Talk:Bon Scott/Archive 1

Archive 1

French?

I doubt very much that Bon was well versed in French, as the trivia section states. In the "Let There be Rock" concert film (filmed in Paris), he can be heard making a stage announcement in French which is rudimentary at best. In fact, he only utters two or three words, and badly. Doesn't sound like a French speaker to me.

bon scott death

I read in "highway to hell, the life and times of bon scott" that he was cremated? The article states burial (I know you can bury ashes) but that was not the impression I got. Cameron

Fraternity albums

"My Old Man's A Groovy Old Man" was not a Fraternity album, but a Valentines song. Fraternity's albums were "Livestock" and "Flaming Galah". Bretonbanquet 00:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vulgarity

When it lists his crimes, it claims " For unlawful carnal knowledge" , ala Van Halen. album name

This seems absurd. Is it?

See Carnal knowledge. Unlawful relates to the fact that he was at the time underage.Ghostieguide 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Death

I've heard two ways that Bon Scott died: Alcohol poisoning and choking to death. There are a lot of sources, and I can't really find one that would be definitively correct. I know he has a biography, so I think that would be the best place to look if anyone wants to.

Check his death certificate, he died of alcohol poisoning. http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/basics/g/acute.htm Captanpluto123 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

F word?

I was listening to this song once, and I suspect this song used the F word in the line "I'm beating the ", Lyricsfreak,com claims tha word they say is "flack{", can anyone tell me how good a source Lyricsfreak.com is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.2.130 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Removed this:

• "Back in Black" is also used as the theme for Lewis Black's section on "The Daily Show".

Since the Back In Black section on "The Daily Show" uses a soundalike, not the actual AC/DC song.

GA review

Apologies, but I'm going to have to fail the article until some concerns are addressed.

1. There are quite a few commas where seperate sentences could exist. ie. "In this period, Scott started singing in a band named Mount Lofty Rangers, which was formed by other ex-Fraternity members, however, after leaving a rehearsal with Mount Lofty Rangers, Scott got into a motorcycle accident, suffered serious injuries and subsequently left the band." Looking through the article, there are a LOT of commas, and some of those could easily be gotten rid of.
   • I've given it a fairly thorough copyedit for grammar etc and think most of those concerns are now dealt with. if someone else could do the same that'd be good. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
2. The lead needs some cleanup. It seems choppy.
   • Fixed, much better. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
3. I don't think there is any need to have album years in brackets after teir names, ie. "albums Let There Be Rock (1977) and Powerage (1978)"
   • Done. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the discography section really needed? If it was solo work, then I'd understand, but it all seems to just be information that can easily be found in the AC/DC or other group articles. I checked some other musician GAs and none of them have similar sections.
   • It's been removed. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
5. In many cases, the article shifts over to being more of an AC/DC bio as opposed to Bon Scott bio, ie. "In the following years, AC/DC gained further success with their albums Let There Be Rock (1977) and Powerage (1978). The 1978 release of Powerage marked the debut of bassist Cliff Williams (who had replaced Mark Evans), and with its harder riffs, followed the blueprint set by Let There Be Rock." and "Within a few months, Currenti was replaced by Phil Rudd and Mark Evans was hired as a permanent bassist, and AC/DC began recording their second album, T.N.T., which was released in Australia in December 1975."
   • Fair comment. It's now more balanced, IMO, with some more personal detail added. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Perhaps an influences section? Bon Scott was a pretty influential musician and I'm sure there have been some artists who credited him in an interview.
   • Not done, but could be if someone can find some sources. In my readings I've not seen anything that could be used, else we get into WP:OR. I don't see it as a dealbreaker though. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
7. In some cases, there is too much detail and facts seem NN, ie. "Bonfire also included a colour booklet, but the US version included a two-sided poster, a sticker, a temporary tattoo, a keychain bottle opener, and a guitar pick."
   • Gone. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to fail the article for the time being. I'm a huge AC/DC fan and I'dlove to see this article hit GA status. The prose needs some cleaning and I am willing to help, but doing so would mean that I couldn't re-review the article. -- Scorpion 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent review and suggestions. I think a number of these concerns have now been addressed by others before me as well as some I've just picked up. I've refactored Scorpion0422's suggestions above slightly with responses. If there's no objections or responses to my comments, I suggest resubmitting as a GAC in a week or so. —Moondyne 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is now renominated at GAC. —Moondyne 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Fail The entire opening introduction is unsourced

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Satisfactory Fair use rationales could be more detailed, but they're satisfactory.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — The Sunshine Man 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an exceedingly strange reason to fail it. Are you aware that there are a very great many Wikipedians who take the view that the introduction, which is merely a summary of the article and should not introduce any material not covered elsewhere, ought not to have references? - the idea being that the sources support the article proper, and the article proper supports the introductory summary. I believe that the vast majority of Featured Articles do not source their introductions, and I know for a fact that the four FAs I wrote don't do so. Hesperian 12:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the information in the lead was expanded and fully referenced further into the article. To fail on factual accuracy seems a bit odd, as I would assume this (non-)requirement was for where a specific fact was found to be misstated rather than a trivial issue of style. But the criticism is understood and was quite easily fixed with a few minutes of editing. Perhaps the reviewer may wish to reconsider it now. —Moondyne 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the GA criteria says it must be accurate and referenced, which this is not, I'll take a look now and re-consider the failed GA depending on whether it fully meets he criteria, I'll take a look now.....The Sunshine Man 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, its been improved and is now referenced so that meets the criteria, I cannot see any improvements to the image descriptions but they are satisfactory and would pass. So I am passing the article as a good article and will list it under the categories here, thanks to all of the contributors and its excellent how you made the improvements so quickly.The Sunshine Man 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

I have added {{subst:nrd}} to Image:BonScott-February9-80.jpg. It needs a fair use rationale ASAP, and I'm surprised it passed GA in this state. Giggy _U^CP 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Rock??

In the Background Information box under Genre(s) it lists Progressive Rock in addition to Hard Rock and Rock & Roll. I have been a ProgRock enthusiast for many years and have never thought Bon Scott or AC/DC to be Prog in any relevant sense. Does anyone have any evidence as to why Bon Scott would be included in the ProgRock genre? This is not to criticize Bon Scott, it is merely to state that I've heard no evidence that he had done any significant quantity of Prog, if any at all. 75.14.27.80 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)JAC

Hi, before joining AC/DC, Scott played drums and sung in a few bands, one of these is the prog rock band Fraternity. Check out these links:

• [1] "Immediately after the split of The Valentines in early 1970, Bon changed tack and joined the Adelaide-based progressive rock band Fraternity, who won the 1971 Hoadley's Battle of the Sounds. Fraternity are best remembered for their version of the classic Blackfeather track "Seasons Of Change."
• [2] "A stint fronting Sydney prog / blues band Fraternity for two albums and an ill fated English tour was last port of call prior to fielding the call to audition for AC/DC."

Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that Fraternity were Prog - a quick listen to "Livestock" and it's clear. It might have just been a phase, but for a few years in the early 70s, Bon was certainly associated with what we now call Prog Rock. Bretonbanquet 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be nit-picky here, but fraternity was really more psychedelic rock than prog rock. Prog rock is stuff like jethro tull and yes; psychedelic rock is more like pink floyd and the beetles. I havent changed this yet but if no one disagrees i will change it in a few days. 72.147.107.179 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think Fraternity were very psychedelic at all, not compared to the the likes of Pink Floyd. Plus we have sources to state prog rock and nothing for psychedelic rock. Bretonbanquet 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Tribute CD

Bon Apetite is another tribute cd for Bon Scott of AC/DC, I belive it contains some or at least one song "TNT" and interviews,I don't have a source but you can see it as it's on their profile on Rhapsody listed in the "Other Album" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.175.188 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidental Deaths

Should Bon be added to the "Accidental Deaths" Wikipedia category? Wwwhhh 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You got my vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bon Scott is from SCOTLAND!!!!

australin NOT!!!!

He born in Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he was, but he moved to Australia at a young age and was an Australian citizen, thus making him Australian-Scottish. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

His reported age surely has to be wrong

I don't understand the mathematics. He was born in 1946 and migrated to Oz in 1952 - yet he is reportedly 6 years of age at the time. That doesn't figure - he would have to have been seven or eight.. Neil

What doesn't figure? Born in 1946, so in 1952 he was six. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Early Career/Every Day I have to Cry

The "Early Career" section indicates that "Every Day I Have to Cry" was written by George Young, but this page says it was penned by Arthur Alexander. Anyone have any info to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.251.93 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Valentines vinyl compilation that I have states that it was Arthur Alexander. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

THE SON OF BON SCOTT

i have read a about bons son on this page but at times its gets deleted? anyone got a reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.26.77 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was because there have never been any reliable third-party sources to verify it at any point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that you might have read about it due to the fact that it was you who put it on there in the first place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You've probably already figured out that 60.242.26.77 is Ben himself, and he is not Bon's son. 58.170.108.54 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind... ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

nothins gonna save yaz one last time...its on you;through and through... "and its you you keeps deleting it"...

and yes i truly are bons one and only son!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

there is this crazed lady who says she is my sister...

well the story is she used to say if bons your dad then he my dad too...

to further that her mother would say to me "if you ever get any of your dads money you have to share it with them" evidently her and her friends(the club) have been discussing ways they can get some cash out of the whole bon scott saga.. one way would be to have his estate go to charity as there is not heir apparent...another is the movie...

so when she and her friends seen the" worldwide" headlines about me being in the movie...
she and her friends decided to contact all the people who ran the story and tell them that im not bons son... all the while she has a collection of photos and letters she has stolen over many years and she tells me(2 weeks ago) she is opening up a web page about me... and she keeps asking if im getting paid for the interviews!!!

i ask if your brother was in the headlines about possibly being in a movie... would you go out of your way to contact people individually and try to wreck that chance??? why do you think she has done that???

seems her club has been looking after her financially... in exchange for her co-operation in this issue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

as i can see... they do read this page... and i have somthing to tell them..

"you;your friends; associates... all of you will never get one cent out of bon scott/ac/dc..."quote"

Ben, you're making a lot of people very upset and angry. I know you've been told this so many times, but you're not Bon's son, you're not famous, and you need to tone it down. Please. 58.166.244.28 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

just for the record.. "i have never been contacted by anyone and told anything"... all thats occured is people like you continually post up abuse and stuff without presenting the basis in which your information is gathered!!!... and not once in many many years have any of you used your real names....... or for that matter have any of you told us of the people you speak for... just who are the angry people??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.38.17 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

as i walk through the valley in the shadow of death..."i shall fear no evil"...

so what your saying is if i dont stop ...those angry people are gonna do what???...ha you dont know anyone tough enough... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.38.17 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"all thats occured is people like you continually post up abuse and stuff without presenting the basis in which your information is gathered!!!"

Thanks for that, Ben. I needed a laugh today. 58.170.119.53 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And if you want to know who's angry at you and why, go and read your own ramblings that you like leaving all over the Internet. I'm done here. 58.170.119.53 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

i had already been informed you were fraudalent...soon as anyone asks who you are... you run off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.26.77 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

picture

how about a picture?

some googling finds.. http://www.tattoos-by-design.co.uk/Celebrities/images/acdc3.jpg

the picture on there right now isn't particularly good for identification purposes, as you can't really see Bon Scott's face. That picture is certainly relevant, but there are better portraits of him available. --stebve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.127 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben O'Brien

OK, fine, Ben is Bon's son. But I'm just going to leave this: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=195426080&blogId=485559221 here. It's a blog by Vince Lovegrove on the matter if anyone else wants to look into it.

Ben is not Bon Scott's son. At the time he would have been conceived Bon Scott was living in England. This guy does not even look like Bon Scott. I see no resemblance and his family says he is lying about it. I would also add that Bon Scott does have living relatives in Fremantle. They would have inherited his money. 76.92.210.222 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Talk:Bon Scott/Archive 1/GA1

You are right that O' Brien is not likely Bon's Scott son, but because Bon was in another country than the alleged mother, does not make it an absolute impossibility. Artificial insemination can do the trick, again it's highly unlikely in the exrtreme but not "impossible" in so far as it could not be positively disproven. But yeah, this Ben O' Brien guy is as nutty as a granola bar (24.62.126.170 (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Dead?

They say Bon is dead. Nah, that can't be true. AC/DC is still performing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.30.174 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is internally inconsistent

In the introductory paragraph, it's stated that he died from choking on his vomit, but in the "Death' section, it's stated that contrary to popular belief, he did not die from choking on his vomit. Regardless of which statement is factual, the article must be internally consistent. 68.45.106.216 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

its not totally inaacurate as his official death report that appeared in one of the many books about states he died of misadventure(alcahol poisening);"choking on his own vomit" is the quote supplied — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofbon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Any editing of the external links should be discussed on this talk page. Anonymous edits will be reported as vandals.NCC17 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• [www.accadacca.net/index.html Profile page by Albert Music]
• [www.atlanticrecords.com/acdc/ Profile page by Atlantic Records]
• [www.acdcrocks.com/ Profile page by Epic Records]
• [www.groups.yahoo.com/group/bonscott Bon Scott Club]
• [www.bonscott.com.au Western Australian Bon Scott Fan Club]
• [www.bonscott.rocks.it/ Jeff's "Bon Scott" Fan site]
• [www.myspace.com/bonscotts_son Profile of]the son of bon scott 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On Conspiracy Theories About Bon's Death

The addition of the following sentence: "The coroner had no such doubts based on the medical facts." seems to have been added simply as a rather blatant attempt to refute the various conspiracy theories propounded here. It implies that the coroner considered and then discarded such theories, which I rather doubt. A [citation needed] tag has been added but I suspect this is more like OR and is really just non-factual invention. 123.243.37.236 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholism

If Scott was a heavy drinker or an alcoholic then the article should state this. It is relevant to his biography, his cause of death, and also in relation to the periods of alcoholism of Malcolm Young and Phil Rudd, and to Angus Young's teetotalism.

