Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Death

Please remove the death reason from the article. Just add the link for full article on Sushant Singh Rajput's death. (User Ayanabha Banerjee) (link- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFzmPLFY-YL3NKAFz5_Xgiw)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AyanabhaBanerjee (talk • contribs)

 Not done @AyanabhaBanerjee: the reason, suicide, is verified by reliable sources (see #FAQ). We don't remove things on Wikipedia just because we don't like them. Also, I'm not sure what the relevance is of that YouTube link is. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Death reason is almost confirmed as murdered so it is advisable to not to put suicide as the death reason Riyasma (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riyasma: Not done: reliable sources provided confirm it was suicide. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"almost confirmed as murdered" is also blatantly wrong as the CBI has made it perfectly clear they're not going to say anything that could risk prejudicing the investigation and any subsequent trial. Far as I am aware, the CBI doesn't even have a formal timeline out for their enquiry, so saying it's "almost" anything is presumptuous at best and prevarication at worst. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the reliable sources? News channels have confirmed some foul play. Don't talk before researching. Happybunny0000111 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean the news channels who've been blasted by judges, activists, and India's main journalistic watchdog for turning this into a media shitshow? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There's is nobody,not even the police saw the hanging body. The people pushing forward the suicide theory are accused of murdering him and are arrested so they aren't reliable sources. Happybunny0000111 (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Happybunny0000111: "Don't talk before researching" - I couldn't have said that better -- please take your advice. The reliable sources are cited in this article, in black and white. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The initial autopsy ruled out foul play and he was indeed found hanging. The only reason they are disputed is because the family demanded CBI intervention (and it should be noted that the charges against Chakraborty are abetment of suicide, as reported by several news agencies reporting on this). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah,you may have your formalities, I don't know how wikipedia works but this I guess we both know for sure that his death is controversial and it's under cbi investigation, so my point was to not declare it as suicide as we don't know yet for sure, you could keep the death as not known, just a suggestion, you know the rules better than me for sure . If suicide feel right, keep it. Happybunny0000111 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

We've discussed this already. The thing is that the reliable sources that did call a manner of death called it suicide pretty much unanimously, and none of them have retracted that. (In fact, one could see reporting on Rhea's legal troubles with the family as doubling down on the suicide claim.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

My research about his death is perfect, but I don't know about wikipedia and what it considers 'reliable'. Anyways, have a good day. Happybunny0000111 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No dear,by sources I don't mean over hyped media but NCB, ED , and CBI.You know, the police? Happybunny0000111 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the CBI, because they've explicitly stated that any information that is attributed to them while the investigation is ongoing is not credible. Since the CBI isn't speaking publicly about the case - which is SOP for investigations like this - that makes me doubt your other two claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Who found him hanging,tell me please? The accused ? @alittle blur bori

Happybunny0000111 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you read any of the sources cited, or are you deliberately ignoring them to prove a point? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Why would you declare something that is still under investigation..and none of the theories have been proved. So you better say that it's still undergoing inspection @alittle blur bori Proskie (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Because we rely on what credible secondary sources say, and they are reporting that (1) it's suicide and (2) Chakraborty is being accused of abetment of suicide. Also, nobody in the dispute is disputing the actual mechanism of death (asphyxia via hanging). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone interested to talk to media?

Hi, an acquaintance of mine is writing an article related to the case of "Sushant Singh Rajput" for Slate. He would like to have a conversation with someone who is an active/regular contributor to this article or Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Let me know if any of you are interested - you can either ping me here or email me. Regards, KCVelaga (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if NedFausa is still following this talk, but they may be interested? If you want administrator perspective, El C or Cyphoidbomb perhaps? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I'm hoping you mean Slate (magazine), but either way I'm sure all aforementioned editors have experience talking to a rock too :P ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for handling repetitive talk page requests

I'm of the opinion that if a person creates a new talk page comment to ask us to change the suicide death cause, (or similar), we respond and point them to the FAQ. If they want to engage in meaningful discourse, fine, but if they just pepper the talk page with the same request over and over, we delete subsequent requests without responding. This sort of thing is very troll-y and since it feels like most of these SPAs and the like are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, rather they are here to do "justice", their efforts are not in line with Wikipedia goals. Anyway, just a suggestion. If anyone disagrees, that's fine. I'm just hoping to liberate people from responding each time someone repeats themselves. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Not that it much matters since these people aren't interested in anything we have to say that isn't blind assent. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 19:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This became a nuisance now. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you're all being too kind. This is a waste of time, and once archived it's going to flood the archives and make them useless too. Any edit requests which show the proposer has not read the FAQ (ie, basic statements, no sources, no attempt to address the requirements mentioned in FAQ) should just be reverted. It's faster for everyone, and it makes this page less filled with crap. Any requests with non-nonsense sources, or otherwise show that the person has at least read the FAQ and understands the basics of sourcing policy should stick. These requests aren't putting in the minimum effort to even read the big "READ THIS FIRST" at the top, so why should anyone else put in the effort to reply to them? Volunteers aren't here to spoonfeed. Most are driveby requests anyway, no evidence the poster has read the response, or intends to reply to it. It's pure bureaucracy to keep them here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually about at the point where I'm going to be requesting the semi that was on this talk page be reinstated. The S:N ratio is practically negative at this point, since these edit demands are largely driven by drive-bys. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I also just removed every edit request thread that wasn't followed up on with actual discussion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In the last day or so there have been a number of fist-shaking Tweets about the Wikipedia article, with people begging and demanding that Wikipedia change the content. I don't know if that's gone up, because I haven't been checking, but that could explain the recent burst. When I asked Ponyo about this our talk page issue last week, she felt that having the same empty request repeated over and over was disruptive (which I agree.) Deleting the edit requests might be a way to go "with a pointer to the FAQ in the edit summary (and perhaps on the editor's talk page)?" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If they aren't reading it when it's the top section of the article and they're drive-bys, they're not going to read it when pointed to it in an edit summary or on a talk page. The issue is that they're just not engaging with this at all, full stop. They don't care about our policies, only that the article says what they want it to. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 22:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This. Exactly this. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to YMBlanter for protecting the page for a month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with protecting this page is that it's likely to cause a flood of complaints to OTRS because there is no other outlet for the complainers. Protection may not actually solve the problem, just shift it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering most of the complaints were from drive-by users who didn't bother reading anything on the page before they posted their already-answered-20-times-before edit request (and considering there's going to be a major announcement in re the case very soon, which we're likely going to need to discuss) the talk page was effectively useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a valid point, by Anachronist, to be fair. It's not helpful to shift disruption on a single page, into across Teahouse/OTRS/other venues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it. The people who leave drive-by demands without looking at the headers don't look at any instructions. We see this at Talk:Adam's Bridge where Hindu nationalists come, leave their demand to rename the article, and leave. Removing their requests rarely drives them to put those elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well let's put aside theoretical. It's already been about 9 days or 30% of the current protection end time. Has there actually been a flood of complaints to OTRS, the Help Desk etc? If not, I'm not sure if there's any reason to expect a sudden flood now unless we would have expected an even worse flood on the talk page or some other scenarios I probably shouldn't say for WP:BEANs reasons. Still, if we do get a flood, I propose we evaluate it then. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see this page was semied almost continually from 22 June until 30 August. [1] The period from 30 August to 25 September was the only long stretch of unprotection, putting aside the 8 days or so after his death. In that time, I think threads on 'Sushant' made it to the Help Desk archives on 11 days. (I didn't check the dates carefully to check those short unprotected times including on 30 August, nor did I check for multiple threads in a day.) I don't know if there were any which were removed, used a different spelling for Sushant, etc. Since this page has been protected again, 2 threads seem to have been created, Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 September 26#Change in Cause of death of Sushant Singh Rajput & Wikipedia:Help desk#Sushant Sing Rajput / Wrong_info. Not good of course although I note that 2 threads Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 September 18#how to edit Sushant Singh Rajput and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 September 24#Sushant singh Rajput (again) (check here if unsure of the last time/date [2] [3]). Meanwhile on WP:Teahouse, it seems 3 threads during the long protection period from 22 June to 30 August, and 2 threads during the unprotected time, with no threads since the recent protection. Again, these are only threads which made it to the archives with 'Sushant' in them. I have no idea what went on in OTRS. So not ideal although I think the evidence from these 2 places is the talk page protection itself doesn't seem to be causing that high a workload, assuming that people aren't deleting a lot of threads. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible unprotection?

With the AIIMS' autopsy report having been released (and confirming the initial suicide determination), do we want to see if unprotecting the talk page early is worthwhile here? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for the CBI statement. The release of the autopsy result is going to have inflamed all those who are convinced its murder and will probably be claiming the autopsy is a cover-up. Nthep (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm doubtful the CBI will release anything of substance before 25 Oct. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 09:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, even more reason to keep the protection in place until then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RickinBaltimore. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IMO lets at least wait a few days until things calm down after the release of the AIIMS report. It could be worth unprotecting after then as a test although I'm not personally hopeful it's going to calm down anytime soon or even the CBI's statement will be enough. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If the CBI's report comes out that it was indeed suicide, erasing any doubt whatsover -- I'll be reverting any drive-by peddling of this conspiracy without a discussion: if not because it's vandalism/unconstructive at that point, but rather because the subject is a WP:BDP and people can take their controversial conspiracies elsewhere. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar, that's essentially already happened. The AIIMS autopsy was requested by the CBI, and the CBI are now treating it as a suicide investigation specifically. Manner of death is no longer in question. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 08:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: If that's the case, I'd be open to unprotecting the page and treating any drive-by conspiracies as violations of BDP; reverting on spot. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep it protected till the official report from CBI is not out. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep it protected untill the official report from CBI is not out. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@OpenMindedBloke: You posted the same basic comment twice, and neither comment makes sense. I assume you mean that you think the talk page should be protected until the CBI report is released, right? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There’s a bug in the matrix.. lol. yeah that’s what I meant, let’s wait for the official CBI report. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

*crickets* [4] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask them to do it, given there wasn't a consensus here to unprotect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 15:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

By crickets I meant that it was all quite quiet post-unprotection (and before, for that matter). Then I saw the talk page history. But still, seems fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I can only agree here with MelbourneStar. None of these drive-by editors either here or at Death of Sushant Singh Rajput have any interest in discussing how to improve these articles, only in ignoring the FAQ and pushing the same conspiracy theory over and over. I would support such edits being reverted on sight as WP:DISRUPTIVE / WP:IDHT. Volunteers' time is just being wasted. Valenciano (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm doing just that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Will be doing the same. IMO though, protection shouldn't have been lifted yet though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm curious as to why the protection was lifted in spite of the lack of consensus to do so here (and the then-emerging consensus it should be kept). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems proper for the protecting admin to remove their protection, given it's usually a unilateral admin action. Unprotection also seems in line with Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Article_talk_pages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate FAQs

Why is there a first section (#FAQ — READ THIS FIRST if you are requesting changes; transcluded from Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ2) when there is a largely-duplicative version that is transcluded in the top box from Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

*shrug*. One has sources, the other doesn't. Not that a FAQ should have any references. I did say that any updates should be made to the main FAQ... The only other difference is in default collapse, but this can be done using |show=. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the reason there are two, is that mobile users don't see the normal templated one that desktop users see. The mobile platform is lacklustre, to say the least. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed why there are two. Indian users frequently use the mobile site. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the point Alan was making is why 2 templates which need to be synced by hand, vs transcluding one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Or replace the transclusion in the topbox with just a link to the pinned FAQ section below (as is done in the edit notice, which links to the .../FAQ version), and merge the two FAQs into one that is transcluded there. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. /FAQ2 only exists because /FAQ was already occupied by what was (at the time) a one-question "FAQ". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I implemented a sort of solution, although this doesn't take away the need to have two FAQ pages but shouldn't require any by hand syncing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput death investigation is still going on.

Dear Wikipedia team, Sushant Singh Rajput investigation is still going on and we the people of India request you to change the cause of death to "investigation is on". because we strongly believe that he was murdered in a well planned manner. Akash Hathi (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH. Also, not even Gandhi represented all people of India, so... Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's only about suicide or homicide Akash Hathi (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, suicide, per the AIIMS' autopsy (which was done at the CBI's request, by the way). It being suicide is settled at this point and the CBI is proceeding with the matter as a case of suicide. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The death cannot be called a suicide as the investigation is still on by major agencies. The Entire Nation is looking forward to Justice for Sushant Singh Rajput and claims calling him a mentally sick human shouldn't be used to defame the late actor. We need to wait for CBI to complete their investigation before informing the world, calling the death Suicide or Murder. I request Wikipedia to kindly take necessary action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E1B:C18E:4405:C89D:2AFF:E4D7 (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done read this and the FAQ at the top of this page. It will not change. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

AIIMS cannot say that it was a suicide or murder. It can only tell us about the loophole in Sushant's postmortem. Akash Hathi (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

They found no such loopholes, and they outright stated it was a suicide and that murder is completely ruled out. This is settled. Any insistence to the contrary is wilful contrarianism that we are not going to entertain. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 12:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sudhir Gupta is under scanner. Some or other day the truth is going to come out Akash Hathi (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it already has, and those who do not wish to believe it are dismissing it in preference of their own weltanschauung. We're not interested in your conspiracy theories or historical revisionism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 12:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think that engaging with these people is useful beyond pointing them to the FAQ. There is no war to be won against willful ignorance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sushant donated 1 crore

Add in wikipedia that Sushant once donated 1 crore on his fan's name. Jamistrue (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any source to verify this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added it in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

www.indiatvnews.com › sushan... Sushant Singh Rajput starrer Dil Bechara trailer smashes all records on YouTube ... Jamistrue (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry the above is by mistake but you have to add that fact too. Jamistrue (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And one another thing tayi just updated it check the source rickinbaltimore Jamistrue (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's all we needed to get it published, thank you! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushant_Singh_Rajput Cause of death Suicide by hanging: Suicide by hanging is not proved. The cEntral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) India is investigating the cause of death. Hence the

Cause of death should be : Death under mysterious circumstances. Cause of death unknown. Savyfood (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

tl;dr:  Not done as blatantly contradicted by available sources. The CBI investigation is indeed ongoing, but they are treating it as a suicide case due to the AIIMS autopsy's results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 12:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

*thinks* I do wonder why people who believe that there is a cabal covering up the death have so much faith in the CBI investigation to get it right and uncover the truth. Wouldn't they be part of the cabal too? Hmm... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's mainly due to the Indian cultural disapproval of suicide and the fact SSR had a rather dedicated fanbase. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I get why they reject the idea of suicide. The part I don't get is why they trust the CBI to uncover the truth, if they think a political/media cabal is behind the coverup. Wouldn't the coverup extend to the CBI too...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Why they reject suicide is also why they think the CBI will say anything different. They desperately want this to be anything but suicide, because in their minds SSR could not have committed suicide, and they believe the CBI will come to the same conclusion and charge Chakraborty with murder - nevermind that the CBI is certain this is suicide and Chakraborty has only ever been accused of abetment of suicide and drug charges. When there is cognitive dissonance on this scale and people are unwilling to try and resolve it, they invent a new reality. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, apparently I'm a "MF bastard" for not allowing conspiracy theories to go into the article lead. Are we all part of the cabal too? Nthep (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: This has nothing to do with "Indian cultural disapproval of suicide". Suicide is disapproved in all Indian religions and cultures. That being said people commit suicide regularly. Nobody gave a damn when Kushal Punjabi died. People are concerned with this particular case because of the "supposed mystery" surrounding it and the supposed involvement of "the powers that be" in it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are still unsure, please note that I read in one article that India has decriminalised suicide since 2016 in the mental health bill. So the theory that suicide is a stigma here is wrong. Should I cite it? KaveriNadi (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because it's decriminalised doesn't mean it isn't stigmatised. Law and culture rarely see eye to eye over a short period of time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about that. But putting down a law is the first step to changing the culture. Moreover, it is in the West that suicide is still criminalised. So the stigma exists there too, and there is no law either. KaveriNadi (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

KaveriNadi, most western countries suicide is generally legal, assissted suicide is not legal, pretty much the same status as in India - see Suicide legislation. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that information Ravensfire, but the point here is not about which country has legalised it versus which hasn't. Regardless of what anyone's view may be, this is not a competition of laws. While I agree that suicide is certainly not a legal/moral crime, the CBI is also investigating as many have said about whether it could be abetment to suicide as opposed to consensual suicide. Non-consensual suicide or abetment to suicide is a crime (besides direct murder/homicide). I don't know if that's what you mean when you refer to "assisted suicide". Whether it is assisted or non-assisted, the will to suicide has to be in consent of the person in question. I don't think medical/autopsy reports are sufficient to prove whether there was an abetment/non-consensual factor involved, and the CBI and other bodies are working on finding that out. It's not an overnight job to do so. KaveriNadi (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@KaveriNadi: Unless you have a specific suggestion for a change to the article, we should refrain from general chit-chat here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. KaveriNadi (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Abetment of suicide" could be as little as knowing his state of mind and doing nothing, or as much as handing him the noose and leaving the room. If she was directly involved in the hanging (which there isn't any evidence to suggest), it wouldn't be abetment of suicide - it'd be outright murder. You're trying to argue both sides via an argument by bizarre definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken about your definition of abetment to suicide, but if suicide is legal, alternative #1 to the meaning of abetment that you provided would not apply. The will to have your own opinion is absolutely yours and there is no binding or pressure from me to have you agree with mine, "bizarre" as you may find it. Having said that, I was not referring to "her" or to anyone else here (as per your remark, "if she was directly involved"). I was merely responding to the ongoing thread in general, and you are free to close this chit-chat. Good bye. KaveriNadi (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

change cause of death reason from suicide to under investigation 27.4.22.195 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbes celebrity 100 list

I would like to add that Sushant Singh Rajput appeared in Forbes Celebrity 100 list in 2017 & 2019 Veronica Catherine (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have links to the relevant lists that show him on it? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

BRD on talkpage template

(Undid revision 987355310 by Special:Contributions/Gråbergs Gråa Sång this "press coverage" mentions SSR only once—in passing. Please, let's discuss here and await consensus to restore)

My view: fits well as "This article has been mentioned by media organization", as in there is no demand to be the only/main topic, and it's (ok, a little) more than passing mention, it's a paragraph. Also, it puts the thing in an interesting context. Opinions, people who can be bothered to have one? WP will survive either outcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been removed, considering the article discusses the impact SSR's death had in the world of conspiracymongering and on Wikipedia and its efforts to prevent it. Reactionary sight-unseen reversion of this sort of thing is just not helpful to anyone. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We should discuss the "interesting context." Wired′s story examines accusations that, since July 2019, biased editors of controversial India-related Wikipedia articles have sided with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and engaged in Hinduphobia. Sushant Singh Rajput is mentioned only once, in a paragraph that comprises less than 4% of the story.

For the record, Modi's name does not appear in Wikipedia's SSR BLP, and the BJP appears solely in connection with its 2018 attempt to ban a film in which SSR co-starred in an interfaith love story. There is no trace of Hinduphobia in this BLP.

Wired′s bogus attempt to connect Wikipedia's SSR BLP with Modi, the BJP, and Hinduphobia, which is not echoed by other reliable sources, violates WP:FRINGE's prohibition of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. That guideline should apply to this BLP talk page. We ought to exclude Wired′s fringe insinuation of alleged political and religious bias in a Wikipedia page where neither of those improprieties has been a factor. NedFausa (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The template is for mentions in media, not mentions in media we agree with. That you consider Wired bogus is not an argument I consider valid in this context. If you want to discuss the interesting context on Jimbotalk or someplace like that, that's fine. Here it's off topic. All the template says is "This media exists." 4% of the story is still "mentioned by". Consider the ideas in this Wired article WP:FRINGE all you like, WP:FRINGE is about WP-article text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I wrote. I denounced Wired′s bogus attempt to smear editors of this BLP as engaging in political and religious bias. I did not dispute Wired as a reliable source. Also, you're the one who raised "interesting context" in this section. Why is it OK for you to consider it but not for me to do so? NedFausa (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "Also, it puts the thing in an interesting context." was an off-topic reflection of mine, apologies for that. It doesn't add to the argument for inclusion on this page. And you can denounce everything you want, of course. And I hear that your denouncing is about the specific article, or the bogus attempt to smear editors part of it, not the publication itself. Also off-topic, but I wonder if Benjakob will read this, I think he'd find it amusing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm gratified that you and your pal find my contributions here to be "amusing," but please stick to the subject. NedFausa (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but fwiw, I don't know the guy, I just read his articles about WP. On topic, it seems both our views on including the article in the "This article has been mentioned by media organization" template on this talkpage has been made clear, so I guess it's up to other editors now if it should be reinstated or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead wording

Should the last paragraph of the lead start with "Rajput died of suicide..." or the more common "Rajput committed suicide..."? I feel like this has been discussed before (with consensus being for using the latter), but I cannot find any discussion in the archives. Primefac (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus. It was changed on 13 October 2020 by administrator Cyphoidbomb, whose edit summary explained, "Modern conventions seem to prefer 'died by suicide' to 'committed suicide'. Some feel the latter sounds like an accusation of a crime." NedFausa (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the cause of death is not to be mentioned as "Suicide by hanging"

1. Why are you saying it's unknown? The AIIMS autopsy reports clearly say it's suicide!

All autopsy reports, especially those relating to disputable deaths, are not publicized under any circumstances and are held in great secrecy till they are presented before the court of law. Another point to be noted is that CBI investigation is still underway and if it were as simple as that, they wouldn't have taken so long to say so.

This is belied by the fact that the autopsy results - both Mumbai's and the AIIMS' - were both reported on by newspapers of record, who got the information from Mumbai Police and the AIIMS directly. Autopsy results in high-profile cases such as this generally are not kept private until court because it's counter-productive, as we have seen in how Chakraborty has been treated. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2. This is a case of murder! Why aren't you saying so?

No official investigations have clarified Rajput's death a murder, while "evidences" are plenty of the same , but there are plenty of "evidences" of the death being a suicide as well . Hence, to maintain the policy of neutrality, no sides have been taken.

Citing the India Today report of the AIIMS autopsy results more-or-less annihilates your argument for the first, second, and third bullet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

3. There are secondary sources saying that it's clearly suicide. Why aren't you saying so?

The CBI has outright stated that they are not sharing any details of the investigation with the media and that any claims attributed to it (As of the time of this writing, 1 Jan 2021, IST) are not credible. It should be noted this is generally standard operating procedure for investigations, generally to avoid prejudicing the case before it goes to a jury or (as has happened here) inflaming a trial by media.

And thus far the CBI has held to that promise. That said, the AIIMS, although they were asked by the CBI to review the autopsy, still aren't the CBI and thus they are free to share their findings irrespective of what the CBI asks barring any gag orders (which, in a high-profile case, is again counter-productive). This "argument" is basically a copy-paste of what the FAQ says with the date updated, the difference being that it's being used to make an argument that's unmoored from what the original was responding to (i.e. claims that the CBI said <foo> in regards to the investigation) and doesn't actually address the point raised a whit in light of the India Today source cited for the second bullet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

4. It's clear that it's death by hanging. Why don't you say so?

The CBI has clearly stated in its letter to Dr. Swamy that the death is an unnatural one and that all aspects are being looked into. Only the CBI has the right to declare if it was actually so or not. They have clearly mentioned that they are looking into all aspects. It'd be better to wait for the official conclusion rather than to make claims based on mainstream media articles, in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaitali Nath (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be a policy violation writ large. (The linked policy also applies to recent decedents; SSR qualifies.) We cannot cite government documents/conclusions; we must stick to what credible media sources report about the investigation (and thus far, the credible sources aren't putting words in the CBI's mouth, speculating on the investigation, or otherwise acting like armchair investigators rather than journalists). And, again, no involved party or credible source reporting on this case has treated it as anything but a hanging death; it would be inappropriate of us to not say the mechanism of death was hanging. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, none of the arguments you make are sensical either from a logic or policy standpoint, with you citing a source that obliterates your arguments as a whole (one of which was copy-pasted from the FAQ, even). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Wrong Barry John

The article references the wrong Barry John, a Welsh rugby player. I think it should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_John_(theatre_director) Stupid girl (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for pointing out this error. NedFausa (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Please consider the below changes: 1. The Height of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput: In numerous interviews, Sushant had mentioned that his height is 1.83m (183cm, 6ft) but the wikipedia has stated that the actor's height is 1.78m (178cm, 5ft 8in). This information is misleading. Review your sources and research. You can check one interview of the actor with IIFA Awards (2017).

2. The Cause of Death & The Main Article (Death Of Sushant Singh Rajput) In your FAQs you stated in that "Various credible secondary sources - in this case, mainstream news outlets - reported that Mumbai's and the AIIMS' medical examiners determined it was suicide". Since your 'credible secondary sources' are based on mainstream news outlets, here are some facts that are missing from your article: - The google history of Sushant Singh Rajput was actually "properties in Himachal Pradesh, Kerela and Coorg" which is the complete opposite than what the Mumbai cops had mentioned. This reveal is made by Times Now, you have mentioned this media in your article but didn't bother to add this information. - Dr. Sudhir Gupta, the head of AIIMS, had continuously changed his statement about the cause of death, going from 200% strangulation to 100% suicide over night. He was not present with the AIIMS team that was accompanied by the CBI during their visit to Mumbai, he wasnt even a part of any investigation done by the team. At the time he made his statement, the post-mortem reports were NOT shared with the AIIMS team. He gave his statement while the AIIMS team had visited Mumbai accompanied by the CBI so he was not a member of the investigation. Gupta also shared that his role in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case is 'supervisory'. This wont make his statement valid to consider it as an "official statement". - CBI has NOT confirmed the reports given by Dr. Sudhir Gupta. - In FAQs you said that there are no official investigation or 'credible news reports' that call Rajput's death a murder, while the fact is also that there is no official investigation or 'credible news reports' that CONFIRM it's a suicide.

Please add the above information to the article, and if its not valid to change the element of 'cause of death', I request you to add "ongoing investigation" or "alleged murder" to the cause of death element. The above points should be seriously considered. Shaleen Poudyal (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Shaleen Poudyal Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what people say about themselves, as people are not always honest about things like their age or other vital statistics, for various reasons. If you have independent sources(not interviews) regarding his height, please offer them.

As to his death, you are not bringing up any new points. Please review the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, @Shaleen Poudyal, this page makes no claim on his height and it isn't something which is included in 99% of biographies. That Wikipedia has "the wrong height" is just something that the groups of online conspiracy theorists obsessed with this issue lazily repeat without bothering to look in the article. See Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput/Archive_1#Height Valenciano (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The claims of malfeasance above require ironclad sourcing for us to have it. We will not engage in conspiracymongering, as that has led to this entire shitshow in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

You can add the fact his performance in Dil Bechara got a posthumous nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor Correctoryamum (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Change the cause of death from suicide by hanging to death under investigation as CBI has not officially declared anything . You can further verify this by visiting CBI website or by coroborrating with the letter sent by CBI to Dr Subramanyam Swami Raj jadhav2000 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Change cause of death Raj jadhav2000 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Raj jadhav2000 We don't wait for official determinations, we summarize what independent reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect, please take that up with them. Please review the frequently asked questions at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Asphyxia due to Hanging

We don't know if he had suicided or been killed but one thing is for sure, he died due to Asphyxia (deficient supply of oxygen) so why not change it from "Suicide by Hanging" to "Asphyxia due to Hanging"?

@331dot: Please give a reason on why my edit got undone. Thank you Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

‎Kartsriv (ec) Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, which should answer your questions. Reliable sources describe the death as a suicide, we don't wait for official determinations. If the reliable sources are incorrect, you will need to take that up with them to get them to issue retractions. I still don't totally understand why it is so hard to believe this man might have committed suicide, where I live celebrities committing suicide is not uncommon(such as Robin Williams, Kurt Cobain). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

[5] has some hints on "why", warning, it's long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for your reply, 331dot! I'd like to point out the there are reliable sources which suggest that the investigation is on going and there is a possibility that this might not be a suicide but one thing is certain which is the fact the he died due to Asphyxia so why not put that instead of suicide? Having a mutual discussion. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

‎Kartsriv Again, please review the FAQ above, this will address your questions. As I said, we don't wait for official determinations, we summarize what independent reliable sources say, and they say suicide. It is true that the investigation is not finished, and the article states this- that doesn't change what the reliable sources are saying. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: But those same articles also say "Asphyxia due to Hanging" which is sorta the same as "Suicide by Hanging". By changing it to the former we are being a little more specific on the reason of death. The fact is Asphyxia is more accurate than suicide. Sorry to bother you but I am just trying my best to keep the data accurate. The official postmortem reports concluded that Rajput died of asphyxia due to hanging. So to keep the facts straight, 100% he has died from Asphyxia but there is a slight uncertainty for suicide to being the cause so why not go for it? Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

‎Kartsriv There is a difference between the cause of death and the motivation of the death. Asphyxia can be caused by means other than suicide(accidents, murder) so it isn't the same at all. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: This makes sense. Thank you for your time taken for explaining me this. Have a good day! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to mention either murder or suicide at this time. VV 17:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources questioning the credibility of the AIIMS report

- AIIMS and AIIMS Panel is not the same
- Official AIIMS report has not been made public
- Major News Articles which reported the AIIM confirmation specifies that it had been LEAKED to them
SOURCES:
1
2
3
4
5
- The credibility of the Doctor of AIIMS who told "SSR's death is suicide" has been tarnished since he had switched his statements multiple times. His audio tape has leaked which stated that SSR was murder and had not suicided. Doc's words are not reliable.
SOURCES:
6
7
8
9
- The postmortem report is invalid because no time of death is mentioned.
SOURCES:
10
11
12
13
14

My point is:
AIIMS didn't confirm it as suicide. One AIIMS doctor representing the panel told who has a history of flipping statements and had leaked an audio clip stating that SSR was murdered. The doctor is uncertain hence we can't take him as a reliable source. There is no proper source stating that it was a suicide hence we can for time being remove the reason for death. I have too many articles against the AIIMS report. This means we basically don't have any reliable sources for his suicide. So it's best if we remove the term Suicide as we are not certain. Thank you - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not listening to what you've been told. We don't need official confirmation. If you don't like what the sources have said, you need to take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Your own sources states that it was not AIIMS which confirmed SSR's death rather it was one Doc with bad credibility representing one panel of AIIMS not the whole AIIM. AIIM as an entity never released any confirmation. Just got blocked from Wiki Discord Server. Please don't block me. I am just trying to shine light on actual fact. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to add on to that; what you are doing is original research. Things like "The doctor is uncertain hence we can't take him as a reliable source" or "There is no proper source stating that it was a suicide" are just your own interpretation of various news articles. If reliable sources claim something, as they claim this was a suicide, we follow them. Wikipedia doesn't operate based on the "truth" but what reliable sources tell us. We cannot use information from various reliable sources to make an original argument, as you are doing. Zoozaz1 talk 16:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv Zoozaz1 is quite correct. Reliable sources call this a suicide, and Wikipedia summarizes those sources, so that's the terminology we use. If you think those sources are incorrect, you will need to speak to them throughout the world and get them to issue retractions, not rewrite this article based on your conclusions. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Zoozaz1:, Thank for your response! I will go step by step. The article which you're mentioning says that it was confirmed by one doctor representing one panel and not the complete AIIMS. This is not my original research. Please READ THAT ARTICLE. Thank you - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've said, we don't need an official determination. Frankly, you are just going around in circles. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot here. The most I could see is an attribution to Gupta, but that is already in the article. Unless you show a consensus of reliable sources directly stating that it was not suicide (or it was uncertain) because we cannot rely on Gupta then the current content will remain. Zoozaz1 talk 16:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

And if that were the case, they would have said that already and we wouldn't be having this discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Zoozaz1:. Okay fine, Let's go step by step. Your article states that Gupta is the one who confirmed that SSR's reason of death is Suicide. Do you agree with this? - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are going in circles. Yes, Gupta was the one who confirmed it, and the rest of the steps you outlined above may or may not be true. You are trying to prove that what you believe is the truth, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Again, you are trying to create your own argument from various reliable sources, but what we need is a consensus of reliable sources explicitly saying your argument, which do not exist. I don't think there is much of a point to continuing this since those sources don't exist. Zoozaz1 talk 17:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Zoozaz1:, I got a source which explains my exact point. Please read this. Thank you - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read this: Breaking its silence over the Sushant Singh Rajput probe, AIIMS on Monday issued a statement that it has submitted the expert opinion report on Rajput's post-mortem to the CBI directly. Affirming that it is a legal matter, AIIMS said that any inputs on the report by the Medical boars must be obtained by CBI. This statement comes after AIIMS panel's chief Dr Sudhir Gupta's alleged leak to several media outlets claiming that murder had been ruled out.

You need to show a consensus of sources for your position. Otherwise it would violate due weight. Zoozaz1 talk 17:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please check these two links: 1 and 2. These two links clearly mention that AIIMS gave the report to CBI and Gupta leaked it prior. AIIMS didn't confirm Gupta's claims. I know this is getting heated up so I want to tell you something. I have nothing against any admins. I just want to get the truth. I am sorry @331dot: and @Zoozaz1: for stressing you up. This has become a nation phenomenon. Thank you. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All the source says is that Gupta leaked the report. It doesn't dispute the reliability of the report itself and it certainly doesn't say he was murdered. I'm going to repeat myself; you need a consensus of reliable sources saying "Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered," and that consensus of reliable does not exist. Right now, the vast majority of reliable sources say Gupta committed suicide, and even if you or I believe otherwise according to Wikipedia's policies we must follow those reliable sources. Zoozaz1 talk 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: Yes all the sources indeed says Gupta leaked the report. So you're citing Gupta's words not AIIMS's words. You don't have any proper proof that SSR died other than a report from someone (Gupta) who has a history of twisting his claims. If you have AIIMS (The Organization's) word them this would be reliable. Stating SSR died due to suicide by quoting Gupta is not correct. I want to make sure everyone gets this. Gupta (Unreliable Person) told SSR committed suicide not AIIMS. AIIMS just sent a undisclosed report to CBI. Now all this dispute can be fixed if we remove the word "Suicide" or use something else like "Asphyxia due to Hanging", "Not Confirmed", "Under Investigation" or something like that. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article says these are Gupta's words. That's what I was talking about with attribution before. When you say "you don't have any proper proof that SSR died other than a report from someone (Gupta) who has a history of twisting his claims" you again are misinterpreting how Wikipedia works. I, you, or proof you bring up is not relevant here. What's relevant is what the consensus of reliable sources directly say, and they say this was suicide. I don't see a point in continuing this discussion because the only thing that matters is what those sources explicitly say, and there are no or very few reliable sources that explicitly say it is uncertain if this was a suicide. Zoozaz1 talk 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: Non of the sources say it's a suicide. They say it's a claim which Gupta has done. Please cite me a line from a link which confirms his suicide. If you have a proper source then I will stop right here. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source cited in the lead: https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/sushant-singh-rajputs-death-complete-timeline-of-investigation-from-june-14-till-present-day. If you look at the death section of the article there are a plethora of sources declaring his death suicide. Zoozaz1 talk 18:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: I see. Thanks for sending the link! The only thing which is a reliable is the Mumbai Police Autopsy (Postmortem) which states the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging

@331dot: and @Zoozaz1: This article just confirmed something groundbreaking. AIIMS sent the following: The medical board has submitted the report directly to the CBI as required. Being a legal matter, any inputs on the report submitted by the Medical Board would have to be obtained from the CBI," read the AIIMS statement. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please someone help me to contact other admins. Thank you Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not particularly stressed about this. There is no specific need for admins here. I am not commenting here as an admin. You are still doing as Zoozaz1 has said. Your points should be raised with the media outlets with whose reporting you disagree with. When they change, we will. Not before. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Please read what I sent to Zoozaz1: Yes all the sources indeed says Gupta leaked the report. So you're citing Gupta's words not AIIMS's words. You don't have any proper proof that SSR died other than a report from someone (Gupta) who has a history of twisting his claims. If you have AIIMS (The Organization's) word them this would be reliable. Stating SSR died due to suicide by quoting Gupta is not correct. I want to make sure everyone gets this. Gupta (Unreliable Person) told SSR committed suicide not AIIMS. AIIMS just sent a undisclosed report to CBI. Now all this dispute can be fixed if we remove the word "Suicide" or use something else like "Asphyxia due to Hanging", "Not Confirmed", "Under Investigation" or something like that. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: After all this gets resolved. I hope we'll still be in good terms. Cheers - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv I am not on bad terms with you. But I will say that your persistence on this matter is becoming disruptive. You've been told why your argument is not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: No I still can't understand. Please cite me one source from AIIMS (The organization itself not Gupta) where it says SSR dies by commuting suicide. If the source is good then I will stop. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to do original research. You are free to believe as you wish, but Wikipedia will not be changed to match your research and conclusions. You need to go to the media outlets of the world to get them to change their reporting. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Zoozaz1: I have a source which is much more reliable than your source. This is from the CBI. A press release which states that no aspect has been ruled out as of date. SOURCE IMAGE You can see the press release on CBI's website archive and use the date 28.09.2020. I am pretty sure this would be enough to remove suicide as the reason.

Other Reputed News Articles.
1
2
3
4
- Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not, we already know that. Have you even read the FAQ up top? 331dot (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Your proof for Suicide is not reliable. My proof is from the CBI is from the government. CBI said that no aspect has been ruled out. You don't need to add murder or anything. Just remove the term suicide (We both know it's not confirmed). So just don't mention anything. Asphyxia due to hanging is the most accurate as it can get. Information is not diluted. Asphyxia has been caused due to hanging. This is proper and accurate. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: The source I linked is not the same from the FAQ infact it was released after the one in the FAQ. Please read it. Please explain properly before rejecting it. These are solid sources. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv Government documents are primary sources and not acceptable. Everything else I've already replied to and explained to you but you aren't listening. There is nothing more to do here as there is nothing new here that we don't already know and no consensus for adding your original research. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: But what about these 1, 2, 3, 4. Aren't they secondary sources? Why can't I use these? - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv We know the investigation is not over and that no official determination has been made. It doesn't matter because we summarize independent sources and they say suicide. This article notes that the investigation is continuing. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Aren't you summarizing article referring to the AIIMS-Gupta confusion. These article I mentioned above came after AIIMS-Gupta confusion which means this is the more contemporary news. Summarizing OLD independent sources? I mean, aren't these articles clear as day? The investigation as you said is not over then why should we summarizing if there is a newer article which suggests the something else. We need to remove the term suicide. I showed you 4 proper sources. I can get more. You don't need to put in false information just don't put anything or just state the fact which is "THE INVESTIGATION IS ON GOING". Who are we to assume? - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s long past time to drop the stick please. Wikipedia isn’t out to cover anything up, we simply summarise what reliable, independent sources say. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv (edit conflict) I don't have any other comment, you aren't listening. Maybe someone else will be able to explain it better than I have. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No. The credible sources, both before and after the AIIMS determination, have almost unanimously said it is suicide. Considering that most people who're claiming it's murder are also pointing the finger at other, identifiable, living people as the culprit, particularly Rhea Chakraborty, and that the court cases filed thus far by SSR's family have been for abetment of suicide, I have no idea, other than refusal to accept facts in opposition to their weltanschauung, why people are still insisting that we include such a gross BLP violation writ large. We are not Indian media. We gain nothing and lose everything by hosting unhinged conspiracy theories. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Jéské Couriano:! Hope you're doing well. I am not saying it is a murder. I am saying it is not confirmed yet. Since CBI's report is a Primary Source. I have tons of articles from news outlets stating the same 1, 2, 3, 4 which will be secondary sources. These sources are newer than the ones cited and they explicitly state that suicide has not been confirmed. Nobody is asking you to put the cause of death as murder. We just want to remove the term Suicide. The sources you're mention are regarding the AIIMS-Gupta saga. These came after that. You cannot go against reputed news outlet sources. Thank you - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The consensus back then and now is against that, as is patently clear above. We've discussed this before, and part of the issue is this is a camel's-nose issue. I would be more amenable to revisiting this consensus if SSR-related pages weren't seeing an influx of activity pushing the murder conspiracy theory, but the fact the article has had to be re-XCP'd and this talk page has had to be semi-protected once again suggests that this would result in far mote headaches than we're dealing with right now, and what we're dealing with now is a bunch of "murder!" screams. I will reiterate myself: We gain nothing and lose everything by hosting/entertaining unhinged conspiracy theories, and putting it as "under investigation" would do just that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Obviously we might be entertaining unhinged conspiracy theories but we have to display the truth. The truth is Suicide is NOT confirmed yet. CBI has taken over Mumbai Police's case hence deeming the previous articles as outdated. CBI told they haven't confirmed the cause of death hence we have to display the true fact. Just because we're scared of conspiracy theories doesn't mean we can alter the truth. Still not convinced why not to put under investigation when that's what the CBI says. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

We go by the sources, not the truth. For most of the people pushing these conspiracy theories, the truth they hold is he was murdered. And the sources you proffer don't explicitly contradict the sources we're citing for the suicide claim. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: My source literally says 'homicide' Not Ruled Out. IT IS NOT CONFIRMED. AIIMS has submitted it's findings to CBI and only CBI is authorized to release it. Your sources use Gupta's words. My sources literally say the government hasn't decided whether it's suicide or homicide. Nobody is asking to put the cause of death as murder. We just want to remove the term "Suicide". Have to get the facts straight. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano:, @331dot: and @Zoozaz1: - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be basing an argument here off of Republic TV's reporting on it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: The please check these: 1, 2, 3, 4. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv Who is "we"?("we just want...") Do you represent a group or perhaps other editors who cannot edit these protected pages? Anyway- we know the investigation is not over and that it's looking at everything. That's standard procedure. That doesn't change that reliable sources have reported this as a suicide. We don't wait for an official determination or the conclusion of the formal investigation. Repeat- we don't wait for an official determination or the conclusion of the formal investigation. If they determine that it was something other than a suicide and that is reported, I will be the first to support changing it. The article says the investigation is not over. This isn't that hard and your persistence is now disruptive and needs to ease up. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

For the joy of all

OpIndia is writing about this article again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it. I'm getting quite an education here. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It mentions that supposedly information about his suicide was added before he died, but that's simply due to using UTC and not local India time. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the earlier items under "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" covered that last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

They're pulling out the same completely disproven nonsense? Sheesh. And they wonder why the source was deprecated here. When you can't understand simple things like timezones, even when explained. Ravensfire (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the time zone stuff, how lacking in commonsense does anyone have to be to believe that professional hitmen have nothing better to do just before a crime then announcing their murder in advance using an ip which can easily be traced back to them? One of the people pushing this even claims to be an "Academy Award Winning Poetess" for goodness' sake. Sometimes I honestly wonder if these people are just trolling us or if they genuinely are that thick?

There is one point they've raised which may be worth another look, though. That's the reliability of India Today as a source. I had a look on WP:RSN and the one previous discussion on India Today at this link is hardly supportive of its use. It may well be that we should find a better source than that. Valenciano (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added timezone thing in FAQ. Please reword and add wikilinks if necessary. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2021

I am not a 5 day old user. I have over 200 edits here so please don't reject it straightaway. Take a deep breath, have a cool mind, read the request twice then decide what to do
Add a footnote in infobox reason of death, stating that the cause is disputed and investigation is still going on to confirm it. This information is already present in article with sources, just mention as a footnote as infobox has summarise useful information. -- Parnaval (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Adding such a footnote is suggesting that the reliable sources are inaccurate and even if that wasn't true those believing in the misinformation and conspiracy theorists wouldn't be persuaded. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, this is a camel-nose-in-the-tent issue. We have to be careful here so as to avoid giving any sort of appearance of support for the "he was murdered" conspiracy theory because of the BLP implications. You (Parnaval) and Kartsriv are one of only a small number of users - I can literally count 'em on one paw - who are actually willing to try and defend your position instead of barking out demands at us, and for that I respect you. It still doesn't change the overall calculus here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the cause of death (Again..... 😌)

Hello, I've spoken with several extremely competent admins and they all made more or less the same point which is "we summarize what independent reliable sources say, and they say it's suicide". Which in my personal opinion is totally fair but there is a slight problem regarding that. This particular case got into this peculiar mess which most admins won't realize and that is because they are not from India. Only Indians are unfortunate enough to witness our crappy main stream news TV networks who paint as if the reality is that he was murdered in daylight. This brainwashes all of the people. The reason I wasn't brainwashed is because I don't watch TV. I've disconnected cable cause I am studying and I personally never watched any movies of the Actor and that is because I don't even know the language of the movies he makes in the first place. Weird, huh? Then why the heck was I fighting like a donkey with top notch admins/editors who helped me multiple times before with different articles here at Wiki. It's not like I was having fun doing it. I don't gain anything by annoying them. It's because of one damn edit I made. Let me explain. After I made that edit, User 331dot undid it and I asked him why. He responded by explaining why and then I actually understood what he meant and was about to continue my day peacefully. But then one twitter user found the edit I made and posted it on twitter and then another twitter user found my user page and guess what.......My bloody twitter handle is in there and he tagged me on a tweet exactly when you guys added Extended Confirmed Protection and said I had 500+ edits so I can edit the Actor's page and this is the start of the massive saga of me trying to edit this actor's cause of death.

I opened twitter to contact College Board because for some reason I couldn't register for SAT. Only to notice 50 notifications, since I had only 10 followers I was surprised and clicked on them to see a bajillion people asking me for their help. One thing I want to point out is I didn't know much bout this actor and I just thought of ignoring it until I saw what was trending. The words "Wikipedia Sushant Was Killed". I was genuinely scared for a minute. What the hell happened? How did Wikipedia kill this actor? Did his Wikipedia article show something embarrassing bout him which pushed him towards suicide? Did Jimbo kill him? I was confused as f**k. Now normally I'd go to Wikipedia to know more bout this actor but I couldn't because apparently Wikipedia is showing "false" information (According to twitter, not me). Look, I come to wiki to read some articles on science. If I find a mistake or something which could be explained better. I edit it. That's it. I just do it occasionally. Sometimes I report vandals but nothing more. I don't get into dramas. Since I didn't wanna ignore them and trust me you don't wanna ignore furious Indians. So, I tweeted stating exactly this: "I do have extended confirmed user access but I still can't change it because AIIMS has properly told the media that it was a suicide" and added a link to support what I just said and THINGS WENT BONKERS. As of now my tweet impressions have increased by 9209350%. Yes, you're reading it right. 9.2 million percent. Don't believe me? Have a look for yourself. This is when I knew I gotta do something so I thought of systematically doing everything. Trying to reason out with the admins and stuff. Okay so do I believe he was killed? I don't have a filipin clue cause I didn't know this actor before a few days ago. Does it really matter? Again I am not sure. If there are sufficient news articles stating that he had suicided then I think Wikipedia should put it as Suicide and that's what the editor did. So let's cut to the chase.

What are my intentions?

My intentions:

• Not to encourage conspiracy theories such as murder or Bollywood master plan or whatever the internet believes

• Want to state actual facts

Am I Neutral? Is my point of view neutral?

You can't find a more neutral person than me from India in the current situation and that's because I haven't watched or admired his movies much. I am from the other part of India with a different language. I'll be honest here, if this same controversy is surrounding Heath Ledger, Chester Bennington or Mac Miller then I would lose my nuts. I would indeed be emotional because these people's content is something I really enjoy and admire but that is not the case with Sushant Singh Rajput. I am very neutral. Please feel free to correct my points. I juust want the right facts on board not some weird hypnotic conspiracy theory.

What am I proposing to do?

The problem is regarding sources. To understand all the sources. I wrote a python script to weed out citations and sources not relating to his death and this is the data I obtained. I also physically checked it to verify its accuracy. I'd like to point out that this doesn't come under original research as there is an exception to this case. Read Compiling facts and information to know more.

Type of Citation	Number of Citation
Total Citations	221
Citations from 2020 to 2021 (Removed cites prior to 2020)	152
Citations related only regarding his death (Removed cites which talk about movie performances and relationship stuff)	43
Citations after removing the articles reporting the initial news of death (Removed cites which reported the death of the actor on the day he died)	29
Citations without Rhea drug charges (Removed cites talking bout Rhea drug charges since these are separate incidents)	26
Citations without Family Accusations (Removed cites talking about his family's actions against anyone since they're only accuasations)	22
Citations without Miscellaneous Articles (Removed cites talking about remembrance, facts, life history, etcetera)	16
Citations without Mental Health Compliments (Removed cites stating him having bipolar disorder, depression, etcetera since those article don't confirm anything)	12

Now you are left with only 12 citations and all of them support the Suicide. These are the sources which admins are referring to as "we summarize what independent reliable sources say, and they say it's suicide". I am going help admins and editors understand the problems with these source.

Before that I want to apologize to all Wikipedians in behalf of all Indians who were constantly annoying you by demanding edits. I am trying my best to reason out here. The following are the cites which state that the actor died by suiciding.

7. ^ "Sushant Singh Rajput's Death: Complete timeline of investigation from June 14 till present day". The Free Press Journal. 29 July 2020.

22. ^ "Sushant Singh Rajput: Federal probe ordered into Bollywood star's death". BBC News. 19 August 2020.

188. ^ "Sushant Singh Rajput's postmortem report submitted, actor's family arrives in Mumbai". Hindustan Times. 15 June 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2020.

190. ^ Singh, Divyesh (23 August 2020). "Sushant Singh Rajput died 10 -12 hours before postmortem: Doctors to Mumbai Police". India Today. Retrieved 23 August 2020.

191. ^ Ozarkar, Vallabh (28 July 2020). "Forensic Science Laboratory rules out foul play in Sushant Singh Rajput's death". Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 30 July 2020.

192. ^ "Viscera report rules out foul play in Sushant death: Official". Deccan Herald. 27 July 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2020.

195. ^ "Sushant Singh Rajput family vs Rhea Chakraborty case verdict: SC allows CBI to take control of investigation". India Today. 19 August 2020. Retrieved 19 August 2020.

196. ^ Mahajan, Shruti (19 August 2020). "Sushant Singh Rajput: CBI probe into FIR against Rhea Chakraborty lawful; Mumbai Police to hand over all evidence, Supreme Court". Bar and Bench. Retrieved 19 August 2020.

199. ^ Kashyap, Anjana Om; Pandey, Munish (3 October 2020). "Sushant Singh Rajput murder completely ruled out, it was suicide: Dr Sudhir Gupta of AIIMS". India Today. Retrieved 3 October 2020.

200. ^ Ghosh, Poulomi (editor) (3 October 2020). "AIIMS report on Sushant Singh Rajput death: Who said what". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 3 October 2020.

201. ^ "SSR death case: Medical board submitted report directly to CBI, can obtain inputs from bureau, says AIIMS". Asian News International. 5 October 2020. Retrieved 5 October 2020.

202. ^ Salunke, Pratik (15 October 2020). "Reports on Sushant Singh Rajput case 'speculative and erroneous': CBI". The Free Press Journal. Retrieved 15 October 2020.

The following lines under Fact(s) are quoted from their respective links.

• Cite #7

Free Press Journal: Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death: Complete timeline of investigation from June 14 till present day

Fact(s)

1. Mumbai Police concluded that it was indeed a suicide and there no foul play was found.

Debunk: According to the law, whatever the Mumbai Police found is disregarded since the case has been transferred to CBI. Read this document from CBI which confirms what I stated in the previous statement. Why was this not reported by any news article? It is because it's such a common fact among Indians. People's cases usually get transferred to CBI if there is corruption found in the Police Department. Click here to find a similar case. So what matters here is the finding of CBI and the CBI told they have not concluded it yet.

• Cite #22

BBC: Sushant Singh Rajput: Federal probe ordered into Bollywood star's death

Fact(s):

1. It has led to a tussle over who has jurisdiction to investigate - police in Mumbai or his home state Bihar.
2. A single judge bench of the Supreme Court said that the Bihar government was competent to request the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Debunk: Nothing here really. It says Bihar and Mumbai Police investigated it initially and now it has requested the case to be transferred to CBI. I want to mention that nothing here in this article which is confirming "Suicide".

• Cite #188

Hindustan Times: Sushant Singh Rajput’s postmortem report submitted, actor’s family arrives in Mumbai

Facts(s)

1. The postmortem of actor Sushant Singh Rajput has been conducted at Mumbai’s Dr RN Cooper Municipal General Hospital. A senior police official has said that cause of death is “asphyxia due to hanging”.
2. The actor’s family arrived in Mumbai from Patna on Sunday night. The 34-year-old actor was found dead at his residence on Sunday.

Debunk: Nothing here too. This article doesn't confirm Suicide. It confirms "asphyxia due to hanging".

• Cite #190

India Today: Sushant Singh Rajput died 10 -12 hours before postmortem: Doctors to Mumbai Police

Fact(s):

1. The doctors of Cooper Hospital Mumbai told Mumbai Police on August 5 that Sushant Singh Rajput died 10-12 hours before the postmortem.

Debunk: This would affect the case but as far as we are concerned. This doesn't confirm suicide.

• Cite #191

Mumbai Mirror: Sushant Singh Rajput’s death: Forensic Science Laboratory rules out foul play, focus now on suicide abetment charge

Facts(s):

1. Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Kalina has out ruled homicide
2. FSL’s report states that there was no trace of any harmful or toxic chemicals and/or drugs in Rajput’s viscera samples.

Debunk: This is interesting. An Article which ruled out homicide? There is a catch. This article says Forensic Science Laboratory has ruled out homicide not the Police/CBI or any other credible organizations. In fact, Forensic Science Laboratory was under CBI and CBI has not concluded anything yet. Hence, finding by FSL won't confirm anything. There is one more reason to debunk this article but I will put that in the next cite because it is similar to this one.

• Cite #192

Deccan Herald: Viscera report rules out foul play in Sushant death: Official

Fact(s):

1. The viscera report of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput has ruled out any foul play in his death here last month, a police official said on Monday.

Debunk: Same reasons as the above cite (#191) but I want to add another point. CBI had only 20% of the viscera to do any tests hence the credibility is questioned.

• Cite #195 and Cite #196

India Today: Sushant Singh Rajput family vs Rhea Chakraborty case verdict: SC allows CBI probe into SSR death

Bar and Bench: [Breaking] Sushant Singh Rajput: CBI probe into FIR against Rhea Chakraborty lawful; Mumbai Police to hand over all evidence, Supreme Court

Fact(s):

1. The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the Sushant Singh Rajput family vs Rhea Chakraborty case.

Debunk: This is not related to his death. It is related to Rhea and SSR's family so hence it doesn't confirm Suicide.

• Cite #199 and Cite #200

India Today: Sushant Singh Rajput murder completely ruled out, it was suicide: Dr Sudhir Gupta of AIIMS

Hindustan Times: AIIMS report on Sushant Singh Rajput death: Who said what

Facts(s):

1. Dr Sudhir Gupta, who led the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) panel re-evaluating Sushant Singh Rajput's post-mortem and viscera reports, has said it was a case of suicide and the murder angle has been completely ruled out.

Debunk: This is very important and a strong point so pay attention please.

1. Dr Sudhir Gupta doesn't represent AIIMS: AIIMS said that it's findings have been summitted to the CBI and press may collect the information from them.
2. Dr Gupta has history of flipping statements.
3. The articles clearly states that it is Gupta who confirmed not AIIMS. Hence, it is not reliable.

• Cite #201

ANI: SSR death case: Medical board submitted report directly to CBI, can obtain inputs from bureau, says AIIMS

Fact(s);

1. SSR death case: Medical board submitted report directly to CBI, can obtain inputs from bureau, says AIIMS

Debunk: Totally True. In fact this article helps me in debunking the previous cite. Though I'd like to point out that ANI has a strong history on misinformation. Take a look at it's own Wikipedia page where they show cases of Propaganda, Misinformation, Forging Clip, etcetera which were confirmed by Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

• Cite #202

Free Press Journal: Reports on Sushant Singh Rajput case 'speculative and erroneous': CBI

Fact(s):

1. “CBI continues to investigate the death of Rajput. There are certain speculative reports in the media that the CBI has reached a conclusion. It may be reiterated that these reports are speculative and erroneous,”

Debunk: So true. CBI didn't reach any conclusions yet. Suicide has not been confirmed.

I believe I have given sufficient explanation and sources on why "Suicide" is not confirmed. It is my request to change the cause of death to under investigation. There is no proper sources which confirm suicide. The ones which do are speculative or reported early. As of now, CBI (The current holder of the case) has not confirmed. Hence, it would be fair to wait until the investigation gets over. We cannot assume he suicided nor he had been murdered. Let's just say the investigation has not been concluded. Sorry for being too long. Just want things to be clear. Thanks for reading. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot:, @Zoozaz1: and @Jéské Couriano: - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv This is too long to read. We know there is no official confirmation, we don't need that as I have said numerous times. I'd suggest you forward this to the worldwide media and get them to issue retractions. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And what makes you think that official confirmation will end the conspiracy theory talk? Here in the US we still have many people who believe there was a conspiracy to deny Donald Trump reeelection despite no evidence of it(including Donald Trump). 331dot (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Sorry, I know it is long but Wikipedia's job is not to stop conspiracy theories. It is to state true facts. I have shown adequate resources to show that all the sources suggesting that SSR has Suicided are premature/incorrect. Your reason has always been "we summarize what independent reliable sources say, and they say it's suicide". Well, I just took all the reliable sources cited in the article and proved them to be providing dated/incorrect information. One universal understanding we both have is that the investigations are ongoing. The point I was making in the crazy long explanation is why take outdated/factually incorrect information to prevent conspiracy theories. It is not our job to prevent conspiracy theories. It is our jobs to provide the actual straight to the point facts. The straight to the point fact is investigation is still going on. Theories can arise no matter what is written on Wikipedia. If you still have any reliable source which explicitly mention SSR died by Suicide then I will stop. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not listening to me, we do not wait for official determinations or the conclusion of the investigation. Wikipedia did not wait for the US Congress to certify Joe Biden as the winner of the election, and did not wait for legal cases disputing it to be concluded, Wikipedia reported it as soon as media outlets determined it. We do not wait for official determinations. Can you repeat that back to me?

The fifth source in this article states "Rhea Chakraborty has been in the news for being the alleged girlfriend of the 34-year-old actor, who committed suicide on 14 June by hanging himself in his apartment in suburban Bandra." CNN stated "Mumbai police say he took his own life". [6] 331dot (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: let's use the Biden analogy. Let's say the media outlets determined that Joe Biden is gonna be the president but then the same news outlet is publishing articles stating that it is not confirmed whether Biden is gonna be the president after reviewing new facts. What would you do? CNN and New York Times are world news outlets not local news. They obviously won't do a follow up. As a matter of fact, Livemint is local news and it did write a follow up. NEWS OUTLETS ARE SAYING MURDER IS NOT RULED OUT. Why are you quoting the sources which was written on the day he died. It is clearly an assumption. Newer articles say Murder has not been ruled out hence we don't know what happened. Say "Asphyxia due to Hanging" or remove the word suicide. Don't need to put investigation in process. Let's not put anything. We'll just remove cause of death from the infobox. Thanks - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv I have done what you asked and offered sources stating suicide, but you have not stopped. With Joe Biden's election, that is exactly what happened(and is still happening). Plently of people claim "new evidence" exists or are looking for it, and that is reported on. The fundamental disconnect that you have here is that you want to wait for an official determination but Wikipedia doesn't do that. We aren't going to agree as long as you see it that way, so there is no purpose for either of us in debating this with each other. You aren't going to get a consensus to violate Wikipedia guidelines so there is no need for me to further debate this with you. I commend you for not being a drive-by editor(making a comment and then leaving), but what you want isn't going to happen. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to say one more thing; a whole lot of what you are saying is in the article. It's been made to sound like the entire Wikipedia article is a 100%, unambiguous statement that he committed suicide, but that is not correct. If you actually read the death section, every single mention of suicide is attributed to someone, either Sudhir Gupta, the Mumbai police, or ANI, and the entire story is explained much more thoroughly on the Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Now yes, the infobox and the lead say he committed suicide because that is an overall summary of what the media are saying, but if you read the section you can see the added nuance. Zoozaz1 talk 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, camel's nose issue. 331dot has explained the actual issues of this more eloquently than I could have; the sorts of people we're dealing with refuse to read and digest anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions, and so changing it in the infobox would only encourage more "it was murder!" screeching. We're dealing with people who believe the world works like <foo> and refuse to accept any evidence that it instead works like <bar> no matter how ironclad or convincing. It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of them, and if the truth is undeniable they just create their own. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet that says it all, cite 201 states that the AIIMS board reported it as a suicide.

No one else can repeat the post-mortem, so you are stuck with the medical board's report.

No CBI investigation can do anything to dispute the facts that there was no other evidence of tampering, coercion, manhandling, marks of violence, no fingerprints or DNA of anyone else on his body. The Cooper Hospital staff simply state that, as there is only evidence of him alone being there, and there is no evidence of damage to his body other than the hanging, and no evidence of anything in this blood or fluids, he committed suicide. The reports of continued and worsening depression also add to that weight of evidence.

So, there HAS been an official determination. If the CBI can prove it was NOT suicide, that still won't change the facts that there was no evidence of it NOT being suicide. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Kartsriv, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) - One of the top government medical colleges in the country - concluded that Sushant Singh Rajput died by suicide – dismissing theories of strangulation and poisoning through Forensic evidences. No investigation can overturn that. I bet it.
I wish you could spare your time for something productive. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2021 (2)

2402:3A80:1BD7:75D2:0:0:2124:C2EC (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Movie based on his life (and death)

Add in this article that film Nyaay:_The_Justice has been released and is based on his life. Also add that it will re-release in theatres once they open as high court denied to stop circulation of film. -- Parnaval (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
main reason I started this section was to allow cluebot to archive long 3 month old section
now that long section has been archived by cluebot, but till now I have not got reply on this request so I am adding e/c request template -- Parnaval (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

References

•  Not done for now: Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -ink&fables «talk» 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2021 (2)

X- Rajput died by suicide at his home in Bandra, Mumbai in June 2020, aged 34. Y- Rajput's death is still a mystery and getting investigated. Ankitaganguli (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ankitaganguli Since you restored this, please read the FAQ at the top of this page which should help you understand why the article says what it says. As I said on your user talk page, there has been a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding, and confusion surrounding his death, that all may be causing you to think things that aren't the case. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

I want to see the format Curiousabinash (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not an edit request. Edit requests should only be used to request specific changes to this article. If you have a general question about this article, please be more specific. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

How can AIIMS Report be a credible source when it has not been made public?

