Talk:David Bowie/Archive 3

Neo-Classicist Bowie
This section is getting increasingly long and reading more and more like news instead of an encyclopedia. I suggest we pare it down to the essentials of his activities of the last decade instead of listing every backing vocal contribution, old album re-release and so on. He had comparable activities in past eras but they are not mentioned because they are not appropriately significant, and if they were this article would be waaaay too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOCallaghan (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Terry Burns
David Bowie's brother and best friend. Because of their close relationship, Terry was, inevitably, David's hero and idol. His suicide duly affected David's music style, he moved away from the popular norm and established Tin Machine. The song, 'Jump,' is said to be about Terry's suicide. - Lily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.140.182 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
"David Robert Jones was born in Santiago, Chile, to a father from Kazzajastan and a mother from an Bolivia". Unless I'm very much mistaken, this clearly is vandalism. Funny thing is, somebody presented it as sourced, by linking to a Parkinson interview... Could someone with enough knowledge about Bowie's life correct this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.151.132 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also known as 'Kicker of Jon Bon Jovi's ass'?
Google can't find any reference to this alias. Where does it come from? 195.0.156.197 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's blatant vandalism and has been removed. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

David Bowie name change
little is known about davy jones name change it was in september of 65 that davy jones decided to change his name to bowie after watching the alAMO ON TV IT WAS AN INSPIRED MOMENT so david jones decided to change his name to bowie which tnere werent many people called bowie so david being david decided bowie was the name he would choose on 16 of september 1965 he changed to david bowie and the rest is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.79.89 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... and the name change is already mentioned in the Early Years section at the appropriate point - there's no need to go into it in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a cite but I recall according to a TV interview with Jonathan Ross IIRC he stilll uses his original name Jones on cheques, for example, so Bowie remains a stage professional name but not personally used. Rrose Selavy (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Toy
I added TOY and Tin Machine 1 and 2. This article is about David Bowie and his music. As a music scholar I would like to stress the importance of including these two albums as they are key to learning about Bowie's music and his career. We can argue on their release or if they are David Bowie and another group but the fact is they were made and are key and in the end wikipedia is about ease of information. Many will argue that these pieces are not as well known and therefore should not be included in the main article. I say that purely for that reason they should be. The previous TOY arguments are about semantics and I think it is childish to argue about them. They were albums by Bowie, they are important. --JBScout21 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, your perceived "importance of...these two albums" is completely irrelevant. The discography section in a (solo) artist's article should only include the solo studio albums released by the artist. Toy hasn't been released and the Tin machine albums are meant for the Tin Machine article. indopug (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't understand how excluding key information is any way to properly produce an article. I will wait another few days to see what others may have to say about it but the fact is that a disography is a list of albums or works.  Tin Machine is a not a band in its own right and shouldn't be considered such.  Toy has existed in the article for some time and it surprises me that people want to exclude it.  Even going as far as deleating the article on Toy.  Tell me, if the album is nott relevent for inclusion here then how come every musician on the album includes information on it on their websites?  To e honest I think Indopug's opinion gets in the way of what wikipedia is all about.  This should be a collection of information and the inclusion of two or three albums is not going cause the end of the world.  It should be included and I think this matter is juvenile, should be put to bed, and in fact exposes some of the issues of user created encyclopedias.  Primarily the fact that people get caught up in the formating of everything when in the end we are talking about bringing together the combined knowledge of humanity--JBScout21 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't even have an opinion on the matter. If the record doesn't even have an article of its own what's to be gained by including it? The album was deleted because "Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources", so that kinda goes against your theory about how everybody thinks its really important. Maybe if you had reliable sources per our verifiability policy, we could consider including it in the prose of the article, or even give it an article of its own. indopug (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ho-hum... I can only repeat what I said last time: 1) I see no reason not to mention his work on Toy in the body of the article, and in fact it's there already; 2) As you might imagine, I agree with Indopug's initial comment about what belongs in this article's discography and what doesn't; 3) I don't actually have a problem with a suitably referenced article on Toy existing, but even then I'd still say the album doesn't belong in this discography until or unless it gets released. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Birth name"
Obviously the article is going to be titled as David Bowie, but isn't his real, legal name still David Jones? If so (and I'm sure I remember hearing him in an interview saying his credit cards still say David Jones on them) shouldn't it be addressed that it is still his current name, not just his birth name, which implies he at some point legally changed it David Bowie? To my knowledge he never has, and therefore should be mentioned that this is his stage name maybe? 91.111.152.232 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also remember reading interviews where he says things like his credit cards still say David Jones and that kind of thing. As far as I can remember, I've never read anything saying he's changed his name either. I'll try and find a legitimate source that says this. la nuit américaine (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fucking the same bloke" quote
The source for this quote doesn't seem particularly reliable. It lists 2 sources itself, one of which is an amazon.com search which shows up nothing, and the other is IMDB, which doesn't seem to give this quote anywhere. Can anyone find it on a reliable site/in a reliable book? (Googling just came up with a bunch of sites which quoted or paraphrased WP.) I'm taking it out for the time being, in accordance with WP policy. Darimoma (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:. It's witty and apparently he said it many times, and it gets many Google hits, so I think it should go back in (both for entertainment value and because it's well-sourced).TVC 15 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

