Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput

Before making an edit request

Users should bear in mind that, per Wikipedia:Edit requests (which is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but a supplemental information page), consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. Following Sushant Singh Rajput's death on 14 June 2020, his Wikipedia page has been continuously controversial. Since its creation on 29 July 2020, this subarticle too has been continuously controversial. Thus any requested change relating to his death is likely to be controversial. There are ongoing discussions on this talk page striving to reach consensus on the most arguable issues. Users are encouraged to contribute to those discussions where appropriate to help achieve consensus, in lieu of making edit requests that are likely to be rejected. NedFausa (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

removal of good faith tagging

@The9Man: You can't just blanket remove someone's good faith suggestions! DTM (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: I didn't blanket removed all the suggestions, explained most except the tag. It is clearly explained about the complaint in the article and in the reference. Can you explain what kind of explanation you are expecting with the tag?
When you tag something please explain why you are tagging it so that others can work on it, rather than lying it there for ages.
- The9Man ^(Talk) 10:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, some of those statements require an in-depth explanation; if someone is new to SSR and his death they should quickly understand, for example, the circumstances of the rumour around him dating Rhea, why his death was shocking, and why his death was embroiled in so much "controversy" (forgive the lack of a better term there). SerChevalerie (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie I got your point. But remember WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we cannot simply go deeper than the reliable references available in a case like this. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, ah but there you have it, if it's not reliably sourced then why is such an ambiguous statement added to Wikipedia at all? SerChevalerie (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I looked it as the whole sentence instead of that particular word. I removed it now. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Style

We can use Death of Marilyn Monroe as a reference for the expansion of this article. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: Good suggestion. This article was created based on the same only. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that Death of Marilyn Monroe has been the subject of recent vandalism, changing "suicide" to "killed" and "Pills" to "Shot". Maproom (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nepotism"

@NedFausa: Hey there, I liked your approach at the Sushant Singh Rajput article where you explained how there were accusations of supporting nepotism, which I didn't think was adequately explained at that article at the time. I'm hoping you can do something similarly here. Just to remind you (or rather for clarification/context for anybody else reading this) my chief complaint as an observer, is that "nepotism" means hiring people related to you, and it gets murky when we're accusing people who are not related to the hired parties of nepotism. If a Karan Johar-type was being vilified, it should be clear why that is. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Nepotism does not mean hiring only family members. Nepotism definition extends to friends and near-dear people also. DarpSinghh (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Last movie reference

I strongly suggest adding information about his last film as it has his last appearance on screen. This is an event related to him happened after his death. Since it has a significant impact on the audience response and the movie's running. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, it's not related to his death at all. The connection between the two is very weak. There's no way to know for sure that the film has done better merely because of his death. At least, unless any WP:RS says so, we can't state it. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, there are enough WP:RS says that this film did a record-breaking opening. How normal is that, would that happen if SSR was alive? SSR's death definitely has an impact on the reactions of the audiences towards the movie.
You can have a look at Death of Michael Jackson where an entire section dedicated for record sales which in your terms 'not related to his death'. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

One difference, is that while reports say that there were 95 million views, that's not the same thing as selling 95 million tickets, or 95 million albums/singles, to use your Michael Jackson example. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's because we are in 2020 not in 2009. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, snark aside, "95 million views" doesn't mean that 95 million people each watched the entire film. It could mean that 9.5 million people accessed the file on the server 10 times each, for any duration of time. I don't know what constitutes a "view" or a "viewer", do you? If an account has four profiles, and someone played the film, does that count as four impressions? If there was a spike in Disney+ Hotstar subscriptions that correlated to the release of Dil Bechara, that might be more telling, but it's way harder to gauge significance of these figures when the details are not transparent, and it's unfortunate that some of the media outlets are suggesting that these numbers would translate to a 1000–2000 crore opening. The Free Press Journal[1] published "One should note that browsing is not the same as buying. It is also imperative to note that it is streamed free and no one would pay to watch it in the theatres." Anyway, I'm not shitting on your idea or saying that the content shouldn't be included, I'm just noting that it's a bit of a false equivalency to compare record sales to streaming content that doesn't cost anybody anything extra to watch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's not an apples to apples comparison but unless a specific source says that the movie's views were influenced by his death (which they probably were) or that Hotstar's ad revenue for the movie was off the charts, we can't include it. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb In fact, the one-to-one comparison was unnecessary and meaningless. I never intended that instead, I was pointing out why this section can be mentioned. I rest my case. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Citing republicworld.com as source

