Talk:Anthony Bourdain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cause of death

• Several [1] [2]sources say suicide, which given his age and that he was seemingly in top form is surprising. Does this belong in the lede of the article? Sca (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's in the text now. And by the way, suicide is not a matter of age or physical condition. --2003:6F:8C63:BACC:E5E5:7339:C72E:271 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but generally people who are successful in their fields of endeavor are less likely to commit suicide than those who've met with rejection, failure, etc. One shouldn't need to explain that, even to an IP user. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Depression is such that it can hit no matter how successful you are. And the C.O.D. is not confirmed, so it's been taken out. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Sca: Yes, I am just a frigging little IP and still I have the right to speak my mind, when I see something as naive as your conjecture. You are reasoning like a kid. Fame and success don't prevent people from committing suicide, because there are two sides to their lives. The successful public life and their internal conflicts. What do you know about his worries, problems and inner demons? Suicide is the result of a disease called depression, that can hit all of us, but I shouldn't be telling this to a grown up man. Or should I?--2003:6F:8C63:BA48:DDF:62E5:79F1:865B (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I realize that; I was talking about the likelihood of suicide. BTW, both AFP and DPA state flatly that he committed suicide – although both attribute that to CNN (for which Bourdain worked). Sca (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: "The same qualities that drive a person to brilliance may drive that person to suicide. Highly successful people tend to be perfectionistic, constantly striving to meet impossible standards. And celebrities tend to be hungry for love, for the adoration of audiences. No perfectionist has ever met his own benchmarks, and no one so famished for admiration has ever received enough of it." That's from an article written about the suicide of Robin Williams. Being successful doesn't make one less likely to attempt suicide, it just means some of the underlying factors are different. And yes, now the C.O.D. is being given in a more concrete manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I request that you (and our Rt. Hon. IPU) cease lecturing me about the prevalence of depression and suicide, "inner demons," etc. I'm aware of all those aspects. The point in this case is, it's quite shocking. Guardian: "The girlfriend of TV chef Anthony Bourdain ... (said) friends and family reacted with shock to his death at the age of 61." That which is surprising or shocking, in conjunction with a celebrated personality, is newsworthy. (However, I don't think this is signficant enough for a blurb.) – Sca (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

AP and dpa quote the local prosecutor's office as saying Bourdain hung himself in his hotel room in posh Kaysersberg. – Sca (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Lecturing was not my intent, so for coming across that way I apologize. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

10-4 & thanx. Sca (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Resolved

mispelled word: couse of death 66.148.171.254 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Please correct a spelling error. It is a CAUSE of death. This was incorrectly spelled. 104.129.194.70 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Cause vs manner of death

The infobox currently says Cause of death = suicide. Suicide is in fact the manner of death, while hanging would be the cause of death. Natureium (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Source for "suicide by hanging"? All I've found is "discovered unresponsive" and "apparent suicide", etc. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"6:15 p.m. A prosecutor in France says Anthony Bourdain apparently hanged himself in a luxury hotel in the small town of Kaysersberg." Source --> The Latest: Commotion unusual in village where Bourdain died by The Associated Press, The Washington Post, June 8, 2018  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thx! 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 20:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Date of death

His date of death was actually the 7th. Source 2601:8C2:8280:2860:E412:ADC9:5E07:7C0D (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing in that source that nails the date of death. Bourdain was found dead in his room on the morning of Friday, 9 8 June. He took his life overnight. Without an exact time of death, we can only refer to the time that the body was discovered. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It was Friday, 8 June. Carlstak (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed my typo. WWGB (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Death and quoted media eulogies

Since when did WP become a place for endless eulogized quotations under the heading: Death? Where does it end? Maineartists (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate. I have reworked the content, pared it down, and removed all but one quotation per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:OVERQUOTE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Added quote by President Trump per WP:BALANCE and WP:RELEVANCE since we have a quote in the section from former president Obama. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A theory

The published descriptions of Bourdain's death all refer to "apparent suicide". One article mentions that he used his bathrobe belt. But there is no mention anywhere of a suicide note, and no source that I've found is even considering the possibility of Autoerotic Asphyxiation. I've seen no mention of depression, of any reason why he might be suicidal, any negative events in his life or any evidence that he might fear a long and painful death by illness.

I would be reluctant to classify a hanging death as a suicide without evidence to rule out an AEA accident. Can any editor find a news source that provides evidence to rule out AEA?Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No news sources so far have mentioned anything other than suicide. Keep this in mind, though: we aren't supposed to be sleuths and we don't use WP:SYNTH to draw conclusions on article subjects. Also keep in mind this is a WP:BLP - the policies on BLPs are stricter and allegations or supposition is just not appropriate for this article. If the coroner releases a statement saying his death was not a suicide, then we can add it into the content. But nothing before that. All reports are stating "apparent suicide". We should leave it at that for now. There's no WP:DEADLINE in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We don’t guess stuff on Wikipedia. We only cite reliable sources. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You only regurgitate what you are told and know nothing for sure. That is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.136.12 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive input User:71.74.136.12, I'm sure everyone really values it. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not true, Heroeswithmetaphors, if we cited reliable sources we wouldn't use journalist faff. There's far more material on Wikipedia that is of a purely political motivation that cites partisan hacks at mainstream media to support its claim more than any other reliable sources sadly. Interestingly though no one has mentioned this chaps racist agenda and his open hatred of European natives. Of which there's extensive sources, predominantly his own writing. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Is this page currently semi-protected? I see semi-protected requests on this page, but don't see anything saying that is currently the case. If it is not, then it should be as this article is being vandalized by unregistered users. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Basilosauridae. Yes, this article is currently protected. The relevant log entries are here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&page=Anthony+Bourdain>. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It may have been unprotected between protections when you noticed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bourdain suicide in lead

@Bus stop:, can you explain why suicide is "not important enough" to be at the end of in the lede? It is the single most prominent aspect of recent news coverage, and, like the case of Robin Williams, it will long be associated with the name Anthony Bourdain.

I'm normally not one to engage in edit-warring, but unless you can offer a persuasive argument based on editorial factors, rather than personal ones, I will feel compelled to put it back. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is simply a cause of death. His notability is much wider than his death by suicide. I didn't cite any personal reasons in my edit summary. In looking at the entire scheme of his life, the fact that he died by suicide is relatively insignificant. Obviously news sources are going to make much of this in the moment because a well-known individual's life has come to an end. And some causes of death are are more interesting than others. Suicide raises questions of motivation for suicide, meaning what caused him to take his own life. But that is not known. So, just saying in the lead that he committed suicide is uncalled for. If a note is discovered, for instance, in which he reveals why he is taking his own life, the act of suicide probably becomes more significant, in my opinion. Or if a person comes forward saying that Bourdain confided his intentions to commit suicide and the reason(s) why, that too would probably increase the significance of the suicide, in my opinion. But simply that he took his own life does not belong in the lead. It is covered as it should be in the body of the article.

I am moving this here from my Talk page so others may weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop, and I think his points are standard practice in the ledes of articles about notable persons who've committed suicide. Carlstak (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What about Robin Williams? Exact same scenario. Maineartists (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In the lead of Robin Williams we read "His wife attributed the reason for his suicide to Williams' struggle with Lewy body disease." Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point? It was still ruled a suicide. And it's in the lead. And it's one of the things, despite his long life of notability for his acting and comedy, that he's now known for. Just like Bourdain. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he was a comedian. He developed Lewy body dementia. He could no longer function as a comedian. His wife offers the suggestion that his awareness of this problem prompted him to take his life. Such information is more substantial than simply an assertion that someone died of suicide. I think this provides one of the many dividing lines between what belongs in a lead and what does not. Bare facts that are not essential to notability can and should be taken up in the body of the article. But such bare facts are not suitable for the lead because they are not important enough, in and of themselves, for inclusion in the lead. There is more information conveyed when sources elaborate on meaningful details. That information suggests that the disease (Lewy body dementia) so hobbled his ability to do that which was so important to him that he preferred death to the effects of that disease. One criteria for inclusion in a lead is substantiality, especially when the reasons for notability overshadow a given bare fact. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. "He could no longer function as a comedian" You knew Robin Williams? Did he leave you a note just before he died telling you all this? Wow. So, just because you don't know why Bourdain killed himself, somehow you deem his suicide unsubstantial? simply because you cannot offer a rationale to satisfy your own personal reasoning to include in a WP lede? There is nothing in WP policy or regulations that allowed the William's suicide to be placed in the lede that aligns with your personal assessment of his death and motives. Once the suicide of Bourdain is confirmed, there must have been a "reason" - just like Williams - and for whatever reason: he took his life. You have no idea whether it was related to work or not; and it should not matter. The suicide is notable, not the reason. You cannot make that judgment as an editor at WP. You were not there. Even if Bourdain's ex-wife says a million different things about his personal life, his death is still notable and will define him due to his popularity and media spotlight. Plain and simple. Everyone knows Virginia Woolf killed herself by drowning and it is right in her lede. She suffered from depression. The motive is not the reason it is in the lede. The notable act is. Her motives for killing herself (as you are trying to argue with Williams) have nothing to do with her career. You are projecting. Maineartists (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not "projecting". Please read and/or listen to this. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The point I have in mind is considerably into that interview. Please search in the transcript for the following: "By that point, you know, a lot of the symptoms of what we now understand he was going through were showing up. And, you know, Cheri, as she described it - I mean, she just made this suggestion of something that she hoped would lift his spirits a little bit - that he wasn't going out at night anymore and that he was starting to have what he felt were memory problems and not remembering dialogue. And so her suggestion to him was, well, why don't you go to one of the clubs here where we're filming and just make a surprise appearance, and you'll see really how much people love you and are happy to see you. And that tore him up - that he - that's when he expressed that to her - that feeling of, you know, I can't be funny anymore. And that was, I think, devastating for both of them." Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So what is your point here? It really makes no sense. Williams committed suicide for his reasons. Bourdain committed suicide for his. Where in WP policy does it say there must be a substantial reason for suicide inclusion in a celebrity lede? His death is notable and defining. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How is his death "defining"? Bear in mind that the article was created in 2004. We are capable of exercising judgement. You are writing "Williams committed suicide for his reasons. Bourdain committed suicide for his." But there is more substantial information as reported by sources in association with one suicide relative to the other suicide. Surely you would agree that we have margin for maneuverability on a question such as whether death by suicide gets included in a lead or not? Or are you of the opinion that policy dictates that too? A lead summarizes an article but not necessarily everything in it. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You say so what's my point? Did you read the part where the interviewer says "You describe him kind of breaking down and saying, you know, I'm not funny, and I can't be funny anymore." It is no longer a bare fact that he committed suicide. Sources are providing additional information surrounding the suicide. And the person being interviewed says "And that tore him up - that he - that's when he expressed that to her - that feeling of, you know, I can't be funny anymore. And that was, I think, devastating for both of them." The suggestion that a cognitive disorder might have led to a suicide makes this no longer a bare fact. The pairing of two facts—a suicide and a disease—makes for a more substantial third entity and arguably something warranting inclusion in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include only after suicide is confirmed. Unfortunately, because of Bourdain's popularity and celebrity relevance at the time of his death, and if it is confirmed to be suicide, the manner in which he died will be part of his notability. Just as with Robin Williams. Based on that, suicide should be placed in the lede once it is confirmed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include this is a major fact in his life and is what news will focus on for some time. Natureium (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As a simple unelaborated-upon fact it doesn't belong in the lead because his notability was considerable before his suicide. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include once confirmed. Maineartists (talk) 16:44, 9 Ju::ne 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Once again: AP, dpa and other RSs quote the local prosecutor's office as saying Bourdain hung himself in his hotel room in Kaysersberg. Further, Christian de Rocquigny du Fayel, the public prosecutor for Colmar, France, said "at this stage, nothing suggests the intervention of a third party." He added that Bourdain's body bore no signs of violence, and that toxicology tests would determine whether drugs or medications were present in the body.

