Talk:David Bowie/Archive 1

message: I second the idea of adding Nietzsche to Bowie's history page.  Nietzsche and Crowley were both huge influences on early 70's bowie.  Quicksand, would be more accurately attributed to Nietzsche/Crowley than buddhism.
His continual Agnostic theme of cutting apart other people's works and piecing them together as something new should be mentioned somewhere as well.  For an example, refer to the numerous sources of inspiration for the song "Starman" Vellon 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche / Agnosticism

message: Okay, I know this guy is diverse, but do you actually have to ad every genre that he ever did any song in in the info-box? Look at the arrangment at the Queen article, it had like 15 genres there at first but got shortened to three, and the rest in a section of its own. It sure as hell looks better.--Gustav Lindwall 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: I was wondering, how come no one even mentions the influence of Nietzsche on his early lyrics? I'd like to know a little more about it, and the references in the lyrics are so many and so obvious that i'm surprised the topic isn't covered.
81.39.169.176 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche in early lyrics

message: Cute drawing of Bowie up there. However, it's a sketch after all, and whoever drew it should send it into their local community college, not post it in an encyclopedia. There are many non-copywritten photos out there; a sketch is an abstraction of a photo, and thus artistic, not factual. Stop putting it up there.
Jackmont, Dec 17, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sketches belong on fridges, not in encyclopedias

message: Shouldn't there be a section listed with just only his personal life stuff, such as early life, marital & parental status, etc.?
:::there WAS a section about his personal life, i could SWEAR! it talks about his first marriage & his son, and then his subsequent marriage to Iman.  WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THAT SECTION?!? or did i just get lost in the lengthy & wordy paragraphs?!?
--HatchetFaceBuick 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: The writer has been led to believe that David Bowie was actually born in Doncaster Royal Infirmary; although there is no suggestion that, at the time, his parents were permanently resident anywhere other than the London address given.  Of course this may be some sort of mythology created by his Doncaster fans (there is no reason known that Mr. Jones (senior) might have wanted David to play cricket for Yorkshire), but there is no firm evidence cited to the contrary.  As David is still alive; and members of his family may possibly still be alive, is there anyone with any firm proof as to where Bowie was born?
I see that his father is from Yorkshire.  Is there any further information out there that might clarify this possible story of David being born in Doncaster Royal Infirmary?  Perhaps his dad, as a Yorkshireman, did want his son to have the option of playing cricket for Yorkshire?  (The Yokshire cricket club had a strict rule, since relaxed slightly but not completely, that to play for the club you had to have been born in the county)
David Bowie is a being from another planet. his people developed interstellar travel by the time most of the people reading this were simply tubesock fodder. they are a peaceful consciousness. that is all i know, because i am engaged to a half-interstellar being. she is lovely and she doesn't bullshit.
Ah! that explains it!  They called in at Donny on their way to London, and caught the inter-city (or whatever the steam trains were called).
David Bowie's father was born in Doncaster, not Tadcaster as the article suggests.  It's where the the confusion over Bowie's own birthplace comes from.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyCoyote123 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: Where are all the rumors coming from? Is the name "Me, Myself and I" confirmed? Sometime ago it was just "TBA" ;)
I would be thankful for clarifying :)
:I was the one that added this. I read it in a recent article/interview with DB, but now I can't remember the source. I have not been able to confirm it elsewhere, so maybe it should be left out for now. Stanley Lieber 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new album 

message: I noticed the second paragraph of the "Overview" section currently reads "  The so-called "Berlin Trilogy", although receiving mixed commercial success at the time." Needs the rest of the sentence. I'm not sure what it should say or I'd fix it myself. Thanks.--63.201.91.208 00:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Original final part of the sentence ("is seen by many today as masterful and groundbreaking") got lost somewhere along the line these past few weeks. Have partially restored but changed "masterful", which I think was a bit OTT even though I personally agree with the assessment. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete sentence describing "Berlin Trilogy" -anybody able to fix? 

message: um, people, that rather famous incident is not best described as "kissing" Mick Ronson's guitar. how about a little less prudishness and a bit more historical truth?
:i heard he performed 'felatio' to it, but either way... AlexOvShaolin 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kissed ronsons guitar? 