We have four citations to republicworld.com, website of Republic TV, of which Wikipedia states: Critical reception has been negative. The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and of publishing fake news. It has also been convicted of breaching Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and News Broadcasting Standards Authority rules. I wonder if editors are aware of this questionable reputation, and if so, how they feel about citing that source in such a controversial article. NedFausa (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

India.com, Zee News, Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Jagaran too, for that matter. The only place Republic World is worth quoting is for Ranaut's interview, since it's them she gave it to. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Zee News

@SerChevalerie: I find no references in Death of Sushant Singh Rajput to Zee News (zeenews.com), Dainik Bhaskar (bhaskar.com), or Dainik Jagaran (jagran.com). However, we do cite India.com ten times. Are you suggesting that India.com, which is a joint venture between Penske Media Corporation and Zee Entertainment Enterprises, is not a reliable source? NedFausa (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I replaced references from the first three... India.com isn't exactly well known here, so I'm suspicious. Also, ABP News doesn't have a great reputation either. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, the reason I put them all in the same category: Aaj Tak ‘Regrets’, ABP News Denies, Zee News Mum on NHRC Rap Over Coverage of Actor's Death. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, I'm afraid you'll have to explain this to me. The post to which you link attributes (without specifying source or context) to Zee News, as an example highlighted in the complaint, "Patna ka Sushant, Mumbai me fail kyu?" I do not understand Hindi, and Google translate yields only "Sushant of Patna, why spread to Mumbai?" Why is this statement, whatever it says or means, so horrendous that it prohibits Wikipedia editors from citing Zee News in our pages relating to Sushant Singh Rajput? NedFausa (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, ah basically they have all been chasing sensationalist news for a while now, and this has often taken them into the territory of fake news. That statement translates to "Sushant from Patna, but why did he fail in Mumbai", which is purely a sensationalist headline to attract people to their prime time discussions, no other basis at all. They should have been more sensitive about reporting his death. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, if you're seriously suggesting that on the basis of "Sushant from Patna, but why did he fail in Mumbai" this news channel should be in effect blacklisted from Wikipedia pages relating to Sushant Singh Rajput, I emphatically disagree. And if that's the best you've got, please stop peremptorily removing references to Zee News without consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, it wasn't so much about the headline used as the irresponsibility of it. See this report. They also have a history of reporting fake news, including about coronavirus. I'm not sure if all this is good enough to take them to WP:RSN, but Indian editors do try to use better sources wherever possible, since even the language they use (especially on TV) is sensationalist and offers little actual information. I don't see why it is a problem to simply use better quality sources when available, when the lead of their Wikipedia article also states, The channel has been involved in several controversies and has broadcast fabricated news stories on multiple occasions. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

When you refer to "irresponsibility," I take it you mean irresponsible as defined by the Press Council of India, which has not censured Zee News. And why not? Probably because PCI's 2019 guidelines on reporting suicide cases are, to not put too fine a point on it, ridiculous. Newspapers and news agencies while reporting the cases of suicide must not, PCI decrees, place stories about suicide prominently and unduly repeat such stories. They've got to be kidding! A Bollywood star kills himself and Indian media are supposed to bury their coverage? It's laughable. NedFausa (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason behind that is the endless coverage given to such cases. They do mention must not... unduly repeat such stories, which is exactly what TV channels are still doing: recycling the same facts and churning them out on prime time for gaining viewership. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cause for death

Mr @Cyphoidbomb: Why you can't write it as "Mysterious death by Hanging" instead of "Suicide by hanging"? Are you judge of any HC or SC Or president of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.175.255 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Two questions rooted in a variety of forms of ignorance. Judges and presidents don't make determinations in death cases, the police typically do. Judges and presidents don't have jurisdiction over Wikipedia's content either, the Wikipedia community gets to decide what content goes in articles. "Mysterious" is not a death cause. And, as has been amply explained at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, we write content that reflects what has been stated as fact in reliable sources. As has been referenced properly in the article, because it was widely reported, the police determined that the subject died by suicide not by "mysterious death by hanging". If they change their minds, we'll change the determination. Got it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr double standard @Cyphoidbomb: you may feel entire wikipedia is your own.you can write whatever you want, people and fans understand which one is truth. i never said "Mysterious" is cause for death. Cause for death is hanging, mysterious is circumstance for situation.If Mumbai police confirmed it's suicide why they doing investigation.

