Talk:Elton John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to musical theatre. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been nominated as a possible Music Collaboration of the Week. To add your support, go to its listing.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Chequers 2 Battles with the press? 3 Rewrite 4 Name 5 Dashes 6 Cleanup 7 POV 8 Discography 9 God Bless you, 10 Why do all of the pictures have Elton John with funny glasses? 11 Coat-of-arms? 12 Elton John's worldwide sales 13 New album pages 14 Critical acclaim 15 John Lennon? 16 Elton Furnish? 17 Influences? 18 Ray "Elton John" son? 19 His sexuality 20 One of the greatest gay icons? 21 Another edit 22 Trivia section 23 Freeze? 24 RomeoVoid's 'New article' 25 Sectioning scheme 25.1 Is this normal 26 Allmusic.com 26.1 Handbags at Dawn...... 27 Sporting interests 28 That photo 29 Typographical Error 30 Reggie??? 31 EJ a genius 32 Comments on organised religion and homosexuality (Nov 06) 33 Order of the British Empire 34 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud

[edit] Chequers

"Elton has had a chequered personal history. Coming out as bisexual in 1976, he married (1984) and quickly divorced (1988) Renate Blauel. He subsequently stated that he was pure homosexual and has lived with his gay partner David Furnish, for a number of years. He has occasionally battled addictions to cocaine and financial difficulties caused by his profligate spending."

[edit] Battles with the press?

After reading this[1] and remembering his other expletive-filled tirade some months back, I'm beginning to wonder if a new section is worthwhile. He's obviously had several issues with paparazzi and photographers, so I think it may prove interesting (even aside from the blatant humor). Thoughts? --AWF

[edit] Rewrite

Not sure how to do this but could someone put some more recent pictures in. Maybe one from the 1980s, one from the 90s, one from early 2000s and one from him at Live8 or something? Thanks.

"Operatic" in the article's final sentence? Surely not.

I'd rewrite the whole article to give it a better flow. Seems like no ones watching. Should I go to the authors talk page? Atticus 23:58, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

What author? Nah - just do it. If it's no good, we can always revert it ;-) Graham 02:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I ended up making only a few changes. The whole thing could be rewritten, but that's it for now. Thanks for the good word Grahm. Atticus 03:12, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Is Elton John's full name really Sir Elton Hercules John? I read somewhere else [2] that his birth name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight. Cedric J. Lessig 12:23 pm, 13 Feb 2006

This is correct. His birth name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight.

But he legally changed it. First to Elton John, then to Elton Herrcules John and since he's been knighted by the Queen his full title is Sir Elton Hercules John. I also agree with the first paragraph writer.. the way he looks now is different to back then. There should be some pictures of him in the present day.

I was under the impression that a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (a CBE), which Elton John is, is not a 'full' knight and does not get the honorific Sir prefix? Unless I can be shown otherwise, Ill change it within 24-72 hours -Trjn 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes

I believe this edit to be an improvement, but another user felt it worth breaking the three revert rule by reverting four times in 24 hours. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) may be of some help to you both? And pointing out the three revert rule to the person in question, particularly the relatively recent amendment to that rule (which states users can be banned for a period of 24 hours for violating this rule) may be good as well. →Reene^✎ 08:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Added a section on Elton John's 1986 throat surgery and renamed the title of that section as '80s onwards' instead of '80s and so on.' BlueKangaroo

[edit] Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag. This article doesn't do justice to its subject. The flow is poor. Characteristics of his 1970s era go unmentioned (the glasses, the flamboyant outfits, the autiobiographical Captain Fantastic album, etc). The 'two rooms' writing style goes unmentioned, the date he got knighted isn't listed, his collaborations with John Lennon are missing, his role in keeping the piano alive in rock ... there's just a lot of room for improvement here. -- jls 24 Mar 2005

I agree and I believe that Taupin is, to say the least, understated here. There's very little mention of his recent projects, as well. ~~ Shiri 05:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add some consistency to "number one," "No. one," "#1," etc. Is there an agreed-upon wiki style for something like that or should I just pick one? If anyone can direct me to the proper style guide I'd appreciate it. Katr67 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Putting "marry" in quotation marks with reference to his plans with his partner sounds a little snide and POV to me. Rhesusman 05:00 April 26 2005 UTC

It isn't a marriage, though, it's a civil union. Calling it a marriage is a bad thing for gay rights, as it perpetuates the fiction that it represents true equality in this area. It shouldn't be either marry or "marry". Rsynnott 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It should me marry. He wants to marry his partner, not "marry" him. JayKeaton 15:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

I'm going to move the discography and hit singles to a seperate page, Elton John discography, since it's a bit lengthy. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 22:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God Bless you,

Hi Elton,

My God bless you and your works. My special prayes is that God will provide all your needs and guidence also for more annointing upon you.