How much confirmation do we need? Mr. Bourdain (of whose work I was a fan) committed suicide. When I put that, in very brief form, at the end of the third paragraph, I only said "apparent" because an official ruling probably hadn't yet been issued – but given the facts of the disposition of his body when discovered one cannot reasonably doubt that it will be issued and that the official ruling will be suicide.

Why are we hesitating to include this hugely salient fact in the lede? Whose feelings do we think we're protecting? Everyone who has taken an interest in this event now knows that it was suicide. That is a fact. Sca (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he "hung himself". Is this an article about someone who is notable for hanging himself? The information belongs in the body of the article but not necessarily in the lead. "Whose feelings do we think we're protecting?" Who said anything about hurting anybody's feelings? You are saying it "is a fact" and "How much confirmation do we need?" No one is saying that it didn't take place. Can you tell me why it needs to be in the lead? Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it's a key salient fact. Sca (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Lean eExclude – The Sunday NYTimes article tomorrow starts on page 1 and continues to two full pages inside. The first mention of suicide is in the third paragraph. (Whether or not that's in the lede depends on the definition of lede used.) The inside has a separate section on the suicide. Obviously, it belongs in the text. O3000 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I’m dismayed by some comments. his death is still notable and will define him. This man lived a fascinating life, providing great contributions over his 61 years. President Obama said of him: “Low plastic stool, cheap but delicious noodles, cold Hanoi beer. This is how I’ll remember Tony. He taught us about food — but more importantly, about its ability to bring us together.” How does his last hour of those 61 years define him? If he strapped explosives to his chest and killed a dozen people, that would be another matter. But, he quietly ended a difficult existence due to his personal demons. I know it’s OTHERSTUFF, but Hemingway is one of the most famous writers to have committed suicide – indeed a daughter followed this path. But, the suicide is deep down into Hemingway’s article. No, his manner of death does not belong in the lede any more than the unspectacular manners of death of anyone else. We all die. Let us concentrate on the lives in BLPs (and non-BLPs), not the last hour of 61 years. And, this is still a BLP O3000 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

<applause> Now would you like to back this with actual WP policy and article corroboration? You have not been able to prove your claim beyond personal opinion and editorial belief. "This is how I'll remember Tony" does not make an article at WP. Sorry. If you'd like to light a candle, please do so. But this is an encyclopedia; not a vigil. Maineartists (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude from Lede -- Maineartists wrote

  his death is still notable and will define him

  I would say that editors with this kind of take on this BLP article should not be editing this article. Of course it won't define him. This should be covered in the body, but not the Lede. Perhaps in the future if it eclipses the many other aspects of Bourdain's life, it could be mentioned. But there is no need to include it there now. BLPLEAD and Undue weight. Dave Dial (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how this article is a BLP. Sca (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BDP. EEng 02:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been here 14 years and don't know our BLP policy? To quote from BDP and BLP Discretionary Sanctions:

Editors are also subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN, which in May 2014 authorized the application of discretionary sanctions to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." The discretionary sanctions allow administrators to apply topic bans and other measures that may not be reverted without community consensus or the agreement of the enforcing administrator.

And

[F]or people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

Ok? Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Sca (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"I would say that editors with this kind of take on this BLP article should not be editing this article." You're free to take all of us to AN/I and plead your case. How far do you think such a report will get you? Think you'll be able to get such a topic ban proposal to stick? Good luck with that.

"Of course it won't define him." Of course it will define him to a certain degree because it is now one of the most known aspects of his life. There are those who have never heard of Bourdain until the day of his death and those who knew little of him before his death - what they will remember about him when they hear his name will be how he died. Readers will be coming to the article because of the manner of his death to read more about him. His death is a tragedy and people remember tragedies in regard to celebrities - there's a fascination attached to it. His death was out of the ordinary and will be a standout fact regarding him in the days and years to come - as such, it is now a part of his notoriety. Just as it is with Kurt Cobain, Robin Williams, Dana Plato, Amy Winehouse, Hunter Thompson, Marilyn Monroe, George Reeves, Ernest Hemingway, Freddie Prinze, and so on. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if death by suicide by hanging becomes associated with his name and even though some will become familiarized with his life only after his death, the lead is still not the appropriate place the inclusion of a bare fact such as that he died by suicide or by hanging because the mainstay of his life is in the realm of "an American celebrity chef, author, travel documentarian, and television personality who starred in programs focusing on the exploration of international culture, cuisine, and the human condition. He was considered one of the most influential chefs in the world by many commentators." His death has to be considered in the context of his life. A lede is a summary of an article but everything in an article is not found in a lede. A lede derives its significance not only from what it includes but from what it omits. His death and even his manner of death is just a "bare fact". It is not associated with any other fact to give it more weightiness. We are not for instance writing "Wracked with illness Bourdain took his own life" or "Facing a long prison sentence Bourdain chose to take his own life". Such compound assertions add weight to the fact of suicide and they seem to shed more light on the person. But there is very little "light" produced in the facts known in this instance. It doesn't belong in the lede because it is a simple fact. Yes, it is a more interesting fact than if he quietly died in his sleep. But placement in the lede gives it too much emphasis, and we should be exercising judgement on points like this. Policy isn't going to serve as a guideline in a question such as this. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. Since WP is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, only time will tell. We can only project. We are all projecting at this point; and this is merely WP:recentism. That is why I have not touched this article, Dave Dial; but thanks for the umbrella statement. Like other personalities, when their lives are summed up in a bio of sorts, the last line usually includes: "He/She committed suicide ... "; since it is not a usual mode of death. Thus the "defining" moniker. Poets (Sylvia Plath), Writers (Ernest Hemingway), Musicians (Kurt Cobain), Film Directors (Tony Scott), Sports Figures (Jovan Belcher), Actresses, (Lucy Gordon), Fashion Designers (Alexander McQueen), Wrestlers (Chris Benoit) ... etc, etc, etc .. - all "celebrities" - all who committed suicide and are listed at WP with this in their lede. Shall I go on? I have an endless list to back this claim. Maineartists (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have a crystal ball, how do you know only time will tell? EEng 01:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I spoke to time. She told me telling would violate omerta. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Baloney. Sca (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You can "small talk"" and cold cut all you want; but WP backs my claim. Maineartists (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Writing this as I binge-watch Parts Unknown on CNN (Bourdain is one of my heroes; having line cooked on acid being not least among the things we have in common). For comparison's sake, Encyclopædia Britannica's article on Bourdain, last edited on June 8, doesn't even mention his suicide. That's the classy way to deal with it, but such a restrained approach will never happen in a celebrity article on WP. Regardless of the way a subject's suicide is handled in other WP articles, in my opinion it doesn't belong in the lede, but a detailed treatment of the matter when more facts become known would be illuminating. Carlstak (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Treatment in mainline media on June 10 (two days after event):

 • AP, in "Bourdain's death means loss of a voice for immigrant workers," second paragraph:

Bourdain, who died Friday in France in an apparent suicide at age 61....

 • BBC, in "Anthony Bourdain: Vietnam noodle bar owner's shock at chef's death," third paragraph:

Bourdain was found dead in his hotel room on Friday in an apparent suicide.

That's how media professionals handle it – and very like my modest (10-word) attempt yesterday. Sca (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not "media". Obviously, the news will talk about what just happened. An encyclopedia talks to the entirety of the subject without emphasizing what happened most recently. WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The old WP maxim that "ITN is not a news ticker" is generally correct, though at times ITN looks like one. I'm fully aware that the article in question is not a news story. (A breaking news story about the event could start something like this: Celebrity chef and travelogue host Anthony Bourdain was found dead in his hotel room Friday in an apparent suicide.) Please note that my suggestion was to add the brief statement "Boudain died of apparent suicide on June 8, 2018, in Kaysersberg, France" as a background note at the end of the third paragraph, 190 words into the article.

Wikipedia is not a news medium, it's sort of a real-time encyclopedia. However, in recent years WP has evolved a news-media-like approach to news stories of high reader interest that are related to WP articles, including biographical articles about notable people. Current events about these people and topics have come to be treated somewhat similarly to news items.

