Talk:David Bowie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Toy

Okay, I know I've been a bit picky, and even a tone sarcastic in my measures to prevent its inclusion, but why is Toy being included in the article's discography of released studio albums by David Bowie when it has no confirmed release date or information and there is already sufficient information about the album within the article? I'm sorry, but it seems to go against the idea of a discography to include albums that were not released, have not been promoted as upcoming releases, and (despite the existance of some studio recordings) may not even be in final condition. The songs exist, the sessions occurred, and the project was attempted, but that does not constitute as making the set of songs originally planned for an album release a confirmed album. I suppose it would interest you to know that David Bowie has other unreleased material that was originally planned for an album, such as Tin Machine III or 2. Contamination. Should these albums, with no confirmable release date, be included in the discography because they "might" be released eventually? David Bowie "might" release another album of cover songs, according to interviews; should "Pin-Ups 2" be included in the discography? Bowie seems to enjoy jazz music and says he'd like to make a jazz album someday; should "As-Of-Yet Untitled Jazz Album" be included in the discography? Seriously, when you delve into the world of what David Bowie "might" do, you could probably include thousands of whims and ideas he has come accross and, as a result, pollute the article with enough extra information to turn it into a shopping cart of David Bowie's thoughts, which, though amusing, is completely inappropriate for the situation. If you can show me the confirmation that Toy WILL be released, I will appreciate that immensly. And even if it IS confirmed to be an upcoming release, put it at the bottom of the list so that it is sequentially proper, it isn't like I'll suddenly REMEMBER it was released between Hours and Heathen. Mikeguy 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a splendidly-controlled and carefully-argued rant, Mike - and I agree with you 100%...! At best it should perhaps be mentioned in the body of article if it really inspires such interest but the Discography? Nah. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to change it and leave a message NOT to include it again and to discuss any discontent with this motion in the talk page. Mikeguy 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Toy should be included. Gerry Leonard, one of Bowie's studio musicians, lists it in his discogprashy. Also, there are remnants of the album existing on B-sides to the singles from the albums "Heathen". Examples include: Wood Jackson, Baby Loves That Way, and Conversation Piece. Just because the album hasn't been release yet doesn't mean it sholdn't be included. The sessions happened and it is a packaged album. There are a few copies floating out there, despite the fact that there has been no "official" release, and it should be treated as an album. Just because there is no release date does not mean it should not be included. Bowie himslef said he will release it at one point. To review, Bowie Has confirmed the album, there are songs from the albums used as b-sides, it is listed in other musicians discographies, and it is accepted in the BowieNet community as an album that has yet to be released but it none the less finished. JBScout21 1:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but who is Gerry Leonard? Toy wasn't in David Buckley's discography last time I looked and I don't think Nicholas Pegg considers it a 'proper' album. As I've said earlier, there's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned briefly in the main body of the article at the appropriate point but to include it in the discography still seems premature at this stage. If there are indeed "a few copies floating out there" then that sounds like the equivalent of bootlegs, which we don't list either. If Bowie has indeed said he will issue it at some point, then point us to the press release, and I don't mean on BowieNet but in an open forum - cite an official announcement and then we can consider it. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Leonard was the musical director of the Heathen and Reality Tours. David Buckley's biography AND Nicholas Pegg also mentioned it in his discography as well. Yes, there is no album review of it but it was mentioned as a to be released album. David Bowie has stated in interviews and numerous journal entries on his site that the album has been compleated and the problem is with the distributor. The pieces out there were B-Sides from the singles that were released from Heathen NOT bootlegs. Bowie also stated on his site that TOY is finished and that he is having issues with the distributor. Specifically his journal entry on Wednesday July 4th, 2001 in which he states "TOY is finished but I'm having unbelievably complicated scheduling negotiations with my record company." Those are his words on his site and what more can one ask for? Further through the journal entry he states that "I have just kept on writing and intend to start the Visconti album very soon." This album was what would become Heathen. The pieces