Thank you, God Bless

Ebenezer

eby_jj@yahoo.com

The chances of Elton John ever reading that are extremely remote Ebenezer, sadly :( Rdysn5 July 3, 2005 10:45 (UTC)

reply: Elton has done pretty well for himself, I don't see why he needs any more guidence. Still, I'm sure he appreciates all his fans support and following all the same : ) JayKeaton 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do all of the pictures have Elton John with funny glasses?

How about a picture with him looking, well, normal? --Bash 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because he is famous for his large collection of funny looking glasses? And by "looking normal", do you mean a picture of how he normally looks, or a picture of how other people normally look? --65.41.141.65 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. That is how he looks normally. Wanka 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I love his enormous collection of stylish glasses. They're soo cool.

The cover of Made in England (album) shows Elton John looking about as normal as I've ever seen. --Locarno 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat-of-arms?

I noted with admiration the inclusion of Sir George Martin's coat-of-arms to his page. If Elton has had such heraldry designed for himself, that would make a fine addition to this page. Alas, the College of Arms site linked from Martin's page does not appear to maintain a long-standing reference of modern coats. I suspect that someone does, however.

[edit] Elton John's worldwide sales

In the list in Wikipedia it says he has sold 230.000.000 million worldwide. I think this number is too small and in the range of 250 million to 280 million or even higher. If you have any numbers that you have found please post them or if you have any website names that says his sales please post that too

YEP, ACTUALLY THE REAL STATISTIC IS 1.5 TRILLION,

[edit] New album pages

I noticed that there were pages for Elton's older albums such as Caribou (album) but none for more recent albums such as Songs From The West Coast. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia...but I decided I'd make a page for the one just meantioned. I would greatly apprecate it if someone who has more skill/knowedge about Wikipedia could make it look nicer...maybe make it look more like the other pages about his albums. --Octopusouphut 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical acclaim

I believe the following is pov, and although it may be technically correct, this article isn't focusing on "who's better" so I don't believe it should be mentioned. I respect the editor who posted the following, but I'm not sure it's appropriate in this place.

Nevertheless, he cannot be said to have attained the critical acclaim of either the major 1960s rock performers, such as Bob Dylan, the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones, or of later, less commercially successful punk and New Wave performers.

Thoughts? Shigpit 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As the poster of the passage, I agree it may be a bit blatant and could be toned down a bit. But a balanced account of EJ's career has to acknowledge that, despite his commercial success, he was never a huge critical hit, and certainly not influence on the scale of some other performers. Which is not to say he's had no influence or acclaim. If I was making a case for him, it'd be as a kind of crossover glam/singer-songwriter figure, like a more domesticated version of (mid-70s) David Bowie. (Even so, Bowie was more influential.) But not a 70s, Dylan, obviously, and probably not, as far as the high-end critics, even a match for Elvis Costello. --Chris 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he has been actively recording and has maintained a very wide fanbase over a wider time period than any of the individuals you mentioned (save possibly the Stones, but they've pretty much been a novelty act since the Steel Wheels tour). Yes, he's more mainstream than Costello or Bowie. But this brings the opinion of critics into play, and it's being done at the outset of the article, before the reader (let's say if someone hadn't heard of him before) can form an opinion of their own. Sure, it may need to be said. But that's not the place.

On a personal note, I beg to differ about his influence -- Elton's ability to go totally over the top and poke fun at himself is legendary, and that's just the performance side of his act. Musically, he may not be as influential as the Beatles or Dylan, or Miles Davis, or Johnny Cash, or Beethoven. Do you happen to have any New Wave artists with more critical acclaim? The Buggles, perhaps? Or maybe A Flock Of Seagulls? Or Animotion? Hmmmm. I thought the chick from that band was hot when I was 12. Then she married Richard Marx. Yuk. :)

A Flock of Seagulls... they were like GODS to me, man. :-) Actually I was thinking Costello, Talking Heads and maybe Sonic Youth. Anyway, people shouldn't take the critics' opinions as god-given truth, but critical reaction is an objective fact about a performer, just like commercial success is.--Chris 14:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate this dialogue -- I've said my piece, and I'll keep watching. Shigpit 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(BTW, I didn't notice the change until just now. I retract my suggestion you move it elsewhere in its current form. Shigpit 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

I've seen Bob Dylan's reviews and they aren't what you say they are. He's had major periods of mediocrity and has been riding on his early critical acclaim for decades. The same goes for the Rolling Stones which are seen as the steriotypical rock band. Elvis Costello... give me a break. The fact is you just want to downplay the influence of Elton John. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