message: In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that :category:David Bowie singles shouldn't be merged into :category:David Bowie songs, as all the others except the ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

message: My friend and I just spoke, and she said that Bowie had an artificial eye, yet Wiki says he has heterochromia and can see in his injured eye. Is there any other source that has info on this?
---
Check any of the listed sites (especially BBC news), they'll tell you that neither of Bowie's eyes are artificial, although I must remark that the injured eye (which he can see through with faulty depth perception) appears to be artificial due to its permanate dialation.
Mikeguy
Well....from what I know and my years of being a big fan lol. Apparently when David Bowie was 14 years old he was punched in the left eye in Highschool by good friend George Underwood during a fight over a girl. He damaged the retina with a large ring he was wearing and after that David spent 8 months in Hospital and his eye sight became permantently impaired. Though I think he can still see through both eyes just not as well (Loyal queen 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificial Eye?

message: Pardon me, but the overview appears to have been expanded back to its original form when it was still in a seperate "overview" column. I don't mean to be picky, but I think that the original overview was too long to be a standalone summary of David Bowie's career for a Wikipedia header; why not compare it to the Elvis Presley article, or Queen, or The Beatles. These musical acts certainly have much to be said about them, but not in the introduction to the article. The introduction should be much more concise, hence the earlier editing.
Also, the removal of the comment on David Bowie as a "rock chameleon" is unnacceptable. Stating that it is unusable due to status of a "cliché" is absurd; it is a comment which, like it or not, has been applied to Bowie historically enough times to be not only significant, but crucial to an understanding of him altogether.
Remember, this is about creating an informative artical which meets Wikipedia's standards, which is precisely why I haven't simply reverted the edits myself and would like to discuss this. Mikeguy 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, as you've probably gathered from my tweaks but not wholesale rewrite of your recent change to the intro, I'm with you there. The rules for a featured article, if I recall rightly, are three paras in the intro. Also I have serious concerns with some of the purple prose in the latest version which I think were also there before your rejig ("extraordinary", "cleverly", etc). However, agree we wait a little to get other feedback/consensus here before any reversion. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought it was because he could lick his own eyeball. God, shows what I know.--172.166.19.129 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: 1. The introduction is WAY too long. It also includes blatantly POV and weasely worded statements:- 
He is universally recognised as one of the more accomplished and inspired artists in rock and pop.
The relatively short-lived Ziggy persona would epitomise an extraordinary career defined by consistent musical innovation, reinvention and striking visual presentation.
A darling of the music cognoscenti while entertaining an intense and broad fan base, the knowing, indulgent and rather camp Bowie injected rock and pop with a combined glamour, mystique and melancholia uniquely his own.
I think all of these statements are unneccesary. 
2. Somebody removed the long list of musical genres and replaced them with rock. Is it just vandalism, or was it agreed upon?
: Currently it says "Rock, Art Rock, Glam Rock and Pop".  These are pretty loose catch terms, and ultimately would involve putting "Young Americans" and "Outside" in the same box.  There should certainly be Drum and Bass, New Wave, Soul and Electonica on there.  But as it is an disputed area, I'll wait for a second opinion before doing anything.  NadaPlissken 11:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm reverting it back to the fine-tuned introduction I wrote after reviewing this blatant piece of POV, please view the above discussion about it. Mikeguy 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: I recently noticed that an edit had been made to add Bowie's career as an actor to each section of his biography... I believe this is a better idea than using a seperate "Bowie the Actor" section, but if so, all the information from that section needs to be dispersed and rearranged through the article. Can we agree that this section should be dispersed into the rest of the biography?Mikeguy 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Bowie the Actor" Section 

message: He's listed as an "Oz Actor", but his IMDB page doesn't mention anything Oz related. Am I missing something?--Agent Aquamarine 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank Oz was in  Labyrinth????--Philbarker 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oz Actor 

message: Country: England doesn't seem quite right, since England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom; surely United Kingdom would be more accurate. Especially since England would not coincide with the List of countries.
:Cannot do.  Everyone born in England will be called British and everyone born in Wales will be called Welsh etc and it'll make too much inconsistency - because you'll never get the petty nationalists elsewhere in the UK to conform.  Try it and see... -- 86.17.211.191 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  England? 

message: is he really one?!!!
:it has been stated over and over publically a million times. i dont think its been mentioned in recent years tho. AlexOvShaolin 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, mate. I think you've covered the subject as well as anyone can. David Buckley references the 1983 RS interview and interprets it as one of Bowie's attempts around that time to "in" himself with the public, particularly in America. This was after all the Let's Dance period, his most overt play for mainstream commercial acceptance. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poof? bisexual? 

