Talk:David Bowie

Dana Gillespie
Although we are very unsure of Lori Mattix, one thing that I would be fine with putting in the article is Bowie's underage relationship with singer Dana Gillespie. It is documented (Kevin Cann, Dylan Jones, Gillespie's own memoir, and various online articles (for one), that the two met before Bowie was famous in 1964 (when he was 17 and Gillespie was 14) and began a relationship after (it is heavily implied that it was sexual: she witnessed Davie Jones and the Manish Boys attempting to play them – their music made little impact on her, although the singer's androgynous appearance did. After the set finished he approached Gillespie and requested she take him home: "I don't need to tell you what went on that night, but we were very young.") There are also quite a few photos of Bowie with Gillespie (including ) where there are none with Bowie and Mattix.  Would either of you have any objections on adding this? It would go under 'other relationships'. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Feels like it would be appropriate to be added since it's well-corroborated. The Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom article doesn't make it clear if their ages were an issue at the time (the laws were changed in the 70s) 87Fan (talk) (edited a typo)
 * I support this inclusion, with the note that anything we write up here we can also use at Dana Gillespie which while it has one of the pictures you were talking about doesn't say that they were in a relationship. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mattix... once again
After giving it some thought, I think the only way it would be appropriate to include Lori Mattix in this article is mention her in the context of the commentary that surrounded it when the Thrillist interview came out. Various articles that talked about that interview's impact include    (there are more I just can't find them).

One thing is straight, Mattix's story has tons of holes. I have laid those out over on my sandbox and every fact has also been laid out here on Medium. Because of this, we really have no idea if it happened or did not happen. Decades ago, she told Stephen Davis in Hammer of the Gods that she lost her virginity to Jimmy Page. This relationship was well documented and there are multiple photos of them to prove it: here and here. Yet, there are zero photos of Mattix and Bowie together. Additionally, Mattix claimed that after their supposed encounter they "remained friends throughout his rise to fame and he would always check in with me to see how I was doing in my life. We were friends." Yet again, she is not mentioned as such in any biography that I own of him (and in the rare times she is mentioned, it is only about this one supposed encounter). Other groupies who were also supposedly there during the encounter (Sable Starr, Pamela Des Barres) also contradicted Mattix's claims see here. Therefore, Mattix herself is unreliable and we can never be certain if it actually happened.

We do know what happened is this: Mattix's accusation meant something to people and sparked conversations. In the years since its publishing, fans have defended him as shown here and others have not. Henceforth, if we must include Mattix in Bowie's main article, it should be built around the debate it caused and the possible repercussions that followed. I think it would fit well under "controversies". However, it must use neutral language and presented in a way that does not state he did or did not do it. We could even continue on from how it is laid out over at MeToo movement with this source. Here's what I am thinking:

In late 2015, the former groupie Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25. While the claim was questioned for its factuality, the accusation proved controversial, with several articles questioning if it would damage or impact Bowie's legacy following his death in early 2016. In the wake of the MeToo movement in the late 2010s, the accusation sparked further debate on the toleration or normalization of underage groupies during the period. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well thought out, explained and supported. I think keeping it brief and neutral is good, and that what you have proposed would be a reasonable addition. Thanks as always, zmbro. You rock. 87Fan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! :-)  what do you think? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need to see a version with inline citations. The phrase "In the wake of the MeToo movement" is also a little too similar to "in the wake of #MeToo" from the Jonze piece. I think we should also be mentioning that it didn't just start a debate about the toleration or normalization of underage groupies during the period but also about Bowie's legacy (we also need to talk about Gillespie in the context of the debate and his legacy). I am also unsure of what you mean by "I think it would fit well under "controversies"" because the article does not appear to have any such section. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Well of course it needs citations I was just writing it out first to get your opinion.
 * 2. Is "with several articles questioning if it would damage or impact Bowie's legacy" not good enough?
 * 3. Ok how about: "In the wake of the MeToo movement in the late 2010s, (to be reworded) Mattix's accusation and Bowie's underage relationship with Dana Gillespie sparked further debate..."?
 * 4. That is my bad I was thinking of "political views" (the whole fascism stuff). Speaking of that, that whole thing I think would work better in a new controversies section since he was coked out of his mind when he made those statements. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Can't give an opinion without citations.
 * 2. I don't think you can source it.
 * 3. The relevant source treat them both as accusations, you seem to be POV pushing.
 * 4. As a project we don't do stand alone controversy sections anymore, we're actually trying to work all of the ones we currently do have into the other parts of the article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Valid points. Let me see what I can do and we can go from there. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Take Two

A little stuck. How would you proceed from here? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "In late 2015, the former groupie Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25."
 * "The accusation proved controversial. Commentators questioned how it would impact Bowie's legacy following his death in early 2016."
 * Just getting to this... I think we need more context... How about:
 * "In a 2015 Thrillist interview Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25. Following the death of Bowie in 2016 his "complicated sexual history" was a source of controversy, although it did not feature heavily in mainstream remembrances of the artist. Mattix had been a Los Angeles based groupie and engaged in a number of liaisons and relationships with entertainers, at the time relationships between entertainers and underage fans were normalized but in the context of MeToo much of that history was reexamined. Despite elements of his legacy being called into question as a result of the Mattix and Gillespie allegations Bowie was for the most part not cancelled although experts disagree on why."
 * Room for improvement, but I hope this gets the important parts of the context right (that second sentence might go better elsewhere). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Welsh heritage
With the last name Jones, did Bowie have any Welsh heritage? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of. Per Gillman his mother had ancestors in Ireland. Jones is also a very common last name... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * He used to be under the category English people of Welsh descent, presumably because of the name Jones, but this has since been removed. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)