• • Critical acclaim is as fickle and as unreliable an index to great artistic creation as are record sales (dominated by teens). Try to look at the matter objectively. Elton is a solo performer in essence (despite indebtedness to his lyricist and backing band), and hardly deserves being rated against groups such as the Beatles or the Stones. Even so, he never was a sex symbol (overweight, myopic, balding, pug-nosed, etc.),whereas both those groups played that card with zest--and still Elton John is often mentioned in the same breath with them as among the most successful popular musicians of our time. Dylan's success is inseparably linked to the status of a social icon--bearer of a 'message' in the 60s'--whereas Elton has never linked his music to any particular message. He just writes, sings and plays music. And yet, his success as a consistently high-rated live performer and as a songwriter who has displayed extremely wide-ranging versatility, casts Dylan's rather predictable 'type-cast' compositions into a lower category, in my opinion. This brings me to the real secret of Elton's lack of critical acclaim. He isn't 'cool' (thank God). He has never really established or followed trends. There is a kind of adolescent and awkward candour about him, even today, and a playfulness and totally uncool desire to be loved that makes many a critic embarassed to admit how good he is. Plus he commits the cardinal sin of the uncool by lavishing himself on the world in almost ceaseless live preformances, interviews and almost monthly celebrity antics. The cool, by contrast, hold themselves back, test the water, make rare appearances and manicure their image for maximum career effect. But the cool could not survive a year of the kind of exposure Elton has subjected himself to for decades. People would tire of them quickly. The Stones have super-hyped tours only once or twice in a decade, McCartney even less, Dylan just peeps out of his retreat for a rare cameo and vanishes again. I think they are wise in doing so--how long could Dylan tour the world singing the four or five of his songs that people really know? Elton writes and sings with nary a pause, and the venues continue to be sell-outs, world-wide, and he is in demand today, almost 40 years into his career, as never before. It doesn't make sense. But who cares, as long as this man makes music? We can sum up the paradox by referring to Elton's omnipresent grin. He poses for photographers and grins. Imagine any of the high and mighty of popular music getting away with that? (a commentator)

[edit] John Lennon?

I saw John Lennon's name on the previous members of Elton's band list. Can anyone confirm this?--D-Day 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elton Furnish?

Has Sir Elton really changed his name to "Sir Elton Furnish"? DTOx 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First I read about it. I'd vote for removing that until the contributor came back with a valid reference. Shigpit 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's true, since Elton John isn't even his real name. Graham 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It actually is, he changed it legally. Shigpit 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences?

Can anyone actually confirm that Thom Yorke and Billie Joe Armstrong are fans of Elton's work?

[edit] Ray "Elton John" son?

Can anyone confirm the paragraph starting, "In 2001, John was booked to appear on an episode of the BBC topical panel show Have I Got News For You..."? Googling "Ray Elton John Son" (in quotes) returned a few dead references to an Elton John impersonator; I strongly suspect the impersonator was only jokingly introduced as a replacement to Elton John. Is there evidence suggesting otherwise? Jdbartlett

While I can't find a citation, I remember this, and would confirm what you suspect. I'm pretty sure it was just a joke (just like when they were supposed to have some Labour politician and replaced him with a pound of lard when he "couldn't show up"). Camillus (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, evidence seems to suggest both were booked. Certainly with Hattersley (tub of lard) he was known to have cancelled three times at short notice, and the third time they just put the lard on. No such cancellation record with Elton, but one would imagine that the producers of HIGNFY would far rather have a pannellist on the show as opposed to the mute Ray, who, aside from a few caption gags, offered nothing. HornetMike 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His sexuality

I'm surprised that the article about the person reputed to be the world's most famous gay man doesn't contain the words "gay", "homosexual" or "homosexuality". It contains the words "bisexual" and "bisexuality" once each. I'd always assumed that his claim of bisexuality was part of a coming out phase, although I admit I had no particular reason to assume that.

I guess we can get into semantic issues there, but the main thing that surprises me is that his sexuality is downplayed and relegated to the end of a very long article. He's a significant musician, but what makes him particularly distinctive is that he's the only major music icon openly in a long-term relationship with a member of the same sex.

This is surely worthy of mention in the first paragraph and probably worth expanding on early in the article, before the in-depth study of his musical career.

ACTUALLY, HE'S TRI-SEXUAL. THINK ABOUT IT, "LIVE LIKE HORSES", CROCODILE ROCK, HONKY CAT, GREY SEAL, 0NE HORSE TOWN, THE LION KING, SKI-LINE PIDGEON, Billy Bones And The White Bird, CHAMELEON, CAGE THE SONGBIRD, ALL REFERENCES TO ANIMALS FOLKS!!!! PLUS WE KNOW HE HAS WOMEN IN HIS LIFE FROM TIME TO TIME; CHECK OUT ONE OF HIS HITS--- "THE BITCH IS BACK", CLEARLY HE'S NOT JUST GAY!!!Ben Arnold 11:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there's some text at the top of this talk page without context that says that Elton is gay, not bisxual. Also a quick Google search will show you that he's usually cited as being a gay man, not a bisexual man. Since I'm assuming good faith, I'm assuming previous editors know something that popular knowledge doesn't. I'm also assuming that no one thought to mention his sexuality earlier in the article than half-way down. Hmmm... Ben Arnold 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

my point exactly. he is homo but that is fine.