Thus, Wiki is an information medium (though not a news medium). Further, many types of biographical accounts of notable people include key facts about the person's life high in the text. This is only logical. It serves the inquiring reader who comes to Wikipedia for information. Sca (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Please note that the AP and BBC articles cited directly above are not breaking news stories, they are follow-up feature stories about aspects of the deceased person's career and personality. Thanks. Sca (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on. He died two days ago. Of course these news articles exist because of his recent demise. An encyclopedia article should pass the ten year test. We are not a newspaper. O3000 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Roseanne Barr would agree with you . Considering a simple "racist" remark tweeted just a few days ago has made it into her lede. One cannot have it both ways here at WP. (But I'm sure you will rationalize why it should be in her lede; and Bourdain's suicide shouldn't) Maineartists (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I’ve never even read her article. Why would you make such an odd claim like: But I'm sure you will rationalize why it should be in her lede; and Bourdain's suicide shouldn't? O3000 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

In response to the editor's omniscient point of view: Whatever is included or not included in the Barr article has no bearing on what should be included in this article; the situation at her article could change at any time, and there's no reason an editor couldn't think that neither Barr's indiscretion nor Bourdain's suicide belong in the ledes of their respective articles. Carlstak (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

⇒ New York Times, June 10, 2018:

KAYSERSBERG, France — The suicide of Anthony Bourdain, the celebrity chef and television host, left the residents of Kaysersberg, a small village in the Alsace region of France, known for its wine, local food and architecture, puzzled about why he chose this place to end his life.

Mr. Bourdain’s sudden death at Le Chambard, a five-star hotel in the village, also sent shock waves through the world’s restaurant industry.

— Not enough confirmation yet? Sca (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Point? It's in the article in two places and the article is in three suicide related categories. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

⇒ The New Yorker, June 8, 2018:

I have long maintained a theory that Anthony Bourdain—who died on Friday, at the age of sixty-one, of an apparent suicide—was the best-known celebrity in America.

— Sca (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know. It's in the article. What's your point?

What's your user name? Sca (talk)

⇒ Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 9, 2018:

Er schrieb Bücher, reiste fürs Fernsehen um die Erde und tafelte mit Barack Obama. Nun aber nahm sich der US-amerikanische Koch Anthony Bourdain das Leben – am Rande von Dreharbeiten im Elsass.

— Sca (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion

It looks like nothing is getting settled, so how about a simple proposal. There is nothing questionable about this; it has been confirmed in hundreds of articles. I propose that we add to the end of the lead "In June 2018, at the age of 61, Bourdain committed suicide by hanging while working in France." Natureium (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Has his death been confirmed by French authorities as a suicide? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There are now more deaths by suicide in the US than auto accidents (not even including the fact that an unknown percentage of auto accidents are actually suicides). Alas, it’s not an unusual manner of death. A biography is about a person’s life, not a person’s death unless the death is what the person was known for. O3000 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The death is now one of the things he is, and will forever be, known for. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion days after the event. A suicide bomber will forever be known for his death. Bourdain was a best selling author, starred in several TV series, and won a shelf full of awards -- not a suicide bomber. O3000 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If that were true, there wouldn't be numerous articles focused on his suicide. It is a very notable part of his life now. It has been discussed on cable news shows for hours. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Natureium—what is meant by "It looks like nothing is getting settled"? By "settled" do you mean a decision to include in the lede that the man died by a self-inflicted hanging? I am opposed to including in the lede that the man died by self-inflicted hanging. We can discuss the pros and the cons of this, but we need not "settle" upon a decision favoring inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been a spate of recent suicides. Cable news has been talking about suicide for months as some consider it epidemic. Some of this may also be related to the Werther effect. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Bourdain had already achieved a kind of immortality before he died, in his written works and his television productions; it's likely that Unknown Parts will continue in syndication for many years, so whatever enduring fame he has will probably be based on the same human qualities that made the show so popular while he was alive. I'm sure he will be mentioned in discussions of the suicide "epidemic" for years to come, but new generations of people who discover his show will remember him as the same living, breathing great raconteur we know. His suicide will be a side note, and mention of it should have no place in the lede. Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Method absolutely should not be mentioned in accordance with guidelines for reporting on suicide to avoid contagion/copycat attempts. More info on these guidelines http://save.org/about-suicide/preventing-suicide/reporting-on-suicide/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laflaneuse (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Laflaneuse: Wikipedia does not adhere to outside guidelines, hence my reversion of your edit. If community consensus disagrees with my action then please revert me. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand all this emphasis on suicide. Seven members of Hemingway's family died by suicide. And yet, the lede and infobox of the Ernest Hemingway article don’t mention suicide at all. I know this is OTHERCONTENT. But, suicide just isn’t that unusual, whereas Bourdain was an unusual man. O3000 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet the articles on other people who were famous before committing suicide do have them mentioned in the lead. There are examples above. Natureium (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, of the 6 articles I clicked on at random on the first page of Category:Male suicides, 6/6 mentioned in the lead that they committed suicide. Natureium (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had looked at it. Don’t know who they are. One was in prison, one was a Palestinian being tortured by Saddam when he killed himself, one was a Japanese general in WWII. Meaningless. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, what? It's meaningless because you don't know who they are? All 1,336 people in that category? Natureium (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Using the term "Committed suicide" is discouraged per this discussion - FlightTime (open channel) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions on wikipedia about the terminology around suicide. There is no consensus against using the traditional terminology "committed suicide". Natureium (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few examples [3], [4] of people wanting to censor wikipedia and being shot down. Natureium (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You and the other editors that support inclusion in the Lede have had your say. Stop beating a dead horse. There is obviously no consensus to include it in the Lede. Just stop badgering everyone about it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus either way. If you want to just go on numbers, more people support inclusion, and no one has given a policy-based reason not to. Natureium (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong twice in one sentence. Dave Dial (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and explain. Natureium (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is part of the lead (MOS:LEADORDER). Bourdain’s cause of death is in his infobox, hence it is already in the lead. Issue solved! WWGB (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Clever strategy, but how can it be part of the lead if it is next to the lead? (MOS:INFOBOX) Natureium (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tarage's Law ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break on death in lead

According to a number of editors commenting in this discussion section, Bourdain's death and manner of death aren't notable enough for the lead. Yet -- and this is so strange -- his death and manner of death rate a separate section in the article and the tributes subsection now outweighs the death section. My feeling is that if his death is, as several editors are saying above, not notable enough for the lead and not a notable part of his life that he will be known for, then why is there a separate section for his death and it's so large? Please don't bring arguments of "Death sections are common in bio articles" (WP:OTHER) there's a policy on that (unless you have a policy that directly addresses this specific issue). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Because his death is recent and some editors are fixated on it (some of whom, it appears, don't like him and one who has suggested politics are involved). That is, those sections are too large and this is not a newspaper. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) I can't imagine why putting his suicide in the lead is indicative of editors not liking him (is that why "suicide" has been in the lead of the Robin Williams article since his death?); (2) Politics involved? - that's just ridiculous. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous? I can see no other reason behind this[5] considering that I've never even read that article and have no opinions on it. In any case, you asked a question on editor opinions, and I gave my honest answer. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right, O3000. There's not really another reason for mentioning that other article, nor the "scare quotes". In any case, per BDP, BLPLEADE and WEIGHT we should let some time pass and see what reliable sources say in a couple months or so. Dave Dial (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We exercise judgement. We are not writing according to rote. In the case of Robin Williams we find in the lede "His wife attributed the reason for his suicide to Williams' struggle with Lewy body disease." I would call that a compound assertion, consisting of two significant components. In the case of the Anthony Bourdain lede we only have one significant component. My argument would be that placement in the lede emphasizes the material under consideration and that such emphasis in the case of the Anthony Bourdain lede is uncalled for. There are many scenarios that could make the suicide something that should be included in the lede—but no such scenario applies. Is this the "culmination of a criminal investigation of Bourdain which threatened him with a lengthy prison sentence"? I concoct that story as an example of a scenario in which the suicide ties into other important factors in a hypothetical person's life. But nothing like that applies. A lede summarizes important facts in a biography's life. This is merely his death. Yes, I will concede that it is more interesting than dying in a more "uneventful" manner. But his death by a hanging suicide is not a significant part of his notability. The world is shocked not only by his death but also by the fact that he killed himself but it remains an isolated fact unrelated to anything else known about him. Placement in the lede emphasizes this fact which does not warrant such emphasis. A lede is to give a reader a quick glance at the reasons this person is well-known. Death by suicide in this case remains an incidental factor therefore omitting it from the lede is a defensible position to take. I feel that the placement of a bare fact that Anthony Bourdain committed suicide in the lede places undue emphasis on that fact. Extensive coverage of his death-by-suicide in the body of the article does not compel us to include this information in the lede. We exercise judgement and we don't write according to rote. Consensus in the final analysis will determine whether this is included or omitted from the lede. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally it already says "Cause of death—Suicide by hanging" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think comparison to another article can serve as a starting point for discussion. Such comparison can point out similarities and differences between the two articles. In the case of Robin Williams it is reliably sourced that a disease (Dementia with Lewy bodies) likely played a role in his decision to take his own life. While it has been reported that Bourdain was in a dark mood prior to committing suicide this is still different from a diagnosed disease such as in the case of Robin Williams. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