out in the world are B-Sides not bootlegs. BowieNet is a place where Bowie has spoken about his projects and work and there is no reason why that shouldn't be good enough word. To top off the rest of this argument whatever wasn't a B-side is not a smuggled bootleg but archived from various peaks Bowie has given of it on bowie durring 2001-2002 when he was in the post-producation stages of the album. Many non-BowieNeters do not have acess to this because it was released "inside the site" for memebers only. Sorry if you can't get the proof you want because you are not a member. I am and I have checked all of this information twice. TOY stays whether you think it should count or not. The songs are copyrighted and the album is complete, all that is left is a release which Bowie has stayed commited to doing. What more proof do you want!?! I will wait a week fore any other reasons before I put TOY back up in the discography. JBScout21 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Count me in as somebody a bit bemused by the inclusion of a non-released album in Bowie's discography. Any long-term fan of Bowie knows full well his wandering and fickle creative eye - witness the 1.Outside debacle for example. Do we include the other albums that were to form part of this work in his discography? I am sure I could find something online to say he is keen to work on them... but that doesn't mean they end up as part of his discography. An album should only be on the list if it is one that was able to or is able to be purchased in a record store. And what about that album he released to BowieNet members? Surely that has as much right to be on this list as Toys? As much as I would love to see Toys released the chances of that happening now are next to zero, especially now with tracks from it forming b-sides to singles of the TWO albums he has released since. If he was having such "unbelievably complicated scheduling negotiations" then how come he has managed to release two albums since (and conduct a world tour to boot!). Toys should NOT be on the discography list until I can go down to my local record store and buy it.Mmm commentaries 00:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been other non-released albums Bowie has done, but none that we have so much proof that they actually exist as Toy has. As to some of the arguments, the fact that Gerry Leonard's discography mentions it doesn't count for much. Carlos Alomar's website used to claim he played on Another Face (or one of those Deramn cash-in albums anyway) when he most certainly didn't. On the opposing side, the album released only to Bowienet members is a compilation of live material and remixes, not a proper studio album. And there can be complicated negotiations related to releasing Toy because he recorded it under his Virgin contract (but Virgin refused to release it), and presumably he'd want to release it under his ISO records label. And after all this, it's really all the same whether you include it no the discography or not. But I would like to point out a lot of websites and books do list it in their "main" discographies. -- Kjet 11:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially released, so it has no place in a discography. As for 'it will definitely be released at some point' and 'just because there isn't a release date...', surely that's speculation, and falls under WP:CRYSTAL? Fatjabba 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my earlier position on this when it was last discussed. We can certainly mention it in the body of the article under the appropriate section but the discography should be reserved for officially-released albums. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I decided to be bold and delete it from the Discography. Apologies if this starts a war. Fatjabba 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of being an informative source of info on Bowie and his music I think TOY should be included. The objective here is to create an article that a person can use to learn more Bowie and his music. This argument is really about semantics. In fact, it appears that everyone here agrees that it was worked on and actually finished. That in itself counts it above aborted records such as 2. Contamination. Also, I think it is important that we note that the objective here is to cash all the knowledge we have about Bowie into a coherent article. Is it really the end of the world if TOY is included? If one was to study the artistic phases of David Bowie then TOY is key and deserves more than a passing mention. I'm finding that arguments like this are what hold wikipedia back sometimes. In the end it was suppose to be out, it is critical artistically for Bowie, and it is a hot topic in the Bowie fan base. As for the record store argument...it's weak at best. Sure, you can't buy it, download it, or find it unless you are connected. However, for the sake of informing the world of a key step in Bowie's career I'm adding TOY. I hope you all stop acting like children and work on fixing real problems in articles. TOY is not the greatest issue wikipedia or this article is facing. Real misinformation is out there and TOY is very very much information. Whether people want it to be or not. Anonymous 21 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.77.143.182 (talk)