I'm not sure how long ago the first paragraph in this topic "His Sexuality" was written, nor do I know when the Elton John page was last edited but the article does infact use the word homosexual and it does state under the heading "Personal Life" - "but they divorced four years later. John later renounced the bisexual claim and announced he was homosexual."

This is what happens with every gay person's biography. There is an effort to hide their sexuality or downplay it so that some people won't be offended. It's only gay people that have their "Personal life" section put near the bottom of the page from John Maynard Keynes to Leonardo da Vinci. Yet people like Franklin Roosevelt and Albert Einstein have their's at the top of the page because their personal life doesn't offend people. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

HOW FREAKED WOULD YOU BE IF YOU WERE ELTON JOHN, AND YOU READ THIS EDIT PAGE - OMG, THEIR ARGUING ABOUT MY SEXUALITY, DON'T THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LIVES LOL,,, DIDN'T I ATTEND THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF MUSIC, AND THE ONLY THING PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IS MY SEXUALITY, WHAT A BUNCH OF ANAL RETARDS. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MENTIONED MY FLOWER COLLECTION Sorry Sir Elton, but we are only trying to present an honest article about your life and career. And I really don't think you should denounce your loyal fans as "anal retards". If you're going to impersonate Elton, you need to try just a bit harder. --AWF

[edit] One of the greatest gay icons?

I added this to the beginning of the article: " He is also one of the greatest gay icons of our time, along other musicians such as Madonna and Celine Dion." And this is not because I would be gay. It's because he's widely and commonly known as a gay icon, not just among the gay community(or GLBT or whatever it is it's called). It needs to be mentioned in the foreword, because it's a big part of his image. -- LW 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BUT someone keeps deleting it. What the hell? Is it really that big a deal that correct and relevant information is being added? Is it someone so homophobic that he/she just HAS to remove this? If there is a good reason for it, do tell.-- LW 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ookay, now I found it in the history. "not cited and not appropriate for intro" Not cited? The rest isn't cited either, it's like having to cite somewhere saying that he's a musician! As for "not appropriate for intro", I don't see why not. Like I mentioned earlier, it's a big part of his image.

I'm not convinced he's a gay icon. Do you have a source or two that lists the great gay icons of our time, and is he on them? Is in in the top 5, along with Streisand and Madonna (I'm guessing)? The top 10? 20? Not at all? There are record charts and sales figures to back up the rest of what's in the intro, you need something equivalent to warrant this going in. Wasted Time R 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The gay icon article, itself rather dubious, uses http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-icons.html as its primary list reference, and it doesn't even include Elton as a minor icon, much less a major one. Wasted Time R 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another edit

I have just completed a quite comprehensive edit on this article. I have used a style to split it up into more readable/expandable chunks as opposed to the previous "add another item" style. I have left the Musical style section untouched - I am not technically musically educated, and it doesn't read too badly. I removed most of the lists to his discography - the only one I have not removed is the list of cars he sold in 2000. A thought, but perhaps we could call his discography something along the lines of a "Discography and Lists" page and remove that data there as well? I put the word homosexual in the title para, but noticed someone removed it - I agree with the above debate that it should be somewhere in the heading area. I think if you don't know he is gay by now/are offended by anyone being gay, then your either under 12 or can't accept an NPOV. It's not my style or gender, but pushing it down to the bottom misses a lot of his story - it's part of his own battle with his sexuality which makes his music so strong and entertaining in the 1970's, the haze and confusion of the 80's, and the eventual acceptance of the 90's in a stable relationship that brings him back to sucess and then to becoming Sir Elton. Rgds, - Trident13 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reorg'd the sectioning so that Hollywood & Broadway went into the mainline (it's all music, no sense in keeping it separate) and the 1980s & Onwards is broken out by decades. Wasted Time R 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. I was wondering where the section about Hollywood and Broadway went. Thanks for cleaning the article you two. --Starionwolf 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Doing a good job Wasterd Time R! I see you have a good track record on mjusical Bio's. I am working on a list to add to his recording page that will schedule out all of the musical and hollywood pieces. We should then be able to remove all the one-liner's on which song went into which production where, and leave all the major stuff in (ie - Lion King, Aida, etc) - Rgds, - Trident13 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