Second thing is You underestimated power of Judges and presidents. You need to read our constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.157.2 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What double-standard? And where have I applied a standard inconsistent with this one? Show me another suicide article where I argued for something other than what is printed here. Get your facts together before lobbing baseless accusations at people. I've only made one edit to this article, by the way, so your obnoxious accusations that I'm somehow in charge here, are ridiculous. As I've said, if the cops change their opinion and say that it was not a suicide, then the other editors will change the details accordingly. But just because you think there were mysterious circumstances doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to print that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suicide article writer ? @Cyphoidbomb: Curiously asking as per above replay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.140.188 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We go by what the reliable sources say, and thus far they take the position that it's suicide. If something changes and they change their tune, the article will be edited to reflect this. Once again, we go by what the sources say, not what the stans fervently wish. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano Article which referred as source (https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/sushant-singh-rajput-commits-suicide-at-mumbai-home-1688886-2020-06-14) Article clearly mentioned that "The police have said that it was a case of death by hanging" not Suicide by hanging. Non of the investing agencies proved or claimed it's a suicide. I hope u guys will change "Suicide by hanging" to " Death by hanging"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.118.249 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're here to discuss the aspects of the case, please at least try to be honest and diligent in your research, instead of selectively finding sources that support your worldview, as if nobody's going to notice what you're doing. See confirmation bias. The news article you linked to from 15 June 2020 uses the word suicide five times. But let's say you're conveniently ignoring this because you want to focus on what officials are quoted as saying. OK, well an early article might offer us an initial observation, and maybe police didn't want to commit to declaring it a "suicide" before medical examiners took a look. Then roughly nine days later after the medical examiners took a look at his body and did whatever magic medical examiners do, they offered a different evaluation: "clear case of suicide" with no evidence of foul play.[2][3][4] So your assertion "Non of the investing agencies proved or claimed it's a suicide." is demonstrably false. As previously noted, if the CBI investigation yields a different determination, we will adjust accordingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Selective finding not found by me it is used by you in this page And medical examiner post-mortem report says as per HT[5] asphyxia due to hanging not suicide by hanging.And 2nd reference from indiatoday[6] you mentioned "clear case of suicide" That article not attached any Post Mortem Report page or any medical examiner statement or any investigating agencies statement.Third reference by you news18 [7] It is copied from indiatoday as they quoted indiatoday article.Now clarify me why are you choosing selective article.As of now it's case of "asphyxia due to hanging" not a suicide or murder.Let CBI will find truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.95.153 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That is because autopsies exist primarily to find the mechanism (i.e. how it happened), and generally not the manner (i.e. why it happened). The police investigators - the ones who can gather the evidence to determine the manner of death - said it's suicide, and it's their words that the newspapers are referring to when they call it suicide. Because they call it suicide almost unanimously, so do we. No serious source is entertaining that it was murder. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

And as an addendum, the viscera examination the cops did ruled out foul play, again per the sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

you mentioned "clear case of suicide" That article not attached any Post Mortem Report page or any medical examiner statement or any investigating agencies statement. You're establishing arbitrary rules that are simply not relevant here. If reliable sources summarise what the post-mortem report says, that's totally acceptable. In fact, that's exactly why we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources instead of looking at the report ourselves to make determinations. Journalists should be processing the information and reporting the facts as they know and interpret them. Wikipedia is not a finder of fact or an arbiter of 'Truth with a capital T'. We write about what the reliable secondary sources have said. Period. We're not here to convince you, the reader, of what the truth is. We're only here to tell you what the dominant thoughts are on the matter, as reported in these sources. If you don't understand this simple difference, I don't know what else to do to communicate it to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

