Talk:David Bowie

New piece in the guardian

"Who’s bad? From Michael Jackson to David Bowie, why are some stars uncancellable?" [1]. Presumably we should add something to legacy and influence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another Bowie related article from the Guardian, this one an interview[2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding something like this would give it WP:UNDUE weight, without a lot more context. I think what may be appropriate, is to include this info in a fair, balanced and complete article about bands and artists in the 60s and 70s, groupie culture, and changing societal norms. I'm not sure if that exists, but you're welcome to write it. But, you'll notice that not every new article published about anything is included in the Bowie wikipedia entry just because his name is on it. 87Fan (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding something like which part? There are two articles here which cover different topics. Our current article doesn't appear to mention cancel culture and its impacts (or lack thereof) on Bowie's legacy, in order to be NPOV we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That interview with hairdresser Suzy Ronson is quite interesting. Schwarzkopf Red Hot! Who knew! You know what they say.... "if you can remember the perm lotion, you weren't in the salon..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. almost certainly also belongs at Mick Ronson, where she's not even mentioned?

Mentioned but only in the personal life section "Ronson was married in Bearsville, New York State, in March 1977, to Suzanne (Suzi) Fussey, a hairdresser, who worked for David Bowie at the same time that Ronson did." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• @87Fan: now that you have had time to think about it what would be your preferred addition to the article? In terms of thoughts on the general contextualizing of Bowie's legacy this book review might help[3] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will add my insight to this thread once I return from my vacation in a few days. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  My thoughts on this Guardian article:

  • The author does not seem to be coming from a neutral point of view; he seems to call out Bowie specifically – that alone makes this article not useful for inclusion.
  • He brings up a quote about Bowie from Claire Dederer's book Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma, which itself got a bad review from the same publication, calling the book "so thin, so ill-researched and, frequently, so crude".
  • I agree with the critic Jesse Crispin's opinion lambasting Dederer's book and questioning Mattix's accusations: "When that accusation came up, there was not consensus, there was a lot of discomfort."
  • This article is about why some artists have been "cancelled" more than others. I somewhat agree with the statement by Crispin that "anyone who built up a loyal following before the advent of social media is ultimately immune from it". Bowie's influence was massive long before social media and after he died everyone acknowledged that.
  • Regarding this specific article, it does not warrant mentioning because to me because I do not find it neutral. Bowie was not a rapist who drugged underage girls like Steven Tyler or Roman Polanski. Bowie's two (count em two) encounters with underage girls (when Bowie himself wasn't even that much older mind you) are simply a footnote on the larger-than-life legacy Bowie left. People like Claire Dederer need to realize that.

  – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no requirement that the source be neutral or that the author comes from a neutral point of view, what do you mean "it does not warrant mentioning because to me because I do not find it neutral"? Note that NPOV (which you linked) says almost the opposite of what you do... "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." but you're saying that you don't want to include a published significant view because that view isn't neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  In what way would you incorporate this article then? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would summarize the significant views in it and add them to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  How? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thinking maybe three sentences in legacy and influence? One sentence noting that Bowie has not for the most part been cancelled and why some want him to be, one sentence which summarizes with Dederer's view, and one sentence which summarizes Crispin's view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why would Dederer and Crispin deserve their personal views to be included in an encyclopedia though? Don't these individual assume guilt (without proof or even conviction) and then speculate why others do not accept they are guilty or just don't care? I don't see how that is part of Bowie's legacy. Wiki should be a platform for presumption of guilt? The authors don't even seem to contemplate that Bowie and Jackson were not cancelled because a lot of people just don't find the accusers credible. castorbailey (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Neither of those individuals do that. If you have a reliable source for that contemplation we can include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  " In her book Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma, Claire Dederer writes about the specific pull Bowie had on young minds: “David Bowie was the patron saint of weird kids … For kids like me, there was a sense of ownership; Bowie was ours." "This intense connection meant that many overlooked the accusations." But for Dederer, it made them cut deeper. Other famous bands might have slept with teenage girls, she writes, “but not our guy”. She clearly is speculating that people overlooked the accusations (and the supposed reasons why) instead of just not believing the accusations. That's presumption of guilt. Likewise, Crispin, does not bring up the possibility that people simply don't cancel Bowie because they don't believe the accuser. I don't see why the personal opinion of individuals who presume guilt should be on wiki at all. The article as a whole lumps together convicts with people who were merely accused by dubious parties. castorbailey (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't put any thought into how we could integrate this source (if at all) but I just want to echo Horse Eye's Back here about the neutrality of sources. We can't disregard reliable secondary sources just because we suspect the authors are biased, that's not how Wikipedia works and it would be dangerous to start doing that... it would mean anyone with a POV to push could simply disregard any source they didn't agree with on the grounds of them being biased etc. Popcornfud (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Tyler and Polanski are different because they're living people therefore the BLP policy applies. Thats apples and oranges. I would also ask you to describe in detail how an adult has sex with a child without it being rape, take your time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See also section