Trident13, I see you're adding back in a Trivia section. This is not a good idea! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catchbin for every factoid about a subject, as some non-Wikipedia music artist web pages are. Wikipedia articles should have a cohesiveness of content. If a "Trivia" item is something important, it should be put into one of the mainline sections of text in the appropriate spot. If a "Trivia" item isn't important, it should be left out of the article! It's that simple. If you look at your Trivia items that you've just put in, some of them reproduce material that's already in the article, such as the origins of his name and what "Empty Garden" is about. What's the point of that? Others are minor points that should be pushed down into individual album or song articles, such as the items about "Song for Guy", "The Bitch is Back", etc. Other are meaningful, such as the Buddy Holly and Jim Reeves influences or the stepfather, and can be put into the Early years section. A few items are probably too minor to warrant inclusion anywhere. Do you see what I mean? Trivia sections are the lazy way out; they represent no organisation, no structure, no cohesion. Wasted Time R 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect absolutely what you say and fully understand. Here's my reasoning on why a Trivia section makes sense, particularly for Bio's in the entertainment industry: it simply stocks and collects all the items which fans of a particular artist would other wise put into a great factual Bio, and allows encyclopedic editors to then place them it an appropriate section. I think this best applies to the most modern/Top40 type artists, but Elton does attract those very-affectionate/enthisiastic types. Personally, I think it's an editing style which allows others to input to something without those of us trying to create Encyclopedic entry should accept, so that we don't continually end up re-editting/cleaning up articles where enthusiasts have inputted something with best intentions. I agree with your last point on organisation/structure/cohesion - but not using a Trivia section, much as though it is lazy, I have found leads to continual and regular clean up of whole articles rather than just filing small fact or deleting pieces of fiction. Rgds, - Trident13 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that you, who just added in 18 trivia items, is a "very affectionate/enthusiastic type", not a "trying to create an encyclopedia type"? Well, this does happen to be an encyclopedia. If you want to be the founder of Wikitrivia or Wikifancruft, go ahead and I hope you do well, but this is not the place for that. As for your theory that Trivia sections catch all the bad edits that would otherwise go into the mainline sections, that doesn't work; bad edits get into those sections too. For example, since the last time I worked on this article, information got lost (Aida for example) and strong opinionation got in (all this stuff about how Elton was only good when Olssen/Murray/Johnstone were with him, which needs to be toned down considerably). Wasted Time R 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a bit more clarity - I find Trivia sections that are too small tend not to catch much! Understand now? As I say, I accept this is an encyclopedia, and we are trying to create a factual entry. But as you highlight, some things disapear for no reason, even though they are well cited facts - that's a downside of being an open format system (and trying to educate those who are fans and not Wiki-experienced), as are the frequent vandals visits - to this and many other pages. I am happy to accept the "remove the Trivia" section debate, but feel that this will lead to a constant review and regular clean-up activity. Rgds, - Trident13 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that if Aida had been a Trivia section item, it wouldn't have disappeared? Should we put Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in the Trivia section for the same reason? If we move Olssen/Murray/Johnstone to the Trivia section, will someone stop saying they were the reason Elton was great? My position is simply that (unfortunately) all popular music articles on Wikipedia need that "constant review and regular clean-up activity" anyway, whether or not there is a Trivia section. And since Trivia sections represent poor organization and structure, I think we should not use them. Wasted Time R 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia section is now gone (again), its items relocated to a more appropriate place in this or other articles. Wasted Time R 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Beautifully done. I'm always delighted to see a Trivia section evaporate without the actual information being lost. -Silence 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeze?

This article is looking a lot better than it was around a month ago. OK, I am sure there are a few more things we could all contribute to/improve, but compared to where it was - it is looking good. However, some of the excellent work is being continually deleted/destroyed by two types of vandals - Fans who want to add items with the best of intentions; people who just hate gay's, and add crude comments/sections or remove entire sections. Is it worth us considering a partial or complete freeze on this article? Yesterday, there were three reverts just on the anti-gay line, and one on enthusiastic fans. It's almost a fulltime job watching this page! Perhaps a freeze would stop an amount of this activity. Rgds, - Trident13 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RomeoVoid's 'New article'

RomeoVoid blasted in a completely different version of the main section. I've reverted it for now, because (a) he/she didn't talk first here about doing such a drastic change, and (b) there are a lot of faults with the new version, such as some poor formatting, U.S.-centric outlook, and considerable loss of valuable information and insight that was present in the prior version. That said, Romeo's version does contain a lot of valuable new material. What is needed here is a merge of material, respecting the advantages of both, rather than a wholesale replacement of one with the other. Wasted Time R 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, the existing version is better on the 1970s, Romeo's version is better on the 1980s, and they're about equally good on the 1990s. But a merge throughout is necessary. Wasted Time R 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. My version is better throughout--better formatting, better style, less awkward language, more information. The older version was a complete mess (i.e. cleanup tag). RomeoVoid 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RomeoVoid - thanks for your input: it really is appreciated. I think you should look back at the history of this article - when I arrived, it was attrocious - that's why it had the tag put there by an Admin, a hotch-potch of good fact and "fans" input like a random woodpecker. I tied it up using the existing elements. Wasted Time R came along and added much - if you look at what he has written and edited before on other musical articles, I think you will find he has a good CV/Resume for musical artists and subjects. He's put a lot of time in on the article. We have enough problems here combating and continually reverting the gay haters or the OTT fans - when you and Wasted Time R have such a good musical appreciation, is there not a way you can find a way to work together to improve this article, rather than reverting to an edit war? When an agreement is reached, then perhaps we can remove the Clean-Up tag. Best Regards - Trident13 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Romeo, your "my way or the highway" attitude is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you continue the merging work that I started and have reverted back to. Wasted Time R 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