However, The Subject of this article is not happy with it. because it is well sourced I'm sure will stand here and I will not remove it. Evolutionzen (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you cite the OTRS ticket number if you're going to do that, please? -- Rodhull andemu  04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said: The Subject of this article is not happy with the quote. It even states in the article that he is uncomfortable with it, a lot of things are said (true or not...mostly for publicity) that people come to regret. I will not remove it.

I did however remove the link to a wiki category Bi-Sexual Musicians (or the like) because it is not true. Evolutionzen (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Evolutionzen, I understand what you've written above and I do not intend to restore the category tag that you removed. (However, according to Bowie's most recent public statement on the subject, it does belong.) What really puzzles me is your statement that what he said "is not true," especially in light of the fact that he said it repeatedly over several decades. Having an extensive collection of Bowie records and having seen him in concert, and having named myself (on WP) after one of his songs, it troubles me that you accuse him of merely lying for publicity. Your discussion page says you "know a lot of famous people," but does not say whether he is among them. If you are trying to help him with his image, I think the effort is misdirected. For example, his name is conspicuously absent from the list of famous people who opposed California's anti-marriage amendment (Proposition 8), even though Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres, and many more publicly opposed it. It's bad enough that he went missing when others helped; your calling him a lying publicity-seeker adds insult to injury.TVC 15 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

His mother was not Irish!
I've read 'Alias David Bowie' by a couple by the name of Gilman which goes into great depth about Bowie's family background and his mother Peggy Burns was definitely not Irish. As I recall she had some Irish ancestry but her ancestry was mixed with English and she certainly wasn't born in Ireland or ever lived there. Could someone with a copy of 'Alias David Bowie' look into this and correct the statement about his mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.173.11 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the ancestry and the category on the basis that they were unverifiable and per WP:BLP. If they are replaced it should be with proper references. --John (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Angie Bowie says Peggy Burns had an Irish Catholic father in her Backstage Passes which seems a pretty reliable source to me. It should be added back into the article.--jeanne (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What does Angie say about Peggy's mother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article contradicts with Heterochromia. See the article's talk page. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. --JD554 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Venture Bros.
Do you think we should include his appearences in popular culture? The main one that comes to my mind is Venture Bros. However, I know that there are many other homages/parodies for him out there. 24.62.103.91 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Stephen B.

I had added such a heading a few days back, but I guess I didn't follow the proper channel, hence it was deleted. I think we ought to add the venture bros reference as the show is also quite popular and he is a somewhat frequently mentioned character. -- Revelationnow 3/11/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelationnow (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Too much detail was added, this article is after all about Bowie and not The Venture Bros. It's not a defining characteristic of Bowie and deserves simply a single sentence at the most, and certainly not it's own section. --JD554 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Androgynous Bowie
I think something should be said, perhaps in the introduction about Bowie's role in establishing the "androgynous" look and feel of his early years. Along with Mick Jagger, they (and perhaps others, as with Ray Davies and the Kinks song, "Lola") easily influenced some of the glam rockers that attained fame.