Currently the article reads: "On February 19, 1980, Bon Scott passed out after a night of routine partying in a Camden club now known as KOKO London, and was left in a car owned by an acquaintance of his named Alistair Kinnear." Firstly, if there is no previous mention of his heavy drinking then the phrase "routine partying" lacks context, and is also vague. This needs improving. Secondly, if the name of the club is relevant then the article should include the 1980 name, and perhaps the current name. --Design 12:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard, the club was called the "Music Machine" (as stated before, now KOKO) He had tried to go there with a female acquaintance (Silver Smith), but she passed him off to Kinnear, who later said they drank "far too much whiskey" at the club. He drove them home, and when he couldn't wake Scott up at Scott's place, proceeded to drive to his own house, where he left Scott passed out in the front passenger seat. (see "High Voltage Rock N' Roll: The Ultimate Illustrated History of AC/DC"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.161.23 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The intro has several mistakes

The intro makes several wrong references to Montreal and Canada. Sunshine is in Australia, not Canada or montreal.

Just thought it was worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.216.128 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism - thanks for pointing it out :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

the whole article continually skips away from the original target of the page;(bon scott) continual referance to alledged former band members and notion of reasons for actions none applicable to anything bon scott... looks like the editor has APPROACHED FORMER BANDMEMBERS AND ALLOWED THEM A FREE PLUG ON BON SCOTTS PAGE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.65.82 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cause of Death

i have read a about bons cause of death as being 'trampled by elephants' on this page but at times its gets deleted? anyone got a reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.185.43 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Because all that's occurred is people like you continually post up tramplings and stuff without presenting the basis in which your elephants are gathered. 58.169.220.96 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I made this edit [3] and I see it's been reverted. His death certificate [4] states he died of alcohol poisoning, if he aspirated on vomit that would have been listed as the cause of death. I have no doubt that the CD booklet says otherwise but I'd think that the death certificate would be the most reliable source. Anyone have any thoughts on this? 121.214.205.82 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to list both. The death certificate is more reliable, but it might not necessarily include the aspiration of vomit if the coroner considered that acute alcohol poisoning was a more comprehensive description, i.e. the vomiting was caused by the alcohol poisoning. A link to the certificate should be included in the article. Also, let's not have an edit war over it. The other party involved should also comment here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything but a claim about what's on the death certificate, and either way the two given reasons are compatible. While an official document may be more reliable - if available - it is not irrelevant what the band decides to publish about what happened. The reference clearly states where this information was found as well. Narrow Mind (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

originally it was stated he"choked on his own vomit"... that has since been retracted due to too many people asking for further explanation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A symptom of "acute alcoholic poisoning" is vomiting, it's your body's reflex to try and get rid of the aocohol. Another bit of info is that in Alistair Kinnear's 2005 statement, he says he saw no vomit when he found Bon dead in his car. 165.189.99.20 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bon Scott was born at the Fyfe Jamieson Infirmary, Forfar and not at Kirriemuir as previously stated.

Can the people of Kirriemuir stop stating Bon Scott's birthplace as Kirriemuir (as your town plaque incorrectly states) and accept he was born in Forfar. Yes, he was FROM Kirriemuir and spent his first six years there, but he was born at the Fyfe Jamieson Maternity, FORFAR and this will never change. This in 100% fact. Forfar and Kirriemuir are two separate towns, six miles apart, and you cannot claim his birth as being there and continue to incorrectly tell people who travel all over the world to your town that this is correct.

Any chance of a reliable source for that? That is the general idea, you know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

His birth certificate is not available online, but if you search for his death certificate (google images) it clearly states Forfar as his place of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.184.161 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC) example- if i live in frankston(suburb of melbourne; australia) and for reasons my mother was taken to melbourne hospital...(to be born) it would still be rightfull in my opinion to name my birthplace as frankston... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.65.82 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it and have sourced it! --Pollack man34 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bon version of Back in Black?

Can anyone verify if the version of "Back in Black" thats going around purportedly being the original sung by Bon Scott is real? The song was released so close after his death and the voice sounds like an amalgamation of Bon Scott and Brian Johnson.

-- It's a version by British tribute act Live/Wire.

Likely, the version sung by Joe Lynn Turner which was released on a tribute to AC/DC album called "Thunderbolt". NCC17 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Bon, but after listening to it again, I think it's probably NOT him. The only evidence I can contribute is that it was recorded sometime before Nov. 2, 2002 (the date I found it) Jameywiki 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

- The song was written by Johnson. He dedicated it to Bon. Back in black meant they where mourning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.40.71 (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

- There is no Bon Scott version of Back in Black. The album and the title song were a tribute to Bon and the lyrics written by Brian Johnson. Back in Black refers to the return of the group, in the mourning colour of black. Additionally, Both the young Young brothers have repeatedly stated that all work they had done for the album was dumped after Bon died and they started for scratch. This is covered in biographies such as "AC/CD Maximum Rock n Roll" and "Hell Aint a Bad Place to be." Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Prison time

This guy is listed on the Fremantle Prison page as having served time there. Can anyone confirm this? jmd 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in the Bon Scott biography written by Clinton Walker, so yes. --Zaknrfama 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I just wonder then, for what it was that he was interned. The article mentions that he was charged with possession of marijauana, but I doubt anyone would get a prison term for that. jmd

He stole some petrol and a few other assorted items. NCC17 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He also lied to police about his address and gave a false alibis. Captanpluto123 06:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

- He served 9 months at a juvenile facility for giving a false address and unlawful carnal knowledge - this is covered in all biographies including Clinton Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bon Died of Choking

Last I checked Bon Scott died of Choking on vomit, not by alcohol poisoning. You can even look up interviews with the band and they will tell you. The English press made up the alcohol poisoning story. ZrACDC (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

- this has been well covered. The death certificate state Acute Alcohol Poisoning and Death by Misadventure. Vomiting and breathing the vomit into the lungs (pulmonary aspiration) is consistent with acute alcohol poisoning. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Someone wants to add heavy metal. That seems reasonable to me but what do I know. I invite discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• this comes up from time to time. There are often edits around AC/DC and band members such as Bon Scott to include heavy metal to their genre, along with hard rock, blues rock and rock n roll. While it is true that there are descriptions of them as metal in various articles, the band has consistently stated they are not a heavy metal band or a punk band. This is covered in biographies from Clinton Walker, Murray Engleheart and Mick Wall amongst others. FlatOut 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk • contribs)

I agree, and I think adding heavy metal to the list of genres would show a fundamental lack of understanding of AC/DC and of heavy metal. It's usually a lazy journalistic tendency to label the band as heavy metal, and no more. Further, there was a discussion on the AC/DC talk page and consensus was to omit it from the infobox while explaining it in the lead paragraph. Therefore it should be omitted from individual band members' infoboxes, unless they have performed heavy metal music outside AC/DC. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Back in Black album lyrics

Here's a good question. Did Angus and Malcolm Young use ANY of Bon Scott's lyrics for the album Back in Black?...Personally I don't think so but there is some evidence. Such as the double entendres that Scott loved to use so much on the tracks "You Shook Me All Night Long" and "Let Me Put my Love into You."

- The double entendre were written by Brian Johnson carrying on the style of Bon Scott. According to Mick Wall's biography, the Youngs had started writing music for the next album and on one occasion Scott had joined in on drums while they were writing music for two songs that would be later recorded on the Back in Black album; "Have a Drink on Me" and "Let me Put My Love Into You." While Scott was continuing his practice of writing down ideas, lines and lyrics in his exercise book Scott never wrote lyrics to music that was being written for those two songs. It is not known if any of his ideas were used posthumously on any of the Back in Black tracks, though Johnson is credited as the lyricist.FlatOut 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Best Selling?

The entry about "Back in Black" being the second best-selling album is contradicted by the listing shown elsewhere on Wikipedia. It appears to be fourth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide#40_million_copies_or_more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.204.8 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Bon Scott

The article needs a different photo. Wikipedia is meant to be used as a free Encyclopaedia. The photo of Bon Scott doesn't show his face - it's not very useful. A more informative photo should be in that spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.152.11 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone out there has a better free photo of him and would like to donate it here, that would be great. I would assume that the majority of images out there are copyrighted, and therefore generally unsuitable for use here. Doc talk 13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bon Scott/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Half the reference aren't referencing anything... plus you could probably expand it a bit. Almost a B.--Wizardman 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Rating 12th Feb 2007 I've rated this B class as it seems to meet the standard as of the 12th of Feb 2007. Some notes though Lead is too short and needs to summarise the article better a bit of an minor issue in the references. Walker 1994, P.xx is more usually formatted Walker C. (1994) p.xx . AC/DC - Bonfire needs an ISBN Needs editing for flow and conciseness. After the Valentines broke up in 1970, Scott joined the band, Fraternity. Fraternity released two albums and some singles, gaining moderate success, but the group went into hiatus in 1973. could be When the Valentines broke up in 1970 Scott joined the band Fraternity, who had moderate success releasing two albums and some singles before going into hiatus in 1973. and full dates eg:July 9 1946 should be wikilinked for date preferences to work a few too many sentences/paragraphs starting In <date> x happenned - these don't tend to read well after the first few. Apart from those issues well done - a great read - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Other instruments

It says on the page that Bon Scott played drums, and he is widely known for playing bagpipes with AC/DC, so they should be added to the infobox. 49.196.15.13 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, They should be mentioned in the article body, but only primary instruments go in the infobox. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

On this topic, what does primary mean? If it means main, does that mean Paul McCartney wouldn't have piano in his infobox, since he is primarily a bassist? 58.7.168.149 (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bon played bagpipes on one song. Its covered in the body of the article but we dont include it in the infobox. Flat Out (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the argument for drums still stands, though. 58.7.121.117 (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He isn't notable for playing drums. Flat Out (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationality (again)

@Mlpearc: @Mlpearc Phone: @87.142.122.193: Recent changes have attempted to identify Scott as a Scottish-Australian (an Australian of Scottish descent), but these changes have been declined without explanation. Since Scott was born in Scotland (a fact no one has disputed), why do we need a source to identify him as Scottish-Australian? This is the type of fact that is self-evident and needs no sourcing, as long as his Scottish birth is verifiable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not to do with sourcing, but because birthplace and/or ethnicity does not belong in the lead paragraph, per WP:OPENPARA. Scott's birthplace is made very clear elsewhere in the text, and also in the infobox. In the lead paragraph, we stick to straight nationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. It might be nice when the edit is reverted, some attempt be made to explain that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My guess would be that it happens so often, people get bored of explaining it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bon Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0%2C%2C24677235-5006343%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914054346/http://christopherhenleylimited.com/inmemoriam.htm to http://christopherhenleylimited.com/inmemoriam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116103758/http://www.mcb.wa.gov.au/MCBNews/mediaRel.html to http://www.mcb.wa.gov.au/MCBNews/mediaRel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728070955/http://www.acdc-discography.com/CDBoxSets.html to http://www.acdc-discography.com/CDBoxSets.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117052005/http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/ac-dc to http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/ac-dc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bon Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161128215102/http://www.bonscott.com.au/kinnear.htm to http://www.bonscott.com.au/kinnear.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719073755/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/05/08/newsstory8312327t0.asp to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/05/08/newsstory8312327t0.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bon Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919082626/http://www.bonscott.com.au/bonsstory.htm to http://www.bonscott.com.au/bonsstory.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bonscott.com.au/bon/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326004533/http://www.acdcrocks.com/us/music/releases/albums/highway_to_hell/ to http://www.acdcrocks.com/us/music/releases/albums/highway_to_hell/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bonscott.com.au/bon/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706111437/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=87008 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=87008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference to sister

I have removed the following statement: "In addition, Scott had a younger sister named Valerie."

The Valarie named on Bon's headstone is actually the wife of his brother Derek. This can be seen from the wording of the obituary for their mother Isa: "dearly loved Mother and mother-in-law of Alexander (dec), Ronald (dec), Derek and Graeme, Valarie and Lad." https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/isa-scott-obituary?pid=153367572

Neb-Maat-Re (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Back in Black Third highest?

Why does Bon Scott's Page mention Back in Black as the third highest selling album in history when most sources list it as second best selling? The source seems intentionally placed and can be taken as a sign of disrespect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.174.62 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Mechanic in infobox

Relevant edits: [5][6][7]

According to the article (after this addition) he was a trainee mechanic, and according to reference he was an apprentice. There's nothing that says he completed his apprenticeship to become an actual (qualified) mechanic.

Furthermore the documentation for {{Infobox musical artist}} says (with my emphasis here):

occupation ... For artists who have participated in forms of entertainment outside of music ... these occupations can be included if notable.

I suggest that his occupation as an apprentice mechanic was not notable, and ought not appear in the infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Not notable – should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• disagree his being an apprentice shows that he came from a working class back ground making him a true heavy metal bogan identity. It is exceptionally notable, proving he's not some elite university wantabee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.66.123 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

He is not notable for being a trainee/apprentice mechanic, which is the criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Bon Scott -- Scottish-Australian versus Australian

There seems to be an issue for User:Bretonbanquet with Malcolm Young being situated as Scottish-Australian versus Australian. Before knee-jerk reacting, please research epigenetics and the importance of the "first five years" in human development; please also read up on the "triplet in Scottish music" to understand AC/DC's formative albums with their strong Celtic folk music influence and note why the band (meaning only the three were credited as songwriters) when consisting of members Angus, Malcolm and Bon used a bagpipe solo in a song -- as a born and raised Canadian, not only am I a giant compared to my Scottish-Canadian siblings, but have vastly different environmental, dietary, societal, cultural, and musical influences than they do -- falsifiable scientific facts "Trump" personal make beliefs every time... pun intended!

Please see my response at Talk:Malcolm Young. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia are outdated and need to evolve in relation to scientific research -- the OCD/Asperger idea of eternal truths set in unwavering stone that require vigilant gatekeeper enforcement is a mere religious belief. I realize that the class-based UK education system follows this mindset/paradigm, but please read a book or two on the subject and help Wikipedia keep up with our continually evolving reality. Be part of the solution instead of part of the problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthutcheon (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

74 Jailbreak

why no mention? Also, Scott's (and Angus') amazing performances on "Baby Don't Go"? 67.85.248.224 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bon's Death

The section on Bon's death in this his entry has been hijacked by a conspiracy theory, as conceived by the author Jesse Fink with his book The Last Highway, and my understanding is that Wikipedia likes to try and guard against propagating conspiracy theories. It's hard to argue against this theory because the book in question has largely garnered a positive media response because the media loves sensationalism and so it's difficult to footnote an opposition to it. But there are a couple of dissenting views that have been expressed in the media and certainly on social media there was just recently - and this is what's prompted this note on my part - a long and emotional discussion among many Bon fans and old friends who are outraged that this conspiracy theory seems to have taken hold like gospel truth. But then I suppose conspiracy theorizing is a bit of a flavour du jour, what with Trumpism and all that. But it's a growing trend to discredit Fink's speculation and conjecture - his book offers no new hard evidence to support his theory - and there are other much more respected writers here in Australia like Jeff Apter and Clinton Walker, who have both written extensively on Bon, AC/DC and the 'Alberts family', who vehemently refute Fink's theory and for their trouble have gotten abuse and legal threats from him. Wikipedia and its contributors need to take a good hard look at this section and the way it's giving oxygen to a a groundless, sensationalist and disrespectful conspiracy theory. I might try to edit the section myself but a) it's a convoluted task i've likely neither the time nor aptitude to do, and b) I thought to air this grievance here first might prompt some action anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PingerSlinger97 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained what part of the text concerns Fink's theory, or what that theory is. Can you be more specific? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the conspiracy theories the section needs a cleanup - it's got duplicated text about the official cause of death. Number774 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

He was scottish

Not Australian 213.128.242.112 (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read this discussion here at Talk:AC/DC. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Death section

Too long, too many huge chunks lifted from Fink's book. Needs summarising. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am the person who added some stuff just yesterday in an attempt to add some balance to a section hijacked by a conspiracy theory and immediately it's been amended again and turned into an even worse circus of tit-for-tat argument that is a travesty to both Bon Scott and Wiki and in good time enough I will return to it and try to get some balance back into it again. Wiki needs a mediator to sort this out Veracitiesplus (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, respectfully, you've replaced it with a biased word salad. You might disagree with Fink's analysis and conclusion but he has gone to the people who were there and published their quotes in his book. Did Walker speak to these people? Can you clarify? Bretonbanquet, I agree the Death section is long but this is obviously an important topic.

Veracitiesplus, you haven't made proper attributions to published sources. You have written statements such as “painting a vivid picture of the somewhat dissolute lifestyle Scott led on the edges of the London smack scene – but it was emphatic that while Scott was an alcoholic, he was not a co-dependent heroin user” and “but Chapman and Way, now both dead, were unreliable witnesses as memory-depleted heroin addicts, and they changed their story on numerous occasions over the years since first telling Mark Putterford in the early Nineties that they understandably couldn’t remember the night in question.”

This is your analysis. According to whom? Who says they’re unreliable? When did those stories change and how? What year or years did this take place? In the first edit you made you said they told their stories to Paul Stenning. Now in the second edit you made it’s Mark Putterford. Where? When? Add detail.

You also write glibly “the accounts of the eyewitnesses that make up the generally accepted version of events”. Again, who are they, how are the "generally accepted"? You then elect to delete the accounts of Zena and Koala Kakoulli, as well as the admission by Perrett and what he thought happened to Scott. Why? They are relevant to the topic: Scott's death. These are rightfully reinstated.

Also you cannot describe people as “music smack personages". Iris Foxglove (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Correction: Koulla. Was autocorrected. Iris Foxglove (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry Iris Foxglove but yr whole position is just so wrong-headed. I put in a correction that is a neutral summarised explication as Wiki requires, and now it's reverted back to almost a dramatic account that is incoherent and inconsistent within itself but worst of all paying lip service to a conspiracy theory. All my attributions and citations are in place, and internal logic answers yr questions. It's a failure of comprehension. Yes Jesse Fink spoke to some people Walker didn't, the Kakoulkis et al but they all said, No, never actually saw Scott taking heroin, but he might have. Speculation, opinion. the UFO guys unreliable witness as this account says because they were junkies and, umm, junkies are not known for their powers of recall are they? this account describes in itself how they changed their stories. Failure of comprehension. Stunning was a mistake, it was Puttterford and that was corrected. I'm not going to remain doing this tit for tat argument but will be seeking advice from some sort of higher up at Wiki if such a thing exists Veracitiesplus (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a "neutral summarised explication". You've called it yourself a "conspiracy theory", multiple times. You dismiss accounts from people because they are or were "junkies". Does that mean anyone who has ever used heroin or other drugs cannot be quoted in Wikipedia? What about Keith Richards? What about Nikki Sixx? Do we apply a blanket ban on quotes on people who have used drugs in the past? Who makes the determination that they're reliable or not? You? You might not subscribe to the idea Scott had anything to do with heroin, but Fink presents accounts from three people who were there that night who believe he used heroin and that is why he died. That is highly relevant to the topic: Scott's death. Your edit was poorly referenced – the statement "Walker’s updated 2023 book portrays Scott as moving in drug-heavy circles, but the author maintains that he was not in a co-dependent relationship with either heroin or any of his friends who used the drug; and also maintains there is no hard evidence of a heroin overdose" - is still in the text and there is no citation. A citation is needed. What is new in Walker's update? Has he investigated Scott's death? The edit as it stands is neutral. Iris Foxglove (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I cite's Walker's position that Bon had occasionally taken heroin but wasn't a user. The UFO guys CHANGED their story over the years. The other people Fink spoke all said they didn't actually see Bon take any heroin. He COULD have, MIGHT have, but that's not the same as doing it. The coroner found no drugs. so where is the hard evidence? But I can't keep arguing this. Just take a look at the note from wiki itself now at the top of the page, this style of entry is wrong and the info is misleading Veracitiesplus (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have not provided detail for how Paul Chapman and Pete Way "changed" their stories and what consequence that is to the substance of the topic: Scott's death. Fink's book addresses their recollections but that does not need to be reproduced here. The section is already lengthy enough, as Bretonbanquet rightly points out. You keep mentioning Walker but what in the new edition is actually new information regarding Scott's death? You speak of balance yet omitted all mention of the information in Fink's book. That is not balance. It is vandalism. Walker's book is referenced in the Death section and you are more than welcome to add relevant information - not your opinion. Still awaiting proper citations. Iris Foxglove (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The tag for over-quotation has been removed, but I'm not convinced the issue has been resolved. We have two entire paragraphs of full quotation from Fink questioning the findings of the coroner, which he is in absolutely no position to do. He's neither qualified in pathology nor the processes and procedures of a coroner. This is the absolute definition of WP:UNDUE. He has an opinion as a medically unqualified journalist, but quoting vast chunks of it is not balanced. The quotes from the Kakoullis are far too long, speculative, and could easily be condensed into reported speech, as could the quoted to-and-fro between Fink and Chapman. The question of whether or not a selection of heroin-users are reliable witnesses is another matter, but I would err on the side of caution when handling their statements, just as a judge/jury would do in a court of law. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have asked the previous poster multiple times to quote relevant passages. I'm quite happy to remove those quotes from Fink re the coroner but in fairness I think Fink has done the most investigation of any author into this particular subject and thus he is highly qualified as a journalist and published author on the subject to have his reservations about the coroner's report recorded. He asks legitimate questions of the process when the previous poster casts the coroner's findings as the end of the matter. How do we know what was tested for in such a short timeframe? Stenning made the same observation. Fink's book notes that there is a incorrect address given for Scott on his own death certificate. How much stock can you place in a death certificate that has such a glaring and unusual error? You cannot downplay the fact that Fink has produced two eyewitnesses – the Kakoullis – that were not interviewed by police or called to give evidence at the inquest. The quotation about Perrett admitting he was there is also a big revelation. Fink's investigation is not recorded as absolute fact. It is presenting new information and it is by any fair measure compelling, which is why his book has been controversial. Iris Foxglove (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fink has done a lot of investigation into Scott's life and death, and his (and Stenning's) reservations about the coroner's report are absolutely valid, but in Wikipedia terms, not valid enough to warrant reproducing long quotes. There may be multiple reasons why the post-mortem process took place as it did, which Fink may not be aware of. The address provided by the coroner would've very likely been the last address Scott gave to the relevant authorities, so it's not necessarily even an error on their part, particularly as Scott did not die at his home. No investigation seems to have been made as to why neither the Kakoullis not Decherf were called as witnesses – did they even make their existence known to the police at the time? How would the police or any other officials even know those guys were present that night? Or did they just pop up decades later? There's a reason why this stuff only came out when Fink investigated it. I see a bunch of people making statements, sometimes contradictory ones, about things they think might have happened. Fink ties it up in a somewhat sensationalist way, and his main aim is to sell books. I'm not saying everything Fink says is crap, but the pinch of salt you need to take with this stuff is pretty big. In an official sense, the coroner's findings are the end of the matter, and long passages of speculation contradicting them, albeit from a published author, do not constitute much of a balance. The article looks better, but could still use a bit more trimming. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

With respect, "The address provided by the coroner would've very likely been the last address Scott gave to the relevant authorities, so it's not necessarily even an error on their part, particularly as Scott did not die at his home." That is an assumption you are making. The address didn't exist. It was a made up address. Fink's book makes it clear why the police didn't find the Kakoullis and Perrett. They didn't ask. Any police investigation was quick and perfunctory. They went with the Kinnear was alone story, which has been thoroughly debunked by the investigation Fink conducted, which is why it is in the article. Again, I'm somewhat surprised you say "Fink ties it up in a somewhat sensationalist way, and his main aim is to sell books". That is a highly non-neutral statement. How do you know that? You're stating a personal opinion and making an assumption about his motives. Have you heard Fink say that selling books was his motivation? The Death section presents the conventional story and it presents the counter story, making no statements either way about what is correct. Iris Foxglove (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the person who said, "Bon had a lot to drink that night. And I would be very surprised if he too [like Alistair] didn’t take a lot of drugs that evening, mainly heroin. I don’t wanna upset anybody this late in the game. End of the day it was a tragic accident. But [speaking] as an ex-junkie, Bon looked stoned." was not named in my edition of Fink's book. I am assuming Koulla Kakoulli was named as the originator of that quote in a later edition? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

She was revealed by Fink in the 2022 edition as being the person behind the quote. See page xxii: "Koulla Kakoulli, who was working as a dominatrix in Brighton, England, when we spoke, had asked me to disguise one of her quotes about heroin in the original edition of the book." She died in 2018. The following page reads: "Now that she is dead (the coroner recorded an open verdict on her cause of death, various drugs being found in her system when her body was discovered in her home 'dungeon'), I no longer have to protect Koulla. Which, of course, begs the question: Who was she trying to avoid upsetting?" Iris Foxglove (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it's an assumption on my part that it was the last address given to the authorities because that's how these things work. It's either ID found on the person, or local government records, tax records etc. You're suggesting the possibility exists that the official coroner had the correct address but instead made up a fictional address and put it on a death certificate. That's tinfoil hat stuff. Regarding the police, you say "they didn't ask". Who didn't ask whom? The police didn't ask the Kakoullis? How would they have known who to ask? They would've spoken to Kinnear, and if Kinnear had not offered anyone else's name, then that's that. Did the Kakoullis come forward? The police don't even have to investigate unless there's a suspicion a crime had been committed. There was no suspicion of foul play, e.g. murder, so the police don't take it any further. Why would they? To determine if drugs had been involved and figure out where they came from? That's not their job, beyond recording if any drugs were present on the body or in the car. The coroner deals with cause of death. Yes, it's my opinion that Fink's aim is to sell books – that's the aim of all authors. Of course he wouldn't admit it if that were the case. It's also my opinion that he writes in a sensationalist way. I'm a writer myself, and I think his style is sensationalist. I like his stuff but he makes a lot out of very little. As it stands, the death section presents the official line, and Fink's theory, which doesn't really contain any facts: it's just a theory held together by half-remembered memories and speculations recalled decades after the events. Of course his findings are relevant and should be in the article, but I believe there's too much of it. Like the lyrics controversy, which was Fink's theory based on the ideas of people who weren't there at the time. I'm just saying Wikipedia, as a supposed encyclopedia, should reflect that. Trying to prove Scott's heroin use is futile, possibly disrespectful and ultimately not that important – just say some people believe he did use, and leave it there. We dont need paragraphs of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"You're suggesting the possibility exists that the official coroner had the correct address but instead made up a fictional address and put it on a death certificate. That's tinfoil hat stuff." When did I suggest that? I said there was an incorrect address. How have you inferred that? The police didn't do nearly enough investigation to establish there were multiple people with Scott in East Dulwich. That is evident and the point made in the book; and it's a more than fair point. You might regard Fink as "sensationalist" (what is the definition of this?) but that isn't really relevant. I strongly disagree with your concluding statement. Three people who were there have gone on the record to say they believed Scott took heroin the night he died. They say they were there with him. Who are you to dispute this is factual? There was no one else there other than Kinnear, who is dead. The relevant part is the fact Fink has found new information that calls into question the entire narrative around Scott's death. That should be incorporated and retained and not removed at the whim of people who dislike the content or conclusions of Fink's book. Iris Foxglove (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So, if not that, what actually is being inferred by the incorrect address? I'm suggesting it was an error prompted by the information they were given, which is not particularly contentious. So what's the relevance of the incorrect address? Why should the police have suspected there were more people in the house at the time? From a police point of view, why would it have mattered? If those people had been there the following morning/afternoon, why didn't they stick around to tell the police what they knew? If they knew Scott was dead, why did they leave (which would've been a criminal offence)? If they didn't know he was dead, they sure as hell did later, so why not come forward? Did Fink ask them? Why is it a police failure, as Fink infers, and not a failure on their part? Of the three people who believed Scott took heroin, how many actually saw it? A belief is not a fact, it's speculation. From the wording, I can't tell if Perrett saw Scott taking heroin or not. It's factual that they say they were there, but that's not an important fact here, it's just peripheral. Fink casts doubt on the "official line" but presents little to actually disprove it. He just believes there's more to it. The official story quite possibly doesn't include any reference to heroin for the exact reason that Fink has found – it couldn't and can't be proven. If the Youngs suspected heroin abuse, they likely didn't mention it to protect Scott's dignity and his family. So how much relevance does it really have? Mention it, outline what Fink says and leave it at that. It doesn't need all that detail. I don't think anyone wants to remove Fink's theory altogether, but it needs to be proportionate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

At least there's one person here talking common sense, maybe two. Have the likes of Foxglove checked the Death sections in the entries on, say, Hendrix or Jim Morrison, bc even as those deaths might always remain contentious their treatment is a model of succinctness. the UFO guys references I've just completely removed because it contradicts the more important testimony of the Kakouili clan, in other words, how could Scott have been with them when the Kakoulis confirm he's at the club? Any reference to the coroner removed too, since indeed this is tinfoil hat fodder, I mean the London coroner had no problem identifying the drugs in the bodies of New York Doll Billy Murcia and Keith Moon and Wings member Jimmy McCulloch only a year before, to suggest the coroner was incompetent or on the take is ludicrous. I've left in the Kakouli's take in the interests of so-called balance but also because they put their foot in their mouth. I mean, and I repeat, okay it seems they were there at the club and afterwards at Kinnear's flat, but they all assert THEY DIDN'T SEE BON TAKE ANY HEROIN. please! Veracitiesplus (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How can Perrett and Kakoulli being there be a "peripheral" fact when the whole point of Alistair Kinnear's statement was that he was alone with Scott and couldn't carry him up to the flat by himself, so left him in the car overnight? Again, I strongly disagree with you. Did you read Fink's book? He sets out a very thorough case for why a false address might have been given and why Kinnear may have been used as the "fall guy" for what happened. Kinnear clearly wasn't alone and lied. Who was Leslie Loads? He presents a pretty convincing argument it was Perrett or Kakoulli. There could be multiple reasons for why Scott wasn't taken to the hospital at the first opportunity and I am of the view Fink's hypotheses are on the money. But my opinion, like yours, is immaterial. What's important is that the section on his Death presents pertinent information about what happened and what led to the demise of Scott. Retaining the quotes from the Kakoullis and Perrett does that. Iris Foxglove (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Kinnear's statement is full of holes is pertinent, obviously, but the minute details of why it's full of holes is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, in my view. Especially as there are very very few actual facts to support any other version of events. Fink's book (and obviously I have read it) challenges Kinnear's story, rightly, but does not (and cannot) offer a concrete alternative version of events. There are too many contradictions and maybes, which is inevitable when dealing with a train of events on one night 44 years ago involving drug users, many of whom were very drunk, and at least some of whom probably had something to hide. Fink does a good job of handling the facts, such as they are, but everything else is guesswork, and does not belong here. It's perfectly valid in a book about Scott – all of it is – but we're not writing a book about Scott and we don't need that level of investigative and speculative detail. Regarding the the death certificate, Fink is just guessing why there's a false address on there, and then offering "possible explanations" like Kinnear being a fall guy, and casting doubt on the veracity of the certificate. He doesn't know why it's on there, and nor does anyone else. It's just theories. Who was Leslie Loads? Nobody knows. Did he exist at all? This is too much detail for this page.

All we should be doing is offering a summary of Fink's argument that Kinnear's story is full of holes, without getting bogged down in detail. The first quote from Zena Kakoulli is just superfluous: the prior text already explains that she said she was there, and Perrett was not. The second (too long) quote about not seeing Scott take heroin can be condensed into a couple of lines of reported speech, as could Koulla Kakoulli's quote. She should get a mention because she has her own Wikipedia page, and it adds good context. But the quote itself is not important. Then there's the bit from Decherf contradicting his wife's claim that Perrett was there after all. This really starts to make the whole quote from Zena Kakoulli look shaky, and the average reader's eyes will start to glaze over. It's all "he said, she said". We should also try and expand a little on what Walker says in his 2023 update (a third voice is really important here), but I don't have that book. Really, Fink's argument shouldn't take up too much more room than the "official story", because otherwise it looks like we're favouring one view over the other. Whatever we think as individuals, the page cannot reflect what we think – there has to be neutrality. We're rightly casting doubt on Kinnear's story by including Fink's argument, but we can't be seen to side with Fink; that's just not how things are done on Wikipedia. If possible, we could expand Kinnear's story a little, and then Fink's rebuttal of it would challenge it more succinctly, but that's probably as far as we can go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree there has to be neutrality and that is why I have taken the time to stop this rampant hijacking of an important topic from someone who evidently dislikes Fink and brands any suggestion Scott used heroin as "conspiracy theory". Apart from anything else, that is wildly disrespectful to Fink himself. No one is siding with Fink but what I am seeing is a concerted attempt by one contributor to shut down and censor the story of Bon's death as told by Fink in Bon: The Last Highway. But my opinion doesn't matter. I don't think anyone's personal opinion of the validity of Fink's investigation really matters. What matters is what's on the record.

The conventional story is that Kinnear and Scott were alone together. We now know that is false because of what two other people have said on the record: Zena Kakoulli and Peter Perrett. What is important is that three people (Zena Kakoulli, Koulla Kakoulli and Peter Perrett) who saw Scott with their own eyes, who had used heroin themselves that night, believe he had used heroin. They have their own reasons for making that assessment, including visual assessment. If I were in a room with a marijuana user and marijuana was being smoked, and I looked at a person and thought, "He looks stoned" as opposed to being drunk, is my account invalid? Am I wrong? Do you expect me to call a doctor for confirmation? It's an eyewitness account of what I saw. And these accounts from the Kakoullis and Perrett are what they saw. A man died. They knew the heroin scene. Kinnear has been comprehensively contradicted by these people. I am not going to enumerate the other good points made in the book. Fink has upended the conventional story around Scott's death. There is a very substantial investigation into Scott's death in that book that is barely reflected here. I don't think anyone can argue Fink hasn't done that. It wouldn't have created such a stir if he hadn't. Iris Foxglove (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We know the conventional story is very likely wrong, but there's a problem in that Perrett and his wife disagree on who was there with Kinnear. Either one of them is lying, or Kakoulli was so out of it that she actually forgot her husband was there, and that's a problem. They obviously can't both be right. It takes the shine off Fink's argument. I'm not saying the Kakoullis' and Perrett's opinion that Scott probably took heroin is not relevant; I am saying we don't need all the quotes. Reported speech will be fine. Also bear in mind that either Zena Kakoulli or Perrett appear to have lied about who was at Kinnear's house, so let's not push their testimonies too much. They'd be ripped to pieces in a court. Kinnear's story was always shaky – personally, I saw the holes in it when I first heard it about 25 years before Fink wrote his book. But I don't really see why Scott taking heroin makes that much difference. The point is that Kinnear's story is challenged by Fink's investigation, and that's what we put in the article, in fairly basic terms. Going down rabbit holes about who was where and who said what is probably not for this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anything takes a shine off Fink's argument. He has never claimed to tie it all up with a nice ribbon. A group of people are saying different things but admit to being there. Someone is telling the truth. I'm not sure how you expect Fink to divine who that is, other than to report what he has been told. The Death section is fine as is, barring a citation for the generalised summary of the 2023 edition of Walker's book. Scott taking heroin very much makes a difference because he most likely died as a result and it would account for the conflicting stories and Koulla Kakoulli's original statement to Fink, where she said didn't want to upset anyone. The Death section presents those stories and makes no declaration of who was to blame, if any blame is to be apportioned. Iris Foxglove (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't expect Fink to tie it up nicely, no. I never said he should have, or could have, quite the contrary. It's a jumble, and reads like one. The death section is not fine as it is, and will not be staying as it is. It will at the very least be written properly. Scott taking heroin would make a difference if there was any proof of it, which there isn't. "Most likely" doesn't cut it here. This isn't a blog. If necessary, the admin who tagged this section can be invited back to exert a bit of control over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You contradict yourself and apply a double standard. I'm having a civil conversation with you about an important topic and you say "most likely" doesn't cut it for you in a simple conversation about heroin on a Talk page, but let's see:

"The address provided by the coroner would've very likely been the last address Scott gave to the relevant authorities."

"If the Youngs suspected heroin abuse, they likely didn't mention it to protect Scott's dignity and his family."

"We know the conventional story is very likely wrong, but there's a problem in that Perrett and his wife disagree on who was there with Kinnear."

Heroin is inextricably relevant to the story of Scott's death (Paul Chapman, Pete Way, Koulla Kakoulli, Zena Kakoulli, Peter Perrett, Alistair Kinnear, Silver Smith – all heroin users, all close to the events of that night, a trio of which say they believed Bon made the mistake of taking heroin, one of whom says Bon was buying heroin) and yet you say, "I don't really see why Scott taking heroin makes that much difference." Iris Foxglove (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There's the difference, right there, between how I treat stuff that is "most likely", "very likely" or just "likely", and how you treat it. Of the three points I said were likely or very likely or whatever, I'm not advocating putting any of them in the article. Regarding the alleged heroin use being a cause of death, which you say is "most likely", you want to imply that in the article, as I understand it. There's a double standard, if you want one. When I say "'Most likely' doesn't cut it here", I do obviously mean in the article, not on the talk page. Hope that's clearer. Heroin is alleged to have been relevant in Scott's death, but no proof exists. Those three people believed he took heroin, but did not see it. The article must make that clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say "most likely" should be in the article? Iris Foxglove (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What I said was, in the article, you want to imply that it was likely. It's really very clear from what I wrote in my last comment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to imply anything. End of the day Fink presented a compelling case and found new information and spoke to witnesses when no one else did. Wikipedia should report it. Iris Foxglove (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never said otherwise. It just needs to be well written, satisfy MOS:QUOTE and be balanced, which is currently not the case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion. Which I disagree with. Iris Foxglove (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion after 18 years here and 74,000 edits, yes. There is no way that satisfies MOS:QUOTE, and it is not balanced – 100% guaranteed. You're welcome to invite other opinions, such as the admin who has already tagged this article, a tag you removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're always right. Iris Foxglove (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You have 29 edits, all of them on this talk page or the article itself. Your first edit accused another editor of bad faith. Have you had any other accounts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)