloat issue but, as is being discussed immediately above, that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement—now or ever. Cheers. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No I'm not, but why now he's dead do we feel the need to further extend this already overlong article? Why not improve what is already there? Unfortunatley, this article has been allowed to deteriorate, more so over the last couple of days, into something that is no longer fit to wear the gold star. Cassianto^Talk 23:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes "what is already there" needs expanding; sometimes someone sees something that should be there and isn't (and the opposite is also true). Remember that when a famous person dies, that increases in proportion to his fame (sorry ) the number of fresh eyes viewing the article, and the attached gray matter will form new opinions thereof. The article is almost always—if not in fact always—improved as a result of those changes (sorry ) and the discussions just like this one. I don't see deterioration; I see a work in progress—as it should be. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Sometimes "what is already there" needs expanding" - with respect, I think your talking bullshit. When the article is getting on for 130,000 bytes, I would think that expanding it further is the last thing this article needs. The lead is too long; the infobox is too long; the whole article is getting on for being too long. I would agree, however, that there is room for improvement in what is already there, but I'm talking about prose and copy edits, not content. Over the last few days, I've seen everything but improvement. The only things that should be added are his death and a few posthumous tributes. That's it, I'm afraid. Cassianto^Talk 06:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, with every possible respect, I'm neither wrong nor "talking bullshit"—I'm talking encyclopedia. I'm talking living encyclopedia. It is, and forever will be, a work in progress. By definition, it cannot be static any more than it should be. Sure, there will be shit edits, and there will be great edits, and they will continue for the life of the article. It's up to all of us to continue to shape it—and to argue that the article as it was on 10 January plus "his death and a few posthumous tributes" is the best it will ever be is nothing shy of ludicrous. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas, you are not talking "encyclopaedia" at all. You are wanting to cram in even more detail and factorial rubbish, just because he is deceased. I don't see what else has changed other than the fact he is dead? Just because he has shuffled off this mortal coil, why should this article increase in length? Furthermore, I have never said, nor ever indicated, that this article is "the best"; in terms of featured articles, it's one of the worst. However, making it even longer isn't going to improve it. Fixing and sorting out what is already there would be the best thing to do. The man is dead; that is all that has changed. Why do you think swelling the paragraphs with the minutest of detail will improve it? Cassianto^Talk 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You proceed from an erroneous assumption: that I want the article either to be longer, or crammed with "factorial rubbish" or even "the minutest of detail". I never said, and do not want, anything of the sort. You may remember what I wrote above, since you quoted only a part: Sometimes "what is already there" needs expanding; sometimes someone sees something that should be there and isn't (and the opposite is also true). (Emphasis added.) This can involve addition, subtraction, wholesale changes, or virtually none at all, dependent upon the individual circumstance—and, as I also noted, fresh eyes bring fresh perspectives. I am no more in the "add all of it" camp than you should be in the "remove all of it". It's that simple. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I apologise if I've got this wrong. But at no point have you said that this article is already too long; only, that if it needs expanding, then it will be. At 130,000 bytes, I disagree with this entirely and would recommend that the current content be improved first. Now, of course, if that means a deletion of prose, then great; however, any additions needs to be measured in according to how much has been deleted. My point is that at its current length, and with the only major change being the subject's death, I fail to see what else can be added as "an improvement". On a final point, you say that all articles have room for improvement; not so, Mutiny on the Bounty, for example, is a piece of work that I defy anyone to find fault with. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, with thanks, but unnecessary since this was an enlightening and enjoyable interchange (on my end, anyway; if not on yours, then please accept my apologies). Meantime, never "defy anyone to find fault with" something, or you may just get your wish. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your in good company then. It's exchanges like this I most enjoy. Things get sorted, thoughts get discussed, and two people, who perhaps otherwise wouldn't have met, get to,...well, meet. Nice chatting! Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a great example of bloat: An entire paragraph written to "introduce" Bowie's acting career that did no such thing—instead suggesting in Wikivoice that William F. Buckley was saying Bowie's acting career either led to or came from his "character-playing in pop". Call it bloat, call it SYNTH, call it gone. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016

The cremation ceremony wasn't done in front of anyone. Please change the misleading text. 'Bowie was cremated in a private ceremony in New York on 14 January.[252]' No, not a private ceremony--it was done without family or friends. The CEREMONY is being planned for later. FFS check your facts for once. THIS is a direct quote from the BBC SOURCE you listed:

According to reports. the singer's body has been privately cremated in New York. In line with his wishes, no family or friends were present at the ceremony, the Daily Mirror reported.

