Talk:Terry Kath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terry Kath article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Is an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound (like Kath and Jon-Erik Hexum) a "suicide"? I always thought that the definition of a suicide was when one killed oneself intentionally; accidents (even if resulting from gross stupidity) don't qualify. --192.65.41.20 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the definition of "suicide" is intentionally killing oneself. While no one outside of Kath's inner circle knows exactly what happened, the band's official position has always been that Kath's death was an accident. I would be in favor of replacing the term "suicide" with "death". Aguerriero 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Suicide simply means the person caused his/her own death. It can be either intentional or accidental. That said, I don't care who you are ... if you put a gun you believe to be empty to your head and pull the trigger ... some part of you WANTS to die. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.80.152 (talk • contribs) .

Terry Kath was one of the worlds greatest singer/songwriter/guitarist, that ever lived (my opinion). One can feel his passion for the music, in his earlier recordings. His singing and guitar work still sends out positive/up-beat energy. If there was any reason for him to be depressed..... It was the soft commercial direction the band was going in. They had decided to go with the "pop" style, instead of rock/blues/funk, which he apparently had preferred (my favorite Chicago albums were the first five).

I agree.. even Jimi Hendrix considered him a master guitarist. His death was a real loss. I hope you will contribute to the article if you can - and don't forget to sign your comments on Talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)! Aguerriero (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

_______________________ This page needs to be cleaned up. There is too much opinion and gossip and this veers too far into fan worship for it to be a relevent encyclopedia entry. Aaronproot

Can you provide examples of sections you feel are inappropriate? Aguerriero (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a rudimentary cleanup of the page and will try to add more material at some point. Aaronproot

[edit] Copy of Auto-Peer Review Report

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

[edit] Semi-protection

This was semi-protected for repeated addition of uncited information by an IP range. When everyone's ready to start playing by the rules, we'll unprotect. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin awards

Since there seems to be a low-level edit war going on about including a sourced statement that Kath was the recipient of a Darwin Award due to the nature of his death, I'd like to get a consensus here about whether the information belongs in the article. Please see this diff for the latest version of the text being yo-yo'd. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. It's not overblown or written in an unencyclopedic tone... it's just a short blurb with a ref. Nothing wrong with that. 156.34.239.109 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Take it out...it's not relevant. Here is the text of the last two messages I sent to the editor of the Terry Kath page. Please read my argument AGAINST the darwin reference and do not misinterpret it as an argument FOR the tasteless, hurtful Robin Williams 'joke.'


Kath/darwin awards It looks like the darwin award reference will keep coming back to the Terry Kath page even though it is not relevant to his life. It is trivia.

The argument that this 'fact' should be included in the Kath bio because it is 'documentable' and can be referenced doesn't hold water.

If Wikipedia insists it does, then I think I'll go to the Karen Carpenter and Momma Cass bios and add this:

"The unusual circumstances of Cass Elliott's (Karen Carpenter's) gave her the dubious distinction of being the subject of the following Robin Williams joke, which is the first known bulimia joke involving celebrities: "If Momma Cass had shared that ham sandwich with Karen Carpenter, they'd both be alive today." (Notice the similarity in tone and spirit to the Kath entry: "The unusual circumstances of his death gave him the dubious distinction of being one of the first celebrities to earn a Darwin Award.[4]")

This 'joke' appeared in the Robin Williams film "Man Of The Year." Numerous online and offline media properties referenced this line in their reviews of the film. Therefore, documenting this 'fact' should be as easy as documenting the Kath/darwin 'fact' has been.

According to Wikipedia logic, if something can be documented, it can be added to a bio, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it is to the subject's life.

Therefore, I should be able to add the text three paragraphs above here on the Karen Carpenter and Cass Elliot Wikipedia bio pages with full confidence that Wikipedia will re-post it every time a KC and/or CE fan (or anyone, for that matter) deletes it.

So - tell me what you think. Is Wikipedia willing to defend and repost the Carpenter/Elliot/Williams reference on the Karen Carpenter and Cass Elliot bios if and when I post it?

Or, will Wikipedia permanently remove the darwin reference from the Terry Kath bio?

You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtectTK (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your logic & why the threat? "I don't have a problem with your being here as a Kath fan. I do have a problem with your stated intention to disrupt other articles to prove a point. I suggest you not do that. I also suggest that you visit Talk:Terry Kath and explain your position. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please explain how posting the Robin Williams Carpenter-Elliot joke is "disrupt(ing) other articles to prove a point" while adding the Kath/darwin reference was not, when it first occurred, "disrupt(ing) other articles to prove a point."

I thought you said this was a democratic process and that editors would decide whether something stays or goes. If so, then why warn me against putting up the Williams joke? Let the system you are so passionately defending decide whether it stays or goes. Why resort to threats and pre-emptive editing when you just told me it's all decided by people weighing in? (Really: this - "I suggest you not do that" - is thuggish.)

Incidentally - on the subject of deciding things by unscientific, popular vote - if you asked the people in the bleachers at Fenway Park if beer should be free, guess what they'd say? What a silly way to decide things. I'm asking you to step in and do the right thing. The popular vote is the popular vote, but it isn't always the right thing.

The Kath bio contains a trivial, hurtful, irrelevant tidbit about some third-party reference to his life. I'm asking you to take it out because it's the right thing to do.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spike_Wilbury"

71.202.86.56 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)ProtectTK

I don't see anything similar between the Robin Williams joke and the Kath Darwin Awards text. The Kath entry is just a simple piece of referenced content. It expresses no personal opinion. It does not convey its message in any sort of joking manner. It just states a fact with a reference. 156.34.210.254 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Darwin reference again, only to have my actions identified as vandalism, when my "good faith" was pretty obvious I thought. Based on the discussion so far there has been no clear resolution of whether or not to include this statement, so I don't see why those in favor are correct and those against are incorrect; perhaps instead, those in favor just edit more aggressively. Here is why I opt for removal: If someone simply stated in this article that Kath's death improved the gene pool, it would be instantly deleted. Here instead, there is a statement that he received this award, which means the exact same thing. By including this reference we legitimize the notion that Kath's death is good thing. This differs from when Malcolm X said "the chickens have come home to roost" (which is NOT currently in the Kennedy article, by the way), because in that case there is a context that illustrates the divisiveness of the country and of those that represented its factions. But this "Darwin award" is just some jokey award that exists for no other reason than to make fun of people who died. Kath's death is sad, not funny, and this reference should be excluded.24.6.7.233 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting referenced text is vandalism. The content is written is a neutral tone and has proper citations. Wikipedia isn't a fanpage. No reason to remove. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep overruling me without identifying your authority to do so or by substantiating your rationale. Just being a prolific poster does not elevate you above the democratic principles of Wikipedia. Why do you dictate policy and not follow it? The definition you offer of vandalism is your own; it is not contained on the vandalism page. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Our differences on what constitutes this article's integrity makes me a vandal? Please also review the definition of blanking, which is the only type of vandalism you could be talking about. That does not apply here.
More on topic, do you really believe that all sourced information is appropriate for every page? There is a great middle ground between a "fan page" and one that legitimizes a site that states that Kath's early death is a good thing. My opinion of what is appropriate for this article is as valid as yours, and I think this reference is inappropriate and irrelevant. If you have a different opinion, please back it up without the curtness or didacticism. I am all for a productive discussion. But until you identify yourself as an administrator, you and I are on equal ground here, and I would appreciate a corresponding tone. Thanks. 24.6.7.233 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)