Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trueethnic (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 29 June 2011 (→they do not have a son.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Musical Theatre Elton John is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Misplaced Pages. You can 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.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Elton John is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 3, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

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

Elton John Band Section

this section should be removed. It links to a main page which is the article that you are already on. Redundancy at it's finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.144.241 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Elton John Band section for the time being but added a merge into Elton John tag if this section is removed part of the information should be merged into the main article. --Lloyd rm (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre

his genre should not include glam rock but instead glam pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.100.242 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Vocal Range Limited Due to Drug Abuse

I head an interview with Elton rather recently in which he talked a bit about his vocal range limitations. He admitted that, although his well known operation was the reason for his inability to sing in falsetto, the main culprit was years of drug abuse. He warned of the seductive power of drugs, especially during particularly stressful times in our lives, and said that he's lucky he was able to return to singing at all. I think that's an important part of Elton's life, especially since it's related both to his musical career and to his history of willingness to be open about his life in order to help others. Perhaps someone with better research skills than mine can find a reference to this and add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing priority

I am concerned that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Misplaced Pages:Quotations. I will notify the WikiProjects listed above. SilkTork * 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I got one of SilkTork's pings on the state of the article. I was surprised to see that I'm still the #1 editor by frequency, despite not having touched it for several years. The work done in 2005–2006 was long before the footnote-after-every-sentence requirement emerged, and was mostly focused on filling in chronological gaps and arguing about two alternate versions of the 1970s biographical text. I don't have the bandwidth to do much of anything on this article now, but giving it one quick read I think the article is for the most part reasonably balanced and not the BLP emergency that SilkTork seems to imply. Regardless though, a sourcing push is of course warranted. However, I see that those now doing that are mass-citing books without using page numbers, e.g. "^ abcdefghijkl His Song: The Musical Journey of Elton John, Elizabeth Rosenthal, Billboard Books, 2001". This is better than nothing, but not very good for anyone trying to validate particular statements. It would also flunk GAN/FAC immediately. I'd strongly recommend doing a little more work and citing with page numbers. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The BLP concerns are that the article talked quite a lot (without sourcing) about Elton John's sexual habits, his mental health, his baldness, his eating problems, keeping pornographic photographs, etc; rather personal issues that we need to ensure are reliably sourced.

I agree that Misplaced Pages was not so concerned with sourcing a few years ago, and many of my first additions to Misplaced Pages are unsourced (and probably remain so!), but this isn't about blaming anyone, this is about sorting out an issue right now. Bland articles about low profile actors and poets have been deleted from Misplaced Pages with the support and encouragement of Jimbo simply because the one or two sentences in those articles were unsourced. This is a high profile article on a very high profile person which contains many contentious statements which are unsourced. I contend that our attention should be directed to such articles as this as a matter of urgency. People are encouraged to insert unsubstantiated gossip when they see a lot of unsourced statements. When cleaned up, it will be easier to maintain and ensure that no genuinely inappropriate statement gets inserted. Without the appropriate sourcing we don't know what is true from what is false.