Do you see how it doesn't mention a private CEREMONY anywhere? It means the body was put into ashes with nobody but the workers around. The ashes were then delivered after. I think the hint to this was 'NO FAMILY OR FRIENDS WERE PRESENT'. Seriously, try reading stuff before you add to your 'wiki'. 192.222.157.7 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Ceremonies do not need to be attended to be ceremonies, and the rite of cremation in itself clearly fits the definition of a ceremony. Indeed, the BBC quote you've used here refers to it as a ceremony, and with no friends or family present it was certainly private. Cannolis (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly The Daily Telegraph does say "'cremated without ceremony in New York'". But that means something else, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor 192.222.157.7 could have been more diplomatic, especially when the passage he or she quotes says "... at the ceremony," which supports the description of it as a "ceremony" as clearly as it possibly could, but I agree with the idea that it would be better for our article to read "Bowie was cremated in New York on 14 January" rather than "Bowie was cremated in a private ceremony in New York on 14 January." While it is true that the BBC calls it a ceremony and it is true that a ceremony need not be attended, the average reader is more likely to think people close to Bowie did attend if the wording calls it a "private ceremony" than if it does not. Simply saying "Bowie was cremated in New York on 14 January" won't mislead anyone. So I recommend that the words "in a private ceremony" be removed not because they are false but because the sentence communicates to the reader more clearly without them. 99.192.92.97 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - On further review, it should be noted that the BBC article says Bowie was cremated "according to reports" and then cites an article in the Mirror. So the basis for the claim he was cremated on the 14th is unnamed sources in a Mirror article. Maybe the information is not quite reliable enough after all. I don't know. 99.192.92.97 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Removed "in a private ceremony". --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Berlin Wall

I have added about the 6.6.1987 concert and the tribute by German Govt to the Berlin Wall page. I would have thought it was sufficiently notable to be included here, too? DrArsenal (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's notable enough that I copied most of what you put in the Wall article into the Legacy section of the Glass Spider Tour. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should compare notes with User:Kencf0618? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've included the appropriate citation. Slipped up before! kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors might find this article interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

Okay, he died of cancer, but does anybody know what kind? And, did he smoke? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 11 January 2016‎

I saw Bowie with the Spiders from Mars twice, and he smoked onstage. I saw the "thin white duke" style tour, and he was smoking. 68.19.8.147 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like how it's phrased as a 'battle' with cancer. That sounds very journalistic. 81.153.219.162 (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's how these things are normally noted. You "fight" a disease ... maybe not consciously, but your body is doing it, as are the treatments you subject it to. 193.63.174.115 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It says 'Batter' with cancer, but I cannot correct it.

A friend just told BBC News on the phone that Bowie was a heavy smoker '''tAD''' (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Belgain director of Lazerus, Ivo van Hove confirmed it was liver cancer. Karst (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is well known that he had a huge cocaine and alcohol addiction problem decades ago (1970's???), but did he still drink any alcohol in, say, the last 10 years? Just wondering if the alcohol had anything to do with the liver cancer. But alcohol is usually associated with liver cirrhosis, but smoking and alcohol could do liver cancer - alcohol acts like an accelerant on most cancers. So, did he still drink any alcohol up until he was diagnosed with cancer? Anybody know?88.105.113.136 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that can be substantiated. Van Hove did not elaborate on what caused the liver cancer. He only indicated that he was told a year and three months ago. Karst (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowie said he gave up smoking at the end of 2003/beginning of 2004. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC))