K, Wasted Time. How does this version avoid a "U.S.-centric outlook," and "poor formatting," and what "valuable information and insight" does it contain that's not in my version? Please enlighten me, 'cause I'm not seeing it. RomeoVoid 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You've done a much better job than the existing article in intertwining Elton's professional career and personal life, and your 1980s treatement is much better overall, but you've shortchanged the music in places. Your version recites too many chart stats (failing to identify them as U.S. stats, which is necessary for a British artist), and fails to capture that Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and Captain Fantastic were more acclaimed albums than the others, for example. You also give short shrift to The Lion King, when it will stand as one of his greatest accomplishments. Your version is also full of typos, bad wlinks, wrongly formatted dashes, and music article usage mistakes (forgetting to put album names in italics, etc). You have the date wrong for Elton's Central Park show, you included Taupin solo activities that belong in Taupin's article, your intro goes into too much detail in the wrong places ... you get the idea. You wrote a decent article, but the one that was there was decent in places too, and now our job is to combine the best of both of them. Wasted Time R 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So far the intro, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been merged, at least in a first pass. Wasted Time R 21:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Add to that, late 1970s. Wasted Time R 02:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with the merge at this point. Wasted Time R 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sectioning scheme

What do people think about the best scheme for naming the main bio sections? It can either be by unvarnished straight decades, 1970s, 1980s, etc., or it can be grouped and labelled thematically based on success, struggles, comebacks, etc, as RomeoVoid has proposed:

          o 1.1 Early life and career (1947 to 1969)
          o 1.2 Phenomenal Success (1970 to 1976)
          o 1.3 Decline (1977 to 1979)
          o 1.4 Comeback (1980 to 1983)
          o 1.5 Turbulent years (1984 to 1991)
          o 1.6 Continuing success (1992 to 2000)
          o 1.7 Recent Work (2001 to present)

I think the characterisation of the 1970s is correct, but I'm not sure about the rest – Elton's comebacks and personal struggles seem to be more intermixed than this suggests. But I'm open to either approach. Either way, the subsections about the Band have to go; it's part of the current slant that the Band was the sole key as to when Elton was good or not. Wasted Time R 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - another revert on vandalism: is there something abouts Mondays and Vandals, three this morning? Encyclopedicaly I like dates, but the 1970's were such a productive time it needs a split to make it easier to read/more focused/appropriate impact. The scheme outlined has my tentative vote, although I agree the post-70's could be just a pure decades split. I am sure the vandals will have a view on what is "success" or not, and agree intertwine of life/success is more complex. Think simplicity works, and reduces vandal attacks. Rgds, - Trident13 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this normal

Sir Elton's mother is mentioned as Shiela but no reference is made to her maiden name. Is this normal wiki etiquette or just a result of no one knowing? I have put it in for now. KsprayDad 04:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No one had put it in/knew it - thanks! Rgds, - Trident13 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allmusic.com

Wasted Time, read the allmusic.com article for Elton. It doesn't mention in detail if "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" was more critically acclaimed or anything of that sort. In light of this, I'm reverting back to my article. RomeoVoid 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Allmusic gives GYBR 4 1/2 stars, but gives Tumbleweed, Honky Chateau, and Captain Fantastic 5 stars. So you may be right that the text should be moderated a bit. We can also look to the RS 500 rankings and similar metrics to know how to phrase this.

RS 500 puts GYBR as its highest-rated Elton at #91, so I've left that wording in, but I've added a paragraph after 1976 to mention the RS 500 and AMG rankings overall. Wasted Time R 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

However, a slight tweak in the wording hardly justifies any attempt by you to blast in your entire article again. I did a lot of work to merge your contents with the existing contents. I will revert any attempts by you to undo that in blanket fashion. Wasted Time R 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. Allmusic.com doesn't discuss John's 70s albums with a paragraph each as you prefer:

"Elton John was followed quickly with the concept album Tumbleweed Connection in October 1970, which reached the Top Ten on the Billboard 200. A frenetic pace of releasing two albums a year was now established.