The Watchmen rock opera
Is a rumour and has been removed.David Bowie has not begun work on such a project as Total Blam Blam on Bowienet has stated continously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.1.132 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No LGBT categories
You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Even if we ought to let people take back coming out, the most recent source has him indicating he really was bisexual and had backpedaled because admitting it hurt his career in America. -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rock Against Racism
Hi - I'm no expert on Bowie, but I've been doing some research on the origin of Rock against Racism. I heard that remarks by Bowie and Eric Clapton lead to it's founding, so looked on here but can find nothing. Does anybody have any information on this. if it is true I feel it should be included. Bowie has been influenced and had influence on black music and culture, and it would be an interesting example of how politcal views can change - especially under the influence of cocaine. Anybody have any opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.117.17 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bowie has been quoted as saying Britain was in need of a right-wing dictatorship in the 70s and also that Adolf Hilter was 'the first super-star'. This article is unbalanced as it does not cover such features. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of these areas could add details to provide less of a fan article, and more of an objective insight. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Arthur Wellesley on 8 March 2009 in this edit. I took the liberty of moving it to the right section. – IbLeo (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the he 70's was drawn into the whole Nazi idea beacause they were searching for the holy grail (apparently). Somehow (probably the coke) he missed the whole racist thing. He's talked alot about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.36.121 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try and get a copy of 'Beating Time' by David Widgery. It's a book about Rock against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League published in 1986. Widgery discusses Bowie and his brief flirtation with facism. He quotes from a book by Bowie's first manager called Pitt which alleges that Bowie's father was a member of Mosley's Union Movement in the late forties and that Bowie grew up in a pro-fascist household. I don't know whether that is true but Bowie's statements in 1975 and 1976 did certainly provide a spur to the RAR. In the book there is a RAR poster with Bowie next to Hitler and Enoch Powell Irisismykid (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo in "politics" paragraph
Sentence after 'Eric Clapton': Words 'has been' appear double. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.12.210 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, Thank you! – xeno  ( talk ) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

David Bowie's storytellers
David Bowie is releasing a new live album called Storyteller's from when David Bowie appeared on the Vh1 show.It'll be released July 6,2009. My sources are Bowienet.http://www.davidbowie.com/news/index.php?id=20090323