And I agree that page numbers is needed. Without page numbers it is very hard to check the accuracy of the statement. SilkTork * 10:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So you bin the only section that describes Elton's music, which just happens to be the most important thing about him, and leave in how much money he spends on flowers!? WTF! 70.88.44.174 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. I removed the section which had some opinion about Elton John's music, but we didn't know whose opinion it was because the material was unsourced. It could have been the opinion of a music expert, but it could also have been an opinion from a narrow focus fan website. The section opened with "In the 1970s, John's sound immediately set him apart from most others by being piano-based in a rock 'n' roll world dominated by guitars." The early 1970s was a peak period for singer-songwriters, a good number of whom played piano, such as Randy Newman, Tom Waits, Gordon Lightfoot, Gilbert O'Sullivan, etc, so the statement seems rather odd and inaccurate. It is better for us to not have any information rather than incorrect and misleading information. SilkTork * 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I really shouldn't get into this, but since you've banished mention of both the significance of the piano and of Paul Buckmaster from the body of the article, by your logic you should remove the mentions of them from the lead section (where they still are) as well. But the idea that the article shouldn't say anything about how the piano made Elton different from most other rock artists seems silly to me. And virtually every bio or survey of Elton talks about the effect that Buckmaster's string arrangements had on Elton's early sound. Try here or here or here or here or a bunch of others. Way back when I tried to add a focus on Buckmaster's importance to this article, and now there's nothing of it left. But that's the way WP works: take it off your watchlist, kiss it goodbye. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just cite the sources and put it back.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look and see if they can be incorporated into the article. You could also do as Ishtar suggests, and edit the article yourself. I am not at all knowledgable about Elton John, but I am concerned that this article was (and to an extent still is) saying some strong things without appropriate sourcing. SilkTork * 09:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article has been both trimmed back and sourced to an extent that it is no longer a major concern in terms of inaccurate and possibly libelous statements, though it still needs a considerable amount of work to be done to make it more usefully encyclopedic and reliable. Currently it is a collection of statements about Elton John poorly organised and presented, and tending toward trivial puffery. What it needs is a bunch of people who know a bit about Elton John to spend some time working on it so that it does become a useful reference guide of the important highlights of his life. We don't need (or want) to know everything - just the important stuff. I am taking this off my watchlist, but I will pop back now and again to see how it is developing. SilkTork * 12:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Religious skeptic? could we get a quote, is he an atheist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.163.70 (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest if he is or isn't, but it would seem rather bizarre for a religious skeptic to wear such a large Christian cross as Elton does in the picture on his main page if he is, that's not to say he is or isn't though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.128.254 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More info. needed on how his gay lifestyle and position as a gay parent go against Christian values and teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.71.183 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? I do not think his "gay lifestyle" goes against Christian teaching at all. Perhaps only against the teaching of some "Christian" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.5.61 (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IT'S A SIN!!! REMEMBER SODOM AND GOMORRAH???? HOW CAN ANYONE CONDONE THIS???? HE WILL BURN IN HELL IF HE DOESN'T REPENT, so no,he's obviusly, NOT a Christian, because he doesn't live the Christ life!!!!! You turn gay, then say you're religious? Yeah, right!! NO CHRISTIANS ARE GAY- YOU CAN NOT BE!!!!!! LOOK IT UP THE BIBLE SAYS SO- YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR YOUR SINS!!!!!! REPENT AND DO WHAT GOD MADE YOU FOR- A WOMAN AND A MAN, NOT A MAN AND A MAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.95.238 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.108.146.58, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} You could (and probably won't, haha) change the headline of the discography section of this article to "The Greatest Discography", in reference to the Elton John song, "The Greatest Discovery" (http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Greatest_Discovery) from the album, "Elton John" (1970) .

As most people looking at the page will be fans, they would understand the reference. And also, the word "discography" is still there so even if you didn't get it, you'd still be able to find this section.

Alternatively, you could change the name of the main article: "Elton John Discography" to "The Greatest Discography" with "Elton John Discography" redirecting there.

Anyway! Thanks a bunch. :))))) I've always loved your work, wiki staff. Love it. :) Jeremy LR Smith.

122.108.146.58 (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no - that wouldn't be appropriate, because it would not be a neutral heading. We remain factual and to a certain extent 'boring' in our editorial content - the guidelines on titles of sections (and many other matters) are in Misplaced Pages:MOSHEAD. Similarly for the title - the article Elton John discography is a discography of the chap, and changing the title may lead to confusion. I hope you understand.

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles. If you have any questions at all, do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Best,  Chzz  ►  08:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from 93.0.136.183, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} One french sentence is incorrect : it's not "Le Presbytere N'a Rien Perdu De Son Charme Ni Le Jardin Du Son Éclat" but instead "Le Presbytère N'a Rien Perdu De Son Charme Ni Le Jardin De Son Éclat" ; it's also the exact (and correct !) title of this show.