1. No secondary source mentioned because HT not said "clear case of suicide" only indiatoday reported and news18 copied from indiatoday. Please provide secondary reference source. 2. It is kind of "JUDICIAL ABUSE" what all your editor made on SSR page and SSR death page regard cause of death,On 19 August, the Supreme Court ordered to the CBI for investigation.Means SC not concluded cause of death.Five days after only INDIATODAY concluded "clear case of suicide" without quoting autopsy report. Wikipedia abused India's TOP-COURT indirectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.76.153 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That argument is patently insane and outright incorrect. India Today is not the only source that called/calls it suicide - so does india.com (Who outright called it a "suicide case" at one point), the Mumbai Mirror (who qualifies their reporting as being based on the initial autopsy and quotes an official), the Deccan Herald (who qualifies their reporting on being based on the viscera report and quotes a FSL official), the Hindustan Times, etc. We go by what the sources say, and all credible sources were and for the most part are reporting it as a suicide. What the Supreme Court cares/decrees isn't relevant here except to the extent news sources have reported on it because we are not permitted to use court documents or other gov't reports directly, including the autopsy report, the viscera report, and whatever comes out of the CBI investigation. We are an encyclopaedia, and interpreting primary sources is not what an encyclopaedia does. And, as it bears repeating once more, no credible source is saying it's murder. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Jéské Couriano: I request that you please dial it back a notch and refrain from characterizing what is apparently a good-faith argument as "patently insane." Of course you're right that the IP user incorrectly contends that only India Today called this a "clear case of suicide." But the issue is complicated by there being multiple forensic medical reports:

• 15 June – Mumbai Police announced receipt of a provisional postmortem report conveying results from the 14 June autopsy at Cooper Hospital. "The provisional cause of death," said Mumbai's deputy commissioner of police, "is asphyxia due to hanging."
• 25 June – the final postmortem report confirmed cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging and, according to Hindustan Times (without mentioning India Today), said it was a "clear case of suicide."
• 27 July – Mumbai Police received a viscera report from the Kalina-based Forensic Science Laboratory. Mumbai Mirror quoted unnamed FSL sources as saying that it was a "clear case of suicide."
  

Given three separate forensic medical reports, announced over a span of 36 days by various news outlets and amidst literally hundreds of other media stories discussing the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, it's easy to lose track of who said what and when. NedFausa (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these are good-faith arguments. Anon seems to have a specific belief about the subject's death that they are trying to force into the article based on cherrypicked facts. When they said Non of the investing agencies proved or claimed it's a suicide, that was demonstrably false, yet the linked articles didn't sway them, and instead, they decided to move the goalposts to chip away at the legitimacy of India Today's analysis: That article not attached any Post Mortem Report page or any medical examiner statement Oh, so now the only way we can add information to an article is if the quoted source has not only quoted their source, but also included a photocopy of the report! And then if they do that, what's the next argument? That they didn't get the photocopy notarised, so how do we know it wasn't a doctored photocopy? This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's processes, or the quality of the sources, this is about changing information in the article to adhere to their worldview, and no amount of explanation about our processes or sourcing guidelines is going to help here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. This isn't a good-faith attempt to debate; it's an attempt to "win", hence moving the goalposts when their previous effort is ineffective. He's not interested in learning how Wikipedia works (especially as regards this article) and isn't interested in a good-faith debate (because in his mind he already knows the answer; it just doesn't match what we or the article are saying). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

All of which, I take it, justifies calling his argument "patently insane." Well, I disagree. We do not bring credit to Wikipedia by stooping to WP:INSULT. NedFausa (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's one thing to characterise an argument (particularly an apparent bad-faith one) as insane; quite another to characterise the editor so. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Get off it. You're fooling no one with that kind of hair-splitting. NedFausa (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

It is not a criminal act to vandalise Wikipedia. ... However, it is against the site's Terms of use to vandalise or otherwise cause disruption. Vandals are blocked, and may also be further banned according to the terms of use. If this happens then you have lost your privilege to edit the site.

Is it illegal to vandalize wikipedia? - Quorawww.quora.com › Is-it-illegal-to-vandalize-wikipedia Search for: Is it illegal to edit Wikipedia? Can you edit Wikipedia anonymously?

Sushant Singh was not found hanging from the ceiling, he was found lying on the bed by the police. SakshiOslo (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Cited source reports: His body was found hanging from the ceiling fan. NedFausa (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2020

In the section "Request for CBI probe": There should be information that Ujjal Trivedi (a Senior Journalist) and Ishkaran Singh Bhandari (a Lawer) have been very influential in YouTube by giving periodic information on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. SleepyPanda7 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also unclear how this is relevant. When do we spotlight journalists and lawyers in articles about deaths? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Groupism debate

Rajput's death sparked a debate in India about nepotism and bad practices in the Bollywood film industry. Thus begins the subsection from which I today removed the following sentence:

The IMDb rating of Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl was also attacked for similar reasons.

