Talk:David Bowie/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Acting Career

In the acting career section it says: "Bowie also played a sympathetic Pontius Pilate." This Character was not sympathetic. He sentences Jesus to death. He explains why: "I don't care how you want to change things. Either with love or with hate. It's all the same, we don't want things changed." Doesn't sound at all sympathetic to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr Bowie, while a recurring and somewhat prominent character on Adult Swim's "Venture Brothers," is not the voice of The Sovereign, the leader of the Guild of Calamitous Intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The See also years in music?

Any rhyme or reason why, in the 'see also' section, there are links to 1979 year in music and 1989 year in music, but not, say, every other year that Bowie's been producing music (essentially 1969-2004)? A quick scan of some of the other years also mention Bowie explicitly. I suggest we either do due diligence to create a new sub-section that lists all the years in music that contain an explicit Bowie reference, or just point to the overall List of years in music page and let users self-serve. Personally, 1979 and 1989 seem like rather strange years to pick out - I'd have thought we'd point out years like 1972, 1976, 1983, 1987, 1990, ... (well, you get the idea) Not to mention that he was also featured as Nikola Tesla in "The Prestige". 87Fan (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


The article states that Beckenham is in South London, surely its in Kent, it was when I last lived there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Beckenham has been in London continuously since 1 April 1965. In relation to events before then, it should be referred to as Kent; after that as London. That you lived there over 45 years ago is beside the point. Jim Michael (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I also used to live in Beckenham (after 1965) and I also thought it was still part of Kent and only just discovered that the fact that it's part of the London Borough of Bromley means that it's no longer part of Kent. We always quoted out address as Beckenham, Kent and I suspect that many still do. It's the same story for Croydon where I grew up, which is part of the London Borough of Croydon rather than Surrey. Live and learn. Robman94 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckley 2005

I was about to make an edit to the article, and I remembered the question of Buckley editions came up once in the past. I have the 2005 edition, while the article uses the 2000 one. What are people's thoughts about citing multiple editions of the same book? In a way it seems undesirable; on the other hand, if a mature article has numerous citations of an edition, neither does it seem satisfactory to exclude newer material, or, alternatively, to require the existing citations to be reworked to make page numbers match the newer edition. I can't see anything about this question at WP:CITE, and I'm inclined to conclude that citing multiple editions is okay. Any other alternatives or suggestions? PL290 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments so far, I've gone ahead and added the 2005 edition. BTW I notice there are only around a dozen cites of the book, meaning it presumably wouldn't be a huge deal to realign those with the 2005 edition. As I said, I'm not convinced that's necessary, but others may feel it's the appropriate thing to do. Anyway, one way or another I suggest we keep the References entry for the 2005 edition, to allow further cites of that to be added to the article as and when editors have opportunity. PL290 (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo!

You guys are douchebags... you couldn't have picked a worse photo as the main one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the previous picture was absolutely horrible. I removed it yesterday and replaced it with a picture from Wikipedia's archives that, while it is a 20-year-old picture, I think everyone will agree is much better. While Wikipedia does not serve as David Bowie's PR agency, I do think that as a matter of course, we should make every effort to make articles as visually pleasing as possible. Therefore, if it is a choice between an older picture of someone that looks good and a more recent picture that looks horrible, it would be better to go with the older picture. Presumably, we want people to read this article, and if I were a visitor to Wikipedia and pulled up the article, I might have been completely turned off reading the article based on the absolutely hideous picture we were using. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia in which an old picture of someone/something is used when a good contemporary picture is presumably not available. But, if someone has a more recent picture of David Bowie that is aesthetically pleasing, by all means, let's use it. Until then, I would like to see the current picture left where it is. Nightmareishere (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please all spare a thought for those who've worked to contribute photos for Wikipedia to use; it's not as if we can just violate copyright by reusing anything we want from somewhere else (see WP:NFCC). FWIW, I for one rather like the 2009 one. The Chile pic is good though, and does have the advantages you identify. We've had it there before, till an editor put back the 2009 one (not just me that likes it, see!). But anyway, the thing is, nice one JD with the Heathen tour one—looks like a winner to me! PL290 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The Heathen Tour photo is definitely a winner to me. It may not be new or recent, but it's not exactly ancient history, either. Nightmareishere (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I was shocked when I came to the page today to see that the horrible Tribeca pic was back. I was expecting to see a discussion here as to why but there was nothing, so I have taken the liberty of putting the Heathen pic back. Hopefully, editors will discuss it here before restoring the Tribeca pic again. Robman94 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Expand Early years section

At the moment the Early years section is quite a high-level summary. There's quite a bit more information that's of interest, both about his family and early school life, and then about his early bands. I think ulitmately it probably ought to be split into two subsections to reflect that. I'll start to add more content anyway, and see how it goes. I may make that split if there are no objections meanwhile. PL290 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. As envisaged, I split the early band period out into a separate section following Early years. PL290 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it always so necessary to mention 'Irish decent' in every flaming Wiki biography? It seems not a single prominent figure can escape this which leads a person to question the validity of such statements... or even the point!