message: Whichever arsehole put in that pointless, snotty aside about Kurt Cobain fouling up the lyrics to The Man Who Sold The World clearly isn't a musician. If you're playing live mistakes happen and you have to keep going it's not a fucking studio recording is it? It's a one shot live performance not some jerk miming on TOTP.
:You're right about the small lyrical change not being a big deal, artists do that all the time during live performances. However, you're still a twat for liking Nirvana.
Hey hey hey! Lets not get all critical with people's musical preferances. But however people who don't like Bowie or say hes a fag or gay...they seriously need mental help I mean to be ranked as the top 10 BEST ARTIST of ALL time and selling over 150 million records...must tell you something lol. (Loyal queen 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re; Nirvana comment 

message: I'm surprised that there isn't a David Bowie template. There are enough studio albums, live albums, films etc.. to warrant one. Any comments? TommyStardust 09:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hullo Tommy, good on you. Unfortunately whatever template you've used doesn't show up when I view it on Mozilla or IE. Don't have that prob with most templates, e.g. Beatles, Roxy Music, Rolling Stones or Grace Jones so I'm curious as to what you based the Bowie one on. If you don't feel like redoing it with one of them I'm happy to... Also be good for it to be 'David Bowie', not 'David bowie' (pedantic git, aren't I?). Cheers, Ian Rose 12:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Article should mention that Bowie has (apparently) often used randomized lyrics; one songwriting technique he has used is to write out some individual lines he likes, and then randomize their order.  He has said that after having used paper and ink for this, someone wrote him a Macintosh program that lets him type them in and then randomize them.  It's an interesting window into his work, IMO, if anyone can find a reputable source.  Tempshill 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know there is a video showing the composition process. Could it serve as a source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIC-1IXnmnA Najja 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of interest, I think he also explains the paper and ink method in the Cracked Actor documentary. Nadim Scolris 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random lyrics 

message: i noticed there is an article for a ton of david bowie songs but no lyrics, is it possible to include the lyrics in the articles or is that against wiki policy? AlexOvShaolin 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Alex, sorry no-one's replied to you till now. Generally lyrics will be copyright so including them in a Wikipedia article will be a violation of that copyright (see WP:COPYVIO). Even providing an external link to lyrics elsewhere on the web is questionable as those sites may themselves be violating copyright. That said, normal fair use rationales apply if you were to quote a line or two to illustrate a point in the song for its article, just as you might fairly quote a short passage from a book in an essay or review (see WP:FAIR). Cheers, Ian Rose 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lyrics 

message: someone thought it would be a good idea to explain why this game uses the song as its theme in its own section, the information was relocated to the article Under Pressure. --AlexOvShaolin 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Evolution Soccer 6 

message: It says on IMdB that his birthday name is David Robert Hayward-Jones, rather than Jones. Does anyone know anything about this?
:I was wondering about that myself.  On the DVD for Labyrinth, under Talent Files for David Bowie, it also lists his real name as being David Robert Hayward-Jones.  Seems like a reliable enough source on the matter.  Zurgiea 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that probably explains it... Someone watches Labyrinth and updates IMDB based on that.  IMDB doesn't require citations so is hardly a reliable source, and the DVD is plain wrong.  If you read a biography like David Buckley's Strange Fascination you'll see his birth name is David Robert Jones.  His father was Haywood Jones, which might account for the confusion... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains it.  Thanks for the clarification. Zurgiea 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles on Angie and Duncan says his full name is Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones, which may be where some confusion arose. -- Beardo 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual name 

message: I have a reliable source (AP; quoted in forum) that he declined this officially in 2003: http://www.funbolt.com/forums/f14/david-bowie-says-no-sir-knighthood-45992/ -andy 80.129.114.9 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthood and why there won't be a "Sir David" too soon... 

message: According to the live acoustic sets he did in 1996/97, Bowie does not like the former US president too much ... There is a song "I can't read", and in the beginning he says: "This was a song that was partially written by President Clinton; it is about literacy." Sounds very sarcastic to my ears, YMMV. Would be nice to know what exactly DB dislikes on him, resp. what he's criticizing about his politics. -andy 80.129.114.9 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, not very relevant. --AlexOvShaolin 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David does not like Clinton? 