It should be added to his discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.194.91 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it to David Bowie discography with a reference to comply with WP:CRYSTAL. --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism allegation ending 1974 to 1976 section
If the controversy is important to mention here, then I think further clarification is still needed here. Perhaps this is best achieved by moving here the Aftermath section from Station to Station, as being discussed there. I think the newly added reference to Aftermath helps, but currently doesn't make clear that it is about the controversy that "further info" can be found, rather than the whole 1974 to 1976 section. Also mentioning an allegation without mentioning any conclusion in situ is open to bias in interpretation by readers, who seem invited to assume the allegation is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PL290 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to have the whole Aftermath section here. It's better to have less detailed information in this article (as it currently is) with the more detailed information in the Station to Station article if a reader wants more information. However, there should still be a specific reference in this article per WP:V and WP:BLP, a simply copy from Station to Station should fix that. --JD554 (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Aftermath section of the Station to Station article is extremely well written and explains the fascism controversy — which, after all is a central piece in Bowie's history — very well. Personally I think it is a shame that it is "hidden away" in the Station to Station article where the casual reader probably won't find it (the proof it that myself, I didn't stumble upon until last week, and believe me, I did work browse around a lot in the different articles on Bowie). This lead me to propose to move the Aftermath section to here (see Talk:Station_to_Station) but another editor expressed his concern about the move. Thus, to compromise, I placed the "further info" redirect here to help readers find it. Now that you have removed it, we are back to status quo and risk that other editors again will expand on it without adding suitable sources. Please reconsider what we can do to resolve this issue. – IbLeo (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian Rose that it needs to be expanded (with inline citations), but I don't believe it should go to the level of detail as is contained in Station to Station where it has more direct relevance. --JD554 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has relevance wider than Station to Station. The allegations created a lasting stigma. So tucked away in Station to Station is perhaps not the best place. If doing this justice would create too much detail for the main Bowie article, doesn't that suggest we need a new article devoted to the topic? PL290 (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (As I add this, I see JD554 has also just advocated inline citation.) Those refs are books so not readily viewable, so my concern about bias remains: the text as it stands creates an unbalanced impression by mentioning only the allegations and not the denial. Suggest we reinstate the 21 April text—which did not have this problem, had been in acceptance for over 6 months and was only changed to try and solve the dead-link citation problem—and solve the citation problem with an inline reference to Aftermath. PL290 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe it could do with a bit of expansion, but per WP:RECENTISM I'm not sure it needs the detail - this is more of a gut feeling than anything based in fact - but I don't think people hear Bowie's name and think of fasism anymore. A few lines to explain the controversy: Hitler = rock star, Britain ready for fascist leader, nazi salute, and maybe one or two lines about his later retraction and blaming on drugs/lifestyle. That said, I have no real strong feeling about how much is added, but I don't think it needs to be removed from Station to Station where it does have a lot of relevance as it was the promotion for that album that led to it all. This Q article and this NME article could be useful sources. --JD554 (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per WP:RECENTISM, yes; if the controversy is to be mentioned, it needs just enough further detail to make it balanced. As to citations, I think it's important to include a reference Bowie's own words on the subject, some of which can be seen here. (Can anyone help with an acceptable reference? This one is someone's personal website a Google search threw up.) Extract follows:
 * If I said it - and I've a terrible feeling I did say something like it to a Stockholm journalist who kept asking me political questions - I'm astounded anyone could believe it. I have to keep reading it to believe it myself. I'm not sinister. I'm not a great force - Well, not that sort of force. I don't stand up in cars waving to people because I think I'm Hitler. I stand up in my car waving to fans - I don't write the captions under the picture.
 * PL290 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess it's about time I weighed in here...! 'Fraid I don't know the source of that quote, PL290, but in any case I think a shortened paraphrase of what's in the last paragraph of the Station to Station article - with associated citations - would be the best compromise. I'd be happy to have a go unless anyone else wants to... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I think what you've offered will be helpful. As seen at that link I just provided, the quote is from the Daily Express, May 5 1976. I retain the hope that someone will be able to produce a usable link to that article (as was done by the link that died and started all this) as I feel that the emphasis of Bowie's personally-stated perspective is otherwise still lacking. PL290 (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ian, I am convinced you are the right man for the job. You obviously knows a lot about the subject, probably possess all the relevant sources, and are – unlike myself – a native English speaker. – IbLeo (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done - not rocket science so pls feel free to tweak... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For me it does the job. Thanks Ian. – IbLeo (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, good job Ian. Thanks all for working through this; I'm happier with it and think it's more balanced now. PL290 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I for one think the "apparently" gave a Nazi salute bit should be changed to "allegedly" in the interest of neutrality. There is no consensus on whether he gave the salute or not, and with allegations of Nazi sympathyies, it would be best to err on the side of caution. The video itself should also be linked, as it is the most impartial witness possible and casts the "Nazi" salute allegation into some doubt. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbrett2 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mountain versus Cliff
This is probably an insignificant point, but in this article it says David Bowie didn't want to spend five months watching his stunt double fall off of mountains, and in the article for Max Zorin it says Cliffs. They both use the same citation.24.65.95.239 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bowie the superstar
Running my eye down the table of contents, it strikes me there's probably a better title for the 1980 to 1989 section than "Bowie the superstar": apart from the fact that he'd been a superstar for years by then (as the 1974 section has already acknowledged, saying that Diamond Dogs "solidified his status as a superstar"), the title doesn't really convey what it could about that decade (unlike the titles of the other sections which do a pretty good job). After scanning the section contents I came up with "Hard rock, dance, and a commercial peak"; perhaps someone else has another suggestion or opinion? PL290 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, how about "A commercial peak and a Grammy Award"? PL290 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As there's no immediate outcry I've gone ahead and changed it, to "From superstar to megastar" which I think does the job. The section is (probably rightly) a catch-all for everything between Berlin and Tin Machine, so doing all aspects justice in the section name would be a challenge! PL290 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, Bowie himself has described 1984-1989 as his creative low point, although I can't recall the reference off the top of my head. SteubenGlass (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the discussion of section titles, what evidence is their that Bowie is a "Neoclassicist"? Grunge6910 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Full birth name
Bowie's full birth name is "David Robert Hayward-Jones" as listed on IMDB and elsewhere if you google it. I've inserted this correction. SteubenGlass (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got that wrong. His full name is David Robert Jones. Hayward doesn't come into it. Instead of just googling it try going to bowiewonderworld FAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.55.38 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Or try looking at photographs of his birth certificate, as listed in the thread further down. Ajowen (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Baritone voice
"Bowie is also known for his distinctive baritone voice." I'm sure this has come up before, but is there perhaps undue emphasis placed on this "baritone voice" in the first paragraph of the intro? I'd say Bowie is a man of many voices, one of them, no doubt, the "signature baritone croon" Rolling Stone remarks on as being a feature of Earthling, but it doesn't seem to tell the whole story and as a sentence on its own, I feel it's at best a bit misleading. I'm not suggesting we try and describe the voice but perhaps it would be better to remove the sentence. Maybe it's just me... PL290 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty pointless trying to classify rock and pop vocalists using classical music voice types and styles. I would be in favour of deleting the word "baritone" and just leaving it as "distinctive voice". – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In a Dutch Pop Music Encyclopedia (published by Muziekkrant Oor) Bowie's voice on Hunky Dory is described as squeaky and weepy like Gene Pitney's, if I remember correctly - and no true baritone would be able to hit those notes. It would suffice to say that Bowie has a remarkable vocal range, though conspicuously lacking the power of Freddie Mercury and Roger Daltrey, in my humble opinion. Frankly speaking (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Profile photo
Who on Earth picks these awful photo's of David? Are you purposely trying to discredit this great man? I demand a better picture!