??? I like him just fine. Why on earth would you assume that adding relevant information to the lead would mean someone doesn't like him? I suppose that would mean the consensus is that Wikipedia doesn't like Robin Williams? Natureium (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you, and I have no idea what comments were made on Robin William's talk page or how that is relevant to anything. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly more relevant than your unfounded accusation that there are editors adding content based on dislike of Bourdain and (assumed) political affiliation. Actually, the more I think about it, mentioning the Williams article as a comparison is quite relevant and your claim about why editors are editing the article the way they are is simply childish. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked for opinions on why there was so much text about his death (that is why editors are editing the article the way they are), and I gave my opinion. Now you're criticizing me for answering your exact question. If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. And name-calling is not useful. I suggest you drop this.O3000 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm criticizing your opinion because it was completely unhelpful, completely off the wall, and completely in bad faith. Not to mention a distraction and total drift away from the topic. No one used name calling - "childish" was in regard to your accusations, not you. I suggest you back away from your bad-faith accusations and use WP:AGF as well as WP:FOC for a model on how to move forward in a helpful manner for this discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It was absolutely in good faith and a direct answer to your question. Please stop casting aspersions and WP:DTS. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're exhibiting a definite and classic case of WP:IDHT, Objective3000. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing in my opinion that his suicide should be included in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." While I disagree that his suicide will go down in history as a major part of his notability as it appears that some editors are arguing above, I would say it is part of "the basics in a nutshell" and completes a "concise overview of the article's topic". ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The interest here is in the macabre. "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." How is his death by a suicide hanging important in the context of his life? Appropriate weight should call for omitting a relatively off-topic preoccupation with the macabre. The Infobox already reads "Cause of death—Suicide by hanging". There isn't anything more to be said about it because nothing else is known about it. This isn't a double suicide-murder in which another life also ended. This isn't suicide to escape a life of pain brought on by disease. This isn't suicide because we know a trial has just ended and the person is facing a long prison sentence. In this instance the prose form of expression in the lede is redundancy serving little purpose. Why would the reader need to read a sentence in the lede telling of the suicide when the Infobox already conveys this information? The downside of inclusion is an inadvertent emphasis. We should avoid construing his life as being importantly about suicide. And that is for the too-simple-to-understand reason that his life is not about suicide. The life is only minimally defined by the self-inflicted death. In keeping with its minimal importance, aside from the public's morbid curiosity, we should omit this from the prose portion of the lede. The Infobox could not be more clear on this point. And there is little more that can be said about this suicide because the suicide does not relate to any other factors in the subject's life. In the final analysis it is merely incidental. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"The interest here is in the macabre" Unless the divine skill of omniscience is now for sale somewhere, I don't think anyone can say why editors truly want any content they advocate for going into an article. Not to mention your statement equals bad faith. "it is merely incidental" We'll know that in time, but for now, his suicide is not incidental as far as interest in this article goes. It's more than likely the reason why most readers are going to the article to begin with, and will for some time. As of now, the article is still around 150k views a day. The day of his death, it was at more than 4M. Before that? No meaningful traffic. [6] The suicide is what brought them there and will keep them going there. No, not incidental at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about editors. Sorry if not clear. Public interest is in the macabre. The man is known for something wholesome. That would be food, travel, interest in the common man. His suicide-death stands apart from that, by most considerations that I can think of. The suicide-death is discontinuous with that which preceded it. I guess you could say that with most deaths, but the point is that when considering what to put in the lede, one should consider the importance of inclusion of this fact versus the downside, which is emphasis. Is it not obvious enough from from the Infobox that "Cause of death—Suicide by hanging" conveys the exact same information as a prose version in the lede? We don't have to pander to the public's fascination with the suicide-hanging of a chef and traveler of the world who commented on, among other things, out-of-the-ordinary eating establishments. The duplication of this information not only in the Infobox but also in the lede adds unnecessary emphasis to the death by suicide. This is a matter of judgement. There is no right or wrong. Tastefully, we allow the Infobox to convey this information and leave it at that. It is a simple, isolated fact, not calling for elaboration, in the lede, anyway. The body of the article allows for more expansive treatment, although there is not much more that can be said: unexpectedly, at the age of 61, he took his own life. You can't really elaborate on that. We should treat this fact without undue emphasis. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We are editing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This is a biography. The etymology of biography is life writing; so let’s write about his life. The man lived 61 years. Why do the last hours of his life deserve inclusion in three parts of a biographic article? O3000 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death

• Several [7] [8]sources say suicide, which given his age and that he was seemingly in top form is surprising. Does this belong in the lede of the article? Sca (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's in the text now. And by the way, suicide is not a matter of age or physical condition. --2003:6F:8C63:BACC:E5E5:7339:C72E:271 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but generally people who are successful in their fields of endeavor are less likely to commit suicide than those who've met with rejection, failure, etc. One shouldn't need to explain that, even to an IP user. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Depression is such that it can hit no matter how successful you are. And the C.O.D. is not confirmed, so it's been taken out. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Sca: Yes, I am just a frigging little IP and still I have the right to speak my mind, when I see something as naive as your conjecture. You are reasoning like a kid. Fame and success don't prevent people from committing suicide, because there are two sides to their lives. The successful public life and their internal conflicts. What do you know about his worries, problems and inner demons? Suicide is the result of a disease called depression, that can hit all of us, but I shouldn't be telling this to a grown up man. Or should I?--2003:6F:8C63:BA48:DDF:62E5:79F1:865B (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I realize that; I was talking about the likelihood of suicide. BTW, both AFP and DPA state flatly that he committed suicide – although both attribute that to CNN (for which Bourdain worked). Sca (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: "The same qualities that drive a person to brilliance may drive that person to suicide. Highly successful people tend to be perfectionistic, constantly striving to meet impossible standards. And celebrities tend to be hungry for love, for the adoration of audiences. No perfectionist has ever met his own benchmarks, and no one so famished for admiration has ever received enough of it." That's from an article written about the suicide of Robin Williams. Being successful doesn't make one less likely to attempt suicide, it just means some of the underlying factors are different. And yes, now the C.O.D. is being given in a more concrete manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I request that you (and our Rt. Hon. IPU) cease lecturing me about the prevalence of depression and suicide, "inner demons," etc. I'm aware of all those aspects. The point in this case is, it's quite shocking. Guardian: "The girlfriend of TV chef Anthony Bourdain ... (said) friends and family reacted with shock to his death at the age of 61." That which is surprising or shocking, in conjunction with a celebrated personality, is newsworthy. (However, I don't think this is signficant enough for a blurb.) – Sca (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

AP and dpa quote the local prosecutor's office as saying Bourdain hung himself in his hotel room in posh Kaysersberg. – Sca (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: Lecturing was not my intent, so for coming across that way I apologize. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

10-4 & thanx. Sca (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I added suicide to article lead section, as it's a major factor in this story. Sca (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this major salient fact was arbitrarily and unilaterally deleted by User:Bus stop. I request that it be replaced (at the end of the third paragraph). See further discussion below. Sca (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I read a tribute to Anthony Bourdain by Kathleen Purvis, the food editor for the Charlotte Observer and she mentioned several of his books. I looked at his book A Cook's Tour at amazon.com and read this quote, which I typed up myself but think it is exactly as stated in the book: "I may love cooking, and I certainly love the life of the professional chef, but I did not, at age forty-five, forty-six, or ever again, want to find myself slopping out brunches in some West Village café when my knees went completely and my brain turned, finally, to mush." So his suicide was probably due to his fear of brain deterioration. If the quote is from a different book, please edit this. Thanks. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

References

That’s original research, and may have just been what he was thinking at that moment or more likely just a writer's turn of phrase. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

I recommend changing "A former user of cocaine, heroin, and LSD" to simply "A former user of cocaine and heroin", for the following reasons:

1) In contrast to cocaine and heroin, LSD is not physically addictive (in fact, this is true of all hallucinogens). Lumping them together could perpetuate this misconception. 2) LSD is already explicitly mentioned in the lengthy quote immediately following this sentence, along with a litany of other illicit drugs not mentioned in the preceding clause. 104.174.103.62 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Their physical addiction properties--or in the case of LSD, the lack of addiction properties--was not what brought them together in the paragraph to be mentioned. The context for them all being discussed together was that these were chemical agents that the subject had used at one time or another.  spintendo  19:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What will happen with the footage shot in Alsace?

As far as I understand, Mr. Bourdain took his own life in the middle of filming a new episode of his series; he had already filmed several scenes, notably in Colmar (1). What will happen with that footage? Are there plans to edit it and broadcast it? Who does have the last word on that kind of decisions at CNN? --Edelseider (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you asking this here? You've been around here long enough to know that article talk pages are for discussion of articles. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they have scenes from multiple trips in the can, but haven’t commented on what they’ll do with them. In any case, I don’t think it would make sense to add any info here until after they are aired as we don’t usually talk about the future. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: yes, and the subject of that article had a contract with an employer, so it makes sense to ask what the employer intends to do. --Edelseider (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. That's about the subject of the article, not the article itself. WP:NOTFORUM Natureium (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Good. I suppose that one day a sourced sentence like "the unfinished material Bourdain left when he died was shelved/broadcast/erased/integrated into a documentary" will appear and so my question will be answered. --Edelseider (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We have the official answer now. Of all the posthumous footage, everything will be broadcast, except the scenes shot in Alsace, which will not be shown: https://www.travelandleisure.com/culture-design/tv-movies/parts-unknown-next-season. That general information should be included in the article. --Edelseider (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Health prior to suicide

I think something readers might want to be informed about is Bourdain's health prior to his suicide. This is clearly one of the most striking things in the article, and it's surprising not to see any mention of it in an article about his life. Would it be fair to say that such a discussion belongs in the article? Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits ) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that can reliably speak to his health before his death? If they exist, we can evaluate if the content belongs or not. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Method of Suicide

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Saying that Mr. Bourdain committed suicide is fine. Saying he committed suicide by hanging violates media guidelines on ethical reporting on suicides. Granted, Wikipedia is not bound by outside guidelines, but in this case, why is it so important to you that by hanging is emphasized? You asked to cite this. I posted a link to the Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicide in the reason for my edit: https://www.cpa-apc.org/wp-content/uploads/Media-Guidelines-Suicide-Reporting-EN-2018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs) 07:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia is not accountable to guidelines written by Canadian psychiatrists (2) the method of suicide has been reported in multiple independent reliable sources (3) Bourdain was a popular figure and many readers are no doubt interested in all aspects of his life and death (4) Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@WWGB: As you mentioned, the reports of his suicide are out there, and if anyone wants to see what the method of his suicide was then they can read the sources. Thanks for mentioning your [4] points; will study them some more. @Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thank you for saying my edit was made in good faith. I had seen previous roll back on this hanging issue and I did not know that Wikipedia does not follow media guidelines. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

a) Wikipedia also does not specifically NOT follow media guidelines, either (i.e. just because it's in an outside guideline, that is not an excuse to specifically act counter to it). WP policy is probably more similar to "media guidelines" than not. If anything, WP should be more sensitive in such matters because we don't have the added burden of having to attract eyeballs (at least not in the direct, immediate way as the mass media).