The live album 11-17-70 (17-11-70 in the U.K.), an ambitious album showcasing Elton's talent as a rock pianist and father of Piano rock. Taped at a live show aired from A&R Studios on WABC-FM in New York City, and introduced by disc jockey Dave Herman, it featured extended versions of John/Taupin's early compositions that illustrate the gospel and boogie-woogie influences on John's piano playing. It also featured much interaction between John, bassist Dee Murray, and drummer Nigel Olsson. During the magnum opus 18:20 version of "Burn Down the Mission", the band interpolates Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup's "My Baby Left Me" and a full rendition of The Beatles' "Get Back" before a rampaging conclusion.

John and Taupin then wrote the soundtrack to the obscure film Friends and then the album Madman Across the Water, the latter reaching the Top Ten and producing the hit "Levon", while the soundtrack album produced the hit "Friends".

The band released Honky Chateau, which became Elton's first American #1 album, spending five weeks at the top of the charts and spawning the hit singles "Rocket Man (I Think It's Going To Be A Long, Long Time)" and "Honky Cat".

The 1973 pop album Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player came out at the start of 1973, and produced the hits "Crocodile Rock" and "Daniel"; the former became his first U.S. number one hit. (Ironically this, like his other famous 1970s solo hits, would be popular in his native land but never top the UK Singles Chart; this achievement would have to wait two decades.) Both the album and "Crocodile Rock" were the first album and single, respectively on the consolidated MCA Records label in the USA, replacing MCA's other labels including Uni.

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, a double album considered by many to be Elton John's best album, followed later in 1973. It gained instant critical acclaim and topped the chart on both sides of the Atlantic. It contained the #1 hit "Bennie and the Jets", along with the popular and praised "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", "Candle in the Wind", "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting", "Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding" and "Grey Seal".

Caribou was released in 1974, and although it reached #1, it was widely considered a lesser quality album. Reportedly recorded in a scant two weeks between live appearances, it featured "The Bitch Is Back" and John's versatility in orchestral songs with "Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me". At the end of the year, the compilation album Elton John's Greatest Hits was released and reached #1.

Pete Townshend of The Who asked John to play a character called the "Pinball Wizard" in the film of the rock opera Tommy, and to perform the song of the same name. Drawing on power chords, John's version was recorded and used for the movie release in 1975 and the single came out in 1976 (1975 in the U.S.). The song charted #7 in England.

In the 1975 autobiographical album Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, Elton John revealed his previously ambiguous personality, with Taupin's lyrics describe their early days as struggling songwriters and musicians in London. The lyrics and accompanying photo booklet are infused with a specific sense of place and time that would otherwise be rare in John's music. "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" was the hit single from this album and captured an early turning point in John's life.

Rock-oriented Rock of the Westies entered the U.S. albums chart at #1 like Captain Fantastic, a previously unattained feat. However, the material was almost universally regarded as not on par with previous releases. And the musical and vocal chemistry Olsson and Murray brought to Elton's previous releases was seen as lacking by some, both on the album and in the concerts that supported it."

Rather it summarises that period similar to my own edit:

"Between 1972 and 1976, John and Taupin's hit-making machine was virtually unstoppable. "Rocket Man" began a four-year streak of 16 Top 20 hits in a row; out of those 16 — including "Crocodile Rock," "Daniel," "Bennie and the Jets," "The Bitch Is Back," and "Philadelphia Freedom" — only one, the FM hit "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting," failed to reach the Top Ten. Honky Chateau began a streak of seven consecutive number one albums — Don't Shoot Me I'm Only the Piano Player (1973), Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (1973), Caribou (1974), Greatest Hits (1974), Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy (1975), Rock of the Westies (1975) — that all went platinum. John founded Rocket, a record label distributed by MCA, in 1973 in order to sign and produce acts like Neil Sedaka and Kiki Dee. John didn't become a Rocket recording artist himself, choosing to stay with MCA for a record-breaking eight-million-dollar contract in 1974. Later in 1974, he co-wrote John Lennon's number one comeback single, "Whatever Gets You Through the Night," and he persuaded Lennon to join him on-stage at Madison Square Garden on Thanksgiving Day 1974; it would prove to be Lennon's last live performance. The following year, Captain Fantastic became the first album to enter the American charts at number one. After its release, he revamped his band, which now featured Johnstone, Quaye, Roger Pope, Ray Cooper, and bassist Kenny Passarelli; Rock of the Westies was the first album to feature this lineup."

I see no reason to try to quickly summarize Elton's classic period. This is much of the music he'll be remembered for; there's no reason not to be a little more patient with it. The second version you quote above is basically recapitulating what you could get by reading the discography. I don't see the point in that. Wasted Time R 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All Music Guide is created by professional data entry staff, editors, and writers. You're, on the other hand, not a professional writer, and just edit Wikipedia in your free time. So who do you think is right?