@Ian Rose: what is your objection to the see also section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: this edit summary "you made these edits without any discussion. Wait until actual discussion has occurred or I'm reporting you."[4] confuses me because this talk page discussion was already open and in general its the removal of the challenged content that waits for the end of the discussion... Which I will add you didn't open or join, despite apparently being strongly opposed (to the point of threatening reporting) to making edits without waiting until actual discussion has occurred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This should be treated in prose as is being discussed. It's an ugly non-sequitur as formulated, and it frankly seems a WP:POINTy inclusion—what context does it serve the reader? None. Remsense诉 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The see also section isn't non-sequitur... It serves the same purpose see also always serves: to point the reader to places where more information about topic of the page is discussed. What purpose is served by excluding valid see also links? If you don't want it in the see also put it in the article as prose! The place to put stuff waiting to be put into prose? Yes... You guessed it, a see also section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

But it seems that the topic of the discussed See also articles is quite different from the Bowie bio. If related and often discussed in sources about him, these links should be in the text. If not, then it looks strange to add a link to MeToo without any explanation. Artem.G (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the sources we David Bowie is one of the primary figures in the MeToo movement such as "Who’s bad? From Michael Jackson to David Bowie, why are some stars uncancellable?" [5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

One source from 2024, even though MeToo happened in late 2017-2019. How does that constitute a "main" figure? And on top of that, the reevaluation of Michael Jackson's legacy mainly came after Leaving Neverland in 2019 and had nothing to do with MeToo. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said that was the only source? The MeToo movement is ongoing, it did not end in 2019. The given source puts it in the context of the movement "So how has this happened? How come some artists seem impervious to the supposed huge shifts in public opinion in the wake of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter? David Bowie is a striking example. Claims after his death by Lori Mattix and Dana Gillespie that he had had sex with them when they were under the age of consent (15 and 14, respectively) have largely been ignored, dismissed or at least treated completely differently to other male stars similarly accused." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What discussion are you talking about? Before yesterday there was only one discussion about a random Guardian article you had with 87Fan early last month where there was absolutely no consensus reached on anything (only an extension of the convos from last year you refuse to close). Then you added the see also edits unprovoked. So there was no "open discussion". You're entirely in the wrong here and edit warring until you get your way once again. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To add, I didn't say anything last month because I felt I already said everything I needed to say last year yet since you're making controversial edits without reason so now I feel obligated to join in. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I have given reasons, these should not be controversial edits (note that so far nobody has actually made a policy or guideline based argument against inclusion, nobody actually seems to object on actual grounds other than that they don't like it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The guideline says that most well written articles do NOT include a see also section because the links have been worked into the article. In this case, I would not include the links in a see also section. This seems to be a well written article, why would we want to degrade it? --Malerooster (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Malerooster HEB is determined to have something related to Lori Maddox's accusations against Bowie in the article even though there isn't an easy way to do that basically it's more than a simple 'he did or did not do it'. It's all laid out in the archives for this page which you may or not be aware of. I'm still on vacation so I'll be fully invested in this upon my return home. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm determined to have something related to MeToo because its due and NPOV... The topic isn't really covered without it (it would not for example currently pass a FA re-evaluation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You won't stop until you get your way, yet you yourself have made it abundantly clear over the past year that you have no idea how to add the information in a neutral way. In case you don't remember, you tried adding Mattix under a see also last year and also faced pushback here even after a bunch of discussion had already occurred. You trying to do it again this year is just being disruptive. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that the information can be added in a neutral way? Because below you're saying that you don't know how to add the information in a neutral way "because it is much more than a simple "did or did not do it"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You tell me. Is it? I and the other ten editors who have contributed to these discussions over the past year have all been in agreement that there is no neutral way to add it. So if there is a way to you, how? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that its abundantly clear that you have no idea how to add the information in a neutral way? A number of editors have supported inclusion, it isn't 1 vs 11... At the least I think we can do is note that there is a controversy (if it can't be done for size reasons then on wikipedia we make a child page... Not exclude it, I've never encountered that suggestion in any other context on Wikipedia). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Name me three other editors who have supported inclusion. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't the claim... You said that besides for me not a single editor had supported inclusion. I would also note that given the changing circumstances you now appear to support partial inclusion (or at least that is my understanding from the new section below this one) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Where would you work them in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I would not include them in the article right now. If you present some reliable sources that make the case for inclusion, post them here and have a discussion. --Malerooster (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many, MANY, holes in Mattix's story. You can check out this Medium article for more insight. This is why Mattix is not in the article, because it is much more than a simple "did or did not do it". – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The piece in the Guardian also mentions a Dana Gillespie as do these additional pieces [6][7][8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware. I started a new discussion on her below. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion, it was opened before your revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Dana Gillespie

Although we are very unsure of Lori Mattix, one thing that I would be fine with putting in the article is Bowie's underage relationship with singer Dana Gillespie. It is documented (Kevin Cann, Dylan Jones, Gillespie's own memoir, and various online articles (for one), that the two met before Bowie was famous in 1964 (when he was 17 and Gillespie was 14) and began a relationship after (it is heavily implied that it was sexual: she witnessed Davie Jones and the Manish Boys attempting to play them – their music made little impact on her, although the singer's androgynous appearance did. After the set finished he approached Gillespie and requested she take him home: "I don't need to tell you what went on that night, but we were very young.") There are also quite a few photos of Bowie with Gillespie (including one on WP) where there are none with Bowie and Mattix. 87Fan Ian Rose Would either of you have any objections on adding this? It would go under 'other relationships'. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Feels like it would be appropriate to be added since it's well-corroborated. The Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom article doesn't make it clear if their ages were an issue at the time (the laws were changed in the 70s) 87Fan (talk) (edited a typo)