message: Anyone know what his parents did for a living ? Johncmullen1960 09:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: his father worked at a mortuary and his mother was a prostitute. --AlexOvShaolin 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  social origins 

message: Does anyone have a reliable source (ie sourced to Bowie himself) for the pronunciation of his name? 130.225.26.145 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC 60 article referenced says that it rhymes with Joey. (So Zowie = Zoe ?). -- Beardo 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: The article needs something about his interest in art. He paints pictures, including self portraits, he has set up the foundation Bowieart and he collects work (as I recall), as well as interviewing Tracey Emin. Tyrenius 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree!Did he do that drawing that's up now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.179.107 (talk • contribs).
It was done by A.Homicz. Click the image and get the page with details.  04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowieart

message: Get rid of that drawing of David Bowie and add a photo of him. I don't see any other actor or musican with a stupid drawing of them on there page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs).
I agreeSonic Hog 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of that drawing 

message: Anyone know any good links to lyrical analysis for Bowie?
--1000Faces 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: The main image; David_Bowie_Portrait.jpg, is a (computer) tracing of a common promo image (e.g. here).  Will someone look into this and/or post a Possible Copyright Infringement thingie? Tlsg 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image appears to be copyrighted 

message: Towards the end, this section states:
"Bowie has voice-acted in the new movie Arthur and the Minimoys (or Arthur And The Invisibles in the US); his role in the film is the villain, Maltazard."
The film was titled Arthur and the Invisibles (note capitalisation too - [excuse english bias in spelling ;)]) in all English-speaking releases, according to the page on the film. Could this be changed to relect this (and tidy up the film's title)? Sir Pepperban 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting Career  

message: I remember owning a comic wich featured a character like David Bowie, named "Nathan (something) and the art-ritual murder of (someone) or something like that. Does anyoen know what I'm talking about? I was looking for info on that... Vicco Lizcano 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie Comic Tie-In? 

message: My friend told me that he was a Nazi and he said that Hitler was a great man. He also told me that the reason for his different colours in his eye is because of a fight he got into when he was teen. Are those thing true or rumors that he heared?--69.113.131.124 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both topics are covered in the article if you had bothered looking. Nadim Scolris 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi and different eyes 

message: Are all these "cultural references" really necessary? I mean, people... come on... is the fact that he was mentioned 2 of 3 times in the WB's prestigious show 'Gilmore Girls' really encyclopedia-worthy? He's a super mega-star, he's probably randomly and adorely mentioned a dozen times a day in the meida somewhere at some point. With someone so well known, shouldn't we be more discriminant as to what a cultural reference is?  71.229.26.210 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: Hi. Whilst performing an edit, I noticed that (UK) commas (,) and (UK) full stops (.) were being incorrectly placed inside quotation marks when highlighting references to songs during breaks in a sentence, and at the end of a sentence e.g. "Station to Station." should be "Station to Station". Likewise with the commas. The only time commas and full stops should occur inside is during a complete quotation of speech, e.g.:
Then he said: "Correct the punctuation please."
I have corrected those I could find, and mention it here due to this being a B-class Biography deserving of respect. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotation marks 

message: Hi all, just giving notice that over the next week (or weeks!) I'll be going through each section copyediting and adding/standardising citations. I'll do one at a time to avoid overwhelming anyone (including myself). No strict order but as the mood takes me - the first will be 1969 to 1973: Psychedelic folk to glam rock, with minor touches in one or two others. If anyone wants to discuss the citation/referencing style - or anything else - then please feel free to do so here. 
While on the subject, I think all of us contributing to this article ought also to be mindful of its size and be prepared to reduce in some areas where the info is covered elsewhere, e.g. album and song articles. Just to name one, I fully agree with an editor above that the References in popular culture section is over the top - apart from eliminating items mentioned in related Bowie articles, we might consider breaking it all out into a new article or discuss some stricter criteria for inclusion.  Cheers, Ian Rose 16:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit/citations/references

message: You guys have 1 week or that's it, I'll add a seperate section myself talking about it under the "controversy" section. Duff man2007 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't a Controversy section last time I looked but you're welcome to add something if you choose, proved it's balanced and sourced and you're prepared to have it 'mercilessly edited' by others in the best WP tradition. That's likely to get you a bit further than any supposed threats... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: He hasn't ever publicly made racist comments. However he did make some pro-fascist statements around 1976 (not related in any way to what Clapton said), stating his admiration to the fascist political system and Hitler as a persona, not to the fascist racial ideology. -- Kjet 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, Kjet. I don't think the fascist comments alone justify a Controversy section per se, just a mention in the 1974-76 section around Station to Station. Curiously, that section used to include a mention of Victoria Station (I know because I added to and sourced some of it) but now I look again it's disappeared.  I must've blinked... Cheers, Ian Rose 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "Nazi" is not mentioned once in this article 