By "similar reasons" the cited source apparently alludes to fans of Sushant Singh Rajput demanding justice over the purported influence of Bollywood nepotism in the actor's decision to take his own life.

However, Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl has nothing to do with Sushant Singh Rajput.

I submit that we should restrict this subsection to developments reportedly relating directly to SSR. At the moment, Wikipedia's Bollywood page mentions neither nepotism nor groupism. Perhaps it should, to accommodate the larger issue of nepotism in the Indian Hindi-language film industry that extends beyond SSR's suicide.

Meanwhile, though, I propose that we keep our focus here on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput and not stray too far off topic. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, do you suggest updating the Bollywood page, then? Or do you think a separate article is due? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Bollywood page was created in October 2001. Yet in all that time there is no trace in its talk page archives of anyone suggesting addition of a section for nepotism/groupism. If that topic is now noteworthy enough to merit such inclusion, you should propose it at Talk:Bollywood and await consensus. Absent any such section, the idea of a new page devoted solely to nepotism/groupism in Bollywood strikes me as wildly premature. NedFausa (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. If the situation develops further I'll take it up there. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: it turns out there is after all an existing section on Bollywood nepotism at Wikipedia's Nepotism page. It's almost entirely about fallout from Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide, which makes it borderline WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. And it seems misplaced, given that Wikipedia's Bollywood page does not mention nepotism. Still, it seems like a good start to widening coverage of the subject. NedFausa (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, that's helpful, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Film on Arnab

@NedFausa and DiplomatTesterMan: can't we work on keeping this section with a bit more importance given to WP:NPOV (and better sources)? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I oppose using Wikipedia to publicize what is at this point merely a proposed film project, which (apart from its first look poster) may never come to fruition, and whose connection to the death of Sushant Singh Rajput is tangential. NedFausa (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, Well the film sub section is already removed, I have no issue with that. At the time I thought it had more to do with Arnab's reaction to Sushant's death rather than Arnab himself. I don't have much to say related to this article other than it needs a lot of copyediting and condensing. DTM (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Cause

The cause "Suicide by hanging" should be removed because the CBI is investigating if it's a suicide or murder. Arjunuws (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Arjunuws: Please, I understand you want "Suicide by hanging" removed. However, do you think the parameter Cause should be left blank—in which case it would not show up in the infobox—or be replaced with other text? If the latter, what would you suggest. NedFausa (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be filled with something like Unknown/being investigated Arjunuws (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thus far, the sources are more-or-less unanimous it is suicide and/or take the position that the CBI would have to prove it wasn't. Unless and until the reporting changes, we will stick with "suicide" as the manner of death, especially as Sushant Singh Rajput still falls under BLP protections and the CBI investigation does not immediately void the initial suicide findings just by dint of existing. We go by what the sources say, not what stans fervently wish. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano: I believe this talk page section relates specifically to the article infobox's Cause parameter, which includes a single reference to support Suicide by hanging. The reference does not take the position that, in order for Sushant Singh Rajput's manner of death to be other than suicide, the CBI would have to prove it wasn't suicide. Nor can I recall any other source taking that position. Please, could you kindly specify at least one such source? Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. However, back when this blew up (and I was drawn to the parent article as a result of a rather livid helpee) on 21 Jul (PDT), one of the four sources cited in the section for his death was an India.com source which, when I read it, seemed to imply, rather than outright say, suicide by stating that the Mumbai police would need to prove it wasn't. Since then, I've largely just watched what I've begun to see as a potential Arbitration case in motion, and I will admit to not paying close attention to this because I have little patience with stans who are disinterested in how Wikipedia works and only care that it's saying what they want it to say. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Jéské Couriano: Thanks for the link to india.com, which clarifies it wasn't the CBI who'd have to prove it wasn't suicide, but the Mumbai Police who were "working day and night to find a clue which can prove that Sushant's death was not due to suicide." That was on 16 July, and I guess they still haven't found such proof. Anyhow, setting that aside, I'm intrigued by your mention of a potential Arbitration case. Please expand. I'm an active editor of both Sushant Singh Rajput and Death of Sushant Singh Rajput pages (in addition to being an all-around nuisance at their respective talk pages), and if there's anything I can do avoid an Arbitration case, by gum I'd like to begin as soon as humanly possible. I live in mortal fear of those folks. NedFausa (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried that the more devoted/ardent fans are going to attempt to, once the articles are off protection, attempt to take control of them and/or make life a nightmare for anyone on the pages who is indifferent to Rajput and their output and just trying to make the pages adhere to WP:BLP, especially if the CBI investigation's result doesn't fit the answer they already have in mind. We're already seeing that there are a couple conspiracy theories in the mix (including one involving Wikipedia, which I am fairly sure you've heard), and a fair number of ArbCom cases of recent and not-so-recent vintage stem from intractible (and increasingly personal) conflict between conspiracy theorists and those trying to maintain Wikipedia's integrity.
So far the discussion at large has been civil, even if a couple editors have been trying to passively-aggressively demand the article say X, but the fact that each unprotection has led to a very quick turnaround back to semiprotection tells me that this will eventually escalate behaviourally, especially if the page gets indef-semi'd. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano: Well, that's fascinating. So far, administrator Cyphoidbomb has been holding this all together—heroically, in my opinion—with continuing page protection, no-nonsense reversions, and tough talk on the discussion pages. Without him at the helm, these two articles would already be a nightmare, and I for one would've long since fled. I say a prayer every night for Cyphoidbomb's well-being. (Yipes! I can't believe I'm complimenting an administrator. That's totally out of character for me.) NedFausa (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I could use the celestial help, thanks! Since I've chimed in on some of these discussions, I'll probably pass on renewing any expired protection on these SSR articles and talk pages, but I'm sure you all know that you can always go to WP:RFPP should the issues flare up again. And they will. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Biased article with one-sided facts