Well, I sort of am a professional writer among other things, but not for Wikipedia obviously. In this case, I think I (and the other editors of this article before and after me) are right. All Music is not infallible, and as you've probably noticed, they have considerable variation in criticial approach across artists and articles. Wasted Time R 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And, also your version is filled with opinions: "an ambitious album," "rock-oriented," "infused with a specific sense of place and time that would otherwise be rare in John's music" "captured an early turning point in John's life," "John's versatility in orchestral songs," etc., which is highly discouraged by Wikipedians, not to mention sloppy writing (which you clevery disguised by mixing in parts of my article.)

I would argue these are not opinions, but descriptions. You can objectively say that some artistic works are more ambitious than others - Band on the Run was more ambitious than McCartney, Sgt Pepper was more ambitious than Beatles for Sale, Captain Fantastic is more ambitious than Rock of the Westies. Whether the ambition succeeds or not gets more into opinion ... for that, the proper WP approach is to quote expert reviews and the like. Wasted Time R 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget to finish ... similarly, you can objectively say that some works are more rock-oriented than others. As for the remark about place and time re Captain Fantastic, show me another Elton album that specifically mentions as many specific locations like it does London locations, or has a photo book that captures late 60s buildings and publications and streets. It's a legitimate observation of how CF differs from other Elton works. Wasted Time R 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you've been reverting pretty much every edit made by any user who attempts to introduce some credibility to this article. This is could be interpreted as taking ownership of an article, which is frowned upon.

Please point me to any reversions or edits I've done (other than of your full version replacement attempts) that you think are unjustified. I'll be happy to review them to see if I made a mistake (I've unreverted things in the past when a second look has told me I was wrong). Wasted Time R 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So I wish you would please consider leaving the Elton John article to me, and go focus all your attention on some other article. The Eagles, perhaps. RomeoVoid 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No article gets "left to" anybody in Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your attempt to label the wholesale change you want to make as a "minor edit" is laughably dishonest. Wasted Time R 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, Thank you! :) RomeoVoid 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handbags at Dawn......

Gents: can we please stop all the arguing? Since I and you both came here, the article is looking much better. I think the only thing I add these days is RV's for the gay-haters! However, this pitiful dispute between two people who have added so much to the article is personally disapointing. Romeo - I can but agree with Wasted Time re your labelling something as minor when it quite clearly is not is dishonest and against the rules of Wiki. Can you gents PLEASE come to some agreement here out of the article, rather than a series of edit wars and disputes? Rgds, - Trident13 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is painful to witness. Both of you might want to consider a Wikibreak, at least from this article. -- PKtm 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas there have already been two such breaks. The original dispute looked like it ended when I merged large portions of Romeo's alternate article into the existing article. That was done by 12 June. All was quiet until 14 July, when he returned and blast-replaced his entire alternate in again, marked as a minor edit with no change description at all! First somebody else reverted that and then I did. Silence again until today, back to the same old routine. Wasted Time R 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting interests

Is there a citation anywhere that supports the statement that Elton regularly checks the website of St Kilda??

[edit] That photo

The current photo on the article has got to be the least flattering photo of Elton John ever taken. Anything anyone can do to get a better one? -- PKtm 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but i cant edit Wikipedia anymore, so i cant do anything =\ -- Valdens

[edit] Typographical Error

The second paragraph of section 1.5, "1990s," requires a period at its end. 69.80.171.124 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add the period? 69.80.171.124 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You do it. Wasted Time R 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't. Instead of an "edit this page" tab at the top of the article, it read "view source." It still does. Curiously, though, there exists no explicit indication that editing of this page is restricted on either the article's main page or amongst the info-boxes at the top of this discussion page. 69.80.171.124 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie???

What's all the use of "Reggie" in the early years? It looks awful, and its all unreferenced - need for a clean-up/revert? Rgds, - Trident13 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EJ a genius

The article is rather biased and negative. There is not one mention of Elton being widely regarded as a musical genius.

Who has said that he is a musical genius and where have they said it? Wasted Time R 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on organised religion and homosexuality (Nov 06)

Needs to be added I think. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6140710.stm 86.17.246.29 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the British Empire

Sir Elton John is a Commander of the British Empire. But per Order of the British Empire only the 2 highest ranks permits the honouree to use the prefix "Sir or Dame" in his or her name. Elton John does not belong in this category, but why does he have the prefix "Sir" in his name? Jamesino 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Simple. He was made a CBE some time ago, but has since received a knighthood (an 'upgrade', if you like). That's why he is prefixed "Sir". 86.17.247.135

Thanks for clarifying that =). Jamesino 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud

In the "spending" section, there is mention of a 1969 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud that John purchased and restored. Yet the Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud article states that the RRSC was only manufactured between 1955 and 1966! Andri Egilsson 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)