Thanks,

Marc

93.0.136.183 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Algebraist 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Elton John was homosexual, and was a musician, so I believe he should be added to the Gay Musicians Category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisy20 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Elton John's sexual orientation doesn't change the fact that his music relates to everyone, gay or or otherwise. just because he's gay doesn't mean i should look for a son in the gay listing. Just like it is in life there are homosexuals in all forms of the arts. Life shouldn't be pigeon holed into gay or strait, black or white, Catholic or Mormon... etc. Lets just enjoy what comes our way. TwoTripn Dec. 1, 2010

The category was deleted last month. Jim Michael (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 concert

His concert in which he performed with Leon Russel in support of their new CD "The Union" which was broadcasted on FUSE and FUSE HD (a music channel) on October 19, 2010 at New York Cities Beacon Theater. Both sang their individual songs hits as well as the complete abulm. They later performed some songs the following morning (October 20th, 2010) for the ABC networks Good Morning America. As more people see the special we could add the songs performed and expand this page, the show will be on repeat this week.--Cooly123 11:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Married

He is in a civil partnership with David Furnish, a fact which is in the info box of David but it isn't in Elton John's info box. Nor is it mentioned in the summary of his life at the top of the page. Considering this is a rather significant fact about him you'd think the info would be more prominent than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.116.66 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The civil partnership is mentioned in the lead of this article. It is not in the infobox because it is not a field in the musical artist infobox. Furnish's article uses the person infobox, which includes spouse as a field, hence it is included there. Jim Michael (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This title is incorrect. In the past thousand years of UK law, and as of current UK law, Elton is in a civil partnership. Marriage is in the UK between a woman and a man, hence it is impossible for Elton to marry and why it is impossible that this title should be tolerated. This is no comment on his situation, purely a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.221.208 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the laws in your locality, marriage can be between two persons of any gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.28.222 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Union

It would be nice to note that The Union debuted at #3 on the Billboard album chart, the first time Elton has done that since 1976's Blue Moves. So much for not making "pop records"! Howieroarke (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Elton John and Lady Gaga

Elton also associated with Lady Gaga right? But it isnt included in his infobox..

Live with Regis/Kelly

Something to add to "2010s" section after the portion about the new album with Leon (several sources can be found doing a web search; ie. from the actual show, Elton's blog, etc.): Elton and Leon Russell performed songs to promote their new album (The Union) on Live with Regis & Kelly on Thanksgiving Eve (11.24.10). Songs performed on the show were: "When Love is Dying" and "Never Too Old (To Hold Somebody)". 63.131.4.149 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Xpto1318, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} elton has won 6 grammys, instead of 5 - he as won the GRAMMY LEGEND AWARD in 2001

 Done I changed the numbers to 6, and added the award to the Grammy List (with 1999, the correct year as you note below). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Xpto1318 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Elton John has won 6 grammys! Not 5

Elton John has won 6 Grammys instead of 5, has it is said in the article. He as won the GRAMMY LEGEND AWARD in 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpto1318 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, see above

Uh, glasses?

Over 14,000 words in this article and not one of them is glasses or frame. WTF? Elton John has something like 40,000 different frames. Its his signature. -- Suso (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unnatural predisposition (C4P)

Just to be clear, I meant baldness! IMeantBaldness (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual error

Who Wrote that elton john is dead? because this article is the only place that says that he is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.9.128 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism, which has now been removed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Great songwriting example

Maybe this can be used: --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} I would like to request a addition to the "Personal Life" section. Recently Sir Elton John and his partner appeared in the news with their new son which sparked much controversy. The following is a summary of the news events that took place early this year:

"In early 2011, a U.S supermarket, Harps Food store, covered a family portrait of Elton John, his partner David Furnish and their new son Zachary on the cover of “US weekly” in a bid to “protect” shoppers. A local resident came across the “family shield” and was so surprised she uploaded a picture onto her Twitter account. The controversy sparked an investigation by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Spokespersons for the company say that the shield was put in place as a reaction to "several" customer complaints at that particular store. The corporate office then evaluated the situation and made a decision to remove the shield and allow the magazine to the displayed as is. They also made it clear this situation in no way reflects their own views and has since issued an apology. "

Thank you for your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimk16 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Please provide a reference for the changes you wish to make. Even with a reliable source for this, I'm not sure it would merit mention in an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

References: http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2011/01/27/17050656.html http://www.styleite.com/media/elton-john-us-weekly-cover-censored/ http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2011/01/27/arkansas_store_censors_elton_john_us_w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimk16 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Elton won the Grammy for Best Musical Show (Aida) in 2001, not in 2000

I guess the tilte says it all. Sir Elton John won the Grammy Award for Best Musical Show, the Aida musical, in 2001. In the page says it was in 2000, it is incorrect. Please change it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpto1318 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is he actually entitled to be called "Sir"?