I delete the politics section. It's totally out of context, please read e.a. Because if I delete the first paragraph, only the other paragraph will be left. Better to remove it all. If someone can write the whole story, it will be great. But until than it's better to remove the whole section. --Jeroen (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Be my wife

There seems to be an argument brewing over the following phrase, which appears in the Family, home life and personal relationships section:

As far as I'm aware, this has been the established phraseology for some time and has not caused anyone a problem before. The suggestion seems to be that he did not "meet Angela Bowie", since she was called Barnett at the time. But the sentence doesn't say that. The parenthetically offset "Angela Bowie" can only be a qualification of "his first wife", and that is the name of his first wife. Like anything, it could be expressed in more than one way, but I don't personally think it's a problem as it is. PL290 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. It is clear that "Angela Bowie" is intended to be the name of his wife and not her name when they met. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to side with Jetblack500 on this one. The current phrasing Bowie met Angela Barnett in April 1969 seems more accurate. Perhaps the following sentence could read Within a year she became his wife, Angela Bowie. leaving the earlier mention unlinked. Still a little awkward I know, but gets the point across. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not that one— it's the one in Family, home life and personal relationships. PL290 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bowie, Mime, and Lindsay Kemp

I'm amazed that some of the editors working on this article aren't aware not only of Bowie's history as a mime, but how strongly it affected his musical performances. His work with the Lindsay Kemp company is very well-known, at least to his fans. One can hardly claim that it's not important to his work as a performing artist, though it would be important, regardless. It was a significant portion of his life and affected everything that he did during and after it. Here are a two videos of him performing mime: Pierrot in Turquoise: and The Mask: Here's one of him doing mime at Andy Warhol's "Factory": Bowie did several professional tours with Kemp: He use mime sequences in the Ziggy Stardust show, as he does here: Even the signature Bowie/Ziggy walk, where he turns his hands backward, turns his arms out, with his elbows facing forward, crouches, and walks across the stage, is derived directly from classical french mime. It's surely his most famous move, ever. He also used mime in every subsequent tour up to and including Station to Station. It was an important part of the Diamond Dogs show. For those who saw it, or have seen videos of it, he did a big mime sequence where he tears a hole through an imaginary wall and climbs through it, which is as classic as mime gets. Lindsay Kemp was also a big influence on the formation of glam. His company was known for being outrageous, wearing tons of make-up and glitter and have been claimed, by Bowie, as a source of inspiration for the Ziggy look. Some of the costumes, like the webbed one from the first Ziggy tour, were copied directly from a Lindsay Kemp production. Not long ago I read an interview with Bowie, who, when asked about the allegation that he adopted his glam look from the burgeoning glam scene in New York, the cast of "Pork", Angie Bowie, etc, countered that he had already found the inspiration for glam through his involvement with Lindsay Kemp. Even his movements when he's not obviously doing mime are mime infused - the "cat-like" movements, the use of "slow-motion" - all of that derives from mime. The thing that I don't understand is why anyone would have any trouble with it. Bowie is a self-proclaimed renaissance man who incorporated many things; conceptualism, art, architecture, dada/surrealist writing techniques, acting, modern dance, film, and other forms into his work. Mime was not only one of them, but among the most important. Perhaps it's time to add a new section to address it, as well as add it to the lede. Jetblack500 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading this, I'm convinced that by all means Bowie's history with mime merits mention in the article. But not in the lede, for the same reason we don't refer to Bowie as a saxophonist or harpsichordist in the lede. Bowie may play saxophone and harpsichord, but he is not primarily a player of either of those instruments. We should adhere to what WP:LEDE has to say about relative emphasis: "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." Bowie's careers in music ("musician...record producer and arranger") and film ("actor") are what this article mostly focuses upon, for obvious reasons. Thus, his excursions into pantomime, interesting as they may be, don't merit inclusion in the opening sentence. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Grunge6910. It is giving a small part of his history undue weight to have it in the lead. It should be, and it already is, mentioned within the body of the article. That should be sufficient. --JD554 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Your use of words such as influence, inspiration and incorporated makes the point. Mime needs a mention in the article (which it gets), but the point of the lead sentence is to summarily state the role in which he is best known, which is a singer. One who incorporated mime and other dramatic effects in his singing performances, yes, but a singer. An actor, record producer and arranger? Yes (though even the inclusion of each of those in the lead sentence is open to debate). But mime in its own right, I think not. PL290 (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello w'edis ! as in the plural for wikipedian. If anyone is kind, please help me out. Do you think it's good thought to put some tracks in the discography section of David Bowie ? I've seen the section articles has a header for redirection to further details, but I want only to get an ideea what this guy put on his albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know what was available on each album I'm afraid the only place to do that is to read the album articles. That isn't appropriate to add to a discography article or a discography section. --JD554 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Long-haired Men

I saw no mention of this in the main article, wondering if this should be added. avalean (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't use that as a source, since it is copyrighted, but another would be usable; it's a little like the ice-cream advert he appeared in at about the same time. Either way, neither is particularly unusual in a young performer starting out in a media career but it would need proper sourcing and perspective. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In the early 80,s an import album of Bowie live in Japan was released — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

1962–68: The Kon-rads to the Riot Squad

The paragraph describing Bowie and the King Bees confuses me: Dissatisfied with the King Bees and their repertoire of Howlin' Wolf and Willie Dixon blues numbers, Bowie quit the band, then Bowie soon moved on again to join the Lower Third, but then later, Bowie nevertheless remained with the King Bees. Did Bowie re-join the King Bees at some point? Or is the chronology miss-ordered somewhere? I have added a tag in hopes someone can clarify. -84user (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I checked, and it was the Lower Third he remained with after saying that. I've corrected the article. PL290 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Love You till Tuesday

Please could someone undo Gcstackmoney's edit which changed 'till' to 'Till'. It is now wrong according to MOS:CAPS#Composition titles. Thanks, (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - as you say, per MOS:CAPS#Composition titles, "till", as a short preposition, should be lower case. PL290 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on FA star

Ground control to Major Tom: Well done PL290 & friends, a great achievement. You're a Starman now! 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations PL290 (and others who helped with it)! Great work! Moisejp (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bowie Bonds

This is an interesting method that David used to purchase the rights to some of his own songs - Bowie Bonds. Anyone can link this if it is noteworthy. (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Added it in "See also" section. NandO talk! 23:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"English rock musician"...

I see David Bowie as a legitimate rock musician, but I also feel that his work is so vast that he could venture into other genres, like pop. Don't you think that is impoverishing say he is definitely a rock musician? As Oscar Wilde wrote, to define is to limit... NandO talk! 06:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done It already mentions in the article (and infobox) that he, indeed, ventured into other genres. Bulldog73 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done what? tsc tsc... I already added "Pop" in the Infobox. Shut... NandO talk! 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


What about separate this on three sections: Voice, Instruments and Lyrics (a new one)? And maybe another one, Performance (or Personas), although the latter may have been sufficiently developed in the previous sections on his tours and concerts. As for the "Lyrics" I think there is a big material in the articles of some of Bowie songs in Wikipedia (Quicksand (David Bowie song), Station to Station, for example) to create a new section on his influences such as philosophy, Nietzsche and etc., to say also the theme of his lyrics and songs. NandO talk! 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


Added a subsection on "Legacy" called "Influence, " with specific information about Bowie's influence musically and socially over the years of his career. I believe I did a good job, based on references, literature and on some sites. I may have commited some mistakes pertaining to spelling in English language and I accept suggestions. NandO talk! 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

HOw come there is no 'Personal Life' section in this article where it talks about his family and the like? Almost every other article about a figure has this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary. The article has information about his relationship with Angela Bowie, his marriage with Iman, the birth of his children, and even his sexual orientations... NandO talk! 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

yes but maybe some people are coming to the page just to learn about specific parts of his personal life. Even if the data is all on the page, if its not well organized, then wikipedia does not function very well as an encyclopedia. A researcher isnt necessarily going to want to know everything about a subject, possibly just specifics of different parts, yet, with this article its impossible to ascertain all those details about his personal life because its scattered all over the place.Porojukaha (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A serious researcher is, at best, going to use our article as a starting point, rather than as the definitive endpoint for all that is important about David Bowie. It's the essence of an encyclopedia that it distills information into a short, but hopefully comprehensive, resume of a topic rather than provide every detail of that topic; there are much better sources available for those details, and our articles are not research sources in themselves; more so they should cite their sources, and if more detail is necessary to a reader elsewhere, that's what the sources are intended to provide. Rodhullandemu 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant for the public not just the serious researcher. As Porojukaha said, many people are coming to the page just to learn about specific parts of his personal life. Many people come here to quickly find a small specific point of information such as a date. It is the essence of an encyclopedia that it distills information so it can be easily found. The goal of the encyclopedia is to provide the information rather than point you to the information. Well written and researched encyclopedia articles can and should be a research sources in themselves. It should also point you to more sources if more detail is necessary to a reader. That is the goal. It would helpful if one section contained all of his personal. --Mschribr (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


I have removed a lot of text that was recently added to the article. This article is a featured article, and per the Wikipedia:OWN#Featured articles policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." I see no significant discussion on the talk page to indicate consensus. My specific objections to the recent addition are as follows:

  • Legacy: the newly added "influences" were nothing more than a list of names (not particularly well sourced either). Saying "Bowie influenced a, b, c, and d" does not make for interesting reading. Indeed, that excellent final quote, "it is almost impossible to find a popular artist today that has not been influenced by David Bowie", succintly conveys it all.
  • Compositions: Inspirations for specific songs and albums belong in their articles, really.
  • Sexuality: the new bit from the Spitz book adds nothing new to the section. It's already been established that Bowie kinda used his bisexuality as a gimmick.
  • Throughout there are problems with prose, and a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia ("Indeed, his early compositions were influenced by poetry and writings..."). Many of the newly added references aren't reliable sources too.—indopug (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Peel on Bowie

From 'Legacy' section: As described by John Peel, "The one distinguishing feature about early-70s progressive rock was that it didn't progress. Before Bowie came along, people didn't want too much change". What's the source of this? Where, when and on which occasion this might have been said? The first part as such is totally credible, except that - what Bowie might have had to do with progressive rock? As for the second... Before Bowie came along, people didn't want too much change - what people: early Bolan, Barrett, Beefheart or Bonzos? Who were all 'before' Bowie and whom Peel admired? To me it looks very much like two phrazes' been ripped out of two different contexts to be glued together to rather incongruous effect. -- Evermore2 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • If such statement has indeed been ever made, it was certainly not in 1969 when Peel (according to D. Buckley of Mojo) recalled '...the trials of the pre-Space Oddity, mime-influenced Bowie: He was a very edgy lad. But then again, he could have been edgy because he thought what he was doing was a load of piss. Looks like the most generous thing Peel ever said about the subject was (according to Buckley): David Bowie would certainly be in the top half of any table of people who have done stuff over the years which have given me pleasure, but still he was a bit grumpy: The last time he had tried to say hello to Bowie had been on the 1983 Serious Moonlight tour, when he had been physically barred by the 'Karate-style' security.. And so the question remains: when and why and which reliable source according to might John 'the Grumpy' Peel have said this: Before Bowie came along, people didn't want too much change ? -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice Cooper influenced David Bowie

In the media David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust character was also criticized for being a copy about the American glam rock act Alice Cooper. Bowie's former manager Tony Zenyetta has also stated that Bowie was very jealous for Alice because Cooper was more famous back in the early 70's. Bowie was also closely watching Alice Cooper's career. Zenyetta has also said that "Bowie made the statement that he was gay because he realized that doing something shocking would get him the kind of attention that Alice Cooper was getting. Angie did convince Bowie to change his image from folk rocker to glitter rocker".

In 1971, Alice was already the talk of the rock world, as the singer who wore spidery black eye makeup and feminine clothes, had a woman's name, and even did such things on stage as use a strait jacket and electric chair. Bowie only became Ziggy in 1972. There needs to be a mention in this article about David Bowie, that his Ziggy Stardust character was influenced by Alice Cooper. There is many references about that. JNCooper (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable source among those you linked to is Rolling Stone, which doesn't mention anything you said.—indopug (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Guess you're another Bowie fan who can't face the fact that Bowie copied Cooper. :D JNCooper (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the logic here; although ostensibly both being "glam rock" (-ish), Cooper was much more "shock rock" and Bowie "space rock". I think you'll need a much stronger source to establish your point. Rodhullandemu 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
JN, keep it civil... ;-) Actually I'm a Bowie fan and there is something in what you say that could be referenced. I'll check my copy of Carr & Murray's Illustrated Record as I seem to recall them mentioning that Bowie wasn't exactly mining new territory as far as creating an alternate "character" went, citing the example of Cooper and also Bryan Ferry's world-weary persona. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Parlophone Category

I deleted Bowie from the Parlophone Records category and added him to the EMI Records category. His only Parlophone release was his 1965 single "You've Got a Habit of Leaving" after which he was dropped from the label, so IMHO he really doesn't qualify as a Parlophone artist. He released 4 of his post-RCA albums on EMI, starting with 1983's Let's Dance thru 1989's Tin Machine, plus a few live and compliation albums. Robman94 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed Parlophone from the infobox per your reasoning. Do you think any more should be removed as well?—indopug (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, I didn't think to check the infobox too. I would think that Hanso could go too, I've never heard of that label and am not aware of any Bowie releases on it. Pye is questionable, but he did release 6 singles [1] with them before being dropped, so it's probably OK. Now I just need to see if I can find "Toy" online when I get home this evening! :) Robman94 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverts of my editions and Charts

It's incredible. User:Indopug deleted my editions, but it's OK. I learned that this is not the best place for them. It seems that Wikipedia users prefer to cite Chart numbers than the work of the artist. NandO talk! 23:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff that is missing

Just a quick mention that the page does not include

David Bowie was the first rockstar to open an online bank [2]

Nor that (see same ref) In 1998 he became the first artist to start his own Internet service provider. And in September he established himself as the highest-profile artist to release an entire album for digital distribution, making his album hours ... available online before it was available in stores

I think these are probably noteworthy EdwardLane (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In general this article is overly dependant on two published biographical sources. The large number of direct quotations pushes the limit of fair use and related content clearly paraphrases content including liberal use of original commentary from these works rather than facts. Furthermore, the general narrative and scope of information seems to be limited to these sources and the article lacks much standard biographical content such as marital status, children and importiant personal history. Suggest the primary author take the initiative to improve it as s/he seems to find the edits of others objectionable. Reminder this is a biography not a fan page. Xiao-zi : 小紫 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiao-zi (talkcontribs)

Real name?

I see a lot of "Hayward" and "Stenton" added to the ubiquitous David Robert Jones, when searching the web and other wikipedias. But not here at enwp. Some (like IMDb) say Duncan Jones' middle name "Hayward" comes from his father and grandfather (thus not Haywood but Hayward). What's the truth in all of this? TIA--Paracel63 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-sentence / Russel Harty interview

From the 1974–1976: Soul, funk and the Thin White Duke section, the following is not a sentence: "Earning the distinction of being one of the first white artists to appear on the US variety show Soul Train, Bowie mimed "Fame", as well as "Golden Years", his October single, and that it was offered to Elvis Presley to perform, but Presley declined it." More tangentially, later in the same paragraph, David Buckley is cited re drugs and Russel Harty's interview with DB: "Bowie looked completely disconnected and was hardly able to utter a coherent sentence." OK, Buckley is a published source, but he's wrong. More than anything else, DB was refusing to come down to Russel Harty's level of inanity. Many of Bowie's quips are actually killer, if you're fast enough to catch em! Johncurrandavis (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just watched that interview and Bowie is clearly fully in control and in fact quite witty. His sentences are not only coherent but considerably more clever than those of Harty. I realise my opinion is irrelevant and I don't have a reference to the effect that Bowie was not incoherent (other than the interview itself) but what's the policy on (what is effectively) repeating a libel? Tripper (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Would this be copyright?

File:Bowie in Labyrinth.png adding this to the article, a picture of him in Labyrinth. Currently there are no pictures from his acting career here...which is sad, but most of alll aerrr,,, I feel it would add something to the article. Bai. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

David Bowie's left eye

Could there be some clarification regarding David Bowie's left eye and how it became damaged.

George Underwood's fingernail damaged sphincter muscles in David Bowie's left eye when George punched David in the eye.

It had nothing to do with a ring.

Source 1: "Underwood punched his eye, and his fingernail clipped it by accident."

Source 2: "George Underwood, Bowie's friend and then foe, also gave his two cents to Spitz. "He knew damn well why I did it," Underwood said. "We both wanted to go out with her and I was lucky enough to get a date. On the day of the date David rang me up and said that she had to cancel. So I didn't go but he had made up the whole story. The girl stood around for over an hour waiting for me as I discovered later. It was a bastard thing to do and I was furious with him, so it developed into a fight between us. And during the punch-up I caught his eye with a fingernail." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo

I think the photo could be better. A photo from the ziggy era would be a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.saltis (talkcontribs) 00:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. A photo of Ziggy's creator is enough. NandO talk! 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jean Genie - BBC lost footage

Was shown on BBC2, 21 December 2011 at 19.30: [3]. Not sure if it warrants any mention in the article? Even a few harmonica riffs! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Has been added at The Jean Genie. Surely one of the highlights of that programme for that whole year. Not least because it was live and featured an extended Ronson guitar solo. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Verlaine

Minor note, Tom Verlaine does not play on Scary Monsters. He was supposed to play on Kingdom Come, which he wrote, but according to Tony Visconti in Brooklyn Boy only got as far as auditioning "every Fender amp in New York" and was never asked to record.

I don't have access to fix this, so if someone in good standing could delete Tom Verlaine from this sentence " The album's hard rock edge included conspicuous guitar contributions from Robert Fripp, Pete Townshend, Chuck Hammer and Tom Verlaine.[79]" that would be great. — Jim68881

Brian Eno

In the associated acts section Brian Eno is spelt wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

I believe that Nine Inch Nails should be added to "associated acts" section because of the numerous collaborations between Trent Reznor and David Bowie (in which Trent Reznor was credited as Nine Inch Nails). Also Nine Inch Nails supported Bowie in the Outside Tour and remixed/produced some songs from Earthling, including "I'm Afraid of Americans". Myxomatosis75 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Buckley! Buckley! Buckley! (Enough already!)

It's pretty sad how much this write-up relies on a single source. All throughout the entire article, it's nonstop "Buckley says..." "Buckley states..." "Buckley asserts..." BUCKLEY! Is there no other source for your Bowie information?? If not, then wow!-such meager pickings says a lot about the world we live in (or does it rather say more about the shallow sources of the principle author of this bio-page??)

In any event, it does seems as if this article is almost as much about what some otherwise rather uninteresting biographer named "Buckley" thinks as it is about one of the greatest rock entertainers this universe has ever produced. And that's a shame, IMHO. How about (as a tribute to the eclecticism of the artist that is Bowie) we try to mix our sources up a bit?? Pwetty pwease?? Thanks123.225.191.234 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for pointing this out. I've counted 16 times that David Buckley has been quoted, and 8 times for Sandford. To be fair though, we have used three different books by Buckley...—indopug (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Well there are two Buckleys (a David and a Peter) but overall, if only 16 out of 180+ citations are from one Buckley, I think that's doing ok. 87Fan (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No, no, there are many citns of him, but 16 direct quotes.—indopug (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Franco

Bowie's interview with Harty was on November 28th 1975, as acredited by many forums on the net, including Franco died on November 20th, 8 days before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


The Guardian listed him as influencing the most stars today, a list that included The Beatles as number 3 and David Bowie as number 1.

Zimbio listed him as the 5th most influential person in fashion

It is also quite common knowledge that Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Madonna, Iggy Pop, Kurt Cobain and Adam Lambert among others. (SuperCell3000 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Also known as...

Several other musicians (Bob Dylan and George Harrison are good examples) have the various stage names they have used in their career on their pages. It adds something. Shouldn't Bowie have his? At the very least I'd expect Ziggy Stardust and the Thin White Duke up there. Most others would be stretching it. SCIAG (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The parameter is for official names not characters.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What makes you say that? SCIAG (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox musical artist.--SabreBD (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

London 2012

"London 2012 finale used video montage of Bowie classics, and prerecorded slots for other absentees Kate Bush and the Sex Pistols"

Why is Low called "minimalist"?

In the article's third paragraph it says: "He then confounded the expectations of both his record label and his American audiences by recording the minimalist album Low (1977)—the first of three collaborations with Brian Eno over the next two years. The so-called "Berlin Trilogy" albums all reached the UK top five and garnered lasting critical praise."

Not to get into a musical debate, but while minimalism might have influenced Low I don't think anyone would label that as the album's primary genre.

I would suggest something like "by recording the Krautrock-infuenced album Low (1977)-the first of three collaborations"

Nobody's suggesting that minimalism is Low's primary genre. Just that the term succinctly describes Bowie & co's attitude while recording that album (i.e. towards ambient, instrumental music). This is the expanded upon later in the article; the lead is just a brief overview.—indopug (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)