Syzygy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.233.224 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been great if Bowie had spent more than 5 seconds in front of the cameras at his son's movie premiere, so that decent shots could be made, which would also have helped promote his son's film. Frankly, that he shafted the press, whilst understandable, was nonetheless a huge disappointment for me (at least Sting ensured we each had a good shot.  Even when we have access to the people, that doesn't ensure they will be particularly cooperative in helping us create a decent image.  And, frankly, Bowie could care less (and at his level of achievement and innovation, I understand why). -- >David  Shankbone  17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your comment while I was here on another edit. I think it's a good pic and was delighted when it appeared! A definite improvement on the previous one in my opinion. We're indebted to David for his great work with pics on Wikipedia. But if you "demand a better future/picture", you can provide one anytime. That's what Wikipedia's all about. PL290 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the nice comment, PL. I had planned to write a blog post about the experience, but here is a short version of how it went down.  The photo I placed here shows the "Reserved Pen" for photographers from influential organizations, such the New York Post, Getty Images, European Pressphoto Agency, and a few others.  Wikipedia, after wrangling by me, was given access to this room (only about 10 photographers are allowed access, as opposed to about the 100 that cover the festival).  All of the--ahem--bottom feeder photogs are in a big cattle pen far from this room.  When Bowie came in, he did so very, very briefly before shuffling off to the Green Room.  Since I only do head shots, I get second row, so I was located almost exactly where you see the guy with the dreads and handkerchief standing.  Bowie was, essentially, right in front of me the entire time, but he kept looking over at the photographers more toward where you see the light post.  Those guys got the best shots.  Those of us on the other side could not get him to look toward us, and the moment he did, he didn't look up more toward my camera (I'm tall, and I had a stool).  His son, Duncan, was very cooperative (and very nice).  I was the one who asked Duncan to go pull his dad out of the Green Room for a father-son shot.  Again he kept looking at the photogs on the opposite side of where I was (we have to stay in place, as I wrote about during my Sarah Jessica Parker shots).