This Encyclopedia article is very one-sided biased towards depression and suicide theory spread by Bollywood Mumbai Police and Rhea, like a propaganda is being done by authors here. The murder or abetment-to-suicide key points are missing or sidelined to unfairly promote depression theory.

Several facts are missing here: such as Mumbai Police derailing Bihar Police investigation by forcibly quarantining the investigating officer. Statements of SSR family members staff and friends claiming Rhea used to give him unknown medications.

How was SSR clautophobic of flights when he wanted to learn flying a plane and there are videos of him inside cockpit to fly the aircrafts?

Involvement of Mahesh Bhatt as untrained-mental health advisor in SSR-Rhea relationship is also missing.

Wikipedia author has cleverly quoted her innocent statement of not consuming drugs, but her leaked deleted whatsapp conversations of drug-dealing, which are ideal proofs for Narcotics team, are not at all mentioned here.

The destruction of evidence by destroying several harddisks is not mentioned.

Inconsistencies of Mumbai Police not sealing the crime scene, allowing non-family members in visiting Mortuary etc. are also not written. DarpSinghh (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We go by what the credible news media says, and the lot of them have been unanimous that it's suicide (or in India.com's earlier reporting, that the police would have to prove it wasn't suicide), and all the initial autopsy results backed that up per the reporting. Rajput's depression has also been reported on by same (and would actually support suicide, as suicidal tendencies are a symptom of clinical depression). The only reason it's in dispute now is essentially because the CBI is bowing to pressure from the family and the stans who are siding with the family because they would rather deny that it's suicide. As for the smaller minutiae, we are an encyclopaedia, not a surrogate for a news site, and so we summarise the most pertinent points. If you want a blow-by-blow, read your local newspapers (presuming you're in India). Finally, bear in mind that we are constrained with some of the claims you raise above (The linked policy still applies to recent decedents) and we're not going to include an unsubstantiated murder conspiracy theory that no credible source is reporting on. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 10:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Media Coverage

NedFausa, Hey, consider adding the Media Coverage/Trial by media section which you have added at [[8]] in this space as well. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That content relates directly to Rhea Chakraborty but only indirectly to the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. I don't think it belongs here. NedFausa (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That can be added under the title Public Reactions as a subsection because the media trial is on Rajput's death and PCI is raised concern on the parallel trial which is not just on Rhea. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it here. We'll see what other editors think. NedFausa (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Please change 'Suicide by hanging' to 'Currently under investigation for possibility of suicide, abetment to suicide, or homicide' Richagarg11 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See all the other conversations on this page about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the incorrect statement

This statement is incorrect: "On 2 September, it was reported that after reconstructing the crime scene and taking multiple witness statements, the CBI had found no evidence to suggest murder or homicide"