b) As time passes, some people that have died in this way remain closely associated with their manner of death while others do not (e.g. Robin Williams' death is not something I immediately think about when seeing Mrs. Doubtfire in the TV schedule). Why not err on the side of caution until and unless his death somehow manages to overshadow his long and storied career?

c) The man had family and friends that don't need to be reminded of the details of his death when they refer to the article or when the lede pops up in a Google search or the countless other places that refer to WP. Sometimes it's OK to be human. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. And I'm not sure of the value of including details; unless we're creating a suicide "how-to" guide. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Saying suicide by hanging is not 'creating a suicide "how-to" guide,' a silly assertion. I strongly support the ref'd inclusion. "The man had family and friends that don't need to be reminded of the details of his death when they refer to the article". We could say the same about Colonel Gadaffi and many others. If they don't want to be reminded they can choose not to read the bio. Our readers who didn't know the details will be informed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that without reading this biography a reader wouldn't know that it's possible to commit suicide by hanging? Because that's all that they're going to learn by reading this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and writes to inform, not to protect people who may be particularly sensitive to certain things. Natureium (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that we end up with how he hung himself, which is a method I had not heard of before and is available without chandeliers or pipes. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia is not bound by the guidelines the original poster linked to. (2) At the Robin Williams article, COD is listed (and has been since the coroner's report was released) as "Asphyxiation due to suicide by hanging". If asphyxiation is supported by reliable sources in Bourdain's case, this article should say the same as the Williams article. (3) Stating "by hanging" is not a how-to guide to suicide; there's no issue with allowing that wording to stay in the article. Even if someone adds specifics later, no big deal - just remove it. As has been done at the Williams article since practically the day of his death. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In the infobox it says the word "hanging" and the note links to "The Latest: Commotion unusual in village where Bourdain died" which does not have any coroner document or statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryMeAnOcean (talk • contribs)

A coroner's report would be a primary source; the linked article is a secondary source. Per Wikipedia guidelines, this is an appropriate source. Additionally, Wikipedia encourages in-line citation, but doesn't require it. I bring this up because multiple additional sources for the article confirm this fact. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 We should be aware of the impact of reporting "committed suicide". We should instead 'absolve' the victim of fault by using "died by suicide" to reduce the stigma about mental disorders and seeking mental healthcare and challenge myths about suicide. It would be ideal to not specify the method of suicide which, in my opinion, sensationalises the act, but if it is necessary to mention the method per WP:CENSOR then I suggest "died by suicide by ***". Waddie96 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that there is some edit reverting going on related to this "committed" vs "died by" debate. I think that both phrases are equally valid and that arguing over them isn't particularly productive. Both phrases express the exact say meaning; I don't think saying "died by suicide" is sugar coating or a distortion of facts; I would be against it if it were a way to censor the facts, but I don't believe it is. I support the use of either phrase. However, I disagree with the second part of your comment about removing the method of suicide for the reasons that you already specified. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought the change to "Bourdain died by suicide by hanging" (made by another editor) was better than "committed suicide by hanging" (I changed it to "died of suicide by hanging") because it doesn't imply that he did something morally wrong. It's more NPOV than ""committed suicide", which has some of the same negative connotations as "commited murder". A person "commits" murder, a reprehensible criminal act which no one would deny is morally wrong; suicide may be a crime in many places, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong. Also, I can't see how saying someone "died of suicide" is a euphemism; "suicide" is the operative word here, by its very definition. Carlstak (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been argued many times on wikipedia. There are currently 411 uses of "died by suicide" and 21,700 uses of "committed suicide". We do not go by any type of media guidelines, and "committed suicide" has been the standard language for quite some time. Here's one discussion that I could find on a similar article. There is no wikipedia-wide guideline. Natureium (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: The discussion you linked is from 2014, much has changed in the landscape of the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health since then, and simply stating that a topic has been discussed before does not make it less elligible for discussion (see WP:PRIOR and WP:CCC). I am not asking for us to abide by media guidelines, I am asking for us to consider the stigma related to mental disorders and suicide and how we can change that by making a simple phrase change – eliminating the negative connotation behind suicide. There is no Wikipedia-wide guideline because this is a relatively new desired changed, that begins somewhere. Please read Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed" in suicide terminology. I hope we can open our minds to change and consideration. Waddie96 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Waddie96, Wikipedia is not a soap box and is not a means to promote an agenda. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

sources

• "Lydia Tenaglia, who, along with her husband, Chris Collins, recruited Bourdain to television for “A Cook’s Tour,” and now runs Zero Point Zero"

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/anthony-bourdains-moveable-feast

• "(Lydia Tenaglia) "picked up Kitchen Confidential, ... Upon learning that Bourdain was proposing an Innocents Abroad-style travel journal as his follow-up, Tenaglia saw the rich narrative possibilities of the idea and picked up the phone. The ultimate result of that cold call was A Cook’s Tour"

• https://www.producersguild.org/blogpost/923036/287989/LYDIA-TENAGLIA--When-It-Comes-To-Embracing-New-Frontiers-In-Nonfiction-TV-The-Producer-and-PGA-Member-Has-No-Reservations

• "won a Daytime Emmy Award in 2014 for his work on the PBS cooking series Mind of a Chef"

• http://www.foodrepublic.com/2014/06/23/the-mind-of-a-chef-wins-big-at-daytime-emmys/

• legal documents reportedly show he was worth just $1.21 million

• https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a21234112/anthony-bourdain-net-worth/

69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ottavia Busia

Please put div. before 2016 to show that he is divorced. IhateixlSTEM 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IhateixlSTEM (talk • contribs)

Bourdain's divorce was never finalized. WWGB (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Asia Argento Controversy

As of September 2018 there are reports that CNN has removed two episodes of Anthony Bourdains Parts Unknown show due to the Asia Argento Scandal and allegations that Bourdain was named in a hush money scandal to Jimmy Bennett prior to his death.

https://www.eonline.com/news/964971/cnn-removes-anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-episodes-featuring-asia-argento

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/asia-argento-anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-cnn-1202924832/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/asia-argento-parts-unknown-cnn-jimmy-bennett-bourdain

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/21/asia-argento-anthony-bourdain-paid-off-accuser-making-absolutely-false-claims-against-me/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/21/asia-argento-anthony-bourdain-paid-off-accuser-making-absolutely-false-claims-against-me/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:F11B:59AB:7413:43B6 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018 "Personal life" > "Bourdain was known for having been a heavy smoker"

now:

Bourdain was known for having been a heavy smoker. In a nod to Bourdain's (at the time) two-pack-a-day cigarette habit, Thomas Keller once served him a 20-course tasting menu which included a mid-meal "coffee and cigarette": a coffee custard infused with tobacco, together with a [[foie gras]] mousse.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bourdain|first=Anthony|pages=248–49|title=A Cook's Tour|location=New York|publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing]]|year=2001|isbn=1-58234-140-0}}</ref> Bourdain stopped cigarette smoking in mid-2007 for the sake of his daughter.<ref>{{cite news|title=Anthony Bourdain Speaks His Mind with No Reservations|publisher=TV Guide|url=http://www.tvguide.com/news/anthony-bourdain-reservations-39911|access-date=March 20, 2008|date=January 7, 2008|first=Joseph|last=Hudak}}</ref>

change:

Bourdain was known for having been a heavy smoker. For ''[[A Cook's Tour (TV series)|A Cook's Tour]]'' episode ''The French Laundry Experience'', in a nod to Bourdain's (at the time) two-pack-a-day cigarette habit, Thomas Keller served him a 20-course tasting menu which included a mid-meal "coffee and cigarette": a coffee custard infused with tobacco, together with a [[foie gras]] mousse.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.skyfilms.com/episode-lists/A_COOKS_TOUR_Episode_Des.doc |title=A COOK’S TOUR – Episode Descriptions |last= |first= |author-link= |date= |website=Entertainment in Motion |script-title= |trans-title= |type= |format= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180822233825/http://www.skyfilms.com/episode-lists/A_COOKS_TOUR_Episode_Des.doc |archive-date=2018-08-22 |dead-url=no |access-date=2018-08-22 |quote=18. San Francisco: “The French Laundry Experience”; Country: USA; Chef Tony Bourdain makes a pilgrimage to meet the man he considers to be the finest chef in the western world: Thomas Keller, chef and owner of The French Laundry in Yountville, California, located in the Napa Valley outside of San Francisco. <!-- Before meeting Keller, Tony finds himself marooned in the City by the Bay for a few days, and decides to check out some favourite spots recommended by the locals. The Swan Oyster Depot specializes in West Coast shellfish and also make a mean clam chowder. From there, he checks out an ice cream parlor on the west side of the city, where he’s told he can taste a favorite of his… durian ice cream. Then it is on to The French Laundry. Thomas Keller invites Tony to meet one of the produce purveyors of the restaurant. -->… Tony has also invited several chef friends, including Scott Bryan of NYC’s Veritas and Eric Ripert of NYC’s Le Bernardin, to join him for a special menu prepared by Keller himself. The high point in the meal comes when Keller sends Tony a specially-crafted custard made from tobacco leaves and coffee.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1260603/|title=The French Laundry Experience|author=|date=|publisher=|accessdate=22 August 2018|via=imdb.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Bourdain|first=Anthony|pages=248–49|title=A Cook's Tour|location=New York|publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing]]|year=2001|isbn=1-58234-140-0}}</ref> Bourdain stopped cigarette smoking in mid-2007 for the sake of his daughter.<ref>{{cite news|title=Anthony Bourdain Speaks His Mind with No Reservations|publisher=TV Guide|url=http://www.tvguide.com/news/anthony-bourdain-reservations-39911|access-date=March 20, 2008|date=January 7, 2008|first=Joseph|last=Hudak}}</ref>

wiki:

Bourdain was known for having been a heavy smoker. For A Cook's Tour episode The French Laundry Experience, in a nod to Bourdain's (at the time) two-pack-a-day cigarette habit, Thomas Keller served him a 20-course tasting menu which included a mid-meal "coffee and cigarette": a coffee custard infused with tobacco, together with a foie gras mousse. Bourdain stopped cigarette smoking in mid-2007 for the sake of his daughter.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: It's difficult to read the text, Could you reformat your request so that the markup is displayed correctly?  spintendo  07:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The term 'commited' suicide is outdated and offensive.