This article http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6854980/David-Bowie-had-six-heart-attacks-but-pals-didnt-know-he-was-ill.html says that it was pancreatic cancer that spread to his liver, quoting "a source." 'Liver cancer' in western countries is more often metastatic cancer than primary liver cancer.Nqr9 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The sun certainly is not a reliable source. Karst (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that, but just found it interesting that they claimed it was pancreatic cancer instead (which it may have been; lay people commonly ascribe secondary cancer to the organ it appears in, as though it was a primary cancer).Nqr9 (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite likely. I am such a lay person, and I presume Ivo van Hove is (who is the main attribution of the liver cancer claim). I'm sure there will be other conjecture taking place over his CoD (always does when someone has recently passed) until the family release further medical details. Karst (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source for the claim that "Bowie said he gave up smoking at the end of 2003/beginning of 2004"? Or, better still, a source that he actually did. Thanks. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In September 2005 he said he gave up six months before he had a heart attack in June 2004: http://www.gigwise.com/news/8608/David-Bowie-Shocked-By-Heart-Attack-Last-Year (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC))

Yes. Maybe if was a New Year's resolution. There is more about his smoking here. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That interview, for The Big Issue with Jarvis Cocker, is from 1997, so there is no mention of giving up. But it's quite interesting. Bowie does say: "I've been smoking all my life". He started at home: "Mine was a house of smokers as well, both parents a considerable number of cigarettes. I think it was Senior Service and then when my father had a better job it became Weights. And I'd steal his. I think it was the rite of passage through to adulthood that appealed to me, that was the thing about it."

And this: "Wow. I used to light them with matches because it had a more theatrical effect, I think. But as my awareness that the cigarette doesn't represent any particular attitude any more, it doesn't have the potency of a symbol it used to have. I saw it once as a prop on stage, now I smoke on stage just because I need one. So now I'm quite happy with a Bic, which is pretty sort of fundamental. But I was aware of ritual and routine and theatricality with a cigarette when I was younger. I knew exactly what I was doing around the stage and the cigarette became symbolic of a certain kind of removed identity kind of thing, you know - that I don't have to be singing these songs, I'm just doing you a favour. I think the symbolic cigarette has dropped way behind now. It's just another bloody thing that I do." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But he also was a heavy drinker at some stage right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.253.238 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just seen a BBC interview from, I think, 1999, where he speaks about the fact that he did not drink alcohol at that time - he said "I can't - I'm an alcoholic - if I did it would kill me."

Some articles online say he smoked 50 or 60 cigarettes a day for most of his life. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Opening section - late 70s

It says "After uneven commercial success in the late 1970s, ..." - I assume that is referring to the Berlin era. If so, shouldn't it say they were critically acclaimed but commercially uneven, if that really was the case. -- Beardo (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence you refer to is about his commercial success in the 1980s and so the "uneven" successes of the 1970s are mentioned to show contrast. Also the Berlin era and its critical success is mentioned literally in the previous sentence. The three words preceding the words you quote are "lasting critical praise", made in reference to the Berlin albums. So I don't know what more you could want. 99.192.95.153 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Children

Please re-edit article to include the name of Bowie's second child, by Imam, Duncan's half sister per his wikipedia bio Alexandria "Lexi" Jones

 Not done. No need to name non-notable children. WWGB (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kon-rads

Weren't they called The Kon-rads, not The Konrads: [5]? I do not have a copy of Sandford's book. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it might have been printed both ways at the time: [6] 99.192.64.126 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on this label also. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Tron

Could we add a reference to his Ziggy Stardust character's appearance in Tron: Legacy [7]

Sheen revealed that his approach to playing the villainous Castor in Disney's forthcoming blockbuster Tron: Legacy was informed by the master chameleon David Bowie.