On September 3rd : "CBI is conducting a probe related to death of Sushant Singh Rajput in a systematic&professional way. Media reports attributed to CBI probe are speculative & not based on facts. It's reiterated that as a matter of policy, CBI doesn't share details of ongoing probe" - CBI Statement

Confirmed by ANI Twitter Constant runner (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The premise of your argument is wrong. It was reported that the CBI found no evidence to suggest murder. There's a link in the article that supports that. As to whether or not it is accurate, that's a different argument, but your unsourced comments don't provide any context here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/PTI_News/status/1301562527260663809?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Constant runner (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference ☝️ Constant runner (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NedFausa: Hindustan Times has published this, which quotes a CBI spokesperson as saying that details of the case have not been shared with the media. Do you think that's enough to remove the "the CBI found no evidence to suggest murder" content for the time being? Or do you think it should be added to the existing content, like "However, a day later a CBI spokesperson said X"? I lean toward the first option of removal, but will defer to you and others. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's enough to remove the content because CBI itself told in the statement: "...It's reiterated that as a matter of policy,CBI doesn't share details of ongoing probe" Constant runner (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the disputed content from both Sushant Singh Rajput and Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. NedFausa (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Constant runner (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, social media is generally an unusable source, as they're going to be self-published/published on someone else's behalf and without any formal fact-checking. This is especially so for content that falls under our biographical rules, and this does because of how recently Rajput died. Newspapers (such as the Hindustan Times) are generally what we want to see. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the content I removed was sourced to Indian English-language news television channel News18.com, which is not social media. And my edit summary cites as grounds for removal not the tweet from Press Trust of India but a story from the Hindustan Times, which is likewise not social media. I for one appreciate Constant runner bringing this to our attention. NedFausa (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I said that because Constant runner was pointing at a Tweet as a source, not because of your edits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Formal vs. informal edit requests

Given the contentiousness of this talk page, I propose that we distinguish between two types of edit requests from unregistered users or accounts that are not extended confirmed:

• formal – Users generate Template:Edit extended-protected or its equivalent
• informal – Users create a new section, or add to an existing one, in which they request changes without necessarily specifying "please change X to Y because..." and providing WP:RS

Please, let's not hastily dismiss the informal option. Wikipedia:Edit requests recommends consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. (Emphasis added.) In the aftermath of his death, both Sushant Singh Rajput and subarticle Death of Sushant Singh Rajput have been continuously controversial. Thus any requested change is likely to be controversial. In lieu of formal edit requests that are likely to be rejected, informal requests should be welcomed, provided of course they demonstrate good faith—and that does not preclude a strongly worded argument. As WP:AGF reminds us, Editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. NedFausa (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering most of the requests are coming from people with little familiarity with wiki markup, I would and should expect more informal requests than formal. They should absolutely be treated identically, sourcing and all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am confused about the purpose of this discussion thread, and I don't want to make assumptions. Can you please clarify what you're suggesting/requesting, Ned? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify if you'll please explain what confuses you. Seems pretty straightforward to me. NedFausa (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Biased Article! Suggestion

This article has already declared that SSR has committed suicide, even though the investigation is still ongoing. Since "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes" (WP:IMPARTIAL), assuming that he committed suicide not only violates WP:IMPARTIAL but also WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCED. So, I request the administrators to call it a "death" instead of suicide or murder since their is no reliable source to confirm either of the scenarios and will never be there unless the investigative team figure out the actual cause of death. Thank You! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 08:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources that have discussed the manner of death are in agreement it's suicide (some of which themselves cite the earlier autopsy results and viscera report); we thus go by what those sources say. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 08:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"The CBI is conducting investigation related to death of Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput in a systematic and professional way.

Certain media reports attributed to CBI investigation are speculative and not based on facts. It is reiterated that as a matter of Policy, CBI does not share details of ongoing investigation. CBI spokesperson or any team member has not shared any details of investigation with media. The details being reported and attributed to CBI are not credible. It is requested that media may please confirm details from CBI Spokesperson before quoting CBI." -- Press release by CBI on their official website.[9]

Other Sources only confirming the above to be true:

[10]

[11]

[12]

IF an authoritative body like CBI themselves discredited the so called reports that media sources has published regarding the case, would it be wise to accept those sources as credible enough for a site like wikipedia? Would wikipedia still go for the media sources over CBI itslelf!?