message: The article is terribly big as it is, and there is a lot of stuff that should probably be added to the biography section (case point: the "Nazi" discussion above), so I was wondering if it would be a good idea to separate the biography into a separate article of it's own? -- Kjet 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your point, mate, but I think we should trim other parts rather than create a new biography article. After all, the point of the article is a biography I think.  For instance, let's get rid of - or radically trim, or break out into a separate article - the Popular Culture section, which is getting beyond a joke.  Also, we could trim some of the album and single info in the body, since we have pretty comprehensive articles on most of his music (what I've spent a large chunk of my WP time on). Case in point is Station to Station, which I recently developed into a full article, including a discussion of the 'fascist' statements and the Victoria Station incident as part of the Aftermath section... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And extremely good idea in cutting down the album info from here and moving it to the album articles. That is probably the best way to do this. Also, I agree that the Popular Culture section is out-of-control... it should maybe be re-titled into "Notable polular culture references" (or something along those lines) and leave in only the stuff by major artists that is undoubtedly a reference to Bowie. For instance the "Little creepy´s playing dollies in the New York rain, thinkin´ Bowie´s just a knife" is not explicitly a reference to David Bowie and it's by an artist whom at least I have never heard of. -- Kjet 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate [[David Bowie biography]] article?

message: The information on cd and other releases on the album pages are troubling- most ignore the german or japanese RCA discs from the 80s, and have factually incorrect statements concerning bit depth. It would be nice if somebody who has the time and the relevant information to correct these issues and get it over with- it isn't a good idea to use misleading marketing speak to describe things.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billybudapest (talk • contribs). 
:The 1999 EMI reissues do say "24-bit digitally remastered" on the cover. The RCA reissues (and some of the lesser known reissues from the 90's and 00's) should definately be included though. -- Kjet 06:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair to me - why not be bold and change them?! Have to admit that the CD remastering guff is one part of the album articles I've spent little time on - through lack of deep interest - except to keep tidy others' edits, so feel free to finetune those sections. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Releases on CD and other digital formats 

message: The "fucking the same bloke" quote is credited to anecdotage.com.  Is this really a reliable source? —XSG 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anecdotage.com

message: Re, this sentence: "During the tour, Bowie was hit in the eye with a lollipop stick while performing in Oslo, Norway. Bowie was reported to have stopped the concert and to have yelled "You fucking wanker! You little fucker!" at the lollipop thrower. He later resumed the concert and apologised to the crowd for his response.[31]"
Whup dee doo.
Really, this is adding nothing but sensationalism to the article, and in my view cheapens the tone of the article. It also feels out of place considering the tone of previous paragraphs.
I suggest it be cut out.
Peter hod 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence that reads like senationalist tabloid journalism 

message: There's a great quote about Warhol/The Factory's influence on Bowie by a drag queen in the documentary 'Rock and Roll' that came out (I think) in 94 by the BBC/WGBH. There's a marvelously detailed look at Bowie (including interviews with David and Mick) included, but the part I remember is a drag queen from the Factory days saying something to the effect of 'he came in there floppy haired Davy Jones and came out wearing women's clothes and proclaiming his bisexuality'. What hurts is that you can't by this great doc anymore, it was only released on VHS for educational use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.27.206 (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Warhol 

message: I know there's an issue with copyright, but now there's a new current 2006 pic of Bowie under the neo-classic section that seems OK, why can't THAT be in the info box instead? 84.70.180.0 06:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I relocted the pic, if it's got a copyright issue i'll let someone else delete it, but as it was already uncontested within the article, I guessed it was fine (it looks like a fan photo). 84.70.180.0 11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of godawful, I  think the current pic looks much worse than the GS pic. -- Kjet 14:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, the problem with having old performance pictures of David in the infobox is that everyone has their own favourite ch-ch-change of persona throughout the decades (mine's Ziggy) - and so the only truly consensual choice will end up being a new, or fairly so, photo of him. And I think he looks very distinguished and happy in it, so I would favour it, as long as it really is fair use or free. Ref (chew)(do) 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposing the new image as such, I actually agree in preferring a newer picture for the resons you stated... mostly I was just trying to point out that the "awfulness" of the picture is purely a matter of personal opinion. -- Kjet 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, I just meant godawful as in purpose. For a 20 year old picture to be used as an encyclopedic illustration of who we're talking about was godawful to me, not necessarily the shot itself, although even that was a bit murky and out of focus. 84.70.180.0 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THAT GODAWFUL PICTURE!!! 

message: Shouldn't the article contain reference to Bowie's Astronettes/People from Bad Homes project?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.132.54 (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronettes