Talk:David Bowie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Bowie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	David Bowie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 11, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 28, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 11, 2016. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 8, 2020, and January 8, 2023. Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Record Production Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's documentation of Record Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome at the project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project: add your name to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Electronic music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 19,039,110 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: January 10 to 16, 2016 (1st) January 17 to 23, 2016 (4th)

After giving it some thought, I think the only way it would be appropriate to include Lori Mattix in this article is mention her in the context of the commentary that surrounded it when the Thrillist interview came out. Various articles that talked about that interview's impact include [1] [2][3] [4] [5] (there are more I just can't find them).

One thing is straight, Mattix's story has tons of holes. I have laid those out over on my sandbox and every fact has also been laid out here on Medium. Because of this, we really have no idea if it happened or did not happen. Decades ago, she told Stephen Davis in Hammer of the Gods that she lost her virginity to Jimmy Page. This relationship was well documented and there are multiple photos of them to prove it: here and here. Yet, there are zero photos of Mattix and Bowie together. Additionally, Mattix claimed that after their supposed encounter they "remained friends throughout his rise to fame and he would always check in with me to see how I was doing in my life. We were friends." Yet again, she is not mentioned as such in any biography that I own of him (and in the rare times she is mentioned, it is only about this one supposed encounter). Other groupies who were also supposedly there during the encounter (Sable Starr, Pamela Des Barres) also contradicted Mattix's claims see here. Therefore, Mattix herself is unreliable and we can never be certain if it actually happened.

We do know what happened is this: Mattix's accusation meant something to people and sparked conversations. In the years since its publishing, fans have defended him as shown here and others have not. Henceforth, if we must include Mattix in Bowie's main article, it should be built around the debate it caused and the possible repercussions that followed. I think it would fit well under "controversies". However, it must use neutral language and presented in a way that does not state he did or did not do it. We could even continue on from how it is laid out over at MeToo movement with this source. Here's what I am thinking:

In late 2015, the former groupie Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25. While the claim was questioned for its factuality, the accusation proved controversial, with several articles questioning if it would damage or impact Bowie's legacy following his death in early 2016. In the wake of the MeToo movement in the late 2010s, the accusation sparked further debate on the toleration or normalization of underage groupies during the period. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thought out, explained and supported. I think keeping it brief and neutral is good, and that what you have proposed would be a reasonable addition. Thanks as always, zmbro. You rock. 87Fan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 87Fan!  :-) Horse Eye's Back what do you think? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to see a version with inline citations. The phrase "In the wake of the MeToo movement" is also a little too similar to "in the wake of #MeToo" from the Jonze piece. I think we should also be mentioning that it didn't just start a debate about the toleration or normalization of underage groupies during the period but also about Bowie's legacy (we also need to talk about Gillespie in the context of the debate and his legacy). I am also unsure of what you mean by "I think it would fit well under "controversies"" because the article does not appear to have any such section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well of course it needs citations I was just writing it out first to get your opinion.

2. Is "with several articles questioning if it would damage or impact Bowie's legacy" not good enough?

3. Ok how about: "In the wake of the MeToo movement in the late 2010s, (to be reworded) Mattix's accusation and Bowie's underage relationship with Dana Gillespie sparked further debate..."?

4. That is my bad I was thinking of "political views" (the whole fascism stuff). Speaking of that, that whole thing I think would work better in a new controversies section since he was coked out of his mind when he made those statements. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can't give an opinion without citations.

2. I don't think you can source it.

3. The relevant source treat them both as accusations, you seem to be POV pushing.

4. As a project we don't do stand alone controversy sections anymore, we're actually trying to work all of the ones we currently do have into the other parts of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. Let me see what I can do and we can go from there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take Two

• "In late 2015, the former groupie Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25.[6]"
• "The accusation proved controversial. Commentators questioned how it would impact Bowie's legacy following his death in early 2016.[7][8]"

Horse Eye's Back A little stuck. How would you proceed from here? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting to this... I think we need more context... How about:

• "In a 2015 Thrillist interview Lori Mattix claimed she lost her virginity to Bowie in 1972 when she was 15 and he was 25.[9] Following the death of Bowie in 2016 his "complicated sexual history" was a source of controversy, although it did not feature heavily in mainstream remembrances of the artist.[10] Mattix had been a Los Angeles based groupie and engaged in a number of liaisons and relationships with entertainers,[11][12] at the time relationships between entertainers and underage fans were normalized but in the context of MeToo much of that history was reexamined.[13][14] Despite elements of his legacy being called into question as a result of the Mattix and Gillespie allegations Bowie was for the most part not cancelled although experts disagree on why.[15]"

Room for improvement, but I hope this gets the important parts of the context right (that second sentence might go better elsewhere). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have notes I will be adding this at some point in the near future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I completely forgot about this. What you have needs improvement as you said last month but I'll need to actually sit down and focus to determine what to do. I'm away from home atm but will hopefully look into this next week. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rush and no deadline, just didn't want it archived without conclusion one way or another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. I didn't either. If it had archived I would have reverted it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need to be mentioned. Mattix has made countless claims about her time as a groupie (several of which have been disputed). It has not actually proved relevant. Including it would be undue weight. It is also misleading to frame it as an accusation, as far as I'm aware Mattix is not unhappy with the experiences she claims to have had, it is only other commentators who have twisted her words to make it into a MeeToo thing.★Trekker (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the last name Jones, did Bowie have any Welsh heritage? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Per Gillman his mother had ancestors in Ireland. Jones is also a very common last name... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He used to be under the category English people of Welsh descent, presumably because of the name Jones, but this has since been removed. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's a typo in the following sentence: 'The character was spearheaded by the success of "Starman" and its albm The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (both 1972), which won him widespread popularity.' Obviously "albm" should be "album". Anserini (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Crboyer. Bestagon ⬡ 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]