Talk:Buddy Holly

Removal of claim about Elton John's eyesight
In the article's Influence section, it previously said that Elton John's eyesight was damaged by some glasses he wore. I have removed the claim, since it is a misconception that glasses can damage one's eyesight. On a side note, the citation for the claim is unclear, since the -link is dead; there's no 1979 book by John Goldrosen in the Sources section.--Stempelquist (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source calling this a misconception? I'm pretty sure this is the Goldrosen book. Don't know what's in it (beyond a story about Buddy Holly). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's this page on the American Academy of Ophthalmology's website. If the claim is really made in the Goldrosen book, and since the "fact" has been spread in at least this forum post linking to the Wiki article, maybe it could be an idea to approach the misconception in the article (after the line about Elton John imitating Holly)? It could say something like: "In a Holly biography by John Goldrosen, it is claimed that this damaged John's eyesight and made him dependent on glasses. However, wearing glasses can't damage one's eyesight.[insert AAO source]". The popular Reddit post I linked could even be mentioned. Or maybe it's all too much of a side note and belongs in the Elton John article or nowhere at all?--Stempelquist (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, piano playing singers don't become rich and famous. Many academies advise partying like he did can kill an average person. But there was something about him the defied expectations in those regards, and maybe there is here, too. Always better to counter a particular claim with a particular denial. But I don't care enough to argue it further. Consider me out of your way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary level of detail
At, this seems unnecessarily gory:


 * The bodies of the entertainers were all ejected from the plane on impact, while Peterson's body remained entangled in the wreckage. Holly had sustained fatal trauma to his head and chest and numerous lacerations and fractures of his arms and legs.

Is it really insufficient to know, from the previous sentence, that they were:


 * killed instantly when their plane crashed into a cornfield

? How about adding the AutopsyFiles.org ref to this sentence or External Links for those who really need to know? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism by 1.43.142.179
I see you had to revert a lot of edits by non-registered users recently. In this reversion of your reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_Holly&type=revision&diff=993175413&oldid=993161326), the person infobox was lost, which means the field for spouse was lost as well. I just put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit history. That was annoying. How do we put the spouse field back? I tried, but it just wouldn't show up. Givemedonuts (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When I originally added it a couple years ago, I made the main infobox a "person" infobox, then embedded the musical artist infobox with the "module" field name. Then the spouse field goes into the "person" infobox (note the diff link I posted above). -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed the infobox -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. I have nooooooo idea about these things. Cheers to you! Givemedonuts (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)