Topher67 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That someone's performance is "informed by" Bowie is not at all the same thing as an "appearance" by Ziggy. For the purposes of the Bowie article it is trivia, but it might be worth a mention on the film article. 99.192.64.126 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, even with that headline and the Charlie Sheen quote: "I was going for a sort of albino Ziggy Stardust," Sheen told the Guardian. "A one-man walking Andy Warhol Factory." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Very little on his relation to the art world

The link to Bowieart appears at the bottom but no text at all about his own paintings, his painting collection, his editorship at Modern Painters, etc.? The work is pretty extensive. http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/art/art1.htm Agent Cooper (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it certainly needs adding/ expanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Doubtless we'll be getting more coverage over time as his estate settled, and items are displayed in galleries, auctioned off, etc. The only other notable musician and singer who also painted I can think of was Captain Beefheart, who eventually took up painting exclusively, so Bowie's oeuvre is probably not as extensive. But I might be wrong! kencf0618 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He's one of nine at this Huff Po article. But no sign of the good Captain there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell. Willondon (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are tons of notable singers who paint as well. Joni Mitchell and Tony Bennett are two that have had extensive notable public careers as painters. Bob Dylan has a website for his painting. Paul Stanley has a section on his website for his paintings. Ron Wood is another singer who is a painter. Grace Slick is another. So is Jerry Garcia. The list seems endless. 99.192.81.144 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And let's not forget about Stairway to Heaven. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not all pop stars paint well. This for instance is bloody horrendous! Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

SuBo!? Didn't she have a famous sculptor dad, who was also a bit of a hard-nosed gangster?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Brits, please weigh in

It's my understanding per numerous discussions at the Emma Watson talk page and others over the years that a person's nationality—not his home country, necessarily—is the identifier for purposes of an article and, therefore, the man we knew as David Bowie was British, not English. Right? Wrong? Good job to help a Yank out, innit? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But, ATinySliver, Great Britain is not a country. It is a set of islands, including most of England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, so would we call a Scottish person "British"? Cause it would still be accurate. I think English is the safer term here, as England is their country, not Great Britain. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Great Britain is the main island containing England, Scotland and Wales, plus the smaller islands close offshore, e.g. the Isle of Wight, Lundy island, the Farne islands and so on. I assume that it includes the Hebrides, but I'm not sure; and I am really not sure that it could include the Orkneys or Shetland. It definitely does not include the Isle of Man (an "independent" country with a very special British status, which no-one outside the IOM understands) and Northern Island. The British Isles, as a geographical feature, includes Great Britain and Ireland (and the IOM and the aforementioned Shetland etc). The British Isles would not include the Channel Isles, even though these are politically tied with the UK (again in some obscure and little understood independence arrangement). I have always wondered if Irish Nationalists object to the term British Isles, and if they have another name for this group of islands?

The UK (United Kingdom) is a political entity which is more than Great Britain, but less than the British Isles.

It's a matter of nationality—not country of origin—per everything I've read to this point. This is why I'm hoping to get something more definitive. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So, what exactly would we call a Scottish, Welsh, or Irish person? Because they can still be called British - which is the problem, because then we would have to go through all those articles and call them British. Which is why I would personally prefer English. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I've posed the question. Let's let the Brits weigh in (preferably with sources), shall we? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Irish people are not British. Ireland is a separate country and so they are simply Irish. People from Northern Ireland are British by nationality as they are citizens of the UK. Ethnically some people from Northern Ireland identify as Irish and others as Northern Irish. But Northern Ireland is a complicated place. 99.192.77.231 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the United Kingdom for short. The citizens of that country are commonly referred to as "British" regardless of what part of the UK they are from. Terms like "English" and "Scottish" are used more commomly to designate an ethnicity, so someone born in London to Scottish parents and who grew up in Japan because his parents worked there would be identified as "Scottish" ethnically and "British" by citizenship, even if he never set foot in Scotland in his life. Bowie was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and thus British, but ethnically he was English. 99.192.77.231 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there is a reliable source on what to call somebody, and when I said Irish, I did mean Northern, I was generalizing. In most cases, it's all preference. I spent a little time in England, and people there identified as both British and English. To dump them into British doesn't exactly work. Cause someone can be English without being British, and someone can be British without being English. Nationality means "belonging to a nation". So, were all Indians when they were owned by England English? And are Puerto Ricans considered American because the country is an American territory? I think not. Oh, and so... should we got through all these Scottish BLPs and call the people "British" since we apparently go by nationality? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not as subjective as you say. First, you cannot be English and not British unless you mean ethnically English and not a citizen of the UK, so not British by citizenship. There is no such thing as being a citizen of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Those people are all citizens of the United Kingdom which makes them all British by citizenship. In general, citizenship is unambiguous while sometimes ethnicity can be less clear. In Bowie's case, however, it seems beyond doubt that he was a citizen of the UK (thus British) and ethnically English. 99.192.77.231 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're British, which you should know that the UK is not a country, but a sovereign state. If the UK were a country, then England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all are not countries, as a country cannot be a part of a country. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the UK can be described as a country, in addition to its constituencies. The British government universily describes both as "countries". BananaBork (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Turns out my question may be entirely moot. After skimming Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and its archives, the only thing resembling a consensus was that nothing should be applied across the board. Meantime, MOS:BIO under "Context (location or nationality)" reads, "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." (Emphasis mine.) If 99.192.77.231 is correct and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sovereign country and England is itself not, and if the source already cited at Emma Watson is correct and British is the legal nationality, then Bowie was British. (And Watson is undeniably, as a French-born citizen of the UK.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, as this is the Bowie talk page, here is what I know for certain and is indisputable. David Bowie was a citizen of the United Kingdom and thus "British" is the correct term to describe his citizenship. Bowie was born and raised in England and by ethnicity was "English". When we start getting into questions of what the word "nation" or "country" really mean and so what term best describes his "nationality" as opposed to his citizenship or his ethnicity we start to go down the rabbit hole. But if the article identifies him as "British" it is correct and if it identifies him as "English" it is also correct. Which one is used in the opening sentence does not really matter to me. 99.192.77.231 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted in Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom we are informed by "evidence that the person has a preferred nationality". So, are their any quotes where Bowie said words to the effect "I am British" or "I am English"? WWGB (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't mean much, I'm sure, but looking at English people#Currentnationalandpoliticalidentity, it says that: "Many recent immigrants to England have assumed a solely British identity, while others have developed dual or mixed identities. Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British"." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He once said "I'm afraid of Americans". Does that help? :-) 99.192.77.231 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also again, pigeonholing, as the UK encompasses multiple countries. So would we just call Scottish, Welsh, etc., British? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the potential for pigeonholing, given the years of discussion on this topic, is a slope that doesn't exist. The only consensus I noted above is that there is no across-the-board consensus. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the hot air surrounding this subject comes from the UK countries other than England who feel their national identities have been ignored for many years. The English are generally less bothered, but we do get annoyed when Americans and others use the terms English and British interchangeably (not as annoyed as the Scots though). BTW, Bowie was English and a UK aka British citizen. --Ef80 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a good question, actually; I haven't found anything yet. Meantime, a perusal of his obits from across the Pond shows both being used; The Economic Times of India actually used one in the headline and the other in the body. 🙄😆 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with either one - as long as we put the Scottish, Welsh, and whatever else is in the UK, as British. Americans are so much easier... but if the US had another official country, there would be issues just like this. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie says "I'm so strictly English" at 6:17 in this Australian Countdown program interview from 1983 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzr6QsiPles .Nqr9 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at its best when it sticks to objective fact and stays out of political messes. For virtually all people the question of citizenship is a matter of objective fact. For virtually all people there is a clear way to fill in the blank in the phrase "is a _____ citizen". (Even for dual citizens the two ways to fill it out are typically clear, indisputable, objective facts.) In the case of Bowie, the only word that can fill that blank truthfully is "British". If the word "British" is a preferred word by some and not by others for reasons of ethnic identification that is fine, but it does get into the area of political messes. David Bowie was born a British citizen and he died a British citizen. That is as objectively true as it gets. 99.192.77.231 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, only if there's community-wide consensus for change could it be applied across the board. There isn't. For now, we're discussing David Bowie and, probably, that's as it should be. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

English, British who fucking cares? Same shit, innit? What next, a debate on whether he should considered white or Caucasian? 67.71.181.24 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cor, I must be a gormless prat. Someone must've nicked me loaf. It's all sixes and sevens, innit? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It certainly matters if you're Scottish or Welsh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Or Northern Irish, or Manx. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently nobody here is aware of the existence of Terminology of the British Isles. Please take a cold shower, then read it, then sit and think for a while, then read its voluminous Talk pages, then sit and think for a while longer, then take another cold shower, then maybe perhaps consider returning here to engage in further discourse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there an option just to do the showers? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm neither English nor British, and don't particularly care which demonym is used to describe David Bowie in this article, but thought those of you debating this might be interested to know that an Australian interview (from 1983, I think) was re-aired on Australian TV show rage last night, where David refers to himself as English (someone commented earlier that the best evidence would be a quote from David himself stating 'I am English'). It doesn't seem to be on youtube yet, but I can upload it later on if no-one else does.Nqr9 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, from 6:17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzr6QsiPles - "I'm so strictly English".Nqr9 (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good find! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it helps much. We already knew he was both English and British. The only question was should people be identified in the lead sentence in articles by where they are a citizen or by their ethnicity? Take, for example, a common occurrence: A Canadian born-and-raised actor who lives and works most of his life in the US. If that actor never takes US citizenship, Wikipedia refers to him as "Canadian". But the moment he becomes an American citizen Wikipedia refers to him as "American-Canadian". This practice suggests that the relevant issue for identification is citizenship, not ethnicity. Things get really confusing when people start using the word "nationality" because it can mean two different things. It can refer to citizenship and it can refer to ethnicity. So talking about a person's "nationality" will just confuse things. The UK is one of those places where people of different ethnicities sometimes fiercely insist on being identified by those ethnicities. So someone to whom being Scottish is very important might insist on being called Scottish rather than British because he does not want people to mistakenly think he is English. But the truth is that by citizenship a Scottish person is British. Some Catalan people don't like being called Spanish and some Flemish people don't like being called Belgian, but by citizenship they are. I think in general Wikipedia identifies people by citizenship except if the person is thought to strongly object and prefer an ethnic designation, so you will see "Flemish actor" or "Catalan singer" or "English poet" instead of citizenship designations. I don't know if Bowie really cared. Maybe he always called himself "English" and never "British" and it mattered a lot to him or maybe he used "English" sometimes and "British" other times and didn't care. I don't really know. 99.192.64.126 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.77.231)

FWIW, AusLondonder, Chie one was correct to revert you; not so much because it's an "old chestnut" as because you used an encyclopedia to cite a phrase in an encyclopedia. (Sorry, Brits—encyclopaedia. ) That Tom Carson is a staff writer for The Village Voice certainly lends him credibility, but: A) he's based in New Orleans; and B) there's nothing in his bio suggesting he knows the difference. Further, he doesn't offer a citation for his choice—and, had he done, we'd need to cite that. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, Chie one, please take care to not throw out the baby with the bath water. It is not always necessary to gain a consensus before making a change. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bisexual and/or LGBT categories...again

Whether or not Bowie should be in the bisexual and/or LGBT categories has been discussed before; see Talk:David Bowie/Archive 5#No LGBT catgories, where some editors supported the categories and others felt that the article is better off without them since there is some debate about Bowie's sexuality. I stated, "[T]he point is whether or not Bowie currently identifies as bisexual; if he does, he should be in the bisexual category. Bowie's latest public sexual identification is bisexual; we need to have a solid reason to believe that he has renounced that. WP:BLPCAT does not require that a person consistently/constantly reaffirm their sexual identity. And if not placed in the bisexual category, Bowie should at least be placed in a LGBT category."

I'm bringing this matter up again because I just saw that with this and this edit, Rms125a@hotmail.com removed Bowie from both categories yesterday, stating, "rv categories disputed by Bowie himself ('Bowie said his public declaration of bisexuality was 'the biggest mistake I ever made')." I don't understand Rms125a@hotmail.com's point since stating that you regret having revealed your sexual orientation doesn't mean that you don't identify as that sexual orientation. And like I stated, it seems that Bowie's last identification with regard to his sexual orientation is that he's bisexual. That stated, I will let others decide this category matter, just like I did before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

He did desist from identifying himself as such; he stated he was a "closet heterosexual". Quis separabit? 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, that was in the 1983 interview with Rolling Stone. In the 2002 interview with Blender, he stated, "I had no problem with people knowing I was bisexual. But I had no inclination to hold any banners nor be a representative of any group of people. I knew what I wanted to be, which was a songwriter and a performer, and I felt that bisexuality became my headline over here for so long. America is a very puritanical place, and I think it stood in the way of so much I wanted to do." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed "Bowie's last identification with regard to his sexual orientation is that he's bisexual", then I will drop my objection. Has he ever been linked to any other male intimately besides Jagger, btw? Quis separabit? 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Going by the section in question, if there were other men, they were mostly or all non-notables. We don't even know for sure if he was sexual with Jagger; his former wife (Angie) stated that he was, but I'd rather not just take her word on that. Bowie never denied it, though. All of this is why I started this discussion. We now have more eyes on this article, and I'm leaving this up to you all to decide. I also reiterate that placing Bowie solely in the LGBT categories is an option, as was done in the case of the Jodie Foster and Amber Heard articles after consensus discussions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowie was reported to have had a sexual relationship with Mick Ronson in the 1970s. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC))

Here is how I read the 2002 statement. When he says "I had no problem with people knowing I was bisexual" he uses the past tense. He says he was bisexual, not that he had no problem with people knowing that he is bisexual. The 2002 statement seems to be saying he was bisexual then but is not bisexual now (in 2002). We need not get into the question of whether or not a person's sexual orientation can change over time to see that what he is saying is that he self-identified (and not just publicly) as bisexual in the 1970s but later (by 1983 and continuing in 2002) identified as heterosexual. When it comes to categories, then, I would say he should not be placed in categories like "LGBT singers" unless that category is defined as including both people who currently identify as LGBT as well as people who did so identify at one time but no longer do so. It does, after all, seem true to say that he was an LGBT singer for part of his life. 99.192.83.72 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're bisexual you can't change that. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC))

If Bowie identified as bisexual at some point in his life, then I see no problem with including him in those categories. Kiwifist (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

David, your comment is beside the point to the question of category inclusion. I am inclined to agree with Kiwifist that he should be included in the category. Anyone coming to this page because they see him listed in the category will find in the article a clear explanation for that inclusion. 99.192.92.97 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.83.72)

If Bowie was attracted to men as well as women then that was not something he could change. Therefore he was still bisexual even if he did not have sex with men after the 1970s. (DavidRichardLlewelyn (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

DavidRichardLlawelyn sometimes human sexuality isn't that clear-cut. Biology and culture entangle in complex ways. See genderqueer and queer heterosexuality for examples.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also the topic of sexual fluidity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And sexual identity too, which does not always align with actual sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David, you have missed the point once again. There can a difference between what a person's sexual orientation is and how they publicly self-identify. Sometimes people can be wrong about their own sexuality ("I thought I was X but now I realize that I am Y") but more often the difference comes when people lie about their sexual orientation. Non-heterosexual people who publicly self-identify as heterosexual make up mot of the people who lie about their sexual orientation, but not all of them. Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to determine the actual sexual orientation of people who are the subject of articles (at least, for the ones about people who have lived in recent years - historical figures might get different treatment). So what a person's actual sexual orientation is is actually irrelevant for Wikipedia editing. The only thing that matters is how they have publicly self-identified (and if they have made any public statement at all).

Some people believe that Bowie's public statements about his sexuality in the 1980s (especially the bit about being a "closet heterosexual") constitute him saying that he lied previously when he said he was bisexual and that he had lied for artistic reasons. They think Bowie was heterosexual his entire life. Some people think Bowie was truthful in the 1970s about being bisexual and jut became confused later mistaking his lack of sexual interest in men in the last 35 years of his life to a change in his orientation. They think he was bisexual his entire life. There also are people who think your sexual orientation can change and so he really was bisexual in the 1970s and also really was heterosexual in the last 35 years of his life. But Wikipedia does not care which of these three stories (if any - it is still possible that he was secretly gay his entire life and never told anyone) is true. Wikipedia deals only in public self-identification of sexual orientation.

So if the category "LGBT singers" is understood to mean "singers whose most recent self identification is as LGBT or some part thereof", then Bowie should not be in the category. If the category "LGBT singers" is understood to mean "singers who at some time in their life publicly self-identified as LGBT or some part thereof", then Bowie should be in the category. Bowie's self-identification as bisexual in the 1970s was not a passing thing and the image as being androgynous was important to his artistic expression at the time, so it makes sense to me that his former self-identification as bisexual is sufficient to fit him in the category. So David, the question as to whether he really was attracted to men in the 1970s or whether he was really bisexual is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia's position is we don't care what a person is. We only care what a person says he is. 99.192.79.8 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.83.72)

Regarding whether or not Bowie meant he "was bisexual" instead of "is bisexual" in his 2002 interview, that's debatable since it's not unheard of for people to use the past tense when talking about a present matter, especially if talking about the past. Either way, it's clear that while I interpreted the interview as him acknowledging that he's bisexual, you didn't. And then there's the different opinions in the aforementioned discussion about the categories, and in the Wikipedia article; debate and confusion about his sexual orientation is why I've consistently felt that it's safer to place him in the LGBT category, as was done for Jodie Foster and Amber Heard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting read of his 2002 statement. Also interesting is that even though we read it differently we still both think he should be placed in the LGBT category. A quick look up this section seems to show that of the editors participating here that four support inclusion and one does not. I know consensus is not a matter of counting votes, but it is looking like people interested in this question are siding mostly with one position on inclusion even if from several different angles. I would like to hear if Quis separabit (the lone participating dissenter) has any more thoughts about this, but we might have enough here to support a conclusion to the matter. 99.192.95.153 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC) (=99.192.83.72)

Kencf0618, regarding this, why did you think he should be placed in both the bisexual and LGBT categories instead of simply in the LGBT categories? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie was neither Lou Reed nor Sally Ride, and not a standard-bearer, but his androgynous persona and bisexuality (however defined) bears mention. Too, he had an impact on the LGBT community.

http://www.politico.eu/article/david-bowies-strange-politics-gender-equality-live-aid/

kencf0618 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm with User:Kencf0618 on this: No matter what Bowie was or wasn't in the 70s or later, the character Ziggy Stardust (which apparently gave at least part of the interviews back then) definitely was bisexual, transsexual, transvestitic, and utterly, overall transgressive, and as such heavily influenced glam rock as well as LGBT culture. --2003:71:4E6A:C930:7CE3:11DB:5671:F15C (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Velvet Goldmine

What, no mention of the film Velvet Goldmine (1998), not even in the Legacy section? It's pretty much to Bowie and early 70s glamrock what The Rutles and All You Need Is Cash (1978) are for The Beatles and Beatlemania (only more of a respectful hommage than a parody), I'm Not There (2007) to Bob Dylan, or Citizen Kane (1941) to Randolph Hearst. In fact, the creators of Velvet Goldmine even contacted Bowie during the pre-production to get his input. Bowie hated the idea so much that he threatened to sue, so the character of "Brian Slade" in the film also has a little of Brian Eno added to him, to make him a little less like the real Bowie. Next to "Brian Slade", there's also the character of "Curt Wild", a blend of Iggy Pop with Lou Reed. --2003:71:4E6A:C930:7CE3:11DB:5671:F15C (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a one short sentence mention for this article, at best. Keep in mind that the current Off-Broadway musical Lazarus that includes about 20 different Bowie songs (and that gets it title from a Bowie song) is only mentioned once and in passing in the article. By comparison, Velvet Goldmine is barely more than trivia. 99.192.66.227 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I think we need to be careful about how much stuff/trivia we are filling the infobox with. It is starting to look overlong and, yup, you guessed it, bloated. I see we are now adding every single musical instrument Bowie layer his hands on. Not good. Can we please discuss anything further here. Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed, recently, in Talk:David Bowie/Archive 5#Instruments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)