 * There is no other musician who has had a greater impact on me than David Bowie. He was not scheduled to appear, so it was a surprise that he did.  I was simply excited to shoot Duncan (the only other scheduled appearance was Sam Rockwell, who was more cooperative than usual).  So when I learned Bowie was going to be there, well, let's just say I am not easily star-struck but it was so enthralling I could barely believe it.  I understand why, at this point in Bowie's career, taking photos with the press is not particularly important to him; but it was a personally upsetting--very upsetting-- occurrence that I did not have the ability to take better shots of him than the ones I uploaded.  Some of the ones I did not upload actually have a grimace on his face.  You can see what the other guys produced here, including in Frame #3-5, with the grimace.  I have some great grimace shots!   I just wish I could have gotten a better frame on his eyes, which any Bowie fan will understand why.  I went home and was so absolutely bummed about this session, although my Rockwell, Iman, Sting Leslie Bibb and Jones photos turned out nicely.  But it does pain me that the Bowie ones aren't that great, especially compared to those others.  That's the story behind them.  -- >David  Shankbone  20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great to read the story of how it happened—what a moment it must have when Bowie turned up unexpectedly and you could get the shots, and what an upset to find the opportunity hampered in the ways you describe. You must have needed to exercise all your newly learned discipline to stay in your spot in the pen and watch the moment slip away. Anyway, I do like the pic, in its own right—and the more so for having seen the others! Your one manages to be pitched perfectly between grimace and overdone smile and does him justice. Thanks again David. PL290 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American
If you look at the comments he has made about the USA, even an entire album, it's obvious that that he clearly has a prejudice against the United States of America and the people who live in it (over 300 million people), yet there is no mention of his anti-Americanism. I suppose it's not surpring considering that he once thought (and possibly still thinks) that Hitler was a role model politican. Should it not be mentioned? Aurora30 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside that you supply no citations to WP:RS or evidence for your comments, you also get them completely wrong, which shows that you haven't researched this. Criticizing America and its consumerist culture, and being Anti-American, are two separate things. You support marriage equality; do you criticize America for not allowing it?  Would that make you anti-American? -- >David  Shankbone  16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I too disagree that the article should mention "his anti-Americanism" as you put it, but taking a different tack: we are talking here about David Bowie, who has been a "man of words, man of music" since even before Space Oddity, Man Who Sold the World, Hunky Dory and Ziggy. His poetry and bizarre word-play are central to his art. Simple, literal interpretations of David Bowie lyrics (and indeed actions) have led to false conclusions in the past, and can continue to do so as you perhaps now demonstrate. PL290 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitly not, in his early years it has been said that David was obsessed with anything American. To discredit this and America now, would be real shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.140.182 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was not meant to be nasty or hateful in a way that implying anti-Americanism is "immoral", but when you review many of his comments in the past about the United States, it appears that he does have some sort of prejudice or dislike of the United States and/or American "culture". He has made many controversial statements, many of which are often contradictory, so perhaps that should be more clearly noted in the article. Aurora30 (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article can contain only statements which are verifiable by notable published sources, and cannot draw its own sweeping conclusions such as saying someone is "anti-American". For more info, see the Wikipedia policy Biographies of living persons. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As He isn't American, for it to be worth noting anti-American sentiment from him it would have to be really serious like him refusing to go there (Which he doesn't) or something of a simillar magnitude. I Don't think you can call some one who was a big part of the very American Blue eyed soul scene anti-American.(Morcus (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

David Jones and the Lower Third
Worth a mention? Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So much so that it already is ;) --JD554 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is! Missed that completely somehow. Sorry. Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Konrads
Wikipedia writes - "Konrad Hermann Josef Adenauer (German pronunciation: [ˈkɔnʁaːt ˈhɛɐman ˈjozɛf ˈaːdenaʊɐ]), 5 January 1876 – 19 April 1967) was a German statesman.

Although his political career spanned sixty years, beginning as early as 1906, he is most noted for his role as the first Chancellor of West Germany from 1949–1963 "

Autochthony queries - could this be an [THE?] origin of the name of Mr Bowie's first [recorded here] group? 2049 GMT ; 3 July 2009. 86.161.194.33 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, Konrad is a common first and surname in German speaking countries. --JD554 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Elephant Man
I didn't bother reading the whole article, but did it ever mention him playing Joseph Merrick in the play about Joseph called The Elephant Man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.108.122 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What, no 'find' command in your browser? Anyway, yes, it is mentioned a couple of times... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-instrumentalist
I just edited the article to put in the instruments Bowie played but someone edited it to be less "cluttersome". I don't get why articles like Brian Jones or Steven Tyler (who btw both have more instruments) should have thier instruments yet Bowie doesen't —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedBeatles52596 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bowie play a large number of different instruments, if we listed every single one the infobox would be ridiculous. Just because other articles are cluttered doesn't mean this one needs to be as well. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally a good argument to use. --JD554 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to list every single one, you should be more specific, saying "multi-instrumentalist" is too vague and is true of most artists. I plan to put most of the instruments he plays if no one gives a truly valid reason not to. Look at Trent Reznor, Brian Jones, Jonny Greenwood, or Jimmy Page, where they're shown playing many instruments and it doesn't look "cluttered". Iminrainbows (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your change because you've waited practically no time for further discussion. What's more, you produced a long list that appears to the uninitiated to be complete because of its detail, but is not. Do you think a Moog is the only brand of synthesizer he's used, for instance?  We've been through this before, but I for one don't object to something a little more specific than "multi-instrumentalist" if it were kept to a generic list, at least. A possibility would be to say "Vocals, guitar, keyboards, saxophone, synthesizer, percussion" and leave it at that. Whatever it ends up won't be just your opinion, though, or mine for that matter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I apologize. Here's my new idea, which I will wait for feedback on this time. In the infobox, for instruments say "see below", which will be a link to a section in the article about all of the instruments he plays. Just saying "vocals and multi-instrumentalist" doesn't give enough information. Iminrainbows (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bowie's name
Bowie's real name is DAVID ROBERT JONES. His father and his son bear the name Haywood but Bowie himself does not.(Bowiewonderworld)Ajowen (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What he was born as and what he uses are two different things. Do you have a reliable source (bowiewonderworld isn't) that backs up your statement up? --JD554 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Books:- David Bowie, Strange Fascination - David Buckly: The David Bowie Story, Stardust - Henry Edwards and Tony Zanetta: David Bowie, Living On The Brink - George Tremlett: David Bowie, Fame, Sound and Vision - Nick Stevenson: Alias David Bowie - Peter and Leni Gillman: Bowie, Loving The Alien - Christopher Sandford - WHICH HAS A COPY OF BOWIE'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE OPPOSITE PAGE 130: The David Bowie Story - George tremlett - WHICH ALSO HAS A COPY OF DAVID'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE OPPOSITE PAGE 7O.

I COULD GO ON AND ON - THEY CAN'T ALL BE WRONG.

Also, Haywood was David's father's FIRST Christian name (Haywood Stenton Jones)

Also, the name which both David's father and David's son have is HAYWOOD (not Hayward)

Also, Iman was previously married to basketball player Spencer Haywood so David's step-daughter also bears the name HAYWOOD. But David himself does NOT. Is that enough proof????? Ajowen (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajowen (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to amend this error? Ajowen (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WHY HAS THE INTRODUCTION YET AGAIN DESCRIBED DAVID BOWIE'S REAL NAME AS DAVID ROBERT "HAYWARD" JONES. IT WAS PUT RIGHT BUT SOMEBODY KEEPS ALTERING IT BACK. THIS IS REALLY ANNOYING ME. HIS REAL NAME IS DAVID ROBERT JONES. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, WHOEVER KEEPS PUTTING "HAYWARD" IN SHOULD LOOK AT DAVID'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I HAVE GIVEN REFENCES PREVIOUSLY (ABOVE). HIS REAL NBAME IS DAVID ROBERT JONES. I CANNOT SHOUT IT LOUDLY ENOUGH!!!!!! Ajowen (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
It says "In 1975, Bowie achieved his first major American crossover success with (...) the hit album Young Americans, which the singer identified as "plastic soul". (...) He then confounded the expectations of both his record label and his American audiences by recording the minimalist album Low"

In between came station to station, which in some ways is a transitional record, so the remark is a bit of a lying by omision. Jalwikip (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

only side 2 of "Low" can be considered "minimalist". side one has nothing to do with the genre.

Sold music rights
the beatles sold the rights to their music to michael jackson. bowie also sold the rights to his music in the last 15 or so years. does anyone remember how much the person/company paid for those rights? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.237.138 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the Bowie bonds that he sold for $55million. It's already linked to this article (in the 'see also' section). 87Fan (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Horrible picture
God, what a horrible, horrible picture of one of the greatest icons in the history of rock and roll. Can't we do any better than this? Nightmareishere (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, no argument from me on that - I think we do have a tendency to use the most recent image that's freely available, no matter how aesthetically objectionable. For my money, the best recent pic in the article now is the Rockefeller Center 2003 one.  Or if we wanted a more 'classic' period shot, the Oslo 1978 one would also get my vote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Rockefeller shot is the best one, it shows him doing what he's famous for doing and is relatively recent. --JD554 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. FWIW, aesthetically and as a reasonably close shot, I reckon the Chile 1990 is an excellent one too, but its vintage means that it falls between two stools: well past 'classic' period yet not that recent either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The caption isn't right, either. The same photo is used later in the article and is (correctly) captioned as being taken in 2006.  The source image on Flickr is also from 2006. --72.82.206.232 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (The caption's only wrong because the pic's just been changed.) I personally thought the film festival one was a great improvement on its predecessor (now reinstated) but the Rockefeller one is definitely a good candidate too. I think Chile's really too old as has been said. Perhaps the film festival one should go in the "recent" section if the Rockefeller one becomes the main pic. Thanks once again to the contributors whose work produced all the pictures in the first place. PL290 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the Rockefeller one's now been taken away completely. I'm rethinking what I said about Chile being "too old"; it is a good pic and may now be our best shot (no pun originally intended)? (I notice someone recently changed Ringo Starr's main picture to one from 1964, and no one seems to mind that.) I've put Chile in and will see what happens. PL290 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bandslam
In movie satsring Vannessa Hudgends called bandslam one of the characters loved Bowie and he got referted to ofen in the movie and he also apperaed in the end of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.131.116 (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Spider named after Bowie
There's a newly discovered spider named after Bowie, because of his past Ziggy Stardust music with the Spiders from Mars.. (there have only been a handful of people in music with such an honor- one was Mark Knopfler, of Dire Straits. Here is the link; it should be in his article: Published: 12:35PM BST 07 Sep 2009. I just don't have the time at the moment.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's worth noting. The scientist concerned is doing it to raise awareness of spiders rather than in honouring the acts. --JD554 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true, but I think in a section about his influence-- think! They could have named the species of this spider after anyone --or anything in this world! It is an honour to Bowie to have this occur. I recall when Knopfler had such a similar situation, the scientists admitted that they felt they got "lucky" when listening to MK's music. Bowie has certainly influenced a lot of people, let alone musicians. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the article you cite even states "in an effort to raise awareness about the number of arachnid species threatened with extinction". He hasn't done it to honour Bowie, but to raise awareness of spiders. --JD554 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

External link to concert database
Would a database of Bowie's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/468870-david-bowie - considering all the comparable links currently on the page? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Songkick qualifies under ELYES #3 as its content appears to be user-generated, so we have no way to know if the website indeed contains "neutral and accurate material". Laurent (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Could we solidify our case for being a reliable source by making our editorial oversight more transparent?  While we do accept user contributions there is extensive automated and manual clean-up, akin to IMDB (though I know IMDB's inclusion in articles is often contentious). Michaelorland (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should bring the issue at WP:EL or on the WP:Village pump. What you shouldn't do however is cross-post the same message all over Wikipedia. This really does look like spam even if the links are not in the articles themselves. Laurent (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We've centalized the disscution about songkick.com at the External_links/Noticeboard, See this discussion. Feel free to comment on this link suitability there. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-retirement?
I understand he's not in any sense officially retired, but it seems like there should be a seperate section for Bowie's 2004-present career. The heading of "Neo-classicist Bowie" makes sense in the context of his Hours/Heathen/Reality period when he was releasing new music and touring, but it's not clear how the past five years have been a continuation of that period, because there have been no albums, tours, or any full-scale musical work at all. The period after 2004 also reads like a catalog of every bit part or walk-on appearance he's done, and it could probably be condensed down a bit into something that reflects the fact that this period has been one of diminished activity. 98.189.203.163 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'also known as ziggy'?
the fuck? no seriously, wtf. is this the mentally retarded 'also known'? --Leladax (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1947–67: Early years
I found no where that his father had bought records of Chuck Berry in house, it's Elvis Presley instead, Check this video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk3Mxk6bh7I

Change it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.88.142 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)