Regarding what user Manicmondayyy wrote in the summary of the last edit: "The term 'commited' suicide is outdated", I remain surprised and disappointed that so many editors here have doggedly defended use of the term "committed suicide", which is outdated and offensive; as Stacy Freedenthal has written in Language Matters: "People in the suicide prevention field discourage the use of the term 'committed suicide'... The verb "commit" (when followed by an act) is generally reserved for actions that many people view as sinful or immoral... the act of suicide almost always is the product of mental illness, intolerable stress, or trauma." There's really no excuse for not recognizing what should be a self-evident fact; it's a matter of simple human consideration for someone who must have been under intolerable internal stress, if we give his own statements any credence. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times. Try the search box. Natureium (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you followed your own advice you would know that I've participated in the discussion, and you've replied similarly. That's what I was referring to when I said, "I remain surprised and disappointed." Carlstak (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you hoping to accomplish by opening this section then? Natureium (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I was anticipating that someone would revert Manicmondayyy's edit, and it's no surprise that it was you. I would hope that this discussion will continue and that eventually a consensus to remove the unnecessary "committed" will develop, one that respects the consensus among mental health professionals. It's not a closed issue, regardless of your own projections. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In other words, it didn't turn out the way you wanted and that you'll keep persisting until it does. Got it. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

And that's your projection. Carlstak (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's a summary of your last statement. You didn't say "consensus" in the normal sense, you said "...a consensus to remove the unnecessary 'committed' will develop": in other words, it didn't turn out the way you wanted and that you'll keep persisting until it does. --Calton | Talk 03:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's you putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. My words can stand by themselves without your unsolicited "summary", so please desist. Carlstak (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

committed suicide isn't outdated and should be used here, sourced. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's summarizing what you said to demonstrate why it's pure nonsense: if you didn't want people to point out that you said you would persist until you got your way in defiance of the actual consensus, perhaps you shouldn't said that you would persist until you got your way in defiance of the actual consensus. I notice, in all your protests, you haven't actually denied that you would persist until you got your way in defiance of the actual consensus. Why is that? --Calton | Talk 09:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh, "summaries" don't contain more verbiage than the text they are summarizing. Surely you can find something more productive to do on WP than obsessing over my comment. Carlstak (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh, it was. But since you seemed to have had extreme difficulty in understanding a simple point -- that your use of "consensus" was entirely wrong, self-serving, and not going to fly -- I felt I should expand upon that until it sank in. And since it hasn't sunk in or you're pretending not to understand, I'll leave it at that and just provide a simple answer: no. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What, another scorcher? You poor soul. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I see this keeps being re-visited. We aren't in the suicide prevention field, when their efforts become so mainstream that the reliable sources no longer say committed, then we also will change our language but not until then. Please stop reverting to this version, and especially without achieveing consensus here. The way to achieve consensus is pproviding lots of high-quality sources using your terminology re Bourdain. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We should use standard English. The commonly encountered phrase is "committed suicide". We aren't here to moralize. We should not use contrived language to satisfy a niche that argues for a Right to die philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that philosophy but we should not use articles on other subjects to give gratuitous expression to a philosophy such as the "right to die" philosophy. Communication takes priority over promoting moral philosophies. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly dislike “committed suicide” as it’s technically inaccurate as well as derogatory. But, we still say that one “dials” a phone number, and we follow RS. Kinda like a bus doesn’t always stop at a bus stop and sometimes stops where there is no bus stop, eh Bus stop. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you could say that bus stops are misbehaved. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

BOTH Presidents Obama and Trump's comments need to be included

I don't even know why this debatable. It's precedent to include statements from sitting presidents on the death of most notable public people. So over this type of nitpicking. Either both of them are included, or neither are. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's precedent to include statements from sitting presidents on the death of most notable public officials

Sez who? Also, Bourdain wasn't a public official.

Sez most Wikipedia articles...? Also, I mistyped, I meant "person" and wrote "official". Whoops.

Either both of them are included, or neither are.

Obama famously met with and ate with Bourdain, on camera -- or did you miss that? -- while Trump had no relationship whatsoever that I've ever heard of. So no, your unilateral declaration makes no sense. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a statement from a sitting President be considered unworthy...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the hell WOULD a statement from a sitting President be considered worthy regarding someone not in public service, nor relevant to his life or career? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a statement from President Obama on the death of Robin Williams, included at the top of the tribute section. Obama never met Robin Williams (to the best of my knowledge, so they're goes your "it's less worthy cuz Trump never met Bourdain" argument), but his statement is included because of the importance of these kinds of statements from sitting presidents. This is precedent. This is literally how things operate. I don't understand why this is an issue. Out of fairness, I think it is fair to include BOTH the Obama and Trump statements.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is one example. I'll give you 100 more if need be.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Go complain on the Robin Williams page then, because that's not how precedent works on Wikipedia. Mindless whataboutism being called "fairness" -- fairness to whom, exactly? --- isn't how Wikipedia works. And neither is edit-warring, as you found out in June. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is one example. I'll give you 100 more if need be.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, thanks for citing something unrelated and using an ad hominum attack against me instead of arriving at a consensus. Shows where your priorities really are...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus not precedent. I personally find arguments based on the content of other articles irrelevant due to the fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress so just because an article exists doesn’t mean it’s is 100% perfect. The correct way to debate this would be open an RfC to reach a consensus either way. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the RfC (though I take issue with the idea of "Wikipedia is a work in progress" being used as some sort of catch-all defense). Would both the Obama and Trump comments be gone until a consensus is arrived at?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m not 100% what the policy says but typically disputed content that an editor wants to add is kept out until discussion is over and disputed content for deletion is kept until after discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So is this that a yes or no...? Because User:Calton just reverted the Obama comment despite no consensus, which I think speaks to the way they have handled this entire discussion.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You should read WP:POINT, which is a page that expressly discourages you (under the threat of sanctions) from making edits like the one in which you removed the Obama quote. What should happen is that you should try to think of good arguments for why the Trump quote should be inserted. You should not falsely accuse others of "ad huminum attacks" in the same edit in which you say it "shows where your priorities really are" which is a fallacious ad hominem argument and a personal attack because that's liable to do nothing more than prejudice any new editor to this discussion against you, and could result in you being blocked from editing.

So here's what you do: Make an effort to present a logically sound and compelling argument that the Trump quote should be included. Write it here, and wait for responses. If they agree that you make a good argument, then you can insert it. If they don't, then just let it go. You can't win every battle, even if you're right. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried, but User:Calton immediately dismissed my points and told me to "go complain on the Robin Williams page." Is that an example of acting maturely...? I think it's clear that you have assumed good faith, but they have not. I admit that my response could be read as personal attack, and for that I apologize. But also to be fair, User:Calton started it. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion (if anyone cares), the argument "the statement of a sitting US president should be included" is valid. Even Trump doesn't comment on everything and every death (we may get that impression from his tweeting, but he actually does not send out messages on every topic, all the time), so when he does, it has weight, not because of his personality, but because of his role. --Edelseider (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My removal of .Fireflyfanboy’s reinstatement of Trump’s comment was because I didn’t like the primary source. I think it should remain removed during discussion as there doesn’t appear to be consensus for inclusion at this time. Fireflyfanboy’s removal of Obama’s comment was clearly WP:POINTy, and therefore disruptive. I think it should remain included during discussion as they knew one another and the only editor against inclusion did not state a valid guideline for removal. I can see an argument that a sitting president’s comment on a death could call for inclusion; although I don’t think there is any policy about this and wouldn’t want everything Trump has said about every person included in various articles as he tends to make comments about everyone. Frankly, Bourdain would probably not like inclusion as he had “utter and complete contempt” for the president[9]; but I realize that’s irrelevant if not actually a reason for inclusion. I have no opinion on inclusion yet, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and would like to see arguments better than WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's a statement from a sitting President is substantial enough. Moreover, while Obama made an official press release for most famous celebrities who died during his administration, Trump has typically stayed away from it. (The only other recent celebrity passing he commented on that comes to mind is Aretha Franklin.) The fact that he would choose to comment on Bourdain specifically (especially on a platform other than Twitter, which is how he honored Franklin) could, in and of itself, be considered significant.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any good reason not to, I'll be readding the quote shortly...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We gave our reasons. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I gave you a reason better than WP:OTHERCONTENT, as requested. Any response?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's rather clear that you do not have consensus for this addition. Restoration would be edit-warring. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked you politely for a response for something that I added that YOU requested, jerk!!! You changed the subject!!! Thanks for being such an obstructionist, I would expect nothing less from a WikiZealot like you!!! Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I think the whole tributes section is sort of undue. I think if someone comments on a death it doesn’t have encyclopedic value. If someone does something (ex: start/donate to a charity, work to have laws changed, financed a memorial site etc etc) it does have encyclopedic value. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents here, the things Trump says do not get to be included on every Wikipedia article now just because he got elected POTUS. 24.220.184.123 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Many readers are likely to have preexistent ideas about Trump because Trump is a well-known figure. Therefore I think Trump's comments on the passing of Bourdain should be included. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there an English translation of that available? Because that sentence makes no sense whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What is not clear? I'm simply saying that Trump is well-known. On that basis I think readers would be interested in the comments by Trump on the passing of Bourdain. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Suicide in lede