The rank he was awarder in the Order of the British Empire is "commander" (CBE), which is not a knighthood and does not allow the use of the prefix "Sir" in his name. Tdunsky (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the reference provided for the award, being only a single page from the London Gazette (Supplement), without any heading, does not provide adequate support for any title? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that a statement or a question? In any case, I agree that it's separated from what makes it a good source. It is nevertheless the gazettal of his CBE in 1995.

You're confusing two things: his title, and his postnominal letters. Sometimes these are related. In EJ's case, they're not.

• He was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1995. That gave him the postnominal CBE, but no title.
• He was made a Knight Bachelor in 1998. That gave him the title of Sir, but no additional postnominals (because Knight Bachelor does not come with a postnominal).

It is perfectly correct to call him Sir Elton John. In formal contexts, it would be Sir Elton John CBE. -- Jack of Oz 10:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. I was trying to suggest, in my question, that as it stands the Gazette page is not a good source. There is no evidence of the award title - it could be a list of any awards, only the date is direct support. There is already a source for the knighthood, although would the London Gazette be better? (thats a question). But I think the existing one for the CBE could be better (that's a statement). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's from the right document, it just needs to show more of it to reveal which document it's from. -- Jack of Oz 19:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious skepticism

The article talks about his sexuality, and even mentions his alcoholism, but his religion beliefs -or lack thereof- is only in a category with "Religious skeptics". Most of the people with that category, Mark Twain for instance, goes into more detail. But there's nothing on it on the actual article. TheListUpdater (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tantrums & Tiaras

Add Elton John: Tantrums & Tiaras under "Films" &/or "1990-1999" section (or reference in "2000-present" when it was released on dvd, although filmed from 1995 with exception of John's/Furnish's commentary). This "documentary" film takes a look at his tour, awards, album and personal life during the mid-to-late 90s, including his hatred for making videos which is why he doesn't appear in videos anymore, the death of his grandmother, his relationship with his partner, his mother and other additional footage of his music career and collaborations in 1995. Also, The Big Picture isn't mentioned in the "1990-1999" section (aka "The '90s"). It is listed in discography however, but overlooked when the "Candle in the Wind" (1997) is mentioned. 67.52.24.141 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SNL

Elton John made an appearance on Saturday Night Live. Can someone mention that? Peace and love, Bradymonty (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to "Knighthood"

In the third sentence: "John received a knighthood from...", Knighthood directs literally and will bring you to the "Knight" page. This link should be changed to instead go to "Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom#Knighthood". Unfortunately I cannot do it myself, as I am a new user and the page is semi-protected... Itskafei (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Activism section

I can't edit, so can someone please fix this line:

"The campaign is to bring straight people to stand up with the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered community and stop the discrimination."

"Transgender" doesn't have an "ed" on the end. It's always just "transgender." 174.58.138.200 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

they do not have a son.

Elton John and his lover/partner do not have a son. Two men cannot have a child together. This is supposed to be a place where people come to get information? Can anyone understand why a young person reading this part of the article might get confused? Trueethnic (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueethnic (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd extend your definition to that of the adopted children of infertile couples. They too cannot "have" a son, and yet somehow they do. Or is your concern merely of the gender of the parents? Legally they have a son. The genetic parentage of their son is not the issue. --Escape Orbit 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Under no circumstances do two gay men or two lesbians have children. An infertile couple COULD have a child if it were not for the infertility. Two gay men do not suffer from infertility. A man simply cannot impregnate another man no matter how much they'd like to. Decency and accuracy is what is called for here, not perverted political correctness. Trueethnic (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that either of them actually gave birth to the boy, and nobody in the world would think "have a son" could possibly mean that, in this case. Straight couples who adopt children "have sons" and "have daughters". So do gay couples. The verb "have" does not have the limited meaning you seem to want to put on it. -- Jack of Oz 01:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