Also known as

Also known as "The Dame". The Dame is not something David Bowie is known as by his fans or most media publications. It's purely a stupid playful nickname by a UK magazine called, Q Music Magzine.

Worldwide David Bowie is also known as just Bowie, or Ziggy Stardust and The Thin White Duke. And to a lesser extent he's also known as Aladdin Sane and Halloween Jack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

To the best of my knowledge Bowie was never referred to as the Halloween Jack and he certainly never meant it to be an alter ego in a similar way as Ziggy Stardust or Thin White Duke were (the same could also be said for Aladdin Sane). "The Dame" should probably also be there, as well as plain "Bowie" as he did drop the David part from his stage name for a while in 1973-1974 (notice that both PinUps and Diamond Dogs have only the name "Bowie" in the cover, with no sign of "David").

While I'm at it, should the list also include all the name variants he used (and published music under) before settling on David Bowie? Or at the very least the Early years part of the biography should mention he used the names "Dave Jay", "Davie Jones" and "Davy Jones" (yes, exactly identical to The Monkees guy) before choosing "David Bowie" in late 1966. -- Kjet 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay... The three there at the moment - Ziggy, Aladdin and The Duke - should all stay. True, Aladdin Sane was essentially an alter ego of an alter ego (i.e. Ziggy) but was well-known enough at the time to qualify with the rest. Agree Halloween Jack is too esoteric and short-lived to be included. Agree The Dame should be there - doesn't matter where/how it originated, it's a relatively well-known epithet used by various biographers, among others. 'Bowie' is a bit obvious and not really one to bother with, even if he did use it on two albums - most major artists are 'also known as' their surname alone, e.g. 'Jagger', 'Hendrix', etc. For his early names, also agree the Early Years section is probably the best place for Davie Jones (with the King Bees) and Davy Jones (and the Lower Third). Dave Jay is another esoteric one, don't think I'd bother with it... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Rose says 'The Dame' is "a relatively well-known epithet used by various biographers, among others". Could you cite some examples? Also, he was never known as Aladdin Sane - even if you say it was a name of a character (which I would dispute), Bowie himself has *never* been known by that name. I challenge anyone to provide a reference to Bowie himself being referred to as 'Aladdin Sane'. If references can't be provided the names should come down. 217.42.13.36 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

David Buckley's Strange Fascination (one of the main sources for this article) uses "The Dame" constantly and also refers to several UK magazines that have used it (I can't be arsed to look up my copy right now so you'll have to take my word for it). On Aladdin Sane I agree - it was never a charter in the same sense as Ziggy or The Duke and as such probably shouldn't be on the list. -- Kjet 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the 2000 edition of his book, Buckley names a chapter (no. 12, beginning p.498) "Dame Meditation" and specifically refers to Bowie as "the Dame" on p.532 - just as a random example. As far as Aladdin Sane goes, I've pointed out earlier that he's somewhat more problematic as a character than Ziggy but there are reliable sources that consider him a persona in his own right. Again, to employ Buckley (p.164) and give some context, "Bowie, too, began confusing the character of Ziggy with his own. By the beginning of 1973 they had become one overwhelmingly powerful superhybrid. David Jones now had not one but two alter egos, and by the spring of 1973 had added a third: Aladdin Sane." Cheers, Ian Rose 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that "the Dame" is a fairly well-defined individual persona, and well-referenced. However, my personal opinion since the 1970s, despite what Buckley interprets, is that Aladdin Sane was an alter ego of Ziggy Stardust (in effect a sub-character), and intended as so by Bowie. The characters are not different enough physically to be thought of as separate - on the cover artwork, Sane is identical to Stardust, except for the lightning bolt make-up. And the album is essentially about the period of madness which culminated in the rock'n'roll suicide committed by Stardust - Sane represents the madness in Stardust's head, not Bowie's (well, perhaps that's arguable, actually, but then Stardust himself was a madness for Bowie, according to many biographical and documentary sources). I've never been happy with the inclusion of Aladdin Sane in the userbox. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Bowie never performed any stage shows under the Aladdin Sane cover makeup - in concerts after the release of that album he continued to appear in the Ziggy makeup (of which there were admittedly several variations -but to the best of my knowledge all of these hads already been features before the release of the Aladdin Sane album). -- Kjet 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, they're gangin' up on me, ma...! Seriously, I don't disagree with a thing Kjet or Ref have said about Aladdin ("alter ego of an alter ego" was how I described him at the top) but WP is about what reliable sources opine, not you and me. That said, I'm not going to make a big fuss about him, since even the sources are not as cut and dried as for Ziggy and the Duke. At any rate, we're in agreement about 'the Dame'... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But speaking of sources, the only source I can recall that actually treats Aladdin Sane as a Bowie persona is Buckley (then again, my memory isn't what it used to be...). I should remember to check the four Bowie biographies I have at home to see what each one is saying about the various personas to see if we could have some kind of a concensus actually based on sources. -- Kjet 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) - My final comment on this is that, whilst obviously well respected as a Bowie historian and commentator, Buckley is essentially giving us his opinions in print. If he were speaking on behalf of Bowie himself, then none of us would be posting here as we are at the moment. I think you have to hold back a little with the independence of the source when it is based on one man's opinion. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Photo

Any chance of a more up-to-date and flattering photo than of David during the Glass Spider tour? The mullet is shocking! No seriously, though, is there not something more recent that could be used? It just seems somewhat arbitrary a choice. 195.157.52.65 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear a little odd to have a photograph from the most maligned and insignificant period in his musical career as the main image. Surely something more suitable is availabe - perhaps it could be replaced by the Haloween Jack photo, leaving the Glass Spider shot to be intergrated into the main body of the article. 81.159.131.78 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Halloween Jack would make a more appropriate photo. Glass Spiders is probably an era Bowie would like to forget and hardly represents his career.--98percenthuman 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. Although the Glass Spider era is probably something Bowie would rather forget, his image at the time was much more "basic Bowie" (excepting the mullet) than the 1973 picture is. It would be ideal of course if we had more pictures to choose from, but as we currently only have the 1973 and 1987 pics, in my opinion we should go for the latter as a picture better representing Bowie's entire career, sinetad of the 1973 picture which only associates with one very short (albeit very well known) period of his career. -- Kjet 08:59, 30 July 2007

(UTC)

I know there are limitations to grapple with due to copyright restrictions, but I don't see why one wouldn't want to get a Ziggy-era photo up there. The Ziggy album & persona must be the most commonly recognized of his entire career and this should be an easy winner over the Halloween Jack look which, as Kjet posited, may be a bit extreme for a definitive look. My vote goes for a young '71/'72 photo. I hate to think the world remembers Bowie wearing that goddamn patch. If however a more "basic Bowie" photo is indeed necessary, I agree that anything would be better than Glass Spider; his look during that era would be as much a misrepresentation as anything. I would say a Low-era photo would serve better in that capacity.Zommbi 07:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with zommbi that a ziggy era picture from around the early 70s would be best, showing him in his peak rather than a slighly overweight ageing man. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We could go with something from a brighter period- something from the Reality Tour perhaps? That's fairly recent and isn't "a slighly overweight ageing man" to quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.110.107 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a non-copyrighted picture from the Reality Tour. The fact remains that we've currently got only two non-copyrighted pictures of el Bowza, the 2006 pic and Glass Spider pic that both appear in the article.

Also, for the record, I vehemently oppose the usage of a Ziggy-era picture as the main picture for this article. It annoys me to no end when other medias concentrate only on the glam era, especially on the visual side, when Bowie has done great music and had great (IMO better) looks in other eras. Also, it is extremely arguable if Bowie was "at his peak" around 1972-74. The most logical and neutral (in the sense that no-one likes it) thing would be to keep a recent picture as the main picture and if we ever get pictures from the other eras to use, they could be added in the article body. Of course all this is totally academic since we don't have the pictures to add. -- Kjet 07:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Moonlight Mike?

I heard someone mention "Moonlight Mike" as a Bowie persona. Anyone else know about this? I was thinking that it was related to the Serious Moonlight tour, for obvious reasons but..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetwings (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, never heard of that one... Even if he did use it, not significant enough to count as an 'alias' like Ziggy and co. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Man Who Sold The World isn't on the Outside album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.102.185 (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking to George Underwood (Bowie associate)

Hi. Today someone created a wikilink for George Underwood. Unfortunately, this leads to a disambiguation page. I have modified the link (as above) for now, but wonder if someone can be considered notable enough to deserve a redlink when all they have done is damage someone's eye irreparably (no matter how notable the recipient of the blow might be). Feel free to restore the wikilink to a non-wikilink if you concur that it's unlikely to be so. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Judaism?

"In late 2007, Bowie converted to the Plazaist sect of Judaism."

Is this true or BS? I find no mention of this sect anywhere in connection with Judaism.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkins (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrubbed boldly as unsourceable (0 dedicated hits on Google for "Plazaist Judaism"; few non-related or non-English 'junk' results for "Plazaist"). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Art

Strange there is no mention that Bowie is a major authority on and collector of modern art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.95.185 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

David Bowie is Hot.. his picture here is Not.

David Bowie is hot as hell, this has been a key point of popular culture in the US and Britian for at least 20 years. So, how come the picture in his article makes him look so doughy? This is the kind of misinformation that when expediently corrected improves the WikiVerse as a whole. 24.236.136.60 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Whether Bowie is "hot" in the sexual way you intend is neither here nor there where Wikipedia is concerned. His notability rests on his music, which is what got him his article in the first place. Many photographs have been used as the main leading one throughout the history of the article, and all have been denounced as 'dated'; in other words, everyone seems to have his or her favourite period of his work through what has been a long career, and disagreements finally resulted in consensus going with the most recent free image available, which is the "doughy" one you see today. And I would actually describe it as "distinguished-looking", so there again is the disagreement over one person's perceptions against another's. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the thing would be to pick up those dated pictures and incorporate them in the sections dealing with the corresponding periods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.224.33.88 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a photo album. One main picture is the norm per the guidelines, extra images by consensus. It is not the job of Wikipedia to document how he looked in each period of his career. Basic notability rests on his music, possibly also his acting but not so much. So the written dissertations on his music are crucial, images are not (a notable male model, for instance, would require more in the visual sphere than a male musician). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the opinion of Refsworldlee is quite misguided in this instance. Bowie has been renowned for his contribution to music as a composer and recording artist but also for the tremendous impact he has had on video, performance, and image. He is not on this page just because of his music at all; he has had perhaps the biggest visual impact of any artist since Elvis. So using that as a reason to make a certain decision about the photos has flaws. Photos of Bowie are just about as valid as those of any male model on Wikipedia.Guidedbyalan (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also had to chuckle at the unintended irony of someone pointing out that Wikipedia is edited by consensus in the same sentence that he tries to unilaterally veto a suggestion. "No" indeed. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Bowie's fame rests in large part upon his original, creative, chaning and uniquely-bowie image.--Timtak (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, although the pic may not highlight his supreme coolness, I think he looks kinda hot in it... 82.27.31.180 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Moulin Rouge Soundtrack

Should any mention be made of Bowie's participation in the Moulin Rouge soundtrack? After all, the soundtrack did win awards... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio Engineer?

This article's opening sentence define's Bowie as, among other things, an "audio engineer". This is the first I've heard of this aspect of his career. What are we talking about here? 24.183.105.240 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Name

Right, so David Bowie is not his real name. Does anybody know why he changed his name from David Jones? One source I’ve read (the Jim Bowie article) says it was to avoid confusion with Davy Jones and because he admired the american pioneer Jim Bowie and his Bowie knife. — NRen2k5 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I see it’s mentioned under Biography – Early Years. Thought for a second that maybe it should be in the introductory paragraph, but naaah. — NRen2k5 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

August

Is it too soon to include information on his upcoming role in "August"? The film should be appearing soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.110.107 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional External Link

{{Request edit}}

• http://tsort.info/music/vb4agf.htm and http://tsort.info/music/g7fv30.htm - Songs and Albums by David Bowie in music charts around the world.

I believe that this is a directly relevant link to a unique resource. The target pages have content that complements the current elements of this page and cannot easily be inserted into the existing article.

However as I am the maintainer of the external website I understand that my opinion may be biased and hence I am (rightly) prevented from making the change myself by Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest rules. I ask that you consider adding this link and comment here. This request is duplicated in the David Bowie Discography article.Steve.hawtin (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If I remember correctly, this website was inserted once before into the article David Bowie (8 December 2007), and reverted. External links are of secondary importance to an article ("Wikipedia is not a repository of links"), the primary reason for using URLs of sites outside Wikipedia is to reference or source the information contained within the article. Whilst your website may well be useful as a resource, it is not the purpose or duty of an encyclopedic article to supply links to such tools. If your website were to be used to reference or source information in the article, in the form of inline citations, then that would be a whole new issue. But as far as your request above, and in the related Discography article, goes, I am not in favour. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The link was inserted before (by me) and correctly reverted (by you) because the link was made by someone associated with the web site (due to my lack of understanding the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Rules, for which I apologise). According to the Wikipedia:External links page "Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as...". I have stated why I think this link is relevant, on-topic and why the information could not easily be incorporated in this page. The fact that the original change was reverted by you for a valid reason does not affect the relevance of the link. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and, in this case, it should hold more weight than mine.Steve.hawtin (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight of opinion has very little to do with it. Having visited your website, I believe it disqualifies itself as a "link normally to be avoided", specifically at Point 12: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" (my emphasis on personal web pages). Although very tastefully and imaginitively done, the inclusion of personal aspects, such as a "Family" section, make this intrinsically a personal website. Please note that I am not decrying the merit of this, and your commitment to the charity Scope is commendable; I am merely pointing out why I think that it must be disqualified from receiving a link in the article.

One other point: are any of the numerous "source charts" you use subject to actual copyright themselves? You allude to it on your site: "Any chart that requires payment to access will be ignored. Not are there no funds available (since we make no profit) but also the vendor of the chart clearly sees value in the data as presented and we have no desire to infringe their rights. The partial summary in these lists may be 'fair use' but we don't want to be forced to prove it". This seems ambiguous. Sites which display content without receiving direct payment can still claim copyright. It would not just be a matter for yourself; Wikipedia has a bound duty to obey copyright, even indirectly. And the accuracy of the data may be contestable; you admit yourself: "the number of entries has a slight drop-off at the year 2000. The results are therefore also not reliable after that date", and this also worries me. If you can answer any of the crucial points I have outlined here, I would be delighted. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition article of "personal web pages" states "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". Some of the pages on the site meet this definition however they are clearly differentiated (by colour scheme as well as by position in the site). The "Music" section of the site is clearly different.

I think your position about copyright is inconsistent. This article (and especially the discography article) breaks copyright on a chart every time it quotes a "US Billboard Position", "UK Singles Peak", position in the "Rolling Stones 500" or "Acclaimed Artists" lists. However, I believe that the entries quoted in this article are obviously 'fair use'. The article List of number-one hits (United States) is much more questionable, if the consensus was as focused on "Wikipedia's bound duty to obey copyright" then articles like that, which incorporate large portions of clearly copyright material solely for the stated purpose of duplicating commercially available content, would not be allowed. I believe that my existing data fits clearly between these two, and hence well within the current consensus. Payment for chart data would be tied to a contract (even if only an implied one) and hence that would be a different situation. I also believe that publishing portions of a chart verbatim, like that article does, breaks copyright.

I don't understand why my statement that the results (that is the total ranking) for entries after 2000 are less reliable worries you. Firstly all data sets have limitations, any data source that pretends otherwise is lying, a source that states constraints is much more likely to be accurate within them. Secondly this is a statement about the rankings, not about the entries. So, to pick an example, the statement that the album "Best of Bowie" has entries "Sweden 9 - Oct 2002, Norway 10 - Mar 1981, UK 11 - Nov 2002, Austria 12 - Aug 1981, Switzerland 15 - Nov 2002, Italy 94 of 2002" is totally accurate, it did reach number 9 in Sweden, 10 in Norway and so on. The ranking of 47th album for the year 2002 is unreliable, since there are charts that were only taken up to the year 2000 (or 2001 or whatever). However, at least for me, the value of this data is the entries not the ranking. Finally, in this particular case, the vast majority of David Bowie's hits are prior to the year 2000 anyway.Steve.hawtin (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguments (as outlined above) are my final word on this. Whether the link is eventually added or not, I think it is time someone other than we two contributed, in order to establish clear consensus, as demanded by Wikipedia in all matters such as these. One for and one against is neither one way nor the other a consensus. Other viewpoints would be welcomed. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile?

According to the famous groupie Lori Maddox she lost her virginity at age 13 to Bowie. Wikipedia defines a pedophile as anyone sexually attracted to children and/or prepubescents. Is Bowie a pedophile? http://www.stryder.de/rest/Groupie_Central_Lori_%20Maddox.htmlPistolpierre (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fansites aren't reliable sources. On Wikipedia you can't label somebody as something criminal unless they were actually charged with a crime. Bowie was never charged with anything so it can;t be mentioned. read WP:BLP. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock/pop rock

If we're going to list pop rock as one of his genres, I think hard rock has to go here as well, since he's done plenty of both. - Grim —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography - Missing Year

We have a period up until 1967 and then the nexr section picks up the thread from 1969. Now, it may well be that nothing remarkable happened with Bowie in 1968, somehow I doubt it, nut surely the year should be included in either the preceding or following section. It appears srange without it.Jatrius (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

He appared in an advertisement for an ice cream ("Luv - the pop ice cream"). That was it. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd Word choice

Is it just me or does the sentence "A forthcoming album entitled "Anywhere I Lay My Head", comprising ten covers of classic Tom Waits songs by popular starlet Scarlett Johansson, is due to feature two tracks with David Bowie on vocals..." seem a bit weird choice of the word "starlet"? I am no rabid fan of Ms. Johansson, but I was under the impression that starlet was usually a pejorative term and it thus seems to violate WP:NPOV, no? Unless someone gives me a good reason, I will change "popular starlet" to "actress." --Millard73 (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, although I must say the idea of her doing an album of Tom Waits covers seems tediously bizarre. Oh well. BTLizard (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This article could really use more photos of different times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.98.44 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Messed up refs

If you look at the version of the article before my anonymous contribution, you shall notice that the refs were all messed up after the 43rd reference. The problem has been fixed. Have a nice day. 196.217.202.216 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice day to you too. :) Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Film bio WP template

Please don't remove the filmbio work group template from the page. The Bowie article does fall into the filmbio group, and yes, he isn't as known or noted as an actor, but he has done film work nevertheless. His film career is not as of high priority as his music, which is why it is a separate template. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I loathe to think the number of templates Leonardo da Vinci ought be tagged with per WP:WPBIO standards :) indopug (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual?

Was Bowie Bi or straight?

Both of his relationships were with women.

So he's straight-not bisexual

Bowie states in the article "I had no problem people knowing I was bisexual..." So he obviously is. Just because David has only serious relationships with women, doesn't mean that he is straight. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge before staying something stupid. Also, sign your posts. Lady Raven. 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I get what the unsigned user is trying to say, but "Straight Bisexual" is what Bowie is.

(Relationships are with women but embraces Bi culture) I assume Bowie is a '1' on the Kinsley Scale?Gregsynth (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He slept with Mick Jagger. So he's not just "embracing the culture". I'm putting David Bowie underneath the bisexual muscians category again. Lady Raven. 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed in the Talk section previously (see the archive), and the coverage in the article has steadily improved. Gregsynth, please take a moment to read the quote in the article in which Bowie explains how he met his first wife. Regarding the Kinsey Scale, Bowie would score at least a 2 or 3. Gregsynth's definition of "straight bisexual" seems unique, and in fact the phrase seems either oxymoronic or subject to different definitions (e.g. cultures where sexual orientation is not necessarily defined by the sex of the partner, e.g. Brazil or ancient Rome or parts of Africa). More troubling is Gregsynth's implied definition of "relationship." If you define "relationship" (like marriage) to be exclusively heterosexual, then it becomes a circular argument and the homosexual relationships disappear. That issue arises frequently in connection with same-sex marriage, where opponents try to exclude same-sex relationships by definition in order to deny their validity or existence. Although Bowie has had only two legally recognized marriages, by all accounts he has had more than two relationships.TVC 15 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly off topic but your comments re Brazil seem, to say the elast of it, decidedly odd given the machismo culture in that country. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is off topic, but wow quick comment. Brazil has nearly 200 million people and multiple cultures, but the machismo there and in some American subcultures (e.g. hip-hop) is actually what drives their definition of "straight" because men who want to be macho will call themselves (and be called) straight if they always take the 'male' role in sex, even if the partner is also male. In ancient Rome, during the centuries when same-sex marriage was recognized, Claudius was the only exclusively heterosexual emperor; all others, who could have relationships with males or females, chose at least one of each; men who took exclusively the male role were said to have "no holes." The Swahili word "basha" refers to a man, often married to a woman, who pays a male-to-female transgendered prostitute on the side. In the whole rainbow of human experience, the phrase "straight bisexual" could have a variety of meanings, but I have not encountered Gregsynth's proffered definition elsewhere.TVC 15 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you are right re Rome, I think your comments are also valid for prison cultures worldwide where men have no conjugal rights when their female partners visit, nor do i know much aboyut Swahili. What unites almost all Brazilians is a language (portuguese) and a culture that can more or less be called Latino, where open transexual/transgender folk are reasonably common (more so than in English language culture, IMO) but where machismo is also rife. having said that Brazil does have pone of the most open cultures int he world re sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow I didn't mean to spark that much controversy. I said "Straight Bisexual" because although Bowie is Bi, he has had more heterosexual relationships than homosexual relationships.

And since when did Bowie sleep with MICK JAGGER!?!?!?!Gregsynth (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reportedly once in the 1970's and it might have been only sleep; if you are interested, you can read more online.[1] It isn't important but celebrity romance (real or imagined) tends to get fans' attention. Alas as noted in the article the distractions of puritanical culture especially in America drove Bowie to say and deny things, even contradicting himself, in order to focus attention on his work as a songwriter and performer. The combined forces of self censorship, market censorship, and government censorship (e.g. school textbooks) often distort what information is available in a culture, which in turn leads to further distortions in analysis and decision-making. WP does an increasingly good job of making reliably sourced information readily available, which may (in addition to satisfying idle curiosity) lead to better informed democracies and thus a better world.TVC 15 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)