"Based on the reports, forensic experts here will investigate the cause of death due to hanging or ligature strangulation as it has a very thin line of difference. All these things we have to look into before reaching any conclusion," said Dr Gupta said. Another forensic expert at AIIMS said they will also evaluate whether the post-mortem findings are correct or not "or there is a possibility of judgmental error". AIIMS forensic team to analyze Sushant Singh Rajput case reports, give medico-legal opinion. Read more At: https://aninews.in/news/national/general-news/aiims-forensic-team-to-analyze-sushant-singh-rajput-case-reports-give-medico-legal-opinion20200821192934/

If these highly reputed bodies like AIIMS and CBI both premier in their respective fields, have still not figured out the cause, how come wikipedia or these media sources came to any conclusion?

Sadly, in this case wikipedia is essentially documenting hoaxes which again violates wikipedia's policy. How come wikipedia or any news sources can conclude that whether or not it's a murder or suicide when there are TEAMS of EXPERTS, dedicated to the case, are STILL investigating? ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 09:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources we've cited thus far in re the cause of death are derived from the CBI results (since the investigation is still ongoing) and, if you'd bothered to read above anything based off of CBI-oriented speculation is not going to be used (in part because we don't cite rumours). The sources that do say suicide all pre-date the CBI investigation and thus far their reporting has not directly contradicted the claim, even if they've backed off of it.
As to the sources, Republicworld.com's headline is misleading (the quote explicitly says "CBI's statement comes after few reports claimed that 'CBI officers independently informed about not having found any proof of homicide in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.'" (emphasis added) and the only mention of suicide is Chakraborty being accused of abetting suicide (+1 for suicide in other words), the India Times source is essentially calling the India Today's attributing a suicide claim to the CBI bullshit, and TimesNowNews does not discuss the manner of death at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

First off, CALM DOWN! why are you taking this so personally? Usage of the word "bullshit" was so uncalled for! Also, I HAVE bothered enough to read the discussions above before starting this thread, thanks for your valuable suggestion though.

None of the sources we've cited thus far in re the cause of death are derived from the CBI results (since the investigation is still ongoing) and, if you'd bothered to read above anything based off of CBI-oriented speculation is not going to be used (in part because we don't cite rumours).

That doesn't automatically adds credibility to pre-dated information mentioned in the article. None of the media channel at the moment can prove or disprove either of the scenarios.

(in part because we don't cite rumours).

This article IS citing rumors as what these media sources reported was also based off rumors and hearsay. The moment this news came out, they started calling it a suicide without any proper proofs. The credibility of autopsy report that they showed later on their channels, is now itself under scrutiny.[13] Also, even if we decide to go for the report, the report mentioned the "Provisional cause of death" and also stated that "However, viscera preserved for chemical analysis" which means they needed more analysis, hence the word "PROVISIONAL" was used in the report, unlike in this article.

Wikipedia is supposed to update itself in accordance to the new findings in the case, if they've decided to document a death case and saying it can't be changed because something was said "earlier" is not justifying. There has been some new revelations in the case which the article has completely ignored.

As to the sources, Republicworld.com's headline is misleading (the quote explicitly says "CBI's statement comes after few reports claimed that 'CBI officers independently informed about not having found any proof of homicide in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.'

Doesn't matter, did you read what the CBI has said? because what you replied doesn't reflect that you understood the point that was made there.

Since you're the one who's suggesting to stay with what media sources has said back then, ignoring all the new revelations, you must also not selectively approve or disapprove the reliability specific segment of digital media.

I believe you forgot to address :

If these highly reputed bodies like AIIMS and CBI both premier in their respective fields, have still not figured out the cause, how come wikipedia or these media sources came to any conclusion?

At this time, both murder OR suicide in this case is nothing but rumors. Many fake reports and documents were made even in the past events by criminals in order to save themselves, wikipedia must not fall for it.

I don't understand what's the issue anyone can have in calling it a "Death" (which by far is the only solid fact related to this case is known to public) instead of "suicide" or "murder"? The article SHOULD mention the claims but it must not choose either side by declaring it either a suicide or murder.

By keeping the state of this article as it is now, unfortunately wikipedia IS being a part of the controversy. Regardless of what any sources say, the author must preserve a neutral point of view as stated in WP:NPOV.