which one is the "father" and if one is the father, then what is the other one? Trueethnic (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

they are raising a boy who is NOT the SON of this "couple". Trueethnic (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to change this. Unless you can demonstrate that what is said in the article is suggesting the impossible; that they are both biological parents, then there is no problem with its wording. One is the father, the other is the adoptive father; the child is their son. There isn't any problem here other than the agenda you are pushing in a similar fashion to your other edits. --Escape Orbit 04:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Two men cannot have a child in common. Men have a penis. You need another human being with a vagina in order to have a child in common. This is political correctness run wild. Two men, regardless of how normal you may think it is for them to be engaging in unnatural sexual acts with each other, can never be the parents of the same child. I speak the truth and YOU dont like it. I will continue to change it when necessary so that some child isn't confused. Trueethnic (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Trueethnic, Elton John and his partner can have many things. They can have a mansion, they can have a private jet, they can have a swimming pool, they can have a good time. They can also have a son. But none of these things need involve them having a penis and a vagina. This article is now simply correctly reflecting the common use of the word "have" in the English language. Whether these two gentlemen actually deserve any or all of these things is a different question, of course. And by the way, medically speaking, you don't actually need a penis or a vagina, you need testes, ovaries and a uterus. In the country where Elton and his partner live it is prefectly legal for a son, or a daughter, to have parents of the same gender. But that fact seems to be something that YOU don't like? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But might it also be useful to clarify if either of the men is the boy's biological father, if a source is available? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Sources indicate that they are not saying which, if either, of them is the biological father. Nor are they revealing who the mother is. Which is, of course, their right. --Escape Orbit 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Two men cannot have a son in common, no matter how you twist and pervert nature and reality, two men cannot have a son. They are raising a boy together. But together they do not have a son. I feel so bad for this child. Talk about confused when he looks at the rest of the world and has friends that have mother and he will look at himself and ask "where is my mother?". Did these two homosexuals ever think of the fact that a child needs a mother? Trueethnic (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Talk about confused when he looks at the rest of the world" yes, some people will feel sorry for you, Trueethni. The legally recognised relationship they have is "parents and son" - the boy has two parents, the two men have a son. That's just a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You are the odd one out here, Trueethnic. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and there is obviously a strong consensus that these two gents do indeed have a son. But in your scheme of things, apparently one lone voice somehow outweighs a multitude of others. How does that work? Oh, I know - you must have "right" on your side. We're all wrong, and you're right. Yes, that must be it. Well, how about you take your services to Right-o-pedia, where you'll be welcomed with open arms. We here at Misplaced Pages just want to work together in a collaborative spirit, where no single person gets to dictate what gets written in articles, over-ruling the views and opinions of many others. -- Jack of Oz 12:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is patently false. Two men can have a son in common. One is the biological father, the other is the adoptive father. Here's a man with two fathers. A woman with two fathers. Here's another man. And another, and another, and another. I could go on, but I feel that your concern here is more with the living arrangements of the child's fathers. We also have no idea what arrangements are in place with his mother, but you seem to have reached your own conclusions on that.