Dr Gupta, said that the AIIMS Medical Board has expressed very clearly and conclusively its final medico-legal opinion in this case.

He said that the contents of the opinion shared with the CBI cannot be shared with anyone as the matter is sub judice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.115.216 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles summarize independent reliable sources. If independent sources report on the contents of a document that has not been released to the public, that is valid Wikipedia content. You are free to assess such a source as you see fit for your own personal views. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And as has been repeatedly pointed out - to the point it's in the FAQ that is prominently pinned at the top of the page - we wouldn't be citing the AIIMS report directly even if it were public as it's a primary source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

CBI said Under Investigation

Pretty much every media source that isn't agitation-propaganda or otherwise facts-optional has said it is suicide, and have also reported that the charge against Chakraborty is abetment of suicide. We are not going to include claims that no credible media outlet is taking seriously especially where still-living people are concerned. We cannot cite court documents as those are government documents by definition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change the cause of death to under investigation as said by cbi and by SC that the case in under investigation SC of India has said the lawyers RTI to CBI that the case is under investigation So cause of death should be changes not to suicide not to murder but to under Investigation Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC) As the CBI have also said that the AIIMS report leak to be wrong and had not any official say the report is no longer be permissible in media and on Internet alos every channel that circilated that report had been asked to remove there say Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia says it relies on sources so here is the biggest source the CBI has said itself that the case is under investigation Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Also those who are saying that that mumbai police and other sources are credible that's okay but The SC had itself handed this case from them to CBI and even now of the cause is not changed to Under Investigation than Wikipedia 0age is just controlled by the biased ones Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Sisters fir had been mentioned but the cause is still not changed so that means Wikipedia does want it to change or what If sister fir high court and sc decision is cited than also edit the cause SC had also order that Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Anshul Srivastava.21 Please read the FAQ at the top of this page, which addresses your points. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) I have read it and after that only I m adding this Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Sorry for the indent I don't know how to correct that any changes will be appreciated I just want to say the CREDIBILITY of source here can't be greater than SC of India Mumbai Police investigation was transferred from them to CBI by SC so here is the first question on whether there should be a credibility A SC will only transfer cases when they knew the current investigation is not good for public CREDIBILITY for future or the current investigation is missing something Second thing AIIMS CBI has said it in their official report that the report that leak is not a official report but Doctor own statements Also the AIIms board had said that and a investigation is ongoing on the doctor itself by a parliamentary board in parliament So these two sources and null and void now Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC) These two are the major fact and how can Wikipedia even try to call it suicide when the case is still under investigation And the mainstream media which u all r here saying That same media shows murder investigation I think only one media channel had been taken as a source here So the right thing is to call it under investigation rather than to be biased on incredible sources Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Anshul Srivastava.21 You are not stating anything new here that hasn't been discussed previously. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and they say what is in this article. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) I think you should read the FAQ again, specifically "We are also not allowed to cite investigation or government documents as they are considered primary sources." 331dot (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) what I'm trying to state here is credibility factor should also be considered here I m not saying change this to murder but Credibility here here should be here CBI is greater in Hierarchy so they should be placed much above than city police And also the sources which you are claming here had been credited as non credibility by the same Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) It isn't up to us to give more weight or less weight to any particular source of information if reliable sources do not. If reliable sources aren't doing what you think they should be doing, you need to tell them, not us. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) when I give u exact reason u r saying to tell the agencies But all I m saying Wikipedia is a place for truth not for biased information and that's why non credibility should be taken into account You r giving me reasons of realible sources but what have been here considered as realible sources does SC is not realible I mean it's the biggest court in the country and by changing the under investigation this will give the world a knowledge that the case is under investigation The page is totally biased towards a particular views Look at different section everything is mentioned there how is that written there without any realible source In thay case the whole page should be deletybecause the page is totally biased and u r asking me Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I respect the fact that u all r very good editors some of u r admin but believe this also that this page is totally biased how can someone before page is protected is able to write wrong information you should change the state that is your responsibility also a good admin and human being Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) It's is written that DR told Aani That the case is suicide but now look no body mention the fact that cbi had given a public letter saying that all these reports r false and after that cbi also released a statement about the case is still investigating First correct those things and then try to give reliable source a weight or not that's upto u Wikipedia is internet entity not a thing controlled by some biased(not talking about u all) Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I was looking that the people who have even edited this are not even from India (some of them) and they have edited that before page was secured without any source and still u r asking me seriously bro Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) page is taking so mumbai police as source but SC and CBI are nothing to be considered as sourceAnshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) SC is the highest court and CBI the highest authority for investigation and still not considered just giving the fact that not reliable are u serious man they r the highest authority in India. Why would SC give order to someone - after examine every fact In that case Johnny Depp has not been a credible case Trump Didn't loose SC case etc SC means that there authority is over the whole country Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) By the fact mentioned here about credible sources All of u means SC and CBI are just nothing on Wikipedia India is democratic country and SC has the highest authority The court is one of the best courts in the world and still Wikipedia admins don't considered it as a source I'm not saying change the murder but atleast right under investigation How Wikipedia can give a judgement before even CBI has released a statement Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC) SC is much higher in authority above anyone even the government so they should be considered as the first source Even CBI is higheestm Mumbai police had been a excellent in past but that does not means that in every case there judgment is the final SC has given a verdict to transfer a case that means they find something is not good with the ongoing investigation You can write mumbai police called or give result in suicide but also mention that case is under investigation in the upper section Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I m a very new editor here doesn't even have a good stance before u all but atleast try to consider other things also by blocking ip address of a country or by blocking anyone u r not protecting the page but pushing the right information also Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Still man If u find that I m not giving good reason you can close or even delete my talk I m not calling anyone take or fraud but just stating a fact I m not taking u as enemy brother The way u mention the last line of your reply give me feeling that u r thing me as someone as fake person or I m considering others as fake I m not brother trust me I m just rying to say facts should be mentioned here SC and CBI should be considered as prime sources they r highest and most respectfully authority Yes no doubt mumbai police is one of the best in Maharashtra but in this case they should not be considered above SC or CBI Mention two sections one of mumbail police and other or CBI and SC Every agency or police in India do their job according to rules and regulations according to constitution but a ongoing investigation should be stated as ongoing Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) I haven't read this massive post. Wikipedia is not about truth, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Your posts here and the fact you are not listening to us are quickly becoming disruptive. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) We know the case is under investigation, and the article states this. That does not prevent us from summarizing independent reliable sources that state what those sources have found. If you choose to wait for an official determination or the views of the courts, that is your decision. We don't wait for official determinations or use court documents. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Okay man that's upto u all And yes the article seems very long to me also😂 Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

SSR trend

Off-topic WP:NOTFORUM— hako9 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Some right wing sanghis daily basis run some useless tags to ruin indian Twitter and bollywood 37.39.237.10 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC) It's tedious. I see the sister is a Twitter cheerleader and is again running trends against Wikipedia today based on the supposed height issue. Anyone who seriously thinks Wikipedia would be the first port of call for conspirators, using fully traceable ips, needs their head examined. We've pointed this out to them before and that per WP:BLP our page doesn't have a height so there's nothing we can change but in the end, it's a waste of time as you can't reason with stupid. The sister is actually the main accused, having given her brother shady anti-depressants just before his death so it just looks like a smokescreen from a guilty person to try to obscure her responsibility in his suicide. Anyway, we work here on the basis of reliable sources not conspiracies. Indian authorities seem to have ignored their Twitter rants and so shall we. Valenciano (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

How can you tell reason of death is suicide, when case is still in investigation. 2405:204:28D:3E7D:1EF:E197:8877:CC8A (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQs above. Princess Persnickety (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FAQ updated

I've updated bullet 8 of the FAQ to reflect the FIR against Priyanka and her promotion of some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the case, sourcing it to the Economic Times article cited at the Death of... article. I invite any established user who knows WTF they're doing to wordsmith it or find better sources if necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Not suicide

He is great experience young generation Sushant Singh Rajput not suicide please justice 45.112.243.22 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Most unfortunately, suicide affects people of all walks of life. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

Chage the reason of death it is still under CBI investigation. 122.184.66.136 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, which specifically addresses this point. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sushant Singh Rajput was murderd

Please change this suicide it was murderd 103.198.173.63 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? AntiDionysius (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You have a right to declare sushant singh rajuptcause of death?

If you are saying you can't rely on any party or relatives 'information than why do you rely on other parties statement. Moreover ,not even a single pictures is out which show him hanging with fan .He was lying on his bed . It would be wiser to Change the cause of death to a "under investigation" from "suicide by hanging". 27.255.171.250 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, which touches on many of the points you are making. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No,my main question is when not even a single pictures is out which show him hanging with fan why you declared the cause of death? 27.255.185.74 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. Any further replies that indicate you have not read it will be reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)