I don't think the suicide warrants a place in the lede. It is mentioned in the body of the article, as it should be, and it is also mentioned in the Infobox. Inclusion of the suicide in the lede gives uncalled-for prominence to this factor in the biography. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Many biographies include information about the death of the person in the lead. His suicide got a lot of media attention and is of interest to many people. Natureium (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Given there was a lot of media attention, they likely already know he took his own life. Since we don't put details in the lede, we aren't adding anything of interest for these readers. They can read the body. O3000 (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? We shouldn't include things in the lead that people might already know because they were the topic of media attention? That makes no sense. If it's the subject of a lot of media attention, it's clearly worth including. His death is not a detail, it's a major part of his life story. The lead summarizes the article. Natureium (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It is kind of silly when everything goes in the lede. This is the cause of death, not the reason for notability. Could Carlstak weigh in here? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You're pinging people that support your point of view? Natureium (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I felt this pinging would not be inappropriate because the User played an integral part in the above section on a related topic. It turns out that they don't support my "point of view". They write "I don't oppose a mention of his suicide in the lede". Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s been commented here that his suicide was what is most notable about him. If that were true, he wouldn’t be in WP to start with. Always seemed odd to me that the last one day of one’s long life belongs in the lede – unless you tied explosives to your chest and took out a dozen people in the process. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Many biographies include information about the death of the person in the lead. His suicide got a lot of media attention and is of interest to many people." It is pointless to discuss "many biographies". That is not a productive way to approach this question. As concerns "media attention", we should put such attention in perspective. A well-known person died, and that death was the result of suicide. This is shocking news. But I think an article lede concerns itself with factors of more long-lasting purpose. It is because he was a celebrity chef that his suicide matters. But we should indicate that by omitting the suicide from the lede. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't oppose a mention of his suicide in the lede per se, but I do oppose it with the disputed word "committed" attached. There need be no invocation of what Bus Stop calls the "right to die" philosophy (there is no such philosophy); I will oppose it on purely lexicographical grounds. Oxford Dictionaries defines commit thus: "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)". Commit is a loaded word and imputes a moral judgement in violation of neutral point of view WP policy. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. There is no value judgement attached to the word "committed", and this word has been discussed many time as you can see in the archives of this page and other pages. Natureium (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This can be discussed in separate sections. We have The term 'commited' suicide is outdated and offensive and we have Suicide in lede. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I realize all that. See far above on the page. I'm merely making clear my position and qualifying my statement on whether or not we should mention his suicide in the lede, for pity's sake, not trying to resurrect the issue. Carlstak (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How many times in this article does it have to say that Bourdain died by suicide? That is a separate question from: should we use the phrase "committed suicide"? Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, logically, in the infobox where it is supposed to go, in the lead, which summarizes the article, and in the body of the article where it is discussed in detail with sources. Natureium (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Infobox chef" contains a parameter for "cause of death", otherwise I would argue to omit from Infobox too. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Natureium. It is a very notable part of his biography and so should certainly be in the lede. There are no BLP issues, as might be the case if an attempt had failed and been widely publicized. We have already discussed and rejected not using the phrase committed suicide for "moral" reasons. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Its is sadly ironic to read that somebody's death is an important part of his/her biography. Death is in fact the starting point of the thanatography, because with death, which concludes life (bios), starts the writing (graphy) about that death (thanatos). --Edelseider (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

For comparison only, the lede of Ernest Hemingway wouldn't be complete without a mention of his suicide, in my opinion, since it became a vital part of the posthumous "legend", so to speak, of someone who had a larger-than-life image while living. I'm not sure that applies to Anthony Bourdain, as much as he was admired and his TV shows extolled, but I don't have any objection to a mention of it in the lede. An editor requested that I weigh in, so I did. It's just my stance, as I've said before, that the word committed is unnecessary to communicate the action and nothing would be lost by removing it. I'm not advocating for its removal, just noting that my position on retaining a mention of his suicide in the lede is conditional. I do think it's odd that some editors have so fetishized the word committed itself. Carlstak (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede of Hemingway does not include suicide. Although it was well known, it was such a minor part of his life and works. His daughter’s suicide is mentioned in her article. But, there’s ample logic behind that. That’s OTHERSTUFF. I’m still troubled with the text in this article’s lede as I fail to see how his last day is a defining characteristic of his life, albeit those that have never heard of him may think such. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, read the last sentence of the Hemingway article lede. It says: "In 1959, he bought a house in Ketchum, Idaho, where, in mid-1961, he shot himself in the head." Mentioning the unnatural death of an article's subject in a summation of their life story is not impertinent. I don't recall anyone saying it's "a defining characteristic of his [Bourdain's] life", but it is an important fact that a man who once said he was "the luckiest son of a bitch in the world." decided to kill himself. Carlstak (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I do think it's odd that some editors have so fetishized the word committed itself." How is standard English an example of fetishization? Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of those who oppose using the prejudicial word "commit" with "suicide" is that as public mores and notions of what is acceptable in public discourse have evolved, out-of-date terms like this are no longer "standard" English (or shouldn't be, anyway). As an analogy, it was once acceptable and "standard" to refer to mentally challenged persons as "retarded", but decent people don't do that anymore. To insist on the continued use of an increasingly antiquated term that it is unnecessary to communicate that someone took his own life is to make a fetish of usage that serves no indispensable social or rhetorical purpose. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, he also said he battled depression much of his life and was trying to keep from killing himself for the sake of his daughter. O3000 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You refer to the word usage under discussion as being "prejudicial". I don't think it is. But my opinion isn't what matters. It is not just any source that would use the word "committed", as in the phrase "committed suicide". Good quality sources such as The Economist, in the headline of an obituary will write "Anthony Bourdain committed suicide on June 8th". My argument is that this is standard English. It is the way the language is used. Your argument and the argument of the author of the article you cited is that we should use alternative language. All well and good—if others like and approve your suggestion. But I don't approve of the suggestion. I think the concept of "commitment" is integral to the act of suicide. "Commitment" is defined as being "dedicated to a cause, activity" and "an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action." I think those implications are appropriate to the act of suicide. But my approval isn't what matters. I would argue that we should use the language as we find it. That means using it the way most good quality sources use it. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The word "commit" is not any more stigmatized than the word "suicide" is. The push to make this unacceptable use have stemmed from activism, rather than any change in standard English usage. As many people have pointed out "commit" doesn't refer solely to committing a crime. People commit in many ways to many things. Natureium (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are many definitions of commit. But, only one appears to fit. From the OED: “To do (something wrong or reprehensible); to perpetrate, be guilty of (a crime, offense, etc.).” The other defs, commit a legislative bill, to put in safe keeping, to consign, to engage opponents, to compromise, to put together, don’t fit. A better argument is that it’s used by RS. O3000 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's a better argument for why the article should use the word "commit", but I'm talking about how strange it is that certain people are now arguing against this term. I suppose this has nothing to do with what phrasing we use in the article, though, so I will stop. Natureium (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors, I appreciate all the commentary, I really do. Having to defend one's own assertions helps to clarify thought, but please don't forget that I'm not advocating to remove the word "commit", although I'd be delighted to see it banished. I responded to a reply and defended my statement. I do feel obligated to point out that I referenced the Oxford Dictionaries definition way back in this discussion, and that "committing to" something is in no manner the same sense as "committing" an act. To "Perpetrate or carry out (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)" is not in any way similar to "Pledge or bind (a person or an organization) to a certain course or policy. In any case, I still believe that his suicide should be mentioned in the lede. Carlstak (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, no matter how you look at it, “committing suicide” was meant to be derogatory, and that is unfortunate and I'd also like to see it deprecated in RS. But, I'm not advocating removal either as we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Carlstak—in support of your stance on the question you raise you are telling us that one definition of "commit" is being used and another definition of "commit" is not being used, in the phrase "commit suicide". I would argue the opposite. I think that standard English favors this formulation because there is "commitment" involved in suicide. A person would not be understood to tentatively experience suicide with the option undoing the action at some future time. One "commits" to non-life without the possibility of the return to a living state of being. It is the irreversibility of this particular action that makes the phrase "commit suicide" the favored term in standard English. Incisive language does not namby-pamby around with the sort of language proposed here. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the mark by a mile, and torturing the English language to boot. I find it almost hard to believe you're seriously maintaining that "there is 'commitment' involved in suicide" as an argument, and the rest of what you're saying here is silly. If we mean to say that someone is "committing" to a course of action, the preposition "to" is required to indicate that: we would say he "committed to" suicide, but no one says that because almost everyone understands that's not what's meant. Carlstak (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Marriage is a huge commitment. You commit to a marriage. Nobody says you commit marriage -- outside of a comedy. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