But I can assure you that there are millions of children with no parent of any kind more deserving of your concern. Zachary Furnish-John's "confusion" is more likely to be where the rest of the world's maids and third homes are. --Escape Orbit 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Then how about this?: "in 20xx a child, (child's name) was born to a surrogate mother that both Elton John and his partner are raising together". Is that a fair compromise? Two men cannot be a child's "parents". It is a biological impossibility. So, isn't it more fair to say that a little boy was born to a surrogate mother and is being raised by Elton John and his partner and they all live together sharing the responsibility of parenting this child? Trueethnic (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith has limits. The reason I'm sure you're trolling, Trueethnic, is that if you really cared about the use of the word "parent" you could have checked it in a dictionary and found that as well as "one that begets or brings forth offspring", its secondary meaning is "a person who brings up and cares for another". The two men are bringing up and caring for the child, therefore they are its parents. Exok (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Trueethnic is now hoist with his own petard. Two men cannot be a child's "parents". It is a biological impossibility. - OK, then, what about a man and a woman, both of whom are utterly medically incapable of producing children, who marry and adopt children. It's just as much of a "biological impossibility" for them to produce children of their own, as it is for John and Furnish to do so. But would you deny they are the parents of the children they've adopted? Of course not, not even you would do that. So being a parent has nothing necessarily to do with reproductive capacity, and that principle applies to gay couples every bit as much as it does to straight couples. If John and Furnish are parents - and they are - then they have a child. -- Jack of Oz 12:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How about we just use normal English language and legal definitions, rather than talk around the houses to avoid offending those with a finely tuned and particular sense of decency? --Escape Orbit 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should thank Trueethic for reminding us that John and Furnish are rasing their son together, something which does not happen with all children and both paremts. So I have rearranged the paragraph to include this fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. You people are out there in some crazy world where two men can be a child's parents. That is just too wierd and crazy for me and 99% of the rest of the world, but I suppose here on Misplaced Pages it's totally normal. Trueethnic (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a very revealing comment, Trueethnic. Every single editor on this thread was arguing in a certain direction, and you have been the sole objector. Yet you still say that 99% of the rest of the world would think your way. Is everyone else here so unrepresentative of the wider world? Who's really out of step here? -- Jack of Oz 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The world may very well appear to be "crazy" to you, Trueethic. But it's Misplaced Pages's job to reflect that world as it is, not to judge it. But you might want to study this article before you choose your next holiday destination? I'm not sure you'll see 99% quoted anywhere in there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Misplaced Pages's job is to reflect the world as it is, is such a joke I am having a hard time typing this. Misplaced Pages gets money from sources that have an agenda. If I live with a woman who has kids, at what point do they become "our" children. Two men, no matter how hard the heterosexuals try and make it so, can NEVER be the parents of the same child. What if Elton John and his lover bring a third man into their relationship? What if a bisexual has a man lover and a woman lover? Is that child the child of all three? No normal person, who truly wants the best for this unfortunate child, can look at this situation and think that it is okay. Trueethnic (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You ask questions which Wiki is not here to answer and sometimes in the real world and in Wiki world you just have live with it.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think Misplaced Pages is so badly corrupted by the agendas of the sources of its income, how does your conscience permit you to edit here at all? Anyway, deny all you want, but consensus will always win the day, because that's how Misplaced Pages works. -- Jack of Oz 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages gets money from sources that have an agenda." Um, which Sources are those, then? How does that affect my editing? It's just ordinary peoPle who edit wikipedia, and I would think that the vast majority of these people, like myslef, have nothing to do wIth the way wikiPedia is run or financed. Or maybe that Jimmy Wales guy has a gay lover aNd a secret son? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably homosexuals yourselves and that is why your bias is shining through. Trueethnic (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Neiter my sexual orientation, not yours, whatever these may be, have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that John and Furnish have a son. Neither does theirs. And neither does the means by which Misplaced Pages is funded. But many thanks for giving up. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

two men cannot ever have a son. all the PC in the world will never change that. Every person on the planet has a mother and a father. two men can never be both. I feel sorry for this child because he will grow up confused and likely strung out on drugs one day all because of the selfishness of two perverts. Trueethnic (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being offensive, homophobic, repetitious, obdurate, blinkered, tiresome, and worst of all, boring. We welcome reasoned discourse and argument all day long, but your repeated assertions of what cannot be, when 99% of the world says it can be, and it is, and it's a good thing that it is, and there should be more of it - are simply ridiculous. -- Jack of Oz 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I tell the truth. The only thing that is offensive is the truth. Trueethnic (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

".. and therefore what I say is offensive" - is the last part of your syllogism. But on this page, we're interested in Elton John, not in your homophobic ranting. If you carry on with your libelous insults, you are likely to get blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What did I say that was libelous? Homophobic? Honest is more like it. Trueethnic (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (musicians) articles
• High-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class Musical Theatre articles
• C-Class Rock music articles
• High-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• C-Class London-related articles
• High-importance London-related articles