O3000—marriage is reversible, unlike suicide. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"Committed" can be interpreted as having a negative or criminal connotation. "Died by suicide" is factually accurate and without any connotation, making it a much more WP:NEUTRAL choice. I'm not aware of any common phrase that uses the term "committed" without it being linked to a criminal offense. I think the arguments for "died by suicide" in the past (here and throughout wikipedia) failed based on the arguers being over-emotional about the topic or presenting a bias towards psychiatric language. However, just looking at it from a neutrality standpoint as I stated above, I strongly feel that "died by suicide" is the most neutral phrase and we should embrace this evolution of common language. Respectfully, any argument that the phrase is in reference to “commitment to suicide” needs to do their homework. The genesis of the phrase “committ suicide” is in fact a legal term related to suicide as a crime. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no negative connotation to "commit" that doesn't already exist with "suicide". "Committed suicide" is not non-neutral. Absent a very compelling reason that we should re-litigate this, yet again, I think this discussion can end. Natureium (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel that “committed” doesn’t indicate a crime or do you feel that suicide is a crime? ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "discussion", Natureium. But we have discussed this to death, no pun intended. By the way I am not arguing that the literal significance of "commit suicide" is "commit to suicide", Basilosauridae and Carlstak. I am offering a reason we see a preference in common usage for the phrase. I am suggesting that our language gravitates toward the phrase "commit suicide" because of a favoring of the implications present in the term "commitment". That implication is one of "no turning back". The implication is one of "irreversibility". Language does not generally evolve because people suggest changes. The evolution of language can be thought of as being akin to crowdsourcing. The question we Wikipedians are tasked with involves looking at sources and seeing how language is used—on the ground—and in the real world. "Committed suicide" is standard English. Would The Economist say that "Anthony Bourdain committed suicide on June 8th" if that terminology were not standard English? And no, I do not feel there is any implication of "criminality", Basilosauridae. You are saying "'Committed' can be interpreted as having a negative or criminal connotation." It may be linked to something "negative" but not to something "criminal". Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is a phrase in standard English, but so is “died by suicide”. My main argument can be boiled down to: if both phrases express the same exact information without censoring facts in any way, but some people feel that one phrase is more neutral than another based on the fact that one phrase has been used to express that the actions constitute a crime, why wouldn’t we choose the phrase that doesn’t have another connotation? One phrase has multiple interpretations and connotations while the other has one interpretation while conveying the exact same information. Bus Stop, it is just a fact that the phrase “committed suicide” arose because suicide was at one point considered a crime. Regardless of how you feel about the phrase it’s the factual truth. I’m out and about right now or I would find some sources (happy to do later if needed), but I would encourage you to look into it. Respectfully, to understand the connotation you need to understand where the phrase comes from. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Basilosauridae—we don't know that "both phrases express the same exact information". You are suggesting that "the actions constitute a crime". I disagree. That implication is not present, in my opinion. You are analyzing the language. I disagree with your analysis. You say for instance "to understand the connotation you need to understand where the phrase comes from." I disagree with that too. The origin does not tell you the present meaning. We are talking about the "usage" of language. Would you argue that The Economist is implying that Anthony Bourdain committed a crime? I think that is unlikely. There is no reference in this article to any crime committed. Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. As a thought experiment: if someone told you that a racial term was offensive to a group of people based on orgins and historical use of the term would you still feel so strongly that the term be preferential over another term that is not found to be offensive, just because it was the more prevalent term in the language? Regardless, it’s clear we will not change each other’s minds. I have no plans to lead the “died by suicide” battle on Wikipedia, but I did want to express my support and logic. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Basilosauridae—you say "if someone told you that a racial term was offensive to a group of people based on orgins and historical use of the term...". We are not talking about a "racial term". Do you not find it curious that in this article there is no further reference to the supposed criminal act you are arguing is implied, despite the headline reading "Anthony Bourdain committed suicide on June 8th"? What are your "historical" sources on the "origin" of the phrase "commit suicide"? Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it is a thought experiment. We both agree that it is a common phrase in the language, so your article is irrelevant to my opinion. That publication does not have WP:NEUTRAL as a guideline. If one phrase is deemed offensive and one isn’t, the one that isn’t is more neutral. Will get back to you on citations shortly, still away from my computer on mobile. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, The Economist does not have a guideline called WP:NEUTRAL. But I think The Economist has a guideline to use incisive language. "Died by suicide" is comparable to "haircut by barber". It fails to convey the gravity of the act being referenced. You say "If one phrase is deemed offensive and one isn’t, the one that isn’t is more neutral." The thing is there is nothing wrong with the language. It is admirable that you want to positively affect the problem of suicide but changing the language will have no bearing on any factors relating to suicide. This is a case of rearranging the chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is based on opinion as your argument contains very little substance other than “I disagree that it is less neutral because it’s commonly used”. Your argument about gravity is nonsense. To say that you prefer the phrase that conveys “a gravity” implies you have feelings of morality associated with the act, thus making the phrase less neutral. We are here to present facts, not “convey the gravity of a situation”. It is your opinion that it is not problematic, but I prefer to listen to the experts. [10][11][12] ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

They are all repeating the same claim that "committed suicide" implies a sin or a crime. It does not. One chooses to use the term "committed suicide" to convey the appropriate gravity for that which is being referenced. You cannot "sweeten" suicide and make it "palatable" by finding language that takes the "sting" out of this drastic act. Suicide is not like getting a haircut. Yes, you can say "haircut by barber" if you choose. But you should not choose to say "death by suicide" when the far more descriptive "committed suicide" is available. In your own speech you can choose whatever language you like. But I hope you do not succeed in foisting bland language on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You obviously have your mind made up, so there is no use in going round in circles with you. Your entire argument above could be summarized as "I prefer not to use neutral language". The experts definitely have stronger arguments than you, but its your choice if you'd rather offend people than try to understand other perspectives in the world that challenge your view. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"For every two women who committed suicide in 2016, so did seven men." There is nothing remotely sinful or criminal implied in that sentence or in that entire article. Do you not find it curious that there are no further references to the supposedly sinful or criminal aspects of these suicides in the rest of that article? Does The Economist have a practice of only hinting once per article that suicide is sinful/criminal? The article is from 2018. Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence.

Following the guidelines on WP:BLPLEAD, I have edited the lead sentence to read "... was an American celebrity chef and travel documentarian who starred in ...." I have removed "author, journalist".

WP:BLPLEAD states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources."

Incidental or supplemental roles should not be in the lead sentence. If a role is included in the lead sentence, the person should commonly be described as such. Bourdain was commonly described as a celebrity chef, and TV documentarian, but not as author or journalist.

WP:BLPLEAD also states: "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)."

As the article body clearly shows, Bourdain's writing and any journalistic activities was mainly supplemental and auxiliary to his main profession as chef and celebrity travel documentarian. His other writings are not integral to his notability. Further, there is no major section in the article body detailing a separate career as author or journalist.

LK (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He wrote 14 books in addition to magazine articles. He hit NYTimes best seller multiple times. As for journalist, the Columbia Journalism Review called him a world class journalist.[13] The Washington Post said: Anthony Bourdain never wanted to be called a journalist, but that’s exactly what he became. In fact, I suspect he’ll end up being remembered as one of the most influential television correspondents ever. [14] The New Republic said: Anthony Bourdain, dead at 61, was a chef who became his generation’s best television journalist. [15] Jacobin: Bourdain was simply a journalist. And journalists can’t recognize him because they can’t recognize what real journalism is anymore. [16] O3000 (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR if you argue from "facts". Cite RS, that describe him, and what his career was about, and follow those RS in describing him in the lead sentence. RS do describe him as a journalist, so that can stay. However, RS do not usually as journalist and author, so we should not describe him as such. One does not describe a professor as an academic, textbook writer, researcher, lecturer, and university official. Those all describe activities that are part and parcel of one career. LK (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the article and its cites. Authorship is what made him. This has nothing to do with WP:OR. The article has numerous cites for work as an author. Some more: Encyclopedia Britannica: American chef, author, and television personality [17], The Washington Post [18], Publishers Weekly: [19], The New York Times [20], NPR [21], HuffPost" [22], CNBC [23], Los Angeles Times [24]. He wrote fiction novels and other books that were not journalistic. Journalism and author can be very different. He was both as can be seen in numerous highly respected RS. Please stop edit warring. This is long standing, well documented text. O3000 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Would someone restore the ten-year old text that has been edit-warred out of the article so we can proceed with WP:BRD? O3000 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo's argument is fatuous. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica leads with:

"Anthony Bourdain, in full Anthony Michael Bourdain, (born June 25, 1956, New York City, New York, U.S.—died June 8, 2018, Strasbourg, France), American chef, author, and television personality who helped popularize “foodie” culture in the early 21st century through his books and television programs. Carlstak (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

An "author" can be a journalist by definition, so I clarified that he is a book author so as not to confuse our readers about his work as a journalist (columnist is probably closer to accurate), and a far cry different from authoring books; both belong in the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bourdain's suicide entry in Wikipedia is strange

This is a very strange entry in Wikipedia. I came here to find out why Bourdain might have committed suicide, and there is a huge conversation going on about whether it should be mentioned in the lead . . . . . but absolutely nothing about why he might have done it (assuming it was suicide). A further look into articles (Time) indicated that he was in a very dark mood/state in the days leading up to his death - but that never made it into the Wikipedia article - the people here are consumed instead by whether it should be included in the lead paragraph. I came here because of talk on the internet about his possible connection to Adam Schiff at The Standard Hotel in Hollywood. But, again, the conversation here - huge argument, actually - is all about whether to include his suicide in the lead paragraph. Weird. Also useless.Betathetapi545 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Betathetapi545: Sometimes, when there is nothing to say, nothing is said. All the analyses of the body, the examinations of the premises and of the witnesses of the last days, and the studies of Bourdain's documents seem to have established that he killed himself for an unknown reason. No foul play, no drugs, no message left, no noise. There is a "what" but there is no "why". --Edelseider (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump again - some people will never learn the lesson of history

The fact that the comments made by Donald J. Trump should be included because he was the President of the United States at this moment and thus a notable person whose every comment was notable by virtue of his official function has been already discussed. But some people seem to think that applying the Stalinist method of erasing people and/or opinions from official history may work at some point, although history has told us that it did not. Trump hasn't said or done anything wrong with regard to Bourdain's death, and it is ridiculous to exclude him (but to include Obama, a has-been in 2018) just because of a "righteous" (or "lefteous") disdain for his persona or his politics. --Edelseider (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Coming at this afresh, I don't see much of a consensus in the discussion that you link to, and I note that several of the editors commenting in favor of inclusion have subsequently been blocked for disruptive editing. I also see a distinction between Trump and Obama, in that Obama had apparently appeared on Bourdain's program and hence had more of a connection to him. Personally, I would trim that section down substantially – comments following somebody's death are rarely very enlightening – and remove both of the comments along with most if not all of the rest of the section, but I don't have a strong view on the matter. Wham2001 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a proof and a measure of just how notable Bourdain was that even the POTUS (and not just his predecessor) reacts to his death with a tribute. Moreover, we could add that Trump was not only the president, but also a fellow TV personality. Some people are so consumed with their hatred of Trump (who is now just as has-been as Obama) that they can't seem to see that they diminish Bourdain by erasing the POTUS's homage. --Edelseider (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)